From Defense Aerospace

 

JSF Scores Best In Candidate Comparison

(Source: Dutch Ministry of Defence; issued Dec. 18, 2009)

 

The F-35, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, best meets the requirements drawn up by the Netherlands for the successor to the F16. This emerges from the findings of the candidate comparison that the State Secretary for Defence, Jack de Vries, today sent to the House of Representatives.

 

“The F-35 is the best multi-role combat aircraft and by around 2015 will certainly be able to carry out all six main missions successfully.” The F-35 also has the greatest operational availability. In addition, the capital costs of the F-35 are the lowest and it is anticipated that the total life-cycle costs will also be the lowest.

 

The completion of the candidate comparison marks the fulfillment of the commitment made to the House of Representatives to carry out such a comparison prior to the definitive acquisition of the two JSF test aircraft. This is planned to take place by the end of April 2009 at the latest.

 

The candidate comparison follows on from the candidate evaluation of 2001, from which the Joint Strike Fighter also emerged as the best aircraft for the best price. In 2002 the Cabinet decided to participate in the development of this fighter aircraft. This decision was largely based on the wish to give the Dutch aviation industry an opportunity to win orders in this project.

 

In the present government coalition agreement it is stated that in 2010 the cabinet will take a final decision regarding the replacement of the F-16 on the basis of a comparison of quality, price and delivery time. The Joint Strike Fighter scored the best for all three criteria.

 

The comparative study, between the Advanced F-16, de F-35 and the Gripen Next Generation, was carried out in cooperation with TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) and NLR (Netherlands Aerospace Laboratory) and was monitored by the audit services of the Defence organisation and the Ministry of Economic Affairs).

 

At the request of the House of Representatives, the firm of RAND Europe also followed the course of the comparative study. In their reports, both the audit services and RAND consider that the candidate comparison was carried out transparently and objectively and that the reports contain an accurate account of the results of the comparison.

 

On account of the lengthy period of thirty years over which the project will extend, the calculation of total life-cycle costs includes an allowance for uncertainties.

 

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Since the F-35 has barely begun its flight test program, and will not enter service for another seven years at best, one wonders on what rational criteria the Netherlands could have determined that the F-35 offers "the greatest operational availability," that "its capital costs...are the lowest and...that the total life-cycle costs will also be the lowest.")

More critical commentary from Aviation Week's ARES Blog ...

 

We're Shocked... Shocked. Dutch Go For JSF

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/19/2008 7:00 AM CST

 

Dutch defense secretary Jack de Vries announced Thursday that the defense ministry's evaluation had selected the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as the best replacement for the F-16, over the Saab Gripen NG.

 

This came as the biggest surprise since the sun rose over Amsterdam this morning. The Dutch establishment's predilection for a US deal, and the JSF in particular, has been more marked even than Norway's, to the point where Dutch air force officers incorporate Lockheed Martin slides directly into their own PowerPoint presentations.

 

From a presentation by RNlAF Col Robert Geerdes, Oslo 12/2007

 

De Vries had to be dragged kicking and screaming into conducting the limited comparative assessment - not a competition, since none of the numbers provided by Lockheed Martin or Saab was binding - which has just ended.

 

What's interesting - in a review of the text of the ministry's full statement to Parliament - is that, like the Norwegians, the Dutch have come up with some unusual numbers in order to justify a pro-JSF decision. For example:

 

Life-cycle and operational costs were given a low weighting on the grounds that they were unpredictable. This ignores the fact that one contender combines an in-service airframe (with some modifications) and cockpit, with an in-service engine. Swedish, Czech and US Navy experience should provide an accurate assessment of several major LCC factors.

 

The statement to parliament asserts that Gripen NG could not reach initial operational capability before 2020 - five years later than promised by Saab, and a huge factor, because it would require another life extension program for Dutch F-16s.

 

The RAND Europe oversight report on the Dutch assessment suggests that this and other assumptions reflected history - but, as our colleague Airpower has pointed out, the last major Gripen upgrade was delivered on time and under budget. (Note, by the way, that the independent RAND report commented only on the methodology of the Dutch assessment and the validity of the requirements, not on its assumptions or conclusions.)

 

At the same time, the Dutch pitted the NG, not against the IOC-standard Block 3 JSF, but against the post-IOC Block 4, which is not yet defined by contract.

 

Moreover, the Ministry has misinformed parliament as to the availability of the JSF: it states that the Block 3 will be ready in 2013 and the Block 4 in 2015. In fact, as has been reported here since May and confirmed recently by Lockheed Martin, systems development and demonstration (SDD) won't finish until 2014, suggesting that Block 4 will follow in 2016.

 

Edited: The Dutch citizenry might want to ask Mr De Vries why, if the JSF is such a good fit for the RNlAF, the evaluation needs to be stacked in its favor.

 

But on further reflection, this may reflect the same factor as played out in Norway: the need to make the decision stick. By presenting a negative view of the NG, the JSF decision looks better, and potential critics are disarmed.

 

Also, a point made by a Saab guy last week in Cologne: Both the Norwegian and Dutch decisions came weeks after the US election. Given that the powers-that-be wanted JSF, the advent of Obama and the departure of Bush (whom many of their citizens regarded as a cretin and/or a criminal) is an opportunity not to be missed.

 

And by the time anyone realizes that Obama, Gates and national security advisor James Jones are not about to throw the gates of GTMO open, or to stop handing suspected bad actors over to the unique expertise of the Jordanians, it will all be too late.