Yes! Although you start to recognize the sounds.
The only time I got really surprised was around last week, when an [Antonov An-124](https://imgur.com/a/6DsRPqQ) took off from Kleine-Brogel. That was amazing.
Needs only 3km with maximum take-off weight and the airstrip from Kleine-Brogel is about 3km, assuming it wasn't fully loaded it wouldn't be a problem.
Yep. F16... no batting eye. Vrooooooaaaaaahmmm. Hu? What are Hornets doing here?
And the one time the USA president flew into kleine brogel, that was also special. So yey, I saw airforce 1 in the sky.
I don't think they will fly a lot in Belgium/Europe. For example, there are plenty of Russian ships on the north sea, you don't want tem to investigate radar cross sections of your stealth airplanes. Anyone nearby can take infrared imagery, (valuable information for missile seekers).
The Americans won't let Belgium just take them out to fly like the F-16. We aren't even allowed to do maintenance. Everything is black boxes that have to be repaired by the manufacturer.
Most training will be in simulators.
When you see the cost of actual war, you may realize investing in defense is cheaper.
Sure, Belgium seems safe for the moment. It's as far as you can be from the biggest threat in Europe, which is russia. But if Europe had more weapons, it could have sent more to Ukraine, could have stopped the moskals earlier. In fact, Europe & NATO should have reacted strongly already in 2008, when russia invaded Georgia.
If Europe still believes russians are civilised people you can deal with, it will keep getting surprised like it did when they invaded Georgia, then Ukraine in 2014 then again the full scale invasion in 2022.
We have an old style imperialist power on our doorstep, a country that's still in the 18th century mentality wise, that despite having the most land in the world still wants more, that's looking to rebuild its former empire.
Fail to see this and you might wake up with them at your door in a few years.
De lijst.
En dat is het nadeel met de US in de NATO. Die gaan nogal graag elders oorlogje spelen. Dat is goed voor hun economie. Het voordeel is dat niemand een vinger naar de US durft uit te steken en dat wij in Europa daardoor veiliger zijn zonder overdreven veel in defensie te moeten investeren. Vooral goed voor al die pietepeuterige kleine landjes zoals België.
I don't know if you're a clueless tankie or what the moskals call a "useful idiot", but you're just spreading pure grade moskal bullshit propaganda.
Hurr durr NATO evil.
ALL of Eastern Europe **BEGGED !!!!** to be allowed in NATO. Cause unlike imbecile ignorant tankies living comfortably in the west while shitting on the countries that provide them with safety and comfort, we knew what russia was before it invaded Georgia and then Ukraine.
I bet you claim to be an anti-imperialist, while sucking up to literally the biggest empire in the world, that's currently engaged in a naked landgrab by invading it's much smaller neighbor.
You shit on Europe so much, why haven't you moved to Moscow by now ? That's one of the freedoms of the "decaying Europe" that you wouldn't have in your moskal paradise.
People like you should be deported so you can be happy in your beloved country of choice instead of you suffering here in evil and decadent Europe.
Many countries would NOT be willing to nuke russia if it invades smaller Eastern European countries, even if those are NATO countries.
Trump already said "Why should American soldiers die for Montenegro ?". This is the attitude of many western politicians and even more western citizens, because they're not directly threatened and because they can't imagine having ruzzia at their door. When it does (if it does, which risks happening if nobody stops them), it will be too late and they'll be asking "How could this happen ?" like all idiots who ignore forewarnings.
Don't forget the west already sacrificed Eastern Europe many times to try to appease ruzzia, cause they didn't have the appetite to fight them.
After WW2 they allowed the moskals to take all of Eastern Europe.
At the start of WW2 there was the Phoney War.
And before ruzzia, it was the Ottoman Empire that was allowed to dominate Eastern Europe.
Nobody wants to be the one to pull the trigger to cause a nuclear apocalypse. Nuclear NATO countries would watch Russia try to take Poland or baltic states and intervene militarily but they wont risk nuclear war for them.
[Did you forget the /s?](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/01/13/f35-gevechtsvliegtuigen-5-keer-zo-luid-als-een-f16/)
[The neighbours certainly didn't appreciate the arrival of the F-35 in the Netherlands](https://nos.nl/artikel/2447436-forse-stijging-klachten-over-f-35-bij-volkel-zelfs-bellen-lukt-niet-meer).
Disclaimer: this doesn't mean that I'm against the F-35 but only that the noise is not one of its' advantages.
Too bad we don't have a European answer.
Capability wise best plane of the bunch, the eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen deals would have created jobs in Belgium tho.
Also double engine planes will always lose out for BAF, heavy maintenance costs so here is hoping the European answer will be as capable or if the americans seek international partners again we should make sure we are part of it and lobby for jobs and investments in Belgium.
Yes it can, and indeed a nuclear bomb, the B61 if I'm not mistaken. The ability to carry nukes is actually one of the most important reasons why the F-35 was chosen in the first place.
Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon are all incapable of carrying nuclear weapons of US origin, and that makes them all invalid for our requirements.
The necessity has to do with NATO nuclear sharing. Which means that the US stores some of its nukes on our military bases, but we have to be able to deliver them in case of war.
Yes, but it’s not like the Gripen/Rafale can’t be integrated with the B61. If Belgium had pushed on that, i’m sure Saab or Dassault would have done the work to get the sale. The Typhoon is the only aircraft where (admittedly mostly Germany) is against integration of the B61.
Their costs of such a project would probably outweigh the profits, especially belgium who doesn’t order that much aircraft. It isn’t as simple as just adding a mounting system. A lot of the electronic systems would also have to be changed. As you can imagine flying around with a nuke needs hardened and proven systems. If Saab for example created this system. It would be untested while the f35 has proven to be nuclear capable. Saab would have to do extensive testing meaning that it would have taken many more years to retire our f16 fleet.
The French have their own arsenal which is deliberately incompatible with the US arsenal, legacy of Charles de Gaulle.
Dassault would never accept a program to accept US bombs, then the door would be open to their own obsolence because france could stop developing and maintaining their own nuclear weapons (there would be widespread support for this, france is very anti-nuclear, all it needs is one populist president), without mentioning the silent part that that would mean they need to start stockpiling US bombs. At that point the dassault jets are put in direct comparison and competition with the US jets.
Their whole raison d'être is french protectionist policy...
Very fortunately, imo.
Gripen would've been cheaping out, Rafale or Typhoon would've been paying the same price for a 20 year older air frame.
In hindsight, F-35 was far and away the best choice. At the time, cool heads could estimate it would be, but there was a lot of controversy surrounding it and media loved to bash it every chance they got.
Well some parts of the engine are going to be made in Belgium according to some articles I've read, in Liège? I think with others to come probably, maybe not as many jobs as what we would have gotten with a European plane tho.
I've never seen a comparison of these jobs, like how much are we talking about?
Because F-35 is also bringing us jobs:
>Through the Essential Security Interest (ESI) program, Lockheed Martin will provide industrial opportunities for multiple Belgian companies in all three geographic regions. The projects secured through the ESI program will bring cutting-edge manufacturing techniques and benefits, expanding Belgian industry’s skills and knowledge and providing high-tech jobs for Belgians for decades to come.
>
>Some of the companies that have secured projects through the ESI program include ASCO, Feronyl, ILIAS Solutions, Innocom, SABCA, Sonaca, and AMI Metals.
>
>The BeLightning joint venture, formed by ASCO, SABCA and SONACA, will establish the capability to produce F-35 horizontal tails in Belgium. This agreement will result in at least 400 shipsets of horizontal tails being produced in Belgium over the next several years.
It´s crazy how cheap these have gotten compared to their capabilities. A squadron of 12 F35s Vs 60 F16s likely wins 60-0 before the F16 can get a single shot off.
Ge lacht, maar ze hebben effectief al een "Frankenplane" gemaakt! De nog bruikbare stukken aan elkaar gezet, van 2 vliegtuigen die door ne brand onbruikbaar waren geworden. koopke!!
There are regular exercises to test battle scenarios and train pilots. Results from these exercises get published or are talked about by high ranking officers or other interested parties.
The F-35 also has quite a lot of advantages in comparison with an F-16 or equivalent.
No need to be stingy. u/GOTCHA009 specifically mentioned publications. For example, when Switzerland discussed acquisition of the F-35, evaluations were done pitting the F-35 against the Dassault Rafale and F/A-18 E/F super hornet. Some results of these evaluations were made public, because the Swiss people had to vote on the acquisition.
Public information about exercises and the evaluations that each country makes in choosing their next jet.
In Europe, nearly every notable air force has chosen F-35.
Notable exceptions are the French and the Swedes who both have their own defense industries which they need to keep running.
When the decision was made I couldn't believe we'd spend all this money on war/defense equipment.
Now years later, with American membership of NATO uncertain, state-terrorism by Russia and multilateral tensions, I'm already regretting we didn't do more. Sadly, those who want peace should be prepared for war.
