Did the Danish military fuck themselves when they decided

>>31364746
did you fuck yourself when making those threads ?

>>31364746
No

>>31364746
They have more money than brain tho.
So w/e its probably good for them.

>>31364746
probably. the aircraft as its entire logistics chain is much more expensive than what they have now, and as far as im aware, they have recieved no extra budget money. The money will have to be taken from somewhere.

>>31365043
>the aircraft as its entire logistics chain is much more expensive than what they have now

proofs are required

>>31365061
So you argue that the F-35 will mean a reduction in costs and increased flight hours and readiness for the 3500 man strong Danish air force?

>>31365061
They have 35 F16, mang.

>>31365127
I argue for you to back up your claim with numbers, not feels.

>>31365127
You made a strong assertion here >>31365043
>the aircraft as its entire logistics chain is much more expensive than what they have now
I, for one, would love to see the actual numbers on this as it would affect the US far, far more.

Will you post your source, or are you just posting memes?

No. They bought the best plane they could possibly get with more capabilities than any other. I doubt they have much AWACS capability currently.

They fucked themselves when they didn't pretend to be looking at non-US planes until the Americans gave them the "just buy our fucking planes or we'll break down and cry" discount that the Norwegians got.

The Danes say no.
If you know better than the Danes about what their military needs, you are probably making too much money in consultancy to be spending time on 4chan.

>>31365249
Correction, they have a couple AWACS planes, but the F35s will vastly increase their AWACS capabilities.

>>31364746
Due to their small budget Id say that Gripens would make more sense as their operational costs are lower (and they need less people to operate them)

Their close proximity to Russia means that they will most likely need to operate their air forse after having reccived a first strike, and here the Gripen is better as it was desigened for operating at short, shitty airbases with just a few people alive.

To me the F-35 however makes a close 2nd place.

>>31365260
>until the Americans gave them the "just buy our fucking planes or we'll break down and cry" discount that the Norwegians got.
Source? I wasn't aware the Norge got them cheaper.

>>31365272
>Due to their small budget Id say that Gripens would make more sense as their operational costs are lower (and they need less people to operate them)
What about the possibility this is a false economy, considering how much more quickly Gripens will be completely obsolete?

File: getasset.jpg (83KB, 640x254px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x254px

>>31365205
You want what, number that tells you that the F-35 is a more advanced fighter jet and as such is more expensive?

>>31365317
>You want what, number that tells you that the F-35 is a more advanced fighter jet and as such is more expensive?
I'd prefer a basic study supporting your perspective, compared to other aircraft on the CURRENT market, plus the costs of keeping the current F-16 fleet in operation. You don't compare new aircraft cost of operation against older, less capable aircraft. You compare them against other current aircraft with similar capabilities. Otherwise the systems complexity levels and numbers of "moving parts" completely fucks up the data.

Basically, the cost/benefit/opportunity analysis which the Dutch equivalent of the GAO/RAND/whatever had to have done.

Or are you just basing your assertions on generalities? Because that would be very disappointing. I was excited to see some new data.

>>31365296
A number of articles form back when it happened. Here's one that seems to cover most of it:

http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/har-skjuter-norge-ned-jas-39-gripen-6421656

US Navy: 605 mNOK/plane
Norway: 375 mNOK/plane

And the Norwegians didn't manage to calculate the life cycle cost of Gripen, didn't bother to ask the Swedes to help with it, yet in the end decided that it'd be much greater than the F35. So yeah, they had their minds made up from the start, they just wanted it to appear as if they didn't.

Of course, what remains to be seen is if the Norwegians actually get the listed price in the end (F35 sticking to budget? yeah right), but hey, it was worth a shot.

>>31365314
>What about the possibility this is a false economy, considering how much more quickly Gripens will be completely obsolete?

>Implying the RuAF will not be made up of Su-27++++++/Su-35S/MiG-29+++ for the forseable future.

Sure, they might be somewhat inferior to western fighters but they will never fight them anyway.

The Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian air force has a joint training program in the north so I guess we will find out just how outdated it is as soon as the NoAF has their F-35s.

>>31365426
How survivable is the Gripen against mobile Russian air defenses however?

>>31365399
>http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/har-skjuter-norge-ned-jas-39-gripen-6421656
>US Navy: 605 mNOK/plane
>Norway: 375 mNOK/plane
Anon, they compared the F-35A to the F-35C. That's pretty silly.

