Dutch Vote to cancel F-35 order

[kilo delta]

The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.
The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable.
However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.
The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.
But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft.
Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.
The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.
If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.
If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:126f6b53-45ed-4603-b333-56e5e9a80e20&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

[Panther_99FS]

I wonder if the Dutch will pick-up the Eurofighter or Gripen :ques:

[Ken Stallings]

Oh anything is possible. Perhaps the entire joint aspect of this program comes to an end.

However, I invite anyone to show me an inexpensive fighter jet. I agree that a lot was proffered about regarding this aircraft as being a "cheap stealth multi-role fighter." I never thought that was realistic in the least.

It would not surprise me if the Dutch sell the F-16's to Chile anyway and simply live with a smaller fighter force.

Ultimately from my perspective, this is less a referendum on the quality of the aircraft and far more a reflection of economic considerations.

Ken

[Railrunner130]

They might also pick up Generation 4.5 F-16s. It seems to me that's a better answer, as the F-16 is already in service with them.

[Ken Stallings]

They might also pick up Generation 4.5 F-16s. It seems to me that's a better answer, as the F-16 is already in service with them.

That's an option. But, my read of the tea leaves is that this is a pure money question, and I think there are combining forces now for extremely deep cuts in defense spending in Europe.

I would actually be less surprised if the Dutch eliminated their entire F-16 force with no replacement than to see them acquire a significant number of any latest generation fighters.

I think they'll just keep flying fewer numbers of their current F-16's.

Ken

[Ferry_vO]

I think they'll just keep flying fewer numbers of their current F-16's.


The way the JSF debate has been going on and on for years now we'll probably fly the F-16 until the last one litterally falls from the sky and then our 'leaders' still will not have made a decision what to replace it with...

Plenty of other options though! New 'blocks' of the F-16, Silent Eagle, Super Hornet or the next-gen Gripen. :)

Last time they asked for prices and info from Dassault (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) those manufacturers basically told us:"We tired of giving you info over and over again, we're not playing this game anymore" ..

[Cratermaker]

Last time they asked for prices and info from Dassault (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) those manufacturers basically told us:"We tired of giving you info over and over again, we're not playing this game anymore" ..
Ouch!

[Bjoern]

Plenty of other options though! New 'blocks' of the F-16, Silent Eagle, Super Hornet or the next-gen Gripen. :)

The Silent Eagle would be too expensive, the Turkey 2.0 as well. Updated Falcons really are the best option, after that there's the Typhoon or Gripen.

[tigisfat]

I believe the best option for the Dutch is to go dig up F-14Ds out of AMARC. :icon_lol::salute:

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Ultimately from my perspective, this is less a referendum on the quality of the aircraft and far more a reflection of economic considerations.
+ 1. I think Lockheed-Martin is doing a pretty good job in my opinion.

I think the Tiffie as it is called in the UK, is the second most expensive fighter jet in the world, after the F-22, no ? At least a couple of years (three or four) ago it certainly was. Perhaps these days it's the Rafale or so. I know Saab has been very aggressive in promoting their Gripen (NG) to the Netherlands, especially targeting the F-35 and labeling it as too expensive and all that.

Perhaps both Belgium and the Netherlands could strike a deal with Saab to provide Gripen NG's for our F-16 AMs...now that would be a good thing, although I'd really like to photograph F-35's one day - be it British -Bs, Dutch -As or US Navy -Cs. The Gripen NG should be a very fine aircraft, but it's something like a 4.5 generation fighter jet with an update...4.75 generation or so. I'm not sure if it's in the same league as the F-35 should be.

Kind of silly to cancel it after having spent so much money on it...ok, it's expensive...but you get what you pay for. I think they would be the first nation to have a stealth aircraft in continental Europe...

[stuartcox]

Us Brits don't know how to pay for the JSF either!
With two new aircraft carriers being built, what could be the alternative, as they depend on V/STOL capabiity?
We are bankrupt and also wanting to cancel the new "Trident" nuclear programme, well, if our new Government comes to an agreement.

[Ken Stallings]

Per unit costs for aircraft:

F-22: $150 million

F-35: $89.5 million

Eurofighter: $65 million

Rafale: $33 million

Boeing 777: $205 to $260 million

Airbus A380: $317 - $337.5 million

Who would have guessed the last two would be more expensive? And even if you knew they were more expensive, how many knew by that much margin?

It is rather interesting, however, that it is rare to hear controversy over the cost of the modern airliners. But, every single one of those fighters I mentioned were victims of substantial controversies for unit flyaway costs. But, those fighters protect the entire economy of each nation they fly for.

