Dutch MoD choose definitely for F-35

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sasheska

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2013, 16:23
  • Location: Amsterdam

Unread post26 Sep 2013, 07:49

In 2010 the number of F16's really able to fly was 30.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post27 Sep 2013, 00:42

sasheska wrote:First of all this government has to survive the next few weeks, which is a bit 50/50. They have no majority in parliament, two parties have already indicated that they will not cooperate at all. Some of the other parties were irritated to their max in a debate yesterday which has reduced their chance of cooperation. Which means that this government has a high chance of not getting any plan through parliament. At that point their will be such a political deadlock that the only option is to resign and have new elections. Which has a 80% chance of a anti F35 majority. The government parties are reduced to nothing in polls and have lost the trust of many voters for a long time.
There is a decision (which by the look of it, is no decision at all), there has not been a vote, there is no signed contract.

And next batches? The airforce hardly has the budget to operate F35's. The economic outlook and the budget needs of other area's (health, pensions, rising sea levels and the need for better sea defence) don't leave any room for later batches. Maybe when they loose 10 due to crashes or battle, they might order another 10. More than 37 in the next 20 years is wishful thinking.

M writes about Dutch F16's in a post above. Talking about 68 operational F16's..... Because of tight budgets, the number of F16's able to fly is less than 45. The other ones are harvested for parts to keep the flying ones operational. There is no budget to maintain them all. The choice for only 37 F35's is therefore logical, it is probably close to the number of F16's they can realistically keep in the air at this moment.


Actually sir 68 F16;s and 45 flying, results in 66% with your numbers. That's surely not that really bad.
The main problem with 37 F35's, it will not be possible having enhough pilots with such a low number.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1056
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post27 Sep 2013, 03:14

m wrote:
Actually sir 68 F16;s and 45 flying, results in 66% with your numbers. That's surely not that really bad.
The main problem with 37 F35's, it will not be possible having enough pilots with such a low number.


Plenty of countries successfully operate fighter fleets of less than 37 aircraft. I don't see why the Netherlands couldn't?

Your pilots may end up spending more time in simulators and fast jet trainers than they are used to and less time in "operational" seats but it's perfectly viable to run a fleet of 37 or fewer fighter jets, depending on your operational needs and priorities.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post27 Sep 2013, 21:26

Conan wrote:
m wrote:
Actually sir 68 F16;s and 45 flying, results in 66% with your numbers. That's surely not that really bad.
The main problem with 37 F35's, it will not be possible having enough pilots with such a low number.


Plenty of countries successfully operate fighter fleets of less than 37 aircraft. I don't see why the Netherlands couldn't?

Your pilots may end up spending more time in simulators and fast jet trainers than they are used to and less time in "operational" seats but it's perfectly viable to run a fleet of 37 or fewer fighter jets, depending on your operational needs and priorities.


This will depend on a country will join a mission

Example Netherlands
Total F35: 37
- F35’s in the US (training pilots): 5
- QRA: 2
- Test F35 (Orange wired): 1
Total: 31

31 F35
F35: (50%15 – 4 > 11 F35’s
F35: (70%) 21- 4 > 17 F35’s

A mission with 4 F35’s will need 27 pilots (3x9)
Mission area for some weeks: 18 pilots
QRA at a home will need 24 pilots

A F35 flies some 200-240 hours a year
A pilot will fly some 180 hours a year

In this case there are hardly not enough F35’s for pilots flying training hours
(As well after a mission a pilot is not qualified anymore and needs training)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24880
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Sep 2013, 22:17

'm' how about a familiar theme from at least three major operators of F-35s that half of the required F-35 'flying time' will be in the simulator? Have you factored in a similar percentage. Every country will make up their minds about this issue and whether or not they have the equivalent simulators. Perhaps sharing the expensive simulators will be useful in Europe? As well perhaps DutchLanders will be sharing aircraft with BelgiumLanders? :D
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post28 Sep 2013, 00:26

spazsinbad wrote:'m' how about a familiar theme from at least three major operators of F-35s that half of the required F-35 'flying time' will be in the simulator? Have you factored in a similar percentage. Every country will make up their minds about this issue and whether or not they have the equivalent simulators. Perhaps sharing the expensive simulators will be useful in Europe? As well perhaps DutchLanders will be sharing aircraft with BelgiumLanders? :D


These are numbers as mentioned by the Dutch Audit Office.
A lot more about this subject has been described by the Audit office, these are just some numbers. It's a very difficult subject.
As the Audit Offiice explains, as they did before, 37 F35s are not enough 'with an ambition having 4 F35;s on a mission (as well as not enough in a former report in the context of NATO)

The problem is not a number of 4 F35;s on a mission, but not having anough pilots on a longer mission.
They still mention 180 flying hours a year will be needed for a pilot. They did not mention, simulator flying hours included as far as I know

Netherlands, Norway and Denmark either can be seen as partners within this project. Belgium has a possiliy to join these (F16 EPAF) partners as well .

