Jesus. I would expect the people on this forum to be pro-lots of RAF kit, but this is ridiculous. Richards is simply saying that in future there will be very few countries that will not have looked at the military might of Nato, most of it American, but nevertheless Nato, looked at the insurgents' successes in Iraq and Afghanistan and thought, am I going to try going up against these guys with fast jets, tanks and ships, or am I going to take them on the way AQ in Iraq or the Taliban did?
He is stressing he doesnt want to get rid of fast jets or ships or tanks. He just thinks that with a shrinking budget we need to get rid of a few of those and replace them with the things we happen to be short of to do the counter-insurgency operations that will be a key element not just of our future in Afghanistan but of the most likely threat from our likely enemies. AND he's right.
Stanhope is only interested in protecting the navy's future and the old Cold War balance between services that still exists. Interestingly, CDS and Dalton seem more aware of the arguments.
You lot need to look at how many fast jets you are getting and how many you actually need, and how many transport helicopters you have and how many you actually need.
Last edited by Mick Smith; 30th Jan 2010 at 10:43.
Reason: to remove any suggestion ppruners anti-army rather than pro-RAF