Ken

[JorisVandenBerghe]

I remember well watching Gordon Brown saying to one of his political opponents "Get real, Nick.".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_biraHJ7k

Ok, you may not be actually able to use those nuclear weapons, but they do provide a nuclear deterrent capability. I'd rather have one and not being able to use it operationally than vice versa. While I don't know about the new PM's other views, I'm glad he's sticking to nuclear deterrent.

I thought the carriers were designed with a conversion to CATOBAR operations in mind, aren't they ?

Well, if Ken's figures are correct, and I do not have any reason to think they aren't (however, Ken may I ask where you got them from :) ?), they may as well get the Typhoon. In pure performance, it's a better aircraft, I think (supercruise, maximum speed, maneuverability) . For survivability, however, I'd pick the F-35 any day.

By the way, which country isn't bankrupt these days, except for Norway ;) ?

[Matt Wynn]

Us Brits don't know how to pay for the JSF either!
With two new aircraft carriers being built, what could be the alternative, as they depend on V/STOL capabiity?
We are bankrupt and also wanting to cancel the new "Trident" nuclear programme, well, if our new Government comes to an agreement.

1 alternative could be the supposed Naval Typhoon, the QE2 class carriers if i recall are 1x CTOL variation and 1x STOVL variant, giving a broader range of what could be carried aboard them, room for 40 aircraft on each... theres also rumour circulating about building a 3rd QE2 class for the Indian Navy, and with BAe heavilly involved if that happens expect them to push Naval Typhoon along with it...

[Ferry_vO]

I believe the best option for the Dutch is to go dig up F-14Ds out of AMARC. :icon_lol::salute:

If only... :icon_lol:

I like the Gripen, but over the last few decades our F-16 have served in Afghanistan and Bosnia, in ground attack, air defense and photo reconaissance roles. Right now here in the Netherlands there's no direct need for an air-superiority fighter, and the need for a steath aircraft is questionable. It will be very interesting to see what the Gripen NG can do!

Our history with Saab so far (From Wiki):"On 7 July 2008 Dagens Industri reported that the Netherlands announced they will evaluate JAS 39 Gripen Next Generation together with four other competitors and announce the result in the end of 2008.<SUP> </SUP> Saab responded on 25 August 2008 to a 'Replacement Questionnaire' issued by the Dutch Ministry of Defence, offering 85 aircraft to the Royal Netherlands Air Force. The Netherlands evaluated the Gripen NG against the F-35. On 18 December 2008 media reported that the Netherlands evaluated the F-35 ahead of the Gripen, citing better performance and lower price.<SUP> </SUP>On 13 January 2009, NRC Handelsblad claimed that, according to Swedish sources, Saab has made an offer to the Dutch to deliver 85 Gripens for 4.8 billion euro, about 1 billion euro cheaper than budgeted for the F-35.<SUP> </SUP> This price includes training of pilots and maintenance for the next 30 years."

[Wing_Z]

Per unit costs for aircraft:
F-22: $150 million
F-35: $89.5 million
Eurofighter: $65 million
Rafale: $33 million
Boeing 777: $205 to $260 million
Airbus A380: $317 - $337.5 million
Who would have guessed the last two would be more expensive? And even if you knew they were more expensive, how many knew by that much margin?
It is rather interesting, however, that it is rare to hear controversy over the cost of the modern airliners. But, every single one of those fighters I mentioned were victims of substantial controversies for unit flyaway costs. But, those fighters protect the entire economy of each nation they fly for.
Ken

I would treat those "sticker" and "unit flyaway" prices extremely cautiously.
There are massive fixed costs built into military aircraft sales, R&D and complex industrial offsets, and so on.
Commercial aircraft are sold generally to private operators who would not wear the news that they are paying for a 2-year delay to the programme, with associated costs.

I would love - just absolutely LOVE - to have a business where commercial programmes bleeding red ink (A380, B787) are propped up by open cheque book deals funded and approved by national governments (A400, and every other military purchase I can think of, for that matter)

[Naki]

Ill have to agree with Wing Z that sticker prices vary with fluctuating currencies, package deals, how much spares, training, offset agreements etc etc.

I've been following the Brazilian fighter contest closely and the unit price quoted for the Rafale in that competition is a lot more than Ken has quoted. From that competition the Super Hornet unit price was considerably cheaper than the the Rafale and not that much more than the Gripen NG. I've also seen considerably higher prices quoted for the Eurofighter. It would appear that the SHs are quite a bargin compared to the F-35, Eurofighter and Rafale and seem to be the "biggest bang for your buck".

As for the Royal Navy if they go the conventional Naval aircraft route wouldn't it make more sense (and cheaper) to buy a proven Naval design such as the Rafale or Super Hornet?

