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

UK defence budget [Oct 29, 2018] of GBP 52b/USD66b for 2018 (FY 2019) is a slight increase from last year (GBP49b or USD65b).

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... s-in-mind/

"...F-35 DELAYS CAUSED BY UNREALISTIC GOALS AND C++
Tucker Taft, director of language research at AdaCore, ...
...[size=115]use a language that’s less problematic, such as Ada,” he says...."

Source: AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL Magazine September 2018

About that, I believe that Spudman pretty much nailed it here:

Who would of thought that a director of a company would blame high cost and delays on NOT using his company's product?

Guess he forgot about the high cost of the F-22's recent updates, funny that.

Just to add my 2 cents to what Spudman said, no I don't believe for a second that using a language like ADA (for the F-35) would have caused less delays compared to the use of C++.
Spudman even gave an interesting example of that (F-22).

The reason for all the F-35 software delays is IMO quite simple to explain: It was the first of its kind, period.
IMO, they would be even worse - due to the lack of language "know-how" - if ADA was used instead.

Also my other 2 cents (a bit speculation on my part):
Since this is a fighter aircraft development and not some random piece of software like a computer game, I don't think that much time (and money) would be saved during the debugging fase since I pretty much doubt that most software features would be tested automatically anyway (or not "manually tested"), this independently of which programming language would used on the development of the F-35's software. Or resuming I doubt that if the F-35 was developed using ADA (or any other language) that the software testing procedures would be any different or if you prefer "more automatized" compared to what they were/are with C++.

'kimjongnumbaun' posted this article earlier in another thread:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=404830&hilit=david#p404830

The F-35 Is the Wrong Choice for Belgium
30 Oct 2018 David Axe

"...A new F-16 with the latest enhancements costs around $70 million. By contrast, each F-35 sets back taxpayers $120 million. But maintenance costs account for most of a fighter’s overall expense. Owing to its complexity and the cost of maintenance to its stealth coating, [a complete and utter LIE] the F-35 costs as much as $28,000 per flight hour, according to Forbes. An F-16 costs just $8,000 per flight hour...." [with deliveries in 2023 SHIRLEY the price will be under 80milper? IF'n we compare pair as just aircraft as is.] [then there is some rubbish about 'training currency availability' forgetting that at least half training will be in the SIM especially the super secret training missions]

Source: https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-the ... r-belgium/

I shall revel in delight. Now they're chalking it up to conspiracy theories... (see comment section in link provided)

https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/22/b ... ing-f-16s/

The ant-F-35ers are all like...



and I'm like



and their tears got me like



all the anti-F-35 and Russian trolls out there are getting the same message from their handlers...

Moreover, and while I admit I'm not familiar at all with ADA except that I know that ADA is based on Pascal (and also having been familiar with Pascal on what now seems to be "another age") but being myself well familiar with C/C++ (and with some of its derived languages such as Java or C#) I fail to realize the advantages of using a Pascal based language over C++. Well, this is not to say that there aren't advantages of ADA over C++ but these certainly are offset by the advantages of C++ over ADA, namely like you said C++ being a much widespread language which means it's much, much easier to to hire C++ programmers over ADA ones.

In theory Ada has several features built into the language design that make it safer to use than C or C++. There's also a neat subset of the language called SPARK that essentially builds in formal methods for V+V. But as mentioned, it's hard to find Ada programmers, and with modern tooling for C/C++ there's less advantage.

There's an interesting 2014 C++Con talk on JSF here that goes into why C++ was chosen and the additional constraints built in to the JSF++ Air Vehicle Coding Standards (if you're not a programmer I'd skip this):

If someone wants to use a more modern language than C++ than I guess that C# would be a better choice. But this last point is my 2 cents...

Don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole, but the garbage collector and runtime requirements make it a no-go for embedded safety-critical systems.

In theory Ada has several features built into the language design that make it safer to use than C or C++. There's also a neat subset of the language called SPARK that essentially builds in formal methods for V+V. But as mentioned, it's hard to find Ada programmers, and with modern tooling for C/C++ there's less advantage.

