From Aviation Week

 

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. [CV32: Emphasis mine. Sounds much the same as the problem that the Swiss had with the Superbug].

 

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.

Seems JSF has a 'stranglehold' on the next Dutch fighter contract?

 

From Aviation Week's ARES Blog

 

Eurofighter, Rafale Refuse to Play in New Dutch Evaluation

Posted by Joris Janssen Lok at 7/4/2008 2:39 AM CDT

 

The Netherlands is launching another evaluation of potential alternatives to the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) -- but the companies behind two of them (Eurofighter and Dassault Aviation) have turned down the Dutch request to provide updated information on their Typhoon Batch 3 and Rafale F4, respectively.

 

Dutch state secretary for defense procurement Jack de Vries has told Parliament, one day before it departed for its two-month summer recess, that he "hopes to visit the manufacturers of the Eurofighter and the Rafale in the near future to convince them of the importance of an updated contribution to the new evaluation."

 

The Dutch embarked on a course to become full partners in the development of the F-35 as early as 1996-97, and selected the F-35A as the "best aircraft for the best price" after a brief evaluation of other potential F-16 replacement fighters in 2001-2002.

 

Recently, however, there has been growing concern, particularly among left-wing and populist parties in the Dutch Parliament, about JSF cost overruns.

 

In May, the Parliament called for a new evaluation as part of a compromise that enabled the defense ministry to proceed with a plan to order its first two F-35A aircraft for participation in the F-35 Initial Operational Test& Evaluation that starts in 2011.

 

Late last week, de Vries already told Parliament that he refuses to include Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin's F-22A Raptor in the new evaluation, even though Parliament had directly asked him to do so (see stories published on AviationWeek.com and in the July 2 issue of Aerospace Daily & Defense Report).

 

Saab's Gripen Next Generation (JAS 39E/F), however, is being incorporated in the evaluation, along with the Advanced (Block 60+) F-16E/F from Lockheed Martin, Rafale and Typhoon.

 

According to de Vries, manufacturers are being given 60 days to respond to the Dutch request for updated information, but he admits that initially, Dassault and Eurofighter have "reacted negatively" to the Dutch RFI.

 

Dassault and Eurofighter sources say they feel that the Dutch have in fact already taken a decision to go forward with the F-35, and that the evaluation is nothing more than window dressing.

 

According to the Dutch defense ministry, the evaluation will be fair as it will involve "independent analysts" from Dutch defense research institute TNO Defense, Security and Safety; the country's National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR); and RAND Europe.

 

However, both NLR and TNO are involved in a major way in JSF development work.

 

In addition to that, the Netherlands has invested $800 million in JSF System Development and Demonstration; more than 70 Dutch companies are involved in the program (with over $700 million worth of orders received so far); and Dutch industry business over the life of the JSF is forecasted to be worth more than $10 billion (significantly more than the cost of the F-35 program to Dutch tax payers).

 

The Dutch intend to procure up to 85 F-35As (although this number may yet be reduced to less than 60), including two test aircraft and one or two batches of series-production JSFs planned to enter service from 2014, with the first Dutch F-35A squadron officially planned to reach initial operational capability in 2015 (more realistically, 2016).

 

This is the current Dutch schedule for F-35A deliveries:

 

2011: 1 (test aircraft for IOT&E participation)

2012: 1 (test aircraft for IOT&E participation)

2014: 2

2015: 4

2016: 9

2017: 10

2018: 10

2019: 10

2020: 10

2021: 10

2022: 10

2023: 8

 

And this is the schedule for F-16s (total remaining: 87 aircraft after the latest round of cuts has been implemented) being withdrawn from service:

 

2015: 12

2016: 12

2017: 12

2018: 12

2019: 12

2010: 12

2021: 15

Superbug? Is that what people call it? I thought it was something to do with MRSA...

Superbug? Is that what people call it? I thought it was something to do with MRSA...

 

In my experience F-18's were always referred to as bugs, just as instead of their "given" names CH-46, AH-1, and CH-53 were Frogs, Snakes, and Hogs respectively.

Superbug? Is that what people call it? I thought it was something to do with MRSA...

 

In my experience F-18's were always referred to as bugs, just as instead of their "given" names CH-46, AH-1, and CH-53 were Frogs, Snakes, and Hogs respectively.

 

I didn't know that. For non-military people in the UK, a superbug is a nasty hospital acquired infection...

Superbug? Is that what people call it? I thought it was something to do with MRSA...

 

In my experience F-18's were always referred to as bugs, just as instead of their "given" names CH-46, AH-1, and CH-53 were Frogs, Snakes, and Hogs respectively.

 

I didn't know that. For non-military people in the UK, a superbug is a nasty hospital acquired infection...

 

Hehe, yep, F-18 Hornet = Bug, CH-46 Sea Knight = Frog, AH-1 Cobra = Snake, CH-53 Sea Stallion = Hog. All Marine Corps centric, not sure about navy terminology for their contemporaries.

Superbug? Is that what people call it? I thought it was something to do with MRSA...

 

In my experience F-18's were always referred to as bugs, just as instead of their "given" names CH-46, AH-1, and CH-53 were Frogs, Snakes, and Hogs respectively.

 

I didn't know that. For non-military people in the UK, a superbug is a nasty hospital acquired infection...

 

Hehe, yep, F-18 Hornet = Bug, CH-46 Sea Knight = Frog, AH-1 Cobra = Snake, CH-53 Sea Stallion = Hog. All Marine Corps centric, not sure about navy terminology for their contemporaries.

 

Thanks.