Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Denmark kicks F-35

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Denmark kicks F-35

    STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Dec. 1, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) --

    Gripen for Denmark, "Gripen DK," is the successful fighter aircraft Gripen adapted to fully meet specific Danish requirements. Gripen DK is the response to a Request for Information, RFI, for a replacement of the current fleet of F-16 fighters, issued by the Royal Danish Air Force Air Materiel Command ("Flyvematerielkommandoen").

    The Gripen DK is based on the proven C- and D-versions of the Gripen fighter, already in NATO-use, but further enhanced and tailored specifically to suit the needs of the Royal Danish Air Force ("Flyvevabnet"), thus providing the ideal solution for a F-16 replacement.

    "When the day has come for Denmark to replace its aging F-16's, we see that Gripen is an excellent replacement as the aircraft is very capable, operationally proven in service and also the most cost-effective solution. Add to this the outstanding level of Industrial Cooperation and high level of Technology Transfer we can offer, and I am certain we have an unbeatable offer!" Johan Lehander, Managing Director for Gripen International, said when the RFI response was delivered yesterday, Wednesday 30 November.

    Gripen DK offers the Danish Air Force a number of benefits, including:



    -- A fully NATO interoperable, Net Centric Warfare (NCW) solution,
    featuring Nordic heritage and common sense

    -- Significantly lower acquisition and operational cost compared with
    alternative platforms
    -- Optional early deliveries from 2013 resulting in additional operational cost savings
    -- Full Swedish Government, Air Force and Industry support
    -- Access to all levels of technology enabling autonomy and increased
    national security
    -- A vast range of integrated European and US weapons resulting in
    less dependencies
    -- A low risk solution with a funded development program
    -- An integrated logistics support solution from a proven supplier
    close to Denmark
    -- Generation of sustainable economic benefits through long term
    industrial partnerships

    Gripen is the first of the new generation, multi-role combat aircraft that has entered service. Using the latest available technology it is capable of performing an extensive range of air-to-air and air-to-surface operational missions and employing the latest weapons. Gripen is designed to meet the demands of current and future threats, while at the same time meeting strict requirements for flight safety, reliability, training efficiency and low operating costs. Gripen is in service with the Swedish and Czech Republic Air Forces and has also been ordered by the South African and Hungarian Air Forces. The UK Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS) is operating Gripen as its advanced fast jet training platform for test pilots worldwide.

    http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news.html?d=90596
    Last edited by JG73; 08 Jan 06,, 02:12.
    >Facit Omnia Voluntas<

  • #2
    What does this have to do with the F-35?

    Comment


    • #3
      Denmark is one nation which possibly should have bought JSF. Now it looks like they would choose Gripen.
      Norway and Turkey are also thinking seriosly of getting out of the programm or at least buying fewer F-35s.
      >Facit Omnia Voluntas<

      Comment


      • #4
        Denmark is a small country with no real heavy strike requirement, so this is a pretty good move.
        F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

        Comment


        • #5
          link

          Costs hit fighter jet order
          John Kerin
          January 04, 2006
          AUSTRALIA may halve its order for US F-35 joint strike fighter jets to 50 planes because of continuing cost blowouts on the $256billion project, a move that could threaten regional air superiority.

          Australia had pledged to buy 100 of the radar-evading stealth aircraft to replace an ageing air wing of 71 F/A-18 attack aircraft and 26 F-111 tactical fighter bombers.

          The first of the US-built Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter aircraft are due to be delivered to Australia in 2014.

          Australia has joined its allies in the project to build the planes, which has enabled the order to be purchased for a reduced total of $16billion, including maintenance, spare-parts and other costs.

          But a senior Defence official has warned a parliamentary inquiry in Canberra that Australia could be forced to reduce its target order if the US slashes the number of planes it plans to build, because this would further drive up costs of the troubled F-35 project.

          The price of the aircraft has reportedly already blown out from $45million to $60million per plane, but this could rise further if the US slashes its order of 2500 aircraft by one-fifth, as some US reports have suggested.

          "The (Defence) white paper from 2000 says (we buy) 100 ... but depending on who you speak to ... some other people think 50 would be good," deputy Defence secretary Shane Carmody has told an inquiry into Australia's defence relationship with the US.

          "A factor in the cost blowout, I think, would be if the US decided to reduce the number of aircraft it is acquiring.

          "We certainly have some concerns if the (joint strike fighter) gets very expensive ... and ultimately, sometimes you have to cut your cloth, but we are a long way short of that at this point."

          The US Congress has already recommended slashing $270million from the Pentagon's joint strike fighter budget next year.

          Under the project, Lockheed aims to build 2500 stealth fighter aircraft for the US and several hundred more for its allies in the most ambitious defence project of its kind.

          Australia is interested in buying the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) version for delivery by 2014 to replace its F/A-18 fleet.

          But US Defence News has cited Pentagon sources as saying the US Air Force may be forced to scrap the CTOL version and opt for a smaller number of the more expensive navy version of the fighter.


