Help focus the cuts on the right areas
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because expeditionary warfare/small-scale interventions will require troops and equipment to be moved around the globe.
But we won't be doing that so we won't need a large SH / AT fleet.
FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Bosnia - SH
NI - SH
Sierra Leone - SH
Sierra Leone again - SH
Kosovo - SH
Mozambique - SH
Pakistan - SH
Afghanistan - SH
Iraq - SH
Afghanistan again - SH
Lebanon - SH
UK Flood relief - SH
Foot & Mouth - SH
CT - SH
You're right Vec, there is no chance of any of those unforseen things ever happening again. Let's get rid of all our SH.... it's not like they get used much.
Tw@t.
Gulf - SH
Bosnia - SH
NI - SH
Sierra Leone - SH
Sierra Leone again - SH
Kosovo - SH
Mozambique - SH
Pakistan - SH
Afghanistan - SH
Iraq - SH
Afghanistan again - SH
Lebanon - SH
UK Flood relief - SH
Foot & Mouth - SH
CT - SH
You're right Vec, there is no chance of any of those unforseen things ever happening again. Let's get rid of all our SH.... it's not like they get used much.
Tw@t.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tee Hee.... Very droll MGD.....
But that is a very relevant point that you make.
Don't forget that you should slip inside the eye of your mind, Don't you know you might find
But bearing in mind what Sir Stephen Dalton stated at Farnborough last week then we won;t be involved in any more of FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Bosnia - SH
NI - SH
Sierra Leone - SH
Sierra Leone again - SH
Kosovo - SH
Mozambique - SH
Pakistan - SH
Afghanistan - SH
Iraq - SH
Afghanistan again - SH
Lebanon - SH
UK Flood relief - SH
Foot & Mouth - SH
CT - SH
There simply won't be the money, aircraft or political will
But that is a very relevant point that you make.
Don't forget that you should slip inside the eye of your mind, Don't you know you might find
But bearing in mind what Sir Stephen Dalton stated at Farnborough last week then we won;t be involved in any more of FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Bosnia - SH
NI - SH
Sierra Leone - SH
Sierra Leone again - SH
Kosovo - SH
Mozambique - SH
Pakistan - SH
Afghanistan - SH
Iraq - SH
Afghanistan again - SH
Lebanon - SH
UK Flood relief - SH
Foot & Mouth - SH
CT - SH
There simply won't be the money, aircraft or political will
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Pakistan - SH
Lebanon - SH
Gulf - SH
Pakistan - SH
Lebanon - SH
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as most of those countries listed have a coastline.....
You could put a lot of SH on a very big boat. OK, you would have to provide people to fly the SH and fix them when they break, so the big boat will have to have workshops for the hardware and bedrooms for the people to sleep in. Oh, the big boat would have to have a large, flat surface for the SH to land on. The big boat would also have a few little boats with big bang sticks or whizz bangs to protect the big boat from nasty men. Seeing as a lot of people don't like being on boats though, you would have to find people who do like being on boats. Hmm, you could call them sailors.
Now I wonder were I could get 2 large boats with flat tops to put the SH on? And seeing as it's about boats, aircraft and armed people, I would have to name this organisation the Fleet Air Arm.
Simples.
Do you know, I've got to stop drinking Aussie Red Wine. I keep getting these crazy thoughts!
You could put a lot of SH on a very big boat. OK, you would have to provide people to fly the SH and fix them when they break, so the big boat will have to have workshops for the hardware and bedrooms for the people to sleep in. Oh, the big boat would have to have a large, flat surface for the SH to land on. The big boat would also have a few little boats with big bang sticks or whizz bangs to protect the big boat from nasty men. Seeing as a lot of people don't like being on boats though, you would have to find people who do like being on boats. Hmm, you could call them sailors.
Now I wonder were I could get 2 large boats with flat tops to put the SH on? And seeing as it's about boats, aircraft and armed people, I would have to name this organisation the Fleet Air Arm.
Simples.
Do you know, I've got to stop drinking Aussie Red Wine. I keep getting these crazy thoughts!
