My idea's to upgrade the Dutch military.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #43
Please read the new OP, is it that bad?
I think the new APC and IFV will be enough and a few more is not a big problem I suppose.
-
You want to delete or add something?
---
I see no real treat at the moment but I do believe the EU will be a big fail (souvereignity thief's!).
Venezuela...
Not likely but you never know...
Civil war because of crisis?
Not in the near future I suppose...
I think the new APC and IFV will be enough and a few more is not a big problem I suppose.
-
You want to delete or add something?
---
I see no real treat at the moment but I do believe the EU will be a big fail (souvereignity thief's!).
Venezuela...
Not likely but you never know...
Civil war because of crisis?
Not in the near future I suppose...
OK let's see:
Land forces:
40 extra Leo 26A (since latest cuts now 60)
Reactivate stored Phz2000. (since latest cuts 24 out of 54 including reserves).
Light rocket artilery (HIMARS) 8-16
New light scout UAV's.
Increase of number of men restart 3e armoured brigade. (+ a handfull of extra Fenneks for the artillery).
Absolutely agree, also make sure that all combat brigades are fully round-out and not dependent on parent units.
Navy:
4 more 7 provinces class frigate. (might want to sell both M-classes...)
Equipe all with anti-ballistic missle system and Thomahawks...
Developing new subs (4-6).
Buy the 4 patrol ships as planned.
1 STOVL carrier like the Invicible (second hand) OR a ship like the Juan Carlos.
Maybe instead of the new JSS, but I would prefer both.
Keep the 2 Rotterdam classes in service.
I do not see the need for a carrier-type aircraft, as it would put a strain on the budget and on logistics (other aircraft types, big ship to sustain). I would prefer to invest more into the airforce.
Naval aviation:
3-4 Poseidon
F-35B's for carrier and antilles.
2 or 3 Osprey's (Juan Carlos not invincible)
More Chinooks (not part of the airforce) and NH90 for the navy including transport version. (Juan Carlos not Invincible)
For Naval AViation I absolutely agree with the Poseidons, but I do not agree with the rest. We can buy navalised NH90s for Defence Helicopter Command to oeprate for the Marines, but the DHC is a good concept in my view.
Airforce:
Complete replacement of current F-16 fleet by:
80 F-35A
60 planes of a second type (F-16, Gripen, F/A-18 or EF).
4 SuperHercules
2 C-17's
4 Alenia C-27J (2 to be modified as AC-27J gunship).
1 new KDC tanker.
3 more chinooks. (and modernisation)
Modernise Apache's to Longbow standard. (I don't think more are needed.)
24 Defender 500's (12 scout and 12 AT).
MQ-9 Reaper 10 (attack).
I would not invest in C17s as they are too big, the C130J-30s are good enough. Invest more in KDCs and invest in more helicopters (CH47s and NH90s). We do not need a gunship for defence missions and the Reaper cannot be bught without committing in the split operations concept with the USAF...
We defintely need a mix of F25 and Gripen (my personal view) and invest in weapons like HARM and Harpoon, together with a JSOW type standoff weapon.
Air defence.
2 Extra patriot launchers. (Antilles?)
Buying the norse SAM´s as planned.
Reopen closed AF bases and build one in antilles (+ marines and port facilities).
Maybe a few % increase of salary to attract more personel.
Agree with all!
Not a bad plan, I only have some personal tweaks ;-)
Cheers
Land forces:
40 extra Leo 26A (since latest cuts now 60)
Reactivate stored Phz2000. (since latest cuts 24 out of 54 including reserves).
Light rocket artilery (HIMARS) 8-16
New light scout UAV's.
Increase of number of men restart 3e armoured brigade. (+ a handfull of extra Fenneks for the artillery).
Absolutely agree, also make sure that all combat brigades are fully round-out and not dependent on parent units.
Navy:
4 more 7 provinces class frigate. (might want to sell both M-classes...)
Equipe all with anti-ballistic missle system and Thomahawks...
Developing new subs (4-6).
Buy the 4 patrol ships as planned.
1 STOVL carrier like the Invicible (second hand) OR a ship like the Juan Carlos.
Maybe instead of the new JSS, but I would prefer both.
Keep the 2 Rotterdam classes in service.
