Which future fighter jet for Belgian Defence?

[Flanker2]

If you want to buy fighters, you have to buy from a country that will not cause problems if ever you need to deploy them. Therefore Russian fighters, as attractive and good they are, is simply not an option. Do you think we could send Russian fighters to participate in Afghanistan or iraq?

Deployment location and origin of the design have nothing to do with one another.

If Belgium builds them under license in Belgium, there is no problem. The only thing that they will have to keep in mind is that they need to maintain sufficient parts inventories, just in case that political tension would lead the Russians to cut the supply chain... I doubt that will happen though once Belgium establishes itself as an exporter for the Russians... the Russians will not go as far as to embargo aircraft parts that can maintain Russian jobs... in fact they will be more supportive of the Western wars if they have an interest involved.
I think that Russia and Europe will form the next step of globalisation.

Also bear in mind that missions in Afghanistan are not what the PAK FA or the F-22 is built for. Such missions are best left to NATO partners. However, missions such as previously Iran, in the future North Korea will require a PAK FA to inflict a maximum of damage with the least collateral damage.

[Boavida]

Belgium has multiple 'pooling and sharing' agreements with the Dutch military. In the future, there will be even more cooperation to reduce costs. In this regard, the choice the Dutch made for the F-35 will have a big impact on the choice Belgium is going to make. Objectively speaking, it will be better if both air forces use the same type of aircraft, nobody can deny this. Maintenance could be done in one place for example. Same for training. Joint missions will be easier, etc...

So I think the Belgian military will go for the F-35...

[convair]

Looks like the Dutch took the hard decision for us, then; and we are supposed to get in their tracks; slightly fishy scenario!

I know nothing about this matter but I have 2 questions:

-the F35 is said (on this site) to be over-priced and to have disappointing performances; would it be really smart to buy any?

-isn't the Eurofighter good enough? (I don't mean this to be negative)

[Flanker2]

I think that Belgium can make 10 times more money being part of a new program than they can save by partnering with the Dutch. Pooling of light maintenance is meaningless as both have their own maintenance bases.

For heavy maintenance, the Netherlands already have a full airframe maintenance cooperation with Italy, in exchange for engine maintenance in the Netherlands. The airframes will be built in Italy where they will also be maintained.
No savings to be made there.

You guys have to realise that whatever they decide on, needs to be able to fly until 2050.
It's useless to replace 4th generation fighter with 4th generation fighters...it's ridiculous.
You have to go with each cyle and the new cycle is the fifth generation. If they don't get major workshare in a 5th generation program, Belgium will loose thousands of jobs in this sector over the years.

It also doesn't make sense, AT ALL, to invest in an expensive aircraft without having major work share to earn the cost back. There is otherwise no money to invest in the procurement of a new aircraft.

I don't know if you realise how much the total cost involved is, but the aircraft only would cost each Belgian inhabitant 1000 euro's or about 4000 euro's to each working household. On top of that, count the cost of logistics, inventory, training and other costs, and you're looking at close to 10.000 euro for each household.
All that to make the Dutch happy and operate useless aircraft? It's out of the question.

Poland, who is a NATO member, operates Mig-29's.

[Flanker2]

BTW, building under license doesn't mean that SABCA can't put Western equipment in there. They can choose to put radar and avionics from a Western source, if they so agree with Sukhoi.

Come on people, wake up and smell the business and political opportunity that there is here for Belgium.
1. They can build closer ties with Russia which is good both for imports and exports
2. The growth in the Belgian aerospace industry can compensate for the losses in the automotive industry and they can seek more participation into other Russian programs, both military and civil.
3. Belgium can maintain its weight on the military field, which is important for bargaining power
4. Make money in an industry that is less exposed to low labour cost
5. Keep European skies safe.

[cathay belgium]

Come on people, wake up and smell the business and political opportunity that there is here for Belgium.

euh... wake up, get real !
A russian fighter in Belgium ? A Sukhoi for SN, chances are minimal..
A russian fighter in Belgium ?
After we build the Death Star ... immediately ! Chewbacca told me

IF we ever buy an aircraft it will be the JSF like Holland / NATO / USA approval or it will be nothing..

Anything else is out of the question and with the elections and their forecasts in mind it will take a hugh hugh time before a descision will be made, even the dutch were thinking of taking it for many many months even after they bought their first one

Instead of leasing an Onur A321 , I read today Boeing have a bargain on 787 the first 10 series only around 100 million

CXB

[teddybAIR]

I don't know if you realise how much the total cost involved is, but the aircraft only would cost each Belgian inhabitant 1000 euro's

Are you suggesting an investment of €11bn while the entire defense budget of belgium for fiscal year 2013 was merely 2,715bn€? What do you mean with total cost?