Belgium? I really hope they will, but I have no idea how Belgium will manage to find money to do this?
Defense budget some €2,7 billion a year and a very low budget for investement.

Dutch:
- Investments some 20% a year next years or some €1,5 billion a year.
(Belgium last year: €243 million).
- Dutch investment budget next 18 years: €27 billion (some €.1.5 billion a year)
- Total defence budget: some €135 billion (some €7.5 billion x 18 )

- Belgium:
- Total defense budget: 18 years: €48.6 billion (€.2.7 billion a year?)
- Investment budget next 18 years: €4.3 billion (some €243 milion a year?)
- Former years: some 6- 7% investment a year

At the same Belgium needs to replace their frigates, mine ships, army equipoment etc
Suppose next 18 years a total investment of €4,3 billion, how they will manage to replace the F16 as well?
(I really hope our neighbours will manage to do this)

Sharing with Belgium? Seems to me quite a problem. Belgium is not a levelpartner and will need to order F35;s in a different way ... FMS.
Offline

joost

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 237
  • Joined: 22 May 2010, 10:11
  • Location: Netherlands

Unread post06 Nov 2013, 23:22

After a 12 hour debat the Labour party finally agreed to support the purchase of the F-35. Some guarantees were explicitly asked. The F-35s should not have a nucleair task, and the noise abatement rules should be applied around the airbases as is. No adjustment of the regulations here. They also questioned the number of jets and how many will be available for deployments and the work compensations.

After the Labour party got satisfied with the answers by the Minister of Defense, the labour party agreed to support the decision to purchase the jets. Thereby ending this long lasting episode in favor of the F-35 :D

Here a link but in Dutch....sorry...

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/11/06/pvd ... schaf-jsf/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24880
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 00:24

You can always get Google Translate to have a go but I do not know the accuracy of the outcome. Perhaps 'joost' or other Dutch speakers can comment on the translation to English?

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/11/06/pvd ... schaf-jsf/

Labour agreement to purchase JSF 06 Nov 2013
"Interior
The Labour Party agrees to the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). "I have sufficient guarantees to take the next step on behalf of the Labour Party," said Labour MP Angelien Eijsink tonight against the end of an hour-long debate in the House.

Earlier in the day Eijsink said yet that "the traffic light was orange. She wanted to five points further commitments Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (PvdA). These included more to employment, the number of devices that can be purchased and noise.

PvdA wants noise closely held
Late at night, after answering Hennis, Eijsink said her questions were answered satisfactorily. Therefore her group agrees to purchase 37 JSF aircraft for 4.5 billion euros. Well Eijsink wants closely held that the noise for residents of the JSF bases will not increase.

Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (VVD) defined in the debate that the current noise standards for jet flights will not be stretched for the JSF.

"The noise is not doctored," said Hennis. The minister said to have the concerns of residents of the airbases Leeuwarden and Volkel, where the vessels are stationed understanding.

"But I've also said, you can also see the sound as the sound of freedom."

Opposition critical of drafting Labour
Several opposition parties accused Eijsink have staged a play. "This morning I already predicted that the Labour Party would agree," recalled Green Left party leader Bram van Ojik. "This felt like a bad movie that you already know the outcome," also said CDA MP Raymond Knops.

The outcome of the parliamentary debate marks the end of a long discussion about whether or not to purchase the highly controversial fighter plane, the position of Labour regularly exchanged.

JSF does not fly with nuclear weapons
Hennis further said that it is not intended that the Dutch JSF's nuclear weapons fly. That the JSF can do this, has not been a consideration in the decision of the government to opt for the device. "No in capital letters," said Hennis.

It emerged that a parliamentary majority against the so-called 'nuclear task "for the JSF. The F-16 may be flying with nuclear weapons. These include the U.S. nuclear weapons are stored at the airbase Volkel.

Representative will make a stand for orders
A special representative is going to hard to make the orders that business should get in the JSF project. That benefit Minister of Economic Affairs Henk Kamp (VVD) to the House earlier in the debate. If it were up to camp, this all representative within three weeks to work.

The impetus for the Dutch business is one of the important considerations to take on the JSF project. This may be the Dutch industry until 2065 to thirty billion yield Camp held the Chamber. He pledged the Chamber regularly to keep the orders received by the business community informed.

The JSF delivers Netherlands 110 thousand to 140 thousand working years. "But this should be in practice of course still all true," he added,.

Also regarding the cost can be no guarantees, said Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem (PvdA) in the debate. But the 4.5 billion that has been earmarked for the replacement of the F-16 remains, he. Guaranteed"

http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... haf-jsf%2F
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

joost

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 237
  • Joined: 22 May 2010, 10:11
  • Location: Netherlands

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 00:56

seems like a good enough translation, Spazsinbad! :-)
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 02:23

Is nuclear weapon carriage actually a serious and relevant issue for the Dutch, or is it one of those gestures for the Labour Party to somehow save face?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24880
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 02:27

The US stores Nuclear Weapons at a special site in the Netherlands - which was highlighted recently.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

joost

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 237
  • Joined: 22 May 2010, 10:11
  • Location: Netherlands

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 10:19

One of the Volkel based Dutch F-16 squadrons (312sq) has a nucleair task. In the past two squadrons (311 and 312) had this task. Indeed it was all over the press recently, with two former Prime Ministers acknowledging what everybody knew, that there are 10-20 US B61 stored at Volkel.

After the debate yesterday it became clear the Dutch Parliament want to get rid of this task of 312sq. Therefore there needs to be consensus in Nato and progress in the nucleair agreements with Russia, which seems to be two preconditions to dispose this job for 312sq in the future.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 11:22

spazsinbad wrote:The US stores Nuclear Weapons at a special site in the Netherlands - which was highlighted recently.

Doubt what this journalist writes
Quote: JSF does not fly with nuclear weapons. Hennis further said that it is not intended that the Dutch JSF's nuclear weapons fly. That the JSF can do this, has not been a consideration in the decision of the government to opt for the device. "No in capital letters," said Hennis.

Not one of these papers does mention this:

http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Bin ... -JSF.dhtml

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2203 ... JSF__.html

http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/3587/POL ... -JSF.dhtml

http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4500/Politiek ... -JSF.dhtml


What they publish:
Google translate: According to Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (Defence) is the JSF technically able to throw. Nuclear bomb This task has played no role in the decision to buy the phone, she added.

The government is in favor of removal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. But there are two conditions attached. Firstly, a reduction in Europe only possible if there is progress in the negotiations with the Russians and secondly, there was agreement within NATO.

These two conditions seem to be. As satisfied Is in negotiations with the Russians little progress. And within NATO is consensus on this issue away. A number of NATO Member States is in favor of maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 13:21

There will be probably not many Nato countries left with a nuclear task after 2025

Netherlands: Airbase Volkel
o B61-3/4 (10-20)
o F16 MLU > F35A block IV (B61-12). In case decision nuclear task

Italy: Airbase Ghedi-Torre
o B61-3/4(10-20) > Künftig 0? (From now on 0? )
o Tornado > F35A block IV (B-61-12)


Turkey: Airbase ?ncirlik
o B61: unkown. Probably none (Stationierung von DCA der USA möglich - Stationing of DCA of the USA possibly )
o F16C/D / F35A block IV

Germany: Büchel
o B61-3/4 (10-20)
o Tornado IDS update carrying B-61-12 .
Tornado flying till probably 2025. There are no intentions to replace the Tornado by the F35

Belgium: Airbase Kleine Brogel
o B61-3/4 >10-20):
o F16 MLU > Replacement by F35A block IV?


Atomwaffen-Modernisierung in Europa
Das Projekt B61-12
Otfried Nassauer & Gerhard Piper
http://www.atomwaffenfrei.de/fileadmin/ ... ie_web.pdf

Quotes PDF: F35
Die Nuklearversion der F-35A (Block IV) wollen drei europäische Staaten beschaffen: Die Niederlande, Italien und die Türkei.
Mehrere Länder wollen zudem die konventionelle Variante erwerben (Großbritannien, Norwegen und Dänemark).

Translator: Three European states want to procure the nuclear version F-35A (block IV): The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.
Besides, several countries want to acquire the conventional variation (Great Britain, Norway and Denmark).

Turkey
(5) Ob und wie viele Nuklearwaffen derzeit tatsächlich in der Türkei gelagert werden, ist unbekannt. Die türkische Luftwaffe stellt z. Zt. keine Trägerflugzeuge mehr und gestattet auch keine dauerhafte Stationierung von U.S.-Jagdbombern in der Türkei.

Translator: (5) Whether and how many nuclear weapons are stored nowadays really in Turkey, is unknown. The Turkish air force puts at the moment no more carrier airplanes and also permits no lasting stationing of U.S.-hunting bombers in Turkey.


Updating the F16MLU with a to develop Interface Control Unit (B61-12) seems to me not relevant as well
- Netherlands: Phasing out 16MLU. Replacement by F35A (2019 -2023)
- Belgium: Phasing out the F16 MLU (2023 - ?). Replacement by F35A ?
Last edited by m on 07 Nov 2013, 14:22, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post07 Nov 2013, 13:22

..
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests