Categorie archief: Historisch perspectief

Over vaderlandse geschiedenis, krijgsgeschiedenis en lessen uit het verleden, soms toegepast op het heden…. of toekomst.

concurrency explained with a joke!

This isn’t about a train… this is about concurrency.. and in that sense it isn’t funny at all! because the “civilized” world called “the West” under command of the USG and all her Western vassal states promote this as the new way of developing things… with the JSF, LCS and many other great examples of how not to engineer things… but because they have the marketingtools and the US Congress on their side.. they keep on going… on the same track! so much for smart thinking and smart buying.

Watch this movie: Wonderful Engineering


“The overlap of development with production and operations results in the need to manage a concurrency program and conduct retrofits on jets with life-limited parts or impacts to capabilities. For the F-35 program, concurrency phases out with the completion of SDD. Block 3i DT&E full Certification is planned by 3rd Qtr FY15, and Block 3F DT&E full Certification is planned by 4th Qtr FY17.”

life-limited parts or impacts to capabilities: this means… a costly retrofit…. or downgrade the capabilities of the JSF aircraft.. Both have happened many times. still the RNLAF (and many other)  guys keep on promising mountains of improved capabilities versus 4th generation aircraft. Totally ridiculous isn’t it? but our politicians eat it like sweet cake.

(you can scroll down the list… and this isn’t all, since this report there have been new issues, and there will come a lot more…..and some of the issues are military secrets so aren’t counted in this list. All because of the amazing concurrency..trying to fix a bug in production!

Now look at what this leads to…. in the case of the JSF!

Total cost of corrections to upgrade Block 1, 2 to Block 3 standard US AIR FORCE only (F-35A): US$ 1.389.388 between FY2013 and FY2020

Total cost of corrections due to concurrency US AIR FORCE only (F-35A) : US$ 1.296.458  between FY2013 and FY2020

Source: US DOD, JSF Program Office.  (page 207-212)

One wouldn’t believe, when you couldn’t read it in an official document, 240 items highest priority only (so, what lower priority items there are????)


This effort (MN-F3516) funds retrofits due to concurrency changes to correct deficiencies discovered after DD-250 of the last aircraft in a given Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lot. This includes modifications required to extend aircraft service life currently limited by low-life parts, and relieve capability limitations driven by concurrency of production with development. The concurrency funding line will procure the highest priority modifications from the Tri-Service Modification Prioritization List, as soon as they become supportable from an engineering, production, and installation standpoint. The list is vetted by the Services  and Partners every 6 months to ensure the list accurately reflects existing requirements as well as emerging issues. Per-kit costs will vary for each modification being implemented, and in some cases will also vary for aircraft from different LRIP lots to implement an individual modification. For FY16, the highest priority modifications will directly support USAF IOC, Block 3i, and tactics development. The following modifications will be the highest priorities for accomplishment throughout the F-35A CTOL fleet using funds from this Budget Activity.

Lees verder


a known troubled software program… F-35 Officials Cancel Cyber Test! ofcourse the JSF

Just a small addition from my part. the article on War is Boring blog from the hand of Dan Grazier says enough.


The military services and defense contractors have a long history of working and lobbying to avoid realistic operational testing of new weapons systems.

…The military services and defense contractors have a long history of working and lobbying to avoid realistic operational testing of new weapons systems. A common claim is that testing of this kind is too expensive and adds unnecessary delays to an already lengthy weapons acquisition process.
In fact, the most recent industry effort to avoid realistic testing resulted in a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring DOT&E to “ensure that policies, procedures, and activities implemented by their offices and agencies in connection with defense acquisition program oversight do not result in unnecessary increases in program costs or cost estimates or delays in schedule or schedule estimates.”

However, these claims are false. The Government Accountability Office recently released an audit showing that operational testing does not cause significant cost increases or schedule delays in major weapons programs.

The Pentagon and defense contractors will continue to avoid independent, realistic testing out of their own self-interest. The GAO said it well in its recent report — “postponing difficult tests or limiting open communication about test results can help a program avoid unwanted scrutiny because tests against criteria can reveal shortfalls, which may call into question whether a program should proceed as planned.”

The JSF is tested on large scale… and it delivers many faults, issues and even some which are probably not possible to make it work. (the result is many times visible in decreasing KPI and technical performance measures). If they continue with a full open vulnerability test of the various software risks.. it could be so obvious the US has to stop the full JSF production… program. This area also touches the sovereignty question i raised time and time again about the JSF. Not only it’s the USG who decides if and when we operate the JSF (fleet consisting of a mere 35 + 2 test aircraft) we are depending on the World wide web to support the ALIS system and send and receive the always needed EW database.. without this the whole aircraft is useless and unable to operate… It probably still is able to fly… just like all “operational” aircraft are able to fly… but an operational aircraft should…. operate and execute missions…right? So besides the our sovereignty is “deliberately” risked and sold to the interests of USG, we also have the high risk of becoming targeted by international criminal, terrorist or foreign hackers. All because the Air Force and Industrial contractors don’t want to risk their program being scrapped (for not or under performing). They just want their money and deliver an seemingly incapable aircraft which will need upgrades from now on to forever.

