Vervanging huidige F-16's, deel 5

[Lex]

Dit topic wordt hier vervolgd.

Lex
Algeheel beheerder

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Daarmee zou de 2e keus uit de Nederlandse competitie vervallen, waardoor de focus nog meer op de eerste keuze komt te liggen.

Die tweede keus is nooit serieus geweest...en volgens mijn analyse puur zo gekozen om de JSF/F35A nog beter te laten uitkomen. De Rafale en EF, die veel serieuzere competitie zijn voor de JSF, zijn volgens mij daarbij bewust de competitie uit"gepest"/gewerkt...

Als de Gripen vervalt door 0 orders elders is er mijns inziens nog maar 1 serieuze kandidaat over... de EF. De JSF/F-35A is gewoon onbetaalbaar geworden en technologisch te kwetsbaar, zeker als de Amerikanen het aantal zo meteen drastisch gaan terugbrengen en de Britten ook afzien van hun F-35C order en voor de Super Hornet gaan. 

Dat denk ik ook, al zou ik de deur voor de Rafale willen openhouden als deze kist succesvol mocht blijken te zijn in de VAE én India.

Maar mijn keuze is ook de EF tranche 3.

[Elzenga]

Daarmee zou de 2e keus uit de Nederlandse competitie vervallen, waardoor de focus nog meer op de eerste keuze komt te liggen.

Die tweede keus is nooit serieus geweest...en volgens mijn analyse puur zo gekozen om de JSF/F35A nog beter te laten uitkomen. De Rafale en EF, die veel serieuzere competitie zijn voor de JSF, zijn volgens mij daarbij bewust de competitie uit"gepest"/gewerkt...

Als de Gripen vervalt door 0 orders elders is er mijns inziens nog maar 1 serieuze kandidaat over... de EF. De JSF/F-35A is gewoon onbetaalbaar geworden en technologisch te kwetsbaar, zeker als de Amerikanen het aantal zo meteen drastisch gaan terugbrengen en de Britten ook afzien van hun F-35C order en voor de Super Hornet gaan. 

[Lex]

Will the USA lose its superpower status?

The decision to cut down state expenses and raise the state debt level, made in the USA as a result of a compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans in the Congress, can lead to dramatic cutbacks of the defence expenditure, which is not going to please Pentagon officials
US experts regard this prospect first of all from the viewpoint that their country will lose the role of a world superpower. The military also express fears because the armed forces and the defence industry will have to tighten their belts. Over the last decade the defence expenditure has nearly doubled and reached almost $550 billion this year. According to the most radical estimates, in the next decade it will be cut by $800bln. This can affect, for example, the newest F-35 jet fighter project which has already consumed over $300bln. The modernization of the nuclear arsenal will also be revised. Winslow Wheeler, an analyst of the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, is convinced that programmes for cutting down military expenses can run into resistance on the part of the defence industry and their lobbyists in the Congress.
"There's going to be a lot of argument about that. Of course, the defense manufactures will be lobbying to make the vast majority of those cuts in personnel programs and even in force structure, leave hard-work cuts alone. That would be a serious mistake. We certainly need to reform both the way we buy hardware and the way we compensate the personnel. Both are right now on an unaffordable track, and we need to reform both payment benefits and the acquisition programs. That would require cancelling greatly expensive and highly ineffective programs, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, replacing them with much more effective programs."
The expert believes that the Pentagon was never aware of how it spent its money. On the other hand, this prospect does not worry ordinary US citizens. Their main concern is social guarantees and decent wages. People understand the reduction of the defence expenditure as curtailing the White House policy of interfering into other countries' internal affairs and local conflicts.
However, some US political scientists see the loss of military power as a threat, since other countries with an "inadequate" administration, like Iran, can be promoted to world leadership. This is certainly a mere exaggeration, like a Hollywood thriller. On the other hand, China is very much likely to move to the front positions in the military power rating.
Anyway, all this is only a future prospect. As for the present-day situation, cutting down the military expenditure falls in with the structure of the US budget, Pavel Zolotaryov, the deputy director of the Institute of the USA and Canada, said in his interview for the Voice of Russia.
"A major part of budget expenses is in the social sphere, health care and education, which is typical of all developed countries. As for US defence expenses, they are equal to those of all other countries of the world combined. This has established the foundation of their defence power which allows them to easily cut down their military expenses. Moreover, long ago the USA came to the conclusion that it is not the military machine that determines the power of a state in today's world. First of all, the USA takes care of its security and protects the economic interests of their companies abroad."
However, the US military do not lose hope that the real cutbacks of the expenditure will not be global and the Defence Ministry will not go bankrupt. In this respect they rely on the head of the Pentagon Leon Panetta who is highly thought of both in the White House and in the Congress. Military people believe that he will always "find a solution".

