Originally Posted by
dead_pan
Apart from the occasional decrepit Cold War relic from Russia, there's precious little to trouble the homeland's skies. I do struggle to see what more we need, certainly nothing like the numbers we had even a decade or so ago. Personally I think the balance is more-or-less right nowadays.
Someone mentioned the two carriers. On a side-note, I saw both in dock in Pompey a couple of weeks back, v impressive and all that, but it struck me how incredibly vulnerable they looked in such a setting. I understand there are police vessels on patrol when they are tied up, but it really wouldn't take that much for a determined attacker to disable one or both in a 'spectacular'. It reminds me of the AQ plot to send IEDs from the ME to Europe using international couriers, subsequently mocking our security services for missing this fairly obvious means of attack.
Proponents of the ditch-the-RAF theory like to champion the aircraft carrier with its ability to sail anywhere in the world to defend Britain's interests yadda-yadda. Now while I do admit that the aerial threat to the UK is quite low, and agree that what we have is about right, neither would I agree that the defence of our nation is best served by sticking 24 jets on a ship and sending it out to the back end of nowhere to do some willy-waving while the combined air groups of three or four USN supercarriers undertake another urban renewal project all by themselves with us looking like the little kid running after the bigger kids shouting "wait for me!". Particularly when the rest of the surface fleet has been sold off or is short of personnel to enable such a deployment to go ahead in the first place.