FIA Saab slide 8

Concurrency increases software risks and vulnerabilities – 
Many (Dutch political parties at least: VVD, CDA, NIFARP, the Dutch Defence industries JSF promo -team (with Mat Herben and many other bobo’s bragging about the JSF’s performance if it was already for real…) and even our own (destructive) influence of experienced fighter pilots of the RNLAF are all claiming that concurrency is the way to go. Our minister from the VVD party will frame the faults, errors and misjudgment and increased costs and time as “normal” to these kind of projects… and her fellow politicians from many parties will accept this for a fact. The strange thing is, there are many programs working fine… according to preplanned timelines and budgets. There can be some cost overruns, and increases of projected O&S costs… that’s not my point. framing these huge… gigantic cost overruns, claims of 40% lower O&S costs, decreasing capabilities (while fighter pilots still claim enormous improvements vs 4th generation fighters…) is based on… thin air. It’s complete nonsense. This card blanche to the Military Industrial Complex is the same reflex we see towards the banking sector… give them all, protect their bad behaviour and performance (they don’t deliver what they promise now do they?) and protect their money grabing cultures. There are always alternatives, whatever our minister is claiming.

These are the facts about the alternatives.


….. In other words, acquisition decisions can be made based on performance achieved rather than capabilities hoped for.

This article supports my previous article:

European countries and their quest for sovereignty !

…. Clearly the design of ALIS and it’s vulnerabilities is seriously flawed… How can they use so much money and resources and deliberately risk hacks, and thus risking availability of JSF fighters for users concerned. Some countries have several different fighter aircraft. Others, like the Netherlands can only operate one type. the JSF. More on this, read my article: How can Air Force guys (and girls) be so ignorant? they use the OODA Loop… don’t they?

To the War is boring article, some quotes:

Realistic weapon testing has come under assault yet again. The troubled F-35 recently hit another snag when, as first reported by Politico, the Joint Program Office refused to proceed with the required cyber security tests of the F-35’s massive maintenance computer, tests needed to determine the computer system’s vulnerability to hackers.

The JPO argued that such realistic hacker tests could damage the critical maintenance and logistics software, thereby disrupting flights of the approximately 100 F-35s already in service. But that simply raises obvious and disturbing questions about what could happen in combat.


In theory, ALIS would identify a broken part, order a replacement through the logistics system, and tell the maintenance crews what to fix. Cyber tests are particularly important for the F-35, which is commonly referred to as a “flying computer.” The plane has approximately 30 million lines of software code controlling all of the plane’s functions, from moving flight surfaces to creating images in its infamous $600,000 helmet.

All this is tightly integrated with the ALIS program, which many consider to be the plane’s largest vulnerability. Should an enemy hack the ALIS system successfully, they could disable F-35 systems in combat, cause disastrous crashes, or ground the entire fleet.

Highly concurrent programs increase the risk that systems built early in the process will require expensive fixes or retrofits after problems are identified during subsequent testing. The Defense Department’s Undersecretary of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics reported to Congress that the costs of concurrency for the F-35 program last year were $1.65 billion. These costs include “recurring engineering efforts, production cut-in, and retrofit of existing aircraft.”

The report hardly painted a flattering picture of the practice.

Concurrent software development issues are hardly new. Frank Conahan, an assistant comptroller with the then-named General Accounting Office, warned against the practice in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1990. Even then, nearly a decade before the Joint Strike Fighter program began, Conahan correctly identified software development as the one of the biggest risks to success in highly concurrent programs.

“If the software doesn’t work, then the weapon system as a whole is not going to work the way it should,” he said.

But because the F-35 is already in multibillion-dollar production employing thousands of people in hundreds of congressional districts, the plane has a great deal of political support. At least, that is the image Lockheed Martin wishes to cultivate.

Parts of the aircraft are built in factories all across the country before eventually arriving in Fort Worth for final assembly. Lockheed Martin says the F-35 relies on suppliers from 46 states and provides an interactive map touting this fact.

The reality is the majority of the work is done in only two states, California and Texas. Several states counted in the 46 have twelve or fewer jobs tied to the F-35. Still, there are precious few politicians willing to cast a vote that will be portrayed as “killing jobs” when campaigning for reelection.

