Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 22:49
by spazsinbad
Exclusive: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s - source 17 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"(Reuters) - U.S. government officials have briefed the Belgian government about the capabilities of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, as Brussels prepares to replace its aging fleet of 60 F-16s, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.

The source, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said Belgium was considering buying 35 to 55 of the new radar-evading F-35 jets. No decisions are expected until late 2014 at the earliest after next year's elections in Belgium....

...Lockheed's F-35 programme manager, Lorraine Martin, declined comment, saying that foreign military sales are handled by the U.S. government.

U.S. defence officials had no immediate comment...."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/1 ... 4820130917

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2015, 16:47
by zerion

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2015, 23:51
by thenonflyingdutchman
B61's @ Kleine Brogel Air Base, so F-35 it will be.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 05:12
by popcorn
Do the other suppliers realistically think they have a shot at this?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 07:23
by Corsair1963
Little doubt that Belgium will select the F-35..... :wink:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 09:52
by joost
Look who is back in the comments! Troll Slowman! He wouldn't give up after all his misjudgements and mispredictions...now advocating for the Gripen. So we can be sure of one thing given his track record: The Gripen will not be selected. :D

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 14:17
by XanderCrews
joost wrote:Look who is back in the comments! Troll Slowman! He wouldn't give up after all his misjudgements and mispredictions...now advocating for the Gripen. So we can be sure of one thing given his track record: The Gripen will not be selected. :D


LOL indeed I noticed that too, also since when is the Gripen NG "proven"? did I miss something?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 14:40
by thenonflyingdutchman
The real question is how few F35's will Belgium be able to buy?

If i'm not mistaken the new government is going to slash defence spending with another 1 billion € by 2018. That's roughly a whopping 25% of their budget.
Take in account that of all NATO-members Belgium is near the bottom of the list when it comes to putting money aside for future investment in new military equipment. And new fighters are not the only thing on their wishlist.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 16:12
by KamenRiderBlade
Isn't Belgium part of that recent defense pact for all NATO countries in Europe to raise their defense spending to 2% of their GDP?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 19:26
by Bjorn
This is a personnel opinion, not an F-16.net stand.

We promise everything and do nothing (or even worse, the contrary). I'm a Belgian citizen and appaled with what is decided upon now. We have been slashing our defense budget for the past 25 years. This year the defense budget will be lower than in 1994. Can you imagine! It's time for an external partner (be it a country or pool of countries or organisation - being NATO) that say, if you don't pay more, you're not allowed in the club any longer. Up untill last year we thought that defense was always mistreated when it came to spending. With a new center-right government in place and a formal agreement to give defense the money it needs to furfill its obligations we where baffled when we saw the 2015 budget with a reduction of € 225 million for this year and consequitive reductions of € 45 million every year after. This means a total ruduction € 1,575 billion untill 2019. Belgian defense spending was around € 2,67 billion in 2014 which represented 0,7% of GDP. It will fall to € 2,265 billion in 2019, meaning 0,59% of GDP in constant prices of 2014. This at a time when personnel costs already amount to 71% of the overall budget, training 20% and investments at 9%. A hell of a way apart from the ideal 50/25/25. And also in a time when international tensions haven't been as high as in the past 25 years.

I'm really ashamed to be a citizen of this country as far as defense spending is concerned. We aren't cutting our part of the deal. We haven't been for the past 35 years and surely won't be doing it in the future.

I'm not an advocate for 2% of GDP. We don't need it. But if we would just keep it at 0,85% GDP, then we would have a budget of around € 3,15 billion and we would be able to perfectly furfill all our obligations.

With a huge investment program ahead in the 2020-2030 period of amounting over € 10 billion (successor F-16: € 4 billion, fregates: € 550 million, minesweapers: € 450 million, commandvessel: € 150 million, A-400M: € 1,2 billion, helicopters: € 800 million, all land vehicles: € 2,6 billion, recce drones: € 400 million, probably forgetting a billion or two now). I just don't see it any more.

Greets,

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2015, 23:25
by LinkF16SimDude
joost wrote:Look who is back in the comments! Troll Slowman! He wouldn't give up after all his misjudgements and mispredictions...now advocating for the Gripen. So we can be sure of one thing given his track record: The Gripen will not be selected. :D
Is that the sound of a door slamming shut on Slowman? Never let facts get in the way of your argument. :lol: :lol:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 06:01
by Corsair1963
Bjorn wrote:This is a personnel opinion, not an F-16.net stand.

We promise everything and do nothing (or even worse, the contrary). I'm a Belgian citizen and appaled with what is decided upon now. We have been slashing our defense budget for the past 25 years. This year the defense budget will be lower than in 1994. Can you imagine! It's time for an external partner (be it a country or pool of countries or organisation - being NATO) that say, if you don't pay more, you're not allowed in the club any longer. Up untill last year we thought that defense was always mistreated when it came to spending. With a new center-right government in place and a formal agreement to give defense the money it needs to furfill its obligations we where baffled when we saw the 2015 budget with a reduction of € 225 million for this year and consequitive reductions of € 45 million every year after. This means a total ruduction € 1,575 billion untill 2019. Belgian defense spending was around € 2,67 billion in 2014 which represented 0,7% of GDP. It will fall to € 2,265 billion in 2019, meaning 0,59% of GDP in constant prices of 2014. This at a time when personnel costs already amount to 71% of the overall budget, training 20% and investments at 9%. A hell of a way apart from the ideal 50/25/25. And also in a time when international tensions haven't been as high as in the past 25 years.

I'm really ashamed to be a citizen of this country as far as defense spending is concerned. We aren't cutting our part of the deal. We haven't been for the past 35 years and surely won't be doing it in the future.

I'm not an advocate for 2% of GDP. We don't need it. But if we would just keep it at 0,85% GDP, then we would have a budget of around € 3,15 billion and we would be able to perfectly furfill all our obligations.

With a huge investment program ahead in the 2020-2030 period of amounting over € 10 billion (successor F-16: € 4 billion, fregates: € 550 million, minesweapers: € 450 million, commandvessel: € 150 million, A-400M: € 1,2 billion, helicopters: € 800 million, all land vehicles: € 2,6 billion, recce drones: € 400 million, probably forgetting a billion or two now). I just don't see it any more.

Greets,


Why not 2% of GDP??? Should others put up Belgium responsibility??? If, not maybe they shouldn't be afford the protection of NATO. :?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 12:06
by bring_it_on
Belgium shouldn't be very hard to secure, especially given the timelines involved. There are also changes in Finland and possibly even Poland for the future competitions.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 12:43
by vilters
@ Bjorn

Good post but it is worse then that.

You forget the training aircraft that are as old as . . . . . . . . . .
Replacing the SF-260 and the &-Jets is also something that has been pushed forward......

We killed our own Defense budget when we bought the A-400M

The A-400M is the wrong aircraft for our mission and we bought too many.
Ever landed a heavy "T" tail A/C on a dirt strip?
Day in, day out?

We only bought the thing because of the "French" connection refused to buy the new C-130, that is a far better A/C for what we are doing with them.

Now , we are broke.
No money left for new trainer A/C, no money for F-35. (or other)
Buy European, and you pay double for getting half.
Buy Italian, and you pay tripple for getting a third.

The offers look good on paper, but only on paper.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 14:34
by KamenRiderBlade
vilters wrote:@ Bjorn

Good post but it is worse then that.

You forget the training aircraft that are as old as . . . . . . . . . .
Replacing the SF-260 and the &-Jets is also something that has been pushed forward......

We killed our own Defense budget when we bought the A-400M

The A-400M is the wrong aircraft for our mission and we bought too many.
Ever landed a heavy "T" tail A/C on a dirt strip?
Day in, day out?

We only bought the thing because of the "French" connection refused to buy the new C-130, that is a far better A/C for what we are doing with them.

Now , we are broke.
No money left for new trainer A/C, no money for F-35. (or other)
Buy European, and you pay double for getting half.
Buy Italian, and you pay tripple for getting a third.

The offers look good on paper, but only on paper.


Isn't there a Inter European discount?

Or an option to sell excess transports?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 21:14
by Bjorn
@Corsair1963

I don't know where you reside, but stating this obviously shows you are not informed about the way we spend our money here. Why I see no need for 2% GDP? We have another problem and it is called splintering. European countries spend about 60% of the budget the US spends on defense and it only gets 30% of the US's output. So there's a huge potential for efficiency improvement. If we should do that and we would raise the budget to that level we would get that 60% output. That is enough for me. We don't need to compete with the US. We should be able to ensure we are safe ourselves and be able to make a fist if we need to.

@Vilters

You are right about the training aircraft. I didn't mention those. But they will be a minor investment because it is already known that we won't replace them on ourselves. We are in a mutual training program with France and a number of countries are set to join that training program with a pooled buy. We will not pay for more than 5-7 aircraft of that pool. So not that much of an investment. If needed at all. When we would abolish our fighters (still not sure whether F-16 replacement will go through despite being mentioned at government level and procedure start, will believe it when first a/c hits the tarmac in 2022 or so), we don't need pilots to fly them either. Could do with about 2-3 aircraft to furfill our training needs.

I don't per se say that the A400M is the wrong aircraft. But we surely bought too many. About 4-5 will do I think. Instead we should have invested - together with for example the Netherlands - in 2-3 C-17s for strategic transport. Or extend the pool of NATO C-17s at Papa AB.

Greets,

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 23:53
by KamenRiderBlade
Bjorn wrote:@Corsair1963

I don't know where you reside, but stating this obviously shows you are not informed about the way we spend our money here. Why I see no need for 2% GDP? We have another problem and it is called splintering. European countries spend about 60% of the budget the US spends on defense and it only gets 30% of the US's output. So there's a huge potential for efficiency improvement. If we should do that and we would raise the budget to that level we would get that 60% output. That is enough for me. We don't need to compete with the US. We should be able to ensure we are safe ourselves and be able to make a fist if we need to.

@Vilters

You are right about the training aircraft. I didn't mention those. But they will be a minor investment because it is already known that we won't replace them on ourselves. We are in a mutual training program with France and a number of countries are set to join that training program with a pooled buy. We will not pay for more than 5-7 aircraft of that pool. So not that much of an investment. If needed at all. When we would abolish our fighters (still not sure whether F-16 replacement will go through despite being mentioned at government level and procedure start, will believe it when first a/c hits the tarmac in 2022 or so), we don't need pilots to fly them either. Could do with about 2-3 aircraft to furfill our training needs.

I don't per se say that the A400M is the wrong aircraft. But we surely bought too many. About 4-5 will do I think. Instead we should have invested - together with for example the Netherlands - in 2-3 C-17s for strategic transport. Or extend the pool of NATO C-17s at Papa AB.

Greets,


So what do you think is causing Belgium's inefficiency?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 02:55
by vilters
This video explains all about Belgium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceg6NQKHd70

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 03:04
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Switzerland but a little less wealthy? That is Belgique? :devil: At least the Belgickans eat and make my favourite foodstuffs. Chips and Chocolate. COOL. :doh:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2015, 12:45
by spazsinbad
Benelux countries sign air defence pact
05 Mar 2015 Eric Maurice

"The three Benelux countries, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, Wednesday (4 March) agreed to share surveillance and protection of their air spaces, in the first agreement of its kind among EU countries.

Starting from 2017, Belgian and Dutch air forces will take turn to monitor the Benelux airspace. Luxembourg has no military airforce and will only open its air space to its neighbours’ jets.

The common missions will involve the so-called 'Renegade' procedure aimed at identifying suspect civil aircrafts that might pose a terrorist threat.

"The agreement is a step forward in the intensification of European military cooperation", said Belgian prime minister Charles Michel in a statement....

...This agreement for shared missions will come as a relief for the Dutch air force. The old F16 fleet is supposed to be replaced by 2019 by new F35 jets, but the programme has been running late and costs have rocketed.

Belgium also plans to renew its F16 fleet by 2018. The French Rafale is a candidate but the enhanced cooperation with Netherlands might tilt the decision towards the American F-35."

Source: http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/11 ... The-Bridge

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2015, 13:14
by joost
spazsinbad wrote:At least the Belgickans eat and make my favourite foodstuffs. Chips and Chocolate. COOL. :doh:


Do not forget the Belgium beers... :pint:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2015, 13:40
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Heheh. I gave up smokin' and drinkin' a long time ago but not the chocs or chips! :devil:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 20:41
by tritonprime
"Belgium Forced to Buy F-35 If Nuclear Strike Mission Maintained"
(Source: L’Avenir; published April 19, 2015

Source:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ssion.html

(Published in French; unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
How will we replace our F-16 fighter-bombers? Experts and industry officials suggest that a single criterion contained in the specification - the ability to carry a nuclear bomb - may swing the competition to favor the American F-35 over its four potential competitors.

"If the nuclear requirement is included in the Request for Proposal, the tender that the Defence ministry must issue in the autumn), the door is wide open for the F-35,” an industry officials told the Belga news agency.

Of the five aircraft currently competing to replace, from 2023, the aging F-16s (Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II; Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; Dassault Aviation Rafale F3R; Saab JAS-39E/F Gripen and Airbus Group Eurofighter), only the F-35 will be able to operate the nuclear strike mission carrying the American B-61 nuclear free-fall bomb.

For decades, Belgium has assumed nuclear missions within NATO, but these were gradually reduced to one, assigned to fighter-bombers stationed at Kleine-Brogel air base (F-84E, F-104G and since 1982 the F-16A). These aircraft are able to carry and drop the American B-61 nuclear bomb, although the presence of these weapons on Belgian air bases - ten to twenty bombs, according to unofficial estimates - is generally "neither confirmed nor denied."

The current Minister of Defense, Steven Vandeput (N-VA), suggested last month that the precise requirements to be answered aircraft to succeed the F-16 will be identified in the strategic plan that he is preparing to submit to the government cabinet in the coming weeks.

"The technical specifications depend on the level of commitment, and we will define in the strategic plan exactly what is expected of the new fighter," he told the Parliamentary Defense Committee, without however providing any further clarification.

If Belgium decided to retain its only remaining nuclear task, and if the RFP confirms this requirement, only the F-35A - the conventional take-off and landing version of the new American Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be compliant.

This aircraft was designed for a dual role (conventional and nuclear) and should be able to carry the B-61 nuclear bomb later in its development, probably after 2022. This is not the case for the other contenders for the Belgian competition, with the exception of the French Rafale.

The Boeing F-18E Super Hornet is not nuclear-capable, Hans Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) told Belga on Thursday. The Swedish government for its part prohibits any Gripen sales that could involve a nuclear role. As for the Airbus Group’s Eurofighter, it was conceived as an interceptor and is only acquiring attack capabilities very slowly. No European user (Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Austria) has however considered giving it a nuclear capability.

There remains the case of the French Rafale. This aircraft, which its manufacturer describes as "omnirole," is capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, this is the ASMP-A missile (improved medium range air-to-ground missile), developed in France for France’s nuclear forces, and thus not easily exportable. As for the integration of the American B-61 on the Rafale, it appears as politically unrealistic and financially costly, say industrialists and experts.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Some observers say the Belgian defense staff is using the nuclear argument to push its preferred fighter, the F-35, without appearing to meddle in the selection process.
Others say that the nuclear issue is a red herring, and that the decision rests on whether the Belgian government wants to align its air force with the Netherlands (F-35) or with France, in which case it would go with Rafale.
In both cases, aircraft performance and price are likely to have very little influence on the final decision.)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 04:37
by m
tritonprime wrote:"Belgium Forced to Buy F-35 If Nuclear Strike Mission Maintained"
(Source: L’Avenir; published April 19, 2015

Source:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ssion.html

(Published in French; unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
How will we replace our F-16 fighter-bombers? Experts and industry officials suggest that a single criterion contained in the specification - the ability to carry a nuclear bomb - may swing the competition to favor the American F-35 over its four potential competitors.

"If the nuclear requirement is included in the Request for Proposal, the tender that the Defence ministry must issue in the autumn), the door is wide open for the F-35,” an industry officials told the Belga news agency.

Of the five aircraft currently competing to replace, from 2023, the aging F-16s (Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II; Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; Dassault Aviation Rafale F3R; Saab JAS-39E/F Gripen and Airbus Group Eurofighter), only the F-35 will be able to operate the nuclear strike mission carrying the American B-61 nuclear free-fall bomb.

For decades, Belgium has assumed nuclear missions within NATO, but these were gradually reduced to one, assigned to fighter-bombers stationed at Kleine-Brogel air base (F-84E, F-104G and since 1982 the F-16A). These aircraft are able to carry and drop the American B-61 nuclear bomb, although the presence of these weapons on Belgian air bases - ten to twenty bombs, according to unofficial estimates - is generally "neither confirmed nor denied."

