Norwegian government wants Joint Strike Fighter

[Mudoria]

Source: AP

OSLO, Norway – The Norwegian government says it has picked the U.S. developed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace its aging U.S.-made F-16 aircraft in a roughly 60 billion kroner ($8.5 billion) deal.

The U.S. led-consortium had been competing with Sweden's JAS Gripen fighter to replace NATO-member Norway's 48 US-made F-16s.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_norway_joint_strike_fighter_1;_ylt=Av23eTt3xLs5RrcZnpMFXUxbbBAF

---

Excellent choice!

[unhappycamper]

1. Well, the $239,000,000 F-35 did break mach 1 this week.

That's somethin I guess. :shrug:

[FarCenter]

6. I bet they are paying nowhere near list price....

[Gullvann]

19. Is there a chance that this plane will be canceled by

President Obama or Congress now with all the ecenomic difficulties?

Then again, I guess losing potential jobs in the aerospace business would not be a good prospect either.

The American ambassador is just being interviewed at the moment, and is confident that the program will not be canceled.

[msongs]

2. so why does Norway need fighter planes? are they going to war with....Sweden? nt

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Quit reading my mind.

Right now, dammit.

[BunkerHill24]

8. Naah, they want to sell it to China; Taiwan, or India

[amandabeech]

11. Norway is a member of NATO.

During the bad days of the Cold War, Norway would have been attacked by the USSR coming out of Murmansk and Archangel.

The NATO seabed listening devices went from Norway to Iceland to Denmark. Those sensors would have been invaluable in detecting submarines and even the Soviet North Fleet coming into the North Atlantic to do battle and sink all the North American shipping to Europe. That shipping would have included all kinds of war materiel to replace that pre-positioned in Europe.

Now that Vladimir Putin has become more aggressive, I would imagine that Norway wants to be up to date, and fly with the best NATO forces.

[hack89]

14. Russia is the only real potential threat.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2120697.ece?service=print


Norway dominates the maritime approaches to Russia. If there was a war in Europe involving Russia, it is a certainty they would attack Norway to ensure free access for their navy to the Atlantic and North Sea.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. WTF do they need fighters for, anyway?

Afraid Denmark & Sweden are gonna gang up on them?

[sofa king]

34. Consider the first Gulf War.

In the early 1990s, the Iraqis were thought to have a few dozen high-line fighter aircraft. The presence of those aircraft changed the entire face of the war, leading to a full month of air attacks designed to achieve air supremacy. The plan did not change even after many of those planes and pilots flew off to Iran.

The possible presence of those planes, or the return of some of them from Iran, may also have been a factor in Bush the Smarter's decision to cut the war short, and that decision bought another twelve years of existence for Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They certainly added to the expense of the operation.

Similarly, when the Soviets invaded Finland, which borders Norway, they had to devote considerable expense to challenge the small and obsolete Finnish air force (among others, they were flying Brewster Buffaloes, the same kind of plane which was shot down like so many quail at Midway). The Winter War of 1939 did not go particularly well for the Soviets, and Finland survived.

Just like keeping a few potent warships in port changes the strategic thinking of a navally superior enemy, so too does having a small and (comparatively) inexpensive air defense fleet. It buys time, which is exactly what Norway would need in the event of any defense of its own borders, and it buys membership in a powerful defensive alliance, which is far more important. As a part of that alliance, that small squadron of planes can help play the same role elsewhere in Europe. Scandinavian socialism prevents those expenditures from taking up too much of the nation's GDP.

It's a mean and unforgiving world out there, and the one way to guarantee that the world will beat a path to your door is to forego defense in the name of expense. That is an unfortunate fact of life which I would love to see changed, but so far it hasn't in ten thousand years, and a couple billion before that.

[jwirr]

5. Maybe still remember the days of the USSR.

[amandabeech]

10. And maybe the days of Nazi occupation. n/t

[Aristus]

7. Peaceful nations and historically neutral countries always have a strong defense.

Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland. Small, peaceful nations, but they understand that other nations might not want them to maintain a neutral stance. They field strong forces to deter invasion and intimidation. Sweden and Switzerland in particular have very well-trained armed forces.

I remember when Bush was talking about Sweden to one diplomat or another from Scandinavia, and he said: "Sweden? That's the one that ain't got a army, right?" thinking that neutrality meant "inability to defend themselves." :eyes:

[ACTION BASTARD]

9. Agreed. It's just weird that they jump on nearly top-shelf stuff though.

Still a good idea to have something nice , "in case". Or could be just a deterrent to keep those rowdy Poles in line.

* I have no idea if Polish people are rowdy or not, I just pulled that out of my ass. So the "PC" crowd can go dry-hump the PETA crowd now.

[amandabeech]

12. Norway is small but most assuredly, is not neutral like Sweden and Switzerland,

It is a member of NATO and was occupied harshly by the Nazis.

See my post above.

[Aristus]

13. I agree. I was just asserting that they are not a rampaging imperialistic nation

like some countries I could name...

The Norwegians are so OVER that whole "rape and plunder" thing they were into a thousand years ago or so...

