My idea's to upgrade the Dutch military.

[IPA35]

Now these idea's are a little unreal especcialy because of the crisis but we could scrape together a couple of billions a years from the foreign aid and bureacracy.

Anyway here's my list.
Some thing are more important and likely than others:

UPDATED

Land forces:
30-40 extra Leo 26A (since latest cuts now 60) These could be reactivated from current stocks.
Reactivate stored Phz2000. (since latest cuts 24 out of 54 including reserves)
Light rocket artilery (HIMARS) 8-16 (Marine corps only?)
New light scout MALE UAV's. (ScanEagle?)
Increase of number of men restart 3e armoured brigade. (+ a handfull of extra Fenneks for the artillery).
Boxer with mortars for artillery

Navy:

4 more 7 provinces class frigate. (might want to sell both M-classes...)
Equipe all with anti-ballistic missle system and Thomahawks...
(ScanEagle?)
Developing new subs (4-6).
Buy the 4 patrol ships as planned.
The new JSS
Keep the 2 Rotterdam classes in service.

Naval aviation:
4 P8 Poseidon
(Maybe helicopters, but the current solution is ok.)

Marine Corps:
A Vehicle like the LAV25 in multiple version.
Light towed artillery (maybe with Fennek's).
HIMARS?

Airforce:
Complete replacement of current F-16 fleet by:
85 Gripen NG
25-35 planes of a second type (F-15SE, F/A-18 or EF).
2-4 SuperHercules
2 C-17's
4 Alenia C-27J (2 to be modified as AC-27J gunship (if available and viable).
1 new KDC tanker.
7 more chinooks. (and modernisation)
Modernise Apache's to Longbow standard. (I don't think more are needed.)
24 Defender 500's (Transport, CAS and AT).
Attack UAV's 12 (Mantis or Heron TP).
More NH90's (sea version).
More different kinds of bombs/missles...
MQ-4 (4)


Air defence.
Extra patriot launchers. (Antilles?)
Buying the norse SAM´s as planned.

Reopen closed (AF) bases and build one in antilles (+ marines and port facilities).

Maybe a few % increase of salary to attract more personel.

[ASFC]

Land forces:
40 extra Leo 26A (since latest cuts now 60)
A second tank like 60 Leclerc.
Tank destroyer: like the italian one like 40. (not very important).

Some more Leo2A6s would be handy, but getting a second tank type is a waste of resources IMO, as is a 'Tank Destroyer'.


Navy:

2-4 more 7 provinces class frigate.
Developing new subs (4-6).
Buy the 4 patrol ships as planned.
Some corvettes (homebuilt) 2 OR 4-6 modern Gunboats with (limited) AA and AS capability.
1 small amfibious assault ship/carrier (like the new spanish one).
Probably like the kuznetsov or a little smaller.
16 fighter and some helicopters, some AA and AS missles + 2 goalkeepers.
Yes, 8 DZP Frigates and 4 of these new 'Patrol Corvettes' would make a nice Order of Battle, given the number of amphibious units the Dutch have. Sell the two remaining M class to help fund it. There is no point getting short ranged gunboats or Corvettes. There is equally no point buying anymore Amphibious capability beyond the three ships the Dutch have/or plan to have.
One Carrier is a 'nice' capability to have-but you would really need two to make it worth while and the budget probably would not stand up to that.


Naval aviation:
3-4 Poseidon
F/A-18 super hornet's for carrier an maybe some stationed on land both 12 total 24.
Growlers 8 (2* 4)
Apache's 6-8
SeaHawk's 6

Poseidons yes, but they might be a tad expensive. If there is no Carrier then there is no point in buying SHs or Growlers. Apaches and Seahawks are pointless orders-if you want more Helos expand the NH-90 order.


Airforce:
Complete replacement of current F-16 fleet by:
80 new F-16 block 60's
60 new Gripen NG's OR 40 new Stealth F-15
And when Obama puts the F-22 for sale: 20-30 (as fighter and bomber).

Pointless-order F-35s, as the Dutch Air Force has plans for. Obama doesn't control the export of the F-22, the US congress does. Even IF they were to allow its exports, Dutch pockets would not be deep enough to afford it.


4 SuperHercules
2 C-17's
2 Alenia C-27J


Good idea.


COIN aircraft like Super Tucano or AT-6 (preferably home built one base of PC-9m). 24 (Afghanistan).

No point-iirc the UK discounted that idea as they would be too slow to transit to the areas needed.

3 more chinook.
4 more apache+modernising current to longbow standard.

The Dutch are doing most of that already aren't they?


Small AWACS like the SAAB one 3

Are the Dutch not signed up to the NATO E-3 fleet?

build one in antilles.



Not a bad idea-given Chavezs ranting and raving about wanting it back.

EDIT: Could a friendly mod shift this thread to General Defence? Cheers.....

[IPA35]

One small carrier could be built I suppose including those aircraft and including a land wing (1/2) as I think the naval aviation should return.
Station half of it in St. Maarten (+ one or two patriot's) and the other half on the carrier.
(2 units of 12 super hornets and 4 growlers).

I would prefer to be able to operate without NATO but AWACS are not very important.
(But extra transport is.)
Maybe a heli carrier as second, but that a bit expensive.
Would be very usefull in a naval landing (venezuela, if some Falklands like war would hapen:D).
Poseidon could be shriked to 2 but they need to be stationed in the antilles just like the sold P-3's.

F-22 is possible as the F-16 are like 3 times as cheap as the F-35 (I don't really like those, nor F-35B's for a small carrier but for super hornets you need a bigger one).
I need to see it making production first and I dislike the exportversion radar.

Heli's?
Above the planned aquastions.

I'm just very fusterated about the defence cuts of the last decade(s).
BTW does someone knows the name of those rocket artillery?

[ASFC]

F-22 is possible as the F-16 are like 3 times as cheap as the F-35 (I don't really like those, no F-35B's for a small carrier for super hornets you need bigger one).
I need to see it making production first and I dislike the exportversion radar.


F-22 is not possible-I do not ever see US Congress approving it for export (they banned it, not the President), and even then, like I said, the Dutch would need to have some VERY deep pockets to afford it-especially as the small number they might order will not help to reduce unit cost.

Get F-35, there is nothing wrong with it-in many areas it will be a better aircraft to own than F-22.

[IPA35]

With the crisis and the limited number of american orders and the foreign interest they might just export it.
(Japan? Australia?, not likely but they asked for it...)

Obama said they will continue low rate production to keep the jobs, right?
But export orders could make a nice profit.

Then we should buy an european plane instead of the F-15+F-22's.
The EF is good for AA combat. (like 60 then)
And the new F-16's.

[StingrayOZ]

This sounds very simular to what Australia is planning on getting

60 M1A1 tanks
24 SH F-18 (12 with growler wiring)
We have tigers instead of apaches
We have C-17.. (4)
F-35 on order
3 AWD on order
2 spanish LHD ships..

I think the dutch and the australian military will be able to perform simular missions, slight variations in alternative equipment of simular capability but otherwise fairly simular.

F-35 is what the dutch should get
Leo is a fine tank, do you really need more than 60? Maybe 20 more, but these can be sourced at short notice.
The JCI LHD is a fine ship, but the dutch already have a LHD solution. Not worth it IMHO. The Dutch don't really need a carrier and if they did better buying a full blown italian or spanish real carrier.

[IPA35]

This sounds very simular to what Australia is planning on getting

60 M1A1 tanks
24 SH F-18 (12 with growler wiring)
We have tigers instead of apaches
We have C-17.. (4)
F-35 on order
3 AWD on order
2 spanish LHD ships..

I think the dutch and the australian military will be able to perform simular missions, slight variations in alternative equipment of simular capability but otherwise fairly simular.

F-35 is what the dutch should get
Leo is a fine tank, do you really need more than 60? Maybe 20 more, but these can be sourced at short notice.
The JCI LHD is a fine ship, but the dutch already have a LHD solution. Not worth it IMHO. The Dutch don't really need a carrier and if they did better buying a full blown italian or spanish real carrier.

But we are shriking really fast while the Australians are aqtually growing.
(2 types, even 3 types of fighters)
We had like 400 Leo's some decades ago... we had 80 last year but 2009's defence budget says it will be decreased to 60 and from 36 active PHZ2000 we go to 24. and from 85 (105 few years ago) we go to 75.
And there are rumours the 85 planned F-35 do not fit in the new budget, and that they will only buy 50-60 without a second type.

They try do decrease the heavy material while buying IFV's and training elite light infantry brigades.
So they are transforming our military in a fancy police force to patrol deserts...

The military should grow again and it should be focussed on national defence.
And please do not complain about being small, we still have a population of 16.5 million and we are the worlds 16th economy (CIA says 15th above South-Korea and look at there military!)

Australia is basically doing what we SHOULD be doing.

[ASFC]

(2 types, even 3 types of fighters)
We had like 400 Leo's some decades ago...
Something called the Cold War ended...A country like the Netherlands can't justify a 400 tank force in a Peacetime budget.



