British Army’s most senior officer: UAV's over JSF?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Please see your PM’s
I think the heart of the matter lies in tourist’s last sentence and Tom’s first.
What’s the quote, “we always plan for the last war and not the next”? I believe we should be at least as concerned for the war we are fighting now. Like all questions it’s a question of balance and any absolute answer is going to be wrong. I don’t see it as an ‘either….. or’ situation. I can accept that we might need sophisticated fast jets in the future. I find it difficult to accept that we need 232 Typhoons – what are they all going to do, who are they going to fight, why do we need 232 of them? – at the expense of enough boots and equipment on the ground to win and, incidentally, save lives in the war we are fighting now.
I know that the arithmatic isn’t necessarily this simple but ten less Typhoons, a 4-5% reduction, would surely cover another battle-group in Afghanistan and more helicopters to say nothing of all the body armour and mine-proof vehicles necessary.
Finally, Tom, I must, with respect take issue with your comment about it being ‘undoubtedly narrow-minded’…. I would consider it narrow-minded not to consider all possible options.
Please see your PM’s
I think the heart of the matter lies in tourist’s last sentence and Tom’s first.
What’s the quote, “we always plan for the last war and not the next”? I believe we should be at least as concerned for the war we are fighting now. Like all questions it’s a question of balance and any absolute answer is going to be wrong. I don’t see it as an ‘either….. or’ situation. I can accept that we might need sophisticated fast jets in the future. I find it difficult to accept that we need 232 Typhoons – what are they all going to do, who are they going to fight, why do we need 232 of them? – at the expense of enough boots and equipment on the ground to win and, incidentally, save lives in the war we are fighting now.
I know that the arithmatic isn’t necessarily this simple but ten less Typhoons, a 4-5% reduction, would surely cover another battle-group in Afghanistan and more helicopters to say nothing of all the body armour and mine-proof vehicles necessary.
Finally, Tom, I must, with respect take issue with your comment about it being ‘undoubtedly narrow-minded’…. I would consider it narrow-minded not to consider all possible options.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
