VnomadOn a different note, I bet Giovanni Briganti was really regretting his March piece on the Belgian competition –
Belgian RFP Sets Open Competition for F-16 Replacement
By Giovanni de Briganti
PARIS — Belgium last week made public the full Request for Government Proposals (RfGP) that it sent to the five countries that it has selected to bid for the replacement of its F-16 fighters.
Unexpectedly, the document does not appear to have been drafted to favor the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as did a previous request for information issued in 2014, but appears to allow an open competition which all five candidates – Boeing Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed F-35 and Saab Gripen – have a reasonable chance of winning. Final offers are due on February 14, 2018.
Side-stepping the nuclear trap
Contrary to expectations, the final RfGP does not mention the nuclear strike mission, on which the air force command (Force Aérienne Belge, or FAB) had been counting to rationalize its preference for the F-35.
Although this has never been publicly admitted, it is an open secret that Belgium’s F-16 are configured to carry the US-made B-61 tactical nuclear bomb. The inclusion of a nuclear requirement for the new fighter would have de facto excluded the three European candidates: Sweden had already said it wouldn’t allow the Gripen to carry nuclear weapons, Eurofighter doesn’t have a nuclear role, and the United States would not allow their bomb to be integrated on the Rafale for reasons of secrecy.
Thus, the FAB was confident that the inclusion of the nuclear mission would ensure selection of the F-35, which a previous defense minister, Pieter de Crem, had promised the United States that Belgium would buy.
The nuclear requirement was recently confirmed by FAB Col. Harold van Pee, the director of the Air Combat Capability Program, who told Knock magazine in mid-February that “Belgium requests that the F-16’s successor can carry nuclear weapons.”
In fact, the final draft of the RFP doesn’t even mention the nuclear mission, which is hidden away under a sub-requirement for “growth potential,” and which in any case counts for less than 0.8% of the selection criteria.
Open competition welcomed
The Belgian government seems to have successfully side-stepped the trap by unexpectedly separating the two issues and selecting a new fighter while pushing the nuclear question back to the mid-2020s, when the F-16s will be retired and when the NATO nuclear strike mission may well have disappeared.
By holding an open competition, Belgium stands in stark contrast with Australia, Italy, the UK and most recently Denmark, which in May 2016 said it would buy the F-35 on the basis of a report so slanted that Boeing earlier this month sued the Danish government.
Belgium’s exclusion of the nuclear requirement, which makes an open competition possible, was welcomed across the political spectrum. Ecologist MP Benoît Helligns, a member of the Parliamentary commission on military acquisitions, welcomed “an open competition,” while Denis Ducarme, an MP of the conservative Mouvement Reformateur party, told the Le Soir newspaper that “when I see that Donald Trump is ready to drop the F-35 and to buy from Boeing, I say it’s time for us to buy a European aircraft.”
Socialist MP Sébastien Pirlot told Le Soir that the RFP “gives European manufacturers a chance, especially as the F-35 is very expensive and generates many add-on costs.” He added that he favors “the Rafale, which offers better industrial returns as Dassault already has subsidiaries in Belgium.”
34 fighters to serve until 2058
Belgium wants to buy 34 “new-build multi-role combat aircraft,” with initial deliveries beginning in 2023 and continuing at a rate of 4 or 5 aircraft per year until 2030. A budget of 3.573 billion euros has been earmarked for the purchase, rising to about 15 billion euros when operating costs are included.
The RFP states that “Basic Operational Capability (BOC) allowing Quick Reaction Alert duties with the new weapon system should be possible by mid-2025,” with Initial Operational Capability to follow by mid-2027 and Full Operational Capability by late 2030.
Selection criteria
The scoring criteria that will be used in evaluation the five offers are detailed in this table:
Unsurprisingly, capability accounts for 57% of the evaluation score, with financial costs accounting for 33% and the “protection of essential security interests,” which covers special equipment produced in Belgium, accounting for the final 10%.
In terms of missions, Belgium has identified six major mission groups: Air to Air, Air to Ground Preplanned Targeting; Air to Ground Autonomous Targeting; Air to Ground Coordinated Targeting; Anti-Air Defence, including Suppression/destruction of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD), Electronic Warfare and Electronic Attack; and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).
Belgium plans on keeping its new aircraft in service until 2058, and to operate them from two air bases, Florennes and Kleine Brogel. In the build-up phase, between initial deliveries in 2023 and IOC in 2030, the new aircraft are expected to fly a total of 28,300 hours, with a monthly average of 13 hours per aircraft rising to 20 hours by 2030.
During the follow-on period (2031-2058), the aircraft will fly an average of 7,950 flight hours per year, with a surge capacity up to 9,150 flight hours. This works out to an average usage profile of 240 hours per aircraft, with a surge capacity up to 270 hours per aircraft.
