Mortyman wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

There is a multinational training base in Arizona where various countries has based training Aircraft. Before Christmas, a Norwegian F-35 pilot flew a US F-35 up to Alaska to test the drag chute on the icy runway.

So why then would Denmark face the risk of keeping 5+ A/C out of 27 in the US? That tells me, apart from the odd training/test mission there is no systematic approach to train NATO pilots on common combat platforms.

It's a pool of training Aircraft wich includes training Aircraft from every nation I beleave.

As the world’s premier conventional F-35 training base, Luke is currently training pilots and instructors for the USA, Australia, Norway, Italy – and soon F-35 foreign military sales customers Japan and Israel. Other programme partners – the Netherlands, Turkey and possibly Denmark and Canada – will also join the pooling arrangement, where they share aircraft and instructors.

Luke will grow to six F-35 training squadrons, and will soon reactivate its third unit – the 63rd Fighter Squadron, which trained F-16C/D pilots until it disbanded in 2009.

Nicoeddf wrote:

So why then would Denmark face the risk of keeping 5+ A/C out of 27 in the US? That tells me, apart from the odd training/test mission there is no systematic approach to train NATO pilots on common combat platforms.

An integral part of Luke's F-16 fighter pilot training mission is the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range. The range consists of 1,900,000 acres (7,700 km2) of relatively undisturbed Sonoran Desert southwest of Luke Air Force Base between Yuma and Tucson south of Interstate 8. Overhead are 57,000 cubic miles (240,000 km3) of airspace where pilots practice air-to-air maneuvers and engage simulated battlefield targets on the ground. Roughly the size of Connecticut, the immense size of the complex allows for simultaneous training activities on nine air-to-ground and two air-to-air ranges. The Luke Air Force Base Range Management Office manages the eastern range activities and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma oversees operations on the western portion.

VSMUT wrote:

CX747 wrote:

WHO is complaining about having jets at Luke AFB to train with?

Nicoeddf wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

By the way, and maybe a totally naive question: Why isn't a multinational training squadron established, where you basically pay per hour of aircraft and instructor use. I know, simplified, but you get the idea.

Wouldn't that help to increase training efficiency and increase forward availablity of A/C where they are really needed?

There is a multinational training base in Arizona where various countries has based training Aircraft. Before Christmas, a Norwegian F-35 pilot flew a US F-35 up to Alaska to test the drag chute on the icy runway.

So why then would Denmark face the risk of keeping 5+ A/C out of 27 in the US? That tells me, apart from the odd training/test mission there is no systematic approach to train NATO pilots on common combat platforms.

ThePointblank wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

There is a multinational training base in Arizona where various countries has based training Aircraft. Before Christmas, a Norwegian F-35 pilot flew a US F-35 up to Alaska to test the drag chute on the icy runway.

So why then would Denmark face the risk of keeping 5+ A/C out of 27 in the US? That tells me, apart from the odd training/test mission there is no systematic approach to train NATO pilots on common combat platforms.

Unless Denmark is willing to develop and build massive training ranges and facilities in Denmark to train Danish F-35 pilots in the use of their aircraft, build them far enough from populated centres for safety and noise mitigation, and also allocate the air space to deconflict the skies for the trainee pilots, the Danes have to do their training in the US, as the US has the air space and facilities to conduct the training.

JJJ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

So why then would Denmark face the risk of keeping 5+ A/C out of 27 in the US? That tells me, apart from the odd training/test mission there is no systematic approach to train NATO pilots on common combat platforms.

Unless Denmark is willing to develop and build massive training ranges and facilities in Denmark to train Danish F-35 pilots in the use of their aircraft, build them far enough from populated centres for safety and noise mitigation, and also allocate the air space to deconflict the skies for the trainee pilots, the Danes have to do their training in the US, as the US has the air space and facilities to conduct the training.

They could do it in Spain, there are two massive air space areas blocked for military, far from populated areas.

That's where most major NATO combat exercises in Europe take place.

ThePointblank wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

There is a multinational training base in Arizona where various countries has based training Aircraft. Before Christmas, a Norwegian F-35 pilot flew a US F-35 up to Alaska to test the drag chute on the icy runway.

