Someone tested on Command...
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?
Someone tested on Command...
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
- guarantee Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) / Air Policing duties with 2 aircraft (24/7) - in an
alternating rotation regime with the Royal Netherlands Air Force
- 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?
http://aviationweek.com/aviation-wee...er-competitionIn 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.*
"neighboring countries"... netherlands, germany, luxemburg, france
only netherlands intends on operating the f-35... in what is it "more adapted" for cooperation?
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.
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..."
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.
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...).
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
Last edited by TomcatViP; 29th March 2017 at 01:21.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...placement.htmlSweden had already said it wouldn’t allow the Gripen to carry nuclear weapons
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.
Concur that.. An obsolete and useless weapon..
IMOHO, this declaration changes nothing to the Gripen prospective chances.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)