Originally Posted by HindStrike

I don't know why the f-35 was designed in a vtol version when a dedicated vtol jet would suit the purpose far better. If only we had the super harrier.

It was designed so the Navy and Marine branches would have it's stealth close-air support (same goes for the UK navy). If we ddn't get the F-35s we would be looking at only B-2s and F-117s for stealth bombers....

Remember the initial part of an invasion is clearing the skies. If we only have the expensive B-2s and F-117s it limits our capabilities against ever increasing threats from modern SAMs.

I believe U.S wants a fleet of 2500 F-35s? Am I wrong on this number?

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

The problem is that buying stuff from any one apart from your own country leaves you open for problems if you pursue a policy that they disagree with. Then you find your supplies are cut of and you have a load of expensive junk om your hands.

During the Falklands War Belgium refused to supply Britain with a certain type of ammunition, because they didn't agree with Britain taking it back. I forget what type it was, but it goes to show how dangerous it can be having one foreign supplier as the sole source of certain supplies.

I think you will find it artillery shells they refused to supply in case they lost their contract with Argentina

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

During the Falklands War Belgium refused to supply Britain with a certain type of ammunition, because they didn't agree with Britain taking it back. I forget what type it was, but it goes to show how dangerous it can be having one foreign supplier as the sole source of certain supplies.

Shame on Belgium

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Shame on Belgium

Shame on Belgium? It's bloody disgusting. Belgium is supposedly a partner in NATO and one of Britain's allies. It goes to show who to trust and who not to trust.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Shame on Belgium? It's bloody disgusting. Belgium is supposedly a partner in NATO and one of Britain's allies. It goes to show who to trust and who not to trust.

Alliances occur when countries share interests, the moment they don't share interests; the alliance is gone. With other words, countries do not have friends; they share interests. They do things that benefit their strategic interests, nothing more, nothing less. The cohesion of NATO has never been tested.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Alliances occur when countries share interests, the moment they don't share interests; the alliance is gone. With other words, countries do not have friends; they share interests. They do things that benefit their strategic interests, nothing more, nothing less. The cohesion of NATO has never been tested.

Belgium was in effect supporting a dictatorship at the expense of a people who had been invaded. They must have very short memories and forgotten their own experiences under an invading army and the assistance that Britain gave them during that time and who liberated them along with other Allies.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Belgium was in effect supporting a dictatorship at the expense of a people who had been invaded. They must have very short memories and forgotten their own experiences under an invading army and the assistance that Britain gave them during that time and who liberated them along with other Allies.

France did something similar in the 1960s, how easy it is to forget what happened earlier. So Belgium refused to sell artillery shells to Britain?

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

France did something similar in the 1960s, how easy it is to forget what happened earlier. So Belgium refused to sell artillery shells to Britain?

They refused to supply the ammunition, I can't remember where the blokes got them in the end but Belgium annoyed quite a few people. At the end of the day, Belgium didn't do themselves any favours.

We seem to buy far fewer weapons and munitions from Belgium than we did at one time