Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 151

Thread: Future of Belgian Air Component

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,184
    So, do people agree with my assessment that the only 4.5 gen a/c that may be able to complete all the missions successfully is the Rafale?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Someone tested on Command...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,422
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    NATO top boss: No threat against the Baltics
    Published March 17, 2017

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03...t-baltics.html
    If you see my posts, i´ve been saying for years now that any NATO country is pretty much safe from a Russian military intervention...
    But that particular scenario is without questions a Baltic Scenario, read the documents.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    227
    From the Belgian Air Combat Capability document

    "" Level of Ambition
    The level of ambition for the future Belgian air combat capability is to be able to
    simultaneously
    - guarantee Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) / Air Policing duties with 2 aircraft (24/7) - in an
    alternating rotation regime with the Royal Netherlands Air Force
    and
    - contribute air power to expeditionary operations for a sustained period of undetermined
    duration with 6 multi-role aircraft. ""

    Could the 2 level of ambition be satisfied by different aircrafts?

    Probably for the QRA a low cost supersonic aircraft that could also double as a LIFT. Partial replacement of F-16 and alpha jet missions. 2 squadron of 16 aircrafts perhaps? Something from the T-X competition, Gripen C/D or the KAI golden eagles?

    For the expeditionary operations a common fighter with the allies (F-35?). 6 aircraft deployed would need a minimum fleet of 18 of such fighters?

    Would this be a more cost effective route rather than a homogeneous new fighter fleet of 34 aircraft?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    If you see my posts, i´ve been saying for years now that any NATO country is pretty much safe from a Russian military intervention...
    But that particular scenario is without questions a Baltic Scenario, read the documents.
    one S-500 system intercept 10 ICBMs . with out investment in new ICBMs everything else willl be intercepted.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Someone tested on Command...
    What does this mean?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,184
    In replacing 54 aging F-16s, the Belgian air force has appeared to favor the F-35 as a way to ease ongoing cooperation with neighboring countries. The question is whether that will continue as the nation begins a formal competition for 34 new fighters.*
    http://aviationweek.com/aviation-wee...er-competition

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    "neighboring countries"... netherlands, germany, luxemburg, france

    only netherlands intends on operating the f-35... in what is it "more adapted" for cooperation?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,422
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    "neighboring countries"... netherlands, germany, luxemburg, france

    only netherlands intends on operating the f-35... in what is it "more adapted" for cooperation?
    Belgian is a partner in EPAF for three decades.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    What does this mean?
    Used CNAMO simulating for scenarion N°2 on Air-Defense.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Used CNAMO simulating for scenarion N°2 on Air-Defense.
    CNAMO? I googled it but could not finde anything that seemed relevant? What is it? A kind of simulator?

    Who did the simulation and what was the outcome?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    CNAMO? I googled it but could not finde anything that seemed relevant? What is it? A kind of simulator?

    Who did the simulation and what was the outcome?
    sorry Cmano http://www.matrixgames.com/products/...e.Year.Edition

    Game. Very ood simulator (pro version exist), although not perfect. result was 1 rafale lost, (no refueling on way back)primary targets ok, not the bridge. (one of the two secondary targets). far from perfectly reflecting reality though... And would need a bunch of tests to assess anythin.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Belgian is a partner in EPAF for three decades.
    so? it was between F-16 owners... since they have chose the F-16, they partnered on that commonality. That doesn't mean they have to keep buying the same products forever... what's more, the article says "neighboring countries".. un EPAF, only Netherlands are "neighbors with Belgium.. Denmark and Norway are a bit further away..

    if we want to go that way, one may say "they partner with France for their pilots training (belgian alphajets are permanently stationed in France for example, and that since 2005 if my memory serves well), they overfly regularly french airspace, train with the french... so it would be only logical to buy the same fighter as the french as well..."

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    125
    Just get the F-35 and be done with it. Don't see no reason to host B61's if you don't have a believable way of delivering it.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    so? it was between F-16 owners... since they have chose the F-16, they partnered on that commonality. That doesn't mean they have to keep buying the same products forever... what's more, the article says "neighboring countries".. un EPAF, only Netherlands are "neighbors with Belgium.. Denmark and Norway are a bit further away..

    if we want to go that way, one may say "they partner with France for their pilots training (belgian alphajets are permanently stationed in France for example, and that since 2005 if my memory serves well), they overfly regularly french airspace, train with the french... so it would be only logical to buy the same fighter as the french as well..."
    belgian training is ending up now, new contract with USA.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by JakobS View Post
    Just get the F-35 and be done with it. Don't see no reason to host B61's if you don't have a believable way of delivering it.
    Interesting point. On the other hand (i) no B-61 mentioned in RFGP (although one may see an allusion inside growth part). (ii) If that was required one day, would Sweden accept a nuclear bomb to be induced on one of their product fighter?

