A Levante questa sera, mercoledì 5 agosto 2026, live alle 18,30, Margherita Furlan dialoga con Antonio Mazzeo e Paolo Borgognone. Washington annuncia di essere a poche ore da un’intesa provvisoria di sessanta giorni sulla riapertura dello Stretto di Hormuz. Nelle stesse ore un’inchiesta di Reuters rivela che cinque mesi di guerra hanno prosciugato quasi per intero le scorte americane di missili tattici a lungo raggio. E a Roma, dentro l’ambasciata degli Stati Uniti, si chiude il settimo round dei colloqui fra Israele e Libano. Tre notizie che i telegiornali raccontano separate. Le leggiamo come un solo movimento: la potenza egemone consuma, l’Europa paga, l’Italia presta il territorio. Il magazzino è vuoto, e la diplomazia improvvisa di Washington somiglia molto a un inventario. AFFRONTIAMO INSIEME L’accordo su Hormuz e chi tratta davvero con chi: Teheran ribadisce che il negoziato è con l’Oman e non con Washington L’inchiesta sugli arsenali americani esauriti e cosa significa per la deterrenza verso Russia e Cina Le comunicazioni di Giorgetti alla Camera: 21,7 miliardi per la difesa e 14,4 per l’energia, con la flessibilità energetica incastrata dentro la clausola militare I 14,9 miliardi del fondo europeo SAFE, prestiti da restituire, e lo scontro sul mandato parlamentare Roma sede del negoziato Israele-Libano mentre l’Idf costruisce nuove basi nel sud del Paese dei cedri Cosa resta della tradizione di sovranità mediterranea da Mattei a Moro a Craxi Perché la borsa festeggia insieme la pace sullo Stretto e il titolo della prima azienda italiana della difesa LIBRI DEGLI OSPITI Antonio Mazzeo La scuola va alla guerra. Inchiesta sulla militarizzazione dell’istruzione in Italia, Manifestolibri I padrini del ponte. Affari di mafia sullo stretto di Messina Sicilia armata. Basi, missili, strategie nell’isola portaerei della NATO Il MUOStro di Niscemi. Per le guerre globali del XXI secolo Paolo Borgognone Populismo e «democrazia illiberale», Il Cerchio, 2023 La dottrina Stranamore, La Vela, 2022 Goodbye globalism!, Il Cerchio, 2022 Storia alternativa dell’Iran islamico, Oaks Editrice, 2019 SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV
Casa del Sole TV è un progetto di giornalismo indipendente autofinanziato. Senza editori, senza partiti, senza padrini politici. Per donazioni:
IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590
Intestato a: La Casa del Sole Edizioni
Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV Membership YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CasadelSoleTVChannel
— Analista Multipolare €5/mese
— Inviato della Verità €15/mese
— Architetto del Futuro €25/mese I LIBRI DI MARGHERITA FURLAN
BRICS Scacco Matto, La Casa del Sole Edizioni (disponibile in italiano, inglese, russo) SEGUI CASA DEL SOLE TV YouTube: @CasadelSoleTVChannel
Bravo to Kit Knightly of Off-Guardian for exposing the fake fear-mongering being published recently by Big Tech billionaires about how dangerous AI is, pretending that AI is now at a level to “go rogue” and start threatening humans.
This narrative clearly is setting up the possibility of a false flag event in the near future that will probably be blamed on mindless computer code, rather than blaming those who write and control the computer code.
It started two weeks ago, when OpenAI reported one of their “agents” had escaped its testing area and got loose on the internet to launch an “unprecedented cyber attack”.
This was clearly meant to be scarier than the public response indicated, because a few days later OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was on the Invest like the Best podcast, asking why it didn’t cause more panic:
“I’ve been a little surprised that more people don’t feel it so viscerally”
In one of the most hilariously obvious propaganda manoeuvres of the year, just the day after Altman said that, CNN headlined:
The OpenAI lab leak was more extensive than we thought
“That thing you weren’t scared of? Well it was even SCARIER than we said it was! Are you scared now?”
