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 9 hours ago) and read 14325 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, 10735 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 hours ago) and read 14130 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, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (1 year ago) and read 14068 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13890 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, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13647 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13619 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, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13602 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, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13497 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, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 13485 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, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 13479 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13295 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 (12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13275 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, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13111 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, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13026 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 (12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13023 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12973 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, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 12742 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12726 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, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12711 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12654 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, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12643 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, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12644 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, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 12623 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12612 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, 10735 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9691 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.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9809 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 24):
The Netherlands will buy 37 F-35 aircraft, they finally made a decision.

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, a very stupid decision IMO.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9791 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 24):
The Netherlands will buy 37 F-35 aircraft, they finally made a decision.

37!! so we've gone from 85 units for € 4.5 billion to 37 units for € 4.5 billion? impressive I must say.



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10735 posts, RR: 31
Reply 27, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9813 times:

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? Perhaps they meant the F-35 is not allowed to fly in bad weather during it's current phase of development?

http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3577236/kabinet-kiest-definitief-jsf.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9726 times:

The Belgians are looking at F-35 as well:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...hter-belgium-idUKBRE98G14820130917

Quote:
Exclusive: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s - source
(Reuters) - U.S. government officials have briefed the Belgian government about the capabilities of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, as Brussels prepares to replace its aging fleet of 60 F-16s, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.

The source, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said Belgium was considering buying 35 to 55 of the new radar-evading F-35 jets. No decisions are expected until late 2014 at the earliest after next year's elections in Belgium.

Belgium was one of the original NATO partners to buy the F-16 fighter jet, also built by Lockheed; but unlike Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, it did not join the international consortium that funded development of the F-35.

U.S. government officials have visited Belgium to discuss the F-35, which is being built to replace the F-16 and a dozen other warplanes in use around the world, according to the source.

The current Belgian government says a decision on replacing the F-16s will be made by the next government after elections in early summer 2014.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9664 times:

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 orders beyond a few test models. Isn't it about time they did? If they don't order soon, they wont ever, IMHO.

Italy recently placed a political restriction by requiring full parliamentary approval for the government to order any more F-35s, taking away executive discretion. Italy has not yet decided to order them for their air force and Italy is facing extreme budget constraints. The writing is on the wall in many countries.


User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 30, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 9445 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
Holland (...) haven't placed any production orders

The Netherlands announced they would buy 37 just yesterday, as mentioned in reply 24.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 9438 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
Belgium was considering buying 35 to 55 of the new radar-evading F-35 jets.

What? Our good friends from the south may have a bigger Air Force than the Netherlands?  Wow! That will be hard thing to swallow for some people in the Dutch military    But the Belgians will have the time of their life if that happens   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9387 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 32):
What? Our good friends from the south may have a bigger Air Force than the Netherlands?

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 this case IF it decide to go for the F-35...



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 33, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9336 times:

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 their budget we now get 37 planes for 4.5 billion. Let's hope the price is set in stone so we are not affected by any future price increases.

Quoting frigatebird,reply=32What? Our good friends from the south may have a bigger Air Force than the Netherlands?:

The RNLAF is also retiring 7 more F-16s, we'll be down to 61 fighters then. Belgium has 59 F-16, so one mid-air collision and they are our equals (bit of black humour on a gloomy day).



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9266 times:

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. The operations that you'll probably be participating in will be interventions in failed states. Your Pacer Amstel fleet with Tape 6.1 handles those kind of combined ops just fine.
The F-16 has evolved into a Picatinny Rail with wings. The F-35 Lifestyle Fighter is never going to be that flexible.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 35, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 30):
The Netherlands announced they would buy 37 just yesterday, as mentioned in reply 24.

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 or an actual order.

[Edited 2013-09-18 12:24:54]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10735 posts, RR: 31
Reply 36, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9124 times:

Hmm it's all over the Dutch news?


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 37, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9060 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
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 or an actual order.

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 at the site of the Dutch ministry of defence. It also lists all the other stuff that will be scrapped: 7 F-16s and the Gulfstream, a supply ship still under construction, a mechnized infantry brigade, some other bits and pieces. It's in Dutch though.

http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/uitge...t/nota_minister_hennis_plasschaert



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3842 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8989 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 34):
My question to the Dutch forum members: why have you guys gone for a first-day-of-war plane?
Quoting mrg (Reply 34):
Surely an F-16 Block 60 would have been the better option.

Because the F16 is not a 5 generation fighter ?


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8904 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 38):
Because the F16 is not a 5 generation fighter ?

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 37 F-35s as they spend on supporting 68 F-16s.

A great deal for Lockheed but I wonder if it's a great deal for the customer.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8871 times:

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 33):
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 their budget we now get 37 planes for 4.5 billion. Let's hope the price is set in stone so we are not affected by any future price increases.

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, which was 27 F-35's in the initial order, with a second batch to be decided in 2015.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8849 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
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, which was 27 F-35's in the initial order, with a second batch to be decided in 2015.

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 case today! it,s 37!

Quoting mrg (Reply 39):
A great deal for Lockheed but I wonder if it's a great deal for the customer.

