Two and a half fighters left

It has been a while since my last article. Personal life got in the way for some time. But I am back for the moment.

In the meantime a lot has happened. Both the British and the Americans have delivered a full proposal to the Belgian goverment. These proposals will be evaluated by a team of defence experts.
The candidates can submit a best and final proposal in February 2018. The government will then make a decision based on the recommendations of the experts.

Shortly after the deadline several articles again argued that the request for proposal is biased towards the F-35 JSF. Defence Minister Steven Vandeput denies that claim vigorously. Vandeput claims that he is committed to an open competition. He will follow the advice of the experts and won't succumb to lobbying. Their is still a shadow hanging over defence purchases since the blatant corruption of the Agusta scandal by a previous goverment. The opposition parties will also exploit any sign of favouritism. So Vandeput really tries to stay neutral. Of course the defence experts do have contact with the competitors. All in all for the moment I think that both the Eurofighter and the F-35 have a fighting chance.

Meanwhile the French did something weird. They did not deliver a full proposal, only a small letter. Essentially they propose a vague partnership for the future, including taking part in the development of the announced Franco-German fighter. So instead of only offering a fighter they propose a total cooperation package outside of the ongoing procedure. Is this a smart move?

I would say, definately NO. Vandeput is sensitive to accusations of favouritism. So it's unlikely that he'll be willing to make a deal outside of the official programme. The vague proposal can't be properly compared to the detailed proposals of the Eurofighter and F-35. The participation in the new Franco-German fighter is a nice prospect but we need those replacements NOW. The Belgian F-16's are really old. We need new jets within the next few years. The Franco-German jet won't be anywhere near ready. So we would need interim fighters in that case.

Essentially the French seem to be sort of offering to get Rafale's as interim fighters until the Franco-German project has come to fruition. But they  are unwilling to release detailed information about the Rafale's especially about the price.

Overall I think it is politically and juridically impossible to accept the vague French offer. So we just went down from five to two candidates.  That is unfortunate. The Rafale had in theory a  decent chance of winning. The French are some of our usual "partners in crime". The Rafale is a good and proven fighter. There are many industrial ties between Belgium and France.

It is a pity. I would love to have seen a full competion between the Rafala, F-35 and Eurofighter. It would have given us a wealth of information. I hope that there is a way to allow France to submit a best and final proposal in February along with the other two. That way we can get back on track with the official competition. The CD&V party seems inclinded to keep the door open for the French. We'll just have to see what the future brings us.

If the French are not allowed to reenter in February, then we'll have a duel between the Eurofighter and the F-35A. At this point I would say that both have a decent chance. The Eurofighter is a proven aircraft. It is European manufactured. It could be an attractive option because there is some reluctance to buy from Donald Trump. On the other hand the F-35A still has its merits. Lockheed Martin has several months left to iron out some issues with the JSF and to drive down the price.



We'll see what the future brings us.
Buy for now.

Saab throws in the towel. Three left!

Yesterday, the Swedish FMV announced that it will no longer participate in the ACCAP programme of the Belgian Airforce. This leaves only three candidates as a replacement for the F-16AM / BM. See article De Standaard here.

So the Gripen E is out...

The official notice of the Swedish government agency FMV claims:
"In their Request for Government Proposal, Belgium is also seeking extensive operational support from the delivering nation. This would require a Swedish foreign policy and political mandate that does not exist today. Therefore Sweden and the FMV choose not to submit an answer to the Belgian request." source FMV


So the decision came from the Swedish government, not the Belgian one. As far as I can tell, there might be several reasons.
1) The current Belgian F-16AM fighters can drop B-61 nuclear bombs. There are US nukes kept at the Belgian airbase in Kleine Brogel. This is a relict from the Cold War. Some NATO countries insist on preserving these NATO assets. Several Belgian politicians do not want to keep them. The Swedes have made it clear in the past that they do not want to deliver a nuclear capable Gripen.

2) From what I could pick up, the Belgian government seems to ask quite some economic returns for the future deal. It could be that the Swedes think that we ask too much.

3) Sweden is not a NATO country and the missions in the ACCAP request for proposal are rather demanding. They might perceive this as a lost game anyway. So why bother spending resources and effort for it?

