The F-16 replacement of the Royal Netherlands Airforce.

[gf0012-aust]

Some of the DefPros could likely explain it better than I, but weapons integration includes work to make sure that an aircraft's avionics can communicate with a missile for guidance, queing, launch command etc. It also includes trials to ensure weapons launch and clearance from the hardpoint/rail and away from the aircraft. Different missile types, having different weights and aerodynamic properties can behave differently during launch and in flight even if they are otherwise similar.

-Cheers

It will also include mount, dismount tests, it will include handling issues based on combinations and hardpoint placement, it includes emissions and RF leak tests, it includes catastrophic tests etc...... it includes comprehensive testing on various STANAG compliance vectors, it includes working off other allied data for verification and validation, it includes host nation certification issues.

weapons testing is exhaustive. in fact the RAAF used to have a couple of test aircraft which were pulled from active service just to weapons test and validate combinations of sensors and systems. atypically its the first few aircraft of the order which end up with that lucky job.

 

[justone]

I prefer 85 good and affordable planes over 44 planes at a higher cost that are only a little bit better in... In what exactly?
SEAD, range, payload, 'stealth'?

IMO it is not that much better to justify the huge costs.

Therefore IMO we should raise the budget a bit and aquire 2 squadrons of F-35A's.
These would be stationed at Leeuwarden AB.
And 3 squadrons of a more cost efficient plane at Volkel AB.
Now what would be the better choice? NG or block 60? But let's not make this a VS thread...

The Dutch should stay with the amount they plan with the F-35 in the long run they be proud that stay with it. The U.S. has the greatest air force. The chance to be able to have one of the future greatest aircraft in your air force. Stay with the same order and the Dutch will be fine.

 

[Toptob]

The Dutch should stay with the amount they plan with the F-35 in the long run they be proud that stay with it. The U.S. has the greatest air force. The chance to be able to have one of the future greatest aircraft in your air force. Stay with the same order and the Dutch will be fine.

We can't afford 85 aircraft. That stupid F-35 is waay to expensive.
(I like the product, I hate the price)

 

[zeven]

We can't afford 85 aircraft. That stupid F-35 is waay to expensive.
(I like the product, I hate the price)

The best part is the insanly amount of money you guys spent on the program already

You've to givit to the americans, they know how to do business!

 

[Grand Danois]

The best part is the insanly amount of money you guys spent on the program already

You've to givit to the americans, they know how to do business!

Please, how much have the Dutch used on the project so far?

How much work have they gotten?

How much wil the Dutch Govt recoup on their share of FMS?

 

[zeven]

Please, how much have the Dutch used on the project so far?

How much work have they gotten?

How much wil the Dutch Govt recoup on their share of FMS?

I'll come back to you on that one!

 

[Grand Danois]

according to threatlevel, military use. political climate in Europe, and with their neigbhours.

So Sweden should dismantle its defence industry?

 

[B3LA]

The Norwegians are currently looking over their future trade agreement for the Striker Bomber.
(They have a non-commited price with LM of some 59 Million US$ each for 48 JSFs)

So far they have aimed to get LM to buy Norwegian stuff for about 3.5 Billion US$.
LM has not promised anything.

Now they are thinking that this is an old fashion way to look on it and that they instead
want the payback in Research. I read somewhere that there are some 47.000 companies
within the JSF program and competition among them for bits and pieces are getting tougher.

(My interpretation is that the Norwegians are starting to notice that they are failing to get
the payback contracts and thus seeks another a way out before it gets embarrassing ;-))

The Norwegians are well known world leaders in many areas concerning the sea
(offshore, oil, cargo etc), but they do not have much competence with high tech jets.
Further, their old purchase of their current F-16 fleet did not payback well when they now look back.

Bottom line is that looking forward, it will probably be harder to get
those nice payback deals with LM if your industry isn't top notch.

I believe the Dutch are in a better position?

Source :
Nordens nyheter - - Krever ikke lenger gjenkjøpsavtale

 

[IPA35]

Prehaps...
But SAAB offered 100% counterorders from our industry.