Yes, like you hinted in the last part of the paragraph above the effectiveness/safety of a language is more related to the tolls used with it (for example compilers) than regarding the language itself (although there are safety issues regarding the language as well).
Yes, I agree that modern tools makes C/C++ closer in terms of safety compared for example to ADA (but that of course will depend on the tools).

Oh, and thanks for the document and video. I'll certainly dig into them more deeply once I have more free time.

If someone wants to use a more modern language than C++ than I guess that C# would be a better choice. But this last point is my 2 cents...

Don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole, but the garbage collector and runtime requirements make it a no-go for embedded safety-critical systems.

Regarding garbage collectors (or opposite to them to be more precise), the interesting thing about C# is that you have the possibility to allocate/manage memory manually as you can do with C/C++ (C# also supports and have pointers just like C/C++). Besides C/C++ also have garbage collector implementations as well.
Moreover and from everything that I read, C# programs don't have that high runtime requirements. Together with the feature above I would say that there's nothing that could prevent developing C# programs with the same/similar runtime requirements compared if the same programs were developed in C/C++.
Finally C# is a much safer language than C++ and above all much, much easier to use (which makes it even easier to find programmers for this language).

I would say that regarding the JSF/F-35, the reason why C++ could have been selected instead of C# is that the later (C#) is a quite recent language whose first version came out in 2000 while the JSF program remotes to the 1990's (before C# was released). Moreover if we consider that what came out in 2000 was C# first version and the second (and better) version came out in 2005 than the reason becomes even more clear, at least IMO.

Moreover, and while I admit I'm not familiar at all with ADA except that I know that ADA is based on Pascal (and also having been familiar with Pascal on what now seems to be "another age") but being myself well familiar with C/C++ (and with some of its derived languages such as Java or C#) I fail to realize the advantages of using a Pascal based language over C++. Well, this is not to say that there aren't advantages of ADA over C++ but these certainly are offset by the advantages of C++ over ADA, namely like you said C++ being a much widespread language which means it's much, much easier to to hire C++ programmers over ADA ones.

In theory Ada has several features built into the language design that make it safer to use than C or C++. There's also a neat subset of the language called SPARK that essentially builds in formal methods for V+V. But as mentioned, it's hard to find Ada programmers, and with modern tooling for C/C++ there's less advantage.

If someone wants to use a more modern language than C++ than I guess that C# would be a better choice. But this last point is my 2 cents...

Don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole, but the garbage collector and runtime requirements make it a no-go for embedded safety-critical systems.

ADA by design should be better suited for critical applications, if however you cannot find enough competent coders then by default it's a pretty meaningless journey. The syntax of ADA looks very readable and clean to me btw, I really like how they designed that.

Likewise, most of the C++ coders out there would not be able to write usable code for JSF due to it's particular time-critical requirements, the pool to choose from however is huge!

I would say that regarding the JSF/F-35, the reason why C++ could have been selected instead of C# is that the later (C#) is a quite recent language whose first version came out in 2000 while the JSF program remotes to the 1990's (before C# was released). Moreover if we consider that what came out in 2000 was C# first version and the second (and better) version came out in 2005 than the reason becomes even more clear, at least IMO.

Another *huge* issue here is compiler support. You're going to have a hard time luck finding a certified compiler for anything besides C, C++, or Ada...



On a meta note, perhaps it would be better to move this discussion to a JSF software thread rather than spamming all the people wanting to read about Belgium?

I would say that regarding the JSF/F-35, the reason why C++ could have been selected instead of C# is that the later (C#) is a quite recent language whose first version came out in 2000 while the JSF program remotes to the 1990's (before C# was released). Moreover if we consider that what came out in 2000 was C# first version and the second (and better) version came out in 2005 than the reason becomes even more clear, at least IMO.

Another *huge* issue here is compiler support. You're going to have a hard time luck finding a certified compiler for anything besides C, C++, or Ada...