The military should grow again and it should be focussed on national defence.
And please do not complain about being small, we still have a population of 16.5 million and we are the worlds 16th economy (CIA says 15th above South-Korea and look at there military!)



To fight which threat? Which country is threatening Hollands Security that requires 150 Fighters, 400 Tanks etc etc?

Korea spends in the region of 2.75% of GDP on Defence. Holland spends 1.65% of GDP on Defence, and I suspect Holland spends a large amount of it national budget in other areas, such as health, welfare, education etc.

I really agree with some of your ideas, but in many areas your suggestions would need Holland to be threatened by another country for an increase in spending to take place. Whether that happens or not I cannot comment on.

[StingrayOZ]

You aren't facing russian tank columns any more. Any tanks are most likely to be used deployed overseas. Few countries have the resources to deploy 400 tanks overseas. 60 is most likely what holland could support or need on overseas missions. Like I said, Germany still has baszzilion tanks and they can be sourced in europe quite quickly.

We don't have any thing like a PHZ2000, but we are looking at buying them. If excess units are left in storage then that lowers operating costs and you still have the capability there if you need to regain it. Its a small compromise.

In some ways the dutch were asperational for Australias new direction. Look at what you can do in Afgan and what we can do. We don't have attack helicopters operational yet, we don't have heavy armoured self propelled artillary. We don't have LHD's.

Theres nothing wrong with getting IVF and things like bushmasters, due to the changing nature of conflict IVF are more useful and suitable than tanks in much of modern warefare.

Australia has proberly a greater threat to deal with, mostly by itself. East Timor was a really big event in defence planning, we ended up leasing ferries and pretending they were warships capable of amphibious operations and showed what sort of situations might arise in the future and what we actually had to deal with them. Failing states are potentially all around us with so many small island nations.

Maybe whats happening in the the Americas with Charves may spur the dutch into a simular stance in the future.

However don't forget back in the day Australia had 2 aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers etc. We went to frigates, knives and sharp sticks. You have to hit rock bottom and then bounce back.

I would like to see the dutch and the Australians work perhaps closer together in the future developing and working with projection capability for smaller richer nations.

[IPA35]

Can some moderator please move this thread to the proper forum?

[Mod edit] Done. [/mod edit]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't need 400 tanks but we had 100 just a few years ago.
And in 2009 they will be cut from 80 to 60.
I think 100 is the minimum.

PZH-2000

I would like to see the reserve pieces to return to active service (54?)
So we might need some new (so we can keep some of the older ones in reserve.)
And maybe around 8-12 HIMARS's
Some more scout UAV's and a small number of Fennek's for the larger number of personel.
That would do for the land forces and that is affordable, no?


BTW we only spend half the money as the Australians (12billion vs 24 billion).
Less in % of GDP also.

[IPA35]

Is the Juan Carlos I big enough for CATOBAR aircraft, if it had a catapult???
(12 Super Hornet + 4 Growler and additional ASW NH90 and transports)

[petrac]

Hi all,

In my opinion (as an avid military historian and enthusiast living in this country) the Dutch armed forces aren't doing as bad as some think. Just like all the other armed forces (look at britain) we are struggling with our shrinking budgets and expanding roles and operations. Still we manage a worldclass military liked by our allies and feared by our enemies (like the Taleban). We definitely shredded the Srebrenica syndrom when we fought over Chora a ferw years ago.

However, a wishlist is certainly nce to have, here are my ideas:

Airforce:
- Buy the JAS39 Gripen NG as the next-generation fighter, while delaying the F35 buy to make sure this fighter is as mature as we need it. Both aircraft constitute the high-end mix needed for air operations and have all the neccesary weapons available.
- Buy 20 CH47Fs and upgrade the current CH47 fleet. Double the Cougar fleet or buy a similar amount of NH90s. This will deliver a round-out helicopter fleet for the Airmobile and Marine Brigades. The AH64s are good already.

Navy:
- treble the destroyers, ditch the last frigates to pay for them and fit them with land attack missiles. Reinstate the naval air arm and buy new naval helicopters.
- Buy an LHA type vessel to round out the amphibious capability, the Marine brigade can use this with the navalised NH90 transports.

Army:
- Start recuiting and keep the retention rates up by increasing wages. This will help much.
- Keep the leo's in the same numbers but make sure they are the best, invest in the CV90 IFVs and integrate them as they are versatile IFVs for all troops. Buy a battalion-level UAV to support the troops and invest in networked systems to increase the effectiveness.

Forward deploy a full marine company in the Antilles and create a purpose-built forward base, including a rotating jet detachment. Corvettes such as the one already ordered are perfect to patrol those waters, but this base can make quick reinforcements easier.

The Dutch will continue to operate in Afghanistan-type missions while building a defence structure. We do not need to mimic the US, but keep our national interests secure while enbedding us in the international community, just as we are doing now. We could just invest some more and be smarter about our money ;-)

We do not need a carrier, as we have always operated from land bases. A carrier infrastructure is very expensive while not providing much additional operational leverage. How often do the Spanish and Italian carriers go into combat? We could use an LHA type ship however, just as new patrol aircraft, we should never have sold the Orions to Germany...
I am proud of our servicemen, which use their gear very good. OK, we still have F16As, but our Kosovo and Afghan operations have shown they are just as good as US aircraft!

regards

[IPA35]

We are allready buying a LHA but maybe this order can be changed to something like an Juan Carlos (an larger LHA with carrier capability)...
It is not that bigger but alot more capable (way more storage and number of aircarft).

But I'm not fond of the F-35 for variouse reasons so I would prefer a large LHA with a catapult, without ramp...

[gvg]

Ok, here are my ideas (that require a huge boost in spending).

Navy:
* Sell last 2 M-frigates
* get 4 more Zeven Provincien Class (now 4)
* replace both AORs by the proposed JSS (although I'd like the second one to have at least 3 heli-spots)
* join Australia for future subs and replace all 4 by at least 4 new ones
* copy Denmark's flex-container concept
* get 2 more OPVs (now 4 on order)
* change OPVs to support the just mentioned flex-containers and make sure the 4 extra ZPs also support them
* adapt ZPs to provide better support against asymetric threats
* adapt current ships to support ScanEagle
* buy Tomahawks, as originally planned
* SM-3 can wait in favour of the Tomahawks
* 40 ScanEagles together with the Army

Air force:
* get 24 Chinooks in total (now 11+6 on order)
* replace Cougars (17) and Alouettes (4) by NH-90
* get 60 NH-90's in total (now 20 on order. Only order NFH variants, that can withstand salt.)
* 60 Gripen NG
* 24 T-50's as COIN aircraft (although I'd replace those immediately for cheaper Super Tucano's or OV-10's, if their speed, range and payload is up to it)

* 12 MALE UAVs that can carry AGM missiles.
* 4 more Hercules' (now 2+2 on order) (or preferrably 8 A400Ms)
* 40 ScanEagles together with the Navy
* ditch Sperwer UAVs

Army:
* adapt TITAAN to support new UAV's from the air force and navy
* get a total of 100 Bushmasters
* new armour for Fenneks
* airco in the Leopards
* get more CV90s if needed

Marines:
* 24 CB-90s
* more armour for Vikings
* replace BV206 with Broncos

All:
* better wages

In general my main focus would be on the Navy.

[IPA35]

I'll update the OP...

[petrac]

I see a tendency here, as we are asking for more of what we have. More vehicles, more aircraft, more ships. OK, we have personal reasons to ask for T50s, a carrier and/or Gripen/JSF.

In general the Dutch armed forces are doing fine in the case of equipment en doctrine. I for one know our friends and allies are very positive about the Dutch approach to armed forces operations. We should be spending more on retention and basic equipment to enhance our force levels and esprit de corps.

If we can more and better equipment, so much the better, although I still think we do not need a COIN aircraft, as we can do without now in Afghanistan (no-one operates one now), we can better invest in armed MALE UAVs. A carrier is big and expensive for a small navy, we can better invest in better Marine support equipment and leave the carriers to France and Britain, although I am still a fan of a NATO carrier group ;-)

cheers

[swerve]

We are allready buying a LHA ...
What is this LHA you are buying?

I thought the planned ship is a replenishment & sealift ship with a dock & flight deck, a so-called "Joint Support Ship".

[petrac]

According to the defence site www.defensie.nl the only new vessel is indeed the JSS, a combination of the LPDs and the replenishment ships. It looks like the LPDs we already have, but will have more replenishment and transport tasks, see http://www.defensie.nl/dmo/materieelprojecten/zeestrijdkrachten/verwerving_joint_logistiek_ondersteuningsschip_(js s)

cheers

[gvg]

What is this LHA you are buying?

I thought the planned ship is a replenishment & sealift ship with a dock & flight deck, a so-called "Joint Support Ship".

The JSS has no dock.

[gvg]

I see a tendency here, as we are asking for more of what we have. More vehicles, more aircraft, more ships. OK, we have personal reasons to ask for T50s, a carrier and/or Gripen/JSF.

