What are you talking about cold? All planes are built to tolerate cold since its -40 to -60 C° where they fly. I dont get the your logic, please explain what Im missing.

thx

Last year there was a issue when they tested the JSF, no details was given, but there was indication that the plane is not up to par on cold conditions.

A friend of mine in Bodø suspected it might be engine related, but as i said, thats limited info that was "leaked" to the media.

I have allways thought that the figures comming from the US industry is somewhat...disturbing to say atleast.

JAS has prommised that work in Norway is more or less guaranteed and they have given price info that seems to be way more relayable then what we can see on the F-35.


The more and more i read about the development of the F-35, and how much money Norway has spent on development on the plane, the more and more i belive that Eurofighter had some inside info, eighter in US or in the Norwegian goverment.

Perhaps it's time to go over those that has been working on the contract, i suspect som illigal lobying been done by the US in this case.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Phoebus]

I wonder how Norwegians feel about spending 2.5+ billion on unproven fighter planes that probably will never see action, or is no more valuable than a fleet of low cost jets.

Someone said 48 jets for 2.5 billion dollars? I would choose 300-400 proven older jets over 48 new jets that are unproven for 2.5 billion dollars.

Maybe the stealth technology is the clincher.

I think the F-35 has some problems with vertical landings or takeoffs. In that case, debris is going in the engines, and they can only do it on a special pad.

But what's true is the military-industrial complex is hard up for money, and they'll ram through any deal.

As far as the cold issue. All planes have to be able to operate in cold environments. In fact the USAF has a special facility (I think its in FLorida of all places) that allows airframes to be cold soaked for days a brutaly cold temperatures and still operate.

Remember that at altitude they are exposed to cold all the time.

Regards to snow etc, this is also tested.

The F-22 are operation out of Alaska have no such problems.

---

I am a bit dissapointed by this result however. The Grippen NG was to have been offered with an AESA and the F414 engine that is used int he F-18E. It will be an impressive single engine strike fighter.

And how did they manage to make that comparison then? There is nothing known about Pak Fa to allow any sort of comparison with anything.

Thats where my scepticism kicks in westy, what is the point in dismissing an aircrat based on a hypotheticl adversary, those assumptions may be completely wrong. For example the Gripen will be smaller and lighter, how can they be sure that these wont prove to be extremely advantageous qualities in the future?

As far as I am aware the needs of Scandinavian forces are completely different to the needs of American (and even British) forces and I just don't see how they can comprehensively say the F-35 is better for them, especially as they cannot possibly know what level of ability their F-35's will be allowed to have or how the fully developed Gripen NG will compare. The current Gripen demonstrator is just a converted standard model and no more representative than the X-35 was.

The cost issues could well be reflected in the old 'economy of scale' thing as the likely production run of the Gripen NG will be tiny by comparison, but again the F-35's cost are far from settled or under control.

I find it very odd that they can issue such a definitive statement and it all smacks of a political justification rathe than a practical one. I think that Eurofighter got it right when they withdrew themselves from the competition saying it was a farce.

It reminds me of the many reasons put forward by our own govt to justify the scrapping of TSR 2 over forty years ago, because we HAD to buy the American alternative, that were all subsequently proven to be crap. Once seen never forgotten.

Don't get me wrong, the F-35 may well prove to be better, but its their premature certainty that is ringing alarm bells with me.

Well the Norwegian air force is seriously going to regret this decision in the long run when they eventually get JSF's half a decade behind schedule and for three times the cost. IF JSF export models comes in below 150 million dollars ( total program cost) a plane it will merely be so because the US taxpayers kicked in the rest.

As for system integration the JSF is as far as i can see just about as far behind as the F-22 was and with projected program cost already 45% higher than initially proposed one can but wonder what they will cost once they reach serial production....

Stellar

This isn`t over - whilst the goverment might want the F-35 , it has to pass a vote in parliment - and the goverment is a coilition - with at least 1 of the triparty group very much against the US jet - citing the true and real costs were not given and the labour government is misleading them.

My government also have to decide between the Gripen and the JSF [although we contributed about $800 billion to the JSF project and get some "discount"] the former is still half the price, got a good radar system and important for the enviromentalists here, is more quiet =]
what is really a better choice? [although most of the cabinet have already decided: JSF it is...]

[edit on 22-11-2008 by Foppezao]