Denmark chooses the F-35

The Danish government has made its choice. They would like to buy 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. They chose the F-35 over the Typhoon and F/A-18 Super Hornet.

Danish selection summary

Does this mean that the F-35 is vastly superior to its competitors and that Belgium should buy it as well?

Well, on one hand it reaffirms the F-35 project. But Denmark will only buy 28 aircraft to replace 48 F-16's. The F-35 came on top in the Danish selection but these procedures can be very specific because of local factors. Denmark was already a partner of the F-35 programme. Partner nations can buy the F-35 cheaper than countries who have not joined. According to the Danes the F-35 was the cheapest option but it's unclear if the money already invested was counted in or not. It is safe to assume that for Belgium the cost would be higher for the F-35 but similar for the other two aircraft.

The Danes also made a few unusual assumptions regarding the price of the aircraft. They compared 34 Typhoons to 28 F-35's and 38 Super Hornets. Weird, very weird.

Their argument is that 28 F-35's can do the same as a larger number of the other aircraft. Mostly because the F-35 is designed to fly 8000 hours compared to 6000 of the other two. I can partly understand the logic but still. This assumes that the F-35 will really have a longer service life. There is no way to be sure of that. I doubt that there are any F-35 airframes who already have 8000 flight hours. It also means that Denmark will have a very small airforce. I am a bit worried that very few aircraft will be available at any time considering training, maintenance downtime, airspave patrol etc. It also means that any losses because of accidents etc will have a big impact on the fighter fleet. Denmark tends to send a group of 6-8 fighters on foreign deployment. That is 6-8 out of about 48 F-16's. With a smaller future air force their deployment capability will most likely shrink to 4 planes or less.

Also it's worth it to consider the payload of these three fighters:

34 Typhoons: 34x 13 hardpoints, 7500 kg = 255000 kg on 442 hardpoints
38 Super Hornets: 28 x 11 hardpoints, 8050 kg = 305900 kg on 418 hardpoints

28 F-35 JSF: 28 x 10 hardpoints 8160 kg = 228480 kg on 280 hardpoints
28 F-35 JSF internal only: 4 hardpoints 1360 kg = 38080 kg on 112 hardpoints


It is possible that the F-35 will reach 8000 flight hours but I doubt if the smaller number of aircraft can really match a larger number of the other fighters in real life operations. At least considering payload issues.

Belgium

So there is another European country that has picked the F-35. Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were the other partners when Belgium picked the F-16. All three have selected the F-35. Belgium should definatley pick a fighter that is is use with some other European countries. So F-35 just got another bonus. But still, things are different for Belgium. Belgium is not a partner of the JSF programme. Our F-35 would be more expensive. I doubt whether there would be any economic or technological benefits left for us after all the others had their pick.

It is possible that some other companies could offer much better offset deals to Belgium, especially Dassault.

One of my biggest issue with the F-35 is that I don't want to put too many eggs in one basket. The F-35 has had many technical issues and problems, even now. It might work all properly in the future but it is still dangerous to rely to much on one design. A serious software bug or a problem with the ALIS system could ground an entire fleet. That's why it's good to have some diversity. I also believe that a mix of stealth aircraft and 4+ generation fighters is the best option.

So I still think that it's worth to consider other options for Belgium, especially the Rafale and Gripen NG. Countries like Denmark seem to rely on a smaller and smaller air force. It would be good for Belgium to consider bringing some extra force presence by either buying a large number of Gripen NG's or buy purchasing the Rafale with its huge payload of 9500 kg.

It all about the balance between quantity vs quality and capability vs reliability.

Joint Belgian/Canadian/Danish/Finnish purchase?

Quantity versus quality

Fighter aircraft are becoming more potent than ever. 4+ and 5th generation fighters can match the capabilities of a higher number of 4th generation aircraft. However they are also becoming pricier. Many airforces are purchasing very capable aircraft but at the same time shrinking their fleet. This confronts us with the issue of quality versus quantity.

Generally speaking fighter aircraft will be:
*guarding the airspace
*be used in training
*deployed for overseas operations or exercices
*be in maintenance

An aircraft can only be in one place at the time.

Quantity has a quality all its own. But seriously the two should be carefully balanced against eachother. The F-22 for example is a very capable aircraft, possibly the best. It is however expensive and maintenance intensive. It is reported to have a cost per flight hour of 68000 USD and it seems to need 30-40 maintenance man hours per flight hour.

All sophisticated stealth aircraft will have relatively high operating costs and will require rather a lot of maintenance. This makes stealth aircraft a poor choice for small countries. A small fleet of 34 planes will have very few aircraft available at any time.

Foreign deployments will also be tougher for stealth aircraft. It takes more than just a pilot and his ride. He has to be accompagnied by a ground crew for maintenance of the aircraft. Ordnance and weapon operators need to be there as well. Plus you will need some spare parts and enough transport capacity to get all of this to where it needs to be.

Belgian F-16's have operated a lot in foreign countries. Belgium has tried to reduce the ground crew as much as possible to reduce costs. This was fairly easy with the F-16 because it's a maintenance-friendly aircraft and many allied countries have it as well. Ideally, the successor of the F-16 should possess the same advantage.

This is one of my issues with the F-35. It is a big fleet aircraft. The F-35 has faced numerous technical problems. It also requires quite a lot of maintenance and Lockheed Martin had to fix a lot of bugs. This might work out for the US services because they will have a large fleet and permanent assistance of Lockheed Martin. It is different for small countries like Belgium or Denmark.

I have serious doubt whether small countries will be able to sustain stealth aircraft without huge amounts of assistance from the producer.

4+ generation sustainability

Things are a bit different for the so called 4+ generation of aircraft. They don't have the maintenance intensive stealth coatings. This helps a lot in maintenance. Some of them have additional feature to ease maintenance. The Saab Gripen is well known for its low operating costs and ease of maintenance. It can operate from very short runways. Saab claims that it just takes one C-130 to support a foreign deployment of  10 Gripens.


The Rafale has modular M88 engines. The M88 consists of 21 modules. If one module has a problem, only this part needs to be removed and fixed. Some moving parts have been discarded on the Rafale (fixed refueling probe, no air brake, no thrust-vectoring...) According to Dassault the Rafale won't have to leave its operating base for maintenance.

France has flown Rafales over very long distances during Operation Serval in Mali. They operated succesfully from N'Djamena airbase in Chad. Availability rates were very high.


Generally speaking, 4+ generation aircraft offer quality advantages over 4th generation fighter, but have still good availability rates. This is a very important consideration fro smaller airforces.

Belgium, Canada, Denmark and Finland

All four countries want to replace their current aircraft the coming decade. They possess small or medium-sized airforces. Belgium is looking for 34 new aircraft, Canada for 65, Denmark for 24 to 34 aircraft and Finland currently operates 61 legacy Hornets. They need a dependable aircraft with a high availability rate.

Canada is a bit of a special case because it is a direct neighbour of the US, and the USAF has bases in Alaska too. That's why it could be interesting to pick the same aircraft as the USAF. On the other hand, Canada needs to patrol a large territory with few jets and they have selected the CF-18 is the past as opposed to the F-15 and F-16 of the USAF.

Denmark and Canada are partners in the F-35 programme. Belgium and Finland are not. Recently Canada and Denmark are having serious second thoughts. That is why I would like to pose the question:

"Would it make sense if these four countries bought a new fighter together? Could the Rafale be a good choice for all of them?"

Belgium

I have already written about Belgium. In short, Belgium needs a dependable fighterbomber with a high availability rate and a large payload. The Rafale is a good choice. Its main drawbacks are the small user base and the question regarding the integration of US-made weapons. If all four countries purchased 196 aircraft together the user base would be substantially larger. All four countries use US-made weapons. Costs of integration could be shared. A joint purchase would solve the two largest issues of the Rafale.

Finland

Finland is not a NATO country but will often meet aggressive Sukhoi jets. They are also very concerned about Russian S-300 ans S-400 SAM's. A stealth aircraft could be a good counter but buying the F-35 might be too politically sensitive (and expensive). They consider buying the Gripen and cooperating with Sweden. This is an interesting option but the Gripen might be a little too small/unimpressive to confront badass Sukhoi's.

France is a rather independent minded NATO member, politically more acceptable than the US F-35 while at the same time a bit tougher than the brave little Gripen. The Rafale good be a good middle-of-the-road option?

