Forum: Program and politics

To show how important this debate was about the F35.
Less than 15 minutes!!!

Agenda: July 5, 2012
20.35 uur VAO Vastgoed Defensie (AO d.d. 26/06) (minister Def)
20.45 uur VAO Voortgang vervanging F16 (AO d.d. 5/7) (minister Defensie + minister EL&I)
21.00 uur VAO Regeldruk en ondernemen (AO d.d. 28/06) (minister EL&I)

Suppose most of you have no idea about politics in the Netherlands.
The major party against the F35 delivered the prime minister in 2002/2003 signing the project.

Is this party specifically against now? Not exactly, they even do not say they don’t want the F35 at all.
They want to leave the project and order the F35 of the shelf. As they did already in 2006.

Wikileaks
82948,10/24/2006 16:15,06THEHAGUE2306,"Embassy The
Hague",CONFIDENTIAL,,"VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB
DE RUEHTC #2306 2971615
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 241615Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7215

http://content1b.omroep.nl/149018b6faa3 ... UE2306.pdf

Quote:
2. (C) The Dutch Cabinet had announced September 29 that GONL participation in the follow-on MOU was contingent on parliamentary approval. Parliament voted on two JSF-related resolutions October 24. The first, sponsored by main
opposition Labor Party (PvdA) Defense Spokesperson Frans Timmermans, called for the GONL to delay its plans to sign the JSF follow-on MOU until after the parliamentary elections on November 22 and subsequent formation of the new Dutch government -- typically a three-month process.

This resolution garnered support by PvdA, GreenLeft, the Socialist Party, and List Wilders, but fell short of obtaining a parliamentary majority. The second motion, sponsored by CDA Defense Spokesperson Roland Kortenhorst, supported GONL participation in the JSF follow-on phase. GONL coalition parties CDA and VVD were joined by List Pim Fortuyn, SGP, and the Christian Union to form a majority approving GONL participation in the next phase.

3. (C) The vote follows several days of often contentious debate on the draft defense budget pitting Defense Minister Kamp and MOD State Secretary van der Knaap against Timmermans on JSF issues. Central to the debate was a recent report released by the Dutch equivalent of the Government
Accountability Office, which described GONL participation in JSF as fraught with financial risks, but ultimately saw no reason to withdraw from the program.

Timmermans and PvdA colleagues acknowledged that JSF is the best available option to replace the Dutch Air Force's F-16 fleet, but argued in favor of buying JSF off-the-shelf instead of program participation.

(Altough they were also against ordering a second F35, they voted at the end ordering the second one)

F-16.net Sponsor

The first Dutch F-35A is coming out this year in LRIP 3 and the second one is next year in LRIP 4. Smile

One can only say that... too bad the F-16XL is not in production today as an alternative Wink

But going forward... realistically... I'd ponder a joint-bid between Denmark, Belgium and Nederlands for a joint production of F-18E++ units (with next-gen advanced computer). If at all possible... jointly develop the CFT first. Then the new displays. Then maybe GE's new F414 durable engines?? Then upgrade from there... according to each Air Force's personal requirements...

Might save $50m per jet total procurement?

What does that make, 5-6 threads in the last few hours where you have proposed more F-18s and new engines?

Have much stock in Boeing?

Well, Boeing (Mac) does have a history of delivering planes largely on-time and on-budget. Lockheed has forgotten the axiom "the customer always comes first". They seem to fly by "our technology comes first and the customer should accept that and like it." Reminds me of when Nancy Pelosi stated that her democratic congress knew infinitely more about what the people needed health-care wise than the poor stupid people did.

Anyway, the following quote from the Dutch parliament sums it up pretty well: "Year after year the costs rise, there are delays and there is certainty about little else."

Lockheed may very well have produced a world beating aircraft. For the cost, I certainly hope so. I particularly hope so for the sake of our USAF and USMC who are probably past the point of no return. The Navy still has a chance to extricate itself somewhat from this single engine money pit and go a different direction technologically. Personally I hope they do such that all our eggs are not in one golden basket.

Bottom line, based on Lockheed's total inability thus far to maintain predictable budgets and production deadlines, you certainly cannot blame the Dutch or any other country (with the possible exception of Israel, who's very existence is on the line daily) for taking a more conservative aeronautical approach. And just maybe, the Dutch are smart enough to sort out their own defense needs in a way that makes the most economic sense to them, even if that means no F-35s. Time will tell.

