My idea's to upgrade the Dutch military.

[IPA35]

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

Marines with towed artillery? Ok, sounds good but our whole military does not use towed artillery exept for some 120mm mortars...
LAV25 sounds ok but we should use multiple versions (normal, TOW and maybe mortar) OR you could give them CV90's as they allready have partia's.

AFAIK we don't have JDAM only Paveway...
I would buy JDAM, AS missles and a for of cruise missle.
(maybe HARM).

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

Navy,

More frigates (2-4) (+Cruise missles and UAV's)
(new subs)
So you think we need a Helicarrier?
But what kind and what size?
HMS Ocean carriers Harriers too for example...
You want one with STOVL capebility?
That would mean the F-35B's*.

AF

I personaly would prefer like 2 different types of fights (you know sometimes the fleet has to be grounded...)
I don't really like the F-35 but we've spent alot of money on the project allready and if you want STOVL* then we should buy the A version too for practial purposes.

We need an american plane if we want to keep the borrowed nuclear bombs.
BUT if you want to do a nuclear strike I think a larger and faster plane would be better (F-15SE).

The new F-16 is better choice than the Gripen IMO and needs fewer change in
infrastructure.
So I would suggest:

A number of block 60's
A number of f-35A's
(Maybe F-15? like 25)

Transport:
4 new Super Hercules.
2 Globemasters (important as production line will close soon!)
2-4 C-27J's (maybe we should upgrad 2 to AC-27J standard for parachute missions and CAS...

P-8 Poseidon. (3-4)
I don't know if we really need AWACS, but the Wedgetail is closely related to the P-8...

More Heli's.

UAV's:

Scaneagles of the army and navy

An UCAV:
Not sure what's the best choice...
-Rq-9 is the most capable platform available IMO.
-Hermes 450 is not even officially armed and it can only carry 2 missles. (predator 10?)
-Heron TP is not yet armed too...

MQ-4 (4 units)
I think these are usefull for both land and naval surveilance and recon.

And maybe the HIMARS for the army?

All of this is not affordable in the short therm but within 10 years it should be completed, what do you think?

 

[Firn]

As I have already posted I don't think that a Helicarrier is needed. It would be a nice addition, but does the purchase make sense? Is it a good and costeffective way to serve the interest of the nation? Or is the money better spend elsewhere?

Ground Forces

Howitzer and Mortars have different strenghts and weaknesses. Ideal for "light" forces would be a combination between towed or perhaps even light SP (Ceasar) 105 or 155 mm howitzers and 120 mm mortars. I don't know the profil of the Marines well enough to be able to judge which combination is the most useful for their taskprofil. CF mission necessitate counter-artillery radar and good firesupport in general quite a lot of investment in C4ISTAR, so there goes a good chunk of the money.

A HIMARS brings unique qualities on the table and would certainly do more than just augment the capabilities of the brigade/division in question. It could also serve as lauch component of a brigade's airdefense.

Air force:

It seems to me that it is best to have a robust number of F35 which can fulfill wide roles and a small number of "heavy" and rather slow UCAVs, possibly LO

The rest is already in my posts.

 

[IPA35]

I don't really think it's neccesary but someone posted that...

We could give the Marine Corps the HIMARS.
And how about the mortar version of the Boxer?
Or the mortar version of the LAV25.
(If we should buy LAV25, we should have multiple versions).
BAE Mantis would do, but an armed version will take some time...

---

I want to know if we need our own AWACS, it sounds expensive but we do need the P8 and the Wedgetail is based on the same plane...
I would buy 4 MQ-4's also.

But still...
We really should have 2 types of fighters, preferably a light/medium and a heavy type.

 

[IPA35]

Updated OP again...

 

[petrac]

In my opinion the Wedgetail is much too expensive, we can buy the Swedish Erieye system in a EMB145 of SAAB platform for an AEW platform if you want to. As for nuclear strike, we do not need borrowed nuclear weapons and I oppose the sue of them. If you do not want an F35, look towards other platform, maybe we can buy F18E or F16 Block60 if you want, but in any case, we will need a viable platform for strike and superiority missions. Heavy platforms like the F15(S)E do not fir the profile for our armed forces.

HIMARS and an lighter artillery unit is good for both Aemy and Marines. We do not have towed artillery now which i think is a shame. If we need to send light forces into harm's way, we do not have to airlift a heavily armoured tracked gun tube into battle, we need a light and mobile gun with enough hitting power.

