eggs in baskets?
BeiNg entirely unqualified to say anything other than from a laymans point of view as its almost 25 years since I left the military, Carriers are a great tool for a specific job the downside being anti ship missiles tend to sink them and all the assetts deployed thereon causing severe loss of functional fighting ability of a deployed unit. The answer to the problem is not to therefore not have them but to have more of them.
The various governments we have suffered from have been militarily inept to put it mildly going from one underfunded, under armed unprepared and ill equipped forray into the wrong theatres after another. Being dependent upon the U.S. or European Countries for anything at all is bad planning and the sooner we stop wasting the finite resources we have on infinite world problems and start rebuilding our depleted forces the better. Following Uncle Sams bulldozer tryng to mend the fences has to stop and we need a policy of our own that we stick to instead of constantly being dragged out to do something we need never have done.
The Russians realised Afganistan is a no win situation and despite our best efforts we are ill equipped to do any better than the Russians did. Anyone disagree? What is the long term positive outcome for the region that is both desirable and achievable? We have no idea and therefore no opportunity to effective reach that end. OK END OF SPOUT My view was give the Navy the tools to do their job with and let them get on with it. Sailors being at sea. Likewise give the RAF the kit they need when they need it and not a decade after it was required . By the time our new fighters get airborne they are already verging on being obsolete because we dont in my memory have a record of having the best kit available. apart from the Lightning maybe.
Last edited by radicalrabit; 12th Dec 2007 at 13:45.
Reason: two g's in eggs