Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Dutch F-35s Go Into Storage  
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14417 times:

Meanwhile, at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility the Netherlands formally took delivery of the first of two F-35As that it ordered in 2009 and 2011 for the operational test (OT) phase. The second is still undergoing test and acceptance flights. But instead of joining the OT fleet, the two aircraft are going into storage at Eglin AFB, the Dutch defense ministry confirmed this week. The country is wavering again about buying F-35s as its F-16 replacement. Until a decision is reached, the two aircraft will be used “for technical ground tests,” the ministry added.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...y-dutch-store-their-first-two-jets

AND

From Dutch Ministry of Defense press release

By now, the production of the second test aircraft ordered in 2011 is finalized, and that aircraft is still going through some test and acceptance flights.

Expectations are that the first test aircraft will be flown within some days by an American pilot to the U.S. air force base in Florida where the aircraft remains stored until a decision has been taken on the replacement of the F-16 in connection with the memorandum on the future of the Netherlands Armed Forces.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...livered-straight-into-storage.html

103 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14222 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
until a decision has been taken

I believe a decision will be taken in November. Until then, storage will cost 2.3 million euros.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14160 times:

So we bought two test aircraft, but we're going to make a decision without testing them. Brilliant.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've often wondered why these "test" aircraft are being bought and delivered to foreign customers when they currently are incomplete enough to demonstrate any more than landings and take offs and air show flybys.. Yes the a few US military birds are tricked out for a larger test analysis, but most are relegated to pilot and maintenance training.. without complete capabilities, or software,. The Navy versions still don't have capture hooks that work.. testing is delayed until next year.

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13739 times:

They should totally stop testing and developing the most advanced fighter jet ever created just because everything didnt go off without a hitch on the first try. Forget every cent spent, and just keep flying 30-40 year old designs. Still got to buy the old designs for around $80-100m each... but yeah, DOWN WITH THE F-35!


As for the F-35C tail hook, from what I have read, both the F-35C and X-47B had the same issue because the USN provided the OEMs with inaccurate numbers on how hooks behave on the carrier decks.



They Never Said It Would Be Easy; Only That It Would Be Worth It


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 4):
They Never Said It Would Be Easy; Only That It Would Be Worth It

you miss the point.. why should a customer take delivery of an incomplete unit for testing when the unit doesn't have the capabilities to test..

The question is not a bash the F-35, it's a common sense question..

As to the tail hook.. where the heck were the LM engineers and their computer simulations.. blaming this on the Navy is as absurd as believing a customer can satisfactorily fully test a plane with 30% of it's software missing.

My disgust is with the manufacturer, not the anticipated product which may yet arrive in my lifetime.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13694 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 5):
why should a customer take delivery of an incomplete unit for testing when the unit doesn't have the capabilities to test..

Because they are not just a customer, they are a level 2 partner who has provided US$800 million into the development of the aircraft.

Level 2 partners are Italy, which is contributing US$1 billion; and the Netherlands, US$800 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

The early deliveries of the aircraft to partner nations are for two reasons, first to contribute to the test program and second to allow early conversion of aircrew and maintainers onto the aircraft. When you have to train an entire workforce on how to operate, and repair a brand new aircraft it takes a number of years to get to that stage.

Also don't think that the F-35 is alone is this instance. Look for example at the E-2.

On 12 February 2013, the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved the E-2D Hawkeye to enter full-rate production. Northrop had delivered 9 E-2Ds to the U.S. Navy, with 11 more in various stages of manufacturing and pre-delivery flight-testing. The Navy plans for an initial operational capability by 2015. With the Navy's E-2D program of record at 75 aircraft, the decision enables the production of the remaining 55 aircraft over the next 10 years. In June 2013, the 10th E-2D was delivered to the Navy, with an additional 10 aircraft in various stages of manufacturing and predelivery flight testing. On 18 July 2013, Northrop Grumman was awarded a $113.7 million contract for five full-rate production Lot 2 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. Total current procurement of E-2D aircraft, including low-rate initial production and full-rate production aircraft, is for 30 planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_Hawkeye

For an aircraft that will have a production run of only 75 aircraft, it has 10 delivered aircraft and another 10 expected soon, long before the aircraft IOCs. So even though the aircraft is still undergoing testing and evaluation, early production versions have already been delivered. This is how you design and build military aircraft.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13589 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 6):
The early deliveries of the aircraft to partner nations are for two reasons, first to contribute to the test program

Yes, that's what I always thought their main purpose was - despite my earlier comment about the Dutch not evaluating the aircraft.