Vec,
I never look back in anger.
Pontious,
Apart from Afg, Mozambique and Pakistan - they got there by flying. You know, engaging engines, turning the heads and moving through the sky towards a destination. But don't get me wrong, we do need more AT.
taxydual,
I could suggest the next war will be fought in space and the RN would find a justification for two new carriers. I agree that many of those places have a coast, but sometimes there is an urgency of need that isn't quite met at 30 Kts.
Ask the RM aboard Ocean in 2002 how easy it was to get to Bagram when no port in the [overwhelmingly muslim] area would let them ashore, and the FAA legs weren't sufficient. Hence a couple of days to Salalah and then a trip by AT.
Not a dig, but a carrier isn't the answer to every problem. You accuse the RAF of being blinkered, but it looks very much like 6 and two 3's.
As for money, political will? GWB had no foreign policy at all before 9/11 and had to come up with one quick.
The Falklands is still bubbling away, and even the Brokeback Coalition seem committed to their protection. Floods and disease happen without warning and as long as we are members of NATO we have obligations under Article 5 of the treaty. That is why we are in Afghanistan, despite the myriad of other BS reasons given by cyclops and Bliar.
I never look back in anger.
Pontious,
Apart from Afg, Mozambique and Pakistan - they got there by flying. You know, engaging engines, turning the heads and moving through the sky towards a destination. But don't get me wrong, we do need more AT.
taxydual,
I could suggest the next war will be fought in space and the RN would find a justification for two new carriers. I agree that many of those places have a coast, but sometimes there is an urgency of need that isn't quite met at 30 Kts.
Ask the RM aboard Ocean in 2002 how easy it was to get to Bagram when no port in the [overwhelmingly muslim] area would let them ashore, and the FAA legs weren't sufficient. Hence a couple of days to Salalah and then a trip by AT.
Not a dig, but a carrier isn't the answer to every problem. You accuse the RAF of being blinkered, but it looks very much like 6 and two 3's.
As for money, political will? GWB had no foreign policy at all before 9/11 and had to come up with one quick.
The Falklands is still bubbling away, and even the Brokeback Coalition seem committed to their protection. Floods and disease happen without warning and as long as we are members of NATO we have obligations under Article 5 of the treaty. That is why we are in Afghanistan, despite the myriad of other BS reasons given by cyclops and Bliar.
, bloody fish heads and their outdated ideas 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Looks like it's well and truely f3cked............. Suppose next is to remove the F off the end of RAF and replace it with S for support, because the way things are going the RAF will never again be able to project a Force in any strength and in any region including the Waddington and Farnborough airshows. 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So...
A defence budget that already can't cover its commitments, and is projected to be £36Bn in deficit over the next 10 years.
Massive cuts imminent - announced within months
A government effectively saying we will not be committing to anything beyond 2015 when we pull out of Afghanistan, therefore scope for more cuts from 2015
£20Bn estimated costs (when have defence cost estimates ever been accurate?!) of Trident replacement to be met out of a Defence budget of about £36Bn (over about 10-15 years I'd imagine?). Now I'd guess that the Treasury will not be increasing the defence budget proportionately (if at all!) to cover this new requirement... I also bet that the Government will not allow the MoD to even consider cancelling or scaling back Trident replacement to allow the funds to be better directed to defence capabilities that might actually be used....
Now to me, I'd look at those figures and suggest defence is f***ed. Liam Fox is right to be fuming - he won't have a department left by the time this is all finished! and I thought Liebour were bad....
A defence budget that already can't cover its commitments, and is projected to be £36Bn in deficit over the next 10 years.
Massive cuts imminent - announced within months
A government effectively saying we will not be committing to anything beyond 2015 when we pull out of Afghanistan, therefore scope for more cuts from 2015
£20Bn estimated costs (when have defence cost estimates ever been accurate?!) of Trident replacement to be met out of a Defence budget of about £36Bn (over about 10-15 years I'd imagine?). Now I'd guess that the Treasury will not be increasing the defence budget proportionately (if at all!) to cover this new requirement... I also bet that the Government will not allow the MoD to even consider cancelling or scaling back Trident replacement to allow the funds to be better directed to defence capabilities that might actually be used....