I would say that LM Winns this one with 100-1.



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 42, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8806 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
Link to the official announcement? Because as far as I know, to date, Holland has made no such announcement.


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.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 43, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8813 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
The Dutch may be intending to order in batches, so 37 might not be the final number.

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, whatever you think of the F-35. We need to downgrade and leave the first day of WW III to the great powers I'm afraid.

[Edited 2013-09-19 02:13:57]


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8740 times:

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 American military procurement stupidity, Gripen or F16 are more than enough for all European Airforces baring those that will get involved in first day of war conflicts (UK, France and maybe Germany).

User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1916 posts, RR: 7
Reply 45, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8496 times:

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 this decision.

Yesterday a report was published by our Rekenkamer (say our GAO) which was quite critical on this decision (but decideley less critical than previous reports). They are very sceptic about the ability for the RNLAF to have four F-35's permanently available for international missions, next to air policing our skies, trainingflights and maintenance with the 37 planned F-35's.

So, I think we need to make some tough decisions here. Do we want such a small number of fighters, which are top-notch, but probably making it impossible to continue our involvement in international missions, or do we want a cheaper plane, enabling us to continue our international role? If it's the last, we need to adapt our ambitions accordingly. I'm in favour of the last. Let's have an air force with more planes, albeit a little les modern. Or, lets just pool the airforces of Belgium and The Netherlands together.

The coalition-party Partij van de Arbeid (Labour party) faction in parliament, of which its ministers concurred on the proposed order, also doesn't have made its mind up wheter they are going to support the decision of the cabinet. If they don't agree with these plans, the order, and in my opinion, the whole F-35 in Dutch service is dead in the water, as is our lame-duck coaltion government I suspect.

To be continued...

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 46, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8478 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 45):
it's now up to parliament to agree or disagree with this decision.

Not exactly. It's just a purchase, not a new law. No vote is needed.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1916 posts, RR: 7
Reply 47, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 8456 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 46):
Not exactly. It's just a purchase, not a new law. No vote is needed.

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 they don't, the cabinet has to draw another budget. In this case a seperate budget will be made for this purchase.

Parliament (both houses!) have the final say, they hand out the money...

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8424 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 39):
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 38):Because the F16 is not a 5 generation fighter ?

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 37 F-35s as they spend on supporting 68 F-16s.

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 with the latest electronics it should be fine for a country like the Netherlands. I never understood why this never has been considered, not just to save in purchasing cost but it should also save in training and costs for spares.   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 49, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8420 times:

Vote on the defence budget, I guess you are right Lifeliner  
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
The F16 is still being produced, and with the latest electronics it should be fine for a country like the Netherlands. I never understood why this never has been considered, not just to save in purchasing cost but it should also save in training and costs for spares.

Yes, I think it's a sound alternative. It is difficult to explain, though, to replace aircraft with the same basic type after nearly 40 years. I'm afraid this is a serious obstacle.

Maybe we can have the Greek ones, which are much newer than ours. The Greeks owe us some money  



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8396 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 49):
Maybe we can have the Greek ones, which are much newer than ours. The Greeks owe us some money

You'll have to get in the queue. The Greeks owe me Billions and Billions.
 


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8294 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 45):
They are very sceptic about the ability for the RNLAF to have four F-35's permanently available for international missions, next to air policing our skies, trainingflights and maintenance with the 37 planned F-35's.

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 entire country.

Countries like Canada and The Netherlands, we commit maybe 7 jets to support international commitments. Difference is, Canada is just shy of 1 billion square km, The Netherlands is just over 41 thousand km. Being 25000x the size, we will be making due with only double the number of F-35s. Really, per Sq km, with 37 F-35s... the Netherlands will be one of the most heavily defended chunks of land on the planet, planted squarely in the middle of one of the most heavily defended regions on the planet.

Perhaps if the Netherlands bordered... Iran or... North Korea, it would be a solid arguement for more jets... but your smack in the middle of Europe. Really, you could easily contract out fighter patrol to... lol anyone really. Yeah, its not glamorous, but the Dutch can contribute other ways. IMO the Dutch are equally known as Peace Keepers as the Canucks are.

So, no, it is not 85, but realistically 37 is more than enough for patrol, training, maintenance, and international commitments. 85 would be punching well above the Dutche's weight, but it would be expensive. This is not WWII or the Cold war... thousands of jets are not necessary except for those participating in this new China/USA pissing contest, and even those players are slimming down.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8332 times:

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 more training could/should be done in the sim. This would lessen the strain on the jet and maintenance thus keeping more aircraft available for actual missions.

User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 53, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 51):
realistically 37 is more than enough for patrol, training, maintenance, and international commitments.

maybe they'll put 20 in storage and pull out 2 or 3 every 5 years to replace the worn out ones..   


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8234 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 52):
Due to advanced flight sims, wouldn't pilots spend less time with actual flying?

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.

Quoting kanban (Reply 53):
maybe they'll put 20 in storage and pull out 2 or 3 every 5 years to replace the worn out ones..  