They have not designed anything new or groundbreaking in a long time. Even when they tried, they got it wrong (X-32).

Dutch Parliament Votes Down JSF by Bill Sweetman on Jul 06, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 7e84a627e0

"The Dutch parliament passed a majority resolution yesterday calling on the coalition government to withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter program. What does it mean and what does it not mean?

It will not lead to action in the immediate future. The government said before the vote - led by the PvdA (Labor) party - that it would not act on it, mainly because it is a stop-gap coalition pending elections on September 12.

Also, even if the PvdA comes out on top in the elections and leads a new coalition, it's not certain how the votes would actually fall on the F-35. Thursday's action was something of a protest vote by a broad coalition including left-wingers who would rather not buy fighters at all, and Geert Wilders' right-wing Freedom Party. Collectively, this is a group that would have trouble ordering a pizza, much less establishing and executing policy...."

MORE at the URL.

redbird87 wrote:

Well, Boeing (Mac) does have a history of delivering planes largely on-time and on-budget.

How'd that whole 787 thing go down again.

Quote:

Lockheed has forgotten the axiom "the customer always comes first". They seem to fly by "our technology comes first and the customer should accept that and like it."

That actually describes Boeing's attitude on the Dreamliner to a tee.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

redbird87 wrote:

Well, Boeing (Mac) does have a history of delivering planes largely on-time and on-budget.

How'd that whole 787 thing go down again.

I'll give you that. The thing is, the 787 is a whole lot less important (sorry, Boeing Sad

) than the F-35. Boeing dropped the ball on a nonessential program, while LM dropped the ball spectacularly on an absolutely vital defense program. It's not like the 737 line is in any danger of closing. The same cannot be said of the F-16.

However, we can look at examples such as the C-17, C-130J, Super Hornet, and the whole Strike Eagle family as rather admirable. These programs have all proceeded without high-profile difficulties (the F-35C's incorrectly designed tailhook comes to mind) or serious cost issues.

These programs have all produced supremely capable aircraft. The F-35 will have to do a lot to overcome its reputation as a high-cost turkey. Hopefully it will, but Boeing has delivered some excellent aircraft at reasonable cost lately.

(edit)

What are the Dutch going to do? I somehow don't see the SH as likely, and the Gripen is barely even better than an F-16.

Interesting to read in m's post above the consideration to possibly pursue 'FMS' negotiated buys, assuming to include industrial offsets and any other goodies thrown in? I've questioned that as well in the past... the cost/benefit of possibly leaving the partnership, and instead just buying (and/or leasing some?) via FMS, a la favorable bargaining?

And to Spud, lol... for disclosure, per your inquiry: no stock owned Wink

Thanks. And fwiw, I'd also support an hypothetical F-16V joint-acquisition (w/ AESA and next-gen computer, EW suite, IRST and FLIR pod) as an alternative. No prob.

southernphantom wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

redbird87 wrote:

Well, Boeing (Mac) does have a history of delivering planes largely on-time and on-budget.

How'd that whole 787 thing go down again.

I'll give you that. The thing is, the 787 is a whole lot less important (sorry, Boeing Sad

) than the F-35. Boeing dropped the ball on a nonessential program, while LM dropped the ball spectacularly on an absolutely vital defense program. It's not like the 737 line is in any danger of closing. The same cannot be said of the F-16.

However, we can look at examples such as the C-17, C-130J, Super Hornet, and the whole Strike Eagle family as rather admirable. These programs have all proceeded without high-profile difficulties (the F-35C's incorrectly designed tailhook comes to mind) or serious cost issues.

These programs have all produced supremely capable aircraft. The F-35 will have to do a lot to overcome its reputation as a high-cost turkey. Hopefully it will, but Boeing has delivered some excellent aircraft at reasonable cost lately.