The current Minister of Defense, Steven Vandeput (N-VA), suggested last month that the precise requirements to be answered aircraft to succeed the F-16 will be identified in the strategic plan that he is preparing to submit to the government cabinet in the coming weeks.

"The technical specifications depend on the level of commitment, and we will define in the strategic plan exactly what is expected of the new fighter," he told the Parliamentary Defense Committee, without however providing any further clarification.

If Belgium decided to retain its only remaining nuclear task, and if the RFP confirms this requirement, only the F-35A - the conventional take-off and landing version of the new American Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be compliant.

This aircraft was designed for a dual role (conventional and nuclear) and should be able to carry the B-61 nuclear bomb later in its development, probably after 2022. This is not the case for the other contenders for the Belgian competition, with the exception of the French Rafale.

The Boeing F-18E Super Hornet is not nuclear-capable, Hans Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) told Belga on Thursday. The Swedish government for its part prohibits any Gripen sales that could involve a nuclear role. As for the Airbus Group’s Eurofighter, it was conceived as an interceptor and is only acquiring attack capabilities very slowly. No European user (Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Austria) has however considered giving it a nuclear capability.

There remains the case of the French Rafale. This aircraft, which its manufacturer describes as "omnirole," is capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, this is the ASMP-A missile (improved medium range air-to-ground missile), developed in France for France’s nuclear forces, and thus not easily exportable. As for the integration of the American B-61 on the Rafale, it appears as politically unrealistic and financially costly, say industrialists and experts.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Some observers say the Belgian defense staff is using the nuclear argument to push its preferred fighter, the F-35, without appearing to meddle in the selection process.
Others say that the nuclear issue is a red herring, and that the decision rests on whether the Belgian government wants to align its air force with the Netherlands (F-35) or with France, in which case it would go with Rafale.
In both cases, aircraft performance and price are likely to have very little influence on the final decision.)

Not specifically with the Netherlands, but as well with the other European F35 users: Norway, Denmark, UK.
It seems not understood in Belgium this cooperation will problably be a much stronger cooperation then EPAF. Belgium would join this group.
Cooperation very closely (integration) only with the Dutch would not be easy. Integration is hardly impossible for two reasons: Belgium is not a levelpartner, as well the Dutch are a level 2 partner. A lot of Information could not be given to the BAF (forbidden). As well as results of the IOT&E phase. The BAF would also have no influence or voice in coming updates or whatever.

The nucleair argument? It was not a problem in the 70's. Belgium preferred the Mirage instead of the F16.
Secondly, the Germans will probably stop with a nuceair task when the Tornado will be phased out.
Third, it's not yet 100 percent sure the F35 will get a nucleair task.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2015, 20:44
by oldiaf
http://brusselstimes.com/business/4102/ ... eed-martin
Belgium signs agreement with LM to replace its F-16

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 19:04
by tritonprime
spazsinbad posted the information from this article about Denmark in another topic, here is the information concerning Belgium...


"Milestones Close For Denmark And Belgium Fighter Contests"
Nov 18, 2015 Bill Sweetman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/milesto ... r-contests

...Belgium, meanwhile, is believed to be starting a process aimed at a decision before April-May 2018, within the lifespan of the current government. So far, five candidates—JSF, the Super Hornet, Saab Gripen, Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon—are participating. At this point, it appears that Belgium—whose F-16s are currently tasked with delivering U.S.-controlled B61 nuclear weapons stored in Belgium—will not include nuclear capability in the RFP, a condition that would likely eliminate both Rafale and Gripen. The nation will decide separately what to do about the weapons, which would have to be replaced in any event by the new, guided B61-12.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2016, 04:13
by spazsinbad
Unfortunately this is the English translation from GOOGLE from: http://www.air-cosmos.com/la-belgique-f ... mbat-53395
Belgium sets the contours of his army by 2030, reduced to 34 combat aircraft
04 Jan 2016 Gérard Gaudin

"Thirty-four combat aircraft, six drones - the type of which remains to choose - two frigates, six minesweepers and vehicles for land units, all to gain by 2030 to $ 9.2 billion euros. This is the Christmas gift that the Belgian government coalition was in late December, after months of palaver, its armed forces.

The restricted ministerial committee, which brings together key ministers finally approved the "Strategic Plan" to fifteen years presented by the defense minister, the Flemish nationalist Steven Vandeput. But in one version planed from the initial project, since the percentage of military spending to GDP will be only about 1.3 at end of period. Against 1.6% in the most ambitious version of departure and while NATO insists on increasing the standard of 2% for its member states, to achieve in 2024.

The 9.2 billion euros of investment will be used to buy 34 fighter-bombers - to succeed the 56 aging F-16 currently in operation - two frigates (to replace the two buildings used to redeemed Netherlands in the early 2000s), six minesweepers - a similar number to the current fleet - and six drones, two in 2021 and four in 2030. No material choices have been made yet.

Source: https://translate.google.com.au/transla ... edit-text=

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2016, 06:53
by Corsair1963
Just one more customer likely to purchase the F-35... :D

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 00:19
by spazsinbad
Belgian F-16 replacement process to start by mid-year
12 Feb 2016 Beth Stevenson

"A request for proposals (RFP) to launch off Belgium’s search to replace its 59-strong Lockheed Martin F-16A/B fleet is expected “this summer”, with the schedule to allow for a new fighter to be in service by 2025, a source close to the programme has revealed.

Two years ago, Brussels issued a study request to help shape what it would require from a fighter replacement, and defence minister Steven Vandeput announced in late December that through a strategic plan currently being approved, 34 new fighters would be acquired.

According to the programme source, the project will be valued at €3.6 billion ($4 billion) but it is not clear whether the amount includes maintenance and support costs.

An RFP will have to be released by mid-2016 for Belgium to meet its target dates. For deliveries to begin by 2023, a contract will have to be awarded by 2018 to allow for production and testing. A general election in 2019 in Belgium will add to the need to stick to deadlines and award the contract before a potential change of government...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ea-421877/

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2016, 23:38
by spazsinbad
RNLAF commander pushes for F-35-based Joint air force with Belgium
30 May 2016 Nathan Gain

"The Dutch air force commander invited himself in the debate on the successor of Belgian Air Force’s F-16 fleet. General Alexander Schnitger suggested on Flemish - VRT that Belgium purchase the same type of aircraft selected by the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) – the F-35 Lightning II – to create a joint Dutch-Belgian air force.

”I see significant benefits in building (military) cooperation between our two countries,” he said on the Flemish public channel, referring to the joint missions the two air forces would conduct. "Why not building a strong sole air force from two small ones,” added Schnitger. "From my perspective this would naturally help a lot if we finally choose the same type of fighter as this would facilitate integration,” he said....

...Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros...."

Source: http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... lgium.html

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2016, 05:04
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:
RNLAF commander pushes for F-35-based Joint air force with Belgium
30 May 2016 Nathan Gain

"The Dutch air force commander invited himself in the debate on the successor of Belgian Air Force’s F-16 fleet. General Alexander Schnitger suggested on Flemish - VRT that Belgium purchase the same type of aircraft selected by the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) – the F-35 Lightning II – to create a joint Dutch-Belgian air force.

”I see significant benefits in building (military) cooperation between our two countries,” he said on the Flemish public channel, referring to the joint missions the two air forces would conduct. "Why not building a strong sole air force from two small ones,” added Schnitger. "From my perspective this would naturally help a lot if we finally choose the same type of fighter as this would facilitate integration,” he said....

...Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros...."

Source: http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... lgium.html



He makes a good case......(IMHO) :wink:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2016, 08:26
by krorvik
He does indeed. UK, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Italy - and hopefully Belgium and Finland.

Add in JSM and the Turkish alternative to this mix.

This makes for a hell of a cooperative environment in Europe. And a headache for anyone trying to do bad things(TM).

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2016, 05:42
by m
spazsinbad wrote:
RNLAF commander pushes for F-35-based Joint air force with Belgium
30 May 2016 Nathan Gain

"The Dutch air force commander invited himself in the debate on the successor of Belgian Air Force’s F-16 fleet. General Alexander Schnitger suggested on Flemish - VRT that Belgium purchase the same type of aircraft selected by the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) – the F-35 Lightning II – to create a joint Dutch-Belgian air force.

”I see significant benefits in building (military) cooperation between our two countries,” he said on the Flemish public channel, referring to the joint missions the two air forces would conduct. "Why not building a strong sole air force from two small ones,” added Schnitger. "From my perspective this would naturally help a lot if we finally choose the same type of fighter as this would facilitate integration,” he said....

...Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros...."

Source: http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... lgium.html


27 mei 2016
http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/4268798/henni ... lbaar.html

Google Translate
May 27, 2016
Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert Friday after the cabinet meeting.She responded thus on the statements of the Dutch Air Force Commander Alexander Schnitger. He pleaded Friday at the Belgian radio to join the air force of the two countries. "Why not make two relatively small air forces one medium air force?"

According Hennis is conceivable that the Netherlands and Belgium continue to work together more closely. "But that will not happen tomorrow."

One of the hurdles that must be taken is that the Belgians will replace their F-16s by the Joint Strike Fighter. The Netherlands has opted for the F35 and the Belgians have yet to make a decision.
http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/4268798/henni ... lbaar.html


“Building (military) cooperation between our two countries” as the general proposes is a possibility, but one integrated Airforce will be hardly possible.
As well as both navies do have a strong cooperation, concerning the Netherlands it needs a or at least some possibility to operate on their own

May be not known. Since 2010 three Islands are a part of the Netherlands
(Free choice of these Islands to become a part of Dutch territory)
The Netherlands since then it’s known as: Continental Netherlands and Caribean Netherlands.
Together with the other three independent states (Islands) they form the Kingdom of the Netherlands

It’s not possible for Belgium military personnel, technical personnel or pilots, to operate in case of tensions, on the Antilles.
When tensions would become severe (in 2015 an American civil aircraft was shot down by Venezuela) airspace needs to be controlled by at least some Dutch aircraft.

From a political view it’s not possible for Belgium sending military personnel.
QRA could not be done by Belgium pilots, technical personnel included.
Belgium in that case would be a part of the conflict.

Although in case of war it’s not possible to defend territory of (Caribean) Netherlands or the other three states (islands).
The only ally to be trusted on by the Netherlands to defend their territory are the United States. NATO is forbidden to operate in this region.
Case studies are clear about help from other European countries. In case of real problems the Dutch are on their own, like the British and the Falklands (Monroe doctrine)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2016, 02:31
by talkitron
Any kind of joint program between Belgium and the Netherlands would probably end up being used by politicians to reduce the total fighter buy below the sum of the amounts that would be ordered if purchased separately. Politicians are always trying to get the budget to work out, as is their job. Voters like having a military but do not have much sense of the unit count of particular weapon systems.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2016, 17:56
by m
talkitron wrote:Any kind of joint program between Belgium and the Netherlands would probably end up being used by politicians to reduce the total fighter buy below the sum of the amounts that would be ordered if purchased separately. Politicians are always trying to get the budget to work out, as is their job. Voters like having a military but do not have much sense of the unit count of particular weapon systems.

A joint program is not possible, Belgium is not a levelpartner. Although mentioned in the Belgium press, ordering the F35 together, the minister of the Dutch Defence at that time explained this was a main reason

Either joining a possible block buy could be a possibility for the BAF.
This could result in ordering a less expensive F35 for Belgium

Still when both countries both will fly the F35 a lot will be possible, probably much more then the F16 EPAF cooperation ever was. Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, UK, Italy. Plus probably Belgium and Finland

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2017, 23:38
by steve2267
Is Belgium still on track to choose an F-16 replacement / place an order in 2018? From the news, I see they have either approved or have a requirement for thirty-four (34) aircraft to replace their F-16s.

Is the F-35 still considered the front runner for a replacement? By the time 2018 rolls around, I honestly don't see how you will be able to purchase any tactical western fighter aircraft for less than the F-35A. Maybe Gripen, but I doubt it, the way Saab and the Swedes are going. (And to make it "worthwhile," a new Gripen would have to cost less than 1/2 of an F-35 -- from a capability standpoint -- and that is not going to happen.)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 02:14
by jakobs
steve2267 wrote:Is the F-35 still considered the front runner for a replacement?


Belgium store B61's, so anything else would be retarded IMO.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 18:25
by talkitron
No news on Belgium but I like this overview of European fighter procurement.

http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-air ... -countries

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 18:04
by pron
A small surprise today when Belgium sends a request for new fighters to Sweden.

Here the news translated with Google:

Sweden, through FMV received a quotation from Belgium concerning the procurement of fighter aircraft.
- Belgium, Sweden would fit well in terms of defense benefits in the form of cost sharing in the development and operation of Gripen E says Joakim Wallin, head of exports at FMV. Belgium wants a close and extensive cooperation with the country from which they buy fighter aircraft and it is through these partnerships, we can find solutions that deliver cost for both countries.

- We are now in collaboration with Saab AB, analyze and evaluate the incoming request to see how we can best respond to it.

Link to original in swedish - http://fmv.se/sv/Nyheter-och-press/Nyhe ... -Gripen-E/

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 19:15
by botsing
pron wrote:A small surprise today when Belgium sends a request for new fighters to Sweden.

Not really a surprise.

Last Friday Dutch news reported that Belgium will start the replacement process of its F-16 and will choose from these five planes: Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-18 E/F and F-35.

So naturally, like the other candidates, they (Saab through FMV) received a request for information.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 21:02
by hythelday
botsing wrote:
pron wrote:A small surprise today when Belgium sends a request for new fighters to Sweden.

Not really a surprise.

Last Friday Dutch news reported that Belgium will start the replacement process of its F-16 and will choose from these five planes: Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-18 E/F and F-35.

So naturally, like the other candidates, they (Saab through FMV) received a request for information.


SAAB withdraws because "Americans have everyone bought off", not because they know they'll lose.
Dassault will offer something, but not try real hard because they are happy with current orders.
Eurofighter puts a little more effort, especially utilizing ze Germans.
Boeing sues Belgians even before official decision is made in order to have a head start in upcoming legal battle.
LM wins.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 21:21
by Tiger05
hythelday wrote:Boeing sues Belgians even before official decision is made in order to have a head start in upcoming legal battle.


LOL :lmao:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 11:32
by barrelnut
Belgian Defence,
Air Combat Capability Program,
Request for Government Proposal:

http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/defau ... osal_0.pdf

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 15:04
by botsing
barrelnut wrote:Belgian Defence,
Air Combat Capability Program,
Request for Government Proposal:

http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/defau ... osal_0.pdf

Thank you for your post!

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 16:53
by Dragon029
Looking at the terminology they're using, the relative weightings and the scenarios, it seems like the F-35 has this one in the bag; there seems to be a big emphasis on information gathering / ISR, the ability to fuse data, search and destroy, work in a joint environment, have good survivability, etc.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 21:36
by ricnunes
Not to mention that one of the threats that the new/future Belgium fighter is "expected to face" is the S-400 (NATO Name: SA-21 Growler) - See page 229.
There isn't any available fighter aircraft in the market (which will be proposed to Belgium) today or in the near future capable of facing the S-400 outside the F-35 (at least without suffering some "prohibitive loses"). :wink:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2017, 15:33
by XanderCrews
Dragon029 wrote:Looking at the terminology they're using, the relative weightings and the scenarios, it seems like the F-35 has this one in the bag; there seems to be a big emphasis on information gathering / ISR, the ability to fuse data, search and destroy, work in a joint environment, have good survivability, etc.


Yep. Was only a few pages in and saw the emphasis on ISR and jointNess. Pretty obvious I would think

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2017, 05:41
by neptune
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-436354/

Boeing will not compete its SBug to replace Belgium’s fleet of F-16s

Boeing will not compete its F/A-18 Super Hornet to replace Belgium’s fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16s, the company informed the nation's government this week. In a statement, the airframer says it will not participate in a 19 April bidders' conference, nor respond to Brussels' request for proposals for the new fighter. “We regret that after reviewing the request we do not see an opportunity to compete on a truly level playing field with the...F/A-18 Super Hornet,” Boeing says. “This decision allows Boeing to concentrate its efforts and resources on supporting our global customers, securing new orders and investing in technology and systems required to meet the threats of today and tomorrow. Where there is a full and open competition we look forward to bringing the full depth and breadth of Boeing to our offer.”