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Belgian is a partner in EPAF for three decades.
    Yes, but also sharing air policing with Nederlands.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Interesting point. On the other hand (i) no B-61 mentioned in RFGP (although one may see an allusion inside growth part). (ii) If that was required one day, would Sweden accept a nuclear bomb to be induced on one of their product fighter?
    I would be surprised if Gripen owners would not get enough information to qualify weapons on their own.
    The new App based S/W architecture should allow this.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by APRichelieu View Post
    I would be surprised if Gripen owners would not get enough information to qualify weapons on their own.
    The new App based S/W architecture should allow this.
    I'm not confident the US would allow B61 integration on the Gripen.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    I'm not confident the US would allow B61 integration on the Gripen.
    The App based architecture would allow Belgian Air Force to have B61 integration,
    without making it available to anyone else, so why not?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by APRichelieu View Post
    The App based architecture would allow Belgian Air Force to have B61 integration,
    without making it available to anyone else, so why not?
    Other than resistance to integrating a nuclear weapon on an airframe manufactured by a non NATO member?

    Required would be physical and electronic fail safe changes to certify the Gripen airframe for nuclear carriage. Would the Swedes even allow the airframe to be modified this way?

    I would also suggest that the cost of these upgrades and certification program for such a small fleet would become expensive. It would likely be cheaper to order and operate an aircraft already certified for nuclear delivery (if this remains an enduring requirement...).

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,073
    strategic targets isnt going to be attacked with free fall nukes,
    and i cant for the life of me see NL dropping free fall nukes on brigades either,
    i think its a non issue.

    the most challenging task is timely interception,
    even the better interceptors will be hard pressed, trainers isnt going to cut it

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    Other than resistance to integrating a nuclear weapon on an airframe manufactured by a non NATO member?

    Required would be physical and electronic fail safe changes to certify the Gripen airframe for nuclear carriage. Would the Swedes even allow the airframe to be modified this way?

    I would also suggest that the cost of these upgrades and certification program for such a small fleet would become expensive. It would likely be cheaper to order and operate an aircraft already certified for nuclear delivery (if this remains an enduring requirement...).
    I understand that the Gripen is already hardened for EMP.

    Name:  figure-3-600x390.png
Views: 257
Size:  132.7 KB
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 29th March 2017 at 01:21.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    I understand that the Gripen is already hardened for EMP.
    More than just EMP hardening. Irrespective of that, it appears that Sweden has already made that decision.

    Sweden had already said it wouldn’t allow the Gripen to carry nuclear weapons
    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...placement.html

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,399
    FWIW, my opinion is that Belgium will probably stick with its co-ordination with the Dutch & buy F-35, with Rafale being the second (& outside) option.

    Scheduled to get tankers for the first time ever, though, albeit as part of a multi-national NATO consortium along with the Netherlands, Germany, Poland & Norway. 2 A330 MRTT on order so far for the NL, but 6 more are planned now that other countries have signed up.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    FWIW, my opinion is that Belgium will probably stick with its co-ordination with the Dutch & buy F-35, with Rafale being the second (& outside) option.

    Scheduled to get tankers for the first time ever, though, albeit as part of a multi-national NATO consortium along with the Netherlands, Germany, Poland & Norway. 2 A330 MRTT on order so far for the NL, but 6 more are planned now that other countries have signed up.
    Agree. Just wrote about RFGP btw

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by JakobS View Post
    Don't see no reason to host B61's if you don't have a believable way of delivering it.
    No reason to host B61s in the first place.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,759
    Concur that.. An obsolete and useless weapon..

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    More than just EMP hardening. Irrespective of that, it appears that Sweden has already made that decision.


    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...placement.html
    I doubt Sweden has commented on this.
    This was highlighted during the Indian MMRCA process, and the sale was approved from the Swedish side.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    More than just EMP hardening. Irrespective of that, it appears that Sweden has already made that decision.


    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...placement.html
    Nice found but once the BAF has bought the Gripen, they are free to upgrade it as they wish. Especially with such sensitive topic that are not traditionally open to public debate. That could well be put into the future upgrade category. Sweden design bureau having normally no experience with nuclear weapon carriage, their help on this topic won't be determinant for the success of such integration.

    IMOHO, this declaration changes nothing to the Gripen prospective chances.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. giganick1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES