As a Belgian I find this hilarious. This might be the most Belgian thing ever.
By the way they are investigating whether this was an accident or on purpose. The chances of this being an accident are quite small.
By the way they are investigating whether this was an accident or on purpose. The chances of this being an accident are quite small.
Eg. The Dutch have “ATM machines for fried food”.
"Do you know why they don't cover lunatic asylums in Belgium?"
"It would be impossible to cover the whole country."
With Russia now becoming increasingly aggressive, I would think the time to prepare a deterrence is now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elsenborn_Ridge [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxkk8CuejV4
eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
Wars tend to expose obsolete military doctrines. Big fortresses on land and sea (battleships) that can bombard targets many miles away are great if the enemy doesn't just fly in.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/05/09/soldier-...
If you watch the video you’ll see the type of clown he is.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with it. But at least that's the context.
There are rumours about US intervention/approval being required when loading the F35 computer with mission details..
They are not strictly 100% European manufacture, I suppose, but could very well be.
There being several domestic European options, obtaining hardware from USA seems counter-productive. The F35 are very expensive, their quality seems supect, they are pushed through not on their technical merits but through political pressure (e.g. Norway), there are strings attached. All this is somewhat alarming. Also, any political guarantees attached to the purchase of the F35 are suspect, as this weeks promises may change next week - we all know the new administration is rather dynamic, in good and bad.
Could one buy a few for political reasons? Maybe, but maybe one or two would not be enough and with a larger block the cost becomes an issue.
IIRC the only country that can is Israel and they got a specific exemption.
Honestly I find the way our government rolls over to the US frustrating at times, As the customer we should hold a firmer line - flip side is though that arms deals are often a proxy for general diplomacy so we take it in the shorts on specific deals for long term advantages - It's all in the (great) game.
The disadvantage is as you point out, severely limited types of aircraft for operations. The advantage of the cheaper design was that two carriers could be produced - France, with a similar economy and military to the UK size-wise, has only one fixed-wing carrier.
Two carriers is a game changer, as it allows year round operational readiness. For the Charles de Gaulle it spent ~900 days at sea in its first six years[0] - less than half the time.
Always having a carrier ready with "compromised" aircraft has many advantages over a lower availability with better aircraft.
[0] https://www.copybook.com/fact-files/charles-de-gaulle-aircra...
I don't believe it was ever really included in the design. EMALS was undeveloped at the time, and where would you get the steam for a conventional catapult, with no reactor and no boilers? And where were the compartments to physically put the (huge) catapults and arrestor gear? And even if EMALS was available where would you get the electrical power to run it (no reactor remember) when the (gas turbine) engines full output would be needed to head into the wind for launches?
It was a tickybox, that's all. Because BAe could never take the risk that the UK would chose Rafales or Super Hornets, they had to make the F35-B, which coincidentally they also have a finger in the pie of, the only option.
Don't worry! F35 engines can also be maintained in Turkey.
So are the current F16 able to drop these? Or which other planes during those decades?
Europe isn't an American colony. If anything it should be the other way round.
the UK, Italy, Germany...all have permanent military bases for the USA...they're practically garrisoned