Well, at 3 every 5 years, that is 60 years to go though them all, that is a pretty economical way to utilize the whole fleet! But depending on who you talk to here, the F-35 is not combat capable, and there is no proof that they will not turn into chesterfields, whales, pots of petunias, and wool puppets the moment they enter real combat.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 55, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 54):
Well, at 3 every 5 years, that is 60 years to go though them all, that is a pretty economical way to utilize the whole fleet! But depending on who you talk to here, the F-35 is not combat capable, and there is no proof that they will not turn into chesterfields, whales, pots of petunias, and wool puppets the moment they enter real combat.

in that light hearted vein, the Silent Eagle is being fitted with guided potted plant dispensers.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8222 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 55):
in that light hearted vein, the Silent Eagle is being fitted with guided potted plant dispensers.

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 the second largest airforce in the world, largest navy, and second largest personnel numbers... that is in no way anything to sneeze at.

Perhaps what needs to be done is each country provide gear and personnel to a single military based on GDP, square kilometers, and population. But that would be as popular as suggesting the US could do without the USMC!

  


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8171 times:

Wow, some heavy misconception on the RNLAF capabilities, mission and needs in this thread.

Unlike Germany, the Netherlands has always flown with the most modern equipment available. Those who think Germany is one of Europe's Air Forces that need/want first day of the war capabilities are quite unaware of its politics and previous record. They don't (they still relied on F-4's not long ago...)

The F16's MLU that we have are getting really old and cost a lot to maintain. Also, during our latest participation over contested Air Space - Operation Allied Force - over Kosovo and Serbia, we almost lost a few F16s against 1960s SAMs, so now imagine flying an 1970s design with the latest electronics over a country with the latest and greatest Russian SAMs (like Syria). You will loose a lot of planes and pilots.

Also, just for the record: Dutch F-16s were the first planes over Kosovo/Serbia during Allied Force and the Dutch/Belgian joint contingent had the highest number of missions per number of aircraft deployed in the entire operation, so yes, we do need F-35 if we maintain our current capabilities and NATO contributions.

Patrolling the country is only one of 6 missions for which we have a permanent 2 aircraft on QRA duty.

@Oroka, really? Based on SQM? Really?

BTW, I completely agree that selling of the Karel Doorman is complete destruction of capital and stupid.

I think the government made a very conservative decision and that 37 is the worst case number for the budget we have. They should now align with partners and perform a consortium buy like with F-16 (with Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy and maybe UK and Turkey). I'm confident that in this case we would get more planes for the same budget.

More Gripen's for the same Money is completely useless as they are less capable than our current F16s. Rafale and Eurofighter are more expensive than F-35.

If the politics don't shoot it down before. Since our labour party turns so fast on it's position on JSF, maybe they can replace the F-16?

[Edited 2013-09-21 02:44:48]

[Edited 2013-09-21 02:49:16]

User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8046 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 57):
Rafale and Eurofighter are more expensive than F-35.

Say's who?


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8038 times:

Says the latest publicized sales prices of Rafale (India campaign) and Eurofighter (Saudi) compared to what the Netherlands paid for the first 2 LRIP test aircraft.

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7911 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 57):
@Oroka, really? Based on SQM? Really?

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 population jammed into 100x less space.

Would 200 F-35s for the Netherlands be great... sure wood. Necessary... not even close.

Does the US NEED the USMC... probably not, but dont say that too loud. Does Canada need submarines... we seem to be doing fine without them. Do we need fighters? We would probably be better off with a fleet of P-8s and RQ-4s realistically. My grandfather is probably spinning in his grave to hear that, but it is true.

If we put half of our fighter fleet in in the province of Nova Scotia (which still is 14k km2 larger than the Netherlands)... it would be so over defended it would be crazy.

The truth doesnt have to be nice or popular.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7646 times:

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 to contribute to international missions is. Perhaps you are somewhat inward oriented? Netherlands is an exporting economy with business interests all over the world. We are the second biggest exporter of the EU. So we are very much internationally and outward oriented. The country might be small in surface area, but that's about all that is small.

Btw, in the 70s and 80s we had about 300 jets. Around Nova Scotia, you have what? Wales? We are in Northwestern Europe. In the cold war we had this thing called the Eastern-Bloc within a day's driving and they had more planes than all western-european countries.

So again, square meterage isn't that interesting if you're not from Canada.

[Edited 2013-09-22 14:12:06]

User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7596 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 61):
Being an active member of NATO with capabilities and enough resources to contribute to international missions is.

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 because our jets were not responsible, or available, for that area. If Europe or North America was a free for all, yes more fighters might be needed, but with cooperation among allies the need for a massive fleet is unnecessary.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7539 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 61):
Perhaps you are somewhat inward oriented? Netherlands is an exporting economy with business interests all over the world. We are the second biggest exporter of the EU. So we are very much internationally and outward oriented. The country might be small in surface area, but that's about all that is small.

Nearly half our our GDP is international trade, admittedly not as high as the Netherlands, but considering twice the population... we are heavily an exporter. We are the biggest trading partner with the largest economy in the world (fyi it is not the EU).


In terms of air patrols... yeah, still small. What can 87 F-35s do that 35 cant packed in that amount of space?

Give up?


