The F-35 Thread

[Hummingbird]

30 Gripens + 15 AH-64E Apaches = Danish airspace secured + effective participation in most of NATO's operations secured. (Never understood why Denmark didn't buy attack helicopters like the Dutch, esp. considering the missions we undertake internationally)

 

End price tag would probably be cheaper than the 27 F-35's proposed, and if rumors regarding a low operational availability due to heavy maintenance needs are correct then much cheaper.

 

But of course I'm just guessing, best case scenario Denmark gets a 5th gen aircraft that will eventually work as advertised and at a bargain price (half the price that Norway gets to pay). There are just so many red flags atm that I'm very sceptical.

[garrya]

It worth noting that Boeing and Eurofighter complaint about price and fly hours comparison, but neither of them complaint about the mission effectiveness and survivability rating

[Hummingbird]

It worth noting that Boeing and Eurofighter complaint about price and fly hours comparison, but neither of them complaint about the mission effectiveness and survivability rating

 

It's an area where no hard evidence is provided to substantiate the rating (1-10), thus it would be pretty hard to argue as they don't know what it's based on. But if the price and flight hour figures are anything to go by then they might as well be completely made up, at least that was the reason SAAB & Dassault didn't want to partake, they feel it's been a rigged event from the beginning.

 

I'm very excited to see what the final price tag will be, I have a feeling (and so does Norway) that 30 billion isn't nearly going to cut it.

[garrya]

It's an area where no hard evidence is provided to substantiate the rating (1-10), thus it would be pretty hard to argue as they don't know what it's based on.

I disagree , the detail of simulated scenario is quite clear

Close Air Support scenario:

Air Order Of Battle:

Eight rotary wing aircraft:

- Four Mi-8 transport helicopters.

- Four Mi-24 attack helicopters.

Four fixed-wing aircraft:

- SU-25 Frogfoot ground attack aircraft. The SU-25 is armed with: Air-to-ground munitions. 25 mm cannon. Two AA-8 Aphid air-to-air missiles.

 

Ground Order Of Battle:

Adversary forces in the vicinity of "Romeo Kilo" town bestå of a mechanized infantry brigade and two armored battalions as well as para military units in "technicals". Adversary army units operate a number of ZSU-23/4 antiaircraft artillery vehicles.

 

Missile Order Of Battle:

SAM system are attached til mechanized infantry brigade but the exact locations are unknown prior two mission start.

Radio-frequency seeking SAMs:

One SA-6,

One SA-8 thereof.

Operators are experienced. Missile systems are fitted with optical tracking devices. The exact position of the SA-6 and the SA-8 are unknown.

Mobile infrared (IR) SAM: SA-7, SA-14, SA-18 and SA-24 (vehicle mounted). IR SAM systems are udbredt distributed amongst adversary troops and can be expected in the general operating area.

 

Strike, Coordination and Reconnaissance scenario:

Air Order of Battle:

Eight rotary wing aircraft:

- Two Mi-8 transport helicopters,

- Four Gazelle light attack helicopters,

- Two Mi-24 attack helicopters.

Four fixed-wing aircraft:

- L-39 Albatros light ground attack aircraft.

Missile Order of Battle:

Radio-frequency seeking SAM:

- Two SA-eighth Operators are experienced. Missile systems are fitted with optical tracking devices. The locations of the SAM system are unknown, but deres presence can be expected in the area of ​​operations.

Mobile infrared (IR) SAM:

SA-7, SA-14, SA-13, SA-18, SA-24 (vehicle mounted), Stinger "basic".

IR SAM systems are distributed amongst adversary troops, including the position in close proximity to the Deployed home base.

 

 

Air Interdiction scenario:

Air Order Of Battle:

- Six SU-30mk. Four aircraft förväntas be airborne. The remaining two aircraft are on "ready state 15" at the Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.

- Six MiG-29 SMT. All aircraft can be expected on "ready state 30" to Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, Gardenia jammer pod.

