Denmark wants F-35

[PattheCat]

Without delving into details we found that we could cover over four times the area of a fourth generation fighter, simply because the data sharing and sensor systems were that much better. So while you might not be able to be everywhere, you have a far better understanding of the battlespace, which allows for a greater efficiency in operations.

Sure, for the US. But we speak of the air forces of different countries with a lower level of integration and coordination.

The F-35 is an ambitious project and a formidable weapon (system). I've nothing against the F-35 in itself.

I've got a problem with the choice of the F-35 as our only offensive/defensive asset when not having the money to make the best out of it, giving it the right support and "working space". And just to buy and maintain the F-35, we SHALL have to weaken the rest of our armed forces, including communications, intel gathering. We will overburden the F-35, wanting it to do it all by itself.

What's the point of having F-35's if you can't buy decent air defence for your bases? Or is it reasonable to send pilots into battle who just have about nothing more than simulator experience because whe can't afford the cost of flying hours? Or even not to have enough intelligent weapons to load on it?

To me as we (Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium...) are planning it, it's just like having an aircraft carrier with no escorts, no recon planes on board and no AWACS...it has much capacity, it's the best option to do most "jobs" by itself, but it's dangerously ALONE.

So yes to the F-35 but if you're ready to go for the "Full Monty".

Plus I've always been told not to put all my eggs in the same basket.

Edited May 13, 2016 by PattheCat

[Bigglesof266]

Looks like only 27 aircraft

I very much doubt DK "wants" it so much as have been instructed that they're buying it, just like AU. NWO Realpolitik.

No-one in their right mind "wants" the F-35. The US certainly doesn't, but former sovereign states of occupied Europe now do as they're told to.

USA isn't selling the F-22 to anyone. With no room to manoeuvre, that leaves exactly zero choice for a true GEN 5 unit unless buying from Russia or China. I'm guessing the Goldman Sachs 'club' won't be shopping there.

Attributed, or misattributed, to Stalin, regardless the quote: "Quantity has a quality of its own" stands on its own merit.

Ultimately I'm with Einstein. It's MAD-ness. For the surviving sheeple it won't matter much anyway. It's lose-lose no matter the dog they back in the coming fight.

[-Neu-]

Sure, for the US. But we speak of the air forces of different countries with a lower level of integration and coordination.

The F-35 is an ambitious project and a formidable weapon (system). I've nothing against the F-35 in itself.

I've got a problem with the choice of the F-35 as our only offensive/defensive asset when not having the money to make the best out of it, giving it the right support and "working space". And just to buy and maintain the F-35, we SHALL have to weaken the rest of our armed forces, including communications, intel gathering. We will overburden the F-35, wanting it to do it all by itself.

What's the point of having F-35's if you can't buy decent air defence for your bases? Or is it reasonable to send pilots into battle who just have about nothing more than simulator experience because whe can't afford the cost of flying hours? Or even not to have enough intelligent weapons to load on it?

To me as we (Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium...) are planning it, it's just like having an aircraft carrier with no escorts, no recon planes on board and no AWACS...it has much capacity, it's the best option to do most "jobs" by itself, but it's dangerously ALONE.

So yes to the F-35 but if you're ready to go for the "Full Monty".

Plus I've always been told not to put all my eggs in the same basket.

That's the Danish defence budget's issue, not the F-35. You should read the Danish report: The JSF wasn't a trade off between cost vs capability. Of all of the aircraft available, it was by far the least costly, cheapest to operate, most capable option (and best industrial offsets to boot). This was the point for the program: a massive economy of scale that would decrease everyone's cost, not just the US's. If you selected anything: Eurofighter, Super Hornet, or even the Rafale and/or Gripen (despite not being in the competition) all of them would have been markedly worse capabilities wise and a higher cost.

I know all you've heard for the past decade just how terrible of an aircraft this is. But you have to realize much of the perception on the project is based on media or individuals that has no clue what its talking about, and/or trying to drum up controversy. However people who actually work in this field, evaluate it, or operate it, have a completely different view.

Edited May 13, 2016 by -Neu-

[Alan P]

I very much doubt DK "wants" it so much as have been instructed that they're buying it, just like AU. NWO Realpolitik.

