According to the LM sales pitch to Norway – the F-35 they purchase will be no-compromise LO.

From Aviation Week. Note who made the statement.

Asked earlier this year to confirm that all would have the same signatures, George Standridge, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for business development, responded: “That is a matter for the U.S. government. I cannot and will not answer that question.”

The situation is clear as mud as far as I can see.

PS Sorry, did not see post above before I responded.

Oh yes, you can compare them: based on the operational requirements.

I see this as the stumbling block. I wonder if a faction in the Norwegian defence, set on the F-35, have highlighted the strike requirement since the expense of the F-35 cannot otherwise be justified relative to the expense of the Gripen.

I can’t see the need for Norway to get an aircraft whose strength is in the strike role when Norway has little history of engaging in such activities (if any, I don’t know) but a long history of using fighters in a defensive role.

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_background.htm

Lethal
Air-to-ground precision strikes in all weather … air-to-air combat engagements – every F-35 variant will be highly effective in both arenas.

Which is it? Are they effective or not? I think it’s difficult to say empirically that they’re not, unless you know first hand what the actual performance capabilities are.

My comments in previous posts focussed on the export version. After all the title of this thread is: “New Gripen JAS39″NG” unveiled and giving JSF a run for its money…. There is no prospect of the US buying the Gripen, nor of Sweden buying the F-35, so it I take it that this thread is about the prospects of both aircraft in the export market.

I agree that it is difficult to know what the actual performance capabilities of the F-35 are. That becomes even more difficult when speaking of the export version since it is unclear if stealth is going to be compromised for non-US F-35’s.

Thanks for the link. I had a look at it. It looks to me like a list of intentions and aspirations. Some extracts:

The F-35 is designed to replace aging fighter inventories including U.S. Air Force A-10s and F-16s, U.S. Navy F/A-18s, U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and U.K. Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers. With stealth and a host of next-generation technologies, the F-35 will be far and away the world’s most advanced multi-role fighter. There exists an aging fleet of tactical aircraft worldwide. The F-35 will solve that problem.

Is it designed to replace any air superiority fighters?

In providing that solution, the Joint Strike Fighter program has since day one had four program pillars:

Affordable
All variants of the F-35 will be procured within their target cost range. Operation and support costs will be dramatically reduced.

I think it probably became impossible for all variants of the F-35 to be procured within their target cost range years ago. Only way that would be possible would be if every $billion increase in development cost was matched by a $billion decrease in build cost.

Lethal
Air-to-ground precision strikes in all weather … air-to-air combat engagements – every F-35 variant will be highly effective in both arenas.

I have expressed my reservations about this claim in previous posts.

Survivable
Stealthy, high-performance, supersonic strike fighters – The F-35 successfully integrates the technologies that will make every mission more survivable.

If other fighters can see it sooner due to impaired LO, survivability will be compromised.

Supportable
Reliability and maintainability – The F-35 will be setting new standards for both, enabling lower support costs and easier upgrades than legacy aircraft.

Pleased to hear it. I have no reason to doubt it.

The price of milk is likely to rise…………..so what!

I agree that if the price of milk rises relative to orange juice/coke/spring water, people will not start start pouring those in their coffee or on their corn flakes at breakfast instead of milk, so what does it matter if the price of milk rises? However if the price of one aircraft under consideration for purchase rises relative to another under consideration, that does matter.

The Gripen to be successful has to win sales that would go to Typhoons, Rafales, Vipers, Super Hornets, J-10’s, Su-35’s, and Mig-35’s.

I would have thought that if it can get a small slice of the market dominated by the F-16, that would be enough to make it successful. How many F-16/Mirage/Mig-21’s etc will need replacement in the next 10-20 years?

How is a rise in the cost of the Gripen to widen the gap between the two??? I “assume” you mean the gap “will close” as the price and complexity of the Gripen grows……….

I meant what I wrote. If the NG’s price is $15 million more than the Gripen C but the F-35’s export price rises by $20 million, the difference in price will have widened. I expect that the F-35 export price will rise by at least $20 million.

I think that the $58 million F-35 price tag is what it is because LM does not know what it will be. Some politics involved here: will Congress allow export customers to buy the aircraft at a lower price than its own AF? This needs to be clarified. Country A or B could place a firm order at a specific contract price and then discover that Congress refuses permission for the contract for the reason I have just mentioned.

In May the GAO reported a 1-2 year delay on the program, estimated a $35 billion increase in cost, criticised the program for prematurely moving to initial limited production before the aircraft had been sufficiently developed and tested. These are not hallmarks of a program that is going well.

However brilliant an aircraft it may turn out to be, the various countries which have already committed $100’s millions to the project need to know the following about the F-35 if they are to arrive at a realistic evaluation of the F-35 against competing aircraft:

When will it be delivered?
What will it cost?
What will be delivered – same as USAF or downgraded LO?
What guarantee is there that the US Congress will not interfere with the agreed price?

If answers are not available when Norway has to make a decision on what to order as an F-16 replacement, do not be surprised if the Gripen NG gets the deal.

As I have said before, the Norwegian Air Force (and also others witin DoD) want the F-35 and they work very hard to make it happen. The above-mentioned scenario may be part of that strategy; still the politicians will have the final say. The politicians are very much aware that the AF have decided they want the F-35, so they will review not just the conclusion of the recommendation but also the underlying assumptions and premises for the analysis. Therefore I still think Gripen has a chance in Norway.

L

I have a number of reservations about foreign governments ordering the F-35. These stem from a number of uncertainties: primarily price, ability to integrate future weapons, delivery schedule, through life cost.

The price of the F-35 for export partner customers is not known. Figures are given but they are estimates. The mooted $58 million F-35 could turn into a $70 million or $80 million or $90 million F-35. The aircraft has moved into the production phase prematurely in my opinion and any nasties that appear can be expected to materially increase the cost of the project and to push back delivery dates. The truth is that nobody knows what the F-35 will cost. I do not refer to the earliest production tranche but then the price for those is over $200 million each isn’t it? I don’t know what the contract involved but the Netherlands spent over $400 million for 2 evaluation aircraft IIRC.

The UK and Australia may have secured sufficient access to source codes etc to undertake weapons integration but I cannot forget that the UK had to bluntly threaten to cancel its orders before the US was prepared to honour its agreement to transfer that technology. If that is the level of co-operation with a Level 1 partner, it bodes badly for the future. 10 or 20 years down the line when the UK has acquired its F-35’s and those source codes have been upgraded, will they be available? That’s an unknown. Threatening to cancel orders for aircraft that have already been delivered and paid for is not going to have much effect if the US refuses to transfer the technology.

I do not know what role Norway foresees for its F-16 replacement but I have difficulty in foreseeing a situation in which Norway is going to conduct an offensive campaign against well defended targets independently. Hence I find the requirement outlined by the RNAF somewhat artificial. Perhaps I am wrong.

I understand (sorry can’t remember the source) that the Gripen is far cheaper to fly per hour than the Typhoon. If the same is true compared with the F-35 then I guess each F-35 will cost many $millions extra to operate over its service life.

Then there’s politics and economics. Should Norway and Sweden choose much, much closer co-operation in the military domain and should Saab be able to offer a compelling workshare package on the NG, I imagine that the Norwegian government will overule the desires of the Norwegian military and Gripen will get the deal. Of course governments are keen to know roughly how big a bite a major acquisition will take out of the defence budget, so that goes in Gripen’s favour too.