Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Netherlands Has Decided To Go For JSF F35  
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3701 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16792 times:

The Netherlands has decided to go for JSF F35:

Argumentation is pretty much the same as the Norwegian one for buying F 35 instead of Gripen...

So far, article is only in Norwegian, sorry...

http://www.dagbladet.no/2008/12/18/n...r/jagerfly/jsf/jas_gripen/4087443/

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=545281

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 16673 times:

Here is a URL in English. Interesting, the Dutch conclude the F-135 superior in cost and capability as well.

I wonder what the odds are of two air forces screwing up the evaluation?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ranks-f-35-superior-to-rivals.html


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 16571 times:

I think that if the JSF was build in Europe it probably would have ordered yrs ago  Wink

I expect now the European air foces are buying US jets again, the US will do the same with European aircraft if they offer superior performance.


User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1320 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16533 times:

well,
the F-35 will be builty in Europe.
Alenia of Italy will assemble all the examples destined to Europe, at least this is according to the general agreement for the participation of Italy in the program.
Not sure if this included those for the UK.
I recall having read somewhere that, while Italy got the final assembly line, the UK wanted a more specialized job, probably to establish a centre of excellence for maintanence.
Can anybody confirm this?

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16474 times:

Flight Global's article on the Dutch military report.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ranks-f-35-superior-to-rivals.html

Quote:
Dutch military report ranks F-35 superior to rivals
By Stephen Trimble
The Netherlands defence ministry has categorically endorsed the capability and affordability of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over two of its main rivals.
Dutch undersecretary of defence Jack de Vries pronounced the F-35 superior to the Saab Gripen NG and Lockheed’s proposed F-16 Advanced, ranking the latter two fighters essentially the same in its overall assessment.
The results of the comparison fulfils a requirement imposed by the Dutch parliament and clears the defence ministry to buy two F-35s in April 2009 to participate with the USA and the UK in the JSF programme's initial operational test and evaluation phase.
"The F-35 is the best multirole combat aircraft and by around 2015 will certainly be able to carry out all six main missions successfully," de Vries says.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16453 times:



Quoting Steman (Reply 3):
Not sure if this included those for the UK.
I recall having read somewhere that, while Italy got the final assembly line, the UK wanted a more specialized job, probably to establish a centre of excellence for maintanence.

Well it's my understanding that the UK model will be be the only export model with basically the same capabilities as the US models, so my guess is that theirs will be built in the US.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTancrede From Finland, joined May 2006, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 16417 times:

I am still very surprise to hear that a plane is "FAR" superior to other ones, when it is still very much a paper plane.

I certainly do love this statement:

"The F-35 is the best multirole combat aircraft and by around 2015 will certainly be able to carry out all six main missions successfully," de Vries says.


The "certainly" and "by 2015" are words of conviction. But, in fact, we have only to wait until this date to see if this plane really gives what it was asked to do, or on the contrary to see some European countries feeling that they have been deceived, only that it would be too late for them.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16353 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
I expect now the European air foces are buying US jets again, the US will do the same with European aircraft if they offer superior performance.

The tanker program comes to my mind....and that ended up in patriotism,more or less...and i have a hard time seeing the Euro fighter less competitive than a F-16 Adv. witch Jack de vries ranking almost as the same as a F-35.
The F-35 will PROBABLY be a god plane,but it's way to early to say that it is the best plane,as off today it's just barely have manage to take of...

Merry Christmas!  santahat 



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 16342 times:



Quoting Tancrede (Reply 6):
I certainly do love this statement:

"The F-35 is the best multirole combat aircraft and by around 2015 will certainly be able to carry out all six main missions successfully," de Vries says.


The "certainly" and "by 2015" are words of conviction. But, in fact, we have only to wait until this date to see if this plane really gives what it was asked to do, or on the contrary to see some European countries feeling that they have been deceived, only that it would be too late for them.

The only certain things about this industry seems to be the following:

1. Cost over-runs
2. Delays



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 16291 times:



Quoting Tancrede (Reply 6):
I am still very surprise to hear that a plane is "FAR" superior to other ones, when it is still very much a paper plane.

ow is it? Why are there several planes standing on the ramp then?!


User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16244 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
All the partner nations will have the same level of stealth built in

Stealth yes. Full access to the A/C codes? No. This allows us to integrate what WE want rather then getting what we're given.



The Australian Defence Minister has met with Eurofighter Consortium Officials.


HERE from Jane's.

Australian DoD

On question- why goto Leeds? Huh? It's going to be freeeeeeeeezing; and grey. Big grin


User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16152 times:

This "decision" from the Dutch MOD is not very surprising since they have been favoring the F-35 from the beginning. This "evaluation" was only done to calm the lower house down. With almost $1Bn invested in the program it's also very hard not to come to the conclusion that the F-35 is the best cost effective choice. IMO, the F-35 is the way for RNlAF to go.

What strikes me though is that de Vries says there were many unknowns around the F-16 Adv and Gripen NG, and yet he hands in the report two months in advance. Perhaps he wasn't so eager on knowing...  Smile

Hats off to him though for admitting this instead of making up his own numbers based on their F-16AM/BM's...  duck 

Quoting Alien (Reply 1):
I wonder what the odds are of two air forces screwing up the evaluation?

You can't compare Dutch "evaluation" to the Norwegian. The Dutch MOD spent a roughly a month evaluating an RFI while Norway spend 6-8 months on their RBI who had a bit more substance in it.

Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
As of today there are twice as many F-35s flying as there are Gripen NG. So that argument has even more traction with the Gripen NG. How many Gripen NG will be flying by the end of 2009? At least 12 F-35s will be flying.