A much better way of doing business is known as “fly before you buy,” the almost universal buying practice in commercial, non-defense procurement. Former Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Tom Christie says when done properly it “will demand the demonstration, through actual field testing of new technologies, subsystems, concepts, etc. to certain success criteria before proceeding at each milestone, not just the production decision.”

In other words, acquisition decisions can be made based on performance achieved rather than capabilities hoped for.

Just read the whole article on the War is Boring blog.



European countries and their quest for sovereignty !

The news which I will discuss later in this blog is very exciting. To be honest, this is news which I was expecting. This should have political impact all over Europe. But first some thoughts about Europe and why some countries sabotage European cooperation by choosing the JSF. European countries are all holding on to their sovereignty regarding European cooperation. For example the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)  isn’t working because each country has its own agenda, it’s own interests. This is a fact. and for us, the European people this is very hard, because our security and our welfare is at stake. I often use the phrase:

“But there is one single interest all European countries share… we live on the same continent which is under threat at the moment.”

threats to europe

This is the most important interest we, Europeans share… only with European countries. Not with the US, not with South Africa or Brazil, not with Australia or Indonesia. Our governments, including the Dutch Government, have two strange habits.. which strengthen each other.  first, they claim that European countries have their own agenda and interests.. so better cooperation isn’t an option. Then they (at least a lot of the European countries) chose for to prioritize NATO and thus the transatlantic connection. I am very in favor of good relations within NATO. I See European cooperation within the cadres of NATO… don’t get me wrong… But i see it as an equal partner. Not just being some little vassal state… like we are now.  The strange thing is, that these interests should be prioritized by European leaders. But they don’t. These same leaders are also in favour of the devastating TTIP and other big trade deals. Why? Are the interests of industrialists and their shareholders more important than the interests of the European peoples? Can we eat exponential growth? Can we drink debt? Can we fuel our cars on legal disputes? Why do some countries, like the Netherlands, choose to be a vassal state of the United States Government? I say specifically government because i believe in the American people and the land of the free. But I see the USG has changed all that. The things President Eisenhower was warning us for. (Here you can find the written speech of President Eisenhower.)

This is what President Eisenhower warned us about:

…we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.


Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

But here we are. Completely like a vassal state of the USG, just like the old days:

vassal state is any state that is subordinate to another. The vassal in these cases is the ruler, rather than the state itself. Being a vassal most commonly implies providing military assistance to the dominant state when requested to do so; it sometimes implies paying tribute, but a state which does so is better described as a tributary state. In simpler terms the vassal state would have to provide military power to the dominant state. Today, more common terms are puppet stateprotectorate or associated state.

We give assistance to wars of the USG, didn’t we? Yes we did some good things in Afghanistan, and also in Iraq. But was it really necessary? We had to support the USG, why? because they defend us from Russia? Otherwise we would have spoken Russian today? You think I’m kidding/ This is exactly what many “transatlantic” thinkers are saying to me.. when i ask them why? Shouldn’t we think ourselves where and when, and whom we would fight? What are our interests (except the always important economic interests… of the high society rulers?

Then I read the following article of Giovanni de Briganti @

The F-35 is entirely dependent on the ALIS system for its maintenance, and on US-based software laboratories for its mission data loads, so that its operation requires secure and high-speed Internet links between its operating bases and the US. 

It is written in the following article see the first paragraphs here:

                US Software Stranglehold Threatens F-35 Foreign Operations

The unilateral decision by the United States to locate all F-35 software laboratories on its territory, and to manage the operation and sustainment of the global F-35 fleet from its territory, has introduced vulnerabilities that are only beginning to emerge. 

The biggest risk is that, since the F-35 cannot operate effectively without permanent data exchanges with its software labs and logistic support computers in the United States, any disruption in the two-way flow of information would compromise its effectiveness.

All F-35 aircraft operating across the world will have to update their mission data files and their Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS) profiles before and after every sortie, to ensure that on-board systems are programmed with the latest available operational data and that ALIS is kept permanently informed of each aircraft’s technical status and maintenance requirements. ALIS can, and has, prevented aircraft taking off because of an incomplete data file.

Short summary article:

  • USG decided unilateral that all software laboratories should be on US territory, also Operation & Sustainment (O&S) also managed from US territory.
  • The JSF needs permanent data exchanges, before and after every sortie
  • ALIS can, and has, prevented aircraft taking off because of an incomplete data file.
  • the volume of data that must travel to and from the United States is gigantic, and any disruption in Internet traffic could cripple air forces as the F-35 cannot operate unless it is logged into, and cleared by, ALIS.
  • “undersea Internet cables are surprisingly vulnerable.”
  • “Russian submarines and spy ships are aggressively operating near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians might be planning to attack those lines in times of tension or conflict.”
  • “ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West’s governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent,”
  • If the F-35 performs as advertised, it should gather very argue amounts of tactical data during each mission – data that it will have to transmit to the software labs in the US so they can be used to update the mission data files, adding another large volume data flow in both directions.
  • The OT&E report mentions that “Maintenance downloads using the ground data receptacle … usually takes an hour, delaying access to maintenance information.” This is an indication of the data volume involved, especially as the upgraded ALIS runs on a standard Windows 7 operating system.
  • “Currently, the pilot debrief timeline is too long as it takes approximately 1.5 hours to download a 1.5 hour flight. This is unacceptable and [we] are in the process of fielding an improved system [which] will decrease the timeline to download mission data by a factor of 8, meaning a 1.5 hour flight will be downloaded in about fifteen minutes,” he told the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee on Oct 21.


For some people this still isn’t clear what the implications are.

  • The USG will manage the entire global fleet, and we are bound to their rules. And we will be able to operate only when and where the USG wants us to operate.
  • What we read here should have impact on decision making in Europe within each JSF partner country.
  • The non-U.S. operator will not be able to use its own intelligence data to update the EW system, or the “fusion engine” used to identify targets, or modify the system to defeat cyber threats, without the active cooperation of U.S. personnel in the Reprogramming Labs.
  • Our Aircraft can fly…. but they can’t operate!

Do we really want to be tight (forced) to this way of operation? With this system every European country, like the Netherlands, which is claiming they want sovereignty concerning EU foreign policy for example are willing to give away full sovereignty over our Air Force… and as we don’t have much more than an Air Force we have no other means.

Taking so much risk with the internet use for ALIS and the reprogramming labs and enormous data flows is incredible because we all know that hackers can… and will attack such systems.

What amazes me is the enormous arrogance of the Transatlantic proponents. Why do they think they are superior. Taking so much risk with the internet use for ALIS and the reprogramming labs and enormous data flows is incredible because we all know that hackers can… and will attack such systems. as the Chinese already have done. A different aspect (and risk) of using a public network infrastructure we know as ‘the internet’ is known in information security communities as “CIA”: confidentiality, integrity & availability. As the widespread and frequent problems of ‘man-in-the-middle’ attacks and ‘distributed denial of service’ attacks demonstrate, there are some risks associated with using the internet, despite security measures such as vpn tunneling, encryption, etc.


Clearly the design of ALIS and it’s vulnerabilities is seriously flawed… How can they use so much money and resources and deliberately risk hacks, and thus risking availability of JSF fighters for users concerned. Some countries have several different fighter aircraft. Others, like the Netherlands can only operate one type. the JSF. More on this, read my article: How can Air Force guys (and girls) be so ignorant? they use the OODA Loop… don’t they?

Breaking news from Norway… sssst keep it a secret! Decrease in JSF numbers!

A couple of days ago I wrote a short introduction on my Facebook page It’s about the increase of the Norwegian Defence Budget. Very good! Could/would/should your first reaction be… an example for more European countries right?

Well I fully agree until we read into details. That’s it, it’s always in the nasty details!

There we go…

The Norwegian Government proposed a 9.8% real terms defence budget increase for 2016, including a near doubling of funding for the F-35,….


The majority of the increase comes from a near doubling of the funding related to the Norwegian acquisition of the F-35, which ensures that the Norwegian procurement of the F-35 will proceed as planned.

And this doubling doesn’t mean they will order MORE aircraft… no the proposed aircraft buy will be even more expensive than they initially figured…. And that’s the funny part, the Norwegian MoD already had a larger budget for their acquisition then for example the Netherlands did… So if the Norwegian budget was unrealistic.. how ill the current Dutch budget be? the same tactic here.. Just order the planes and explain later they where more expensive than anticipated…. the hook is in!


So what we read here is:

  • There will be a 9,8% real time defence budget increase for 2016 and beyond.
  • A near doubling of funding for JSF (as I keep calling it (as long as it’s not an operational fighter aircraft in the meaning of the word operational)
  • As I was pointing out with my comment: the near doubling of the JSF budget doesn’t mean the Norwegian Airforce is planning to order MORE Aircraft.. nope… it’s stillt the proposed buy of 52 JSF.

OK so we read the article again on

But thanks to my network I can improve the factual quality of this analysis a little bit further. And it’s astonishing. But take note, this is an advice!


The Strategic Military Review is only a recommendation, but it will serve as a key input in the Government’s work with a new long-term plan for the Norwegian defence sector. The Government is expecte​d to present its proposal to Parliament in early 2016.