We weren’t.
But the lack of public panic didn’t stop another AI going rogue a few days later, Anthropic’s Claude model this time.
Never in the history of human endeavour had companies been so keen to report their products going wrong. It suddenly seemed a rogue AI was the latest must have accessory in Silicon Valley.
The reasoning behind this is not hard to follow. When your product is artificial intelligence, melodramatically realising your system is even smarter than you thought it was is a simple marketing ploy.
And when one of your rivals goes rogue, you have to go rogue too or you are as good as admitting your model is not as smart as theirs.
“AI company admits their model is smarter than they realised!” is just an advert in scary headline form.
It’s like Ford “admitting” their cars are even more fuel efficient than they planned. Or Macdonalds realising their cooks have “gone rogue” and are producing food that is both cheaper AND more delicious than they ever anticipated.
But there’s more to this than just techno-hype and viral marketing strategy. We’re being steered down the avenue of “AI as scary threat”.
“Rogue” is clearly the word of the day. Notice they don’t say it “malfunctioned” or there was an “error”, because that implies mistakes or poor design.
No, the AI “went rogue”, which is cool and sexy and scary at the same time. A word chosen by a focus group of perma-teen marketing executives who have watched too much sci-fi.
Speaking of perma-teens who watch too much sci-fi, here’s Sam Altman (again) declaring we’ve already reached the singularity, the mythic phase of technological development when machines become smart enough to make even smarter versions of themselves without human input.
He is talking rubbish, of course, but the story is the story here. Why would he say this? Why now?
Obviously concerned that this tidal wave of propaganda was being too subtle, in came NBC to really hammer the point home:
The breaches signal that AI’s expanding capabilities are already fueling the security threat experts long feared.
Everybody got that?
It goes on and on.
Just today we’re getting reports from the UK’s brand new AI Security Institute that rogue (there’s that word again) AI agents had tried to trick people by creating false identities.
And I think that’s beginning to circle around to at least part of the wider agenda here.
After all, if AI is so good at pretending to be human, and is out there creating fake identities to steal data, well…how can we tell who is really human?
Perhaps everyone should be issued a digital ID to assist in “proving humanity”.
But the ever present push of Digital ID is just one of the more obvious of a raft of potential issues raised by the scary AI narrative.
For now we’re still in the generating fear phase. Getting pumped full of scare hormones by articles like this…
Misleading AI-generated doctors pose ‘huge danger to public safety’ the Guardian
There are hints of legislation to come, the EU’s “AI transparency” rules just came into force this week, and the US demanding “kill switches” in AI models, but they are vague for now.
My soft prediction is that, before the end of the year, there will be a “rogue AI” false flag, which allegedly causes either loss of life or some massive financial losses.
Whatever happens, there will be loud calls to “regulate AI”, but what that might mean in real terms I couldn’t say at this point.
To be clear though, if and/or when the official solutions to made-up problem #4987 are finally rolled out, they will have nothing at all do with controlling AI, and everything to do with controlling you.
Mi ha colpito un articolo del Sussidiario che racconta la tragedia consumatasi a Ceuta nei giorni scorsi, ma che, pur centrando un pezzo di verità, lascia scoperti molti altri fattori ...
