Forum: Program and politics

Most MPs back ditching the JSF fighter jet, despite the cost 03 July 2012

The future of Dutch plans to buy dozens of JSF fighter jets is in doubt on Tuesday after it emerged a majority of MPs think the agreement should be scrapped.

Labour MP Angelien Eijsink said on Tuesday her party will enter a motion in parliament to cancel the JSF jet fighter project, according to media reports..

With Labour joining in calls for the project to be cancelled, there is now a parliamentary majority going into a debate on the subject on Thursday.

Investigation
The Socialist party, anti-immigration PVV, left-wing Liberals D66 and green party GroenLinks all said earlier they want the project stopped.

The small ChristenUnie will introduce a motion for a far-reaching investigation into the cost of the project and how many jobs will lost if it is cancelled...."

A bit more at URL but not clear about what is going to happen - an investigation or cancel motion? Dunno.

F-16.net Sponsor

Yawn..... Dysfunctional government as always. Nothing new here. The Dutch are notorious for this unfortunately. They are too worried about social programs to let defense issues/priorities a chance to prosper.

Some rumblings and resignations here so I'm guessing these free said MPs to vote for the F-35 - rather than agin. What that means in the long run I have no idea. Don't speaky the Dutchy. Very Happy

Wilders hit by two resignations as he unveils election manifesto PETER CLUSKEY in The Hague 05 July 2012

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 28088.html

"...They said they both opposed, for instance, the proposal that the Netherlands cancel, on economic grounds, plans to purchase a Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, reduce its fleet of F-16s, and halve Dutch participation in peacekeeping missions...."

The US has been taking on an ever greater percentage of spending for Europe's defense over the past 20 years. This thing in Holland is why we need to ditch NATO for a system of bilateral agreements with only those nations willing to fund their own defense. If the Europeans want to limit themselves to parade-ground military forces that can't even handle Libya without our help, I see no reason for us to bother ourselves further with this cold-war relic.

I'll second 1st503rdsgt's comment,

Show you are willing to defend yourself, before asking the US to spend men, resources, time and money on your defense.

Sufa Viper

Hear hear!

Agreed!

Bail out of NATO.

Build relationships with those we share values with.

It's not Europe anymore.

I read somewhere that Italy actually lowered German war production in WW2 because the Germans had to send them so much material.

Europe spends big money to build fancy fighters, tanks, and ships but they don't have the EW or the munitions to go against a 4th rate IADS like Libya and we have to supply those.

So, what does the US get out of the relationship?

What does Europe do for world security? The only reason they went into Libya was that they saw a chance to show off their planes and try to get oil contracts. The next time something comes up that doesn't offer such a low risk high payoff scenario it will be the US expending political capital to get Euros to not openly disapprove of us doing all the heavy lifting for the sake of world security.

Massive debt, demographic decline, time to find new friends.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

... I see no reason for us to bother ourselves further with this ("NATO") cold-war relic.

Agreed!

A different slant, perhaps;

What is the assessment of Europe of NATO, is NATO necessary? If so, then what is the cost percentage requirement for membership of each nation? If the US is to participate, then to what cost percentage? If europe has no interest in protecting their market share in international trade, then perhaps they have no need of any military programs. If the membership only see NATO as a "prestige" organization, then what is the cost of membership? Is the european perception that peace is breaking out all over and they need to quit wasting tax money on military equipment, personnel and programs? Europe doesn't seem to have the heart to protect their trade routes and/or the borders of their culture. The selling off of their defensive equipment and reducing military manpower numbers is a rather obvious indication of lack of interest. Perhaps assimilation is appropriate and it is futile for them to resist! Laughing

I would recommend getting out of the UN first, then look into our member in NATO. Right now, I see the UN as absolutely useless.

shingen wrote:

...but they don't have the EW or the munitions to go against a 4th rate IADS like Libya and we have to supply those.
So, what does the US get out of the relationship?

Money?

discofishing wrote:

I would recommend getting out of the UN first, then look into our member in NATO. Right now, I see the UN as absolutely useless.

Geez! Don't get me started on this anti-US club! Evil or Very Mad

Seriously,

A power vacumn is developing in Europe and NATO is not the program to defend it. Europe is presently/ historically a big trading partner with the US but if they are "hell bent" on sucking themselves down the sewer of communistic/ socialistic ideology then sooner the better they go down the sewer of irrelevance. Sequestration is the first "big axe swing" against the US military strength and if we don't survive by defeating it, we will be following Europe into the sewer. Germany apparently sees this wasting effort and is selling off (discretely?) their equipment and reducing their manpower. Why waste that tax money on defending others that will not defend themselves. The outing of the "PIGS" is the most recent public show of the decline in both economic and military ability of this philosophy. Does the US need a strong NATO for a trading partner, unquestionably yes. Will it have one, I don't think so.

So when the Dutch would order for instance the F18E/F or the latest F16, instead of the F35, they are not reliable?
When Canada would order the F18E/F or F15 they are not reliable anymore as well?

Peculiar, when politicians in the US are against the F35, do we mark the US suddenly as not a reliable country as well?

What you do read now is not really a question, this for the next government. Then at least we are another 3 to 6 month’s further.
As stated, till so far defense and the Dutch government are going on with the F35.

discofishing wrote:

I would recommend getting out of the UN first, then look into our member in NATO. Right now, I see the UN as absolutely useless.

Agreed. Boot the freeloading commies and tin-pot dictators out of New York, and ditch the Euros. Find some new friends- India, Brazil, and Eastern Europe look promising Wink

Dutch fighter jet purchase in doubt July 5 2012 By Reuters

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/dutch-f ... -1.1335276

"Amsterdam - The Netherlands should scrap plans to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets because it cannot afford the project's ballooning costs as the country attempts to cut spending, a majority of parliament said on Thursday.

One leading party, Labour, will submit a proposal to the 150-seat legislature on the last session before Sept. 12 elections calling for an end to Dutch participation in the Lockheed Martin Corp warplanes project.

Whether the Netherlands, which has already ordered two F-35 test planes, will quit the project depends on the outcome of the elections, and the new government that takes office afterwards.

...If the Netherlands does go ahead to buy F-35s, it will buy less than the 85 planes originally planned, Hillen said in April."

MORE at the JUMP.

Forum: Program and politics

Most [Dutch] MPs back ditching the JSF, despite the cost