EmgyEntropy,
A few things. 🙂 It’s the Social Democrats that have been in there and the Christian Dems are actually in the centrist/right alliance that won the election.
Secondly, it’s not as simple as saying a liberal government equals low defense spending. It was the Soc.Dems during and after WWII that decided they had to pour lots of money into their defence industry, with the air force as the pet service of the Soc.Dem prime minister in that period.
There’s a statistic somewhere saying the Swedish AF was the third or fourth largest in numbers during the 50’s, (There were 650+ J 29 built from 1950 to 1955. On top of that you get the 650-ish J 35 and 280 A 32 beginning production in the mid-50’s) while being led by a Soc.Dem government. Now for a country which has a population today in the 9m numbers, that doesn’t say low defence spending to me. With the Soviet threat gone, the current size target for the JAS 39-fleet (100 or was it 120?) is still pretty sizable for such a low-pop country.
Not disagreeing with you as the Swedish armed forces forums are positive about the change, just pointing out that their Soc.Dems in the past have been spending a lot of money on defence.
EmgyI don’t have any info on that. That’s why I first linked to the thread instead of quoting it, I was only referring you to someone else’s information.
EmgyHm? You shouldn’t have got an image when clicking that post, it just links to post #131 in the other thread. Anyway I’ll just quote the text.
Iran unveils new fighter jet TEHRAN, Sept 7 (AFP) Iran announced on Thursday it has developed a new war plane — named the “Azarakhsh” (Lightning) — which it describes as similar to the American F-5. On Wednesday, Iran had announced the development of a war plane named “Saegheh” (Thunder), which it described as similar to the American F-18 fighter jet. (Posted @ 17:38 PST)
I’m not trying to argue for or against the Iranian aerospace industry, I just don’t think this press release is something you should take so negatively. 🙂
EmgyIran is the one that said it was a F/A-18 type fighter not the US or the West. So, they can spin it anyway they want………regardless its just a reworded F-5…………..
Did you check the link to the other thread? The release describes the fighter we’ve seen pictures of as similar to the F-5, not an F-18 type plane.
Not trying to be argumentative (really) but I think it’s just much fuss about nothing much at all.
EmgyHas nothing to do with “bashing”! Really, a redesigned and/or copy of a 60’s era fighter is of very little use. While Iran “may” get a new plane its still 60’s tech regardless. Further, the criticism is Iran’s own fault with statements like its an F/A-18 type fighter or how advance it is! Now if it went down a similar path ot the F-20 with maybe the best Russian engines, radar, and avoinic. Then would it offer some worth while capability……………………
The whole “it’s a F-18” seems to be just internet rumours (and we know what they’re worth) and at best it’s just some guy writing a press release. (And we know what those are worth too.) In my opinion you may be blowing this out of proportion and making it more important than it is when you’re equating whoever is responsible for the press release with Iran. 🙂
Anyway check this thread in the mother forum, it has an AFP press release which says the F-18 thing refers another fighter while the jet we’ve seen pictures of is “similar to an F-5”. The release doesn’t say any of the planes are supposed to be as advanced as an F-18.
EmgyWho cares if it’s creative? Seriously, would there be this kind of bashing if the plane was an Embraer modification for Brazil?
It’s just a press release, no need to get worked up about it. 🙂
P.S. Apparently they have not been saying that the F-5 modification is similar to the F-18. See this:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1004583&postcount=131
EmgyThis is a good question and answer why the Norwegian Air Forces wants the F-35 and how it compares to types like the Typhoon. Note: Its dated from Jan of 2006! 😀
Do you realize you just gave me a 17000 word newspaper article with Col. Harris from the US embassy in Oslo answering questions about the JSF? 🙂
Anyway this isn’t important and I’m not trying to argue with you, just idly wondering where you’d seen that the RNoAF was favouring any jet – because it’s true that their previous defence minister favoured the JSF. However I don’t recall seeing any statement from the RNoAF.
EmgyWell, the Norwegian Air Force Leadership firmly support the F-35……..So, I will yield to them. :rolleyes:
Where did you read this? Perhaps you’re thinking of the stance of their previous defence minister.
From what I’ve seen the Norwegian Armed Forces never make statements about what kinds of hardware they want, they are very much operating with a “do the best with what you have”-mentality.
(Goes back to 41 when their Navy managed to scrounge a torpedo destroyer and an MTB from the RN and used the MTB to ambush supply shipping along the Norwegian coast. [They had to use the destroyer to tow the MTB over from Scapa Flow and back when its tanks were empty… but I’m digressing terribly here.])
EmgyAlso, why didn’t the Flanker go to full power when he felt the tailhook catch,like USN pilots do, just in case the cable snaps? Or isn’t this SOPfor russian naval pilots?
Look at the vid again and follow the black speck I marked, to me it looks like the cable didn’t snap until the Su was at the position in this screenshot. Seems to me the cable held on long enough to slow the Flanker below minimum take-off-speed even at full thrust.
