Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
stigmata said:
I'm of the view that a strong economy and industry is far more important for long tirm security then a fighter could hope for.
Click to expand...

Dude unless you design and build the whole thing in your country and export hundreds its a drop in the ocean. Norway has a GDP of 213 billion. Over the life of the program the new fighter acquisition is likely to reach under 0.2% of annual GDP. 0.2% is not a number often used in terms like strong and long term security.
 
gf0012-aust said:
qualification - the military capability team. not the politicians.

again, I hope that countries don't make stupid decisions based on the current economic downturn influencing workshare over capability.

again, having worked at the military technology seller level as well as the govt purchasing level I'm prepared for despair.

I'm just glad that australia is not in the same politically desperate decision making level as some of the other partners.

if the warfighters pay the price, then IMO thats akin to a criminal decision.
Click to expand...
I have to admit I am changing my opinion on this thing almost several times a day -- Barth Eide in the Norwegian DoD has done a excellent job in leveling the playing field and turning this one-man-show into a "real competition".

Keep in mind that when Eurofighter left the race several months ago they believed that LM had already won. Now it seems Saab has a real chance... or do they really?

We should not discount the possibility that all this is just a very well planned and executed "theater" with the purpose of lowering the price and increasing "offsets" of the F-35. I have read all the texts by Barth Eide, and tried to interpret and "read between the lines", but I simply cannot figure out if this competition is a real one or not -- it looks real, smells real and tastes real --- but is it real? Or was the few millions of US$ thrown to Saab just an investment in a great ploy to put LM in a defensive position? One year ago, the Norwegian goverment seemed to be not very happy with the F-35 deal offered by LM -- it seems they are much more satisfied now.

We will probably know the outcome by the end of this year.


V
 
Surfinbird said:
Well if Norway's GDP is twice as much as I said then the argument is twice as strong! less than 0.1% of GDP growth is not going to strengthen your economy too much.
Click to expand...
No, if i'm not misinformed, The deal is the largest in Norways history.

To neglect the financial consequenses of such a deal would be of such an order of irresponsibility that it could well lead to formal charges against the decision makers.
 
Just a thought on "Qualification" and "Political Decisions"
I'm sure Norway would have loved to buy the F-22 if it wasn't blocked for export by the US.
The US will never engage the F-35 before the F-22 have cleared the sky and made it safe for the F-35 to enter the stage.
So why should the rest of their friends in NATO do?
 
Vivendi said:
Saab claims that they "meet or exceed all requirements" from Norway -- this is probably not correct
Click to expand...

Why not ?? what make you think SAAB is not able to meet Norwegian requirements or exceed them? and what requirments are we talking about

doesnt really make sense according to the competetion
 
Last edited:
Hey Stigmata, didn't Sweden buy Umkhontos from Denel (SA) for the Visby corvettes? Was that part of the offsets for Gripen? (I never found out myself...)
 
stigmata said:
I'm of the view that a strong economy and industry is far more important for long tirm security then a fighter could hope for.
Click to expand...

Basing a military procurement decision on offset benefits as opposed to the best platform outcome for the warfighters is why warfighters get killed.

IMV thats a manslaughter charge if it leads to a compromised capability.

warfighters go out to fight, defend and suffer kinetic and/or emotional consequences for it. The others just lose money in the immediate. That's criminal behaviour.

Thats why they should send politicians to war so that they suffer the direct consequences of their idiotic self centred decisions
 
B3LA said:
Just a thought on "Qualification" and "Political Decisions"
I'm sure Norway would have loved to buy the F-22 if it wasn't blocked for export by the US.
The US will never engage the F-35 before the F-22 have cleared the sky and made it safe for the F-35 to enter the stage.
So why should the rest of their friends in NATO do?
Click to expand...

Are you essentially questioning the A2A capability of the JSF? (By the way your statement is probably wrong, as the F-35 will be the only carrier-based fighter ;) )
 
Feanor said:
Are you essentially questioning the A2A capability of the JSF? (By the way your statement is probably wrong, as the F-35 will be the only carrier-based fighter ;) )
Click to expand...

What! An infidel? Do not desecrate the holy F-35 A2A capability which will smite the unholy forces of the Red Air!