          Mr Carmody told the Australian inquiry that Canberra had still "not committed on aircraft type or numbers".

          "I think there is a lot of analysis going on within Defence at the moment by Air Force, the project office and DSTO (the Defence Science and Technology Organisation) to ... look at the numbers we need, how many missions they need to carry out," he said.

          Aldo Borgu, author of a report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the joint strike fighter, saidbuying only 50 would leave Australia's air defences "very vulnerable". "With 50 fighters, you simply would not have enough to provide for Australia's air defences or to deploy fighters on combat missions overseas," he said.

          Mr Borgu said there was now talk that, as part of the US Quadrennial Defence Review due to be completed next month, Washington might axe the CTOL version and force the US Air Force to buy the navy version.

          "The conventional take-off and landing version is the version the RAAF is interested in," Mr Borgu said.

          He added that there was a real risk that Australia could lose its air superiority because "other regional air forces are not standing still".

          But the head of defence think tank the Kokoda Foundation, professor Ross Babbage, who suggested a purchase of up to 120 aircraft in a separate report, said it was only prudent that defence planning take into account low- and high-number options.

          "I can't imagine that in the end we would only buy 50 fighters ... but there are other options, including complementing the fighters with UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), which may mean you can have fewer of them. I don't think anyone has realised yet just how much more capable the JSF will be than the current generation of fighters," Professor Babbage said.

          Defence Minister Robert Hill and Defence Force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston insisted Australia was still on target to buy 100 joint strike fighters at the launch of the defence strategic update last month.
          Why dont aussies buy F15s instead? It will complement their needs as its a big, ASF & as capable as any in its neighbouring countries can get.

          link

          British threat to fighter project
          John Kerin
          January 05, 2006

          AUSTRALIA is facing a further cost blowout on its purchase of next-generation fighters, with Britain threatening to pull out of the US-led joint strike fighter project over Washington's reluctance to share the secrets of stealth technology.

          Canberra has not threatened to withdraw from the $256 billion project despite the escalating cost of the warplanes, but says it shares Britain's concerns.

          The Defence Department is negotiating with the Bush administration to ensure Australian military and defence contractors have access to software codes and stealth technology to maintain and service the F-35s it is planning to take delivery of in 2014.

          A bill introduced to the US Congress in 2003, which would have given Australia and Britain access to otherwise secret technology, has stalled and is unlikely to be revived.

          A report in London's Sunday Times newspaper cited Ministry of Defence officials as saying Britain was developing a "PlanB" to purchase an alternative fighter - a modified Eurofighter - for its navy if it cannot overcome concerns over the project costs and technology transfer.

          Any pullout by Britain, which has invested $2billion and was slated to buy 150 F-35 aircraft for its air force and navy, would force up the costs for other countries planning to buy the fighter jet.

          The JSF project, already plagued by cost overruns, aims to build 2500 of the sensor-evading stealth fighters for the US, and hundreds of others for its allies under the most ambitious program of its kind.

          Australia is slated to spend about $16 billion to buy up to 100 F-35s to replace its ageing F/A-18 fleet. But Defence officials warned this week Canberra could buy just 50 if the aircraft becomes prohibitively expensive.

          The JSF project has run into other problems, with the Pentagon budget to be slashed by $270million this year and cuts of up to 500 reported in US orders.

          Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Aldo Borgu said yesterday any pullout by Britain would compound the cost blowouts on the project.

          "Though I'm sure the Brits are working overtime to avoid a pullout, if things go pear-shaped it could prove not only a blow to the prestige of the JSF project but also force up the cost of each aircraft for other buyers," Mr Borgu said.

          Labor defence spokesman Robert McClelland called on Defence Minister Robert Hill to immediately clarify the status of Australia's bid for the F-35 fighters.

          Senator Hill conceded that the US bill that would have provided Australia and Britain with an exemption on technology transfer rules had stalled in the US Congress and said Canberra was investigating other ways to "get around the issue".

          "The Bush administration is aware of Australia's and Britain's concerns and they may have discretion under other licensing arrangements to give us access (to the technology)," Senator Hill told The Australian.

          He said it was "no secret" that the JSF program could face cuts under Washington's review of its military spending.

          Senator Hill conceded Australia might not need to buy as many as 100 fighters "because the fighter would be more capable than anything we've ever seen".

          On suggestions the US air force would scrap its orders for the version Australia was interested in, Senator Hill said he understood the USAF was "strongly resisting" the move.

          He was also unconcerned at reports of a threatened British pullback from the fighter project, saying Britain was "too heavily committed" to withdraw.
          The long standing Qs remain on JSF. It seems Brits are really pi$$ed off as they have been denied their source codes & stealth tech & other allies like australia also much amused by the happenings. There is a rumour going on that USAF version CTOL version which amounts to 500 of USAF A/C oders will be scrapped, thus increasing per unit cost.

