Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
Roland Purfew
As I've already stated, the RAF capabilities the US supposedly considered 'essential' amount to about 20 aircraft in total, all of them old to ancient. In any event, I think we all realise the US could have done without the RAF's contribution completely if necessary.
What you and Climbear seem to be saying is that the RAF has certain niche capabilities that the US finds useful. In which case, why don't we invest in these capabilities instead of wasting billions on 232 Typhoon?
LH
Old to ancient is just the airframes, it's what is on the inside that counts and lots of that isn't old to ancient, if you don't know then you aren't cleared to know. By your arguement the USAF should get rid of it B52 fleet, mostly 40+ years old and likely to serve until some frames are 80 years. The KC135 fleet is mostly 40+ and likely to serve for a few years yet (given the wrangles on the KC767/KC-X programmes). Old doesn't necessarily mean useless or lacking in capability!!
And NO, I do not support the niche capabilities arguement, just as the Israelis and the French and the Germans even the Swedes do not! I just wish President for Life Bliar would invest properly in HM's Armed Forces.