Originally Posted by
Finningley Boy
This doesn't read like a full spectrum approach, it all reads like sanitised jargon to put across an image of efficacy and goodwill. About the only combat role admitted to is air defence, everything else is aid relief, prevention and cooperation with the entire world just about. No mention of Ground Attack, Tactical Strike (strictly defunct since the removal of WE177s), anti-shipping, Interdiction? The tone seems to try and avoid any suggestion that the modern RAF might actually need to go to war again. I wonder what a similar mission statement for the Ukrainian Armed Forces would read like, if the same corporate double speakers that wrote this were awarded the task?
FB
Bingo. It’s all marketing blurb. There is no recognition that we might have to actually fight and why.
Let me try to illustrate what I think a definition of purpose looks like, the “why” we have forces.
“To provide a sufficiently strong conventional deterrence that any individual nation who might otherwise desire to do so is very unlikely to attack us for the next 15 years.
If attacked by conventional means by any such single military power, to have concrete expectation that with existing stocks and personnel we can defend ourselves unilaterally against any such assault for a period of not less than one year. In doing so preventing any loss of control of any land, air or maritime space.”
It might well be the wrong detail. I’m trying to describe purpose rather than offer marketing blurb about capabilities.
What are the armed forces actually there for?
I couldn’t find it in the official material quoted upthread.
Can you?