Belgium’s recapitalization effort is expected to replace its 59 F-16A/Bs with 34 new fighters, with a budget of up to €3.6 billion ($4 billion), FlightGlobal has previously reported. Boeing’s American rival, Lockheed Martin, remains in the competition with its F-35. Other candidates include the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen E. Over the past year, Boeing has chalked up a number of coups for its tactical fighter business, from a Canadian Super Hornet purchase to a renewed interest in the aircraft from US President Donald Trump, as well as orders from Kuwait and Qatar. However, interest from Europe appears to be waning. After losing Denmark’s fighter competition in 2016 to the F-35A, Boeing issued a legal challenge against the Danish defense ministry arguing that the government executed a “flawed” evaluation process. On 15 September 2016, Boeing submitted a request for insight seeking documents and information on the fighter decision. "Since then, the ministry has shared only a small fraction of the documents that Boeing is entitled to review, and has not provided a complete list of all its documents and information as required by law," Boeing says. Boeing filed a legal challenge on 2 March, fighting the failure to release the documents; that court hearing is still pending. Meanwhile, Boeing sees other opportunities from fighter contests being held by Finland and Switzerland.
:P

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2017, 10:48
by hornetfinn
Where there is a full and open competition we look forward to bringing the full depth and breadth of Boeing to our offer.


Just like in Canada... :roll:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2017, 15:35
by mixelflick
This business of suing countries after losing, not making the cut etc seems to me to be short sighted. If you're a country evaluating strike fighters, why would you entertain Boeing's bid (be that the F-18 SH or F-15), only to open yourself up to litigation?

Hey Boeing: How about you develop a superior product?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2017, 17:26
by botsing
mixelflick wrote:This business of suing countries after losing, not making the cut etc seems to me to be short sighted.

As a country I would put a big legal team at work to add a section to the Request for Proposal where it clearly states that the country cannot be sued in anyway by the contenders or their partners over it (with all the legal mumble jumble).

Prevention is better than cure.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 00:13
by popcorn
Take a cue from F1. You can protest the outcome of a race but if you lose you pay a hefty fine. :devil:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 17:34
by durahawk
Sad day for the SAAB fanboys... Looks like the Gripen is out of the race.

LONDON—Belgium’s short list for its future fighter has shrunk to three after the Swedish government withdrew Saab’s new-generation Gripen from the tender.

Swedish defense materiel organization FMV, which would facilitate any Gripen sale, said in a July 10 statement that while the aircraft meets all the operational requirements in Belgium’s request for proposals, Sweden itself could not meet Brussel’s need for “extensive operational support.”

“This would require a Swedish foreign policy and political mandate that does not exist today,” the FMV said.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/gripen- ... er-contest

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 16:01
by bojack_horseman
Looks like the French are surrendering as well....

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.ph ... ogram.html

n some ways, Eric Trappier, CEO of Dassault, prime contractor for the Rafale program, already sowed doubt a few days before Paris Air Show 2017 opening. "Generally speaking, I feel there is a desire to buy american," he said to the Belgian economic newspaper L’Écho. "It's surely linked to the relationship with NATO. But it is not incompatible to be in NATO and to use non-American aircraft, as the Rafale shows," Trappier added.

Moreover, the Chief of Staff of the French Air Force, the General André Lanata, on July 19 expressed concern about the success and performance of the F-35, which, "will become a benchmark in the global air force, not just in the US, but also in our major partners."

In any case, if Dassault withdraws, BAE Systems will have to put forth strong arguments against the Belgian Air Force's favorite, the F-35.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 16:07
by neptune
bojack_horseman wrote:Looks like the French are surrendering as well.....Moreover, the Chief of Staff of the French Air Force, the General André Lanata, on July 19 expressed concern about the success and performance of the F-35, which, "will become a benchmark in the global air force, not just in the US, but also in our major partners."..


C'est la vie
:)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 17:38
by Tiger05
bojack_horseman wrote:Looks like the French are surrendering as well....

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.ph ... ogram.html

n some ways, Eric Trappier, CEO of Dassault, prime contractor for the Rafale program, already sowed doubt a few days before Paris Air Show 2017 opening. "Generally speaking, I feel there is a desire to buy american," he said to the Belgian economic newspaper L’Écho. "It's surely linked to the relationship with NATO. But it is not incompatible to be in NATO and to use non-American aircraft, as the Rafale shows," Trappier added.

Moreover, the Chief of Staff of the French Air Force, the General André Lanata, on July 19 expressed concern about the success and performance of the F-35, which, "will become a benchmark in the global air force, not just in the US, but also in our major partners."

In any case, if Dassault withdraws, BAE Systems will have to put forth strong arguments against the Belgian Air Force's favorite, the F-35.


Dassault isnt completely out of the race. They opted out of the RfP but will instead offer a government-to-government deal to Belgium like they did with India.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 19:40
by bojack_horseman
Tiger05 wrote:Dassault isnt completely out of the race. They opted out of the RfP but will instead offer a government-to-government deal to Belgium like they did with India.


So at a forthcoming EU summit a French minister will put their arm around their Belgian counterpart and give it the old
"We think you'll love the Rafale. By the way, how are the wife & kids, I hear they like new cars and a trip to San Tropez?"

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 20:09
by hythelday
bojack_horseman wrote:
Tiger05 wrote:Dassault isnt completely out of the race. They opted out of the RfP but will instead offer a government-to-government deal to Belgium like they did with India.


So at a forthcoming EU summit a French minister will put their arm around their Belgian counterpart and give it the old
"We think you'll love the Rafale. By the way, how are the wife & kids, I hear they like new cars and a trip to San Tropez?"


Too bad he's flemish :D

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 20:24
by ricnunes
bojack_horseman wrote:
Tiger05 wrote:Dassault isnt completely out of the race. They opted out of the RfP but will instead offer a government-to-government deal to Belgium like they did with India.


So at a forthcoming EU summit a French minister will put their arm around their Belgian counterpart and give it the old
"We think you'll love the Rafale. By the way, how are the wife & kids, I hear they like new cars and a trip to San Tropez?"


And to think that there are lots among the Anti-F-35 and Pro-Rafale/etc... that claim that LM corrupts governments, makes (fake) propaganda, doesn't deliver what's promised, etc... :roll:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 12:19
by bojack_horseman
Fairly interesting article.

The French government still haven't given up and are kicking the lobbying efforts into another gear.

https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economie/b ... 1509358945

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 13:07
by hythelday
bojack_horseman wrote:Fairly interesting article.

The French government still haven't given up and are kicking the lobbying efforts into another gear.

https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economie/b ... 1509358945


Soft paywall? Could you please quote more interesting parts if you have access?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 13:34
by optimist
I could tell you how to get around soft paywalls, but I'd have to kill you. :mrgreen:

‘Het is duidelijk dat premier Michel invloed probeert uit te oefenen om het Franse Rafale-gevechtsvliegtuig mee in de running te krijgen voor de opvolging van de F-16’s’, luidt het in regeringskringen.

Het is niemand in de regering ontgaan dat premier Charles Michel (MR) zich mengt in het aankoopdossier voor 34 nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen voor 3,5 miljard euro.
‘Dat de geschiedenis zich herhaalt, verwondert me niet. Ik had alleen gedacht dat de Mouvement Réformateur (MR), nu ze de eerste minister levert, behoedzamer zou zijn in haar Fransdolle aspiraties. A new Agusta is born’, zo wordt in regeringskringen een allusie gemaakt op de corruptie-affaire rond de aankoop van Agusta-helicopters voor het leger.
'Ik had gedacht dat de MR nu ze de eerste minister levert, behoedzamer zou zijn in haar Fransdolle aspiraties. A new Agusta is born.'
REGERINGSBRON
En die manoeuvres gebeuren niet eens zo verdoken. Toen minister van Defensie Steven Vandeput (N-VA) in het parlement liet weten dat de deur voor de Fransen dicht was, reageerde vicepremier Didier Reynders (MR) de dag erop voor de televisiecamera’s dat de Fransen nog niet afgeschreven waren.
Op verzoek van Michel zijn inmiddels nieuwe juridische adviezen gevraagd om de Rafale van Dassault alsnog mee in de wedstrijd te brengen voor de opvolging van de F-16’s.
Offerte te laat

Vandeput kreeg nochtans het juridische advies dat de Fransen niet conform de regels hebben gehandeld. Terwijl de Amerikanen met de F-35 van Lockheed Martin en de Britten met de Eurofighter een offerte indienden conform de ‘Request for Government Proposal’ (RFGP), kwam Parijs op 7 september, luttele uren voor de deadline, met een brief waarin de Franse minister van Defensie Florence Parly een verregaand partnerschap aanbiedt.
‘Blijven onderhandelen met Frankrijk zou de Belgische staat blootstellen aan kritiek en rechtsvervolging.’
STEVEN VANDEPUT
MINISTER VAN DEFENSIE
Er wordt ook expliciet verwezen naar Sabca, het Belgische bedrijf waarin het Franse Dassault een meerderheidsbelang heeft. Maar Parijs geeft geen enkel antwoord op de 164 vragen uit de RFGP, noch wordt de prijs van de toestellen verduidelijkt. ‘Blijven onderhandelen met Frankrijk zou de Belgische staat blootstellen aan kritiek en rechtsvervolging’, besloot Vandeput.
Dat Vandeput de deur had dichtgedaan voor Parijs stond nog maar net online, of er liepen al telefoontjes binnen op het kabinet-Vandeput, van de Fransen, maar ook van de Britten - die met de Eurofighter mee in de running zijn - om tekst en uitleg te vragen.
De Belgische F-16's zijn tegen 2023 aan vervanging toe. © BELGA
De Belgische F-16's zijn tegen 2023 aan vervanging toe. © BELGA
Er wordt druk gelobbyd, maar Vandeput houdt zich daar zo ver mogelijk van. Hij weet hoe delicaat alles ligt. Toen Boeing zich met zijn F-18 uit de race terugtrok, omdat de Belgische aanbesteding op maat van de F-35 van Lockheed Martin zou zijn geschreven, liet een ongeruste Michel dat onderzoeken. Er werd niets gevonden.
Bij de N-VA luidt het dat er geen voorkeur is voor gelijk wie, en dat men al evenmin iets tegen de Fransen heeft.
In het kernkabinet bekijkt vicepremier Jan Jambon (N-VA) ‘welwillend’ alle voorstellen van Michel om alsnog business te kunnen doen met de Fransen. Daarom ging hij ook akkoord om nieuwe juridische adviezen te vragen. Maar die welwillendheid gaat maar tot het punt waarop Vandeput in verlegenheid wordt gebracht. ‘We gaan niet moeilijk doen, tenzij we zelf in moeilijkheden komen. Dan houdt het op’, luidt het.
Ongemakkelijk schuifelen

Voor de premier is het ongemakkelijk schuifelen op zijn stoel. ‘Kan u het zich voorstellen, Charles Michel die aan de tafel van de Europese Raad zit, zijn grote vriend Emmanuel Macron in de ogen kijkt en zegt: ‘Nee, bedankt voor uw voorstel voor een pro-Europees partnerschap, maar ik verkies het puur commerciële voorstel van de Amerikanen.’
KORT

De Fransen lobbyen hevig om hun Rafale-gevechtsvliegtuig toch nog in de running te krijgen voor de vervanging van de F-16’s.
Vooral de MR van premier Charles Michel is gevoelig voor de Franse argumenten.
Elders in de regering wordt opgemerkt dat ons land grote juridische risico’s loopt als het Franse bod toch nog wordt opgevist, terwijl het niet aan de voorwaarden voldoet.
De kans bestaat dat de beslissing over de aankoop van nieuwe legervliegtuigen wordt doorgeschoven naar de volgende regering.
‘Ik begrijp de malaise in de regering’, merkte gewezen minister van Defensie André Flahaut (PS) al op.
De entourage van Michel ontkent dat er al contacten zijn geweest met de Franse president, maar het is duidelijk dat de premier verveeld zit met heel de zaak.
En de Franse lobbymachine draait op volle toeren. De Franse ambassadeur loopt eens langs, Sabca komt toelichting geven en zelfs de christelijke vakbond ACV liet recentelijk in een brief aan de regering weten dat Frankrijk een investering van 20 miljard euro en 1.500 Belgische banen belooft, als ons land kiest voor de Rafale van Dassault.
De klok tikt

Een optie is dat de Fransen alsnog de Rafale zouden voorstellen, als op 14 februari het ‘best and final offer’ moet worden ingediend. Dat mag juridisch nog mogelijk zijn, feitelijk is het een onhaalbare kaart, wordt in militaire kringen gezegd. Met de Britten en de Amerikanen lopen gesprekken om de voorstellen voor de Eurofighter en de F-35 correct te kunnen evalueren.
Minister van Defensie Steven Vandeput (N-VA) kijkt er al lang niet meer van op dat premier Charles Michel via zijn militair adviseur mee aan de knoppen draait. © BELGA
Minister van Defensie Steven Vandeput (N-VA) kijkt er al lang niet meer van op dat premier Charles Michel via zijn militair adviseur mee aan de knoppen draait. © BELGA
Maar na het indienen van het ‘best and final offer’ mag niet meer met elkaar worden gesproken. Het wordt dan ook zo goed als onmogelijk om een Franse offerte nog te beoordelen, luidt het.
Een andere piste is dat de Fransen gepaaid worden met een ander legercontract. ‘Voor de landmacht is voorzien in een capacité motorisée. Het gaat om een contract van 1,1 miljard euro, dat voor de Fransen is’, wordt opgemerkt in regeringskringen. Het Strategisch Legerplan van Vandeput mikt op een verregaande samenwerking tussen de Belgische en de Franse landcomponenten. Maar of dat contract, dat ze eigenlijk al op zak hebben, Parijs zal kunnen paaien, is nog maar de vraag. ‘Mijn grootmoeder zei altijd: de Duvelszak is nooit gevuld’, klinkt het in regeringskringen.
Omdat er geen voor de hand liggende uitweg is, bestaat de kans dat de aankoop van de nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen naar de Griekse kalenden wordt verwezen. De beslissing om gevechtsvliegtuigen aan te kopen was al niet evident.
Open VLD-voorzitster Gwendolyn Rutten lag lang dwars, omdat ze het politiek niet dacht te kunnen verkopen dat meer dan 9 miljard euro wordt gespendeerd aan gevechtsvliegtuigen en ander legermateriaal, terwijl Maggie De Block (Open VLD) moest besparen op de langdurige zieken, wier aantal een hoge vlucht neemt.
Zonder rugdekking

De premier nam het toen ook over van Vandeput en kocht tijd voor diens omstreden Strategisch Legerplan. Uiteindelijk werd er enkel ‘akte van genomen’, waardoor Vandeput zonder politieke rugdekking bezig is aan de uitvoering van zijn Strategisch Plan.
3,5 miljard
De opvolger van de F-16 mag 3,5 miljard euro kosten.
De premier slaagde er wel in om het fiat te krijgen voor legerinvesteringen voor meer dan 9 miljard euro, waaronder de aankoop van 34 nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen voor 3,5 miljard euro.
Vandeput kijkt er al lang niet meer van op dat Michel, via zijn militair adviseur, reservemajoor Michel Peeters, mee over de schouder kijkt en mee aan de knoppen draait. Maar de aankoop van gevechtsvliegtuigen uitstellen tot na de parlementsverkiezingen van 2019 is een risico.
Metaalmoe

Vanaf 2023 moeten de F-16’s worden vervangen, want na 40 jaar dienst kunnen de ‘metaalmoeë’ toestellen niet meer worden geüpdatet. Vandaar dat de planning stelt dat het contract in 2018 moet worden gegund, zodat de eerste toestellen in 2023 kunnen worden geleverd.
Maar wie zal er moeilijk over doen als geen akkoord kan worden bereikt en de beslissing wordt uitgesteld? Als het over legeraankopen gaat, hebben de socialisten vanuit de oppositie weinig recht van spreken, merkt een regeringsbron op. ‘Ze hebben het geld geïncasseerd voor de partij en hebben het vervolgens verbrand in hun tuin’, wordt cynisch verwezen naar de Agusta-affaire van begin jaren 90.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 16:53
by hythelday
optimist wrote:I could tell you how to get around soft paywalls, but I'd have to kill you. :mrgreen:


Not if I shoot you first for showing how to run a text through google translate! :twisted:

Anyway, article sounds like defence minister Vandeput does not want to allow Dassault participation on a basis of them being late with proposal, and also proposal itself being "shady", arguing bending the rules for the French might cause a legal stir-up; Meanwhile, PM Michel, who I gather is a Walloon and a "great friend [of] Emmanuel Macron" pushes for French participation.

Also, @optimist, how well was this excerpt translated?

The French ambassador goes further along, Sabca comes explanatory notes and even the Christian union ACV was recently in a letter to the Government that France promises an investment of 20 billion euros and 1,500 Belgian jobs, when our country chooses the Rafale from Dassault.