No-one in their right mind "wants" the F-35. The US certainly doesn't, but former sovereign states of occupied Europe now do as they're told to.

USA isn't selling the F-22 to anyone. With no room to manoeuvre, that leaves exactly zero choice for a true GEN 5 unit unless buying from Russia or China. I'm guessing the Goldman Sachs 'club' won't be shopping there.

Attributed, or misattributed, to Stalin, regardless the quote: "Quantity has a quality of its own" stands on its own merit.

Ultimately I'm with Einstein. It's MAD-ness. For the surviving sheeple it won't matter much anyway. It's lose-lose no matter the dog they back in the coming fight.

Shocking misinformation in every paragraph. You probably should have read the article in the original post. Edited May 13, 2016 by Alan P

[Bigglesof266]

A key consideration is that 27 F-35s in terms of capability is far more capable than 70 F-16As. Looking at stuff like speed, payload, range, really misses the point.

Having once been pointy end, there's really no way of saying this any more diplomatically other than 'don't be ridiculous'. Read this. Short excerpt. "A simulation showing six F-35s versus six Sukhoi SU-35S, Indonesia’s intended future air superiority fighter choice for its air force, suggests that 2.36 Joint Strike Fighters would be lost for every SU-35S downed."

Paraphrasing Clausewitz (Vom Kriege) on superiority of numbers. "This is in tactics, as well as in strategy, the most general principle of victory". Tactically and strategically, the orchestrated entry of the USA proved that principle = true in WWI, and in conjunction with the Soviet Union doing most of the dying for them, in WWII. It's going to be no different in the cataclysm now forming. The players' names and the tools change, but the game is the same. The 'winners' (oxymoron) will be 'those with the mostest who can last the longest' as always.

I very much doubt that the Danish people want to even be playing this game any more than the Swedes really 'want' to join NATO, let alone buy F-35s.

[PattheCat]

That's the Danish defence budget's issue, not the F-35. You should read the Danish report: The JSF wasn't a trade off between cost vs capability.

I know all you've heard for the past decade just how terrible of an aircraft this is.

I agree. I think I never said a thing against the plane. It's potential and it's "future proof" aspect sustain the choice and justify the cost (this last to some extent only).

That's my point too: the issue is BUDGET, not the F-35, not it's costs.

But I can't conceive that European low defence budgets won't "cripple" the F-35 abilities and it being our main weapon it shall downgrade our military capability even more; even to the point of the F-35 not being enough, so making the choice useless.

And then, well'have nothing else on hand to fight with....

Edited May 14, 2016 by PattheCat

[alex]

that leaves exactly zero choice for a true GEN 5 unit unless buying from Russia or China.

That was ironic, isn't it?

Alex

[colin]

Isn't a major part of the difficulty here that "our friends from the east coming over the hill" in a "real shooting war against similar opposition" is one of the least likely threat scenarios for any European (or indeed US) force to face? Realistically, there's a vast range of scenarios of different sorts of engagement against different quality and quantity opposition who may or may not have airborne assets of their own but probably DO have access to pretty sophisticated (and pretty unsophisticated but equally lethal) anti-aircraft capability, in places as far away as half way round the world and as close as the other side of the Baltic. In a world where NO ONE has the "money's no object" defence spending "budget" of the US in the 1980s, you need to make your assets a great deal more flexible, so the ones you CAN afford are pretty good at most of the jobs you MIGHT need them to do, rather than having squadron after squadron of specialised aircraft ready to fight the last war. Which these days means flying computers that you can load with mission specific software, and more importantly smart, dedicated weapons for particular tasks. Oh, and throw in the ability to make the pilot the intelligent human at the centre of a cluster of autonomous, disposable weapon vehicles heading targetwards independently...

bestest,

M.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, but who apart from the USA will have the true capability to use it as thus, unless that capability can be shared with other NATO users, which I doubt very much, not so much as can't but won't politically.

It will be a fantastic aircraft I have no doubt, but it's true potential will only be available to America because they will be the only ones able to use it at it's full potential

[Bigglesof266]

Shocking misinformation in every paragraph. You probably should have read the article in the original post.