In general the Dutch armed forces are doing fine in the case of equipment en doctrine. I for one know our friends and allies are very positive about the Dutch approach to armed forces operations. We should be spending more on retention and basic equipment to enhance our force levels and esprit de corps.

If we can more and better equipment, so much the better, although I still think we do not need a COIN aircraft, as we can do without now in Afghanistan (no-one operates one now), we can better invest in armed MALE UAVs. A carrier is big and expensive for a small navy, we can better invest in better Marine support equipment and leave the carriers to France and Britain, although I am still a fan of a NATO carrier group ;-)

cheers
I agree with you that the main problem of the Dutch armed forces is "not enough", and not so much the lack of capabilities (taking into account the size of the country).
The only capability I am really missing is MALE UAVs.

And although a carrier looks nice, it's way too expensive and I would have other priorities.

[Arion]

CV 90120 could be a nice tank destroyer if used correct. It got lots of common parts with the rest of the cv90s, can move with the same speed and through the same terrain and would increase the ability for those units to act against tanks and other heavily armoured vehicles.

[petrac]

We already have leo2A6 tanks, why would we need more new vehicles? I would much more invest in more artillery and UAVs

[IPA35]

What is this LHA you are buying?

I thought the planned ship is a replenishment & sealift ship with a dock & flight deck, a so-called "Joint Support Ship".

Yes, that's the one.
But I think a ship like the Juan Carlos is more versatile.
And not that more expensive.

[IPA35]

We already have leo2A6 tanks, why would we need more new vehicles? I would much more invest in more artillery and UAVs


We had 110 in 2007...
In that year we sold another 100 to Canada...


And although a carrier looks nice, it's way too expensive and I would have other priorities.

Not a real Carrier but something like the Juan Carlos or the Canberra class...
Maybe instead of the new JSS (although both is better).

In the worst case scenario they should ATLEAST arm the frigates with Tomahawks...

[swerve]

The JSS has no dock.
My mistake. I read that it was based on the Enforcer design, & didn't realise it was a version with no dock. But that was just a proposal - maybe it's changed. Can you point me to information on the current status of the project, & the design, please?

[Edit]I've just seen that Petrac has posted a link. I can understand enough Dutch to get something from that. My time working in Utrecht wasn't entirely wasted. ;)

[gvg]

From what I now know, this is a pic of the JSS (together with an OPV), which will be called HNLMS Karel Doorman. This JSS is the design used to negotiate with Damen (formerly Royal Schelde) about the price. The design has no dock and it will not get one, because it will be too expensive. (The navy makes their own designs and then ask Damen how much it will cost to build it. Then the negotiations start and capabilities will be scrapped in that process.)

The Defence Materiel Organisation expects to sign the contract end of July/beginning of August. Damen expects to sign a contract at the end of the year.

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii249/ikkezzzzz/02schepen.jpg

[IPA35]

Well half a million more or less should not be a problem...
Our goverment are a bunch of stingy pricks, that are degrading our military to a fancy peacekeeping police force.

Not good.

[petrac]

Amen to that ;-)
Although I still think our armed forces are still doing good given their track record.
cheers

[IPA35]

Those OPV don't have any AA nor AS capability (missles) nor a CIWS.
Those do have 5 different calibre guns...

To make it more real.

How about an unmoddified Juan Carlos with F-35B's (these would be stationed in the Antilles too because they don't need a long runway)?
Then we buy F-35A's and block 60's (or gripen) for the AF.
Keep the JSS.

Rest of plans apply.

Better?

[IPA35]

I agree with you that the main problem of the Dutch armed forces is "not enough", and not so much the lack of capabilities (taking into account the size of the country).
The only capability I am really missing is MALE UAVs.

And although a carrier looks nice, it's way too expensive and I would have other priorities.

Do not forget we have a poplation of 16.5 million.

That's more than the scandinavian countries and Greece (that has a large army).

[Ryan UK]

Do not forget we have a poplation of 16.5 million.

That's more than the scandinavian countries and Greece (that has a large army).

Yes but dont forget that Greece still views Turkey as a possible rival, and that Turkey maintain the 2nd largest Army in Nato.

The Greeks also views themselves as the gateway to the heartland of europe from Africa and Asia/ME and that they intend to defend that position.

So in there eyes they have a need for a large army.

[IPA35]

Second hand Invincible class?
Fits the dutch thing to buy old junk and upgrade it, as cheap as possible...
I'm sure the F-35B will fit on it.

BUT we have a certain reputation in shipbuilding that will be damaged...

[outsider]

I like the sound of that. Although, the cost of the Invincible would be inconsequential compared to the cost of the F35B's to fly on it.

[kato]

I'm sure the F-35B will fit on it.

Would at minimum require severe reconstruction of lifts and hangar. Same problem as France had with Rafale, only to a considerably more extreme extent.

[outsider]

I've heard that the F-35B does fit onto the Invincible class lift, just, but its a bit tight.

Also the Ski Jump would have to be re-built to take the increased weight of an F-35B.

[petrac]

What everybody personally thinks about where the Dutch military must grow to is his or her opinion. However, let's take a threat and capability assessment:

Threats:
None in the EU, except against terrorism and civil defence activities
There is a small threat that Venezuela will act against the Antilles, but with US ANG units flying from Hato, I think Chavez will think twice then to give the US a reason to attack him if he invades the Antilles.

Requested capabilities:
Civil defence
counter-terrorism
participation in peacekeeping and peace-enforcement in multinational environments

So, what do we need for this?
Do we need an expensive carrier battle group including aircraft? Heck no, way to expensive for such a small nation. We can operate together with partner countries should the need for carrier-based aviation arise during an operation. Maybe we can even buy some F35Bs and operate them off the British CVFs ;-)

Seriously though, we do not need 400 Leo's, as we do not have a threat to use them against, maybe some Taleban in Afghanistan as the Danish are doing. We do not need 2 types of aircraft in huge numbers, we do need however higher retention rates and more personnel. We need more rounded-out brigades with organic artillery and tacyical UAVs, no single rented UAV and a few guns.

We need more infrastructure in the Antilles and in my opinion a standard rotational deployment of a few fighters and a battlion-sized unit there. It will also be good training. And we need a good amphibious capability, the two LPDs are good, together with the JSS, but we need something like HMS Ocean too. So we can transport a Battalion taskforce in combat load in one single push and support them via amphibious and helicopter capability in the field. And of course we need the helicopters and the transport aircraft to support our operations.

To buy some extra kit is good for the economy now, just as raising the salaries to beef up force numbers and keep good people in the armed forces.

Personally I believe the Gripen a great plane to have, but I has have to admit the JSF has had no chance to prove itself. We do not need more than one type of aircraft for logistics reasons, although I think 130 aircraft is better then the current levels. We do not need the F16 Block 60, what will it bring additional except the AESA radar? Nothing more a Gripen cannot bring in my opinion.

Cheers

[outsider]

The Invincible class is used by the RN as a Helicopter Carrier (i.e. without Harriers) too. The Ark Royal has operated in this role.

For the Army:
How about supplementing the Leopard 2's with approx. 100 CV90-120T. They'd be much more deployable because of their lighter weight to places like afghanistan. I think they'd fit in more with the idea of lighter more deployable forces.

[petrac]

Yeah, good idea, but buying new tanks is more costly than keeping the Leo2A6s we have in good condition. We could use the extra money to be put in a helicopter carrier, more helicopters and additional troops in my view.

Cheers

[IPA35]

Juan carlos is essentialy a helicopter carrier, with the capability to operate STOVL fighters too...
And it has a landing dock (?).

All in one


---

CV90120 is not in production so I would suggest the Centauro...
I still prefer 100 Leo's

---
I do not want the military to focus on fighting someone elses war is some desert...
A defencive force but with some offensive capabilities.

And I do believe there will be a war in western-europe sometime.
As for the EU, well there undemocratic federalisation will lead to there fall...

---
I'll update the OP and then I would like to hear some comments please:)

[petrac]

OK that is a personal line of thought. I think we are embedded in an international community and will be for the foreseeable term. If you talk about a defensive force in a more unstable Europe, there are much more considerations.

In that case we do not need a carrier-type ship as it will be the first to be taken out during a conflict, we need a strong rotational presence in the Antilles of all arms. At home we need round-out combat brigades, not the skeleton brigades we have nowadays. Then we need to go back to Cold War levels of 2 full combat divisions, but with the equipment of today.

Fighting wars in peace-enforcing operations are much different than fighting a European war. What is the threat level and direction? Are we facing a German, French or British threat in such a scenario? There is no simple answer to this question, I just gave my opinions for the current threat field and type of operations.

I am happy to exchange ideas about a future threat field more in the neighbouring field. SHould be interesting...

Cheers

[IPA35]

You can NEVER know what will happen so you should atleast be prepared.

Who ever expected the Germans to attack us?
But then it was too late...
(Not that I expect Germany to attack us again).

