Tagarchief: F35

Comments on the RNLN plans

In the first blog I pointed to the JSF and reasoned that I don’t believe the positive quote ‘Now it is our decade’. In the second part I tried to look into the plans which where shown in an article.

The Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) is planning the replacement of its mine countermeasures (MCM) vessels, its M-Frigates and replacement of its four Walrus class submarines.

With this third blog I will write something about the problems (which I already talked about in a previous blog) the delusional High technological – high cost (mostly poor quality (you won’t believe it) but high budget and high results for shareholders of the MIC) part which is meant for intervention, stand-off ranges… in short best described as the Joint Strike Fighter concept. In this blog I will focus on the implications for the RNLN. In order to do this I will point out that the Navy has good quality ships(units) but in to small numbers.

Concessions not capabilities
People who have read my blog know that I’m not a fan of the OPV (Holland class) and JSS (karel Doorman class). And that’s because I believe that these were more political and industrial oriented concession projects. First of all, I believe that we should have kept the incredible robust MP frigates as they where. The ministry of Defense (while it should be a political decision) used this argument that they where to costly with big manning costs.. but these costs – on the total cost of sailing a (big) vessel are peanuts. And that’s the same for an OPV or a frigate. The MP Frigates could sail with a smaller crew of about 80 people on “coast guard missions” instead of about 150 people in full war configuration> This ability is lost with the great OPV’s.

The OPV’s are solutions for tasks and have a performance profile that could have easily been done by less costly ships. They are classes of ships full of concessions. I said it many times before. The Dutch (and you can fill in most of the NATO member countries except US but included the UK) have created a split in two parts of Defense:  the High technological – high cost (mostly poor quality but high budget and high results for shareholders of the MIC) part which is meant for intervention, stand-off ranges… in short best described as the Joint Strike Fighter concept….and the second part is the “good for peace & security operations” forces.. called UN peace keepers… they (the soldiers believing in these concepts) imagine to be capable of warfighting… for the public and the politicians.. but they can’t… Why because they depend on the ideal (calculated) scenario’s if everything goes as planned…. Neglecting Murphy”s law.  Just read my last blog and the quote of Brigadier Simon Humphrey (British Army/UK)

“Brigadier Simon Humphrey said budget cuts and an over-emphasis on low-end insurgency operations have left Nato forces at risk of being “overwhelmed in the early stages of a high-intensity conflict”.
….
He added that the continued reliance on close air support – a capability that kept ground troops safe in Afghanistan and Iraq – was a “flawed assumption” for future campaigns.

….

An accompanying video presentation declared that “Nato’s rocket and gun platforms are outnumbered, outranged and outgunned by all their likely peer adversaries. The enemy would overwhelm our forces with greater range, volume and access to large-calibre munitions.

“A rocket engagement with a mix of sensor fuzed, thermobaric and proximity munitions against dispersed Nato battle groups would be devastating.” ”

Remember what is really wrong with the Dutch armed forces:

What I mean is that the Dutch armed forces – especially the land forces lack offensive capability and depend completely on others and “Airpower” which is an illusion. But also the Royal Netherlands navy lacks capabilities.. 

I am aware that it isn’t the same “problem” as the Army has which has a complete lack of offensive weapon systems.. No the Netherlands navy indeed has capable frigates, it’s Submarines are very good: unmatched in capabilities and quality, they form a special class on their own, since most of the other submarines are much smaller and the Walrus class ships are capable of transiting much greater distances on their own without any help. The current class of Mine Counter Measure (MCM) ships are also very good. The problem with the navy is especially that the force mix is to small to have enough ships available for the “four stroke” which is needed to be able to train for the worst… that’s what our fighting forces are for. Units need to be able to do peacekeeping (and other secondary role) missions, but also train for worst case scenario’s and that’s the point, there are to few ships, and to low on crews to do that. This in combination with the policies of the governments since 2008 have been disastrous for all branches (even the Air Force with their continued focus on ALL AMERICAN (in)doctrine, equipment and their fight on (terror and money for the MIC).  There used to be a capability mix of different kind of systems which together formed a system of systems… It was called a layered defense. That’s all gone now. We have just one layer with offensive capabilities and some disguised / fake layers without any capacities what so ever. Back to the Navy, we came from a force structure with lots of fighting ships – support vessels – Mine Counter measure vessels – integrated Marine units – maritime patrol aircraft – naval helicopters… a complete and cooperative layered team effort.

In a blog from a couple of years ago (2014) I reflected on the Dutch navy situation compared with 2004 >  Focusing on the key area of Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW).