          This may be few reasons why denmark chose the grippens instead of waiting till 2014-15 like aussies to get their A/Cs.
          Last edited by indianguy4u; 08 Jan 06,, 05:03.
          Hala Madrid!!

          Comment


          • #6
            What the UK wants is to have BAE compete with Lockheed for upgrade contracts. In other words, they want 100% of the benefits for 10% of the cost. Let them go with Rafale-M and if they get anything out of it.
            F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ben,
              UK has contributed around 2 Billion USD[or pounds] out of 256B USD budget of JSF. Will order 150 A/C for something 20B USD @ 45M USD per unit.
              Hala Madrid!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by indianguy4u
                Ben,
                UK has contributed around 2 Billion USD[or pounds] out of 256B USD budget of JSF. Will order 150 A/C for something 20B USD @ 45M USD per unit.
                I honestly don't agree with US giving UK all that stuff. Does this make sense:

                We pay most of the funds and development costs (and we do) and then the guys that don't pay anywhere as much as us wants the technology that our dollars were used to develop for their own use so that their home companies get to upgrade their aircrafts so that Lockheed doesn't get to upgrade their aircrafts? No that doesn't make any sense unless your mental.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                  I honestly don't agree with US giving UK all that stuff. Does this make sense:

                  We pay most of the funds and development costs (and we do) and then the guys that don't pay anywhere as much as us wants the technology that our dollars were used to develop for their own use so that their home companies get to upgrade their aircrafts so that Lockheed doesn't get to upgrade their aircrafts? No that doesn't make any sense unless your mental.
                  It makes perfect sense. We make money for every unit we export. Thats the reason we export the M1 tank to Egypt. To make money.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                    I honestly don't agree with US giving UK all that stuff. Does this make sense:

                    We pay most of the funds and development costs (and we do) and then the guys that don't pay anywhere as much as us wants the technology that our dollars were used to develop for their own use so that their home companies get to upgrade their aircrafts so that Lockheed doesn't get to upgrade their aircrafts? No that doesn't make any sense unless your mental.
                    considering that UK just wants one of the 3 versions. It's actually investing quite a huge portion of that one block. Do you not think that a partner that invests in 25% of one of the blocks deserves to at least ask for ToT of that block?

                    Btw, does anyone know if Canada is getting the full spec version of F-35? I read that only the British and Australians are getting it, but I thought Canada has the highest defense clearance too.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Defcon 6
                      It makes perfect sense. We make money for every unit we export. Thats the reason we export the M1 tank to Egypt. To make money.
                      Sorry to break it to you but, just exporting a unit to gain money is hardly what the US is looking for. Were basically giving away stuff that we spent our money on developing for a fraction of the cost.

                      considering that UK just wants one of the 3 versions. It's actually investing quite a huge portion of that one block. Do you not think that a partner that invests in 25% of one of the blocks deserves to at least ask for ToT of that block?
                      From what I hear, the UK is buying two versions, F-35A/B. So no. Like I said before, why should the UK gain technology that we spent money on that they get for a fraction of the cost? That makes as much sense as saying that if two people are buying a house and one guy pays 90% of the price tag and the other guy pays 10%, the guy that pays 10% should have ownership of half the house.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tphuang
                        Btw, does anyone know if Canada is getting the full spec version of F-35? I read that only the British and Australians are getting it, but I thought Canada has the highest defense clearance too.
                        No. Canada is only level 3 partner.
                        >Facit Omnia Voluntas<

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Level 1 (5,1%) UK
                          Level 2 (2,5%) Italy
                          Level 2 (2,0%) Netherlands
                          Level 3 (0,4%) Turkey
                          Level 3 (0,4%) Australia
                          Level 3 (0,3%) Norway
                          Level 3 (0,3%) Denmark
                          Level 3 (0,2%) Canada
                          >Facit Omnia Voluntas<

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JG73
                            Level 1 (5,1%) UK
                            Level 2 (2,5%) Italy
                            Level 2 (2,0%) Netherlands
                            Level 3 (0,4%) Turkey
                            Level 3 (0,4%) Australia
                            Level 3 (0,3%) Norway
                            Level 3 (0,3%) Denmark
                            Level 3 (0,2%) Canada
                            Hey what's the number before the percentage? Is the percentage the amount of money they have invested in comparison to the total amount invested by all nations?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think the issue for alot of nations is the time its taking to get the JSF to production. I know the Canadian CF-18's are nearing the point where we'll need to start replacing some of them, athough thats certainly not the only peice of equipment we need to replace nore is it currently the most pressing.

                              But it comes down to the JSF delayed and late, and its over budget. Alot of the countries in the project can easily make do with cheaper less capable fighters. Keep in mind while a project going billions over budget is not a problem for the U.S military given its budget. For smaller countries with small military budgets having the fighter end up costing 20% or more then expected becomes a big problem.

                              While I don't think the cheaper aircraft will be a match for the JSF alot of the smaller countries in the project don't actually need something as sophisticated as the JSF right now anyway. If if their needs change they can always just buy them later on.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X