Yes, I agree.
However I can't see any reason why a "certified compiler" for this kind of industry can't happen. At some point in the past there wasn't "certified compilers" for C, C++ or Ada available, yet they were developed and certified.
Beside the high degree of commonality and similarity between C# and C/C++ languages together with more modern and advanced development tools would most likely make the task of developing or certifying a compiler for this language (C#) a much easier task than for example when this happened in the past with the other and older languages (C/C++ and Ada).

On a meta note, perhaps it would be better to move this discussion to a JSF software thread rather than spamming all the people wanting to read about Belgium?

Yes, I also agree that we deviated from this threads subject. And yes, if you want we could continue to discuss about this on another thread. However and from my part I don't think there's much of a need for it since it seems (or at least I feel) that we reached to some sort of a conclusion or even an agreement about what were discussion until now, no?

Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney Confirm Pursuit Forward with Belgian industry on ESI Projects
21 Mar 2019 LM PR

"During a ceremonial signing event today, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney, together with about twenty industry members from the three Belgian regions, have formally confirmed to move forward with industrial projects.

Since the Belgian government’s selection of the F-35, Lockheed Martin and F135 engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney have been engaged in an open dialogue with Belgian industry and authorities to create successful projects and maximize the long-term opportunities identified in the Essential Security Interests (ESI) framework defined by the Belgian government...."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockhee ... lgian-indu

I'll have to get this tranRATED but ALERT5 says: 308 million WHOT? Dunno - gotta chek. [275 million euros = 308 mil US]

Belgium to spend $308 million to upgrade two airbases to house the F-35
09 Jul 2019 ALERT5

"De Morgen reported on Jul. 8 that Belgium is spending $308 million to upgrade Florennes and Kleine-Brogel airbases so that they could support the F-35. New infrastructures are needed for maintenance and parking of the aircraft. Successful contractors must also be cleared by the U.S. State Department."

Source: http://alert5.com/2019/07/09/belgium-to ... more-76881

ORIGINAL BELGIQUE Source: https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/facelift ... ~b65424c6/ [all GOOGLEtransrated below]

"The air force bases of Kleine-Brogel and Florennes need a facelift to receive the F-35. The cost of the renovations is estimated at 275 million euros. [$308,386,375.00 US] This is taught by the army's public tender.

The Belgian Air Force flies from 2025 with the F-35 from Lockheed Martin. The Michel government signed a purchase contract in October last year after the aircraft was well ahead of a tender procedure. Our country will pay 3.8 billion euros for 34 new combat aircraft. They must replace the gradually outdated F-16s.

In order to receive the ultramodern F-35, major renovations must be carried out at the airbase bases of Kleine-Brogel and Florennes. On 28 June, the Belgian army therefore launched a public tender for "designing, building and maintaining an infrastructure complex to support the F-35".

"Both bases date from the 60s and were due for a thorough renovation anyway," it sounds within the army. "There was little point in trying to patch up the existing buildings before the arrival of the F-35."

Compounds
In Kleine-Brogel and Florennes there will be two new "F-35 compounds". Such a compound will consist of buildings for the preparation and (de) briefings of missions, a place to install four large training simulators, a new maintenance shed that can accommodate six combat aircraft, another sixteen covered and lockable standing places. And a "Quick Reaction Alert" zone with a place for pilots and technicians who must be on standby 24 hours a day.

The total cost of the two compounds is estimated at 275 million euros. This investment is separate from the purchase of the F-35 from the Americans themselves. The money for it is already provided for in the army's long-term budget. The intention is that works in Florennes start in the spring of 2022. A year later, it is the turn of Kleine-Brogel.

Because it is a military building project, not every contractor is entitled to the contract. The tender states that a "national secret" security clearance is required. Anyone who wants to receive such authorization must have their company screened by the Belgian security services. Among other things, they check whether information is processed in a confidential manner. The construction plans of an air force base must not fall into the wrong hands.

Safety
To leave nothing to chance, interested contractors must also pass a screening of the US State Department - the US Department of Foreign Affairs. "In order to be able to arrange the exchange of data with Lockheed Martin, the American International Traffic in Arms Regulations require this," the tender states.