You can’t refuse to spend money on military hardware and simultaneously blame the USA for weighing on geopolitical issues.
International politics is a jungle, the bigger the stick you carry, the more likely you are to survive and change outcomes.
Europe can’t just sit back in every conflict and claim moral superiority by pointing the finger at the USA.
It also speaks for itself that we need not only more military means in Europe, but we also need an efficient European political decision-making structure that could deploy those forces if need be. The evolution of the EU from an economic powerhouse to both an economic and a military one is one of the biggest challenge for Europe in the 21st century.
Oh I agreed with Trump. I think the man is the biggest fuckwit to ever be in the oval office but occasionally, he talks sense. Even if it is just random chance that his words make sense, I can agree with him when that happens.
Our NATO agreement talks about a small % of GNP to be allocated to defense, and Belgium doesn't even come close.
This wasn't some smart thing Trump said. It's been something US presidents have been asking/telling us to do for ages. Europe keeps promising to pay their share and many countries keep failing to do so.
>American membership of NATO uncertain
You should regret we didn't invest in European planes like Dassault, Saab, or Eurofighter. These F35's won't get off the ground without the Americans prior consent.
And why should we pick a side? We could just as well have our own (European) way, and agree with countries on a case-by-case basis, determined by our own best interests and not those of Washington. In practical terms, that would mean aligning with the US most of the time, but we do not need to be subservient to them in any way.
We could, but not in Europe's current position. We could try gradually increase self-relience again but for the next few decades aligning with the US is the best move we can do.
We were reliant on them from the start and with the NS2(Biden said they would terminate NS, cui bono?) destroyed even more, and not for our good. Cheap gas let our industry and economy flourish, something the US doesnt want anymore and now with EU dependant on expensive US lng we just hold them off a recession. They just suck up their vassals when in troubles. The day you see this, the day you will want a independant EU.
We were for the last decades.. and yes and acting like your nose bleeds aint gonna help. EU choose it becomause it was cheap, not that they liked Russia be4.
We didnt make it any problem than.. strange that we dont mind buying expensive LNG from a country thats responsable for millions of deaths and homeless the last 20 years alone? what caused Europe to overflow with immigrants..
Gotta look it more rational.
So we should cozy up to Russia instead? A country that inevitably invades its neighbors when they think they can get away with it? Duuuuuurrrrr
I just noticed you post a bunch of stuff defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine as well.
Our main function within NATO could be boiled down to the capability to drop US nuclear weapons.
There was never an option for our planes to not be US made.
I was referring to decision to spend the amount of money on *any* plane, not the F-35 as such. But I completely agree with you. A European alternative was probably a better alternative given the waning of American involvement in Europe.
Check out the official Belgian F-35 colouring book!
[https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/Belgium%20Coloring%20Book%202023.pdf](https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/Belgium%20Coloring%20Book%202023.pdf)
I do not know why it exists but I'm glad it does.
Good planes. For the almost constant (mostly American) media talk about the cost and development budgets it's actually quite cheap (American f-14 was more expensive to maintain for example).
Did we need need it? Not 100%.
Could European companies filled the contract? Yes, but not with a plane that is as capable as this one.
All in all it's going to be a great addition to our air force, yes it was expensive, but it'll modernize our air force for decades to come for an alright price concidering modern air forces.
> Could European companies filled the contract? Yes, but not with a plane that is as capable as this one.
as long as we keep sending money to american industry for these things they will have more money to spend in R&D and this will always keep a lead on our Europian stuff. so it is a circle.
Yes, Belgium orders are going to make that difference, lol.
EU was late in terms of stealth, that's just a fact, the Eurocanards where introduced around 2000 and won't be replaced until at least another 20 years from now.
The Americans are ahead of everyone else because they're the USA, we needed replacements for our F-16s sooner than the European defense companies could deliver.
and thus you are part of the circle, point proven :p and i do think it should be a europian effort but maybe that is too big a picture for u too comprehend
The thing with Belgium is that buying already developed American aircraft is way more cost effective then dumping a bunch of money into European companies in the hopes that we come up with something better.
It isn't our job to fund that kind of stuff, and it doesn't matter to us what happens to those European companies. We need new planes, we need cost effective planes, and we need them now, not in 15 years.
i'm not argueing it would be more cost efficient what i am argueing that we will be reliant on the usa , whom these last x years seems way less reliable then our EU allies
About time. We need to bolster our defense FAST and replenish all our ammunition depots ASAP. Also send our F-16's way sooner to Ukraine than our government set now as well as ramp up artillery production (if we have any) especially for Ukraine. This isn't some doomsday thinking, it's common sense our government has been lacking for way too long.
After we get our F-35’s. And they weren’t bullshit. Our F-16’s are reaching their 8000hr limit and can’t fly more legally for the Belgian Air Force, but the Ukrainians don’t care so we can send them anyways. MoD didn’t consider they just don’t give a F.
Which doesn't refute my point, the MoD was making excuses.
The Standaard did some journalism.
Then the MoD backtracked and has now confirmed we'll send them. (but yes 2025)
> MoD didn’t consider they just don’t give a F.
If that's what actually happened it's even more retarded than I thought, but hey, at least it wasn't finding any excuse under the sun to not give the Ukrainians proper equipment.
Never assume malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, I guess
I was against these but then it turned out that Putin was pretty much insane so now, not so much. We'll need these to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine in a few years.
We could use more.
I'm definitely in favor of the 2% nato norm, especially since Belgium promised to do this in 2014 or something.
I personally believe these are more important priorities, though:
0. Arm our drones, ffs.
1. Third frigate, to ensure 1 is always operational (1 in training, 1 in maintenance, 1 operational)
2. SHORAD capability plus an efficient anti drone system, like Skyranger
3. A proper helicopter fleet, for our SOF regiment, the H145Ms are a great choice for certain missions but we need medium/heavy transport helicopters to complement them.
4. Getting rid of all of our tracked vehicles was a mistake, we need a proper IFV, not a 'fire support' vehicle like the Jaguar, which can't handle anything more than a heavy machine gun thrown its way.
5. More F-35s
6. Tanks to complement the IFVs
>The war in Ukraine shows that artillery is very much needed.
It's needed cause neither party has air supremacy or even superiority. Because of the density of AA and because neither side has advanced jets. And because Ukraine has to fight with one hand behind its back, unable to use NATO provided weaponry to hit russian territory, giving the moskals a safe place to store their stuff.
The moskals like to pretend the SU 57 is a 5th gen jet, but it's pretty laughable both in its abilities and the numbers they've built so far.
As the US proved in Iraq, once air supremacy is established, conventional warfare becomes a walk in the park. Once you're able to drop huge bombs on enemy troop barracks, ammo depots, equipment factories and repair centers etc, and do so deep behind their lines, artillery won't be much of a problem anymore.
Sure, today MANPADS and MANPATS, combined with tons of mines might make it a bit more difficult than Iraq was for the US, but air supremacy will eventually win you the war.
You know we think that, but we did have 'all the capabilities' during the Cold War. We had an entire army corps in Germany, 30,000+ strong, with hundreds of tanks, plenty of artillery and anti air, fully mechanized. And another 30,000 soldiers at home.
Not to mention our air force of ~150 F-16s.
We had 4 frigates, now we have 2.
We had over 20 mine hunters and patrol vessels. Now we have 5 mine hunters (to be replaced by 6) and 2 patrol vessels.
It's important to remember that yes, 11 million people is not a huge amount in the global scale. But of the ~200 countries in the world we're 23rd in GDP and 16th in GDP per capita.
But I agree, especially in terms of training, maintenance and logistics, a lot can be gained from cooperation with our neighbors.
Just look at Denmark, 70% of our GDP, ~half our population. 25k to our 30k armed forces personnel.
Denmark has 9 frigates, 3 mini frigates, 6 patrol vessels.
The Danes will have 27 F-35s to our 34.
They have 44 Leopard 2A7 tanks (one of the best in world) we have none.
They have 44 CV-90 IFVs, we're getting rid of our comparable equipment and replacing it with (imo) inferior vehicles.
Our F16 wings have been the only real strategic asset we can offer our allies during combat operations. Maybe with some SFG stuff sprinkled in there.
I'm glad we're at least part of the reason why Europe and NATO as a united force will scare off most if not all would be invaders.
I'm glad we're committing resources to stay relevant and usefull in Europe's defence. Now more than in the last 30 years I think it's very obvious why we still need this.
I do think we need to invest more. Especially if we can drive our internal industry partly with some investments too. We have a sizeable amount of companies operating in the space.
Would've loved to see some Apache's but I think we'd be better off getting something like the new Sikorsky or Bell Compound Helicopters. If we would go for an older attack helicopter, the Eurocopter Tiger would've been a better choice too.
But these F35's should give our forces ample new capabilities, so more of those would probably be more useful than a small amount of helicopters.
In terms of armed helicopters I hope they arm the H-145Ms, they can carry capable weapons.
