Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future of Belgian Air Component

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post
    Anw, it is specified in Rfp that plnas can be retrofitted until FOC (last date 2029-12-31) as far as all planes are at the same standard te day of FOC.
    Right, that is why i said block 4. They should be able to provide block 4.1 software, and block 4.2 hardware by 2023 deliveries and later upgrade 4.3 software and 4.4 hardware in the post 2025 time-frame.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post
      Right, that is why i said block 4. They should be able to provide block 4.1 software, and block 4.2 hardware by 2023 deliveries and later upgrade 4.3 software and 4.4 hardware in the post 2025 time-frame.
      What do you mean; are there problems with upgrading from bl 3 to bl 4??

      Norway's first F-35 are bl 3 of course...

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by Loke View Post
        What do you mean; are there problems with upgrading from bl 3 to bl 4??

        Norway's first F-35 are bl 3 of course...
        No. What I said was that if the IOC and FOC timeframe is 2023-2029 or thereabouts, Lockheed could offer a baseline Block 4 with full block 4 capability being provided within he IOC-FOC window. Current foreign partners and FMS customers are using block 3F (most anyways) as their baseline and later upgrading to block 4.
        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Loke View Post
          What do you mean; are there problems with upgrading from bl 3 to bl 4??

          Norway's first F-35 are bl 3 of course...
          The post indicates that there are H/W changes in Block 4 aircraft.
          It will cost to upgrade Block 3 to Block 4.

          Comment


            #25
            Yup the program office submitted a 4 part block 4 program with block 4.2 and 4.4 focusing on hardware and 4.1 and 4.3 software. JROC approval is expected by April so we will know the exact details then.
            Old radar types never die; they just phased array

            Comment


              #26
              Those scenarios in annex c are quite demanding.

              The question now is, what is the minimum number of airframes that is needed to maintain the operational availability of the 4 required? With just 1 type, those same airframes are also needed to develop the pilots flying experience and skills without a second type as a stepping stone to build flight experince. Then there is all the peacetime missions that is needed to be done, like QRA and air policing. Would those kind of missions can be done with a second cheaper type, while acting as a place for pilots to hone their skills and experience before moving to the more expensive to operate main fighter type?

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by EagleSpirit View Post
                Germany/The EU should hurry up and make a European Pilot Training Centre with Pilatus and Leonardo aircraft + Simulators.

                Considering it's decreasing costs the F-35 will be a shoo-in to replace the F-16 as long as the US doesn't do anything crazy with Trump at the wheel.
                It would be really stupid for a European Union member to send money overseas to support the US military industrial complex when they have indigenous industry to support like Eurofighter , Dassault and Saab. But yeah. They probably will.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                  Mmmm, those scenarios (and I agree that they are realistic) look more like 2018 than 2035, from all the "red forces" hardware described in the doc, the only one wich is not (maybe) operational today is the J16, the rest its all in active duty.
                  One thing that caught my eye was that the first one might has well be called "Putin goes rogue in the Baltics next year".
                  NATO top boss: No threat against the Baltics
                  Published March 17, 2017

                  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03...t-baltics.html

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                    Look at the orbats of today, littered with 90s and early 2000 acquisitions. The threat for the DCA scenario were Su-34/35 with suppprt from Su-30, all in production today, expected to serve for the next 30 years and likely to remain the backbone of Russian aviation during that period.

                    Agree no PAK-FA and no J-20 but I think in a NATO scenario Belgium could rightly expect to those systems would be tackled by other partners.

                    I also think the SAMs were representative of what we will see in 15-20 years. A few high end systems with a mix of currently in service systems that likely have a few upgrades.
                    This is just ridiculous. Belgium has an air force because it happens to be a country. It has a more serious chance of going to war with a rogue regime in Germany than it does to fight Russia.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by KGB View Post
                      This is just ridiculous. Belgium has an air force because it happens to be a country. It has a more serious chance of going to war with a rogue regime in Germany than it does to fight Russia.
                      Well Belgium is a member of NATO but that is besides the point. The Belgiums themselves determined the threat scenarios, you are welcome to believe or disbelieve them as you will but military professionals within their Defence Department crafted them.

                      As for my reference to the threat types and Russian aviation, it was to demonstrate that the airframes in question will be used by the primary operator for a significant period and within the timeframe I was suggesting. You would assume that the Russians are interested in exporting the Su-34/35 so it is certainly a justifiable threat.

                      Comment


                        #31
                        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?

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Someone tested on Command...

                          Comment


                            #33
                            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, ive 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.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                              #34
                              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?

                              Comment


                                #35
                                Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                                If you see my posts, ive 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.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                  Someone tested on Command...
                                  What does this mean?

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    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

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      "neighboring countries"... netherlands, germany, luxemburg, france

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

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        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.
                                        sigpic

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                          What does this mean?
                                          Used CNAMO simulating for scenarion N2 on Air-Defense.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X