Atleast that's guaranteed, although SAAB's reputation on this is bad.

 

[longbow]

We can't afford 85 aircraft. That stupid F-35 is waay to expensive.
(I like the product, I hate the price)

Most of the time you get what you pay for. If the fly away cost for the F-35 is a tad bit higher than for the Gripen it should still be well worth it considering the gap in capability. The TCO for the Gripen NG could though actually be higher than the TCO for the F-35(upgrades, low build numbers).

 

[longbow]

The Norwegians are currently looking over their future trade agreement for the Striker Bomber.
(They have a non-commited price with LM of some 59 Million US$ each for 48 JSFs)

So far they have aimed to get LM to buy Norwegian stuff for about 3.5 Billion US$.
LM has not promised anything.

Now they are thinking that this is an old fashion way to look on it and that they instead
want the payback in Research. I read somewhere that there are some 47.000 companies
within the JSF program and competition among them for bits and pieces are getting tougher.

(My interpretation is that the Norwegians are starting to notice that they are failing to get
the payback contracts and thus seeks another a way out before it gets embarrassing ;-))

The Norwegians are well known world leaders in many areas concerning the sea
(offshore, oil, cargo etc), but they do not have much competence with high tech jets.
Further, their old purchase of their current F-16 fleet did not payback well when they now look back.

Bottom line is that looking forward, it will probably be harder to get
those nice payback deals with LM if your industry isn't top notch.

I believe the Dutch are in a better position?

Source :
Nordens nyheter - - Krever ikke lenger gjenkjøpsavtale

Everybody loves a bit of payback contracts, but for the Norwegians that is not really that important, our economy is going quite strong even in times like these. The most important factor in the Norwegian choice was, and still is, capbility, capability and capability, hence - the F-35 WILL be adorning the RNoAF roundel in some five years, payback contracts or no payback contracts.

 

[B3LA]

Indeed !

Here are some nice information videos regarding its capabilities :

“The ground attack bomber of the future”

F-35 discovery channel part1 - eSnips, share anything

F-35 discovery channel part2 - eSnips, share anything

F-35 discovery channel part3 - eSnips, share anything

F-35 discovery channel part4 - eSnips, share anything

Unfortunately, the "F" in the designation did not make the F-117
or the F-111 exceptional air superiority fighters either

 

[AndiPandi]

The most important factor in the Norwegian choice was, and still is, capbility, capability and capability, hence - the F-35 WILL be adorning the RNoAF roundel in some five years, payback contracts or no payback contracts.

Politics, politics and politics is probably more true...

 

[Todjaeger]

Politics, politics and politics is probably more true...

And the evidence for that is what, exactly?

The F-35 is designed to be LO, which is different (and some significant) than just a claim of some signature or RCS reduction.

Additionally, the F-35 will have aircraft commonality with other NATO member-states.

I am unaware of a Gripen capability claim which cannot also be done with the F-35, apart from STOL, which there are ways that could be accomplished with the F-35A/C if needed...

-Cheers

 

[AndiPandi]

And the evidence for that is what, exactly?
...
-Cheers

And the evidence for the opposite is what? The fact that JSF has capabilities the Gripen does not have is not a proof that capabilities was the bigggest factor for the Norweigans. The only reason to invite other manufacturers was to please politicians that wanted a competition. Why do you think EF withdrew? They knew that the decision had been made. SAAB did not have anything to loose and with a much better industrial offset (a Gripen NG partner is worth a lot for SAAB) and a really low price they managed to get some support from some parties and labour organisations. Now the government had to come up with this silly report with all kinds of numbers and added costs for the Gripen that nobody still has no clue where they came from (and dont forget the F-16 fuel consumptions and the 50% crash rate). On the press conference they mostly talked about how bad the Gripen performed. They tried a bit too hard to make it look like about performance only, it wasnt credible.