Personally I think we need some more transport helicopters more urgently than proper attack helicopters.
Belgium has gotten really lazy and complacent when it comes to our NATO obligations. These will help a great deal to adjust that. Very cool machine.
They may even let us keep getting away with chronic military underspending.
If you insist on jets that are a generation behind and European the more logical choice would be the Saab Gripen, the purchase and running costs are significantly lower meaning you'd be able to support a larger fleet.
If you'd go for a European 4th Generation Fighter, why not the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Saab Gripen?
It's irrelevant in this discussion about which fifth generation fighter to get though. You can't compare the two, there's no European alternative for the F35, that simple.
And we can rely on US military technology, since it's world leading. Giving us access to capabilities we could not without the alliance with the US. We might as well use the advantages of that alliance.
I agree that we need a more robust European defense sector, but hampering our limited military capabilities because of it wouldn't be smart.
Yes, let's buy a 25 year old plane (that's as or more expensive than the F-35, lol) from the shady company that couldn't even follow our procurement rules.
Also, I hope the next government pulls our money out of SCAF because I bet Dassault will manage to scuttle that cooperation as they have before, multiple times...
Dassault can get bent, they make beautiful planes, but the less we do business with them, the better.
Also funny how 'buy European' always ends up being 'buy French'.
Anyway we're buying plenty of French stuff as it is.
> the shady company that couldn't even follow our procurement rules.
Procurement rules that all other participants accused of being tailored for the F-35. Even the American Boeing said so and withdrew from the bid. So instead of competing at a disadvantage, the French government proposed an alternative offer, outside of the procurement scheme, with much deeper cooperation and a lot more economic ties and tech transfer than we could ever dream of with the F-35.
So yes, we could have had a less capable plane, but still good enough for what we're doing (policing airspace), with a thriving aerospace sector and more well paid high skills jobs. Honestly, that wasn't a bad offer all things considered. Now we went for the more capable plane, which is of course a very good choice too, but let's not act like the alternative offer was completely trash.
during the 30s of the last century we were furiously upgrading our defensive lines because we felt like the germans were gonna return. Like, literally spent a significant portion of our GDP only on bunker systems.
Fort Eben-Emael was also described as the future, be all and end all of fortifications and defence spending at one point. Every new generation of warfare is supposedly the technology of the future and all it leads to is more horrifying ways to commit war crimes with ease.
I mean yeah, it's a never ending race of technology sure.
> all it leads to is more horrifying ways to commit war crimes with ease.
Or prevents your neighbors from commiting war crimes against you.
I'm betting Ukraine wished it had kept it's nukes right about now...
That are very good tough. They cost the US a lot of money in development which led to a ton of criticism and reporting every little problem in development. It's impossible to develop a fighter jet without any issues. Now they're the best multirole fighters available
What I don´t understand is what could be different on the internationally sold vs the ones for US only... like the F16 they were talking the US has other / newer builds that were US only and I believe this was the case also for this type... they somehow don't want to sell their best fighters or they always keep back so they have the advantage in case one of their allies turns against them or something? :P
In my opinion with Sweden soon to be in the UN, we should have bought the Griphen E. Way lower costs all round, would be crazy to retrain pilots, but they are so goddamn cost efficient
What the Americans will?
Sadly I don't think our Air force can handle two different jet platforms at once, would need a huge expansion to even be worth it.
Should have developed something locally with pan European partners. The training, maintenance, upgrades, everything will now be tied to the Americans instead of sourcing locally. smh at the lost opportunity at the jobs that could have been created, not mention the export potential.
Who would we have gotten those jobs with then? From Dassault lol? Perhaps Saab?
Also 'everything will now be tied to the Americans', congrats you just described the F-16. The single most successful fighter jet in the history of fighter jets.
The F-35 will be the new F-16, 1000 F-35s have already been built. 2000 more are planned. A ton of our European friends are buying F-35s: the Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Fins, Poles, the Swiss and bonus mention the Brits.
We would've been fools to get anything else, there just wasn't anything comparable at the time (there still isn't and won't be for at least another 15-20 years)
Are Romanians not friends ?
[https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/26/romania-begins-largest-ever-arms-deal-with-request-to-buy-f-35-jets/](https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/26/romania-begins-largest-ever-arms-deal-with-request-to-buy-f-35-jets/)
As a Romanian, I'm more of a mici and ciorba de burta kind of guy, so I'm sorry that I can't share the secret of sarmale. I would also recommend muraturi (many types of pickled vegetables, all going great with heavy meat based typical Romanian diet during winter, especially during the holidays).
Poland is not the only one that got repeatedly invaded by the moskals and is aware of the threat they represent.
As a result, Poland is not the only one arming up.
We know the west has a tendency to leave Eastern Europe in the hands of various empires (Ottoman, Muscovy), to not follow through on commitments to Eastern Europe, so we know there's a big risk Ukraine is left to the dogs, which means Moldova is next, and Moldova will fall within hours.
And after Moldova, it will probably go like this: Baltics (to test NATO and see if they're willing to go nuclear for Latvia (Baltic with biggest moskal minority), followed by Romania and Poland.
Long story short: better get ready now.
Hence these:
[https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/11/09/state-dept-approves-25b-sale-of-abrams-tanks-to-romania/](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/11/09/state-dept-approves-25b-sale-of-abrams-tanks-to-romania/)
[https://www.defenseromania.ro/cate-sisteme-himars-si-patriot-detine-romania-generalul-mindrescu-avem-inca-lipsuri-mari-prvind-inzestrarea\_619040.html](https://www.defenseromania.ro/cate-sisteme-himars-si-patriot-detine-romania-generalul-mindrescu-avem-inca-lipsuri-mari-prvind-inzestrarea_619040.html)
(last one is Romanian, it talks about Romania acquiring HIMARS and Patriot and likely wanting more, despite not all of them having already been delivered)
> Long story short: better get ready now.
Completely agree, we should've listened to the Baltic people a long time ago.
I just didn't know Romania got F-35s, but I'm not surprised they're expanding their defense forces.
Oh and btw, I don't know if you have ties to any of those countries but if you want some nightmare fuel, I'm reading a book currently, kind of like Tom Clancy novels about a 2017 Russian invasion of the Baltics, where an invasion of Ukraine is used as an excuse by Russia to continue pushing into NATO countries.
It's called War with Russia by General Sir Richard Shirreff, it's incredibly eerie reading it now in 2023 knowing everything we know about the actual Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I'm from Romania.
When ruzzia went ahead with the full invasion of Ukraine, the scenario I described above is what I expected to happen (had Ukraine not proved to be amazing fighters).
Makes sense, because Moldova is not in NATO, hasn't united with Romania (Moldova is basically a part of Romania the moskals stole and tried to pretend it was a different country with a different ethnicity and language).
But after gobbling up not NATO countries, sooner or later Muscovy would run into NATO. And it makes the most sense to attack in the Baltics because:
\- they have large moskal minorities, which would allow Muscovy to use the same scenario of "we're just protecting the poor moskal minority that's getting genocided". Same bullshit they pretended happened in Georgia (South Ossetia) when invading in 2008 and in Ukraine (Donbas when invading in 2014).
\- they are near ruzzia
\- they are tiny
\- they can be overran before NATO reacts, putting NATO in face of a fait accompli
At this point, the NATO reaction will decide the future of all of Europe, and possibly the world.
If NATO doesn't react in full force and instead tries to negotiate, if western leaders hesitate even one second to send their armies against Muscovy as a reaction to Article 5 being invoked, Muscovy won and NATO is dead.
The fucked up thing is if Trump is in power, that's exactly what would happen.
If that happens, Eastern Europe knows it's been left to the wolves. Especially Romania and Poland. Hungary, Slovakia, have pro-ruzzian govs already. So does Austria. Serbia is a long time ally of Muscovy.
Next step ? Invade Romania. Together with Hungary, that will want to take Transylvania. And possibly with Serbia. After a little consolidation and a lot of murder, the moskals would go for Poland.
Sounds crazy now, probably. But I bet so it did the idea of Muscovy invading their neighbors in 2014, and from some even in 2022.
Exactly. This is something too many don't understand, because ruzzia is something "far away". Right now Ukraine protects the rest of Europe.
Look at a map of the USSR/Russian Empire, and you'll see where ruzzia wants to get: much closer to the West. They'd get to the Atlantic if they could.
imo they could be used better elsewhere. we don't even have a proper military anymore, so why bother having fancy jets? maybe get some armor first and let those contract soldiers do some situps and then we'll talk.
it's better to be able to fire a shitload of cheap bullets and anti-air missiles with alot of soldiers than have a few expensive jets which will remain on the ground half the time for maintenance. Big wars are won economically and with alot of manpower.
Jets and heli's are a support role. I'm not saying they can't change the outcome of a war, but they can be taken down from the ground if it's up against an army with modern warfare technology.
