Belgian ACCAP Request for Government Proposal

The Belgian government has finally published and official request for goverment proposal to replace the F-16's. You can find the file here in English: http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/default/files/articles/Request%20for%20Government%20Proposal_0.pdf

I have followed the selection process for the new fighter. I do not think that the F-35 or any other jet is the preferred option at the time. The former MoD Pieter de Crem had a preference for the JSF. The new government and current MoD does not IMHO. This should be a fair competition based on performance, costs and other benefits (transfer of technology, industrial benefits etc).

This is my personal assesment. The final decision will be made in the 2nd half of 2018. 

First remarks

Deliveries will be from 2023 to 2030 at four or five aircraft per year for a total of 34. Only 24 have to be fully equipped with all the required systems for combat missions (targeting pods, jammer pods, IRST, external/conformal fuel tanks).

Fighters that are near the end of production may have a problem delivering in 2030. The others still have a year for further development. The Gripen and F-35 seem to benefit the most from this. The F-35 carries all the systems internally. The other 4 jets can save some money because only 24 combat mission sets have to be included.

The proposal needs to include a weapons package with the associated costs. US made munitions tend to be more common and cheaper. Belgium uses mostly US ordnance at the time. The Rafale has some issues with its unique French weapons.

Partnership and cooperation is important. This contains training, operations and weapon system support. Most Belgian pilot training is already done in cooperation with France. Only follow-on training on F-16 is done in Belgium. France has a strong card here. Streamlining training in France could save a lot of euros.

Belgium often operates together with the US, France, the Netherlands and other European countries. The Swedish gripen is the odd one out in this case. However the election of Donald Trump and the “No more NATO freeriding, Hellhole Brussels” speeches may have an impact. It is possible that the Belgian government will prefer a European partner. The Rafale and Eurofighter might have a strong case here. But the F-35 will still be used by many European countries. The Super Hornet suffers in this category as well. The US won’t keep it around beyond the 2030 horizon. No one in Europe has the Super Bug.

Deployability and operational autonomy 70% of the fleet has to be available at all times. The fighters have to be able to deploy quickly. Belgium wants to be able to operate as autonomous as possible. So all of this leads to a fighter that has a small logistical footprint and can be serviced by the Belgian Airforce and/or Belgian aerospace companies. The current F-16 scores very high in this category. The Gripen might have an edge here if it is as good as Saab claims. The F-35 might be at a disadvantage because of the bulky ALIS container system and the preference for using official Lockheed Martin service centers, (like the one in Italy).

Short and long term evolution. This is all about future developments. Belgium will keep these new fighters around for a long time. They will need upgrades, preferably also funded by other users. The F-35 scores high because the US and the other JSF partners will fund a lot of future upgrades. The big loser seems to be the Super Hornet. Even Canada sees it as a sort of interim fighter.

Costs The current government wants to keep the budget in line. Opposition parties and some civilian organisations will criticise large expenditures on defence. Money is an issue. The fighter has to be cost-effective regarding the purchasing price as well as operational costs. The Gripen might have an edge here. The Rafale, Eurofighter and F-35 may be pricier. The opposition parties will also heavily criticise a selection than seems swayed in favour of one jet. The winner will have to earn it.

War situation In short there are two scenario’s: Firstly a long term, low intensity operation like the operation against ISIS/Daesh and  secondly a possible high intensity confrontion with a near peer.

Belgium will contribute 6 fighters to a coalition of partners. Reliability, endurance and operating costs matter the most in the first situation. Protection, lethality and the ease of integration with partners are important in the second situation. The cheaper Gripen and Super Hornet have an edge in nr 1. The Eurofighter, F-35 and to a certain extent the Rafale have and edge in  nr2.

Missions in ACCAP: 

The missions in the request for proposal are challenging. The opponents in these missions are J-16, JF-17, Su-35, Su-34, Su-30 and Mig-29SMT fighters as wel as SAMS including SA-21, SA-10, SA-15, SA-17, SA-20, SA-22, SA-24, Roland, Stinger and Crotale missiles. You can find the specifications in the annex C of the document.

All missions are flown by a four ship flight. Most scenario’s include both A2A and air ground elements. Several missions involve Integrated Air Defens Systems IADS. The missions do not involve confrontations with hostile stealth fighters like the PAK FA.

The missions are interesting. Destroying all the SAM’s and fighters is not a requirement. The fighters only need to kill what is necessary to achieve the mission. The government agencies can present tactics, weapon employment, evasion, jamming etc in order to make a convincing argument on how the jets wil achieve the mission. Sometimes sneaking in and out is an option.

The 2nd scenario, air interdiction, requires big bombs to destroy a bunker and a bridge and 8 aircraft shelters + 4 planes. Payload will be a factor here. At least 14 air-to-ground weapons will be required.

The availability of Stand Off weapons (ALCM’s like the SCALP or glide bombs like the AGM-154 JSOW) are a huge advantage for the candidates. The stealthy features of the F-35 could come in handy. Nonetheless, several missions require a significant amount of ordnance and fuel. External pylons will be required in some situations.

The big challenge IMHO is that most missions require targeting, jamming and IRST pods + air-to-ground ordnance + A2A missiles + fuel. A careful selections of loadouts will have to be made.

Mission evaluation

The F-35A will be less affected by the SAM’s. However they are limited to internal weapons only in stealth mode. They could sneak in and out but they might be vulnerable to being hit in the rear by hostile fighters and SAM’s when exposing the hot engine and larger rear RCS. They can’t outrun Sukhoi’s. They may have to use external pylons to carry the necessary weapons for the interdiction mission.

The Gripen suffers because of its small payload. A Gripen E can carry 6000kg. The others can carry 7500kg or more. At the moment it doesn’t have conformal fuel tanks. Saab will have to think hard about the configuration of their 4 jets. They will need every hardpoint to fit all the pods, bombs, missiles and fuel tanks.

 The Typhoon is a powerful fighter. It does have some issues. The targeting pod is integrated in the center wet pylon. This prevents the use of a central fuel tank. The folding landing gear restricts the length of weapons on the innermost wing pylons. Storm Shadow ALCM's have to be carried on the wing wet pylons. Conformal fuel tanks are in development though. They should help a lot.

The Rafale has a great layout of its hardpoints. It can carry a lot of ordnance and fuel in an efficiënt manner. CFT’s are in development. It might be harder pressed against Sukhoi’s than the Typhoon though.

The missions do not include the option for standoff jammming by Growlers. All 4 jets have to fly the full mission patterns. So the Super Hornet has to achieve the missions on its own. The main challenges are dealing with SAM’s without the Growlers plus dealing with Sukhoi’s.

Final assessment

The Gripen will score high on cost and ease of maintenance. It might score lower on the missions because its smaller payload will have a big effect. Still being the cheapest can be convincing when the budgets are tight.

The F-35 will be used by the USA and several European countries. The stealthy features are useful for the missions. The negative image, the election of Donald Trump and the potentially high costs make it less attractive option for politicians.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a good option. The biggest question is the price and if it will be still in production in 2030.

The Rafale will perform well for most missions. French and Belgian Aerospace industries are intertwined. Most Belgian pilot training already takes place in France. The questions are the price of unique French munitions and the funding of future Rafale upgrades. It all depends on just one country compared to the F-35 JSF and Eurofighter.

The Super Hornet is an unlikely choice. The USA won't use it beyond 2030-ish. Nobody in Europe operates it. It is not a spectacular fighter.