Official Finnish document
Gripen for Finland?

Denmark

Denmark is part of the JSF programme. However they are having serious second thoughts. Denmark considers buying as few as 24 to 36 fighters. As I wrote earlier, stealth aircraft aren't suitable for small fleets IMHO. Denmark needs to think about their overseas territories, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, as well. Anti-ship capabilities and long range are important. The Rafale can be equipped with the Exocet anti-ship missile, can carry 5 drop tanks and can use buddy refueling. French Rafale's had very high availability rates during operations abroad. Dassault has a carrier Rafale M variant available. One can assume that operations over sea have been a serious consideration for Dassault.

Several former Danish pilots are considering the Super Hornet for the same reasons as I wrote above. The Rafale could possibly do everything that the Super Bug can and better.

Super Hornet for Denmark?
Full article

Canada 

Regarding Canada bestfighter4canada sums it up nicely. Canada primarily needs an interceptor for patrolling its vast airspace over remote territories. Speed, altitude and range are essential. Two engines are a nice extra.The aircraft has to be easy to maintain and should preferably be able operate from airbases up north. Foreign deployment is a secondary mission. This requires a capable aircraft but if availability rates are too low because of large maintenance downtime, there won't be any fighters left. Flying over sea and anti-ship capabilities matter too.

The Rafale has a good top speed, climb rate and 2 engines. It can carry 5 droptanks and perform buddy refueling. It has succesfully operated from N'Djamena airbase in Chad, in small numbers and with little preparation or support, during operation Serval in Mali.

The Rafale could be a good choice for Canada. The two big stumbling blocks are the weapon selection and small user base. However as I pointed out, a joint purchase of nearly 200 Rafale's would be the perfect way to overcome these issues.

Conclusion

The Rafale is definately an option for all of them. The stumbling blocks are cost, weapon selection and user base.
Currently France has ordered 180 Rafales (286 planned), India considers to buy 36 aircraft now and would like to build the remainder of the 126 aircraft in India. If Belgium, Canada, Denmark and Finland decided to buy nearly 200 aircraft together, these three big stumbling blocks would evaporate immediatly.

Dassault has had a hard time securing exports, while exports are essential to achieve a competitve price and to ensure future funding and upgrades. These four countries bargaining as one could definitely secure a good deal from Dassault (as opposed to the Lockheed Martin monopoly).

It comes down to going together for the Rafale or choosing individually for a different aircraft.


You are right to say I'm biased towards the Rafale. This doesn't mean that I don't respect other fighter aircraft. But during the last 20 years, fighters have mostly been used to patrol the skies and for foreign deployments against low tech and medium tech opponents. I don't think that this will change anytime soon. A reliable, long ranged and precise fighterbomber with a large payload, that can hold its own in air-to-air combat is perfect for this job. The Rafale really suits this description.

The Rafale might not be able to match the F-22 in air-to-air combat, but it won't need to.
The F-35 might be better against advanced integrated air defense networks but starting a war against countries with these networks will generally mean (nuclear) World War Three.

In times of budgets cuts, it might be better to address the most likely scenario's as opposed to the worst case (but unlikely) scenario.

To stealth or not to stealth? That is the question.

The F-35 has sparked intense debates regarding the value of stealth aircraft. Many countries are looking to replace their 4th generation aircraft (F-16, Mirage 2000, Mig-29...) They all end up confronting the question: "Should we buy a 5th generation stealth aircraft or a 4+ generation aircraft? Or both?"

Stealth is about avoiding detection. Stealth is usually restricted to very low observability versus the most common radars. However there are several ways to detect aircraft.

Visual detection 

Doing things the old way. Aircraft can be seen by the naked eye or by camera systems but only at short ranges. Simple AA guns like the common ZU-23-2 are usually just guided by the naked eye. AA guns are powerful enough to destroy nearly all aircraft but they have a very short range. They are however by far the cheapest and most common AA weapon.

Fighter pilots can use their own eyes to detect aircraft but new aircraft are being equipped with camera systems as well.

Infrared detection

Flying fast creates friction and every aircraft has at least one engine. Fighter aircraft are heat sources. This makes detection by infrared systems possible. IR-guided missiles (heat seekers) have been the most effective weapon in air-to-air combat for the last decades. They have a longer range than a simple cannon and were often more reliable than radar-guided missiles.

All of the latest fighters are getting an IRST system. Infra-red detection can be somewhat affected by adverse weather conditions but these systems are definitely improving.

Short range surface-to-air missiles tend to use IR-guidance as well.

Radar

Possibly the best known means of detection. Radars can detect objects at longer ranges than camera or IRST-systems. The power of the radar is relative to the size of it. AWACS aircraft have a large radar. They can detect objects at long range and determine whether it is hostile or friendly. Fighter jets have smaller radars. A radar works by sending out a signal. The object bounces the signal back. This return signal is picked up by the original aircraft. This means that radar is an active system. It works by sending out a signal. Camera and IRST systems are passive. They don't send out signals.

Medium and long range SAM systems use elaborate radars. They normally combine large search radars with smaller tracking and engagement radars.

Signals detection

Aircraft with a radar warning receiver can tell if they are being painted or tracked by a hostile radar. Because radars send out signals, these signal can be detected. Using a radar is sometimes compared to using a flashlight in the dark. You can sweep an area with a flashlight to find something but others can see where the light is coming from.

An aircraft using its radar sends out a signal that has to bounce back. The signal weakens whens bounced back. A radar warning receiver picks up the stronger original signal before it bounces back. This means that RWR can often locate the hostile radar before the radar can detect its target.

AESA radars try to overcome that shortcoming by spreading their signal emissions out across a band of frequencies, which makes it very difficult to detect over background noise.


So while stealth is usually reserved for talking about low observability versus the most common radar systems, all of these detection methods should be kept in mind.

F-117 stealth bomber

VLO aircraft

Radar allows detection at very long ranges and is the most common method for detecting and firing missiles (both A2A and SAM's). That's is why stealth aircraft were developed. They have a special shape and are made of radar absorbing composites to reduce their radar cross section. So basically they absorb the radar signal and try to bounce it away from the receiver. The F-117 was one of the first effective stealth aircraft. It proved to be effective at avoiding radar detection. However it was a pure bomber. It couldn't fight in air-to-air combat. Secondly its stealth coating was difficult and expensive to maintain. 

The USA has continued developing stealth aircraft and the result was the F-22 Raptor and F-35 JSF.

Other countries have joined in and are developing their own stealth designs: 

Russia Sukhoi PAK FA T-50
China Chengdu J-20 Shenyang J-31

South Korea wants to build the KAI KF-X with a reduced RCS.

Japan has built the X-2 prototype.

Usefulness of stealth in air-to-air combat

A2A combat occurs in two situations. Ground or air radar systems may pick up a target and fighters can be send to engage it. Alternatively fighters already in the air can detect or can be engaged by hostile aircraft. 

Ground or air radars will have a harder time detecting stealth aircraft. This means that fighters can rely less on outside information to locate the position of hostile fighters. A stealth aircraft will detect non-stealth fighters earlier than vice versa.

However detection is only part of the kill and live chain.

Engaging a target and firing weapons is done with the assistance of onboard systems (radar, IRST, laser rangefinder, optical system). A second issue to consider is that aircraft don't take out targets. Missiles (or cannon rounds) take out targets. 

It is not enough to detect the target first. You need to clearly identify the target as a friend or foe. You need to lock-on a missile. Your missile needs to defeat any countermeasures or evading actions. Your missile needs to get a kill. You need to assure that you have destroyed the target (and not a decoy). 

Stealth fighters have a clear advantage in the detection part. They do not neccesarily have an advantage in the next steps. During the Gulf War, US F-15 were aided by AWACS in the identification of friend of foe. Camera and IRST systems can also help in the identification process. IFF systems can be used by friendlies to disclose their identity. 

Generally speaking a missile fired at long range is easier to evade than a missile fired at short range. 

This site explains it well: explaining A2A missiles Firing a missile to early might result in wasting a weapon and revealing your position. The latest fighter aircraft have radar warning receivers and missile approach warning systems. Aircraft carry chaff to fool radar-guided missiles and flares to fool IR-guided missiles. Modern missiles are less susceptible to flares and chaff. 

