I know that it is rumour web site and all that, but before we all eat ourselves up from the inside, has anyone actually seen what the HMG strategic plan and associated defence roles it expects from its military?
If we really are going to have all combat troops out of AFG by 2015, and if we are going to fall into the historical trap of isolationism, then there really is no need for a military at all - focused small scale intervention (only to conduct NEOs and disaster relief) is all that is required.
If that is the political direction then it is very clear -
Astute remains (as Oppenheimer said, you cannot 'disinvent' the nuclear weapon).
Fisheads retain a capability to protect British shipping and transport NEO/Disaster relief forces.
Strat AT to provide air bridge (C130Js - including tanker role - will do, no need for A400M or FSTA).
Infantry (slightly expand SF, significantly reduce line battalions).
Rotary - dont bother with anything else except for CH47 (possibly AH if sharpened guava fruit in the area - but that may be overkill and Wildcat may be able to do both roles with a big gun in the door).
No fast jets. No tanks. No Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
A British Defence Force orientated around national interests and maritime trade/NEO, with the nuclear option giving a seat at the UN/NATO security council. When required in extremis we will offer a disaster relief package.
And if that is the way that those in Main Building are thinking then God help us as if the cost to this country is its Armed Forces, then the whole gambit of historical lessons have obviously meant that the policy makers do not see the value in H M Forces, both now and beyond AFG.
I am no RUSI graduate, or defence academic - but by 2020 the world will be more unstable than it is now, not fighting over oil or religion, but the even more fundamental requirements of water, food and living space.
Lets see what happens then if we in the MoD are subjected to a treasury driven culling of capabilities and experience.