Jump to content

Denmark wants F-35


Slater

Recommended Posts

Looks like only 27 aircraft, which is one or two squadrons (depending on how many aircraft constitute a squadron, plus attrition spares).

Would Gripen have been a viable option for them?

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

Interesting. According to the Danes: "In terms of survivability and mission effectiveness, the Super Hornet does slightly better than

the Eurofighter."

Edited by Slater
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't. The low-viz roundels are already taken by the British. :analintruder:

Nils

Well they will have to have High Viz markings then and a welcome change that would make too!

Martin

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

I'll give an example using Canada, where we originally bought 140 CF-18s, and are considering buying 65 F-35s (a similar ratio). In 1991 we sent 24 CF-18s to fight in the Gulf War. We had no PGM capability, and their ability to strike targets in low light, cloudy and smoke filled conditions was poor at best: not good. In 1999 we participated in Kosovo, with a total of 18 aircraft carrying an essentially juryrigged Paveway system (laser guided bombs). Wasn't very good but it worked: 1/2 of our weapons deployed were guided. CF-18s were better before, but left much to be desired. In more recent conflicts we've been sending a "six pack" of CF-18s, all with an upgrade that allows them to deploy JDAMs and other modern USAF ordnance. All our weapons are guided and we have very good results in all weather types with limited collateral damage.

The F-35 really goes that much further. It can do its own ISR work using onboard and offboard sensors, and deliver very precise effects. Six aircraft could deliver more ordinance effectively than Twenty four of the "same" aircraft twenty years before. So you don't need 70 aircraft; 27 will be able to carry out the same role as the hordes of F-16s before them.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sounds reasonable and convincing. One lingering doubt is: does 250% greater effectiveness also include 250% better serviceability?

I do not know anything about this aspect. Just noting that, when you move to very small numbers, things do not scale linearly: in the end it's either 1 or 0.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any plane can only be in one place at one time( unless the pilot is Dr Who and flying the TARDIS) Also, it will not take long with such low numbers for an air force to be depleted to the point of ineffectiveness, remember, the enemy will also have stealth planes, that tech gap we once enjoyed is all but gone.

The only answer is more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear the argument that fewer aircraft are required as they are more capable than those they replace

I also recall a certain Georgian saying that numbers have a quality all of their own and proving it in 1945

Which is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't need 70 aircraft; 27 will be able to carry out the same role as the hordes of F-16s before them.

So why where the more advanced Me-262 an He-163 not able to wipe off the skies hordes of less efficient Mustangs, Thunderbolts and B-17's? Just because there where too many to face at the same time. If you want to keep the edge given by a stealth plane, you may only take internal weapons. So what, 2 guided bombs and two air-to-air missiles. Even with a 100% kill ratio of your AA weapons , all I've got to do is send 3 planes for 1 F-35 and 1 shall get through.

These are not real calculations for sure, and indeed they don't take into account all the support chain, better intel, command, control, communications and tactics, training... that can tip the balance in many situations. But do European countries have enough funds to deploy a fully integrated system, the F-35 being only a part of the equation. IMHO the answer is definitely no.

Edited by PattheCat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One big problem I have with this report is that it is not clear how much they relied upon actual flight and test data, and how much they relied upon manufacturer-supplied specs. It may well be the case that Lockheed-Martin were just better salespeople. It certainly doesn't sound like the Danish have attempted any kind of fly-off between the different fighter aircraft. I suspect if they did, their rosy evaluation of the F-35 might have to be adjusted a bit.

Regards,

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds reasonable and convincing. One lingering doubt is: does 250% greater effectiveness also include 250% better serviceability?

I do not know anything about this aspect. Just noting that, when you move to very small numbers, things do not scale linearly: in the end it's either 1 or 0.

No, but servicability will be higher due to the use of performance based logistics and new data management systems like ALIS. I'll give another example to illustrate that. Right now Canada has a total effective strength of around 70 CF-18s. Now the reality is that at least 20 are on some sort of maintenance, and a dozen or so are for training: so really we only have 40 plausibly operational CF-18s, and even then its really only a few dozen that are ready to fly at a moment's notice.

With an F-35, the aircraft are basically set at an availability level, and the contractor guarantees' that level of availability. Typically that will be around 80~90%. It is much more efficient, and newer way to run aircraft maintenence for the military. In reality it reflects the civil aircraft industry's basic operating methods for the past 20 some years.

The proof of this is visible in the Danish analysis. There you'll see that they had 27 F-35s being compared to 36 Super Hornets. Part of this is due to the fact that SHs have only 6000 airframe hours compared to 8,000 for the F-35. However the biggest difference is that the F-35 (as in Canada) that they needed far fewer training aircraft, as they could use operational aircraft to complete flight training, and do away with twin seaters altogether. Using synthetic training environments, as well as the opportunity to take advantage of the Partner's joint training center at Luke AFB alters the calculus of the numbers.