Another effective countermeasure against radar-guided missiles is jamming. Fighters acquire a target with their radar and fire a missile. Radar-guided missiles have small onboard radars to track the target themselves. Jammers try to break the radar lock by sending out false signals. Digital radio frequency jamming could be very effective against missiles. Just to be clear, jamming does not work against infra-red guided weapons. Alternatively some missiles have home-on-jam capabilities. Jamming sends out a signal. This signal could possibly be picked up and used for targeting depending on the system and missile technology.

A pilot can also use evading maneuvers to escape from missiles. This works against both radar- and IR-guided weapons. The goal here is to turn the aircraft into the missile at the right time so the missile overshoots (making a tight turn that the missile can't follow). The pilot needs to be aware that he has been fired upon for this to work. Also it is harder to evade a salvo of two of three missiles because the maneuver to evade the first missile can make you an easier target for the 2nd or 3rd one.

Overall stealth aircraft will be able to detect non-stealth aircraft before being detected themselves. 

This gives them the choice to engage or evade enemies. However it is not guaranteed that they will be able to destroy the target before being detected. Stealth technology is rather static. The shape and composite materials of the aircraft are rather fixed. Jamming, missile technology, the development of IRST systems etc are much more fluid. 

Moreover stealth aircraft like the F-35 have to carry their weapons internally to be as stealthy as possible. Carrying external ordnance increases their RCS. Stealth aircraft tend to carry a bit less weapons than 4+ generation conventional aircraft. This means that pilots have have to be more conservative in their use of missiles. The F-35 has four internal weapon stations. 4+ generation aircraft usually carry at least 8 missiles in an air-to-air configuration. This also enables 4+ generation aircraft to carry a more diverse set of missiles (radar homing, infra-red, home on jam). 

The usefulness of stealth in air-to-air combat will depend to a large extent on developments in jamming, IRST systems and missile technology. One can expect that stealth will become less useful over time.

Usefulness of stealth in air-to-ground combat

Ground Control Intercept stations use radars to detect incoming bombers. Medium and long range surface-to-air missile systems also rely on radar to detect and track targets. Stealth aircraft with a reduced RCS definitely have an advantage in avoiding detection by theses systems. The F-117 demonstrated this by performing bombing missions deep inside Iraq. However an F-117 was shot down in Yugoslavia. Apparantly the F-117 flew the same flight route several times in a row. Because of this, the operator knew where to look for it and could shoot it down with his modified S-125 Neva/Pechora SAM when the RCS of the F-117 increased when the bomb bay doors opened.

Stealth aircraft are optimised to be stealthy versus X-band radars, the most common radar. Since the appearance of stealth aircraft, some countries have started looking towards radars operating in other frequencies. X-band radars can be built in very compact designs. Low frequency radars are a lot larger and less accurate. Nonetheless, some would argue that the combination of new radar designs and infra-red systems could reduce the effectiveness of stealth aircraft. It remains to be seen. For now stealth aircraft will have a distinct advantage against the most common radar systems.

However they do have some other drawbacks. Stealth material seems to require some extra maintenance compared to non-stealth aircraft. This may result in lower availability rates of aircraft. The American F-22 is a highly praised air-to-air fighter but it seems to have a rather large downtime for maintenance.  

Secondly stealth aircraft need to carry their weapons internally to be as stealthy as possible. Internal bomb bays are restricted in size. The F-35 for example can carry two bombs and two A2A missiles internally. It could carry a larger amount of small weapons like the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. But smaller weapons are of course less powerful.

To take out a lot of targets you will either need to:

1) have a lot of aircraft.

2) fly a lot of sorties.

3) use the external hardpoints at the cost of losing some stealth.

Until now aircraft protected themselves from SAM's by using jammers and cover from SEAD/DEAD aircraft. The Wild Weasel SEAD aircraft are equipped with jammers and anti-radiation missiles or precision guided weapons. Their job is to jam SAM radars and to engage and destroy them when they pop up. The goal is to allow other aircraft to fulfill their mission without having to worry about SAM's. First in, last out is the name of the game for the Wild Weasels.

This is still a very valid tactic in nearly all situations. It is only for deep strikes in a territory defended by an extensive integrated air defense network that you will run into problems. An integrated air defense network comprises several layers or anti-air weapons comprising everything from simple anti-aircraft guns to long range SAM's like the S-300 and everything in between. The most important assets will be defended the best. Less important assets will be less defended.

For striking targets deep inside an IADS you will need either stealth aircraft or cruise missiles (or both). For targets at short and medium range and close air support, non-stealth aircraft will do fine. If stealth aircraft are used for these tasks, it will probably be more efficient to use the external pylons as well. In short stealth aircraft are only really worth it when used against high value targets and for deep strike missions.

One could opt for a complete stealth fleet and use the external hardpoints when fit. One consideration that I do have is the following. Tanker aircraft, AWACS, command and control aircraft, ISR planes and transport planes are not stealth aircraft. When confronted only with stealth fighters , SAM crews will be tempted to shut down their radars until they get an opportunity to target these vulnerable assets. There will be a large risk to pop-up threats for a very long time. When confronted with a mixed fleet of stealth and non-stealth fighters, SAM crews will be more eager to go active to engage non-stealth targets. This provides opportunities to locate and destroy SAM's. 4+ generation aircaft stand a much better chance versus SAM's than tankers. In a similar way, one could use non-stealth aircraft as bait to lure hostile fighters in a trap of stealth fighters.

The unknown future

Drone technology is a big thing now in aviation. People are starting to say that the 6th generation of fighters will be unmanned. I don't think that it al will go so fast. However I think that drones could become an effective countermeasure against SAM systems. Some aircraft like the Brtish Typhoon are equipped with a towed decoy. A towed decoy sends out signals to lure a radar guided missile away from the aircraft. As a result the missile hits the decoy instead of the aircraft. I imagine that in the near-future we will see drone decoys appearing. Drone decoys could create a lot of fake targets in the airspace. SAM systems could be overwhelmed with targets. Instead of being stealthy, hiding amongst decoy drones could be an interesting future development.

Despite the effort put in developing stealth aircraft, the US is actually leading this drone decoy development with the MALD. The advantage of drone decoys is that they can provide camouflage for all aircraft, not just fighters. Decoy drones can also be upgraded and adjusted. The shape and composite materials of stealth aircraft are rather fixed for their entire lifetime.

Why I prefer a mixed fleet of stealth and non-stealth aircraft

By now is might be clear that I personally prefer a fighter fleet of both stealth and non-stealth aircraft.

Non stealth fighters tend to be a bit cheaper and easier to maintain and operate. They usually have more hardpoints and can carry large payloads. 4+ generation aircraft are survivable enough for most missions.

The stealthy fighters are fit for deep strikes against high value targets. They can also serve as SEAD/DEAD aircraft. They could use their stealth to hunt aerial tankers and AWACS and to thin out and scare the hostile airforce.

Stealth aircraft can improve the survivability of non-stealth aircraft versus SAM's and hostile fighters. Likewise non-stealth fighters can protect stealth fighters who have run out of missiles or fuel. Non-stealth fighters tend to have higher availability rates. They will ensure a large enough force presence at anytime.

30-40% stealth fighters and 70-60% non-stealth fighters is probably a good mix. Technically speaking one could have an all-stealth fleet with 60% operating with external stores but this might be a more expensive option considering maintenance costs and downtime. As I wrote above, having both types presents more tactical options to lure out SAM's and fighters.

If we consider a theoretical airforce of 1000 aircraft, I would consider:

100 F-22 Raptors
400 F-35 JSF (or 300)    carrier version available
400 Rafale (or 500)        carrier version available
100 A-10 Warthog

These four aircraft bring all the necessary capabilities with the stealth fighters making up the high end and the Rafale and Warthog making up the low end.

Smaller countries like Belgium can't operate fleets of multiple aircraft. They will have to chose one role and count on allies to fulfill the other. Generally speaking, the role of none-stealth aircraft will be more suited for them.

What happens in the real world?

The UK and Italy will have both the Typhoon and F-35. Some European  countries like Norway and the Netherlands have selected the F-35 while Germany and France have the Eurofighter and Rafale.

Russia is taking the Sukhoi SU-30SM, Su-35S and Su-34 is service, while developing the PAK FA.

China is developing the J-20 and J-31 but has taken a large amount of Sukhoi derivatives in service.

So far the US seems to favour a stealth only approach with the F-22 and F-35 but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of F-15's and F/A-18 Super Hornets stay in service.

