http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2016/03/17/possible-delays-loom-danish-fighter-buy/81939168/
Doesn't talk about them cutting orders anywhere in article.
Mainly because they never actually settled on a number in the first place.
Moreover, even their maximum possible buy wasn't for very many units, definately incapable of contributing to a "death spiral".
Thanks for playing senpai
buffeting down buffeting down buffeting dooooown
>>29300521
No wonder, for this price they could buy a Bentley for every resident in China.
>>29300521
>HELSINKI — Unresolved issues over the funding of the Danish fighter replacement program (FRP), and uncertainty concerning the stability of Denmark’s minority backed government, are raising fresh fears about further delays in the decision-making process.
>HELSINKI
As in Helsinki, the capital of Finland?
>>29300521
>http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2016/03/17/possible-delays-loom-danish-fighter-buy/81939168/
F35FAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH?
>>29300521
Would Denmark ever get a carrier-destroyer? Maybe if they were to take over Schleswig Holstein and half of Sweden, they'd be getting a carrier-destroyer!
>>29301245
Well by buying them they are helping to prevent everyoen in china from being able to buy a bentley.
>>29302128
>Mistral
That is not a Mistral. Mistral's lack the ramp.
>>29300521
in b4
>hurr durr yuropoors
maybe the young american patriots on /k/ should stop shilling for a second and start thinking about what went outrageously wrong with this program, then realise they don't need the F-35 to be proud of the US aerospace industry.
This plane was a mistake. The only level of commonality achieved throughout the A B and C versions was about form factor, misleading the public into believing the 3 versions of the planes are somehow the same. The fact is they are very different.
>>29302128
That's not a mistral. No ramp on a mistral.
>>29303353
Why are you yuropoors so concerned about the F35? You're only buying like 3 of them anyway? If it's bad it's bad and if it's good you've got 3 cool planes to do training exercises with!
>>29303353
>This plane was a mistake. The only level of commonality achieved throughout the A B and C versions was about form factor, misleading the public into believing the 3 versions of the planes are somehow the same. The fact is they are very different.
Good. Now maybe sit down and consider what three separate aircraft projects would have cost. Consider what, in the project, is costing by far the most time and money to develop to fruition (hint: it isn't the airframe). Finally, consider what the F-35 variants cost currently, in LRIP 9, against what the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen NG cost. Then ask yourself just how germane your cost argument is.
Before you respond, be sure to provide the sources and basis for your assertions. I will be happy to provide mine to your counter argument.
>>29303499
Europe is actually a major player in the f35 program, I think they're buying like 300 or so.
>>29303353
you just got rekt kid
>>29303529
>>29303353
A lot of physical commonality fell by the wayside, but the most important things are still mostly common, the engine and the software to make the plane work.
>>29300625
This.
>>29303499
They're lashing out at the cold hard reality that they'll never produce comparable domestic fighters ever again after gutting defense spending for social programs over the decades.
Not only that, the fact that they can't even afford US subsidized options is just salt on the wound.
It's all come home to roost and the tear are glorious.
>>29303499
>Why are you yuropoors so concerned about the F35?
Because many of them are buying one variant or another of the F-35. Many of their countries invested in its development, which does give them some reason to be concerned. However, many of them miss the following considerations:
Nearly all aircraft since before Gen 3 have had very rough reports from the GAO/DOT&E even just before their IOC. It is neither unique nor unexpected. It often reads like a hatchet job, but the whole point is to be tough on the project and identify/fix any issues ASAP. Examples:
F-16, 1977:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf
>In its evaluation of the F-16 development and procurement program, GAO found that the Air Force is concerned with several potential F-16 problems: F100 engine stalls, demonstration of an improved aerial restart capability, and excessive taxi speed. Tactical Air Command believes the F-16 need additional equipment; and that it doesn't have sufficient space available for all desired new capabilities.
F/A-18, 1981:
http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf
>The Navy and its contractors have made progress in solving technical problems discussed in GAO's Feb 1980 report on the F/A-18, but problems remain. Future decisions should include consideration of whether
>-modifications to the wing will correct a roll-rate problem without adversely affecting other performance areas
>-modifications in response to bulkheads cracking are adequate
>-a high oil temerature condition can be corrected
>-built in test objectives can be achieved
>-fuel cell leakages can be corrected, and
>-causes of two crashes can be corrected
>Estimates of the cost of the F/A-18 program continue to increase
cont
>>29303499
>>29303642
Producing a bleeding edge tactical aircraft shows a historical exponential, not linear, cost increase in both currency and time from generation to generation. This is the primary reason why few European tactical aircraft developers are left, and why even US companies have been forced to heavily consolidate.
These two facts should be a gateway to research and a greater understanding of the state of current military aviation procurement, but they stand against a determined media effort (especially prominent in Europe) which seeks to cause effective military budget cuts under the marching banners of "military budget accountability" and "making military spending responsible". This can be traced back to Fallows in his National articles in 1979. So, factual, objective understanding of the practical bounds of the problem is hampered by constant misinformation from a media machine which is, itself, either misinformed or maliciously turning facts around an agenda.
Finally, all of this becomes difficult to swallow when you realize that modern tactical aircraft with top of the line capabilities have become so expensive that your country becomes very limited in both numbers and disparate models operable simultaneously. So, when your media is constantly screaming about how shit the aircraft is, and your air force/government is saying they can't afford to supplement them with other types, it's not hard to see why they'd be pissed about having all their eggs in one basket, especially when they're told constantly that the eggs are rotten.
>>29303499
Always wondered this, they barely have airforces so why are they so hung up on one plane?
>>29303499
Because they are 100M each and some European countries are buying 100+ you mean to tell me you can't see how they would be pissed if it turned out to be shit?
>>29303707
Because countries with tight military budgets can't afford to throw away aircraft when they turn out bad like the US does.
If my country had not bought the Eurofighter and stuck to the F/A-18 for a few years, we could be having 5th gen fighters. Instead, we're stuck with 4th gens until 2025 at the very least.
>We were going to replace our old ass Harriers with F-35Bs but lol no money, gotta keep those Harriers flying until 2025 if they haven't fallen apart already.
>>29303853
also your country was kinda broke a few years ago.
>>29303758
>Because they are 100M each
So are Typhoons and Rafales and they only have a fraction of the capability the F-35 has.
>>29302128
It wouldn't be an invasion. It would be an anschluss of rightful Danish clay. It would be nice with a real carrier, though. Then we could get the F18 instead of that shitpile of a money sink they're working on now.
>>29300521
I cant really take the article seriously if the auteur thinks Helsinki is in Denmark
>>29302128
Spanish LHD, Juan Carlos I.
>>29300521
>>29303529
Consider the fact we had the F-22A to replace the F-35's.
Consider the fact the F-22 naval variant could have been developed fully.
Consider the fact the F-35B, what the program was originally designed for, could have been the only plane produced.
Also, before you demand my sources, how about you provide your's? It only courteous since you they must be oh so easy for you to find.
>>29303986
>fraction of the capability
You mean the Typhoon and Rafale are in active service and the F-35 isn't.
>>29304655
The F-22 is excessively expensive, and navalizing it would have been even more ridiculously pricey.
Which would have also driven up the cost of the F-35B.
Furthermore, the F-22 is not a strike fighter.
Oh, and I'm not that anon.
>>29304655
>Consider the fact we had the F-22A to replace the F-35's.
The fuck you on about? The only plane the F-22 replaces is the F-15C.
>Consider the fact the F-22 naval variant could have been developed fully.
Except the F-22 is already 5 tons max take off heavier than a Tomcat before you navalize it.
>Consider the fact the F-35B, what the program was originally designed for, could have been the only plane produced.
Bullshit. By creating a 30%+ commonality fighter across three profiles (CTOL/STOVL/CATOBAR) you massively reduce long-term O&M and production costs. And the A and C both gain a massive windfall in fuel capacity in the space where the lift fan is positioned in the B.
>>29304655
You really need to get off the F-22. It was NEVER designed as the all-around strike solution that the F-35 is, just as the F-15 would have NEVER worked as the only USAF tactical fighter - the F-16 was necessary from a cost and numbers standpoint. Period. We cannot live in la-la land where we ignore the opportunity to fill out the force with planes that cost 1/3 as much. Should there have been more F-22s? Yes. Was it ever going to work as a navalized version? No. Variable geometry wings were completely incompatible with the VLO tech, not to mention the MASSIVE increase in maintenance requirements per flight hours it represents. The study was done, and it was clear that it took an already incredibly expensive airframe and made it catastrophic cost wise.
>Also, before you demand my sources, how about you provide your's? It only courteous since you they must be oh so easy for you to find.
You made the initial assertions, friend. And let's be honest: if you've spend any time at all in an F-35 thread, you know that everything I asserted can be corroborated with 30 seconds in google.
If you demonstrate good faith in a rational, fact-driven discussion with a structured argument and sources, I am happy to reply in kind. If, however, you are only shitposting memes and refuse to be rational about the question, I in turn refuse to waste my time. This is not an unreasonable attitude on /k/. Also, I did provide some sources here >>29303642 which you may find interesting to educate yourself on how procurement actually works outside of movies and media hatchet pieces.
>>29304747
>By creating a 30%+ commonality fighter across three profiles (CTOL/STOVL/CATOBAR) you massively reduce long-term O&M and production costs.
That's not even the big commonality; the development commonality in software, avionics, HMD, sensors, LPI datalink/comms, etc, is, money and time cost-wise, enormous. Optimizing EO-DAS for three very different airframes alone would have taken far, far longer.
>>29304687
The F-22 was expensive because literally a tenth of the initial amount planned were produced.
>>29304673
Yeah, because they're older 4.5 gen planes built in the 80s-90s. Of course they're going to have a head start on the F-35 chronologically.
Also, the Typhoon wasn't really all that great in its Tranche 1 configuration and it took more years and more development time until Trances 2 and 3 worked out the kinks.
Rafale has inferior avionics compared to the F-35 and even the Typhoon, and it STILL doesn't have an actual BVRAAM.
>>29304687
That's because only a tenth of the initial planned amount were produced. Also, much of the knowledge developed in that program was utilized in the F-35 program.
The F-22 could have easily been developed into a strike role.
>>29304747
The F-22 could have easily replaced the F-16.
The naval variant was within weight range.
And there would be even higher commonality between the F-22 variants.
Remember that the B only forms 1/10th of the total F-35's we plan to produce.
The only commonality lost is that of the B. And in the F-35 program that commonality is already low for the B.
The F-22A, and it's proposed naval variant can fly further and have more carrying capacity. It also can supercruise, has thurst vectoring capability, and most of all....
Would have been ready 20 years before the F-35's.
>>29305001
what F-22 variants
>>29304996
And yet they are active.
That means they are 100% more effective than the F-35A.
>>29304932
>>29305001
Its per-hour costs are about on par with a strategic bomber.
Naval 'variant' would have been even more insanely expensive.
Shit is not feasible to replace the backbone of the air force, nor is it sensible to do it when its an air superiority fighter.
>>29305021
does that mean a T-34 was more effective than an M-1 Abrams in 1979?
>>29305021
For about another year or so. Plus there's so much order backlog that even if a new buyer orders some today, they're probably not going to get them for another couple of years.
>>29305001
The F-22 was never intended to be a strike fighter. Its internal bays aren't large enough and its wing pylons aren't strong enough to carry a majority of the USAF's ground attack munitions. Changing that up would have required a complete airframe redesign.
>>29305001
I cannot believe that anyone marginally familiar with military aviation, procurement and the F-22 program would still argue in earnest for the F-22 replacing the F-16 or F-18. Just mind blowing.
There is no arguing with someone who refuses to acknowledge practical realities. I'm out.
>>29305001
>That's because only a tenth of the initial planned amount were produced
Raptor was expected to be around 500 total, so it got about 40% of it's expected orders before the production lines were shut down.
>The F-22 could have easily replaced the F-16.
No. Just stop. Please.
>Would have been ready 20 years before the F-35's
I'm sure you can cite a study backing that claim.
>>29305031
Maybe that has something to do with their only being 180 of them stationed in Alaska and Hawaii.
>>29305039
Yes.
A 1967 Chevy is currently more effective than a 2018 Chevy.
>>29305148
as opposed to using them on a carrier or in the middle east, where logistics are far shorter and cheaper, right?
>>29305068
That's why the F-22 has been dropping bombs in Syria?
You ever think that the ground attack munitions could have been designed for the F-22?
>>29305078
The F-22 could have replaced the F-16 in AA roles.
Also, the F-16 didn't have to be retired. Just look at them still flying 25 years after they were supposed to be replaced.
Instead we wait for 20 years to get our first active squadrons of F-35's.
>>29305168
I doubt they'd be much different.
>>29305116
>The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a cost of $26.2 billion, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 F-22s by 2003.[32] In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381.[33][34] In 2006, a multi-year procurement plan was implemented to save $15 billion but raise each aircraft's cost. That year the program's total cost was projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons.[35] In 2007, Lockheed Martin received a $7.3 billion contract to increase the order to 183 production F-22s and extend manufacturing through 2011.[36]
>>29305162
>A 1967 Chevy is currently more effective than a 2018 Chevy.
Worse gas mileage, far less BHP per fuel unit and much lower engine mileage life.
What the fuck are you on?
>>29305187
Yeah, "bombs" being the 1,000lb JDAM, the only thing its capable of dropping idependently.
Of course the F-22 could be designed to drop other things. But you would have to integrate FLIR, and significantly redesign the internal bays. Making it even more expensive, and not ready years ago.
>>29305210
>I doubt they'd be much different.
Thats the point. They're fucking expensive to maintain, period. The RAM alone is an asshole to deal with, mixing carrier ops with that makes me angry even thinking about it
>>29305187
JDAMS are literally the lowest denominator of ground attack munitions, and even then the F-22 can't even carry the larger ones or the laser guided ones. Not to mention it doesn't even have the software or avionics to really take advantage of PGMs.
And F-16s are mulitrole strike planes, which the F-22 most certainly is not. The F-22 would have been a horrible replacement for them.
>>29305221
not the 500 lb GBU-38? the USAF doesn't use the 1000 lb ones since their bring back weight is higher compared to the Navy since they're not restrained by carrier ops.
>>29305210
>>The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a cost of $26.2 billion, with production beginning in 1994.
Still not 1/10th, chief. That's almost 2/7ths.
>>29305187
>The F-22 could have replaced the F-16 in AA roles.
THEN YOU WOULD STILL NEED ANOTHER TACTICAL STRIKE FIGHTER. Holy fuck, anon, are you really this dumb?
>Also, the F-16 didn't have to be retired. Just look at them still flying 25 years after they were supposed to be replaced.
So you're completely unaware of the concept of airframe hours, yet still posting. Wonderful.
>You ever think that the ground attack munitions could have been designed for the F-22?
This one's hilarious. List of munitions the F-22 cannot mount:
>Harpoon
>LRASM
>ANY 2,000lbs bombs
so, yeah. Bye-bye interdiction and general strike role.
>>29305251
Add to the list anything needing laser guidance, or anything beyond GPS/INS
>>29305217
Good luck driving in a non-existent vehicle.
>>29305221
The F-35 is having many bombs designed for it as well.
The F-22 could have been designed with many bombs in mind in the 90's.
The problem is that mistakes in 1995 led to failures in 2015.
>>29305236
Can you not read?
I said it would be able to replace the F-16 in the AA role, and not all F-16's were multirole strike fighters.
The F-22 would have had bombs designed around it, and it's bomb bay could have been expanded in the initial design period.
If the military didn't have the F-22 program steadily cut, we could have had a number of very effective AA 5th gens 20 years before the F-35A.
