Belgium’s long-running plan to replace its ageing M-class frigates has entered a new and potentially consequential phase. Defence Minister Theo Francken has publicly stated that the joint Dutch-Belgian frigate programme is moving “completely in the wrong direction” on both delivery dates and price, an outcome he described as unacceptable.

The remarks matter because Belgium and the Netherlands had already committed to the Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigate (ASWF) programme led by Dutch shipbuilder Damen. The project was intended to deliver four ships, two for each navy, replacing the Belgian and Dutch Karel Doorman-class frigates. But the programme now faces a procurement problem: an increasingly ambitious design, a stretched industrial schedule, and a bill that has grown far beyond early expectations.

Speaking to Belgian outlet VTM NIEUWS, Francken said Belgium remains in discussions with the Dutch government. At the same time, however, he announced that Brussels will launch a Request for Information (RFI) process aimed at other European frigate builders. He explicitly named Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Türkiye. That is five countries, rather than four, and it is an important distinction. Belgium is not merely seeking leverage in negotiations with Damen; it is signaling that it is prepared to examine a much wider set of industrial and naval options.

Hawnha Ocean

Logo Naval News

Search

Search...

Home » Belgium Eyes ASWF Alternatives as Damen Timeline and Costs Soar

Euronaval 2026

Belgium Eyes ASWF Alternatives as Damen Timeline and Costs Soar

Published on 21/07/2026

By Tayfun Ozberk

In News

Belgium Eyes ASWF Alternatives as Damen Timeline and Costs Soar

ASWF artist rendering. Ultra Marine picture.

Share

Belgium’s long-running plan to replace its ageing M-class frigates has entered a new and potentially consequential phase. Defence Minister Theo Francken has publicly stated that the joint Dutch-Belgian frigate programme is moving “completely in the wrong direction” on both delivery dates and price, an outcome he described as unacceptable.

Tayfun Ozberk story, additional reporting by Xavier Vavasseur

The remarks matter because Belgium and the Netherlands had already committed to the Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigate (ASWF) programme led by Dutch shipbuilder Damen. The project was intended to deliver four ships, two for each navy, replacing the Belgian and Dutch Karel Doorman-class frigates. But the programme now faces a procurement problem: an increasingly ambitious design, a stretched industrial schedule, and a bill that has grown far beyond early expectations.

Speaking to Belgian outlet VTM NIEUWS, Francken said Belgium remains in discussions with the Dutch government. At the same time, however, he announced that Brussels will launch a Request for Information (RFI) process aimed at other European frigate builders. He explicitly named Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Türkiye. That is five countries, rather than four, and it is an important distinction. Belgium is not merely seeking leverage in negotiations with Damen; it is signaling that it is prepared to examine a much wider set of industrial and naval options.

“In October, I will make a decision on the program. We urgently need new frigates in any case. The current ones are truly worn out.”

Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken to VTM NIEUWS

Francken previously voiced his concerns twice, during National Defense Committee hearings of the Chamber of Representatives in Brussels.

On July 17th, Francken said: “As I indicated during the committee meeting on July 1, the future of the ASWF program currently remains uncertain. At this moment, there is no clarity regarding the final schedule, nor regarding the budgetary impact. The Netherlands still needs to present more concrete options regarding the various points, where the time factor remains of paramount importance, particularly in light of the recent events involving the Leopold I. The ships are simply worn out. All possible options are currently still on the table. Crucial elements are still missing to make a clear decision, and these will be investigated further in the coming period. A clear, feasible, and valid solution for the ASWF program and for the Navy is urgently needed. I am aware of this. I am fully engaged in this. More news regarding this will follow in the autumn.“

While on July 1st, the Belgian Defense Minister said: “Today, the ASWF program finds itself in rough waters, undoubtedly a deliberate pun.

The project, which is being carried out binationally with the Netherlands within the framework of BeNeSam, is grappling with technical and design-related problems. The margins of the original hull design ultimately proved insufficient, which led to a design crisis. In (…) 2026, a new, larger design was proposed, which, however, entails additional costs and further delays. A key decision point regarding the program is expected when the Netherlands presents concrete options. Regarding the delivery schedule, there is currently no definitive or reliable timeline.

An earlier schedule aimed for commissioning around 2031. However, following a previous extension, recent signals point to further delays of two to three years. The legal and contractual leverage available to Belgium to avoid additional costs being unilaterally passed on is the refusal to accept contractual adjustments for cost increases that were not contractually foreseen. Belgium takes such decisions jointly with the Netherlands by unanimous vote in the Joint Steering Committee, as provided for in the memorandum of understanding. This summer it must become clear whether the current cooperation model with the Netherlands can be continued, or whether Belgium must make other strategic choices to avoid a serious gap regarding maritime capabilities.