[petrac]

Well I know they did expect, but the armed forces could not get prepared any more after years of neglect. Tell me which way you see a threat coming and I am happy to discuss possible option. At least we need real combat divisions, better equipped than in the Cold War.

Cheers

[IPA35]

Please read the new OP, is it that bad?

I think the new APC and IFV will be enough and a few more is not a big problem I suppose.
-
You want to delete or add something?

---

I see no real treat at the moment but I do believe the EU will be a big fail (souvereignity thief's!).

Venezuela...
Not likely but you never know...

Civil war because of crisis?
Not in the near future I suppose...

[petrac]

OK let's see:

Land forces:
40 extra Leo 26A (since latest cuts now 60)
Reactivate stored Phz2000. (since latest cuts 24 out of 54 including reserves).
Light rocket artilery (HIMARS) 8-16
New light scout UAV's.
Increase of number of men restart 3e armoured brigade. (+ a handfull of extra Fenneks for the artillery).


Absolutely agree, also make sure that all combat brigades are fully round-out and not dependent on parent units.

Navy:

4 more 7 provinces class frigate. (might want to sell both M-classes...)
Equipe all with anti-ballistic missle system and Thomahawks...
Developing new subs (4-6).
Buy the 4 patrol ships as planned.
1 STOVL carrier like the Invicible (second hand) OR a ship like the Juan Carlos.
Maybe instead of the new JSS, but I would prefer both.
Keep the 2 Rotterdam classes in service.

I do not see the need for a carrier-type aircraft, as it would put a strain on the budget and on logistics (other aircraft types, big ship to sustain). I would prefer to invest more into the airforce.

Naval aviation:
3-4 Poseidon
F-35B's for carrier and antilles.
2 or 3 Osprey's (Juan Carlos not invincible)
More Chinooks (not part of the airforce) and NH90 for the navy including transport version. (Juan Carlos not Invincible)

For Naval AViation I absolutely agree with the Poseidons, but I do not agree with the rest. We can buy navalised NH90s for Defence Helicopter Command to oeprate for the Marines, but the DHC is a good concept in my view.

Airforce:
Complete replacement of current F-16 fleet by:
80 F-35A
60 planes of a second type (F-16, Gripen, F/A-18 or EF).
4 SuperHercules
2 C-17's
4 Alenia C-27J (2 to be modified as AC-27J gunship).
1 new KDC tanker.
3 more chinooks. (and modernisation)
Modernise Apache's to Longbow standard. (I don't think more are needed.)
24 Defender 500's (12 scout and 12 AT).
MQ-9 Reaper 10 (attack).

I would not invest in C17s as they are too big, the C130J-30s are good enough. Invest more in KDCs and invest in more helicopters (CH47s and NH90s). We do not need a gunship for defence missions and the Reaper cannot be bught without committing in the split operations concept with the USAF...
We defintely need a mix of F25 and Gripen (my personal view) and invest in weapons like HARM and Harpoon, together with a JSOW type standoff weapon.

Air defence.
2 Extra patriot launchers. (Antilles?)
Buying the norse SAM´s as planned.

Reopen closed AF bases and build one in antilles (+ marines and port facilities).

Maybe a few % increase of salary to attract more personel.

Agree with all!

Not a bad plan, I only have some personal tweaks ;-)

Cheers

[IPA35]

With 'carrier' I mean something like the JC or Canberra class.
It is a large helicopter carrier too and it has a dock so see it as an extra JSS (or we could ditch the planned JSS).
(Plus extra frigates).

We don't need alot of new helicopters but we might give the navy there own transports.
(and Osprey as it is capable to carry it and they are quite usefull).

You have plans for a second air assault brigade??

C-17 are not THAT expensive and th production line will close soon.
The NATO sharing plan doesn't sound right and even smaller countries have them...
Plus they can carry helicopters to places like Afghanistan.

(A)C-27 are light transports and a gunship is very usefull for an Afghanist like situation and to complement the Apaches. (not planning to but lots of attack heli's except for the Defenders.)

I don't think we need the Gripen, HARM? then we should buy Growlers.
So then we should buy some F/A-18 as a seond type (40 SH, 20GR).
But those planes are disigned for carrie service so I have the feeling we would not exploit there full capabilities if we don't have CATOBAR carrier...
And I don't really know what's better F-35B or F/A-18.
Or could both planes fit on one small carrier/amf. assault ship?
2 would be too expensive.

MQ-9's sound good but I don't know anything about this commitment...?

And if we develop new subs for the future we should give them some surface to surface missle launchers, no?

[swerve]

With 'carrier' I mean something like the JC or Canberra class.
It is a large helicopter carrier too and it has a dock so see it as an extra JSS (or we could ditch the planned JSS)...
The JSS is an underway replenishment & sealift ship. The BPE (Juan Carlos 1) design is not equipped for underway replenishment, & underway replenishment gear is not really compatible with a through-deck design, so could not replace it even if modified - though it could do the sealift. Without the replenishment capacity, the value of the LHD (& the rest of the fleet) is greatly reduced. Given the choice, I'd therefore keep the JSS & go without the LHD.

A dock has its uses, but adds cost & weight & reduces hull efficiency, so should be omitted if not needed. I understand why the the RNlN doesn't think it's needed in the JSS.

The BPE cannot operate CTOL aircraft such as the F-18. It would need catapults & arrestor gear, which would mean a major redesign, & it would still be a very poor CTOL carrier. Small, too slow, etc. Cavour would be a better basis - but still rather small, & in need of a lot of redesign.

[IPA35]

I forgot it's replendishment role, so I would personally buy both.

Or just upgrade the current Replndishment ship or build a new one with the same capabilities...

[IPA35]

The BPE cannot operate CTOL aircraft such as the F-18. It would need catapults & arrestor gear, which would mean a major redesign, & it would still be a very poor CTOL carrier. Small, too slow, etc. Cavour would be a better basis - but still rather small, & in need of a lot of redesign.

That would cost to much and it has no storage/landing dock function.
And think about the large number of personel.

But could it operate CTOL and VTOL aircraft at the same time?

[swerve]

That would cost to much and it has no storage/landing dock function.
And think about the large number of personel.

But could it operate CTOL and VTOL aircraft at the same time?
Yes, it would be expensive. But if you want a CTOL carrier, you have to pay. If you want a carrier which is both CTOL & STOVL*, you need either STOBAR, or a bigger deck than a pure STOVL, to allow for either STO take-off runs without a ski-jump, or a ski-jump & an angled catapult - even more expensive.

You're asking too much of one ship. You're asking for things which degrade each other if combined.

*Practically, there's no such thing as VTOL fixed-wing - you want to carry weapons & enough fuel to do anything, it has to be STOVL.

[IPA35]

So the best bet would be a Caberra-class like ship with F-35B's?
(It needs to have quite a small crew if possible).

BTW I've read about it and I think we should join the Australian sub project if possible, especialy the cruise missles attract me.

[swerve]

This depends on what you want to do with it. JC1 is not designed to be an LHD and a carrier at the same time. According to the Armada, before operating as a carrier, she will go into port, have some additional equipment installed (in containerised modules, which fit into prepared spaces) & have the dock door temporarily sealed. She'll then take to sea again as a carrier, with no LHD capability until it's time to revert to being an LHD. Meanshile, the main carrier will be repaired or refitted. Back to port, reverse the process. Care will be taken to arrange that both LPDs are available while JC1 is in carrier mode.

The carrier role is secondary, & only as a back-up to the main, dedicated carrier. She could, in theory, operate a handful of F-35B while retaining some amphibious capability, but it's not thought worthwhile. The bigger (40000 ton) US LHDs only carry 6 Harriers in addition to their amphibious role.

If you want a carrier, buy a real one. JC1 was never meant to be a real carrier, only an auxiliary, to provide back-up for a real carrier. With no primary carrier, she would have nothing to back-up, & should really stick to her true & main role as an LHD - as the Australians intend to use her. They're keeping the ski-jump, but I think that's partly to save messing around with the design, partly for insurance, & partly to enable her to act as a backup for US LHDs & maybe RN CVFs in the future. The Canberras will not be Australias aircraft carriers.

I think that you want to do more than is possible, even within your proposed expanded navy, & you should either think of a bigger expansion (& I think we both know how realistic that is) or try to do less, to make sure you can do it properly.

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think its likely the dutch are going to operate a carrier. Certainly not a CATOBAR one. If you want a carrier you will want two so that one is avalible at all times. The JC1 LHD can fill in, but is not really going to fit in with what the dutch already have.

They are however completely able to make an amphibious assault group and a very effective airforce and navy. That is where the money is best spent.

Upgrade the apaches, more bushmasters, maybe several C-17's and also be in the NATO pool. More chinooks. Maybe keep more tanks active or atleast training reserve. New subs would also be worthwhile, Australia would be an excellent partner.

Growlers are nice, but not must haves. Australia its very minor issue because we are getting the SH anyway. 80 - F35's or more would be useful.