WASTE MONEY!

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 61):
Patrolling the country is not the sizing factor for our air force needs. Being an active member of NATO with capabilities and enough resources to contribute to international missions is.

Come on now... both Countries are founding members of NATO, we are on par for contribution to international missions. We have 79 CF-18s... we sent 7 to Syria. That is commitment! That is only about double the number we have touring the airshow circuit. We are in the market for some support ships though... will you take one or two in trade for 4 scratch and dent diesel submarines? Sounds all nice and good, active members of NATO! Neither country is exactly the prize fighter of the the lot. That falls to the guys with a whole bunch of red white and blue and stripes on their flags.




Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 61):
Btw, in the 70s and 80s we had about 300 jets. Around Nova Scotia, you have what? Wales? We are in Northwestern Europe. In the cold war we had this thing called the Eastern-Bloc within a day's driving and they had more planes than all western-european countries.

Since this is a size pissing contest, we had 420+ fighters... you know, whales.

We were directly in the path of over the pole bombers and invasion forces (or so the theory goes). Oh, and whales. I also seem to remember something about Canada having 3 fighter squadrons in Europe during this period, seeing how the Netherlands could only contribute 300 jets   

Im not sure how the former Eastern-Bloc being next door weighs in on the number of F-35s being purchased 30 years later. I remember reading something about that marriage failing after a few years. I could see budget and realistic needs being a factor though.

I guarantee you there is a lot of brass in the RCAF who think 65 F-35s are way too low a number. But, the cold war is over, and whales do not just appear in the sky and bomb Nova Scotia (quantum physics aside, the probability factor is astronomical against). If a military commander ever says they got enough troops and equipment.... they need to be put out to pasture. In war, the bigger and better the force... the better, you don't want a fair fight. Problem is, you always need to take it with a grain of salt.

I would love to see the RCAF back to even its 90s strength, more even... I think we should have a few attack helicopter squadrons. With our vast north and coast lines, we should have 30+ P-8s on the coasts, and 20 RQ-4s keeping watch on above the tree line... we cant afford it, and really, its not needed that bad. We do have some guys (Canadian Rangers) on snowmobiles keeping an eye out for commie bears (polar or Tu-95) or something... seems to be adequate. We occasionally send a CF-18 up into the boonies for 'sovereignty patrols'... they only pick pilots who REALLY like the color (or shade) white. There are not that many of them.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7525 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 63):
We have 79 CF-18s... we sent 7 to Syria

Syria?


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7527 times:

.....

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 59):
Rafale (India campaign)

It must be said that the Indian contract is peculiar in that the Indians want licenced production and offsets. Usually it's either or.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 57):
Unlike Germany, the Netherlands has always flown with the most modern equipment available. Those who think Germany is one of Europe's Air Forces that need/want first day of the war capabilities are quite unaware of its politics and previous record. They don't (they still relied on F-4's not long ago...)

You guys were just getting your first Blk 15s when we were getting our Tornadoes. The F4s received their ICE upgrade which made them reasonably effective at the time. No, we don't need first day of war capability- do you really? We need flexibility. The Typhoon gives us that. The Rafale is better but that's another topic.
Unmanned UCAVS led by a modern two-seater fighter will be a reality sooner than many of us think. I haven't yet seen a two-seat F-35.
You shouldn't trash the Gripen. It won't carry as much as an F-16 but it will police airspace just as effectively and for a lot less money than will the F-16.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7392 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 64):
Syria?

Sorry, had Syria on the brain, ment Libya


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 67, posted (10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 7329 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 63):

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 times, patrol of the air space is the least sizing factor for our air force needs. Less than it is for Canada. We can do our QRA duties with a permanent 2 jets. To sustain 2 jets at all times you probably only need a fleet of about 12 to 14 (hence the numbers countries like Hungary, Czech, Austria have). Canada would probably need more than 2 jets for QRA duty but that number would probably still require a total fleet smaller than 65.

The 6 missions for the F-16 replacement are:

1. Offensive Counter Air/Sweep

2. Defensive Counter Air/Cruise Missile Defence

3. Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD/DEAD)

4. Air Interdiction

5. Close Air Support

6. Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (NTISR)

source Dutch MoD: http://www.defensie.nl/dmo/uitgelicht/kandidatenvergelijkingen/

For these 6 missions there are commitments for deployment during international operations (irrelevant of your country's size). Let's say you commit to a deployment of 8 jets at two different theaters of Operations (like Afghanistan and Lybia) for a period of a few years. To sustain that with rotation etc you would need about 40-50 jets. Add to that your permanent QRA at home, we counted about 10-12 jets, and then on top a permanent training operation (in our case in both the US and Netherlands) you need another 20-30 jets. So you get to a number of 70 - 92 jets (hence the original number of 85). During the Yugoslav wars we had about 24 jets stationed in Italy. To sustain that you need enough numbers to rotate etc.

So I hope it's now more clear that air patrol at home is not the dimensioning factor even for a small country. It depends on either your immediate threats (Look at numbers that Singapore and Israel have, or your Canadian Cold war example). Or on your committed capabilities for deployment over longer periods of time elsewhere (this means not in the tiny Netherlands).

