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

Defence Capability Plan ignores established risk assessment methods



The new Australian Defence Minister, Mr. Johnston, has a lot of work to do.

The giga-dollar F-35 program is--by the definition of Australian government methods (PDF at bottom of link)--an extreme risk project.

Here is what the Defence Capability Plan for 2012 has in relation to F-35 risk: a lot of dead air. I have helped the graphic out by putting red where it belongs: trending way off the chart.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bY-om8-SP68/Uloe6OzEpAI/AAAAAAAADqM/E4ywnXig_CE/s1600/...

Then there is another blank area for project list. The NACC et el, don't know what they don't know or just refuse to represent the Australian taxpayer: the project is red.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xcToQSmjNeM/UlofcpoGwQI/AAAAAAAADqU/tx2FwZ17jLg/s1600/...

This is the risk of the F-35 program not delivering on the promise for Australia. Not surprising when you consider Howard, Hill and Houston jumped in on the program with no credible analysis.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xUA_ZRw_4lw/UlogTNMazCI/AAAAAAAADqg/RvKZdMJ2vc0/s1600/...

There is no justification for keeping the F-35 off of the DMO Project of Concern List.

It qualifies.

Currently, 2 Australian F-35s are on the production line.

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/defence-capability-plan-ignores.html

[quote]

Interesting Defence Article by the Dutch.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 6:11pm:


Did you read the IGs report?  I posted the links on the other F-35 page. 

That article backs up the 4 Corners show -

ridiculed on the F35 thread by some posters here.

I was right wasn't I?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:



No it is you who is the armchair general, you have never serve a day in your life and seem to think that your ignorant opinion based soley ofn the ignorant opinion of other civilians, carries some weight

4 corners has been shown to be very dodgy reporting military stories, at best and then you embrace these civilian bloggers as experts in th field of military fast jets.

Get serious, you're looking more and more pathetic with each post. but at least bad breath has taken your crown from you for most stupid posts on this board.


The reason I know that these problems get fixed, it because that was my job while I served on Pigs.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:07am:



Jeez their report on those magical helicopter gunships we supposedly sold the PNGDF that never existed. The  misrepresentation of the RAND report on the F35, which you yourself posted. Also not the first time you have been told this information. write it down if you have to.

No links - just BigOl's worthless opinion.

As i understand it, most of these issue wont be fix in time before production.

http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/JSF-Issues+Problems-2011-Master.png

I was waiting for someone to start quoting the Airpower Australia site of my old friend Carlo Kopp.   While I have a lot of time for him normally, on this one he's mistaken and contradictory.  He will describe Lockheed Martin as the biggest bunch of crooks over the F-35 but wax lyrical about the same company when discussing the F-22.   He really cannot have his cake and eat it too.   He's fallen into the same trap in believing that the production version of the F-35 will be as fault ridden as the prototypes.   This is foolish.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:


Could you please explain why the production version will be nothing like the prototype version? Its my understanding that the production version would be based on the finalised prototype version, which at this point so close to production time still have so many problems (which no doubt will be eventually fix in time).

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:04am:


..So ill take that as a 'Derp'. Glad to know the pentagon, watchdogs, and defence experts are worried about nothing.

Hi OC

the Bell and Cobra are more about Hun in the Sun guns blazing fighting the old style knife fight that two modern fighter jets aren't going to get into.

It is awesome to watch but its more an air show crowd pleaser and salesman line pitch

With the Bell and Cobra you pull a swift move in your Su 27 and the bad guy over shoots or bleeds that much energy he almost stalls then you hit them with your guns

As I mentioned earlier modern jet fighting is BVR and short range missiles - guns in jets are going to be used against ground targets, tethered aerostats, helicopters and slow prop driven fixed winged aircraft etc

BR,

"That might have been because most of the VNPAF's aircraft were MiG-17s"


Thanks for that, my memory is no longer 100% reliable,  and I did think they had the MiG21,  but maybe not.

I have sat in the cockpit of a MiG 17 on the Sunshine coast, it is VERY cramped, and i am not a big bloke.


OC

Pantheon wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:


No, what you should be worried about is believing the media exaggeration of those worries, Ahovking.  I'll take the word over those I know personally anytime over that of the media.

As I've said, there are worrying aspects about how the project has been managed.  That does not mean that there are quite the problems claimed about the actual aircraft.

This information isn't from the media but from pentagon, watchdogs, and defence experts themselves.