In una democrazia liberale chi condiziona l’opinione pubblica e condiziona il processo elettorale. Chi controlla i media, controlla il potere e i suoi meccanismi. In una democrazia liberale la guerra psicologica e mediatica e permanente e le nostre menti sono il terreno di conquista. Non solo il cinema, ma anche le serie TV, i social network, la musica, hanno un ruolo sempre più centrale nella costruzione del frame, del mito e dei modelli sociali che, specie nelle società post-ideologiche, si sono sostituiti alle grandi ideologie. In che modo avvengono i condizionamenti e qual è l’obiettivo ultimo delle campagne mediatiche che caratterizzano la nostra epoca? Ne parliamo con il film-maker Federico Greco, autore di Guerra e Potere e Guerra e Cinema (edizioni Poet&Sailors), in un’intervista esclusiva per La Casa del SoleTV, condotta da Clara Statello. Guarda tutta l’intervista e scrivi nei commenti la tua opinione. Se ti piace il nostro lavoro di informazione lascia un like, condividi il video e iscriviti al canale. Seguici su tutti i social e sul nostro sito casadelsole.tv e sostienici con un supegrazie. #cinema#potere#guerra#citizenvigilantes#ilcapodeicapi#aranciameccanica#stanleykubrik
I due fronti di guerra si stanno saldando in un unico scenario. Mentre accade, l’informazione si sfarina, gli algoritmi decidono cosa vediamo e la Casa Bianca corteggia apertamente i signori del tecnofeudalesimo. Il caos non è un incidente: è la condizione in cui il giudizio individuale smette di funzionare. Ne parliamo con Michele Putrino, scrittore, studioso di stoicismo, editore del canale «Scuola Stoica». Al centro il discernimento: la capacità di leggere il reale senza farsi travolgere, quando l’intelligenza artificiale promette di pensare al posto nostro e la paura resta lo strumento di governo più economico che esista. Discernimento e lettura della realtà Tecnofeudalesimo e nuovi signori della rete L’intelligenza artificiale e la delega del giudizio Allenare il cervello LIBRI DI MICHELE PUTRINO Liberi dalla paura. Gli insegnamenti di un’antica dottrina per liberarsi dal controllo del sistema (Uno Editori, 2021) Manuale di resistenza al potere. Come non farsi manipolare e vivere sereni (Uno Editori, 2019) SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV Giornalismo indipendente autofinanziato. IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590 Intestato a: La Casa del Sole Edizioni Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV Membership YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@CasadelSoleTVChannel Analista Multipolare €5/mese | Inviato della Verità €15/mese | Architetto del Futuro €25/mese BRICS Scacco Matto di Margherita Furlan, disponibile in italiano, inglese e russo. #Stoicismo #MichelePutrino #Discernimento #TecnoFeudalesimo #IntelligenzaArtificiale #CasaDelSoleTV #JeffHoffman #Geopolitica #ScuolaStoica #GuerraCognitiva
Financial sovereignty has gradually moved from specialists’ attention to the forefront of strategic economic discussions. Over the past decade, BRICS countries have made substantial progress in developing alternative settlement mechanisms, expanding the use of national currencies in bilateral trade, and strengthening institutional frameworks for financial cooperation. These achievements are tangible and significant.
Yet, as the transformation of the global economy continues, new priorities are emerging. The structure of cross-border economic activity has changed. While interstate and corporate transactions remain vital, a growing share of cross-border payments now involve individuals: tourists, students, medical travelers, remote workers, freelancers, and small entrepreneurs. Importantly, these actors are not only beneficiaries but drivers of economic integration.
The existing international financial architecture was designed in a different era and for different purposes. Serving the global economy, it has been primarily focused on large-scale institutional and trade-related flows. Its retail dimension—money transfers of people moving across borders—has received far less attention.
This gap is becoming increasingly relevant for BRICS.
With nearly half of the world’s population and a growing share in global GDP, BRICS countries have both the opportunity and incentive to extend financial integration to reach ordinary citizens.
The task is to complement existing systems with new mechanisms that would comply with contemporary human mobility and economic exchange.
Why the Present International Financial Infrastructure Is No Longer Fully Effective
The international payment systems that dominate today were developed during the period of unipolarity and relative geopolitical stability. They have facilitated decades of global economic growth. However, the world has changed. Emerging economies now account for a significantly larger share of global production, consumption, and trade. New economic corridors have appeared across Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.