But then, why aren't these aircraft contributing to the general test program? That should upset the partners.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13577 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 7):

But then, why aren't these aircraft contributing to the general test program? That should upset the partners.

They will be used for technical ground tests. In short, be towed around the airfield for ground testing.

I have a feeling that the Dutch will go with F-35; they have a lot industrially that will lobby very intensely with the government, and with the Dutch being a major contributor to NATO and US-led missions, they will want a fighter that will be accepted in joint operations with the US. They may elect to delay their purchase to further down the production line when unit costs decline.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13571 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
I have a feeling that the Dutch will go with F-35

I think you are right. I'm sure the main purpose of buying the test aircraft from the Dutch air force's point of view is really to help commit the country to the F-35.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
They will be used for technical ground tests. In short, be towed around the airfield for ground testing.

let's see, we have roughly 100 F-35's built and we need these two to be towed around the airfield? and to test what? and after how many others have been towed around the field? Every bloody one at some point! So what is unique... the paint?
it smells of a boon doggle and rationalization to the nth degree.. again my complaint is not with the plane, but with the supplier and Pentagon processes and waste.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13367 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 6):
This is how you design and build military aircraft.

You can, but that is not ideal.

As to your example - The E-2D and F-35 are totally different. The Grumman E-2 Hawkeye has been around since the 1960s. Only the radar is new. As to concurrency on the F-35 program, that's been a complete mistake:

In February 2012, no less an authority than Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acting acquisition chief characterized the F-35's grossly excessive concurrency as "acquisition malpractice." (Congressional Research Report (RL30563), F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, see page 7).

http://chuckspinney.blogspot.com/201...-on-f-35s-concurrency-shop-of.html

Both the F-35 program manager, Admiral David Venlet, and acting Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall recently took issue with “a fundamental
assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency.”

“Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation,” Venlet said.

Kendall went farther:

Putting the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter into production before flight testing
had started was “acquisition malpractice,” acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall
told an industry group this morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The program, Kendall said, had started with “the optimistic prediction that we were good
enough at modeling and simulation that we would not find problems in flight test.”
”That was wrong, and now we are paying for that,” Kendall added


[Edited 2013-07-29 09:41:18]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13203 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):

As to your example - The E-2D and F-35 are totally different. The Grumman E-2 Hawkeye has been around since the 1960s. Only the radar is new.

Well its more than just the radar but I agree, the programs are different and certainly have a different level of risk. It still demonstrates that the manufacturers produce production level aircraft before testing and development is complete and there are good examples from programs all over the world to demonstrate this.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):
“Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation,” Venlet said.

No one denies that the level of currency was a bad idea and it should not be repeated but it occurs frequently in military programs. From your own link,

And the concurrency horrors of the F-35 are by no means unique, remember the concurrency related problems that flowed out of the pre-mature production decisions for the F-111, C-5, V-22, F-22, and F-18E/F.

Interesting to note that of the above, only one design is from LM, one Lockheed, two Boeing and one GD and three are from the last 20 years. Clearly the issue is industry wide so perhaps when we decide to sling the mud we can do it industry wide?

And it should be noted that similar aged programs in the commercial sector also suffered (and continue to) from broadly similar issues.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):
Kendall went farther:

The latest quite from Kendall is available here, http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...5-No-Longer-the-Problem-Child.aspx

The F-35 program has made “major advances” over the last three years and is no longer “one of my ‘problem programs,’” Pentagon acquisition, technology and logistics chief Frank Kendall said Thursday. Speaking during a teleconference following a multi-day summit with government, contractor and allied nation F-35 managers, Kendall said he’ll green light boosting the F-35 production rate in September; going to 44 in 2015 and 66 in 2016. The meeting had a “completely different tone” than last year’s summit, noted Kendall. The program is “on track,” he said. Negotiations on Lots 6 and 7 are going “more quickly and more smoothly” than on Lot 5, which were tough because it was the first based on DOD’s “should cost” analysis, he noted. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer, reported far better communications between government and vendor managers, and agreed that Lot 6 and 7 talks are moving fast. “We started negotiations about a month ago, and we’ve made more progress…in 30 days than we did in about 11 months last year.” Kendall said “this is not the program of 2010,” and while he said it’s too soon to “declare success,” he said there’s a clear path to fix any remaining F-35 deficiencies. Operating costs are better understood now that the Marine Corps and Air Force are training F-35 pilots, and he predicted “we can make a substantial dent in projections” of operating costs. They will be reflected in the September cost numbers, he said.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13118 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 10):
let's see, we have roughly 100 F-35's built and we need these two to be towed around the airfield? and to test what? and after how many others have been towed around the field? Every bloody one at some point! So what is unique... the paint?

