Quoting ptrjong (Reply 49): Unless aircraft are pooled in European multinational units.

Which is even a bigger Problem for Denmark since they may not cooperate in the EU Military cooperation.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 48): Numbers mean nothing, capability counts

Of course capalbility is the important factor but only to a certain point. You cannot have a QRA of only one aircraft. With only 22 aircraft in the country international operations are going to be tough to do as the aircraft gets older and needs more maintenance. Last year we were forced to withdraw our F-16s from Iraq because of lack of operational F-16s and maintenance crew, and we have twice the number of those. I cannot see how 22 F-35s can maintain more availability than 30 Eurofighters.

/Lars

Quoting larshjort (Reply 51): Of course capalbility is the important factor but only to a certain point. You cannot have a QRA of only one aircraft. With only 22 aircraft in the country international operations are going to be tough to do as the aircraft gets older and needs more maintenance. Last year we were forced to withdraw our F-16s from Iraq because of lack of operational F-16s and maintenance crew, and we have twice the number of those. I cannot see how 22 F-35s can maintain more availability than 30 Eurofighters. /Lars

If you need a certain number of airframes, you must buy this number. If the money available is not enough when buying one type, you can not buy this type. The tender should have defined a minimum number of frames that need to be in Denmark.

Quoting larshjort (Reply 51): I cannot see how 22 F-35s can maintain more availability than 30 Eurofighters.

It is about needed hours over the jets lifetime, not day to day availability. In this case, it would take 30 EF-2000 to achieve the same hours 22 F-35s would provide. But the numbers the Danish government used for the F-35 is extremely low balling the F-35. Their report gives all the competing jets 6000 hours, while the current estimated airframe lifetime for the F-35A from Lockheed is 26000 hours, and the EF-2000 is 11000 in the Danish service profile (ie no real combat).

Quoting larshjort (Reply 51): Of course capalbility is the important factor but only to a certain point. You cannot have a QRA of only one aircraft. With only 22 aircraft in the country international operations are going to be tough to do as the aircraft gets older and needs more maintenance. Last year we were forced to withdraw our F-16s from Iraq because of lack of operational F-16s and maintenance crew, and we have twice the number of those.

Not quite, Denmark has only 30 F-16s in service today.

Quote: Denmark sought bids on 24, 30 and 36 aircraft. These numbers are substantially lower than Denmark’s initial ambition to acquire up to 48 aircraft at the outset of the acquisition program in 2005. The DAF’s front-line fighter fleet currently has 30 operational F-16s.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ce-strain-defense-budget/79169716/

As for the minimum number of airframes required, the following is direct from the Danish Government.

Quote: One of the more interesting points which came out in the hearing was the request that the Defense Minister define the bare minimum of aircraft necessary to perform peacetime “sovereignty” tasks. He did not respond at the hearing but did so later in writing. According to an article by Steffen McGhie published on May 26, 2016, the Minister’s response was highlighted and discussed. If Denmark gives up sending fighter jets on international missions and only focuses on defense readiness against foreign fighter in Danish airspace, the Air Force requires just 15 fighter aircraft. “The number of new fighter aircraft for the solution of the national peacetime tasks depends on the choice of the type of aircraft. For the Joint Strike Fighter would require a minimum of 15 aircraft. It is noted that defense readiness alone is a national peacetime task and does not therefore include the possibility of deployment of fighter aircraft in crisis and war-like scenarios, either nationally or internationally,” wrote Defence Minister Peter Christensen (V) in a reply to the parliamentary defense committee. Thus the defense minister sets a floor for the ongoing political negotiations on the number of fighter aircraft, if Denmark is to remain able to use fighter jets to the enforcement of sovereignty. However, it is unlikely that the number of fighter aircraft lands on 15. None of the parties in defense of conciliation will talk of dropping the possibility of using fighter aircraft as a tool in the activist foreign policy, which Denmark has pursued since the Gulf War in 1990. The lowest bid prior to settlement negotiations circuit sounds of 18 and a maximum of 24 fighter planes from SF’s Holger K. Nielsen. At the opposite end of the scale, the Conservative Rasmus Jarlov announced that Denmark should preferably have 40 fighters and at least 30.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-danish-pa...nd-the-new-fighter-moving-forward/

Quoting seahawk (Reply 52): If you need a certain number of airframes, you must buy this number. If the money available is not enough when buying one type, you can not buy this type. The tender should have defined a minimum number of frames that need to be in Denmark.

It did. The number was defined by the requirements to meet QRA, train and maintain currency of sufficient pilots and maintain I think 4 aircraft deployed on operations essentially indefinitely.

Then 22 F-35 will do.

