Sometimes if I follow the Parliamentary discussions, and monologues in the Dutch Parliament about defense matters, especially the JSF question, i recognize some things… they all start with “a lack of”:
Up to a couple of years, there was only one person in Dutch parliament who was fully aware of the problems, the technical issues and was reading through all the “BS” arguments used by the Defense ministry JSF lobbyists. It was Ms. Eijsink. She still is fully into this air vehicle, but I personally I think that party politics within the PvdA / Labour party has stopped her from doing what she is supposed to do. There have been numerous changes to tackle the JSF and there lobbyists from within the Parliament (CDA, VVD, SGP) the Government: Ministry of Defence, Economical affairs, and from within the Dutch Military complex. I understand Ms. Eijsinks position, she was the only one in the Labour group (as far as I can see it, who was willing to go for the truth!) The leader of the Labour group, Diedederik Samsom looks like the real bad Genius here. personal / party political goals are more important than the truth and the fate of the whole country.. The total defence capability will diminish.
Move on too this particular Australian MP: Dr. Dennis Jensen. This was the man who came out in the open with the RAND report.. A report about the performance of US Air Forces consisting of F22, JSF, Super Hornets, many tankers and some other high value targets like AWACS. vs the Chinese Air Forces who had (in the game simulation!) attacked Taiwan. and the US went to the…… rescue…!
In the mock battle, the JSF, F22 and Super Hornets were dubbed the blue team and had to defend an attack by a red team, made up of Russian built Sukhoi fighters.
The results are classified, but Lateline has obtained an email from a former RAAF flight test engineer who says he has been briefed on the exercise.
Look at the presentation of the results here: 2008 RAND Pacific View Air Combat Briefing
- assessment of the RAND simulation page 40 – 52,
- conclusions page 53/64
- Also interesting back-up slides:
- Stealth and radar + alternative measures too catch the “bird” page 62 – 65,
- Air base distribution (in the Pacific. capable of operating the JSF/F22 because high tech infrastructure is needed) page 66/67
- big What iF 1?: what if the Chinese decide to launch a preemptive strike on US airbases in Japan…. page 70 – 74
- big What iF 2?: What if the Chinese (thanks to the small number of US AAM missiles on-board JSF and F22 will get in close range of the surviving US aircraft, including tankers, AWACS and very expensive JSF and F22 aircraft? (who have lost all their AMRAAM missiles in the first waves? page 75 – 81
- Fuel consumption of missions from Kadena in Japan to Taiwan / China: Slide 88 – 90
PETER GOON (except from email to Dr Steve Gumley, August 28, 2008): Red Force dominated the exercise going up against two versions of Blue Force, both of which were roundly defeated. One way the Red Force summation of events has been described is that ‘… it was like clubbing baby seals’.
“In addition to this rather blunt Red Force summation, the war gaming exercise demonstrated the JSF aircraft were next to useless while the Super Hornets of both Blue forces were seriously and significantly overmatched (a.k.a. ‘useless’).
“Hundreds of Blue Force aircraft were lost in the first twenty minutes.”
Well this is the same Australian MP who warned about this report, which was kept secret by all governments including the Dutch. When it came out, they denied it was an “official” study. But one of the Australian Air Force members who participated in this study has been sacked.
Well lets have a look what this very well informed MP has to say: Youtube: The JSF Program and its Failures
Lets finish with a good description of Ms. Eijsink herself about the un democratic way the Dutch people are informed about the JSF and husled into a project which will definitely destroy all (independent) fighting capability of the whole Dutch Armed forces:
The hook is inn!
While there are alternatives which make an ideal mix of Quality, quantity, (fuel)efficiency, affordability, basing options and freedom of movement etc.
quantity quantity, (fuel)efficiency, affordability = larger quantity is possible because of lower cost of acquisition and operations. The RNLAF could buy and operate more aircraft than the 35 + 2 JSF test aircraft.
Basing options and freedom of movement – The GripenE will be capable of dispersed basing, it only needs a strip of 600x 15 meters to launch and to land. This is the true expeditionary fighter. Even the F35B needs the same infrastructure as the others. While the GripenE just needs a small groundcrew of 5 (conscripts). It is able to generate more sorties, with more time between service needed, and it needs less expensive tanker aircraft in support. It also doesnt need a build upon the stealth back chute for bad weather operations… it just pulls down its canards to do that. on Ice and snowy runways.