They made a good quality read if you can read Norwegian ofcourse, but it’s 95 pages. They even made a special English website about this. In chapter 4 they give a desired Defense plan where there still is talks about 52 JSF, but in Chapter 5 they share a Defense plan what would be the case if they don’t increase the budget.

Let’s start the analysis now:

If you read Page 84 (pdf) it says:


Original text:

Ildkraften forbedres gjennom innfasingen av F-35 kampfly med avanserte våpen, inkludert angtrekkende presisjonsvåpen. Samtidig reduseres antallet kampfly i forhold til dagens plan for å balansere kostnadene i strukturen.


Google translation:

… Firepower improved through the phasing out (should be inJ)  of the F-35 fighter aircraft, advanced weapons, including long-range precision weapons. At the same time reduces the number of combat aircraft in relation to current plan to balance the cost of the structure.


Shocking isn’t it? A reduction in the number of aircraft, while proposing an increase (a near doubling) of the budget allocated for the JSF program.


On the next page(Page 85) of the report we read what kind of reduction..

Norwegian airforce future plans

The graphic in Norwegian says enough.

Just for those of you who don’t understand (or don’t want to understand like politicians from CDA, VVD, Lobbyists from the Dutch MoD, (RNLAF) NIDV, Ministry of Economic Affairs, This is what it says!


From 2017 – 2020 they plan to receive 28 of the 42 JSF. In 2028 42 JSF delivered and F16 fighters will be phased out!


Just checking the English language website…. What does it say about the JSF?

From a military point of view, it is preferable to execute the recommended changes quickly in order to achieve the desired operational effects and cost-effective operation of the Norwegian Armed Forces.

Despite speculation that the Chief of Defence would recommend cutbacks in the Norwegian F-35 acquisition, Admiral Bruun-Hanssen stressed that he is required to keep the minimum of F-35s, due to the importance as the future backbone of the Norwegian Armed Forces.

“We remain dependent on the timely introduction of new capabilities into our Armed Forces, such as the F-35. Only by completing the acquisition of 52 combat aircraft with the Joint Strike Missile, will we be able to provide the full spectrum capabilities that we need to address our future security challenges,” the Admiral underlined.

So what is going on here? I think we need some answers.

This can only mean two things:

  1. They say they can now buy only 42 and still promote it to the outside world that they stick to 52..
  2. Or they have enough money now for 42 (if they are lucky) and will push for 52 (or more) later on…. (if there is enough tension build up with Russia for example…)

How could any parliament agree on this?

An increase in the budget for the JSF (based on 52) they are speaking of a near doubling, but we now read it will be for less aircraft instead of buying 52 they will be buying 42. (keep in mind that Norway already used a relative high acquisition budget for this project compared to the Dutch and others (as total project cost and the used cost per aircraft.)

Just to finish this, have a look at the current estimates of this so big to fail program where they promised a production between 4.500 – 5.000 JSF.  This is the current estimate of Johan Boeder from

Yes dear Air Force people, Mr. Boeder isn’t a professional AirForce guru like you… but in fact he is right with almost all his estimates while You (and your JSF lobby gangs) are false every single time. So when does this come known by the bigger public?  Just have a look at the estimation:

ITALY: from 130 to 90 and pressure for more cuts

HOLLAND: from 85 to 37 and new evidence (last defence budget FY2016) for need to cut again 4 aircraft

UK: 138 to 90 or even 48 (with Typhoon A2G capabilties development clear sign that Tornado fleet partially will be replaced by Typhoon, and not by F35B as planned)

CANADA: wait for elections, and 65 impossible within budget

DENMARK: delayed decision, when?  And max 25 F35As possible

NORWAY: 52/56 reduced to 42

TURKEY: waiting and delaying firm orders

ISRAEL: initially planned a 100 F35A acquisition to replace more than 300 F16 of it’s F16 fleet. But the need for an adequate Air Superiority fighter and the high cost for it decreased this order. There are orders now for 13 and expected order up to 17 in 2017 total 31 JSF.  Israel is planning to incorporate their own sensors and equipment. To have some form of sovereignty

JAPAN: only a couple firm orders, no signs of new orders (so, the qnt is “in option” only)

S-KOREA: investigation due to signalled contractual ireggularities/tech-transfer problems;  after reduced by (from 60 to 40);

US: growing rumours and evidence that the 2400 total buy will vaporize  (in fact already about 900 planned F35, to be purchased between 2008-2016 are delayed already)


Where to sell those 4500-5000 promised F35s??????


What will we do when they come for us?