Now to me, I'd look at those figures and suggest defence is f***ed. Liam Fox is right to be fuming - he won't have a department left by the time this is all finished! and I thought Liebour were bad....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, I'll admit my post was very much 'tongue in cheek' and playing, a bit, 'devils advocate'. What I was trying to get across was that it's so bliindingly obvious we are broke and cannot afford the 'bells and whistles' we would like. Therefore common sense has to prevail.
Surely, the three Services have to get together and throw out the individual Sea, Land, Air thinking mentality and think Joint. Think UK Armed Forces. I appreciate the pride each of the individual Services has in it's own individual history, but 'history' doesn't give the Front Line Joe the tools he/she needs to do the job.
What is needed is a strong political master in MoD and a strong 'joint' thinking uniformed Head of UK Armed Forces. That way, the accountants don't run a war, the shooters do. The shooters decide what they need and the accountants figure out how to pay for it.
Ah well, it's late and I know forums don't solve problems.........
Oh, I know in the 'stan the tide goes out a very long way and doesn't come back. As for the 'fishhead' compliment, thanks but it's wasted. I'm a 25 year ex RAF guy.
Surely, the three Services have to get together and throw out the individual Sea, Land, Air thinking mentality and think Joint. Think UK Armed Forces. I appreciate the pride each of the individual Services has in it's own individual history, but 'history' doesn't give the Front Line Joe the tools he/she needs to do the job.
What is needed is a strong political master in MoD and a strong 'joint' thinking uniformed Head of UK Armed Forces. That way, the accountants don't run a war, the shooters do. The shooters decide what they need and the accountants figure out how to pay for it.
Ah well, it's late and I know forums don't solve problems.........
Oh, I know in the 'stan the tide goes out a very long way and doesn't come back. As for the 'fishhead' compliment, thanks but it's wasted. I'm a 25 year ex RAF guy.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But speaking to Bloomberg News during a trade mission to India, the Chancellor insisted that Trident had to be considered as part of the MoD’s core funding.
He said: “The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget.”
If Trident is to be funded from the existing budget on top of the cuts then speculation about cutting a fleet here and a capability gap there won't come close to finding the cash. We are screwed.
He said: “The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget.”
If Trident is to be funded from the existing budget on top of the cuts then speculation about cutting a fleet here and a capability gap there won't come close to finding the cash. We are screwed.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MGB, it was TiC but flying a chinny to Mozambique is like a slow boat to China.
Balanced force is what is needed not a dozen of one and none of another.
Balanced force is what is needed not a dozen of one and none of another.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 52
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are going to have to fund Trident/Trident replacement from the defence budget then I have a simple solution.
Scrap Trident and don't replace it!
We can't have an independent nuclear deterrent without substantial,effective conventional forces.
Balanced forces and balance defensive measures?
The UK is not a world player and does anyone really think having a nuclear deterrent will actually deter fanatical rogue states and terrorist groups?
I don't think so.
Scrap Trident - we really cannot afford it now after the Chancellor's comments yesterday.
Scrap Trident and don't replace it!
We can't have an independent nuclear deterrent without substantial,effective conventional forces.
Balanced forces and balance defensive measures?
The UK is not a world player and does anyone really think having a nuclear deterrent will actually deter fanatical rogue states and terrorist groups?
I don't think so.
Scrap Trident - we really cannot afford it now after the Chancellor's comments yesterday.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Times: Fears for RAF as Tornados face axe
The RAF’s Tornado jet fleet is expected to be grounded after an assessment by the Ministry of Defence leaked to The Times revealed that retiring the aircraft would yield cuts of £7.5 billion.
Scrapping the Tornado, which has been the mainstay of the RAF for more than 30 years, would save billions more than withdrawing the Harrier jet, which is used by the RAF and Royal Navy, internal analysis has found. Savings from scrapping the Harrier Joint Strike Wing, which includes both RAF and Fleet Air Arm squadrons, would be slightly more than £1 billion. Both scenarios are understood to include savings from closing some bases.