  The last couple of years… well almost 10 to 20 years, many European governments, like the Dutch government seem to have forgotten why we need a well-equipped war fighting capable navy. A new trend have arose where full fletched destroyers, frigate’s and corvettes have been replaced by so called Ocean capable  (a term also used: Offshore) Patrol Vessels. These vessels are mostly capable of operating in a coastguard role, with some weaponry and sensors and often helicopter facilities.  One of the main area’s which this “rebalancing” of fleets have led to is a large diminish of Anti-Submarine warfare capabilities. The European navies decreased the number of submarines, submarine hunting vessels, Anti-Submarine Maritime Patrol Aircraft and Helicopters capable of these important tasks.  Besides that navies tend to invest less in training hours for these kind of operations. Why? The threat of the Soviet fleets have disappeared right? To give you an example: The Dutch Navy in 2004 (ten years ago) had:

  • 13 (around 2004 it where 10)P3C Orion Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the latest modernisation standard. These aircraft where capable of searching and destroying submarines and surface vessel at great range and long endurance. Also capable of Search and Rescue (SAR) missions. Later some were improved for operation over land (EW and SIGINT operations)
  • 24 owned (during 2004 they had 22)SH-14D Lynx naval helicopter These helicopters where integrated on naval frigates and surface ships to help defend and hunt enemy submarines to secure the vicinity of own and friendly ships, both military and merchant vessels in convoy. These helicopters were also used for SAR, Special Forces Insertion, Transport and security operations (like Operation Atalanta)
  • Surface vessels: The Dutch Navy had several types of surface vessels which are capable of Anti-Submarine warfare, with or without naval helicopters.
    • 2x Replenishment ships capable of carrying 2 Lynx helicopters and loads of Aircraft fuels, spares and torpedo’s
    • 1x Air defence frigate with Torpedo tubes, and sonar
    • 7x Multi purpose Frigates with Torpedo tubes, and a bow sonar and equipped with one Lynx helicopter. Besides the hull mounted sonar these frigates are also fitted with a special towed sonar specifically intended for Anti Submarine Warfare. (Anaconda DSBV-61A towed array sonar)
    • 2x Landing Platform Dock ship with the secondary capability of operating as an ASW command and support ship with room for 6x naval helicopters.
    • 4xAir defence and Command Frigates. These are armed with hull mounted sonars
  • Submarines:4x Walrus class submarines armed with torpedo’s and if necessary armed with Harpoon Anti Ship missiles (never bought by the Dutch Navy though).

If we look at the current status of the Dutch Navy… don’t fall of your chairJ I start with the actual decrease/increase (if there is any) by – xx! or + xx!

  • – 13!No more MPA; all sold to Germany (8) and Portugal (5). These aircraft replaced older/other aircraft so in the end EU/NATO decreased this important capability.
  • – 8!ASW capable helicopters; as a cost-cutting measure all flying Lynx helicopters stood down on September 2012. At that time there were a couple of new NH90 in service. But this project has many problems so these where scaled down versions, not full Operation capable. Also the number of ASW capable versions are scaled down, 12 are planned as ASW naval helicopters, the other 8 where intended as naval transport helicopters for marines support operations.
  • Surface vessels:
    • -1! only 1 Replenishment ship operational; 1 Joint Support ship in construction, but because of the broad tasks it is supposed to fulfil it couldn’t always function as a replenishment ship. Besides that it is expected that the purposely build Replenishment ship Zr.Ms. Amsterdam (A836) will be sold around 2014. Effectively this means that the capability will be decreased more than just -1. Say -1,5!
    • Frigates:
      • -1!The Air defence frigate was effectively out of service around 2005.
      • -5/6!Originally there have been 8 Multi-Purpose frigates serving the RNLN. These ships where the backbone of Dutch Submarine hunting capacity. During the year 2004 Hr.Ms. Abraham van der Hulst (F832) was sold. Therefore I speak of a loss of 5 frigates compared to the current situation. The Dutch navy has only 2 of these specialized submarine hunting frigates left. Ofcourse we can count in the 2 Belgian ones because they are integrated within the Admiral BENELUX. But for EU/NATo thise meant a loss because they replaced their 3 frigates with two former Dutch MP frigates.
      • 0!The 4 Air defence and Command Frigates still remain in service.
    • 0! The 2 Landing Platform Docks still remain in service.
  • Submarines: 0!The 4 Dutch submarines eventually survived numerous “attacks” of politicians who wanted to get rid of the submarine service. One quote in particular is very interesting because it’s from the current Dutch minister of foreign affairs Timmermans:

Timmermans (Labour), “Yes, but it’s not the answer I want to hear I want to hear that there were no life-sustaining investments would be done in the submarine service.”. When (minister of Defence) Kamp stuck to his point, the parliamentarian Timmermans decided to break with: “Then this decision wil be the nose of the camel and I predict that we will never get rid of the submarine service.”

The Dutch submarine service has lost a lot of “fat from the bones”… it’s a very tiny service with very few personnel. But the effects it can generate is very interesting. They do a far more better job than the Canadians, Australians and many other countries operating the same or more ships with a lot more personnel. All those other services deliver fewer hours at sea at larger cost.

We can say that the RNLN now has a half replenishment ship. A half ship because the Netherlands has a Joint Support Ship, it also has to be used for transport tasks, It can be used as a marines landing ship besides this the Netherlands has to share this ship for several days/hours per year with the German navy.  But as I suggested before there seem to be plans now for a dedicated “simple” Combat Support ship…like the LOGISTIC SUPPORT VESSEL REPLENISHER 20000 off-the-shelf…. So Navy / MoD please buy a “simple” ship and don’t try to develop it yourself…. Other surface ships are still the same at the moment.

Logistic_Support_Vessel_Replenisher_20000.jpg

Yes I didn’t mention the Ocean Going Patrol Vessels… we have 4 of them, and they are being sold to the politicians and to the public as a great success. I don’t agree. I didn’t mention these ships because I was talking about ships with ASW capability. And there you’ll have it.  This is what I think about these ships – which to be honest – look beautiful and decent.

My critical views on the OPV short sum-up:

  • Tasks for a coastguard like ship which have could be done by less advanced and smaller ships like the Belgians opted for. 2 ships for € 26,6 milion.
  • A civil duty ship but with a heavy canon armament of 1 × 76 mm, 1 × 30 mm Oto Melara Marlin WS, 2 × 12.7 mm Oto Melara Hitrole NT, 6 × 7.62 mm FN MAG machine guns. Yes…… for a Coastguard tasked vessel)
  • A sensor /radar suite (I-mast 400) which normally equips full fletched Frigates… instead of a “civil / coastguard tasked” patrol ship.
  • A large and relative heavy ship like this was needed to accommodate the NH90 helicopter.. and that is just because the navy didn’t want the (leftist polictical) arguments… oh, you need less helicopters because you have less ships to equip…
  • A ship like this wouldn’t be bad if it was designed as a ship that was ‘fitted for, but not with’ which means that the ship could be (up or re)-armed from a simple Coastguard suite up to a heavier (equipped) ship which could function as a corvette. What it has meant to be in the original navy ship study of 2005.
  • Also this ship is to slow to be used for military tasks, And this issue isn’t really an option to do anything about, technical specialists told me that it just isn’t possible to squeeze more knots out of this vessel… and that’s what the political left wanted and get thanks to Mr. Hans van Baalen. (yes, that one, shouting from Maidan square, selling his soul to the big car industry e.g.)
  • There is one positive note: because of these ships the frigates can be dedicated for other roles. But as I said earlier, this could have been done with other, smaller, less expensive and less advanced vessels. And no, I don’t believe the OPV’s will ever be used in the South-China Sea, the gulf or the Horn of Africa, since this could be the result for that unfortunate OPV. so claiming these ships will be used for global roles is not a reality and not necessary, smaller ships will be faster, and helicopters could be made available from the near land bases. But even Damen has designed and build several patrol boats. One of the bigger alternatives would for example be the

That’s it for now, stay tuned!

Why then talk of a “navy decade”?

In the latest blog I went into details of the material project of the JSF an it’s “related’ projects which first were part of the JSF project and it’s budget…. Why does the RNLN expect a “navy” decade? As you can see, I have my questions about this, but ofcourse I would like to give my views on it as well.

The  the glorious navy decade to come!

….

The Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) is planning the replacement of its mine countermeasures (MCM) vessels, its M-Frigates and replacement of its four Walrus class submarines.

The replacements for the M-Frigate are scheduled to be delivered between 2024 and 2029 with the first two to be sent to the Netherlands. The project began two years ago with requirements and specifications completed and the new frigates will be optimised for anti-submarine warfare.

Models of the frigate designs shown during the presentation, revealed ships between 4,500 and 6,000 tonnes.

Some of the RNLN’s weapon systems are also scheduled for upgrade or renewal. Hofkamp said that the replacement of the Harpoon ship missile system will begin shortly, while the Netherlands is also looking into a new torpedo defence system for 2024 and beyond.

The MCM vessels will incorporate more unmanned systems, as is the trend with the renewal of MCM platforms.

‘We will build a ship to operate with all that unmanned gear… and launch and recover it up to sea state three or four,’ said the captain.

It is likely that the MCM vessels will be equipped with two USVs, up to 15m in length, and Hofkamp said the vessel itself will be around 80-90m.

The requirements for the MCM have been completed and the project is now in the specifications phase.

The nation is also looking at a fast replacement for its combat support ship with a new design. ‘We need it quick,’ said Hofkamp, ‘It should be in the water around 2022.’

Lees verder

The Royal Netherlands Navy decade…..?

Yes, there is news from the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) that they hope to build new vessels. Well after all Air Force projects have been finalized and budgeted… This blog takes you from the drama queen: JSF (and it’s lobbyists) to the new building plans from the navy – for Frigates, Submarines, Mine Counter Measure vessels and even a new Combat Support ship…. Dedicated. Ofcourse the OPV and JSS will get some incoming fire from my side… but start your read here.

Good news… or to early?
A couple of weeks ago there was an interesting article where RNLN captain Sebo Hofkamp was quoted saying : ‘Now it is our decade’. He meant that after all the (troubled) RNLAF projects (with the focus on All American (except the tanker from Airbus which doesn’t fit to the DutchForce21 plans) JSF and CH47F main weapons systems projects it will be the turn of the Navy. Well, in theory yes… in practice no! Why because of the JSF and all projects which the Ministry of Defense put on top of the current budget. In fact you could say it’s a scam to our parliament and our people.

