Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
I have lost track of how many times I’ve read posts on this forum quoting Stalin’s famous line. You know the ones. The type of post that asks why the RAF doesn’t buy a few thousand Hunters instead of those horrible new fangled F35 things.
Following the first week or two of the current unpleasantness in Ukraine can we now please put that notion to bed for a while?
As an example, Russia has reportedly (but probably actually) lost modern, capable fighters to MANPADs. Main battle tanks are being dispatched by the dozen.
Would any nation, let alone a risk-averse Western nation, countenance the idea of swarms of yesteryears jet aircraft with plucky pilots attempting to overwhelm the defences of an unsuspecting foe?
I’ve batted these notions away for years now (and yes I can see the delicious irony of a Stalin quote being the bat with which to beat Putin). Can we now maybe just admit that modern, capable kit is much better suited to modern warfare?
Of course, if you wish to suggest the idea of swarms of affordable armed drones then there is a conversation to be had.
BV
Agreed that modern beats antique. All the capacity you can scrape together for fighting rather than flying is always desirable.
My concern is the frontage that can be covered with small numbers of assets be that one frontage or multiple theatres. Naturally the answer is "modern kit and lots of it" with a budget to match but if it comes down to totals vs tech then a broad spectrum of capability gives a greater flexibility to the Swiss Army knife requirement that is dictated by UK foreign policy where no one platform is the answer to all the scenarios. Masters of nothing, average at all is probably where we will end up, and I think we are partly there in some respects due to overstretch.