Perfectly said southernphantom, with the exception of the C-130J, which I believe is a Lockheed success, not Boeing. I can see how you'd throw that platform into the Boeing camp, as it seems to fit their profile for military deliveries (on-time and on-cost) a lot more than it does Lockheed's.

southernphantom wrote:

However, we can look at examples such as the C-17, C-130J, Super Hornet, and the whole Strike Eagle family as rather admirable. These programs have all proceeded without high-profile difficulties (the F-35C's incorrectly designed tailhook comes to mind) or serious cost issues.

Interesting that you would bring up the C-17, a program that was in terrible trouble back in the 1990s. "Too slow, unreliable, underpowered, can't drop paratroopers" etc, etc were the criticisms of *experts* in the media. Orders were supposed to be drastically cut, but today the USAF is flying more of the things than the original cold-war order. Mightn't the F-35 turn out the same way? Guess we won't know until production starts and the USAF begins to use it in numbers.

Last edited by m on Jul 07, 2012 - 11:29 AM; edited 1 time in total

spazsinbad wrote:

Dutch Parliament Votes Down JSF by Bill Sweetman on Jul 06, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 7e84a627e0

"The Dutch parliament passed a majority resolution yesterday calling on the coalition government to withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter program. What does it mean and what does it not mean?

It will not lead to action in the immediate future. The government said before the vote - led by the PvdA (Labor) party - that it would not act on it, mainly because it is a stop-gap coalition pending elections on September 12.

Also, even if the PvdA comes out on top in the elections and leads a new coalition, it's not certain how the votes would actually fall on the F-35. Thursday's action was something of a protest vote by a broad coalition including left-wingers who would rather not buy fighters at all, and Geert Wilders' right-wing Freedom Party. Collectively, this is a group that would have trouble ordering a pizza, much less establishing and executing policy...."

MORE at the URL.

Amazed Bill Sweetman seems to some extend understand and writes about the voting in the Dutch parliament as it is.

The subject concerning the F35 that night: less than 15 minutes
The outcome: three resolutions

Voting:
1. Investigation by Parliament, process another jet> Rejected
2. A new evaluating of jet types > Rejected
3. Leaving the development phase of the F35 > voted for 77 / against: 71

o As discussed here by some, ordering another jet type by the Dutch, instead of the F35, was not discussed
o A new evaluation of another jet type was rejected.
o Leaving the Development Phaze > difference: 6 votes

* Leaving the IOT&E phase: not debated or in resolution

What was the reason of this short debate?
1. There are new elections in september.

2. The fall of this government will make it possible to order the F35 thee years earlier, this year in stead of in 2015 -2017 (delivery 10 F35 in 2019)
The minister of Defense, about a week ago, suggested to order the F35 earlier.
As he stated as well after this debate: After this summer we need to order the F35.

3. Was this debate a hot item in Dutch media?
Hardly, even the Dutch media does understand this is just election talking

What is interesting in the coming debate, after september this year?

The party pvda came up with this resolution, but the prime minister of this party, years ago, signed joining the development phase.

This party later on switched to leaving the development phase and ordering from the shelf.
Wikileaks 2006: Timmermans and PvdA colleagues acknowledged that JSF is the best available option to replace the Dutch Air Force's F-16 fleet,
but argued in favor of buying JSF off-the-shelf instead of program participation.

Politically: CDA is the main party for ordering the F35. The minister of Def, of this party is from the CDA.
At the moment the Pvda is showing interest in an alliance with the CDA. As well as CDA shows a same interest.

Can be expected the Dutch will withdraw from the development phase?
Practically: no change. Leaving the project will cost them a tremendous amount of money,
Secondly they have a strong cooperation with Norway and Italy, as well seek cooperation with Denmark.
Third, for some years they try to convince Belgium to order the F35 and joining in a F35 cooperation like the F16 EPAF program.

As Bill wrote about the article:

Quote: But the fact remains that a parliamentary majority in a JSF founder nation has voted to ditch the project.
This has happened without any major campaigning by rivals: Saab outlined a Gripen offer in 2009 but Eurofighter, Dassault and Boeing have been absent

Here he did not understand, it was about leaving the Development Phaze, not evaluating another jet type.
Actually, the resolution of a new evaluation for a another jet type even was rejected.
(There have been two evaluations, all with the same result. Best choice: F35)

Last edited by m on Jul 07, 2012 - 01:42 PM; edited 5 times in total

Some question …. why are some writing here in a insulting way about the Dutch?.
Don’t they understand this does not sell the F35?
As well, it’s not that clever concerning other projects.