Denmark has officially agreed to buy 27 F-35A joint strike fighters to replace its fleet of aging F-16s.

Quote: The selection puts an end to Denmark’s delayed fighter modernization decision that was in its early stages in 2010 before economic issues forced Copenhagen to hit the pause button. It was officially re-launched in 2013, now eyeing only 30 fighters instead of the planned 48. The news was not unexpected, as the government in early May had announced its recommendation to buy 27 F-35A models at a rate of 20 billion Danish Kroner, or about $3 billion. However, competitors hoped questions about Danish price estimates might scuttle the F-35 buy.

Source
http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...rma-joint-strike-fighter/85640718/

The decision reached last Thursday is that 21 will be ordered now and a further 6 will be ordered at a later date.
It took less than 1½ for the parties to agree. The conservative party (a government support party) was asked to leave the negotiations and are no longer part of the defense budget agreement for the first time since the 1920ies.

/Lars

Oh jeez I actually believed they would order 27 straight away and not 21+6.

I already thought the order of 27 was a joke, but now it's almost non existing. In my opinion it would have been ideal with around 50 and that is without touching the rest of the defense budget.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 5): Oh jeez I actually believed they would order 27 straight away and not 21+6. I already thought the order of 27 was a joke, but now it's almost non existing. In my opinion it would have been ideal with around 50 and that is without touching the rest of the defense budget.

The only way that would happen is if the budget was funded to the same extent that it was during the early 80s when Denmark was buying F-16s. They had a Defence budget approx 2.5-2.8% of GDP which went back to 2.2% of GDP by the middle/late 80s and but has been at approx 1.4% of GDP for the last 15 years. Denmark was typically the lowest per GDP spender on Defence in NATO, bar Luxemburg, so this purchase just continues that trend of lower funding.

Yes it's embarrassing how little funding the military has been receiving for the last many years. It's like the politicians expect someone else to come and save us when the sh** hits the fan. Truly a disgraceful development and we are not living up to the NATO commitment of spending 2% of our GDP on defense.

Boeing are already complaining about the figures used (eg using figures for the two seat hornet instead of the 1 seater, using much lower airframe life expectancy etc), making the aircraft 50-100% more exspensive than their own estimates
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... af419.html

Boeing now formally protests against Denmark's F-35A decision.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releas ... tem=129769

oeing [NYSE: BA] took the first step toward bringing a formal legal challenge of the Danish Ministry of Defence’s evaluation regarding the country’s next fighter jet.

Boeing submitted to the Ministry of Defence a Request for Insight, which requires the Ministry to provide all materials related to the fighter procurement evaluation and decision announced in June. The Ministry of Defence and its New Fighter Program Office did not recommend the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, a decision that the company believes was the product of a flawed evaluation process.

“As we said when the decision was announced, we believe the Ministry’s evaluation of the competitors was fundamentally flawed and inaccurately assessed the cost and capability of the F/A-18 Super Hornet,” said Debbie Rub, vice president and general manager, Boeing Global Strike. “We’re taking this step because there’s too much at stake for Denmark and, potentially, other countries considering the Super Hornet.”

I missed the news on this when it was awarded, but saw the update this morning. It would not have been at all a surprise to see the F-35 win due to a scoring emphasis on survivability, future capabilities, domestic work benefits, etc.

Cost though? I had to know more about that, and found this article, which also links to the English-language report that's been linked upthread:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /84613000/

Unsurprisingly, they concluded they would need more F-18's to meet their defense needs than F-35's: 38 vs.28. I partially see Boeing's argument, because the basis of that is not that they would need more F-18's to be as combat effective (which would be a reasonable claim, in my opinion), but simply because of the lower design life (in fact: 8000 hours * 28 F-35's / 6000 hours ~= 38 F-18's). However, Boeing's 9500 hour claim is based on a SLEP that they are still in the process of developing with the USN. The baseline is 6000 hours, and Lockheed could likewise claim the F-35 would be eligible for a future life extension, although the long-term performance of the Super Hornet airframe is obviously far better understood, so accepting their SLEP numbers should be low risk. Also, Denmark won't be subjecting their fighters to the regular catapult launches and steep, arrested landings that play a big part of the F-18's life expectancy. At a minimum, the service life ranking needs a lot more detailed consideration than "this number is bigger than that one."

The really big surprise is they claim that F-18's cost $123 million each, even though recent USN purchases have been around $70 million each, including the extra costs of the Growler configuration, which I don't think Denmark is seeking. Why would Boeing really quote such a ridiculous price on an older airframe? Or is the Danish government being dishonest to bolster the F-35 case, even though they could make a credible case for it simply based on capabilities?

Almost as surprising, they claim the F-35 would only cost $83 million each, where as the latest DoD estimates for program average costs are $102 million in 2012 dollars averaged across the projections for the full 1700+ A-models, or $128 million each if including development costs, etc (source). Lockheed claims they'll be able to bring the production costs eventually down to $85 million, but they're not there yet. Regardless, that would be an impressive $45 million per plane subsidy by US taxpayers for Denmark on the development of an aircraft they were supposed to be a "program partner" for and were granted work placement on. Some partnership! If they want their planes starting in 2022 instead of waiting until 2035 when all the real partners have all theirs, I can't imagine what rationale the real program stakeholders (among which the US DoD is at the top, not Lockheed) could have for not insisting on some form of proportional distribution of development costs.

Also arguably odd, the numbers given in the report work out to an operating and support cost of only $16,800 USD per flight hour for the F-35 (28 @ 8000 hours each), compared to $17,800 for the F-18 (38 @ 6000 hours each). The latter is similar to numbers I've seen reported by the Navy - maybe even slightly low.

The F-35 does not yet have much data, and it's all early, high cost operations. Costs have declined significantly and are expected to do so further as the reliability and maintainability are improved, but the latest figure is still $42,200 per hour for 2015. The DoD forecast for lifetime operating and support costs for the F-35 (all types) is $857 billion, which for 2443 aircraft over 8000 hours would be $43,800 per flight hour. Obviously, this includes the more complex F-35B, and the rough life of the F-35C, and it should include the forecast reductions in recurring costs. I'm less clear if it might actually include items like a life extension program, and therefore more than 8,000 hours, or inflation. Getting the F-35 below $30,000 per flight hour seems credible, but lower than the F-18 despite RAM coatings; more exotic airframe materials; the increased complexity of the beastly F135 engine, its EHA control surface actuators, and internal weapons stores; and all those extra electronic systems? I have to question that assertion.

Flight cost sources:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-421499/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -estimates

iamlucky13 wrote:

I missed the news on this when it was awarded, but saw the update this morning. It would not have been at all a surprise to see the F-35 win due to a scoring emphasis on survivability, future capabilities, domestic work benefits, etc.

You need to go back and read the first page of this thread as most of your questions have been answered.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Cost though? I had to know more about that, and found this article, which also links to the English-language report that's been linked upthread:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /84613000/

Unsurprisingly, they concluded they would need more F-18's to meet their defense needs than F-35's: 38 vs.28. I partially see Boeing's argument, because the basis of that is not that they would need more F-18's to be as combat effective (which would be a reasonable claim, in my opinion), but simply because of the lower design life (in fact: 8000 hours * 28 F-35's / 6000 hours ~= 38 F-18's).

However, Boeing's 9500 hour claim is based on a SLEP that they are still in the process of developing with the USN. The baseline is 6000 hours, and Lockheed could likewise claim the F-35 would be eligible for a future life extension, although the long-term performance of the Super Hornet airframe is obviously far better understood, so accepting their SLEP numbers should be low risk. Also, Denmark won't be subjecting their fighters to the regular catapult launches and steep, arrested landings that play a big part of the F-18's life expectancy. At a minimum, the service life ranking needs a lot more detailed consideration than "this number is bigger than that one."

The argument is not surprising but it has no factual basis. We have current experience from land based users of the classic Hornet fleet who have all have to undertake centre barrel replacements of the jet to meet the expected 8000 hour lifetime. Not only that but currently Australia is the only other operator of the SH, hence we have only their experience to go on airframe life from land based operation. What we do know is that the SH will likely leave the US fleet sometime around 2035-40. The Danes on the other hand will have to operate these aircraft for another 15-20 years beyond that and it is pretty clear that they will be the only operator of the airframe at that point. That is a massive risk factor for cost. The RAAF experience operating the F-111 clearly demonstrated that as the sole operator of an airframe, even with plenty of jets available in the boneyard, that the cost spiralled and the ability to update the airframe to modern standards was extreme. The SH would almost certainly suffer the same fate.

Compared to that, the USAF plans to operate the F-35 till 2070, preserving an upgrade and maintenance schedule past where the Danes will require it and therefore likely being significantly cheaper in the long term.

As I posted on the previous page, the Danes reversed the calculation and gave the SH more hours and the F-35A less and the F-35 still came out on top.

iamlucky13 wrote:

The really big surprise is they claim that F-18's cost $123 million each, even though recent USN purchases have been around $70 million each, including the extra costs of the Growler configuration, which I don't think Denmark is seeking. Why would Boeing really quote such a ridiculous price on an older airframe? Or is the Danish government being dishonest to bolster the F-35 case, even though they could make a credible case for it simply based on capabilities?