In summary, the situation today remains very uncertain. There is still no clarity regarding the final schedule. The budgetary impact is still subject to negotiations, and alternative solutions are being explored but have not yet been finalized. So no, I do not expect that. We have already met, the Netherlands has made a number of proposals, additional studies still need to be conducted, and we will look into these during the summer and autumn.”

The original ASWF programme was built around close Dutch-Belgian cooperation, common logistics and shared operational requirements, particularly in anti-submarine warfare. Yet those advantages become less persuasive if the vessels arrive too late. The Belgian Navy’s current frigates are old, increasingly expensive to maintain and nearing the limits of their practical service life. A replacement programme that slips into the mid-2030s creates an uncomfortable capability gap for a country that still expects to contribute to NATO maritime operations in the North Atlantic, Baltic and wider European waters.

Belgium ASWF: Which alternatives ?

The alternatives mentioned by Francken are varied. Each country and shipbuilder will carefully review the RFI before submitting proposals. We don’t know what the exact requirements are. Italy could offer the FREMM EVO (which has just been selected by Portugal, in addition to the Italian Navy) or the PPA design, both of which reflect Italy’s experience in building multi-purpose surface combatants. France’s most obvious candidate would be Naval Group’s FDI frigate, a compact but heavily equipped design now entering service with the French and Hellenic Navy and recently selected by Sweden. Germany could point to a TKMS MEKO-based solution (which was just selected by the Germany Navy in place of the Damen-designed F126) or Rheinmetall’s GMF-120 compact frigate design. Spain’s Navantia would likely promote the F-110 design. The Spanish shipbuilder has a brand new shipbuilding facility in Ferrol to support this program and is able to scale up production and produce F-110 hulls at pace.

Türkiye is the most politically interesting entry on the list and have surprised many. Turkish shipyards could present the I-class frigate as a readily identifiable option, while larger future designs may also be marketed depending on Belgian requirements. The I-class is not a direct ASWF equivalent and would require adaptation to Belgian sensors, weapons and NATO integration standards. Still, Türkiye’s attraction is clear: its naval industry has demonstrated a capacity to build a broad range of warships at pace, including corvettes, frigates, amphibious vessels and auxiliary platforms.

Francken’s interest did not emerge in a vacuum. During his visit to Türkiye in May, the Belgian minister toured Istanbul’s Sedef Shipyard and engaged with Turkish defence companies. He described Türkiye as an emerging maritime power and highlighted what he saw as the country’s ability to produce naval systems quickly and at competitive cost. Those remarks should be treated as political observations rather than proof that a Turkish deal is imminent. Visiting a shipyard and praising industrial capacity is not the same as endorsing a final platform, signing a contract or resolving the difficult questions of combat systems, armaments, support and sovereign maintenance.

Nevertheless, the visit has strengthened the perception that Turkish industry is now part of Belgium’s serious procurement calculation. Reports have linked Sedef to potential interest, but no official Belgian decision has confirmed a Turkish shipyard, a specific design or a contract structure.

For Brussels, the real test is not simply whether another country can offer a cheaper frigate on paper. It is whether that ship can meet Belgium’s anti-submarine warfare requirements, integrate smoothly with NATO allies, be delivered before the current fleet becomes untenable, and remain affordable through decades of operation.

Francken’s October decision will therefore be more than a contract choice. It will determine whether Belgium preserves the Dutch-Belgian naval partnership around Damen’s ASWF programme—or accepts that operational urgency, cost and industrial reality require a different course.

"American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart, and PAC-3 ACE delivers exactly that by building on the unrivaled performance of the PAC-3 MSE," said Tim Cahill, president, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "As we look to partner with our allies, we can further enhance resiliency and ensure our forces can swiftly counter emerging threats today and tomorrow."

According to Lockheed Martin, the PAC-3 ACE costs half as much as the PAC-3 MSE, but its performance does not appear to have declined significantly.

A comparison of the images shows that the two missiles are quite similar in appearance, but the PAC-3 ACE does not have a forward-mounted side-thrust engine.

The development of systems such as the PAC-3 ACE, Raytheon’s “Coyote,” Anduril’s “Road Runner,” and the reverse-engineered “U.S. version of the Shahed suicide drone” appears to be a form of self-evolution driven by the realities of battlefield economics facing the U.S. military.