The Dutch are a small country and not that relevant, but with a defence budget in 2011 of €8,5 billion, or in 2011 dollars some US$12 billion, still a customer and usefull for the US economy.
Compared with Norway and Sweden, each some $5 or $6 billion
Belgium: some €3.5 billion or $4.3 billion (2012 dollars)

Actually the Dutch bought second hand seven Canadian Chinooks and ordered 6 new Chooks CH-47D’s in 1995. The Canadian ones were updated to CH-47D.
(Two of the new CH-47D's were lost in Afghanistan. As wel as one Apache AH-64D and a F16 MLU)

In February 2007, the Netherlands were the first international customer to order the F model; six helicopters were ordered
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 5b_nr.html

In stead of updating the old ones, they decided this year they will order another 11 Chinook CH-47F’s.
In the future a total of 20 CH-47 F’s has been planned (Boeing: an option of three Chinooks)

Netherlands wants to buy 11 new-build CH-47F Chinooks
May 2012
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotor ... -chinooks/

As well as they intend to order 4 male UAV Reapers (Planned flying: 2016), plus an option for another 4 Reapers
Plus 15 RQ-21A Integrators (Planned flying: 2014) / UAV Sperwer: phazed out this year. As an interim solution they fly with Scan Eagles
Also 75 RQ-11B Ravens need to be replaced in 2016

southernphantom wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

redbird87 wrote:

Well, Boeing (Mac) does have a history of delivering planes largely on-time and on-budget.

How'd that whole 787 thing go down again.

I'll give you that. The thing is, the 787 is a whole lot less important (sorry, Boeing Sad

) than the F-35. Boeing dropped the ball on a nonessential program, while LM dropped the ball spectacularly on an absolutely vital defense program. It's not like the 737 line is in any danger of closing. The same cannot be said of the F-16.

However, we can look at examples such as the C-17, C-130J, Super Hornet, and the whole Strike Eagle family as rather admirable. These programs have all proceeded without high-profile difficulties (the F-35C's incorrectly designed tailhook comes to mind) or serious cost issues.

These programs have all produced supremely capable aircraft. The F-35 will have to do a lot to overcome its reputation as a high-cost turkey. Hopefully it will, but Boeing has delivered some excellent aircraft at reasonable cost lately.

(edit)

What are the Dutch going to do? I somehow don't see the SH as likely, and the Gripen is barely even better than an F-16.

Realistically there is no other choice for the Dutch (in case they would prefer another option)
The Typhoon and Rafale are too expensive
The Gripen is no solution for the Dutch

The F18 was not seen as a replacement in both evaluations. Even that, when no country in Europe orders the F18 E/F it’s out of the question the Dutch even will think of ordering the F18.

The Swiss report did show exactly why the Gripen C/D in 2002 was not selected for competing by the the Dutch. Later on, second selection, the Gripen NG, as well appeared to be as coming to short.

Gripen
The Gripen E/F (NG) appears to cost for the Swiss $153 per Gripen E/F (not knowing what they will have to pay as a partner for development)
More of a problem! Swiss pilots flew the demonstrator in May this year
Appeared, it was not possible to fly the demonstrator with a speed more than mach 1.34
The engine does not get enough air to fly more than this speed.

Because of the weight of the radar the fuselage of the Gripen (back) needs to be lengthened with 37 cm
70% of the jet has not been produced, some parts only exist as drawings
The Swiss knew by experience the Gripen C/D came too short and insisted on test flying by their pilots with three external 1700 L tanks.
These tanks were not available, only some old tanks were available to test endurance. As their test pilots said, they did not get a good impression of the capabilities of the Gripen E/F concerning this.

[u]Swiss source in German[/u]:
http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/home/arti ... sid=217497

The Gripen aircraft where everything remains to be done

COMBAT AIRCRAFT - Of the 98 improvements required by Switzerland, only 7 have been installed on the prototype of the future Gripen tested last week. The plane could not be delivered until 2023 and its weaknesses will remain as they are challenging the procedures to protect airspace.