Is Dassault seriously promising 20 billion in offset Rafale deals, or is it some general "we'll invest 20 bn into Belgian industry at some point"? LM surely can't beat that, however they can show real deal contracts for global F-35 supply chain. A bird in hand is better than two in bush 8)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 21:16
by optimist
don't tell anyone, but you put the heading and some words of the article into google and when it finds the article you are looking for, you open it..Try it now, this circumvents a lot of paywalls..but they are catching on and starting to close that door.

I tried to google trans, but the door I went through wouldn't let it do so. so I just copied and posted original text. I had no idea what it said and translated it here.

also all the other french promises of offset, tech transfer and such have always come out well :mrgreen:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 21:48
by bojack_horseman
hythelday wrote:Soft paywall? Could you please quote more interesting parts if you have access?


Apologies, I'm not seeing any paywall myself. (via google on a PC)

The fellow "Michel" is the Prime Minister of Belgium Charles Michel....

Belgian maneuvers in the dark with fighter planes

"It is clear that Prime Minister Michel is trying to exert influence to get the French Rafale fighter plane in the run for the F-16's succession," it says in government circles.

Nobody in the government escaped that Prime Minister Charles Michel merged into the purchase file for 34 new fighter aircraft for 3.5 billion euros.
"That history repeats me does not surprise me. I had only thought that the Mouvement Reformator Party (MR), now that she will deliver the prime minister, would be more cautious in her French-language aspirations. A new Agusta is born ', so in government circles, an allusion is made to the corruption affair surrounding the purchase of Agusta helicopters for the army.

And those maneuvers do not even happen so much. When Defense Minister Steven Vandeput (N-VA) in parliament said that the door was closed for the French , responded Deputy Prime Minister Didier Reynders (MR) the day after the television cameras that the French were not depreciated.
At the request of Michel are now new legal opinions requested the Rafale from Dassault bring still in the competition for the successor to the F-16s.

Vandeput, however, obtained the legal advice that the French did not act in accordance with the rules. While the Americans with the F-35 from Lockheed Martin and the British with the Eurofighter an offer submitted in accordance with the 'Request for Government Proposal (RFGP), Paris came on September 7, just hours before the deadline, with a letter in which the French Minister of Defense Florence Parly offers a far-reaching partnership.

It is also explicitly referred to Sabca , the Belgian company in which the French Dassault has a majority interest. But Paris does not answer the 164 questions from the RFGP, nor will the price of the devices be clarified. 'Continue negotiating with France would expose the Belgian state to criticism and prosecution', Vandeput decided.
The fact that Vandeput closed the door for Paris was just online, or there were already calls on the Vandeput, the French, but also the British - who are in the running with Eurofighter - for text and explanation to ask.

It is busy lobbying , but Vandeput adheres as far as possible. He knows how delicious everything is. When Boeing abandoned from this race with the F-18, because the Belgian tendering was tailored to Lockheed Martin's F-35, an inexperienced Michel was investigating that. Nothing found.

At the N-VA it is said that there is no preference for equal who, and that they do not have anything against the French.
The inner cabinet looks Deputy Prime Minister Jan Jambon (N-VA) 'benevolent' all proposals Michel to do so business with the French. Therefore he agreed to ask for new legal advice. But that benevolence goes to the point where Vandeput is embarrased . "We will not do it hard unless we get into trouble ourselves. Then it will hold on, "it says.

For the Prime Minister is uncomfortable shuffling in his seat. "Can you imagine Charles Michel, who is at the European Council, looks at his great friend Emmanuel Macron, saying," No, thanks for your proposal for a pro-European partnership, but I prefer it commercial proposal from the Americans. "

"I understand the malaise in government," said former minister of defense, André Flahaut (PS).
The entourage of Michel denies that there were contacts with the French president, but it is clear that the Prime Minister is bored with the whole thing.
And the French lobby machine running at full speed. The French ambassador walks along, Sabca explains, and even the Christian trade union ACV recently announced in a letter to the government that France promises an investment of 20 billion euros and 1,500 Belgian jobs, if our country chooses for the Rafale of Dassault.
The clock is ticking
One option is that the French would still introduce the Rafale , if on February 14 the "best and final offer" should be submitted. That may be legally possible, in fact, it's an unreadable card, it is said in military circles. With the British and Americans, discussions are taking place to properly evaluate the proposals for the Eurofighter and the F-35.


However, after submitting the best and final offer no longer can be spoken. It is therefore almost impossible to review a French offer, it says.
Another run is that the French rocked with another army contract . 'For the country's power a capacité motorisée is provided. It is a contract of EUR 1.1 billion , which is for the French, "is noted in government circles. Vandeput's Strategic Army Plan aims at far-reaching cooperation between Belgian and French land components. But whether that contract, which they are actually already on the verge of sprouting Paris, is still the question. "My grandmother always said: The Duvelszak is never filled," it sounds like in government circles.

The prime minister succeeded in getting rid of military investments for more than 9 billion euros , including the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft for 3.5 billion euros.
Vandeput has long been aware that Michel, through his military adviser, reservoir leader Michel Peeters, looks over his shoulder and walks on the knobs. But postponing the purchase of fighter aircraft until after the parliamentary elections of 2019 is a risk.

As of 2023, the F-16's have to be replaced, because after 40 years of service , the 'metal power' devices can no longer be updated. Hence the plan states that the contract should be awarded in 2018 so that the first devices can be delivered in 2023.
But who will make it difficult if no agreement can be reached and the decision is postponed? When it comes to army purchases, the Socialists have little right to speak from the opposition, notes a government source. "They have collected the money for the party and then burned in their garden," cynically referred to the Agusta affair of the early 90's.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 21:51
by bojack_horseman
hythelday wrote:Is Dassault seriously promising 20 billion in offset Rafale deals, or is it some general "we'll invest 20 bn into Belgian industry at some point"? LM surely can't beat that, however they can show real deal contracts for global F-35 supply chain. A bird in hand is better than two in bush 8)


That's what stuck out for me.

The purchasing budget is €3.5bn
The French have some 'cojones' if they offer 600% offsets.... and the Belgians would be insane to believe them!

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 19:46
by bojack_horseman
Well, as predicted the Belgian government aren't believing Dassault's fantastical offset figures

I think Lockheed should be very confident of success here.

The Belgian AF & Dutch AF have now merged their QRF roles, so it makes no sense for them to opt for the Eurofighter.


https://www.airrecognition.com/index.ph ... oomed.html


ACCaP Program: French offer appears increasingly doomed

France's proposal to offer the Rafale fighter jet to Belgium appears increasingly doomed following new comments from the latter's defence minister, Steven Vandeput. As France didn't correctly answered the RfGP, Dassault's "announcements concerning the economic side can not be taken in account," Vandeput said today to the Belgian Parliament National Defense Commitee.

Without being allowed to push on economic side of their proposal, Paris will undoubtely face difficulties to affect the Belgian final choice. In late December 2017, Belgian medias suggested, based on Dassault documents, that the french planemaker is promising around 20 bn of economic compensation over 20 years, and more than 5,000 high-technology jobs. An information that Vandeput said "to be too good to be true", finding that Dassault was doing an "economic blackmail".

Moreover, Vandeput rightly points out that the French team "chose to communicate by press instead of introducing a proposal into the procedure we launched". He also confirmed that "the government position didn't change since my answer to the (National Defense) committee in December 20, 2017", when Vandeput declared that he "personally had neither formal nor informal contact about it (the French proposal)" with its French counterpart.

On February 14, Belgium will officially select the best and final offer. It will then be evaluated by no less than 33 experts, splitted in seven different teams.

Strongly criticized by the Belgian MoD, Steven Vandeput (N-VA), the French proposal is currently being screened by the Belgian government, in order to avoid any legal process from the two other contenders, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. Needless to say, Belgium will do everything to avoid a new “Agusta–Dassault Scandal”, after which Brussels in the 1990s thoroughly revised its arms procurement process.

Belgium approved in December 2016 the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros ($4.2 bn). Two contenders are officially competing: Lockheed Martin with its F-35A JSF, and BAE Systems with the Eurofighter Typhoon

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 20:03
by loke
bojack_horseman wrote:The Belgian AF & Dutch AF have now merged their QRF roles, so it makes no sense for them to opt for the Eurofighter.

Well even if they had not merged their roles it would make no sense for them to opt for the Typhoon.

It is horribly expensive both to purchase but also to operate and upgrade (much more expensive than the F-35), it does not meet some key requirements (including SEAD/DEAD), and it cannot drop nukes.

I am sure I forgot something, but the above should do...

Of course they will go for F-35 -- the only thing that can throw a spanner in the works are the French...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 22:48
by SpudmanWP
FMS Details released ($6.53 Billion for 34 jets)

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/be ... r-aircraft

Media/Public Contact:
pm-cpa@state.gov
Transmittal No:
17-80
WASHINGTON, JAN. 18, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Belgium of thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing aircraft for an estimated cost of $6.53 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Belgium has requested to buy thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, and thirty-eight (38) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines (34 installed, 4 spares). Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; Reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; support equipment; tools and test equipment; communications equipment; spares and repair parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $6.53 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of an ally and partner nation which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political and economic stability in Western Europe.

This proposed sale of F-35s will provide Belgium with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The proposed sale will augment Belgium's operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. Belgium will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, TX; and Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, CT. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required. All offsets are defined in negotiations between the Purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Belgium involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over the life of the program. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Belgium to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and Autonomic Logistics and Global Support (ALGS) for after-aircraft delivery.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 00:01
by neptune
SpudmanWP wrote:...WASHINGTON, JAN. 18, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Belgium of thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing aircraft for an estimated cost of $6.53 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.....


Great!, another two+ NATO squadrons!

NATO + Israel; 530ish F-35s order potential in EurAsia!
:)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 01:32
by usnvo
neptune wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:...WASHINGTON, JAN. 18, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Belgium of thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing aircraft for an estimated cost of $6.53 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.....


Great!, another two+ NATO squadrons!

NATO + Israel; 530ish F-35s order potential in EurAsia!
:)


It is a possible sale, it is not a real sale at this point. All it means is that the US Government has approved the sale if the government of Belgium decides it wants to buy the F-35. They would have done the same thing for the F-18 if it was still in the competition. For that matter, they would have done the same thing for the Gripen if Saab had decided to enter the competition as well. Don't want to count your Lightnings before they are sold.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 02:30
by playloud
How much of that would be FMS fees?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 03:56
by SpudmanWP
playloud wrote:How much of that would be FMS fees?

No clue as the details are not included. What is known is that it includes Block 4.x jets, FMS simulator(s), a reprogramming center (to update MDFs), support, etc.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 06:06
by optimist
fms fees went up, I think they were around 3% and are around 5% now. Edit, curiosity got me, well that was a bad guess it seems they went up to 3.8% and were reduced to 3.5% in 2012. I haven't googled anything higher.
I assume it's the same with the f-35, also I think the partners get a kickback on sales. Or is it just with the stuff they individually fund?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 06:07
by neptune
usnvo wrote:
neptune wrote:..WASHINGTON, JAN. 18, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Belgium of thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing aircraft for an estimated cost of $6.53 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.....

Great!, another two+ NATO squadrons!

NATO + Israel; 530ish F-35s order potential in EurAsia!
:)


It is a possible sale, it is not a real sale at this point. All it means is that the US Government has approved the sale if the government of Belgium decides it wants to buy the F-35. They would have done the same thing for the F-18 if it was still in the competition. For that matter, they would have done the same thing for the Gripen if Saab had decided to enter the competition as well. Don't want to count your Lightnings before they are sold.


....of the 29 NATO members and the 13 most prosperous, only Poland (former Warsaw Pact member) has "YET" to decide if they are considering the F-35; aside from the possible 5Gen joint development of France and Germany.

....and then there is Canada, riding along on the back of the US taxpayers. Perhaps "the Donald" reviewing NAFTA will motivate them financially to add a little more NATO investment over their 2016 1.0%, with an order for the F-35....or not!
:)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 06:17
by optimist
also don't the EU have to pay a local tax on the import, or does some assembly in Italy get around this?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 06:38
by SpudmanWP
Military goods are exempt from Import Duties.

Its purpose is to suspend import duties on certain weapons and military equipment to allow the EU countries’ authorities in charge of defence to procure the best military material available in the world.

It is only applicable to goods imported by or on behalf of the defence authorities in EU countries.

...

The goods on which the duties are suspended are arms and ammunition, including parts and accessories, certain rare gases, explosives, detonators, certain photographic materials and certain chemical products.

The regulation also applies the suspension of customs duties to imported parts, components and sub-assemblies that are to be incorporated into or fitted to the goods in the annexes or which are necessary for training or testing.


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... M%3Al11015

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 17:25
by SpudmanWP
GB must be smokin some good stuff... He thinks the $6.53 is JUST for the F-35 procurement.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lgium.html

(EDITOR’S NOTE At today’s rate, the $6.53 billion cost of the 34 F-35s offered to Belgium equates to 5.33 billion euros, which is 48% higher than the 3.6 billion euro budget that Belgium has allocated to buy its new fighters.
A spokesman for Belgian Defense Minister Steven Vandeput told Belga news agency that the cost figure was “premature,” and that the final price would be determined once the ministry’s own experts have evaluated the Best And Final Offers (BAFO) due on Feb. 14.
In fact, Vandeput’s spokesman might well have been referring to the announcement itself as being premature, which it was.
Lockheed and the DCSA were undoubtedly hoping to keep the price under wraps until after the Feb. 14 deadline for the BAFO.
However, it was the prospect of the shutdown of the US Federal Government on Friday night that prompted the DSCA to issue its notification of Congressional approval. In fact, the DCSA has shut down, and its website as well – which is why the above notification is dated Jan. 18.
This notification also confirms the unit cost of an F-35A is $190 million – over twice the $85 million price that Lockheed is still claiming – and which is very close to the $206 million that we determined for Lot 5 aircraft being delivered in 2017.
And those $190 million do not include the cost of ground equipment and weapons – both things that are required for a warplane to fly combat missions.
So far, governments in Italy, Norway, Denmark and the UK swallowed the Pentagon’s bait, along with its hook, line and sinker, but they did not the true cost. Even the UK government, which is the largest non-US F-35 partner, still cannot tell Parliament how much they cost.
But now, as Belgium alone knows the true price of all three candidates before its signs an order, Vandeput and the government cabinet will be able to show how good negotiators they are.)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 17:30
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:also don't the EU have to pay a local tax on the import, or does some assembly in Italy get around this?


Lol it's always amazing how governments exempt themselves from such taxes

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 17:31
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:GB must be smokin some good stuff... He thinks the $6.53 is JUST for the F-35 procurement.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lgium.html

(EDITOR’S NOTE At today’s rate, the $6.53 billion cost of the 34 F-35s offered to Belgium equates to 5.33 billion euros, which is 48% higher than the 3.6 billion euro budget that Belgium has allocated to buy its new fighters.
A spokesman for Belgian Defense Minister Steven Vandeput told Belga news agency that the cost figure was “premature,” and that the final price would be determined once the ministry’s own experts have evaluated the Best And Final Offers (BAFO) due on Feb. 14.
In fact, Vandeput’s spokesman might well have been referring to the announcement itself as being premature, which it was.
Lockheed and the DCSA were undoubtedly hoping to keep the price under wraps until after the Feb. 14 deadline for the BAFO.
However, it was the prospect of the shutdown of the US Federal Government on Friday night that prompted the DSCA to issue its notification of Congressional approval. In fact, the DCSA has shut down, and its website as well – which is why the above notification is dated Jan. 18.
This notification also confirms the unit cost of an F-35A is $190 million – over twice the $85 million price that Lockheed is still claiming – and which is very close to the $206 million that we determined for Lot 5 aircraft being delivered in 2017.
And those $190 million do not include the cost of ground equipment and weapons – both things that are required for a warplane to fly combat missions.
So far, governments in Italy, Norway, Denmark and the UK swallowed the Pentagon’s bait, along with its hook, line and sinker, but they did not the true cost. Even the UK government, which is the largest non-US F-35 partner, still cannot tell Parliament how much they cost.
But now, as Belgium alone knows the true price of all three candidates before its signs an order, Vandeput and the government cabinet will be able to show how good negotiators they are.)


He's either retarded or twisting facts.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 19:30
by sunstersun
Italy probably gets to assembly these Belgium F-35's right?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 19:38
by bojack_horseman
XanderCrews wrote:He's either retarded or twisting facts.


I wouldn't rule out him being both.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 19:42
by bojack_horseman
optimist wrote:also don't the EU have to pay a local tax on the import, or does some assembly in Italy get around this?


