The F-35 is one of the planes Denmark is considering to replace it's F-16s. It's most likely going to be selected because of politics, regardless of it being expensive and not at all what we need.
Three Danish defence experts pointed out that while the F-35 is the most advance plane "available", it doesn't matter. While dogfighting is out date, high tech is equally useless. Neither Denmark nor the US have been in a conflict since WWII, where the advanced features of the F-35 would have made any difference.
Unless you decide to go to war with Russia or maybe China, the F-35 is so far beyond what you would reasonable require that the cost is completely unjustified.
Sadly for Denmark we pissed of SAAB and they will no long bid to deliver plane to the Danish Royal Air Force, despite them having having a suitable plane.
What upsets me is that apparently, European nations are just making a political decision of buying these overpriced, handicapped jets in bulk.
There are three nations I know off (Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium), where Wikileaks cables have revealed that the governments had reached an agreement to stack the deck in favour of the F-35 ahead of the official competitions. The Belgian Minister of Defense even went so far as to assure the US embassy that we would be buying them, years ahead of any public decision or even an evaluation of the options.
We have 2 capable European 4.5G alternatives - the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon - which would be able to perform the same duties while also supporting further development of European technology in this sector.
For the countries I mentioned earlier, the 4.5G Gripen NG would likely be just as adequate for any roles in any conflicts they would ever be part of, while being much, much cheaper to purchase and operate than any of the alternative options.
Instead of encouraging competition among developers and funding the design of European fighters (while also supporting the European economy a little), they're buying jets that are incapable of doing most the the stuff that it says on the box, sending billions of taxpayer money over to the the US military complex.
The one EU nation that has to buy the F-35B is the UK. Because we're building a couple of supercarriers without catapults, so they've got to field STOVL planes, and the government scrapped the Harrier fleet (the USMC bought the entire lot, gleefully) to prevent backsliding.
Notable complicating factor: Rolls Royce builds the lift fan for the F-35B. So panicky late attempts to cram cats into the CVs were cancelled after 3 months, because pork.
Meanwhile, the Eurofighter Typhoon was originally intended to be a carrier-capable fighter with an arrester hook and beefed up undercarriage, until France flounced from the consortium and went it alone with Rafale. An upgraded Rafale or a Typhoon derivative with carrier ops baked in would be entirely possible, cheaper than the F-35B, and vastly more effective as a fighter.
> The one EU nation that has to buy the F-35B is the UK. Because we're building a couple of supercarriers without catapults, so they've got to field STOVL planes,
I did wonder why the decision was made to go for the STOVL version of the F-35 when the new carriers are obviously large enough to support CATOBAR - that explains it perfectly!
STOVL is the right choice for the new carriers as it reduces the amount of practice that pilots will need to be able to take off and land on them. It wouldn't be possible to be as flexible with where the UK's F-35s will be based (land or sea) if all pilots needed to stay current at CATOBAR landings.
That excuse is marvellously surreal, in a "Yes, Minister" way.
"We are going to spend an extra $25M on each fighter, in order to save on training costs."
$3.5Bn (we're buying on the order of 138 of these turkeys: the F-35B, as required for the STOVL role, costs $25M more per unit than the F-35C or A) will buy you a lot of CATOBAR training.
Also that some Dutch companies are involved in producing parts for the F35. At least 70 Dutch companies are supposed to be involved in producing parts for the JSF. And perhaps the unconfirmed rumour [0] that US nucleair weapons of the cold war are still stationed in the Netherlands have also somehow contributed to the choice for the JSF.
If you decide to got to war with Russia (- or more likely Russia decides to go to war with you) is exactly when the F-35 would prove the most useless being incapable of actually standing up to the newest Russian jets.
The Norwegians planning to buy F-35s as well. This risks leaving the whole of Northern Europe exposed to a Russian strike. (Actually considering the existing F-16s are outdated the exposure is already there but it looks like the new investment will make it worse.)
What I don't understand is why is the Eurofighter Typhoon not on the table?
Today Russia is lucky if they have a hundred total modern fighters available, across the entirety of their military, to put into action that can fight with the F35. In the event of a NATO war, they can't dedicate that to one location, given the vast size of their territory to protect. They might be able to throw a dozen modern fighter jets at Denmark. So they'll have to simultaneously fight two dozen domestic European forces, and the US Air Force. Yeah, it'll turn out real well for them.
The UK had 113 Typhoons in 2013 and Germany had 112. When they're all delivered, the UK will have 160 and Germany 140. France has 95 Rafales and will eventually have 180. Sweden is not NATO, but has around 130 Gripens. Norway and Denmark have around 90 F16s between them, though you probably wouldn't call them modern. Not sure what the US has deployed in Europe.
Edit: not really modern, but Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland have another 150 F16s between them. Poland also has 30 or so MIG 29s.