So why then would Denmark face the risk of keeping 5+ A/C out of 27 in the US? That tells me, apart from the odd training/test mission there is no systematic approach to train NATO pilots on common combat platforms.

Unless Denmark is willing to develop and build massive training ranges and facilities in Denmark to train Danish F-35 pilots in the use of their aircraft, build them far enough from populated centres for safety and noise mitigation, and also allocate the air space to deconflict the skies for the trainee pilots, the Danes have to do their training in the US, as the US has the air space and facilities to conduct the training.

ThePointblank wrote:

JJJ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Unless Denmark is willing to develop and build massive training ranges and facilities in Denmark to train Danish F-35 pilots in the use of their aircraft, build them far enough from populated centres for safety and noise mitigation, and also allocate the air space to deconflict the skies for the trainee pilots, the Danes have to do their training in the US, as the US has the air space and facilities to conduct the training.

They could do it in Spain, there are two massive air space areas blocked for military, far from populated areas.

That's where most major NATO combat exercises in Europe take place.

The Danes will also need to procure and operate a fleet of trainer aircraft to train Danish pilots in basic airmanship skills. They currently don't, and rely on the USAF's pilot training system to do so.

JJJ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

JJJ wrote:

They could do it in Spain, there are two massive air space areas blocked for military, far from populated areas.

That's where most major NATO combat exercises in Europe take place.

The Danes will also need to procure and operate a fleet of trainer aircraft to train Danish pilots in basic airmanship skills. They currently don't, and rely on the USAF's pilot training system to do so.

They can pool up with another euro NATO air force that operates the type. No need for valuable (and expensive) fighter a/c to be stationed half a world away.

JJJ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

JJJ wrote:

They could do it in Spain, there are two massive air space areas blocked for military, far from populated areas.

That's where most major NATO combat exercises in Europe take place.

The Danes will also need to procure and operate a fleet of trainer aircraft to train Danish pilots in basic airmanship skills. They currently don't, and rely on the USAF's pilot training system to do so.

They can pool up with another euro NATO air force that operates the type. No need for valuable (and expensive) fighter a/c to be stationed half a world away.

ThePointblank wrote:

JJJ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

The Danes will also need to procure and operate a fleet of trainer aircraft to train Danish pilots in basic airmanship skills. They currently don't, and rely on the USAF's pilot training system to do so.

They can pool up with another euro NATO air force that operates the type. No need for valuable (and expensive) fighter a/c to be stationed half a world away.

Such as whom?

The Dutch and Norwegians conduct their pilot training in the US as well.
The British will be operating the F-35B, so their experience won't work.
The Italians do conduct some pilot training in Italy, but they also send pilots to the US for training as well.

So, whom are the Danes going to partner with? Who are the Danes going to partner with that can offer the whole spectrum of training with the fidelity and quality that can be provided in the US?

JJJ wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

JJJ wrote:

They can pool up with another euro NATO air force that operates the type. No need for valuable (and expensive) fighter a/c to be stationed half a world away.

Such as whom?

The Dutch and Norwegians conduct their pilot training in the US as well.
The British will be operating the F-35B, so their experience won't work.
The Italians do conduct some pilot training in Italy, but they also send pilots to the US for training as well.

So, whom are the Danes going to partner with? Who are the Danes going to partner with that can offer the whole spectrum of training with the fidelity and quality that can be provided in the US?

It's up to them. They should have decided that before finding out that permanently stationing 1/5 of their a/c across the Atlantic was an issue.

With +300 airframes in Europe (I'm counting the Turks in) you should be able to make a decent joint training fleet.

The Danish Central Bank has completed the hedging of payments of USD3.7 billion so that the department of defence is able to acquire the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at fixed price in its local currency.

Copenhagen agreed in 2016 to acquire 27 conventional take-off and landing F-35A variants of the fighter to replace its incumbent F-16 fleet, and has hedged the dollars so that they are available at a fixed price when they are needed.

This process commenced at the beginning of 2018, the bank said, and has now been completed.

“The process of entering into forwards, which ensure a fixed price of dollars when the government needs them has been smooth,” Frank Nielsen, assistant governor of the bank, said.