[Ken Stallings]

I remember well watching Gordon Brown saying to one of his political opponents "Get real, Nick.".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_biraHJ7k

Ok, you may not be actually able to use those nuclear weapons, but they do provide a nuclear deterrent capability. I'd rather have one and not being able to use it operationally than vice versa. While I don't know about the new PM's other views, I'm glad he's sticking to nuclear deterrent.

I thought the carriers were designed with a conversion to CATOBAR operations in mind, aren't they ?

Well, if Ken's figures are correct, and I do not have any reason to think they aren't (however, Ken may I ask where you got them from :) ?), they may as well get the Typhoon. In pure performance, it's a better aircraft, I think (supercruise, maximum speed, maneuverability) . For survivability, however, I'd pick the F-35 any day.

By the way, which country isn't bankrupt these days, except for Norway ;) ?

Online sources, Wikepedia. I wanted a consistent source for each, even though I had already researched the costs for an ACSC paper I wrote a long time ago. If you don't need or desire stealth, the Typhoon is a nice option. It really comes down to what kind of fight you think you'll face.

I just wanted to show that when politicians got aghast at the costs for fighter jets they should at least once be challenged by a knowledgable journalist who can quote him those prices and ask why it's really such a high price to pay?

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

I would treat those "sticker" and "unit flyaway" prices extremely cautiously.
There are massive fixed costs built into military aircraft sales, R&D and complex industrial offsets, and so on.
Commercial aircraft are sold generally to private operators who would not wear the news that they are paying for a 2-year delay to the programme, with associated costs.

I would love - just absolutely LOVE - to have a business where commercial programmes bleeding red ink (A380, B787) are propped up by open cheque book deals funded and approved by national governments (A400, and every other military purchase I can think of, for that matter)

You are half right. Boeing is a private company.

The other, Airbus, is not.

Ken

[Allen]

One more step closer to renaming the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to the American Strike Fighter (ASF). If this cost over run crap keeps up it will be the Canceled Strike Fighter (CSF).

When it rain bad news on a program, it pours on it.

[Wing_Z]

You are half right. Boeing is a private company.
The other, Airbus, is not.
Ken
Ehh this would be the subject of ongoing debate.
EADS, Airbus' parent company, would have it the other way around!
Both sides have been crying foul for years, over the indirect "subsidies" the commercial aircraft company has received by way of military aircraft sales.

Back to topic: the F-35 project has gone through its glass ceiling.
The world economic climate sure hasn't helped, but this is a programme now facing real obstacles.
If a partner pulls out, it loads the others and makes it worse.
Gates is trying to minimize the damage by limiting R&D.
There is a danger it might be putting all the eggs in one basket.

[Ken Stallings]

I agree it has certainly be debated, and most important for discussion here at SOH, I agree that it's not a topic worthy to go down.

So, as you said, back on topic ...

I have what I think is a wider picture on the issue of defense acquisitions and programs. I posted a series of historical comparison points in a previous, but recent thread that strove to portray a larger point.

To be relevant, military programs have to be revolutionary.

To be profitable, private programs have to be evolutionary.

This means that cost overruns are a given certainty whenever one is dealing with a revolutionary military program. The F-35 is among the most revolutionary we have seen in decades. In terms of integration of all fifth generation technologies, it expands the bar further, but adds complexities of joint design requirements at work concurrently.

As I said earlier in this thread, I would not read the tea leaves that the Dutch pull out represents a pending death knell of the program. In fact, I am confident the RAF will stay onboard. It is also entirely possible that whatever orders the Dutch were going to take could be more than offset by such options as the Japanese Self Defense Air Force and the Indian Air Force.

The North Koreans just torpedoed and sank a South Korean naval frigate operating in international waters! I am very confident the Japanese were paying keen attention! They want a fifth generation fighter, and the multi-role nature of the F-35 would be a wise option for them.

If I were a continental European nation perhaps I might decide against the added costs of the F-35 as a rational decision relative to my expected threats. You don't need an F-35 to support operations like those in Afghanistan (where the Dutch Air Force currently is).

But if your closest neighbors include rogues like North Korea with a penchant for tossing missiles over your head, well the stealth and multi-role advantages of the F-35 makes a lot of sense.

The point is these additional capabilities represent revolutionary approaches. When you include the ducted lift fan, that's another one that has to be paid for.

I will go on record here. The F-35 will not be canceled even if the USAF, USN, and USMC have to go it alone. And I am confident that the RAF will stay onboard. Then, once the aircraft start showing what they can do, the Japanese will want some as a hedge just as they already voiced a desire for F-22's. Personally, I wish the US had agreed to sell them to the JSDAF.