4) Belgian F-16's have seen a lot of combat: 1990's in ex-Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, anti-ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Belgian Gripens would likely be used in operations that Sweden might not wholeheartedly support. Belgium may have asked guarantees for unlimited support no matter the political decisions by the Swedish government. It is possible that they couldn't deliver on this.

That leaves us with the F-35A, Eurofighter and Rafale. IMHO they are closely matched.
All of these three fighters have positive and negative points.

It is interesting to note that currently none of the three can be equipped with the B-61. The F-35A will get the capability in the future. The Rafale can use the French AMSP-A but not the US ordnance. The Typhoon is not equipped for either. Interestingly, Germany and Italy host US B-61's as well. Their Tornado's have the capability to carry them. Both countries have the Typhoon as well. While Italy has purchased the F-35, Germany has not so far.

It is possible that the nuclear question is not the defining reason behind the Swedish choice but it could be. If it is, the political implications are substantial. This could show the intention to keep the B-61's. The combination of a VLO fighter like the F-35A and a B-61 nuclear bomb is a deadly one, provided that the new bomb version fits inside the internal bomb bay. The fighter is hard to spot. One nuke + three A2A missiles is a deadly load. This combination seriously undermines the power of the Russian air defence systems in a Cold War gone hot scenario.

However, quite a few Belgian politicians don't want to keep the US nukes. These bombs ahve become less relevant in many ways. It is also very likely that it is the 4th issue that is the real reason for dropping out.

Overall good news for LM, Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium, bad news for Saab and less choices for Belgium.

Europe First versus America First

Ivo Belet, a Belgian member of the European Parliament wrote an article for the Standaard today. Available here in Dutch.ut

He ask the government to replace the F-16's with a European fighter-bomber. He proposes this as a reaction tot the Amarica First policy of Donald Trump. Trump is not fully committed to NATO, according to Belet. As a reaction the European countries should become more self-reliant in the field of defence. This also means buying European military hardware.

There are also several other fields where interests are conflicting between Belgium and the new presidency. The climate agreement of Paris is highly valued by Belgium and most other European countries. Donald Trump considers pulling out of the agreement.. This would no doubt, damage the US-European relationship.

Belet also mentions a second point. EU law restricts the economic returns that countries can ask of defence companies. The goal of this legislation was to create a level playing field in the market to prevent nationalistic purchases. This should enable military forces to get the best bang for their buck instead of being limited by political pressure to buy from their own national companies at a higher price. By now most defence companies are multinationals with fixed subcontractors. According to Ivo Belet, the existing rules make it hard for new subcontractors to break into pre-existing relations.

Ivo Belet is a MEP from the christian-democratic CD&V. Although the CD&V takes part in the current federal administration, the final decision will be taken by the entire Belgian government. Federal vice-prime minister Kris Peeters from the same party has made a statement that the request for proposal is still open to all bidders, including the F-35A. So the JSF is not out, but it is politically unattractive to buy TRUMP.

Trump made it clear at the NATO summit that he expects the European members to invest more in defence. Several other European countries have repeated that request but in different degrees and manners. Chancellor Angela Merkel also wishes to imprive the European defence but she stresses different points. This puts political pressure on the Belgian government to prove their commitment to NATO. What better way to do this, then by buying a NATO but European fighter? So the neutral Swedish Gripen might be at a disadvantage here. The Belgian MoD also seems adamant to replace 54 F-16's with 34 new but bigger jets. For Saab, it would be better if they could compete with more jets for the same price.

An in all, the current political climate is negative for the Gripen and F-35A; but positive for the European/NATO Rafale and Eurofighter.

Nonetheless all contenders will have to prove their metal in the request for proposal.

Ground Pounders

Most of the missions of the ACCAP request for government proposal require bombing a ground target. The flight of four fighterbombers are opposed by hostile fighters and SAM's. The jets have to bring enough fuel to finish the entire mission. Suffice to say that payload capacity and clever loadouts are paramount.

Belgian F-16AM's have flown a lot of missions in the past years. They usually fly in a similar configuration. They normally carry 2-4 air-to-air missiles, AIM-9's and AIM-120's. Unlike the Polish F-16C 52+ variant, Belgian jets can't carry conformal fuel tanks. So our jets fly with two drop tanks as well as a targeting pod and an  AN/ALQ-131  ECM pod on the central station. This leaves room 

for two bombs, either laser-guided Paveways or gps-guided JDAM's.

In this article I will examine several loadouts for the four remaining fighters. I will follow these criteria:
1) The fighters need to carry a decent amount of fuel internally or in droptanks.
2) They need at least four A2A missiles for self-defense.
3) They must be equipped with a targeting system.
4) They will have the maximum amount of bombs without the use of multiple ejector racks.

Rafale

The Rafale C is an excellent air-to-ground platform. It comes with fourteen hardpoints. Two of them are for pods only. A fully equipped Rafale would have: 2 Mica IR, 4 Mica RF or Meteor missiles, 2 fuel tanks, 4 bombs and one or two pods.

The layout of the hardpoints on a Rafale are great. It has 5 wet fuel points. There are two special stations for pods. Mission planners have the option to take one central drop tank, two on the wings or three. The Rafale M has the option to serve in buddy refueling missions with 4 tanks and a central probe and drogue system.

Big weapons like the Storm Shadow ALCM can be fitted centrally or on the wings. It is possible to fit two drop tanks and two ALCM's on the wings at the same time.

Dassault is working on conformal fuel tanks. This will make it possbile to fit a pod + 2 CFT's + a central tank (or two wing tanks). Multiple ejector racks are already in use.

It is a versatile platform although it carries less fuel internally than the Typhoon and F-35A.
The French use most Paveway LGB's and the AASM Hammer. The popular JDAM's are not integrated yet.

Eurofighter Typhoon

The Typhoon is an air superiority fighter, but it has acquired decent air-to-ground capabilities in the past years. The largest loadout would be 2 IR missiles, 4 RF missiles, 1 pod, two tanks and 4 bombs on thirteen hardpoints. Similar as a Rafale. The Eurofighter can be equipped with most US weapons too.

There is a catch though. The Laser Designator pod can only fit on the central station. This takes up one of the three wet points. Also, the landing gear folds sideways into the wing. Long weapons like the Storm Shadow can't be fitted on the two points close to the body. They have to go on the wet points on the wing. While a Rafale C could take three drop tanks plus two ALCM's, a Typhoon could not.

Fortunately conformal fuel tanks are in development. They can alleviate this problem. But it will remain impossible to attain the optimal combination of 2 CFT's + pod + one central drop tank. It is not possible to fly with just one wing tank. The package has to be evenly balanced.

The Typhoon does carry a bit more fuel internally than the Rafale and the CFT's will be larger. IMHO the Typhoon is an A2A figher at heart. Multirole capability was added as an afterthought.

Gripen

The Gripen E carries more fuel than the old C version and it comes with two extra hardpoints. The maximum loadout would be 2 IR and 2 RF missiles, two tanks, a pod and three bombs. As you can see, less than the others. The Gripen E will have five wet points for tanks. But at most four could be used simultaniously. Also fitting four tanks leaves very few stations for ordnance.

So far I haven't seen any plans for CFT's. It can carry one bomb more than the F-16AM, but it doesn't have room for an external ECM pod.

Saab did a good job, improving the C model. But it can't fully compete with the bigger jets.

F-35A

I will assume for this article that it is more valuable to lose some stealth in order to carry more weapons. The F-35A can haul a pretty decent amount of ordnance. It also carries a lot more fuel internally than the other four.

At most an F-35 could carry 2 IR missiles, 4 RF missiles and four bombs. It has only ten harpoints. Less than the Typhoon and Rafale. However it has an internal targeting system and might not need the extra fuel.

Although if extra fuel is required, that the F-35A hits a brick wall. Lockheed Martin tester drop tanks a while ago. The tests were unsuccessful because of separation issues. No drop tanks nor CFT's for the time being. Even if drop tanks can be made available, they would still take up two of the scarce pylons. Plus only the wings have wet points, which means either two tanks or none. There will be no option to carry just one central tank.

Summary

The Gripen E is the tiniest of the lot. It can keep up with the F-16AM, but it is left behind by the others. 

The Typhoon, Rafale and F-35A are closely matched in terms of ordnance and payload. However the Rafale is dedefinitely the most versatile one. The other two have more restrictions with regard to loadouts. The layout of hardpoints on the French fighter is superb.

weapon	IR	RF	pod	fuel tanks	bombs	total hardpoints	total payload kg
Rafale	2	4	2	2	4	14	9500
Typhoon	2	4	1	2	4	13	7500
Gripen E	2	2	1	2	3	10	7200
F-35A	2	4	0	0	4	10	8160
F-16AM	2	2	2	2	2	10	7700

Boeing throws in the towel

Boeing made a statement that it will not particiâte the Belgian Request for proposal to replace the F-16. Boeing claims that there isn't a level playing field. Taking part in the contest is pointless according to the company.  source 

See English article on Janes

Is there really no level playing field? 

Belgium is not part of the JSF programme or any other consortium. As a Belgian, I do not have the feeling that the current government has a favourite jet. Also, there may be internal differens among the 4 coalition partners. The MR is a Wallonian liberal party. its members may have a preference for the Rafale because of the ties between French and Wallonian aerospace industry.

On the other hand, the other three coalition partners, Open Vld, CD&V and N-VA are Flemish parties. Flemish aerospace industry has more ties to the US. 

There is a lot of money involved so the opposition parties and the public will want value for their money. They will definately protest if the selection seems unfair.

Personally I think that the selection procedure is going well so far. I do not think that it is tipped in someone's favour. The former minister of defence, Pieter De Crem had an outspoken preference for the F-35A. (And the ambition to become secretary general of NATO.) The current MoD Steven Vandeput doesn't seem to have a preference.

Pieter De Crem is part of the CD&V. But there are others inside his party that do not share his preference. Jaak Delbeke, who used to work for the CVP, predecessor of the CD&V, published an article in October 2016. Delbeke advises to pick the Eurofighter Typhoon. He cites several reasons. It is a proven aircraft. It is produced in Europe. (Buy European vs buy American.) Its future upgrades seem guaranteed since it is operated by the UK, Italy, Spain, Germany and Austria. 

Goverment to government

However, the eventual goal is a government to government contract. So Boeing itself is not taking part in the selection. The five state agencies to which the request was sent are:
1) Joint Program Office (JPO) in charge of the F-35 Lightning II program built by Lockheed Martin.
2) Navy Integrated Program Office (NIPO) for the Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet.
3) Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) of the French Ministry of Defence for the Dassault Rafale.
4) Swedish Defence and Security Export Agency (FXM) for the Saab JAS-39 Saab.
5) UK Ministry of Defence for the Eurofighter consortium

The US is trying hard to sell the F-35A to us. I doubt if the NIPO is throwing its full weight behind the Super Hornet. Even if it does, things don't look well for the F/A-18 SH.

*No other European countries operate it.
*Future upgrades are questionable since Canada and the US Navy see it as an interim fighter. We need  a solid  long term workhorse.
*It may be a bit cheaper than several other candidates, but the Gripen costs even less.
*The 'one versus two engines' debate is absent here. The single engine F-16's did a marvelous job.
*Trump is not particularly liked here. (Hellhole Brussels etc). Buying American may be a politically unpopular choice.
*We only need 34 fighters. Some of them may be double seaters for advanced training. The combo Super Hornet - Growler won't happen with such a small fleet.


There are plenty of reasons why the Super Hornet has a small chance of winning this selection.
Boeing must have realised this. Citing the 'absence of a level playing field' is not correct IMHO. There is a level playing field in the Belgian selection, but the Super Hornet is poorly placed on it. The only political preference that I notice, is that the US governnment wants to sell the F-35A to NATO partners and not the Super Hornet.

I made a ranking of the five jets in March 2016. The Super Hornet was last. It seems like I'm right about this.

Concerning the other four fighters, it is hard to predict the outcome. 

*The F-35A is taking steps to become fully operational, but it is still not there yet. There are questions about the operating costs and its complexity.  It remais politically an unpopular choice especially after Trump was elected.

*The Typhoon is a proven fighter. It can be very attractive politically to pick a distinctive European design. The big question is if it the Eurofighter consortium can offer a low enough price compard to the other producers.

*The Rafale has a good chance. Belgium and France shared pilot training until now. There are many links betwee, the aerospace industries of both countries. Belgium is one of the few countries where Dassault has a real chance so I expect them to throw their full weight behind the offer. It looks like Emmanuel Macron is going to be the next French president. This is good news for Dassault. It would be politically harder for the Belgian government to buy jets from Marine Le Pen.

*Saab can not lean on the same political weight as the other three. The development Gripen E is also not finished. On the other hand, the Gripen has a similar size and weight as the F-16. It uses both US and Euopean ordnace. It is most likely the cheapest option to buy and operate. So Saab does have a decent chance if the government just wants to buy the cheapest jets available.

I do predict two problems for Saab.
1) They will have to step on it to produce a fully functional Gripen E before the Belgian government makes its decision. If we adhere to the 'fly before you buy' approach, that this is a necessity.

2) The request for government proposal includes a set of challenging missions for a pack of  4 fighterbombers. The Gripen is the smallest fighter with the lowest payload. Saab could have trouble to come up with a plan for each mission. As I see it, the Gripens would have to carry a full load of ordnance and fuel to complete the described set. The others have more payload and hardpoints to spare and could be fitted with conformal fuel tanks in the case of the Eurofighter and Rafale.

I am fairly sure that the other three will outperform the Gripen in the requested theoretical missions. But Gripen could make it up in price and ease of operation if the difference isn't to big.

Belgian Air Component: the age of propellors Part 1

Origins and the Great War

The Belgian Air Component traces its roots back to the Compagnie des Ouvriers du Génie from 1887. This was an element of the engineers that operated hot air ballloons. Interest in propellor aircraft grew in the beginning of the 20th century. A few officers learned how to fly and several aircraft were purchased. Hence the new name of Compagnie des Ouvriers et d'Aérostiers du Génie.

By 1913, the aviatiors had their own unit the Compagnie d'Aviateurs. It comprised7 four squadrons equipped with Farman Jero planes. In 1914, the Great War started. Aviation developed quickly during the war. At the start Belgium operated unarmed reconnaissance planes. Aerial confrontations led to the development of armed designs. During the war, Belgium swapped its old planes for newer French designs including the Nieuport 10, Nieuport 11 and SPAD S VII. As to be expected, France always reserved the first new models for its own air element. Belgium had to wait for later production batches. Essentially Belgian aviators were always one step behind the latest model.

Interwar

Belgium ended the Great War with several French and British designs in its inventory. The principal aircraft of the interwar period were the French Nieuport-Delage 29C1 fighter and the Breguet 19. The latter was use in two versions. The A2 was a reconnaissance aircraft, the B2 a bomber.  During the interwar period, several Belgian manufacturers produced civilian and military aircraft. The most important companies were SABCA, Renard and Stampe et Vertongen. SABCA built most of the Belgian Nieport-Delage 29C1's and Breguet 19's under licence. 

Local design and production improved. Nonetheless, the most successful enterprises were foreign designs that were produced under license in Belgium. During the 1930's, we see a radical change to mostly British designs. Marcel Lobelle, A Belgian citizen immigrated to Britain, to work for the Fairey Aviation corporation. He designed several aircraft for them. Fairey also established a production site near Charleroi in Belgium called Avions Fairey. (In 1977 the name changed to SONACA. This company is still active in the aerospace industry.)

in the 1930's, Avions Fairey produced the Firefly II and the Fairey Fox in large numbers for the Belgian Army Air Force. As a consequence, they still made up a large part of the inventory at the start of the Second World War.

 World War Two

In 1940, military aircraft still fell under the control of the Army, hence the name Army Air Force. Belgium possessed rougly 265 planes at the start WW2. This included many models. Most were a bit outdated, about 70 could be called modern. The air element at the time consisted of a fighter regiment and two reconnaissance regiments. 

The Belgian Military had a conservative view of airpower. Fighter aircraft had to protect the Belgian airspace. Reconnaissance aircraft could assist ground forces and drop small bombs. During the rising political tensions in the late 30's, Belgium adopted a neutral policy. Belgium suffered greatly during WW1. There was little enthousiasm to get involved in yet another Great Power war. Nevertheless, the Belgian leadership wasn't naive and took important measures to improve the Belgian defensive capabilities.

However only ground forces can actually halt an invasion. Because of this, the Army received most of the funding. The air element was also controlled by the Army. It was not a separate branch. Secondly, the neutral policy made it difficult to acquire offensive weapons like bombers. That is why the inventory is made up almost exclusively of fighters and reconnaissance aircraft.

In the late 1930's the aerospace industry developed rapidly. Belgium had trouble to keep up. Local manufactures like Renard came up with interesting designs such as the Renard R.36. They looked promising on paper but never made it beyond the prototype stage. Instead Belgium relied on local licence production of foreign designs or bought them abroad. 

Belgium relied mostly on British and Italian designs. The Italian link may surprise you because Italy was ruled by Benito Mussolini since 1922. Belgium kept a reasonably good relationship with Italy during the interwar period. The two countries had no conflict of interest in the Meditteranean or North Africa (unlike Great Britain). Belgium was focused on Kongo at the time. It is also important to mention that the Italian King Victor Emmanuel III stayed in power during Mussolini's rule. His son crown prince Umberto II was married to the Belgian princess Marie José of Belgium. She was the last Queen of Italy in May 1946. The choice for Italy was also a choice of desperation. The UK and France were modernising their own airforces. Their companies were preoccupied with delivering national orders. They had no production room for foreign orders.

The main fighters in 1940 were the Hurricane Mk1, the Gloster Gladiator M and the Fiat CR. 42 B Falco. Ten more Falco's were on the way to Belgium. Avions Fairey had established a production line for the Hurricane in Belgium. The first planes were rolling of the production line in May 1940. The engines were still built in Britain and shipped to Belgium. In the meantime, 40 American Brewster B-339's fighters were ordered. They did not reach Belgium before the outbreak of the war.

The only bomber in the inventory was the Fairey Battle. The Army Air Force had thirteen of them. Belgium had acquired licenses to produce other foreign designs, including the Breguet 693, Caproni Ca. 335 and Caproni Ca.313. SABCAwas tasked with the construction. Production did not start in time for WW2.

As you can see, Belgium was in the process of acquiring or building new aircraft. They did not not reach the military in time. As a consequence the most numerous airplane of the Army Air Force was the Fairey Fox. Several models of the Fox were in use, together amounting to around 97 machines.

Invasion

On the 10th of May, Germany attacked the neutral countries of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. As per agreement, France and the UK send ground units north to assist them in the fight against the German invasion.

Most of the Belgian aircraft were stationed on airfields around Brussels. The plan was to disperse them to secondary airstrips once hostilities commenced. There were several reasons for this.

1) The Belgian High Command was worried about sabotage. Concentrating the force made it easier to prevent malicious acts.

2)The Germans had bombed Warsaw in 1939. The fear that Brussels could be targeted was real.

3) On 10 January 1940 a German  Messerschmitt BF.108 crash-landed in Belgum. The two captured German officers carried secret German documents containing plans for an attack by paratroopers in Belgium  and the Netherlands. This is known as the Mechelen incident. On April 9, Germany invaded Denmark an Norway with naval and airborne forces.

Because of this, the Belgian Army took precautions against an attack by paratroopers. The Belgian fighters could shoot down transport aircraft. On the ground, most of the 2nd Cavalry Division was ready to intervene around Brussels. This division included an ad hoc armoured battalion with 8 ACG-1 tanks and 24 T-13 tankdestroyers, 2 motorised infantry regiments, an artillery regiment and support units.

Eventually, Germany drastically scaled back its airborne operation plan for Belgium. There was no major assault by air. Two smaller actions did take place. Sturmabteilung Koch landed with gliders on the roof of Eben Emael and destroyed the gun turrets of the fortress. Other Fallshirmjäger captured two nearby bridges at Veldwezelt and Vroenhoven. The Belgian army destroyed two other bridges close by at Kanne and Briegden.

A second, largely uknown event was operation NIWI. For this operation two companies of the 3rd battalion  from the Grossdeutschland Infantry Regiment landed behind Belgian lines by Fi 156 Fieseler Storch aircraft at Nives and Witry. The goal of this small action in the Ardennes was to clear a path for the 1st and 2nd Panzer divisions which were advancing through the Belgian–Luxembourg Ardennes. They were not very succesful. The Belgian Chasseurs Ardennais had light T-15 tanks in the area to confront them. The Grossdeutschland infantry also cut the Belgian telephone lines. The result of these actions was that the Chasseurs Ardennais did not receive orders to withdraw. Instead they stood and fought, delaying the German spearheads for almost a day.

As you can see there were several good reasons to station the aircraft around Brussels. The obvious drawback was that this made them vulnerable to preemptive strikes. The Belgian airfields were only around 150 km away from the German border. German Schnellbomber like the Dornier 17 could reach speeds of 350 to 410 km/h.

So how did the Belgian Army Air Force do against the German opponent? Stay tuned for part 2!

Civilians died in Mosul airstrikes 17 - 18th March

The Iraqi Army is currently fighting ISIS in West Mosul. Mosul is an enormous city in the northern part of Iraq. ISIS captured it fairly easy in 2014. Most of the Iraqi units stationed there at the time just fled without putting up too much resistance. The new Iraqi Army has improved a lot since those days, but they are still facing a tough fight.

The main Iraqi units involved are the ERD Emergency Response Division and the Federal Police. The Golden Division of the Counter Terrorism Service was heavily involved in the previous operation in East Mosul. The ERD seems to be the main offensive unit now. The Federal Police is tasked with holding the captured ground.

War Is Boring just posted a great article on the ERD and the Mosul battle. read here
(The ERD is sometimes called the Rapid Response Division.)
Second article here: Mosul city fight



The Iraqi forces receive air support from both the Iraqi Airforce and the Coalition. The UN estimates that 400.000 civilians remain in West Mosul. source One can easily understand how difficult it is to provide air support in this environment. On the one hand the goal is to provide as much as help as possible to the Iraqi ground units. On the other hand preventing civilian casualties is a high priority as well.

These two goals are to  certain degree conflicting with eachother. ISIS also seems to abuse this problem. Accoring to the UN, ISIS deliberately uses Mosul residents as humans shield to create tough choices for the Coalition and the Iraqi military.

Pilots follow rules of engagement and safety procedures to prevent civilian deaths. But sometimes things still go wrong...

On the 17th and 18th of March, airstrikes seem to have caused a substantial amount of civilian casualties. More than 100 people were injured or died. Fighters from several countries dropped bombs that thay, including Belgian F-16's. So far it's impossible to tell if Belgian jets hit those buildings. It is possible that other coalition aircraft are responsible.

Nontheless, the Belgian Parliament has requested information about the missions that day. The minister of defence, Steven Vandeput, has provided details in a confdential committee meeting.
Major General Frederik Vansina, head of the Belgian Airforce, stressed that Belgian pilots follow strict procedures to avoid civilian casualties. source


Jens Franssen, a Belgian reporter is currently in Iraq. He reports that the weather on those days was bad. Poor visibility is part of the explanation. IR targeting pods will have been less useful at the time. Also, strict rules of engagement apply to hit fixed positions or hostile vehicles. But when urgent close air support is requested by friendly ground forces, part of the ROE don't apply. Thirdly, the Iraqi army is now advancing in the small streets of East Mosul. The confined architecture makes a big difference compared to the previous battle for the open Mosul airport. ISIS could be firing from a house and in the one next to it, a family could be hiding. Lastly, the command and control of the coalition air assets takes place in Qatar. This means that CAS requests are transferred to Qatar. The available air assets are then send to the location. The pilot locates the target and drops the ordnance.

ISIS using civilians as humans shields, Poor weather. Densely build and populated area. The urgence to help friendlies on the ground. Complex command chain. It all makes it hard to avoid civilian casualties. An investigation has started both in Belgium and by the Coalition HQ.

Hopefully these drama's can be avoided in the future but the nature of the battle in a city like Mosul is extremly challenging.

UPDATE 25.04.2017

Reports in the media today claim that Belgian aircraft are not responsible for the deadly attack in Mosul. Jets from at least two other countries were active in the area that day. source