Belgian Air Force tankers?

[SpottairBRU]

According to La Libre and De Tijd, the Defence would like to get 3 tankers (Airbus MRTT, 1 in 2025, the others in 2030), as well as equipping the A400M to be able to refuel. Total estimated cost: 1 billion €.

What are your thoughts? I don't know on the principle itself of getting tankers... why would we need them, and why (in my opinion) so many?

3 seem to be a lot, no? I am not an expert, but wouldn't 2 be more than enough, like our Dutch neighbour?

[Stij]

Maybe they're bargaining?

Ask for the MRTT to get tanker capability on the A400...

Cheers,

Stij

[sn26567]

And why not a KC-747? Incidentally, the only one in the world is operated by the Iranian Air Force !!!

[MiStEr-T]

http://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail ... id=8962088

It seems that the European Defense Agency need more EU airtankers in action for futur operations, maybe with some financial help too,.. bye bye BAF A321

[DutchNL]

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten- ... oject.html

Its seems that Belgium would like to pay for the maintenance cost.

[Flanker2]

NATO has plenty refuelling capacity as it is.
But the A400M would make a pretty good all-weather tanker given its significant useful load and fuel tank capacity. The A330MRTT is a ridiculously expensive and unnecessary choice for the tiny little BAF.

Each Working Belgian would have 300 Euro's taken out of his pocket for this stupid project and that's only the cost of acquisition...

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

Maybe they can opt for a b767 tanker, we will probably get them for free with some F35
What a government we have, some monkeys would have done less harm to us

CXB

[MiStEr-T]

NATO has plenty refuelling capacity as it is.
But the A400M would make a pretty good all-weather tanker given its significant useful load and fuel tank capacity. The A330MRTT is a ridiculously expensive and unnecessary choice for the tiny little BAF.

Each Working Belgian would have 300 Euro's taken out of his pocket for this stupid project and that's only the cost of acquisition...

Flanker as usual..

Who speak about NATO ?
It's the European Defense Agency who want more autonomy for air refueling needs.
(Belgium can manage an european MRTT fleet like Lux NATO AWACS)

From what I read, nobody talks about financing it with Belgian public funds.
And if it's the case, we talk about one 330 in 10 years and the last two in 2030

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

No Belgian funds? What a relief !
I guess some hangars for our A400 and a cheap small replacement -F18/rafale- for the F16 were more needed , haha

[MiStEr-T]

Ok, but why Belgium propose to pay for the maintenance cost if they own the fleet??

[sn26567]

The Netherlands, Norway and Poland will issue a request for proposals “in days” to Airbus Defence and Space, paving the way for a joint purchase of A330 MRTT (multi-role tanker transport aircraft).

In a program facilitated by the European Defence Agency (EDA) and fronted by European armaments agency Occar and NATO’s Support and Procurement Agency, the three countries hope to reach an agreement and contract signing by the end of this year for up to four A330s to be operated as a single fleet, providing aerial refueling and strategic transport for all three countries toward the end of the decade.

Under current plans the fleet would be operated with Dutch registration and regulations and would likely be serviced at Eindhoven air base, although forward-operating bases will be set up in Norway and Poland. The aircraft will be identical and equipped with an aerial refuelling boom system, and wingtip pods for hose-and-drogue systems to refuel probe-equipped aircraft. Initial aircraft, under current plans, will be delivered in the first half of 2019.

The Netherlands will use the A330 to replace its existing fleet of Douglas KDC-10 tankers. Norway and Poland will be new to operating a tanker fleet, but the capability will be vital to Norway’s plans for greater international engagement as it purchases the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Belgium is an observer for now, but reports differ about its intentions. Some suggest it may invest in its own fleet of aircraft. Others say Belgium will invest in the new tanker operation, but buy annual flight hours.

The EDA’s work was prompted by lessons learned from operations over Libya and the Balkans, when European nations found themselves reliant on the U.S. for tanker assets. The agency is trying to encourage greater interoperability and the pooling and sharing of assets so nations can make better use of them.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/europea ... ssuing-rfp

Why shouldn't Belgium join this programme?

[DutchNL]

Then the Belgian MoD must increase its budget if they want to add a new capability to their task. Air refueling is quite expensive to maintain. The cost for maintenance, personnel but not forgetting the need to train many years to make the task of air refueling 'ready' there 'own'.

[Flanker2]

Others say Belgium will invest in the new tanker operation, but buy annual flight hours.

Well see, that's not a bad idea.
The BAF has no real need for dedicated tankers, except when they fight coallition wars started by the Americans, which by themselves are money-wasting campaigns that end up making more mess than success.

[regi]

no off topics or politics dear NCB.

I am a practical thinking person, and therefor unacceptable for the Belgian compromise model.

It is all inter connected.
"Does Belgium need tanker airplanes ?" is almost the same question if Belgium needs replacement for the F-16.
But if the MoD seems to have problems with parking their new cargo planes , I trully ask myself what kind of managment that is.
Maybe time for a major shake up. The Belgian MoD is no longer a ministry of Defence but a ministry of duality. On the one hand we use our gear for expensive relief flights. ( MoD = Ministry of Development ? ) On the other hand we go to war ( Ministry of War as it has been called in the past ) Afghanistan, <IS, Lybia.

Look, now we have consecutive governments that decided to chose for war, without being recalled by the electorate, we as electorate should also follow our leaders and go for the full package.
That means complete programs. Real hangars for the A400. Replacement for the F-16. And tanker airplanes.
( also with hangars ) But it doesn't stop there. If a plane crashes in IS, we need to be able to recover that pilot (before he appears on Youtube burning in a cage). So we need a fully operational search and rescue unit, from land bases or from the sea. Drones with surveillance and attack capabilities. ( also air refulable ) Helicopters ( air refulable ) My ludicrous gunship theory from the past ( to keep the bad guys away from our crashed pilot ) , satellites, high sea batlle groups with submarines to protect our naval activities, and so on.

Belgium has proven in its military history to have spent pro capita enormous sums , without the capability to use it when it comes to the point. ( WWI: the fortresses around Liege and Antwerp ; WWII: Eben Emael , no experienced tank corps or decent airforce; Congo + Zaire + Congo: no suffcient independant extraction/intervention capabilities , Gulf War 1 + 2 : remember the time it took to bring those Mirages to Turkey, they better had put them on trailers.
The choice has been made to go on with maintaining military forces. So than I think it is reasonable to NOT cut corners this time.

small addition about the A400. Should Belgium not take the lead in multi-engineering the A400 platform ?

[Acid-drop]

off topic

WWI: the fortresses around Liege

wrong example, they have slowed down the german attack so much that France gave Liège a special medal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Li%C3%A8ge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A8ge_Medal

[regi]

OK, off topic, but still good example. The forts were not intended to slow down an attack. They were intended to stop an attack. In which they failed completely. Similar to the fortress ring around Antwerp which crumbled as well under the large artillery.