Lees verder

Do you know what a SLOC is?

Well it stands for Sea Lines of Communications (SLOC) and it’s more important than you may think. in this age of digital worldwide web, we (and our governments) seem to have forgotten how we get our stuff and all the things we need to live from A to B. Yes you may order your things on Internet, through Ebay, Amazon or some fancy Chinese webstores. But the next thing will be to ship it from A(sia) to B (or Europe:) ofcourse most of these goods come to Europe through our Dutch Main port of Rotterdam. Yes im proud of that.

Well just see and observe this visualization of the world’s shipping routes

“Just remember what DutchForce21 is all about. A maritime focus to (Dutch) armed forces, just because this is the reality.”

About 11 billion tons of stuff gets carried around the world every year by large ships. Clothes, flat-screen TVs, grain, cars, oil — transporting these goods from port to port is what makes the global economy go ‘round.

And now there’s a great way to visualize this entire process, through this stunning interactive map from the UCL Energy Institute

Some previous articles:

Solutions:

Nederlandse toevoeging:

Iedereen die dit fimpje ziet, begrijpt hopelijk direct waarom Dutchforce21 de krijgsmacht een maritieme focus wil geven! En ook waarom dit op een expeditionaire manier zal moeten… en dus de JSF totaal ongeschikt is!!

Lees de serie:

 

 

Saab Gripen E/F/G: the true modular force (soon available in Sea Gripen taste)

Everybody who reads DutchForce21 regularly knows that i am very positive about the Saab Gripen E/F proposal. This is based on my comparison (as far as possible based on public intel) but also on the logical assumptions / goals i have for the DutchForce21 concept.

breakingthecostcurve_Eng_700

  • As i stated such a force should be expeditionary in nature.
  • Be cost effective
  • consist of enough units and (weapon) systems to operate effectively.
  • And most importantly, I imagine a future where the fighting will be about… oil and rare earth materials.. Our current western societies can’t live without them.

GripenENLoh0pat

(We therefore need a force which can deploy fast (but short) to support especially maritime domain to escort and secure (Dutch / European) Merchant vessels on their way back from the world to our port’s of … Rotterdam or vice versa. We need a maritime focused defence force but not only the vessels. We also need maritime patrol aircraft, good and enough helicopters or other rotorcraft and… yes.. a Expeditionary capable fighter.. which doesn’t need a luxurious Main Operating base with all the acclimatized hangars (to protect the aircraft as in the case of the JSF)  As this must / should be done in the most “green” way… Why should a country invest in a military to secure fuel and raw materials…. if that same military would “eat” (consume) all these things which are also needed by society?

“Why should a country invest in a military to secure fuel and raw materials…. if that same military would “eat” (consume) all these things which are also needed by society?”

LM is good in Public relations
Many JSF fans and parrots who just are repeating what they heard from Lockheed Martin’s Public Relations division (a muli billion company i can imagine because all the faults, all the problems and all future  scams… need a lot of talking (like Brugman) to convince politicians, and our interested civilians that the only alternative is the JSF. Only the JSF can do…… blabla. And the 5th generation…. (nonsense)

JSF-AMRAAM-490x277

The JSF isn’t multi-role, Result: Ill equipped Dutch Armed forces
But we now know that the JSF, can’t fight a dog  (as in dogfight) they aren’t that good in supporting our ground forces (Combat Air Support) the JSF F35A is armed with 182 25mm bullets. For a 4 barrel canon firing 3000 rounds a minute.. this is only enough ammo for 3,64 seconds.

Besides this I really would be honest to raise the claim that in a cost/benefit analysis (I know… purely hypothetical and without any emotions…. Just like some politicians right?) could it be possible that it would be too expensive to risk the loss of one (of the 35 + 2 testaircraft) JSF vs a (let’s say a platoon which where deprived of their integrated heavy weapons (LR Guided Weapons like TOW, heavy Mortars, used to be a Bataljon asset now it’s heavy artillery) to give a few examples. All these measures were taken because of the promise that there always will be Combat Air Support available.. what if? (+ almost 200 – 300 million Euro’s a piece vs. the (financial) cost to cope with some casualties? Not an option? Why do you think politics is called dirty?

Back to the JSF
The only things they are good for, from a Dutch point of view are… Intelligence gathering, strategic bombing (if enemy radar/IRST are outdated) and buying US soldiers to die for our needs. (because that’s what the JSF is ultimately about. We buy ourselves: the Support and protection by our US Allies – as promised. Unfortunately the US government and their “bread masters” (the same as with TTIP) the US Global Internationals don’t always serve our interests. Of course this is the same with our European allies…. but there is one single interest all European countries share… we live on the same continent which is under threat at the moment.

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

The best option available
I propose the Saab Gripen fighter which would become available with many different future options. and to certain extend the Netherlands would/could/should become a big partner in this program.

We would have the standard E and F versions. But as we know now the Brazilians are also looking for an Aircraft Carrier capable fighter: the Sea Gripen. (based on E/F developments).