Costs rise due to two factors. First, inflation. Second, fewer numbers for smaller military forces.

The smaller size of forces represent significant cost savings immediately realized. But, to maintain the same punch, you need more power per unit. So, we build vastly smaller lots of fighters but each has far better capabilities. But as those costs increase, given the difference between military and private programs (revolution versus evolution) you would think the costs would be going up more for the military aircraft.

And the sole point I wanted to make earlier is that this is simply not the case at all. This means that for all the criticisms leveled by so many analysts, there is a significant efficiency inside military manufacturers. It isn't an unlimited blank check. Just ask Boeing about their experience with the A-12 that was cancelled on them! Boeing ended up having to pay the DoD $2.8 billion as a penalty! Plus they lost most of their R&D investment. There isn't exactly a long line of companies eager to bid for defense programs any longer!

Add in the reality that this isn't the first time a defense program ran over initial cost estimates. When you read that a program is running over costs, remember, it is really just running over initial estimates. And those estimates were part of a ruthless bidding process. No guarantee the other guy didn't proffer a low bid themselves!

Sometimes, like in the A-12 and the Army's Crusader self-propelled howitzer, a program does deserve to be cancelled. But, the F-35 is meeting far more test parameters than it is missing. It's just all you read about are the few lines it's falling slightly short of. I've seen this same stuff written about the F-15, F-16, C-17, and on and on and on.

Care to go back and read all the "experts" who condemned the M-1 Abrams as a terrible waste and failed dog of a program. Go back and read them and then compare that to what is said now!

Ken

[Wing_Z]

"Failure" is a relative term.
By three measures, the F-35 has failed to meet its targets:
The programme is overdue
The programme is over budget
The airframe unit cost will not meet the promised "cheap" criterion.
That most military Contracts suffer from this failure does not make it good or right.
The performance parameters have not yet been validated either, so that remains to be seen.
(I think it's a cool plane, and hope it can perform as advertised).

In this instance the US Congress has set 11 goals which the programme must meet before any further airframes beyond the initial 30 may be procured.

The development phase is thus going to take longer.
Funds have been diverted from the airframe buy, to pay for this.
In-service dates have slipped, and the knock-on effect is this:
Upgrades loom for most of the previous-gen aircraft to keep them competitive.
This will divert further funds from this and other programmes.

The F-35 will certainly be built, there is too heavy an investment to write off.
But chances are it is not going to succeed the F-16 as the "fighter sale of the Century".
The customers quite simply cannot afford it in its original form.

By firing the General responsible for the programme, Gates has sent the strongest possible message to all involved:
It's broken; go fix it and Get it Right.

[Panther_99FS]

I find it quite peculiar that the USAF's 3 newest airframes are from Lockheed...

-C-130J
-F-22
-JSF

[tigisfat]

I find it quite peculiar that the USAF's 3 newest airframes are from Lockheed...

-C-130J
-F-22
-JSF

It just may be nothing more complicated that the fact that there isn't much competition anymore. That, and Boeing has spent more time in the last ten years chasing sustainment and upgrade contracts.

[tigisfat]

One more step closer to renaming the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to the American Strike Fighter (ASF). If this cost over run crap keeps up it will be the Canceled Strike Fighter (CSF).

When it rain bad news on a program, it pours on it.


I'll bet you just about anything they'll never do it. If I had infinite power, I'd cancel this thing, shore up the Air Guard units with Super Hornets and start development on lightweight stealth fighter bombers that are remotely piloted for mass production. I'd also start research on a bomber with a crew of four that can loiter for at least 6 hours at high altitude for close air support in wars like we have now, like something that can simultaneously carry 50 SDBs, 25 500lbers and 25 2,000lbers and lob them wherever ground troops need them.

[CG_1976]

I find it quite peculiar that the USAF's 3 newest airframes are from Lockheed...

-C-130J
-F-22
-JSF


Ah what about the Baby Herc C-27J?

As to JSF, keep it. We like our hornets in the Arctic, its proven and cost effective.

[Matt Wynn]

i don't know what it is about Typhoon... but these pics show just how much she can haul ...

http://www.abload.de/img/highres_gld-076091bg4.jpg
http://img9.abload.de/img/highres_gld-061866pv5.jpg

2x Aim-9 (Or ASRAAM), 4x AMRAAM(Or Meteor), 6x Paveways and one Centrline Tank... for an aircraft of it's size (She's not huge) she can lift a lot, quite a mud mover... anyways if i recall as well most aircraft these days have to be multirole, the days of the true air supremacy aircraft will no doubt die out with the F-22, Raptor should be multi-role but isn't... back to the Dutch... they'll probably do what the Ellhnikh Polemikh Aeroporia did and just upgrade, Greece was involved in the YF-17 program and showed an interest in the -18 but then dropped it due to costs and just upgraded what they had, 2009 seeing them get the latest of their Peace Xenia IV Vipers...

