Military Aviation > Military Aviation News

Dutch worry over F-35 costs

<< < (2/6) > >>

RecceJet:
I still think that when the F-35 finally does go into production it will be far more advanced than the current alternatives (JAS 39 Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale or SU-35/37). Any country could opt for these alternatives, but in my opinion it will lock them into an airframe that can't be further developed to the extent that the F-35 could be.

Unless there really is no significant technological difference between these alternatives and the F-35, I think it's better to wait and have an aircraft that is more advanced. The world is slowly moving to the ideology that quality is better than quantity as far as military hardware goes. A more advanced platform will naturally be more expensive, but I think we still have to wait and see if the F-35 is really as advanced as its price tag would suggest!

  :-\ I think my comments firmly place me on the fence! Anyone else want to be a fence-sitter on this issue? lol

Webmaster:

--- Quote from: Flotille 12F on September 27, 2010, 12:15:55 AM ---Well, whether the final price of the F-35 will be high or low it won’t matter unless one looks at the cost-effective side of it.
Personally, I see the whole program as just another Lockheed attempt to secure a production/selling contract. Nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is the kind of countries this contract tries to attract. I mean, after all to judge, the JSF will presumably be a multi-role fighter a little less complicated then the F-22 (I’ll never believe that it will be better then the Raptor). But all in all, the F-35 will prove itself to be a lot more complex (not necessarily better) then its competition – i.e. JAS 39 Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale or SU-35/37. What I can’t figure is what can countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Holland or Belgium do with the F-35. Relatively small countries for which the JSF is wayyyy to much! Or another piece of news announced Romania (?) as a wish-for F-35 country. Hilarious, really. These countries not only have small air-territories that could easily be covered and defended by an aircraft as the Gripen for example, but also that their possible enemies are all but inexistent. What good will F-35 do to them?
A country should consider military contracts first and foremost out of their own defensive needs, or at least this was the thumb rule in the past. Or this idea dropped sharply from the priorities list?  :o

--- End quote ---

I agree, but to Lockheed any customer will do, no matter how little need they have for it. You have a point, but you could say the same for any military capability that's beyond any country's needs. Yes on your last comment, that's no longer the priority.
From your list I only can't understand Switzerland (although I have to say, I didn't know they were). But for Denmark, Holland and Belgium, it is primarily because of the NATO and EPAF framework. EPAF only concerns the F-16 at the moment, but it's a good success story that can be continued if all would be flying the same type. NATO... because basically to keep up with the major ally, the US, the airforces want the F-35 or else they may not count, and at least for the Netherlands I can say it wants to be a good ally and if that's through airpower rather than manpower, all the better. Romania also falls in that "good US ally" category, they'd rather get second-hand high-houred F-16s than seriously look at the Gripen for example. It's because of the strong US connection, military but probably even more political. You are right about defending small airspace, even that these countries don't need much defending at all (only a NATO mandated air policing capability, which does not have to be as large), but this is no longer about air defense as it was 20 years ago. It's now delivering air power within the NATO framework and that means taking part in strike packages under what is basically US command. So you'd want capabilities that really fit the US. That's why these air forces want them so bad. So yes, like you said having a cost-effective air defense capability for their own countries is not the primary goal. "NATO compatible" does not mean sh** to the US forces, if you won't be as stealthy as them, you don't get to play the game...

I am not a big fan of the above, but I'm afraid that's what it gets down to. The Netherlands doesn't need trident missiles either, but what else is an easier way for the Navy to be a valuable player on the US team?


--- Quote ---my comments firmly place me on the fence
--- End quote ---

RecceJet, that's a great place to be, and I'd happily join you. You are right that it will be more advanced, although the others will come close in everything besides stealth. It's hard to say that it can't be further developed, when we hardly now what the future will be. I can see it further developed, just not the airframe itself and nothing custom/local, only with the OEM.

I'm hoping off to one side or the other, taking different perspectives.

But these countries can't keep doing that forever and they've already been doing that for 10 years, otherwise they would have started taking deliveries by now. More importantly, unfortunately there's only so much fence-sitting one can do. It's time to decide and put in an order, because the F-16s are getting old. Waiting for something better is a matter of decades really, waiting for it to prove itself could be done, but when is there enough proof anyway? Who will be developing something better in the next 25 years? Not including those from who these countries would never buy anyway. And even then, look at Italy, they had to lease Tornados, then F-16s, before finally getting enough Typhoons.

