I love these charts made by people who haven’t even touched real thing.. And I also love the high scores in the mission effectiveness of the F-35, while the real aircraft can barely take off and land and there is practically no mission it can safely perform..

I stopped considering anything in the evaluation once I saw the ‘selection committee’ gave a procurement cost of around $125 million for an F/A-18. That alone demonstrates their evaluation cannot be taken seriously. Bit of an echo of the Norwegian farce.

As posted in the European F-35 sustainment costs thread, the following has some great official info on the Danish selection.

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf

Some great info there but pretty straight forward rankings given the F-35 now presents the lowest risk, was the lowest cost to acquire, second lowest to sustain and has the best survivability and mission accomplishment rating of the three candidates. Even factoring in the reduced number of F-35 compared to other contenders it still presents better overall value over the life of Danish service.

Mmmm…

Procurement

28 x JSF =15.3 billion DKK (546 million DKK each)

38 x F/A-18 = 30.9 billion DKK (813 million DKK each)

???

In case nobody concerned is aware of it, USA 2017 defence bill includes the procurement of 16 x F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft for US$1.35 billion*. Guess how much each costs? Less than the price shown for an F-35A here.

In other words, the geniuses at the Danish MOD have added more than 50% to the price of an F/A-18. The Danish MOD has been making numbers up to favour JSF.

* source: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/173772/house-appropriations-committee-releases-fy2017-defense-bill.html

The recommendation, first reported by Denmark’s TV2 News, will be followed by a public comment period of 30 days, said one of the people, who was not authorised to speak publicly. The final number of jets could shift during this period.

If confirmed, the decision will mark a setback for Boeing, another U.S. weapons maker that mounted an expensive last-ditch marketing effort for its older F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon consortium that includes Airbus Group.

News of the recommendation emerged as doubts were raised over a crucial parliamentary committee hearing scheduled for Friday.

All three bidders have been invited to present their jets, but Denmark’s Conservative Party said Lockheed and Boeing had been told by Washington not to participate. A spokesman for the U.S. embassy confirmed they had been advised to stay away.

Airbus Group said it still planned to attend and called for a “healthy and transparent” public debate.

Although viewed by many as an outside contender, Eurofighter appears to be gambling on parliamentary support for a European solution after a bitter spat between U.S. rivals. The German government is expected to throw its weight behind the bid by sending defence state secretary Katrin Suder to give evidence.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/…o/2777410.html

Not quite game over yet, it seems.

I don’t understand this:

‘All three bidders have been invited to present their jets, but Denmark’s Conservative Party said Lockheed and Boeing had been told by Washington not to participate. A spokesman for the U.S. embassy confirmed they had been advised to stay away.’

Why would the USA not want the 2 possible US suppliers to present their jets?

Mr. Parrikar: “We will finalize the deal sooooooooooooooooooo~~~~~~~~~n!!!!”:stupid:

http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/negotiations-on-rafale-deal-far-from-over-manohar-parrikar-tells-rajya-sabha/247888/

And the negotiations are still on what kind of financial penalties can be imposed on Dassault Aviation Company which is making the combat plane if the performance was unsatifactory.”

The performance of Rafale is known. Either you like it or you don’t. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.

I think they have not got things right at all. $500 million per aircraft over 30 years sounds far too high. That cost to purchase and use a fighter for 6,000 hours equates to $80,000+ for each hour it is flown.

US House Armed Services Committee adds 14 more Boeing F/A-18E/F for the US Navy in fiscal year 2017.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-house-panel-approves-funds-for-11-f-35s-a-424747/

Plus additional F-35. Extends the time for F/A-18E/F to find export orders before the line closes.

Production of JF-17B Dual Seat Aircraft Launched

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/173371/pakistan%2C-china-to-produce-jf_17b-two_seat-version.html