Even, playing the standoff game the F-35 is superior.
Lets try 4X jassm ER externally and 2X JSM internally.

The F-35 can fire external weapons and drop pylons (this makes to much common sense not to be in the design) With the F-35 you have the choice between bringing more weapons or using stealth to get closer to the target.
Remember that the ideas for the F-35 where birthed out of wars in which hours and hours of flight time was burned searching for time critical targets (GW1 Serbia) Having your plane only able to attack with Cruise missiles limits you.
And trust me all of our modern adversaries have developed means of Moving there SAMs, SCUDS, radars very quickly.

Very interesting quotes:

The fighter’s capabilities will make it a three- or four-for-one asset, said the Lockheed briefers, meaning that it will be able to simultaneously perform the roles of several different aircraft types—from strike to electronic attack, from command and control to battlefield surveillance.

O’Bryan pointed out an important truth about air combat: Fourth generation strike aircraft assigned to hit targets guarded by modern anti-access, area-denial systems (A2/AD, in military parlance) require the support of “AWACS, electronic attack, sweep airplanes, SEAD” (suppression of enemy air defenses) aircraft and cruise missiles. Such a package could run to dozens of aircraft.

The same mission, he claimed, can be achieved with just a quartet of F-35s. Each would be capable of operations that go well beyond air-to-ground missions. The four-ship would be a potent factor in any scenario calling for the employment of airpower, O’Bryan asserted.

Exaggeration?

Stealth also permits (and requires) internal fuel and weapons carriage. The Air Force F-35 variant, fully loaded for combat, can pull nine-G turns with a full load of fuel and missiles. This cannot be done by fighters lugging along external weapons and fuel tanks.

Does he mean only for A2A or what?

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with “no support whatever” from these systems.

“I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get,” O’Bryan acknowledged. “But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in. In other words, we had to find the target, … penetrate the anti-access [defenses], … ID the target, and … destroy it by ourselves.”

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps “is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B” with no additional pods or internal systems.

So the plane is a flying rivet joint? The Typhoon and Griffin have the same capability right?

Having looked at this from page 1 it started with Denmark and a number of Nordic states looking at other fighter type due to the price and time delays of F-35. Some key points have been made and heads have been put in the sand. Combined deployment has two aims bringing power to the task but also and sometimes more importantly flags to the table behind a common effort. The first key point came from Seahawk post 12 numbers are important no matter how good they are having only 12 jets is pissing in the wind so maybe what the Nordic states need to think about is Norway Denmark Finland and the Netherlands all buying Gripen NG from Sweden and forming a one type Nordic battle group by ordering in large numbers it will drop the price of Gripen. By deploying just 5 jets each this battle group could bring a lot of power to the table from the Nordic states . Plus in 2025 or 2030 as a group they could look at F-35 or SAAB 5th gen platform

How boring will it be when we all have F-35 :rolleyes:

That will work until MR. Chavez or some other future dictator get all nationalistic with an eye for The dutch islands.
I will concede this point. On 1 hand you make a good argument for larger numbers of planes. On the other hand if your future hypothetical griffin force has to fight future Su-35s or S-300s The island could easily fall.
Keep in mind that Venezuela already has both F-16s and su-30s.
Who knows what they will have by 2030. There are other concerns also.

1. what happens to the instrumentation F-35s that have been purchased already? they cant be sold because of U.S> agreements. and they have Orange wiring ( test instrumentation) making them difficult to convenrt and upgrade.
2. The combined cancellation fees would be enormous
3. Political back lash and in the case of the Norwegians a hug economic loss
since they where counting on developing weapons and selling them to make up for F-35 costs. Do you think LM and Washington would support their cruise missile if they suddenly breach contract?

Dutch should go ahead with F-35 test project-report

inShare
Share this
Email
Print

Related News

Lockheed Martin raises forecast, earnings beat view again
Wed, Oct 24 2012

Related Topics

Stocks »
Markets »
Industrials »

By Gilbert Kreijger

AMSTERDAM | Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:43am EDT

Oct 24 (Reuters) – The Netherlands should go ahead with participating in the F-35 fighter test programme because pulling out at this stage would incur substantial costs, a government think-tank said.