The mission of Wednesday, August 13, 2008, however, promised to be simple. A plane flies north towards the Alps of Ticino and is the intercept. To do this, the evaluation team placed the Gripen D 39-822 registered on alert on the military base of Zion. The tarmac is dry, it's beautiful weather. At the controls of the fighter, the Swiss test pilot Peter Merz, aka "Pablo" behind him, the Saab Gripen manufacturer, to ensure that everything goes smoothly. After taking off as planned at 15 h 32, the plane goes into Swedish supersonic speed to stabilize at Mach 1.42. But suddenly, in the middle of his approach: "Bingo Fuel"! The LED Alarm fuel placed on the left of the cockpit shows the need to abort the mission and return to base.

Gripen arrived barely in contact with the F/A-18 to intercept, but was unable to intervene and had to land in Emmen (LU). Ground, the head of the Swiss Air Force Markus Gygax is stunned: excluded to buy such a flying pan. In comparison, the French Rafale, tested under the same conditions two months later, has made the interception, returned to Zion, and has been able to achieve another successful missions. On the twenty-six test flights at the time by the Gripen, the plane landed with four times the reserves of fuel below the minimum security.

Fortunately, the Defence Minister Ueli Maurer swears he will not buy the Gripen then but an improved version: Gripen E / F. Its engine is 33% more powerful, it has a completely redesigned car electronics, can carry more weapons and above all ... 46% more fuel. For Federal Councillor, there is no problem: it's a bit "like one of tuning a car," he likes to repeat.

Tests for the gallery Unfortunately, all is not so simple. "Sunday Morning" has obtained a list of 98 improvements. She was provided by a whistleblower, federal employees, and we have it validated by three reliable sources. Contacted the Department of Defense did not wish to share its position on that list confidential.

At this stage, as shown in our graphic, only six of these upgrades have been tested in flight (green). The rest is either in the prototype stage (orange), or on planes (red). The Gripen NG Demonstrator - the plane is supposed to prove the feasibility of future product enhancements - is certainly equipped with the new General Electric F414G engine, but it lacks the new wings. Redesigned the computer, a few inches thicker, they will accommodate a few percent of additional fuel, in addition to three large drop tanks of 450 gallons (1700 liters). During the flight tests conducted May 2 to 4 in Linköping, Sweden, the Swiss delegation would just wanted to test at least those famous tanks. Because they are essential to achieve sufficient autonomy to the surveillance of an area, a task that the military assumes for example during the Davos Forum. But ultimately, "people Saab refused," says one source. With three external tanks, the aircraft would have been too constrained. "It was not necessary to have tanks of 450 gallons for missions," retorted the spokesman Armasuisse Kaj-Gunnar Sievert.

Despite this weight off, the pilot test Armasuisse Bernhard Berset failed to exceed Mach 1.34, according to our informant. It must be said that the reactor, which should enable the aircraft to reach Mach 2.0, could be pushed only three-quarters of its ability, the air inlets of the Gripen NG has not yet been enlarged. The constraints that Swiss pilots were able to subject the aircraft were limited on many other points. And new AMRAAM and IRST installed on the aircraft were really only jokes. The real missiles themselves are far from being operational.

"It's like trying a new car but the mechanic told you that you do not have the right to exceed 80 km / h, or take turns too tight ... and as for the new radio with GPS you need iron in six years, "laments one of our sources. But mainly in Linköping was not to test the plane. Rather it was to do well in the media: some tests that were to be conducted during the fourth flight has even been sacrificed for a new photo shoot. Images taken during the previous flight, blowing our informant, were not beautiful enough.

Overwhelming evidence of Gripen NG does not the new radar, which would increase from 200 kilos in front of the camera and would take a nosedive. "To welcome him, it will lengthen the future Gripen E / F of 37 centimeters," says Björn Danielsson, Swedish former military pilot, now a consultant at Saab. Clearly, we must build a new plane. So, the exercise has nothing to do with tuning announced by Maurer. "Rather than modifying old Gripen C / D, it is much more rational to build any new devices," and admitted Jürg Weber, head of the replacement project of Tigers (TTE) in Armasuisse. It was Feb. 21, before the Subcommittee of the security policy to investigate the subject. Fifteen managers of the Department of Defence (DDPS) will have already cast. The minutes of these hearings have been circulating within the administration and "Sunday Morning" has been able to consult.

