Spitfire9It will would not hurt LM to have a F-16 Blk 60 offer tucked away ready if F-35 is binned as Denmark has all the infrastructure in place to support F-16 the question is dose Denmark want F-16 or will it be seen to second rate ?
I think both F-16 and Gripen would be seen as inferior to F-35. If finances only extend to a cheaper system, F-16 would be an option but I don’t see how Denmark would choose F-16 over Gripen when Gripen has an assured development path for decades to come and has a lower operating cost than F-16.
Spitfire9Saab Says Gripen Export Chances Rise as F-35 Buyers Review Plans
“Sales of current model Gripens and the NG, the next generation model, may exceed 300 units in the next two decades, Eddy de La Motte, head of Gripen Exports said today.”
By the end of this decade it is likely that F-16, F/A-18 and Typhoon lines will have been closed. If you need to replace your fighters and do not want to buy Russian or Chinese aircraft, the choice would be F-35, Rafale, Gripen, possibly Tejas Mk2, KAI-T50.
If F-35 and Rafale are beyond your means you will need to choose between Gripen E, Tejas Mk2 (possibly) and KAI-T50.
There will be a need to replace fighters in South America, eastern Europe, some Asian countries in the coming years, so I don’t see the SAAB estimate as wildly optimistic even if they do not secure deals with Brazil, Denmark or the Netherlands.
Spitfire9IIRC, the Danish, back in 2010, were particularily interested in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as an alternative to the F-35 :rolleyes:
It looks to me that if F-35 is considered too expensive, interest will focus on Super Hornet and possibly Typhoon. If both those are also considered too expensive then the only option left is to buy Gripen. I bear in mind that F-35 was planned to cost less than Typhoon, Rafale, F/A-18 to buy and operate. The only western aircraft to offer that are F-16 (not under consideration) and Gripen.
Spitfire9We are in the worse world economy in decades. So, some countries maybe forced to slow down or put off orders in the short term. Which, has nothing to do with the capabilities of the F-35. Also, none of the aforementioned have left the program or said they would not purchase the F-35.
So, until you find a confirmed Member that has left the program. Its all just talk. Especially, considering it not from official circles. Except for possible delays.
None of the partners has cancelled yet. None of the partners has ordered yet (apart from test aircraft). Some have decided to step back from their commitment to F-35 (Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands).
That’s not just talk. It is governments saying that what they committed to is not what is going to be available (F-35 cost higher than planned / F-35 availability later than planned). As a consequence what looked like the best choice as an F-16 replacement may no longer be an option due to cost escalation.
There is a limit to what governments will pay for an air defence / strike capability. It looks like F-35 exceeds that limit for some. When other options have been investigated decisions will be made. Until that time there is no point in “cancelling” F-35.
Spitfire9What makes you think that Northrop would be able to design a better fighter, and avoid the cost-escalation that seems to have dogged its competitors?
It does not need to design a better fighter. It just needs to price its bid realistically instead of underpricing its bid knowing that once some time has gone by it can ask for more money and expect to get it.
The last time the US Government tried to force a fighter manufacturer to stick with the agreed price, the company threatened to close its doors and hand the keys over to whoever the USG thought would be able to build the aircraft at the original price.
Did the company shut down and hand the project on? If the government pays up when you ask for more, what do you have to lose by underpricing to get the deal in the first place?
Spitfire91/ Ditch the F35
2/ Take back the technologies that US gov money paid for & give them to Northrop
3/ Ask Northrop to develop a fighter within a fixed budget (Developer to pay any extra cost).Nic
Re: 3/
Are you suggesting that defence contractors should do what they have agreed to do and only get paid what was agreed? Have you completely lost your senses?!?!
Spitfire9LOL
Nobody needed more than a Gloster Gladiator in September 1938, but that all changed a year later.
Plan ahead, because you are forced to fight with what you have.
Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, UK etc did plan ahead. Their plans to acquire JSF were based on LM’s plans. Those have not worked out. Again and again and again. If those countries need to fight they will have to fight with what they have, as you say, and not with what they planned to have.
A case in point is the UK. It planned to operate carriers with F-35’s. They will not be too effective with a complement of 0 aircraft, which is what they will have when completed, thanks to LM being years late in development and delivery.
So who are the incompetents – all the countries that have been let down or the company that let them down? To my way of thinking, it’s the latter.
