Posted on 07/02/2008 8:06:34 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Dutch Refuse To Consider Super Hornet
Jul 2, 2008
By Joris Janssen Lok
The Netherlands defense ministry refuses to include Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in an evaluation of potential candidates for its next-generation fighter requirement.
Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor also will not be considered, despite a direct request from the country's Parliament to include both U.S. fighters in an evaluation of potential alternatives to the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The Dutch appeared to be firmly committed to the F-35A ever since they joined the JSF System Development & Demonstration program as a Level 2 partner in 2002. But recently there has been growing concern, particularly among left-wing parties in the Parliament, about perceived cost overruns.
In May, Parliament called for the addition of the Super Hornet, Raptor and Sweden's Saab Gripen Next Generation to the shortlist of JSF alternatives. The request was part of a compromise that enabled the defense ministry to proceed with a plan to order two F-35A aircraft for participation in the F-35 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation that starts in 2011.
According to Jack de Vries, the Dutch state secretary for defense procurement, the F/A-18E/F had been considered as a candidate in 2001-2002 but was at that time deselected because of limitations in range, self-protection and sensors. "The twin-engined jet is also relatively big and heavy, so that it does not fit inside our NATO-standard F-16 hardened aircraft shelters; also, its through-life cost is relatively high," says de Vries, who predicts that these considerations will also play a role in Denmark, which has the same size shelters as the Netherlands.
Boeing recently entered the Super Hornet as a late-entry contender for the Danish fighter requirement, competing against the F-35A and the Gripen Next-Generation.
In a June 27 letter to Parliament, de Vries suggests that while Australia and the U.S. Navy are ordering Super Hornets, they are doing so "until the JSF will be available in sufficient numbers." He states that the Dutch have no need for an interim solution as they plan to buy the F-35 early.
"Based on how Americans and Australians regard the Super Hornet in relation to JSF, and based on the results of our evaluation in 2002, the F/A-18E/F cannot be considered as a relevant option for F-16 replacement in our country," de Vries says.
As for the F-22, de Vries points out that the aircraft is "much bigger and heavier than the JSF and requires two engines, resulting in considerably higher operating and through-life costs." The acquisition cost per aircraft would also be much higher, he says, while there is a U.S. ban on exporting the F-22 "even to friendly allies."
The defense ministry will, however, consider the Gripen Next Generation as an alternative option, alongside the three existing alternatives (the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3, Dassault Rafale Standard F4 and Lockheed Martin Advanced (Block 60+) F-16E/F), de Vries says.
"In our previous evaluation, the Saab Gripen was deselected because it was found to have considerable shortcomings in range, armament, self-protection, interoperability and sensors," de Vries says.
"Saab has recently announced that a new version of Gripen is being developed, Gripen Next Generation, information on which so far is limited to what has been published in open sources. We will investigate this Next Generation variant in the coming months, particularly to assess the developments compared with the previous Gripen version. To do this, we need cooperation from the manufacturer, and we have contacted the company to ask for the information required."
De Vries says that provided the Gripen Next Generation meets the minimum requirements, it will be reviewed using the latest insights.
The new evaluation will be performed by the defense ministry with help from independent analysts from Dutch defense research institute TNO Defense, Security and Safety; the country's National Aerospace Laboratory NLR; and RAND Europe.
Their loss.
Must be something to do with the wooden shoes their pilots wear.
It’s probably for the best. I’d hate to see those systems in the hands of the islamist govt. that’ll be running that place in a few years.
The F-18 E/F is a proven aircraft already in production/service.
Australia already decided to do this, and several other countries are considering Super Hornet purchases in the near future.
For all it’s strengths, the F-35 will only slightly outperform the F-16 it’s intended to replace and it probably can’t fill the role of the A-10.
The Super Hornet can perform about the same as the F-35 with some system upgrades.
By at least one estimate, an F-35 costs at least twice as much as an F-18 E/F.
Next time try reading the article. They’re not buying the F/A-18E/F in favor of the more capable F-35.
The Dutch have fighters? Why? It’s not like they would ever use them.
Given the actual monetary politics the F-35 will get cheaper since it will contain a lot of cheap US labour.
On the other hand it’s not the deal they imagined anymore - things are getting later and costs in $ will rise (since time is money)
On the other hand the use of the expensive stealth features are declining as UAV technology on the friendly side and radar technology on the unfriendly side steps forward in huge steps.
This is illustrated by the debacle around the F-22:
F22 represents a weapons system that obviously cannot be payed for in numbers that would buy a significant replacement of the aging US F-15 fleet. So it was just a tiny asset in a big war against a capable army.
On the other hand it can not be deployed in irak and aghanistan either because the op costs for stealth aircraft wouldn’t justify the advantages it would bring. There’s also a risk of loosing the technological advantage these Birds represent if a plane was lost and sold to china.
Parade your ignorance for all the world to see.
The Dutch have F-16s and Apaches flying over Afghanistan today.
In addition, they've got a a relatively large contingent of regular army and special ops troops in Afghanistan, not in the peaceful North, like many NATO powers, but forward-deployed in the Taliban-heavy South.
The ability for people to fool themselves into believing that any and all versions of the F-18 ‘arent’ pieces of crap is amazing.
Please explain further.
Have you flown them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.