Terma and Scandinavian Avionics have teamed to form an avionics test centre in Denmark to offer support for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in Europe.

Avionics Test Center Denmark will combine the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) experience of Scandinavian Avionics with the electronic and software experience of Terma to provide test and repair of the avionics on board the fighter.

“In order to provide best value to the F-35 programme, Terma and Scandinavian Avionics decided to team up to form Avionics Test Center Denmark,” Jens Maaløe, president and CEO of Terma, says.

“We both aim to enhance and grow our MRO capabilities towards the F-35 programme with specific focus on the test and repair of F-35 avionics.”

Boeing lost a lawsuit against Denmark on Friday which related to the Danish government's decision to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II combat jets in preference to Boeing's F/A 18 Super Hornets.

Boeing had taken Denmark to court over a lack of access to documents used in the government's decision to buy the Lockheed Martin jets.

"The court has found that the authorities' decisions on refusal of access to the documents are legal and valid," Copenhagen's city court said in a summary of the verdict on its website on Friday.

Boeing said it was disappointed by the decision and would now review it and consider how to proceed.

After Denmark decided to buy 27 of Lockheed Martin's new warplanes in 2016, Boeing complained that the evaluation process for the planes competing for the order had been "flawed" and demanded access to the documents in the case.

"Boeing initiated this legal action to gain a better understanding of the evaluation process, in which we believe the Ministry made a number of critical errors and omissions in its evaluation," Boeing said in a statement on Friday.

Denmark's defense ministry had denied Boeing access because the U.S. company had not specified which documents it wanted to see, and that it would too large a task to find all documents since preparations for the order began in 2005.

The Danish F-16 fighter aircraft will fly half a year longer than planned. Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksens (V) report to the Folketing's Defense Committee. It writes the news media Altinget.

The F-16 planes will be phased out in 2024 when the defense has enough new F-35 fighters. But the hangar of the new fighter aircraft is delayed. Therefore, F-16 aircraft must be on the wings well six months longer than planned. "As we know, in the spring we chose to move the location of the F-35 complex to the southwest of Skveststrup Airport, to reduce the nuisance of the terminal noise as much as possible," writes Claus Hjort Frederiksen.

The changed location implies a delay in construction, so the hangar complex will not be ready to receive the first aircraft at the end of 2022 as planned so far, "the note states.

The defense would solve the problem by getting the new F-35 fighters abroad. Then we could handle the aircraft, even though we could not keep them in Denmark. Now you choose another solution, explains the defense minister.

"However, since there has been less wear on the F-16 aircraft in the last two years than assumed (...), we instead have chosen to handle the construction delay by operating operatively a little longer with F-16," says Claus Hjort Frederiksen .

At the same time, delivery of the first F-35 at Flyvestation Skrydstrup will be moved from the end of 2022 to April 2023.

The Ministry of Defense informs Altinget that the F-16 planes are retired about six months later. They are not phased out from the end of 2024, but in the first half of 2025.

Mortyman wrote:

I still don't understand why they are only buying 27 ? I think it's a very low number.

The Danish Defense Ministry's unverified claims about the noise levels of the future backbone of the Scandinavian country's air force may add extra costs to the divisive multi-billion krone purchase, experts suggest.
Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen of the ruling Liberal Party has misled the Danish parliament in matters pertaining to the noise levels of the F-35 fighters before allocating billions for the procurement of the fifth generation US combat jets, two experts claimed in an interview with the Jyllands-Posten daily.
According to Jyllands-Posten, Frederiksen failed to inform the parliament about problems with measures to ensure that the residents in the vicinity of Skrydstrup air base in South Jutland won't be affected by the noise.

Mortyman wrote:

I still don't understand why they are only buying 27 ? I think it's a very low number.

VSMUT wrote:

https://ing.dk/artikel/danmark-faar-ikke-adgang-kildekoder-f-35-214011

Denmark won't be getting access to the source codes. Above mentioned minister of defence insists that it is of no importance...

