A national debate over the choice of a replacement of the Royal Netherlands Air Force's F-16s passed a milestone today. The government won approval from the lower house of Parliament to purchase two Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, which will support the US-based test and evaluation program, but there are conditions attached. No more than ten per cent of the money will be released, until the government conducts a new, open and transparent evaluation of alternatives to the JSF.
The terms are a compromise between the majority Christian Democrat (CDA) party and the PvdA (Labor) party. CDA deputy defense minister Jack de Vries wanted a short evaluation confined to the JSF, F-16 Block 60, Rafale and Typhoon, conducted internally by the MoD. PvdA defense leader Angelien Eijsink was pushing for an independent assessment, to include the Gripen NG and Boeing Super Hornet.
Ares has been cited twice in the debate, which sparked a lively discussion in our comments section. Opponents of JSF are concerned that the air force and MoD are predisposed towards the US fighter and are not giving alternatives enough consideration.
The final agreement calls for the two latter aircraft to be included in the evaluation, which will be conducted by the MoD but in a "transparent" manner with the involvement of outside experts. The PvdA reluctantly accepted this compromise, because if it had voted against the proposal it was likely that left-wing parties - opposed to the entire fighter replacement program - would have been able to cancel the project completely.
The new plan calls for a re-evaluation, in October 2008, of the cost and benefits of extending the life of the current F-16AM/BM force, and an evaluation of JSF and alternatives in October-December. Parliament will then decide on full funding for the two test aircraft in February 2009.
De Vries said in the debate that the Netherlands and other partner countries are negotiating with Lockheed Martin over a joint purchase that would cover as many as 1,000 aircraft, with cost savings being passed on to the customers.
The inclusion of the Gripen and Hornet only came after the governing parties reached an agreement during talks later that day. The agreement is that the assessment will include all airplanes under consideration by current F-16 operators.
Some of the things that I think will come forward in this assessment are:
- Super Hornets are too large. They will require modification of the infrastructure, such as enlarging the aircraft-shelters. Conclusion: too expensive.
- Rafale F4 is the one the Dutch want, but it exists only on paper. So chances are the Dutch will have to (co)fund the development. Besides that it doesn't work with a lot of the (American) missiles the Dutch have. Also future upgrades are too uncertain, with such a small user base. Conclusion: too expensive, too uncertain.
- Typhoon tranche 4(?), with A2G capability, is a paper product and if the Dutch want it they'll have to (co)fund it. Conclusion: too expensive, too uncertain.
- F-16 block 60. The F-16 has no growth potential anymore. Conclusion: not good enough.
- Gripen NG. (As far as I know the Gripen A/B/C/D was never an option, because it didn't meet the requirements of the AF. Range probably being one of them. The NG has never been assessed, because it didn't exist in 2002.) Future upgrades are uncertain because of the small userbase. Conclusion: too uncertain for future upgrades (and maybe it still doesn't meet the requirements of the AF).
- F-35 will come out as being the cheapest option and meeting all requirements of the AF and it will be upgraded in the futere because of the large user base. It's selection as the next fighter will therefore appear to be a no-brainer(the price being especially important).
The current weak dollar doesn't help the european alternatives.
And De Vries, according to the same newspaper, said that LM is prepared to offer a fixed price if the Netherlands and other countries garantuee to order 1000 fighters. (I guess they mean in the first batch, but it doesn't say that anywhere.)
Dealing with your comments... Super Hornet is too large? How much do Dutch builders get paid, anyway? If the airplane is the best choice, extending the shelter by a few feet isn't the most expensive job in the world.
The F-16 is only appealing if you want a jet that is faster than JSF, carries more weapons, has a longer range (at least, that's what my LockMart brochure says) and costs less.
The three European contenders - Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen - are in the same position: they need orders to secure their future, but a Dutch order would do the job. As for support and upgrade costs, see the previous long debates, but in essence the issue is as follows: With JSF you have the advantage of huge production numbers -not as great as planned, if history is your guide, but still a multiple of what other aircraft can expect. On the other hand, if you compare (for example) the upgrade bills for the F-22 and Gripen, the costs on the US side are far, far greater, largely as a result of stealth. Moreover, it is clear that the F-35 upgrade will proceed in lockstep, and that the Dutch will have at best a 4 per cent vote when it comes to deciding what issues will be addressed, what capabilities will be added, in a given block.
I always chuckle when I hear a choice described as a no-brainer, because the person saying so is often right, but not perhaps in the sense that they intended.
That's why I said "appear" a no-brainer. Because I think it will be presented as such.
Personally I have always had a soft spot for the Gripen and would love to see the Netherlands choose it, preferably together with Denmark and Norway. Then try to get in Belgium and maybe the 3 Baltic states as well.
Btw, I forgot to mention the ferry range of the Super Hornet might be too little.
That will be an interesting magic trick to watch. Where price depends on a lot of orders and yet again the biggest customer (USAF... er the pauper USAF) is only able to afford 48 a year in full rate. Add the USN question mark and Norway, Canada and Denmark going for a competition for the next fighter, and well the order books at this time are only in the minds of a PowerPoint slide creator.
Of course with fuel costs going through the roof, one may want to consider only one engine fighters. And of course that there is no longer any Fulda Gap scenario... add all this up and the customer can take their time. There's no rush.
- F35 is that it's a locked platform and there is no way to solve it.
- Typhoon is not yet a swing-role F/A platform but here money can fix it
- Gripen NG doesn't top the others in any category
- Rafale is not as good as the Typhoon at a similar price with similar problems
- Super Hornet carries all the cons of a carrier airplane but guess Netherland is not going to open their dams
- F16 Block 60: please then just keep the money for something else
I'd go for the european fighters and include F35 only if granted openness. Do you really want to follow the shepherd (no matter who is) for the next 40 years?
And in reality it might be a non-issue, but I think it will be used as an argument against the Hornet.
@Ghemago. If I remember correctly the MoD rated the Rafale above the Typhoon in 2002. (Although the difference was negligible. Something like 0.04 on a 1-10 scale.)
That leads into a couple of pro-Gripen points: They are getting to grips (pardon the pun) with COTS/open architecture in a big way, and I don't think that they are blowing smoke about their operating costs.
I don't see F-16 as a serious contender, in any contest involving JSF, because it won't be promoted.
Pro and cons are on each choice but the locks F-35 comes with are something I dislike.
Let me say that I like the Gripen as I did the Viggen. But then for the Gripen in any competition it's a matter of how many more do I get vs other choices.
Air to air? Yes is still important if you aren't US.