reality is that Dassault did not bid as it was a government to government RFP. Then, the french have considered (juste as Boeing and Saab, that belgium procedure was a mascarade destined to make a F-35 buy look legal (basically, describe the F-35 in the requirements and ask competitors to be as close as possible to it). So the french government made a partnership offer to Belgium outside that RFP.

Please elaborate.

But, while the nationalists make lots of noise, the belgian government has sent a team to work out a full proposal with the french and see if it can legally be considered, so, you can be sure that you’ll keep seeing press publications increase, trying to derail and discredit the french offer

A competitive technical assessment of the Rafale vis a vis the F-35 & EF by the BAF should still be on the cards then, right? This is just about accommodating the French industrial offer.

Does anyone know the exact breakdown of the €20 billion? This article seems to suggest that it includes run-of-the-mill civilian investments that are effectively being held ‘hostage’ to the deal.

Translated from Dutch –

Geert Noels: “France blackmails Belgium as if it were a colony”

Suppose President Trump would put Belgium under pressure to buy American fighter planes or else all American multinationals would leave the country. Suppose it would go even further, and threaten to destabilize US banks that carry our financial system like Bank of New York, Swift and Euroclear if we do not purchase those jets. How would we interpret this? Would not we doubt whether we are still dealing with a friendly nation?

However, it is exactly what the French government is doing with our country today. France wants our country to buy the French Rafale fighter plane to replace the old F16s. The French do not meet the formal and procedural requirements, but play it differently.

For example, they propose that Belgium would receive 20 billion euros in economic compensation when buying the French jets. However, 16 billion euros of this 20 billion euros are the sum of the current activities of French companies over a period of 20 years.

With this, France says that these activities are uncertain if we do not opt ​​for their jets.

France also uses the weak Belgian position in Dexia to put pressure on our country. Our southern neighbor pushes in the direction of ending the bank license of the fallen bank.

This appears to be a technical matter, but it would make the financing of the bank more expensive and Belgium would have to add 15% debt to its already sizeable public debt of more than 100% of GDP.

This threat is a potential bomb for Belgium, which may have consequences for our creditworthiness, interest charges and economic and financial stability.

This threat is also only possible because Belgium has to guarantee more than 60% of Dexia, compared with only 33% by France, and that despite almost no Belgian credits being secured (26 billion French versus 2 billion euro Belgian credits).

France not only puts Belgium under pressure with the banking file and French companies, but also with disruption of our energy sector. Once again weak strategic insight and weak negotiation lie at the basis of the control of French Engie on the Belgian energy sector.

In 2009 Belgium let itself be ringeloren and stopped asking for a “Golden Share” (a blocking vote) and accepted a vague “consultation committee” to defend its interests. Whether this committee has ever taken place and has teeth is not clear. What is clear is that the Belgian energy market is very vulnerable to French decisions.

Here, too, France does not behave like a friendly nation, but as a colonizer.

Belgium owes this weak position mainly to itself. Poor strategic insight, insufficient prioritization and years of budgetary neglect are present in each of these files.

Belgium spends the least of all NATO countries on defense (less than 1% of GDP, and 0.5% of GDP or 2 billion euros per year less than the average of all other countries). In addition, our country spends the least of this budget on equipment (5% compared with an average of 20%).

In the financial sector, Belgium turned out to be the most vulnerable country in 2008 with failures from virtually all major banks, which meant it had to negotiate chaotic and unprepared.

In the energy dossier, Belgium has postponed decisions for years, signed agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement, without explaining to the population what the necessary investments would entail and the associated cost price.

Belgium therefore undergoes many important trends instead of being able to lead them. This makes our country a plaything of the great powers, and countries that are better prepared.

But nevertheless the United States or Germany do not treat us like the French today.

France treats Belgium as a colony. The blackmail in the defense file is shocking. You could ask the question if France is still a friendly nation.

If our government bends for the blackmail and chooses the French Rafale, then we know immediately how our country wants to be treated in the future. As an independent nation, or as a blackmailable country.

The sympathetic Emmanuel Macron lets Belgium blackmail as the antipathetic Donald Trump does not do today. What are we waiting for to condemn this sharply?

I don’t understand the thought process of buying three different twin engine heavy fighters from three different countries? If Qatar wants political influence through arms purchases then buy aircraft/helicopters from one country, ships/submarines from another country, and air defense/ground equipment from the third country. That seems a lot more balanced then buying three different twin engine fighters that all fill the same role.

