Two and a half fighters left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Saab throws in the towel. Three left!

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

So the Gripen E is out...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe First versus America First

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ground Pounders

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

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

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

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

Rafale

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

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

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

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

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

Eurofighter Typhoon

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

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

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

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

Gripen

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

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

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

F-35A

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Boeing throws in the towel

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

See English article on Janes

Is there really no level playing field? 

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

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

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

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

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

Goverment to government

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belgian Air Component: the age of propellors Part 1

Origins and the Great War

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

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

Interwar

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

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

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

 World War Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civilians died in Mosul airstrikes 17 - 18th March

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

UPDATE 25.04.2017

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

Atlantic Trident 2017 exercise

An international exercise will be held from April 12 through April 28, 2017, at Joint Base Langley-Eustis. The USAF will be joined by the Royal Air Force of the UK and the French Armée de l'Air.
The goal is to train together and to share tactics, techniques and procedures.

It will no doubt be an interesting event. US pilots will fly the F-22 Raptor and F-35 JSF. The British are bringing Typhoons and the French are flying their Rafale's. US F-15's and T-38 Talon jets will be the agressors in the exercise. The F-15's are clearly representing dangerous foes like the Flankers. The Talons simulate smaller threats, but are harder to spot.   source

I am looking forward to after action reports!

Personally, I think that these joint exercises are extrememy valuable. This is a great opportunity to learn how to operate 5th generation and 4+ generation fighters together in the most efficient way. 

For the US, it is also an opportunity to measure the results of the F-35 against the best of the US (F-22, F-15) and Europe (Rafale, Typhoon). In return, the French and British pilots get the unique experience of flying and fighting together with stealthy jets. They might learn about the strengths and weaknesses of stealty jets. This could prove immensly useful seeing that several countries are developing their own stealthy fighters. 

Silent killers

The Russian T-50 PAK FA is of course the main concern here in Europe. The Russian PAK FA is an interesting design. The shape, the internal weapons bay and the composite material reduce its radar cross section. All of this leads to the first Russian stealthy jet. Although I have read several comments that the side and rear RCS of the PAK FA is larger compared to US designs. The sensor fusion might also be less advanced than on the F-35.

But the advantage of the PAK FA is that it is still a Flanker at heart. It builds on the same speed, endurance and maneuverability that the Sukhoi's are famous for. The PAK FA has room for six weapons internally compared to just four on the F-35. 

The Russians will still need some time to finish the development of the PAK FA. Once ready, it will seriously boost the capabilities of the Russian Air Force. Nonethess, I expect that Russia will continue to lean heavily on the existing Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35. The PAK FA won't replace them. It will just be a useful addition. The current Sukhoi designs also feature as the main adversaries in the Belgian ACCAP missions. 

I am less sure about the MiG-35. It was first touted to be a advanced jet with 3D thrust vectoring AESA radar etc. As time progresses it seems that the Russian MoD isn't really interested. The Sukhoi's are the preferred choice for them. As a consequence MiG corporation is currently betting on international sales The MiG-35 is offered on the international market. But it now seems to be downgraded to normal engine nozzles and a mechanical radar. 

The MiG-35 is in a tough spot. On the one hand the Swedish Gripen and the latest F-16 variants offer advanced western designs at a fairly affordable price. On the other hand, the Sukhoi Su-30's offer a Russian alternative. The extra range of the Sukhoi is without a doubt a compelling argument. Most Sukhoi customers have to cover extended airspaces without the benefit of air-to-air refueling. The twin engine Sukhoi Su-30 with its huge volume of internal fuel  is perfect for the job.

I am rather pessimistic about the future of the MiG-35. Although according to The National Interest, Serbia will buy 6 MiG-29's and will receive 8 more from Belarus. I expect them to be second hand jets . Nonetheless with a few upgrades, the MiG-29 can still be a good fighter. Upgrades of existing MiG-29's might be more common than orders for new MiG-35's.  

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. 

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.