The loss of half of Britain’s total fast-jet fleet would raise questions in some quarters about the long-term viability of the RAF. However, sources close to Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said last night that any suggestion of an amalgamation of the RAF with another Service would be “a bridge too far for any government”.
The document has been drawn up under the continuing Strategic Defence Spending Review. The Treasury is demanding overall cost savings of between 10 and 20 per cent.
At a meeting of the National Security Council last Saturday, Service chiefs and ministers agreed that one of Britain’s three fleets of fast jets would have to be sacrificed to achieve brutal savings demanded by the Treasury.
The “work stream analysis” undertaken by the MoD makes a direct comparison of “through-life savings” that can be achieved from scrapping either the Harrier GR9 or Tornado GR4 fleets. The third fleet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, is only just entering service and is not under consideration.
While MoD insiders insist that no final decision has been made, one senior source told The Times that scrapping the Tornado “could be said to be finding favour” with ministers and Service chiefs. Britain currently retains just over 200 fast jets, including 120 Tornados, 45 Harriers and 42 of the incoming fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons..............
Previously the Harrier and Tornado fleets had been expected to carry on through to their retirements in 2018 and 2025 respectively. A source in the MoD told The Times: “If the Government decides to buy even one [aircraft] carrier, there is no logic in taking Harrier out and then waiting ten years before we effectively get back the capability with the arrival of JCA.” .....
Savings on fast jets are expected to be matched by swingeing cuts in manpower across the Armed Forces. An assessment by the Royal United Services Institute last month expects a reduction of around 25,000 servicemen and 15,000 MoD support staff by 2014.
The Army is expected to offer to put much of its current heavy tank and artillery capability into long-term storage, while the Navy will expect to see reductions in its current fleet and in future orders for Type-45 destroyers and the Type-26 frigate, which has not yet been built and is not expected in service before 2021.
The future of the Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers remains doubtful, according to MoD sources........
The RAF’s Tornado jet fleet is expected to be grounded after an assessment by the Ministry of Defence leaked to The Times revealed that retiring the aircraft would yield cuts of £7.5 billion.
Scrapping the Tornado, which has been the mainstay of the RAF for more than 30 years, would save billions more than withdrawing the Harrier jet, which is used by the RAF and Royal Navy, internal analysis has found. Savings from scrapping the Harrier Joint Strike Wing, which includes both RAF and Fleet Air Arm squadrons, would be slightly more than £1 billion. Both scenarios are understood to include savings from closing some bases.
The loss of half of Britain’s total fast-jet fleet would raise questions in some quarters about the long-term viability of the RAF. However, sources close to Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said last night that any suggestion of an amalgamation of the RAF with another Service would be “a bridge too far for any government”.
The document has been drawn up under the continuing Strategic Defence Spending Review. The Treasury is demanding overall cost savings of between 10 and 20 per cent.
At a meeting of the National Security Council last Saturday, Service chiefs and ministers agreed that one of Britain’s three fleets of fast jets would have to be sacrificed to achieve brutal savings demanded by the Treasury.
The “work stream analysis” undertaken by the MoD makes a direct comparison of “through-life savings” that can be achieved from scrapping either the Harrier GR9 or Tornado GR4 fleets. The third fleet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, is only just entering service and is not under consideration.
While MoD insiders insist that no final decision has been made, one senior source told The Times that scrapping the Tornado “could be said to be finding favour” with ministers and Service chiefs. Britain currently retains just over 200 fast jets, including 120 Tornados, 45 Harriers and 42 of the incoming fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons..............
Previously the Harrier and Tornado fleets had been expected to carry on through to their retirements in 2018 and 2025 respectively. A source in the MoD told The Times: “If the Government decides to buy even one [aircraft] carrier, there is no logic in taking Harrier out and then waiting ten years before we effectively get back the capability with the arrival of JCA.” .....
Savings on fast jets are expected to be matched by swingeing cuts in manpower across the Armed Forces. An assessment by the Royal United Services Institute last month expects a reduction of around 25,000 servicemen and 15,000 MoD support staff by 2014.