But the Court of Audit report stopped short of recommending whether it thought the Netherlands should stay in the whole F-35 project – which is controversial because of cost overruns and delays – or opt for a different type of plane.

Lockheed Martin Corp is developing three models of the new fighter for the United States and eight other countries – Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy, Turkey, Denmark and Norway as well as the Netherlands.

Pentagon data in April forecast the projected total cost to develop, buy

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/dutch-fighter-f-idUSL5E8LO8P320121024

How about to go into the related details. Published pictures to proof that did show stationary ground targets or slow moving ones at best. The pilot/crew was briefed before the mission where to go and where to do the zoom the radar for targeting the preselected target. In most cases the pilot/crew will identify that because he/they know what is to see and compare it to similar pics looked over before. Something fast moving within ground clutter and EW support is a different issue. Maybe you will be happy to get a signal below 500 feet above ground-level from a fast mover there without an idea what it is really. Without correct IFF you will fire nothing at all. The crews of the F-14D had no problems to admit they did not spot the Croation MiG-21bis staying in the ground-clutter during exercises.
Over testing ranges a pilot/crew is briefed what to see, when and where and a predictable course with modest jamming utmost and “hostile” without further proof. Just here you will come close to the advertisement claims. 😎

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9o63DCRWf8

I was under the impression that with newer tech,360 degree staring IR arrays linked with SAR maps and advanced algorithms ground clutter is no longer an issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY

IR cant be jammed as easy, and the computer knows what a Tank, MIG or sam looks like.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120706000005&cid=1101

Assuming Argentina could afford them, 20+J-17s and maybe 12 J-20s would give the British fits. All you need is enough advanced jets or cruise missiles to hit the critical fields at port Stanly and other areas. The British need those
new carriers yesterday.

How will harpy Get you past S-300 launchers guarded my TOrM-1?
S-300 missiles can range from 93 miles to 150 Nms depending on the variant.
At this point the heavy loaded griffin must drop its weapons load to maneuver.
Here is an important history lesson from the gulf war. This is why conventional aircraft are not in vogue.

The Package Q Airstrike was the largest air strike of the Gulf War,[4] and the largest strike of F-16s in military history. Many aircraft including the F-117 were used to attack targets in Baghdad, which was the most heavily defended area of Iraq. The same target was hit several times by F-117, and the last package consisted of 17 F-111F on the 19th day of the war.[5]

The main target of the strike was the Osirak Nuclear Reactor in Baghdad, along with many other military sites across the city. Two aircraft were shot down, with two pilots becoming POWs. The majority of the mission goals were met, with the reactor itself severely damaged and most of the secondary targets hit as well.[4]

The attack was the largest of the war and represented an attempt to strike Iraqi defenses a serious blow. The raid illustrated how a number of small incidents or stresses, none by themselves necessarily serious, could contribute to an unsatisfactory outcome,[4] which eventually convinced USAF commanders to call off further airstrikes against downtown Baghdad

More

On the afternoon of 19 January, all the aircraft took off from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. From there, they all met with tankers in Saudi Arabia, near the border of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Link-up and refueling with the tankers ran into problems. There was bad weather along the tanker tracks, and the tankers approached the release point too early. Consequently, they throttled back to minimum speed, which in turn seriously affected the accompanying fighters. The F-16s were soon close to stalling out, and some had to light afterburners just to stay airborne; four fighters coming off the last tanker fell so far behind that their mission commander ordered them to return to base.

After the refueling, all the aircraft turned towards Baghdad, and headed out in force. They had to dodge AAA and SAMs sporadically along the trip, though as the package reached Baghdad airspace, it broke out into the open. Iraqi gunners greeted the Americans with a couple of high-altitude shots in the middle of several formations. Not surprisingly, there were difficulties in communicating among mission groups in the package; the mission commander of the flight attacking downtown Baghdad estimated that he received approximately 80 percent of the calls.

