Quote:The Dutch started their partnership with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program with high hopes. Now, if all goes to plan they will end up with a "fighter" aircraft that has far less capability than their existing F-16s.
And pay through the nose for the privilege.
Most of their planning was faith-based depending on Lockheed Martin talking points. The Dutch were told that they cold get an F-35 for the same acquisition price as an F-16. They were told that support costs for the F-35 would be 20 percent less than an F-16. They were told that the F-35 would be more capable. They were told of gold at the end of the rainbow in the form of industry benefits.
None of that is true. The F-35 is a Ponzi-scheme by any other name.
The Dutch thought that they needed 85 F-35s. Interesting since they are now down to an inventory of 60-some F-16s. With their Defence-going-out-of-business-attitude, it is unknown how many of those are combat capable. Or, what the combat readiness is of their F-16 flying units. Along with a different looking threat picture in Europe, the Dutch still have to decide what exactly they want a defense force to accomplish.
Not a place for the extreme-risk and faulty F-35 which 12 years after its' contract award has no credible, working, mission systems. It will have a cost per flying hour up to double that of an F-16 single-seater. The F-35 will cost way more than the same price as an F-16.
The Dutch Court of Audit, (described by Winslow Wheeler, who has over 30 years of experience with U.S. defense acquisition issues, as similar to the U.S. Government Accounting Office), is now, finally, getting a little bit smarter about just how much the Dutch tax payer has been taken to the cleaners over the F-35 mess.
The Dutch Court of Audit has published some thoughts on the F-35.
As we now know, there will not be 85 F-35s for the Dutch. It will be closer to 37. And maybe that is being hopeful given the severe lack of a go-to-war F-35 to examine.
What does the audit office think about the "combat" capability available for their Defence forces?
Best-case, the Dutch will be able to send 4 F-35s on a deployment. As Winslow describes...
"Page 21 explains that 'the deployment objectives have been lowered since 1999 from several squadrons comprising more than 50 aircraft in total [actually it's 72 F-16s], to four aircraft as from the introduction of the JSF.' "
4 F-35s.
For a deployment.
That would assume that the jets work to their required reliability spelled out in the Joint Strike Fighter Joint Operational Requirement Document or "JORD". A document that was composed in the 1990's and signed off on at the beginning of the last decade. That JORD requirement shows the need for high 90-percentile mission capability (MC) rates.
As the sad history of the F-35 program management shows, this may be A Bridge to Far.
It is unlikely that the F-35 will have a credible air-to-air or air-to-ground capability even equal to the current Dutch F-16. The F-35 is unable to fire a heat-seeking missile internally (see how the F-22 deals with rail mounted missiles). Any heat-seeking/high-off-bore-sight (HOBS) missile will be carried outside, like the F-16 only worse.
The F-35's long-range AMRAAM (also used by the F-16) can be jammed down to a Vietnam-era Sparrow air-to-air missile-like probability of kill vs. emerging threats. To date, AMRAAM combat kills have been against poor second and third string threats.
The F-35 air-to-ground ability is nothing special (assuming this ever gets qualified to JORD spec.). The F-16 carries a wider variety of weapons. The F-16 has better performance than the F-35. The F-16 has better cockpit visibility (thermal issues, software issues and a failed helmet means no F-35 DAS except in this video game-like fantasy).
The F-35 helmet is unable to cue weapons due to significant development problems (one being gross over-optimism early in the program). This takes the gun out of the picture for air-to-air and air to ground. This failure takes out HOBS missile cuing for within-visual-range dogfights. This limits other air to ground weapons.
Both the F-16 and F-35 may have trouble against emerging threats, but at least with the F-16 we have established norms to know what those limits are. With the F-35, where the fan-base (industry, politicians,rent-seekers, bought and paid for trade press, and the model airplane glue sniffing brigade) states it can take on just about anything, we find that this is highly unlikely. The F-35 is too expensive to own and operate for lesser threats taken care of well with the F-16 or just about anything else.
As an observer, I am curious just how long the Dutch will allow this charade to continue.
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/dutch-face-reality-of-failed-f-35.html
Interesting Defence Article by the Dutch.
Forum
Pages: 1 
