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.