[petrac]

A lot of people made the case against JC or a carrier so I will only concur. We do not need a carrier, it will be expensive, also in the way to have to buy more aircraft types. We do not need the Hornet and as Finland and Switserland use the aircraft in a land role, it does not need a carrier to be effective.
And besides, USAF F16s and USN F18s carry HARM, you do not need Growler for that. ALso I would ditch the Ac27js. They are still in concept phase and not likely to be delivered soon, they would be expensive and only useful for an Afghanistan-type operation. You are referring to being prepared for the next war, which makes sense, you plan for your next war and in that war we defintely do not need a gunship.

OK, I agree the Navy / Marines need dedicated helicopters, but what is wrong with Defence Helicopter Command? Ospreys are a big big I think, the current load-out of CH47, Cougar and NH90 is OK by me. ALso, a C17 is nice but very expensive. We do not have the budgets like Canada, Australia, the UK and the UAE. But OK, we need a strategic airlift.

I would very much like to see the Marine Brigade be transformed into a real combat brigade with its organic artillery and engineers. This unit would be air assault-capable as well. I would select Hermes500 out maybe the new BAE Mantis UAV in the future and not depend on a joint US solution for ana rmed UAV.

Cheers

[IPA35]

I shall update the OP again, ok?
And?

---

You mean the Hermes 450?

[petrac]

Hey, it is your OP ;-)
I only give my opinion as you ask it on this forum.

I would really like to see the Dutch brigades transform to real combat brigades, so when we have to deploy a battalion to an operation it can depend on its parent unit instead of drawing from all over the army.

My opinions are just my opinions, I would like to know your input.
Cheers

[IPA35]

Opinion?

---

What equipment would you give the Marine Corps???
And what new stuff would you need to reorganise the brigades?
Someone said the JSS is not enough and wants a helicopter carrier?
Then we should bleed and buy something like the Wasp/america-class:p:.

What UAV you meant?
As I can't find it...

BTW I would also buy more kinds of weapons for the airforce as they currently have quite a small selection...

[IPA35]

How about the IAI Eitan (Heron TP) as a UCAV??

[petrac]

I would like the Marines to have their own organic artillery and light armour, together with engineer and support services. I think a towed light artillery piece like the British L118 would be great, as would the LAV25 for light armour.

The Army brigades would just need reorganisation, as their equipment (Leo2A6, CV90, Pzh2000) is OK, I would just reactivate more artillery and tanks to round out the brigades.

I still do not see the need for a carrier-type ship. We do not need carrier aviation, just enough JSS-type ships and LPDs like the 'Rotterdam' and 'Witte de Wit' to either transport a full Marine battalion to war or to transport Army units to their operations area.

For the Airforce I would keep the current inventory of JDAm and Paveway, maybe buy some Penguin / NSM or Harpoons and soms kind of standoff weapon like JSOW. The Heron is a good UAV, Hermes450 would also be good. As for the Mantis UAV, google it, it is a BAE systems UAV now being developed (dpuble engines, double payload over Reaper).

Cheers

[Firn]

I'm certainly out of my lane when it comes to the navy, the airforce and the Dutch in general, but I will provide my POV :)

First of all you should establish:

a) How much ressources for the military are feasible
b) What specific tasks it should fulfill
c) Which current and future threats might it face

All this points are of course linked and shape each other.

IMHO the current political/economical/military situation seems to validate the approach of Petrac. I might add that a relative heavy investment in ISTAR and ISR assets on all the echelons might be wise. Transport Helicopters seem to be of great importance in Afghanistan and have a wide range of applications. The public and the goverment might also be more willing to buy them as dedicated weapon systems.

BTW: Will the F35 able to launch an Harpoon-class weapon? Hm the NSM seems to be a promising addition and give more fighters increased abilities to deal with ships. I don't think that the Gripen is worth the investment for the Dutch airforce and neither are new F16. Given the large numbers of JSF it should greatly profit from relative cheap specialized or adapted add-ons and assets like the NSM.

[petrac]

I am still not convinced about the JSF and OK, I am biased for the gripen ;-) However, I think we need to invest in a good yet affordable fighter. Even with a massive increase of the defence budget, we are still a small country with a small budget.

My aim is only to create combat-viable brigades for the Army and a Navy to support them and operate independently, so not dependent on other navies for area protection etcetera. Our airforce is OK, bu would need some more helicopters UCAVs and an F16 replacement. We do not needa fancy aircraft, but a good fighter and groudn pounder, maybe a combination of the cheaper Gripen and the high-end JSF where stealth is neccesary.

Cheers

[IPA35]

I would like the Marines to have their own organic artillery and light armour, together with engineer and support services. I think a towed light artillery piece like the British L118 would be great, as would the LAV25 for light armour.

The Army brigades would just need reorganisation, as their equipment (Leo2A6, CV90, Pzh2000) is OK, I would just reactivate more artillery and tanks to round out the brigades.

I still do not see the need for a carrier-type ship. We do not need carrier aviation, just enough JSS-type ships and LPDs like the 'Rotterdam' and 'Witte de Wit' to either transport a full Marine battalion to war or to transport Army units to their operations area.

For the Airforce I would keep the current inventory of JDAm and Paveway, maybe buy some Penguin / NSM or Harpoons and soms kind of standoff weapon like JSOW. The Heron is a good UAV, Hermes450 would also be good. As for the Mantis UAV, google it, it is a BAE systems UAV now being developed (dpuble engines, double payload over Reaper).

Cheers

Marines with towed artillery? Ok, sounds good but our whole military does not use towed artillery exept for some 120mm mortars...
LAV25 sounds ok but we should use multiple versions (normal, TOW and maybe mortar) OR you could give them CV90's as they allready have partia's.

AFAIK we don't have JDAM only Paveway...
I would buy JDAM, AS missles and a for of cruise missle.
(maybe HARM).


I am still not convinced about the JSF and OK, I am biased for the gripen ;-) However, I think we need to invest in a good yet affordable fighter. Even with a massive increase of the defence budget, we are still a small country with a small budget.

My aim is only to create combat-viable brigades for the Army and a Navy to support them and operate independently, so not dependent on other navies for area protection etcetera. Our airforce is OK, bu would need some more helicopters UCAVs and an F16 replacement. We do not needa fancy aircraft, but a good fighter and groudn pounder, maybe a combination of the cheaper Gripen and the high-end JSF where stealth is neccesary.

Cheers



Navy,

More frigates (2-4) (+Cruise missles and UAV's)
(new subs)
So you think we need a Helicarrier?
But what kind and what size?
HMS Ocean carriers Harriers too for example...
You want one with STOVL capebility?
That would mean the F-35B's*.

AF

I personaly would prefer like 2 different types of fights (you know sometimes the fleet has to be grounded...)
I don't really like the F-35 but we've spent alot of money on the project allready and if you want STOVL* then we should buy the A version too for practial purposes.

We need an american plane if we want to keep the borrowed nuclear bombs.
BUT if you want to do a nuclear strike I think a larger and faster plane would be better (F-15SE).

The new F-16 is better choice than the Gripen IMO and needs fewer change in
infrastructure.
So I would suggest:

A number of block 60's
A number of f-35A's
(Maybe F-15? like 25)

Transport:
4 new Super Hercules.
2 Globemasters (important as production line will close soon!)
2-4 C-27J's (maybe we should upgrad 2 to AC-27J standard for parachute missions and CAS...

P-8 Poseidon. (3-4)
I don't know if we really need AWACS, but the Wedgetail is closely related to the P-8...

More Heli's.

UAV's:

Scaneagles of the army and navy

An UCAV:
Not sure what's the best choice...
-Rq-9 is the most capable platform available IMO.
-Hermes 450 is not even officially armed and it can only carry 2 missles. (predator 10?)
-Heron TP is not yet armed too...

MQ-4 (4 units)
I think these are usefull for both land and naval surveilance and recon.

And maybe the HIMARS for the army?

All of this is not affordable in the short therm but within 10 years it should be completed, what do you think?

[Firn]

As I have already posted I don't think that a Helicarrier is needed. It would be a nice addition, but does the purchase make sense? Is it a good and costeffective way to serve the interest of the nation? Or is the money better spend elsewhere?

Ground Forces

Howitzer and Mortars have different strenghts and weaknesses. Ideal for "light" forces would be a combination between towed or perhaps even light SP (Ceasar) 105 or 155 mm howitzers and 120 mm mortars. I don't know the profil of the Marines well enough to be able to judge which combination is the most useful for their taskprofil. CF mission necessitate counter-artillery radar and good firesupport in general quite a lot of investment in C4ISTAR, so there goes a good chunk of the money.

A HIMARS brings unique qualities on the table and would certainly do more than just augment the capabilities of the brigade/division in question. It could also serve as lauch component of a brigade's airdefense.

Air force:

It seems to me that it is best to have a robust number of F35 which can fulfill wide roles and a small number of "heavy" and rather slow UCAVs, possibly LO

The rest is already in my posts.

[IPA35]

I don't really think it's neccesary but someone posted that...