[Panther_99FS]

Ah what about the Baby Herc C-27J?

.

Ha!
I knew that someone would bring up the C-27J ;)
Anyways, I didn't mention it due to the circumstances of how each aircraft was "born". I even thought about omitting the C-130J since the USAF never put out a requirement but since it was a Lockheed aircraft, I decided to include it for illustration...

[Ferry_vO]

The C-27J is a re-engined Italian Alenia G-222 isn't it?

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Correct, although not only the engines are different. The system are the same as the C-130J, too.

[Bjoern]

On second thought. Just buy that dang Eurofighter, my neighbours. I want a job at EADS and bigger demand equals more jobs. :icon_lol:

[Allen]

It just may be nothing more complicated that the fact that there isn't much competition anymore. That, and Boeing has spent more time in the last ten years chasing sustainment and upgrade contracts.

When this is all over Lockheed vay well may have rotten egg all over there face while Boeing will come out of this smelling like a flower becouse of the sustainment and upgrade contracts. Sustainment and upgrade contracts may not pay like the ATF and JSF but there smaller and if you fu#k one up you won't get egg in you face like you would if you fu#ked up the ATF and now every move you make is under a microscope.


I'll bet you just about anything they'll never do it.

See reply to Ken.



I will go on record here. The F-35 will not be canceled even if the USAF, USN, and USMC have to go it alone. And I am confident that the RAF will stay onboard.

If the RAF/RN leaves, I give the JSF ONE YEAR before it's canned...

[tigisfat]

If the RAF/RN leaves, I give the JSF ONE YEAR before it's canned...If the RAF/RN waits much longer to back out (if they do) then the USAF very well could have an F-35 FTU set up. If F-35 infrastructure is paid for at the initial operating bases and and there are students in the pipeline, I highly doubt the US would ever back out.

[Lionheart]

By the way, which country isn't bankrupt these days, except for Norway ;) ?


lolol...

Germany? They are holding alot of the banks now. (From what I have heard, not sure).


Sorry to hear that England may fall out of the list as well. I am certain we will be taking a cut in our order.


Its rough times...

[Ken Stallings]

Allen,

In this very thread, I pointed out two recent cases of defense programs rightfully cancelled.

Given what I have read from you over these many months, I am curious if you believe any defense programs within the last ten years have been well run and deserved funding?

Ken

[Allen]

I can't name defense programs I would keep becouse the one that I would keep get the job done nothing more nothing less. They kick @$$ and take names. They don't get in the news.:applause:

[tigisfat]

I can't name defense programs I would keep becouse the one that I would keep get the job done nothing more nothing less. They kick @$$ and take names. They don't get in the news.:applause:

Well please, do tell. Inquiring minds want to know. :kilroy:

[Ken Stallings]

I can't name defense programs I would keep becouse the one that I would keep get the job done nothing more nothing less. They kick @$$ and take names. They don't get in the news.:applause:

Might wish to reconsider that response.

As someone who spent over 24 years in the military, I can tell you that ALL defense acquisition programs are public record, even the handful that fall under the classified banner are given code names. One example was Project Aurora, which was the code name for the B-2 bomber.

Considering the grave importance of our national defense, I think it requires that if you are going to go out of your way to research and form views that entire defense programs should be immediately cancelled, then you should likewise know enough to publicly state which ones should be retained.

To be unwilling to document any such view portrays the impression to me at least that you either have not actually researched the material, or that you are against all defense acquisition programs. At the very least it seems to me that the importance of these issues require more than sloganeering.

Ken

[PRB]

It just may be nothing more complicated that the fact that there isn't much competition anymore. That, and Boeing has spent more time in the last ten years chasing sustainment and upgrade contracts.

Well, at the times those contracts were awarded, there was cometition. Remember, the YF-22 won out against the McDonnell Douglas YF-23, and the current JSF is a result of three posposals (Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas), which turned into two airplanes, the Lockheed one, and the ugly one from Boeing.

[Bjoern]

Germany? They are holding alot of the banks now. (From what I have heard, not sure).

Hahahahahaha, good one Bill! :d

We still can pay, but we can't cover it properly. So instead of getting the promised tax cuts we (and the rest of the EU) are rather bailing Greece out of trouble.


Sweden and Finland might be two more non-bankrupcy countries.