's probably not the politicians that are going to kill the dream of owning 86 JSF from the start but more likely the other forces who just won't put up with it.
The ARMY and NAVY are both very opposed to the JSF and the effects it will have in the following years on the budget and with the current Chief of Staff they have a very strong allie on their sides.
could you explain some more about the politics behind the scene's ?
grtz Rob
Just like in most other Armed Forces there exists an everlasting , yearly returning, fight about the division of funds for the procurement of new or more weapon-systems and others.
IIRC in most NATO countries about 15-20% of the DoD budget goes to purchases, in this case the Air Forces of the NLu need a disproportionate percentage to fund the new fighter, be it JSF or whatever else.
This obviously will cut deeply in the available budget and will leave the NAVY and ARMY postponing or altogether abandoning plans for their own new weapon systems which might be equally necessary
Also there is a big conflict between the Air Force and the NAVY, both use big and very unit-expensive weapon-systems, the AF these days relies heavily on foreign (read US) manufacturers and in a lesser degree on Dutch suppliers
artners in the JSF projects while the NAVY basically has to support an almost entirely internal Dutch military shipbuilder economy.
Political pressure to favor the Navy will be all the bigger for it.
Getting their dream of 86 JSF's from the start will proof to be impossible, that's why they are willing to put up with a very slow rate of writing of the old and trusted F16, which ,with the necessary upgrades, could very well do part of the job for 25-30 more years.
Effectively giving a 2 type fighter air force for the next decades.
Their is also another big reason and it is a purely practical one.
The JSF (as the F22 before) is an exclusive 1 seater, this means that many training missions will have to be flown with 1 or more extra planes (for the instructor - senior pilot).
This can be problematic for little air forces (like most European ones are in comparison with the US).
Eg, IIRC in the early 2000's we had 10860 total yearly flying hours on the F16 fleet in Kleine Brogel (Tiger squadron).
It is absolutely vital to use these hours as efficiently as possible and to make every single one count.
Young or low hour pilots need a lot of training and therefore we need the F16B actually more than the A-type.
EG; If you fly to the gun range and have to do a 15° nose down 1000kph Vulcan cannon gun-run for the first time you need an instructor in the back as a backup.
In case of the F35 you need at least another instructor following and shadowing you all the way through the run.
Many times a two seater adds to the efficient use of allocated flying time and more specifically training and instructor time (which if the hours are all used up in October or so will lead to the fleet being grounded for the rest of the fiscal year)
This is a serious handicap in the JSF (and F22) which can partly be overcome by newer , more modern simulators but ultimately actual flying hours remain critical.
Even the USAF keeps its newest jets on the same base as their older F15's or F16's to overcome this shortfall.
I really like the Gripen for it's STOL capabilities, including the way the Swedes operate these planes.
(land on road, refuel, rearm...)
That gives it the edge over the block 60 to me, unless we take the F-35B, but that's very unlikely and expensive.
Most of these nifty features like the ability to TO+Land on short improvised runways can also be done by the F16 if the need arises, however it is not a good enough reason to go for the Gripen.
these abilities are virtually useless for the Dutch.
The "low hours F16's" can be upgraded (higher hours airframe ,better radar and CFT if the need exists) so much so that the Gripen would only be equally capable with the modernised F16 at best.
One of the best reasons Air Forces all over the world go for US equipment is the knowledge that
the US aviation defense industry is committed to constantly upgrade almost every system on active airframes.
That's why US 30+ years old designs still are at the top when it comes to combat effectiveness , level of technology and cost efficiency of use.
A shrill contrast with older European systems that where outright innovative at their time of conception but gradually lost their edge due to the inefficient follow up programs (Jaguar/Tornado/F1/....).
I hope these days us Europeans realize that when we've made the choice to field something as big and important as a new fighter plane we have to stick with it over its entire lifespan, constantly improving upon the design.
Saab seems to have understood this vital lesson.
