>Europoors bitching about the F-35 while they can't even

>>34534573
To each his own

.......................................................................But you literally posted one in your pic. Unless you're quoting someone else to prove them wrong

that's a big plane

>>34534573
>Grouping up all europeans into one

Christ you are stupid, only a few nations has even ordered that thing.

>>34534573
>Airbus a400

ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT

>>34534573
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nohGiQmOxlc

How come only Fatniks and Russhits have something along the lines of C-5 Galaxy / An-124 (super-large transport) planes?

>>34534573
>Europoors bitching about the F-35
But they're not bitching abut it. At all.

>>34534705
big plane small penis

>>34534573
but its right there. you posted it

>>34534621
He's saying that the A400 is as big of a mess, if not bigger than the F35 program, so eurofaggots should fix their own shit before complaining about others

>Still using turboprop aircraft in 2017

What the fuck is wrong with third worlders?

>>34534705

Well, how many times have you seen a full deployment of European forces in short times?

Europe doesn't hold armies that big nor employ them in the same way the US or Russia does, so there is no way to justify the cost of such logistical beasts.

>>34534803
You do realize that something like 35% of the F-35 is made in Europe, so bitching about that isnt because we dislike the US, its because it is a mess, and some european nations is indeed part of that mess.
>>34534812
>Not using C-130s for everything
Turboprop is lewd

>>34534705
Its a matter of need
The US had/has the need for rapid deployment of heavy material such as armor to for example Europe, especially during the Cold War, along with the material needs that come with having forces in pretty much all corners of the world.
The Soviets saw a similar need due to the size of the Soviet Union, especially Russia to the east of Moscow. Not much good can be said about the transportation infrastructure in Siberia. (feel free to correct me on this one though)

European armies have mostly(but not exclusively) been focused on fighting battles close to their own borders, so there is not a lot of need for a super-heavy transport plane in the same regard.

>>34534705
8 C-17s in the bong fleet.

Europe isnt really a battlefield suited for strategic transport planes, as its quite saturated with qualified AA. Should Germany, for instance, deploy heavy transports vital to its war efforts, it would just get shot down from kaliningrad.

>>34534812
They have some pretty good benefits. The big one being able to land and take off from short unimproved runways. AKA any field or clearing.

>>34534812
Turboprops have huge benefits over jets in some areas, which is why european countries, as well as the US, relies on them.

>>34534975
Reminder that France hasn't got any strategic transport aircraft, so they can't reliably transport troops.

The frog fuckers don't even have a global logistical footprint coverage

>>34534640
It's to carry their IFV.

File: 48455466-atractive-laughing-man-pointing-with-finger-his-head-Stock-Photo.jpg (191KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 866x1300px

>>34535066
Can't surrender if you never deploy troops.

What are the current problems with the A400s? As I know they have been flying for a while

>>34535066
They have 76 transport aircraft, not including tankers. Thats pretty decent, even considering that many of those are small aircraft.

>>34535161
>France had to B O R R O W RAF aircraft to get their soldiers into a combat zone

>>34535158
it doesnt have any easily-digestable lockheed-martin lobbyist buzzwords to cater to the retards that frequent this board.

>>34535176
Pretty common in the EU. It's actually one of the areas where the EU cooperation seems to work pretty well, sharing military transport assets.

>>34535066
Yet they have a larger overseas troop presence than the UK

>>34535066
frogs do more with less but yeah they are extremely lacking in strategic air lift

still they have the most capable and experienced expeditionary force in europe

>>34535176

Not even just RAF. The USAF and Canadians also lent C-17's to them during that op, and the USAF and RAF had to provide aerial intel as well, as France's ISTAR and drone fleets are pretty pants.

>>34535196

Just because they're permenantly basing a bunch of guys in the buttcrack of Africa doesn't make them logistically more capable. Thats just a bunch of small deployments in semi-permenant colonial bases. When was the last time France sent 50,000 troops abroad in one force, with heavy armor and supply lines? They haven't done that in decades. They haven't had a single deployment exceeding 4 digits.

Being logistically powerful is being able to deploy anywhere in force. Outside of Africa, France has serious issues, and they even had trouble getting to Mali.

>>34535226

>still they have the most capable and experienced expeditionary force in europe

Their doctrinal maximum is only around 25-30,000 troops, with no heavy armor and intended only for intervention work.