The Gripen NG isn't an entirely new aircraft that has to go through a complete test program. The Gripen NG schedule is also less hurried since the EIS isn't needed until 2014. And since the Gripen NG has a lot in common with the Gripen C/D, these can be used as test beds as well (very much like LM/NG used the F-16 to test the F-35 DAS). And on top of this, there is a Gripen NG simulator and avionics rig up and running....


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16117 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
As of today there are twice as many F-35s flying as there are Gripen NG. So that argument has even more traction with the Gripen NG. How many Gripen NG will be flying by the end of 2009? At least 12 F-35s will be flying.

If you put it that way,is it the pure nr that sets it's capabilities? There are only one NG in the air as of today but that single nr has accomplish more than those F-35,therefor the NG would be a really super plane then?.....Ore could we agree on that the NG has allot in common with the C/D,s??? Off course it has,NG would probably not have 10,15 or 20 test frames!

Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
Don't buy the F-35 and don't come to us if you should need help with the Russians or (yes) the Germans.

So that's the deal right? thanks for clearing that up!

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 9):
ow is it? Why are there several planes standing on the ramp then?!

He maybe meant that they have to do allot more than that....and it will eventually  Wink

Quoting TGIF (Reply 13):
What strikes me though is that de Vries says there were many unknowns around the F-16 Adv and Gripen NG, and yet he hands in the report two months in advance. Perhaps he wasn't so eager on knowing...

Isn't he rather well known for this?  covereyes 



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineTancrede From Finland, joined May 2006, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16107 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
As of today there are twice as many F-35s flying as there are Gripen NG. So that argument has even more traction with the Gripen NG. How many Gripen NG will be flying by the end of 2009? At least 12 F-35s will be flying.

The F-35 is only a flying prototype, very far to be operational. Also, I really doubt that this plane will ever be good in any combat situation, but that is only my personal feeling.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16052 times:



Quoting TGIF (Reply 13):
What strikes me though is that de Vries says there were many unknowns around the F-16 Adv and Gripen NG, and yet he hands in the report two months in advance. Perhaps he wasn't so eager on knowing...  

BS how do you mean 2 months early. 18th December has always been the date.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 13):
You can't compare Dutch "evaluation" to the Norwegian. The Dutch MOD spent a roughly a month evaluating an RFI while Norway spend 6-8 months on their RBI who had a bit more substance in it.

hold your horses. THey took 3 months and even allowed SAAB more time when they asked for it.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 13):
nd since the Gripen NG has a lot in common with the Gripen C/D,

well, the Gripen C/D wasn't even considered fit enough to take into the evalution in 2001, so I don;t think that's a very strong argument.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 13):
And on top of this, there is a Gripen NG simulator and avionics rig up and running....

All the JSF mission systems are operational and flying on a 737 testbed.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 15):
The F-35 is only a flying prototype, very far to be operational. Also, I really doubt that this plane will ever be good in any combat situation, but that is only my personal feeling.

the prototype flew in 2001. These are (early) production models that are flying. On what do you base your dimm expectations of F-35?


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16019 times:



Quoting TGIF (Reply 17):
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=297
Translated quote:

well, let me tell you that that website is not objective. It's an anti-JSF website.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 17):
Sorry, I was way wrong... Turned out to be 4 months early.

you are mixing up stuff. The Air Force evaluation was always due this date. What you are talking about is the date when parliament decides on acquiring 2 test aircraft.

So what happens the next 4 months is that parliament will start evaluating the evaluation.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15421 times:



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 11):
The Australian Defence Minister has met with Eurofighter Consortium Officials.


HERE from Jane's.

Didn't Australia commit to buying the F-35? Why are they looking at the Typhoon? No, I'm not anti-European or anti-Typhoon. I like the Typhoon a lot! But why would they need the Typhoon if the F-35 can do the multi-mission thing far better than the F-16 and apparently better than the Typhoon can?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15410 times:



Quoting Tancrede (Reply 6):
I certainly do love this statement:

"The F-35 is the best multirole combat aircraft and by around 2015 will certainly be able to carry out all six main missions successfully," de Vries says.

The "certainly" and "by 2015" are words of conviction.

Yes, but it doesn't say "by 2015", it says "by around 2015"!

If we're going by A380/B787/A400M/Wedgetail/etc schedules, I'd add two years right off the top....



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15357 times:

EBJ1248650,

they didn't commit. There has been a whole fuss recently after a report was published (can't think of it off the top of my head- although I think I remember the recent RAND report being mentioned {correct me if I'm wrong})

Reading the wikipedia article (and reference) the F-35 is going to be 80% as loud as a F-15 on take off and something like 200% louder on landing (correct me if figures are wrong). I think the phrase "OUCH!!" or "WTF WAS THAT!!" comes to mind.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15349 times:



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 22):
Reading the wikipedia article (and reference) the F-35 is going to be 80% as loud as a F-15 on take off and something like 200% louder on landing (correct me if figures are wrong). I think the phrase "OUCH!!" or "WTF WAS THAT!!" comes to mind.

that's a rather awkward way of measuring sound...


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15349 times:

I can´t understand the reasons to upgrade their fighters? Who are they going to use it on?
Helicopters and/or tiltrotors I could understand but fighters in Europe?


User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15319 times:

Oh! I was WAY off.

Quote:
In late 2008 the Air Force revealed that the F-35 would be about twice as loud at takeoff as the F-15 Eagle and up to four times as loud upon landing.

From wiki.


The reference to the above entry is the Arizona Star


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15649 times:



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 22):
they didn't commit. There has been a whole fuss recently after a report was published (can't think of it off the top of my head- although I think I remember the recent RAND report being mentioned {correct me if I'm wrong})

Are you thinking of that F-35 "clubbed like a baby seal" thing? Seems the results of that evaluation were taken all out of context and the subsequent report caused quite a stink.

I have no problem with the Australians ordering the Typhoon. I believe it would serve them very well. It has exceptional air-to-air capabilities, as I understand it, and its air-to-ground capabilities continue to expand. Frankly, I'm not well versed on the differences between the F-35 and the Typhoon so I honestly don't know what the Australians would loose if they choose not to go the F-35 route.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15606 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 23):
that's a rather awkward way of measuring sound...

% is not the scale witch the sound is measuring in right? I think we get the picture!!

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 26):
have no problem with the Australians ordering the Typhoon. I believe it would serve them very well. It has exceptional air-to-air capabilities, as I understand it, and its air-to-ground capabilities continue to expand. Frankly, I'm not well versed on the differences between the F-35 and the Typhoon so I honestly don't know what the Australians would loose if they choose not to go the F-35 route.

Very true!! I have read that there have been some issue with Australia and the F-35 and that it depended more on that they wanted the F-22.....tough i like Typhoon..i don't know witch one that would serve them the best....



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15522 times:



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 24):
I can´t understand the reasons to upgrade their fighters? Who are they going to use it on?
Helicopters and/or tiltrotors I could understand but fighters in Europe?

Only 9 years ago with had the biggest air campaign since the second world war over Kosovo where the Dutch had a very big contribution (first to enter Serbian Airspace).

Right now they form the backbone of close-air-support in Afghanistan

You might want to open your eyes a bit..


User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 15527 times:

I'd hazard a (and let me emphasis this) GUESS that the main loss would be the loss of "stealth" capability.


But if something is invisible to radar- why not aim where the gap is? (I'm thinking F-117 in the Balkan campaign- or am I wrong :/ )


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 15323 times:



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 29):
But if something is invisible to radar- why not aim where the gap is? (I'm thinking F-117 in the Balkan campaign- or am I wrong :/ )

This release from LM indicates that is being addressed.....

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...9ae_f-35settingrecordstraight.html

Quote:
"The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth."

.....in addition to refuting allegations against the JSF.....

Quote:
"#The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

#The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.

#The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.

#When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineJoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5319 posts, RR: 30
Reply 27, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15377 times:

One reason Australia might be considering the Typhoon could be the same reason Canada chose the f-18 over the f-16; both countries have huge expanses of bad places to land. A second engine gives you a lot of piece of mind when you're flying over thousands of square miles of deadly nothing.


What the...?
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15218 times:

Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
You understand wrong. All the partner nations will have the same level of stealth built in. So will the Japanese, Israelis, and other closely aligned nations. Whether countries like Saudi Arabia get the full treatment is still up in the air.

Well yeah, stealth comes mainly from the materials and the shape of the structure so they're all going to have the same level of stealth, obviously.
The point is the British have invested more money than any other partner nation (and second only to the US) and are the only "Level 1" partner. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought this gave them more access to the technologies inherent to the F-35 than other partner nations.

Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 11):
Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
All the partner nations will have the same level of stealth built in

Stealth yes. Full access to the A/C codes? No. This allows us to integrate what WE want rather then getting what we're given



[Edited 2008-12-28 15:03:07]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14996 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17):
Quoting TGIF (Reply 17):
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=297
Translated quote:

well, let me tell you that that website is not objective. It's an anti-JSF website.

How about the links that they give? One does not seem to work, but the other is not that complimentary (either).

Not knowing Dutch, you could always interpret a description of anything as being devastating. But I always love "Volkskrant ". ?A perfect fit for a.net.

Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 11):
The Australian Defence Minister has met with Eurofighter Consortium Officials.
HERE from Jane's.
Australian DoD
On question- why goto Leeds? Huh? It's going to be freeeeeeeeezing; and grey

It will be interesting to see which way Joel goes on this. For a start, do we need a fighter - yes - or a bomber, I rather doubt it. You could say that some activities are giving bombing a bad reputation or you could say that bombing deserves a bad reputation! Whatever, bombing Indonesia (about as far as an F35 can go from Aus) should not be high on any priority list.

Equally, one could wonder just which countries The Netherlands is thinking about bombing? Again, fighters - yes - bombers - what for?

PS Easy up on Leeds. Grey and freezing yes, but such character! And so close to the dales.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14869 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
The Netherlands is thinking about bombing?

For the last 15 yrs we have been bombing frequently  Sad

Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan maybe Iraq (officially denied).

Air to air only the usual intercepts / patrols. Last time serious A to A occured was 1993.



Who would have thought after the cold war real business was ahead.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 31, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14844 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 34):
Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan maybe Iraq (officially denied).

But with a plane designed at least in part as a bomber?


User currently offlineJoeinTX From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14640 times:

"One reason Australia might be considering the Typhoon could be the same reason Canada chose the f-18 over the f-16; both countries have huge expanses of bad places to land. A second engine gives you a lot of piece of mind when you're flying over thousands of square miles of deadly nothing.."



There is something to twin-engine reliability, but, over the last 20+ years that concern has been alleviated a great deal as modern jet engines have become extraordinarily reliable machines. Even in the late 1970s and early 1980 as countries like Australia and Canada were evaluating new aircraft this was a serious concern for them (and one for the U.S. Navy who didn't seem to be interested in a navalized F-16 but were in the F-17) but that issue has subsided a great deal. The U.S. Navy seems to be perfectly satisfied with the performance of the latest generation of jet engines in the F-35 to hang a huge future stake on it from its carrier decks for the next 30 years.


The biggest problems with the Australian F-35 situation arise from pols, posters, and armchair Air Marshalls who can't seem to break their death grip on the creaky old F-111. They don't understand that the F-35 isn't being bought as an F-111 replacement (nor the Super Hornet) and that the capabilities of the F-111 are being replaced by a number of assets....new tactical aircraft, new tanking, new AEW, new naval capabilities, eventual UAV purchase, etc.


User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14544 times:

Well- if you're looking at a fighter I'd say the chips are in the EF2000s corner surely?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
Easy up on Leeds. Grey and freezing yes, but such character! And so close to the dales

Had a cracking night out there! Hmmm I think I might have to go back up! Big grin


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14391 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
How about the links that they give? One does not seem to work, but the other is not that complimentary (either).

well, they usually link to official documents or other news media and then present a rewritten"summary" of it's content portraying it as mere fact stating while they are simply venting their own opinion. So they would state something, link to (lengthy) documents and state it as facts (which they are most often not)

Let me tell you about one thing the guy behind this website does. His name is Mr. Johan Boeder and he has given himself the title "JSF Watcher" (which often is translated into JSF expert by other websites) who claims to have extensive experience in aerospace.

He now apparently has acces to members of parliament to whom he gives "briefings" about the JSF program and what his "concerns" are. He posts these online and then writes it in the third person (as if the author of the news article and himself are not the same person).

The most dirty trick he pulls is that he has had himself interviewed (mostly by reformatorisch dagblad) and in the interview he gives his coloured biased opinions. After that he posts a news item on his own website (not under his name, simply as JSFnieuws) which links to the article where a certain Mr Boeder, JSF watchter (again in the third person) is being interviewed in a newspaper. So he basically laundries his subjective bullcrap into something that looks like facts.

As to his so called experience in aerospace, the guy has a small software company that specializes in agricultural applications: http://www.beversoftware.nl/

the one thing that puzzles me are his motives. I can't understand why someone would spend so much time and money on this crusade (while it seems he has no personal gain)


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14391 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 38):
(which often is translated into JSF expert by other websites)

wow this is going further then I thought. Just googled his name again. On this website (http://www.nordensnyheter.no/Default.aspx?Id=596 ) he made it as "military analyst"! See how the internet can turn an absolute nobody in an so called expert?!


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 36, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14122 times:

The political system works a little slower in Denmark, but as it seems today there is little doubt that Denmark will soon make the same decision.

The quantity will be lower, probably in the 30-40 frame. And we will most likely have no hurry. Delivery can easily wait until late in next decade.

But it seems like the decision has already been taken, and that only some paperwork has to be done during the next few months.

Several Danish industries, which have done a lot of F-16 work during the last 30 years, are pushing hard to get the decision finalized.

The air force and the MOD favor the F-35A. But some politicians want more "investigations".

But since we always operate together with the Dutch and Norwegian air forces (as the small partner), then it will create a terrible logistic headache if we choose to cancel our level 3 partnership on the F-35 and order Gripen or F-16 Adv.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13079 times:

Contrary to what the title of the thread says, no decision has been done yet. A Dutch committee will apparently visit Sweden this week to talk about Gripen NG. Two weeks from now they'll head to LM to talk about F-16 and F-35.

The source I have is unfortunately only in Dutch
http://www.tweedekamer.nl/nieuws/per...missie_Defensie_bezoekt_Zweden.jsp


@Prebennorholm
A bit OT, but relating to Gripen NG and a future RDAF F-16 replacement.

Learning from the way Norway handled the Gripen NG, Saab has decided to offer a guaranteed maximum life time cost. The cost is reportedly 917M DKK (~$160M) a piece over 30 years. The reporter then states that the same cost is 2B DDK (~$350M) for the F-35. There are however no mentions about the F-18's costs.

After this intro there's an interview with a Danish expert, but his Danish wasn't as easy to understand as the reporters. Perhaps you can fill in any blanks Preben?

http://www.dr.dk/P1/P1Morgen/Udsendelser/2009/02/05/103117.htm


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13017 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 40):
The quantity will be lower, probably in the 30-40 frame. And we will most likely have no hurry. Delivery can easily wait until late in next decade.

Is this nr regarding the F-35 ore overall?

Quoting TGIF (Reply 41):
Learning from the way Norway handled the Gripen NG, Saab has decided to offer a guaranteed maximum life time cost. The cost is reportedly 917M DKK (~$160M) a piece over 30 years. The reporter then states that the same cost is 2B DDK (~$350M) for the F-35. There are however no mentions about the F-18's costs.

So Denmark could have,if this is correct up to 80 Gripen NG for the same price as 40 F-35...ore if they go for 30! F-35,how active can you be,as a NATO member ore a partner and at the same time controlling it's own airspace...either way this is interesting and future will tell  wave 



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5254 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12899 times:



Quoting TGIF (Reply 41):
Learning from the way Norway handled the Gripen NG, Saab has decided to offer a guaranteed maximum life time cost. The cost is reportedly 917M DKK (~$160M) a piece over 30 years. The reporter then states that the same cost is 2B DDK (~$350M) for the F-35. There are however no mentions about the F-18's costs.

But does it come with a free replacement guarantee?  Silly

Lifetime cost guarantees don't do much good if you have to double up and replace one that was lost during a battle. Of course this is the crux of the debate: Which plane is better? Which will have a higher level of survivability in fight? "Value" other than keeping your resources intact - both pilot and plane - means little. Right now both planes have little/no experiences to base a real opinion on.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12896 times:



Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 43):
So Denmark could have,if this is correct up to 80 Gripen NG for the same price as 40 F-35.

you can also buy 90 Kia Rio's for the same price as 30 Mercedes C180's

It all depends what kind of "car" you're looking for


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12868 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 44):
But does it come with a free replacement guarantee?

In Norway's calculations 50% (i think) would have crashed within 30 years so in that case.....hell NO!!!  alert 

Quoting Tugger (Reply 44):
Lifetime cost guarantees don't do much good if you have to double up and replace one that was lost during a battle. Of course this is the crux of the debate: Which plane is better? Which will have a higher level of survivability in fight? "Value" other than keeping your resources intact - both pilot and plane - means little. Right now both planes have little/no experiences to base a real opinion on.

Very very true!  checkmark 



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineDYflyer From Norway, joined May 2006, 676 posts, RR: 15
Reply 42, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12757 times:



Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 46):
In Norway's calculations 50% (i think) would have crashed within 30 years so in that case.....hell NO!!!

That sounds like a lot. We have only lost 13 F16s of the 74 we bought. I don't think we would calculate with such a huge increase in losses in the future, even if we participate in more operations abroad now.



Life is like a book. If you don't travel, you only read one page.
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 12645 times:

The cost for replacing aircraft is part of the estimation, with the assumption that almost half of the aircraft fleet will crash in 35 years. This is completely unfounded if applied to Gripen's statistics. This also adds further billions to the calculation.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRel...omments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

Sounds a bit high to me to,but I'm no expert. Sorry if it went a bit off topic,just wanted to make sure my memory didn't fail me   

[Edited 2009-02-12 12:55:14]


It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 12503 times:



Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 43):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 40):
The quantity will be lower, probably in the 30-40 frame. And we will most likely have no hurry. Delivery can easily wait until late in next decade.

Is this nr regarding the F-35 ore overall?

I saw 24 frames being mentioned somewhere. As you said, with only 24 frames there aren’t many left for overseas operations, since most will be needed guarding your own territory. This, IMO, weakens the argument about commonality with NATO forces.


In relating news; it seems as the Netherlands has been offered a similar deal as the Danes. A "maximum life-time cost over 30 years". It seems this has lead the Christian Democrats to put some pressure on De Vries telling him to get a similar price for the F-35 from LM. This might be kind of hard as there won't be a price set until ~2012 IFAIK. Perhaps the Dutch can strike a better deal for the two F-35 test aircrafts.

Source in Dutch.
http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1391803...ab+biedt+lagere+prijs+dan+JSF.html


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12496 times:

"The Dutch Ministry of Defence's plan to replace its F-16 fighter planes by 2014 is premature, according to research carried out at Leiden University by Bert Kreemers.

Mr Kreemers, a former Defence Ministry spokesman, says that given the planes' generally accepted lifespan of 6,000 flight hours, and that they are used for 175 hours or less per year, most of the fighters can remain in service until at least 2020. The oldest ones date back to 1984. Other countries are assuming an 8,000-hour lifespan for the plane, suggesting that the Dutch defence forces could retain this jet fighter even longer, Mr Kreemers told NOS Radio."

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ..._For_Scrapheap_or_Not100017091.php

I have also read in the Swedish media that the representatives that are here in Sweden for three days to take a closer look at the Gripen said that the total nr ordered could ore should be lower than 85,and also be pushed forward in time....



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12307 times:



Quoting TGIF (Reply 49):
It seems this has lead the Christian Democrats to put some pressure on De Vries telling him to get a similar price for the F-35 from LM. This might be kind of hard as there won't be a price set until ~2012 IFAIK. Perhaps the Dutch can strike a better deal for the two F-35 test aircrafts.

just for the purpose of correctness, De Vries is from the Christian Democrats (CDA), the member of parliament putting pressure on him is from the Cristian Union (CU).

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 50):
Mr Kreemers, a former Defence Ministry spokesman, says that given the planes' generally accepted lifespan of 6,000 flight hours, and that they are used for 175 hours or less per year, most of the fighters can remain in service until at least 2020. The oldest ones date back to 1984. Other countries are assuming an 8,000-hour lifespan for the plane, suggesting that the Dutch defence forces could retain this jet fighter even longer, Mr Kreemers told NOS Radio."

I haven't read the report yet but I do know Mr Kreemers is politcally affiliated. Furthermore people are playing with numbers, 'forgetting' certain facts and drawing wrong conclusions on purpose.

I'm not necesarily contending his numbers, but do keep in mind that:

-once you come near the 6,000 and 8,000 hour mark, the amount of maintenance hours per flying hour will start to go up exponentially (and thus cost)

-if the RNLAF will start receiving F-35's in 2014, the last F-16 will not leave the fleet before 2020-2030, which matches the year the end-of-life will be reached

-Aircraft procurement is a multi-year process. It's not like they will receive 85 airframes in a box in 2014 and throw away the remaining F-16 all in one go.


User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12289 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 52):
just for the purpose of correctness, De Vries is from the Christian Democrats (CDA), the member of parliament putting pressure on him is from the Cristian Union (CU).

Thanks for the correction, sorry if I confused anyone! I learned Dutch from speaking Swedish, German and English and it only works to some degree.  Smile


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1907 posts, RR: 8
Reply 48, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12126 times:



Quoting TGIF (Reply 47):
In relating news; it seems as the Netherlands has been offered a similar deal as the Danes. A "maximum life-time cost over 30 years". It seems this has lead the Christian Democrats to put some pressure on De Vries telling him to get a similar price for the F-35 from LM. This might be kind of hard as there won't be a price set until ~2012 IFAIK. Perhaps the Dutch can strike a better deal for the two F-35 test aircrafts.

Well, there is more pressure for De Vries than just the Christen Unie (CU). Also the PvdA (Labour Party) is pressing for the same. So from the three parties currently in the government, two are already thinking about the Gripen as a good alternative.

