Belgium to replace F-16s with F-35s

[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

[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.)

[XanderCrews]

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

[XanderCrews]

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.

[sunstersun]

Italy probably gets to assembly these Belgium F-35's right?

[bojack_horseman]

He's either retarded or twisting facts.

I wouldn't rule out him being both.

[bojack_horseman]

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

[SpudmanWP]

Seems that there are some NATO exceptions.

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




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

[popcorn]

Halfway there.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/22/u ... versation/

[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.

[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/

[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 ?

[bojack_horseman]

what is that?

The initials of one of the Belgian political parties.

The "Reform Movement", part of the ruling coalition

[steve2267]

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?

[XanderCrews]

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?