MickI think that the thought of the Netherlands developing their own fighter is extremely unrealistic. Designing airliners or fighters are two completely different things. The Dutch didn´t develop any fighter after the outbreak of WWII. Any attempt of designing a fighter would end like the LCA…
BTW, I belive that the blind commitment of Dutch politicians for the JSF is a way to keep some technical know how from the Fokker era in the country.
You have to remember that the Netherlands still employs about 11,000 people largely from aerospace. There’s little naval industry, apart from Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, while armoured vehicle manufacturing is small-scale (in terms of employees) and foreign-owned.The Dutch government had to sign-up for something to ensure that there was some long-term project that would safeguard Dutch aerospace jobs in the medium-term. The industrial offsets from the F-35 (like the NH-90) should be significant for a country with such a small aeropace sector.
MickI already stated in the opening post that I am trying to identify countries that have a national capability to design its own fighter but chose not to do so due to economic and political considerations.
We all know the Netherlands does not have the will. The question is whether the Dutch aerospace industry has the capability.
Well the answer to that I suppose is yes, albeit the technical know-how even if Dutch designers are now working for EADS, teaching students aerospace engineering or are busy designing and testing a screw system for the F-35’s landing gear. But I do think such a question is largely irrelevant to European nations these days what with collaboration on the Eurofighter and F-35. You could pose the same question about countries like Germany and the UK. Neither country build their “own” fighters anymore (other than assemble aircraft for their own national air forces that have been designed and developed with other nations), but have the technical knowledge and experience to do so. Even other European countries like Belgium have several companies with experience of assembling fighters or building parts for for military and civilian aircraft. Sabca and Sonaca would be prime examples. Very few industrialised countries have no experience at all or industry in place to do so, even if the main business of a country’s major aerospace company is now nothing more than providing a bolt for the tail fin of something like the F-22. Cost and strategic requirements (and I guess national prestige with certain countries) remain the overriding considerations.
MickCheers for clearing that up. I wondered about the caption claiming it was the 1990s. Hardly 1990s-era dress-sense among the workers.
MickInteresting to see this old photo of the F-16 assembly at Fokker at Schiphol for the EPAF nations in the 1990s.
MickVery little capability. Maybe moreso with massive investment then possibly, but so could so any other European country if its government had endless money to spend on defence. The Netherlands pretty much represents the defence industries of many EU countries other than France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Sweden. Small companies, often foreign-owned, that supply components to the big boys of the defence aerospace industry.
Besides, the NLR is pretty limited and specialised to what it does in military aviation research, say compared to the UK’s QinetiQ or Dstl, or equivalents in major EU countries. Of the only “major” Dutch companies, Stork SP Aerospace makes landing gear for the F-35 Lightning and NH-90 (the company has a 5.5% stake in NHIndustries, which makes the NH-90). DutchAero is partly foreign-owned (Avio) and makes aero engines parts and airframe components. These companies don’t have the specialist know-how anymore or the financial resources to design, develop and build an all-Dutch fighter. The whole Dutch defence industry has been pretty much run into the ground in the last ten years, of what there actually is.
MickIf there is no English version, stick it through Babelfish or search for the page via google with the translation facility. These are improving to get pretty close translations and long gone are days when you’d stick something in French or another foreign language and hit the translate button, only to get “The Mirage is a superb french technologie premier avion de combat cake je suis le General French Army Air scuba diving habite small chateau in le French Alps”.
MickThe irony is that towards the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, we spent about 5% of GDP on defence. Since then it’s fallen to around 2.4% and yet we have had to actually fight wars than just prepare for them. Defence spending is clearly insufficient but the government will find it easier to cut defence expenditure than say doing it to health or education. Further cuts are inevitable. Question should be whether this or any future government is going to again commit the British armed forces in overseas ops similar to Iraq or Afghanistan without restoring defence spending back to similar pre-Cold War levels. Can’t have it both ways.
MickTry http://www.european-defence.co.uk for the latest(ish) information on the RAF. No massive pics to download either.
MickThe Hawk AJT will be operated under the UKMTS PFI contract (Ascent Flight Training) for training RAF and FAA pilots at RAF Valley for 20-25 years. So that puts BAE Systems pushing the Hawk at least until 2033.
MickI think BAE Systems will stick to offering the Hawk AJT for the coming years, offering upgrades and so forth. The company doesn’t really need to develop a successor aircraft for now. Apart from its work on the F-35 Lightning, Typhoon, Nimrod, the Taranis and other future UAVs, its business is starting to shift away from building aircraft these days.
MickAnd of course, the RAF will take delivery of its newest Hawks next year – 28 Hawk AJTs.
MickMy personal opinion is that an air war against Iran would be swift, as seen in Iraq and Kosovo. The major risk would come would be Iran’s response. Faced with much more technologically superior forces as well the US quickly gaining air superiority against an inferior air force, would they be more likely to lob a load of chemical weapons at Iraq, being the obvious target where thousands of US troops are based? And then there are their ground forces: Approx 350,000 in the Iranian Army, 125,000+ in the IRGC, 40,000 paramilitaries and possibly over one million men in the Basij Resistance Force, who have in the past during the Iran-Iraq War been quite willing to launch suicide attacks against their enemy. And then there are the numerous Iranian-supported militant groups in the region that would probably be willing to join in. Maybe with a few Iraqi Shia groups in the south thrown in for good measure. Depending on how fanatical these lot our these days, imagine the damage that could be done if that lot came running into Iraq or Afghanistan. Could be a bl**dy mess.
On the other hand, Iran could descend into chaos with the regime collapsing as the Iranian armed forces refuse to fight (as a few Iranian generals are phoned up and offered a few US$$$ in return for not fighting) and the US is left rubbing its hands together in glee with further opportunities to invest in the Middle East as well as forcing regime change right from Iraq through to Iran and Afghanistan. And that’s without the prospect of another insurgency beginning in their newly “liberated” friend. Maybe you’d get another result, regime agrees to dismantle its nuclear facilities and end its nuclear programme after facing sustained and damaging American air strikes. Problem solved for now.
MickI believe it is being supplied by Thales, but no idea what the fit is. You’d have to e-mail them. Incidentally, what is your European/Middle East analysis thing. Might be interesting, but I would prefer to contact you away from this forum.
MickProblem is these days is that the “Great British Public” don’t give a frig about the armed forces these days — allowing the government to do what they want with them. Iraq hasn’t helped (perhaps that should be “negative media reporting on Iraq”). You hear it constantly on radio phone ins about soldier’s pay or lack of equipment other than from those who have some kind of attachment. It’s all “well they signed on the dotted line, they knew what they were getting into, they don’t have to join up.” Most people I have ever known without any connection to the military, look down on them. Pretty sad state of affairs really.
MickYeah I have to agree with sealordlawrence on that one. It’s hardly a solid argument that Russia is an emerging threat to increase defence spending. Putin is coming to end of his term as president. He is seeking election as prime minister and needs to be seen to be in a strong position. Same goes for economic situation from recent years of strong growth in the oil industry. It’s giving Putin an impetus for enhancing Russia’s military capabilities and posture and then position in the world.
I’d say though in the last ten years, other than the odd contribution to peacekeeping operations, we have played second fiddle to the Americans in major conflicts with them providing most of the warfighting equipment and personnel. There’s nothing wrong with that, but our armed forces have lost of any sense of independence and every major equipment purchase seems to be based on how best it’ll fit in with the American military. We might be involved in the odd Sierra Leone-type intervention on our own, but does that justify a couple of aircraft carriers or a couple of hundred Typhoons? We need to look at helicopters, airlift and increasing personnel, so when we do deploy overseas with the Americans or other NATO or EU states we can actually do the job properly.
It took September 11 and then Afghanistan and Iraq as well as criticisms from senior military officers to smack this government in the face and realise that UK defence policy was stuck in the Cold War and current threats move beyond from buying a couple of hundred shiny Typhoons or a load of T45 Class destroyers.
Just my thoughts to agree or disagree with.
Sign In
