Dutch Refuse To Consider Super Hornet

The Netherlands defense ministry refuses to include Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in an evaluation of potential candidates for its next-generation fighter requirement.

Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor also will not be considered, despite a direct request from the country's Parliament to include both U.S. fighters in an evaluation of potential alternatives to the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The Dutch appeared to be firmly committed to the F-35A ever since they joined the JSF System Development & Demonstration program as a Level 2 partner in 2002. But recently there has been growing concern, particularly among left-wing parties in the Parliament, about perceived cost overruns.

In May, Parliament called for the addition of the Super Hornet, Raptor and Sweden's Saab Gripen Next Generation to the shortlist of JSF alternatives. The request was part of a compromise that enabled the defense ministry to proceed with a plan to order two F-35A aircraft for participation in the F-35 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation that starts in 2011.

According to Jack de Vries, the Dutch state secretary for defense procurement, the F/A-18E/F had been considered as a candidate in 2001-2002 but was at that time deselected because of limitations in range, self-protection and sensors. "The twin-engined jet is also relatively big and heavy, so that it does not fit inside our NATO-standard F-16 hardened aircraft shelters; also, its through-life cost is relatively high," says de Vries, who predicts that these considerations will also play a role in Denmark, which has the same size shelters as the Netherlands.

Boeing recently entered the Super Hornet as a late-entry contender for the Danish fighter requirement, competing against the F-35A and the Gripen Next-Generation.

In a June 27 letter to Parliament, de Vries suggests that while Australia and the U.S. Navy are ordering Super Hornets, they are doing so "until the JSF will be available in sufficient numbers." He states that the Dutch have no need for an interim solution as they plan to buy the F-35 early.

"Based on how Americans and Australians regard the Super Hornet in relation to JSF, and based on the results of our evaluation in 2002, the F/A-18E/F cannot be considered as a relevant option for F-16 replacement in our country," de Vries says.

As for the F-22, de Vries points out that the aircraft is "much bigger and heavier than the JSF and requires two engines, resulting in considerably higher operating and through-life costs." The acquisition cost per aircraft would also be much higher, he says, while there is a U.S. ban on exporting the F-22 "even to friendly allies."

The defense ministry will, however, consider the Gripen Next Generation as an alternative option, alongside the three existing alternatives (the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3, Dassault Rafale Standard F4 and Lockheed Martin Advanced (Block 60+) F-16E/F), de Vries says.

"In our previous evaluation, the Saab Gripen was deselected because it was found to have considerable shortcomings in range, armament, self-protection, interoperability and sensors," de Vries says.

"Saab has recently announced that a new version of Gripen is being developed, Gripen Next Generation, information on which so far is limited to what has been published in open sources. We will investigate this Next Generation variant in the coming months, particularly to assess the developments compared with the previous Gripen version. To do this, we need cooperation from the manufacturer, and we have contacted the company to ask for the information required."

De Vries says that provided the Gripen Next Generation meets the minimum requirements, it will be reviewed using the latest insights.

The new evaluation will be performed by the defense ministry with help from independent analysts from Dutch defense research institute TNO Defense, Security and Safety; the country's National Aerospace Laboratory NLR; and RAND Europe.

And seeing that the "big and heavy" Super Hornet weighs less than the JSF, I'm not sure about the minister's advisers.

One certainly would expect the Dutch defense ministry to know lots about the JSF. Indeed, they get it from their MoD experts, who present charts (sample below) which are drawn directly from the same LM unclassified briefs that we all see.

And seeing that the "big and heavy" Super Hornet weighs less than the JSF, I'm not sure about the minister's advisers.

And since neither ELP nor I have advocated the Super Hornet as a JSF substitute, anyway, I fail to see how this is "damning" to our arguments.

One certainly would expect the Dutch defense ministry to know lots about the JSF. Indeed, they get it from their MoD experts, who present charts (sample below) which are drawn directly from the same LM unclassified briefs that we all see.

One certainly would expect the Dutch defense ministry to know lots about the JSF. Indeed, they get it from their MoD experts, who present charts (sample below) which are drawn directly from the same LM unclassified briefs that we all see.

According to Jack de Vries, the Dutch state secretary for defense procurement, the F/A-18E/F had been considered as a candidate in 2001-2002 but was at that time deselected because of limitations in range, self-protection and sensors.

1) Folded-winged super-hornets couldn't fit inside a NATO shelter?

2) Super-hornets per deselection in 2001-2002, don't have adequate modern self-protection and sensors today (and in future upgrades) as compared to EF, Rafale, Gripen and F-16E/F today?

3) Let's talk about delivery schedules... when could RNLAF expect full complement of the above said aircraft, in comparison to full delivery of F-35 orders?

Perhaps an extension period for current RNLAF legacy fleet is necessary afterall, therefor (such as would be the case for RAAF), if selecting F-35? (and such an F-16 life extension as some in NL govt are in fact supporting?)

1. F/A-18E/F didn't have APG-79 AESA, ATFLIR, JHMCS or IRST in 2001/2. They do now...

2. F/A-18E/F didn't have a digital RWR, a fibre optic towed decoy in 2001/2. They do now. They also have a new internally carried self-protection jammer...

3. Range? I think you'll find the SH compares quite well in range compared to an F-16...

Personal note: the F-35A should have been independently developed ahead of B,C (under the official program). Best 'off-the-shelf' avionics/computing/systems should have expedited the basic concept from the start with buyer selected 'open-architecture upgrade' options available according to future needs and means. It should have been ready for full rate production by 2009-2010, to fill appropriate world-wide re-capitalization requirements on a timely, competitive basis.

Conan, regarding your comments:



See my response to Geogen above. The Dutch would have known full well in 2001-2002 that the EF was due for such developments.



Same answer as above.



To which F-16 are you referring? Yes, compared to a plain vanilla F-16, but not to the F-16E/F or I equipped with 2 x 600 Gal. tanks, one x 300 Gal. tank, full internal fuel and two x conformals. In that configuration the 16E/F or I range is almost that of an F-15E if not longer, depending on stores loading. Just ask the Israelis, who may soon put it to good use vs. Iran...