VnomadWell I do not know what it mean for the LM offer and whether block 4 or later are considered valid or else . As said indication were that one of the contention with the RFQ as submitted ,which led Dassault to not answering the RFQ at all in the first place, was that F4 enhancements would not be considered. Whether they felt it was putting their offer at a disadvantage ,whether they assumed LM offer was entitled to compete with block 4 or not, I do not know, nor whether this is the part they felt was biased.
in the end out of 5 , 3 elected not to answer the RFQ, one chosing to take an alternate approach which they estimated had a better chance for a positive outcome.
Like I said, if the F4 enhancements weren’t considered, its unlikely that the Block 4 upgrades in the same time-frame weren’t considered either. I can’t see any that particular fact really being evidence of bias against Dassault.
Vnomadit’s not a “problem” it’s a fact…
No idea what you’re on about.
Belgium is a small country with its particular needs and fighting wars on remote theaters where they have no business other than pleasing Uncle Sam is not what I’d call a “need”. So, buying something to fulfill someone else’s needs is wasting money, especially when you’re financially in a situation that you can barely afford a few dozen aircraft.
It is for the Belgians to define what their needs are, not yourself. They decide what their commitments are which could include participation in a Libyan campaign led by the UK & France, or could involve a refusal to participate in an invasion of Iraq led by the US & UK.
And a “few dozen aircraft” can be perfectly suited to their needs, as they define it. Between them and the Dutch, they will have about 70 fighter jets which is more than sufficient to retain a permanent 24×7 QRA while still having half a squadron available for deployment.
VnomadYou really should see someone for your problem, you know?
The point is (the one you obviously do not want to admit) : France has the capability to intervene if it chooses to where it chooses to (weapons AND logistics). And it does have an interventionist policy second only to the USA. like it or not, that’s the way it is. They possess territories all around the planet and have an independant nuclear deterrence policy… All of which, Belgium has not.. like it or not, that’s the way it is as well.
Could coalitions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Balkans and so on, do without the french? yes, they could have, it doesn’t change the fact that the french do have an international policy that is different from the belgian one. Belgium is a small country, pretty recently made (as we know it today, it exists independently since less than 200 years), and pretty much minded its own business ever since …
What problem is that?
Yes Belgium is a small country and it doesn’t possess a independent nuclear deterrent. So what? Implying that its participation in a campaign involving larger countries is worthless reeks of an arrogance that you’re apparently oblivious too.
The BAC has participated in NATO operations in Balkans & ME, air policing missions in the Baltics & elsewhere, and as part of the ISAF in Afghanistan. And any serious conventional conflict that the AdlA participates in will most likely be as part of a coalition that will also include BAC aircraft. So what is so wrong with Belgians ensuring that their next fighter is a capable one (similar logic drove their previous acquisition of F-16s).
VnomadDifference between Block 4 and F4, is one is committed and integral part of the deployment path of F35 sold standard , the other one is still a road map,has a budget committed for it but is not formally signed of yet especially in term of date of deployment to ADLA. There were and are consideration for delaying and merging F4 with the MLU,due to budget constraints notably and the reduction of airframe delivery to French Air force.
Future variants (F4/Blk4) are irrelevant if the Belgians are (as per your previous post) only evaluating the aircraft only based on the current configuration (F3R/Blk3F). I’m not seeing how this policy is indicative of any bias on part of the Belgians, especially if there are question marks on the budget or timelines associated with the F4 (if anything, this part seems biased against LM).
Vnomadthe small difference is that France has the policiy to intervene in operations outside its borders, be it by alliances with other countries -(like african countries) or by pure self interest, and they do so by their own means… besides the question whether I agree or not with their international policy, they have a military force that’s made to support that policy and has the capacity to do so.
Really? Can you name me one place that France has deployed its military independently where something like the SPECTRA-equipped Rafale could have been useful (as opposed to say.. a plain vanilla Mirage)? Rwanda? Djibouti? Mali? Chad? CAR?
FYI, the last significant conventional military conflict that France engaged was against Egypt in 1956 in an alliance with UK (and Israel). Every other major operation was either under the aegis of the United Nations or in a coalition with US forces.
Belgium, on the other hand, has zero capability to go anywhere if not asked to by other, bigger guys. The only interventions outside their borders they can do is by following someone having the means to wage their wars and who can do without them anyway
Pretty sure the western/NATO coalition could have “done” without France in the Balkans, Middle East, Afghanistan etc. French involvement was voluntary and very welcome. The same is true for Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Polish participation in NATO operations.
VnomadIndeed the constrain fit like a glove to LM brochures .
But , if I understood correctly , the major contention, at least on the French side was around the fact that the assessment would be based on country’s deployed aircrafts at the time, this indifferently of their roadmaps .For Dassault ,this translates in the ADLA Rafale F3R as is . So No HMD ( even if deployed for Qatar and India ) , neither full networking , nor IRST( even if deployed back for india or current legacy ones still in ADLA ) nor EA as yet in ADLA inventory . This even though they are planned for as part of F4 . Not even Sat-com would be considered ,as it is yet not formally deployed hence considered a prototype rather than an actual feature . This would obviously put the offer and any scenario simulation at a disadvantage against the F35 on key major points , even though on the other hand the F35 is arguably not yet fully operationally deployed.