[flieger]

I think we are a few members here who see Flanker2 needs to wake up...
Analysis is rather off, well... off all the way.
Sukhoi PAK FA to be built in Belgium. Will not even put energy in telling why not.

[teddybAIR]

I'm not implying that he is 'way off' as you suggest. I'm trying to understand the point he is trying to make!

[Flanker2]

teddy, the cost of the JSF to replace F-16's is now estimated at around 10 billion euro's after the unit price has increased, caused by defections to the program. The sale of the F-16 won't bring in much money as they will be end of life airframes.
10 billion euro's is only the airframe and engines, it doesn't include all the tooling, spares inventories, logistics, training, initial maintenance and other elements it requires, which can cost another 10 billion euro's or more.

To recoup that investment, you need to have workshare in a program.
SABCA does maintenance on Belgian and non-Belgian aircraft on top of manufacturing them initially here.
This saved money on the Belgian aircraft and earned money on non-Belgian aircraft, which is what paid for the F-16's.
In addition, each program brings transfer of technology and know-how. However, if you don't keep replacing old programs with new programs, that know-how will be lost: people who assembled and maintained the F-16's will loose their job and find work in other industries.

To go for a straight-forward purchase of F-35's is unthinkable. It's out of the Belgian budget of 5 billion euro's, it will result in loss of know-how and technology, loss of jobs which will again cost millions, while the aircraft offers barely more than the F-16. If it's to take F-35's or any 4th generation aircraft Belgium would do better to let Sabca build newer version F-16's to replace older ones.
That way Belgium can leave the others to do 5th generation work, while limiting itself to using F-16 for other purposes.

If Belgium goes for the PAK FA, Belgium can earn billions on exports to other countries, while positioning itself very well technologically for any future projects at the European or Western level.
Without the F-16 project, SABCA would not have been able to develop all its other activities with Embraer and Airbus.

Take for instance Japan. They can not buy any Russian products. But they will consider a derivative made in Belgium.

A recent similar success story is the M-346 Master. Alenia worked with Yakovlev on the project. For all intents and purposes and political reasons, they have "split ways" but it's essentially a licensed and modified version of the YAK-130. Alenia have sold it to countries where Russia would never be able to sell it, such as Singapore and Israel and are now starting to make money on the project.
Believe it or not, even Boeing is in on the project...

So to believe that a Russian aircraft has no chance in the Western world, is to build your own imaginative barriers.

[teddybAIR]

thanks flanker! That's what I call a cristal clear explanation!

[koja78]

or we invest in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flygsystem_2020
With leased Gripen as stop-gap

[Flanker2]

Problem is time and technology... it takes more than 10 years from flying prototype to operational delivery.
Japan have their own 5th generation program going on with the Mitsubishi ATD-X, but I doubt it will be ready before 2030 and that it will be on par with the PAK FA.
Japan is also not allowed to export weapons or to sell licenses of weapons, and I doubt that there would be as much demand for it as for the PAK FA for export.

[Ecam]

Yeah right. Belgium buys a 5th generation fighter from Russia.
Now imagine Belgium participates with these super fighters in a conflict like in Lybia and Afghanistan, in f.e. Syria, Georgia, Middle-East, Africa ..., which are essentially Western (NATO) interventions that Russia opposes "per definition".
Imagine how long it will take before these magnificent PAK FA fighters will be grounded, without logistical support from Russia due to a spares embargo ?

That was also the main concern when Belgium bought Mirage fighters in the early '70s while France was no longer a member of NATO: "Where will the logistical support come from when NATO is engaged in a war that France does not concur with ? Will support be guaranteed ?".
A NATO country buying Russian fighters ? This will only happen in your dreams.
Even De Crem won't pull that one off.
And he better don't propose this, if he wants to become Secretary General of NATO.

[me109]

Belgium has to buy some fighter aircraft together with Holland. Small numbers and a joint interceptor program .

[Didymus]

The conflict between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea has catapulted us back to the Cold War. In 1994 US, the UK and Russia promised to protect Ukrainian integrity when they gave up their nuclear weapons. In casu: when Russia invades Ukraine, the NATO will have to react.

The tiny chance that Belgium would invest in a Russian jet fighter has now completely vanished.

[Boavida]

The tiny chance that Belgium would invest in a Russian jet fighter has now completely vanished.

Indeed!

Btw, the current serious conflict in Ukraine is another proof Belgium really needs fighter jets to remain a reliable NATO partner, because NATO matters. Ukraine is not that far away. Conflicts can arise on our doorstep.

Even last month, Belgian F16's patrolled the skies above the Baltics. Not to invest in new fighter jets would be the biggest mistake Belgium could make. I hope the parties (socialists!) that are against new fighter jets (which is really populist, btw) won't win the elections...