Isn't the exact reason for such planes to be able to have a credible defense vs. Putin and his ilk, so as to not tempt Russia to make advances on Europe. AFAIK, Denmark is patrolling the skies of the Baltic nations vs. Russia right now. I don't think Denmark wants to do that in an obsolete 1970s fighter plane.
The F-35 looks like a disappointment, but we can be 100% sure it will be able to carry the newest weapons-systems for the foreseeable future. That begs the question; is it preferable to have ageing weapons on a nimble plane, or the newest weapons on a clumsy plane?
I don't feel Europe has the luxury of skipping the F-35 (or equivalents, which the Saab is not, AFAIK) for a successful successor, when Putin is going crazy with propaganda inside Russia.
You're not wrong, but the initial bid was for I believe 60 planes. Something SAAB could deliver within the budget. We're now down to ordering maybe 30 planes or less. Partly because of the price of the F-35, but also due to the overall economy within Denmark.
You can bolt very advanced weapons onto the Gripen, or the Eurofighter, but you can also buy two or three times the amount of planes.
European countries, as least not the small one, will just buy less planes if the cost goes up. So it might be better to have more of a 1990s plane, than a few of a 2015 era plane.
> you can also buy two or three times the amount of planes.
we're close to the turning point where for air superiority a fleet of missile armed drone seems the cheapest and more effective way to go
but we just love to design the best thing that would have won the previous war. I guess if that effect is known in psychology, because I see it even in the day to day life at way smaller scales.
This is very true. A drone could quite likely do maneuvers that a traditional jet couldn't do because of the limits of what the squishy human body inside can withstand.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future we see a drone capable of taking F-35's, F-16's, and any other human piloted plane out of the sky.
>> You can bolt very advanced weapons onto the Gripen, or the Eurofighter, but you can also buy two or three times the amount of planes.
Don't you then also need 2-3 times the amount of pilots, airfield, fuel, hangars, maintenance crews...
> is it preferable to have ageing weapons on a nimble plane, or the newest weapons on a clumsy plane?
Why not put the newest weapons on the nimble plane? I don't see why you wouldn't be able to put the newest weapons on an F-16. Requires more electronics on the plane? You can put new electronics in an F-16. Planes get updated all the time.
Hey fellow European. I am not a plane specialist by any means, but I have a question about that F-35 potential purchase. Denmark is part of the European Union, so wouldn't it make sense for Denmark to purchase a European fighter jet like the Eurofighter or maybe a Rafale? Then again, maybe those jets are not very good, dated or too expensive, I'm just genuinely wondering why Denmark would not put its money where its interests lie.
Dassault won't submit the Rafale for the bidding process, because the terms and requirements are so ridiculously screwed towards the F-35. All other manufactures are required to commit to a "buy back program", expect for the F-35.
SAAB dropped out twice, first time because the requirements for the plane kept getting changed so only the F-35 would qualify (SAAB was able to prove that the JAS 39 Gripen could match those requirements).
The Eurofighter is still an option, as is the Boeing Super Hornet.
Denmark is a level 3 partner in the F-35 program, and mostly work with the US when going to war, so interest wise the F-35 is politically sensible. We just don't have the money to fly the F-35 (my personal opinion).
It doesn't matter if the Super Hornet, Eurofighter or the Gripen is a little dated, they will have to last 30 years or more, like our current F-16s. So they will be dated for most of their lifetime anyway. The F-35 would limit the number of planes we can buy, the expert evaluation from earlier this month is that it would be better to have more plane, but less advanced. Link to a Danish article: http://ing.dk/artikel/derfor-skal-danmark-have-mange-kampfly... (ing.dk/Ingeniøren is the Danish engineers union)
Denmark's interests lie with the US and always has. Few people realise how close we are (including people in the US, but they've always been better at remembering enemies than friend). I feel this has somewhat diminished with the Iraq tragedy, but I don't know.
I think there's an unspoken non-political agreement in Denmark, that when it comes to military actions, we'd rather build our connections with a party of resolve (be they wrong or right) than a fragmented alliance.
On top of that, Denmark has a special treaty with the EU, which states that we will not and can not join military forces. The Danish politicians wanted to go further into the EU adventure than the population in Denmark, so at first we voted "no" to a EU treaty which we then accepted the second time around, given these 4 "reservations" (no EU citizenship, no EU currency, no EU defence policy, no EU meddling with our "internal laws").
> Then again, maybe those jets are not very good
Rafale not very good ??? There are plenty evidences on the web that the Rafale is indeed a very good jet. The rafale is multirole and is very successful at his different roles (bombing, air interdiction, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), and close air support (CAS) and even aerial reconnaissance). Checkout this video of F22 vs Rafale for instance: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/on-rafale-vs-...
That's nice to know. I know we're starting to finally sell those planes to a few countries, I've always wondered whether it was due to the price point or the technological merits (or lack thereof). Thanks for the info.