A arrogantly sweeping statement for which you offer no evidence. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

Or apply Hitchens' razor if you prefer. Same outcome.

As for that original linked document. Its DMoD "Executive Summary" origin rather smacks of an expected the stamp of 'official approval' whose raison détre bespeaks volumes to any reasoning critical analysis wouldn't you think? It's not as if the author/s didn't have a dog in the fight. In summary, it's like any bureaucratic piece of paper, statistics or work of academia manipulated to fit the job description tailored to select the 'right' candidate. A pretty document and great PR for the sheeple, I'll grant you that. Much as the approved narrative spin is in this country.

A double edged sword, I've been on the planet long enough and involved sufficiently to observe how these things are tailored and work politically. AU's previous, own noisy white elephant Collins class subs, and new deals with the two new Spanish built hull 'LHDs' plus recent deal twelve French subs contract. Some of us are awake, and some of us even learned the principle of navigation a long time ago so that we aren't reliant solely upon the NWO 'news' feed blue pill for 'our' perspective to always be in accord with the sanctioned narrative.

We, and DK for that matter, need 'defence' (oxymoron) spending on new F-35s about as desperately as we need another invented bogeyman and yet another false flag op. Cui bono? The sheeple?

[Giorgio N]

Buying a 5th generation fighter from China or Russia? Do they have any such aircraft in service or for sale? Or maybe they only have less than 10 prototypes each that nobody knows when will actually lead to fully satisfactory service aircrafts.. And in the case of Russia have been ordered in numbers that are very small compared to such a big country.

[Bigglesof266]

Buying a 5th generation fighter from China or Russia?

See satire

And in the case of Russia have been ordered in numbers that are very small compared to such a big country.

Giorgio N you are extremely talented with your modelling, but are you even aware of what is occurring in terms of geopolitical economics in both the Ukraine and Russia, but more importantly why? Cui bono? You? ..or Europa?

To understand the decisions behind the endorsement and funding of the overtly emergent new militarism of NATO throughout Europe, ipso facto the minuscule State of DK even buying expensive new MRFs, let alone F-35s, one first needs to understand this. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That said, discussion of the reasons behind DK's 'choice' of F-35 let alone Gen 5 sMRF purchasing is not exclusively technical, which will inevitably fall outside the remit of these forums generally as I understand it voiding probability of informed balanced discussion because to divert from either the simplistic blue pill narrative widening the scope to political or economic understanding behind the decisions will meet with the mods axe.

Ultimately, we the people or the sheeple won't be winners regardless of the outcome. To quote the irreverent George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it" whereupon I'll exit this F-35 thread on that note.

[Slater]

Is it too late to refurbish some old Drakens?

[Alan P]

A arrogantly sweeping statement for which you offer no evidence. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

Hold your horses, Biggles. The onus in this case is not on me to provide evidence to refute your conspiracy theories, but for you to present the evidence that illustrates what YOU are asserting, since it flies in the face of everything available in the public domain.

I'm happy to wait for you to provide the evidence that the F-35 is a tool of the New World Order global political conspiracy to back up these statements:

I very much doubt DK "wants" it so much as have been instructed that they're buying it, just like AU. NWO Realpolitik.

For the surviving sheeple it won't matter much anyway. It's lose-lose no matter the dog they back in the coming fight.

[A]re you even aware of what is occurring in terms of geopolitical economics in both the Ukraine and Russia, but more importantly why? Cui bono? You? ..or Europa?

[A]nother invented bogeyman and yet another false flag op

[W]e aren't reliant solely upon the NWO 'news' feed blue pill for 'our' perspective to always be in accord with the sanctioned narrative

But apparently this cannot happen, not from lack of evidence, but because of the Britmodeller rules of engagement.

That said, discussion of the reasons ... will inevitably fall outside the remit of these forums generally ... voiding ...informed balanced discussion because ... widening the scope to political or economic understanding ... will meet with the mods axe.

whereupon I'll exit this F-35 thread on that note.

Ok then. Edited May 15, 2016 by Alan P

[Phantom726]

The RDAF inventory of F-16s currently numbers 42 or 44 of which 30 are kept in the "operational structure". A lot of the Danish jets have already been scrapped, reduced to static exhibits, withdrawn from use etc so we are not replacing 70 F-16s with (what could be) 27 F-35s.