(Editors note: After some more research I found that the plan suggested is the case if the Norwegian government find adequate means to cope with the cost increase. In that case the numbers will be down from 52 – 42. These discussions will take place at the end of the year. ) 

Humanity in warfare

This is an historic article.

Could it be that we need that knowledge for our Future defence? Because that’s why I write the DutchForce21 blog now isn’t it?
I think we need it now, more than ever. Because with the tools (ahum … weapons) we now have at our disposal the killing.. from large distances, without any feeling and empathy in the real battle takes us into a new dimension of warfare.

Also why we fight wars… With other things at stake than defending our homeland and our people (no instead we sometimes fight for financial gains of certain rich people, we build a JSF superior like “force (if you can call that as such..)  costing  billions this concept is the “high-tech low boots on the ground“ or just  “first strike force”. In my opinion this is no more than nice marketing talk, just meant to to sell the damn planes and sell an enormous support package and earn money for flying the aircraft which costs about € 30.000 per flying hour… And then we have very expensive smart weaponry… now used to fight IS in Syria and Iraq. Some quote that it costs (the US and Allies) about $ 300.000,00 an hour to bomb IS targets….


for more info about the cost read this article from the Atlantic: $300,000 an Hour_ The Cost of Fighting ISIS – Global – The Atlantic

Now to the interesting historical article:

German pilot in WWII spared an American B-17 pilot over Germany only to reunite 40 years later and become fishing buddies

Stigler pressed his hand over the rosary he kept in his flight jacket. He eased his index finger off the trigger. He couldn’t shoot. It would be murder.

Stigler wasn’t just motivated by vengeance that day. He also lived by a code. He could trace his family’s ancestry to knights in 16th century Europe. He had once studied to be a priest.

A German pilot who spared the enemy, though, risked death in Nazi Germany. If someone reported him, he would be executed.

Yet Stigler could also hear the voice of his commanding officer, who once told him:

“You follow the rules of war for you — not your enemy. You fight by rules to keep your humanity.”

Alone with the crippled bomber, Stigler changed his mission. He nodded at the American pilot and began flying in formation so German anti-aircraft gunners on the ground wouldn’t shoot down the slow-moving bomber. (The Luftwaffe had B-17s of its own, shot down and rebuilt for secret missions and training.) Stigler escorted the bomber over the North Sea and took one last look at the American pilot. Then he saluted him, peeled his fighter away and returned to Germany.

“Good luck,” Stigler said to himself. “You’re in God’s hands.”

Just a short fragment from the article explaining the code.

The code is designed to protect the victor, as well as the vanquished, French says.

“People think of the rules of war primarily as a way to protect innocent civilians from being victims of atrocities,” she says. “In a much more profound sense, the rules are there to protect the people doing the actual fighting.”

The code is designed to prevent soldiers from becoming monsters. Butchering civilians, torturing prisoners, desecrating the enemies’ bodies — are all battlefield behaviors that erode a soldier’s humanity, French says.

The code is ancient as civilization itself. In Homer’s epic poem, “The Iliad,” the Greek hero Achilles breaks the code when his thirst for vengeance leads him to desecrate the body of his slain foe, the Trojan hero Hector.

“There is something worse than death, and one of those things is to completely lose your humanity.”

Could this be what makes “us” different from monsters like IS? We all see the youtube clips about people set to fire, or peoples in a mass grave.

We as westerners don’t do such things now do we? We don’t build isolation sells, we don’t humiliate people by letting them be naked all day or what other things you could think of to humiliate your enemy…  No we as westerners don’t do that. We have the Geneva code of conduct.

But then again, what about drone killings? Could it be that we as the West loose our moral standards as well? Maybe even when we loose our Christianity?

In “peace” we loose our principles of the worth of Life, we take life’s from unborn children if we like. we take the life’s of people who are old,  or just not willing to live anymore. Could it be we (as westerners) loose our humanity by loosing our Christianity?

“There is something worse than death, and one of those things is to completely lose your humanity.”

What’s this warrior code about? In my opinion it’s about doing to others how you would like others do towards you.

Luke 6 vs 31

And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. 

taken from the Holy bible. this chapter has a very interesting title:

Love Your Enemies

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
need I say more? Maybe a little bit more than. Some verses are/where used by people not to fight as Christians, they want to sit idly by and watch. But what about the responsibility God gave us to protect the innocent, the poor and widows and orphan’s ?  What about the comands God gave the people of Israel when they entered the holy land? What about the task we have to fight evil like ISIS represents in the most clear form. (They could be compared to SS and Orcs, no humanity at all) I think we (as Christians especially) do!

Norway’s Lessons for NATO

Editors note: I was fascinated by this article because it’s so realistic and at the same time so clear. Clear because the arguments of people like Ian Hansen do make their way to the audience. The NATO is everything We are safe, thanks to the Americans….