The American requirements are no less. A tender of 174 pages has been added to the tender in which the National Counterintelligence and Security Center explains from needle to thread what safety conditions the future F-35 compounds in Kleine-Brogel and Florennes must meet. This goes from the way in which the walls of the buildings are best constructed to the placement of the ventilation system and the telephone lines. A military source: "Construction companies that specialize in the security sector will be able to enjoy themselves."

The F-35 is expected to remain in service for well over 30 years. The total cost thereof is estimated at 12.5 billion euros. A huge amount, which includes the personnel costs of pilots and technicians, daily maintenance and fuel costs. So these are not really "new" costs: they are already being made for the F-16 fleet.

An important difference is that maintenance of the F-35 per flight hour is 20 percent more expensive than the F-16. This additional cost is compensated by the fact that the air force will fly much less with the F-35. Most training sessions will take place in the new simulators. They will be part of the new compounds."

AvWEAK pumps one out:

Belgium Spending €275 Million On F-35 Infrastructure
08 Jul 2019 Tony Osborne

"...The tender issued on July 3 is separate from the wider F-35 Foreign Military Sale which Brussels agreed to last October. The documents also provide insight into the security requirements demanded by the U.S. Department of Defense for nations operating the fifth-generation aircraft, calling for the new facilities to be enclosed and equipped with intrusion detection and alarms. Belgian ministers have already approved plans to recruit additional personnel to guard the aircraft. On several occasions, protesters have broken into the Kleine Brogel base over the housing of U.S. dual-key nuclear weapons there. The new F-35 facilities must be approved and certified to U.S. government standards, the tender documents say, and the selected company or contractors will have to hold national security clearances and be vetted by the U.S. State Department.

Florennes will be the first of the two airbases to receive the F-35, with construction work starting in the second quarter of 2022, while work at Kleine Brogel will begin in the first quarter of 2024. This development is in line with the delivery profile for Belgium’s aircraft. The first F-35will be based in the U.S. from 2023 to support training, likely at Luke AFB, Arizona, similar to the activities of other F-35 operators. Four or five F-35s will be delivered in 2023, officials say, and the aircraft will arrive in batches of four from 2024-2028 and in 2030. A batch of five aircraft will be delivered in 2029. The first F-35 will not be based in Belgium until 2025."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/belgiu ... astructure

Is that numbers okay to publish !?
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/ ... ty-cannon/

Belgium’s defence ministry unconcerned about faults found in F-35 fighter jets
Saturday, 01 February 2020 Alan Hope The Brussels Times
The F-35 fighter jet, which Belgium has ordered to replace its existing F-16s, has 873 “unresolved deficiencies,” according to a report delivered this week by the Pentagon in Washington to the US Congress.

Some of the faults – 13 in all – are considered critical. The tally is less serious now that the last time a report was compiled on the plane’s problems: then there were 15 critical faults out of a total of 917. But along the way, while some faults were corrected, new ones have developed.

According to De Standaard, the defence department in Brussels is not overly concerned. “Our F-16s at this moment have more than 1,000 deficiencies, said Colonel Harry Van Pee, who was in charge of the replacement programme. “For a complex new plane like the F-35, 800 is not too bad. It’s especially good that new things are continually being tested and discovered, because then you can tackle the problem.”

The majority of the hundreds of faults are concerned with software systems and cybersecurity – but not all. In the case of the model F-35A in particular, which is the model that Belgium will be receiving, the Pentagon found fault with the 25mm cannon, which does not work correctly. Or, as the Pentagon put it, “The accuracy of the gun, as installed in the F-35A, is unacceptable”. In addition, under intensive testing, the gun developed cracks.

To make matters worse, even when problems are remedied, the lack of testing facilities holds up approval. Then, when testing is carried out, it often turns out that solving one problem – particularly in the case of inter-dependent software systems – had caused a problem elsewhere.

But at least the endless round of testing and re-testing is not costing the defence department money, Col. Van Pee said – at least for now. “In the contract it says that we do not have to pay development costs either new or historic until 2030, thanks to a major concession by the Americans. If after 2030 we do have to pay, the new contract sets a limit of no more than one percent. Then we’re looking at similar sums to what we now pay for the F-16s, or about ten million euros.”