For F-35, as for several of the military's other capabilities, including the F-16 aircraft, Denmark has no full access to all source codes in the embedded software. For F-35, Denmark, like all other F35 users, is to a large extent dependent on our allies and partners,

VSMUT wrote:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/forsvarsministeren-beskyldes-vildledning-om-kampfly

The minister of defence deliberately misled parliament on the noise levels.

Tugger wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

https://ing.dk/artikel/danmark-faar-ikke-adgang-kildekoder-f-35-214011

Denmark won't be getting access to the source codes. Above mentioned minister of defence insists that it is of no importance...

Gee, that is news? From the article:

For F-35, as for several of the military's other capabilities, including the F-16 aircraft, Denmark has no full access to all source codes in the embedded software. For F-35, Denmark, like all other F35 users, is to a large extent dependent on our allies and partners,

"Source code" is almost always secured to the original supplier, to both protect it and keep it current (not to mention copyrights and that the developer of it owns it basically -p.s. US I know the USG own it actually since they paid for it under a USG contract etc.).

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/forsvarsministeren-beskyldes-vildledning-om-kampfly

The minister of defence deliberately misled parliament on the noise levels.

Hmmm.... not sure. Looks like he wanted approval for reducing thrust take-offs but that no one was willing to sign off on it. That is still possible to be done as the program develops and better knows the flight limits.

The "increased chance of crashing" due to reduced thrust would indeed be an issue for anyone singing off on it. But is not an unusual thing for no one being willing to volunteer to accept added risk. My guess is the program and Danish partners will work together to find the best possible noise profile for the jets operation is Denmark.

I myself am waiting to see how loud they are when they arrive to the base near me. I have my concerns but I also know there will be work done to mitigate any increase noise level.

Tugg

“The extension of the runway allows the F-35A aircraft to take-off without the use of afterburner, which will reduce noise impacts to the Base and surrounds,” Williamtown Senior Australian Defence Force Officer, Air Commodore Craig Heap said.

Ozair wrote:

So we have an existing partner nation who is already planning, and will be conducting non afterburner takeoff from their shorter runway than the Danes, and yet apparently with a longer runway no one will sign off on non afterburner takeoffs in Denmark...

Tugger wrote:

Ozair wrote:

So we have an existing partner nation who is already planning, and will be conducting non afterburner takeoff from their shorter runway than the Danes, and yet apparently with a longer runway no one will sign off on non afterburner takeoffs in Denmark...

Well that likely bodes well for Miramar in the USA and its 12000ft/3658m runway. They will likely also do non-afterburner takeoffs as well.

Tugg

Something else about "ground ops". It's time to get in the air. We usually take off in "MIL Power" - full engine without afterburner. The machine accelerates smoothly and steadily in MIL. With afterburner, acceleration is impressive, especially now lately when it has been "cold" here in Phoenix. When it comes time to lift the nose - to rotate - for departure, I have to move the stick back about halfway, relative to the rear stop. Nesa lifts slowly at first, but evenly and controllably, when the nose wheel "releases the roof" (in the ground). It is easy to point the plane to the desired attitude for attitude and there are no tendencies to overcorrect.

When the aircraft is in the air it is again clear that the machine has a powerful engine. We tend to climb by between five and 10 degree increments - which is quite steep. Even in "MIL power," the machine still accelerates well. As I pass the end of the runway, the plane has happily passed 300 knots. (The airplane climbs ready right after takeoff with a five-degree increase of 300 knots with less than half-power. In addition, full sliding with afterburner is described as 150% engine power). I had the pleasure of being the instructor on the first flight to a colleague with a background of hunter bombs. He said so: "I did not think performance like that was possible!"

Ozair wrote:

There is a reason I stated storm in a teacup. The jet is perfectly capable of reduced thrust takeoffs. The need for afterburner on takeoff is only when the jet is heavily loaded and the runway is short. The Danes are perfectly capable of lowering the load of the jet for a majority missions they conduct with no operational or training loss. They have also already decided to move the basing to another part of the field to reduce the noise impact.

But to put this whole thing into the context it deserves, the RAAF recently extended the runway at RAAF Williamtown for the sole reason to provide lower thrust take-off for the F-35A when it starts operations there in late 2018.