We, as a country buy the JSF… not because it’s the best airplane for the best price (with the best capabilities) that’s very clearly not the case… No: the only reason for doing so is that we as a nation will fall under the protection of the Mighty US of A. But is that so? This article shows some real points of concern regarding this way of thinking. A way of thinking further inclined with the buying and operation of the JSF. The JSF is a system which will deprive the RNLAF and Armed forces of all sovereignty. All training, logistics supply, weaponsystems will be in the hands of the USAF. More important the reprogramming of future JSF software updates, ALIS, and all of the “Dutch” gathered EW database will be in the hands of the USAF. We only receive info/intel from the US if they want us to know. The current way of doing business is “trade” our SIGINT, HUMINT data for the data we want to receive from our allies. This will change because our info is “owned” by the USAF,  not the other way around. Furthermore this article shows that the priorities of e.g. the Dutch Government not necessarily mean the priorities and interests of the US (and other allies) government(s). Evenso the interests of different EU-memberstates will not (and can not) always be the interest of the Dutch Government. Therefore Dutchforce21 proposes a more independent position… allowing us to cooperate when we want to, and do certain things ourselves if needed!


Read about this in a previous article on DutchForce21 (use GT). especially the bullet: Sovereignty vs. total dependence:

Enjoy reading this article by By MIGUEL NUNES SILVA • May 7, 2014


Internationalists’ idealism is blind to the fact that military alliances are limited by interest.

The Atlantic Council’s Ian Hansen made the argument last month that realists are wrong to identify NATO’s expansion as the source of tension with Russia. He argued that if only NATO had been enlarged even further to include Georgia and Ukraine, the entirety of Eastern Europe would have been made safer:

This theoretically sound conclusion fails to acknowledge that NATO expansion has actually ensured greater security against inevitable Russian aggression by consistently filling vacuums of power.

Hansen’s counterfactual advances the empirically grounded point that Russia has never attacked a NATO member, therefore NATO membership would have prevented the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. This assertion is predicated on what can only be called ignorance: both of NATO’s capabilities and interests, and of Russia’s.


Ukraine and Georgia also understood this very well, and dutifully sent what few troops they had to help in the war effort of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In spite of their volunteerism, however, the U.S. did not have their back when the Russian bear came out of hibernation. Which begs the question: would NATO membership have made much of a difference?

Norway’s strategic pragmatism stems from being all too aware that, while a frontline NATO ally, its theater of operations was not a priority for Alliance planning during the Cold War.


(editorial note: during the cold war the most important (initial) NATO units which were earmarked to defend Norway was one US Marines Brigade and the UK/NL LF and some artillery and support units. Other units with a much longer reaction time would consist of the Allied Command Europe – ACE- Mobile Force, (AMF)  but as stated priorities where: Central German highlands and the Fulda gap.)

Central Germany and the Fulda gap worried Washington far more, and in the event of conflict with the Warsaw Pact, reinforcements would only be sent to the Norwegian front if and when they could be spared. Oslo thus learned from early on that even for a full-fledged ally, NATO was a collective alliance with divergent interests. This realization counts double after the expansion to central and eastern Europe.

At 28 member-states, the Atlantic Alliance is spread thin: Eastern Europeans fear Russia, Southern Europeans fear North Africa or threats to sea lanes, Greece and Turkey actually plan against each other. This is why after the end of the Cold War, the alliance has tried to find a raison d’etre in small, cheap, and largely inconsequential operations. Occasionally military campaigns like Kosovo and Libya are undertaken, but they usually end up revealing more about what divides NATO rather than what unites it.

Take Kosovo: for an operation of such importance, it is still curious to note that the most fervent apologists were those farthest from the Balkans. The only NATO Balkan ally, Greece, was not only largely absent from military operations against Yugoslavia, but in fact kept trying to slow the drums of war against Belgrade. Without the U.S., the entire operation would have never taken place. Or take Libya: where most allies didn’t bother to show up at all, and the direct economic interests of Germany and Italy were trampled over by the interventionists.

Realists therefore sensibly calculate that these divisions would be all the greater in case of war with a major regional power like Russia, which is still one of the world’s foremost nuclear powers. Georgia and Ukraine being rebuffed at the Bucharest summit was not a source of instability in Eastern Europe, but rather of stability (it is in fact quite bizarre that Russia gets all the blame for upsetting the status quo in Europe’s east, when it is us in the West that wholeheartedly support revolutions and, in the case of Georgia, military escalation). Had they been put on the path to membership, Russia would have undoubtedly acted quickly to impose a new “frozen” favorable tactical situation on the ground.