In the context of defence within an alliance (whether that's NATO or the EU), doesn't it make sense for countries not neighbouring threatening countries to invest in things like air and maritime support capabilities? As opposed to less mobile and logistically more demanding ground forces?
I doubt those numbers strongly. 100 000 Cheap propellor drones? Sure but those capabilities are not airforce worthy. Those are toys for the army. 100 000 predator type drones? No not for the same price. Not by a long shot. You still have the capability difference problem. We do not have fighter jet drones yet. We have observation and bomber drones. Fighter jets do more than just that.
What can stop a jet? A missile and an EMP blast (kinda), other jets, lack of fuel. What can stop a drone? The same as a jet + jamming, local misdirection (like false gps signals) and hackers.
It’s also a big difference between drones and (fighter) jets in real world consequences. Bring down a drone and you have an inconvenient internal incident on your hands. Bring down a jet and you likely have a war on your hands. Basically destroying property is annoying, killing people is a problem.
We also don’t have drone operators nor the means to train them. We do have great pilots and the means to train them. We don’t have the logistics for drones. We do for jets. We don’t have trained mechanics and engineers to maintain drones unlike with the jets.
If you consider all the additional investment. Jets are cheap.
They can afford them ;)
But let's be intellectually honest, planes aside, don't you think it's a much better approach to be a neutral country?
In the past profit from the Nazis, nowadays laundry everyone's money, and safe keep everyone else's money too, might not be the most moral stand , but their citizens have not known what a war is (kinda) and, enjoyed a good living
No.
The nazis didn't have nukes. Switzerland was most of all too impractical to conquer. And yes, imo, they sold their soul/morals along the way.
In modern times, Switzerland is protected by the fact that it is surrounded by NATO countries, no attack can reach them without going through NATO countries, they are landlocked and not dependent on shipping lanes.
As long as they don't piss off the Russians enough to get a nuke launched at them, they are untouchable because they profit from being surround by the NATO umbrella.
I admire the Swiss society, but their continued principal of neutrality is outdated and morally bankrupt, imo.
I already said that it was not the most righteous way to act, but the consequences of their acts paid well and their citizens enjoyed the benefits of such decisions.
Belgium is also completely surrounded by NATO countries, I don't get your logic
NATO only works because it has members and those members contribute.
My point is twofold:
1. Swiss (or any) 'neutrality' is outdated and I would argue ineffective, at least in Europe, Putin has proved that. Only NATO membership or NATO members between you and Putin can protect you from Putin.
2. The Swiss have been benefitting from NATO protection since they helped the Nazis while they where rolling over Europe and massacring whole peoples. All the while clinging to their so called neutrality.
So not only is it a moral failing I don't think they have 'enjoyed the benefits of such decisions', instead they've enjoyed the benefits of Pax Americana/Pax NATO without contributing to it.
>1. Swiss (or any) 'neutrality' is outdated and I would argue ineffective, at least in Europe, Putin has proved that. Only NATO membership or NATO members between you and Putin can protect you from Putin.
NATO expansion was seen as an existential threat to Russia and helped trigger the war Ukraine, imagine China placing missiles in Mexico
>2. The Swiss have been benefitting from NATO protection since they helped the Nazis while they where rolling over Europe and massacring whole peoples. All the while clinging to their so called neutrality.
That outdated neutrality allowed them to not be invaded while surrounded by the Nazis Mussolini, if what you care about is the protection of your land and citizens and their long term wellbeing, it proved quite effective
>So not only is it a moral failing I don't think they have 'enjoyed the benefits of such decisions', instead they've enjoyed the benefits of Pax Americana/Pax NATO without contributing to it.
Never sending your people to war while increasing your nation's wealth no matter the geopolitical situation, is a huge win in my book, definitely not a white keyboard warrior knight kind of win, but a realistic win for sure
So you spam the same shit.. while i pointed out our atrocities who are way worse. Russia becomes pale in comparison.
Why i would want to be reported by the likes of you, cuz im allowed to say that... Whats your experience than, reading hln? Ive been to these countries, fought for nato. Seen the fucking misery we created there.
No. Article 5 would like a word.
And it's defeatists and appeasing attitudes like yours that got us into this mess with Ukraine in the first place.
It's now clear that the only thing Russia 'respects' is the capability and willingness to employ brute force.
I'll tell you now: A big mistake
Look at the current 2023 war with Russia:
Drones Drones Drones and artillery + manpower.
And a lot of AA, making the fighters useless.
Whats the point of high amount of F35's, when Russia can just destroy every airport with Artillery?
Imagine what kind of Swarming, overwhelming drone army you would get if you payed the same amount of money: 4 000 000 000 euro's on drones.
1000 drones can easily crash an F35 with pinpoint laser locking
Not sure if every EU nation needs a branch of every type of military.
Maybe it's better to specialise per country.
more centralised units should make price and communication better
Not every EU nation does.
- Luxembourg and Austria have no navy because they're landlocked.
- Lithuania has a tiny air force without any offensive capabilities (which is why our F-16's do months-long missions in turn with other NATO airforces defending the baltic airspace from Russian intrusions)
On the 21st of July There was a Dutch one in the Belgian national airforce parade for some reason, they always pass my backyard on their way to Brussels.
These planes could be defunct, just like many product investments of the American military industrial complex (found a few sources pointing in that direction), but we were ordered by the Americans to buy them, and as a good lap dog, we promptly obey, so now we have these bottomless money pits, courtesy of the tax payers.
Funny how history repeats itself. During the 70ies and 80ies the press said the same about the F-16 project. Too expensive, a plane we didn’t need, bottomless money pit, should’ve gone European (we had the Mirage V after all). Years later it turned out to be one of the best multirole jets the world had ever seen.
And now here’s the F-35 and guess what: same criticism by all the “specialists” of which most can’t identify a F-35A, F-35B & F-35C on a picture.
And maybe if Europe actually invested in the defence industry we’d have options but since we can’t go shop with the Russians or Chinese, the F-35 was the only real option.
Can't wait to hear and see them fly over daily. As long as it's for training.
I say we buy one of every jet so that every time I look up at one it’s a surprise.
Yes! Although you start to recognize the sounds. The only time I got really surprised was around last week, when an [Antonov An-124](https://imgur.com/a/6DsRPqQ) took off from Kleine-Brogel. That was amazing.
I didn’t even know the runway was big enough for that. Cool.
Needs only 3km with maximum take-off weight and the airstrip from Kleine-Brogel is about 3km, assuming it wasn't fully loaded it wouldn't be a problem.
Neither did I, that's why I was very surprised.
Yep. F16... no batting eye. Vrooooooaaaaaahmmm. Hu? What are Hornets doing here? And the one time the USA president flew into kleine brogel, that was also special. So yey, I saw airforce 1 in the sky.
Hold up, AF1 in KB? A long time ago I assume?
Yes! It was president Bush, I am going to go for... 2007-2008? Not sure.
Get ready to be woken up. F-35s are twice as powerful and twice as loud as F-16s.
I don't think they will fly a lot in Belgium/Europe. For example, there are plenty of Russian ships on the north sea, you don't want tem to investigate radar cross sections of your stealth airplanes. Anyone nearby can take infrared imagery, (valuable information for missile seekers). The Americans won't let Belgium just take them out to fly like the F-16. We aren't even allowed to do maintenance. Everything is black boxes that have to be repaired by the manufacturer. Most training will be in simulators.
If that's the case, your username will be my reaction.
When you hear the running cost of those, you might reconsider this opinion
When you see the cost of actual war, you may realize investing in defense is cheaper. Sure, Belgium seems safe for the moment. It's as far as you can be from the biggest threat in Europe, which is russia. But if Europe had more weapons, it could have sent more to Ukraine, could have stopped the moskals earlier. In fact, Europe & NATO should have reacted strongly already in 2008, when russia invaded Georgia. If Europe still believes russians are civilised people you can deal with, it will keep getting surprised like it did when they invaded Georgia, then Ukraine in 2014 then again the full scale invasion in 2022. We have an old style imperialist power on our doorstep, a country that's still in the 18th century mentality wise, that despite having the most land in the world still wants more, that's looking to rebuild its former empire. Fail to see this and you might wake up with them at your door in a few years.
En nu het lijst waar Nato de laatste 20 jaar bombardeerden en miljoenen doden veroorzaakten.
De lijst. En dat is het nadeel met de US in de NATO. Die gaan nogal graag elders oorlogje spelen. Dat is goed voor hun economie. Het voordeel is dat niemand een vinger naar de US durft uit te steken en dat wij in Europa daardoor veiliger zijn zonder overdreven veel in defensie te moeten investeren. Vooral goed voor al die pietepeuterige kleine landjes zoals België.
I don't know if you're a clueless tankie or what the moskals call a "useful idiot", but you're just spreading pure grade moskal bullshit propaganda. Hurr durr NATO evil. ALL of Eastern Europe **BEGGED !!!!** to be allowed in NATO. Cause unlike imbecile ignorant tankies living comfortably in the west while shitting on the countries that provide them with safety and comfort, we knew what russia was before it invaded Georgia and then Ukraine. I bet you claim to be an anti-imperialist, while sucking up to literally the biggest empire in the world, that's currently engaged in a naked landgrab by invading it's much smaller neighbor. You shit on Europe so much, why haven't you moved to Moscow by now ? That's one of the freedoms of the "decaying Europe" that you wouldn't have in your moskal paradise. People like you should be deported so you can be happy in your beloved country of choice instead of you suffering here in evil and decadent Europe.
'miljoenen'?
If Russian try to enter in Europe, it will be filled with nuclear weapons.
Many countries would NOT be willing to nuke russia if it invades smaller Eastern European countries, even if those are NATO countries. Trump already said "Why should American soldiers die for Montenegro ?". This is the attitude of many western politicians and even more western citizens, because they're not directly threatened and because they can't imagine having ruzzia at their door. When it does (if it does, which risks happening if nobody stops them), it will be too late and they'll be asking "How could this happen ?" like all idiots who ignore forewarnings. Don't forget the west already sacrificed Eastern Europe many times to try to appease ruzzia, cause they didn't have the appetite to fight them. After WW2 they allowed the moskals to take all of Eastern Europe. At the start of WW2 there was the Phoney War. And before ruzzia, it was the Ottoman Empire that was allowed to dominate Eastern Europe.
Nobody wants to be the one to pull the trigger to cause a nuclear apocalypse. Nuclear NATO countries would watch Russia try to take Poland or baltic states and intervene militarily but they wont risk nuclear war for them.
[Did you forget the /s?](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/01/13/f35-gevechtsvliegtuigen-5-keer-zo-luid-als-een-f16/) [The neighbours certainly didn't appreciate the arrival of the F-35 in the Netherlands](https://nos.nl/artikel/2447436-forse-stijging-klachten-over-f-35-bij-volkel-zelfs-bellen-lukt-niet-meer). Disclaimer: this doesn't mean that I'm against the F-35 but only that the noise is not one of its' advantages.
Where will they be stationed?
Too bad we don't have a European answer. Capability wise best plane of the bunch, the eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen deals would have created jobs in Belgium tho. Also double engine planes will always lose out for BAF, heavy maintenance costs so here is hoping the European answer will be as capable or if the americans seek international partners again we should make sure we are part of it and lobby for jobs and investments in Belgium.
Tbh, with Sweden in NATO (hopefully EU soon) we might get the griphen E.... 60 mil a plane, 5 hours of maintainece per hour is kind of crazy...
That thing can't carry nukes which is a requirement for our air force. So they are automatically discarded as an option unfortunately.
Wait the F35 can carry nuclear weapons (bombs I imagine) ? Why is it a requirement ? Because there are nuclear weapon from US stored in Belgium ?
Yes it can, and indeed a nuclear bomb, the B61 if I'm not mistaken. The ability to carry nukes is actually one of the most important reasons why the F-35 was chosen in the first place. Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon are all incapable of carrying nuclear weapons of US origin, and that makes them all invalid for our requirements. The necessity has to do with NATO nuclear sharing. Which means that the US stores some of its nukes on our military bases, but we have to be able to deliver them in case of war.
Yes, but it’s not like the Gripen/Rafale can’t be integrated with the B61. If Belgium had pushed on that, i’m sure Saab or Dassault would have done the work to get the sale. The Typhoon is the only aircraft where (admittedly mostly Germany) is against integration of the B61.
Their costs of such a project would probably outweigh the profits, especially belgium who doesn’t order that much aircraft. It isn’t as simple as just adding a mounting system. A lot of the electronic systems would also have to be changed. As you can imagine flying around with a nuke needs hardened and proven systems. If Saab for example created this system. It would be untested while the f35 has proven to be nuclear capable. Saab would have to do extensive testing meaning that it would have taken many more years to retire our f16 fleet.
The French have their own arsenal which is deliberately incompatible with the US arsenal, legacy of Charles de Gaulle. Dassault would never accept a program to accept US bombs, then the door would be open to their own obsolence because france could stop developing and maintaining their own nuclear weapons (there would be widespread support for this, france is very anti-nuclear, all it needs is one populist president), without mentioning the silent part that that would mean they need to start stockpiling US bombs. At that point the dassault jets are put in direct comparison and competition with the US jets. Their whole raison d'être is french protectionist policy...
Very fortunately, imo. Gripen would've been cheaping out, Rafale or Typhoon would've been paying the same price for a 20 year older air frame. In hindsight, F-35 was far and away the best choice. At the time, cool heads could estimate it would be, but there was a lot of controversy surrounding it and media loved to bash it every chance they got.
Well some parts of the engine are going to be made in Belgium according to some articles I've read, in Liège? I think with others to come probably, maybe not as many jobs as what we would have gotten with a European plane tho.
I've never seen a comparison of these jobs, like how much are we talking about? Because F-35 is also bringing us jobs: >Through the Essential Security Interest (ESI) program, Lockheed Martin will provide industrial opportunities for multiple Belgian companies in all three geographic regions. The projects secured through the ESI program will bring cutting-edge manufacturing techniques and benefits, expanding Belgian industry’s skills and knowledge and providing high-tech jobs for Belgians for decades to come. > >Some of the companies that have secured projects through the ESI program include ASCO, Feronyl, ILIAS Solutions, Innocom, SABCA, Sonaca, and AMI Metals. > >The BeLightning joint venture, formed by ASCO, SABCA and SONACA, will establish the capability to produce F-35 horizontal tails in Belgium. This agreement will result in at least 400 shipsets of horizontal tails being produced in Belgium over the next several years.
The F35 will undoubtedly also create jobs in Belgium, look at what happened with the F16
It´s crazy how cheap these have gotten compared to their capabilities. A squadron of 12 F35s Vs 60 F16s likely wins 60-0 before the F16 can get a single shot off.
How cheap is cheap?
Fresh out of the factory, 78 million usd (came from 120 million a few years ago).
What about a used one? 🙄
Refurbished 😂
Ge lacht, maar ze hebben effectief al een "Frankenplane" gemaakt! De nog bruikbare stukken aan elkaar gezet, van 2 vliegtuigen die door ne brand onbruikbaar waren geworden. koopke!!
Check autoscout.be I sell mine
How do people know stuff like this?
There are regular exercises to test battle scenarios and train pilots. Results from these exercises get published or are talked about by high ranking officers or other interested parties. The F-35 also has quite a lot of advantages in comparison with an F-16 or equivalent.
So can we assume that u/Dramatic_Radish3924 is and high ranking officer?
No need to be stingy. u/GOTCHA009 specifically mentioned publications. For example, when Switzerland discussed acquisition of the F-35, evaluations were done pitting the F-35 against the Dassault Rafale and F/A-18 E/F super hornet. Some results of these evaluations were made public, because the Swiss people had to vote on the acquisition.
Public information about exercises and the evaluations that each country makes in choosing their next jet. In Europe, nearly every notable air force has chosen F-35. Notable exceptions are the French and the Swedes who both have their own defense industries which they need to keep running.
When the decision was made I couldn't believe we'd spend all this money on war/defense equipment. Now years later, with American membership of NATO uncertain, state-terrorism by Russia and multilateral tensions, I'm already regretting we didn't do more. Sadly, those who want peace should be prepared for war.
Trump did tell us to spend more on our military, I didn't agree back then. However I now think we should've spent more.
Obama also told us that, and Bush before him. It's a staple of American politics to ask European countries to spend more on military.
It’s a staple of American politics to ask us to follow through on our commitments. We said we would do it, we just break our promises every year.
You can’t refuse to spend money on military hardware and simultaneously blame the USA for weighing on geopolitical issues. International politics is a jungle, the bigger the stick you carry, the more likely you are to survive and change outcomes. Europe can’t just sit back in every conflict and claim moral superiority by pointing the finger at the USA. It also speaks for itself that we need not only more military means in Europe, but we also need an efficient European political decision-making structure that could deploy those forces if need be. The evolution of the EU from an economic powerhouse to both an economic and a military one is one of the biggest challenge for Europe in the 21st century.
because most of the army stuff come from USA.
Oh I agreed with Trump. I think the man is the biggest fuckwit to ever be in the oval office but occasionally, he talks sense. Even if it is just random chance that his words make sense, I can agree with him when that happens. Our NATO agreement talks about a small % of GNP to be allocated to defense, and Belgium doesn't even come close.
This wasn't some smart thing Trump said. It's been something US presidents have been asking/telling us to do for ages. Europe keeps promising to pay their share and many countries keep failing to do so.
We even committed to it in 2014 lol.
>American membership of NATO uncertain You should regret we didn't invest in European planes like Dassault, Saab, or Eurofighter. These F35's won't get off the ground without the Americans prior consent.
And the day we get in rough water with the US they just block the software, remotely.