For the Navy an augmentation of more destroyers with cruise missiles is good, as is investment in new subs. Iam still not convinced about a helicopter carrier, it does not fit the profile of the Navy and would cost a lot of money. There is no requirement for such a force and it would put a heavy burden on the Navy. I want the Navy to concentrate on what it is good in, which are multi-purpose ship platforms. The two LPDs and the JSS ships are more than adequate enough to support a Marine battalion.

As for weapons, I believe I saw KLu f16s in -Stan with JAMs but if we haven't, please buy them ;-) A standoff weapons like JSOW or Raptor would be nice, just as a HARM-type weapon and NSM/Penguin for naval targets. The carrier platform is then of lesser relevance, as long as it can carry these weapons in good quantities and can still use AMRAAM/Sidewinder in combat.

As for UAV, we now need surveillance UAVs the most, I am no fan of the Reaper option due to the restrictions the US put you in (look at the way the RAF is using them, as a sub-unit in the USAF UAV wing...). In my opinion Hermes and Heron can be armed and this can be deve;loped together with the manufacturer. As for the future Mantis shows promising results.

But again, these are my own opinions ;-)
Cheers

 

[IPA35]

As for fighters we could buy 80 Gripen NG's
We could add 3 SAAB 2000's with Erieye too.
I personally would aquire 25 F-15SE for nukes and for cruise missles (AFAIK can's carry cruisemissle and I read it will have the same level of stealth as the export version of the F-35)...
Then buy 3 or 4 Poseidon's and the transports (maybe reduce 4 new hercules to 2).

HIMARS, yes.
Light artillery for the Marines only (acording to Wiki we bought some of them but they are no longer used AFAIK but I don't know if we still have them in reserve).

As for UCAV's.
I would pick the Heron TP or the Mantis.
I think the ScanEagle is thebest UAV for the army (and navy).

I would also order 40 more Boxers and arm them with mortars and the command version.
Then ditch all the YPR's.

And we agree about the Navy then.

 

[petrac]

I think we agree about the Navy and the Army.

I am bstill not convinced about the nukes though, AFAIK the dual use agreement has been closed already and almost all tactical nukes have been removed. I do not believe in nukes altogether and as you describe a future where organisations like the EU and NATO will terminate the dual use agreements are useless.
So why invest in a capability which is useless? I do not know what you mean by cruise missiles, but Tomahawks are nor airborne-carried. If you mean stand-off powered weapons, I think you can adapt any aircraft to carry them. From a maintenance and logistics point of view I prefer a single aircraft type, just as we have now. We can talk with SAAB for a license-built version, develop the NG along with them and set up our own logistics for it..

The gripen has plenty of development life in it in my view.
Cheers

 

[IPA35]

I mean air launched cruise missles, he tomhawks are for the frigates.
BTW the Gripen CAN carry the Taurus cruise missle.


What's your list for the airforce then?

The Gripen is ok especcialy when the Meteor becomes avalable but I think we really need second type in small numbers (preferably a more heavy platform so not he F-35).

I think the F-15SE will do, faster, higher ceiling and a larger payload than F-35.
I read that it can have the same stealth as the F-35 export version.
So as a trusted county we will get the max export stealth.
Same as export version of F-35 on an F-15E!
Can you see the stealth-scam that is the F-35?

But we could buy another typre if you want if you don't want nukes but there are few alternatives.
EF (almost as light), Rafale (very good plane but still light), F-18 (twin engined, and as heavy as the F-15E ).

 

[petrac]

Taurus is a good weapon, just as is JSOW or even the South African MUPSOW, which is being integrated in the SAF Gripens. it is not so much the carrier as the weapons employed ;-)

I can imagine you want a heavier platform, although I think that distinction is rapidly losing out as aircraft are getting more alike as of performance. The problem with Stealth aircraft is that payload is always a problem. The F15SE can carry as much as the F35 in full stealth mode, which is not much.

I am critical of the F35 project as we are footing the bill for delays and additional development costs. I woul like to wait, buy gripen to replace half the F16 fleet and wait for the F35 (or F15SE) to mature. Both platforms are still in development.

Additional transports are a very great asset, as are more helicopters. However, given the current government, defence spending will not increase, mor elikely decrease given the current budget cuts, which is a great shame!!

Cheers

 

[IPA35]

And AFAIK there is no party that want's to increarse the spending with the kind of money we need to improve the overall effectiveness, so it is only wishfull thinking...

I heard that they only have the budget for like 55 F-35's.
They really should have accepted SAAB's offer.

Besides how much LAV25 would the marinecorps need 30-40?

(F-18 could replace the F-15SE it has no stealth but it can be dilvered quite soon as it is allready in production).