So we have an existing partner nation who is already planning, and will be conducting non afterburner takeoff from their shorter runway than the Danes, and yet apparently with a longer runway no one will sign off on non afterburner takeoffs in Denmark...

VSMUT wrote:

Nice try, but as the article clearly states, it's Lockheed Martin and the JPO who are refusing to certify non-afterburner takeoff.

VSMUT wrote:

Nice try, but as the article clearly states, it's Lockheed Martin and the JPO who are refusing to certify non-afterburner takeoff.

In June 2016, the Danish Parliament approved the procurement of 27 F-35 fighter aircraft to replace the Royal Danish Air Force’s remaining fleet of 30 operational F-16s. Scheduled for delivery between 2021 and 2026, the F-35 acquisition is only the first of a number of decisions to be taken in the coming years. Previous fighter aircraft acquisitions reveal three sets of risks and challenges inherent in such decisions.

The first set of risks concerns the building of a sufficient organizational structure around the aircraft so that they can perform the set of tasks expected by the Parliament. Adequate numbers of pilots, technicians, and flight engineers must be trained in time to fly and maintain the aircraft to meet the schedule for their delivery accepted by the Parliament. The facilities at Skrydstrup Air Base must also be ready to house, service, and protect the aircraft.

The second set of risks concerns the integration of the new aircraft into the Royal Danish Air Force (RDAF) and the Danish armed forces more broadly. In the past, new aircraft enabled the RDAF to expand the types of tasks that it could perform, including how it interacted with the forces of the Royal Danish Navy and Army, and the forces of Denmark’s NATO allies.

The third set of risks arise from the possibility that the aircraft can be used in new ways to address currently unforeseeable security challenges. The F-16 fleet played a substantial role in enabling Danish leaders to respond to changes in the international security environment after the Cold War. The F-35 will likely play a similarly fluid role over the course of its 40year life expectancy.

This report analyses these risks and challenges in light of Denmark’s experience with the F-16, the plans of its North European partners in the F35 programme, and the broader security environment for Danish defence policy. The report concludes with potential considerations for Danish policy makers

Consider the risks inherent in recruiting, educating, training, and retaining sufficient numbers of pilots and maintenance personnel.

Consider retaining very experienced pilots as US-based instructors for a number of years in order to populate the new F-35 squadron with experienced pilots to the extent possible.

Consider the risks inherent in managing the flight hours remaining in the F-16 fleet in relation to potential demands for additional deployments to international operations, air policing missions, exercises, and the increased training requirements inherent in the transition to a new aircraft.

Consider contingencies to remedy potential shortfalls in F-16 fleet flight hours.

Consider the possibility that additional aircraft may be required in the future.

Consider expediting the construction of new and refurbished facilities at Skrydstrup to avoid further delays in the acceptance of F-35s to Danish territory.

Consider a thorough risk assessment of the physical, electromagnetic, and cybersecurity measures planned for F-35 storage and information at Skrydstrup.

Consider the requirements for adjusting maintenance structures, processes, and labour agreements to accommodate the cooperative multinational maintenance system of the F-35 programme.

Consider the geostrategic position of Skrydstrup Air Base relative to potential contingencies in the Baltic Sea region and implement appropriate capacities relative to national and NATO requirements, including options for ground-based air defence (GBAD) systems.

Consider increasing participation in Red Flag training exercises to develop pilot competencies in high intensity, multinational air contingencies.

Consider developing a regional exercise in the airspace over the North Sea to enhance training opportunities with other F-35 users in northern Europe.

Consider the requirements for the integration of future Danish maritime and air power capabilities, including communications, sensors, command and control, and coordinating the firing of munitions.

Consider requesting Danish participation in multinational exercises involving the United Kingdom and Norway to practice integrating air and maritime capabilities.

Consider future F-35 command and control (C2) arrangements together with other European F-35 user nations to ensure the agile, flexible, and effective employment of the F-35 aircraft with its sensors, sensor fusion, and communication capabilities.

Consider including an air-launched strike missile that can be carried in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 in the investigation of ‘a potential future acquisition of long-range precision-guided missiles’ recommended in the 2018 Defence Agreement.