Here:

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/denmarks-government-recommends-buying-27-f-35s


And here:

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documen...sh-summary5.pdf


The document in the second link is quite interesting since it indicates that the F-35 is the most economical option among all final contenders which in the case of the Danish fighter competition were the F-35 (winner), Eurofighter Typhoon and the Super Hornet. This is specially interesting since I've been advocating for quite some time that the F-35 namely the F-35A variant is actually cheaper than the Super Hornet.


Also interesting is that among all JSF partners only Canada still didn't select the F-35 (all other partners together with Denmark already selected it).

IMHO, if you don't have aircraft carriers you really shouldn't bother getting the Super Hornet. I think Denmark made the right choice.

Yeap, but even if you have aircraft carriers the F-35C would be a far better choice than the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet is better today, as it's mature and has few kinks to work out. The F-35 is better for the future, and given that front line fighter service is now measured in decades instead of years, it makes buying the SH seem interim not permanent.



The Jedi Master

Sorry but that doesn't make much sense.

That's like saying that when the F-86 Sabre first entered in service or was in the latest stages of development that the F-80 Shooting Start was a better plane than the F-86 (because it was a "mature" and "proven" aircraft back then).

Besides when you buy a fighter aircraft you buy it to be good for tomorrow, not for yesterday!

I think that's what he was trying to say. You may have misunderstood him.

I actually understood the part of tomorrow.
But I just don't agree with the "today the Super Hornet is better than the F-35C" part.

His point is (I believe) that the Super Hornet is qualified to fly more missions today than the F-35C is, therefore making it the better aircraft for "today".

And I state that as a firm believer in the F-35.

Well, the F-35C still hasn't reach IOC.

However looking at the several features and capabilities, we can see that:

- The F-35C has a superior radar compared to the Super Hornet.
- The F-35C carries a 360� degree IRST (in the form of DAS). The Super Hornet can only carry one externally on the tip of the central/fuselage external fuel tank and it only convers the frontal arc.
- The F-35C has batter range and better performance (namely acceleration) and better agility than the Super Hornet.
- The F-35C is stealth and the Super Hornet is not.
And I could go, on and on and on...

Granted that the only advantage that the Super Hornet current has over the F-35C is that the Super Hornet is currently cleared to carry more weapons that the F-35C but that's it.

Exactly.

Therefore TODAY the Super Hornet is the more capable aircraft.

IOC is a formalization and validation of previously acquired capabilities. This means that just because the aircraft (this case F-35C) still hasn't reach IOC doesn't mean that it doesn't currently have many if not most of the required capabilities (for IOC).

I very much doubt that even TODAY the Super Hornet is more capable in dealing with any kind of aerial threats or more capable of destroying a well protected ground target behind enemy lines (penetrate enemy air defences) compared to the F-35C hence why I don't agree much with the "TODAY the Super Hornet is the more capable aircraft" statement.

You don't have to agree with it, it's a fact based on F-35C not being ready to go into combat.

Again, I am a big F-35 fan. I'm also a realist.

Exactly - if you absolutely, positively had to bomb someone TODAY, you'd want the SH because couldn't do it with the F-35 yet. If Denmark was in the midst of a shooting war defending their borders and needed more aircraft, they'd be best served by getting Super Hornets, but if not, definitely get the F-35 for "future-proofing" their military.

Denmark about to buy itself a whole lotta trouble.

Crappy aircraft until they finally finish designing the thing. It's still half baked.

Money pit for anyone who has the misfortune of having bought into it earlier on.

I'm sure it will be a good aircraft some day, though hideously more expensive than it was supposed to be.

The F-35 is so crappy that even your country (Japan) selected it! Really...

I'm not Japanese.

By the way, Japan selected the F-35 because they also built "helicopter" carriers that obviously can easily be converted to handle VTOL aircraft pretty much instantaneously.

Japanese heavy industry and backdoor deals also pushed for the purchase of that aircraft.

So am I (a realist).

My opinion/claims (or whatever you want to call it - I call it facts) are based on the fact that the Marines already declared IOC on their F-35B equipped with the Block 2B software.
Block 2B software gives initial combat capability to the F-35 in both air-to-air and air-to-ground (around 86% of full combat capabilities). Block 2B gives the ability for the F-35 to deploy the GBU-12 laser guided bomb (thus giving the capability to engage both moving and static ground targets), GBU-31/32 JDAM (capability to engage large/hardened ground static targets) and the AIM-120 AMRAAM (air-to-air capability, including BVR) and at the same time, with Block 2B the radar, EOTS and DAS are functional, so there's already and currently a very good combat capability with the Block 2B - Good enough that the Marines again declared IOC for their Block 2B F-35Bs.

Considering that currently F-35C are equipped with Block 2B software as well (the software upgrade was already proven to be very straightforward) than this is more than evidence that the F-35C is also combat capable.

Honestly the only task that I can see the Super Hornet being more capable of (than the current Block 2B F-35) is standoff anti-ship missions (since the Super Hornet can be equipped with the Harpoon missiles) since currently the F-35 is still not capable of carrying the JSM (and this will only happen with Block 4) and standoff Destruction of Enemy Air Defences. Here are a couple of advantages on the Super Hornet over the Block 2B F-35, I admit.
However, a Block 2B F-35 (doesn't matter which variant but lets mention the F-35C) is currently and already better than the Super Hornet in air-to-air combat (namely BVR), better in "typical" air-to-ground missions such as Strike, interdiction, CAS, etc... due to a combination of stealth and better and more advanced sensors and just as equally capable weapons.
I don't know if what I post (finally) makes sense or not?

Japan didn't buy the STOVL F-35B, only the CTOL F-35A (which obviously can't be used on "helicopter carriers").

Has F-35C declared IOC or not?

If so I must have missed it and retract my statement.

If not I have said all that can be said and you obviously are not the realist you claim to be.

Watch what happens to that order in the near future.

Japan was bound by the constitution created after WW2 NOT to engage in international conflicts. Having aircraft carriers and carrier based aircraft would have been unconstitutional as they were basically specifically banned by certain sections of the Japanese constitution.

The current ultra-nationalist leader of Japan illegally destroyed those constitutional decrees and the his new war laws became effective last month. You will see - Japan will have STOL F-35's and it will use them in the future based from the "helicopter" carriers.

The only thing that will stop the above from happening is if the current PM is ejected from power later this year or next year and replaced with someone less warmongering (Which is a possibility).