It's funny I agree with almost all arguments for or against the JSF. IMHO whatever you get, do it right and make it as cost- and combat-effective as possible. Unfortunately the Netherlands passed this point, it never fully explored the offset opportunities of other programs, and for the JSF, probably due to political indecision and lack of bargaining power because of that, industry didn't get a large enough share, and as everyone is cutting numbers, the few orders once envisaged won't be as big. So the business case is already shattered. Now the "combat case" will suffer as well, let's see.

It will probably be a great aircraft. Even the -B.

Bomber:

--- Quote from:  Admin ---"NATO compatible" does not mean sh** to the US forces, if you won't be as stealthy as them, you don't get to play the game...
--- End quote ---
Yes indeed; it does seem that this is the case, doesn’t it?
Having said that, I do see the subject quite complex. NATO is an alliance that has yet to include STEALTH capabilities in its signature. So, your above statement – in this light – falls a little short I think.
Personally I think that the whole JSF thing is a political statement before anything else. Why you ask?
I’ll tell you why: because if JSF was supposing to be the angelic intervention in releasing “old-dogs” (i.e. F-16s, F-15) and kicking the “new-ones'” butt (i.e. Gripens, Rafales, Flankers or Eurofighters) in an attempt at strengthening an alliance in need of strenght, it has terribly failed to do so as long as new non-member countries (with even less JSF related needs) jump into the fray…

P.S.
As far as Romania goes, don’t count on it. We are on the verge of collapsing, literally. There are so many socio-political issues in that country right now that it doesn’t even has the funds to offer our population a decent living future. F-35 in ROAF? That’ll be the day…

Webmaster:

--- Quote from: Bomber on October 12, 2010, 10:13:17 AM ---Having said that, I do see the subject quite complex. NATO is an alliance that has yet to include STEALTH capabilities in its signature. So, your above statement – in this light – falls a little short I think.

--- End quote ---

That's the thing, part of NATO (not new member), you don't look at what other NATO countries bring to the table, it's only what the US brings that matters.


--- Quote from: Bomber on October 12, 2010, 10:13:17 AM ---Personally I think that the whole JSF thing is a political statement before anything else. Why you ask?
I’ll tell you why: because if JSF was supposing to be the angelic intervention in releasing “old-dogs” (i.e. F-16s, F-15) and kicking the “new-ones'” butt (i.e. Gripens, Rafales, Flankers or Eurofighters) in an attempt at strengthening an alliance in need of strenght, it has terribly failed to do so as long as new non-member countries (with even less JSF related needs) jump into the fray…

--- End quote ---

Yes, but you also need to justify a huge investment to the public for replacing your ageing fighterjets. Half the population doesn't even agree that the air force needs expensive fighter jets. Now, think about that for a while, would you opt for new F-16s rather than going for something new and advanced the AF wants.

For those "new" countries, it's thus not the same as with Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium even. Plus they don't have large budgets. They are either very politically aligned with the US or US military when it comes to aircraft choice, or do seek the best value for money with all kinds of offset and lease terms. F-16 or Gripen basically.

Regarding Israel, you are wrong my friend, Israel has perhaps thé biggest need for a JSF of all "West-aligned" countries. I don't think I need to explain why. They'd take F-22s as well if/when they can get them.


--- Quote from: Bomber on October 12, 2010, 10:13:17 AM ---As far as Romania goes, don’t count on it. We are on the verge of collapsing, literally. There are so many socio-political issues in that country right now that it doesn’t even has the funds to offer our population a decent living future. F-35 in ROAF? That’ll be the day…

--- End quote ---

Right, I'm not. I could see one or two programs of second-hand F-16s for next 30 years easily. And by then, Iraqis will be teaching you to fly them, joking. In 30 years, maybe some gap, and then eventually you'll get those F-35s second-hand as well.

However I do understand why they want to buy into the F-35 program, you still have some decent aircraft manufacturing, right? Might be enough for someone to spend a lot of your limited GDP on it... maybe in 10-15 years, when there's another EU-zone economic boom?

shawn a:
Yeah, the F-35 won't need an alternate engine, and the F-110 won't need a gun....
The Dutch are doing damn well to worry over a slow, fragily stealthy, and lightly armed, expensive combat aircraft.
--dos centavos
S.A.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page