If Lockheed-Martin isn't going to give a fixed-price, I could see this order going to another way. Opposition parties are also very impressed by the Saab proposal, so Lockheed-Martin will have to tell them something about prices and guarantees as the sentiment is changing.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 49, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 12076 times:



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 51):
Well, there is more pressure for De Vries than just the Christen Unie (CU). Also the PvdA (Labour Party) is pressing for the same. So from the three parties currently in the government, two are already thinking about the Gripen as a good alternative.

If Lockheed-Martin isn't going to give a fixed-price, I could see this order going to another way. Opposition parties are also very impressed by the Saab proposal, so Lockheed-Martin will have to tell them something about prices and guarantees as the sentiment is changing.

it's making me sick really. We have one of the most professional and effective air forces in the world because we let our professionals decide what is best to do their job.

Now the p#**king politicians are using this to gain some leverage in who knows how many agenda's and the're trying to twist our aerospace industry's neck for the second time in a little over a decade.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 12069 times:

In a related development, there seems to be positive indications on the different sticking points.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-strike-fighters-within-weeks.html

Quote:
"Topics covered in the talks spanned issues such as operational sovereignty, in-service support, the integration of UK-specific equipment and programme costs, says Davies, who adds that the visit 'helped answer some questions.'

The minister told a launch event for the UK Royal Navy's 'Fly Navy 100' celebrations in London on 16 February that he believes the programme is 'well under control, and there are already indications on price schedules that we are talking about. I hope that there will be a very positive announcement within the next few weeks'."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12147 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 51):
If Lockheed-Martin isn't going to give a fixed-price, I could see this order going to another way. Opposition parties are also very impressed by the Saab proposal, so Lockheed-Martin will have to tell them something about prices and guarantees as the sentiment is changing.



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 52):
it's making me sick really

I'm pretty sure that this is a way to put some pressure on LM,and i think you are fully entitle to know how much to pay,the alternative is if costs go sky high is to reduce the nr ordered,witch i think will be the case here. In the end there is money and politics that's decide what it will be and that's not the first time,but even if you need the F-35,as things is as of today,you can't risk to drain the economy by buying fighter jets. As a level 2 partner i think it would need a lot from SAAB to win this,and this is known by LM,so the situation here will probably be the F-35,probably in reduced nr ordered at worst
  

[Edited 2009-02-16 11:31:29]


It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12160 times:



Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 54):
I'm pretty sure that this is a way to put some pressure on LM

well, if you would be familiar with Dutch politics and the history of this project in the Netherlands you will know this is not the case.

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 54):
you can't risk to drain the economy by buying fighter jets.

we are talking about an investment in capital of 6B€ for a time of 30-40 years that will hardly happen. Our ministry of social affairs spends that amount every 5 weeks on social security. Our government has just poured about 100B€ in the banks and saved the country of Iceland form bankruptcy.

We are not really talking about a lot of money if you put things into perspective


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12136 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 55):
well, if you would be familiar with Dutch politics and the history of this project in the Netherlands you will know this is not the case.
I'm not that familiar with the politics in your country, but i think than when invested almost a bilj $,LM is pretty sure where they have you,ore are you saying that this could go SAAB,s way?
Either way,your politicians are putting some pressure to LM by saying that SAAB's offer is tempting enough to take this for another round and the agenda by that remain to be seen.  pessimist 

[Edited 2009-02-17 13:02:09]


It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1907 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12050 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 52):
it's making me sick really. We have one of the most professional and effective air forces in the world because we let our professionals decide what is best to do their job.

Yeah, in some way your right. But the professionals are there to serve us. If we choose a different machine and therefore role for the RNLAF than they will have to abide.

I agree the money in the long-term is peanuts, but it's all about politics and PR. Spending this much money means a great opportunity to portray yourself in the spotlight as a political party, whether your anti or pro JSF.

As a voter I can't give the government the green light to order some plane without knowing exactly what it will cost. We've thrown around enough money in black holes (HSL, Betuwelijn, OV-chipcard etc.). What if we sign-up, but other customer sign-off and the plane prices are way higher? That's not a good way to spend our tax-money, no matter how I like the JSF.

We will order those two test planes, because not doing will cost us a 26 million euro penalty, but if, in 2010, no fixed price for the JSF is available, you might see the parliament selecting the Gripen and the two test planes sold off.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12054 times:



Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 56):
Either way,your politicians are putting some pressure to LM by saying that SAAB's offer is tempting enough to take this for another round and the agenda by that remain to be seen.

The politicians who have been backing JSF from the start ( 2002 ) are not taking part in this. It's the politicians who rather see JSF dissappear that have found a way to get rid of it in SAAB, so your logic is wrong here.

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
If we choose a different machine and therefore role for the RNLAF than they will have to abide.

A change in strategy, ambition and doctrine has not been made.

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
As a voter I can't give the government the green light to order some plane without knowing exactly what it will cost.

Who says that's what's going to happen? I might remind you that to this date we are receiving royalties on F-16 in which we took part from the beginning as well. We got ALL the money back we spent on F-16 in terms of off-set agreements and we received an amount for every frame sold!

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
What if we sign-up, but other customer sign-off and the plane prices are way higher? That's not a good way to spend our tax-money, no matter how I like the JSF.

if there is a signature to place, there is a fixed price. Since our government is not ready to sign right now (they want to do that in 2010) there is no fixed price. Do you think you will be able to negotiate a fixed price now for a car you intend to buy in 2010?

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
We will order those two test planes, because not doing will cost us a 26 million euro penalty, but if, in 2010, no fixed price for the JSF is available, you might see the parliament selecting the Gripen and the two test planes sold off.

it would make our air force useless, kill whatever is left of our aerospace industry and make ourselves look like the fools of NATO.