I do not see the need for a carrier-type aircraft, as it would put a strain on the budget and on logistics (other aircraft types, big ship to sustain). I would prefer to invest more into the airforce.
Naval aviation:
3-4 Poseidon
F-35B's for carrier and antilles.
2 or 3 Osprey's (Juan Carlos not invincible)
More Chinooks (not part of the airforce) and NH90 for the navy including transport version. (Juan Carlos not Invincible)
For Naval AViation I absolutely agree with the Poseidons, but I do not agree with the rest. We can buy navalised NH90s for Defence Helicopter Command to oeprate for the Marines, but the DHC is a good concept in my view.
Airforce:
Complete replacement of current F-16 fleet by:
80 F-35A
60 planes of a second type (F-16, Gripen, F/A-18 or EF).
4 SuperHercules
2 C-17's
4 Alenia C-27J (2 to be modified as AC-27J gunship).
1 new KDC tanker.
3 more chinooks. (and modernisation)
Modernise Apache's to Longbow standard. (I don't think more are needed.)
24 Defender 500's (12 scout and 12 AT).
MQ-9 Reaper 10 (attack).
I would not invest in C17s as they are too big, the C130J-30s are good enough. Invest more in KDCs and invest in more helicopters (CH47s and NH90s). We do not need a gunship for defence missions and the Reaper cannot be bught without committing in the split operations concept with the USAF...
We defintely need a mix of F25 and Gripen (my personal view) and invest in weapons like HARM and Harpoon, together with a JSOW type standoff weapon.
Air defence.
2 Extra patriot launchers. (Antilles?)
Buying the norse SAM´s as planned.
Reopen closed AF bases and build one in antilles (+ marines and port facilities).
Maybe a few % increase of salary to attract more personel.
Agree with all!
Not a bad plan, I only have some personal tweaks ;-)
Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #45
With 'carrier' I mean something like the JC or Canberra class.
It is a large helicopter carrier too and it has a dock so see it as an extra JSS (or we could ditch the planned JSS).
(Plus extra frigates).
We don't need alot of new helicopters but we might give the navy there own transports.
(and Osprey as it is capable to carry it and they are quite usefull).
You have plans for a second air assault brigade??
C-17 are not THAT expensive and th production line will close soon.
The NATO sharing plan doesn't sound right and even smaller countries have them...
Plus they can carry helicopters to places like Afghanistan.
(A)C-27 are light transports and a gunship is very usefull for an Afghanist like situation and to complement the Apaches. (not planning to but lots of attack heli's except for the Defenders.)
I don't think we need the Gripen, HARM? then we should buy Growlers.
So then we should buy some F/A-18 as a seond type (40 SH, 20GR).
But those planes are disigned for carrie service so I have the feeling we would not exploit there full capabilities if we don't have CATOBAR carrier...
And I don't really know what's better F-35B or F/A-18.
Or could both planes fit on one small carrier/amf. assault ship?
2 would be too expensive.
MQ-9's sound good but I don't know anything about this commitment...?
And if we develop new subs for the future we should give them some surface to surface missle launchers, no?
It is a large helicopter carrier too and it has a dock so see it as an extra JSS (or we could ditch the planned JSS).
(Plus extra frigates).
We don't need alot of new helicopters but we might give the navy there own transports.
(and Osprey as it is capable to carry it and they are quite usefull).
You have plans for a second air assault brigade??
C-17 are not THAT expensive and th production line will close soon.
The NATO sharing plan doesn't sound right and even smaller countries have them...
Plus they can carry helicopters to places like Afghanistan.
(A)C-27 are light transports and a gunship is very usefull for an Afghanist like situation and to complement the Apaches. (not planning to but lots of attack heli's except for the Defenders.)
I don't think we need the Gripen, HARM? then we should buy Growlers.
So then we should buy some F/A-18 as a seond type (40 SH, 20GR).
But those planes are disigned for carrie service so I have the feeling we would not exploit there full capabilities if we don't have CATOBAR carrier...
And I don't really know what's better F-35B or F/A-18.
Or could both planes fit on one small carrier/amf. assault ship?
2 would be too expensive.
MQ-9's sound good but I don't know anything about this commitment...?
And if we develop new subs for the future we should give them some surface to surface missle launchers, no?