So also for Canada, if they continue with their international participation like they used to, 65 is quite a low number. Or, like our country is now suggesting, they will reduce their commitment a lot (our government is now talking about a permanent availability of 4 jets for international missions). If it's only to patrol Canadian air space, it might be a large number.

Quoting mrg (Reply 65):

The upgraded F-4s are hardly comparably to our first F-16s, which were afterwards upgraded to MLU standard. The F-4 upgrades mainly constituted of better radar and fire control and better BVR missiles for defense against Soviet/Eastern German invasion. Tornado was there for strike inside enemy territory.

I most correct one thing, the German Air Force does have one very important first day of the war capability which are the ECR Tornado's, which were very effective against enemy SAM sites during the Kosovo campaign.

Eurofighter is hardly a flexible platform at the moment. Only the Brits have credible air to ground capabilities at the moment with their Typhoons where the majority of the full multi-role capabilities will only come with Tranche 3, if those ever get off the ground (I doubt it with Merkel re-elected).

There are no UCAVs under development right now that could replace a strike platform such as Tornado ECR, nor is any European government investing in it (certainly not Germany, despite industry begging them to do so).

Again, Gripen is fine when you are Hungary, Czech republic or Austria (beats me why they chose Eurofighter), so yes you are right, could be good for Air patrol if that's all you want to do. However even there the Hungarians prefer their Mig 29s as the Gripen takes longer to reach altitude and speed. Not fitting the needs of the RNLAF by far.

Next best thing after F-35 would be Rafale, but those will never be built in any serious numbers for them to be affordable (by now as much F-35s have been built as Rafales)


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 68, posted (10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7296 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 34):
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. The operations that you'll probably be participating in will be interventions in failed states. Your Pacer Amstel fleet with Tape 6.1 handles those kind of combined ops just fine.
The F-16 has evolved into a Picatinny Rail with wings. The F-35 Lifestyle Fighter is never going to be that flexible.

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 their best best. It will have an active production line far longer than either the Eurofighter or Rafale (neither of which seem to be cheaper anyway). Gripen NG is still a complete unknown but does not look cheap by any means either. The F-16 line will be long gone by then. By ordering the F-35 the Dutch could fairly quickly decide to go from 37 to 80 planes if they needed to in the future.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7294 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 67):
Not fitting the needs of the RNLAF by far.

Point taken.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 68):
Eurofighter or Rafale (neither of which seem to be cheaper anyway)

Lest we forget: for every Dollar or Euro we spend purchasing a frontline fighter, we spend at least 2 keeping them airborne.
Also, by just about any metric you care to mention, the F-35 is going to cost substantially more to own than does the F-16.
The French have solid numbers with regard to the Rafale. It seems no more expensive to maintain than the Mirage 2000. And that's saying something.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 68):
The F-16 line will be long gone by then. By ordering the F-35 the Dutch could fairly quickly decide to go from 37 to 80 planes if they needed to in the future.

I'll have to concede that.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 7274 times:

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 are first estimates that they would be slightly more than an F-16 if you take into account all external pods it carries that F-35 had internally.

Well, the cost for Rafale are a problem when it comes to weapon systems (French systems we don't have and need to buy new) and spare parts (small pool for a small fleet). then upgrades will cost a fortune (adapting for existing weapons)


User currently offline9MMPQ From Netherlands, joined Nov 2011, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 7242 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 45):
Yesterday a report was published by our Rekenkamer (say our GAO) which was quite critical on this decision (but decideley less critical than previous reports).

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 favor of the JSF was stricken after talks with our defense minister & economic affairs minister before it was released. Similarly the conclusion that since 2001 no serious comparisons have been made with other possible aircraft was also taken out.

Unfortunately they did publish these conclusions on their website, by their own statement in order to only give transparency & certainly not to show that the Defense department has been very much focused on the JSF. Go figure   

Seems to me to be pretty much a confirmation that we've focused on getting the shiniest new toy (stealth) available & it does tie in with other manufacturers who have said they have had little to no chance to seriously present their case.

With doubts having been raised on the financing being achievable & with out current government this still isn't finalized.



I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7153 times:

being somewhat familiar with how serious other manufacturers took our RFI in 2001 (representatives of Eurofighter falling asleep during a meeting with the defence committee of parliament! Dassault stating: development is done but you are welcome to buy) I hardly find those claims impressive.

On another note, I find the Rekenkamer's action highly politically motivated and I subjectively suspect a high PvdA membership under its staff.

Adding non-quantitive remarks is not their mission and they are mis-using their status of objective neutral institute who calculates quantitative results to steer a political discussion.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5397 times:

Dutch Parliament has approved F-35 purchase:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...urchase?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Dutch Parliament has ratified the government’s choice of the F-35 as the Netherlands next-generation fighter, putting an end to a 15-year debate.

The vote on whether the stealthy plane will replace the Dutch fleet of F-16s occurred the evening of Nov. 7.

“This is a very important moment in history: Finally we can give clarity to our military and to our international partners,” Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the Dutch minister of defense, said in a statement released by the government. “With this choice for the F-35, we provide the Dutch Armed Forces with the best aircraft available to deal with the challenges of our time and of the future.”