The number of new jets is based on the ability to maintain national sovereignty, enforce airspace, contribute to international missions etc.

The evaluation process has been going on for years and has been QC’ed by external agencies.

One of the problems with this purchase is that the money most likely will have to come from an already overstretched military budget. No additional funding will be provided as it looks right now.

Just to make sure that we at least have got the facts straight! J

[Alan P]

I agree. I think I never said a thing against the plane. It's potential and it's "future proof" aspect sustain the choice and justify the cost (this last to some extent only).

That's my point too: the issue is BUDGET, not the F-35, not it's costs.

But I can't conceive that European low defence budgets won't "cripple" the F-35 abilities and it being our main weapon it shall downgrade our military capability even more

That's a fair point. It could affect supply chain and logistical factors, not to mention in-service upgrades.

That said, the ALIS system is designed to be budget-friendly in managing logistical needs to those actually required and projected, rather than stockpiling items that are more likely to exceed their shelf life before being required (the principal logistical cost with legacy equipment).

The other advantage of the F-35 is that it is designed with a long service life compared to legacy fighters, and many of its projected service life upgrades are software rather than hardware. And then again there's the economies of scale that are felt further down the production run, which means that associated costs will actually fall rather than rise.

But still, a good point.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Alan P

[Latinbear]

I'm not technically qualified to assess whether the F35 is any good and better/worse than the alternatives and given the development of aerospace and electronics technology will obviously be more capable than its predecessor. That is pretty obvious even to me.

However, irrespective of how capable an aircraft/ship/tank etc is, it can't be in two places at once and ultimately numbers count.

European electorates don't seem to have much appetite for spending money on defence, Prospective Presidente The Donald clearly doesn't see why US taxpayers should continue to pick up the bulk of the tab as indicated by his views on NATO.

International politics could get a whole lot more interesting come January 2017.

[cmatthewbacon]

At the risk of venturing close to politics...

BUDGET is what (through whatever "democratic", ish system obtains) the people of a country think is reasonable to spend on defence in the context of all the other things that the voting public think is important.

COST is what the manufacturers, of the system and associated sub-systems, either a) calculate that it costs them to deliver the product, or think that they can get away with in the existing political environment in each country.

CAPABILITY is what you get when you divide the budget by the cost.

Unlike what many people will try to tell you, there is no "correct" answer to these kinds of discussions. There are only compromises, largely driven by "how much does it cost to be able to do the things that we think that we are likely to need to do, be asked to do and can't say no to, or do because we have to try and justify our perceived place in the world?"

Historically, no one has EVER got the correct answer to the question of "what do we actually need to to do the job we will need to do?" right. (See British re-armament schemes pre-39, or the bankrupting of the USSR in the 1980s, and many more). Affordable, acceptable, and more or less capable is the best that anyone will ever do...

bestest,

M.

Edited May 14, 2016 by cmatthewbacon

[Giorgio N]

On the contrary Bigglesof266, I am not a particularly talented modeller but I am very well aware of the geopolitical situation and of what is going on in and around Europe. I'm also much more aware of what you think about for example the Ukrainian crises, partly because I know people involved in what's going on on both sides (and I also know the effect of the sanctions on companies that have customers in Russia, guess how...). And it is because I'm well aware of the world geopolitical situation that I give very little importance to the kind of "reasons" you're hinting at, regardless of how much a good reading they may make. As this forum is not meant for political discussions, I'm not going into replying to your hints as it would lead to the thread being closed.

The matter is that Denmark will replace their F-16s with F-35s, no more no less. Do they need them ? It's up to the Danish government to decide this, until now and for the last 60 years they have decided that they have had a need a multirole fighter aircraft, the F-35 will fit in this tradition.

The numbers may sound low but between 30 F-16s and 27 F-35s there's not much difference in numbers while there's quite a difference in capabilities. Beside, in the timeframe that the F-35s will have to operate the F-16s would simply be too old to be safe flying machines.