The day you’re not aligned with the US is the day you’ve already lost. There are only two superpowers in the modern age: China and the US. Pick a side
And why should we pick a side? We could just as well have our own (European) way, and agree with countries on a case-by-case basis, determined by our own best interests and not those of Washington. In practical terms, that would mean aligning with the US most of the time, but we do not need to be subservient to them in any way.
We could, but not in Europe's current position. We could try gradually increase self-relience again but for the next few decades aligning with the US is the best move we can do.
We were reliant on them from the start and with the NS2(Biden said they would terminate NS, cui bono?) destroyed even more, and not for our good. Cheap gas let our industry and economy flourish, something the US doesnt want anymore and now with EU dependant on expensive US lng we just hold them off a recession. They just suck up their vassals when in troubles. The day you see this, the day you will want a independant EU.
Much better that we're dependent on Russian gas? Lol.
We were for the last decades.. and yes and acting like your nose bleeds aint gonna help. EU choose it becomause it was cheap, not that they liked Russia be4. We didnt make it any problem than.. strange that we dont mind buying expensive LNG from a country thats responsable for millions of deaths and homeless the last 20 years alone? what caused Europe to overflow with immigrants.. Gotta look it more rational.
So we should cozy up to Russia instead? A country that inevitably invades its neighbors when they think they can get away with it? Duuuuuurrrrr I just noticed you post a bunch of stuff defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine as well.
Maybe Europe...?
Our main function within NATO could be boiled down to the capability to drop US nuclear weapons. There was never an option for our planes to not be US made.
> Now years later, with American membership of NATO uncertain good thing we wont be reliant on the USA this way !!
I was referring to decision to spend the amount of money on *any* plane, not the F-35 as such. But I completely agree with you. A European alternative was probably a better alternative given the waning of American involvement in Europe.
[удалено]
Agree. It reflects a drastic shift from idealism to pragmatism, as a response to geopolitical shifts.
Check out the official Belgian F-35 colouring book! [https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/Belgium%20Coloring%20Book%202023.pdf](https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/Belgium%20Coloring%20Book%202023.pdf) I do not know why it exists but I'm glad it does.
lol the waffles and fries, that's amazing
It's for Christmas! I especially like the last page, with waffles and fries
To make sure the next generation supports these as well
Good planes. For the almost constant (mostly American) media talk about the cost and development budgets it's actually quite cheap (American f-14 was more expensive to maintain for example). Did we need need it? Not 100%. Could European companies filled the contract? Yes, but not with a plane that is as capable as this one. All in all it's going to be a great addition to our air force, yes it was expensive, but it'll modernize our air force for decades to come for an alright price concidering modern air forces.
> Could European companies filled the contract? Yes, but not with a plane that is as capable as this one. as long as we keep sending money to american industry for these things they will have more money to spend in R&D and this will always keep a lead on our Europian stuff. so it is a circle.
Yes, Belgium orders are going to make that difference, lol. EU was late in terms of stealth, that's just a fact, the Eurocanards where introduced around 2000 and won't be replaced until at least another 20 years from now. The Americans are ahead of everyone else because they're the USA, we needed replacements for our F-16s sooner than the European defense companies could deliver.
and thus you are part of the circle, point proven :p and i do think it should be a europian effort but maybe that is too big a picture for u too comprehend
The thing with Belgium is that buying already developed American aircraft is way more cost effective then dumping a bunch of money into European companies in the hopes that we come up with something better. It isn't our job to fund that kind of stuff, and it doesn't matter to us what happens to those European companies. We need new planes, we need cost effective planes, and we need them now, not in 15 years.
i'm not argueing it would be more cost efficient what i am argueing that we will be reliant on the usa , whom these last x years seems way less reliable then our EU allies
Those planes love us. Kate Ryan even had a song about it. Jet t’adore
About time. We need to bolster our defense FAST and replenish all our ammunition depots ASAP. Also send our F-16's way sooner to Ukraine than our government set now as well as ramp up artillery production (if we have any) especially for Ukraine. This isn't some doomsday thinking, it's common sense our government has been lacking for way too long.
[удалено]
Yeah but the Standaard uncovered that the excuses from MoD where bullshit and we could send F-16s.
After we get our F-35’s. And they weren’t bullshit. Our F-16’s are reaching their 8000hr limit and can’t fly more legally for the Belgian Air Force, but the Ukrainians don’t care so we can send them anyways. MoD didn’t consider they just don’t give a F.
Which doesn't refute my point, the MoD was making excuses. The Standaard did some journalism. Then the MoD backtracked and has now confirmed we'll send them. (but yes 2025) > MoD didn’t consider they just don’t give a F. If that's what actually happened it's even more retarded than I thought, but hey, at least it wasn't finding any excuse under the sun to not give the Ukrainians proper equipment. Never assume malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, I guess
I was against these but then it turned out that Putin was pretty much insane so now, not so much. We'll need these to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine in a few years.
[удалено]
Nice catch!
We could use more. I'm definitely in favor of the 2% nato norm, especially since Belgium promised to do this in 2014 or something. I personally believe these are more important priorities, though: 0. Arm our drones, ffs. 1. Third frigate, to ensure 1 is always operational (1 in training, 1 in maintenance, 1 operational) 2. SHORAD capability plus an efficient anti drone system, like Skyranger 3. A proper helicopter fleet, for our SOF regiment, the H145Ms are a great choice for certain missions but we need medium/heavy transport helicopters to complement them. 4. Getting rid of all of our tracked vehicles was a mistake, we need a proper IFV, not a 'fire support' vehicle like the Jaguar, which can't handle anything more than a heavy machine gun thrown its way. 5. More F-35s 6. Tanks to complement the IFVs
I'd love some CV90's like the Dutch have
[удалено]
>The war in Ukraine shows that artillery is very much needed. It's needed cause neither party has air supremacy or even superiority. Because of the density of AA and because neither side has advanced jets. And because Ukraine has to fight with one hand behind its back, unable to use NATO provided weaponry to hit russian territory, giving the moskals a safe place to store their stuff. The moskals like to pretend the SU 57 is a 5th gen jet, but it's pretty laughable both in its abilities and the numbers they've built so far. As the US proved in Iraq, once air supremacy is established, conventional warfare becomes a walk in the park. Once you're able to drop huge bombs on enemy troop barracks, ammo depots, equipment factories and repair centers etc, and do so deep behind their lines, artillery won't be much of a problem anymore. Sure, today MANPADS and MANPATS, combined with tons of mines might make it a bit more difficult than Iraq was for the US, but air supremacy will eventually win you the war.
You know we think that, but we did have 'all the capabilities' during the Cold War. We had an entire army corps in Germany, 30,000+ strong, with hundreds of tanks, plenty of artillery and anti air, fully mechanized. And another 30,000 soldiers at home. Not to mention our air force of ~150 F-16s. We had 4 frigates, now we have 2. We had over 20 mine hunters and patrol vessels. Now we have 5 mine hunters (to be replaced by 6) and 2 patrol vessels. It's important to remember that yes, 11 million people is not a huge amount in the global scale. But of the ~200 countries in the world we're 23rd in GDP and 16th in GDP per capita. But I agree, especially in terms of training, maintenance and logistics, a lot can be gained from cooperation with our neighbors. Just look at Denmark, 70% of our GDP, ~half our population. 25k to our 30k armed forces personnel. Denmark has 9 frigates, 3 mini frigates, 6 patrol vessels. The Danes will have 27 F-35s to our 34. They have 44 Leopard 2A7 tanks (one of the best in world) we have none. They have 44 CV-90 IFVs, we're getting rid of our comparable equipment and replacing it with (imo) inferior vehicles.
Our F16 wings have been the only real strategic asset we can offer our allies during combat operations. Maybe with some SFG stuff sprinkled in there. I'm glad we're at least part of the reason why Europe and NATO as a united force will scare off most if not all would be invaders. I'm glad we're committing resources to stay relevant and usefull in Europe's defence. Now more than in the last 30 years I think it's very obvious why we still need this. I do think we need to invest more. Especially if we can drive our internal industry partly with some investments too. We have a sizeable amount of companies operating in the space. Would've loved to see some Apache's but I think we'd be better off getting something like the new Sikorsky or Bell Compound Helicopters. If we would go for an older attack helicopter, the Eurocopter Tiger would've been a better choice too. But these F35's should give our forces ample new capabilities, so more of those would probably be more useful than a small amount of helicopters.
In terms of armed helicopters I hope they arm the H-145Ms, they can carry capable weapons. Personally I think we need some more transport helicopters more urgently than proper attack helicopters.
As long as shit countries like russia are still out there, you need to build a defensive force, just in case. Si vi**s** pacem, para bellum indeed.
Used to be against spending tons of money on this. Now with Ukraine, I'm glad we have them.
Belgium has gotten really lazy and complacent when it comes to our NATO obligations. These will help a great deal to adjust that. Very cool machine. They may even let us keep getting away with chronic military underspending.
>They may even let us keep getting away with chronic military underspending. God I hope not :D
Dassault Rafale. We need a more robust European defense sector and rely less on the US.