37 aircraft for 4.5 billion euros. The Dutch Parliament has furthermore stated that if there is still room under the budget, they will buy more F-35's.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3842 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5217 times:

The latest estimates for Norway is 7.6 billion EUR for 56 F35 ...

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4871 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 74):
The latest estimates for Norway is 7.6 billion EUR for 56 F35 ...

Should have bought Gripen.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 76, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4802 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 75):
Should have bought Gripen.

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 airspace. But it is not really a serious basis for a single fighter type air force to have going forward. It also still has considerable program risk as they have not yet put together a production model and flown it around so no one can really quote you a fixed price at this point.

For small European air forces that might need to regenerate capability later if the security picture changes internationally the F-35 makes a lot more sense because they are reasonably assured they can buy more of them 15-20 years from now and easily absorb them into their force structure. It is also far more capable than the Gripen NG and for comparable missions would require less support (jamming, SEAD, escort) that many of those smaller air forces don't have around to begin with.

For the things you can do with a Gripen you might as well save yourself the conversion headache as those nations and just buy new F-16's. They will all do about the same thing in the end. I am guessing that is a big part of why Gripen was not seriously considered. No one wants to stump up what is still a lot of money to make a relatively small leap forward from an aircraft they are already flying.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 77, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4822 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 76):
I mean Gripen NG is fine for flying around looking pretty, or to chase off the odd mysterious contact that strays into your national airspace.

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 capabilities of the F-35, Norway doesn't need a first day of war type aircraft, the money spent of purchasing and maintaining F-35 could be much better spent on all sorts of other things. And we already know Gripen is a very cheap fighter to operate and maintain.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3842 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4793 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 77):
Norway's only ever used the F-16's once

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 come to close to our airspace. For many decades they were used for this purpose during the Cold war With up to 1500 of such incidents pr. year at the hight of the Cold war.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 79, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 77):
And we already know Gripen is a very cheap fighter to operate and maintain.

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 to be very cheap according to SAAB. Gripen NG has a fair amount of things going on that, in order for it to be competitive, are actually new technologies rather than recycled and well proven systems from other places (ie the engines, radar of the first model). It may all work out, but then again it may not. Anyone claiming to know what the Gripen NG's operating cost are at this point is just talking.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 77):
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 capabilities of the F-35, Norway doesn't need a first day of war type aircraft, the money spent of purchasing and maintaining F-35 could be much better spent on all sorts of other things.

Ok, but that is not really a positive argument for Gripen necessarily. As I pointed out before, if you position is that all you want to do is conduct those few missions you seem to think anyone would want to do then why not just buy the latest F-16 if you are an F-16 operator?

Unlike Gripen NG the F-16 already exist. It already is flying with an AESA radar. Most importantly these nations are already flying F-16's so the transitions would be much simpler. You insist on viewing this as a binary choice between the F-35 and the Gripen. In reality the question these air forces have asked is if they wanted to upgrade to stay relevant or not. No one is going from F-16's into Gripen. There is absolutely no point. You gain basically nothing. Gripen operators have been nations replacing F-5 level aircraft.

[Edited 2013-11-10 14:25:20]

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4502 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 78):
Not to mention that the F-16 is scrambled often into the air when the Russians come to close to our airspace. For many decades they were used for this purpose during the Cold war With up to 1500 of such incidents pr. year at the hight of the Cold war.

That role could easily be done by a far cheaper to own and operate Gripen.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 81, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 79):
You insist on viewing this as a binary choice between the F-35 and the Gripen

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 there?


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 82, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4377 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 81):
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 there?

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 spend billions but if asked the question of what do we get over our F-16's with this expenditure there is not much you can say for Gripen. The F-35 offers other capabilities that F-16 and Gripen both don't have. I think if any F-16 operator seriously considered the Gripen they would back off at some point because it is a truly pointless purchase that really gets you nothing at all.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4300 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 80):
That role could easily be done by a far cheaper to own and operate Gripen.

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 advanced is asinine. The NG will have the same issues as all the other new weapon systems. F-35's will be in the hundreds by the time Gripen makes its first NG flight.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3842 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4279 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 81):
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 there?

The Eurofighter and Dassault Mirage was also considered earlier on.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 85, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4066 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 84):
The Eurofighter and Dassault Mirage was also considered earlier on.

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 Norwegian govt allowed the US to bully them into buying the F-35.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
How could you possibly know this

Same as nobody really knows how expensive the F-325 will be to operate, it's all guesswork at the moment despite what I'm sure you will post. But Saab do know who much the current Gripen costs to operate, the NG is an evolved Gripen so I think they have a pretty good idea, certainly a better idea than you or I have.

[Edited 2013-11-12 04:29:24]

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 86, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4013 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 85):
Same as nobody really knows how expensive the F-325 will be to operate, it's all guesswork at the moment despite what I'm sure you will post. But Saab do know who much the current Gripen costs to operate, the NG is an evolved Gripen so I think they have a pretty good idea, certainly a better idea than you or I have.

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 subject to manipulation than just about anything.