[The2ndWheel]

15. Nope. They just buy their military hardware from one

You can't escape the machine.

[amandabeech]

17. Well, a lot of the NATO hardware is from the U.S.

Some comes from the U.K. and other NATO countries.

The idea is that the armed forces of all NATO countries should be able to communicate with each other and share bullets and parts whenever possible.

If they were allied with Russia or China, they'd have a lot of weapons from those nations.

Whether the Norwegians would buy American if NATO were to be dissolved is another question.

[Gullvann]

21. You made a good point.

Not being member of the EU, NATO is very important to us. As a NATO member I think we should try to buy within the alliance as much as possible. It's part of the point of being allied :-)

With warfare becoming increasingly dominated by advanced electronics, it makes sense to used a shared technological base.

The JSF also being a better plane, and cheaper:

It really was no contest.

Another thing, is that Sweden, being a neutral country, had not guaranteed to supply spare parts and service if we participate in a conflict they do not approve of. That's pretty much a deal breaker in itself.

[amandabeech]

22. That's an interesting point with regard to Sweden.

They didn't try to fight the Nazis directly like you did.

Who knows what they'd do if Russia went on the march. I understand that they have considerable investments in Russia and the Baltics, but when I visited Sweden, I didn't notice many pro-Russia comments.

[Gullvann]

24. I don't even know if the evaluation even took into consideration

things like that. About the possible problems to obtain spare parts. Say, in Iraq earlier. Then Sweden could have stopped the supply. No matter what you think of the conflict there, you cannot source hardware from a country with such uncertainties.

Another thing my amateur military mind think of though, is what if Russia invades sometime in the future.... Sweden is to the east of us. In other words, they would probably take out our source of supplies first...

As, for us fighting Nazis. I think we also tried to stay out of the war (like you did I guess before Pearl Harbour), but when the Germans attacked. We, like you... Had no choice but, to resist.

On edit: I sound like Palin when I type. :dunce:

[amandabeech]

16. I agree. They got it out of their system in the time frame you name.

Lots of us with western European heritage probably have a few genes from the Norwegians.

[Gullvann]

20. Well, we did participate in Iraq, and are currently active

in Afghanistan. I suspect that President Obama will soon ask that we increase our efforts in Afghanistan.

Apparently, Norwegian F-16's were responsible for the bombings that killed some of Zawahiri (of the recent Al Qaeda tape) family members a few years back.

[amandabeech]

23. I didn't support Iraq and have some doubts about what the current goal is

in Afghanistan, but I thank you for sticking by your commitment to NATO.

If things get really dicey, it's nice to know that you'll be there!

[Gullvann]

25. I did support Iraq

Colin Powell's "demonstration" in the security council convinced me.

Suffice, to say I have learned to be a lot more skeptical to government talking heads.

As, for Afghanistan I did support the initial effort to take out the Al Qaeda training camps and such, but I am afraid that "good war" is a more hopeless cause than Iraq. Ironical as it may seem.

BTW: Nice to talk to you amanda. Most Americans seems so aggressive these days.

You seem kind.

Cheers.

[amandabeech]

26. I grew up in a small town in the Midwest.

That accounts for a lot of it.

Plus, I'm older--53. Younger people here in the U.S. seem to have a real "edge" for reasons that I simply don't understand.

The U.S. has become nastier and ruder.

I apologize for my countrymen and women. They know not what they do.

Nice to talk to you!

[Gullvann]

27. I don't get that "edge" either.

I studied in America in the early 90's. It wasn't there then that much - the agression.

And,if it was there it was in the right wing nut cases who wanted to nuke everyone.

Now, it seems common here as well. I almost get worried that the anti-American left in Scandinavia had it right all along. That we need to fear the American people.

Much agression.

Hopefully when the testosterone starts petering out people will calm down. lol.

I certainly love America. Always have. Have great hopes for the Obama Presidency.

I hope he can calm the world down.

We all need some change and hope.

And, to calm down.

Cheers.

[amandabeech]

28. Yes, I hope Obama can calm down the U.S. and the world.

It's nice to hear from someone overseas who knows us and still likes us.

A lot of the edge doesn't result in action, just verbal and body-language unpleasantness. I just try to have as little communication with them as possible.

We do all need change and hope.

Cheers!

[No Elephants]

31. That was so last millenium.

[Gullvann]

18. Just having my morning coffee. This is all over the news now

in both Norway and Sweden. The Swedes are angry at us it sounds like :shrug:

It seems like the stealth ability of the F-35 made a major difference.

Additionally, Lockheed Martin claims to be able to deliver the planes at a lower cost than the Swedes, both initially and lifetime maintenance.

Our armed forces and the air force and pilots are also happy. They got the shining toy they wanted B-)

[JeanGrey]

29. OUTSTANDING! That will help all of my Lockheed stock

in my 401K.

[ohio2007]

30. Don't they know Russian Migs are "cheaper" ? nt

[hack89]

32. You get what you pay for.. nt

[IndianaGreen]

33. And Norway's enemy is...?

These fancy, and very expensive, weapons systems are a throwback to the Dark Ages of the Cold War. Scrap the entire program!