My argument is simply that the F-35 program was not "irreplaceable". That's what started this conversation.
The F-35 program was made because the Marines needed a v-tol. When the 22 entered trouble they expanded the F-35 program to a carrier and F-16 replacement role. This was in 2002-2003.
>>29305269
..no, the F-35 is being designed around the bombs, not the other way around.
Still leaves the matter of you needing to significantly change the airframe or the munitions (both of which are expensive and lengthy processes) and integrate a FLIR system.
like EOTS.
>>29305319
The F-35 exists because F-16s and F-18C/Ds are falling apart, and the US needs a newer generation strike fighter.
>>29305319
no, the JSF was a joint (literally the first word) program from the start, back in like 1993
>>29305319
>The F-35 program was made because the Marines needed a v-tol. When the 22 entered trouble they expanded the F-35 program to a carrier and F-16 replacement role. This was in 2002-2003.
I love this completely retarded and untrue narrative. It's like reality is just something you visit occasionally.
>>29305251
You were incorrect as well. It shows how biased you are.
The F-16's are perfectly fine in their current role. Just continue building them and using them for the strike role.
No. You're just a pretentious faggot thinking everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Fuck off.
The F-16 was supposed to begin being replaced 1995-2005.
Did you not read what I wrote? They would have designed bombs around the F-22 just as the F-35 has had bombs designed around it.
>>29305368
What bombs are designed around the F-35, anon?
Furthermore, building more F-16s is just pissing away money. You think they're going to be effective against S-400s?
>>29305351
What is the LRASM?
Oh wow and if we had stuck with F-22 variants they would have been retired before they started falling apart.
>>29305362
>>29305366
Source?
>>29305368
>The F-16's are perfectly fine in their current role. Just continue building them and using them for the strike role.
Have you even seen what Block 60/61 F-16Es look like? Or the fact that they're 100m apiece? You're literally buying them for the same fucking price as an F-35 for none of the capability advancement.
>No. You're just a pretentious faggot thinking everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Fuck off.
"I have no argument so I have to hit the damage control and ad hominem buttons"
>The F-16 was supposed to begin being replaced 1995-2005.
Since the JSF program was started in 1993, and the USAF was still buying F-16s in 1998, this is beyond ridiculous.
>>29305389
If you're suggesting the LSRAM is being designed around the F-35 (I'm assuming you just misquoted like a moron) its design has nothing to do with the F-35.
Nor is it an internal-bay weapon.
>>29305380
Improved features for the Joint Strike Missile include:
Shape changed to fit in F-35 internal bay[27]
Ability to attack sea and land based targets
Aerial launch platform (F-35)
Improved range over NSM to 280 km[28]
>>29305389
>Source?
You made the claim. Burden of proof is on you to support it. I'm not going to spend time trying to prove a negative on google.
>>29305419
Anything else, or is being able to launch a single, new, AShM make an aircraft an effective strike fighter?
>>29305410
Where's the source saying a fully equipped F-35 is the same price as a F-16 block 60?
The prices Arabs pay for all the equipment, training, engine, weaponry, and plane is not the same as what you're seeing in the F-35 LRIP contracts.
>>29305464
Arabs aren't paying for LRIP F-16s either.
>>29305368
>You were incorrect as well. It shows how biased you are.
That was actually a different anon who interjected there. But you're right I was wrong, but you were wrong too :^)
>just as the F-35 has had bombs designed around it
And what bombs are those?
>>29305427
I admit I was wrong. The JSF was planned to replace most tactical fighters in the NATO inventory.
>>29305464
Not to mention the fact that the similarly equipped Gripen NG is also 100m.
This anon is just assmad.
>>29305488
No I'm just tired of everyone on /k/ being so hostile and defensive of their program which has promised A LOT and delivered LESS.
I'm tired of seeing my tax money spent on programs that are obviously designed with contractors profits in mind.
The F-22 was cut to protect the F-35. My baby got culled to protect the cash cow.
We could have put the F-22 in the JSF role. It would have been difficult, but we would have not had a huge gap in capabilities for 20 years if we had made that choice in the early 90's.
>>29305515
The F-35A airframe was $98 million in LRIP 7. The rate of decrease has slowed dramatically even though the amount produced in FRP 1 will only be 30 higher for the A.
I have seen no sources comparing fully active plane prices.
>>29305419
>Shape changed to fit in F-35 internal bay
Okay. You got ONE weapon that had a MODIFICATION made to it to work with the F-35, the rest of the items on that list are pretty much universal improvements to the JSM.
>>29305557
I'm tired of you wasting space and visting /k/ at this point.
The F-22 is incapable of performing the missions the F-35 does. If you thought it would be a good idea to modify it to fill those roles, it wouldn't have been ready and finished 20 years ago.
Furthermore, complaining about "contractor profits" when the F-35 is insanely cheap for its capability is insane. A CATOBAR F-22 would have been expensive as fuck, and it still wouldn't have performed the fucking role without further heavy modification
Can't have your cake and eat it too, faggot.
>>29305557
>No I'm just tired of everyone on /k/ being so hostile and defensive of their program which has promised A LOT and delivered LESS.
>I'm tired of seeing my tax money spent on programs that are obviously designed with contractors profits in mind.
>The F-22 was cut to protect the F-35. My baby got culled to protect the cash cow.
>We could have put the F-22 in the JSF role. It would have been difficult, but we would have not had a huge gap in capabilities for 20 years if we had made that choice in the early 90's.
No. You're pissy because your pet baby waifu plane got cut, and you refuse to hear any reality about the practicalities of massive technological risk and cost, which are the things that ACTUALLY got the F-22 cancelled. If it had been anywhere close to on budget or on time, it never would have been cancelled. Period. You want to talk about a project that was over budget, under delivered and late? Look no further than your "baby".
Now take your unrealistic bullshit elsewhere. The grownups are talking and no one wants to listen to you bitch while you get your fucking cheeto dust everywhere.
Fucking autists. Goddamnit.
>>29305557
>i'm just an assmad faggot who gets BTFO when facts are presented
We know.
>>29305624
>>29305626
>>29305628
>>29305624
I am going to admit my arguments are not without flaw. But I believe we could have made the F-22 program like the F-35 program in the 80's.
The F-22 was killed later on the protect the F-35.
Also, you provided no sources to support your main point about the F-22 design making it incapable of fulfilling a strike role.
>>29305626
The F-35 has program has performed just as poorly. It just happens to not have multiple cuts every two years, design changes, and another program competing against it.
>>29305693
I'm not going to engage you anymore, but you should know the "flaw" in your arguments is that you're not hanging yourself
>>29305738
Seconded. I'm out. Life's too short to try to reason with the willfully stupid.
>>29305557
>My baby got culled to protect the cash cow
The F-22, a cash cow for Lockheed-Martin (LMT) was cut to protect the F-35, a cash cow for Lockheed-Martin™
Genius.
>>29301281
Where the reporter who wrote it was. But yes.
>>29305757
>>29304996
>Yeah, because they're older 4.5 gen planes built in the 80s-90s.
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter entered service in the early aughts.
>>29305389
>What is the LRASM?
Is this anon for real?
>>29305351
>..no, the F-35 is being designed around the bombs, not the other way around.
More importantly, the F-35 is designed to be easy to upgrade with future weapons systems not yet imagined.
![bTO4iCM[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Q6ywBq6.png "bTO4iCM[1].png")
>>29305389
I hope you're trolling. Here's one document from 1997 that clearly shows 3 variants for the 3 services.
Another slav painic agitprot thread.
Russkies are scared shitless.
>>29305747
>I bet if I make one last departing insult at people who are destroying me with hard facts I'll look like the winner!
That'll work for sure!
>>29306820
>destroying me with facts
not even that anon, but pic absolutely related.
>>29304067
A full aircraft carrier, for taking on something right outside your front door?
>>29303548
>Europe is actually a major player in the f35 program, I think they're buying like 300 or so.