While I was in the aéronavale decade ago officers where pissed at rafale: for one rafale you could buy 10 F16 that where less expensive to operates. That costed so much it took on a budget for a 2nd flight carrier, which in turns makes it impossible to operate a task force, which in turns makes it ridiculous to have aeronavale in the first place.
War is also an economical concern that the russian understood: it is all about the price of defense vs attack.
So CCCP developed the crude and cheap SAM batteries that where a pain in the ass in vietnam for the USA, israel...
It does not matter if a plane is good, it should just be thought in terms of the right price compared to the opposable defense of the enemies, and the balance with other tasks.
But what is more important than winning battles is winning war, and USA clearly lack something of a peace corp that would not antagonize local population, and help to maintain peace and social concord do some genie while they ... hum not occupy but ... help other countries.
Most countries are just fighting inefficiently without doctrines nowadays which stirs instabilities.
I would prefer to support an efficient dictatorship that would win war once for all and fast, minimizing the the overall victims than inefficient/corrupted republics that seeds discord someday.
Hum, by the way, russia lowered its budget USA said it was good news: they fired officers and trained soldiers hired more sergeants. Russia is making its army fitter for war with less money.
Oh! And some antique planes Tu95? flew other UK with armed nuclear missiles in January/February this year and UK could not send interceptor because they are waiting for the F35.
Let's say that time to market for F35 is a little to long too. War is not about gadget like planes. It is about people dying, social unrest, political instabilities, resources, economy and power.
Power to send others than your family die for a cause that does not exists, to fight other poor people commanded by other powerful people. No US/Europeans/radical politicians lost kids in wars with the same proportion as the population recently, did they?
Eurofighter maybe, for the Rafale problem is it's not really an EU fighter jet in the sense that it was not conceived from a collaboration of EU countries.
Regardless of this choice, I would say that EU countries/companies should seriously collaborate on making a good UCAV, that's the future. Maybe the Neuron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn is a good first step, but it would be great if Germany and UK participated too, or on the next iteration of the project. On big projects like that EU needs to be united.
You're right, my being French definitely influenced me in talking about the Rafale, the Eurofighter is more to the point in this case.
I do absolutely agree that there's no good reason why the EU at large shouldn't be able to produce a modern, top of the line fighter jet. We have the engineers, the means of production, a market to sell said jets, some European countries are already amongst the biggest arms dealers in the world, it doesn't make sense to me that countries of the EU would buy American jet fighters (with all due respect to the USA).
You know how Europe is. If it doesn't make logical sense, just follow the money scent.
The funny part is that a fighter jet program starting now on the basis of an existing, successful design has a good change of getting completed before the f35 becomes fully functional, since all the issue on getting all the crammed feature to work nicely together.
Seems the UK have also ordered a shedload of F35s to replace a number of different roles in the RAF including the carrier launched Harrier jets. We've since sold the Harriers to the US which is quite telling really.
Lewis Page is a joke in the defence community for a good reason.
The UK's harriers were shagged after years of use, they were sold to the US so they could be cannibalised for spares. Plus we only had the GR versions which were not fighters, the Sea Harrier was retired even earlier.
The UK needs a STOVL multi-role fighter because of the Navy. The RAF are ordering the same planes because then they can fly them off the carriers as well. The cat and traps option on the carrier wasn't really a flier as no-one has managed to get a reliable EMALS catapult working. The US at one point was going to pay us to be the guinea pig for EMALS, but that's rather a risk if it hadn't worked out.
As far as I'm aware, the plans for the F-35Bs the RAF are getting are to replace the ageing Tornado GR4s. The RN ones are replacing the Harriers, which are already sold… (Technically, AIUI, there's one single joint fleet split between the two services, manned by joint personnel.)
Shame. The Gripen sounds a lot more like the right plane for smaller NATO air forces. Not the best at anything, but decent at everything, and for a cost more befitting our economic situation.
The Dutch air force is going to be reduced to about 30 F-35s. We've always had about 100 fighters, but the F-35 looks like it's going to be the end of the Dutch air force.
Do you have any info? I can only find basic press releases about SAAB not bidding because they did not expect to win against a plane that Denmark helped develop.
I think for Denmark, the Baltic and Scandinavian states, the question is not so much whether you decide to go to war with Russia but rather when Russia decides to go to war with you...
Three Danish defence experts pointed out that while the F-35 is the most advance plane "available", it doesn't matter. While dogfighting is out date, high tech is equally useless. Neither Denmark nor the US have been in a conflict since WWII, where the advanced features of the F-35 would have made any difference.
Unless you decide to go to war with Russia or maybe China, the F-35 is so far beyond what you would reasonable require that the cost is completely unjustified.
Sadly for Denmark we pissed of SAAB and they will no long bid to deliver plane to the Danish Royal Air Force, despite them having having a suitable plane.