Regarding the Russian and Chinese 5th generation aircrafts, sorry to have missed the satire, but I'm not too sure all others have understood it was meant as a satirical comment. And regarding the number of aircrafts bought by Russia, again I'm well aware of the geopolitical situation: Russia can't afford more, simple as that ! Everybody here complains about the reduction in numbers of the Western armed forces but the truth is that the Russian ones have been hit even harder. So much that a number of theatres where Russian soldiers operate are not declared war zones as in that way no extra allowance is due to the soldiers, so saving a bit of money...

[-Neu-]

Having once been pointy end, there's really no way of saying this any more diplomatically other than 'don't be ridiculous'. Read this. Short excerpt. "A simulation showing six F-35s versus six Sukhoi SU-35S, Indonesia’s intended future air superiority fighter choice for its air force, suggests that 2.36 Joint Strike Fighters would be lost for every SU-35S downed."

Paraphrasing Clausewitz (Vom Kriege) on superiority of numbers. "This is in tactics, as well as in strategy, the most general principle of victory". Tactically and strategically, the orchestrated entry of the USA proved that principle = true in WWI, and in conjunction with the Soviet Union doing most of the dying for them, in WWII. It's going to be no different in the cataclysm now forming. The players' names and the tools change, but the game is the same. The 'winners' (oxymoron) will be 'those with the mostest who can last the longest' as always.

I very much doubt that the Danish people want to even be playing this game any more than the Swedes really 'want' to join NATO, let alone buy F-35s.

The articles you cite are based off of "simulations" done by Airpower Australia/Replisim, which has been discredited by subject matter experts. Their "simulator" was an professional version of harpoon 3, an open simulation game. it was clear that the assumptions they made about the F-35 were absolutely laughable in respects to accuracy, and were likely done not to actually elucidate the issue, but simply to discredit it. Here, watch for yourself what their simulation entailed:

You can see a number of serious inaccuracies, (even without pulling it apart for the underlying mechanics of the simulator, which is not a true simulator at all, but a command teaching aid.) These included the Su-35s clearly detecting the F-35s at a distance and even getting first look fire (launching eight missiles vs two for most F-35s), which is utterly ridiculous vs a low observable platform with a sensor fusion system. ITs highly simplistic as well: with aircraft modelling being based on a few dozen variables. The primary sim used by the US Government is TAC Brawler, which is an far more complex and utilizes several thousand datapoints. Simulations show 6-1 K/D ratios for the F-35.

We also have an emerging example of just how effective the F-35 could be, by observing the F-22's experience over Syria. Despite its significant interoperability limitations (ie inability to communicate with other aircraft through datalinks), F-22s are seen as a key operational driver in this area. It basically identifies threats far before other "4th generation" aircraft even perceives them, and manages the battle space for them. They keep them flying in theatre well after their ordnance has been deployed. I won't go into it much more, but even this limited capability is having major effects on the prosecution of the war, even after the Russian involvement.

None of this has anything to do with its "super-maneuverability" or any aspect of aerodynamic performance. It is purely based on its avionics. F-35s are a vastly more powerful sensor platform, incorporating an AESA array, IRST, EOTS as well as full datalinks between all link 16 equipped aircraft.

As a final point. There is a certain bit of irony that you single people like myself out as a "sheeple." I've worked in this field for over a decade, have an advanced degree in this field, and published on this area as well. Its part of my work to discover as much as I can, good and bad. I understand the underlying policies, strategies, theories. I see the criticisms and evaluate them for their perspective and validity. Coming on here and writing my opinion on the F-35 certainly is not indicative of someone being a "sheep." That would be to rag on the F-35 and call it a disaster for all of its supposed failings.

Yet your response here illustrates what is the problem I stated before: much of the criticism aimed at the project is predicated upon flimsy evidence largely intended to elicit a media response. Repsim's simulation was very quickly called out for being an extremely shoddy effort, and yet its continuing to be cited by individuals as being an accurate view on the subject. I've literally poured thousands of hours of work into this subject, and while I certainly know there are problems with the aircraft, they are far more manageable and less dire than people would lead you to believe.