Defence procurement is subject to VAT.
However, if the project is done through the 'European Defence Agency' then the procurement is VAT exempt.

The EU determines VAT policy for all 28 states and so was able to exempt itself from that tax.

Which, American readers will see (rightly) as a massive unfair advantage.... but hey-ho!

https://www.eda.europa.eu/info-hub/pres ... ooperation

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 20:43
by SpudmanWP
Seems that there are some NATO exceptions.

Which import transactions are exempt?
The exemptions in this category, which are mandatory, are as follows.

Image


https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/b ... mptions_en

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2018, 13:23
by popcorn

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 08:46
by SpudmanWP
Two things from the Belgian RFP:

First up, what proposal cost covers and for how long:
. Capability Transition Period
The capability transition period is defined as the period starting at signature of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) and ending with Full Operational Capability (FOC). For budgetary planning purposes, the FOC date is tentatively set for 31 December 2030.
During this build-up period, a substantial support from the partner nation will be required. The proposal for this period of performance will cover all activities in support of:
- Initial procurement and delivery of the weapon system and its related equipment;
- Weapon system management;
- Aircrew type conversion and continuation training;
- Conversion training of all other personnel (operational, technical, support);
- Operational and technical support;
- Operational and technical sustainment, including updates and upgrades on already delivered aircraft or support systems.

http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/default/files/articles/Request%20for%20Government%20Proposal_0.pdf


2nd, Answers to the VAT question:

Value Added Tax, Customs Duties, and Similar Charges
Based on the derogations of the European Common System of Value Added Tax (VAT) of 28 November 2006, the Belgian VAT Code, article 42, §2, exempts from VAT the procurement of aeronautical equipment (aircraft, engines, avionics systems, assemblies, components, equipment, materiel, technical documents and other items such ammunition) and the associated support equipment and services.
According to the EU Council Regulation N° 150/2003 of 21 January 2003 on suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment, the duties of the Common Customs Tariff applicable to imports of goods are not due for the material concerned by the present RfGP. Insofar as existing laws and regulations of the partner nation permit, the government agencies will take into account that readily identifiable taxes, customs duties and similar charges on imports or exports are not to be imposed in connection with the activities under the proposed PMoU. Consequently, the government agencies will not enter into the provided cost data the taxes, customs duties and similar charges from which relief is available. Whenever existing laws and regulations of the partner nation do not allow doing so, these charges have to be clearly mentioned. The applicable modalities will be defined in the PMoU. If necessary, a ‘ruling’ will be established in order to formalise the tax modalities applicable to the partnership.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 01:01
by bojack_horseman
Both the UK (on behalf of BAE/Eurofighter) and the US (Lockheed) have submitted their respective final bids to the Belgians

UK MoD release:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod- ... to-belgium

US State Dept release:
https://be.usembassy.gov/u-s-government ... y-program/

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 10:09
by loke
The government must choose the successor to the antiquated Belgian F-16s. The selection panel will not be obliged to simply choose between the two offers. The point was stressed by the MR deputy, Richard Miller, on Bel RTL today.

Mr Miller said, “If either of the two do not meet the criteria for the best value for money, we could still consider other offers such as the Rafale (by the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault), or other aircraft manufacturers such as the Swedish Saab (the Gripen range of fighter aircraft).” He added, “We are not simply obliged to choose between the F-35 and European Eurofighter.”


http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/10 ... cceed-f-16

MR Deputy, what is that ?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 10:55
by bojack_horseman
loke wrote:what is that?


The initials of one of the Belgian political parties.

The "Reform Movement", part of the ruling coalition

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 14:56
by steve2267
loke wrote:
The government must choose the successor to the antiquated Belgian F-16s. The selection panel will not be obliged to simply choose between the two offers. The point was stressed by the MR deputy, Richard Miller, on Bel RTL today.

Mr Miller said, “If either of the two do not meet the criteria for the best value for money, we could still consider other offers such as the Rafale (by the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault), or other aircraft manufacturers such as the Swedish Saab (the Gripen range of fighter aircraft).” He added, “We are not simply obliged to choose between the F-35 and European Eurofighter.”


http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/10 ... cceed-f-16

MR Deputy, what is that ?


Phutt the whuck?

Belgium is, of course, free to do whatever they wish... but what is the point of a competition?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 17:55
by XanderCrews
steve2267 wrote:
loke wrote:
The government must choose the successor to the antiquated Belgian F-16s. The selection panel will not be obliged to simply choose between the two offers. The point was stressed by the MR deputy, Richard Miller, on Bel RTL today.

Mr Miller said, “If either of the two do not meet the criteria for the best value for money, we could still consider other offers such as the Rafale (by the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault), or other aircraft manufacturers such as the Swedish Saab (the Gripen range of fighter aircraft).” He added, “We are not simply obliged to choose between the F-35 and European Eurofighter.”


http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/10 ... cceed-f-16

MR Deputy, what is that ?


Phutt the whuck?

Belgium is, of course, free to do whatever they wish... but what is the point of a competition?



Belgians are weird dude. I mean that.

Is the guy is saying they should evaluate the two options they've necked down from, while not ruling out others theyve ruled out already?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 18:31
by marsavian
This is political cover for eventually choosing Rafale due to all the offsets they are promising. As Dassault did not formally enter the competition it can't win it so ignore the competition conclusion while still having it to be legal and nominally above board. The Belgium and German upgrades are going to be as political as the Canadian one it seems. If the best fighter is chosen, F-35, it will have to hurdle over all these political shenanigans. A tall order when these three countries are not taking their own defense seriously sheltering as they are under that cozy US NATO umbrella !

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 18:48
by SpudmanWP
Damn, those bids are thick...

Image

Here is the overall criteria. IMHO the F-35 easily takes that top 2 which covers 54%.

Image

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 20:52
by XanderCrews
marsavian wrote:This is political cover for eventually choosing Rafale due to all the offsets they are promising. As Dassault did not formally enter the competition it can't win it so ignore the competition conclusion while still having it to be legal and nominally above board



That sounds intensely corrupt

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 21:31
by marsavian
Hehe, welcome to the EU where anything goes as long as you can keep a straight face saying it ;).

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 22:17
by botsing
XanderCrews wrote:
marsavian wrote:This is political cover for eventually choosing Rafale due to all the offsets they are promising. As Dassault did not formally enter the competition it can't win it so ignore the competition conclusion while still having it to be legal and nominally above board


That sounds intensely corrupt

Not really. This is a "Request for Government Proposal" after all.

From the RfGP :
RfGP wrote:This RfGP aims to provide the government agencies with information of a sufficient quality so
that they can reciprocate in kind.


If it's politically wise to divert from the conclusion is another thing.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 21:18
by spazsinbad
UK submits bid for Belgium fighter competition, pitting Typhoon against F-35
16 Feb 2018 Andrew Chuter

"...The U.S. State Department said last month it had approved a possible foreign military sale of 34 Lockheed Martin F-35 jets to the Belgians in a deal which could be worth up to $6.5 billion. Earlier this month the U.S. confirmed it had responded to the request for final offers. “The F-35 Joint Program Office invested considerable effort to craft an offer that enables our Belgian allies to acquire the F-35’s unmatched capabilities well within the budget specified by the [Belgian] Strategic Vision for Defense 2030,” said the U.S. government.

Speaking recently to an audience of alliance and industry partners, US Charge d’Affaires, Matthew Lussenhop said a F-35 purchase would pay big dividends for Belgium. “Joining the F-35 program provides access to technology that support all of Belgium’s essential security interests and opens the door to related projects with potential returns well in excess of the initial investment — just like the F-16 program has in the past,” he said.

Lockheed Martin and engine maker Pratt & Whitney both have memoranda of agreement with a number of Belgian companies....

...Despite the efforts by the Europeans to entice the Belgians with attractive strategic and industrial offers Doug Barrie, the senior air analyst at the International Institute of Strategic Studies reckons the F-35 remains the aircraft to beat. “My money is on the F-35, particularly if the Belgians insist on retaining the ability to deploy B-61 freefall nuclear weapons to match the capability they have on the F-16,” said Barrie. “The F-35 is the only aircraft in the competition presently able to do that. Rafale is wired to deploy nuclear free fall weapons but they are French.”"

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/02 ... inst-f-35/

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 00:19
by rheonomic
SpudmanWP wrote:Damn, those bids are thick...

Image


They need to update the model to the current configuration...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 02:08
by element1loop
They screwed up the date on the article, says 2017.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 02:24
by spazsinbad
element1loop wrote:They screwed up the date on the article, says 2017.

Nope - that is me. The article currently says 'one day ago' and I'm still in 2017 (I do a lot of history of the RANFAA stuff).

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 11:02
by krorvik
XanderCrews wrote:That sounds intensely corrupt


And would certainly end up in EU courts. In their own and EU capital city. Should be fun.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 12:10
by monkeypilot
krorvik wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:That sounds intensely corrupt


And would certainly end up in EU courts. In their own and EU capital city. Should be fun.


Clearly no. Read RFGP

8. Legal Notice
The issuance of this RfGP is not to be construed in any way as a commitment by the Belgian
Government to conclude an agreement or a contract.
Respondents will not be reimbursed for any cost incurred in supporting the activities leading
to a response to this RfGP. Any and all expenses incurred by the respondents or by any of its
partners in responding to this RfGP are made by their own choice and at their own risk.
No legal liability against the ACCaP office and by extension Belgian Defence and the Belgian
Government, for payment of any sorts, shall arise as a result of activities related to responding
to this RfGP.


Norway did exactly the same thing by leaving the rfi route for KTMS submarines no?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 12:12
by monkeypilot
rheonomic wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Damn, those bids are thick...

Image


They need to update the model to the current configuration...


Happy you did not see the contracts for Leclerc tanks in UAE. Needed a A-320 to transport them. (true story)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 13:12
by thepointblank
monkeypilot wrote:
rheonomic wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Damn, those bids are thick...

Image


They need to update the model to the current configuration...


Happy you did not see the contracts for Leclerc tanks in UAE. Needed a A-320 to transport them. (true story)

Or, the bid packages when Canada was picking a fixed wing SAR aircraft... one bidder needed a cargo truck to move all of the bid paperwork. Another rented and loaded up a U-Haul truck. All for an off the shelf aircraft purchase.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 18:37
by SpudmanWP
Belgium wants to buy Rafale fighters for naval capability, says French lawmaker

PARIS — Belgium has shown interest in the Rafale fighter jet for maritime use, said Jean-Jacques Bridey, chairman of the French Defence Committee of the lower house National Assembly.

“The Belgians are interested in the Rafale,” he told The Defense Journalists Association. “Why? If they buy the Rafale, it will be the naval Rafale.”

Belgium is interested in the aircraft’s ability to land on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which would boost Belgium’s deployment capacity, Bridey said. “This is a seaborne airbase, after all,” he added.

France has pitched the Rafale in an offer of broad bilateral military cooperation with Belgium, opting out of a competition that has attracted British and American offers of the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, respectively.

Laurence Mortier, the spokeswoman for Belgium’s defense minister, said she could not confirm the interest in a carrier-based aircraft.

.... More at the Jump
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... -lawmaker/

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 19:01
by monkeypilot
Interesting move...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 19:07
by sunstersun
Asinine.

What would Belgium do with naval planes? Deploy em on French carriers? What experience do they have with maritime operations.

Besides if they wanted a naval plane the F-35B could deploy on far more carriers than the Rafale could.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 19:09
by spazsinbad
:roll: 8) Belgium pollies look to be really SAD people but hey that is a prerequisite eh. :drool: :bang:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 20:29
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote::roll: 8) Belgium pollies look to be really SAD people but hey that is a prerequisite eh. :drool: :bang:



The way I believe it is, is there are 3 distinct populations. You will never guess what the predominantly French speaking population and politicians want...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 20:51
by monkeypilot
Called Dassault. Answer : "BS"

And no Xandercrews, the choice will not be dictated by linguistics on this issue. Belgium politics is extremely complicated due to proportional votes. Language is only one of many factors. However, french speaking belgium could be in favour of Rafale, but it would mainly be so because of SABCA, largely owned by Dassault and located mostly in french speaking part. Do not think belgium are more pro french because of language. History is more complicated.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 00:51
by bojack_horseman
As you say.... politics can be tricky.

I don't have an article, but the below tweet is from Air Recognition.... two motions trying to crowbar the Rafale back into the mix.

With Belgium committed to maintaining their nuke mission, it seems a lock for the Lightning.

Belgium's Chamber of Representatives just rejected two resolutions which would potentially have paved the way for the Rafale:

1. Include the program in a European dimension
2. Exclude the use of nuclear weapons


https://twitter.com/AirRecognition/stat ... 7383993344

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 01:05
by hythelday
First Dassault offered 20 bn worth of offset deals, then Dassault said Belgium will choose Rafale because it would offer sea-based power projection.

Was it Goebbels who said "the bigger the lie, the easier it is believed"?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2018, 11:35
by monkeypilot
hythelday wrote:First Dassault offered 20 bn worth of offset deals, then Dassault said Belgium will choose Rafale because it would offer sea-based power projection.

Was it Goebbels who said "the bigger the lie, the easier it is believed"?


Well, then do not believe Goebbels.
Dassault did notsay anything. It is a lawmaker. Their is a huge difference.
Later he explained that it was "apart" from the deal and simply an offer for deeper strategic collaboration.
Dassault can quite easily offer 20 bn worth of offsets as it owns about 50% of SABCA, one of the main aerospace belgium company... And already generates a huge cashflow in Belgium.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2018, 21:00
by loke
If France/Germany had been a bit clever about this, they would have made a well defined roadmap for a 5. gen fighter already; presented this to Belgium together with a proposal for Belgium to become a partner to develop the "EU" fighter, and as a stop-gap offered lease of a suitable eurocanard for 10-12 years until the 5. gen fighter was ready.

Gripen E would be the perfect stop-gap lease candidate; lower operating costs than the other two Eurocanards.

Finland could be offered the same, but perhaps with Rafale as the most relevant lease candidate.

Poland could be a third potential candidate for such a deal.

However no concrete plans for a 5. gen EU fighter exists. The politicians lack the capability for long-term strategic thinking.

Thus Belgium and Finland (and Poland, when they get there) will all most likely go for F-35, and Germany and France may have to cover all the costs for a 5. gen by themselves (perhaps Sweden will join them?)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2018, 21:49
by neptune
loke wrote:If France/Germany had been a bit clever about this.....)


....seriously???
...If the majority of major European economies are in NATO and the majority of the NATO member nations are flying squadrons of F-35s, then why would any responsible national defense leader "Not" select the European, common F-35? The common operations, training, logistics and infrastructure expenses alone would leverage for their common defense. Shirley the EU is more about mutually supported economies than in name only. "IF" a European group decides to build a technology competitor for the F-35, it would make more sense to at least start from an experienced F-35 operating base to establish the future design requirements. Unless resources are limited, any technologist always prefers a competition to encourage the optimum efforts/ goals. I totally understand the need for political "make-work" projects and social and economic demands they must satisfy but, at least it could be focused in a more beneficial manner by manufacturing F-35 sub-systems or components that could develop technological skills demanded by the future competitive aircraft.
IMHO.
:)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2018, 23:27
by monkeypilot
neptune wrote:
loke wrote:If France/Germany had been a bit clever about this.....)


....seriously???
...If the majority of major European economies are in NATO and the majority of the NATO member nations are flying squadrons of F-35s, then why would any responsible national defense leader "Not" select the European, common F-35? The common operations, training, logistics and infrastructure expenses alone would leverage for their common defense. Shirley the EU is more about mutually supported economies than in name only. "IF" a European group decides to build a technology competitor for the F-35, it would make more sense to at least start from an experienced F-35 operating base to establish the future design requirements. Unless resources are limited, any technologist always prefers a competition to encourage the optimum efforts/ goals. I totally understand the need for political "make-work" projects and social and economic demands they must satisfy but, at least it could be focused in a more beneficial manner by manufacturing F-35 sub-systems or components that could develop technological skills demanded by the future competitive aircraft.
IMHO.
:)


And both become totally dependant on US and kill european fihter aircraft industry.? No thanks.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 05:30
by white_lightning35
monkeypilot wrote:
And both become totally dependant on US and kill european fihter aircraft industry.? No thanks.