We could give the Marine Corps the HIMARS.
And how about the mortar version of the Boxer?
Or the mortar version of the LAV25.
(If we should buy LAV25, we should have multiple versions).
BAE Mantis would do, but an armed version will take some time...

---

I want to know if we need our own AWACS, it sounds expensive but we do need the P8 and the Wedgetail is based on the same plane...
I would buy 4 MQ-4's also.

But still...
We really should have 2 types of fighters, preferably a light/medium and a heavy type.

[IPA35]

Updated OP again...

[petrac]

In my opinion the Wedgetail is much too expensive, we can buy the Swedish Erieye system in a EMB145 of SAAB platform for an AEW platform if you want to. As for nuclear strike, we do not need borrowed nuclear weapons and I oppose the sue of them. If you do not want an F35, look towards other platform, maybe we can buy F18E or F16 Block60 if you want, but in any case, we will need a viable platform for strike and superiority missions. Heavy platforms like the F15(S)E do not fir the profile for our armed forces.

HIMARS and an lighter artillery unit is good for both Aemy and Marines. We do not have towed artillery now which i think is a shame. If we need to send light forces into harm's way, we do not have to airlift a heavily armoured tracked gun tube into battle, we need a light and mobile gun with enough hitting power.

For the Navy an augmentation of more destroyers with cruise missiles is good, as is investment in new subs. Iam still not convinced about a helicopter carrier, it does not fit the profile of the Navy and would cost a lot of money. There is no requirement for such a force and it would put a heavy burden on the Navy. I want the Navy to concentrate on what it is good in, which are multi-purpose ship platforms. The two LPDs and the JSS ships are more than adequate enough to support a Marine battalion.

As for weapons, I believe I saw KLu f16s in -Stan with JAMs but if we haven't, please buy them ;-) A standoff weapons like JSOW or Raptor would be nice, just as a HARM-type weapon and NSM/Penguin for naval targets. The carrier platform is then of lesser relevance, as long as it can carry these weapons in good quantities and can still use AMRAAM/Sidewinder in combat.

As for UAV, we now need surveillance UAVs the most, I am no fan of the Reaper option due to the restrictions the US put you in (look at the way the RAF is using them, as a sub-unit in the USAF UAV wing...). In my opinion Hermes and Heron can be armed and this can be deve;loped together with the manufacturer. As for the future Mantis shows promising results.

But again, these are my own opinions ;-)
Cheers

[IPA35]

As for fighters we could buy 80 Gripen NG's
We could add 3 SAAB 2000's with Erieye too.
I personally would aquire 25 F-15SE for nukes and for cruise missles (AFAIK can's carry cruisemissle and I read it will have the same level of stealth as the export version of the F-35)...
Then buy 3 or 4 Poseidon's and the transports (maybe reduce 4 new hercules to 2).

HIMARS, yes.
Light artillery for the Marines only (acording to Wiki we bought some of them but they are no longer used AFAIK but I don't know if we still have them in reserve).

As for UCAV's.
I would pick the Heron TP or the Mantis.
I think the ScanEagle is thebest UAV for the army (and navy).

I would also order 40 more Boxers and arm them with mortars and the command version.
Then ditch all the YPR's.

And we agree about the Navy then.

[petrac]

I think we agree about the Navy and the Army.

I am bstill not convinced about the nukes though, AFAIK the dual use agreement has been closed already and almost all tactical nukes have been removed. I do not believe in nukes altogether and as you describe a future where organisations like the EU and NATO will terminate the dual use agreements are useless.
So why invest in a capability which is useless? I do not know what you mean by cruise missiles, but Tomahawks are nor airborne-carried. If you mean stand-off powered weapons, I think you can adapt any aircraft to carry them. From a maintenance and logistics point of view I prefer a single aircraft type, just as we have now. We can talk with SAAB for a license-built version, develop the NG along with them and set up our own logistics for it..

The gripen has plenty of development life in it in my view.
Cheers

[IPA35]

I mean air launched cruise missles, he tomhawks are for the frigates.
BTW the Gripen CAN carry the Taurus cruise missle.


What's your list for the airforce then?

The Gripen is ok especcialy when the Meteor becomes avalable but I think we really need second type in small numbers (preferably a more heavy platform so not he F-35).

I think the F-15SE will do, faster, higher ceiling and a larger payload than F-35.
I read that it can have the same stealth as the F-35 export version.
So as a trusted county we will get the max export stealth.
Same as export version of F-35 on an F-15E!
Can you see the stealth-scam that is the F-35?

But we could buy another typre if you want if you don't want nukes but there are few alternatives.
EF (almost as light), Rafale (very good plane but still light), F-18 (twin engined, and as heavy as the F-15E ).

[petrac]

Taurus is a good weapon, just as is JSOW or even the South African MUPSOW, which is being integrated in the SAF Gripens. it is not so much the carrier as the weapons employed ;-)

I can imagine you want a heavier platform, although I think that distinction is rapidly losing out as aircraft are getting more alike as of performance. The problem with Stealth aircraft is that payload is always a problem. The F15SE can carry as much as the F35 in full stealth mode, which is not much.

I am critical of the F35 project as we are footing the bill for delays and additional development costs. I woul like to wait, buy gripen to replace half the F16 fleet and wait for the F35 (or F15SE) to mature. Both platforms are still in development.

Additional transports are a very great asset, as are more helicopters. However, given the current government, defence spending will not increase, mor elikely decrease given the current budget cuts, which is a great shame!!

Cheers

[IPA35]

And AFAIK there is no party that want's to increarse the spending with the kind of money we need to improve the overall effectiveness, so it is only wishfull thinking...

I heard that they only have the budget for like 55 F-35's.
They really should have accepted SAAB's offer.

Besides how much LAV25 would the marinecorps need 30-40?

(F-18 could replace the F-15SE it has no stealth but it can be dilvered quite soon as it is allready in production).

[petrac]

Yeah I know..
And than it could serve to improve the economy as unemployed can enlist and Dutch companies can build and maintain equipment...

But hey, no politics here ;-)
If you read jsfnieuws.nl the SAAB offer is much better, but hey, I like the plane so I am biased... ;-)

I was just thinking about the Marines, they are a light infantry unit. But in my opinion you need some light armour by yourself (not relying on the Army) for self-protection. I would like to see a Marine Motorised Group attached to the brigade with about a company of LAV25, supported by a TOW LAV platoon and some maintenance LAVs.

Cheers

[IPA35]

Indeed...

I like the SAAB offer too (maybe add 3 SAAB 2000's with Erieye).

Sounds good, maybe the DragonFire version but that might be too much.

Instead of the F-15SE we could select the F-18E/F as it is allready in production, but it has no stealth.
But we could get the Growler (wireing).

[IPA35]

I've read on a dutch site that the Fennek MRAT (with Spike-MR, 2.5 km range 1 launcher 5 missles) is inadequate for modern warfare against armor and they suggested some of them to be armed with the Spike-ER.
Or could this role be fullfilled (longrange AT) by the HIMARS and 120mm mortar APC's?

They also said the Boxer is not good enough for a wartime situation.

[petrac]

What is inadequate in this scenario? We still have TOW for long-range engagements and there are plenty of scenario's where a MR missile is gooe enough. I would indeed arm a mix of MR and LR missiles just to be sure. Isn't it possible just to change the missile launcher between these 2 systems?

As fir interchanging with HIMARS and mortars. Mortars are notoriously bad tankkillers and HIMARS might not always be available, you need direct-fire AT weapons on the frontline, always. Technology is good, but cannot beat well-trained troops on the frontline ;-)

By the way, The Boxer is a light vehicle and is not comparable to the fully-armoured and tracked CV90. They complement each other, as there are scenario's where the heavy CV90 is unsuitable or unwanted (UN missions?). There is a great debate between the tracked vs motorised fans, but in thruth you need both to fully cover the whol,e spectrum of warfare (from peacekeeping to full war)

Cheers

[kato]

The Boxer is a light vehicle and is not comparable to the fully-armoured and tracked CV90.
Are we talking about Boxer GTK/MRAV ? Because that vehicle will be 20% larger, generally better-armoured and weighing 7 tons more than a CV90... and besides, the NL is only buying them to replace the M577 and a few M113.

[IPA35]

Yes, but I read somewhere that we should have bought the Piranha...

[Firn]

Yes, but I read somewhere that we should have bought the Piranha...

Why that?

The general tendency seems to increase the overall armor as a element in the struggle against the IED quite considerably. To me it seems that both the Boxer and the Puma anticipated the overall trends quite well.

I guess that Petrac meant "heavy firepower" whe thinking about the CV90. There is a mental tendency to equal tracks with heavy armor and firepower and wheels with light armor and firepwer. Happens to me too.

I also believe that in any situation where a turreted 120mm mortar with a FCS, a modern 30mm cannon of a IFV and a modern ATGM are not considered sufficient enough to deal with the scope of the armored threat friendly MBT are needed. CAS and artillery support with silver bullets is great. But why would you handicapped yourself and not deploy the uniquely capable, readily available and proven when facing a serious thread?