Edited May 15, 2016 by -Neu-

[Alan P]

[Procopius]

As a final point. There is a certain bit of irony that you single people like myself out as a "sheeple." I've worked in this field for over a decade, have an advanced degree in this field, and published on this area as well. Its part of my work to discover as much as I can, good and bad. I understand the underlying policies, strategies, theories. I see the criticisms and evaluate them for their perspective and validity. Coming on here and writing my opinion on the F-35 certainly is not indicative of someone being a "sheep." That would be to rag on the F-35 and call it a disaster for all of its supposed failings.

[Shane]

I very much doubt DK "wants" it so much as have been instructed that they're buying it, just like AU. NWO Realpolitik.

Evidence, or is this just bullsh!t

Shane

[Phantom726]

The three candidates for the new RDAF fighter were evaluated on four main focus areas with a lot of sub-evaluations, these four being Strategic, Military, Financial and Industrial. In all areas but the first, the three fighters ranked with the F-35 first, Super Hornet second and Eurofighter third. In the strategic evaluation the F-35 came first again with the Eurofighter second.

Despite a lower flyaway unit cost for the two 4th generation fighters, the total cost (acquisition, maintenance etc.) seen over a 30 year life span changes the overall picture. Based on the RDAF requirement for airframe availability, training, upgrade programs etc. the recommended number of aircraft to be required looks as follows:

F-35: 28 plus two attrition

Eurofighter: 34 plus one attrition

Super Hornet: 38 plus two attrition

The 27 airframes mentioned deviates from that recommended by the military evaluation but that's most likely due to political reasons.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Phantom726

[PattheCat]

I'm not a technician, nor an analyst, I don't even have a college degree, so I look at such subjects with

the eye of an "average" citizen (and so, tax payer).

As I said in a former post, I am not against the F-35, as I consider it as the the best "technically" IMHO.

So, what's still bothering me? Simple answer , will I get the best for my country, for our soldiers, for my money.

- in all large public procurements, total costs nearly always exceed previsions and offers: nobody can guarantee a TOTAL life cost.

- the nature and public visibility of the project makes it a political matter, so that the pro and cons are (mis)used to become political arguments: influence on NON RATIONAL elements on a choice we can't completely afford and thus leading to possible deployment of a SUBOPTIMAL system

- the sheer size of the project so the "we can't fail or we're done", "we can't afford any more delays" comes into play: delivery of an UNFINISHED product (and having to use it in a hostile situation, putting more at risk our money and personnel's LIVES).

- the complexity of a new technology (ALIS),if it really has no backup/redudancy (consequence of point above?): the major asset can be the greatest WEAKNESS.

But when all is said and done, what I'm sure of - don't even think of it as an argument, but as what I want to say to our leaders - it's that IF the F-35 IS the best way to BRING OUR MEN BACK SAFE, then **** the price, but please consider first all that's to be done about and around it and be ready to do everything that's needed to make it work at it's very best.

With this last said, I'll stop repeating myself.

Edited May 16, 2016 by PattheCat

[Albeback52]

27 aircraft? That's simply ridiculous. What is the point? I appreciate the Cold War was on at the time but they ordered around 70 F16s which is a more meaningful number.

The Dutch are only taking 36 (I think) F35s which again IMHO is absurd compared to the number of F16s that they had and the Netherlands is not an insignificant country.

Lest anyone think I'm only having a go at our Continental friends I don't think the size of the RAF not to mention lack of current fixed wing FAA aircraft is anything to be proud of.

Without wishing to start a political debate (I mean that most sincerely folks) if The Donald does become El Presidente his view that the European members of NATO need to do rather more when it comes to funding their share of the defence burden might start to be taken seriously.

And how many precisely has the UK actually ordered? Only a small fraction of the 138 planned & I very much doubt that small fraction will increase. Were we not also supposed to buy 232 Typhoons but ended up with less than 140? We should look to ourselves before we condemn the Danes. Economic and political reality rules. The prospect of a President Trump horrifies me but, perhaps he might like to provide the money for European NATO members to increase military spending? Because it won't happen otherwise. Not disagreeing with your comment but,at a time of economic stringency, governments have other priorities and, losing votes by increasing military spending while closing hospitals and slashing social benefits etc is NOT a priority.

Sorry to be so cynical but, that is simple reality.

Allan

Edited June 5, 2016 by Albeback52