Anyhow, baseline argument from me has been that the F-35 has excellent agility, maneuverability, operational top speed, acceleration and range. Coupled with a minimum of faith in its sensors, avionics, stealth and missiles (no, I don't believe in over-the-shoulder-shots; they're likely to suck Pk-wise), I'm baffled how easy it has been to critisize it.

The Gripen crowd probably has the same experience, just with a different jet.
 
Grand Danois said:
What! An infidel? Do not desecrate the holy F-35 A2A capability which will smite the unholy forces of the Red Air!
Click to expand...

Dude, so true.

Sorry if this a repost but here is some cool video thats doing the rounds. NGIDS promo video of the F-35 DAS.

[ame="http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q"]YouTube - f-35 lightning II DAS system[/ame]

Sure the pilot can look through the floor with the HMD but what about back through his own body and out his arse? (actually he can he just scrolls the POV...)
 
Grand Danois said:
Hey Stigmata, didn't Sweden buy Umkhontos from Denel (SA) for the Visby corvettes? Was that part of the offsets for Gripen? (I never found out myself...)
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, but it was cancelled due to budget.
So now there are some shiny stealthy corvettes out there without air defence.

I don't even consider a ship operational without airdefence these days

Not sure, was'nt the airdefence for visby discussed before the SA fighter deal ?
What! An infidel? Do not desecrate the holy F-35 A2A capability which will smite the unholy forces of the Red Air!
Click to expand...
:D
 
Last edited:
The baseline argument for the JSF's air to air performance, imo, is LO, radar, and BVR missiles.
 
I acknowledge that F35 is a more advanced fighter aircraft than Gripen but the key question is, how much better and in this case, do Norway really need the F35 performance? Norway and Sweden are in many respects similar, culture, mind sets etc, and in this case, I think that Saab has done a thourogh work on the poilitical and the business side, something that LM has neglected. A few days ago, the Norwegian Engineer and Technology organisation together with the unions, declared that they prefered Gripen, since the Gripen choice would better benefit Norways technology companies as well as Norways economy.

I think it´s game over for F35 regarding Norway.

http://www.dagsavisen.no/meninger/article375042.ece
 
For the task of intercepting russian bombers, you need only two things: high speed and long range, i think the gripen NG is better at that task.

If norwegians intend to join on a bombing campaign in middle east, F-35 would be the platform of choise, particulary in the opening hours.

Gripen may still be a better bombtruck once the door is kicked in tho, due to lower operational cost, higher sortie rate, and less maintenance demanding.

It may also have one other ace: it was built from the outset to operate from improvised airfields, (roads), so it could possibly be stationed on a forward base in a place like Afganistan.
 
Last edited:
stigmata said:
Believe it or not, but it was cancelled due to budget.
So now there are some shiny stealthy corvettes out there without air defence.

I don't even consider a ship operational without airdefence these days

Not sure, was'nt the airdefence for visby discussed before the SA fighter deal ?
:D
Click to expand...

That's too bad, they would've been a good fit on the Visbys. Don't underestimate the Bofors 57mm Mk3 - it's a very capable gun against the same kind of threats the Umkhonto deals with.
 
That's too bad, they would've been a good fit on the Visbys. Don't underestimate the Bofors 57mm Mk3 - it's a very capable gun against the same kind of threats the Umkhonto deals with.
Click to expand...
Are you saying it has anywhere near the range of missiles ? I imagine planes and even attack helos flying circles around it, lobbying in hellfire while at the same time laughing at the defendless target ?

On a second thought, probably no need, i imagine the most dangerous adventure for a swedish navy would be patroling off Somalia looking for pirates armed with machetes and an AK-47
 
Last edited:
Anything slow enough to fire a Hellfire (i.e. not fast jets) would be vulnerable to the Bofors 57mm while firing Hellfires at it. Check the effective ranges of both.

The pirates have a lot more than AK-47s. They routinely use RPGs, & have access to much heavier weapons. Somalia is stuffed full of old & some not so old weaponry. They can certainly get manpads if they feel the need of them & the financial rewards justify the cost, & sourcing AA guns & ammunition up to at least 57mm would be no problem for them. They have a few old merchant ships used as motherships for speedboats, & lash-up mounts on them of anything up to 100mm tank & anti-tank guns & 122 mm field guns would be possible, though it'd probably require them to invest in buying some spare parts & new ammunition, & quite a lot of restorative work on the guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top