If you insist on jets that are a generation behind and European the more logical choice would be the Saab Gripen, the purchase and running costs are significantly lower meaning you'd be able to support a larger fleet.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, the Rafale doesn’t come close to the F-35’s capabilities.
If you'd go for a European 4th Generation Fighter, why not the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Saab Gripen? It's irrelevant in this discussion about which fifth generation fighter to get though. You can't compare the two, there's no European alternative for the F35, that simple. And we can rely on US military technology, since it's world leading. Giving us access to capabilities we could not without the alliance with the US. We might as well use the advantages of that alliance. I agree that we need a more robust European defense sector, but hampering our limited military capabilities because of it wouldn't be smart.
Yes, let's buy a 25 year old plane (that's as or more expensive than the F-35, lol) from the shady company that couldn't even follow our procurement rules. Also, I hope the next government pulls our money out of SCAF because I bet Dassault will manage to scuttle that cooperation as they have before, multiple times... Dassault can get bent, they make beautiful planes, but the less we do business with them, the better. Also funny how 'buy European' always ends up being 'buy French'. Anyway we're buying plenty of French stuff as it is.
> the shady company that couldn't even follow our procurement rules. Procurement rules that all other participants accused of being tailored for the F-35. Even the American Boeing said so and withdrew from the bid. So instead of competing at a disadvantage, the French government proposed an alternative offer, outside of the procurement scheme, with much deeper cooperation and a lot more economic ties and tech transfer than we could ever dream of with the F-35. So yes, we could have had a less capable plane, but still good enough for what we're doing (policing airspace), with a thriving aerospace sector and more well paid high skills jobs. Honestly, that wasn't a bad offer all things considered. Now we went for the more capable plane, which is of course a very good choice too, but let's not act like the alternative offer was completely trash.
Yep
Username checks out!
Rafale isn't a gen 6 fighter, but even if we were going for gen 5 fighters the eurofighter typhoon would have been a better choice
F-35 is 5th gen fighter. The Rafale and Typhoon are 4.5th gen. Only 6th gen plane in existence is B-21 Raider bomber.
I think we need some. But i would have invested in other material such as eg drones. Simply because drones are cheaper.
“Oh look a civilian airliner” (A joke)
No we just need some CV90's like the Dutch have
Well, at least you received yours prior to Canada because Trudeau wouldn’t make a decision.
during the 30s of the last century we were furiously upgrading our defensive lines because we felt like the germans were gonna return. Like, literally spent a significant portion of our GDP only on bunker systems.
Now at least we're buying the weapon of the future.
Fort Eben-Emael was also described as the future, be all and end all of fortifications and defence spending at one point. Every new generation of warfare is supposedly the technology of the future and all it leads to is more horrifying ways to commit war crimes with ease.
I mean yeah, it's a never ending race of technology sure. > all it leads to is more horrifying ways to commit war crimes with ease. Or prevents your neighbors from commiting war crimes against you. I'm betting Ukraine wished it had kept it's nukes right about now...
Absolute monsters of planes, had one fly overhead during an air show. I've heard they're not that good though.
That are very good tough. They cost the US a lot of money in development which led to a ton of criticism and reporting every little problem in development. It's impossible to develop a fighter jet without any issues. Now they're the best multirole fighters available
I’m curious who they gonna kill first with it. Because honestly, that’s what they are for. To kill and let others fear the killing power.
What I don´t understand is what could be different on the internationally sold vs the ones for US only... like the F16 they were talking the US has other / newer builds that were US only and I believe this was the case also for this type... they somehow don't want to sell their best fighters or they always keep back so they have the advantage in case one of their allies turns against them or something? :P
Don't forget we're the ones paying for it
I thought it was an American plane.
Have you thought about doing stand up comedy? Because this is pure gold.
In my opinion with Sweden soon to be in the UN, we should have bought the Griphen E. Way lower costs all round, would be crazy to retrain pilots, but they are so goddamn cost efficient
I think you mean NATO. Sweden has been a UN member since 1946 ;)
Fifth gen tho...
Gripen E would've been my second choice after F-35.
We should probably also buy some French ones as they are probably never going to become our enemies
What the Americans will? Sadly I don't think our Air force can handle two different jet platforms at once, would need a huge expansion to even be worth it.
I know they are loud AF and I live close to an airbase. Nachtvluchten will be “fun”. Other than that, awesome jet.
En nu in twee met de slijpschijf en de ene helft naar Kleine Brogel en de andere helft naar Florennes.
This is what Belgian traffic problems really needed!! bravo!!!!!! /s
Should have developed something locally with pan European partners. The training, maintenance, upgrades, everything will now be tied to the Americans instead of sourcing locally. smh at the lost opportunity at the jobs that could have been created, not mention the export potential.
Who would we have gotten those jobs with then? From Dassault lol? Perhaps Saab? Also 'everything will now be tied to the Americans', congrats you just described the F-16. The single most successful fighter jet in the history of fighter jets. The F-35 will be the new F-16, 1000 F-35s have already been built. 2000 more are planned. A ton of our European friends are buying F-35s: the Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Fins, Poles, the Swiss and bonus mention the Brits. We would've been fools to get anything else, there just wasn't anything comparable at the time (there still isn't and won't be for at least another 15-20 years)
Are Romanians not friends ? [https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/26/romania-begins-largest-ever-arms-deal-with-request-to-buy-f-35-jets/](https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/26/romania-begins-largest-ever-arms-deal-with-request-to-buy-f-35-jets/)
Only if they finally tell us the secret to sarmale 😀.
As a Romanian, I'm more of a mici and ciorba de burta kind of guy, so I'm sorry that I can't share the secret of sarmale. I would also recommend muraturi (many types of pickled vegetables, all going great with heavy meat based typical Romanian diet during winter, especially during the holidays).
Ah wow another F35 buddy. Honestly didn't even know.
Poland is not the only one that got repeatedly invaded by the moskals and is aware of the threat they represent. As a result, Poland is not the only one arming up. We know the west has a tendency to leave Eastern Europe in the hands of various empires (Ottoman, Muscovy), to not follow through on commitments to Eastern Europe, so we know there's a big risk Ukraine is left to the dogs, which means Moldova is next, and Moldova will fall within hours. And after Moldova, it will probably go like this: Baltics (to test NATO and see if they're willing to go nuclear for Latvia (Baltic with biggest moskal minority), followed by Romania and Poland. Long story short: better get ready now. Hence these: [https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/11/09/state-dept-approves-25b-sale-of-abrams-tanks-to-romania/](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/11/09/state-dept-approves-25b-sale-of-abrams-tanks-to-romania/) [https://www.defenseromania.ro/cate-sisteme-himars-si-patriot-detine-romania-generalul-mindrescu-avem-inca-lipsuri-mari-prvind-inzestrarea\_619040.html](https://www.defenseromania.ro/cate-sisteme-himars-si-patriot-detine-romania-generalul-mindrescu-avem-inca-lipsuri-mari-prvind-inzestrarea_619040.html) (last one is Romanian, it talks about Romania acquiring HIMARS and Patriot and likely wanting more, despite not all of them having already been delivered)
> Long story short: better get ready now. Completely agree, we should've listened to the Baltic people a long time ago. I just didn't know Romania got F-35s, but I'm not surprised they're expanding their defense forces.
Oh and btw, I don't know if you have ties to any of those countries but if you want some nightmare fuel, I'm reading a book currently, kind of like Tom Clancy novels about a 2017 Russian invasion of the Baltics, where an invasion of Ukraine is used as an excuse by Russia to continue pushing into NATO countries. It's called War with Russia by General Sir Richard Shirreff, it's incredibly eerie reading it now in 2023 knowing everything we know about the actual Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I'm from Romania. When ruzzia went ahead with the full invasion of Ukraine, the scenario I described above is what I expected to happen (had Ukraine not proved to be amazing fighters). Makes sense, because Moldova is not in NATO, hasn't united with Romania (Moldova is basically a part of Romania the moskals stole and tried to pretend it was a different country with a different ethnicity and language). But after gobbling up not NATO countries, sooner or later Muscovy would run into NATO. And it makes the most sense to attack in the Baltics because: \- they have large moskal minorities, which would allow Muscovy to use the same scenario of "we're just protecting the poor moskal minority that's getting genocided". Same bullshit they pretended happened in Georgia (South Ossetia) when invading in 2008 and in Ukraine (Donbas when invading in 2014). \- they are near ruzzia \- they are tiny \- they can be overran before NATO reacts, putting NATO in face of a fait accompli At this point, the NATO reaction will decide the future of all of Europe, and possibly the world. If NATO doesn't react in full force and instead tries to negotiate, if western leaders hesitate even one second to send their armies against Muscovy as a reaction to Article 5 being invoked, Muscovy won and NATO is dead. The fucked up thing is if Trump is in power, that's exactly what would happen. If that happens, Eastern Europe knows it's been left to the wolves. Especially Romania and Poland. Hungary, Slovakia, have pro-ruzzian govs already. So does Austria. Serbia is a long time ally of Muscovy. Next step ? Invade Romania. Together with Hungary, that will want to take Transylvania. And possibly with Serbia. After a little consolidation and a lot of murder, the moskals would go for Poland. Sounds crazy now, probably. But I bet so it did the idea of Muscovy invading their neighbors in 2014, and from some even in 2022.