Adding to the disarray of the flak exploding below, the Iraqis threw 100-mm shells into the formations. From the moment the package approached Baghdad’s air defenses, the Weasels engaged enemy SAM sites. However, there was a problem with the Weasels allocated to the mission; either because of fuel, timing, or the decision of the package commander, not all made it to Baghdad; moreover, some Weasels did not fire all their HARMs, which suggests that they had to leave because of fuel problems.

Approaching their targets, the “downtown” aircraft (flying F-16s with newer model engines) passed F-16s on the way to, rolling in on, and leaving targets all in a hostile environment. On their way to downtown, the F-4 “Wild Weasels” left, being low on fuel. This left the F-16s and F-15Cs alone against the air defenses. As Maj. John Nichols rolled in to strike his target, the Iraqi Air Force Headquarters, he heard the Weasels call that they were leaving. Unfortunately, cloud cover obscured the target; Nichols rolled off to turn to an alternate target, an oil refinery which was under attack by a portion of his formation.

Up to this point, the Iraqis had fired most of their SAMs ballistically. Within a short time of the Weasel call that they were leaving, SAMs directly engaged Nichols’ flight. Many SAMs were now guided and most of his flight had to take evasive action, which included “last-ditch maneuvers” such as jettisoning fuel tanks and bombs. Approximately half of the flight struck the oil refinery; others were en route to alternate targets when SAMs engaged and forced them to jettison ordnance.[3]

SAMs hit one F-16 just as the last bombs were striking the oil refinery. As the flight egressed Baghdad, evading SAMs, another missile impacted near another F-16. Both aircraft were lost, but their pilots survived the war as POWs. One of the two lost aircraft managed to fly for 150 miles on the return route after taking a SA-3 missile just south of Baghdad, before the engine quit.[3] In all, the participants in the wild ride over the capital counted twenty SAMs in the air; one pilot dodged no fewer than six. Many of the F-16 aircraft sustained major or minor damage, but stayed airworthy.

These are the reasons for the commonality of airframe across nato. here we learned.

1. having dissimilar aircraft performing various mission brings another level of difficultly to a war plan.
2. Planes that hang heavy things from there wings and lack internal bays not only suffer from more than the initial weight and performance penalty.
An adversary only has to make the aircraft evasive maneuver to totally defeat the mission. when your getting shot at your going to dump fuel and weapons.
3. 5th generation airframes keep most of there flight envelope in stealth mode
4. Its better to be Not see and not tracked rather than waste gas turning all day.

ask your self how the NG griffin would fare in the same scenario. at the end of the day some things can never be killed with cruise missiles alone. You need to fly over the thing and put a bomb through it.

What does the cold war gone hot have to do with Danish defence needs of today?

I think we all agree that Denmark faces no direct threat to the homeland. Fighters will therefore be needed for air policing and NATO ops. So let us look at NATO ops.

Say the budget allows to buy 12 F-35A or 18 Grippen E/F.

It think it is conservative to say that 1/3 of the fleet will be down to maintenance needs on average.

Which leaves us with 8 F-35 or 12 Grippen.

Denmark needs to have an air policing CAP ready. That means 2 aircraft at 15min + 2 more as back-ups that can be used for training.

That leaves us with 4 F-35 or 8 Grippen.

A easy NATO mission like the Baltic air policing requires F-4 aircraft to de deployed.
Operations like Libya usual saw at least 4 aircraft been made available each day. To generate 4 planes/sorties (no. of sorties depends on mission duration) each day the current standard is to deploy 6 aircraft. F-35A can not do this, Grippen could.

So with 18 Grippen Denmark would have “2 attrition reserves” / training aircraft available, while being able to meet its CAP needs and still deploy 4 effective aircraft to NATO.

With F-35 they would be limited to 2 to 3 aircraft deployed. Barely enough for NATO Air Policing duties.

Then either way they are stuffed, because the Griffin couldn’t penetrate it self out of a paper bag.