Hmmm... Makes one wonder why it is called the new "Franco-German" fighter and not "Franco-German-Belgian-Polish" fighter? Why didn't Ms. Merkel go to Denmark and ask them to join when she was talking with Macron about it? Do you think any European country, other than France or Germany, will get more out of this program than out of the f-35 program? Do you think this program will even get get past the beginning stages before falling apart, because the French demanded that everything be their way? And we all know that anyone who doesn't listen to them or the Germans isn't being a good "European". But hey, US very bad bad, everything is its fault.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 07:36
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:Belgium wants to buy Rafale fighters for naval capability, says French lawmaker

PARIS — Belgium has shown interest in the Rafale fighter jet for maritime use, said Jean-Jacques Bridey, chairman of the French Defence Committee of the lower house National Assembly.

“The Belgians are interested in the Rafale,” he told The Defense Journalists Association. “Why? If they buy the Rafale, it will be the naval Rafale.”

Belgium is interested in the aircraft’s ability to land on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which would boost Belgium’s deployment capacity, Bridey said. “This is a seaborne airbase, after all,” he added.

France has pitched the Rafale in an offer of broad bilateral military cooperation with Belgium, opting out of a competition that has attracted British and American offers of the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, respectively.

Laurence Mortier, the spokeswoman for Belgium’s defense minister, said she could not confirm the interest in a carrier-based aircraft.

.... More at the Jump
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... -lawmaker/


:lmao:

Sounds like something RT or Sputnik would post.... :shock:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 20:00
by monkeypilot
white_lightning35 wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:
And both become totally dependant on US and kill european fihter aircraft industry.? No thanks.


Hmmm... Makes one wonder why it is called the new "Franco-German" fighter and not "Franco-German-Belgian-Polish" fighter? Why didn't Ms. Merkel go to Denmark and ask them to join when she was talking with Macron about it? Do you think any European country, other than France or Germany, will get more out of this program than out of the f-35 program? Do you think this program will even get get past the beginning stages before falling apart, because the French demanded that everything be their way? And we all know that anyone who doesn't listen to them or the Germans isn't being a good "European". But hey, US very bad bad, everything is its fault.


It is not a question of money, and yesi think so. Denmark had already decided in favour of F-35. Omgz this stupid old legend that everything parted away because the french wanted everythnig their way. (nothing about UK that absolutely wanted RR to be the only engine maker?)
Sorry, but a plane where even level I partner UK do not have codes? It is called total dependency. Be US good or bad. Whatabout any NATO partner not doing what US tell (like second Irak war) must be "punished" (citing your frmer secretary)?
But of course france is bad.... (and managed to build with other european countries a UCLASS for 40 millions, about 1 tenth of X47 cost)...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 02:03
by rheonomic
monkeypilot wrote:And both become totally dependant on US and kill european fihter aircraft industry.? No thanks.


I mean, it's basically a jobs program for European engineers at this point...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 16:13
by monkeypilot
rheonomic wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:And both become totally dependant on US and kill european fihter aircraft industry.? No thanks.


I mean, it's basically a jobs program for European engineers at this point...


For some countries here (specially France), Independance is a must. (Way above "jobs") It is not a problem of buying american stuff (see AWACS, steam catapults, reapers), the problem is to retain an industrial basis for these capabilities. If every european countries jump into F-35, Europe will not anymore be able to design one from scratch and HAVE to buy american. It isn't anymore friendship or ally, it is vassality. Nothing to do with US being friends or (some dumbs really think so) ennemies.

This politic was decided in France after the Suez crisis.

Many also think that to be a good ally, Europe must be a powerful ally, and the only way to become so is a type of "protectionism" in military affairs so as to stregthen mil economy above the continent.
In fine, some (at NATO), raised up what they believ to be a problem. Until now, apart rom the F-22, USA built NATO compliant aircrafts.Conversely, NATO is presently becoming F-35 compliant. See the reversion of the norma?

Complicated geopolitical stuff. Presently Britain is leaving and France (another major power inside Europe) is on the edge of the sword vis à vis Europe, and present election probaly showed a tendency to fall towards europhiles camp (amongstwhich i am). vs euroskeptics. or some, the choice of F-35 bu Belgium or Germany could affect this move. (not all of course)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 16:41
by XanderCrews
monkeypilot wrote:Sorry, but a plane where even level I partner UK do not have codes? It is called total dependency. Be US good or bad.


Ummm no. And you clearly don't know the whole story behind that. Most manufacturers choose to protect certain aspects of their design that that are proprietary and large company investments. The only reason the whole thing even got brought up was because Eurofighter was trying to start a fight and drive a wedge

This is not new nor unique. It was a move for show, that only people bought into who didn't understand the situation.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 16:47
by icemaverick
It’s all well and good to talk about European industry but the bottom line is that most European countries are unable or unwilling to spend the resources necessary to develop a highly capable defense infrastructure on their own. Most aren’t even spending 2% of their GDP on defense.

Let’s be real here: Europe won’t be ponying up hundreds of billions of dollars to develop an aircraft and logistical chain to compete with the F-35. Europe won’t commit trillions to military procurement. Even if they do eventually develop a comparable 5th gen fighter it will be right around the time the US (and probably China) will be rolling out a 6th gen.

Most of Europe’s best bet is to buy the F-35. Not only is it the most capable fighter available, it also offers many economic benefits to partner countries and has the best logistics and training infrastructure in place.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2018, 00:21
by rheonomic
monkeypilot wrote:For some countries here (specially France), Independance is a must. (Way above "jobs") It is not a problem of buying american stuff (see AWACS, steam catapults, reapers), the problem is to retain an industrial basis for these capabilities.


France is basically the only European country that can produce decent tactical aircraft independently.

The problem with the multinational efforts is that ultimately each country has different requirements and may reach points where they are unwilling to compromise. There's also arguments over who gets to lead, workshare, etc. The JSF program avoids this in many ways since (for the most part) what the US says goes.

monkeypilot wrote:Many also think that to be a good ally, Europe must be a powerful ally, and the only way to become so is a type of "protectionism" in military affairs so as to stregthen mil economy above the continent.


How politically sustainable is this? From the prospective of somebody on the other side of the Atlantic, it seems like the majority of European countries (or at least the broader populations) are unwilling to appropriately fund their defense. It might make sense to pool resources and operate a joint force to avoid duplication of effort etc, but that brings up difficult issues of sovereignty. I wouldn't want to put control of military forces under EU bureaucrats given the way the EU battlegroups turned out.

monkeypilot wrote:the choice of F-35 bu Belgium or Germany could affect this move. (not all of course)


The problem for the small countries like Belgium is that they can't afford to buy a decent number of aircraft. Similar to the EPAF program, it makes sense for the smaller countries to operate a common fighter, perhaps jointly. That means F-35. (Sure, they could go Rafale and work with France, but we're building a hell of a lot more F-35s than Dassault is Rafales, and there's something to be said for economies of scale alone. Not to mention the obvious technical benefits and longer relevancy.)

I don't think domestic German politics will allow for Luftwaffe F-35s.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2018, 04:17
by element1loop
rheonomic wrote:I don't think domestic German politics will allow for Luftwaffe F-35s.


Which is just nuts.

Bring back Helmut Kohl.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2018, 20:17
by monkeypilot
The problem for the small countries like Belgium is that they can't afford to buy a decent number of aircraft. Similar to the EPAF program, it makes sense for the smaller countries to operate a common fighter, perhaps jointly. That means F-35. (Sure, they could go Rafale and work with France, but we're building a hell of a lot more F-35s than Dassault is Rafales, and there's something to be said for economies of scale alone. Not to mention the obvious technical benefits and longer relevancy.)


And i understand this point of view. Small europeans countries, specally one like Belgium that retained quite a lot of power internationaly considering its size are also concerned by a "vassalization" by larger countries within Europe...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2018, 21:31
by XanderCrews
monkeypilot wrote:
If you think that this is new or unique I question your experience and credentials. It was a move for show, that only suckers bought into who didn't understand the situation.


You are free to challenge anything i did't claim aren't you?


Re read it. The laughter is because your claim is absurd. The only reason you have "independence at all" is because the Americans, brits, and Canadians liberated you. Everyone's a tough guy after the fight though

As for the source code, again if you are confusing source code availability with independence I have a bridge in Europe to sell you. The only reason it ever comes up at all was a political move. The US never gives source codes.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2018, 22:48
by ricnunes
monkeypilot wrote:If every european countries jump into F-35, Europe will not anymore be able to design one from scratch and HAVE to buy american.


Please don't confuse France or even the "France-Germany Axis" as being Europe or most of the Europe or don't pretend France-Germany to be the "whole Europe"!
I live in an EU country (Portugal) and why should my EU country or other EU countries such as Belgium jump into a French fighter aircraft just to save France's fighter aircraft industry?? Or are you even trying to convince anyone if other EU countries purchases a French fighter aircraft (like the Rafale or that proposed Franco-German "5th" gen fighter aircraft) that it would receive the complete capability to build fighter aircraft in-country from France?? LoL if you do :doh:

In the end why should I trust France or Germany more than the USA, specially when it comes to military and/or fighter aircraft??
It doesn't matter if other EU countries such as Belgium (or Portugal) buy from France-Germany or USA they won't have a fighter aircraft industry so it's better for the "non-French/German Europe" to purchase the BEST and CHEAPEST fighter aircraft while still receiving a very good offset package and that option is the F-35 (and only the F-35)!


XanderCrews wrote:Re read it. The laughter is because your claim is absurd. The only reason you have "independence at all" is because the Americans, brits, and Canadians liberated you. Everyone's a tough guy after the fight though

As for the source code, again if you are confusing source code availability with independence I have a bridge in Europe to sell you. The only reason it ever comes up at all was a political move. The US never gives source codes.


You're absolutely right, XanderCrews!

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2018, 20:05
by ricnunes
monkeypilot wrote:
I live in an EU country (Portugal) and why should my EU country or other EU countries such as Belgium jump into a French fighter aircraft just to save France's fighter aircraft industry?? Or are you even trying to convince anyone if other EU countries purchases a French fighter aircraft (like the Rafale or that proposed Franco-German "5th" gen fighter aircraft) that it would receive the complete capability to build fighter aircraft in-country from France?? LoL if you do :doh:


idem.

Next?


I rest my case!


By the way, I reach my 1000th post - HURRAY :D

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 03:14
by white_lightning35
asadkhan003 wrote:Belgium Air force is planning to replace the ageing F-16 fighter fleet


Belgium Eurofighter Typhoon Fighter option
The Ministry of Defence of United kingdom is publicly lobbying Belgium to buy British Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet .Air Vice Marshal Keith Bethell, the director of combat air kit in the MoD’s equipment arm, said in a canned quote:

“Our world-class Typhoon has led the way in combat air power and this demonstrates the continued confidence in the capability the Typhoon has to offer. With more than 20,000 flying hours on global operations to date, the Typhoon offers unparalleled reliability and proven interoperability with our allies.”

The MoD is also trying to tempt Belgium away from the Yanks by dangling “integration with the RAF’s Typhoon support arrangements” as well as a “training partnership”, which could mean an integrated UK-Belgium squadron of the sort proposed to Qatar.Also included in the deal is a proposal for Belgium to form “a National Network Cyber Centre, a Cyber Innovation Centre and a Cyber Research Partnership” with the UK, which may or may not trigger memories of the time Britain’s GCHQ hacked Belgium’s biggest mobile network operator. Belgium is HQ for the European Union, various NATO command and control facilities, and also for some of the UN’s European presences.Whether Belgium will buy the F-35 from the US or the Typhoon from the UK –. With the EU’s military ambition gradually expanding with the European Defence Fund, it may be the case that Belgium picks the British option for political reasons.


This is really awkward as a whole. To an outside observer, it would appear that the UK is publicly favoring the EF over the f-35. It was kind of obvious that they're going to do this to sell the jet, but it makes me think about how nerfed they're going to try to make the F-35 appear in exercises with the EF, in order to avoid any awkwardness.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 03:48
by Corsair1963
The UK is retiring Typhoons while acquiring New F-35B's. Yet, tells Belgium they should acquire the former over the latter. Isn't that "do as a say and not as I do"???
:doh:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 10:25
by nutshell
ricnunes wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:If every european countries jump into F-35, Europe will not anymore be able to design one from scratch and HAVE to buy american.


Please don't confuse France or even the "France-Germany Axis" as being Europe or most of the Europe or don't pretend France-Germany to be the "whole Europe"!
I live in an EU country (Portugal) and why should my EU country or other EU countries such as Belgium jump into a French fighter aircraft just to save France's fighter aircraft industry?? Or are you even trying to convince anyone if other EU countries purchases a French fighter aircraft (like the Rafale or that proposed Franco-German "5th" gen fighter aircraft) that it would receive the complete capability to build fighter aircraft in-country from France?? LoL if you do :doh:

In the end why should I trust France or Germany more than the USA, specially when it comes to military and/or fighter aircraft??
It doesn't matter if other EU countries such as Belgium (or Portugal) buy from France-Germany or USA they won't have a fighter aircraft industry so it's better for the "non-French/German Europe" to purchase the BEST and CHEAPEST fighter aircraft while still receiving a very good offset package and that option is the F-35 (and only the F-35)!


We're not doggy styled enough by germans and french, we need to bend over @ 90nl degree, more often, more quickly.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 12:23
by monkeypilot
Belgium is the hyper center of Europe and a net contributor. In itself it could be a reason to favour european industry (beit Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon, alll of them are Europeans if not UE). Portugal is a very heavily subsidized country that should , a bit grateful (as you say) for the zillions of Euro UE invested there to help your country gettin a decent infrastructure? (presently every Portugal citizen gains around 500 € per year thanks to EU subventions). Or should UE give you the money to buy our of EU? No thanks.

Nutshell, where are you from? Please read what was written actually instead of some lose ppl interpretations. Noone ever said bend, france-german axis etc... (at least not me...)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 13:32
by ricnunes
monkeypilot wrote:Portugal is a very heavily subsidized country that should , a bit GRATEFUL (as you say) for the zillions of Euro UE invested there to help your country gettin a decent infrastructure? (presently every Portugal citizen gains around 500 € per year thanks to EU subventions). Or should UE give you the money to buy our of EU? No thanks.


You've shown your true colors here:
Once again a clueless comment from someone from the French-German axis who thinks they are better than everyone else in Europe and as such that everyone else in Europe should bow to your highnesses (like nutshell said).
If you think that the heavy subsides that Portugal received (and yes, Portugal received heavy subsides from the EU) came for free than you should immediately stop taking those drugs that you're consuming.

Those "heavy subsides" as you call it came at a very high expense for Portugal:
- In return for those "heavy subsides" Portugal had to dismantle one of the biggest fishing fleets in Europe! Who benefited from this the most?? RING RING RING - FRANCE who's now has the biggest fishing fleet in the EU:
Image

- Also in return for those "heavy subsides" Portugal had to limit it's production (quota) milk and derivate products and again who benefited from this the most?? RING RING RING - FRANCE!

- Also in return for those "heavy subsides" Portugal had to dismantle its Metallurgy industry! Who benefited from this the most?? RING RING RING - GERMANY!
And I could continue, on and on an on...

Of course that I don't blame France and Germany at least at 100% for the issues above. We had very weak political leaders which sold Portugal's economy (or several sector of the economy) in exchange for money.

But at least Portugal is now solving its deficit problems and what about your country which runs deficits above 3% (and thus breaking the EU rules) like forever and longer than Portugal, eh?
But like Jean Claude Junker said, France is France... Right, and for those on the other side of the Atlantic/world which are not aware of this, he meant that France can have all the deficits it want and break all the rules it want that nothing will happen as opposed to any other EU country who dares to break a 10th of the rules that France breaks!

You know Froggy, you should look at you country first and how hypocrite you sound when you complain about other countries in the EU. No wonder why Euroskepticism is growing rampant in the EU and the UK bailed out! :roll:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 13:47
by nutshell
Listen, monkey, i won't attack you or hold you responsible for the EU politics, it is what it is: 2 countries reaping most of the benefits and other 26 licking their wounds.

My country would be irresponsible if suddenly decides to "support" the european domestic industry, more so in light of the german backstabbing in 2011 and 2012, french hostility in naval industry, the "idgaf" attitude we got times and times again.

There's not a single field where Italy didnt get shafted by the EU; supporting dassault or airbus would be almost comical.

Damn we committed so much in to the JSF, there are literally 0 reason to not stick with the F35.

Last but not least: i will be always proud of my country's military as long as we prioritize quality over anything else and the JSF delivers so much,much, much quality.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 15:41
by gideonic
It's getting a bit off-topic, but regarding the subsidies I find it quite amusing that they are often regarded as "free money out of the blue". There is a reason why they were put in place and it's not just because France and Germany are feeling helpful. The reason for them is that unrestricted movement of people (and capital) all but guarantees brain-drain and workforce drain into the richer EU countries. A lot more people from the poorer countries are working in in the richer ones, than would be, without the Shengen Zone in place. I'm not even talking about the cheap labor but the more qualified ones. And the subsidies are in place to offset that.

Depending how you calculate it, the more people emigrating, the extra tax-returns of the emigrates, and a larger market to sell to (free market rules) in the long run more than makes up for the subsidies.

For instance, (according to Theresa Bubbear the British ambassador to Estonia) there are between 8000-15000 estonians living in the UK (that might not seem much, but it's about 1% of the entire population of 1.3M). What's the reason for those relatively high error bounds? Because none of them have applied for any social benefits. The same is true for many of the Eastern European countries.

Looking at this it's maybe not so surprising that of the people supporting, Brexit most are scared of Eastern-Europeans (Polish in particular) taking their jobs, rather than any immigrants from Middle-East or Africa.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 16:40
by loke
THis is really off-topic, but frankly small countries can and do benefit from EU not just France and Germany....

Norway is 80% member (which means: we pay the "membership fee", we have to accept almost all regulations from Brussels) but without one of the main benefits, which is some political influence and this is massively supported by all experts in Norway simply because all the benefits by far outweigh the negatives.

For those complaining about EU; have you seriously considered the alternatives? Probably not; and if you try, you probably lack the imagination and understanding to figure out what things would be like, without the EU...

Do you really think Portugal would be able to maintain a large fishing fleet and metallurgy industry outside of EU???

There is a reason why almost all experts conclude that even a major country like the UK would be better off inside the EU than outside... Even more important for smaller countries to remain within the EU, when considering the alternatives!

The US is not part of the EU, it is a super power, and still several major US industries have been dismantled over the last few decades. If you really think small countries like Portugal somehow would manage themselves better than the US by remaining outside of the EU, then I am sorry but it is you who are delusional!

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 17:07
by gideonic
loke wrote:Do you really think Portugal would be able to maintain a large fishing fleet and metallurgy industry outside of EU???

There is a reason why almost all experts conclude that even a major country like the UK would be better off inside the EU than outside... Even more important for smaller countries to remain within the EU, when considering the alternatives!

I don't think anybody here debating the that EU is good overall. If anything, it indeed helps the smaller nations more than the bigger ones (despite all the stupid nationalist attitudes lately). What was debated, was the meme that the EU funding is some kind of free money given from the kindness of heart, and that Portugal should need to be super-grateful for that. There is a reason why those subsidies were put in place. And the actual benefits absolutely outweigh the costs for the richer countries.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 17:22
by monkeypilot
nutshell wrote:Listen, monkey, i won't attack you or hold you responsible for the EU politics, it is what it is: 2 countries reaping most of the benefits and other 26 licking their wounds.

My country would be irresponsible if suddenly decides to "support" the european domestic industry, more so in light of the german backstabbing in 2011 and 2012, french hostility in naval industry, the "idgaf" attitude we got times and times again.

There's not a single field where Italy didnt get shafted by the EU; supporting dassault or airbus would be almost comical.

Damn we committed so much in to the JSF, there are literally 0 reason to not stick with the F35.

Last but not least: i will be always proud of my country's military as long as we prioritize quality over anything else and the JSF delivers so much,much, much quality.


Your opinion about EU is highly respectable. And the opinion of many europeans feeling their own county was reaped by others. But guess whho are/were (soon) the three net biggest contributors (aka those who give more money than they receive)? Uk, De and Fr.

If you carefully read my first long post, i did not show any disdain or anything to anywhom. And i also insisted that theopinion i gave was not necessarily mine, but should be taken in account.

Anyway, as you say, it is off topic. No intent from me to derail .

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 17:23
by monkeypilot
gideonic wrote:
loke wrote:Do you really think Portugal would be able to maintain a large fishing fleet and metallurgy industry outside of EU???

There is a reason why almost all experts conclude that even a major country like the UK would be better off inside the EU than outside... Even more important for smaller countries to remain within the EU, when considering the alternatives!


I don't think anybody here debating the that EU is good overall. If anything, it indeed helps the smaller nations more than the bigger ones (despite all the stupid nationalist attitudes lately). What was debated, was the meme that the EU funding is some kind of free money given from the kindness of heart, and that Portugal should need to be super-grateful for that. There is a reason why those subsidies were put in place. And the actual benefits absolutely outweigh the costs for the richer countries.


Agree with that, please take into account what was written above.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 17:25
by white_lightning35
As an add-on, freedom of movement certainly helps many people throughout the EU, but do you think the Baltics and eastern Europe will be saying that in 20 years?

https://www.ft.com/content/70813826-0c6 ... 059ae1b5e3

Those countries are having the largest population loss in the world recently. Many of their citizens are moving away and to western Europe for economic reasons. Those countries might be receiving funds now, but freedom of movement will greatly hurt their future unless things change.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 17:51
by ricnunes
loke wrote:For those complaining about EU; have you seriously considered the alternatives? Probably not; and if you try, you probably lack the imagination and understanding to figure out what things would be like, without the EU...


Before you're so eagerly willing to "jump on me" - Go and re-read my post and above all, the post before mine posted by monkeypilot!

My point was very simple and very straightfoward:
- monkeypilot accused Portugal of running on subsidies only.
- I proved him that subsidies that Portugal received were very far from being a "free gift" and that France itself also received "alot of benefits" such as being allowed to run on budget deficits much longer than any other EU country.
All of this follows what gideonic said which was spot on - everyone in the EU benefited!

But feel free to keep twisting my words if that makes you happy :roll:

loke wrote:Do you really think Portugal would be able to maintain a large fishing fleet and metallurgy industry outside of EU???


Maintaining a metallurgy industry, I don't know.
Maintaining a large fishing fleet, HELL YES! Only someone that doesn't have a clue what Portugal is, could claim otherwise! I could continue explaining you why but then again I would need more lines of text for something which is already off-topic.


loke wrote:If you really think small countries like Portugal somehow would manage themselves better than the US by remaining outside of the EU, then I am sorry but it is you who are delusional!


Again I never said that and here you are again twisting my own words.
Portugal benefited from the EU as all other countries within the EU (including France) also benefited. But now EU is turning into something different - something which is ruled by a French-German Axis (and yes, this is acknowledged by the same experts that you mentioned). And so, if things continue this trend I can't see a future or a bright future for the EU.

Well, I also said what I wanted about the subject. I won't continue anymore since this is already becoming off-topic (which, I didn't start).

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 18:09
by botsing
Just a quick reminder to all involved here:
Forum Guidelines for F-16.net: Avoid politics and religion.

P.S. this thread is about "Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s"

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2018, 18:45
by white_lightning35
We're in the Program and Politics section. And this discussion is relevant in a sense, seeing as how these talking points are dealing with the dynamics of Belgium's political institutions, which could affect the outcome of the decision.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 12:42
by monkeypilot
white_lightning35 wrote:We're in the Program and Politics section. And this discussion is relevant in a sense, seeing as how these talking points are dealing with the dynamics of Belgium's political institutions, which could affect the outcome of the decision.

*Yep, but we (including myself) should keep civil and never forget everyone do not think the same way... In the end that is why fora are interesting places.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 14:31
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:THis is really off-topic, but frankly small countries can and do benefit from EU not just France and Germany....

Norway is 80% member (which means: we pay the "membership fee", we have to accept almost all regulations from Brussels) but without one of the main benefits, which is some political influence and this is massively supported by all experts in Norway simply because all the benefits by far outweigh the negatives.

For those complaining about EU; have you seriously considered the alternatives? Probably not; and if you try, you probably lack the imagination and understanding to figure out what things would be like, without the EU...



OMG! How could Europe even exist without the EU!? I mean its been in place for hundreds of years!! Can anyone even imagine a pre November 1993 europe? My god I can't!!

Can anyone even imagine or understand such a thing!? :doh: IS this why Saab is building the Gripen? to be in solidarity with Europe? Why does Sweden help itself and not Airbus and the EU by simply buying Typhoons?


If you really think small countries like Portugal somehow would manage themselves better than the US by remaining outside of the EU, then I am sorry but it is you who are delusional!


Clearly portugal doesn't know whats best for portugal. Managing themselves?! How delusional!! They need to be managed by you know. Germans. Just something "Masterful" about those people. I don't know how they do it. But they know better than the populations they take power from.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 15:11
by vilters
Who was building aircraft during WW2? => Germany and the UK.

Where is Germany's aircraft industry now? => As a "stand alone industry"? => Vaporized.

The UK had some "Golden years" in the early Jet ages. They had the tech and continued building on it.
But . . . Basically they sold the tech to pay for the WW2 rebuild cost and only Rolls continued for military and civil applications.
Airframe companies almost all went belly up, or became "subcontractors" for the "big boys".

One or 2 are hanging hopelessly on a Tiffy/Tornado string that becomes weaker and weaker by the day.

France came along, (they had nothing to begin with, and nothing to loose either) but started building airframes AND engines.
Sidenote : Damm => Always wondered what a Mirage 2000 could have been with a P&W or GE engine. That would have been a "beast".


The "Big Boss" took over with unlimited money and tech.

Everybody, including Germany, the UK, France, and all other "minor" players bought from the "Big Boss".

Where are we today? => Where is Europe today? => Completely divided.

Tiffy on one side, Rafale on the other side and their "too expensive cheap" child Griphen in the middle.

Production runs in the "few" hundreds if lucky and with enough state and European sponsorship and at a unit cost to cry for. Reliability and maintainability closer to "wishful thinking" then reality.

Can Germany, France, Italy, Sweden work together? Never, and never, and never, not in the close nor far future.
Each country tries to get the largest piece of the cake and there are ALWAYS elections somewhere to spoil dinner.

Local elections, and local Industry protection ALWAYS comes in the way of "lets work together and move forward."

What did we do?
We build the Tornado. About EVERYBODY's nightmare. Wrong airplane in the wrong era for the wrong purpose, and obsolete at first flight.
=> WHAW, if you have to ask ATC to let the Migs fly lower and slower so that you can escort therm?

We build Tiffy and Rafale because the countries and companies involved could not agree on "what to build", who was going to build, and who was going to pay. Our political/industry is too divided to agree on anything from wing shape through engines over avionix.

Sweden tries to stay neutral and always comes up with the "too expensive cheap solution" nobody wants.

Europe?
A very expensive institute, sponsored by elections to get nothing done.
50 years in some lines.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2018, 20:26
by monkeypilot
Europe?
A very expensive institute, sponsored by elections to get nothing done.
50 years in some lines.


Our duty as citizens to change that no?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2018, 02:30
by nutshell
Again with the Tornado nonsense?

It has been a successful ground striker. Never been cutting edge, nor was EVER designed to be ahead of the curve.

It was a solid, reliable plane (testified by the very low casualties the bird ever caused) that could eventually perform some intercepting role if you had nothing better to cover the role. It was a hella fast plane back in that era.

Stop doing drugs, told you already.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2018, 20:54
by monkeypilot
Many thins happened in Belium today. Apparently a report from LM saying the F-16 could last 6 years more (unknown cost, 1 billiion cited) had been hidden to the minister Vandeput and leaked in press. A collaborator of Vandeput was sacked some time ago for undue contacts with LM (which would not be related to the call for tender). M bet goes for cancellation until new governement is lected in around 18 months.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2018, 21:32
by viper12
Source ?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2018, 00:23
by vilters
It's all over the news here.

FACT :
A report about the "aging and lifespan" of our F-16's was kept inside the military and not delivered to the government.
This report would give Belgium 6 extra years before having to replace the F-16.

POLITICS :
It is the "Rafale clan" who brought the report to the press.

sh*t happens everywhere.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2018, 00:30
by vilters
@ Nutshell.

Concrete flies higher, faster, is more agile AND more reliable then a Tornado.

First combat? => Euh, had to recall the Bucaneers from retirement to do the lasering.

Mig escort? => Has to ask ATC to get the Migs fly LOWER AND SLOWER to "escort them".

Reliability? Check the "actual" combat ready serviceability rates.

Spare parts? Glue your wallets closed and locked.

For what Europe has spend on the Tornado?
We could have had the DOUBLE number of airframes combining a fleet of F-15 and F-111.
The Tornado was simply "a stupid move".
(Again a decision to protect own industry at "whatever the cost".)
Who cares?
It's taxpayers money anyway.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2018, 11:57
by monkeypilot
vilters wrote:It's all over the news here.

FACT :
A report about the "aging and lifespan" of our F-16's was kept inside the military and not delivered to the government.
This report would give Belgium 6 extra years before having to replace the F-16.

POLITICS :
It is the "Rafale clan" who brought the report to the press.

sh*t happens everywhere.


POLITICS :
It is the "Rafale clan" who brought the report to the press.


I do not think SABCA would have reacted so negatively in this case. And the story is mostly in Vlaams press. So no clue yet. Time will tell.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2018, 16:35
by bojack_horseman
Some links on the slight scandal brewing in Belgium

https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detai ... id=9873302

https://www.moustique.be/20599/remplace ... ut-vacille

https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detai ... id=9872563

Smells like the politicians are keen to keep the F-16s for longer still so as not to make any decisions on replacing them

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2018, 03:53
by nutshell
vilters wrote:@ Nutshell.

Concrete flies higher, faster, is more agile AND more reliable then a Tornado.

First combat? => Euh, had to recall the Bucaneers from retirement to do the lasering.

Mig escort? => Has to ask ATC to get the Migs fly LOWER AND SLOWER to "escort them".

Reliability? Check the "actual" combat ready serviceability rates.

Spare parts? Glue your wallets closed and locked.

For what Europe has spend on the Tornado?
We could have had the DOUBLE number of airframes combining a fleet of F-15 and F-111.
The Tornado was simply "a stupid move".
(Again a decision to protect own industry at "whatever the cost".)
Who cares?
It's taxpayers money anyway.


Nope. You're a lost cause. I give up.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2018, 04:12
by SpudmanWP
Remind me again who designated for the Rafale's first LGB drops?

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... e-hardened

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 03:45
by spazsinbad
Belgium delays, rescopes fighter programme
19 Jun 2018 Beth Stevenson

"Belgium’s ongoing programme to replace its Lockheed Martin F-16AM/BM Fighting Falcon fleet has been hit by another roadblock, as the government considers a previously disregarded option to upgrade its incumbent fleet and not necessarily acquire a new-build aircraft.

Two offerings were being considered for the replacement of the F-16AM/BM fleet under the country’s Air Combat Capability Program (ACCaP), including the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Final bids for the two aircraft were offered to the Belgian government under the formal acquisition process in February 2018.

In addition to this, Dassault Aviation submitted a bid for the Rafale fighter outside the formal competition, offering increased political links and industrial participation in return for a direct selection of the aircraft."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/81167/belg ... -programme

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 08:32
by loke
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKBN1JF2UJ

2040...! I am surprised they are not aiming for a somewhat earlier introduction.

Seems the German/French new fighter is still well into the future! So not an option for Belgium I would think.

Also interesting that Dassault will be in the driving seat. Probably a wise decision, looking at history...

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 09:02
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-france-defence/france-to-lead-joint-fighter-jet-program-with-germany-idUSKBN1JF2UJ

2040...! I am surprised they are not aiming for a somewhat earlier introduction.

Seems the German/French new fighter is still well into the future! So not an option for Belgium I would think.

Also interesting that Dassault will be in the driving seat. Probably a wise decision, looking at history...


I don't think that's really surprising given this quote
The Franco-German agreement calls for work on the project to begin before the end of the year, starting with a study phase, the ministry said


They are basically where F-35 was in the early 1990s when JAST/JSF studies were planned and made. It took almost 25 years for first production aircraft flying and it might well take similar amount of time for this proposed aircraft. Especially since France and Germany have less money and other resources to pour into their program.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 10:12
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-france-defence/france-to-lead-joint-fighter-jet-program-with-germany-idUSKBN1JF2UJ

2040...! I am surprised they are not aiming for a somewhat earlier introduction.

Seems the German/French new fighter is still well into the future! So not an option for Belgium I would think.

Also interesting that Dassault will be in the driving seat. Probably a wise decision, looking at history...


I don't think that's really surprising given this quote
The Franco-German agreement calls for work on the project to begin before the end of the year, starting with a study phase, the ministry said


They are basically where F-35 was in the early 1990s when JAST/JSF studies were planned and made. It took almost 25 years for first production aircraft flying and it might well take similar amount of time for this proposed aircraft. Especially since France and Germany have less money and other resources to pour into their program.

True, on the other hand, this program will most likely produce only 2 very similar version (land and carrier based) whereas the F-35 project included also the F-35B which clearly made the F-35 program much larger and much more complicated.

Furthermore, designing and building a 5. gen fighter today should be simpler than 25 years ago since materials technology and software technology has matured quite a lot since then.

