Forum: F-16 News

I applaud Belgium for <a href="news_article2731.html">stepping up with more forces for the fight in Afghanistan</a>. It is a huge scandal, in my opinion, that only a few of the NATO allies are willing to do the heavy lifting there.

Just this week, Germany, a much larger and wealthier country, snubbed the pleas of Canada other NATO countries. Bravo, Belgium!

F-16.net Sponsor

Well,

A lot of debate is going on about this deployment. So I'm realy hoping (and this is a personal opinion, not an official F-16.net stand) that the Belgian government keeps its word and realy does send those 4 vipers to strenghthen the Dutch detachment.

The Flemish Socialist party is crying out (backed-up by some ignorend media who completely don't know what they are talking about) that Belgium is going to war. Can you imagine! OK, I admit, Kandahar (and the complete south of Afghanistan) is more like a warzone than Kabul is. But saying we are going to war is complete populistic chatter. The Flemish Socialists would want to completely dismantle the Belgian military and use them solely for development work.

Since about 25 years, Belgium is more and more becoming a parasite of NATO then a steadfast contributor to the alliance. From the moment Belgium is sending out troops to a region were we can't be 200% sure nobody will get hurt, those Socialist are crying out loud. 'Belgium is only sending troops to non-combat regions'. Let the other countries return home with body bags, we will transport them back home. That's their official stand.

I'm hoping one thing. That this party isn't getting in the government again for the next 8 or 12 years. That way we might be able to get the decision for a successor of the F-16 within the Belgian military on the rails and an order out. If they are in the the government in this timespan, most probably all hope is lost and the F-16 will be the last fighter in the inventory.

Greets,

Aren't they also going to send 100 soldiers? Or are those 100 the airforce detachment? I think that Belgium should have atleast matched the Netherlands in deployment and send 1500 troops, that would have solved allot of problems in the south of Afghanistan.

I hate to say it, but you're absolutely right.
I'm not saying I'd love it to see Belgian soldiers in combat, but when it has to be done, it has to be done.

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 08, 2003 - 08:04 PM Posts: 35

Actually, though the Belgian part in Afghanistan isn't that big as the Dutch... when you compare the number of soldiers 'abroad' on operations, Belgium really does it share of the work.

For the moment Belgium has around 1,500 soldiers on missions in foreign countries whereas the Dutch have around 2,000. Taking in to account the bigger size of the Dutch armed forces, I'd say, the share is about the same.

Granted, the Belgian commitment in Afghanistan is 'dwarfed' by the dutch, but we are taking on other big responsabilities in former Yougoslavia and Lebanon.

But knowing that the Dutch had almost continuous, or continuous Fighter aircraft detachments in Afghanistan or Kyrgyzstan (or where ever it was), i feel we should take a share of the burden and also send our F-16s back to Afghanistan...

Thanks for the informed discussion by those on this board who know far more than I about the politics of this. I hope the Belgian commitment is indeed honored.

I personally think that the military personnel of the "non-fighting" NATO countries must be terribly ashamed when they meet with their counterparts from Canada, the UK, US, etc. I can only imagine how they must try to avoid discussing that American or Canadian soldiers can die, but the Germans, Italians, or other soldiers can't.

I remember reading a few months ago that Germany was reluctantly sending some recce Tornadoes to Afghanistan. There was opposition in Germany that the intel gathered would be actually used! Can you imagine the horror? I believe they intended for some sort of delay to be built into the system. So, a Tornado sees some Taliban setting up an ambush to kill Canadian troops and the system won't allow them to be warned? I hope this is not the case in practice.

Loader2088 wrote:

I personally think that the military personnel of the "non-fighting" NATO countries must be terribly ashamed.

I don't think so, i think that the soldiers want to fight it's just the politicians that hold them back. It's the politicians that should be ashamed, not the soldiers themselfs.

Kaasjager. wrote:

Loader2088 wrote:

I personally think that the military personnel of the "non-fighting" NATO countries must be terribly ashamed.

I don't think so, i think that the soldiers want to fight it's just the politicians that hold them back. It's the politicians that should be ashamed, not the soldiers themselfs.

I didn't make myself as clear as I meant. I agree with you completely that the soldiers want to fight but are held back by the politicians responding to misinformed pacifism in the population.

I was trying to put myself in the place of a "non-fighting" NATO military man trying to discuss the situation with a counterpart from Canada, for example. I would be ashamed (not personally, but professionally).

Does that explain it better? I would respect the soldier more who did have this feeling.

Kaasjager. wrote:

Aren't they also going to send 100 soldiers? Or are those 100 the airforce detachment? I think that Belgium should have atleast matched the Netherlands in deployment and send 1500 troops, that would have solved allot of problems in the south of Afghanistan.

Belgium is, as stated by others before me, not as big as the Netherlands. As a result of that our military isn't that big.
Also Belgium has troops in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Lebanon and some places in Africa. So it's impossible for a nation as Belgium to send as much as 1500 men anywhere to do whatever. It simply can't be done at this time.

And besides all that: it's all politics, so we can debate as long as we want.

It really doesn't matter how few are deployed to support any actions- the fact that they are there speaks volumes. Salute

Allies stand by each other, when it comes to it in the end (come hell or high water), stand side by side to fight terrorism or your not really an Allie - that's my stand on it so far so good

Just to give a heads up on this one.