[IPA35]

We have tanks, but to few are active...

But you think the Boxer is ok (I believe so too actually) and I believe we should get some with a mounted 120mm mortar and also a few command versions so we can replace all YPR's and Fuch's.


---------------------------------------------

Woul it be possible to arm a number of CV90's with long range Spike's or TOW-II's like the Bradley?

[petrac]

I agree about the army needs both a high-end and a low-end solution to the modern-day conflicts. CV90s might be too 'heavy' for some peacekeeping operations, bu we also need their firepower. I have to admit I know too,little about the Boxer program, I will read up to it ;-)

I would very much like to see an AT missile fitted to our AFVs to make them more multi-role, maybe a nice development opportunity for us :-). I certainly would like to see a mechanised solution for all arms, including mortars.

Are we all looking forward to the heated JSF debate in parliament today?
Cheers

[IPA35]

I missed it, but maybe I can still watch it somewhere...
EDIT: PvdA saves the day! Gripen please.
(JSF ATLEAST 6.1 billion and 10 billion for 30 years maintainance, Gripen 4.8 and another 4.8 for 30 years maintainace, a huge lot cheaper).

Next topic: Orion replacement.

I suggest Poseidon (number?) and MQ-4 (like 4 but another 4 for the airforce).

[petrac]

Well, it seems the debate still arges on, but sadly no crisis due to it. It will probably be a compromise and this will mean JSF will stay on course... Too bad, SAAB unfortunately has no change for the politics..

But OK, next topic:
My personal favourite would be the P50 Maritime Enforcer (based on the Fokker50), but it is sadly no longer in production ;-) I do not think we need such a long-range platform as our patrol needs are defensive only and confined to our national waters. An ATR42 / Dash8 type platform would be good enough in my opinion.

A UAV-type platform would not be needed in such a scenario, or only a light UAV (Hermes450 class) to augment the manned platforms. The saved money (Poseidons are expensive...) can be used for more transports ;-)

Cheers

[IPA35]

That would be a downgrade of capability.
But if you wan tto do it cheap you can buy the maritime version of the Embraer P-99, you can also buy the version with Erieye so you have 1 type of platform.

I myself think that the P-8A is the worthy replacement for the P-3 although it is expensive, but we can buy only 4-6 and use some UAV;s for the rest.
The MQ-4 is probably the only platform suited for this (range! and other countries doing it).

We should use them to fight piracy too.
And I doubt the Dash8's ASW capabilities.
BTW the antillian coastguard allready operates them. (unarmed I think).

[petrac]

What downgrade of capability? We have no MPA capability today... And even if you compare with the P3C Orions, the only downgrade would be in range. Given the fact that international co-operation is less of a factor in your plans than today I did not see a reason to add long-range to the aircraft. Mind you, the Poseidon is a really long-range aircraft.

And after all, for national MPA patrols the P50 would be ok for range and cans till be armed with everything it needs, from torpedoes to missiles. I think the Poseidon is overkill. I would also phase out the Antilles Dash8s and replace them by genuine Nave MPA, as these aircraft are now operated by some Canadian company.

Piracy operations do not differ much from traditional MPA flights as Orions do not have an anti-piracy weapon (using Harpoon on a pirate skiff is kind of overkill..), so do other MPA. The P99 might be another good option too, though.

As for UAV, given the range option, most platforms would suffice in my view. The only factor would be interoperability with the MPA.

Cheers

[IPA35]

You are right, but you haven't convinced me.

The new OPV's:
I don't like it's currently planned armament, it should have the capability to be outfitted with AS and AA missles, maybe depth charges (danish container concept is perfect).
Build 4.

[petrac]

Well, what are the reasons you are not convinced ;-)
In my view, esspecially with the focus on defence outside international organizations, we do not need such a large platform. We can rely on smaller platforms also forward-deployed to the Antilles.

I agree with regards to the OPVs. I think you need a round-out design, fitted with VLS system capable of firing Harpoon / ESSM / rocket-assisted torpedo and fitted with an RWS gun system (already has i believe). DO we have enough by 4 of them? We could need 2 of them in the Antilles, which leaves only 2 in the Netherlands, would 6 be better?

regards

[IPA35]

Well it would be a downgrade but you are right, how many do me need and how many of the other versions would we need?
(maritime, erieye and remote sensing)
http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com.br/english/content/isr_systems/p99_state_of_art.asp

Yes, I agree on the armament as the planned armament is only guns in 5 different sizes, ok for patrols ofcourse but useless in a real combat situation.
6 yes but I would also like to see 8 LCF's.
Might be to expensive then but the OPV's only need 50 crewmembers.

Maybe a more modern alternative for the L118 (if we don't have them anymore) is the south-african G7 it is heavier but it has long range and it is also 105mm.

Did you say CB90?

And I has thinking to train an antillian defence force.
I know there is already such a thing but I cannot find much info about them.
Like 500-1000 men strong armed with light arms, spikes and a handfull of fenneks.
A bit like the luxembourgish army.

[petrac]

If you went one platform for all missions, I would select three Erieye versions, 2 remote sensing machines en 6 P-99s MPAs.

I have no real feeling about the best gun, whether it should be 105mm or 155mm. I read 155mm packs quite more punch than 105mm, but it all comes down to weight. Whichever one if best in that is OK by me, maybe even de G5. I have nno idea what you mean by VB90, we only talked about the CV90 IFV.

I assume there is something like an ADF, but it could be rained and expanded more if the need arises. Would there be enough influx of troops though? In the end the Dutch Kingdom is responsible for their defence, that is why we need stationed OPVs and forward-deployed troops, aircraft and MPAs

Cheers

[IPA35]

Combat Boat 90...

I would say
3-4 Erieye versions. (1 squadron)
6-8 P-99's (2 squadrons?)
0 Remote sensing (I would buy like 4 MQ-4 for this role).

[Firn]

I have no real feeling about the best gun, whether it should be 105mm or 155mm. I read 155mm packs quite more punch than 105mm, but it all comes down to weight. Whichever one if best in that is OK by me, maybe even de G5. I have nno idea what you mean by VB90, we only talked about the CV90 IFV.

A mix allows to tailor the force needed to achive the desired effect. Given the limited ressources of the Netherlands only one calibre might be supported in the future. Under such circumstances the 155mm should perhaps be chosen as it is generally the better performer across the whole spectrum of warfighting.

However it all depends on what the leadership wants to achieve.

[IPA35]

We have the 155mm PHZ2000 for that, we need a (light) towed gun for the marine corps.

He suggested the L118 (we had/have those according to wiki but they are not in service and I don't know if we still own them).
I proposed the G7 as an alternative although it might be too heavy.
(What vehicle to tow it? Fennek or Boxer?)

[IPA35]

@Petrac:

What to buy?
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/gripen/gripen_stores.jpg

[petrac]

How about all ;-)

At least I would choose the Vinten pod and the Litening III targeting pod. We already have AMRAAM and Sidewinder, which are good enough, just like the Paveways and Mavericks. I would recommend JSOW/JDAM, altough the South African airforce also has some interesting weapons, like MUPSO/Raptor standoff weapon. The Taurus is also a good option.

If we develop along with SAAB, we can add ou own weapons mix.
Cheers

[IPA35]

I don't know alot about pods sadly...

I would (except for the current weapons) buy extra Iris-T's, Taurus, JSOW (or Rapor) or that Spice, droptanks, RBS15 and a small number of the Brimstone missle.

Maybe the Darter series if you want to buy South-African stuff.
(Raptor, G7, ect...)
The could replace the Sidewinders together with the Iris-t.

[petrac]

I have to disagree.
I would keep the armament as standard as possible, why replacing perfectly good Sidewinders and AMRAAMs with new weapons? What does brimstone have above Maverick? What would RBS15 have above Harpoon (already in service?)

We already have guided weapons and a full A2A outfit, so I would concentrate on standoff weapons, like JSOW and JDAM.

[IPA35]

Brimstone is specialised anti tank, and smaller so maybe it can carry more brimstones that mavericks? (just 50)

EDIT: the brimstone is carried per 3, here's an EF as example:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/eurofighter-clsairsu.jpg
So you can probably carry more of those than Maverick's.

We have harpoons on our frigates but I believe the Gripen cannot carry the harpoon, only the RBS 15.
Maybe the Embraer can carry them?

JSOW (or Raptor or Spice) and Taurus, yes.
We already bought Iris-T's (500) maybe we could buy more?

We should buy the Meteor as it is 'the future'.
They are however very expensive compared to the AMRAAM so maybe they should not be used against poorly equiped enemies.
Maybe 100-200 missles.

The gripen can also carry rocket pods.

[swerve]

Brimstone is specialised anti tank, and smaller so maybe it can carry more brimstones that mavericks? ....
Much smaller - 50 kg vs 200-300 kg (depending on the version). Brimstone is no longer a pure anti-tank missile. It is now available with a dual-mode seeker, enabling it to engage other targets, & further development is expected to give it alternative warheads, optimised for other target types. Far less collateral damage than a Maverick.