Ranking

Nr .1 The Rafale

The Rafale is a true omnirole aircraft, exactly what Belgium is looking for. It is a bit expensive but being a direct neighbour to France helps here. Because of this Belgium might be able to cut some expenses on training and maintenance that other countries cannot.

It has proven to be capable of deployment oversea. France has operated the Rafale M from its carrier for operations in Libya and Iraq. The French Rafale's flew long missions over Libya and Mali. The Rafale was reported to have a high availability rate. They have operated grom N'Djamena in Chad and Al Dhafra air base in the UAE. One thing is clear. It's a beauty, but definitely not a hangar queen.

Nr. 2 The Gripen NG

The Gripen NG is in many ways a smaller and cheaper Rafale. This makes it a very good choice as well. So why did I put it in 2nd place? At the moment the Gripen is still a prototype not an operational fighter. Belgium usually prefers to cooperate with Western European partners, not with neutral Sweden or Eastern European countries.

It also smaller than the other Eurocanards and upgrading aircraft usually means putting more stuff on it. Equip a Gripen NG with three fuel tanks and two external pods and you will quickly run out of room and hardpoints. The Gripen might be half as expensive as the Rafale but if you need two of them to carry the same weapons then where is the benefit?

(Allright, you might need one and a half of them to carry as much as a Rafale but you can't fly half a plane unless it's an F-15.)

Nr. 3 The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

The F-35 is a decent fighter-bomber. Its stealth capability gives it a bit extra protection against SAM threats. Quite a few European countries will have it including our Dutch neighbours.

But it is the greatest in air-to-air combat and they will be meeting Russian Flankers while taking part in the Baltic Air Policing. It is also expensive. The actual price is difficult to predict. Lockheed Martin keeps saying that costs will reduce once serial production starts. Question is if the orders won't be reducing faster driving the price up. Canada seems to be dropping out at the moment. Others may follow. One of my concerns with the F-35 is that it will be hard and costly to maintain, especially during foreign deployments. A so called "hangar queen".

The F-35B is nice if you have carriers. The extra stealth can be useful against really tough air-defense systems but it won't be required in most cases. Even the US left its F-22 Raptors at home during the intervention in Libya in 2011.

Nr. 4 The Eurofighter Typhoon

I like the Typhoon but it is more expensive than the Rafale. It is a bit better at air-to-air combat than its French counterpart but the thing is, ..., for Belgium the difference is irrelevant. Air-to-ground and cost-effectiveness are far more important for the Belgian armed forces.

Nr. 5 The Super Hornet

Many people think that the Super Hornet is the right choice for Canada. But Belgium is not Canada.

Not a single European country uses it. It is not as advanced as the Eurocanards. The Gripen NG will be cheaper to operate. Belgium has always liked the single engined F-16 so the 1 vs 2 engines debate is irrelevant here. As I said earlier the Frenchness of the Rafale is less relevant here as well. The production line is closing down, casting doubts on future upgrades.

Conclusion

I think that the final decision comes down to choosing between the Rafale and the Gripen NG. The actual costs and the offered offset deals should make the difference. Dassault has offered rather good deals in the past including full transfer of technology and 100% industrial offsets. Saab has offered 100 % offsets to Switzerland and the Netherlands as well. 

If the Gripen is selected than it might be a good idea to enlarge the order to 40 or 45 aircraft. As I said earlier, the Gripen NG is cheaper but also smaller. I have some concerns about its payload capacity. Three Rafales can carry 28500kg of ordnance (3x14 hardpoints). Four Gripens can carry 28800kg (4x10 hardpoints).

So the question really is: "Should I get three Rafales or four Gripens?"
...
And since cost effectiveness is Saab's biggest argument: "What is cheaper, three Rafales or four Gripen NG's?"
...
It seems that Dassault could offer Switzerland 16 Rafales for the same price as 22 Gripens. This is rather close to the 3/4 ratio.

Better together?

At the moment Finland wants to replace its F/A-18 Hornets (61 aircraft), Canada wants 65 new aircraft, Belgium wants 34 aircraft and Denmark 24-36 aircraft.  All together 184-196 aircraft.
If all four countries acquired the Rafale together, costs would be substantially lower. Future upgrades would also be guaranteed.

The Rafale could be a good choice for all of them:

*Finland is not a NATO country but will often meet aggressive Sukhoi's. Buying the F-35 might be too politically sensitive. On the other hand, the Super Hornet and Gripen might be a little too small to confront badass Sukhoi's.

* Canada needs a good interceptor, preferably with two engines and easy to operate on small bases. The Rafale has good top speed, climb rate and 2 engines. It can carry 5 droptanks and perform buddy refueling. It has succesfully operated from N'Djamena airbase in Chad in small numbers with little preparation.

*I have made my point for Belgium already. Belgium needs a dependable, multirole bomb truck. The Rafale fits the bill.

*Denmark needs an aircraft that can patrol its overseas territories as well, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Anti-ship capabilities and long range are important. The Rafale can be equipped with the Exocet anti-ship missile (and Perseus in the future), can carry 5 drop tanks and can use buddy refueling. Denmark only wants to buy as few as 24-36 aircraft. A high availability will be essential.








 The Rafale goes to war.
source: defense-update.com
"The Rafale has successfully completed its first test flights in a new heavily-armed configuration, comprising six air-to-ground precision AASM Hammer missiles, four medium and long range air-to-air missiles from the MICA family, two very long range METEOR missiles, as well as three 2,000 liter fuel tanks." 

F/A-18 Super Hornet: the Unidentified Flying Object

The Super Hornet is a bit unknown over here because Belgium has used the F-16 over the past decades. The Super Hornet is used by the US Navy and by Australia. It is a further development of the F/A-18 Hornet. The original F/A-18 was designed around the same time as the F-16. The F-16 proved to be more popular but the US Navy preferred a twin engine aircraft for their carriers. The newer Super Hornet joined the navy when the F14 Tomcat was retired. The Hornet is aproven aircraft but much more conventional than its competitors.

Air-to-ground mission

The A in F/A-18 stands for attack. The Super Hornet is pretty good at ground strikes. It has 11 hardpoints and can carry 8,050 kg (17,750 lb) of external fuel and ordnance. It has a large selection of air-to-ground weapons. It can carry pretty much anything in the US arsenal. It can carry up to three external fuel tanks. Conformal fuel tanks are a new feature that is being offered.

When it comes to survivability. the F/A-18 doesn't bring anything special. It is very much a 4th generation aircraft. But it has a special friend to help him out, the Boeing EA-18G Growler. This aircraft is specialised for electronic attack and suppression of enemy air defenses.

Air-to-air mission  

The Super Hornet is still just an updated Hornet. It is not really an air-superiority fighter like the Typhoon. But it can hold its own against most 4th generation aircraft. It performs best at slow speeds and low altitude. The Super Hornet has an AESA radar but it doesn't have a IRST system. Well, that is not entirely true. The Hornet can be fitted with an external fuel tank that has a IRST in the nose. I didn't know that MacGyver works for the Navy.

The Super Hornet can be equipped with the normal AIM-120 and AIM-9 missiles.

Cost and ease of maintenance

The Super Hornet is at the end of its production run. With a unit flyaway cost of around 60 million USD (54 million euro) it is quite cheap. The cost per flight hour is a bit of a mystery. Janes reports 11000 USD/ flight hour for the US Navy and 22000 USD/flight hour for Australia. Australia operates a much smaller number of aircraft and has bought them much later. The Australian figure is probably more relevant for Belgium.

Cooperation

Several European countries like Spain and Finland operate the old Hornet but none have the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is only used by Australia and the US Navy. Not a lot of choice and both countries will purchase the F-35 as their future fighter. The production line of the F/A-18 is coming to a close. Any Super Hornets bought now will be last of the line. This raises some questions concerning future upgrades, maintenance and support. In fact the Belgian government will make its choice around 2018 and plans to take the new aircraft in service starting in 2023. Boeing might already close down the F/A-18 production line in 2017.   

Is it right for Belgium?

No, not really. Not a single European country has them. It costs about as much as a Gripen NG, but the Gripen is cheaper to operate. Boeing has talked about new upgrades like an internal IRST and integrating some of the EW equipment of the Growler into the normal Super Hornet but these are things that the Eurofighter and Rafale already have. These upgrades are not included in the price mentioned earlier so the upgraded Advanced Super Hornet will cost more.

