The F-16 replacement of the Royal Netherlands Airforce.
- Thread starter IPA35
- Start date
At the moment i think that the Dutch goverment should be like Turkey because Turkey is buying 116 plus F35s and still considring to buy the Eurofighter to complete its air supiroty.
The Dutch should buy 45 F35s for the ground bombing or use its stealth as a SAM killer, and the 40 Eurofighter's for air defence and complete air supiroty
The Dutch should buy 45 F35s for the ground bombing or use its stealth as a SAM killer, and the 40 Eurofighter's for air defence and complete air supiroty
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #103
Now that would be too expensive.
We should buy 2 squadrons of F-35 and 3 squadrons NG/Block 60.
And then we would need a few extra planes for tests and a training SQ.
Now should we have a F-35 SQ with a training and combat role and a dedicated NG/60 training squadron or two dual squadrons with an aditional jettrainer/CAS squadron?
Or something else?
We should buy 2 squadrons of F-35 and 3 squadrons NG/Block 60.
And then we would need a few extra planes for tests and a training SQ.
Now should we have a F-35 SQ with a training and combat role and a dedicated NG/60 training squadron or two dual squadrons with an aditional jettrainer/CAS squadron?
Or something else?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Of course the F-16 Block 60 is both more expensive to operate, and worse than the Gripen NG... Depending on who one listens to and what sources one uses of course.
Regarding the Gripen NG, all I have to say is to reiterate the fact that I consider the accuracy of the information provided on the Gripen NG to be dubious at best. Everything (to me at least) sounds entirely too much like a sales job, with all the costs less and capabilities more... Consider, for instance the Polish order from 2002 for 36 F-16C and 12 F-16D Falcons, all in Block 52 configuration. The deal for the aircraft, training for the pilots and maintenance crews and support equipment was ~US$3.6 billion. According to the claims made about the Gripen NG, the costs are about the same (per aircraft) but it is also claimed to be significantly more capable... I could believe either one of those claims, but not both together, it is IMO not credible. Particularly when viewed in the light of other recent fighter aircraft development programmes like the F-22, F-35, Typhoon and Rafale.
I will refrain from discussing the Gripen NG further as that has IMO been done pretty much to death already. At this point, minds most likely would not be changed by anything short of a statement from Saab stating outright that the Gripen NG does not come with any air to ground weapons integrated, or on the other hand, a statement saying that it does along with which air to ground munitions are integrated with the Gripen NG.
From what I have come across, there are a number of differences between the Block 60 and the RNLAF's Block 10/15 MLU Falcons. The most significant of these are the Block 60's greater weight (IIRC ~1,500 kg more), APG-80 AESA, internal FLIR and ECM, CFTs and a new engine. Even with these differences though, the aircraft should still be reasonably familiar to current RNLAF pilots and maintenance personnel so the transition cost in both money and time should be minimal.
Another possible candidate as a second tier fighter would be the F-16 Block 50/52. While this would still be a C/D Falcon but not quite as advanced as a Block 60, it should be even more familiar with RNLAF Falcon personnel. From what I understand, a number of the systems which made their way into the Block 50 and 52 aircraft originated from, or are further developments of the F-16 MLU.
One thing which would still be needed if the RNLAF is to move towards long-term operate of two fighter aircraft designs is a valid and useful doctrine with which to do so. This would be needed to determine how fighters are to be used, and therefore what types/capabilities are needed. At present the current and upcoming offers for Western fighters are all multi-role but with different aircraft being slightly better suited to different circumstances than others.
Speaking of doctrine, I still do not foresee a significant operational benefit for any future RNLAF fighter to be STOL capable. If the RNLAF's air bases have been rendered unuseable, along with the civilian airports as well as nearby air bases and airports in allied countries, the attacking force could also (and like would) have destroyed RNLAF fighters on the ground. Or if they started to operate on normal roadways in the Netherlands (does the road system have the infrastructure to support this?) it could just cause the potential attacker to begin targeting some of the dykes to flood the polders and restrict where forces can gather and operate from.
-Cheers
One thing which would still be needed if the RNLAF is to move towards long-term operate of two fighter aircraft designs is a valid and useful doctrine with which to do so. This would be needed to determine how fighters are to be used, and therefore what types/capabilities are needed. At present the current and upcoming offers for Western fighters are all multi-role but with different aircraft being slightly better suited to different circumstances than others.
I think some will be deployed to Afghanistan to replace the F-16s. The other F-35s will be in Netherlands to be an interceptor (Russian Tu-95 violate air spaces of other nations and calims it as an excisize.).
Would'nt an mixed batch of Griepens or F-16s Block 60 be great with the F-35s?
I think some will be deployed to Afghanistan to replace the F-16s. The other F-35s will be in Netherlands to be an interceptor (Russian Tu-95 violate air spaces of other nations and calims it as an excisize.).