Cross-border transactions have become more varied. Alongside traditional corporate financial flows, there is a substantial volume of citizen-to-citizen and citizen-to-business transactions. A student paying tuition abroad, a tourist purchasing services in another country, a freelancer receiving payment from an overseas client are not marginal financial activities; these money transfers amount to hundreds of billions of dollars annually and involve hundreds of millions of people. However, individuals often face practical difficulties in getting access to their domestic financial resources while traveling or doing business abroad. These difficulties are a natural consequence of a system that no longer fully aligns with the realities of a multipolar and highly mobile global economy.
Meanwhile, recent technological developments have demonstrated that many of these difficulties can be overcome. National payment systems such as Russia’s MIR, India’s UPI, China’s digital payment ecosystems, and Brazil’s PIX have proven efficient and secure for large-scale retail payments processed within domestic contexts. What is lacking is a framework for connecting these national systems across borders in a seamless and user-friendly manner.
Some digital platforms demonstrate high technical feasibility for cross-border transactions. For example, while staying in the United Arab Emirates, users of the Russian Yandex application can access transportation services abroad with payments processed through their domestic accounts in Russia and currency conversion occurring automatically in the background. This shows that the technological barriers to broader integration are much lower than is often assumed. The challenge is not technological but institutional: it lies in the lack of agreement on common standards, settlement procedures, and governance mechanisms.
From States to Citizens’ Financial Connectivity: The Rationale for a BRICS Card
BRICS countries’ financial cooperation has been focused on state-level issues: local-currency trade settlements, alternative payment messaging systems, reserve diversification, and development finance. These efforts are essential and should continue, but further integration may require an additional focus—one that would bring the benefits of financial cooperation directly to citizens. This is where the idea of a BRICS Card becomes relevant.
The rationale is straightforward. Economic integration is sustained not by governments alone but also by millions of daily interactions between individuals: tourists spending money, students paying for accommodation, entrepreneurs purchasing services, workers sending remittances. When these interactions are hindered by financial friction, the full potential of economic integration remains unrealized.
A practical response to this challenge would be the creation of a common BRICS payment ecosystem centered on interoperable national payment systems and a shared BRICS Card or digital wallet framework.
Such an ecosystem would not seek to replace national currencies, nor would it require a supranational central bank. It would enable citizens of participating countries to access their domestic financial resources when traveling or conducting business across the BRICS space, using local currencies and domestic banking relationships. A BRICS Card would be the visible, user-friendly instrument that makes this connectivity tangible.
The core principle is interoperability, not uniformity. Each participating country would retain full control over its monetary policy, banking regulation, and financial supervision. The common layer would handle the automatic conversion, settlement, and clearing of transactions according to agreed rules. For an individual, using a BRICS Card would be similar to using a domestic payment card at home—familiar, convenient, and predictable.
This approach has several advantages: it is built on existing infrastructure rather than requiring costly new systems; it respects national sovereignty while enhancing connectivity; and it focuses on practical utility rather than geopolitical symbolism. The BRICS Card is not a political statement; it is a practical tool.
Potential Benefits for Key Economic Sectors
A common payment mechanism embodied in a BRICS Card could have positive effects for further growth and smooth operation of several sectors.
Tourism and Business Travel. BRICS countries include some of the world’s most popular tourist destinations and major sources of outbound tourism. A BRICS Card would facilitate seamless payment access for travelers, reducing administrative burdens and making travel more convenient, potentially encouraging greater flows of visitors within the BRICS space.
International Education. Thousands of students from BRICS countries study in other BRICS nations. Tuition fees, living expenses, and family remittances all require cross-border payment instruments. A unified BRICS Card would simplify the necessary procedures for students and educational institutions alike.
Medical Travel. Healthcare services are an increasingly important area of cooperation, with patients traveling to specialized clinics across BRICS countries. At moments when financial certainty is particularly important, having a reliable BRICS Card that provides direct and reliable access to domestic funds would be a tangible benefit.
Digital Services and Freelancing. The growth of remote work and digitally delivered services has created new opportunities for professionals to offer their skills across borders. A BRICS Card would reduce friction for these workers, allowing them to focus on their activities rather than on payment logistics.