 

[Bonza]

And the evidence for the opposite is what? The fact that JSF has capabilities the Gripen does not have is not a proof that capabilities was the bigggest factor for the Norweigans. The only reason to invite other manufacturers was to please politicians that wanted a competition. Why do you think EF withdrew? They knew that the decision had been made. SAAB did not have anything to loose and with a much better industrial offset (a Gripen NG partner is worth a lot for SAAB) and a really low price they managed to get some support from some parties and labour organisations. Now the government had to come up with this silly report with all kinds of numbers and added costs for the Gripen that nobody still has no clue where they came from (and dont forget the F-16 fuel consumptions and the 50% crash rate). On the press conference they mostly talked about how bad the Gripen performed. They tried a bit too hard to make it look like about performance only, it wasnt credible.

Sorry, I don't have a vested interest in this debate but I'm confused. As I understand it, the real reports on each aircraft would be classified so I can understand why you wouldn't have faith in publicly-released data. However, do you really think capability was so irrelevant that you can term it primarily a political decision, despite acknowledged JSF capabilities not matched by Gripen?

Remember that the basis of such an acquisition is to fill a set of military requirements (does anyone know what the official requirements were?). I'm not trying to be adversarial for the sake of it, but given that capability is central to filling such requirements, it seems the onus of proof would be on you to show it was a primarily political decision...

 

[Todjaeger]

And the evidence for the opposite is what? The fact that JSF has capabilities the Gripen does not have is not a proof that capabilities was the bigggest factor for the Norweigans. The only reason to invite other manufacturers was to please politicians that wanted a competition. Why do you think EF withdrew? They knew that the decision had been made. SAAB did not have anything to loose and with a much better industrial offset (a Gripen NG partner is worth a lot for SAAB) and a really low price they managed to get some support from some parties and labour organisations. Now the government had to come up with this silly report with all kinds of numbers and added costs for the Gripen that nobody still has no clue where they came from (and dont forget the F-16 fuel consumptions and the 50% crash rate). On the press conference they mostly talked about how bad the Gripen performed. They tried a bit too hard to make it look like about performance only, it wasnt credible.

I agree that a Gripen NG partner would be very valuable to Saab. I do not see (or at least agree with) how being a Gripen NG partner would be greatly beneficial to the Netherlands.

From a military capability standpoint, the F-35 appears set to equal or outperform all other multi-role fighters in overall mission operations. Additionally, it will be able to conduct certain types of missions which other fighters are not currently able to do so (apart from the F-22).

From a political/diplomatic/technical perspective, IMO it is better to remain partnered and on good terms with the US and NATO allies than to team up with Sweden.

From an economic perspective, the Gripen NG might (repeat might) cost less for the Netherlands I say this because there are still some questions regarding the accuracy and the validity of the TCO figures for both aircraft. This, coupled with potential development and upgrades costs to keep the aircraft relevant through to 2050 IMO potentially negate a lower fly-away price for the Gripen NG.

Equipment purchases are rarely just about capability. However, while politics is (or can be) involved, it rarely would cause an inappropriate piece of equipment to be chosen. It might cause an item to be more expensive than it needs to be, but does not often cause a less capable than required item to be purchased.

-Cheers

 

[zeven]

So Sweden should dismantle its defence industry?

Im not a supporter of huge military projects if its not o great importance for Swedish domestic industry in a whole no. but heres the diffirence from other countries Swedish military industry are quite independent. i wouldnt support a huge military purchase from another country no. I support a domestic military that is small mobile and effective, i liked the idea to decrease the number of gripens from 204 to 104.
Dont missunderstand the military industry is very very important because of the spinoffs it gives bacause of the high R&D.

 

[zeven]

Prehaps...
But SAAB offered 100% counterorders from our industry.

Atleast that's guaranteed, although SAAB's reputation on this is bad.

It is? tell where have SAAB failed? all i can see is great success on this area.
please give some sources here!

 

[zeven]

Most of the time you get what you pay for. If the fly away cost for the F-35 is a tad bit higher than for the Gripen it should still be well worth it considering the gap in capability. The TCO for the Gripen NG could though actually be higher than the TCO for the F-35(upgrades, low build numbers).

Gripen A/B C/D tells us the opposite. and NG will follow the same upgrade phase and be included in the same project. so the costs will be shared with todays customers as well.