BF2S Forums Norway is buying the JSF

Kmarion wrote:

jord wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Of course they do. But the modern role of the air force is to provide air support to ground forces. That is something that the current inventory does very nice. It is what we should be building around. It's not nearly as glamorous, but it's the reality of how wars are fought now. We are like middle aged men buying Ferrari's when the family really needs minivans. We are getting less use out of our money. It's not practical, but it sure does $ell.

Well someone more qualified at judging air threats than me or you made the call, so there's some reason they spent/wasted lots of cash on JSF's...

Right, so we should just assume our governments spend money based solely on threats posed. Not selling multi billion dollar contracts to the ill informed while lining the pockets of the most influential people in the world. I've heard agreement in my position from many knowledgeable people. Reading articles online and IRL.

ELITE-UK I'm debating where the money is spent.

Varegg wrote:

@Kmarion: Norway have air operations in Afghanistan amongst other joint air operations with the US.

Yes we have been ghost fighting the Russians in the northern parts of the Atlantic for decades, and we have done it well, Norway is responsible for air coverage over Iceland after the US withdrawal, we have very capable pilots and to my knowledge they all have training from the US. The F35 is today an equally great fighter as the F16 was in it's days when that was first purchased, many Norwegian companies already deliver parts and ammunition to US defence contractors so this choice was clearly beneficial for both parties.

We have been the first front for NATO against Russia since the start of the cold war and you wouldn't believe the number of incidents that took place both in the air and on the ground over a time-span of 40+ years.

The purpose of the Norwegian military is first and foremost to hold of the enemy until other NATO forces arrives so we actually need a bigger military pr capita than what's normal for most other NATO countries, and that's why we need new and better planes.

The OP might just have been a tad to early, the official decission isn't supposed to happen until 19th of December ...

... and the F16 is getting more and more exspensive to maintain for each year ...

jord wrote:

A10's get Brits killed, would be a kick in the teeth to buy them...


Oh and I worked on parts on the F35 10 miles from my house. So thanks for the money

Varegg wrote:

Well i guess your opinion doesn't count for much when it comes to the Norwegian millitary budget Kmarion

We have agreements with NATO and obligations to follow, covering the air in our part of the world is one of them and to tease your gag reflex we can afford it while most other countries can't

The Russians are far from our biggest threat atm but that doesn't mean they show teeth from time to time and we must be equipped to handle such incidents, remember the Russian bombers flying along the territorial border heading for the UK earlier this year and last year?

Kmarion wrote:

jord wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I'm not saying don't be safe.. just be smart when it comes to where you spend your money. Your examples are pretty far out there. Laughable even. Terrorist? Civil war? r-u-4-real?

Those were just half assed examples. I'm sure you can come up with a politically and geographically coorect scenario that is realistic...

Unless you believe countries that aren't in a war don't need a air force...?

Of course they do. But the modern role of the air force is to provide air support to ground forces.

.Sup wrote:

Eurofighter is better imo

Last edited by dayarath (2008-11-20 13:20:59)

dayarath wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Eurofighter is better imo

It's like comparing oranges and apples

haffeysucks wrote:

.Sup wrote:

dayarath wrote:

It's like comparing oranges and apples

So?

i think what he's saying is that the JSF is an all around jet whereas the Eurofighter is specialized

dayarath wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

dayarath wrote:

There you have it. the JSF is an excellent fighter bomber, stealth capabilities, quick, can carry a load and probably pack quite the punch. It's a way better choice than both the eurofighter and gripen for that role alone.

Also; NATO obligations, and if there really is going to be a war they should worry about more than just missiles. The airforce has actually always been ground support, never changed it's role during the course of the century.

Yes everything the current tried and true workhorses have been doing, just much more expensive. Thank you for reiterating my point. Whether it be intentional or not.

Who are you going to fight the requires the JSF over your current fighters?  An aerial assault on your homeland won't come from fighters. It will come via massive amounts of missiles launched from sea or far far away. You'll be wishing you'd spent your money on something that could have really protected you. There is strength in numbers, something you guys fail to understand.

there's more to war than a gazillion missiles, something you fail to understand. Besides, stealth is an extremely important 'new' factor, it makes the pilots' job safter and the chance of succes on a mission quadruples. That's the most important factor, how's AA going to shoot something it can't detect?

The Sheriff wrote:

The same point could be applied to why are the US investing so much money in overly advanced jets when the ones they have now are "untouchable" per se.

jord wrote:

A10's get Brits killed, would be a kick in the teeth to buy them...


Oh and I worked on parts on the F35 10 miles from my house. So thanks for the money