User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12024 times:



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 54):
We will order those two test planes, because not doing will cost us a 26 million euro penalty, but if, in 2010, no fixed price for the JSF is available, you might see the parliament selecting the Gripen and the two test planes sold off.

If the Netherlands order the test aircrafts, Saab will pull out. If the deal would be the same if the Dutch government returns to Saab in 2010, that I do not know.

The news has now reached Ares, and their Bill Sweetman has a written piece on it in the blog. There is also a nice figure about what’s included in the Gripen offer.


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1907 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12008 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 55):
A change in strategy, ambition and doctrine has not been made.

Says who? Since 1996 (Plan Vervanging F-16) the tasks of the air force have been gradually changing in supporting peace-keeping and humanitarian missions. Why do we even need a fighter fleet? I think we need a lot more transport capacity.

We'll have to be realistic about the RNLAF and the Dutch army as a whole. Currently they have 7000 unfilled jobs. Our army is stretched to it's limits with this mission in Afghanistan and after 2010 the army needs a rest of about five years to cope with the aftermath of this mission. We need to think hard about what we think our army needs to do and adjust our inventory to match those needs. The world has changed since 1996, so why can't our choice for a fighter plane change?

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 55):
Who says that's what's going to happen? I might remind you that to this date we are receiving royalties on F-16 in which we took part from the beginning as well. We got ALL the money back we spent on F-16 in terms of off-set agreements and we received an amount for every frame sold!

Yes, but as far as I can tell, the order for the F-16 had a fixed price and a final assembly line in The Netherlands. The JSF hasn't got a fixed price, nor an assembly line. And those orders that were supposed to be pouring in are also less than expected.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 55):
Do you think you will be able to negotiate a fixed price now for a car you intend to buy in 2010?

With the current situation in automotive world, I would say yes...  Wink

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 55):
it would make our air force useless, kill whatever is left of our aerospace industry and make ourselves look like the fools of NATO.

Why would it make our RNLAF useless? Our main aerospace company Stork will do just fine. They have been doing so before the JSF thanks to the civil aviation industry.

And we won't be the fools of NATO? Are the Czech and Hungarian also fools for flying the Gripen? I don't think so. They chose the Gripen because it fit their budget and because it fulfills their NATO-duties when necessary.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not anti JSF. I just want the best fighter for my tax euros and I don't want to see another government project ending up way higher than forecasted. If we want to keep a fighter fleet than we must make sure we can buy those 85 needed. If the JSF doesn't fit in the budget, than we need to adjust the budget (not smart in this time) or find a plane that does fit.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12004 times:



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
Says who? Since 1996 (Plan Vervanging F-16) the tasks of the air force have been gradually changing in supporting peace-keeping and humanitarian missions. Why do we even need a fighter fleet? I think we need a lot more transport capacity

We are probably the NATO force that transformed fastest to the post-coldwar situation.
Mind you that the JSF is the only fighter program for which the requirements were drawn up AFTER the end of the cold war. The gripen was first conceived in the early 80s. If there is one plane fit for the new role it is JSF. The gripen is a an airplane to defend your own airspace under cold war conditions.

I agree we need more transport capabilities though.

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
We'll have to be realistic about the RNLAF and the Dutch army as a whole. Currently they have 7000 unfilled jobs. Our army is stretched to it's limits with this mission in Afghanistan and after 2010 the army needs a rest of about five years to cope with the aftermath of this mission. We need to think hard about what we think our army needs to do and adjust our inventory to match those needs. The world has changed since 1996, so why can't our choice for a fighter plane change?

Well, since we are currently the 3d most capable air force in Europe and play a major role in the defence of European Air space and have provided the relatively largest contribution in several past air campaigns we should also not diminish ourselves here.

With the current economic situation I'm not too worried about those 7000 unfilled jobs though  Wink

-Did you know that we have 1.?5 million troops in the EU and that only 150,000 are deployable
-Did you know that the Dutch military has 60,000 troops of which 20,000 are deplyable?

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
Yes, but as far as I can tell, the order for the F-16 had a fixed price and a final assembly line in The Netherlands. The JSF hasn't got a fixed price, nor an assembly line. And those orders that were supposed to be pouring in are also less than expected.

An assembly line only relates to a few % of production revenues and now we have real design responsibilities while with the F-16 we were mainly building to print. The only people saying we are not getting enough orders are Dutch (being a self-criticial people). All the other partners and professionals from non-JSF countries are commenting we are doing better than them. There will be a fixed price when our government is ready to sign a contract.

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
Why would it make our RNLAF useless? Our main aerospace company Stork will do just fine. They have been doing so before the JSF thanks to the civil aviation industry.

Do keep in mind that military/civil is divided 50/50 roughly. Stork Aerospace already had to lay off people due to A380 and NH90 delays.

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 57):
And we won't be the fools of NATO? Are the Czech and Hungarian also fools for flying the Gripen? I don't think so. They chose the Gripen because it fit their budget and because it fulfills their NATO-duties when necessary.

How many frames do they have and what do they do with it?


User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 11977 times:

First off, thanks for an interesting discussion regarding the Dutch domestic politics.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 58):
How many frames do they have and what do they do with it?

Guessing this is more of a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway.

Both HuAF and CzAF have 14 Gripens each, 12 39C and 2 39D. Both countries use them for air space patrolling. From May to September this year, four Czech Gripens will be deployed on NATO duty doing Baltic Air Policing.


User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 11410 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 49):
it's making me sick really.

Will this make you feel any better? If true, there's IMO nothing in the way of the F-35 (if there ever was). Has this been discussed in any Dutch media?