Fighter jets are the most manpower-light capital-intensive investments one can make in defence. Going from 12 Mirages to 100 odd aircraft over a period of 5-7 years isn’t that big a challenge (relatively speaking). They’d need to train a 100-120 odd pilots with most of the maintenance element being contracted out to the OEM.

Alternatively, they could remain understaffed and put the aircraft back on the market in 10-15 years time. India would very likely be interested in surplus Rafales, with probably South Korea & Japan being viable options to offload the F-15Qs.

Now if they had decided to spend $ 8 billion on naval vessels, they’d have found themselves having to operate a fleet of 10-12 frigates or submarines. That’s a massive jump up from the half a dozen 500 ton FACs they operate today. They’d need to build a entire new naval base to accommodate them while facing even more serious manpower challenges – recruiting officers to fly fighter jets from the airbase next door is far simpler than recruiting sailors & technicians to go out to sea for weeks at end while being paid a significantly lower wage.

Similar problem with air defence/ground equipment. Operating it is by-and-large a blue collar job. Which makes their purchase less than ideal for a country where blue collar jobs are performed by immigrant/expat workers.

All this is politics only. France would love Germany to buy RAfale because it is not in dire need of an EFCAS and as so Answering ‘yes” to Germany is a political gesture towards more european army structures. Therefore many consider that Germany could “send back the elevator” buying some interim Rafale.

Err.. Germany isn’t in a dire need of an FCAS either. We are after all discussing a system that will enter service in the 2040s. Feasible or not, its not a one-sided deal. Germany gets a far greater degree of local investment than the alternative (presumably the US F-X) while R&D as well as production costs for France are lowered. The French can go solo but they’ll have to foot the full bill for a 5.5 gen fighter with little respite likely through export sales since the market will most probably have been cornered by whatever the Americans are churning out by the dozens. There’s no obligation on Germany to respond to the ‘gesture’ with an unnecessary Rafale purchase that wouldn’t go down too well with the GAF anyway.

fact is that there’s no “more or less sensible option”… politicians have decided that Rafale wasn’t one… so , comparing a possibility with nothing.. there’s no comparison

So you’re convinced that the Germans will not fund the Tornado replacement program. Fine. That’s not the topic of debate here.

Some of our resident Keypubbers have insisted that Germany ought to be looking to buy the Rafale (assuming the money/political will wasn’t a limitation) and not doing so is a snub to France. My contention (as well as the general opinion, I believe) is that it brings little to nothing to the table, over what an upgraded EF could do at a far lower cost for Germany.

Hopefully that clarifies the boundaries of the discussion.

would it be better, from the operational stand point, than the EF? as a striker, definitely.

Would it be substantially better than an upgraded EF (CFTs + DASS upgrades) as a striker? Not necessarily.

What other point was brouight here was the relationship between Germany and France who claimed some 6 months ago that they’d develop together a replacement for Typhoons and Rafale, yet, as Germans have to replace part of their fleet, they don’t even want to consider the possibility to trade with their “partner”.

Why should they ‘consider the possibility’? What exactly will the Rafale do for them that they can’t achieve for themselves investing in their own aircraft?

So comparing an EF with CFT to Rafale without?

Case in point I would say.

Are we not discussing Germany anymore? If the EF can deliver the ranges with CFTs similar to the AdlA’s serving Rafales – why should the Luftwaffe consider the latter as far as this particular parameter is concerned? Are its operational requirements more serious than the AdlA’s in this respect?

It’s only a matter of purchasing the CFTs.

Its ‘only’ been 15 years (the CFT trials were done in 2002 AFAIK). When exactly do you expect the purchase to be concluded?

Fact is that it seems the AdlA feels the 2000L tanks are sufficient.

Riiight.. but if the EF were to use CFTs to achieve the same ends that ought not to acceptable to the Luftwaffe?

In any case the EF will always lag behind.

Which might give you Guinness book style bragging rights but its still pointless to offer up an irrelevant capability as a reason for Germany to purchase the Rafale.

Besides max ext fuel for the EF is 5000L in a buddy buddy config (2 x 1000L + 2x 1500L + 1 refueling pod) which it doesn’t even have.

As compared to 6,500L for the Rafale but with a lower drag fuel penalty. In either case, buddy refueling is only really a priority for naval fighters and a weak justification for a potential GAF acquisition.