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). For smaller businesses, international expansion is often complicated by payment-related challenges. A BRICS Card would lower these barriers, making it easier for SMEs to access customers and partners in other BRICS countries, thereby broadening the base of economic participation.
The creation of a BRICS Card would not require a single dramatic leap. A phased approach is both more realistic and more likely to succeed.
The initial stage could embrace tourism and business travel among a limited number of participating countries, and be based on the use of existing national payment systems and bilateral agreements on settlement procedures. The BRICS Card could first be issued as a co-branded card linked to national systems like MIR, UPI, or PIX. The next stage could expand to include educational payments and medical services. Later stages could incorporate digital commerce, freelancing, and small-business transactions.
The technical foundation for this already exists. Russia’s MIR system, India’s UPI, China’s digital payment platforms, Brazil’s PIX—are all proven technologies capable of handling large volumes of transactions securely and efficiently. The task is to establish common technical standards, agree on settlement rules, and develop a governance framework that would ensure transparency, security, and consumer protection for the BRICS Card.
There is also the necessary institutional foundation for issuing and operating a BRICS Card. The New Development Bank has accumulated ample experience in facilitating multilateral financial cooperation. Commercial banks with cross-border operations are increasingly active in BRICS markets.
A BRICS Card would not need to be exclusive. It could operate alongside existing international payment networks, offering an additional opportunity for those who would like to use it. The goal is not to create a closed system but to expand the range of available options, thereby enhancing consumer choice and financial resilience.
Addressing Challenges and Potential Concerns
Issuing and operating a BRICS Card is a challenging task that may naturally raise concerns.
Technological feasibility. As noted above, the necessary technology already exists in the form of national payment systems that process billions of transactions annually. The missing element is not new technology but agreement on interoperability standards—a matter of coordination, not invention.
Regulatory and legal harmonization. Different countries have different rules regarding banking, data protection, anti-money laundering, and consumer rights. These differences are real but manageable. International payment systems have successfully navigated such differences for decades. The same principles of mutual recognition and common minimum standards could apply to the BRICS Card.
Geopolitical considerations. Some BRICS members face sanctions or other external restrictions. Others do not. The BRICS Card would be designed as a voluntary, complementary layer of infrastructure. It would not require countries to choose between existing and new systems. Participation would be based on mutual benefit, not political alignment.
Trust and security. Any payment system must be reliable, transparent, and secure. This requires robust governance, clear dispute resolution mechanisms, and strong data protection. BRICS countries already have regulatory institutions capable of providing such oversight for the BRICS Card. The challenge is to coordinate them effectively.
None of these concerns is insurmountable. They are the same types of challenges that every successful international payment network has faced and overcome. What is required is sustained dialogue and a willingness to find practical solutions.
The proposal for a BRICS Card is not a grand geopolitical declaration. It is a practical response to a real and growing need. The world has changed. Patterns of human mobility and cross-border economic activity have diversified. Financial infrastructure must evolve accordingly—not through confrontation with existing systems, but through addition of new, complementary mechanisms.
The BRICS Card as an new mechanism would not replace national currencies, challenge monetary sovereignty, or seek to undermine any existing financial network. It would simply make life easier for hundreds of millions of people: students, tourists, medical travelers, freelancers, entrepreneurs acting across the BRICS space.
The technological base is available. The economic rationale is clear. The institutional foundations are already being laid. What remains is the political will to move forward—not in opposition to anything, but in commitment to the shared interest in deeper, more inclusive, and more practical economic integration.
For BRICS, which collectively represents nearly half of humanity, taking this step would be a natural progression from trade settlements to human connectivity. That is what economic integration is ultimately about.