there are 100 kicking around at various stages of readiness... there are 2 that are not supposed to be flown until the owners decide if they are keeping them or not. So, do what ground testing they can on those frames, allowing 2 other F-35s to work on in flight testing. That is better than just putting them in a warehouse and turning off the lights. They are still of some test use.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13115 times:

I get the feeling their optimism in your quotes is misplaced once again. But that's par for the course in F-35 land. It's almost always sunny there. But in reality we have sequestration coming down the pike, almost no international orders so far, with many anticipated international orders possibly never being placed at all. These alone will add to per unit costs and that is not in the control of the program.

Then we have the very challenging technical issues that they do control, that were very serious just a few months ago and were predicted to take years to resolve as of recently. F-35 PR has almost always been that it's smooth sailing from here on out, that now things will get better - the reality has been much harsher.

For instance, no decision has been made on which helmet system will be used, not so speak of the transonic roll off issues, etc., and other issues that have been taking many years and will take many more and may never be satisfactorily resolved, except by reducing the performance parameters even more.

The high number of question marks is a reason why I doubt countries like Holland and Canada will go for it. If they order today, they won't know exactly what they'll be getting. Another is that their old fighters are needing a replacement decision be made now, not in 5 years. The F-35 program is simply running out of time, IMHO.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 13):
there are 100 kicking around at various stages of readiness... there are 2 that are not supposed to be flown until the owners decide if they are keeping them or not. So, do what ground testing they can on those frames, allowing 2 other F-35s to work on in flight testing. That is better than just putting them in a warehouse and turning off the lights. They are still of some test use.

is the manufacturer so incompetent that they require a separate aircraft for each test?... I'd just love to know just what these towing tests consist of that can not be handled by the other 98 planes.. or is the product so bad that after each test 500 hrs (exaggeration) of maintenance is required?... I can just see it if called upon to perform their mission.. hello China, let's have a truce next Wednesday, we need to perform maintenance of our state of the art fighters... Smacks of the tank that could go 60 miles between engine servicing..


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12834 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
They will be used for technical ground tests. In short, be towed around the airfield for ground testing.
Quoting kanban (Reply 15):
I'd just love to know just what these towing tests consist of

ThePointblank was really simplifying what they would be used for... not (for the most part) just towed around to see if the dynamic principal of wheels are still valid lol


There are some ground tests still to be completed... so might as well use the frames that are not to be flown. Perhaps a bit of a waste, but it is still better than stored with no use for 6 months.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

so what ground tests still need to be accomplished.. I know I spoiled by Commercial new a/p testing.. however this seems well past the point where ground testing should be completed.. except maybe for ordinance loading for new designs.

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12803 times:

Ordinance testing, developing maintenance routines, photo ops (lol). It is not the big significant stuff you hear about day to day... but it is something, which is better than being idle.

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

on the contrary, there subject the planes to wear and tear, expose them to damage, FOD, left tools, require systems power ups.. mothballing is a far better idea.. They already have nearly 100 a/c to play chess and bump cars with.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12735 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
I get the feeling their optimism in your quotes is misplaced once again.

Well I get the feeling what you're really saying is you are happy to believe and quote Kendall when what he says agrees with your negative views of the program but when his comments are positive and optimistic you downplay them. A contradiction don't you think?

Quoting kanban (Reply 15):
is the manufacturer so incompetent that they require a separate aircraft for each test?... I'd just love to know just what these towing tests consist of that can not be handled by the other 98 planes.. or is the product so bad that after each test 500 hrs (exaggeration) of maintenance is required?

At the end of the program the F-35 will have undergone the most extensive test and evaluation program in the history of aviation. LM didn't specify this, the JSF program office did. I am sure if you asked LM they would have happily reduced the T&E because it saves time, money and expertise. We also are not privy to every individual test point but we know that there are literally thousands of them.

If the Dutch aircraft do get used for testing then great and is positive for the overall program. If not then the Dutch pay a sum, which considering the advanced tech in the aircraft and the security issues associated with it, is not much, then so be it.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12736 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
on the contrary, there subject the planes to wear and tear, expose them to damage, FOD, left tools, require systems power ups.. mothballing is a far better idea.. They already have nearly 100 a/c to play chess and bump cars with.