Almost as surprising, they claim the F-35 would only cost $83 million each, where as the latest DoD estimates for program average costs are $102 million in 2012 dollars averaged across the projections for the full 1700+ A-models, or $128 million each if including development costs, etc (source). Lockheed claims they'll be able to bring the production costs eventually down to $85 million, but they're not there yet. Regardless, that would be an impressive $45 million per plane subsidy by US taxpayers for Denmark on the development of an aircraft they were supposed to be a "program partner" for and were granted work placement on. Some partnership! If they want their planes starting in 2022 instead of waiting until 2035 when all the real partners have all theirs, I can't imagine what rationale the real program stakeholders (among which the US DoD is at the top, not Lockheed) could have for not insisting on some form of proportional distribution of development costs.

You are not comparing similar numbers. For starters, the USN may buy their SH for 70 million, but the RAAF certainly didn't. The RAAF paid upwards of US$100 million per airframe and Kuwait was expected to pay US$108 million per airframe. That is for build and delivery when the USN are still purchasing jets. Once that order stream dies up, which it pretty much has already, then the Danes would be funding production on a very low rate line that would have a lot of inefficiencies. Further to this, a SH order must be done as an FMS purchase.

Compared to that, the Danes are looking to purchase the F-35A in 2022-23 which is the lowest price point and when there will be upwards of 120+ aircraft coming out of the factory every year. The F-35 SAR (on page 41) lists prices for each of the years in that region and while that 2023-24 period is the cheapest it is not significantly cheaper than other years. Importantly, as a SDD member the Danes are not required to purchase FMS and acquire the jet at the same price as the rest of the SDD partners. Hence the US$83 million is a realistic number.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Also arguably odd, the numbers given in the report work out to an operating and support cost of only $16,800 USD per flight hour for the F-35 (28 @ 8000 hours each), compared to $17,800 for the F-18 (38 @ 6000 hours each). The latter is similar to numbers I've seen reported by the Navy - maybe even slightly low.

The F-35 does not yet have much data, and it's all early, high cost operations. Costs have declined significantly and are expected to do so further as the reliability and maintainability are improved, but the latest figure is still $42,200 per hour for 2015. The DoD forecast for lifetime operating and support costs for the F-35 (all types) is $857 billion, which for 2443 aircraft over 8000 hours would be $43,800 per flight hour. Obviously, this includes the more complex F-35B, and the rough life of the F-35C, and it should include the forecast reductions in recurring costs. I'm less clear if it might actually include items like a life extension program, and therefore more than 8,000 hours, or inflation. Getting the F-35 below $30,000 per flight hour seems credible, but lower than the F-18 despite RAM coatings; more exotic airframe materials; the increased complexity of the beastly F135 engine, its EHA control surface actuators, and internal weapons stores; and all those extra electronic systems? I have to question that assertion.

The number you are using is not correct for current F-35A operating cost. The 2016 SAR which can be found here, https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf has a per hour operating cost of 29.8K (can be found on page 91). That is 16% above the F-16 for a small fleet of aircraft with a host of different variants and concurrency mods ongoing, an airframe that is heavier, more thrust, greater payload, better sensors and all aspect stealth. I fully expect that number to come down as the F-35A fleet grows, as maintainers become more familiar with the jet and as the fleet is modified to all be the Blk 3F variant. Also many of those new systems the F-35A has have been built from the start with maintenance and ease of access in mind.

Finally, the Danes have a very good idea of what it costs them to operate the F-16 compared to what it costs the USAF. Therefore I think they have made an assessment based on their needs, compared to the needs of the USAF, and arrived at their expected operating cost. Note as well that the F-35 has a global maintenance program associated with it, which reduces overall spares holdings which for a country like Denmark will reduce their overall cost.

I doubt highly that Boeing's protest will be upheld and this seems a desperate last grasp at keeping production going, especially after the Kuwait order fell through.

Ozair wrote:

The argument is not surprising but it has no factual basis. We have current experience from land based users of the classic Hornet fleet who have all have to undertake centre barrel replacements of the jet to meet the expected 8000 hour lifetime. Not only that but currently Australia is the only other operator of the SH, hence we have only their experience to go on airframe life from land based operation.

First of all, despite the similar heritage, the classic Hornet is not the same airframe. Secondly, a major mid-service structural refit is still a tiny cost compared to the overall program. It moves the overall total cost only slightly upward. Third, the first Super Hornets to enter service are reportedly right around 6000 hours now, and being inspected to support the SLEP, so there is good data on their condition, and if the land case is worse than the naval case, I'd really, really want to see a source on that.

The RAAF experience operating the F-111 clearly demonstrated that as the sole operator of an airframe, even with plenty of jets available in the boneyard, that the cost spiralled and the ability to update the airframe to modern standards was extreme. The SH would almost certainly suffer the same fate.

