strange idea, to revamp a fighter cancelled 50 years ago… but, on the other hand, a “simple” delta could be made into a nice stealth aircraft, for interception and air policing over large areas (veen if one may wonder what’s the point in being stealth over own land, but it’s another story), it sure would be an excellent choice. Thing is, would the investment in development be worth the small number of airframes that should be bought anyway?

Operation Inherent Resolve wasnt even a NATO operation… And NATO is some sort of imperialist organization now? Are you for real? In Afghanistan, NATO forces are there to pacify and stabilize the country, not to conquer and colonize it. By your logic, the French operation in Mali can be considered a “neocolonial war” too… Jesus Christ man. That is the dumbest thing i have read all week.

And yet too smart for you obviously…

Who speaked about obligations towards allies as NATO member? In afghanistan, the talibans (and their regime) were quite acceptable for NATO countries while the russians were there. The new gonverment in place there represents who? the afghans? get real… nobody among western deciders gives a damn about afghan people as such (or any other population on the planet in fact), it’s all about influence and national self interest

In Mali, the french have been asked by the legal power to intervene as they have a defense agreement.. you can eventually claim that the Mali leader isn’t legitimate in your eyes, but as Mali is not your colony, it is up to them to decide who does what in their country and definitely not to anybody outside. same goes for syria.. countries who don’t like Assad’s alliances decided they didn’t want him in power anymore, which is why there was such a mess. Is he a dictator? yes, but for NATO countries, just as for the russians and pretty much anybody else, as long as it is “our ” dictator, it’s fine. If you think nATO has any sort of moral high ground in that area, I invite you to check what Saudi Arabia does in Yemen and how very angry NATO is about is… or is not, in fact…

Yeah, token participation. I suggest you look at the statistics of our contributions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq/Syria before writing such dismissive comments. They are hardly ridiculous and the amount of sorties and strikes we did is far disproportionate compared to the size of our contingents. Something like 5.5% of all missions were flow by BAF F-16s in Inherent Resolve. I have no stats for France but i would be surprised if you guys flew more than 10%…

Btw France can only send 20 combat aircraft on foreign deployments. I would hardly call that impressive, especially for a country that likes to think of itself as a world power. I am afraid you arent one of the “big guys” either these days.

You want to turn it into a d*ck size contest? Sorry, I don’t care about that kind of childish behavior and if you have some complex you need to solve, as far as I’m concerned, it’s your problem… personally, I don’t give a damn about size of belgian or french forces.. fact is (sorry if that hurts your feelings) that belgium is a small country whose aviation can go intervene elsewhere only if invited to do so.

You know very well there are tensions with Russia in Syria and risks of incidents and escalations existed. Just a wrong strike on a Syrian Army unit with Russian advisors could set things off for example. Anyway you dont make plans hoping your potential adversary will play nice… A very careless attitude to discard that potential threat. I know the French AF chief of staff (General Lanata) isnt as insouciant as you regarding the threat posed by A2/AD SAM systems and expressed worries about that very problem a few months ago.

yeah right.. escalation… like, when turks shot down on purpose a russian aircraft over syria? get real, it’s not a video game, in reality, and luckily so, the guys taking decisions usually have a bit more sense of responsibility (especially a guy like Putin who managed to get in power in a country like Russia and stay there for a couple of decades now)… and you should stop reading idiotic newspapers written by would-be journos trying to sound sensational

By your own means… right. Operation Barkhane wouldnt have been possible without the logistical support (tankers, strategic airlifters) and intelligence from the US, UK, Canada and others… Like it or not but you are also dependent in many ways from the help of your allies, and in particular from the US. You wouldn’t have been capable of going alone in Libya and Syria without American backup either. But yeah keep thinking that France can do it alone LOL. Typical French delusions.

again, grasping to straws.. the americans asked the french to do tactical reconnaissance over Irak with their Mirage IV after the SR-71 was retired. So, according to you, are americans dependent on the french? some around here would love to respond to such nonsense (after they stopped laughing, of course)… If you intervene, you use what’s at your disposal to do so .. and even if that hurts your backside, the french can go and intervene militarily anywhere around the world as they see fit. Is it easier when doing it with others help? yes. Is it impossible for them to act alone? no

Belgium has intervened on its own in the past in its former African colonies to evacuate citizens, etc. This is the only kind of operations abroad that we can still do alone indeed but i would argue that France is in a similar boat. You can only go it alone in those banana republics where the threat level is low. In any mid/high-intensity conflicts, France would have to be part of a multinational coalition.

funny, once more, you’re into pissing contest… strange that having an aircraft carrier is only good to carry refugees… just an example..

in any case, you recognize at least one thing: from aviation point of view, Belgium is limited to their territory unless invited… which is what I was saying since the beginning. Wanting a first day deep strike platform when you’re surrounded by several layers of allied countries with the first (very remotely) potential aggressor (who, in any case, has absolutely and totally zero interest of starting a war in that direction) over 1500km away, is purely wasting your cash (now, you can say, it’s your cash, sure, and if you want to throw it through the window, you’re free to do so 😉

– What does this have to do with the F-35 “News and Discussion?”

agreed 🙂

but while we are at it for a short moment…

There are many ways to do CAS, and the A-10 is only survivable in a small niche (one that could be met by buying a few A-29’s with cheaper O&S). I simply reject the logic that we must keep the A-10 to meet “blue sky, permissive environment, bush war or COIN, close air support” at the expense of recapitalization of an aging fast jet fleet.

thing is, the A10 easily carries the ordnance of 5 A-29s.. not to speak about difference in impact from the GAU-8 compared to the MGs on the A-29 or about being almost immune to light gunfire (major threat in theaters where either of them would operate, theaters which are the most likely to see engagements in future years as well)

ROFL! 😀

“ne jamais confondre intelligence et instruction”.. they made big studies, but knowing some things form their studies doesn’t make them intelligent overall 😉

especially about Belgium that may end up not being a country anymore even before the fighter we speak about enters service in the FAB…

of course itu’s up to belgians to define what their needs are.. pity their deciders from N-VA are nationalistic guys who are more thinking about how to split Belgium in half and be a US suburb in Europe rather than being concerned about the future of Belgium as a country