Saab throws in the towel. Three left!

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

So the Gripen E is out...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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