Place your bets.
As sad as it makes me, F-35 is the better choice.
Eurofighter would be second probably, but too expensive and has poor air to ground capabilities.
Rafale is even more expensive.
Everything else is just old or unfeasible.
So either old Gripens that are equal to their old F-16's, new Gripens that cost way more than they should, or Super Hornets which at best will only be $10 mil cheaper per plane than F-35's by the time Belgium buys any.
Paying 75% of the cost for 50% of the capability is pretty dumb.
Are they? This is what a new F/A-18C would cost.
>more Block 52 F-16's
Aren't the Fokker/SABCA F-16 MLUs up there with Block 50/52 in terms of capability already? Minus the ability to fit CFTs and the fact that the airframes have a lot of flight hours of course.
If that's the case, F-16V and Block 60 would be the only proper step forward without going for a totally new aircraft
The cost estimates he's using are likely not the same method of estimation as the F-35.
An A airframe in LRIP 9 was $94 million. That is in no way the final cost of the plane.
Watch out for shills on both sides comparing apples and oranges.
Good to see the Belgians doing something about replacing their F-16's.
>Place your bets.
The inner slavaboo suggests MiG-35's but more realisticaly would be F-35A's.
MLU's don't have the better engine, and they have the F-16A airframe, which is lighter but less capable of handling extra loads.
Most of the MLU's are very high hour frames that can't get many more service extensions.
It'll probably be a wash. There are lots of features meant to reduce maintenance time and cost, but other features that will be more maintenance intensive like the stealth coatings.
But even those features are less maintenance intensive than previous generation stealth coatings.
Who the fuck would attack them? France? Netherlands? Germany? UK?
Whatever they buy, it's a WASTE OF MONEY.
They should buy small arms and go on a full kebab removal. Parts of that country are GIGANTIC SHITHOLES.
Paris attackers came from that Islamist-infected shithole.
>They're involved in NATO bombing of middle east shitholes.
You mean "The Coalition"? HAHahahah... that's just a PR cover for the US. It's the US that's doing bombing. Everyone else is pulling their dicks.
Who cares? Let someone else do the bombings in ME. There are much bigger and richer countries that can do it. They can contribute in other ways.
Then they should fight ISIS inside their own country.
>What’s the Matter With Belgium?
>The small nation has become a major source of violent jihadists, both in Syria and Iraq and also inside Europe.
>Belgium providing most ISIS recruits per capita in Europe – UN
Fucking hell, is any country safe from these cunts?
>F35 NO EXTERNAL HARDPOINTS
They said that? Realy?
D-do you like Gripen, sempai? It's pretty good. And cheap.
Any other source? Each contract so far seem to be for way more than just the planes, specially the Brazilian deal. How do we compare it to F-35 costs?
Will India be selling the Tejas? Seems to be one of the cheapest so far.
Hey guys, what's going on in this thread?
>Paying more for substandard Eurotrash.
>what could have been...
Cherry pick a Gripen deal and divide the whole cost of it with planes purchased, pick the $80 million promised future cost of F-35 and then just compare.
>$151m > $80m
>F-35 is cheaper
It's not good enough, it's mediocre garbage that's barely any cheaper.
>buy 50% inferior planes now because they are 25% cheaper
>pay more in 10-20 years when they are hopelessly obsolete and you need to replace them
And F-35 production money goes to EU as well, since you want your share of shekels.
>buy 50% inferior planes
Citation needed. Also
>care so much about differences instead of just buying cheaper plane and allow US to do all expensive defense job
NATO is here for a reason :^)
Grip has a waay smaller RCS, better selection of weapons and is cheaper to operate.
The only real problem the grip has is in terms of usage (F16 is a better multi-role other platforms are better at policing airspace etc).
Which is largely due to the fact that Grip is true jack of all trades and a master of none.
If you are a country with a small military budget and you want a modern western single engine platform there is simply no other choice.
Memes aside, does anyone here have a more informed opinion concerning the Tejas? Indians sure seem to be going forward with it as the bulk of their forces replacing their MIG-21. And for around US$30million a piece it is quite cheap compared to other multi-role fighters.
They're looking toward a three aircraft mix : A shit ton of Tejas as lightweight fighter, some Rafales as fighter bomber, and the PAKFA or whatever will come of it as heavy fighter.
>If you are a country with a small military budget and you want a modern western single engine platform there is simply no other choice.
Except for, well, you know.
Considering the French literally had to pay Egypt to take the Rafale then I doubt that'll happen.
Now the upgrades are coming through, they have a better product in Typhoon available or a cheaper alternative in Gripen.
the mentioned budget is 4 billion dollars for 34 aircraft, it was not stated if maintenance and operating costs are included in that budget
for the f35,
assuming a higher than advertised per plane price of $95 million (including engine) just kicks:
95*34 = 3230
or around $3.2 million overall
an f35 buy is not improbable
Belgian here, I'm honestly doubting anything is going to come from it.
Defence has had massive budget cuts in the past years and the decision is scheduled for 2018, which is also an election year.
So nobody is going to risk public ire by cutting in civilian oriented service to find the funds to replace our F-16's.
My guess is either F35 (buy new and kept it again for 40 years & the dutch are buying it), the Dassault (our fighter pilots already do their training in cooperation with the French) or the Gripen
Not anymore, our 6 F-16 (yup we deployed 10% of our fighter jets against IS), returned in the summer of 2015 because there wasn't a budget to continue the operation.
We might either take over from the dutch in 2017 or redeploy in 2016.
We do have 4 F-16's deployed in the Baltic to secure NATO airspace.
Nobody publicly knows because the numbers that SAAB / the Swedes use way different metrics; it's believed they don't count replacement parts and unscheduled maintenance as part of their operating costs (while US figures do, which skews everything).
They're not going to get 34 F-35s for $4 billion, unless they're only considering flyaway costs. For 34 F-35As they'd want about $6.5 billion (including all the necessary support equipment, etc).
They'll either boost the budget or reduce the aircraft number requirement - $4 billion for 34 jets = $117.6 million per jet. Even the Gripen E's total acquisition cost is around $150 million (an F-35A's is around $175-200m).