Hey fellow European. I am not a plane specialist by any means, but I have a question about that F-35 potential purchase. Denmark is part of the European Union, so wouldn't it make sense for Denmark to purchase a European fighter jet like the Eurofighter or maybe a Rafale? Then again, maybe those jets are not very good, dated or too expensive, I'm just genuinely wondering why Denmark would not put its money where its interests lie.
Dassault won't submit the Rafale for the bidding process, because the terms and requirements are so ridiculously screwed towards the F-35. All other manufactures are required to commit to a "buy back program", expect for the F-35.
SAAB dropped out twice, first time because the requirements for the plane kept getting changed so only the F-35 would qualify (SAAB was able to prove that the JAS 39 Gripen could match those requirements).
The Eurofighter is still an option, as is the Boeing Super Hornet.
Denmark is a level 3 partner in the F-35 program, and mostly work with the US when going to war, so interest wise the F-35 is politically sensible. We just don't have the money to fly the F-35 (my personal opinion).
It doesn't matter if the Super Hornet, Eurofighter or the Gripen is a little dated, they will have to last 30 years or more, like our current F-16s. So they will be dated for most of their lifetime anyway. The F-35 would limit the number of planes we can buy, the expert evaluation from earlier this month is that it would be better to have more plane, but less advanced. Link to a Danish article: http://ing.dk/artikel/derfor-skal-danmark-have-mange-kampfly... (ing.dk/Ingeniøren is the Danish engineers union)
Denmark's interests lie with the US and always has. Few people realise how close we are (including people in the US, but they've always been better at remembering enemies than friend). I feel this has somewhat diminished with the Iraq tragedy, but I don't know.
I think there's an unspoken non-political agreement in Denmark, that when it comes to military actions, we'd rather build our connections with a party of resolve (be they wrong or right) than a fragmented alliance.
On top of that, Denmark has a special treaty with the EU, which states that we will not and can not join military forces. The Danish politicians wanted to go further into the EU adventure than the population in Denmark, so at first we voted "no" to a EU treaty which we then accepted the second time around, given these 4 "reservations" (no EU citizenship, no EU currency, no EU defence policy, no EU meddling with our "internal laws").
> Then again, maybe those jets are not very good
Rafale not very good ??? There are plenty evidences on the web that the Rafale is indeed a very good jet. The rafale is multirole and is very successful at his different roles (bombing, air interdiction, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), and close air support (CAS) and even aerial reconnaissance). Checkout this video of F22 vs Rafale for instance: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/on-rafale-vs-...
That's nice to know. I know we're starting to finally sell those planes to a few countries, I've always wondered whether it was due to the price point or the technological merits (or lack thereof). Thanks for the info.
While I was in the aéronavale decade ago officers where pissed at rafale: for one rafale you could buy 10 F16 that where less expensive to operates. That costed so much it took on a budget for a 2nd flight carrier, which in turns makes it impossible to operate a task force, which in turns makes it ridiculous to have aeronavale in the first place.
War is also an economical concern that the russian understood: it is all about the price of defense vs attack.
So CCCP developed the crude and cheap SAM batteries that where a pain in the ass in vietnam for the USA, israel...
It does not matter if a plane is good, it should just be thought in terms of the right price compared to the opposable defense of the enemies, and the balance with other tasks.
But what is more important than winning battles is winning war, and USA clearly lack something of a peace corp that would not antagonize local population, and help to maintain peace and social concord do some genie while they ... hum not occupy but ... help other countries.
Most countries are just fighting inefficiently without doctrines nowadays which stirs instabilities.
I would prefer to support an efficient dictatorship that would win war once for all and fast, minimizing the the overall victims than inefficient/corrupted republics that seeds discord someday.
Hum, by the way, russia lowered its budget USA said it was good news: they fired officers and trained soldiers hired more sergeants. Russia is making its army fitter for war with less money.
Oh! And some antique planes Tu95? flew other UK with armed nuclear missiles in January/February this year and UK could not send interceptor because they are waiting for the F35.
Let's say that time to market for F35 is a little to long too. War is not about gadget like planes. It is about people dying, social unrest, political instabilities, resources, economy and power.
Power to send others than your family die for a cause that does not exists, to fight other poor people commanded by other powerful people. No US/Europeans/radical politicians lost kids in wars with the same proportion as the population recently, did they?
Eurofighter maybe, for the Rafale problem is it's not really an EU fighter jet in the sense that it was not conceived from a collaboration of EU countries.
Regardless of this choice, I would say that EU countries/companies should seriously collaborate on making a good UCAV, that's the future. Maybe the Neuron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn is a good first step, but it would be great if Germany and UK participated too, or on the next iteration of the project. On big projects like that EU needs to be united.
You're right, my being French definitely influenced me in talking about the Rafale, the Eurofighter is more to the point in this case.
I do absolutely agree that there's no good reason why the EU at large shouldn't be able to produce a modern, top of the line fighter jet. We have the engineers, the means of production, a market to sell said jets, some European countries are already amongst the biggest arms dealers in the world, it doesn't make sense to me that countries of the EU would buy American jet fighters (with all due respect to the USA).
You know how Europe is. If it doesn't make logical sense, just follow the money scent.
The funny part is that a fighter jet program starting now on the basis of an existing, successful design has a good change of getting completed before the f35 becomes fully functional, since all the issue on getting all the crammed feature to work nicely together.
Seems the UK have also ordered a shedload of F35s to replace a number of different roles in the RAF including the carrier launched Harrier jets. We've since sold the Harriers to the US which is quite telling really.
Lewis Page is a joke in the defence community for a good reason.
The UK's harriers were shagged after years of use, they were sold to the US so they could be cannibalised for spares. Plus we only had the GR versions which were not fighters, the Sea Harrier was retired even earlier.
The UK needs a STOVL multi-role fighter because of the Navy. The RAF are ordering the same planes because then they can fly them off the carriers as well. The cat and traps option on the carrier wasn't really a flier as no-one has managed to get a reliable EMALS catapult working. The US at one point was going to pay us to be the guinea pig for EMALS, but that's rather a risk if it hadn't worked out.
As far as I'm aware, the plans for the F-35Bs the RAF are getting are to replace the ageing Tornado GR4s. The RN ones are replacing the Harriers, which are already sold… (Technically, AIUI, there's one single joint fleet split between the two services, manned by joint personnel.)