A number of F-35's are assigned to operational and training units, so they are training F-35 pilots and maintainers.

And besides, they don't have 100 aircraft to play with; AF-34 only took first flight today, and it isn't even painted yet. AF-41 is the airframe that's number 100, and that entered final assembly a week ago.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12715 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
on the contrary, there subject the planes to wear and tear, expose them to damage, FOD, left tools, require systems power ups.. mothballing is a far better idea.. They already have nearly 100 a/c to play chess and bump cars with.

These are military aircraft, not new cars on a dealership lot.

Opening panels, testing things, installing software, wheeling them around ... probably wont do much in the way of wear and tear on a fighter jet.

Im sure that while in US possession, any damage done or discernable wear and tear will be repaired or the owner compensated. Using these jets for tests will speed things along a bit.


But now that I think about it... I swear I read that in the meantime they are starting to train Dutch pilots and maintainers. The pilots might not get any air time in these jets, but the maintainers can fiddle around in it.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12704 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21):
And besides, they don't have 100 aircraft to play with; AF-34 only took first flight today, and it isn't even painted yet. AF-41 is the airframe that's number 100, and that entered final assembly a week ago.

so what do they have built.. something between 85 and 93?

Quoting Oroka (Reply 22):
Opening panels, testing things, installing software, wheeling them around ... probably wont do much in the way of wear and tear on a fighter jet.

Yeah right!


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9783 times:

The Netherlands will buy 37 F-35 aircraft, they finally made a decision.

Story (in Dutch):
http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nl-NL...-35_s_maar_moet_ook_fors_inleveren



