RAF to scrap using planes
Discussion
Well nearly but with the latest round of cuts they might as well.
They talk of craping most bases and 80 aircraft,leaving Lossie as the only fast jet base.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article69...
I have no idea how they think they could operate on that man power and aircraft level.
They talk of craping most bases and 80 aircraft,leaving Lossie as the only fast jet base.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article69...
I have no idea how they think they could operate on that man power and aircraft level.
I have been reading a lot of history books recently... and the trend seems to be, to cut spending on the RAF, and then cut it again..... and then realise that you have a fighting force that is so weak they can not fight a war.... so a pretty high spending spree is required to bring the service up to standard for whatever political agenda at the time..... then spending slows down, cuts are made....
Just seems totally inconsistant and a waste of money cutting stuff and then spending on new....
Just seems totally inconsistant and a waste of money cutting stuff and then spending on new....
What I love is the certainty that these defence cuts to the bone are made by the fools. I can't remember the exact figures but something like the armed forces have been engaged in direct conflict every year since the end of WW2 and only 1 was predicted.
Plan the future of the Armed Forces (yes all three services) with the flexibility required for the unexpected, do not cut to what you think you know today, you will be wrong.
I would imagine 1 American aircraft carrier strike group has more potency than the entire RAF after this
.
Plan the future of the Armed Forces (yes all three services) with the flexibility required for the unexpected, do not cut to what you think you know today, you will be wrong.
I would imagine 1 American aircraft carrier strike group has more potency than the entire RAF after this
. I don't like it, but it is consistent with our diminished technical capacity.
In some ways I think it's actually good. For a long time we have been dependent on other nations for our military technology (perhaps with the exclusion of core weapon technology - missiles and explosives).
For this reason people can begin to see the real shape of our self destructive outlook.
The brutal reality is that if you choose to fight an opponent who has direct influence over the supply chain, then your ability to fight is seriously compromised anyway.
This was shown to a degree in the Falklands where the Argentine forces depended on the French for the Exocet. The Excocet was the only practical offensive weapon they had. There was nothing special about us though. We didn't win because they were necessarily the "bad guys".
The same would be true of us, were we to fight a war that the Americans, for example, didn't agree with. It's perhaps the only compelling case to stand with the Americans now. It at least might afford us some certainty of outcome in future. As our ability to defend ourselves diminishes, our value to the Americans will diminish with it.
Maybe you could think that the Falklands didn't matter anyway, but what about Jersey, or the isle of Wight?
In some ways I think it's actually good. For a long time we have been dependent on other nations for our military technology (perhaps with the exclusion of core weapon technology - missiles and explosives).
For this reason people can begin to see the real shape of our self destructive outlook.
The brutal reality is that if you choose to fight an opponent who has direct influence over the supply chain, then your ability to fight is seriously compromised anyway.
This was shown to a degree in the Falklands where the Argentine forces depended on the French for the Exocet. The Excocet was the only practical offensive weapon they had. There was nothing special about us though. We didn't win because they were necessarily the "bad guys".
The same would be true of us, were we to fight a war that the Americans, for example, didn't agree with. It's perhaps the only compelling case to stand with the Americans now. It at least might afford us some certainty of outcome in future. As our ability to defend ourselves diminishes, our value to the Americans will diminish with it.
Maybe you could think that the Falklands didn't matter anyway, but what about Jersey, or the isle of Wight?
Edited by dilbert on Monday 16th November 20:55
tegwin said:
I have been reading a lot of history books recently... and the trend seems to be, to cut spending on the RAF, and then cut it again..... and then realise that you have a fighting force that is so weak they can not fight a war.... so a pretty high spending spree is required to bring the service up to standard for whatever political agenda at the time..... then spending slows down, cuts are made....
It's exactly what happened in the 1930s. Anybody who warned that it was stupid and dangerous was called a warmonger (most notably Churchill). Mind you we then had an Empire to protect, and aimed to have a Navy that was as strong as the next two most powerful navies *combined*.Defence cutting is what happens in any prolonged period of peacetime - and as well as having no Empire to protect, we now have no money either...
Fortunately for us there's no longer an obvious aggressor eyeing up our shores - but maybe that's partly because there's not much worth nicking any more.
Simpo Two said:
tegwin said:
I have been reading a lot of history books recently... and the trend seems to be, to cut spending on the RAF, and then cut it again..... and then realise that you have a fighting force that is so weak they can not fight a war.... so a pretty high spending spree is required to bring the service up to standard for whatever political agenda at the time..... then spending slows down, cuts are made....
It's exactly what happened in the 1930s. Anybody who warned that it was stupid and dangerous was called a warmonger (most notably Churchill). Mind you we then had an Empire to protect, and aimed to have a Navy that was as strong as the next two most powerful navies *combined*.Defence cutting is what happens in any prolonged period of peacetime - and as well as having no Empire to protect, we now have no money either...
Fortunately for us there's no longer an obvious aggressor eyeing up our shores - but maybe that's partly because there's not much worth nicking any more.
Firstly, one should never underestimate the desire of malevolents to control people and impair free thinking.
Secondly, it is arguable that this particular battle is already lost.
Finally, as long as there is someone who still believes, then they have not won. To die for that is a truly noble belief. It assures you a place in heaven.
Now to me that sounds like Jihad.
dilbert said:
Now to me that sounds like Jihad.
It's nothing to do with religion; it's the essential primal desire to protect your territory. When an aggressor turns up on your borders with 1,000 tanks, it's easy to identify. That was war the old way - country vs country, winner takes all.Unfortunately the obvious enemy has been replaced by a fifth column exploiting our good and generally tolerant nature, and whilst we bask in the false warmth of politcial correctness, they go to work.
Simpo Two said:
dilbert said:
Now to me that sounds like Jihad.
It's nothing to do with religion; it's the essential primal desire to protect your territory. When an aggressor turns up on your borders with 1,000 tanks, it's easy to identify. That was war the old way - country vs country, winner takes all.Unfortunately the obvious enemy has been replaced by a fifth column exploiting our good and generally tolerant nature, and whilst we bask in the false warmth of politcial correctness, they go to work.
It's the same across all 3 services. For some years now Boots have employed more people than the army.
To be honest the RAF cuts aren't really that unexpected. Typhoon and JSF each cost around £65M, but don't really have an enemy to fight at the moment, while it's the troops on the ground that are getting killed. Of course all this changes if anyone annoys the Iranians too much, but with Bush out of the Whitehouse this hopefully won't happen.
To be honest the RAF cuts aren't really that unexpected. Typhoon and JSF each cost around £65M, but don't really have an enemy to fight at the moment, while it's the troops on the ground that are getting killed. Of course all this changes if anyone annoys the Iranians too much, but with Bush out of the Whitehouse this hopefully won't happen.
BLUETHUNDER said:
How long will it be before the USAFE has a bigger presence on these shores than the RAF...
Quick look at google earth shows at least 20 aircraft on the ground at RAF Mildenhall mainly tankers & at least 12 F-15's at RAF Lakenheath with many many more hardened shelters for them. So not long then...Disco_Dale said:
Soovy said:
They're running down our Armed Forces so that we're defenceless, then we'll have no option but to participate in the European Superstate Armed Forces, run by the frogs and the krauts.
You are Al Murray AICMFP.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff