Delays (again) for Dutch transport fleet

patrick dirksen · Post by **patrick dirksen** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:01

Hi all,

taken from MSF (thanks to Coronet):

DATE:11/12/08
SOURCE:Flight International
By Anno Gravemaker

All three projects intended to increase the transport capacity of the Royal
Netherlands Air Force have suffered fresh delays, says Dutch undersecretary
of defence Jack de Vries.
Overhaul and cockpit upgrade work on an ex-United Airlines McDonnell Douglas
DC-10 transport had been scheduled to conclude in 2008, but development
issues and the lack of documentation required to enable military aviation
authorities to certificate its airworthiness will delay this until mid-2009.
The transport will enable the air force to focus its two existing KDC-10s on
air-to-air refuelling tasks, although these will undergo the same cockpit
upgrade in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Two former US Navy Lockheed Martin C-130 tactical transports had also been
due for acceptance by year-end, but the lack of available parts and the
unexpected need to replace the majority of their wiring has pushed this out
until the third or fourth quarter of 2009.
They will then receive a cockpit upgrade and cabin safety improvements
before achieving operational status in late 2009 or early 2010.
The delivery schedule for six Boeing CH-47F Chinooks for the Netherlands'
Defence Helicopter Command has also slipped by at least six months, with De
Vries saying: "It is expected that due to problems with the software the
production will take longer." The first aircraft is now expected to be
accepted in December 2009 and the remainder to follow within a further six
months. Boeing declined to comment on the statement, referring questions to
the Dutch defence ministry.

They sure are taking their time.....

am313 · Post by **am313** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:21

lack of documentation required to enable military aviation
authorities to certificate its airworthiness

called MLA...... these rules realy are not good for the airworthiness of all planes of the RNLAF

Thijs · Post by **Thijs** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:25

am313 wrote:
lack of documentation required to enable military aviation
authorities to certificate its airworthiness
called MLA...... these rules realy are not good for the airworthiness of all planes of the RNLAF

Explain why documentation about systems and maintenance is not good for the airworthiness of the KLU planes? sounds like a contradiction in my opinion.

Frank van Hemert · Post by **Frank van Hemert** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:31

they should have a look at the Belgians...their "new" C-130H is already flying...instead of buying two rubbish/rusty C-130's it would have been cheaper to buy two new J's.. but that is typically Dutch..they think they can co do it cheap but end up with rubbish
Let's hope they buy Gripens

Regards
Frank

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:51

Frank van Hemert wrote:they should have a look at the Belgians...their "new" C-130H is already flying...instead of buying two rubbish/rusty C-130's it would have been cheaper to buy two new J's.. but that is typically Dutch..they think they can co do it cheap but end up with rubbish
Let's hope they buy Gripens

Regards
Frank

'Penny wise, pound foolish' comes to mind...

Greetings,
Stefan

DJdeRidder · Post by **DJdeRidder** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:51

Frank van Hemert wrote: Let's hope they buy Gripens

Only so that you can prove your point again?

am313 · Post by **am313** » 13 Dec 2008, 18:19

The RNLAF have new maintenance rules, called LE=Luchtvaart Eisen same as JAR in the civil aviation. the only thing is that the rules are extreme. extremer then in civil aviation. for example you have a broken wire somewere in the plane, normaly that is a short repair but with the new rules the same maintainer, who was capable of repairing this wire with the old rules, may not repair this wire. same as maintenance books. thats why you have a lot of Delays in the maintenance in the RNLAF

aviodromefriend · Post by **aviodromefriend** » 13 Dec 2008, 23:07

Frank van Hemert wrote:it would have been cheaper to buy two new J's..

which are not comparable to the H-30, so in fact this would mean another new type in the inventory (with all problems). BTW the NH-90 is not mentioned in the equipment that would be delivered in 2009....

roberto · Post by **roberto** » 14 Dec 2008, 14:24

From a reliable source i heard that the NRN will receive 2 NH90's next year. These 2 are only meant for flying training, the mission equipment is still not properly working (maybe in 2010).

flying_kiwi · Post by **flying_kiwi** » 14 Dec 2008, 20:58

aviodromefriend wrote:
Frank van Hemert wrote:it would have been cheaper to buy two new J's..
which are not comparable to the H-30, so in fact this would mean another new type in the inventory (with all problems).

Actually, I've heard that due to some cockpit and performance differences between the Hs and the current H-30s, there will be two separate pilot pools to crew the aircraft. The only remaining advantage is in terms of maintenance.

Regards,
Yorden

Le Addeur noir · Post by **Le Addeur noir** » 17 Dec 2008, 16:46

Frank van Hemert wrote:they should have a look at the Belgians...their "new" C-130H is already flying...instead of buying two rubbish/rusty C-130's it would have been cheaper to buy two new J's.. but that is typically Dutch..they think they can co do it cheap but end up with rubbish
Let's hope they buy Gripens

Regards
Frank

Er,have a look at British defence procurement over the last few decades,and you will see that the Netherlands is not alone in trying to save money,but end up spending a hell of a lot more in the end.Or even worse,end up scrapping the project completely after spending a fortune.

Examples,Chinook HC.3(will it ever enter service?),Nimrod MRA.4(ditto),Nimrod AEW.3(scrapped after over GBP 1 billion was spent-and that was at 1986 prices).

Wijgert IJlst · Post by **Wijgert IJlst** » 17 Dec 2008, 18:21

Le Addeur noir wrote: Examples,Chinook HC.3(will it ever enter service?),Nimrod MRA.4(ditto),Nimrod AEW.3(scrapped after over GBP 1 billion was spent-and that was at 1986 prices).

And for this reason I was more than amazed when I read that the UK MoD orderd RC-135 Rivet Joint... airframes from over 50/55 years ago...

Strange choice now the USAF is looking for a replacement for her C-135 fleet and the RAF is for there even younger Tristar/VC.10 fleet. Not that the RC-135 is a tanker, but they could at least look for a single type replacement/introduction for tanker and rivet joint tasks...

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » 17 Dec 2008, 18:33

Wijgert IJlst wrote:
Le Addeur noir wrote: Examples,Chinook HC.3(will it ever enter service?),Nimrod MRA.4(ditto),Nimrod AEW.3(scrapped after over GBP 1 billion was spent-and that was at 1986 prices).

And for this reason I was more than amazed when I read that the UK MoD orderd RC-135 Rivet Joint... airframes from over 50/55 years ago...

quote]

mwah, the newest ones are younger than that... Fiscal year 65 I think...
Besides, they also operate E-3's I suppose there's some commonality?
What surpsises me is there is still a need for such a big aircraft where systems get smaller and smaller... Wouldn't an A-319/737BBJ be big enough and more economical...(like what happens with modern AEW aircraft..)

ehusmann · Post by **ehusmann** » 17 Dec 2008, 18:35

But what do you think is more expensive, lease a plan that is already is service, or develop a whole new platform. And what do you think is faster in service? I think the age of the planes is unfortunate, but building 3 or so planes yourself really doesn´t pay back.

Erwin

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » 18 Dec 2008, 08:18

From what I've read, it won't be an order for of-the-shelf RC-135's but (relatively) low-time KC-135R's converted into RC-135's..... And to me as a non-technical person I'd say that it doesn't matter in what type of airplane you all these black boxes as long as it fits....