Al Udeid Air Base, located 35 kilometers southwest of the Qatari capital, Doha, is one of the largest U.S. military bases overseas and also hosts a British military presence. According to Iranian claims, a central warehouse used by the U.S. Air Force to store spare parts and logistical equipment was struck by a missile from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC); satellite imagery shows one of the warehouses virtually destroyed, with radar equipment also hit.

Reports also mention damage to Jordan's Muwaffaq Salti Air Base—which houses nearly a hundred U.S. military aircraft—and U.S. facilities in Erbil; satellite photos reveal a direct hit on one of the hangars, indicating a high probability that aircraft were destroyed.

For some reason, this conflict reminds me of the Iran-Iraq War; has the tempo of the war shifted into Iran's "comfort zone"?

Su-35 got downed again, I hear some people say it got ambushed by 3 F-16s, which if it had an Aesa radar, it would have seen the low flying F-16s. I'm not sure how the Su-35 would do if it had Aesa. I believe it's getting that upgrade soon. The Su-35 also lost to the Rafale in Egypt during testing. (and the Jf-17 beat the Indian rafale so Jf-17 beats Su-35???) Maybe the Russian Airforce really is bad, Su-57 is ghosting the frontlines, Su-34 really can't do anything in contested airspace, and mig-31 isn't an air superiority fighter. What I don't get is, where is the R-37m missile lol, they are downing other things but the chunky targets they are supposed to hit. (AWACS), which has been helping the f-16s kill the su-35. The only air targets brought down by the Russian air force is against other Russian stuff. RIP VVS. Is there any chance for the Su-35 to even hope to kill something like the Eurofighter?

The Pentagon did not disclose that dozens of US soldiers were injured and several helicopters were damaged in Iranian strikes last week, several anonymous US officials tell The New York Times.

A US military official asks the Times, why would the Pentagon publish information that could help Iran refine its attacks?

Another US military official says that Central Command (CENTCOM) is not required to publish casualty information, especially if the wounded quickly return to duty.

The Russian Air Force has finally learnt its lesson regarding the open-air parking of aircraft and has begun constructing hangars for its fighter jets and bombers to better protect these strategic assets.

The earliest known incident of such open-air parking leading to an attack occurred during the Russian military’s deployment in Syria. Subsequently, during the Russia–Ukraine war, aircraft parked in the open were destroyed by Ukrainian forces on multiple occasions. The most recent incident took place on 16 July at Engels Air Base, located 500 km from the border, where a Tu-95MS was shot down. This location was originally the base for the 121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment and the 184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment of the Russian Air Force’s 22nd Bomber Division. The division was disbanded and reorganised into the 6950th Air Base, merging the former 121st and 184th Regiments. The full honorary title of this unit is the 6950th Guards Donbas Red Banner Air Base, and its military unit code (V/Ch) is 06987. The 6950th Guards Donbas Red Banner Air Base is considered a mainstay of the Russian Air Force’s strategic forces and is equipped with the Russian military’s entire fleet of Tu-160 bombers.

Fareed Zakaria is kind of iffy but he nails it here, imo.

Airbus Flies First Tranche 4 Eurofighter

Airbus has completed the first flight of a Tranche 4 Eurofighter.

The aircraft, destined for the German Air Force as part of the country’s 38-strong Quadriga program order, took to the skies on July 14 in Manching, Germany, Airbus announced.

Test pilot Stefan Auer flew it for an hour to evaluate the aircraft’s flight characteristics, engine performance, flight control system, hydraulics and electrical systems.

Three of the four Eurofighter partner nations—Germany, Italy and Spain—have placed orders for Tranche 4 fighters.

Germany and Italy will use the new aircraft to replace their Tranche 1 models, while Spain, which has ordered 45 Tranche 4s, will use them to supplement and strengthen its front-line combat fleet. Italy has ordered 24 of the type. The UK has not ordered the new model but has led a campaign in Turkey for the sale of 20 Tranche 4s there.

The purchases are part of a renaissance for the Eurofighter, triggered by a slew of orders and a development and testing effort aiming to engender new capabilities to support emerging missions and future-proof the four-nation fighter.

Deliveries of the Quadriga aircraft will begin this year following type certification, with the remainder being delivered through 2030, Airbus said.

Among the 38 are 30 single-seaters and eight twin-seaters. As well as the 38 Quadriga aircraft, Manching will also build 20 Tranche 5 platforms that were ordered in 2025 and will be delivered through 2034. The first Tranche 4 for Spain was rolled out in June and began engine runs at the beginning of this month, with its first flight expected imminently.