Posted on 07/25/2013 3:00:14 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Saab makes its fighter jet more attractive than JSF
Wednesday 24 July 2013
The Dutch government has been offered the chance to fine late delivery of a competitive jet fighter to the Joint Strike Fighter, which is currently the preferred option.
According to the Financieel Dagblad, Swedish aircraft maker Saab made the offer on its Gripen NG in a last-ditch attempt to win the contract.
Parliament asked the cabinet earlier this year to allow competitors to the JSF to re-submit their bids.
The Netherlands has been involved in the development of the Lockheed Martin aircraft and has two on order. More than €1bn has been spent on the project so far.
Concerns
However, serious concerns are being raised about the total cost of replacing the ageing F-16 fleet with the JSF, which is put at €4.5bn.
Earlier this year, the Clingendael foreign policy institute said an armed forces which includes the controversal jet fighter is the least attractive scenario for the future of the Dutch military.
And a US audit office and Pentagon report reported that the cost of using the JSF fighter jet in the long term is a major concern and will be unaffordable for the US military.
The government will make a decision on whether to continue with the JSF project or find an alternative later this year.
The new jet fighter is needed to replace the Netherlands' fleet of aging F-16s.
Looks a bit liks the F16.
Can do a LOT of stuff the F16 cannot.
But it does not have stealth.
JSF is not as stealthy as the best fighters, but is pretty good.
There’s really only two true stealth platforms we really know much about, the two US ones. Both are platforms that are unfinished, plagued with problems unlikely to be identifies, and are unlikely to really ever be finished.
The Gripen’s plus, of course, is its ability to operate like an old-time fighter from rural fields, roads, barns and what have you, plus being relatively simple and inexpensive.
Is the ignition key still mounted on the floorboard, next to the ejection lever?
Is there a pass-through channel between the front and rear seat, so you don’t have to mount a ski rack?
Strange!
I just finished watching the Top Gear episode on Netflix which eulogized SAAB’s passing.
They specifically mentioned the ignition key between the seats.
I would have to say that was one of the most meaningless statements I ever saw. Even with pictures. Lol.
I had an 86 SAAB 990 Turbo hatchback 5 speed..oneof the best cars I ever owned. I drove it for 6 years, about 100K..then used it as a station car for another 5..never had one problem with it...just regular maintenance at the dealer. I taught both my teen age daughters to drive on it..they bitched at first about having to learn to drive a stick..and it was the first car for each..figured it was very safe. Years later, when my youngest daughter was on her honeymoon, (she called me at my office, which I at first thought was, well..weird..) she had to tell me...they were on St Lucia..and had reserved a car for the week. When they went to pick it up..there was nothing available except a Jeep with manual transmission. My news Son-in-law couldn’t drive a stick..like most, he never learned how...so daughter pipes up..”I CAN”...so off they went. I was worried it might affect the honeymoon, but 10 years and 2 kids later..they’re still going strong.and yes, she taught him how the next day..
Do the Dutch really need stealth? Where are any threats coming from?
It can take off from a road, so I guess that's something.
Dutch Muslims on flying carpets are really stealthy and quiet. :)
Completely different uses. A fighter isn’t just a fighter.
Exactly. For most countries stealth is largely unnecessary. Not useless - unnecessary. Especially considering the premium (cost and other) stealth dictates. Excluding the need for stealth, the Gripen NG, and other 4.5 gen fighters, are all perfect for the needs that a country like the Netherlands may require. The F35 is largely unnecessary for the Dutch.
It depends who you think the threat may be. And, over the lifetime of an aircraft, alliances shift and the threat you fight may not be the threat you planned for.
The two big potential threats I see are (1) Russia, and (2) islamic countries. In 20 years, these aircraft will still be first line, and who knows what platforms may emerge from either Russia or islamic countries. An F-35 can get all sorts of electronics upgrades and provide realistic defense. A non-stealthy platform can have all the electronics upgrades you want but is still going to be a huge radar target.
What I am saying is that outside the likes of the US, France and Israel, and to a lesser extent the UK, India, Australia, South Korea and Japan, the price, maintenance and opportunity cost premium predicated on the 'need' for stealth is not necessary. The Netherlands will.never be attacked by Russia, and if we assume the Russians needed clogs the main defence for the Dutch would be NATO (read: the US), and if for.some reason that was not possible there is nothing the Dutch could do with f-35s anyways to defend the Netherlands. This is why countries like the aforementioned Netherlands, as well as others like Canada, are seriously rethinking additional investment in the F-35.
To use an earthier example consider a top of the range Corvette versus the Bugatti Veyron. A top of tue range Corvette will cost less than US$100,000 (I am ignoring one shot bespoke models), while a Veyron will cost you almost US$2 million. Both are fast cars, only that the Bugatti Veyron is much faster both in terms of acceleration and top speed. It can do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, something the average Corvette couldn't even begin to think of. However, for MOST people the acceleration of the Corvette is, by far, good enough. Paying US$1.9 million to cut 2 seconds from your 0-60mph time and add an additional 100mph to your top speed doesn't make financial sense ...for most.
Same applies to stealth for most developed countries.
Same applies to stealth for most developed countries.
If I were in a cockpit, on a mission, into hostile territory, I would want ground radar to think I was that speck of dust on their screen.
More stealth, healthier M. Kehoe.
Of course no one would let me near a cockpit...
5.56mm
However, a Dutch or Canadian politician would be considering that a Dutch or Canadian fighter will not be performing deep IADS penetration duties. Thus there is no need, in their eyes, to invest in cutting edge technology that is still teething. Especially when a Gripen NG or a F/A-18E/F would meet all their needs.
Take Canada ...a country that is seriously reconsidering the F-35. In a joint NATO mission, or something similar to the First Gulf war, it knows the US will take care of IADS penetration. What if Russia (or more appropriately, China) attacks? With Canada being next door to the US, the Canadians know very well the US wouldn't stand still and let Canada fall. Now, add the fact that Canada is vast and the F-35 is single engined.
Anyways, my point ia that from a funding perspective the stealth angle is a nice-to-have for most countries apart from 4 or 5 that really do need it. Thw Netherlands is not one of 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.