The Army is expected to offer to put much of its current heavy tank and artillery capability into long-term storage, while the Navy will expect to see reductions in its current fleet and in future orders for Type-45 destroyers and the Type-26 frigate, which has not yet been built and is not expected in service before 2021.
The future of the Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers remains doubtful, according to MoD sources........
First of all it is politically unacceptable for any party to totally disband the UK armed forces. They are also all seen (possibly even genuinely) falling over themselves to say what a good job are armed forces are doing.........however....
Given the political poo and quagmire that Blair and Brown got into over Iraq (which will always be seen as Blairs legacy) and Afghanistan I cannot see any UK PM being keen to commit British armed forces overseas in the next 10-20 years. With the one noteable exception of contributing some token forces to an international coalition engaged in some cause that has widespread public, even global, support.
Yes surprises happen, but a large UK military won't be kept on that basis. Given the above, although it won't be stated as such, UK military forces will (in my humble opinion) shrink towards what is effectively a national protection organization.
Of course evryone has an opinion, mine might well turn out to be wrong. We will all see in a few months time.... In the meantime all us armchair generals/prime ministers can spectulate.
Given the political poo and quagmire that Blair and Brown got into over Iraq (which will always be seen as Blairs legacy) and Afghanistan I cannot see any UK PM being keen to commit British armed forces overseas in the next 10-20 years. With the one noteable exception of contributing some token forces to an international coalition engaged in some cause that has widespread public, even global, support.
Yes surprises happen, but a large UK military won't be kept on that basis. Given the above, although it won't be stated as such, UK military forces will (in my humble opinion) shrink towards what is effectively a national protection organization.
Of course evryone has an opinion, mine might well turn out to be wrong. We will all see in a few months time.... In the meantime all us armchair generals/prime ministers can spectulate.
an assessment by the Ministry of Defence leaked to The Times
one senior source told The Times that scrapping the Tornado “could be said to be finding favour” with ministers and Service chiefs
Or is this a poor attempt by the RAF to get the 'sympathy' vote?
FWIW I can see both the JFH and GR4 fleets being reduced (in terms of FEAR - my money is on both being halved) and the GR4 OSD being bought forward considerably (depending on when the Typhoon is really ready, rather than media ready). This will (just) keep the 'decks warm' for the RN and maintain (just) a CAS capability that can operate for than 6 months.
Does the statement by the the Chancellor regarding Trident now give the RN a headache - will they have to choose between backing Trident or Carriers? If told to back Trident will that be the death of the Carriers or will the other Services be told to suck up their share from their portion of the pot (and I know technically there is no "pot allocation" for equipment but you get my drift).
If the Tornado fleet does go, what next? Can all the various training establishments for basic and advanced flying training survive? Why not subcontract all pilot training to the USA?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Hamish, as I said before, if the Tornado goes it is the navigation training system that can go too. All the Hawks to storage which will extend the life of the Red Arrows. Tucano to pilot training which will extend the life of that stream. Dominies, well who knows, but they are nearly 45 years old.
Manpower wise a huge cull of the traditional fast-jet navs and nav instructors. A cull of the C130k and VC10 navs to follow.
How many Nav/WSO(N) of FOFL/Sqn Ldr are in the system?
Manpower wise a huge cull of the traditional fast-jet navs and nav instructors. A cull of the C130k and VC10 navs to follow.
How many Nav/WSO(N) of FOFL/Sqn Ldr are in the system?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Good news
RAF Tornado fleet 'faces axe' in bid to save £7bn | Mail Online
You will at least need to retain the capability of at least one Helicopter, after all how else with the Minister of Defence get about in these times of severe cutbacks........... Car? Train?.... Perish the thought...
RAF Tornado fleet 'faces axe' in bid to save £7bn | Mail Online
You will at least need to retain the capability of at least one Helicopter, after all how else with the Minister of Defence get about in these times of severe cutbacks........... Car? Train?.... Perish the thought...