[Flanker2]

Well we have heard Obama pointing fingers to Russia but I've heard nothing from the EU.
In any way, I doubt that it would escalate into a war between Ukraine and Russia. Even if the new Ukrainian leadership would give the orders, the Ukrainian defense system would desert such orders, because they know that they have no chance against the Russians in a full-fledged war.

It would be like giving the Belgian military the order to fight a war against the U.S. ... the orders will simply be sent back to politicians, with the military's compliments and a message to do it themselves.

[flieger]

You tink so?
It is exactly about getting more Western and less dependent of Russia. That is what the whole conflict is about...
So you think they would just abandon orders?
Get real... Most of my colleagues are Ukrainians, they even went back during protests and are setting up campaigns in Belgium too... My ex GF is Russian. I do know the region and the mindset of the people...
This country is not at all pro Russia. Only a small part of it is (Crimea), because there, most inhabitants are native Russians...

Btw, the EU and NATO did point fingers. Ukrainian defense has mobilized also it's reserves.
Though they do not stand a chance may'be against Russia that is not what it is about...
They were against a regime being too tied to Russia and now you think they overthrew that regime to now accept Russians to impose them even more what to do, by military force?

But what we'll see is that NATO will again cowardly look at how a military superpower just does what it wants while we watch on the sideline, being weasels...

[Flanker2]

Well Flieger, that's the opinion of part of the Ukrainians.
The problem is that the remaining Ukrainian population still believes in Russia. The current leadership has not been elected by the people, they are the result of a coup, hence are as bad as their predecessor. By giving them the power, the remaining pro-Russian population is under threat and the risk is civil war.
So I think that Russia is doing a good thing by protecting the pro-Russian population, the same way the new regime will protect, the pro-West population through its military.



source:reuters

IMO those pro-European rebels think that they would be better off being part of Europe, when none of Europe is better off being part of Europe... wherever we go in Europe, dirty buildings, misery, hate, poverty, no money, no jobs.

Russia has granted Ukraine independence before. They have also provided continued support to its military but also to the large industry. Think about Antonov for instance.

In the same period of time, Europe and the U.S. had all the possibilities to provide support to Ukraine.
But has any European airline bought a single Antonov aircraft? The answer is no. So it would be easy to take over Ukraine, shed Ukrainian blood and claim the country as being part of Europe, but will we be able to support them afterwards, when we can't even take care for the current countries inside the EU?
I remind you, this is a huge country in deep poverty, worse than Romania and Bulgaria.

I think that Ukraine would be better off by itself. A modernised political system would help rebuild its industry. Ukrainians are highly educated and have huge farmland to harvest, as sales of farmland is prohibited in Ukraine. In September 2013, a Chinese consortium tried to lease/buy a huge portion of their farmland but it was blocked by the government.

If the Ukrainian youth want to do something, they need to work for it, and not expect that a few weeks of violent demonstrations on the streets are going to make it any better. All the youth want to do nowadays is work in ICT and office jobs palying on computers, but in a poor country you first need a stable primary sector before you can start to build the secundary sector.

How it relates to Belgium?
Well, if we want to resolve this kind of conflicts more diplomatically in the future, Belgium has to set the example for the rest of the EU, by getting closer to Russia through trade and cooperation. Allienating oneselves will not be in anyone's interest... except for the Americans who will sell us more arms that we don't need, at a price we can't afford.

If Belgium wants to stay on top of the EU project that it has pushed, it has to behave as a modern open-minded, quasi-neutral financial and political entity that pushes for the interest of Belgium first, the EU second, the world third.

NATO is a tool created against the Russians. It works on a "friend or foe" basis.
NATO is also a barrier for trade... as proven here, NATO membership impedes closer ties with Russia.
I think that Russia represents a larger interest for Europe than the United States, both economically (natural resource imports and export of finished goods such as cars) and politically (future relations between Europe and China/India, etc..)

Hence military alliances should not be mixed with trade alliances IMO.
Many EU countries are not part of NATO, they only help as partners.

I see NATO more as a problem to Belgium than any form of support. Belgium has spent billions being part of NATO, while there has been no return on the investment. Sure we have the headquarters here, but isn't that a liability in the first place? If any country would go to war against NATO, the first place they would nuke is the NATO headquarters...


Belgium will not buy or build the PAK FA, ever.
But that doesn't mean that we should triumph on that. The loss will be all ours.
In 20 years, this country will be in ruins with no national airlines, no maritime industry, no automobile industry, no aerospace industry, no chemical industry, no energy nor telecom industry as foreign companies start to settle and grow, no land to harvest, hospitals filled with incompetent doctors and nurses, an old population, crumbling pre-war brick buildings and the old same political debate between the North and the South.