Dutch Vote to cancel F-35 order

[kilo delta]

The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.
The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable.
However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.
The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.
But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft.
Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.
The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.
If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.
If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

[Panther_99FS]

I wonder if the Dutch will pick-up the Eurofighter or Gripen :ques:

 

[Ken Stallings]

Oh anything is possible. Perhaps the entire joint aspect of this program comes to an end.

However, I invite anyone to show me an inexpensive fighter jet. I agree that a lot was proffered about regarding this aircraft as being a "cheap stealth multi-role fighter." I never thought that was realistic in the least.

It would not surprise me if the Dutch sell the F-16's to Chile anyway and simply live with a smaller fighter force.

Ultimately from my perspective, this is less a referendum on the quality of the aircraft and far more a reflection of economic considerations.

Ken

 

[Railrunner130]

They might also pick up Generation 4.5 F-16s. It seems to me that's a better answer, as the F-16 is already in service with them.

 

[Ken Stallings]

They might also pick up Generation 4.5 F-16s. It seems to me that's a better answer, as the F-16 is already in service with them.

That's an option. But, my read of the tea leaves is that this is a pure money question, and I think there are combining forces now for extremely deep cuts in defense spending in Europe.

I would actually be less surprised if the Dutch eliminated their entire F-16 force with no replacement than to see them acquire a significant number of any latest generation fighters.

I think they'll just keep flying fewer numbers of their current F-16's.

Ken

 

[Ferry_vO]

I think they'll just keep flying fewer numbers of their current F-16's.

The way the JSF debate has been going on and on for years now we'll probably fly the F-16 until the last one litterally falls from the sky and then our 'leaders' still will not have made a decision what to replace it with...

Plenty of other options though! New 'blocks' of the F-16, Silent Eagle, Super Hornet or the next-gen Gripen.

Last time they asked for prices and info from Dassault (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) those manufacturers basically told us:"We tired of giving you info over and over again, we're not playing this game anymore" ..

 

[Cratermaker]

Last time they asked for prices and info from Dassault (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) those manufacturers basically told us:"We tired of giving you info over and over again, we're not playing this game anymore" ..

Ouch!

 

[Bjoern]

Plenty of other options though! New 'blocks' of the F-16, Silent Eagle, Super Hornet or the next-gen Gripen.

The Silent Eagle would be too expensive, the Turkey 2.0 as well. Updated Falcons really are the best option, after that there's the Typhoon or Gripen.

 

[tigisfat]

I believe the best option for the Dutch is to go dig up F-14Ds out of AMARC. :salute:

 

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Ultimately from my perspective, this is less a referendum on the quality of the aircraft and far more a reflection of economic considerations.

+ 1. I think Lockheed-Martin is doing a pretty good job in my opinion.

I think the Tiffie as it is called in the UK, is the second most expensive fighter jet in the world, after the F-22, no ? At least a couple of years (three or four) ago it certainly was. Perhaps these days it's the Rafale or so. I know Saab has been very aggressive in promoting their Gripen (NG) to the Netherlands, especially targeting the F-35 and labeling it as too expensive and all that.

Perhaps both Belgium and the Netherlands could strike a deal with Saab to provide Gripen NG's for our F-16 AMs...now that would be a good thing, although I'd really like to photograph F-35's one day - be it British -Bs, Dutch -As or US Navy -Cs. The Gripen NG should be a very fine aircraft, but it's something like a 4.5 generation fighter jet with an update...4.75 generation or so. I'm not sure if it's in the same league as the F-35 should be.

Kind of silly to cancel it after having spent so much money on it...ok, it's expensive...but you get what you pay for. I think they would be the first nation to have a stealth aircraft in continental Europe...

 

[stuartcox]

Us Brits don't know how to pay for the JSF either!
With two new aircraft carriers being built, what could be the alternative, as they depend on V/STOL capabiity?
We are bankrupt and also wanting to cancel the new "Trident" nuclear programme, well, if our new Government comes to an agreement.

 

[Ken Stallings]

Per unit costs for aircraft:

F-22: $150 million

F-35: $89.5 million

Eurofighter: $65 million

Rafale: $33 million

Boeing 777: $205 to $260 million

Airbus A380: $317 - $337.5 million

Who would have guessed the last two would be more expensive? And even if you knew they were more expensive, how many knew by that much margin?

It is rather interesting, however, that it is rare to hear controversy over the cost of the modern airliners. But, every single one of those fighters I mentioned were victims of substantial controversies for unit flyaway costs. But, those fighters protect the entire economy of each nation they fly for.

Ken

 

[JorisVandenBerghe]

I remember well watching Gordon Brown saying to one of his political opponents "Get real, Nick.".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_biraHJ7k

Ok, you may not be actually able to use those nuclear weapons, but they do provide a nuclear deterrent capability. I'd rather have one and not being able to use it operationally than vice versa. While I don't know about the new PM's other views, I'm glad he's sticking to nuclear deterrent.

I thought the carriers were designed with a conversion to CATOBAR operations in mind, aren't they ?

Well, if Ken's figures are correct, and I do not have any reason to think they aren't (however, Ken may I ask where you got them from ?), they may as well get the Typhoon. In pure performance, it's a better aircraft, I think (supercruise, maximum speed, maneuverability) . For survivability, however, I'd pick the F-35 any day.

By the way, which country isn't bankrupt these days, except for Norway ?

 

[Matt Wynn]

Us Brits don't know how to pay for the JSF either!
With two new aircraft carriers being built, what could be the alternative, as they depend on V/STOL capabiity?
We are bankrupt and also wanting to cancel the new "Trident" nuclear programme, well, if our new Government comes to an agreement.

1 alternative could be the supposed Naval Typhoon, the QE2 class carriers if i recall are 1x CTOL variation and 1x STOVL variant, giving a broader range of what could be carried aboard them, room for 40 aircraft on each... theres also rumour circulating about building a 3rd QE2 class for the Indian Navy, and with BAe heavilly involved if that happens expect them to push Naval Typhoon along with it...

 

[Ferry_vO]

I believe the best option for the Dutch is to go dig up F-14Ds out of AMARC. :salute:

If only...

I like the Gripen, but over the last few decades our F-16 have served in Afghanistan and Bosnia, in ground attack, air defense and photo reconaissance roles. Right now here in the Netherlands there's no direct need for an air-superiority fighter, and the need for a steath aircraft is questionable. It will be very interesting to see what the Gripen NG can do!

Our history with Saab so far (From Wiki):"On 7 July 2008 Dagens Industri reported that the Netherlands announced they will evaluate JAS 39 Gripen Next Generation together with four other competitors and announce the result in the end of 2008.<SUP> </SUP> Saab responded on 25 August 2008 to a 'Replacement Questionnaire' issued by the Dutch Ministry of Defence, offering 85 aircraft to the Royal Netherlands Air Force. The Netherlands evaluated the Gripen NG against the F-35. On 18 December 2008 media reported that the Netherlands evaluated the F-35 ahead of the Gripen, citing better performance and lower price.<SUP> </SUP>On 13 January 2009, NRC Handelsblad claimed that, according to Swedish sources, Saab has made an offer to the Dutch to deliver 85 Gripens for 4.8 billion euro, about 1 billion euro cheaper than budgeted for the F-35.<SUP> </SUP> This price includes training of pilots and maintenance for the next 30 years."

 

[Wing_Z]

Per unit costs for aircraft:
F-22: $150 million
F-35: $89.5 million
Eurofighter: $65 million
Rafale: $33 million
Boeing 777: $205 to $260 million
Airbus A380: $317 - $337.5 million
Who would have guessed the last two would be more expensive? And even if you knew they were more expensive, how many knew by that much margin?
It is rather interesting, however, that it is rare to hear controversy over the cost of the modern airliners. But, every single one of those fighters I mentioned were victims of substantial controversies for unit flyaway costs. But, those fighters protect the entire economy of each nation they fly for.
Ken

I would treat those "sticker" and "unit flyaway" prices extremely cautiously.
There are massive fixed costs built into military aircraft sales, R&D and complex industrial offsets, and so on.
Commercial aircraft are sold generally to private operators who would not wear the news that they are paying for a 2-year delay to the programme, with associated costs.

I would love - just absolutely LOVE - to have a business where commercial programmes bleeding red ink (A380, B787) are propped up by open cheque book deals funded and approved by national governments (A400, and every other military purchase I can think of, for that matter)

 

[Naki]

Ill have to agree with Wing Z that sticker prices vary with fluctuating currencies, package deals, how much spares, training, offset agreements etc etc.

I've been following the Brazilian fighter contest closely and the unit price quoted for the Rafale in that competition is a lot more than Ken has quoted. From that competition the Super Hornet unit price was considerably cheaper than the the Rafale and not that much more than the Gripen NG. I've also seen considerably higher prices quoted for the Eurofighter. It would appear that the SHs are quite a bargin compared to the F-35, Eurofighter and Rafale and seem to be the "biggest bang for your buck".

As for the Royal Navy if they go the conventional Naval aircraft route wouldn't it make more sense (and cheaper) to buy a proven Naval design such as the Rafale or Super Hornet?

 

[Ken Stallings]

I remember well watching Gordon Brown saying to one of his political opponents "Get real, Nick.".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_biraHJ7k

Ok, you may not be actually able to use those nuclear weapons, but they do provide a nuclear deterrent capability. I'd rather have one and not being able to use it operationally than vice versa. While I don't know about the new PM's other views, I'm glad he's sticking to nuclear deterrent.

I thought the carriers were designed with a conversion to CATOBAR operations in mind, aren't they ?

Well, if Ken's figures are correct, and I do not have any reason to think they aren't (however, Ken may I ask where you got them from ?), they may as well get the Typhoon. In pure performance, it's a better aircraft, I think (supercruise, maximum speed, maneuverability) . For survivability, however, I'd pick the F-35 any day.

By the way, which country isn't bankrupt these days, except for Norway ?

Online sources, Wikepedia. I wanted a consistent source for each, even though I had already researched the costs for an ACSC paper I wrote a long time ago. If you don't need or desire stealth, the Typhoon is a nice option. It really comes down to what kind of fight you think you'll face.

I just wanted to show that when politicians got aghast at the costs for fighter jets they should at least once be challenged by a knowledgable journalist who can quote him those prices and ask why it's really such a high price to pay?

Ken

 

[Ken Stallings]

I would treat those "sticker" and "unit flyaway" prices extremely cautiously.
There are massive fixed costs built into military aircraft sales, R&D and complex industrial offsets, and so on.
Commercial aircraft are sold generally to private operators who would not wear the news that they are paying for a 2-year delay to the programme, with associated costs.

I would love - just absolutely LOVE - to have a business where commercial programmes bleeding red ink (A380, B787) are propped up by open cheque book deals funded and approved by national governments (A400, and every other military purchase I can think of, for that matter)

You are half right. Boeing is a private company.

The other, Airbus, is not.

Ken

 

[Allen]

One more step closer to renaming the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to the American Strike Fighter (ASF). If this cost over run crap keeps up it will be the Canceled Strike Fighter (CSF).

When it rain bad news on a program, it pours on it.