Norway for JSF

[bluehound35]

Norway decided to buy the JSF instead of the Gripen fighter.Here's the article:


10:31 GMT, November 21, 2008 Norway's government yesterday announced to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as its multi-role fighter instead of Saab's Gripen jet fighter. A contract may include 48 such aircraft and could be worth about $2.5 billion or $52 million per unit. The government spokesman said that the JSF aircraft are the only ones that meet operational standards set by Norway's government for the country's future military air force.

In this decision, the Norwegian government followed a recommendation of the ‘Project Future Combat Aircraft Capability Committee (PFCACC)’, an expert group formed in 2005 by the MoD to evaluate the different aircraft. Because the PFCACC completed its report sooner than anticipated, the government decided to announce the fighter choice a month earlier.


“The Joint Strike Fighter is clearly best at fulfilling the requirements we have set, and in addition (it) is the cheapest plane," Prime Minister Jens told during a news conference.

While not mentioning the exact price tag defence ministry officials told journalists that the JSF package was $840 million (€670 million) cheaper than the Gripen offer.

Unhappy about this decisionSaab CEO Åke Svensson said, “I’m disappointed and surprised about the Norwegian Governments decision, because Gripen fulfils all the operational requirements, to a fixed and known price. In addition to this, we have offered a wide and strong industrial cooperation package.” He objects against Norway's defence minister Anne-Grete Ström-Erichsen who stated "the JSF is the only candidate which fulfils all the operational requirements specified by the Norwegian Government and is furthermore offered at a lower price than the Gripen NG."
Svensson also added that “Gripen is a very competitive combat aircraft on the international market and we will now continue to focus on all the other countries were procurement processes are ongoing and Gripen is an alternative.”



Norway has co-participated in the JSF development with other NATO members, while also running a competitive tender where the Gripen has been the only other jet considered after the Eurofighter Typhoon pulled back. The new F-35 Lightening II JSF planes will replace Norway's 48 aging F-16 planes partly to monitor its large northern seaboard, where Russia has boosted military activities in recent years. "Combat aircraft is a crucial capability for Norway's defence," Stoltenberg said in a statement on Thursday.


In a press conference, Strøm-Erichsen rejected the fears that Norway's decision for the JSF may hurt defence and industrial cooperation with Sweden or other Nordic nations.
"We do not expect such problems. We have made the best choice, and I believe that Nordic defence and security cooperation can proceed independently of this procurement, and this decision," she said.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/182/

Anyone know how the JSF's development problems will affect this order?

[Pavel]

"I’m disappointed and surprised about the Norwegian Governments decision"

same here. I'm really suprised JSF is cheaper than Gripen and I thought JSF much more in a prototype stage than Gripen?

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by Pavel

"I’m disappointed and surprised about the Norwegian Governments decision"

same here. I'm really suprised JSF is cheaper than Gripen and I thought JSF much more in a prototype stage than Gripen?

I really can't believe this. JSF cheaper than Gripen? No way, Gripen is surely one of the cheapest fighters around, it is fully tested and mass-produced, while JSF is still being developed. JSF offers more than Gripen: stealth, supercruise, and depending on the version even VTOL. But it isn't cheaper, that is for sure.

[HunterFN]

JSF only offers limited stealth, And I am quite certain it would lose a fight against a Gripen, supercruise it does not offer. It's not optimised for that, but rather for subsonic loiter time. Maintanance issues will be much larger aswell. Logistically I cannot see the reasoning behind this at all. Gripen is NATO compatable and is offered by the neighbour country, and in every way a very respectable multi-role aircraft.

I smell politics.

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by HunterFN

JSF only offers limited stealth, And I am quite certain it would lose a fight against a Gripen, supercruise it does not offer. It's not optimised for that, but rather for subsonic loiter time. Maintanance issues will be much larger aswell. Logistically I cannot see the reasoning behind this at all. Gripen is NATO compatable and is offered by the neighbour country, and in every way a very respectable multi-role aircraft.

I smell politics.

I really don't know much about the JSF, it seems that I overestimated its capabilities. Gripen is a great fighter: it is a true multi-role fighter with a small prize and size. Norway should go for it, as other NATO countries (Czech Republic and Hungary) already did.

[bluehound35]

Originally Posted by HunterFN

JSF only offers limited stealth, And I am quite certain it would lose a fight against a Gripen, supercruise it does not offer. It's not optimised for that, but rather for subsonic loiter time. Maintanance issues will be much larger aswell. Logistically I cannot see the reasoning behind this at all. Gripen is NATO compatable and is offered by the neighbour country, and in every way a very respectable multi-role aircraft.

I smell politics.

This deal almost certainly has to do with politics because that would explain why Norway would choose to buy an aircraft whose future is uncertain and whose developement is slow and chopped up, not to mention that it hasn't proven itself.

[osuorsa]

Originally Posted by Carlo

Gripen is a great fighter: it is a true multi-role fighter with a small prize and size. Norway should go for it, as other NATO countries (Czech Republic and Hungary) already did.

I agree with mr Carlo. Gripen would be the most affordable fighter for smaller NATO or non-NATO countries. This doesen't mean that the less expensive Gripen would be inferioir in comparison with the more expensive Typhoon or Rafale. SAAB's got a bit different approach on 4th gen fighter, emphasizing more on network-centric warfare via the worlds premier datalink etc.

I was sad when I saw that Norway went for the F-35....I think it has to be much because of the politics (does it surprise anyone?)...I hope that one of the European original 4 F-16 users would go for the Gripen NG...The biggest hopes are for the Denmark...Denmark has a big contribution on both the Gripen NG and the JSF program. SAAB is trying to ''tailor'' the NG for each and every customer for their own needs. So is the program for India. SAAB is still trying to win Indias fighter race to sell 126 new figters...Other potential customers include Romania etc. Hope to see some success...

[Carlo]

Surely there is politics involved, unfortunately... The same happened in Brazil two months ago: there is a tender, going for 5 years already, to choose a new fighter for the Brazilian airforce. The participants were: EF Typhoon, Gripen, Su-35, MiG-35, Rafale and F/A-18E. In October, the Brazilian Air Force made a "shortlist", choosing those which are supposedly the "most suitable" fighters: and not surprisingly, Su-35 and MiG-35 were taken from the list.
Brazil is a huge country, almost the size of the USA. Su-35 would surely be the best option, given its very long range. Also, the new BM version has a very advanced suite of avionics and sensors, and has an even more outstanding maneuverability. It is, undoubtedly, the most suitable fighter for Brazil. Gripen, on the other hand, is a great fighter, but its small size and short range is not suitable for the 5th biggest country in the world.
Anyway, Brazilian military analists say that the most likely winner will be the Rafale.
Just a side comment to show that yes, politics surely interfere in decisions that were supposed to be merely technical.