I am not suggesting the abolition of the Army or the Royal Navy, I am simply saying let us not forget the efficacy of fast air. Given the UK's unhappy experiencies in Iraq and Afghanistan it is extremely unlikely that any future governement will commit us to an extensive ground commitment. So, if we want to influence anything happening anywhere in the world then the use of air power may be the only politically acceptable way to do it.

To nearly quote the outgoing AOC I Gp; "The deterrent and coercive effect of combat air seems to have been lost in the mix" (or something like that)

I think anyone who thinks we don't need infantry is clearly not thinking straight, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that here.

My original point was that determining how much fast air we need should not only depend on how big our land forces are... Except insofar as they all get paid for out of the same pot, which although important tends to impinge on reasoned argument. I think a lot of people would agree that our CAS capability should be sized to support what the land commanders need, as it is there to support them (the same applies for other primarily tactical assets in support of land forces such as SH, ASTOR etc).

But fast air because of its speed and reach (alongside UAVs for persistence) has a strategic role when we can't or don't wish to commit land forces. The use of Reaper in Pakistan is a current example and the use of Tornado and Jag between the 2 Gulf wars another. Given that Typhoon will end up doing CAS, AD, recce and all the non-CAS offensive roles, we shouldn't dismiss its importance. That's not to say that we need 200 of them, or that a carrier capability wouldn't be good, or that infantry isn't essential... Just that air can play a useful and (occasionally) decisive role not in direct support of land forces.

TL and CTR
Can't argue with that.:D

Thanks CM, all we need to do now is convince CDS, Dr Fox and Mr Cameron.

None of those mentioned are the real problem. It's Mr Osborne , Mr Alexander and the SCS in the treasury that need to understand.......

Since this has drifted back to saving money my I say that some years ago my family neded to make some cuts in our budget.

My wife said - "Right, cancel the papers, the TV, the magazines, the monthly trip to the cinema and a couple of other things for the kids which add up to what you want to save".

No, I said - "That will have an enormous effect on our daily lives and overall lifestyle. Let us cut the biggest single item by 9% which will save the same amount and we will not really notice the difference" So I gave her 9% less for food.