Any plane can only be in one place at one time( unless the pilot is Dr Who and flying the TARDIS) Also, it will not take long with such low numbers for an air force to be depleted to the point of ineffectiveness, remember, the enemy will also have stealth planes, that tech gap we once enjoyed is all but gone.

The only answer is more.

That basically assumes that your opponent is basically has the same number of aircraft with greater capability, which is not the case: the Russians and Chinese are also decreasing the number of aircraft and flying fewer, higher quality aircraft. Moreover those 70 F-16s today would be blotted out of the sky within minutes in any sort of threat environment.

Edit: forgot a quick point. The F-35 does have a superior sensor system to all of these points. 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.

Edited by -Neu-
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why where the more advanced Me-262 an He-163 not able to wipe off the skies hordes of less efficient Mustangs, Thunderbolts and B-17's? Just because there where too many to face at the same time. If you want to keep the edge given by a stealth plane, you may only take internal weapons. So what, 2 guided bombs and two air-to-air missiles. Even with a 100% kill ratio of your AA weapons , all I've got to do is send 3 planes for 1 F-35 and 1 shall get through.

I'm sorry but that's a terrible example. The Luftwaffe probably never had anything more than 50 operational fighters of both types at any time, versus 1000+ aircraft in a single raid... most of these were crewed by pilots with less than 50 hours of flight experience, compared to an average of 1,000 for most allied pilots going though the BCATP or USAAF systems. The only way that you would actually see such an ratio today was if the Danes went straight up against the Russians alone, with no help at all.... which is utterly implausible. Also with a Danish decision, they will get a Block 4 F-35s, which means in an air to air role they will have six AAMs.

One big problem I have with this report is that it is not clear how much they relied upon actual flight and test data, and how much they relied upon manufacturer-supplied specs. It may well be the case that Lockheed-Martin were just better salespeople. It certainly doesn't sound like the Danish have attempted any kind of fly-off between the different fighter aircraft. I suspect if they did, their rosy evaluation of the F-35 might have to be adjusted a bit.

Regards,

Jason

For all three options the danes had access to government data... including the F-35A which is basically completing its last few months of flight tests. That data can't really be falsified: that's partly the result of the Lockheed Bribery scandals of the 1970s. That's actually been to the disadvantage of the F-35 in a number of cases. In the Korean competition, LM could not artificially decrease the aircraft's purchase price by recouping costs on inflated service contracts, like Boeing could with the F-15K. This was because it was an active US government program, and they were bound by US law.

Also, pilots who have flown the F-35 and the maintainers are adamant about the advantages it provides. This just came out a few days ago, and it basically reflects the growing sentiment on the aircraft's capabilities.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/air-force-officials-weigh-f-165300719.html

Edited by -Neu-
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Neu- you remind me of a schoolteacher trying to teach algebra to a class who haven't learned ABC's yet. It's admirable but futile.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the value of numbers vs quality: think Omdurman. As to the WW2 example, neither the Me163 nor He162 were more efficient than the P-51. Forget the "oh wow! jets!" factor, both were so short-ranged as to be actually pretty useless, and both were positively dangerous to their own pilots.

As for spending more: bear in mind the comparative costs of an F-16 and an F-35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The historical analogies are interesting however there are as many examples one way as the other. Personally I suspect we won't find out just how good the F35 is until it's been tested in a real shooting war against similar opposition. So let's hope this debate continues for a very long time to come and we look back when it goes off to museums and is used for fire and crash practice and we still don't really know the answer

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if my questions appear a little naïve but if its that good does that make the F-22 surplus to requirement? And what happens to the plans to keep the F-15E flying beyond 2040 because the cost of the F-22 was prohibitive? Sometimes when you read some of the information released it appears that the F-35 is a project to big to be allowed to fail bit like the Eurofighter seemed at times.

Seems like the Fighter Mafia lost the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Actually I would have thought that its a scenario that's creeping back up the agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if my questions appear a little naïve but if its that good does that make the F-22 surplus to requirement? And what happens to the plans to keep the F-15E flying beyond 2040 because the cost of the F-22 was prohibitive? Sometimes when you read some of the information released it appears that the F-35 is a project to big to be allowed to fail bit like the Eurofighter seemed at times.

Seems like the Fighter Mafia lost the war.

The Fighter Mafia never really had a case. Their theory grew from the early 70s but had already been quashed when the first true multi role fighters began to emerge during the 80s.

Today the F-35 will form the first international commitment to introduce the true potential of 5th Gen capability. The F-22 was not designed to be a multi role strike fighter, but an air superiority platform. There is no reason why both it and the F-15 shouldn't continue in this role as a replacement is not in development. (Not in the human-piloted world at least.)

Realistically, the F-35 will be the first of its kind. The commitment to build 2400 of them spread across many NATO allies (and eventually beyond) ensures a commitment to 5th Gen proliferation.

It isn't so much a project too big to fail, it's a colossal project that will succeed because of the investment it represents into the future of aerial combat.

Edited by Alan P
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 just described the operational concept of the F-35 to a T, especially with the last part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...