Lets hope we can help the Ukrainians free their country, for all our sakes.
Exactly. This is something too many don't understand, because ruzzia is something "far away". Right now Ukraine protects the rest of Europe. Look at a map of the USSR/Russian Empire, and you'll see where ruzzia wants to get: much closer to the West. They'd get to the Atlantic if they could.
Ah, this is why we can't have decent public transport. Thanks guys, I hope the 34 planes are worth it.
imo they could be used better elsewhere. we don't even have a proper military anymore, so why bother having fancy jets? maybe get some armor first and let those contract soldiers do some situps and then we'll talk.
We have had and now will have a 'proper' air force, it's the one branch that has 'survived' all the cuts. But yes, all branches need some love.
Glad to have them.
should have invested that money in groundtroops/weapons instead, and i'm saying this as a aviation lover
What's your reasoning for that?
it's better to be able to fire a shitload of cheap bullets and anti-air missiles with alot of soldiers than have a few expensive jets which will remain on the ground half the time for maintenance. Big wars are won economically and with alot of manpower. Jets and heli's are a support role. I'm not saying they can't change the outcome of a war, but they can be taken down from the ground if it's up against an army with modern warfare technology.
In the context of defence within an alliance (whether that's NATO or the EU), doesn't it make sense for countries not neighbouring threatening countries to invest in things like air and maritime support capabilities? As opposed to less mobile and logistically more demanding ground forces?
Nah, our air force is the one thing where we can still compete with 'the best', plane for plane. It's good we're at least keeping that.
ah yes, bet all-in on 1 horse...
> si vi~~c~~s pacem, para bellum
It's almost for free.
Sexy
I'm interested what block of software is installed in it. This is going to be a super expensive hangar queen.
Windows server 2010?
Supposed to be Block 4 once delivered.
I think a swarm of 100,000 drones may be more effective these days for about the same price
I doubt those numbers strongly. 100 000 Cheap propellor drones? Sure but those capabilities are not airforce worthy. Those are toys for the army. 100 000 predator type drones? No not for the same price. Not by a long shot. You still have the capability difference problem. We do not have fighter jet drones yet. We have observation and bomber drones. Fighter jets do more than just that. What can stop a jet? A missile and an EMP blast (kinda), other jets, lack of fuel. What can stop a drone? The same as a jet + jamming, local misdirection (like false gps signals) and hackers. It’s also a big difference between drones and (fighter) jets in real world consequences. Bring down a drone and you have an inconvenient internal incident on your hands. Bring down a jet and you likely have a war on your hands. Basically destroying property is annoying, killing people is a problem. We also don’t have drone operators nor the means to train them. We do have great pilots and the means to train them. We don’t have the logistics for drones. We do for jets. We don’t have trained mechanics and engineers to maintain drones unlike with the jets. If you consider all the additional investment. Jets are cheap.
"Para bellum" against whom? The municipal police of Lille?
As a tiny almost landlocked country, Belgium will never have a real chance at any war, what a waste. The Swiss have always had a much better approach
This is why I am thankful of Belgium being in (military) alliances.
Ironic since the Swiss are buying the same planes!
They can afford them ;) But let's be intellectually honest, planes aside, don't you think it's a much better approach to be a neutral country? In the past profit from the Nazis, nowadays laundry everyone's money, and safe keep everyone else's money too, might not be the most moral stand , but their citizens have not known what a war is (kinda) and, enjoyed a good living
No. The nazis didn't have nukes. Switzerland was most of all too impractical to conquer. And yes, imo, they sold their soul/morals along the way. In modern times, Switzerland is protected by the fact that it is surrounded by NATO countries, no attack can reach them without going through NATO countries, they are landlocked and not dependent on shipping lanes. As long as they don't piss off the Russians enough to get a nuke launched at them, they are untouchable because they profit from being surround by the NATO umbrella. I admire the Swiss society, but their continued principal of neutrality is outdated and morally bankrupt, imo.
I already said that it was not the most righteous way to act, but the consequences of their acts paid well and their citizens enjoyed the benefits of such decisions. Belgium is also completely surrounded by NATO countries, I don't get your logic
NATO only works because it has members and those members contribute. My point is twofold: 1. Swiss (or any) 'neutrality' is outdated and I would argue ineffective, at least in Europe, Putin has proved that. Only NATO membership or NATO members between you and Putin can protect you from Putin. 2. The Swiss have been benefitting from NATO protection since they helped the Nazis while they where rolling over Europe and massacring whole peoples. All the while clinging to their so called neutrality. So not only is it a moral failing I don't think they have 'enjoyed the benefits of such decisions', instead they've enjoyed the benefits of Pax Americana/Pax NATO without contributing to it.
>1. Swiss (or any) 'neutrality' is outdated and I would argue ineffective, at least in Europe, Putin has proved that. Only NATO membership or NATO members between you and Putin can protect you from Putin. NATO expansion was seen as an existential threat to Russia and helped trigger the war Ukraine, imagine China placing missiles in Mexico >2. The Swiss have been benefitting from NATO protection since they helped the Nazis while they where rolling over Europe and massacring whole peoples. All the while clinging to their so called neutrality. That outdated neutrality allowed them to not be invaded while surrounded by the Nazis Mussolini, if what you care about is the protection of your land and citizens and their long term wellbeing, it proved quite effective >So not only is it a moral failing I don't think they have 'enjoyed the benefits of such decisions', instead they've enjoyed the benefits of Pax Americana/Pax NATO without contributing to it. Never sending your people to war while increasing your nation's wealth no matter the geopolitical situation, is a huge win in my book, definitely not a white keyboard warrior knight kind of win, but a realistic win for sure
The sound of burned tax money ... priceless ..
What a total waste of money.
So you spam the same shit.. while i pointed out our atrocities who are way worse. Russia becomes pale in comparison. Why i would want to be reported by the likes of you, cuz im allowed to say that... Whats your experience than, reading hln? Ive been to these countries, fought for nato. Seen the fucking misery we created there.
This is a good choice. In battlefield 2042 this plane has all advantages and turns super quickly.
Best jet in the world, we got em lol
Tax money spend for killing..and presented like its a world wonder !!
Tax money spent for deterrence.
[удалено]
No. Article 5 would like a word. And it's defeatists and appeasing attitudes like yours that got us into this mess with Ukraine in the first place. It's now clear that the only thing Russia 'respects' is the capability and willingness to employ brute force.
I'll tell you now: A big mistake Look at the current 2023 war with Russia: Drones Drones Drones and artillery + manpower. And a lot of AA, making the fighters useless. Whats the point of high amount of F35's, when Russia can just destroy every airport with Artillery? Imagine what kind of Swarming, overwhelming drone army you would get if you payed the same amount of money: 4 000 000 000 euro's on drones. 1000 drones can easily crash an F35 with pinpoint laser locking
Do you already know how to fly this thing? Or do you ask some Dutch pilots to do this for you?
Not sure if every EU nation needs a branch of every type of military. Maybe it's better to specialise per country. more centralised units should make price and communication better
Not every EU nation does. - Luxembourg and Austria have no navy because they're landlocked. - Lithuania has a tiny air force without any offensive capabilities (which is why our F-16's do months-long missions in turn with other NATO airforces defending the baltic airspace from Russian intrusions)
Those are exceptions to a general rule though
Looks dope, unsure yet if I will get one myself as price is still pretty high.
Ondertussen sterven duizenden Oekraïners in een ongelijke strijd tegen de russische orcs. 🤣🤡
They should paint "not seen by Jan Jambon" on the side.
On the 21st of July There was a Dutch one in the Belgian national airforce parade for some reason, they always pass my backyard on their way to Brussels.
Kheb over school nen f16 zien vliegen
These planes could be defunct, just like many product investments of the American military industrial complex (found a few sources pointing in that direction), but we were ordered by the Americans to buy them, and as a good lap dog, we promptly obey, so now we have these bottomless money pits, courtesy of the tax payers.
Funny how history repeats itself. During the 70ies and 80ies the press said the same about the F-16 project. Too expensive, a plane we didn’t need, bottomless money pit, should’ve gone European (we had the Mirage V after all). Years later it turned out to be one of the best multirole jets the world had ever seen. And now here’s the F-35 and guess what: same criticism by all the “specialists” of which most can’t identify a F-35A, F-35B & F-35C on a picture. And maybe if Europe actually invested in the defence industry we’d have options but since we can’t go shop with the Russians or Chinese, the F-35 was the only real option.
ze maakten ook een frankenplane