A possible concern, but not stated as a basis for the decision. I'm sure the RAAF must have numbers for how their maintenance costs were trending. That could be useful information to add to this discussion.

You are not comparing similar numbers. For starters, the USN may buy their SH for 70 million, but the RAAF certainly didn't. The RAAF paid upwards of US$100 million per airframe and Kuwait was expected to pay US$108 million per airframe. That is for build and delivery when the USN are still purchasing jets. Once that order stream dies up, which it pretty much has already, then the Danes would be funding production on a very low rate line that would have a lot of inefficiencies. Further to this, a SH order must be done as an FMS purchase.

Compared to that, the Danes are looking to purchase the F-35A in 2022-23 which is the lowest price point and when there will be upwards of 120+ aircraft coming out of the factory every year. The F-35 SAR (on page 41) lists prices for each of the years in that region and while that 2023-24 period is the cheapest it is not significantly cheaper than other years. Importantly, as a SDD member the Danes are not required to purchase FMS and acquire the jet at the same price as the rest of the SDD partners. Hence the US$83 million is a realistic number.

Those other Super Hornet sales contracts, as I understood it, were inclusive of a lot more than just the aircraft, including multiple years of support, just as a realistic F-35 sales contract would. Also, the US should not agree to allow F-35 to be sold for construction cost alone until the development costs are fully accounted for (2035 or later). JSF was supposed to be a partnership, not a technology giveaway covered by the US taxpayers.

For some reason, even those in the DoD fighting to protect the F-35 from the whims of Congress aren't making the same claim you are. If you wish to credibly claim the F-35 costs less to buy than the Super Hornet, I have to insist that you bring extraordinarily compelling evidence of this extraordinary claim (GAO report or better). Short of that, I have to dismiss this claim as fiction.

The number you are using is not correct for current F-35A operating cost. The 2016 SAR which can be found here, https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf has a per hour operating cost of 29.8K (can be found on page 91).

I see that, but do not have time at the moment to dig through and verify it is calculated on the same basis as other CPFH figures are. There are several methods for calculating cost per flight hour, depending on which of the many variable and fixed costs are used, and they can vary significantly. More on that than anybody really wants to know here:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... RR1178.pdf

I doubt highly that Boeing's protest will be upheld and this seems a desperate last grasp at keeping production going, especially after the Kuwait order fell through.

I also highly doubt it, but rationale as presented basically begs Boeing to challenge it.

iamlucky13 wrote:

First of all, despite the similar heritage, the classic Hornet is not the same airframe. Secondly, a major mid-service structural refit is still a tiny cost compared to the overall program. It moves the overall total cost only slightly upward. Third, the first Super Hornets to enter service are reportedly right around 6000 hours now, and being inspected to support the SLEP, so there is good data on their condition, and if the land case is worse than the naval case, I'd really, really want to see a source on that.

Agree on the classic Hornet versus the SH differences but you are ignoring the parallels. The Canadians have the same problem as the Australians, as do the Spanish.

A SLEP is a big expense, especially if you consider it is conducted at least mid lifetime and more likely closer to 2/3 or ¾ of overall airframe life. Consider the classic Hornet centre barrel replacement again. For RAAF aircraft that cost an average of US$11 million each. Info on that can be found here, http://www.smh.com.au/national/shelving ... -49rr.html

That is just the centre barrel, it does not include other necessary updates and enhancements. The Canadians for instance were looking at new wings.

You then need to consider the ability of the jet to operate in the threat environment. Both the SH and Eurofighter were likely to require two upgrades to be relevant, the F-35 will only require one. Given there will be 2000+ F-35s flying by 2035 it is highly likely that upgrade cost will be significantly less than for either of the competitors, whose global fleets are a quarter of that today and will be significantly less by then…

Just so it is clear, the Danes gave the SH and the Eurofighter a free pass on the threat environment. The threat they tested against was SU-30MK and MiG-29SMT. Neither would be classed as 4.5Gen nor have any of the capabilities we would expect to see in a modern air battle, including AESA radar. The test should have been against a PAK-FA, J-20 or even a SU-35 that is likely to be around in 2035-40.

iamlucky13 wrote:

A possible concern, but not stated as a basis for the decision. I'm sure the RAAF must have numbers for how their maintenance costs were trending. That could be useful information to add to this discussion.