Spitfire9Because the F-35’s gonna get slaughtered by advanced Russian and Chinese types, and destroy allied air forces by being prohibitively expensive.
It is time to cancel the F-35 and start over.
How much has already been spent – $30 billion? $40 billion? Too late to stop now, I think. Could reduce USAF orders to save money, though.
As for it destroying allied air forces, I think it will be very damaging to the overall capability of countries with budget difficulties. With luck they will switch to alternatives to avoid the risk of finding themselves crippled when they discover the real cost of buying and operating JSF.
Spitfire9According to Congressman Ford (Member of the House Armed Services Committee), the F-35C is expected to cost 35,000 $ per hour..
Is that a marginal cost – to fly 1 extra hour costs an extra $35,000?
Spitfire9Which, just destroys your point that the F-35 is expensive and the F-16 and F/A-18 were cheap….
The evidence – unlike LM predictions, which have proved to be wrong time and again – points to the F-35 being expensive. Much, much more expensive than the F-16 which you argue is not cheap.
BTW Finland can afford the F-35 if it wants……just as Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands
If the F-35 did not promise to be so expensive I doubt that Denmark, the Netherlands and other countries would be re-appraising their choice to opt for F-35 as a replacement for low cost legacy fighters.
Denmark and the Netherlands planned to replace their F-16 fleets with an aircraft that promised to have comparable costs. That is not how F-35 has turned out. You say these countries can afford an unexpected massive increase in cost when replacing their F-16 fleets. How is that? They could increase their defence budgets to cover the unanticipated increase in F-16 replacement costs but for the foreseeable future that is unlikely. More likely they would have to reduce spending on other defence programmes – be it air force, army, navy – thus lowering other defence capabilities.
You say countries can afford F-35 if they want. If that would require them to re-think their entire defence capability and reduce it you should not be surprised that some have opted to re-think procuring F-35.
I would argue that the purpose of buying military materiel is to increase military capability, not to reduce it. Due to its cost, I think choosing F-35 will actually reduce a country’s military capabilities overall. That might be justifiable if one’s defence policy rated as supreme an ability to strike where enemy air defences were effective. Would that be the case for Denmark, the Netherlands etc?
Spitfire9As said before: Most likely the F-35 will win.
If, against all odds, F-35 is not chosen then the SH will win. However this is a very unlikely scenario…
So why bother with Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon? Of course if the costs of each model were independently audited and Rafale or Typhoon appeared to be much more cost effective than the US offerings, the government would have problems insisting on a political choice, wouldn’t it?
Spitfire9Swerve,
As both Norway and Denmark operate the F16, a late mark of the same aircraft makes more sense, especially as they are allies of the USA, more than Sweden.
Norway and Denmark are retiring F-16. If neither wanted F-35, Gripen E would be a better choice IMO. F-16 costs more to operate and is reaching the end of development. Gripen has the support of the Swedish government guaranteed far into the future.
Spitfire9As I have said before the Nordic states should all get behind Gripen E/F and then start a new consortium around SAAB & Fokker for a 5.5Gen jet they may even be able to drag Germany in to a 5.5 gen project
Although cool, but the problem here is MONEY..if they had money sitting around to co-fund development of a 5.5 gen, plus buy a fighter for fleet replacement, they would simply buy and operate the F-35.
Yes and no. If 4 Scandinavian countries bought Gripen instead of F-35 the savings might be enough to finance a large chunk of developing a 5G+ successor.
Spitfire9wrt price, aren’t a number of Eurofighter nations trying to get rid of Trache 1 aircraft (I know Spain is)? If they are then Denmark could get these at a bargain.
More likely than a South American country to me. Trouble is that while you can sell used frames at a big discount, you can’t discount the ongoing cost of operating them.
Spitfire93. If they don’t buy F-35 their workshare will be quite limited. It will not drop to zero but it will be limited.
Thus the most likely winner is IMHO the F-35. They may have to reduce the number of a/c to a minimum (or perhaps even below what they would consider a minimum) but nevertheless I think it will win.
Between a rock and a hard place?
F-35: what we want but we can’t afford to buy and operate enough frames to do training / defend Danish air space / integrate nicely in US-led adventures (part of the reason for buying it)
ie theoretically capable of doing what we want but too expensive for us to access that capability in practice
Sign In