[Firn]

He suggested the L118 (we had/have those according to wiki but they are not in service and I don't know if we still own them).
I proposed the G7 as an alternative although it might be too heavy.

As I said, it depends on what one wants.

Weight:

G7 3,8t
M777A2 3,2t
L118 1,8-2,1 (depends on the version)

The M77A2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777_howitzer) beats all by far in practically every aspect and has the calibre in which by far most research has gone in and will go in the foreseeable future. It has all the nice smart rounds from Excalibur to SMart (Anti-tank skeets). Given the key role of Artillery especially for light forces I would always chose it unless with a very very tight budget.

As an mover I would chose the Bronco ATTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronco_All_Terrain_Tracked_Carrier).

The Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier (ATTC) is a twin chassis multi-purpose articulated tracked carrier jointly developed by ST Kinetics and the Defence Science & Technology Agency (DSTA) for the Singapore Army. ST Kinetics also manufactures firefighting, disaster recovery and other civilian variants under its U.S. subsidiary Hackney and its China subsidiary GJK. Designed to traverse difficult terrain, the Bronco has a ground pressure of 60 Kpa and is fitted with heavy duty seamless rubber tracks and a running gear system for soft ground conditions and directional stability. Swimming operations require minimum preparation and it can achieve a swimming speed of 5 km/h. The Bronco's four-sprocket drive, fully articulated steering with optional differential lock provides for small turning radius maneuvers and improved performance.

The Bronco has a load carrying capacity of up to 5 tonnes and is capable of a top speed of 60 km/h on the road and at least 25 km/h on cross-country terrain.

To provide indirect fire close to the frontlines in a mobile package I would take a look at that.

Mortar Tracked Carrier

A variant of the Bronco All-Terrain Tracked Carrier, the Mortar Tracked Carrier (MTC) is jointly developed by the SAF, DSTA and Singapore Technologies Kinetics. Operating on a 4 men crew, the MTC's primary weapon is the ST Kinetics 120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System (SRAMS), the world’s first recoiled mortar to incorporate a blast diffuser[3], greatly reducing the blast overpressure effect generated by mortars, thus allowing longer periods of firing without injuring the crew. The MTC has a built-in Automatic Fire Control System (AFCS) comprising a Fire Control Unit and an Inertia Navigation System, allowing it to conduct immediate deployment without conventional surveying methods. A hydro-pneumatic Recoil System reduces the overall recoil force, thus allowing minimal reinforcement of the original hull structure, and post-firing stabilising time. This increases the rate of firing with improved accuracy.

The AFCS is also equipped with a Mortar Platoon Management System (MPMS), which enables it to be networked via the Battlefield Management System (BMS).

As a matter of fact the Hagglund BV206S is a blast in difficult terrain and steep hills. The Bronco seems to be a larger and better armored and capable version of it.

If you really want a light force capable to operate even in most difficult of navigable terrain and be relative well protected against mines and IEDs the Bronco seems to be the best choice. It's variants should form the baseline of such a force.

This light force might have organic or attached "medium" units which consist mostly of IFV based on the likes of the CV90 or IFV Puma - basically a company of armored infantry or elements of it. The same AFV might serve as a platform for a direct fire support vehicle with a 105mm or better a 120mm AT gun which could form organic or attached units. In the Italian Alpini brigade Taurinense the Centauro is the main AT/DF AFV.

However given that the Dutch have Leos aplenty, and attached true tank company (or elements) would also make sense. Such an unit might of course be further split up in COIN operations but of course the support gets than more and more difficult.

Of course this are just the major fighting components.

[IPA35]

Hmmm, I can't change the OP anymore...

So then we should buy the Brimstone missle, IMO.
How many would a Gripen be able to carry? And how many Mavericks?

We have both the Viking and the Bandvagn, maybe we should but buy things from Singapore for Political reasons.
(IMO Singapore is a dictatorial policestate).
We should however buy LAV25 (or something comparable) for the marine corps.
It will have a 120mm AFAIK but I do not know if that project is still on.

We should buy LAV25 IFV, AT with TOW-II and a light gun.
We could buy the 120mm version but maybe we could give them HIMARS as I would buy those for the normal army anyway.

But do no forget it is only a (small and) light unit.


-----

Anyone know's what happened to the Dutch L118's?

[Firn]

I gave now the Korps a closer look

After giving my educated guess about an the utility of the Be206S and the Bronco it seems that the Korps Mariniers already had the sense to get the former and the Viking :)

However the Bronco seems to be the better BvS 10 and should be the better solution on the long term. Still a replacement would be foolish considering that the money could be far better spent, at least IMHO.

The first question is what the Korps Mariniers should be. It seems that the consensus here seems it should be a "light" force capable to operate in all difficult terrains which mother earth has to offer and which is relative easy to deploy, especially by the sea. As an "infantry brigade" with appropriate vehicles it is suited for stabilization operations and complex terrain. You guys seem to want to give this fast intervention force more warfighting capabilities.


The whole brigade should be networked and integrated as far as possible to be able to manage operations across the whole spectrum better. To operate effectively in stabilization missions a wide task the ability to get things going with civil support is needed. Togheter with the other arms of the Royal armed Forces and the goverment the capability to integrate the necessary civilian/foreign units and assets should become a priority.


To be able to operate more indepentently I would make the following large changes in their TOE.



New battalions/components on the brigade/Korps level:


(i) Add a true Field artillery battalion with two to three batteries (6-18) pieces of light towed 155mm howitzer. The M777A2 is expensive but would be the perfect choice. With a wide amount of available ammunition it is a great fire support asset. The mover should be an BvS 10 or a feasible truck best if based on the Bushmaster.

Batteries/Elements might likely get detached to other brigades, especially the airmobile brigade could need such a support. Perhaps a second FA battalion should be established there. All in all 18-24 artillery pieces should be purchased.

A HIMARS battery of a newly formed Rocket artillery battalion
might get attached to the Korp and integrated into the FA battalion. The battalion is part of the Operational Support command of the Royal Army.


(ii) An organic RSTA (Reconnaisance, Survaillence, Target-Aquisitaton) company should be created to support the Korps. The already existing Recon assets of the Marine Battalions should remain organic to them but be exended integrated (training etc) with the RSTA unit. Micro/small UAV should form part of their equipment.

This RSTA company contains the all the necessary to fullfill the designated missions means to support the Korps. A relative large number of small UAV with long durations features among the assets, with ISR and communication roles. The Scaneagle and the larger Integrator seem to me to be appropriate choices. The supporting vehicles are trucks or Bv 206/BvS 10 for the STA part or Bv 206 or existing vehicles for the Recon part.


(iii) A organic company of armored infantry should become part of the Korps. It should provide a mobile "medium" unit capable to provide limited AT and indirect/direct firesupport. It consists of 10-12 IFV CV9035NL with ATGM (Spike) and 4 CV90M with a turreted mortar. The latter only when the Royal army aquires also a decent number. If not the 120mm mortar carrier on the basis of the BvS 10 will provide a good indirect capability.

(iv) The engineer company should be expended and become able to work with or manage attached "civilian units" for swift local reconstruction of important military and political assets.

The combat of the IED and mine threat should become also of even greater importance. This is the second key area in current operations and the enginers should be equipped with all the necessary tools to be able to fight it effectively. The RSTA unit should provide with their many endurant UAV most valuable help.


New components on the Marine battalion level:


(i) The support companies of the Marine battalions should get a mobile 120mm mortar carrier on the basis of the BvS 10. The 81mm mortars will be retained by the company and fielded when useful.

(ii) As written above the Recon capabilities of the battalions should be augmented. New small and micro drones are just a part of the it.

(iii) A robust and mobile IMV vehicle capable to withstand IEDs and mines far better than the BvS 10 should be purchased in large numbers to enable the Korps to fulfill specific missions (patrolling) in stabilization operations and COIN. The Bushmaster seems to be a good choice and is already in use in the Royal army. It should be shared across the board.

So far so good.

[IPA35]

I might be too much, but I agree for the most part.

The CV9035NL with Spike's should be bought for the 'normal' army.
The marine corps would need something that if amfibious.
Although I do like the mortar, they already have Patria's so maybe some of these, the same mortar is available on the cv90.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/AMV_AMOS.jpg/300px-AMV_AMOS.jpg
EDIT: I just learned we operate an older version of the Patria, so maybe it would be wiser to buy the Boxer with 120mm Mortar?

For the armoured brigades, maybe you can build Spike-LR/ER's on the CV90's with the Samson RCWS?

I would also ditch the HIMARS, but buy a decent amounth of them for the Army.
2 artillery units would be too much I think.

Himars should also be equipped with AMRAAMS when available.
Maybe ATACMS II too?

About tanks, we should reactivate like 44 to bring the total back to 100 (as in early 2008?).
I don't think the marine corps would need them, IFV's with AT capabilities would be enough.