Voice of Russia,
Aug 5, 2011 17:04 Moscow Time

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Zou jammer zijn. Ook voor de Brazilianen, die laten een mooie kans schieten.

Mee eens. Ik vrees dat Saab niet verder gaat met de NG als ze naast India ook Brazilië verliezen.

Ik betwijfel inderdaad of er dan nog veel potentie overblijft. Jammer, want het is een zeer goed en uniek toestel. Enige kans is dan nog dat de Britten interesse hebben in een sea-gripen-NG, maar geloof dat de Britten liever de Amerikanen een goedmakertje sturen.

Daarmee zou de 2e keus uit de Nederlandse competitie vervallen, waardoor de focus nog meer op de eerste keuze komt te liggen.

Precies. En omdat dit kabinet geen knoop zal doorhakken en 2014 (denk ik) te laat is voor de Gripen rest de Klu slechts één keuze.

Dit lijkt mij ook de strategie van de JSF lobby, de enige manier om het één keuze model te voorkomen is het uitschrijven van een nieuwe competitie met de huidige inzichten.

Persoonlijk verwacht ik dat Saab, als commerciële onderneming, die de NG uit private middelen financierd, de stekker uit het project trekt zodra Brazilië haar definitieve keuze heeft gemaakt. (tenzij het natuurlijk, buiten alle verwachtingen, de NG wordt)

Saab zal zich dan wellicht gaan richten met een consortium van EU vliegtuigbouwers om te gaan nadenken over de opvolger van de huidige generatie (Gripen, EF en Rafale), zodat er rond 2035-2040 een nieuw bemand/onbemand initiatief beschikbaar zal zijn.

Het Engelse goedmakertje zal, bij annuleren van de C variant, vrijwel zeker lijden tot de keuze voor de F18E, ook gezien (zoals reeds geplaatst op dit forum) de proefballonnetjes die in de media zijn verschenen, oogenschijnlijk gevoed door lieden binnen het MOD, om de F18E als alternatief te zien voor de F35C... wellicht biedt deze optie de Britten de mogelijkheid om wel beide nieuwe carriers in de vaart te nemen. (iets wat natuurlijk ook kan met de Sea Gripen)

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Zou jammer zijn. Ook voor de Brazilianen, die laten een mooie kans schieten.

Mee eens. Ik vrees dat Saab niet verder gaat met de NG als ze naast India ook Brazilië verliezen.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Het "spel" voor een nieuwe fighter in Brazilië wordt heftiger en de uitkomst lijkt mee en meer te gaan richting de F18E waarbij de Gripen en de Rafale exit zijn.

Dilma Rousseff, de Brazilian president heeft een duidelijke voorkeur voor de F18E en lijkt dit door te drukken door simpelweg voorstanders van een ander type de laan uit te sturen.

Kortom het ziet er beroerd uit voor de Rafale en 'desastreus' voor de Gripen NG

Brazilian defence minister resigns

"Jobim favoured French firm Dassault's Rafale, while Rousseff has said that she thinks Boeing's F/A-18 is the best choice"

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/08/2011855514768768.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

UAE's deal for Rafale fighter jets seen by end-2011

Negotiations have resumed to sell Dassault Aviation's Rafale fighterjets to the UAE, and a deal could be sealed between September and the end of the year, French daily La Tribune said on Friday.