Nearly a century before the Vietnam War, the United States undertook one of its first military interventions in East Asia. It was not a full-scale campaign, and it lasted only a single day. Its opponent was not a modern army but the indigenous Paiwan people of southern Taiwan. Yet the expedition exposed a problem that would become familiar in later conflicts: the limits of military power against an elusive enemy fighting on its own terrain. Known as the Formosa Expedition of 1867, this little-remembered operation ended in an embarrassing defeat for the United States Navy.
United States Marines and sailors attacking the Paiwan natives of southern Taiwan. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
A month after the collapse of the France–Germany–Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS) fighter program, the outlook for France’s Rafale F5, the next major upgrade standard of the Dassault Rafale multirole fighter succeeding the F4, has itself grown uncertain.
The French Air and Space Force has indicated it would rather receive additional F4-standard jets sooner than wait for the more advanced F5 variant.
The Chief of Staff of the French Air and Space Force, General Jérôme Bellanger, told senators that his force needs more Rafales well before the fighter’s next standard, the F5, becomes available.
Taking more Rafale F4-standard jets, which Bellanger described as a very capable fighter, would be preferable to waiting for the F5.
While Bellanger did not directly mention the Russia-Ukraine War and fears of the war spreading to Europe and NATO, he did suggest that changed geopolitical circumstances necessitated greater fighter fleet strength sooner.
General Jérôme Bellanger appeared before the Senate foreign affairs, defense and armed forces committee in May, during hearings on the bill updating France’s 2024-2030 military programming law. However, the whole session was held behind closed doors, and transcripts of the meeting were released only in the first week of August.
France’s updated 2024-2030 military programming law, which was adopted by the Senate on July 1, 2026, defers the delivery of 20 Rafale fighter jets from 2031-2032 to 2033-2034, so that the aircraft could be delivered directly to the upgraded F5 standard.
Rafale F5 Standard
France’s planned Rafale F5 standard will be armed with ASN4G hypersonic nuclear missiles and STRATUS RS missiles for suppressing enemy air defenses and for anti-ship warfare, will be powered with a domestically produced, high-thrust T-REX engine, and will feature Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) with loyal wingman drones, including plans for a stealth combat drone by 2035.
France’s defense procurement agency, the Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), notified MBDA on June 2, 2026, about the framework agreement for the implementation and development contract for the ASN4G (Air-Sol Nucléaire de 4ème Génération), the country’s fourth-generation nuclear-armed hypersonic cruise missile.
The DGA has set a target of 2035 for the missile’s induction, adding that it will be carried by the Rafale F5 and integrated into both the French Air and Space Force’s Strategic Air Forces (FAS) and the Navy’s Nuclear Air Force component.
Meanwhile, the M88 T-REX is an advanced higher-thrust military turbofan engine developed in France by Safran Aircraft Engines to power the Dassault Rafale F5 fighter jet. Officially unveiled at the Paris Air Show in June 2025, it provides a 20% power boost over the standard M88 engine.
Dassault Rafale – Wikimedia Commons
“F5 variant of Rafale will have more powerful engines, improved survivability and data links, and will be accompanied by an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) weighing more than 10t,” Dassault Aviation’s chief executive Officer, Eric Trappier, recently said in an interview.
The Rafale F5 standard is targeting initial operational service capability by 2030. However, integration into the French Air Force and Navy could happen around 2033-2034, with integration of ASN4G hypersonic missiles expected only by 2035.
The aircraft combat fleet target, as per the 2024-2030 military programming law, is unchanged at 225 aircraft by 2035: 185 for the French Air and Space Force and 40 for the French Navy.
However, Bellanger told the Senate that he would need the aircraft sooner, even if they’re of the F4 standard.
“I am going to need more aircraft quickly,” Bellanger told the committee. “If we are not in a position to produce the F5 standard before 2033, we will have to choose the F4, which is already a very fine aircraft, unless the operational contracts of the Air and Space Force on the fighter segment are revised.”
Notably, Bellanger is not alone in demanding more F4-standard Rafale jets sooner, instead of waiting for the F5-standard aircraft.
