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

[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

[thenonflyingdutchman]

B61's @ Kleine Brogel Air Base, so F-35 it will be.

[popcorn]

Do the other suppliers realistically think they have a shot at this?

[Corsair1963]

Little doubt that Belgium will select the F-35.....

[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.

[XanderCrews]

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.

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

[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.

[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?

[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,

[LinkF16SimDude]

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.

Is that the sound of a door slamming shut on Slowman? Never let facts get in the way of your argument.

[Corsair1963]

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.

[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.

[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.

[KamenRiderBlade]

@ 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?

[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,