Dassault Aviation could not immediately be reached for comment.

Last month, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said the UAE was France's best bet in the short term for clinching an export deal for the Rafale.

The French company has still not found a foreign buyer for the multi-role Rafale, billed as one of the most effective but also one of the most expensive fighter jets in the world.

The minister said the UAE was no longer demanding a more powerful engine, previously a condition for a deal, and said he thought Rafale airstrikes in Libya had helped sway the Emirati government.

"The operational and multi-role capacities of the Rafale are being proven on a daily basis with these strikes," he said.

"The Libyan conflict is a clear demonstration that the current engine capacity is sufficient."

The UAE has been in talks with Dassault since 2008 over the purchase of 60 Rafale jets, estimated at 10 billion dollars, to replace their fleet of Mirage 2000s which they bought in 1983.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uae-s-deal-for-rafale-fighter-jets-seen-by-end-2011-414307.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Officers feared purchase of Super Hornets a ploy to cut JSF orders

Mark Dodd
From:The Australian
August 05, 201112:02PM


FEARING orders for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft would be cut, Senior Royal Australian Air Force officers assured the Howard government the ageing fleet of F-111 bombers could fly until mid 2013.

Launched this week, Air Force, by News Limited journalist Ian McPhedran, details the claims made by former Defence Minister Brenadan Nelson that the government's surprise decision to buy 24 Super Hornets prompted the air force officers' fears that future JSF orders would be cut.

Dr Nelson said it became necessary to purchase the F/A-18F Super Hornets when the possibility of an air combat capability gap emerged.

It was the need to retire the maintenance-heavy F-111 well before the introduction of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that created the gap, he said.

Prime Minister John Howard, who shared Dr Nelson's worries, requested a "layman's briefing".

"I said, 'I think we are going to have to buy a squadron of Super Hornets' and he (Howard) said, 'Okay, get it ready and bring it to cabinet'," Dr Nelson related.
This was and the federal government's coffers were brimming.

It was early December 2006, in the pre-global financial crisis era of brimming government coffers, that Dr Nelson had in-principle support to buy the Super Hornets for $6.6 billion.

The surprise announcement attracted the immediate ire of the then Labor opposition which acused the government of financial recklessness.

Other critics said the Super Hornet was a "dog of an aircraft," outclassed by state of the art Russian-war planes which were being acquired by Australia's neighbours.

Dr Nelson dismissed those claims as "uninformed".

But after initially supporting the acquisition, "some senior people in the air force did not go out and sell the plan," he said.

It quickly emerged the reason was a fear by RAAF top brass that the Super Hornet purchase could be a ploy to cut the 100-plane order for the stealthy JSF, the aircraft the RAAF wanted to end up with.

Then Air Force chief Geoff Shepherd left Dr Nelson in no doubt that the RAAF feared a possible 50.50 split between Super Hornets and the Joint Strike Fighter, McPhedran writes.

Dr Nelson said his decision to buy off-the-shelf, while controversial at the time, was quickly vindicated.

Clearing up his desk after losing the 2007 election, he recalled a visit by the then head of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Steve Gumley, wanting to convey a personal message.

"Brendan, of all the decisions you have made, the one that will prove to be the most important for this country will be the Super Hornet decision," he said.

While Labor slammed the untendered Super Hornet purchase, experts now regard the purchase as critical in halting a decline in the RAAF's air combat capability.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/officers-feared-purchase-of-super-hornets-would-create-a-gap-in-raaf-capability/story-fn59niix-1226109014069

[Elzenga]

F-35B aircraft: Is it worth the cost?

Each F-35B costs $150 million, compared with $24 million for a Harrier. | Charles Hoskinson/POLITICO Close

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60605.html#ixzz1U2iQwK3y

"Amos — a former F-18 pilot and the first Marine aviator to lead the Corps — said he's optimistic the F-35B will also prove itself. He said the aircraft's ability to operate aboard amphibious carriers and unimproved airstrips — or even small stretches of highway — would give the Marines a crucial air attack capability they don't have now.