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
25 kiwirob : And to finance them I believe they are going to sell a much more useful piece of military kit the not yet launched Joint Support Ship Karel Doorman,
26 SAS A340 : 37!! so we've gone from 85 units for € 4.5 billion to 37 units for € 4.5 billion? impressive I must say.
27 Post contains links KarelXWB : Yes, amazing isn't? Question, another article claims the F-35 can't fly in bad weather conditions. I haven't heard this before, is this correct? Perha
28 Post contains links ThePointblank : The Belgians are looking at F-35 as well: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...hter-belgium-idUKBRE98G14820130917
29 tommytoyz : Everyone is looking at it and is not ordering so far, except UK, Japan and Israel. Australia, Canada, Holland and Italy haven't placed any production
30 petertenthije : The Netherlands announced they would buy 37 just yesterday, as mentioned in reply 24.
31 Post contains images frigatebird : What? Our good friends from the south may have a bigger Air Force than the Netherlands? That will be hard thing to swallow for some people in the Dut
32 Post contains images SAS A340 : The fact is that some Nations that ordered the F-35 minimises the number by 40 - 50%, some even more so so we do not know what number ends up with in
33 petertenthije : The original requirement (many moons ago) was 78 planes for around 4.5 billion USD. But because lockheed is unable to do anything without blowing thei
34 mrg : My question to the Dutch forum members: why have you guys gone for a first-day-of-war plane? Surely an F-16 Block 60 would have been the better option
35 tommytoyz : Link to the official announcement? Because as far as I know, to date, Holland has made no such announcement. Let's wait for any official announcement
36 KarelXWB : Hmm it's all over the Dutch news?
37 Post contains links and images petertenthije : Well, being Dutch we are a tad more likely to hear about this earlier then you. Unless you work for the NSA of course. Here's a link to a statement a
38 Mortyman : Because the F16 is not a 5 generation fighter ?
39 mrg : And? The electronics are the most important part of a fighter. A Block 60 has good electronics. The Dutch are going to spend as much money supporting
40 ThePointblank : The Dutch may be intending to order in batches, so 37 might not be the final number. The Dutch even ordered more than what was planned back 2009, whi
41 SAS A340 : Back in 2009 they still thought that they could get 80 F-35 for €4,5 billion...... therefor more natural to take them in batches.....thats not the
42 ptrjong : The decision is included in the government plans for the new parlementary year, announced on Tuesday. It's not an order yet but an announcement it is
43 ptrjong : No, 37 is indeed the planned final number, and that will only go down as the budget has been fixed. I agree such a fleet size makes no sense, whateve
44 kiwirob : It is a stupid decision, I'm still shocked that they are dumping the Karel Doorman to help fund these flying testiament to corporate greed and America
45 Post contains images LifelinerOne : It ain't over till the fat lady sings! Currently the government decided on an order for 37 F-35's, it's now up to parliament to agree or disagree with
46 ptrjong : Not exactly. It's just a purchase, not a new law. No vote is needed.
47 Post contains images LifelinerOne : Yes, it is. The purchase is to be included in a budget of the Ministry of Defense. Parliament has to vote if they agree with the proposed budget. If
48 Post contains images frigatebird : Something I have thought earlier this year and raised the question in another F35 thread, but never got a reply. The F16 is still being produced, and
49 Post contains images ptrjong : Vote on the defence budget, I guess you are right Lifeliner Yes, I think it's a sound alternative. It is difficult to explain, though, to replace airc
50 Post contains images mrg : You'll have to get in the queue. The Greeks owe me Billions and Billions.
51 Oroka : Not sure if you have looked at the world map lately, but the Netherlands is somewhat... limited in square mileage. 3 F-35s could probably patrol the
52 powerslide : Due to advanced flight sims, wouldn't pilots spend less time with actual flying? Yes pilots still need to fly and you can't replace that, but more and
53 Post contains images kanban : maybe they'll put 20 in storage and pull out 2 or 3 every 5 years to replace the worn out ones..
54 Oroka : Exactly, that saves money fuel and maintenance, and wear and tear on the jet. Half the time in the jet means less jets needed for training. Well, at
55 kanban : in that light hearted vein, the Silent Eagle is being fitted with guided potted plant dispensers.
56 Post contains images Oroka : Question is, what is the potted plant thinking after it has been ejected from the CWB? But really, if you look at the EU as a single entity, it has t
57 F27Friendship : Wow, some heavy misconception on the RNLAF capabilities, mission and needs in this thread. Unlike Germany, the Netherlands has always flown with the m
58 kiwirob : Say's who?
59 F27Friendship : Says the latest publicized sales prices of Rafale (India campaign) and Eurofighter (Saudi) compared to what the Netherlands paid for the first 2 LRIP
60 Oroka : lol yeah. Tiny country... less to defend. Okay, how about population density? 400 people per km2, vs Canada with 4 people per km2. Half the populatio
61 F27Friendship : Oroka, Patrolling the country is not the sizing factor for our air force needs. Being an active member of NATO with capabilities and enough resources
62 powerslide : On the same token Canada doesn't need more than 65 F-35s because of NORAD. US fighters have recently intercepted airliners over Canadian airspace bec
63 Post contains images Oroka : Nearly half our our GDP is international trade, admittedly not as high as the Netherlands, but considering twice the population... we are heavily an
64 mrg : Syria?
65 mrg : ..... It must be said that the Indian contract is peculiar in that the Indians want licenced production and offsets. Usually it's either or. You guys
66 Oroka : Sorry, had Syria on the brain, ment Libya
67 Post contains links F27Friendship : wow, I must have stepped on someone's big Canadian nationalistic toes. It wasn't really the point I was trying to make. As I have written now a few t
68 BigJKU : There is more to it than that. If the Dutch ever want to quickly raise the numbers of their air force anytime over the next 20-30 years the F-35 is t