Assuming this is true, it would apply to the F-35 as well – its not going to stagnate for the next 10 years. If the Dassault can’t participate with the F4, Lockheed Martin can’t participate with the Block 4. ThNDR DIRCM. AdvEOTS. ROVER. UAI. Panoramic display. SDB II. JSM. B61-12. Meteor. Potentially also six AMRAAM bay & F135 GO1.
Vnomadthe only thing said in my statement is that they evaluation from papers only is nothing but thin air.
Which also makes every claim about the Rafale’s current superiority over the EF, SH & SV nothing but thin air, since there’s been no genuine flight trial of the aircraft as they stand today.
You dismiss the Swiss and Indian evaluations, but they are based on real thing and definitely more current than anything promised by manufacturers be it now or 20 years ago
They were based on the real things as they existed 10 years ago.
VnomadYou are mixing things here.
Not at all. If you see my original post – the basic point was that the Belgian requirements for SEAD capability weren’t unnecessary or specious at all, and that every participant had factored them in to various degrees. The F-35 is the best solution because its the most capable of the lot (or the others are less capable depending on your perspective) rather than scenario being ‘tailor-made’ for it.
VnomadWell in the future the competition will also be upgraded… so those future upgrades may not improve matters as much as one would hope for…
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, point is SEAD/DEAD is not like the EW mission where its actually unreasonable to pit them against something like the Growler. All the aircraft in the running are capable of DEAD tasks and can be evaluated on it, for better or worse. The F-16CJ, for example, are a little long in the tooth and may not score very highly in an evaluation but still nobody would say that they’re not SEAD capable aircraft.
VnomadSo? where did I say anything about this or that aircraft? I said that what they called evaluation wasn’t one.. that works for everybody.. period
you want an evaluation? India made one, the Swiss made one, for example…
So the obvious corollary to your argument – is that claims of the Rafale’s superiority over the EF, SH, SV are equally specious.. and you’ve hardly shied away from making them. (The Indian & Swiss evaluations are about a decade old – functionally obsolete.)
VnomadSo, you’d call a radar-less Mirage VBA with downgraded avionics a cutting edge aircraft in 1968? Huh?
For a strike aircraft in 1968, it was very modern. As was the F-16 when ordered (beating out the F1 & Viggen).
Even if it gets integrated, by no means does that automatically translate into BAF getting some for their aircraft. The history shows it clearly – BAF has shown zero interest in suppressing enemy air defenses, the sudden SEAD requirement serves a single purpose – to get BAF into buying the F-35, using capabilities they will most likely never exploit as an excuse..
Fighter aviation isn’t exactly a pastime or hobby for the BAC that its historical ‘interests’ would be a factor. It equips and trains to fight as part of a coalition. In days past, SEAD/DEAD was tasked to dedicated Wild Weasel units – which only the larger air forces could afford to maintain, with the smaller forces focusing on more run-of-the-mill missions. Its now 2018. Most fighter aircraft in service today are multi-role and most new high-end aircraft are or at least will be capable of SEAD/DEAD type tasks.
A future BAC-RNAF taskforce would train to integrate within a NATO force as seamlessly as a multi-role American, British or French unit. So there’s nothing unreasonable about having one of 6 or 7 evaluation scenarios feature a SEAD/DEAD task.
VnomadI mean simply that an evaluation when no real aircraft is evaluated means little as the guys doing the evaluation estimate how much they believe the documents provided by manufacturers instead of doing the job with the real aircraft and taking into consideration real data.
From there on, if they don’t want one type, they can just say “the data provided isn’t reliable enough, we devalue it by xx%” and they can disqualify it… just as they can embellish the score of the bird you want to choose so it wins no matter what
Like I said, since ‘real aircraft’ haven’t been evaluated the Rafale’s (‘estimated’) advantage over the existing EF is purely hypothetical. For all we know the Super Hornet could be the best of the bunch, with only the lack of a proper evaluation standing in the way.
Vnomader, you speak about the eval where no aircraft came close to a danish pilot for evaluation, right?
Hmm.. so you mean to say that the Rafale’s advantage in the SEAD/strike mission over the EF & SH in its current configuration (F3 v T3 & Blk3) is still unproven?
VnomadHave another look at the outcome of the Danish eval — the Typhoon (and SH) scored very poorly on the SEAD/DEAD mission.
The F-35 did very well. It scored bigly (as some would have said).
Scored relatively poorly sure.. though the P2E DASS upgrades and integration of the SPEAR III in the future should improve matters. Still not quite the same as being incapable of SEAD/DEAD.
Sign In