 

Missile Order Of Battle:

Radio-frequency seeking SAMs:

- Unknown number of SA-eighth The SA-8s förväntas be distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory.

- Three SA-10th 44 Accurate locations are unknown.

- Four SA-11th Accurate locations are unknown.

- Unknown number of SA-15th The SA-15s are expected to be distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory.

Infrared seeking SAMs:

- Unknown number of SA-14

- Unknown number of SA-18,

- Unknown number of SA-24th

The Infrared seeking SAMs are distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory.

 

Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defence scenario:

Air Order Of Battle:

- Six SU-30mk. Four aircraft kan förväntas be airborne. The remaining two aircraft are on ready state 15 to "Charlie Papa" air base. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.

Missile Order Of Battle:

Radio-frequency seeking Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM):

- One SA-20 GARGOYLE battery in vicinity of "Bravo Hotel" town.

- Eight SA-11 Gadfly beskytte the SA-20th

- Unknown number of SA-22 organic two army units.

Exact positioning of the SAMs are unknown. HOWEVER, the SA-22s can be expected close to the SA-20 site for protection.

Infrared (IR) Seeking SAM:

- Unknown number of SA-14s.

- Unknown number of SA-18s.

- Unknown number of SA-24s.

The Infrared seeking SAMs are expected to be distributed army units and are located Throughout The adversary territory.

Electronic Order Of Battle:

Adversary early warning radars and ground-controlled intercept network are assumed two be intact and Capable of Providing botheration early warning and control two adversary platforms.

 

Defensive Counter Air scenario:

Air Order Of Battle:

- Six SU-30mk. The aircraft are armed with: o Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. Four PL-12 active radar missiles. SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.

- Four MiG-29 SMT. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. Four PL-12 active radar missiles. Gardenia jammer pod.

- Four SU-24 Fencer-D, The aircraft are armed with: Two AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. Guided air two ground munitions.

- One SS-N-30A cruise missile.

Electronic Order Of Battle:

- Two x SU-30mk. These aircraft are Deployed as dedicated jammer platforms. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pod, SAP-14 jammer pod.

- One IL-76 Mainstay airborne early warning platform

 

About fly hours , it can also be argued that Eurofighter and Boeing exaggerated​ the flight hours of their air crafts​ ( since you compare flight hours from third party evaluation with flight hours from producers , if you took the flight hours from LM then it likely that their flight hours value will increase as well )

Edited May 22, 2016 by garrya

[Seaeagle]

 

- Four MiG-29 SMT. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. Four PL-12 active radar missiles. Gardenia jammer pod.

 

That loadout would require 9 weapon's stations....the MiG-29SMT only has 6 :)

[Vincent90]

It's probably meant to simulate future chinese fighters (hence the PL-12), and with lack on info on those they use the MiG-29 SMT as an example.

[garrya]

That loadout would require 9 weapon's stations....the MiG-29SMT only has 6 :)

 

I suspect they want to simulate the Mig-35 , Also Mig-29 has 7 weapon station

Edited May 22, 2016 by garrya

[Seaeagle]

It's probably meant to simulate future chinese fighters (hence the PL-12), and with lack on info on those they use the MiG-29 SMT as an example.

 

LOL....good one Vincent90.

 

So the scenario illustrates a likely future Danish assault on China.

[Seaeagle]

I suspect they want to simulate the Mig-35

 

I suspect they don't have a crap clue :D

 

Also Mig-29 has 7 weapon station

 

No it has 6 weapon's stations - the centerline station is strictly for fuel.

[garrya]

 

 

No it has 6 weapon's stations - the centerline station is strictly for fuel.

 

I know fighter dont carry AAM at centerline station but Mig-29 should be able to carry ECM pod at the centerline station ( just like most fighter )

[Hummingbird]

I disagree , the detail of simulated scenario is quite clear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About fly hours , it can also be argued that Eurofighter and Boeing exaggerated​ the flight hours of their air crafts​ ( since you compare flight hours from third party evaluation with flight hours from producers , if you took the flight hours from LM then it likely that their flight hours value will increase as well )

 

You don't understand, the point is we don't know how kampflykontoret arrived at those exact figures, and it has all become very suspect once it was revealed that they had botched up the flight hours & procurement prices so badly - esp. since they themselves claimed that the figures were based directly on info recieved from the manufactureres themselves, something Boeing proved was categorically false at the hearing last thursday.