My point was not that Belgium wasn't doing its share as a NATO ally at this moment in the sense of sending troops in operations. As 'mil' pointed out, Belgium has around 1,500 troops in operation constantly, which indeed is only slightly less then the Dutch. My point is that Belgium (and specially the Flemish Socialist party) is contstantly nagging about those risky operations. Also about the amount of money that the country can spend on its military.

Belgium has had a very hard time in getting its public finances in line (and still is to some extend). So the cash down on the so-called 'peace dividend' in the early nineties was ok for me. But we cannot keep cashing in on that. The bottom has been reached for a number of years now. The fear I have is that with recent decisions made by the previous government on re-equipment, we aren't able to fight at all levels no more.

Do I want that Belgium would start investing in its military like in the 60's and 70's during the height of the Cold War? Because that is the argument those parties have if you start discussing this. That we (the ones who do take a stand for military investments) are still living in the Cold War and like massive armies. No, nobody expects Belgium to have a military reaching 100,000 troops as in the Cold War period. But we should be able to keep a core of skills that makes us able to fight on even the highest level (if necessary). For me that material consists of frigates for the navy, fighters for the air force and tanks for the army.

For the Navy that policy still stands. With acquiring the second-hand Dutch frigates, we can still operate on that level. The air force is also still in this position with its F-16 force. Problem here is that under pressure of that Flemish Socialist party we didn't enter the F-35 program. While the funds were reserved by the government pre-1999. And thus I stated before that if they enter the government again within this and 8 years (and even with the other parties on reign at the moment I'm not even 100% sure) that we will certainly loose our fighter force. For the army, the situation is already critical as the former government decided to abolish all tracked vehicles and replace them by wheeled examples. So by-by tanks. Which makes the army impossible to fight at the highest level or protect its own supportive forces in a fighting zone.

As far as I'm concerned, wheeled vehicles are ok for me. But not for the entire force. The Dutch are making the right decision on that issue I think. Wheeled vehicles, yes, and even the majority over tracked vehicles. But keep an element of those tracked vehicles (even a 1 or 2 platoons of tanks) as back-up if things get out of hand.

But this is my two cents. I am nagging on Belgium because I'm a Belgian citizen who cares. There are other NATO countries who are roughly in the same position as we are. So its not that Belgium should get all the sh*** on its head for this situation. It's just frustrating to see the military getting de-militarized on the political forum in a time where nothing is certain. I see the military as an insurance. Most people don't see it that way. They see it as a money spending machine which is not needed until the time is there. Problem is that they don't understand that if the time is there, you don't have enough time to get the military up and running. We've seen that in the pre-WWII period in Belgium, but still they haven't learned (or have forgotten already).

Greets,

AFPN wrote:

Sept. 25 airpower summary: F-16s deter anti-Afghan militia

9/26/2008 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFPN) -- Coalition airpower integrated with coalition ground forces in Iraq and International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan during operations Sept. 25, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.

In Afghanistan, an Air Force F-16A Fighting Falcon fired cannon rounds and a coalition aircraft dropped a guided bomb unit-12 onto anti-Afghan militia who were using small arms fire against coalition forces in the vicinity of Sangin. On-scene joint terminal attack controllers reported the missions successful.

In the vicinity of Now Zad, an F-16A dropped GBU-12s onto insurgents in a compound using rocket propelled grenade and small arms fire. [...]

Source: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123117098

Sounds like either Belgian or Dutch Vipers. Or was that a second longe-range F-16C strike from Joint Base Balad? I´m a little bit irritated. Why they wrote "Air Force F-16A Fighting Falcon" and not "coalition F-16A Fighting Falcon"? BTW: Is the Dutch Viper detachment still deployed?

[Link pending approval] wrote:

AFPN wrote:

Sept. 25 airpower summary: F-16s deter anti-Afghan militia

9/26/2008 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFPN) -- Coalition airpower integrated with coalition ground forces in Iraq and International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan during operations Sept. 25, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.

In Afghanistan, an Air Force F-16A Fighting Falcon fired cannon rounds and a coalition aircraft dropped a guided bomb unit-12 onto anti-Afghan militia who were using small arms fire against coalition forces in the vicinity of Sangin. On-scene joint terminal attack controllers reported the missions successful.

In the vicinity of Now Zad, an F-16A dropped GBU-12s onto insurgents in a compound using rocket propelled grenade and small arms fire. [...]

Source: [Link pending approval]

Sounds like either Belgian or Dutch Vipers. Or was that a second longe-range F-16C strike from Joint Base Balad? I´m a little bit irritated. Why they wrote "Air Force F-16A Fighting Falcon" and not "coalition F-16A Fighting Falcon"? BTW: Is the Dutch Viper detachment still deployed?

It may be a Belgian Viper. According to the Belgian press, Belgian F-16s in Kandahar made their first combat mission recently and used their internal gun in anger.

[url=[Link pending approval]]source[/url] (in Dutch)

The Dutch detachment is still there. There is a pretty good article about it in this month's issue of Air Forces Monthly.

The Dutch detachment is still there but is or will be reduced from 6 to 4 Vipers.
And thanks Tiger05 for the news link!

Forum: F-16 News

Belgium to deploy 4 F-16s to Afghanistan