Would'nt an mixed batch of Griepens or F-16s Block 60 be great with the F-35s?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Haha! Look what I found. it cost 30 million USD to integrate IRIS-T on the Gripen!
Saab receive MSEK 150 order for integration of IRIS-T on Gripen. - Business Wire | Encyclopedia.com
If that's the total cost it can only be said to be very cheap!
Saab receive MSEK 150 order for integration of IRIS-T on Gripen. - Business Wire | Encyclopedia.com
If that's the total cost it can only be said to be very cheap!
Like I said, the numbers being mentioned in this thread are way to high.
By the way, its more like $20 million...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
In order to defend my position I'll speculate a little: The IRIS-T is meant to be very similar to the Sidewinder, i.e captive carry, release testing and interfaces are similar.
22 million USD ( forgot - Swedish banana money
)Well, in that case the integration of an anti-ship missile or a box-shaped cruise missile will be just as cheap since there are wepons of that type integrated already. The same similarities would apply there.
And a bomb or cruise missile are normally released in straight subsonic flight, making the release testing more straight forward. The IRIS-T must be tested in different attitudes, speeds, G-load etc.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I'll agree on the bombs - I've already had that thought wrt the current Gripen Demo testing.
Anyhow, if there are press releases on this, then there should also be on on the Gripen website wrt to a contract on the RBS-15 - which I would think would be more representative.
However, their search functionality is down at the moment....
I think the RBS-15 was integrated 15 years ago, can imagine as a part of the development of the entire Gripen system.
The cost for the Hungarian GBU integration was classified...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
To be honest, I would not be so sure about the bombs... The GBU-10, 12 & 16 are all Paveway II LGBs. Later 'smart bombs' are either Paveway III, GPS/INS guided, or a combination. This would suggest to me that different information, as well as different interfaces are needed to successfully execute a strike.
Also worth noting it that Sweden was involved with the Iris-T development programme which could certainly help with integrating the missile onto the Gripen.
-Cheers
I believe Saab has used "low integration costs" as one of their selling points -- perhaps they paid most of the IRIS-T integration costs themselves, to be able to trick the unsuspecting Danes into believing that?In order to defend my position I'll speculate a little: The IRIS-T is meant to be very similar to the Sidewinder, i.e captive carry, release testing and interfaces are similar.
22 million USD ( forgot - Swedish banana money
Or perhaps they actually have developed a system that is quite clever -- and the low Swedish Krona is also helping a lot. Why go to China or India for cheap labour when you can go to Sweden...?
I heard once a claim that a lot of the Meteor testing is done on Gripen for the same reason -- ease of integration on that platform compared to most other platforms.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
More data:
In November 2003 Saab Aerosystems received an order worth SEK435m from the FMV for the integration of Meteor onto Gripen.[4
4. ^ a b c d e Meteor Press Brief, Saab, Farnborough, 17th of July 2006
Accounting for inflation we're talking about 110 mn USD...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #116
No link.
But this proves that integrating the weapon systems that we might want to integrate is not that expensive.
And the Taurus is already tested on the plane (but not used).
If we would want to buy an anti-ship missle we should take the NSM because it can be internally carried by the F-35 also.
Ofcourse the RBS-15 is not a bad system at all, but it can't be used on the F-35.
But this proves that integrating the weapon systems that we might want to integrate is not that expensive.
And the Taurus is already tested on the plane (but not used).
If we would want to buy an anti-ship missle we should take the NSM because it can be internally carried by the F-35 also.
Ofcourse the RBS-15 is not a bad system at all, but it can't be used on the F-35.
No, of course you wouldnt, you have decided to take a "worse case" view on anything regarding the Gripen...
That could hardly have been for integration alone (since there was nothing to integrate). It was in 2003 the 6 nations decided to go forward with the development and the missile made its first launch in 2006.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Contract award could easily have been in 2003. This is where I got it from:
MBDA Meteor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
No, actually I have not. However, having read a few press releases and contracts, and having friends and family that have been involved with defence/aviation contracts and development, I look for loopholes and/or omissions in offers of which there are a few in the Gripen NG offer.
The Gripen NG has been put forth as a multi-role replacement for the RNLAF's F-16 MLU'd Falcons in an offer that some have described as being 'complete'. However, having read through those offers/press releases I noticed a distinct lack of information about systems that would be required to provide the Gripen NG true multi-role capability. One of the offers does mention which pylons can take things like jammer and targeting pods, but does not mention which pods are already integrated to work with/from the Gripen NG
This again takes us back to the questions of whether or not the offer is 'complete', if the Netherlands would need to devote resources to allow the Gripen NG to operate munitions which the RNLAF might want to employ, or if there will be items which are included with the Gripen NG which are not stipulated in the offer? If you, or anyone else for that matter, has reliable information which can actually answer that above questions, please provide it.
Until that time, or until more hard information is available on the Gripen NG, my advice to the RNLAF would be, "caveat emptor."
-Cheers
Last edited: