Next for F-35? If not Denmark, Belgium to me. Mind you, knowing Belgium a little, 1/2 squadron of whatever France has and 1/2 squadron of whatever the Netherlands has would not surprise me. 😉

The F-35 program has been a fiasco without a doubt,

What? How can you be so misguided? You should read through the bucketfuls of posts by someone called hopsalot in which he explained that all development programs encounter problems and the JSF program is no different. Fiasco? hopsalot went to great lengths to assure readers that was not the case IIRC. 🙂

looking forward to the defense aerospace article on this

Yes, will be fun reading more pre-determined opinion about the F-35.

That danish document showing the expected pricetags is basically proof of how politics are king in sales like this. First the key people are courted or perhaps bought. They are made to believe pricetags as shown in the document are true. Then those people “decide” which is better – based on false numbers.

I mean, seriously? 82 million dollars per procured f35a? By 2020? Very, very unilikey, given the current price drop curve which is pointing more towards the 90-95 million range. As we also know – those are prices US is paying for the flyaway plane. Without anything else.

Can Denmark really be expected to pay the same pricetag as US?
Furthermore, the report in the very same comparison graph says procurement per superhornet costs 122 million. Huh?? Even though US pays something like 60-ish million per their flyaway superhornet? Lets remember the f35a price was clearly flyaway too, so these prices must be apples to apples comparison. Either that or F35a flyaway price for denmark is in reality 40 million, half of what us will be paying. Right.

If these figures have been presented to danish key people as fact then it’s no wonder they selected f35a. they’ve been fooled like no other. Who knows what else has been fabricated for those people. And god knows how much power lockheed martin really has within us government when it clearly managed to shut up another powerful US firm, Boeing, from making a fuss about this.

Just a point to make: 16 x F/A-18 are in the 2017 US budget @ $1.35 billion, about $80 million each but that may include more than just the flyaway airframes.

I am mystified why both Boeing and LM have been asked/advised by US authorities not to attend the presentation to the Danish parliament. All I can think is that US govt would rather not have LM questioned about the data in the evaluation report or for any concealed pressure (political) to push the US OEM’s to be revealed. Can you think of any reason why Boeing or LM have been steered away from scrutiny by the Danish parliament?

Addition:

From australiandefence.com:
link: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/royal-danish-air-force-wants-the-f-35

There has been intense public debate over the cost of modernising the Royal Danish Air Force, currently equipped with the F-16 as its tfighter.

Despite assurances from Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office that the cost per plane would fall from about $US100 million to $US85 million by 2019, the JSF is still the most expensive option of the three presented.

Is it perhaps that the US does not want LM going to the Danish parliament for fear of the credibility of cost estimates crumbling under questioning?

Denmark Explains F-35 Choice

http://aviationweek.com/defense/denmark-explains-f-35-choice

Interestingly Boeing hasn’t come out claiming they have been mis-represented on price. What does that tell us?

Possibly that the USA has told them (and LM) to keep quiet. Why have Boeing and LM been asked/advised not to turn up for the presentation to the Danish parliament? Why is the USA worried about Boeing and/or LM talking to the Danish parliament? Seems strange to me.

They do not. Public opposition to any new fighter purchase does not help Boeing or EF’s case. At worst it’ll defer the F-35 purchase, until their F-16s’ age begins to take (publicly) visible toll (with the EF & SH going out of production). If the purchase is deferred, its only Saab that may have an outside shot at a contract (‘outside’ because it’ll have to contend with a hostile RDAF).

I agree that public opposition to new fighter procurement does not help Boeing or EF. If it becomes obvious to parliament that the figures have been falsified, who knows, parliament might do what happened in Canada – ask for another assessment that is not falsified and excludes F-35*.

Government is proposing F-35. Might not get enough representatives to support an F-35 purchase. Or might duck the issue by postponing a decision (like UK governments do with Heathrow reaching saturation).

* Denmark was rated as the least corrupt country in the world on a table I saw in connection with the anti-corruption forum taking place in London. Could just be that their parliamentarians will react against the F-35 due to its supporters trying to dupe them with misleading, dishonest figures.