The JSS is an underway replenishment & sealift ship. The BPE (Juan Carlos 1) design is not equipped for underway replenishment, & underway replenishment gear is not really compatible with a through-deck design, so could not replace it even if modified - though it could do the sealift. Without the replenishment capacity, the value of the LHD (& the rest of the fleet) is greatly reduced. Given the choice, I'd therefore keep the JSS & go without the LHD.
A dock has its uses, but adds cost & weight & reduces hull efficiency, so should be omitted if not needed. I understand why the the RNlN doesn't think it's needed in the JSS.
The BPE cannot operate CTOL aircraft such as the F-18. It would need catapults & arrestor gear, which would mean a major redesign, & it would still be a very poor CTOL carrier. Small, too slow, etc. Cavour would be a better basis - but still rather small, & in need of a lot of redesign.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #48
That would cost to much and it has no storage/landing dock function.
And think about the large number of personel.
But could it operate CTOL and VTOL aircraft at the same time?
Yes, it would be expensive. But if you want a CTOL carrier, you have to pay. If you want a carrier which is both CTOL & STOVL*, you need either STOBAR, or a bigger deck than a pure STOVL, to allow for either STO take-off runs without a ski-jump, or a ski-jump & an angled catapult - even more expensive.
You're asking too much of one ship. You're asking for things which degrade each other if combined.
*Practically, there's no such thing as VTOL fixed-wing - you want to carry weapons & enough fuel to do anything, it has to be STOVL.
This depends on what you want to do with it. JC1 is not designed to be an LHD and a carrier at the same time. According to the Armada, before operating as a carrier, she will go into port, have some additional equipment installed (in containerised modules, which fit into prepared spaces) & have the dock door temporarily sealed. She'll then take to sea again as a carrier, with no LHD capability until it's time to revert to being an LHD. Meanshile, the main carrier will be repaired or refitted. Back to port, reverse the process. Care will be taken to arrange that both LPDs are available while JC1 is in carrier mode.
The carrier role is secondary, & only as a back-up to the main, dedicated carrier. She could, in theory, operate a handful of F-35B while retaining some amphibious capability, but it's not thought worthwhile. The bigger (40000 ton) US LHDs only carry 6 Harriers in addition to their amphibious role.
If you want a carrier, buy a real one. JC1 was never meant to be a real carrier, only an auxiliary, to provide back-up for a real carrier. With no primary carrier, she would have nothing to back-up, & should really stick to her true & main role as an LHD - as the Australians intend to use her. They're keeping the ski-jump, but I think that's partly to save messing around with the design, partly for insurance, & partly to enable her to act as a backup for US LHDs & maybe RN CVFs in the future. The Canberras will not be Australias aircraft carriers.
I think that you want to do more than is possible, even within your proposed expanded navy, & you should either think of a bigger expansion (& I think we both know how realistic that is) or try to do less, to make sure you can do it properly.
The carrier role is secondary, & only as a back-up to the main, dedicated carrier. She could, in theory, operate a handful of F-35B while retaining some amphibious capability, but it's not thought worthwhile. The bigger (40000 ton) US LHDs only carry 6 Harriers in addition to their amphibious role.
If you want a carrier, buy a real one. JC1 was never meant to be a real carrier, only an auxiliary, to provide back-up for a real carrier. With no primary carrier, she would have nothing to back-up, & should really stick to her true & main role as an LHD - as the Australians intend to use her. They're keeping the ski-jump, but I think that's partly to save messing around with the design, partly for insurance, & partly to enable her to act as a backup for US LHDs & maybe RN CVFs in the future. The Canberras will not be Australias aircraft carriers.
I think that you want to do more than is possible, even within your proposed expanded navy, & you should either think of a bigger expansion (& I think we both know how realistic that is) or try to do less, to make sure you can do it properly.
I don't think its likely the dutch are going to operate a carrier. Certainly not a CATOBAR one. If you want a carrier you will want two so that one is avalible at all times. The JC1 LHD can fill in, but is not really going to fit in with what the dutch already have.
They are however completely able to make an amphibious assault group and a very effective airforce and navy. That is where the money is best spent.
Upgrade the apaches, more bushmasters, maybe several C-17's and also be in the NATO pool. More chinooks. Maybe keep more tanks active or atleast training reserve. New subs would also be worthwhile, Australia would be an excellent partner.