The Super Hornet is not the best candidate for Belgium. It is more expensive than the Gripen and a lot less advanced than the Eurocanards. It only really has a chance if somebody absolutely wants to buy an American aircraft, but one that is cheaper than the F-35.

Gripen NG: the IKEA fighter

Lets take a look at the third European fighter: the JAS Gripen NG. The Gripen is produced by the Swedish company Saab. I didn't just call it the IKEA fighter because it is Swedish. It is also an IKEA fighter because it uses many off-the-shelf products. The F414-GE-39E engine is a variation of the engine of the Super Hornet. Its radar has British and Italian origins. The IRST system has Italian origins as well. The Gripen is a canard-deltawing just like it bigger brethren. Duck tape is still not required. IKEA products come with all the necessary skrews.

The Gripen NG is a prototype based on the older Gripen fighters. The Gripen flew for the first time in 1988. The A and B versions were small single-engine fighters perfectly suited for neutral Sweden. They were superseded by the C and D version who where NATO compatible and could be refueled in flight. Saab has now presented the new and improved Gripen NG.

Air-to-ground mission

The Gripen is available as both a single and double seater. The older C/D versions had only 8 hardpoints. The Gripen NG has 9 plus one for ECM or FLIR pods. It can carry a maximum payload of 7200kg (15,875lbs). Three hardpoints are suitable for fuel tanks. It can carry the popular Paveway bombs and a lot more including cruise missiles and the Brimstone... Or at least it will be able to do so because the Gripen NG is still in development.

The new Gripen NG will have modern defensive equipment including: radar warning receiver, missile approach warning system, electronic support measures and countermeasures.

The new and improved Gripen should have nearly everything that its bigger brethren (Rafale and Typhoon) have but in a smaller single-engine package.

Air-to-air mission

It may be small but it is a fierce little duck. The Gripen is a close-coupled canard delta wing which makes it very maneuverable.  It has a top speed of Mach 2 and a service ceiling of 18000m (59000 ft). It will have an AESA radar and an IRST system. This is a small fighter. So there is not a lot of room to put a big radar in it, unlike say a Typhoon. But smaller aircraft have a smaller RCS, levelling the playing field.

A nice bonus is that it can carry both older American AIM-120 and AIM-9 missiles as well as new European missiles like the Meteorn IRIS-T and MICA. Plenty of choice. The integration of the Meteor is proceeding well on the Gripen. The integration on the Typhoon and Rafale will happen a bit later. The Gripen NG will have a two-way datalink with the Meteor.

Ducks fly in formation. The Gripen has a special data link system called TIDLS which allows easy and secured communication between several Gripens flying together. This gives the pilot good situational awareness.

Cost and ease of maintenance

Affordability is Saab biggest selling point. This made the Gripen C and D popular with smaller countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. Brazil has decided to acquire the new Gripen NG for its cheapness as well.

The unit flyaway cost for the Gripen NG is reported at 60 million USD (54 million euro). Just keep in mind that the Gripen NG isn't in full production yet. It could become more expensive if extra systems are added or it could become cheaper once produced in signifant numbers. It is rumoured that Saab offered the Netherlands 85 Gripens NG for the same price as 37 F-35's. The Dutch still picked the F-35 but that's not the point.

The cost per flight hour of the old Gripen C is 4700 USD/hour. The new NG version is a bit more complicated so those costs will be likely a bit higher.

Still it is clearly visible that the Gripen is a lot cheaper than the other fighters.

More here: saab-gripen-analysis

Cooperation

Sweden, Hungary and the Czech Republic are currently operating the C and D variants. The Gripen is definately popular amongst the smaller Eastern European countries. Sweden is the driving force behind the new NG version and will acquire it. However Belgium usually prefers to cooperate with its Western European neighbours. And Sweden isn't part of NATO.

Is it right for Belgium?

The JAS Gripen NG will be a big improvement over the older C and D versions. It will get very close to the performances of the Rafale and Typhoon at a cheaper price.

I do have some concerns. The Gripen NG is a further development of the Gripen A. Much has been improved in the newer version. Nonetheless it still remains a small single engine fighter. The Gripen NG might be as good as it's gonna get. Aircraft tend to get upgraded during their lifetime. This usually means that more stuff is added = more weight and more space needed. Saab already redesigned the aircraft to make room for more fuel. Extra stuff can be added as external pods attached to the hardpoints but this uses up hardpoints and room.

*SAM threats are becoming more dangerous. This means that fighters might need extra jammers, decoys, sensors etc as part of future upgrades.
*Tanker aircraft are vulnerable targets. They will have to operate further back in dangerous environments. So fighters will need to have drop tanks or conformal fuel tanks to be more self-sufficient.
*Modern 4+ and 5th generation fighters tend to have decent countermeasures. This means that it will take several A2A missiles to get a kill.

You can only hang so much under the wings. I think that this is one of the advantages of the bigger aircraft. They have extra room for future modifications and more hardpoints.

The second catch here is that the NG is still in development. It is still a paper plane so to speak of. Saab claims that the Gripen NG will be almost as good as the Rafale and Typhoon. The Swiss tested the older C variant vs the Rafale and Typhoon and concluded that the Gripen C was far inferior to the other two. Saab is still catching up while the other two are considering ways to improve their aircraft even more.

Overall the Gripen NG could be a great fighter for Belgium. The Belgian Air Component is looking to buy 34 aircraft but if the Gripen is selected than there might be money left for extra planes or something else. Maybe a cheap aircraft dedicated to close air support like the A-10 Warthog?

Eurofighter: how European can you get?

The Eurofighter Typhoon is the second Eurocanard I will be writing about. It still has nothing to do with duck tape. 

The Eurofighter is the result of a cooperation between the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain. France dropped out and developed the Rafale. Design began in the 1980's but it wasn't until the 90's that the prototype was ready. The Eurofighter was primarily designed to be an interceptor and air superiority fighter. Air-to-ground capabilities were added in the later tranches.

Air-to-ground mission

The first Typhoons didn't really have any A2G capabilities. This has changed a lot with the newest version. The Typhoon is available as both a single and double seater. It has 13 hardpoints. That is a lot for a fighter. It can hold up to 7500 kg (16500 lbs) of weapons and fuel. Three hardpoints are suitable for fuel tanks. 

It can carry the widely used Paveway laser-guided bombs. A nice bonus is the Brimstone missile. This is a small missile that is excellent to engage mobile targets and it small size limits the possibilities of collateral damage. However is seems that the missile is still being integrated with the Typhoon. It doesn't seem to be operational just yet. The British Tornado's are already equipped with the Brimstone. France seems to be interested in using it for their Rafales as well.

The Typhoon was partly built with composite materials to reduce its radar cross section. It has the usual set of countermeasures and the British version can deploy a towed decoy. 

Air-to-air mission

Despite efforts to increase its usefulness in A2G, the Typhoon is really an air superiority fighter. It is a canard-delta wing design which makes it cery maneuverable. It has a top speed of Mach 2 and a service ceiling of 19812m (65000 ft).

The current Typhoon is equipped with a PESA Captor M radar. Most of its competitors are already equipped with better AESA radars. However plans exist to upgrade it with the Captor E AESA radar. Most Typhoons have the PIRATE infrared search and track system. The PIRATE system is very highly regarded. 

The figther can be armed with the AIM-120 and AIM-9 Sidewinder but also with the new Meteor and IRIS-T missiles. 

The Typhoon is one of the best superiority fighters in existance and has performed well in exercices against US F-22 Raptors.

Cost and ease of maintenance

Being the best is pricey. The unit flyaway cost for a Typhoon is about 127 million USD (114 million euro). The operating cost is about 18000 USD/flight hour. Expensive. It is possible that these costs will be a bit lower for late production aircraft but most sources seem to agree that its nemesis, the French Rafale, is both cheaper to buy and to operate.

More here: eurofighter-typhoon-analysis

Cooperation

The Eurofighter Typhoon is operated by the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria. This is a big bonus. The Typhoon will be in their service for many more years.

Suitable for Belgium? 

Many European countries have it and it can do both A2A and A2G. (At least the newest model.)

However it is still a fighter with air-to-ground capabilities being added later and it is expensive.

The Typhoons biggest rival is the Rafale. Both are very similar designs, but the Typhoon is more expensive. That extra money buys some extra speed and some extra altitude but is it worth it? 