"There's not a backup for this. There's no Plan B," he said. "To do the things this nation requires of its Marine Corps, we need this airplane.""

En dit lijkt me dus niet waar... Niet alleen heeft Marine Corps gevechtshelikopters tot haar beschikking die ook vanaf deze locaties kunnen opereren...bij grote amfibische operaties zullen er altijd ook gevechtsvliegtuigen beschikbaar zijn...gestationeerd op vliegdekschepen die in de buurt rondvaren of vanaf landbases in de buurt. Deze kunnen zowel 24/7 luchtverdediging als grondsteun leveren. Ook de verdere invoering van UCAVs zal deze capaciteit versterken. De F-35B is een bijzonder toestel, maar volgens mij zeker niet onmisbaar. Dat bevestigt ook de Britse beslissing in deze. Laat de Marine Corps dit geld beter investeren in een goede nieuwe amfibische gevechtsvoertuigen.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

F-35B aircraft: Is it worth the cost?

Each F-35B costs $150 million, compared with $24 million for a Harrier. | Charles Hoskinson/POLITICO Close

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60605.html#ixzz1U2iQwK3y

[Elzenga]

DATE:03/08/11
SOURCE:Flight International
F-35 fleet grounded after electrical subsystem failure
By Stephen Trimble

The Lockheed Martin F-35 fleet is grounded while the joint programme office (JPO) investigates the cause of a failure in the aircraft's electrical system during ground tests.

The failure occurred on an F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) test aircraft, numbered AF-4, but the precautionary grounding applies to all 20 F-35s that had reached flying status, according to a JPO statement.

"Once the facts are understood, a determination will be made when to lift the suspension and begin ground and flight operations," the JPO said.

The incident marks the third grounding order for the F-35 fleet since last October, and the second in five months involving the AF-4 test aircraft.

In this case, the Honeywell-built integrated power package (IPP) failed during a standard engine test following a maintenance check at 08:30 on 2 August, the JPO said.

The IPP is primarily used as both a starter for the engine and a back-up electrical system, supporting the two main generators. In March, the IPP proved its worth by activating after both generators shut-down with the AF-4 still in flight. The power generated by the IPP allowed the flight control system to keep operating until the pilot landed.

That incident also triggered a fleet-wide grounding in March until Lockheed fixed a flaw with a new generator system design introduced on AF-4. Some aircraft remained grounded for several weeks until the problem was fixed.

Last October, the fleet was also grounded after Lockheed discovered a software glitch that could have allowed the fuel pump to shut down above 10,000ft.

The electrical system has been the cause of three of four major incidents so far during the development phase. The first incident was recorded in May 2007, when the test aircraft numbered AA-1 experienced an electrical short that disabled flight controls on the horizontal stabliser.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/03/360325/f-35-fleet-grounded-after-electrical-subsystem-failure.html

[Elzenga]

Zolang Nederland dan ook niet actief wordt op de Britse, Franse en Amerikaanse vliegdekschepen

Waar komt dit waanidee, dat ik met enige regelmat voorbij zie komen, toch vandaan? Volkomen irreeel wat mij betreft.

En dus wat mij betreft ook de keuze voor de super Hornet...

[KapiteinRob]

Zolang Nederland dan ook niet actief wordt op de Britse, Franse en Amerikaanse vliegdekschepen

Waar komt dit waanidee, dat ik met enige regelmat voorbij zie komen, toch vandaan? Volkomen irreeel wat mij betreft.

[Elzenga]

Zolang Nederland dan ook niet actief wordt op de Britse, Franse en Amerikaanse vliegdekschepen zie ik geen reden een zwaar maritiem aangepast toestel als de F-18E aan te schaffen. Dan zou de EF beter passen vind ik (duurder, maar ruime aansluiting bij grote buurlanden en andere EU-lidstaten).