But, nations are for the most part the ones laying out the money and so far no one has elected to replace their F-16's (or F-18's, or Tornado's or any true 4th generation fighter for that matter) with Gripen. They have replaced Viggens, MIG-21/3's and F-5's.

So far no one has done what you have suggested and laid out what is still a ton of money to simply buy a newer fighter that does the exact same things as what they already own. The answer for most nations seems to be that we will be spending billions anyway so we might as well buy something we believe has a future rather than a rehash of what we already operate.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 87, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3953 times:

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 41):
I would say that LM Winns this one with 100-1.

An order is better than no order, especially politically in the US, but I doubt they will be making money.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
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 with the latest electronics it should be fine for a country like the Netherlands. I never understood why this never has been considered, not just to save in purchasing cost but it should also save in training and costs for spares.

Because politicians of developed nations can't convince people to spend billions on old school stuff.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 56):
But really, if you look at the EU as a single entity, it has the second largest airforce in the world, largest navy, and second largest personnel numbers... that is in no way anything to sneeze at.
Quoting Oroka (Reply 56):
Perhaps what needs to be done is each country provide gear and personnel to a single military based on GDP, square kilometers, and population. But that would be as popular as suggesting the US could do without the USMC!

Pooling the militaries wouldn't be that difficult I would imagine, after all the units would roughly stay where they are. The problem is pooling the foreign policies. When France intervenes in Mali to protect us all, the rest of the EU is saying "that's your problem".



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 87):
Pooling the militaries wouldn't be that difficult I would imagine, after all the units would roughly stay where they are. The problem is pooling the foreign policies. When France intervenes in Mali to protect us all, the rest of the EU is saying "that's your problem".

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 part of, they can send their own assets. They still must fulfill commitments to the EU for other operations or day to day operations, but otherwise are free to use their assets as needed.

Units are commanded by a central command structure, but can be directed by its home state. The home state ultimately has the final call.

European Union States... starting to sound somewhat familiar.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3841 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 85):
But Saab do know who much the current Gripen costs to operate, the NG is an evolved Gripen so I think they have a pretty good idea, certainly a better idea than you or I have.

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 fighter capabilities defending Swedish airspace against the occasional foreign visitor. Ground attack capability requirements were very minimal, and some maritime strike capabilities were desired to defend Sweden against a potential Warsaw Pact invasion fleet.

Furthermore, foreign countries that already have bought Gripen are rather small countries (except for South Africa which is approximately 2.5 times larger than Sweden) which are easily covered. Sweden, for example, has four air bases evenly distributed over the country which easily covers all of Sweden's territory.

The Gripen is designed primarily as an interceptor capable of contending the airspace over Sweden with Warsaw Pact fighters while being very difficult to be wiped from the skies and being very hard to kill on the ground. It's designed to make getting air superiority over Sweden very difficult for a foe, and Swedish basing and procurement plans focus on this extensively. Remember, the Swiss evaluation considered the Gripen as it is, to be all around, an inferior aircraft compared to their current F/A-18's in endurance, weapons load, and performance. With Gripen NG, it becomes a little more even.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 86):
But, nations are for the most part the ones laying out the money and so far no one has elected to replace their F-16's (or F-18's, or Tornado's or any true 4th generation fighter for that matter) with Gripen. They have replaced Viggens, MIG-21/3's and F-5's.

That's the big point. There is no point in investing money into buying a fighter that is less capable than the one you already own, especially if you have access to a fighter that will be qualitatively superior in the near future. For those nations upgrading from Mirage III's, Viggen's, F-5's and MiG-21, the Gripen is a massive upgrade. For those already operating F-16's, F/A-18's and other similar aircraft, not so much.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3629 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 89):
Remember the Gripen was developed around the Swedish Air Force's need for fighter capabilities defending Swedish airspace against the occasional foreign visitor.

Which is exactly what Norway needs. The airforce might think it needs to drop truck loads of bombs but does it really?


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

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 and on top of that,the most expensive..because the Norwegian experts had in its calculations assumed that approximately 40% of all Gripen would have crashed within 35 years ..?
go figure, while the F-35 was the absolute best in ALL aspects with zero loss... go figure and! (Norway is a Nato country) .
We also know that the United States put heavy pressure on Norway in the negotiations when much of the gripen is US made ... I give to each one off you to speculate on how the talks went about this fact.
We can probably all agree( In addition to some American o Canadian resident 
that the F-35 is a better plane but that politics has gone before the price,performance and needs in this case.



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 90):
Which is exactly what Norway needs. The airforce might think it needs to drop truck loads of bombs but does it really?

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's are also part of NATO's Immediate Reaction Forces as the Norwegian contribution to that force. In addition, Norwegian F-16's have participated in actions such as Operation Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, and Unified Protector.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 93, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 92):
Norwegian F-16's have participated in actions such as Operation Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, and Unified Protector.

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 for what Norway will use them for.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 94, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 90):
Which is exactly what Norway needs. The airforce might think it needs to drop truck loads of bombs but does it really?
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 93):
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 for what Norway will use them for.

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 you assume that those making the decision have no idea what they need but to each their own I guess.