Risk was assessed in the competition. This is evidenced by the cost ranges provided for the respective platforms. I have posted the F-111 article maintenance costs on airliners.net previously but will find it again if I can. It is a clear example and plenty of other nations go through the same issue that becoming the sole operator of a type increases costs, not decreases them.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Those other Super Hornet sales contracts, as I understood it, were inclusive of a lot more than just the aircraft, including multiple years of support, just as a realistic F-35 sales contract would. Also, the US should not agree to allow F-35 to be sold for construction cost alone until the development costs are fully accounted for (2035 or later). JSF was supposed to be a partnership, not a technology giveaway covered by the US taxpayers.

The RAAF FMS contract was pretty clear that it was US$3 billion for the jets in a fly away condition, including all the ancillary costs that come with the SH, and then US$3 billion for operations, weapons, additional spares and infrastructure for the next ten years.

Purchasing the F-35A, the aircraft comes with almost all the ancillary systems already integrated and onboard the jet itself and included in the price, therefore the comparison is very valid.

iamlucky13 wrote:

For some reason, even those in the DoD fighting to protect the F-35 from the whims of Congress aren't making the same claim you are. If you wish to credibly claim the F-35 costs less to buy than the Super Hornet, I have to insist that you bring extraordinarily compelling evidence of this extraordinary claim (GAO report or better). Short of that, I have to dismiss this claim as fiction.

First, why do I need to provide additional evidence than the SAR, unless you would like me to go forward in time to 2023 and show you the fly away cost? Second, no one is claiming that today an F-35A costs less than a SH, but we are not talking about today and the Danes are not ordering for today, they are ordering for expected delivery in 2023-2025. The cost curve for the F-35A is very well understood and the benefits of producing 120+ a year from one production line is also very well understood.

Finally, consider that we are talking here about the F-35A and not the F-35C, which as a carrier aircraft is significantly more expensive.

iamlucky13 wrote:

I see that, but do not have time at the moment to dig through and verify it is calculated on the same basis as other CPFH figures are. There are several methods for calculating cost per flight hour, depending on which of the many variable and fixed costs are used, and they can vary significantly. More on that than anybody really wants to know here:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... RR1178.pdf

I have good news for you, you don’t need to dig through to verify the cost. The SAR has taken the F-16 as the baseline and made those calculations already. For your info the F-16 costs were developed in a joint effort between CAPE and the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency, so not on a whim. We could dance around different Air Forces and nations to find different CPFH all we want but the US DoD has already established the baseline and graded against it. The Danes, and many other F-16 operators, have lower flight hour costs than the USAF, but that just shows that there are ways to reduce the CPFH depending upon the requirements of the specific country and Air Force.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Also, the US should not agree to allow F-35 to be sold for construction cost alone until the development costs are fully accounted for (2035 or later). JSF was supposed to be a partnership, not a technology giveaway covered by the US taxpayers.

I didn't addres this above. That is completely incorrect. Yes the F-35 program is a full partnership and the US does not and will not recover so called dev costs from SDD partners, they all contributed to the cost of the SDD program and therefore exempt. That program also allows their respective national companies to bid on work and numerous nations have already won significantly more work than their SDD funding commitment. Non partner nations, such as Japan and South Korea who have both ordered the F-35A, are required to pay dev costs and other fees with a standard FMS purchase.

Under F-35 procurement procedures, the partners pay the same unit recurring flyaway cost as the U.S. for the aircraft that they order in each annual or (eventually) multi-year buy.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2012-02-17/lockheed-f-35-partners-wont-suffer-unduly-production-slowdown

Regardless of whatever this farce ends up with, I doubt Denmark is going to get the planned amount of whatever we buy. The funding just isn't there, and the same goes when it comes to finding the funds. The current minority government is supported by a National-Socialist party that want to increase funding for social welfare, and an ultra-Liberal party that wants to make significant cuts to the taxes. to make matters worse, the budget negotiations are on the verge of stalling, and this could be the final drop that will result in an election.
That doesn't leave much room for fighter jets. The plans have already been cut from 27 to 21 aircraft, and the cuts in the military which were to fund them have so far failed to materialize. At the same time, they need to replace the M113s and Piranha IIIs with Piranha Vs, find a replacement for the non-functional M109s, buy 900 new trucks, 36 new reconnaissance vehicles, upgrade the Leopard 2A5s, replace the EH-101 lost in Afghanistan, outfit the new frigates with missiles and Mk 45 guns and upgrade them for BMD. Sooner or later they will also need to replace the 4 Thetis class OPVs. They are even having problems recruiting new employees, aircraft mechanics in particular.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Or is the Danish government being dishonest to bolster the F-35 case, even though they could make a credible case for it simply based on capabilities?

The government is indeed dishonest. The Airbus offer included training on Luftwaffe aircraft and spares, yet the Danish government disregarded the German governments guarantee, and added another round of spares and training (plus aircraft for training) on top of the Airbus offer. They also estimate that the RDAF will be able to operate each F-35 for an average of 310 hours per year, compared to 167 hours for Norway or 165 hours for current Danish F-16s.