Quote:
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an advance acquisition contract with an estimated value of $265,000,000 for long lead materials and effort associated with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Air System Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot IV procurement of 12 Air Force Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) air systems, 14 Marine Corps Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) air systems, one Navy Carrier Variant air system, and one Netherlands CTOL air system.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ct-funds-first-dutch-aircraft.html


User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2026 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10330 times:

Seems that the order isn't 100% sure.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-opt-to-postpone-jsf-decision.html

Axel



Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (4 years 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 10073 times:

well...

We're staying in the development phase by investing 113M$ in the build of the first test aircraft. This will be reviewed again by parliament next year and if decided against the buy, would mean a maximum loss of 20M$ of that 113M$.

What has changed is that the decision for the procurement of 85 production aircraft to replace the venerable F-16 will be delayed to a future government in 2012.


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1907 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9891 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 62):
well...

We're staying in the development phase by investing 113M$ in the build of the first test aircraft. This will be reviewed again by parliament next year and if decided against the buy, would mean a maximum loss of 20M$ of that 113M$.

What has changed is that the decision for the procurement of 85 production aircraft to replace the venerable F-16 will be delayed to a future government in 2012.

Indeed. Although former Chief of Staff Dick Berlijn said that the air force could do with less than 85 F-35's. This number was the original forecast from 1996, but since then the air force got leaner, so in theory they could to with, say 60, F-35's.

I find this a strange comment from the man who previously was very pro 85 JSF's. Now that he is a "civilian", he talks about something else.

In 2012 we will have a new cabinet in place. And if the current polls will have their way and the PVV will become the biggest party (lord saves me), you can say goodbye to the JSF.

The deal reached last week was a nasty compromise, just ensuring an extended life of the current passive cabinet. It was all about politics, not about getting the best plane for the bucks.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 64, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9898 times:



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 63):
In 2012 we will have a new cabinet in place. And if the current polls will have their way and the PVV will become the biggest party (lord saves me), you can say goodbye to the JSF.

well hold on there.. They will have to form a coalition and the only possibility I see is with CDA and VVD, both strong supporters of JSF.

Still, 2012 is far away so let's not jump to conclusions.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4799 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 63):
Indeed. Although former Chief of Staff Dick Berlijn said that the air force could do with less than 85 F-35's. This number was the original forecast from 1996, but since then the air force got leaner, so in theory they could to with, say 60, F-35's
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 64):
well hold on there
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 64):
2012 is far away so let's not jump to conclusions

We are now a bit in the year of 2013 and it seems like the dutch future fighter (F-35) goes further down,from origin 85 units to 60 and now down to 36 and possibly even as low as 30!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-to-cut-f_35-order-to-36-jets.html



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

I saw that... We now have a coalition of VVD (proponent) with PvdA (original backer of program, but opponent for populistic reasons lately.

This is a typical outcome of Dutch "Polder"-thinking. PvdA has made very bold claims never allowing the purchase of a single JSF if it came to power, while the F-16's need replacement soon and the VVD has always been for a strong military.

So the outcome is this appearently. However, 35 frames doesn't make an effective Air Force (compared to our current needs) so either we would merge our Air Force with Belgium (who should also get 35 through our programme participation), or the second batch will be orderdered after the next election with a more favourable coalition.

Worst case, after the next election the ultra-populists (left or right) will rule the country and not only JSF will be cancelled...


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The Netherlands Has Decided To Go For JSF F35
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Dutch Go For JSF posted Sat Feb 9 2002 20:24:16 by Lj
Netherlands To Buy Two JSF Test Aircraft posted Sat Mar 1 2008 14:27:26 by DEVILFISH
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
Has The A-10 C Been Commited To Theatre Yet? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 12:37:37 by Strudders
Gripen For Denmark -- The Future Has Arrived posted Fri Jan 6 2006 16:34:42 by Columba
C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army posted Mon Sep 8 2008 07:37:47 by RedFlyer
The GW Has Finally Left San Diego posted Wed Aug 27 2008 16:12:55 by 747400sp
USAF, US Army To Go Green? posted Fri Apr 4 2008 02:59:57 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Has Nothing To Lose Protesting KC767 Loss posted Mon Mar 10 2008 02:58:48 by BCAL
Usaf Has Fund To Fight KC-45 Protest posted Fri Feb 22 2008 05:34:10 by KC135TopBoom
Netherlands To Buy Two JSF Test Aircraft posted Sat Mar 1 2008 14:27:26 by DEVILFISH
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
Has The A-10 C Been Commited To Theatre Yet? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 12:37:37 by Strudders
Gripen For Denmark -- The Future Has Arrived posted Fri Jan 6 2006 16:34:42 by Columba
C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army posted Mon Sep 8 2008 07:37:47 by RedFlyer
The GW Has Finally Left San Diego posted Wed Aug 27 2008 16:12:55 by 747400sp
USAF, US Army To Go Green? posted Fri Apr 4 2008 02:59:57 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Has Nothing To Lose Protesting KC767 Loss posted Mon Mar 10 2008 02:58:48 by BCAL
Usaf Has Fund To Fight KC-45 Protest posted Fri Feb 22 2008 05:34:10 by KC135TopBoom
C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army posted Mon Sep 8 2008 07:37:47 by RedFlyer
The GW Has Finally Left San Diego posted Wed Aug 27 2008 16:12:55 by 747400sp
USAF, US Army To Go Green? posted Fri Apr 4 2008 02:59:57 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Has Nothing To Lose Protesting KC767 Loss posted Mon Mar 10 2008 02:58:48 by BCAL
Usaf Has Fund To Fight KC-45 Protest posted Fri Feb 22 2008 05:34:10 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format