They highlight the inaccuracies of the Defence Minister, since the publication of our paper by two confidential reports of the Air Force on February 12, which revealed the poor performance of the Gripen, even with 98 upgrades. At a press conference February 14, Ueli Maurer, for example, had claimed that these documents were "completely dated." Since then, several officials have countered this statement to ensure before the House Subcommittee that "these reports remain the only valid". And that the qualities of the future Gripen are still to be demonstrated. "We find nothing in these reports that will support the decision," for example, stated at the hearing of April 3, Gerald Levrat, chief engineer of the evaluation team operational Air Force. Air Force who, as we know, have recommended the Rafale, the Eurofighter with an alternative. Hearings before the Subcommittee have established that the planning staff of the army, as the project manager at TTE Armasuisse, also proposed the Rafale and the Eurofighter. In fact, this is obviously after intense discussions with his subordinates that Jürg Weber finally "decided to accept the Gripen," in his own words. To claim, as did Ueli Maurer, the entire army is united behind this third choice is simply not accurate.

Worse than the F/A-18 performance of the Gripen, "including in the new website E / F" will remain in effect very "average", according to statements by Gerald Levrat to parliamentarians: "Like a knife that does not cut well. You can cut a string, but if it's harder, we'll make it harder. "In his fourth appearance before the Subcommittee, April 24, 2012, the project manager TTE Jürg Weber, meanwhile, has eventually accepted that the weaknesses of the Gripen would require "perhaps a change in doctrine of engagement".

When, today, an F/A-18 taking off from Payerne and flies to Davos at full power, it still has enough fuel to intervene on the spot. "With the Gripen, it can get tight, admitted Jürg Weber [...] And it may be necessary to patrol continuously over Davos to be able to intervene." But, he says, we'll certainly find solutions in order to fulfill reasonable that air policing mission, "even though it will not as effectively as with other aircraft or the F/A-18."

In addition to significant risks of performance below the F/A-18 - fifteen years old - the Gripen E / F has a very important industrial hazard. The chief engineer Gerald Levrat, thirty years of experience in the testing of aircraft equipment, explained so clear: "In general, the seller guarantees that he will deliver the best possible equipment. But there is always a gap between what we wanted and what we receive. "

On the Gripen E / F, he confirmed, 70% of components are new. During development, problems can arise. Requirements may have been misunderstood, may be a bug accidentally introduced by a programmer, the manufacturer may refuse certain modifications to avoid cost overruns.

"Saab has offered a fixed price" say in chorus DDPS officials, asserting that the financial risk does not exist. Unfortunately, this guarantee is not comprehensive insurance. For the record, the military transport plane A400M European had also been sold at a fixed rate. But quickly, developmental problems appeared. After the renegotiation of contracts, the additional cost has now reached 38% and delayed the original schedule is four years.

Delays, precisely, are virtually assured with the Gripen. According to current planning, which has just been postponed for two years, twenty-two jets scheduled for delivery starting in 2018. But at the rate things are going, Saab may delay the delivery of the first Gripen E / F "in line with what was asked, in 2020 or 2023," said Gerald Levrat before the House Subcommittee.

Start from scratch According Fallscheer Frieder, system support to Air Force Staff planning, if the undertakings were not to be required, "the whole process of selecting a fighter could start from scratch" he let go before the subcommittee.

But we certainly do not happen here. Of the eight members of the Subcommittee, there is no more than Hans Fehr - a friend of Ueli Maurer - who is still convinced by the choice of the Gripen. After the surrender of their report in late June, the other proposing a new offer should be requested at the three airframe manufacturers, for a fixed amount. Leaves to fall below the number of twenty-two aircraft. The assessment should then take into account the operational efficiency of all three types of aircraft. The difference is in effect between such devices must be significantly less than Rafale or Eurofighter to ensure the same job with the Gripen E / F. About fifteen for twenty-two, according to calculations made by the army in 2009. In air policing mission, for example, the first two devices are able to stay 180 minutes in flight, against 120 minutes for the future Gripen. Provided that the Swedes manage to keep their promises.

http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/suisse-...story/25116550

Not only mentioned in Le Matin, but also The Basler Zeitung and The Neue Zurcher

Forum: Program and politics

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