The Senate committee itself has questioned the design to postpone the induction of 20 Rafale jets so that they can be inducted directly in F5-standard.
It cited the tremendous pressure on the Rafale fleet of the French Air Force, the advanced age of the Rafale Marine aircraft, and mounting operational commitments constraining aircraft availability, according to reports.
Warning that the postponement could widen the capability gap at a critical time, the Senate committee said that the decision seems to be motivated more by budgetary considerations than operational choices.
Notably, in June this year, nearly 80% of the French fighter fleet was airborne at the same time for the first time ever.
Bellanger attributed it to Operation Poker, the quarterly Strategic Air Forces nuclear raid exercise, and intensive deployments in the Near and Middle East, where French Rafales were helping defend Gulf countries against Iranian drones and missiles.
French Rafales are also deployed into Eastern Europe as part of the Baltic Air Policing mission.
Lithuania | Interception of 6 aircrafts within the Baltic air space
Scramble of two Rafale aircraft of the Baltic Air Policing 71 detachment, based in Šiauliai , in order to escort aircrafts operating in the Baltic responsibility area.
— The Joint Staff – Military operations (@FrenchForces) June 4, 2026
“We are overusing the Rafale,” Bellanger said. “Versatility does not mean ubiquity.”
Another reason for overusing the Rafales is France’s expanding nuclear posture.
Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled the “forward deterrence” nuclear doctrine, proposing to expand France’s independent nuclear deterrent umbrella across Europe.
However, this “forward deterrence” nuclear doctrine would put additional pressure on the Rafale fleet.
Bellanger said that the larger arsenal announced by President Emmanuel Macron at Île Longue in March would “mechanically” force France to reconsider the number of nuclear-armed Rafale B, the single-seat Rafale C assigned to protect them, and potentially its tanker fleet, which remains capped at 15 A330 MRTTs under the updated law.
This would be a major issue for the next programming law, he said, adding that “many more” aircraft would be needed.
“If we expand the nuclear arsenal, it is not so the weapons can sit in storage,” Bellanger said.
Another issue is the tremendous pressure on Dassault Aviation to deliver on its large Rafale orderbook.
France currently has nearly 165 Rafales in its fleet, 41 in the French Navy, and 124 for the French Air Force.
France has a target of 225 Rafale jets by 2035. So Dassault will have to deliver around 60 more Rafales in the coming years.
However, Dassault also has to deliver 165 Rafales for export customers, including India, Egypt, Qatar, Greece, Croatia, the UAE, Serbia, and Indonesia.
This does not include the 100 aircraft that Ukraine has shown intent to acquire, nor the IndianAir Force’s (IAF) proposal for 114 Rafale aircraft, which is currently under active consideration by India’s Ministry of Defense (MoD). If these two deals go through, the numbers will be even more significant, around 380 for export customers and 60 for France.
For perspective, Dassault delivered 26 Rafale fighter jets in 2025, one more than its target of 25. Of the 26 Rafales, 15 were for export customers and 11 for the French armed forces.
A year ago, the Rafale production rate was 2 aircraft a month (24/year). The same has now been increased to 3 per month (36 per year), with plans to increase to 4 per month (48 per year) to handle a growing backlog of orders.
Meanwhile, France’s existing Rafale fleet is working at full capacity, its Rafale Marine fleet is aging rapidly, and the current geopolitical environment and France’s expanding nuclear posture demand more Rafale aircraft sooner rather than later.
Under these circumstances, Bellanger feels that more F4-standard Rafales sooner is preferable to fewer F5-standard Rafales at a later date.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
di Patrizio Ricci | vietatoparlare.it Sui listini obbligazionari italiani — il Mot e l’EuroTLX — risultano quotati 688 strumenti emessi da enti sovranazionali. Nei primi sei mesi del 2026 hanno ...
Login
A Levante questa sera, mercoledì 5 agosto 2026, live alle 18,30, Margherita Furlan dialoga con Antonio Mazzeo e Paolo Borgognone.