11154682_962092630498104_5340932650307871751_o BscF64BIEAApLnK

 

They say…. steel is cheap
To be really honest, an aircraft carrier for the Netherlands in first sight looks like a step too far. But Personally I think there are certain things about Carrier development which look like they are that expensive on purpose… to earn money for the developers. Not to deliver as much capability as possible for the best price. I’m really interested how the Brazilian military will develop their new carrier.  I know of certain technologies which could be implied for example instead of the New US Catapult system (EMALS) there is a improved version of the current system possible. if they only would invest (a relative) small amount in that development. Besides operating our own carrier I suppose we could also opt for operating carrier capable aircraft in cooperation with our French, Brazilian and US allies. Being a true trustworthy partner with that.

BSAC185

The Gripen E/F already has a promising EW/INTEL gathering capability proposed. As I quoted before the option to combine the AESA radar with the IRST and IFF sensor systems make it an incredible system also claimed capable of tracking (enemy) Stealth targets.  Also the weapons currently integrated on the C/D and future E/F are interesting and capable. Like Meteor and RBS15 MKIII. Some future systems proposed (like a Meteor Anti-Radiation variant) or a RBS15 MK IV a missile with possible 1000km range)  are very interesting future developments.

And now there is this new development I would like to share…..

Meanwhile, long-term commercial plans are assessing the viability of converting a variant of Gripen into an electronic warfare (EW) variant similar to how Boeing has adapted the F/A-18F Super Hornet into the EA-18G Growler.

“If you look into future combat scenarios, if you have a high-end air force with a broad threat situation, something like a ‘Growler Gripen’ would make a real difference,” Sindahl said.

“That‘s what we’re looking into, and that’s why it’s so good to have Brazil on board with the F-model.”

GripenFARP imagesCA3MIC9T

So we have an expeditionary, cost effective modular fighter, which makes it possible to buy enough of them, to operate them well within O&S budget which will also address the SEAD/DEAD needs of our Defence force?    Oh boy, Will those Air Force guys ever learn what they did to our Armed Forces and to greater extend our ability as a nation to act sovereign?  The political leadership destroyed the whole Armed forces (which used to be equipped in a multi-role way, A toolbox with overlapping capabilities) in favor of an aircraft which promised a lot, but in the end will damage our own interests. Why, tell me why the US would always keep our interests in mind and weight them evenly important as they do with their own (national) interests? Why? NOT.

I propose a new future look into what the Dutch military really needs. What kind of force structure is needed? What kind of weapons are needed to create a protected force capable and effective. I think a sustainable “green” fighting force which uses less (natural) resources will be best. I think Gripen E/F/G and Sea Gripen (also in E/F/G options) would be key in such a future force!

And A Dutch Aircraft carrier (or two) is a dream as long as it’s a dream! It could become reality if the politicians and force planners would decide to do so.. without selling increasing the price and wanting to develop the wheel themselves. And most importantly the Military industry has a supportive and facilitating role.. they should earn their fair amount of money doing so, but in the end, the interests of the (Dutch) people is key!  In the mean time I will try to develop the DutchForce alternative force plan. with a financial chapter. (if i have time)

De defensiebegroting 2016: enkele korte conclusies en commentaren

JSF en de rest
Het mag duidelijk zijn. De JSF drukt wel degelijk op andere projecten. (met dank aan Marineschepen.nl) Ook is duidelijk dat de kosten voor het JSF programma hoger gaat uitvallen. Dit is te wijten aan de dollar koers beweert de minister. Dat is niet zo gek want men gebruikte bij de plannen van vorig jaar een zeer onrealistische koers. Weer een voorbeeld van hoe Nederland in de JSF gerommeld wordt. Maart dit jaar schreef ik er al over:

Zie waar een tunnelvisie en politiek gedreven MICC projecten toe leiden. En dat tegen een prachtige dollarkoers van 0,763 nietwaar? Nou eerder €1 = $1 oeps! Maar laat u niet weerhouden deze waarschuwing te lezen. Ja Jack en Mat… ook jij/jullie… want wie draagt er meer verantwoordelijkheid voor dit debacle dan de lobbyende geld verslindende en belastinggeld verkwanselende CDA, VVD en LPF (voormalig) politici die nu hun kost verdienen met de JSF aanschaf?

1455906_743216355796245_3719165153701863531_n

Dit soort stiekeme slimmigheidjes is aan de orde van de dag:

  • 85 JSF was eerst het plan (Klu had behoefte aan 114 toestellen claimde men toen (we spreken over t/m 2013/2014), men rekende ons altijd mooie prijzen voor… toen werden het er ineens 35 (plus 2 testtoestellen) voor het zelfde bedrag….
  • De Exploitatie ging van € 275 miljoen per jaar voor 68 F-16 (vanaf 2 vliegbasis plus detachement in de VS) naar € 270 miljoen voor 35 + 2 testtoestellen als het gaat om de JSF…. (let wel de JSF zou staan aan het begin van zijn levenscyclus, de F16 aan het einde… de praktijk leert ons dat de jaarlijkse kosten incrementeel  (tenzij de aantallen toestellen afnemen of er minder vluchten plaats vinden…. Maar dat lijkt me met 37 toestellen niet de bedoeling.
  • Vorig jaar nadat dit door de kamer was goedgekeurd en de eerste bestelling voor 8 JSF was doorgedrukt kwam ineens naar buiten dat dit bedrag zou stijgen naar € 285 per jaar.
  • De begroting voor aanschaf van 37 JSF zou zo’n beetje gelijk blijven (die steeg toen een klein beetje) Maar dus met een zeer onrealistische dollarkoers. En wat zien we nu..?
  • Juistem, een flinke stijging van zo’n € 550 miljoen euro (wat kan oplopen omdat de dollar koers niet vastligt. Vandaar ook dat de minister het prijspeil niet aanpast (wat op zich logisch is) maar wat kan betekenen dat men dit pas bij de laatste bestelling zal doen… met vele honderden miljoenen extra tot gevolg.
  • Wat verder opvalt is dat vrijwel alle materieel projecten worden uitgesteld…. behalve de bestelling voor de JSF>… wie zegt dat de vervanging van de JSF belangrijker is dan die van de andere krijgsmachtdelen?>
  • Wie zegt dat de JSF op het moment van invoeren dan ook niet weer een dure aanvullende capaciteitsuitbreiding nodig heeft… zoals de huidige plannen (in de VS) voorzien in nieuwe sensorapparatuur ?)
  • Nog een leuk gevalletje van onjuist handelen van de JSF kliek (luchtmachtmilitairen, ambtenaren, VVD/CDA politici en industriëlen. Het presenten van de JSF als de enige echte multirole fighter… De Amerikanen zien de JSF zelf echter als een Strategische bommenwerper die de luchtverdediging/bescherming van de F22 nodig heeft, aldus voormalig U.S. Air Force Air Command chief, General Michael Hostage:

“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Times.

  • Zo kan ik nog wel even doorgaan….

Fundamenteel probleem
Kortom de hele krijgsmacht gaat gebukt onder de JSF last.. dit is niet slechts een kwestie van meer geld voor defensie. dit is een fundamenteel probleem binnen defensie (dus niet alleen bij de luchtmacht). Iets anders dat opvalt is het feit dat de landmacht nog altijd veel meer te besteden krijgt in operationele zin. vreemd omdat alle dure exploitatie bij de landmacht inmiddels zijn wegbezuinigd (ten gunste dus van de JSF en gevechtshelikopters- dit is terecht als je kijkt waar met name de offensieve capaciteiten zich bevinden. dit is niet meer binnen de landstrijdkrachten!) Dit betekend dat de landmacht slechts een vulling van militairen is, infanterie en logistieke ondersteuning.. allemaal bedoeld als vulling van vredesmissies… De offensieve capaciteit Artillerie en Special Forces resteren. Precies zoals de nitwits van de Luchtmacht het willen ,. High on tech, low boots on the ground. kortom Special Forces en JSF zullen het appeltje wel schillen in de toekomst…. juist?

Conclusie
Mijn conclusie: de Tweede Kamer laat het gewoon gebeuren dat de krijgsmacht nog verder wegzakt. We gaan gewoon door op de weg die al jaren geleden ingeslagen is. Defensie is een verkapte subsidieverstrekking voor de industrie, een manier om de VS te pleasen en een manier om internationaal wat aanzien en goodwill te verwerven. De Luchtmacht levert de facto 1 á 2 squadrons JSF volledig ingebed in de USAF al ware het de tweede Wereldoorlog. Keuze voor de JSF impliceert dat we volledig afhankelijk zijn van de Amerikanen op het gebied van training, EW database, inlichtingen, bewapening en updates. Autonomie en soevereiniteit zijn er in naam wellicht wel, in de praktijk zal dat niet meer zo kunnen zijn. Gewoonweg omdat de Amerikanen dat niet toestaan… Vreemd dat veel partijen dit aan Europa niet toevertrouwen (terecht) maar dit dus blijkbaar aan de Amerikanen wel durven in te leveren?

Flow of goods Europe

De hoofdtaak – verdediging van de Nationale (burger) belangen en het gemeenschappelijke grondgebied (is dus het continent Europa) lijkt hiermee niet langer een hoofdtaak te zijn. Ook de partijen die zeggen meer geld voor Defensie te willen laten dit gewoon gebeuren, ze halen hun politieke punten (tijdens de nabeschouwingen) binnen en daarmee is het afgedaan. Totdat er een grote crisis ontstaat waaruit zal blijken dat de huidige capaciteiten niet toereikend. Zijn. Den Haag zal moord en brand schreeuwen… wie is verantwoordelijk? Wel er zal zullen wel wat mensen verantwoordelijk worden gehouden… de laagste rangen van de hogere rangen zullen wel het haasje zijn… de politiek verantwoordelijken zijn er dan niet meer… en de industriëlen… ach… die hebben de zakken gevuld. De focus op “Airpower’ is in mijn optiek een verkeerde aanname… (de aanname is dat het luchtwapen alle dimensies kan bestrijden… ) de aanname gaat echter mank op een aantal punten:

  • Airpower is niet 24/7 en/of onder alle omstandigheden beschikbaar! Zeker niet met de kleine aantallen JSF en Apache. Wie geeft grondtroepen direct vuursteun op het moment dat het nodig is? In storm of regen, sneeuw of hitte…. Of tijdens een onweersbui? De tank is er niet meer! De landmacht beschikt niet meer over geleide wapens die vanonder pantser kunnen worden afgevuurd alleen de Fennek MRAT, waarbij men eerst het voertuig moet verlaten… wil men het wapen gebruiken.. dit kost tijd.. logisch toch? De gewone infanterie bataljons beschikken niet langer over de 120mm mortieren, dat is verheven tot …. Artillerie. De 155mm zware houwitsers zijn te groot en te zwaar en zullen dus niet altijd ingezet (kunnen) worden… en daarbij we gebruiken er nog maar 18 (ipv 60)
  • Inzet van infanterie tijden buitenlandse missies precies zoals Srebrenica waarbij men er vanuitgaat dat het te allen tijde rendabel is om JSF te gebruiken danwel deze te riskeren: In het kader van bovenstaande is met name de alinea: Cost and Riskinteressant! Lees alle artikelen van het blog: Safe te Royal Navy.org
  • Verkeerd concept gekozen: high tech – low boots on the ground: versus het Payloads over platforms concept. Waarbij voldoende zeer goed platforms zijn die modulair kunnen worden uitgerust met benodigde sensoren en wapens. (voordeel van dit concept is dat men over voldoende voortzettingsvermogen kan beschikken. Dit concept gaat uit van modulariteit en kwantiteit.. het andere concept gaat uit van superioriteit. (het jammere hieraan is dat superioriteit nooit lang of volledig bestaat) neem Stealth – ooit het summum van techniek.. inmiddels is duidelijk dat er diverse methodes zijn om stealth waar te nemen en uit te schakelen. De JSF is stealth maar heeft daarvoor concessies gedaan aan prestaties…. De Saab GripenE is een voorbeeld van zo’n modulair platform van hardware tot software is dit toestel ontwikkeld voor toekomstige uitbreiding. De computer is dezelfde als de JSF… maar de software zal slechts 40% van de computer vullen. De vele miljoen regels code bij de JSF zullen er echter voor zorgen dat de JSF binnen enkele jaren een nieuwere, grotere, wellicht zwaardere computer nodig zal hebben…..

FIA Saab slide 8 FIA Saab slide 9

  • De dreiging rondom Europa, en rekening houdend met de economische belangen en de levensbehoefte van de Europese bevolking is met name tegen te gaan door maritieme dominantie – op lange (lees Atlantische oceaan) en middellange (lees Noordzee en Middellandse zee) afstand van Europa. Hier komt 95% van onze handel vandaan via o.a. Rotterdam. De JSF ontbreekt het aan bereik, en altijd maar dure lucht tanker ondersteuning is niet rendabel.

threats to europeinternational-maritime-route

  • De JSF kan wellicht in alle dimensies invloed uitoefenen mits men over de juiste wapens beschikt.. en dit zegt men er niet bij… die wapens zijn er niet en zullen er niet gauw komen (Waarom?  €€€€€€€€€€€€= daarom!).

pujspar6aax3vdft8iz3 DATA_F-35_Weapon_Blocks

  • De JSF is juist een toestel waarbij juist diverse huidige wapens niet langer gebruikt kunnen worden… omdat de integratie van die wapens door de VS ver voor zich uit zijn geschoven. En sommige wapens niet zullen worden geïntegreerd. De huidige wapens die geïntegreerd worden zijn: GBU-31, GBU-12, nog niet zover maar ook de SDB zal er in passen.
  • Alleen de AMRAAM kan straks nog passen in de JSF. (initieel niet omdat we nu de 120B gebruiken JSF beoogt 120C)
  • Voor zover mij bekend passen alle Nederlandse wapens incl de in aanschaf zijnde SDB onder de Gripen.
  • Zowel de Reccelite als de Litening II targeting pods zijn nu al geïntegreerd op de Gripen C/D en dus met vrij weinig moeite ook op de GripenE. beide systemen zijn operationeel in Nederlandse dienst.
  • Voor Rafale en EF ligt dat idd wel iets anders.
  • Voor de JSF zijn ook infrastructurele aanpassingen nodig, dit is niet het geval bij F-16, Gripen E en Rafale. Dus dit “verwijt” aan het adres van de F/A-18 Super Hornet is een beetje grappig. Bekijk bijvoorbeeld het rapport Uitstapkosten JSF van het ARK maar eens, tabel 7 en tabel 8 staan diverse infrastructurele kosten benoemt: VOOR DE JSF!

air_jas-39_weapons_options_eskil_nyholm_lg gripenngload1ok

How can Air Force guys (and girls) be so ignorant? they use the OODA Loop… don’t they?

This article follows up to one i wrote before.. The document a USAF test pilot wrote after some dog-fight tests against a 20 year old F-16 D with full drop tanks under-wing against a totally clean JSF. First a short introduction and then some links to articles about this test document.

Ofcourse as usual the explanations and denials came promptly. The JPO said not to worry, it was an “old” AF-2 airframe “designed” for testing. besides that a lot of bullshit.. like this testaricraft didn’t have stealth coating, not the right sensors e.g.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.

The whole JSF lobby looks like acting more and more like  someone with borderline.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD), also known as emotionally unstable personality disorder – impulsive or borderline type or emotional intensity disorder, is a cluster-B personality disorder. The essential features include a pattern of impulsivity and instability of behaviors, interpersonal relationships, and self-image. The pattern is present by early adulthood and occurs across a variety of situations and contexts.[1]

Other symptoms usually include intense fears of abandonment, intense anger, and irritability, the reason for which others have difficulty understanding.[1][2] People with BPD often engage in idealization and devaluation of others, alternating between high positive regard and great disappointment. [3]Self-harm, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse are common.[4]

1455906_743216355796245_3719165153701863531_n

Let’s be honest… most of the things above (made bold) we have seen and heared in all participating countries. the fighter pilots and other (mosty) Airforce officers i communicated with (verbal, e-mail, LinkedIn forum, Twitter discussions) are all related back to this kind of thinking…

I   AM  SUPERIOR

short explanation is required i think:

self-image: They (the JSF lobbyists) see that they know best, they are the ones knowing what will come in a future battlefield. They know that there will be no radar or any other system which will see and track the JSF. They also know that a JSF doesn’t need to be used for Dog fights. And ofcourse the gun with only 182 rounds is good enough for CAS….. And ofcourse they are superior:)

idealization and devaluation of others: They lie, and tell halve truth’s about the JSF and about alternative aircraft. They claimed for example that there where flying 100dreds of JSF already… but all are in a devastating state… they all need upgrades to become sort of operational available. None of those 100+ JSF are operational and let’s not forget expeditionary available. At the same time they said the Gripen E was a paper plane… and in the same letter to Dutch Parliament (for example) that the Gripen E was an old aircraft (they actually suggested that the age of an airplane depends on the period of designing it.. instead of the age of the air-frame. At the same time we can state that in that case the Gripen C/D is of a younger generation than the JSF. they are working on that one for many, many years now. and a lot to coe.

Another aspect of this behavior is that they devaluate people with other opinions.. or questions they don’t want or can’t answer. Look here, second part of the article about OODA loop.They are the specialists, they know best. they suggest I’m anti America and communist, they suggest I earn money from Saab as i seem to know a lot about that. I once even was threatened by someone living near my home that he knew where to find me…. (And we aren’t talking about some hobbyists like myself. no, they are trained fighter pilots, military officers (officer = gentlemen?) politicians industrialists and lobyists of the JSF lobby-group NIDV in the Netherlands.

Self-harm, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse are common: I take these three together because they belong together. What they underestimate is that they in my opinion act like traitors to the Dutch people (not only the pilots / RNLAF people like this) but also some industrialists who lurk money $$$$, some politicians who want new positions in their old boys network. They sell our interests for 37 JSF. our whole defense needed to lose money because politicians saw it for free. but yet the JSF stayed alive. Failure after failure, delay after delay (they event blamed parliament for these delays … because they didn’t decide yet.. but the real delays are with the US producers and testers isn’t it? from the Wikileaks we learned that the US was better informed by Dutch (pro JSF) politicians and military/civilian government personnel than the Dutch parliament was informed. They even asked the US to pressure minister Wouter Bos (Labour party) to buy the aircraft.. he didn’t.

They don’t care how much the JSF will cost on buying, and operation and sustainment. as long as they can play with it. fully integrated in US support, training and operations. I claim that we can only operate our air force as long as the US wants us to do so. they own “our” JSF EW database, the source code for software and ALIS. they share on a need to know basis. They even will make a US only and a “outsiders” manual. why? And still the JSF is the best? They not only harm themselves.. when it comes to a fight and the US backs off (Srebrenica, West-Papua, or what about when we must fight for the Americans while we don’t think it’s a just war (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.. future)? what repercussions will follow?  All this while our most important interests lie at home. In the Netherlands… in Europe… right that old continent. The abuse is clear, they abuse fear, money peoples interests, least of all they abuse the total defense budget. as stated earlier. budget for JSF will be topped up, and the future operational and sustainment (O&S) costs will increase from 275 to 285.. at the beginning of it’s service live! Abusive. the rest of the branches will run out of blood.

Now the articles:

David Axe – War is Boring:  Read for Yourself — The F-35’s Damning Dogfighting Report Test pilot reveals stealth fighter’s vulnerability

Joseph Trevithick – War is Boring:  When Is the F-35 Not a Dogfighter? When It’s Convenient: Lockheed and the Pentagon keep moving the goalposts

David Axe – War is Boring:  The U.S. Air Force Promised the F-4 Would Never Dogfight: Now it’s saying the same thing about the F-35

Bill Sweetman – Aviation Week: Behind That F-35 Air Combat Report

As always this article of Bill Sweetman is very clear and shows the truth.