Growlers are nice, but not must haves. Australia its very minor issue because we are getting the SH anyway. 80 - F35's or more would be useful.
They are however completely able to make an amphibious assault group and a very effective airforce and navy. That is where the money is best spent.
Upgrade the apaches, more bushmasters, maybe several C-17's and also be in the NATO pool. More chinooks. Maybe keep more tanks active or atleast training reserve. New subs would also be worthwhile, Australia would be an excellent partner.
Growlers are nice, but not must haves. Australia its very minor issue because we are getting the SH anyway. 80 - F35's or more would be useful.
A lot of people made the case against JC or a carrier so I will only concur. We do not need a carrier, it will be expensive, also in the way to have to buy more aircraft types. We do not need the Hornet and as Finland and Switserland use the aircraft in a land role, it does not need a carrier to be effective.
And besides, USAF F16s and USN F18s carry HARM, you do not need Growler for that. ALso I would ditch the Ac27js. They are still in concept phase and not likely to be delivered soon, they would be expensive and only useful for an Afghanistan-type operation. You are referring to being prepared for the next war, which makes sense, you plan for your next war and in that war we defintely do not need a gunship.
OK, I agree the Navy / Marines need dedicated helicopters, but what is wrong with Defence Helicopter Command? Ospreys are a big big I think, the current load-out of CH47, Cougar and NH90 is OK by me. ALso, a C17 is nice but very expensive. We do not have the budgets like Canada, Australia, the UK and the UAE. But OK, we need a strategic airlift.
I would very much like to see the Marine Brigade be transformed into a real combat brigade with its organic artillery and engineers. This unit would be air assault-capable as well. I would select Hermes500 out maybe the new BAE Mantis UAV in the future and not depend on a joint US solution for ana rmed UAV.
Cheers
And besides, USAF F16s and USN F18s carry HARM, you do not need Growler for that. ALso I would ditch the Ac27js. They are still in concept phase and not likely to be delivered soon, they would be expensive and only useful for an Afghanistan-type operation. You are referring to being prepared for the next war, which makes sense, you plan for your next war and in that war we defintely do not need a gunship.
OK, I agree the Navy / Marines need dedicated helicopters, but what is wrong with Defence Helicopter Command? Ospreys are a big big I think, the current load-out of CH47, Cougar and NH90 is OK by me. ALso, a C17 is nice but very expensive. We do not have the budgets like Canada, Australia, the UK and the UAE. But OK, we need a strategic airlift.
I would very much like to see the Marine Brigade be transformed into a real combat brigade with its organic artillery and engineers. This unit would be air assault-capable as well. I would select Hermes500 out maybe the new BAE Mantis UAV in the future and not depend on a joint US solution for ana rmed UAV.
Cheers
Hey, it is your OP ;-)
I only give my opinion as you ask it on this forum.
I would really like to see the Dutch brigades transform to real combat brigades, so when we have to deploy a battalion to an operation it can depend on its parent unit instead of drawing from all over the army.
My opinions are just my opinions, I would like to know your input.
Cheers
I only give my opinion as you ask it on this forum.
I would really like to see the Dutch brigades transform to real combat brigades, so when we have to deploy a battalion to an operation it can depend on its parent unit instead of drawing from all over the army.
My opinions are just my opinions, I would like to know your input.
Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #56
Opinion?
---
What equipment would you give the Marine Corps???
And what new stuff would you need to reorganise the brigades?
Someone said the JSS is not enough and wants a helicopter carrier?
Then we should bleed and buy something like the Wasp/america-class
:.
What UAV you meant?
As I can't find it...
BTW I would also buy more kinds of weapons for the airforce as they currently have quite a small selection...
---
What equipment would you give the Marine Corps???
And what new stuff would you need to reorganise the brigades?
Someone said the JSS is not enough and wants a helicopter carrier?
Then we should bleed and buy something like the Wasp/america-class
:.What UAV you meant?
As I can't find it...
BTW I would also buy more kinds of weapons for the airforce as they currently have quite a small selection...
Last edited:
I would like the Marines to have their own organic artillery and light armour, together with engineer and support services. I think a towed light artillery piece like the British L118 would be great, as would the LAV25 for light armour.