 

[petrac]

Yeah I know..
And than it could serve to improve the economy as unemployed can enlist and Dutch companies can build and maintain equipment...

But hey, no politics here ;-)
If you read jsfnieuws.nl the SAAB offer is much better, but hey, I like the plane so I am biased... ;-)

I was just thinking about the Marines, they are a light infantry unit. But in my opinion you need some light armour by yourself (not relying on the Army) for self-protection. I would like to see a Marine Motorised Group attached to the brigade with about a company of LAV25, supported by a TOW LAV platoon and some maintenance LAVs.

Cheers

 

[IPA35]

Indeed...

I like the SAAB offer too (maybe add 3 SAAB 2000's with Erieye).

Sounds good, maybe the DragonFire version but that might be too much.

Instead of the F-15SE we could select the F-18E/F as it is allready in production, but it has no stealth.
But we could get the Growler (wireing).

 

[IPA35]

I've read on a dutch site that the Fennek MRAT (with Spike-MR, 2.5 km range 1 launcher 5 missles) is inadequate for modern warfare against armor and they suggested some of them to be armed with the Spike-ER.
Or could this role be fullfilled (longrange AT) by the HIMARS and 120mm mortar APC's?

They also said the Boxer is not good enough for a wartime situation.

 

[petrac]

What is inadequate in this scenario? We still have TOW for long-range engagements and there are plenty of scenario's where a MR missile is gooe enough. I would indeed arm a mix of MR and LR missiles just to be sure. Isn't it possible just to change the missile launcher between these 2 systems?

As fir interchanging with HIMARS and mortars. Mortars are notoriously bad tankkillers and HIMARS might not always be available, you need direct-fire AT weapons on the frontline, always. Technology is good, but cannot beat well-trained troops on the frontline ;-)

By the way, The Boxer is a light vehicle and is not comparable to the fully-armoured and tracked CV90. They complement each other, as there are scenario's where the heavy CV90 is unsuitable or unwanted (UN missions?). There is a great debate between the tracked vs motorised fans, but in thruth you need both to fully cover the whol,e spectrum of warfare (from peacekeeping to full war)

Cheers

 

[kato]

The Boxer is a light vehicle and is not comparable to the fully-armoured and tracked CV90.

Are we talking about Boxer GTK/MRAV ? Because that vehicle will be 20% larger, generally better-armoured and weighing 7 tons more than a CV90... and besides, the NL is only buying them to replace the M577 and a few M113.

 

[IPA35]

Yes, but I read somewhere that we should have bought the Piranha...

 

[Firn]

Yes, but I read somewhere that we should have bought the Piranha...

Why that?

The general tendency seems to increase the overall armor as a element in the struggle against the IED quite considerably. To me it seems that both the Boxer and the Puma anticipated the overall trends quite well.

I guess that Petrac meant "heavy firepower" whe thinking about the CV90. There is a mental tendency to equal tracks with heavy armor and firepower and wheels with light armor and firepwer. Happens to me too.

I also believe that in any situation where a turreted 120mm mortar with a FCS, a modern 30mm cannon of a IFV and a modern ATGM are not considered sufficient enough to deal with the scope of the armored threat friendly MBT are needed. CAS and artillery support with silver bullets is great. But why would you handicapped yourself and not deploy the uniquely capable, readily available and proven when facing a serious thread?

 

[IPA35]

We have tanks, but to few are active...

But you think the Boxer is ok (I believe so too actually) and I believe we should get some with a mounted 120mm mortar and also a few command versions so we can replace all YPR's and Fuch's.


---------------------------------------------

Woul it be possible to arm a number of CV90's with long range Spike's or TOW-II's like the Bradley?

 

[petrac]

I agree about the army needs both a high-end and a low-end solution to the modern-day conflicts. CV90s might be too 'heavy' for some peacekeeping operations, bu we also need their firepower. I have to admit I know too,little about the Boxer program, I will read up to it ;-)

I would very much like to see an AT missile fitted to our AFVs to make them more multi-role, maybe a nice development opportunity for us . I certainly would like to see a mechanised solution for all arms, including mortars.

Are we all looking forward to the heated JSF debate in parliament today?
Cheers

 

[IPA35]

I missed it, but maybe I can still watch it somewhere...
EDIT: PvdA saves the day! Gripen please.
(JSF ATLEAST 6.1 billion and 10 billion for 30 years maintainance, Gripen 4.8 and another 4.8 for 30 years maintainace, a huge lot cheaper).

Next topic: Orion replacement.

I suggest Poseidon (number?) and MQ-4 (like 4 but another 4 for the airforce).