By moving to keep Russia’s periphery out, allies like France and Germany prevented the entire alliance from having to make dramatic decisions that could have split the organization and undermined its credibility as an instrument of deterrence. This was the result of a valuable lesson learned from the Iraq War, when some in Washington still believed NATO was going to fall in line with America’s plans by default. Even Norway sat that one out.

Especially disturbing in this light is Hansen’s contention that Afghanistan is a prime example of NATO’s “flourishing”! He writes:

They argued that without the Soviet Union, the alliance would have dissolved or become irrelevant. It has instead flourished—and not just with the significant 11-year ISAF mission in Afghanistan. NATO conducts counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, operates an anti-terrorist mission in the Mediterranean, and provides direct support in the Balkans and Africa. All of these patently display the alliance filling voids in international security.

Either Ian Hansen lives in a different reality, or he has a very different definition of flourishing. Let me be clear: the Taliban disgust me and I abhor al-Qaeda. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than to see them beaten or actually obliterated. That said, if we want to succeed in the future, we must be objective about what the past has to teach in both positive and negative lessons. Afghanistan is very much a negative lesson—if not in motivation, certainly in execution. Not only did the operation largely fail in its nation-building aims, but it leaves AfPak more divided, not less. This is simple material reality.

This leads us to the reason for such euphoric analysis on Hansen’s part, analysis effectively detached from reality. Ian Hansen has personally lived in states that must face the challenge of Russian influence, and works at an organization dedicated to the promotion of transatlantic values. To this school of thought, NATO is not a mere instrument of foreign and security policy; nor is, for that matter, the EU. These are organizations birthed by diplomats and statesmen to accomplish objective goals, goals that have since been politicized in order to justify the organizations’ continued existence.

NATO serves many purposes, and calling for its abolition might be a step too far, but it would serve the cause of political common sense to recognize that the Alliance was expanded for political reasons—what LSE’s Christopher Coker calls the “halfway house for EU membership [and with it democratization]”—instead of strategic ones. As Coker put it: “in the 90s, NATO didn’t do strategy”.

Read the  article here.

Telt Nederlandse Defensie nog mee?

Uitzending van Nieuwsuur 17 april 2014.

Deze uitzending bevestigt een aantal standpunten en argumenten die ik hier op mijn blog meerdere malen geuit heb.


Samenvatting op chronologische volgorde aan de hand van de uitzending:

Tijd: 1:00 CV90 ruggengraat van de Nederlandse landstrijdkrachten, geen capaciteit tegen tanks etc. (gevechtshelikopters: Apache is NIET 24/7 inzetbaar!)

Tijd 1:34 Uitverkoop / etalage van Defensie. 4x mijnenvegers, 1x bevoorradingsschip, nog 15x Leopard tanks, 29x nieuwe “ongebruikte” pantserhouwitsers 155mm, 400x Pantserrupsvoertuigen (YPR en M577 etc.) 44x Nieuwe CV9035 Infanterie Gevechtsvoertuigen, 2x Fokker 50 toestellen, 1x Gulfstream VIP toestel, 3x AB412SP SAR helikopters, 9x Cougar Transport helikopters,

Tijd 1:50 Zr. Ms. Amsterdam, bevoorradingschip: Bevoorradingsschepen zorgen voor een groot bereik, en effectieve inzet van marineschepen wereldwijd. Als er dus iets belangrijk is om, gezien de toekomstige inzet van een maritieme krijgsmacht, dan zijn het dergelijke schepen. De Amsterdam zou 25 á 30 jaar mee kunnen, dat betekend dat dit schip toch zeker tot 2020 – 2025 inzetbaar zou moeten kunnen blijven.


Tijd 2:29 citaat journalist is helemaal waar: Defensie heeft zo sinds 1991 zeer veel gevechtskracht, uithoudingsvermogen en flexibiliteit verloren.

Tijd 4:48 Wake-up call? Ik heb al vele malen geschreven over de wake-up call, defensie is steeds meer ingericht geraakt op het uitvoeren van vredesoperaties. DutchForce21 beargumenteerd keer op keer dat dat onterecht is. Dit is iets wat er bij gedaan hoort te worden. Als je in staat bent om te vechten… kun je ook die andere taak uitvoeren. De kerntaak van defensie is vechten om te beschermen! Gordel van instabiliteit licht ook aan de grensen van Europa, daarnaast is de dreiging richting Sea Lines of Communication aanwezig… dit betekend dat wij voorbij de gordel van instabiliteit moeten kunnen opereren om onze koopvaardijschepen vanuit Azië langs Afrika richting Rotterdam te krijgen. Lees verder