Rafale: the French supermodel

The Rafale was designed by Dassault. It will become the main aircraft of the French Airforce. It comes both in a single seat (Rafale C)  and dual seat (Rafale B) version. The French use the Rafal M aboard their carrier the Charles de Gaulle. 

France was originally a partner in the Eurofighter progamme. It didn't really work out and France dropped to start working on the Rafale instead. This aircraft was meant to be very multipurpose. The French call it omnirole. It will replace a lot other aircraft in French service. (Jaguar, F-8 Crusader, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard)

Air-to-ground mission

The Eurofighter was primarily intended as a interceptor and air superiority fighter. The French wanted good A2G capabilities and carrier capability as well. That was one of the reasons for dropping out. The Rafale has a crew of one or two. For long missions, having two crewmen can be benefitial. Tasks can be shared, creating less stress for the pilot. The Rafale has 14 hardpoints and it can carry 9500 kg (20900lbs) of external ordnance and fuel. That is really a lot for a fighter. Five hardpoints are suitable for external fuel tanks to give the airplane extra range. 

The Rafale has quite a lot of sensors. The input from all these sensors is presented to the pilot in a coherent manner. The countermeasures and electronic warfare suite of the Rafale called SPECTRA has a very good reputation. The Rafale is not a stealth aircraft but it does use some composite materials, it has jamming equipment and warning systems. It is quite resistant to SAM threats. The radar of the Rafale has a terrain-following mode which means that the Rafale can fly very low with little risk of crashing into obstacles. 

Its armament includes the AASM and Paveway laser-guided bombs. 

Overall it is a great aircraft for air-to-ground missions.

Air-to-air mission

The Rafale is a close-couple canard delta wing design. Don't worry this has nothing to do with duck tape holding it together. The design is inherently unstable but computers keep it flying. This unstability makes it a very maneuverable aircraft. It has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8 and a service ceiling of 15235 m (50000 ft). Pretty decent stats.

It will be armed with the Meteor radar-guided missile and the MICA infrared and active radar homing missile. Unlike the Typhoon, the Rafale is already equipped with an AESA radar and it has a good IRST system. One point of notice is that the Rafale will use a one-way data link with the Meteor (the same as with the MICA). The Typhoon and Gripen will have a two-way data link. A one-way link allows the aircraft to send information to the missile. A two-way link allows the Meteor to send information back to aircraft as well. 

Overall quite a good air-to-air fighter as well. 

Cost and ease of maintenance

The unit flyaway cost for the Rafale C is about 95 million USD (85 million euro). 

The operating cost is about 16500 USD/flight hour. 

The Rafale is not cheap. But it seems to be cheaper than the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35.

The Rafale is built with modularity in mind for easy repair. 

More here : dassault-rafale-analysis

It is not the cheapest fighter but it is not the most expensive one either. 

Cooperation

France uses the Rafale. Other than that, Egypt, Qatar and India have ordered it. So cooperation would be mostly limited to France. But that might not be a bad thing. Belgium cooperates a lot with France. Belgian and French pilots train together on lead-in Alpha Jets. Much of the training for the new fighter could be done with France as well if Belgium chooses the Rafale. 

The Frenchness of the Rafale is sometimes used as an argument against the Rafale but it doesn't matter as much in the case of Belgium. Remember when I wrote about Belgian companies in the article about the F-16? You may have noticed that Dassault is a major shareholder of SABCA and that Techspace Aero is part of the Safran group.

The Rafale uses some unique French weapons. It can't use the AIM-120C AMRAAM or the AIM-9 Sidewinder at this moment but the question is do you really want to? These two missiles are rather old designs. New missiles like the Meteor, IRIS-T and MICA are far more effective. It might be a good idea to acquire new missiles anyway. Belgium tends to maintain only a small stock of weapons and buys/borrows extra when needed. A switch to new missiles shouldn't be to difficult.

Air-to-ground weapons are a different matter. US ordnance tends to be cheaper than French ordnance because they are manufactured in larger quantities. The Rafale comes now with French ordnance like the AASM Hammer but it can also be equipped with the widespread Paveway laser-guided bombs. The Rafale could probably be equipped with other US ordance as well but this will require some modifications and upgrades.

Suitable for Belgium?

The Rafale is a strong contender for Belgium. It has excellent air-to-ground characteristics but it is still a very decent air-to-air fighter. It is a bit expensive but less so than some other aircraft. Plus being a neighbour of France brings some unique opportunities. It does tie Belgium to closely to France. Any further upgrades or additions will depend on the wishes of the French armed forces. The dependence on French weapons and the one-way data link for the Meteor should be kept in mind as well.

It is interesting to compare the Rafale to the F-35. The Rafale possesses almost all the capabilities of the F-35 except for the improved stealth. One could say that Dassault sacrificed some stealth in order to gain extra speed, payload, maneuverability, altitude... Lockheed Martin did the opposite and sacrificed some speed, payload, maneuverability and altitude to gain that extra stealth.

A lot will depend on the question of the integration of ordnance and on the money. If the F-35 doesn't get to full operational capability by 2018, then the Rafale has a strong case. If India decides to buy the Rafale in large numbers, then the programme cost would drop a lot. Future investments and upgrades would be guaranteed as well. The Rafale is a great aircraft but at the moment, it suffers from its small number of users.

   

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: NATO's new F-16?

The F-35, much has been written about it. Some like Pierre Sprey think that it's a really bad aircraft. Others are more positive about it.

The Joint Strike Fighter is developed by Lockheed-Martin. It is intended to become the main aircraft of the USA and many partner nations. The US Airforce will get the F-35A, the US Navy will receive the F-35C for its carriers and the Marines will receive the F-35B STOVL version.

The UK and Italy have ordered both the F-35B for their carriers and the F-35A. Customers for the F-35A include the Netherlands and Norway.

The F-35 is meant to be a cheaper, single-engine complement to the larger F-22. It is also a multinational programme, involving several NATO-countries from the start (but not Belgium)

Does this make you think about the F-16?

The F-35 has some similarities. The USAF operates the smaller F-16 next to the bigger F-15. The F-16 is a very popular aircraft within NATO and beyond. There is one big difference...

The F-16 was mostly designed with sales to the smaller European airforces in mind. The USAF at the time was focused on the F-15. Eventually the F-16 proved popular with the USAF as well.
The F-35 was first and foremost designed for the three service branches of the USA mentioned earlier with sales to other countries coming second.

The F-16 was a suitable plane for the European countries that turned out to be useful for the USA as well. The F-35 was built for the USA. The question now is: "Is it also suitable for the Belgian Air Component?"

Air-to-ground mission

This is where the F-35 feels at home. The F-22 Raptor is the baddest fighter in town but when it comes to air-to-ground, not so much. No worries that's what the F-35 is for. The JSF has four internal pylons in its weapons bay for 2 A2A missiles and 2 bombs with a weigth of 1360kg (3000 lbs). It is most stealthy when operating like this. Alternatively it can carry 6800kg (15000lbs) of extra ordnance on six external pylons. The combined payload is 8160kg (18000lbs). It will be able to carry the commonly used Paveway GBU and JDAM precision guided bombs. The F-35 will have good targeting equipment. 

The F-35 is a stealth aircraft with a reduced radar cross section. Its shape and the use special composite material make it less visible to the most common radar systems. It is important to note that hanging extra ordnance under the wings makes it les stealthy. The F-35 will have advanced sensors including: AESA radar,  IRST system and DAS (digital apeture system). The input from all these sensors will be combined and presented to the pilot on his helmet mounted sight system. The aircraft will also have a radar warning receiver and common countermeasures like flares and chaff. The intent is to give the pilot exceptional situational awareness and to make the aircraft very resistant to SAM systems.

Overall the F-35 has good A2G capabilities.

Air-to-air mission

Can the F-35 take on enemy figther jets? The F-35 is not extremely maneuverable. It was designed to match the capabilities of the F-16. Many new jets like the F-22, the Eurocanards and Russian Sukhoi's are supermaneuverable. They exceed the capabilities of older 4th generation aircraft. 

When it comes to speed, the F-35 has a top speed of Mach 1.6. It can reach a maximum altitude of 15km (45000ft). When it comes to pure flight characteristics the F-35 matches 4th generation aircraft like the F-16 but not much more. So in WVR combat it will be at a disadvantage compared to 4+ generation fighters.