Of course there is a counter-argument to my last point which is pretty strong -- LM had already built the F-22 when they started the F-35....

Anyway, we all know that large development projects with large software components tend to be delayed... So if they aim for 2040 then 2045-2050 is more likely to become the end result.... IMHO they should plan for 2035, perhaps that would increase the probability of actually having something in 2040!

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 10:47
by hornetfinn
Loke, I agree with all that. Not sure if B made the program that much larger or complicated although it definitely had some effect.

There could be some ways to develop this faster like using existing technology developed for Dassault Rafale. Things like AESA radar, IRST, sensor fusion and HMI. Basically like making F-35 with avionics from say F-16 Block 60. Of course that would limit possibilities and would likely delay fielding full next gen capabilities.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 15:40
by steve2267
HF, I think you are on to something here, and it may be along the same lines of some musings I have had in the past: a spiral development of modest increments.

While this whole idea is probably (more) dependent on consistent funding than other programs... the concept would be to produce X number of aircraft per year, and roll updates into the aircraft on a regular schedule. While this is not unlike what the US is trying to do with F-35 C2D2 now, I suggest he same thing be done with the airframe.

In other words, industry, you have Y Euros, we want the best airframe that you can come up with in 3 years. Here are your "requirements." Do the best you can. You will be competing against each other. You have one year to design, one year to build some flyable prototypes, then we will have a one month (or two or three, but relatively short) competition, a winner will be chosen, and you have six months to make any prototype changes, and build Z test aircraft. Six months to test, then begin production with the best we have. If you screw up, we go to #2 place and have them build. This winning aircraft will be in production for 3 years. Then as soon as a winner is chosen, a new competition for the next round begins.

The idea being to cut production back from one YUGE 25 year cycle of thousands, to smaller cycles (3-5 years?) of smaller production purchases. Approach the aircraft as a system of open systems, and compete the subsystems. When a new 4-stream motor comes along and meets all the specs, you plug it in -- run a test program, work out a few kings and put it into production (if it doesn't integrate, you keep the current, working motor.) When a new radar comes along, meets the specs... it plugs into the avionics "stack".

Overall, any single aircraft in production will probably not be the very best possible performer in all categories, but it should be 1) cheaper, 2) in production, 3) your industry is constantly working.

This would be a systems-of-systems approach to tactical aircraft design which would fit better with the whole 5th+ gen system-of-systems.

In my opinion, the biggest advantage is that it keeps your industry fresh. Ideally, if you had 3-4 manufacturers all producing tens of aircraft per year... you go buy your tactical aircraft like Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Mercedes etc. But the market probably will never be that large.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 16:05
by loke
steve2267 wrote:In other words, industry, you have Y dollars (or francs or marks)[...]

Euros, Steve, Euros...!

Quite some time since the FF and DM disappeared.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 16:07
by steve2267
Fixed. Thank you.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 16:31
by SpudmanWP
loke wrote:Furthermore, designing and building a 5. gen fighter today should be simpler than 25 years ago since materials technology and software technology has matured quite a lot since then.


Given how long it took them to do Rafale & Eurofighter and the fact that LM had experience with the F-117 & F-22 to draw upon, I don' think that they will able to develop and field a true 5th gen fighter that is equal to the capabilities of the F-35A in anything less than 15-20 years.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 16:39
by spazsinbad
8) 'Steven of much Wondering' apparently the USMC did exactly almost what you envisage with their V-22 OzoneSprays. There are an incredible number of variations in that lot that USMC now wants to fix to ONE STANDARD - to rool them all. :roll: The USMC want to save money NOT having to have maintainers trained and pubs published for all those variants.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 16:50
by steve2267
Always tradeoffs. Always plusses and minuses.

The state of military aircraft design and production in Europe is abysmal. In the US, there are what -- only three viable companies capable of such undertakings anymore -- LM, Boing, and NG.

As systems of systems is the new paradigm in military combat aircraft with the advent of 5th gen aircraft, why not design and build them that way, especially if one could get back to smaller production lots -- more design cycles to keep the engineers on their toes, and their (conceptual) design skills sharp.

I see where the maintenance / parts pipeline end of things get a little more complicated... but hasn't Amazon and big data demonstrated there are solutions to those sorts of problems as well? Make design for maintainability as well as reliability and durability one of the factors or requirements of new aircraft.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 16:53
by spazsinbad
Italics are not easy to read on a computer screen - especially small ones. HTML text formatting begins [ ] and ENDS [/ ].

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 17:03
by steve2267
Better for ya now, spaz? :poke: :mrgreen:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 18:27
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:True, on the other hand, this program will most likely produce only 2 very similar version (land and carrier based) whereas the F-35 project included also the F-35B which clearly made the F-35 program much larger and much more complicated.




Seeing as the F-35B and F-35A have more commonality, and fewer problems than the F-35C, along with the fact that the STOVL Variant and the lift fan are techincally the "original" part of the F-35. I make the argument that the F-35C has actually been the more difficult, unique, complex variant. Its actually easier to make an airplane (espeically in terms of structure) stop in mid air and gently set down than it is to crash land onto a ship and get shot off it repeatedly

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 19:22
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:True, on the other hand, this program will most likely produce only 2 very similar version (land and carrier based) whereas the F-35 project included also the F-35B which clearly made the F-35 program much larger and much more complicated.




Seeing as the F-35B and F-35A have more commonality, and fewer problems than the F-35C, along with the fact that the STOVL Variant and the lift fan are techincally the "original" part of the F-35. I make the argument that the F-35C has actually been the more difficult, unique, complex variant. Its actually easier to make an airplane (espeically in terms of structure) stop in mid air and gently set down than it is to crash land onto a ship and get shot off it repeatedly

So the French created the more difficult variant with their carrier launched Rafale?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 19:27
by loke
SpudmanWP wrote:
loke wrote:Furthermore, designing and building a 5. gen fighter today should be simpler than 25 years ago since materials technology and software technology has matured quite a lot since then.


Given how long it took them to do Rafale & Eurofighter and the fact that LM had experience with the F-117 & F-22 to draw upon, I don' think that they will able to develop and field a true 5th gen fighter that is equal to the capabilities of the F-35A in anything less than 15-20 years.

The timelines for Rafale and Typhoon were driven not just by technological constraints but also very much by economical and political constraints... Especially due to the end of the cold war it became very difficult for the Rafale/Eurofighter teams to push their projects forward.


No doubt politics will again slow things down -- unless Trump keeps driving the European "allies" crazy and they decide to really step up their investments in European defence. Which is probably highly unlikely (but then again, several highly unlikely events have happened the last couple of years!)

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 19:39
by SpudmanWP
loke wrote:The timelines for Rafale and Typhoon were driven not just by technological constraints but also very much by economical and political constraints

Do you think these will not happen again? Don't forget, they had 4th gen experience to guide them with those programs but none to draw upon for a 5th gen program in the areas of VLO, full data fusion, etc.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 20:50
by spazsinbad
spazsinbad wrote:Italics are not easy to read on a computer screen - especially small ones. HTML text formatting begins [ ] and ENDS [/ ].

:devil: TOO! TIMES to GEDDIT RITE?! I SEE RED! :devil:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 21:07
by fbw
loke wrote:True, on the other hand, this program will most likely produce only 2 very similar version (land and carrier based) wh
So the French created the more difficult variant with their carrier launched Rafale?


I rather agree with crews,in the case of the F-35. The “B” dictated the length. The transonic drag issues of the “C” are in large part the approach speed requirement, large, moderately swept wings on a relatively compact fuselage. Once commonality went out the window with the “C”, and it is the least common variant, sticking to the dimensions common with the other two made little sense. That and 2.5+ tons.

The Rafale M didn’t have the requirement for folding wings, has shorter range than the AdlA aircraft. The CdG’s cats were the limiting factors. The two versions share a high degree of commonality (different landing great, etc.) The same cannot he said of the F-35A and “C”.The USN F-35C have a requirement for longer range, same payload, folding wing, and high bring back weight. Adds lots of structural weight

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 00:05
by Corsair1963
loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-france-defence/france-to-lead-joint-fighter-jet-program-with-germany-idUSKBN1JF2UJ

2040...! I am surprised they are not aiming for a somewhat earlier introduction.

Seems the German/French new fighter is still well into the future! So not an option for Belgium I would think.

Also interesting that Dassault will be in the driving seat. Probably a wise decision, looking at history...


I don't think that's really surprising given this quote
The Franco-German agreement calls for work on the project to begin before the end of the year, starting with a study phase, the ministry said


They are basically where F-35 was in the early 1990s when JAST/JSF studies were planned and made. It took almost 25 years for first production aircraft flying and it might well take similar amount of time for this proposed aircraft. Especially since France and Germany have less money and other resources to pour into their program.

True, on the other hand, this program will most likely produce only 2 very similar version (land and carrier based) whereas the F-35 project included also the F-35B which clearly made the F-35 program much larger and much more complicated.

Furthermore, designing and building a 5. gen fighter today should be simpler than 25 years ago since materials technology and software technology has matured quite a lot since then.

Of course there is a counter-argument to my last point which is pretty strong -- LM had already built the F-22 when they started the F-35....

Anyway, we all know that large development projects with large software components tend to be delayed... So if they aim for 2040 then 2045-2050 is more likely to become the end result.... IMHO they should plan for 2035, perhaps that would increase the probability of actually having something in 2040!


Clearly, the Franco/German Fighter will be a 6th Generation Fighter not a 5/5.5 Generation Fighter. As I doubt they would make the same mistake over as the did with the Rafale and Typhoon. (i.e. 4.5 Gen) Just saying..... :wink:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 00:20
by citanon
It will be a 5th gen fighter advertised as a 6th gen fighter that is delayed until after the US 7th gen space mechabots enter service.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 01:37
by weasel1962
If one looks at 4G, the Europeans managed to mask their engine tech by using dual thrust engines on a lightweight platform to try to outdo the single engine jet. This takes advantage of the composite material manufacturing that the Europeans to create a lightweight platform. What I suspect the Europeans will try and do is to achieve a 30+k lb thrust engine to try to create a 60+k lb thrust platform whilst retaining the lightweight component to try and differentiate the product. There are advantages of a later design e.g. designing a bigger weapons bay.

The issue with that is like the Typhoon and Rafale, dual engine means higher maintenance costs, added to the higher manufacturing costs in Europe will create the same cost compete issues they had on all the earlier fighter comps which they lost. The same marketing strategy of saying the F-16 is an older platform will apply in future comps to state F-35 is an older platform will likely be used.

The downside to a new European project is the F-35 would have matured into a cost-effective platform. However, the EU may insist on European nations buying the European product much like how the Typhoon panned out. An F-16 upgrade by Belgian could lead to this. If I was the Belgian Government, I’d take this into consideration that the true upgrade cost would be to risk being pushed into a much higher cost fighter later.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 03:13
by rheonomic
XanderCrews wrote:Its actually easier to make an airplane (espeically in terms of structure) stop in mid air and gently set down than it is to crash land onto a ship and get shot off it repeatedly


From a structures point, sure. But I'd say that, from a flight controls perspective, it's easier to do a CV landing than STOVL (well, good STOVL, at least; you can always go open-loop and pass the buck to the poor bastard flying it).

I think overall I'd characterize the STOVL variant as more technically challenging than the CV variant.

fbw wrote:Once commonality went out the window with the “C”, and it is the least common variant, sticking to the dimensions common with the other two made little sense. That and 2.5+ tons.


I mean, the CV version had a different planform from the start of the X-35 program...

Not to mention the important stuff is largely common (engine, avionics, etc.).

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 07:59
by loke
rheonomic wrote:I think overall I'd characterize the STOVL variant as more technically challenging than the CV variant.

fbw wrote:Once commonality went out the window with the “C”, and it is the least common variant, sticking to the dimensions common with the other two made little sense. That and 2.5+ tons.


I mean, the CV version had a different planform from the start of the X-35 program...


So it seems to me that the conclusion is that both B and C are quite different from the A, which supports my initial claim that the F-35 program was huge.


What one also often tend to forget is that complexity (and with complexity also timelines) is not scaling linearly with the size of the project buth rather exponentially...


Clearly Dassault/Airbus will have a much smaller and simpler project.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 08:58
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:So it seems to me that the conclusion is that both B and C are quite different from the A, which supports my initial claim that the F-35 program was huge.

What one also often tend to forget is that complexity (and with complexity also timelines) is not scaling linearly with the size of the project buth rather exponentially...

Clearly Dassault/Airbus will have a much smaller and simpler project.


F-35 program was/is huge, but I'd say that 3 airframe variants was only relatively small part of that. It has the most advanced and extensive avionics systems and associated software, all of which cost a lot to develop. VLO stealth is also pretty expensive to develop and build the manufacturing capabilties also. These need to be incorporated in this proposed aircraft also and will be major factor in costs. Of course they might go for lesser capabilities and possibly use legacy avionics systems and have lesser stealth which would lower costs. That would naturally also lower the military value of each aircraft.

Another problem for this project is that a lot less of these aircraft will be made as F-35 has the benefit in being produced in huge numbers for US services. This will mean less efficient production and higher unit costs even if development costs might be less. For example Dassault Rafale has definitely been less expensive to develop than F-35, but unit cost is already higher despite lesser capabilties.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 10:26
by Corsair1963
I would add the large customer base for the F-35. Will help fund future upgrades and the integration of countless weapons in the coming decades. Something the Rafale and Typhoon can't hope to compete with.... :shock:

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 20:50
by citanon
loke wrote:
rheonomic wrote:I think overall I'd characterize the STOVL variant as more technically challenging than the CV variant.

fbw wrote:Once commonality went out the window with the “C”, and it is the least common variant, sticking to the dimensions common with the other two made little sense. That and 2.5+ tons.


I mean, the CV version had a different planform from the start of the X-35 program...


So it seems to me that the conclusion is that both B and C are quite different from the A, which supports my initial claim that the F-35 program was huge.


What one also often tend to forget is that complexity (and with complexity also timelines) is not scaling linearly with the size of the project buth rather exponentially...


Clearly Dassault/Airbus will have a much smaller and simpler project.


I think the problem for them is that F35 is a continuation of the F22, engine wise, airframe wise, avionics wise and manufacturing wise. Unless Uncle Sam is feeling overwhelmingly generous Europeans will have to develop everything from cockpit canopies to air data sensor assemblies from scratch, learn hard lessons about how to make them in a production setting, create all the R&D facilities, and do it all in a super "fun" French German collaboration without sustained support from the nationalistic fervor and huge budgets like what China has.

Good luck getting that to work in a reasonable time frame.

I suppose where the Europeans are lucky is that they can use some of the same supplier base, which will benefit from F35 tech transfer.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 21:48
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
So it seems to me that the conclusion is that both B and C are quite different from the A, which supports my initial claim that the F-35 program was huge.



No, I would say that it all depends on what your definition of "quite different" is. A and B have more in common than C which is the biggest oddball, a lot of people conclude that B is the most different and in some ways it is, in other ways it's far more common with A.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 22:03
by SpudmanWP
IIRC during the "Battle of the X-Planes, it was an X-35A that was turned into an X-35B.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 22:09
by spazsinbad
Correct.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 22:55
by archeman
loke wrote:
rheonomic wrote:I think overall I'd characterize the STOVL variant as more technically challenging than the CV variant.

What one also often tend to forget is that complexity (and with complexity also timelines) is not scaling linearly with the size of the project buth rather exponentially...

Clearly Dassault/Airbus will have a much smaller and simpler project.


Well you're bringing too much into this equation. You have to look at the product from the Customer perspective. How much time will they spend pondering the manufacturing complexities of the B and C models??? About 0 mins and 0 seconds. So that manufacturing complexity is irrelevant for the Customer. They are buying product A.

I am also not convinced the project is scaling exponentially. Because Exponents scale really really fast if you know what an exponent is. Unless you were just trying to say that it is more complex than other projects and wanted a fancy word.

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2018, 16:31
by steve2267
Doesn't it depend on what the exponent is?

Re: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 00:08
by kimjongnumbaun
F-35 hits back with its own industrial offsets for Belgium.

ESTERLINE SIGNS A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH LOCKHEED MARTIN

"Kortrijk, 21 June 2018 – Esterline Belgium (formerly Barco Defense & Aerospace) today announced the signature of a Memorandum of Agreement with Lockheed Martin as part of the F-16 Replacement Program’s Essential Security Interests. Through this agreement, both companies will seek to develop further long-term partnerships if the Belgian government decides to choose the F-35 as successor for its F-16s.

This partnership will mainly concern avionics and rugged display products."

http://www.esterline.com/avionicssystem ... ARTIN.aspx