Originally Posted by
melmothtw
I get it, you're saying that because ships haven't been as relevant in recent UK operations as they were for the Falklands 40 years ago we should stop buying them. That's great, until we find ourselves embroiled in a Pacific war with China, and then what?
Rather than adding any clarification, you've basically just repeated the point you already made earlier in the thread which was a contradictory one - poor past planning failed to prepare us for the current land-based war in Ukraine, but also we should not plan for any future war that might not be land-based because ships are of no use for the current war in Ukraine.
Again, you can't have it both ways.
China has many times the military capability of our piddling little island! We would be absolutely insane to travel half way around the world just to challenge their dominance in the South China Sea. Not even as if the UK has any significant interests there now. I get that the US and Japan do, and that we have an obligation to work with the US. Do we really have to forsake being able to defend our own backyard in Europe for that?
Looks like Mil Aviation is full of dark blue jobbies defending their ancient historical view of warfare. I see Granby was mentioned as an RN dominated "victory". Try telling that to those in the air and on the ground. The vast majority of the ship-borne support came from the US.
What exactly have the RN done for Ukraine? (this is a thread about Ukraine, not the Gulf or the Falklands).