 

It will be interesting to hear what Eurofighter has to say on the matter next thursday.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

I suspect they don't have a crap clue :D

 

Based on the other mistakes they've made that doesn't seem out of place atm.

 

Alone the fact that they calculated lifetime costs to be half as much as what the Norwegians estimated is enough to warrant that the entire process be scrutinized for signs of foul play - just as the swedes did with regards to the AgustaWestland cases.

[Bushmanni]

For comparison it's important that the flight hours are comparable ie. calculated the same way. The figures in the report might be comparable or not but until it's made sure they are comparing them is pointless. Essentially Boeing or Eurofighter consortium changing their numbers based on Danish needs could be an effort to skew the numbers for their benefit or make them more comparable to counter bias.

[Hummingbird]

Just in:

 

Kampflykontoret just made a quick re-calculation based on Boeing's hearing and now they're saying denmark would need 30 F-18's to cover their needs instead of the previous 38. However this time they're using the number of 8,000 hours (same as for the F-35), not the 9,500 hours listed by Boeing, claiming in the process that the last 1,500 hours would have no influence on the calculations (?!)

 

Things are starting to become quite ridiculous.

[garrya]

You don't understand, the point is we don't know how kampflykontoret arrived at those exact figures,

Well , they know the exact scenario that was being simulated , while it true that mission effectiveness rating is hard to analyse , something like survivability (low lost ratio) rating should be quite obvious , if Eurofighter and Boeing feel like their platform would be more survivable than F-35 in whatever scenario presented then they would have said it , very unlikely that they would have let it slip by

 

and it has all become very suspect once it was revealed that they had botched up the flight hours & procurement prices so badly - esp. since they themselves claimed that the figures were based directly on info recieved from the manufactureres themselves, something Boeing proved was categorically false at the hearing last thursday.

I didnt pay attention to the price but as far as i understand the F-35 only cheaper because Denmark think they only need to buy a smaller number of F-35 compared to F-18F and EF-2000 ? that seem understandable , About the fly hours ,I think it pretty much depending on how Denmark gonna use their fighters , if they want their fighter to carry heavy load out a lot then obviously the flight hours will be less than what producers estimated , there is nothing to say that F-35 flight hours estimation isnt also lower than number from LM. When they said they used number from producers that could mean anything : either they picked the exact number ( reasonable assumption ) or they used the number to estimate the value that fit with their case ( also reasonable assumption since not all countries use aircraft the same way )

Edited May 23, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

For comparison it's important that the flight hours are comparable ie. calculated the same way. The figures in the report might be comparable or not but until it's made sure they are comparing them is pointless. Essentially Boeing or Eurofighter consortium changing their numbers based on Danish needs could be an effort to skew the numbers for their benefit or make them more comparable to counter bias.

 

great point

[Hummingbird]

Well , they know the exact scenario that was being simulated , while it true that mission effectiveness rating is hard to analyse , something like survivability (low lost ratio) rating should be quite obvious , if Eurofighter and Boeing feel like their platform would be more survivable than F-35 in whatever scenario presented then they would have said it , very unlikely that they would have let it slip by

 

Again no details are given at all, thus we can't be sure they didn't botch up those figures from the beginning as well.

