Latest news from Norway:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=587619

After speaking with his American colleague Robert Gates repeatedly, and after the Defense Department’s combat aircraft experts have checked, the minister is safe:

– Today is not suggesting that our aircraft will be more expensive than planned, or that we do not get F-35 aircraft from 2016, says Faremo.

…
In other words, she refutes media reports of a 50 percent increase in price and big delays.
….
Neither the Norwegian defense minister has heard that Denmark will withdraw from the F-35 program in favor of Boeing’s F-18, as some media have claimed.

– I have invited my new Danish colleague Gitte Lillelund Bech in Oslo in the near future to discuss the combat aircraft, and many more. The Danes must have time to make their choice of fighter aircraft in the peace and quiet, but so far nothing suggests that they will withdraw from the program, “said Grete Faremo.

So F-35 fanboys, relax and breathe slowly — no detractors yet — and even better, no price increase for the partners(!?) only for the US :diablo:

Still no official confirmation from Denmark, however another newspaper (“Information”) also claims they have sources within the Danish Defence, and those source seem to confirm what DR’s sources claimed:

Monday, it emerged that the Danish military believes that Boeing’s Super Hornet is the best choice, given uncertainty about JSF and the economic situation into consideration. Information sources of defense confirms that the defense points to Boeing aircraft in the so-called military professional assessment of the three candidates. The third candidate, the Swedish Gripen from Saab’s factories, according to sources is completely out of the competition.

http://www.information.dk/227431

There is a lot of nonsense in this article though — for instance they have talked to a Norwegian “expert” who says a few funny things about the SH; also they seem to mix the Hornet and SH (claiming that Canada is flying SH…).

IF this is confirmed, it would be interesting to learn more about the requirements — interestingly the Danes seem to say that Gripen is “completely out” whereas the Brazilian FAB put Gripen first…

These leaks reminds me of the Norwegian competition, which also had some leaks. The Norwegian MoD immediately made a press release denying the contents of the leaks… surprise, it later turned out those leaks had been rather spot-on. The MoDs press release however was formulated in a way that it denied the exact wording of the leaks, which of course was somewhat exxagerated and therefore not entirely, 100% correct… :rolleyes:

Interesting news from Denmark:

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2010/03/15/112521.htm

The defense dumper struggle aircraft Joint Strike Fighter
15. March 2010 11.25 Money
The defense gives up battle aircraft Joint Strike Fighter, JSF. When Denmark for seven-eight years must have new fighter, it will not be big favorite Joint Strike Fighter if the defense to decide.

According to DR news sources will defense in his recommendation to the government, instead pointing to Boeing’s F18 as the safest choice.

JSF is a whole new generation of fighter aircraft, and the only one in the competition that can boast of so-called stealth characteristics, which means that it is almost impossible to spot with radar. In advance, the U.S. Air Force and Navy decided to order the aircraft in large numbers – a total output well over 3000 pieces deemed probable.

Delayed
But development of the new Superfly has dragged on far more than the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon and the U.S. Auditor General has cared for. Testing of the many and highly complex electronic systems in the JSF is delayed so that the military has accepted that production will start before any tests can be conducted.

Meanwhile, the announced price of the JSF over the past ten years has grown from a quarter of a billion Danish kroner pr. pieces, well over half a billion.

It is, according to DR news sources why the Danish defense intends to identify another candidate: Boeing F18 Super Hornet.

F18 is a proven aircraft that operate from U.S. aircraft carriers and managed to be in the 2nd Iraq war. By pointing to this fighter, deselect the defense while the third candidate, the Swedish Saab Gripen.

Setting clear
The defense would not comment today, but according to DR news sources, the so-called professional military option after several years of preparatory work in the Defense called Kampflykontor been clear for some months.

The recommendation is awaiting only an auditor examination, called a kvalititetssikring of debate.

When the option is delivered to the defense, much can be done about. Politically, there are many other considerations to take than the purely military professional.

Employment in the Joint Strike Fighter
Firstly, it is limited in how long the F18 will remain in production, and Denmark’s next fighter aircraft could be kept operational for perhaps more than 30 years.

Second, Denmark is in the development of the prestigious JSF, and considerations of the Allies – the United States – weighs heavily on the political level.

Thirdly, the expected production of thousands of Joint Strike Fighters over several years draw a sizeable number of home billions in sales to contractors in the Danish arms industry.

Liberal defense spokesman Karsten Nonbo certify to the Radio News that there are considerations other than purely military, when the final choice should be taken.

– It’s when a heavy weight (what is kept believes, ed.), It’s primarily the professional on the plane to use for the military will use it, but there are also many other parameters which come into play.

– I am glad to read justifiably, says Karsten Nonbo.

So according to this news report from Danish Radio the Danish MoD actually does not prefer the F-35….

And it seems the delays and increased costs are the main reasons. And I would guess it’s probably more incrased costs than delays.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-11/lockheed-f-35-at-substantial-risk-of-missing-goals-gao-says.html

March 11 (Bloomberg) — Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet fighter, its largest program, faces “substantial risk” of not delivering “the expected number of aircraft and required capabilities on time,” congressional auditors said today.

The program “continues to struggle with increased costs and slowed progress,” problems that “were foreseeable,” Michael Sullivan, the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s top F-35 analyst, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sullivan, in prepared remarks, recommended the Pentagon consider reducing its annual planned purchases of the plane unless the program shows “progress in testing and manufacturing.”

Sullivan’s assessment is a warning to the world’s largest defense company. The Air Force wants to buy 43 fighters in fiscal 2011, 13 more than Congress approved this year. The armed services panel has authority to cut the request, and GAO recommendations often form the basis of congressional cuts.

The F-35 is the military’s most expensive weapons program. The projected cost for the planned purchase of 2,457 U.S. aircraft now appears to have increased to $323 billion from $298 billion two years ago, and that’s up 40 percent from the $231 billion when Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed won it in 2001, Sullivan said.

The Pentagon is taking “positive steps that if effectively implemented” should improve the program and provide “more realistic cost and schedule estimates,” he said. Still, “further cost growth and schedule extensions are likely.”

Next-Generation Fighter

The F-35 is the military’s next-generation fighter. It is designed for missions including bombing and air-to-air combat, and it will be used by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. It will replace aircraft including F-16s and A-10s, as well as Harrier aircraft flown by the Marines and the U.K.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan said he convened today’s hearing because “we’ve been waiting for answers about costs — where they have gone up and in what specific areas.”

“We’re concerned about both cost and delays and whether or not we are going to keep costs under control and what’s going to happen to the calendar: How is that going to slip, not just our for our own capabilities but what does that do to the allied participation?” Levin said in an interview before the hearing began.

The program has eight partner nations contributing their own funds for development, including the U.K., Italy, Canada, Australia, Denmark and The Netherlands.

Partner Nations

Sullivan told the committee that program costs overall have increased $46 billion since 2007, and the development schedule has been extended 30 months.

That extension includes a new 13-month delay directed last month by the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, Ashton Carter. In addition, Carter added four test aircraft, shifted $2.8 billion in production funds for continued research and delayed the purchase of 122 jets to beyond 2015.

Carter, in remarks prepared for the committee today, said the Air Force and Navy now project they won’t have the first combat-ready planes until 2016, three years later than the Air Force planned and two years later than the Navy’s objective. The Marine Corps’ target date remains 2012, he said.

Air Force ‘Disappointed’

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said yesterday they “are disappointed” by Lockheed’s “failure to deliver flight test aircraft this year.”

The company has been experiencing “assembly inefficiencies that must be corrected to support higher production rates,” they told the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

Sullivan said that “by December, only four of 13 test aircraft had been delivered and total labor hours had increased more than 50 percent above earlier estimates.”

Lockheed Martin spokesman Chris Geisel said the company expects to be back on schedule next year and is making steady improvement in manufacturing.

“Production trends show radically marked improvement across the board,” including the latest three aircraft to enter the assembly line that are proceeding on schedule, he said in an e-mailed statement.

Lockheed fell $1.22 to $81.36 at 10:12 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares climbed 28 percent in the past 12 months.

If labor hours had increased more than 50% above earlier estimates how come the price is going down?

The types of radars which you’re speaking of are generally fixed sites, or are not highly mobile, which means they’d be very high priority targets for either kinetic strikes or stand off jamming.

PAK FA? :diablo:

3rd gen, 4th gen, 5th gen, who cares about marketing labels?

The facts are:

F-35 is the newer airframe, operates newer processors and software than any legacy fighter.

Has a much lower RCS than any existing fighter aircraft besides the F-22.

F-35 has a more advanced sensor suite than any other fighter.

Has a newer and reportedly more advanced radar than any other fighter.

Therefore, by whatever definition one chooses to use it HAS to be considered of a different and newer “generation” than existing fighters…

If it makes you happy to consider it a 4.99 gen fighter whilst F-22 is 5.0 gen and the Euro-canards are 4.0 or 4.5gen or 4.75 or whatever description floats your boat, then giggle away my friends and the best of luck to you.

It’s going to change exactly WHAT in the scheme of things?

The F-35 is not really operational yet, so instead of writing “F-35 has this” and “has that” perhaps one should write “will have”?

I agree that the “generation thing” is rather diffuse and probably mainly marketing stuff, perhaps one should instead refer to specific attributes, like VLO etc.

IMHO the most important thing that distinguish F-22 and the soon-to-be-finalized F-35 from the current fighters is the emphasis on VLO; to me that seems to be the really important defining feature and well worthy a “new generation” term, this is underlined by the fact that it’s almost impossible to add VLO to an existing fighter, whereas sensors and computers can be replaced and upgraded, in particular in modern fighters like the Eurocanards.

The VLO aspect could also be the one thing that will make the Eurocanards look somewhat old-fashioned some 10 years from now — in a way a pity since they are such beatiful and well-designed birds.