http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf
The Denmark evaluation and justification of the F-35 as their new platform over the Super and the Eurofighter.
>>29942544
>Another reason is that the Super Hornet is a two-seat aircraft, which implies a greater need for flight instruction hours and training of crews than the Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter.
What did they mean by this?
>Super Hornet
We had a biiiiiig thread on this and how some of it is a little strange and the numbers don't add up.
But its seemingly mostly reasonable.
>>29942600
He implies that training pilots in a small country like Denmark could possibly be an issue, despite their air fleet being small in size. It makes no sense.
>>29942600
training two guys for one jet takes more time and money and instructors and overall resources.
>>29942600
>What did they mean by this?
That you need twice as much crew for a double seater compared to a single seater?
Means more training, means higher cost of training? They also need to be trained in different roles, and are not equivalent to eachother.
I don't think it's a very relevant concern, but whatever. He's correct. It's cheaper to train crew for a single seater.
>>29942690
What if they help each other train and cut the needed time in half?
If the duties are 50/50 wouldn't the training time needed be roughly similar?
>>29942724
No, because a WS0 (weapon systems officer), NFO (naval flight officer) or RIO (Radar intercept officer) all need to have overlapping skills with the pilot. They also learn basic flying etc.
So your training is more like 75% + 75%. I'd wager actually even closer to 90% (pilot) + 75% (copilot).
I'm not a flight buff & don't really know the differences in training in the different branches & countries though.
>>29942544
>Dassault (Rafale) declined to participate. Denmark has been a partner country in the F-35 program since 1997. On this basis Dassault meant, that Denmark had already de facto chosen the F-35.
http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/7942
Smart frogs.
>>29942960
I guess Saab didn't bother either?
>>29942771
speaking as a WSO in training, my job and specialties are different from a pilot. i can do flying, a pilot can do radar interpretation/tpod work/overall formation SA type stuff, but he's better at his job and i'm better at mine. all the pilots going through training with me look at our RSI like we're wizards.
>>29942600
4th Gen fighters, even with a WSO, use up a lot more mental time than an F-35's sensor fusion systems as well.
>>29942960
Or they just knew that they can't really compete if the F-35's in the running, so didn't want to waste money even trying.
What's going to happen when the design gets finalized and all those juicy contracts get eaten up?
>>29943046
I think I read sweden blocked it for some reason
>>29943088
You know sensor fusion exists on 4th gens too, right?
>>29943239
Nowhere near as good, and with less sensors to build from.
And it's 4.5s you're thinking of.
>>29943265
you can get some sensor fusion on 4th gen via upgraded software.
it's not as efficient as a 4.5th gen or a 5th gen though.
>>29942544
It's beautiful. People cry about the price tag, but they don't realize many of the materials and manufacturing techniques developed during its creation will trickle down into the private sector after it goes full production.
>>29942771
is it wrong that I find the curves of this BBW (Big Beautiful Warbird) sexually arousing?
>>29943082
VT-86? Or are you at the FRS already?
>>29943279
The problem's that you've got to have a modern retrofit of the avionics, which will jack up the unit price. UAE's F-16 Block 60 deal comes to $160-200m per plane, even with spares and support contract that's a lot of money for a 4th Gen.
>>29942960
They knew they didn't have a chance. They didn't match any requirements at all. Typhoon and Super Hornet had various benefits that the Danes wanted (mostly industry and shared platforms with allies) but the Rafale was far too individual in the area for it to even work, and they don't have the same industrial connections.
Rafale never had a hope in Denmark, it was a non-starter, so they just didn't pursue it.
>>29943344
Rafale/Eurofighter both have good sensor fusion.
>>29943046
read the link
>>29943342
i'm not in the navy. or the marines.
>>29943344
no disagreement, but it's basically what we're going to have to do to stay competitive.
>>29943376
For a 4.5, but not great compared to the F-35.
>>29943329
>trickle down into the private sector
Well, who pays and where does it trickle down? Here the Danes are set up to pay, a whole lot, and so far the production is mainly in the US, more so for the expensive parts.
Old offset contracts were in the end never honored. The Danes will be right to be wary.
>>29943391
Oh, I thought they called you guys CSOs
>>29943659
when you get past UCT, you're back to being a Nav, an EWO, or a WSO. we're finding out that universal training isn't giving the various communities the product they want. that and we don't have nearly as many flight hours as our pilot bretheren - i've got probably as many flight hours in the Strike Eagle as the T-6 and T-1 combined, and my first flight in it was in Jan.
>>29942544
Okay, what do you do with 27 planes? Considering the sortie rate of the F-35, once you take into account maintenance, air police, pilot training and conversion, etc, how many planes do you have for an operation? 4 at best? seeing they can't maintain their F-16 presence in middle east over a whole year but only 6 months on 6 months off, i fail to see how they can even remotely contribute to any coalition in any barely significant way. What's the point of NATO members who can't support the alliance?
>>29943767
They're used for interception. That's what Nordic airforces in general are focused on and excel at.
>>29943778
>>29943824
>Okay, what do you do with 27 planes?
You intercept Russian fighters. They're not bought to help US bomb third worlders, the Americans can do that by themselves.
>>29943866
>You intercept Russian fighters. They're not bought to help US bomb third worlders, the Americans can do that by themselves.
Actually, they will.
Generally, for NATO stuff, they assign up to 6 planes for foreign missions (usually 4 or less).
>>29943767
Interoperability.
If Christopher, Nigel, Bruce, Valdemar, Aytaç, Mario and Lars all know how to fly the F35 they can be transfer and swapped around between air forces to maximise the available the pilot pool.
Same goes for aircraft maintainers.
For example, even though the UK is only buying 146(?) F35Bs, they'll be able to share aircraft and pilot pools with the USMC for deployments on the QE class.
>>29943866
You don't intercept shit. With 27 planes your sortie capability is so low, (no matter the plane, it is not a F-35 matter) you practicaly can't fight beyond the occasional peacetime interception. You cannot project airpower over an ennemy's territory in any significant way, because you have barely enough planes to perform your own airspace defense. The slightest loss would cripple you. That's effectively the air force of someone who expects others to come and hold his hand.
>tl;dr: Denmark is worthless shit and 1.3% GDP defense budget should mean they're expelled of the Alliance.
>>29943997
>because you have barely enough planes to perform your own airspace defense. The slightest loss would cripple you. That's effectively the air force of someone who expects others to come and hold his hand.
Congratulations. You've arrived at the heart of Nordic air force doctrine.
>>29944029
I get the idea of shared defense, and i'm not that attached to the 2% GDP rule, but when you reduce your power to the point you have to choose between defending your airspace and supporting your allies it is beyond stupidity, because veryone will simply take care of their own airspace. And their defense budget for next year will be further reduced, from 25b krones (3.8b$) last year to 21b (3.2b$). That's crazy.
>>29943239
You know that we had IR missiles in the 60's too right? That does not make them comparable.
>>29944092
The 2% thing means you are showing you are interested in defending yourself and not just leeching on your allies.
>>29942632
I took a good look into this and there is perfectly reasonable explanations for all of it:
The $100m+ F-35 costs $84m per plane because LM says it'll totally soon cost $85m per plane. So the total procurement price is 84m*27=$2.3bn
The $60m SH on the other hand costs $125m because there would be FMS fees and they would also need to purchase the basic maintenance package for it and training equipment and enlarge their facilities. So the total procurement cost for Hornets would be $125m*38=$4.75bn (the larger number of planes is because SH frames only last 6000h and SLEP's don't exists). Oh, and because SH is a two-seater it means they can't use simulators and would need to do more real training flights instead which increased its calculated operating costs significantly
Not even meming this shit up, that logic is all in that paper and in the full Danish version
>>29944754
>$60m SH
>>29944785
>F/A-18C
>C
>>29944754
Someone suggested the F-35 price point was bullshit considering the numbers given by the Netherlands of actual procurement / running costs -
4.5 billion Euros for 37 aircraft and 270 million Euros per year for the fleet in maintenance
>>29944884
Not >>29944785, but logic dictates that if an old, used C is priced at 75 mill, then a spanking new E/F should be a lot more than that.
>>29945095
Wikipedia says $60.9m referencing this document:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140401074058/http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/15pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
>JSF partner says the JSF is the plane for them after investing into it for a decade of more
Massive surprise.
>>29944785
>>29945095
>>29945382
http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/Navy/stamped/U_P40_0145_BSA-1_BA-1_APP-1506N_PB_2017.pdf
IN FY2018 the US plans on buying 14 Super Hornets with a flyaway cost of $78 mil per plane.
>>29942604
>10.000 danish workplaces with super hornet.
>Choosing the new fighter jet is also about growth and danish workplaces. Read more one superhornet.dk
God they are so full of shit.
>>29945826
Don't know if it was flyaway or total system, though.
If it was the latter, which makes sense, its $93m/unit
>>29947753
And that $78m or $93m is perfectly fine number for the total system, but that's not the same apples to apples number the Danish analysis used for F-35. The procurement for it is calculated from the predicted future price of jet only times the number of planes only. If Lighting Dos really is the best, why do they need to resort to these type of shenanigans?
>>29949967
The thing is that you're not just paying for the plane when you buy up these aircraft as a foreign country.
F-35 gonna have its own shenanigans for all of its buyers. The Canadians didn't get salty about the plane because they read some shit Spey said. They got mad because Lockheed did shit like "your communications satellites aren't compatible with our aircraft and you'll have to fly solo over the Arctic Circle in radio blackout". They also saw their order halve the number of aircraft and then halve it again for the same price.
>>29944029
Believe it or not, Sweden had a fucking huge air force during the Cold War.
>>29949967
>why do they need to resort to these type of shenanigans?
But it is not shenanigans? It looks to me like responsible book keeping to actually account for things like airframe hours and 1 vs 2 pilot training.
>>29947753
>Flyaway Unit Cost
($ in Thousands)
>78,022.071
I hope Finland arrives at the same conclusion and gets the F-35A. I'm just afraid of cucks choosing the Gripen because of Chinese and Russian shilling.
>>29951217
>choosing the Gripen because of Chinese and Russian shilling.
Care to explain this?
>>29952311
>"stealth is shit just look at these quotes taken out of context, these bloggers we're citing and this old guy we dug from naftaline! stealth is dead and the F-35 is a failure!"
>meanwhile desperately scramble to build their own stealth jets
>>29942600
They mean you can only fly a two seater jet with two pilots. Because... Reasons.
>>29944754
holy keks
>>29952951
>Combat jet ever flying without full crew
Fullretard.jpg
>>29953974
Danes specifically asked the shornet to be offered in its two-seat version and now they are using the fact that its a two-seat as an argument why they shouldn't buy it
>>29954130
Because you need two in a 4th Gen to operate the sensors as well as the systems in a 4.5/5th.
>>29954156
wut
>>29954130
So why does the F/A-18E exist, chucklefuck
>>29954198
>An extra human brain adds a great deal of processing-power/function to the overall system without a years-long software/avionics development program. The French realized this with their Rafale program and basically reversed the ratio of single-seaters to dual-seaters. The downside is having to expend resources to train twice as many operators.
>>29954255
You know, in the past I've asked why aren't all fighter jets two-seaters. After all, two heads is always better than 1 right? This pretty much answers the question.
>>29954307
Basically, the sensor fusion system in an F-35 does all the things a WSO/RIO would be doing. It takes all the radar/EODAS/Barracuda/MADL data and builds an easy to read "big picture" that the pilot can use to make decisions.
>>29952610
This does not even parse. Please try again.
>>29943088
>sensor fusion systems
This tech is more than a decade old. Why cannot this be retrofitted to F-16?
>>29943279
>it's not as efficient
Why? The sensors are already there and after F-16 had its MLU the sensor suite is rather capable. With the replacements using modern components there is now space available.
>>29954825
You can. It'll be a $120m F-16 that still has crappy range and payload compared to an F-35, but you could totally do that.
>>29954825
>This does not even parse. Please try again.
You understood it perfectly, but do not want to accept its implications.
>This tech is more than a decade old. Why cannot this be retrofitted to F-16?
The sensor fusion tech in the F-35 is not more than a decade old.
>Why? The sensors are already there and after F-16 had its MLU the sensor suite is rather capable. With the replacements using modern components there is now space available.
The F-16 does not have the sensors required for the F-35's level of fusion, or even a Eurofighters level of fusion.
