Posted on 08/21/2015 5:10:40 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Some Defence Watch readers have been pointing to a recent article published by Politiken, a Danish newspaper. The piece was written by three former Royal Danish Air Force pilots – Michael Huusom, Niels Gunnar Sørensen and Ole Ryberg.
With just a few months remaining until Denmark is expected to choose a fighter jet replacement for the country’s F-16s, the three pilots compare the options Denmark is considering: Lockheed Martin’s F-35, Boeing’s Super Hornet, and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
As one Defence Watch reader noted, the pilots argue that it is time to reassess the myth about the F-35 being the favourite option in the Danish fighter jet competition, suggesting that “Denmark does not need a ‘first day of war’ plane which is still in development without any certainty about future costs.”
“The F-35 was initially intended as a good and cheap replacement for the F-16 plane,” they write. “But it has developed into a very expensive and complicated plane.”
“We do not need a dogfighter like the Eurofighter either, which is expensive and falls behind the technological development,” they also wrote.
The pilots recommend Denmark acquire the Super Hornet, which they acknowledge might not be the sexiest choice, but it “can deliver what Denmark needs at an affordable price.”
“The Super Hornet will be a well-functioning fighter plane, from day one when we receive it,” they write. “It is a plane, which due to its origin as an aircraft carrier based fighter plane, is robust, requires a minimum of maintenance and does not require a large staff of mechanics who will have to work around the clock to keep it ready for takeoff.”
“With two reliable engines, the risk of accidents is minimal,” they add.
Their full argument can be read here (use Google translation to get the English version)
http://politiken.dk/debat/kroniken/ECE2795725/joint-strike-fighter-er-maaske-bare-ikke-det-rigtige-fly/
I’m surprised the the Danes prefer the F-18E/F over the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Typhoon has excellent maneuverability and has a very modern avionics suite.
Simple reason: Utility. The Eurofighter is somewhat of a luxury: its much more expensive and its current air to ground capability is only Paveway bombs.
And not to forget, currying favor with Washington.
Has the Eurofighter ever seen a dogfight? Then again, outside of bombing an unarmed Libya, what has the plane done?
I’m curious why there is not more discussion of the F-15 Silent Eagle that Boeing presented a few years back. It seemed like a reasonable option to those nations who couldn’t afford or want the unproven/expensive compromised design of the F-35 may and yet want a more advanced fighter option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.