RAF CAS says 'Politicians make it up as they go.'

[Not_a_boffin]

Also, our handful of Type 45s are the air defence for the carrier group, and were not bought to defend our home territory - a job which can be done more sustainably from a fixed-base footing. Without the Type 45s, the carrier group would be reliant on its F-35s for air defence - the proverbial self-licking lollipop.

The T45s are "part of" as opposed to "the" air defence for a maritime force, not limited to the carrier group. Something many people seem to forget. Any maritime force, faced with a credible air threat usually needs organic f/w to protect it, for precisely the same reasons you describe vs Mr Bear. That does not make the carrier a self-licking lollipop, it just adds to the rationale for having carrier-based air.

Personally, I'd suggest that QRA is strategic, as the number 1 item in any defence "strategy" is to be able to defend the homeland from attack. Whether the UK has any other role for land based FJ is a much bigger debate.

[Roland Pulfrew]

QRA in modern parlance

No a Type 45 couldn't do it, several (probably more than we own) might be able to do it, but no, the dark blue can't do QRA and provide AD (of the UK mainland) that an aircraft can. To think anything otherwise shows an unbelievable naivety.

Strategic isn't just about nuclear weapons, and Easy and LE have covered the implications well enough.

Maritime surveillance is not just the preserve of the RN I'm afraid (even now) and I dispute the "common sense" view as parochialism.

[switch_on_lofty]

I don't think that the RAF is at all like Armstrong and Miller of the Spitfire Ale Adverts. Those guys are hilarious!

[Arbie]

Joined-up thinking...

So CAS is disappointed that Armstrong & Miller are the public face of the RAF, and this is misleading. Shame nobody told the editor of the RAF News...

[Hempy]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

That does not make the carrier a self-licking lollipop, it just adds to the rationale for having carrier-based air.

In my limited strategic thinking, carriers are about PROJECTING capability. Would this not seem at odds with the 'desire' that the country first needs to have the capacity to DEFEND itself?