As a Danish taxpayer, I am not satisfied with the process. This will be yet another needlessly expensive farce like the IC4 trains, EH-101s, CL-604s, M270s or Sperwer UAVs, just to name a few. At the very best, we will have a nice shiny fleet of operational F-35s (or Typhoons/Super Hornets), but no weapons to hang under them.

VSMUT wrote:

Regardless of whatever this farce ends up with, I doubt Denmark is going to get the planned amount of whatever we buy. The funding just isn't there, and the same goes when it comes to finding the funds.

That is no surprise. We discussed already in this thread but to provide another example, the Danes military budget when they purchased the F-16 in the 1980s was above 2.5% of GDP. Today it is less than 1% of GDP.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/belgium/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
Given that you have indicated what Denmark have to purchase it is no surprise there are concerns they can't afford new fighter jets. On that point though, it wouldn't matter which airframe they chose, the question would still be about having the money to afford it.

As a Danish tax payer I have great difficulties understanding all this.

Denmark will of course never perform any military action alone. Of course we all hope that peace breaks out and our F-16 replacements will never fire in anger. That's maybe optimistic, but if we do have to participate In Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan or similar beyond 2025, then of course we should do so with hardware similar to our close NATO partners, Norway, Netherlands, Britain, and of course the USA.

All the air forces, with whom we have cooperated in anger, have chosen the F-35. How on earth can we choose to buy different? And how can we choose to buy a plane which is already going out of production, and when ours are fifteen years old, will be practically the only examples left in the world outside museums?

If the Super Hornet was a fire sale give away, which we could junk when a "superior F-35D" is ready in 2030-35, then.... But that's not the case.

As I want to see it, my government has used the Super Hornet to negotiate the best possible economic conditions for the F-35, for which they have already paid a partnership fee for participating in development during the last couple of decades. A not insignificant fee per tax payer involved, even if on the world scale it is small since Denmark will never operate more than one percent of the world's planned F-35 fleet.

I understand VSMUT's worries, even when he makes my (his?) country look like a banana republic. Military procurements have always been like he describes it. I am old enough to remember forty years ago when we bought the F-16. It was all the same political hassle year on year. And it almost came to war with Sweden because we didn't buy their much superior SAAB Viggen instead.

prebennorholm wrote:

we should do so with hardware similar to our close NATO partners, Norway, Netherlands, Britain, and of course the USA.

All the air forces, with whom we have cooperated in anger, have chosen the F-35. How on earth can we choose to buy different? And how can we choose to buy a plane which is already going out of production, and when ours are fifteen years old, will be practically the only examples left in the world outside museums?

France, Germany and Sweden are also close NATO (or EU) partners, and won't operate F-35s.

But why must it be the same jet as our partners? When was the last time we actually took advantage of the fact that we operated the same of anything as another country? Never. And that isn't set to change with the F-35 - Denmark is still planning on doing it almost completely alone.

Just look at the current deployment to Kuwait. No other F-16 operators use the same Kuwaiti base, and every single spare part, bomb and mechanic has to be flown in from Denmark. By comparison, Belgium, the Netherlands and Jordan all use a single airbase for their (very similar) F-16s.
It's the same with air transport. Rather than joining the NATO Strategic Airlift C-17 program, we go out and lease a pair of Il-76s instead.
Commonality obviously wasn't an issue when they ordered the MH-60Rs either - no other close partners use that platform. If having similar hardware was so important, we would have gotten NH-90s.

This discussion causes me to wonder one thing in particular. Does the F-35 buy reflect a desire for an aircraft optimized for air to ground, i.e., primarily offensive? Is this what Denmark sees as its role in a potential future conflict? I guess I thought air defense would be more important to Denmark. The F-35 is an aircraft optimized for US foreign policy, as in pre-emptive conflicts and a strike first mentality. Is this F-35 buy for Denmark or is it really for NATO?

For air defence it is not worse than the F-16 or SH or EF and somehow I think F-22 are out of production and Pak-Fa might not be NATO compatible.

VSMUT wrote:

France, Germany and Sweden are also close NATO (or EU) partners, and won't operate F-35s.

But why must it be the same jet as our partners? When was the last time we actually took advantage of the fact that we operated the same of anything as another country? Never. And that isn't set to change with the F-35 - Denmark is still planning on doing it almost completely alone.

Just look at the current deployment to Kuwait. No other F-16 operators use the same Kuwaiti base, and every single spare part, bomb and mechanic has to be flown in from Denmark. By comparison, Belgium, the Netherlands and Jordan all use a single airbase for their (very similar) F-16s.
It's the same with air transport. Rather than joining the NATO Strategic Airlift C-17 program, we go out and lease a pair of Il-76s instead.
Commonality obviously wasn't an issue when they ordered the MH-60Rs either - no other close partners use that platform. If having similar hardware was so important, we would have gotten NH-90s.

Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and Belgium have all cooperated in the past in defence matters. All 4 nations were the original European Participating Air Forces for the F-16, and thus were the first export customers of the type, and all four have deployed together in the past in Allied Force and Enduring Freedom.

SCAT15F wrote:

This discussion causes me to wonder one thing in particular. Does the F-35 buy reflect a desire for an aircraft optimized for air to ground, i.e., primarily offensive? Is this what Denmark sees as its role in a potential future conflict? I guess I thought air defense would be more important to Denmark. The F-35 is an aircraft optimized for US foreign policy, as in pre-emptive conflicts and a strike first mentality. Is this F-35 buy for Denmark or is it really for NATO?

No, it represents a desire for Denmark to maintain a multirole fighter force capable of performing many different missions while being able to operate alongside its international partners at the lowest possible overall cost. Every other option is either decidedly inferior or dated, or more costly than the F-35.

SCAT15F wrote:

Is this F-35 buy for Denmark or is it really for NATO?

All Danish military is meaningless as a stand-alone force. Everything is deeply integrated in NATO. It is simply 0.5% of NATO (well, maybe 0.6%).

Last time a major power decided that Denmark should not exist as an independent country, it took three hours to defeat us.

I still think a modest program to improve the F-35A's anti-air capabilities would go a long way. It honestly wouldn't take much; enable 6 AMRAAM's and 2 ASRAAM's/AIM9X to be carried internally, some weight reductions, and a thrust vectoring nozzle.

SCAT15F wrote:

I still think a modest program to improve the F-35A's anti-air capabilities would go a long way. It honestly wouldn't take much; enable 6 AMRAAM's and 2 ASRAAM's/AIM9X to be carried internally, some weight reductions, and a thrust vectoring nozzle.

The F-35 is already going to excel at BVR due to its stealth characteristics and superior sensors. Block 4 will get 6 AIM-120 internal although there is no additional room for an IR missile in the internal bays once the 6 Amraams are there.

Weight continues to drop and there is absolutely no need for a thrust vectoring nozzle. These don't provide any significant advantage to WVR performance but add weight and maintenance complexity. The F-35 already is capable of 9G and 50 AoA.

For magazine depth the solution is being funded by the AFRL which is pursuing smaller A2A missiles to increase warload on 5th gen aircraft. This makes sense given current missiles were designed for 4th gen aircraft so a new set of missiles will allow F-35 nations to maximise the stealth aircraft's strengths.

I thought the F-35 was still AoA- and G-limited?

angad84 wrote:

I thought the F-35 was still AoA- and G-limited?

Notionally. The Blk 3i software currently flown by the USAF for IOC limits the airframe to 7G. There are a number of the test fleet flying with Blk 3F though which has the full 9G envelope and the airframe has already been tested to 9.9G

Below are the limitations associated with each of the blocks.

Yeah, I knew it was something like that, couldn't remember off the top of my head.

larshjort wrote:

Current talking point is the number to be accquired and the number to be stationed at Luke Air Force base for training. The reprt released by the government states that 5 must be stationed over there at all times, this reduces the number of aircraft in Denmark to 22. Norway will end up with 4 at Luke despite ordring 52 aircraft, this information was blacked out in the Danish report, but available for all to see on the RNoAF website.

Norway will have 7 stationed at Luke the first few years to effectively train it's pilots in a certain speed in order to introduce the aircraft into the Norwegian fleet, however it will be reduced to 4 eventually. That is how I have understood it anyway ...

Mortyman wrote:

larshjort wrote:

Current talking point is the number to be accquired and the number to be stationed at Luke Air Force base for training. The reprt released by the government states that 5 must be stationed over there at all times, this reduces the number of aircraft in Denmark to 22. Norway will end up with 4 at Luke despite ordring 52 aircraft, this information was blacked out in the Danish report, but available for all to see on the RNoAF website.

Norway will have 7 stationed at Luke the first few years to effectively train it's pilots in a certain speed in order to introduce the aircraft into the Norwegian fleet, however it will be reduced to 4 eventually. That is how I have understood it anyway ...

Which makes sense. Unless the Danes expect to put more people through the training program, which they potentially could based on internal postings, movements or trying to build a wider base of trained aircrew, I would expect a similar reduction in airframes based at Luke in the mid to late 20s once the major training block are through.

Alternatively they may have made a committment to base that number there to suppprt the F-35 partnership.