UK is a major player of the F-35 program and they had to scrap their entire indigenous programs to be part of it. Apart from that a series of small states like Denmark and Poland have been considering some to purchase, but as the F-35 continues to be mired in problems and delays other options are becoming much more enticing.
>>29307528
>scrap their entire indigenous programs
Yeah, I guess Eurofighter doesn't exist then.
British aerospace industry as a solo military designer/builder has been dead for decades. Tell me, what was the last totally British designed tactical fighter? Here's a hint: it was way before the joined the JSF project in 1996.
>>29307528
>but as the F-35 continues to be mired in problems and delays
Can you specify a actual delay from the last 5 years?
This is a meme. Justin Trudeau is going to buy the F-35 despite saying he wont, The signals are too strong.
>>29308161
I also believe so, since the issue of a new competition has basically evaporated already. On the other hand, cutting the F-35 would be an easy cost-saving measure when the Liberals' deficit math and infrastructure spending plans are coming under more scrutiny.
>>29308199
>>29308161
Not to mention that the competition won't be starting (requirements issued, etc) until the end of the year. By the time the competing / comparing part is done, the Super Hornet production line will be on the brink of closing, or shut down. They could buy Rafales or Gripens or something, but that's less likely.
>>29308268
All Lockheed has to do is offer to do assembly in Quebec. They would be best friends now that Bombardier is cutting a couple thousand jobs there.
>>29300521
>Talks are being complicated by the Social Liberals (Det Radikale Venstre / SLP) and Socialist Peoples’ (Socialistisk Folkeparti / SPP) parties, both of whom are demanding that Denmark acquires the minimum number of aircraft.
Socialists want to defund the military, more at eleven.
Christopher "bailing this sinking ship" Bogdan is on record saying Canada cancelling its 65 F-35's would bump the cost by 1%. Extrapolating from that Denmark going from 42->18 would add another 0.4%, by it self not much but these things are starting to add up.
>>29304067
P7 welcomes you to Scania, we'll make a repeat of 1710 with you invading scum.
>>29309238
except neither are cutting orders
>>29308890
It's more and more obvious that leftists are traitors
>>29309575
Of course they haven't you dumb fuck as they haven't even made any orders yet, but what they have done is planed to purchase and those planed purchases are the basis of "economies of scale" cost promises being made. Any of the partner nations not making their planned purchases is going to affect the end price rest of the customers are paying, simple as that.
>>29303353
>what went outrageously wrong
>not enough commonality
please anon, what went wrong?
and they have plenty of commonality. There ARE differences, but they are less than if they had gone with 3 totally different jets (like the Harrier, Super Hornet, and F-16....)
Like >>29303529 said, imagine the cost of three totally separate programs, and consider that the F-35 is cheaper than other modern fighters being made now.
or do you believe that the US should keep the Harrier and F-16 until 2050?
>>29304655
the F-22 costs at least double what the F-35 does. And it doesn't have the same air to ground capability, which just means much more cost to add those. It is also 90's tech and software, so it would need lots of upgrades to last until 2050.
the F-22N would be an expensive as fuck disaster. Seriously, do you have any idea what it takes to navalize a plane, especially one like the F-22?
If they had kept on developing the F-35B without the other versions it would have A) been many times more expensive, and B) had more delays and problems because less testing.
How can you think that navalizing the F-22 and producing thousands of regular F-22's would somehow be cheaper than the F-35 program. You must be special.
>>29304673
technically, the F-35 has been in operational service since last July
>>29305162
>therefore the government should buy thousands of 1967 cars instead of waiting 3 years to buy vastly superior ones.
>>29305319
>just navalize it
>just expand the weapon bays
>just add sensors to use PGMs
>just develop special weapons for it
seriously, this is great. As people keep pointing out things that the F-22 can't do, you keep just saying "well they can just add this or upgrade that", which of course just means your special snowflake idea would cost more and more.
>>29309659
Except final prices are not set, claiming a 1% increase is literally just some shit pulled out their asses