Can't the F-35 fight at BVR range instead? Yes it can, but the F-35 still uses the same AIM-120 AMRAAM radar guided missile. It can also carry the improved AIM-9X Sidewinder infrared missile, but not internally. The F-35 will most likely get the first shot off because of its low observability but launching a missile doesn't equal a guaranteed kill. Generally speaking a missile lauched at a long range had a lower kill probability than a missile launched at closer ranges. Most aircraft can detect incoming radar guided missiles and can deploy countermeasures. Did I mention that there is only room for four missiles in the internal bay? 

The F-35 could carry more missiles under the wings but this reduces its stealth. Alternatively the pilot could get closer before firing. But radar is not the only way of detecting targets. Many new aircraft come with an Infrared Search and Track System. This system looks for heat sources like engines or heat caused by friction. Stealth planes can get detected by IRST systems if they get close enough (sources differ but a detection range of 30+ km is often mentioned). Fighters with a good IRST system and modern IR missiles will be tough opponents.

The F-35 is not the greatest air superiority fighter. It can defend itself or it could try to avoid opponents using its stealth but you will have a tough time sweeping the skies clear with it.

Cost and ease of maintenance

It is always difficult to get accurate figures for the cost of aircraft. When buying aircraft you pay for the plane itself but also for the development costs. Once you have it, you will be confronted with operating costs. The idea of the JSF was to have one aircraft for the US Airforce, Navy and Marines + partner countries to save costs. However the US Navy wanted a version for their carriers and the Marines wanted a STOVL (short take-off and landing) version for their amphibious ships.

Aircraft on carriers usually have folding wings, a tougher body, stronger landing gear and provisions for the catapult and the arresting cable. Converting a normal plane for use on carriers can be done. The STOVL version is a whole different thing. Taking off vertically sounds as difficult as it is. Many of the problems and cost-overruns of the F-35 were associated with the F-35B. Building an advanced stealth aircraft that also needs to be STOVL is hard to do and expensive. Plus the F-35 is still under development. A lot of software and many systems still have to be integrated.

The unit flyaway cost for the F-35A is about 188 million USD (170 million euro).
The operating cost for the F-35A is about 21000 USD/flight hour. Although some report it as high as 31000 USD/flight hour.

It is difficult to get good figures on the actual cost of the F-35A. I have seen the price tag of 98 millions USD for Low Rate Initial Production lot 7, EXCLUDING the cost for the engine (and perhaps some other stuff.) source
I have also read about a unit flyaway cost of 129 million USD for the F-35 (airframe 74.41 million, engine 13.75 million, avionics 22.14 million, other 18.76 million USD). source

The acquisition cost may go down but everyone seems to agree that the F-35 JSF is a very expensive aircraft to operate. It is also a complicated machine and Lockheed Martin likes to keep much of its software and technology to itself. I am not sure if countries will be able to operate this aircraft without a lot of assistance by Lockheed Martin.

The F-35 will be equipped with a sophisticated logistical system called ALIS. There have been many problem with this system. There are also grave concerns that ALIS may make the aircraft vulnerable to cyber warfare. The operating costs of the F-35 could turn out to be very high. Maintenance could be extremely difficult as well. It's hard to tell because a lot of systems still don't work properly. It's a big gamble.

More here: f-35-analysis

Cooperation

The F-35 will become the main US fighter. Several European countries will acquire it as well. Belgium often cooperates with the Netherlands and the Dutch Airforce has already ordered the F-35 JSF. So when it comes to cooperation, the F-35 is a good choice.

Suitable for Belgium?

The F-35 is a good aircraft for air-to-ground purposes and several other European countries will get it. That could make it a good choice for Belgium

It is not the greatest at air-to-air combat at it is very expensive to buy and operate. It is also a complicated machine. Out of 34 aircraft, only 20 may be flying at any given time.

The most interesting and unique version is the STOVL F-35. This is great for the UK and Italy who wan't to operate it from their carriers but it is irrelevant for Belgium.

Overall the F-35 is nice if you need a STOVL plane or for SEAD missions against very extensive air defense systems. Its biggest drawback is its very small payload in stealth mode. With 2 A2A missiles and 2 bombs, you will need to make a lot of bomb runs to have an effect. I suspect that in 90% of the situations it will be smarter to use the F-35 with a full load of external stores.

This makes me wonder if the remaining 10% justify its cost and compromises. It is a good idea for larger airforces to have both stealth and conventional aircraft but smaller countries like Belgium need to make a choice. It is a good thing that some European countries will acquire it but it seems the wrong aircraft for Belgium.

Why does Belgium need new jet fighters?

Why should we spend money on defence?

I often compare defence spending to an insurance. You are paying for something that you might not need very often but you will be glad to have it when you need it.

International politics comprise many things: diplomacy, economic relations, supporting development programmes, taking action against climate change etc. Is military force really needed? Are other options not better? Yes, sometimes. Violent conflicts are usually complicated affairs. An adequate response requires action on several policy domains but military action is sometimes required.

You often hear the expression: "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like nail." It is true that uncareful use of military force can do more good than bad. But the opposite is true as well. Sometimes diplomacy alone won't cut it. Or sometimes diplomacy will work better just because military force is a possible and real option. The Syrian government used chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition forces and civilians in 2013. The US considered military intervention because of these actions. In the end, the Syrian government gave up all of its chemical weapons to ward off an intervention. Getting these deadly weapons out of there was definitely a good thing.

Many people argue that bombardments alone won't stop ISIS/Daesh. That is true as well. The best way to stop Daesh is to create an effective and working peace agreement between the Assad government and the opposition and secondly to restore the trust and cooperation between the different segments of the Iraqi population. But, the thing is...

Diplomacy and negotiations take time and you don't have a lot of time when Daesh is conducting a fast-paced Toyota Blitzkrieg. In 2014 Daesh could easily drive around in columns of 50+ vehicles. They could use heavy artillery and tanks against lesser armed opponents like the Kurdish and Syrian militia's. They can't do that anymore because of the presence of coalition aircraft. The Toyota Blitzkrieg has been stopped. Now there is more time to come up with a comprehensive strategy.

Many folks are concerned that aerial bombardments will cause civilian deaths, known as collateral damage. Unwanted civilian deaths have to be avoided. Some activists claim that the best way to do this is by not engaging in any military activity (and not having a military). But the world is unpredictable. We live in an uncertain multipolar world with many powerful states and none-state groups. Secondly we don't have a timemachine to go back and start things over. You can only deal with the world as it is. Fighter jets are quickly associated with 2003 Iraq style operations. Some people draw the conclusion that having military jets will unavoidably lead to this kind of operations. So it is better not to have any jets at all.

In August 2014 Daesh surrounded 40000 Yezidi's on mount Sinjar. Things were looking very bleak for them until they were relieved by Kurdish militia's and US bombardments. Without the Kurdish ground forces and US bombardments Daesh would have slaughtered thousands of people. Sometimes doing nothing can lead to massive collateral damage as well.

That is why military capabilities remain important. You can be confronted with unexpected situations that force you to act. Doing nothing is not always an option. This is why it is important to have the right tools just in case anything happens. Avoiding unwanted deaths can not be done exclusively by a strict non-intervention policy. You will need to have appropriate military means as well. It doesn't need to be the shiniest, most expensive stuff but it needs to be adeaquate.

Military force is part of the toolbox for international relations. For screws, use a screwdriver. For nails, use a hammer. For anything else, use duck tape.

Do we really need expensive jetplanes? 

Your car is not built to last for 40 years, neither are aircraft. Fighters fly high and fast. This has an effect on the airframes. Fighters are only meant to last for a certain amount of flight hours. The Belgian F-16's are expected to reach the end of their life cycle around 2020. Belgium must either provide replacements or go without fighters.

Many other NATO and/or European countries have fighter aircraft, can't we buy something else?

Yes, but... 

1)Well-trained and experienced pilots are an essential part of the aircraft. Belgium has very good and experienced pilots. It would be a shame to waste their potential. 

2)NATO (and EU) expects every member to do its share as a part of the alliance. Which means that Belgium has to do its part as well. Belgium is a small country but not poor. Fighter aircraft tend to be pricey compared to simpler weapons like artillery. Other countries like Greece, Romania and the Baltic states don't have the funds to get them. It makes sense to let the wealthier countries provide the more expensive weapons. 