The Army brigades would just need reorganisation, as their equipment (Leo2A6, CV90, Pzh2000) is OK, I would just reactivate more artillery and tanks to round out the brigades.
I still do not see the need for a carrier-type ship. We do not need carrier aviation, just enough JSS-type ships and LPDs like the 'Rotterdam' and 'Witte de Wit' to either transport a full Marine battalion to war or to transport Army units to their operations area.
For the Airforce I would keep the current inventory of JDAm and Paveway, maybe buy some Penguin / NSM or Harpoons and soms kind of standoff weapon like JSOW. The Heron is a good UAV, Hermes450 would also be good. As for the Mantis UAV, google it, it is a BAE systems UAV now being developed (dpuble engines, double payload over Reaper).
Cheers
The Army brigades would just need reorganisation, as their equipment (Leo2A6, CV90, Pzh2000) is OK, I would just reactivate more artillery and tanks to round out the brigades.
I still do not see the need for a carrier-type ship. We do not need carrier aviation, just enough JSS-type ships and LPDs like the 'Rotterdam' and 'Witte de Wit' to either transport a full Marine battalion to war or to transport Army units to their operations area.
For the Airforce I would keep the current inventory of JDAm and Paveway, maybe buy some Penguin / NSM or Harpoons and soms kind of standoff weapon like JSOW. The Heron is a good UAV, Hermes450 would also be good. As for the Mantis UAV, google it, it is a BAE systems UAV now being developed (dpuble engines, double payload over Reaper).
Cheers
I'm certainly out of my lane when it comes to the navy, the airforce and the Dutch in general, but I will provide my POV
First of all you should establish:
a) How much ressources for the military are feasible
b) What specific tasks it should fulfill
c) Which current and future threats might it face
All this points are of course linked and shape each other.
IMHO the current political/economical/military situation seems to validate the approach of Petrac. I might add that a relative heavy investment in ISTAR and ISR assets on all the echelons might be wise. Transport Helicopters seem to be of great importance in Afghanistan and have a wide range of applications. The public and the goverment might also be more willing to buy them as dedicated weapon systems.
BTW: Will the F35 able to launch an Harpoon-class weapon? Hm the NSM seems to be a promising addition and give more fighters increased abilities to deal with ships. I don't think that the Gripen is worth the investment for the Dutch airforce and neither are new F16. Given the large numbers of JSF it should greatly profit from relative cheap specialized or adapted add-ons and assets like the NSM.
First of all you should establish:
a) How much ressources for the military are feasible
b) What specific tasks it should fulfill
c) Which current and future threats might it face
All this points are of course linked and shape each other.
IMHO the current political/economical/military situation seems to validate the approach of Petrac. I might add that a relative heavy investment in ISTAR and ISR assets on all the echelons might be wise. Transport Helicopters seem to be of great importance in Afghanistan and have a wide range of applications. The public and the goverment might also be more willing to buy them as dedicated weapon systems.
BTW: Will the F35 able to launch an Harpoon-class weapon? Hm the NSM seems to be a promising addition and give more fighters increased abilities to deal with ships. I don't think that the Gripen is worth the investment for the Dutch airforce and neither are new F16. Given the large numbers of JSF it should greatly profit from relative cheap specialized or adapted add-ons and assets like the NSM.
I am still not convinced about the JSF and OK, I am biased for the gripen ;-) However, I think we need to invest in a good yet affordable fighter. Even with a massive increase of the defence budget, we are still a small country with a small budget.
My aim is only to create combat-viable brigades for the Army and a Navy to support them and operate independently, so not dependent on other navies for area protection etcetera. Our airforce is OK, bu would need some more helicopters UCAVs and an F16 replacement. We do not needa fancy aircraft, but a good fighter and groudn pounder, maybe a combination of the cheaper Gripen and the high-end JSF where stealth is neccesary.
Cheers
My aim is only to create combat-viable brigades for the Army and a Navy to support them and operate independently, so not dependent on other navies for area protection etcetera. Our airforce is OK, bu would need some more helicopters UCAVs and an F16 replacement. We do not needa fancy aircraft, but a good fighter and groudn pounder, maybe a combination of the cheaper Gripen and the high-end JSF where stealth is neccesary.
Cheers