In Europe, both Russia and the UK have much larger expeditionary forces that can deploy far heavier kit to many more locations worldwide. (Well, that last bit is more UK only) They aren't anywhere near the most experienced either. Only a comparitively small portion of them have seen combat, and only very light combat in the big scale of war. More than most EU countries, but nowhere close to the amount of men the UK rotated in and out of conflicts in the last decade, or in the variety of types of combat.

>>34535196
>9k~ French personal in overseas military bases
>16k~ British personal in overseas military bases
Those numbers don't just add up to your statement

>>34535283
>exceeding 4 digits

im guessing you mean 5 digits? even then its questionable, they've had thousands of soldiers in Mali for a while now.

>>34535309
does that count places like Gibraltar or the large number of brits based in US bases or soldiers stationed in french guiana?

>>34535226
>>capable
>can't into strategic lift or reliable blue water navy
>>most experienced expeditionary force in europe
>bongs have finally left Helmand province Afghanistan after 16 years of nonstop fighting
>bong troops in military exercises across the globe nonstop
>french army can't even train in home territories due to budget
sure thing, champ

Hey, at least they aren't the Bundeswehr, where they had to use broomsticks as rifles.

>>34535330

Name me one recent operation in which France self deployed in excess of 10,000 soldiers to a single theatre with full equipment.

I'll save you the answer, not one.

>>34534573
>Europe
>Malaysia
Almost got me there.

>>34535359
Is 10,000 4 digits though?

>>34535342
Taking away Gibraltar, Kenya, Bermuda, Brunei and Nepal would only take the number down to 13k.

>>34535283
I think there operations in Central Africa are more impressive than you make. There really is no logistical infrastructure there. Yeah they still have to rely on contract flights with Ukrainian cargo aircraft and British C-17 if I remember correctly. But even in Afghanistan we are able to truck supplies all the way from the Baltics or Pakistan, that's just not an option with African road systems.

>>34534573
I am not a mechanic
My mechanic does a shit job and my car still does not run
Guess I can't say anything because I do not know hot to fix cars

>>34535371

Yeah, correct. Mis-interpreted your correction. I did mean 5 digits, yes.

>>34535356
everything there but having strategic airlift can be said about the French military

Before QE comes into operation it's arguable that they have a better blue water navy also. If the Falkands were invaded today the French would fare far better at taking it back than the Brits.

>>34535383
If you learned, you wouldn't have to say anything.

>>34535428

>everything there but having strategic airlift can be said about the French military

Not really. The Frogs never operated in any significant scale in Helmand, nor do they have the most experience by a longshot. The UK had at tops in excess of 50,000 troops in combat ops for many years in the last decade, rotating constantly. Given their force size, you do the math on how many deployments into combat theatres they've had. There's a fucking reason they're taking a bit of a break from boots on the ground right now. The French certainly weren't in Afghan for 16 years.

>Before QE comes into operation it's arguable that they have a better blue water navy also

Not even close. CdG is in a drydock, leaving the French with absolutely zero AEW. Their logistics ships (all three of them, small ones at that) aren't even holding a candle to the RFA's size, and France has both a smaller landing craft force, smaller Marine force and less amphibious ships (more flat tops, but less well decks and individual troops carriers).

>If the Falkands were invaded today the French would fare far better at taking it back than the Brits.

If the Falklands were invaded today the Argies wouldn't even get on the beach.

>>34535428
Except that's wrong. The CDG is to be in drydock for another year or two. While the QE is currently on her maiden voyage. Should Argentina even attack the Falklands, the QE won't be needed, since the 1800 strong garrison would be enough. Not to mention, the French Durance class tankers have been suffering from serious maintenance issues lately, to the point where again, the French have asked the British to help them with their ships.

Everything else listed is self explanatory.

>>34534705
Because NATO relies on the US to transport it shit, anyway.

>>34535441
But in my case learning does not take millions of dollars

>>34534573
That monstrosity, it looks like a C-141 fuselage, with a C-17 tail section, and C-130J Engines.

>>34534884
>Not much good can be said about the transportation infrastructure in Siberia. (feel free to correct me on this one though)
This is the entire reason Russia invests so heavily in flying boats and helicopters. Navigable rivers are few and far between and there's exactly one rail line of note, and of course the highways are laughably bad.