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

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Sep 2013, 22:49

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
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 486
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...
Offline

thenonflyingdutchman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 21:23
  • Location: Amsterdam

Unread post13 Jan 2015, 23:51

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

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6930
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 05:12

Do the other suppliers realistically think they have a shot at this?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3793
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 07:23

Little doubt that Belgium will select the F-35..... :wink:
Offline

joost

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 22 May 2010, 10:11
  • Location: Netherlands

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 09:52

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
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5161
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 14:17

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?
Choose Crews
Offline

thenonflyingdutchman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 21:23
  • Location: Amsterdam

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 14:40

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.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2565
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 16:12

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?
Offline
User avatar

Bjorn

F-16.net Editor

F-16.net Editor

  • Posts: 1747
  • Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:56

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 19:26

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,
Bjorn Claes
F-16.net Editor
Photo Library Admin
Aircraft Database Admin
Offline
User avatar

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2484
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post14 Jan 2015, 23:25

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:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3793
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Jan 2015, 06:01

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. :?
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 906
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post15 Jan 2015, 12:06

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.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post15 Jan 2015, 12:43

@ 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.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2565
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post15 Jan 2015, 14:34

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?
Next

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: neptune, optimist and 10 guests