Can the same statement not be made that there is no need to blow money converting from the F-16 to the Gripen because you gain basically nothing? At least for all the money spent on the F-35 you are moving forward as opposed to sideways. Both will cost a lot in the end.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 85):

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 Norwegian govt allowed the US to bully them into buying the F-35.

At some point does not this reasoning have to run its course and be set aside? How many nations are going to be bullied into the F-35 exactly? Are they all weak willed cowards because that is what you are implying every time and that is borderline insulting to all those people.

Is it not possible that the F-35 is the best solution for Japan and Norway and South Korea and the Netherlands and everywhere else that it is consistently beating the pants off of warmed over 4th generation designs? It seems that some are reluctant to acknowledge that there is even a possibility that the F-35 might be the best solution out there for many nations.

I am perfectly willing to accept that there are scenarios in which a Gripen makes far more sense. But I don't get the sense that you would ever accept that the F-35 was a logical choice for anyone.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 95, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 94):
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 you assume that those making the decision have no idea what they need but to each their own I guess.

When dealing with defense armament, all sides end up being presumptuous.. The military are by nature always seeing ogres under their beds, and the people paying just see escalation of technology with little actual need.

In many ways the mindset has not been re-calibrated since the cold war ended. The real aggression in the future will not be with armament but through the financial and commodity markets. We're seeing that already.

Now if we had a sudden depopulation say from another plague, then you might see surviving countries expand territory, but without that depopulation, who wants to annex the worlds slums?


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 95):
When dealing with defense armament, all sides end up being presumptuous.. The military are by nature always seeing ogres under their beds, and the people paying just see escalation of technology with little actual need.

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 will be a world wide conflict which all the western allied countries will be pulled into. It is pretty clear who is predicted to be at the core of the next big conflict. The other guys are flying high end 4.5+ gen fighters and dabbling in stealth... anyone who goes toe to toe with them better have a good lead in stealth maturity and C&C ability. All their friends should too.

Other than say a F-22, what would even come close to being able to take on a SU-35 in an even match? Later block F-15s, nothing less than a gen 4.5+ with a damn fine pilot. A F-35 couldnt go head to head, but it can stand off and use its stealth, it has a chance, which is more than pretty much anything out there can say.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3387 posts, RR: 26
Reply 97, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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. They're not the ones causing problems. However with the sale of the F-35 to Israel, you've got some loose cannons with the latest.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 97):
The big question is what is this upcoming conflict about? In recent actions, 5th gen. is overkill..

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 a fair fight. You want every single advantage you can get over your opponents.

Quoting kanban (Reply 97):
So a bunch of countries have 4.5 our 4.75 Gen. They're not the ones causing problems.

I would argue otherwise. The Chinese are a constant concern; they have numerous territorial disputes and unresolved grievances against a number of neighbours, such as Japan. For example, a number of times, the Chinese have sent maritime patrol aircraft into Japanese airspace numerous times over a series of highly disputed islands that are currently under Japanese control.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 99, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 94):
Certainly you are comfortable telling Norway what they need to be able to do with their air force.

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 US govt to coerce Norway into buying F-35. For starters the US dropped the 25% tariff on Norwegian salmon, which they put on when Norway declined to purchase a second tranch of F16's.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 94):
Can the same statement not be made that there is no need to blow money converting from the F-16 to the Gripen because you gain basically nothing?

The F-16's are clapped out, they need replacing, so I'd be ok with them buying new F-16's, but new F-16's weren't looked at by the govt so they aren't relevant to this discussion.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 94):
Is it not possible that the F-35 is the best solution for Japan and Norway and South Korea and the Netherlands and everywhere else that it is consistently beating the pants off of warmed over 4th generation designs?

You see I don't care what other countries blow their money on, I could care less about the Japanese, South Koreans and the Netherlands choice of aircraft, I'm a Norwegian taxpayer and I'm only concerned about Norway's choice. I'd also be pretty pissed if NZ decided to by them but the chances of that happening are less they my chance of flying to the moon on Sunday.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 98):
The Chinese are a constant concern

Rubbish.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3842 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (8 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 99):
my tax dollars

Norwegian tax is payed in Norwegian Kroner NOK  


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (8 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 99):
Rubbish.

Ask the Japanese that, you will hear a different answer. The Japanese are very concerned about the Chinese. The Chinese government seems to be turning a blind eye and even stoking anti-Japanese sentiment in China.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (8 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 100):
Norwegian tax is payed in Norwegian Kroner NOK

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.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 101):

Ask the Japanese that, you will hear a different answer.

I don't live in Japan and if Japan and China what to have a wee tiff over a few rocks I'm not concerned that it will turn into anything more. Besides the Chinese (both Taiwan and China recognise them as part of Taiwan) have a pretty good claim. The Chinese also have a pretty good reason to dislike the Japanese.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 102):

I don't live in Japan and if Japan and China what to have a wee tiff over a few rocks I'm not concerned that it will turn into anything more

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 between China and Japan, the US will get involved. First, there is the US-Japan mutual defence treaty, second, such a war would take place near the US bases at Okinawa.


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