 

I didnt pay attention to the price but as far as i understand the F-35 only cheaper because Denmark think they only need to buy a smaller number of F-35 compared to F-18F and EF-2000 ? that seem understandable , About the fly hours ,I think it pretty much depending on how Denmark gonna use their fighters , if they want their fighter to carry heavy load out a lot then obviously the flight hours will be less than what producers estimated , there is nothing to say that F-35 flight hours estimation isnt also lower than number from LM. When they said they used number from producers that could mean anything : either they picked the exact number ( reasonable assumption ) or they used the number to estimate the value that fit with their case ( also reasonable assumption since not all countries use aircraft the same way )

 

No we're talking unit price here, kampflykontoret somehow arrived at a lower procurement and lifetime price pr. unit for the F-35 than for the other aircraft, that alone mystifies many as its known that esp. the F-18 features a cheaper fly away cost and it isn't known to be particularly maintenance heavy, esp. not operating from land.

 

What is really suspicious though as that Norway estimates a procurement & lifetime cost pr. F-35 that is double that estimated by kampflykontoret.

 

Atm SAAB & Dassault seem to have a point that the "competition" is just for show and that its been rigged from the start.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Hummingbird

[garrya]

Again no details are given at all, thus we can't be sure they didn't botch up those figures from the beginning as well.

They given exactly details of the adversary force, how many aircraft, SAM the enemy have, what kind of weapons they carried. TBH i dont think it cant get any more detail than that.

 

 

No we're talking unit price here, kampflykontoret somehow arrived at a lower procurement and lifetime price pr. unit for the F-35 than for the other aircraft, that alone mystifies many as its known that esp. the F-18 features a cheaper fly away cost and it isn't known to be particularly maintenance heavy, esp. not operating from land.

The report says that the Unit Recurring Fly-away (URF) cost is lower for the Super Hornet than for the F-35A. But as you have to buy a full initial package for the Super Hornet the price becomes $122M and it is an APUC, while the F-35A procurement price in the report is an URF. The other initial costs for the F-35A are found in the sustainment part and has not disappeared. It is about accounting and not what equal-for-equal costs.

 

 

What is really suspicious though as that Norway estimates a procurement & lifetime cost pr. F-35 that is double that estimated by kampflykontoret.

This is quite confusing , so people don't like it when Denmark used EF-2000 cost number from German instead of producers but they also don't like it when F-35 cost not comming from another country ?

 

btw, are you sure Norway estimation is double? iam skeptical of that

Atm SAAB & Dassault seem to have a point that the "competition" is just for show and that its been rigged from the start.

Do you have source for these? did Saab and Dassault said the Competition is rigged so they dont participate ?

[Emu]

Do you have source for these? did Saab and Dassault said the Competition is rigged so they dont participate ?

I'm not sure Dassault have ever competed in a bid against the F-35.

 

What I don't understand is how the EF beat the F-18F on SEAD survivability but was worse on CAS survivability. One way or another, that doesn't make sense. To date the EF doesn't even have an ARM wrt the effectiveness scores too. Then the F-16 beats them both on SCAR survivability??

 

* NTISR: non-traditional intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (sea surveillance, anti-drug or piracy, rescue mission etc).

* SCAR: strike coordination and reconnaissance (such as the mission of searching and hunting ISIS target in a densely populated city).

* CAS: close air support (Thunderbolt-styled jobs).

* DCA: defensive counter air (Fighting with Su-30SM, Su-35, T-50 etc).

* AI: air interdiction (Bombing Russia).

* SEAD/DEAD (The Hunt for Red S300/400/500).

 

Scoring of survivability for the different missions (5.0 as the highest grade):

* F-35A: NTISR 5.0，SCAR 5.0，CAS 5.0，DCA 5.0，AI 4.0，SEAD/DEAD 4.0; Average: 4.7

* EF-2K: NTISR 5.0，SCAR 4.5，CAS 3.5，DCA 3.0，AI 1.0，SEAD/DEAD 2.0; Average: 3.2

* F-18F: NTISR 5.0，SCAR 4.5，CAS 4.5，DCA 3.0，AI 1.0，SEAD/DEAD 1.0; Average: 3.2

* F-16C: NTISR 5.0，SCAR 5.0，CAS 2.0，DCA 1.0，AI 1.0，SEAD/DEAD 1.0; Average: 2.5

 

Scoring of effectiveness for the different missions (5.0 as the highest grade):

* F-35A: NTISR 4.3，SCAR 3.3，CAS 3.6，DCA 3.6，AI 5.0，SEAD/DEAD 5.0; Average: 4.2

* EF-2K: NTISR 2.7，SCAR 2.3，CAS 2.7，DCA 3.0，AI 2.0，SEAD/DEAD 2.0; Average: 2.4

* F-18F: NTISR 3.3，SCAR 3.0，CAS 3.3，DCA 2.0，AI 2.0，SEAD/DEAD 2.0; Average: 2.6

* F-16C: NTISR 2.3，SCAR 2.7，CAS 2.3，DCA 1.0，AI 1.0，SEAD/DEAD 1.0; Average: 1.7

Edited May 23, 2016 by Emu

[Seaeagle]

I know fighter dont carry AAM at centerline station but Mig-29 should be able to carry ECM pod at the centerline station ( just like most fighter )

 

No the centerline station is not "wired" to the WCS, its purely for the centerline tank.

 

They given exactly details of the adversary force, how many aircraft, SAM the enemy have, what kind of weapons they carried. TBH i dont think it cant get any more detail than that.

 

The lack of detail is not with the scenarios, but with how the performance of the different candidates are evaluated in them and how they arrive at their conclusions.

[Fer_Fer]

I'm not sure Dassault have ever competed in a bid against the F-35.

 

What I don't understand is how the EF beat the F-18F on SEAD survivability but was worse on CAS survivability. One way or another, that doesn't make sense. To date the EF doesn't even have an ARM wrt the effectiveness scores too. Then the F-16 beats them both on SCAR survivability??

 

Dassault competed against the F-35 both in Japan and Netherlands bids.

 

For the Dutch, its pretty much accepted that bidding was nothing more then legalizing a deal that had been struck beforehand. (Wikileaks basically had several Cables that indicate that the decision was made prior to the bid being launched), not to mention exact requirements for that bid changed 3 times.

(Must be able to penetrate airspace with SEAD assets and NATO allied support, to, must be capable of penetrating heavily defended airspace with no support and remain undetected).

[Hummingbird]

They given exactly details of the adversary force, how many aircraft, SAM the enemy have, what kind of weapons they carried. TBH i dont think it cant get any more detail than that.

 

 

Again it's not the scenarios its the figures used to gauge the performance of the aircraft IN said scenarios. We have absolutely no clue what figures they used.

 

The report says that the Unit Recurring Fly-away (URF) cost is lower for the Super Hornet than for the F-35A. But as you have to buy a full initial package for the Super Hornet the price becomes $122M and it is an APUC, while the F-35A procurement price in the report is an URF. The other initial costs for the F-35A are found in the sustainment part and has not disappeared. It is about accounting and not what equal-for-equal costs.

 

 

Initial procurement price pr. plane as estimated by kampflykontoret:

F-18 = 813 million DK

F-35 = 550 million DK

 

VERSUS

 

Generally accepted fly away cost pr. aircraft:

F-18 = ~60 million USD (~410 million DK)

F-35 (without engine) = ~90 million USD (~612 million DK)

 

See the problem?

 

To sum it up for you somehow kampflykontoret arrived at a procurement cost for the F-35 that is LOWER than the fly away cost, where'as for the F-18 they arrived at a procurement cost roughly DOUBLE that of the fly away cost. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

 

This is quite confusing , so people don't like it when Denmark used EF-2000 cost number from German instead of producers but they also don't like it when F-35 cost not comming from another country ?

 

Huh? Germany IS the producer of the EF.

 

btw, are you sure Norway estimation is double? iam skeptical of that

 

~30 billion vs ~60 billion = double.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Hummingbird

[HiJack]

~30 billion vs ~60 billion = double.

Did you take in to account that the number of aircraft's is also double?

[Hummingbird]

Did you take in to account that the number of aircraft's is also double?

 

Yes?

[HiJack]

Well, we are generally more costly on everything here in Norway, can that count for some of it?