The F-35C is being built in about 1/10th the numbers of the A, and was always the most expensive variant by a good stretch.

This is why you have to take "investigative journalism" on the F-35 with a huge grain of salt. Very shitty research.

>>31365458
We'll know once the Russian air defences starts shooting at them.

Same with the F35.

>>31365399
>And the Norwegians didn't manage to calculate the life cycle cost of Gripen, didn't bother to ask the Swedes to help with it, yet in the end decided that it'd be much greater than the F35. So yeah, they had their minds made up from the start, they just wanted it to appear as if they didn't.
As I understand it, the question for the Norwegians was compatibility with US/NATO parts and service on the jets long term (the F-35 will have a much more robust long term industrial support structure), and long-term platform obsolescence. They understood that the F-35 would be relevant as a front-line fighter far, far longer than the Gripen.

>>31365426
>>Implying the RuAF will not be made up of Su-27++++++/Su-35S/MiG-29+++ for the forseable future.
If they ever get their shit together and/or manage to partner with China, they could have serious operational numbers of 5th gens up within 15 or 20 years. Either way, you don't go with good enough if you're aiming to field a front line air force, you go for the best so you don't have to replace your airforce at far more frequent intervals.

Remember that the F-16 faced similar criticisms during its sale to European powers, yet everyone has been using it to great success for 40 years now. That length of effective service makes for a good deal of benefit of the doubt for more expensive US projects when thinking about things.

They likely embarrassed themselves.

At least up in Denmark the fuel will be cool enough for it to take off.

>>31365540
While you are not wrong I doubth that the Gripen is that much behind the F-35.

The F-35 is a much better deep strike aircraft but I doubth that that will be a mission the dannish air force will do.

>>31365636
>While you are not wrong I doubth that the Gripen is that much behind the F-35.

Wut. Gripen is barely a match for the F-16.

>>31365472
Something tells me that the planned maintenance costs for the C will be higher as well, due to harder wear during carrier ops. At least more inspections and down-time. I remember reading that there was quite a difference between USN and RAAF when it came to maintaining their F-18's

>>31365668
Gripen C, yes, but the E is a compleatly different story.

>>31365636
The F35 is better at literally every single job than the gripen.

>>31365741
The Gripen E is roughly equivalent to a block 52 or block 60 F-16, with much lower maintenance costs.

>>31365636
>While you are not wrong I doubth that the Gripen is that much behind the F-35.
Anon, Gripen NGs are direct and possibly slightly superior competition for F-16Es. They aren't in the same ballpark as F-35s. Not even a burger, this has just become increasingly obvious over the last couple years.

When F-15Es can't even detect it, much less touch it, and are basically baby seals flying against it, I'm really not sanguine about a Gripen performing well against it.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/
>However, the “zero losses” may simply mean that the F-35s were able to complete their assigned strikes without being shot down by the aggressors of the Red Air: considered that the F-15Es were probably equipped with the AN/APG-82 AESA radar and the Sniper ATP (Advanced Targeting Pod), the fact that the Strike Eagles performing DCA (Defensive Counter Air) were not able to “find” and/or “engage” the almost-IOC F-35s can be considered a huge achievement

https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/11/f-35-pilot-explains-how-he-dominated-dogfights-against-multiple-a-4-aggressors-every-time/
>The most important lesson for me personally was to see just how hard it was for the A-4s to find us, even with GCI support. We deliberately made high-risk tactical decisions to see just how far we could stretch our luck, and still remain undetected. At least for my part, this reinforced my confidence in the effectiveness of our tactics. I hope all my colleagues in the F-35 get to have the same experience as I have.
>(BFM – F-35 against A-4, might not be fair. Still, the A-4 started as the offensive part every time. At the end of each set, I was pointing at the A-4. Every time.)

>>31365741
Latest Gripen C/D are fairly comparable to Block 52 F-16s in terms of avionics and sensors, 52+ is probably slightly better. Gripen E is similarly comparable to Block 60 F-16s (granted only the UAE flies these). The F-16 still has greater payload, just by virtue of being a larger aircraft.

>>31365752
And costs 3 times as much per flight hour. I guess Gripens are better at dogfights, but that doesnt matter.

>>31365764
The Block 52 F-16 does not have a rotatabe AESA, does not have a IRST, has a worse EW system and a worse machine to human interface. It also will not supercruise, can not take of/land on a 400 meter runway and needs more than 5 conscripts and 10 minutes to be compleatly refueled and rearmed (Including missiles).