69 mrg : Point taken. Lest we forget: for every Dollar or Euro we spend purchasing a frontline fighter, we spend at least 2 keeping them airborne. Also, by ju
70 F27Friendship : I do hope they would buy a second batch (or the world should suddenly become much more peaceful) Indeed the operating costs are still unknown. There a
71 Post contains images 9MMPQ : Since then this report has also come under fire somewhat as apparently a conclusion that the focus on any replacement has been very much one-sided in
72 F27Friendship : being somewhat familiar with how serious other manufacturers took our RFI in 2001 (representatives of Eurofighter falling asleep during a meeting with
73 Post contains links ThePointblank : Dutch Parliament has approved F-35 purchase: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...urchase?odyssey=mod_sectionstories 37 aircraft for 4.5 billion eur
74 Mortyman : The latest estimates for Norway is 7.6 billion EUR for 56 F35 ...
75 KiwiRob : Should have bought Gripen.
76 BigJKU : Why exactly? I mean Gripen NG is fine for flying around looking pretty, or to chase off the odd mysterious contact that strays into your national air
77 KiwiRob : Pretty much that, Norway's only ever used the F-16's once, the Gripen could have done the same job and did with the Sweds, Norway doesn't need the ca
78 Mortyman : Norway has had F-16 in operation in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya. Not to mention that the F-16 is scrambled often into the air when the Russians com
79 BigJKU : We known nothing of the sort about Gripen NG seeing as it would have many new components that would be in operation. We know the original is supposed
80 KiwiRob : That role could easily be done by a far cheaper to own and operate Gripen.
81 KiwiRob : These were the two the govt had on it's shortlist, if the F-16 was on that list I'd mention it as well, but it wasn't so no point including it is the
82 BigJKU : Probably true but I am guessing most governments had the exact same conversation were are having here when Gripen came up. You are still asking to sp
83 Powerslide : How could you possibly know this, the NG hasn't flown yet and no one knows if all the systems will work. Saying it will be cheaper because it's less
84 Mortyman : The Eurofighter and Dassault Mirage was also considered earlier on.
85 KiwiRob : I know but in the end it came down to two. Eurofighter walked away when they realised the deck was stacked against them, and the toadies in the Norwe
86 BigJKU : It is really not worth picking a fight over, on that much I agree. CPFH is an awful metric to try to compare across services anyway and is more subje
87 Aesma : An order is better than no order, especially politically in the US, but I doubt they will be making money. Because politicians of developed nations c
88 Oroka : If a particular country wishes to commit forces they contribute to the combined EU military to some conflict that not all of the EU states want a par
89 ThePointblank : However, the Gripen is considerably less capable than a F-16 or a F/A-18. Remember the Gripen was developed around the Swedish Air Force's need for f
90 KiwiRob : Which is exactly what Norway needs. The airforce might think it needs to drop truck loads of bombs but does it really?
91 Post contains images SAS A340 : We must remember that this is the very political, Ironic is that the two fighters who were selected, the Gripen was the worst you could get for Money
92 ThePointblank : Considering that Norway requires anti-shipping capabilities, and the F-16 in Norwegian service is cleared for the Penguin missile, yes. Norway's F-16
93 KiwiRob : So what, still doesn't mean they need to blow what will eventially amount to hundreds of billions of NOK on planes that aren't necessary and overkill
94 BigJKU : Certainly you are comfortable telling Norway what they need to be able to do with their air force. I find that a bit presumptuous on your part that y
95 kanban : When dealing with defense armament, all sides end up being presumptuous.. The military are by nature always seeing ogres under their beds, and the pe
96 Oroka : I think that they are looking at potential future adversaries and what they are equipped with. Any future conflict that will need a 5th gen fighter w
97 kanban : The big question is what is this upcoming conflict about? In recent actions, 5th gen. is overkill.. So a bunch of countries have 4.5 our 4.75 Gen. The
98 ThePointblank : Oil, resources, you name it. And overkill is good. If you want to win; you must have some superiority over your opponents. The last thing you want is
99 KiwiRob : I'm a Norwegian taxpayer so yip I would like my tax dollars to be more wisely spent. Plus I'm sure there was a bit of arm twisting on behalf of the U
100 Post contains images Mortyman : Norwegian tax is payed in Norwegian Kroner NOK
101 ThePointblank : Ask the Japanese that, you will hear a different answer. The Japanese are very concerned about the Chinese. The Chinese government seems to be turnin
102 KiwiRob : I know but 34 years of my life has been in dollars, it's hard to think of money as anything other than a dollar. I don't live in Japan and if Japan a
103 ThePointblank : It's more than just a wee tiff; there are serious nationalistic powers and a trade dispute at play between the two. And if there is a shooting war be
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Dutch F-35s Go Into Storage
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 F16 Fighter Crashed Into Sea (pilot Safe) posted Wed Jul 19 2006 16:08:32 by Varig767
Question Can The X-15 Go Up Into Space posted Tue Nov 19 2002 13:16:54 by Canon
Air Force One Approach Into Tinker AFB 5/26 posted Mon May 27 2013 08:16:11 by AM
Taiwanese F-16 Crashes Into Sea, Pilot Safe posted Thu May 16 2013 03:33:00 by ThePointblank
When Did The Fighting Falcon Turn Into A Viper? posted Sat Mar 23 2013 01:40:49 by a380heavy
Nano Drones Go To War... posted Tue Feb 5 2013 02:22:50 by stealthz
Dutch Firm Seeks Colonists For 2023 Mars Mission posted Sat Jan 12 2013 17:33:15 by Aloha717200
Dutch TV Chick Flying Along In A F-16 posted Fri Nov 23 2012 16:13:40 by travelavnut
Sending A Balloon Into Space? posted Thu Nov 8 2012 11:56:34 by ajd1992
Presedential Planes Flying Into Springfield (kspi) posted Thu Sep 27 2012 11:13:56 by phatalbert

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format