I hate to say it, but axing the Tornado fleet does make sense if you are looking to save money and position the RAF for a 2 FJ future as CAS has stated he wants to go to. I'm not saying it's right - and not being GR4/F3 or GR9, I have no axe to grind either way - but it makes some sort of sense.
Bring forward the F3 OSD, ramp up Typhoon AD capability. Halve the number of GR4 sqns now, keep the other half for Afghan ops with a view to bringing their OSD forward in line with a withdrawl from Afghanistan. There would be some aircrew losses (natural wastage?) and you could scrap some of the oldest / sickest hangar queens, thus bolstering the remaining sqns with the remaining jets and crews, to carry on til 2014 before retiring in a blaze of glory with 617 Sqn inspired low level trip up the Thames towards Parliament! This would also tie in with RAPTORs OSD, so we would also be maintaining our recce capability for current ops. This would allow the RAF to argue it was making significant and immediate cuts to it's FJ fleet - and manning when you take the WSO situation in to account - whilst maintaining some sort of residual attack / recce capability, to contribute to current ops.
At the same time, look to ramp up the Typhoon introduction to service, potentially think about getting 3rd gen RAPTOR or maybe Super DJRP as a recce system if you really want to maintain a dedicated recce capability vice an NTISR capability. Also, given that we have already roughly halved the Harrier capability and already announced the closure of Cottesmore, there are potentially limited savings to be made by getting rid of the rest of the Harrier fleet. Keeping what remains of the Harrier fleet on going to maintain a carrier capability until JCA turns up also makes sense and positions us for JCA and the new carriers - it would be a horrendous waste of time, effort and money to get rid of the carrier capability in its entirity only to try and reconstitute it in a few years down the road.
As I said, I don't necessarily think it is right, but if we really are being pushed to save cash and we are moving towards a 2-type FJ fleet, then I can see how it would make sense. As we were discussing over lunch - how far have we come in the past 60 years? Given that 60 years ago we used to be able to put 1000 bombers in the air at any one time and fly to Berlin and back in a night, repeatedly, I really would ask just how far we actually have come now that we are struggling to maintain a capability that sees us struggling to get a handful of jets to theatre.
Bring forward the F3 OSD, ramp up Typhoon AD capability. Halve the number of GR4 sqns now, keep the other half for Afghan ops with a view to bringing their OSD forward in line with a withdrawl from Afghanistan. There would be some aircrew losses (natural wastage?) and you could scrap some of the oldest / sickest hangar queens, thus bolstering the remaining sqns with the remaining jets and crews, to carry on til 2014 before retiring in a blaze of glory with 617 Sqn inspired low level trip up the Thames towards Parliament! This would also tie in with RAPTORs OSD, so we would also be maintaining our recce capability for current ops. This would allow the RAF to argue it was making significant and immediate cuts to it's FJ fleet - and manning when you take the WSO situation in to account - whilst maintaining some sort of residual attack / recce capability, to contribute to current ops.
At the same time, look to ramp up the Typhoon introduction to service, potentially think about getting 3rd gen RAPTOR or maybe Super DJRP as a recce system if you really want to maintain a dedicated recce capability vice an NTISR capability. Also, given that we have already roughly halved the Harrier capability and already announced the closure of Cottesmore, there are potentially limited savings to be made by getting rid of the rest of the Harrier fleet. Keeping what remains of the Harrier fleet on going to maintain a carrier capability until JCA turns up also makes sense and positions us for JCA and the new carriers - it would be a horrendous waste of time, effort and money to get rid of the carrier capability in its entirity only to try and reconstitute it in a few years down the road.
As I said, I don't necessarily think it is right, but if we really are being pushed to save cash and we are moving towards a 2-type FJ fleet, then I can see how it would make sense. As we were discussing over lunch - how far have we come in the past 60 years? Given that 60 years ago we used to be able to put 1000 bombers in the air at any one time and fly to Berlin and back in a night, repeatedly, I really would ask just how far we actually have come now that we are struggling to maintain a capability that sees us struggling to get a handful of jets to theatre.
Last edited by Melchett01; 30th Jul 2010 at 11:12. Reason: Spelling and rubbish grammar