>>31365824
>And costs 3 times as much per flight hour. I guess Gripens are better at dogfights

0 for 2

>>31365797
>The F-16 still has greater payload, just by virtue of being a larger aircraft.

A Block 50 F-16 can carry 7,700 kg, wich is almost exacly as much as a Gripen E.

>>31365824
>>31365880
>The Block 52 F-16 does not have a rotatabe AESA, does not have a IRST, has a worse EW system and a worse machine to human interface
Correct. It's also almost 20 years old. The direct Gripen E competition in the F-16 line would be the Block 60/62 F-16E on the market, which very much is roughly equal, does have AESA, does have IRST, and has an arguably superior EW capability and arguably superior cockpit.

>>31365880
The Block 60 F-16 engine has an additional 2,500 lbf of thrust over the Block 50/52 engine, no public figures on it's payload but it's most likely somewhat higher than that of a Block 50.

>>31365922
>and has an arguably superior EW capability and arguably superior cockpit.
These are factors we most likely will never find out, but the thing with the Gripen is that its cockpit is built around a rather uniqe concept. Instead of the computer saying "you have x ammount of fuel left" it will tell you what airbases you can land on. These are all soft factors and may (or may not) matter. I however know that norwegian F-16 pilots was very impressed with the machine to human interface on the Gripen.

And beeing on par with the F-16 Block 60 would mean that its just as good as the Thypoon or Rafale wich isnt exacly a bad grade for a plane built by a nation with a smaller population than New York.

>>31365945
This is probably true. Its a monster of an engine. No F-15s has those do they?

>>31366027
I wouldn't say either the Gripen NG or the F-16 Block 60 is on par with either the Typhoon or Rafale. Both aircraft simply have more range, power, and payload.

The only advantage they have over the Rafale currently is wider variety in munitions and a functioning HMD (which will hopefully be fixed by the time the NG starts coming into service). I wouldn't say they have any advantage over the Typhoon at all.

>>31366087
Gripen is also the only current aircraft with the Meteor (but that will cange in a few years)

Power doesnt matter to much as they both weigh substantially more. Range and payload is however a good argument.

File: PLZ GOD SOMEONE TAKE ME HOME.jpg (98KB, 1024x814px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x814px

>>31366027
>I however know that norwegian F-16 pilots was very impressed with the machine to human interface on the Gripen.
You know they're flying 30 year old Block 40/42 machines, right? Of course they would be impressed.

>And beeing on par with the F-16 Block 60 would mean that its just as good as the Thypoon or Rafale wich isnt exacly a bad grade for a plane built by a nation with a smaller population than New York.
Nope, not bad at all. Don't get me wrong, the Gripen NG/E is a great achievement for Sweden. But it's not direct competition for the F-35, especially once you push the comparison out to 20 years down the road. If the Swedes had gotten the Gripen in service 10 years earlier, it might have held up Euro participation in the JSF project because they might have sold a lot more of them. They just missed their target market opportunity window between the F-16C/D and F-35. A lot like what happened to pic related, unfortunately.

>>31366057
>No F-15s has those do they?
It's a slight improvement over the F-15E's engines, but roughly the same ballpark.

>>31366169
Depends on who's flying them. American F-15Es are packing the F100-229. Export F15Es are the ones flying with the F110-129 (has about 400 more lbf over the 229).

File: 1472677932207.png (153KB, 737x540px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 737x540px

As an American, I think it's a capital idea.

>>31366157
>If the Swedes had gotten the Gripen in service 10 years earlier, it might have held up Euro participation in the JSF project because they might have sold a lot more of them. They just missed their target market opportunity window between the F-16C/D and F-35.

The only way that would happen would be If the cold war never ended, and then the F-35 program would most likely also have accelerated. I guess we can sell them to Africa and Asia where the low price ande ease of maintanance will be important.

>>31366169
>>31366214
Thanks

>>31366276
Kek

>>31366577
>The only way that would happen would be If the cold war never ended, and then the F-35 program would most likely also have accelerated. I guess we can sell them to Africa and Asia where the low price ande ease of maintanance will be important.
Nothing wrong with that. French military aviation left a pretty big market there now that they've stopped producing lower-cost options.

>>31366601
It isnt, but everyone wants to be up there with the cool guys dont they?

Most fighter jet sales these days comes down to politics anyway so who has the best plane isnt as relevant as it used to be sadly.