EmgyWell, that’s the whole point, isn’t it. Both Rafale and Gripen are fully interoperable with US forces. They don’t share the complete logistics, but that’s a different matter. Leo 2 and M1A2 are interoperable too, but not identical from logistics point of view. Same for the Zeven Provincien, which was designed with interoperability with US as well as UK forces in mind.
I made that post was in response to those wondering whether the Rafale was out on technical reasons. I was trying to say this isn’t a competition where they’ll spend much time looking at the performance of the four aircraft that were offered. This is a “competition” between corporations and goverments, industrial deals like signatory has pointed out and of course international relations. The whole interoperability thing wasn’t the point I was trying to make and I guess I should’ve used a more precise word.
And yes the Eurocanards are of course highly interoperable with other NATO forces. It’s just that if they buy a US fighter, they’ll be able to send 6 fighters down to Afghanistan and “plug it right in” to an existing USAF wing and base with as little logistics expense as possible. It saves money on deployments and the politicians will like that, and obviously they will have to factor in relations with the US as well. But again, this wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
Be clear that the Rafale is definitely not out because of technical problems. The Typhoon, or shall we say EADS and BAE are still in the race as the UK and Germany are the two largest export partners of Norway by a fairly large margin. (25% and 15% according to cia.gov.)
EmgyUp to 15% using enhanced RM12. 25% using the F414 and 40+ % using the new version of F414 that was announced by GE in 2005.
That 15% increase sounds good. The 113kn F414 sounds very good.
Agreed, At the moment Norway is raking in the Petrodollars and could afford any fighter in the world if it wanted :diablo: Politics is the issue not the money
I agree, the voters would not take kindly to increased military spending. (Around 2% of the GDP at the moment.)
Norway could go to Northrop and fund an F-23 development if they wanted. 😀
Edited: Took a look at their budget surplus for this year alone. £25b, it’s enough to buy two CVF and earmark enough money to operate them for fifty years, and have 5b change left. Of course you’d have to buy and operate escorts and air wings but that’s what the 2007 budget surplus is for…
(Yes I am fully aware this is not going to happen, I’m just playing with numbers. And there’s a good reason they’re stuffing all that money into their pension fund instead repeating the mistakes of previous nations finding gold… black or not.)
Emgy25-40% more thrust depending on engine choice,
Possible to give details on the engines you have in mind? The fatter engine mentioned by a Saab official in one Gripen-N interview would be the F414, but there was talk about the EJ2x0 being the right size to replace the RM12 without reengineering the airframe?
EmgyThat has never been mentioned as a significant factor in the upcoming decision. In fact the deputy minister of defense said all jets meet the requirements for Norway and emphasise the need to secure the development of Norwegian defense industry in the long term.
Maybe I came off as a LockMart salesman. I was just trying to say that this isn’t a evaluation of technical merits, in response to those wondering why the Rafale is out first.
I agree that industrially, the Gripen-N/DK would be the best deal. As you likely already know, Ericsson has a military R&D centre (sensors and NCW, if I recall) in Norway and this would be one of many factors.
Interoperability does not mean ‘having the same plane’, it mean having compatible systems.
True but purchasing the F-35 means they can operate right off a USAF or USMC base, or do a joint with The Netherlands etc, without smoothest possible logistics procedures. This is important for their politicians and they are the ones deciding the buy. Of course you can operate a Eurocanard off a USAF base in Afghanistan if you want, I’m not saying it’s not possible.
I’m sure an APAR-equipped F124 or De Zeven can operate just fine with a USN CVBG but Norway went for the SPY-1F and AEGIS for easiest possible interoperability.
Most key systems of Gripen N, including many weapons, have US origin or ancestry anyway.
Most key systems is a bit of an exaggeration. In addition to the license-built F404, the FBW system is BAE/LockMart according to airforce-technology and that’s it. And the weapons is just a matter of what the customer wants to plug on the aircraft anyway. (I’m sure you can buy a Rafale with AMRAAMs and Sidewinders if you want.)
EmgyBut have no doubts, the F-35 will be the selected platform, after this seemingly thorough process.
Yes, interoperability with NATO is the main priority for their procurement processes. The F-35 and Typhoon will be used by a large number NATO members and a purchase of either type will allow for easy interoperability with NATO forces. The Rafale and Gripen score low on that scale. The F-35 scores highest.
Back when they selected the SPY-1F/AEGIS/Mk41-combo for their frigates, one of their officials said their main criteria was interoperability with the USN. The technical merits of any of these systems won’t make a difference.
EmgyQuotes such as, “I think Britain, Spain, Italy and Germany screwed up big time by building this”
There’s nothing screwed up about supporting your own industry, developing its tech levels and creating jobs. If anything, there hasn’t been enough of this if you look at various cancelled European projects (TSR.2, Mirage 4000, the stealth projects etc.) that were too expensive for the governments.
Also keep in mind that the JSF won’t reach IOC in those countries until, is it 2016-17? Dumping the EF means over a decade of Italy leasing F-16s, and the other nations having to do life extention programs on ageing airframes.
Sign In