3)Belgium is located in the west of Europe, safely tucked away behind France and Germany. It would be stupid to invest in heavy equipment like self-propelled artillery or main battle tanks because Belgium doesn't have the transport capacity to get them where they are needed. Aircraft on the other hand are very mobile and can operate from foreign airfields. Did I mention artillery and tanks? Well Belgium doesn't have any anymore. We don't need them but we do need fighters because they are really the only heavy weapon system that is still left. 

What is it supposed to do other than fly?

Fighter jets are used for several things.
1)Firstly they are used to patrol the skies. Belgium has signed an agreement with the Netherlands to do this together. At any time there are jets ready to take off when required. If an aircaft enters our airspace without permission or if a commercial airliner is in trouble, then a fighter will go check it out.

This is what the Belgian airspace looks like:

2)The Baltic states don't have jets. That is why other countries take part in the Baltic air policing. The mission is essentially the same as described above. The difference is that relations between Russia and Europe has soured since the revolution in Ukraine. Since then, there have been many confrontations between Russian and European aircraft. This makes the Baltic air policing a bit more demanding and dangerous.

3)Fighters are still warplanes, but Belgium won't act on its own. It can be expected that large operations will be conducted with many other partners who will bring additional capabilities.

Belgium will only buy one type of aircraft. This means that it needs to perform many roles including both air-to-ground and air-to-air missions. However Belgium has used its F-16's a lot more for A2G than for A2A. This makes air-to-ground capabilities a bit more important.

Cost and ease of maintenance is another aspect. What do you get for your money? Pilots need constant training.A low cost/flight hour and high availability rates will allow pilots to fly more.

Belgium is a member of the EU and NATO. Cooperation is easier when using an aircraft that is in service with many other countries.

From the official survey

Survey Belgium

Belgian Air Component Air Combat Capability Mission and Roles 

In order to execute its level of ambition, the Belgian Defence ACCap must be able to execute, in a multinational cooperative and interoperable environment, the following NATO missions4 and/or roles in a low, medium and high threat environment: 

• Defensive Counter Air (DCA) / Air Policing 

DCA operations protect friendly forces and vital interests from enemy air attacks; as such it is synonymous with Air Defence and Air Policing. DCA consists of all active and passive air defence operations to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy or negate enemy air and missile forces attempting to attack or penetrate friendly battle space, or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of such attacks should they escape destruction. 

• Offensive Counter Air (OCA) 

OCA operations consist of offensive operations to destroy, disrupt or degrade enemy air and missile threats including their supporting systems both before and after launch, as close to their source as possible. OCA includes attack operations, air-to-air missions (sweep & escort operations), suppression and destruction of enemy air defences (SEAD/DEAD). 

• Air Interdiction (AI)

AI is the action to destroy, disrupt, degrade, divert or delay the enemy’s surface potential by targeting fielded enemy ground forces and the infrastructure directly supporting them before they can be used effectively against friendly forces, or otherwise achieve their objectives. It is carried out at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is normally not required. Thus, it may offer the potential to reduce or even eliminate the requirement for ground combat. 

• Close Air Support (CAS)

CAS operations require detailed integration with the fire and movement of friendly forces for fratricide avoidance and targeting guidance by third parties. It provides ground or amphibious forces with aerial firepower in offensive and defensive operations, by day and night, to destroy, suppress, neutralize, disrupt, fix or delay enemy forces in close proximity to friendly ground forces. 

Furthermore following missions have been identified as key mission types contributing to the operational flexibility of the weapon system. 

• Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (NTISR)

The use of sensor systems that, while not primarily designed for ISR operations, can contribute vital information to the development of battle space awareness and increase joint force ability to conduct decisive operations.

 • Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR)

A mission flown for the purpose of detecting targets and coordinating or performing attack or reconnaissance on those targets. Strike coordination and reconnaissance missions are flown in a specific geographic area and are an element of the command and control interface to coordinate multiple flights, detect and attack targets, neutralize enemy air defence and provide battle damage assessment.  

Logistics

The future sustainment concept will also need to present an effective and flexible solution to operate from the Main Operating Bases in Belgium as well from the Deployed Operating Bases with a minimum of personnel, as little maintenance as possible and with just the spare parts and support equipment necessary.

Multinational cooperation  

The Belgian Defence seeks to implement an operationally relevant ACCap for the coming 40 to 50 years with advanced avionics and weapons capabilities which can be easily used within the operational framework of NATO and EU and is easily maintainable. Belgian Defence recognizes the benefits linked to international cooperation regarding standardization of fighter aircraft including its associated equipment, the communalization of the operational requirements and the conservation of the interoperability of the ACCap. Therefore the Belgian Defence wishes to enter into a robust partnership with (an)other governmental organization(s) over the life cycle of the ACCap covering the procurement, the production, the overall support and the follow-on development of the ACCap.

Acquisition Costs 

Respondents are requested to provide, at least, the following ROM costs :

a) Unit recurring flyaway price of the proposed number of fighter aircraft as configured in your responses to chapter 6. The unit recurring flyaway cost includes the costs for the aircraft to be flyable and operational in all mission configurations 

b) The cost of weapons (initial payload) and to indicate how those weapons can be procured;

c) All other ancillary equipment such as ground support equipment, flight simulators, initial spare parts, … 

d) All other ancillary services such as training, on-site technical support, … 

e) Non recurring cost associated to the program 

f) Provide a macroscopic view on the required funding flow in support of the acquisition phase of the new ACCap.

Initial Build-up Costs 

Respondents are requested to provide ROM costs (with the recommended required funding flow) associated with infrastructure and ICT infrastructure to host and operate the new ACCap.

Operating Costs 

Respondents are requested to develop ROM operating costs taking into account the recommended fleet size and other planning assumptions (such as the yearly flight plan, etc.). The costs estimate associated with the recommended organizational structure (military personnel) should also be addressed separately by providing the number and category of needed personnel to operate the ACCap.

Sustainment Costs

Belgian Defence envisions supporting the future ACCap for a period of 40 to 50 years. In order to generate a cost estimate based on the same assumptions, Respondents are asked to provide ROM cost estimates over a weapon system life cycle of 30 years from the date of final fleet delivery. Sustainment generally refers to the costs to maintain and repair the weapon system and includes consumables, repairables, depot level maintenance, upgrade costs, associated labor costs and contractor support. Respondents are welcome to propose different sustainment options and detail the costs associated with them (PBL or classic ILS, organic maintenance versus outsourced, …). The cost estimation associated with the recommended size of the organizational structure should also be addressed separately.

Attrition Costs 

Respondents are requested to provide the expected rate and pattern of aircraft attrition, as well as the ROM costs of replacing aircraft due to attrition. 

The F-16 Fighting Falcon: a success story.

Before talking about the new fighters, let's take a look at the F-16 currently in use with the Belgian Airforce.




In the early 1970's Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium were looking for a new fighter. Moreover these countries decided to acquire the same plane to get a better deal. This was called the
Sale of the Century. The candidates at the time were the Mirage F1-E (Dassault), the Viggen (Saab-Scania), the F-17 Cobra (Northrop) and the F-16 (General Dynamics).

The F-16 was chosen as the winner. The US Airforce at this time was first and foremost interested in the larger twin-engine F-15. The F-16 was originally seen as a smaller and cheaper aircraft for other countries. The F-16 turned out to be an excellent plane and the USAF acquired large quantities as well.

The F-16 proved to be a reliable, multi-role aircraft. It was quite affordable to operate. Partly because of its design and partly because it was used in large numbers by many countries. The F-16 was also economically interesting for Belgium. Belgian companies like SABCA and FN Moteurs were actively involved in the production of the new aircraft and following upgrades and maintenance. This meant that Belgium enjoyed some indirect economic compensations in the way of jobs, access to new technologies etc.

The F-16 has set the benchmark and any successor will have to prove its worth!

Crew	1 or 2
Engines	1
Thrust-to-weight ratio	1.095
Max speed (in mach)	1.6
Ferry Range (with external tanks)	2,620 mi  (4220 km)
Service ceiling:	50000ft  (15250m)
Wing loading	88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
Hardpoints	9 +2 pods
Payload	17,000 lb (7,700 kg)

The F-16 usually carries 2 or 4 A2A missiles, 4 air-to-ground weapons, 1 or 2 drop tanks and a targeting pod.

Take a look at this F-16 website