Make HomePage BookMark Us
 
Login
Name :  
Passwrd :  
   
   
Register Now!
Forgot Your Pass?
www.idrw.org / Indian Defense Research Wing » Europe » Dutch Refuse To Consider Super Hornet
Menu
India Europe
Asia&Pacific N&S America
Africa Contact Us
Exclusive RSS 2.0
 
Advanced Search
Calender
«    July 2008    »
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
Latest News
» After hiccups, indigenous Light Combat Helicopter set t ...
» Agni-V to be ready by 2010
» Gorshkov launched in water for trials, delivery by 2011 ...
» Light Combat Aircraft to be delivered by 2011: Antony
» Russian aircraft carrier ready in 2012 if India pays $2 ...
» Saab Challenge: Gaining Traction for Gripen NG
» IAF to launch its satellite: Air Chief
» Xianglong UAV copy of Global Hawk? Developed By China
» Navy’s sub induction plan suffers blow
» Indian warship fights off pirates in Gulf of Aden
Poll
Should Kaveri engine project be scrapped ??

Yes
NO
Go for a Joint venture on Kaveri
Go for a Joint venture on new Engine
Archives
November 2008 (41)
October 2008 (51)
September 2008 (53)
August 2008 (83)
July 2008 (82)
June 2008 (98)
May 2008 (79)
April 2008 (111)
March 2008 (65)
February 2008 (133)
January 2008 (103)
December 2007 (86)
November 2007 (82)
October 2007 (130)
September 2007 (122)
August 2007 (136)
July 2007 (102)
June 2007 (90)
May 2007 (135)
April 2007 (89)
Change Skin
Sponsors
 
 

Europe : Dutch Refuse To Consider Super Hornet
 
BY : AVIATION WEEK

Dutch Refuse To Consider Super Hornet



The Netherlands defense ministry refuses to include Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in an evaluation of potential candidates for its next-generation fighter requirement.

Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor also will not be considered, despite a direct request from the country's Parliament to include both U.S. fighters in an evaluation of potential alternatives to the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The Dutch appeared to be firmly committed to the F-35A ever since they joined the JSF System Development & Demonstration program as a Level 2 partner in 2002. But recently there has been growing concern, particularly among left-wing parties in the Parliament, about perceived cost overruns.

In May, Parliament called for the addition of the Super Hornet, Raptor and Sweden's Saab Gripen Next Generation to the shortlist of JSF alternatives. The request was part of a compromise that enabled the defense ministry to proceed with a plan to order two F-35A aircraft for participation in the F-35 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation that starts in 2011.

According to Jack de Vries, the Dutch state secretary for defense procurement, the F/A-18E/F had been considered as a candidate in 2001-2002 but was at that time deselected because of limitations in range, self-protection and sensors. "The twin-engined jet is also relatively big and heavy, so that it does not fit inside our NATO-standard F-16 hardened aircraft shelters; also, its through-life cost is relatively high," says de Vries, who predicts that these considerations will also play a role in Denmark, which has the same size shelters as the Netherlands.

Boeing recently entered the Super Hornet as a late-entry contender for the Danish fighter requirement, competing against the F-35A and the Gripen Next-Generation.

In a June 27 letter to Parliament, de Vries suggests that while Australia and the U.S. Navy are ordering Super Hornets, they are doing so "until the JSF will be available in sufficient numbers." He states that the Dutch have no need for an interim solution as they plan to buy the F-35 early.

"Based on how Americans and Australians regard the Super Hornet in relation to JSF, and based on the results of our evaluation in 2002, the F/A-18E/F cannot be considered as a relevant option for F-16 replacement in our country," de Vries says.

As for the F-22, de Vries points out that the aircraft is "much bigger and heavier than the JSF and requires two engines, resulting in considerably higher operating and through-life costs." The acquisition cost per aircraft would also be much higher, he says, while there is a U.S. ban on exporting the F-22 "even to friendly allies."

The defense ministry will, however, consider the Gripen Next Generation as an alternative option, alongside the three existing alternatives (the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3, Dassault Rafale Standard F4 and Lockheed Martin Advanced (Block 60+) F-16E/F), de Vries says.

"In our previous evaluation, the Saab Gripen was deselected because it was found to have considerable shortcomings in range, armament, self-protection, interoperability and sensors," de Vries says.

"Saab has recently announced that a new version of Gripen is being developed, Gripen Next Generation, information on which so far is limited to what has been published in open sources. We will investigate this Next Generation variant in the coming months, particularly to assess the developments compared with the previous Gripen version. To do this, we need cooperation from the manufacturer, and we have contacted the company to ask for the information required."

De Vries says that provided the Gripen Next Generation meets the minimum requirements, it will be reviewed using the latest insights.

The new evaluation will be performed by the defense ministry with help from independent analysts from Dutch defense research institute TNO Defense, Security and Safety; the country's National Aerospace Laboratory NLR; and RAND Europe.
 
 
 
   
 
 
Dear Visitor You have Not Logged In Please Register And Then Login.
 
 
  • Super Hornet soars at Dubai
  • Boeing Delivers Super Hornet Proposal to Brazil For F-X2 Competition
  • Brazil nears first cut for F-X2 fighter bidders
  • Boeing Plans Sixth Generation Fighter With Block 3 Super Hornet
  • Opinion: Gripen hard to beat in Indian MMRCA contest
  •  
     
    Comments (1)  Print
     
     
    #1 Author: avatar_singh (25 July 2008 12:55)
     
    ANGLOAMERICAN FRAUD


    http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/24/report-how-british-invented-shore-tax-havens.html


    Report: How the British Invented Off-Shore Tax Havens
    Increase Decrease

    July 24, 2008 (LPAC) This morning, Jack Blum, a lawyer with long experience in investigating money laundering, tax evasion, and similar financial crimes, provided a useful assessment when he told the Senate Finance Committee that offshore tax havens, such as those that are scattered about the British Commonwealth, have their origins in something called the "revenue rule," a common law rule that says that no government should help enforce the tax laws of other governments. This "revenue rule," Blum said, has its origins in English common law during the Napoleonic era, when English courts upheld contracts between private parties that were intended to evade French customs duties. Since the revenue rule has expanded to become a basic principle of common law, one result has been that the IRS cannot enforce tax judgments against individuals or corporations if the money at issue is being held in an offshore bank.

    The revenue rule has spawned an entire industry dedicated to helping people evade taxes in their own countries, mostly in the infamous British Commonwealth offshore financial centers such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, among others. Offshore banks actually sell services in the US and other countries to help people evade taxes they would otherwise have to pay their own governments. This is not unlike the British approach to terrorism, in that terrorists living in London are protected as long as they attack other countries.

    Blum proposed a number of measures to deal with the problem, mostly having to do with requiring taxpayers to prove that their offshore companies are, indeed, real, rather than the shell companies usually set up to hide assets. However, Blum agreed with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) when he said that without getting agreement with other countries to combat the problem, "it's just going to stay a game." Blum replied that "the revenue rule has to be taken down as an international principle."

     
     
    Quote    
     
     
    Add comments
       
     

     

    Fair Use Notice This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is being made available in an effort to advance understanding arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html This is a completely non-commercial site for private personal use. No fee is charged, and no money is made off of the operation of this site - we have limited ads to cover our operational cost we don't have a donation button neither we accept any. All material that is not produced by the individuals who use this site will be placed under the directory /fair-use or /media under this domain.