Almost 5 years later... now expected to be 62.6B NOK.
12 comments:
Peter
said...
The deal was one of the ugliest tricks I've ever seen.
They "payed" 18B NOK for 48 planes with option to increase to 56. Soon after the deal they went for the option and added 8 fighters. Those 8 F-35 increased the price from 18B to the now massive 60B... And as they dont have a coat ceiling it might even hit 70B...
A little bit of kitchen table math gives me just under $205M per frame, based on the numbers in the Reuters article, and using Friday's closing NOK/USD exchange rate.
Ouch.
That's one of the worst defense deals in all of history.
I don't think of Norwegians as being particularly corruptible people. Quite the contrary. But in the past, deals this bad have usually involved bagmen delivering cash to numbered bank accounts.
Not that Lockheed has any history of doing such things. (Cough.)
"Look to Norway"; our government has put the Iraqi information minister to shame. We're getting a special price on the F-35 because we're a major international political player. Probably.
I don't know whether to laugh or weep. And the backstabbing blow we dealt to the Swedes is perhaps the particularily nauseating part of it.
Sorry, forgot to say the article is in Norwegian. It isn't terribly informative, but it basically says the gov't is requesting another 13B NOK for the program, what with the mentioned recalculations and inflation (yeah, really) and what not.
I don't think anybody thinks RNoAF was bribed or affected by similar levels of corruption. There is obviously an institutional bias to USAF. But the inability to put forward concrete operational requirements for F-35, and the ridiculous treatment of SAAB to exclude it in COST grounds was an ugly performance. If SAAB was to be excluded, then might as well be honest about it and not waste their money by the illusion of a free competition which they have a chance of winning.
The Lockheed PR machine continues with Prozac-amped excitement over 'low maintenance costs' (which US DoD doesn't believe), yet curiously they are simultaneously emphasizing the benefits of increasd simulator time... If the flying-hour costs are so low, why bring up simulator time? Of course, ANY platform can be simulated, so increased simulator time isn't any advantage for F-35, and platforms with lower flight-hour costs would still have an advantage.
What's silliest is that by not bothering to enunciate the actual operational need for F-35, other approaches were simply ignored: A mixed-fleet of F-35 and Gripen E/F would indeed have signifigant advantages in capabilities and costs, especially with Gripen maintenance/training pooled with other users like Sweden. F-35's advantage is (sorta) stealth strike. So many other tasks (which are the predominant usages for RNoAF) are done equally or better by Gripen E/F.
As ALL Norwegian politicians from ALL parties are pro F-35A, even though they know it's troubled history, limited practical usage and costly future, one can not stop to wonder what has influenced (scared?) them to pull in the same direction. What have they been told that we have not ? Is it Stick or Carrot ?
Would a combined force of F-35's and Gripen E's make sense in respect of Norway's needs? I assume protection of it's territorial integrity must be first priority, and "bomb truck" deliveries on call from Big Brother against some defenseless third world countries secondary. 60B NOK would probably be more than enough for 24 F-35s and 48 Gripen E's with lower operational costs performing the RNoAF tasks.
Also important to factor in; Norway originally required Block IV F-35 as it's baseline model, which would be augmented with Block V variants.
Now they will apparently settle for primitive block III model, which presumably will be retrofitted down the road (if feasible?) to a notional block IV??
(if there's enough money left in the budget for upgrade prior to what, 2025?)
Talk about poor value and a miscalculated recapitalization plan.
12 comments:
The deal was one of the ugliest tricks I've ever seen.
They "payed" 18B NOK for 48 planes with option to increase to 56.
Soon after the deal they went for the option and added 8 fighters. Those 8 F-35 increased the price from 18B to the now massive 60B... And as they dont have a coat ceiling it might even hit 70B...
Pyramid something?
Did I hear that?
Ugliest part in the fake Norway fighter "competition" was in the way they stabbed Sweden.
But in the end it's Norway that suffers because they have tied F-35 around their necks. Where F-35 goes, they go with it.
A little bit of kitchen table math gives me just under $205M per frame, based on the numbers in the Reuters article, and using Friday's closing NOK/USD exchange rate.
Ouch.
That's one of the worst defense deals in all of history.
I don't think of Norwegians as being particularly corruptible people. Quite the contrary. But in the past, deals this bad have usually involved bagmen delivering cash to numbered bank accounts.
Not that Lockheed has any history of doing such things. (Cough.)
This is apples and oranges. The 18 bn. figure was just for the aircraft. The 60 bn. NOK is for the entire acquisition and also in Then Year value.
Not to worry. I have it on good authority that this is just a "technical recalulation". The F-35 is really quite cheap. And effective. Really...
http://www.tu.no/industri/2013/04/26/regjeringen-ber-om-13-milliarder-til-kampfly
"Look to Norway"; our government has put the Iraqi information minister to shame. We're getting a special price on the F-35 because we're a major international political player. Probably.
I don't know whether to laugh or weep. And the backstabbing blow we dealt to the Swedes is perhaps the particularily nauseating part of it.
Sorry, forgot to say the article is in Norwegian. It isn't terribly informative, but it basically says the gov't is requesting another 13B NOK for the program, what with the mentioned recalculations and inflation (yeah, really) and what not.
I don't think anybody thinks RNoAF was bribed or affected by similar levels of corruption. There is obviously an institutional bias to USAF. But the inability to put forward concrete operational requirements for F-35, and the ridiculous treatment of SAAB to exclude it in COST grounds was an ugly performance. If SAAB was to be excluded, then might as well be honest about it and not waste their money by the illusion of a free competition which they have a chance of winning.
The Lockheed PR machine continues with Prozac-amped excitement over 'low maintenance costs' (which US DoD doesn't believe), yet curiously they are simultaneously emphasizing the benefits of increasd simulator time... If the flying-hour costs are so low, why bring up simulator time? Of course, ANY platform can be simulated, so increased simulator time isn't any advantage for F-35, and platforms with lower flight-hour costs would still have an advantage.
What's silliest is that by not bothering to enunciate the actual operational need for F-35, other approaches were simply ignored: A mixed-fleet of F-35 and Gripen E/F would indeed have signifigant advantages in capabilities and costs, especially with Gripen maintenance/training pooled with other users like Sweden. F-35's advantage is (sorta) stealth strike. So many other tasks (which are the predominant usages for RNoAF) are done equally or better by Gripen E/F.
As ALL Norwegian politicians from ALL parties are pro F-35A, even though they know it's troubled history, limited practical usage and costly future, one can not stop to wonder what has influenced (scared?) them to pull in the same direction.
What have they been told that we have not ?
Is it Stick or Carrot ?
@Anonymous:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/12/wikileaks-shows-us-played-aesa.html
That's probably why.
Would a combined force of F-35's and Gripen E's make sense in respect of Norway's needs? I assume protection of it's territorial integrity must be first priority, and "bomb truck" deliveries on call from Big Brother against some defenseless third world countries secondary. 60B NOK would probably be more than enough for 24 F-35s and 48 Gripen E's with lower operational costs performing the RNoAF tasks.
Also important to factor in; Norway originally required Block IV F-35 as it's baseline model, which would be augmented with Block V variants.
Now they will apparently settle for primitive block III model, which presumably will be retrofitted down the road (if feasible?) to a notional block IV??
(if there's enough money left in the budget for upgrade prior to what, 2025?)
Talk about poor value and a miscalculated recapitalization plan.
How do you say 'Bummer' in Norsk?
"How do you say 'Bummer' in Norsk?"
Fillern!
:)
Post a Comment