None of those aircraft can be launched off of an aircraft carrier?
The Harriers could and were efficient, most of those Heli's are either rescue choppers or waiting around for desert modifications or not even being built.
We don't have a carrier. Our carriers were coming to the end of their operational life and had to be scrapped. Thus, the point is rather irrelevant, since we have no carriers to launch planes off.
That fleet of aircraft is around 15-16 aircraft bases throughout UK and NI, that's really not alot.
Er. Yes it is. For a country of Britain's size, that is a lot. Besides, the number of bases makes no difference so long as the spread is good and even across the country, and they can reach all areas, which they are and can.
And the French already have a super carrier?
Haha. The Charles De Gaulle is a rustbucket. The French hardly use it: they wanted to buy one of ours off us, which speaks volumes about how bad theirs is.
We are using it over Libya, the next 'upgrades' to the equipment is a supply of aircraft that the UK-US are collaborating on, they will be ready in 2017/18.
Using what over Libya?
The Harrier is a brilliant tool to have, very versatile...There is a reason the US Military stockpiles them and uses them off their carriers.
Yes, there is, and that reason is because A) They have carriers and B) They're a useful stop-gap until they can introduce F-35s.
We really don't have that big of an army anymore, I would argue we are still ahead of Germany/Italy but the French have taken our role over.
We never had a big army. Historically Britain maintained a small but extremely well-equipped and trained army, which is what we have now. The French armed forces are smaller than ours, don't be daft.
I accept the fact we aren't as important, we really don't have any sort of role...
Apart from being one of the most important members of NATO, probably the second most important behind the USA.
I would argue if the Argentinians wanted the Falklands back it would be a closer fight than back in the 80's.
And I would argue that it would be political suicide for the Argentinians to do that, so it's rather a moot point.
With 15k personnel cuts to the Armed Forces in the next few years as well I can only see our military getting even weaker.
Yes, we must have that extra 15k to fight that massive Red Army come to destroy us!
Israel/Russia/USA/France all have stronger military's than ours and that's just off the top of my head.
Lol. So what you've quoted there is a country almost permanently in a state of war, a gigantic nation that still has massive stockpiles from the Cold War, the only superpower in the world and a country which has a weaker military than ours. Nice going.
You maintain power relative to threat. The threat of a big war is just not that high, and thus we don't need a huge army. Likewise, the only operations we're going to be embarking on are joint forces ones, thus we don't need the capacity to invade someone by ourselves. You, and a whole bunch of other people, seem to think that we should just maintain the biggest military we can, which is bullshit.
---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------
They were, but cutting the only sea borne fighterbombers is retarded. and they were operating very close to enemy lines off makeshift runways, excellent for a global striker force until their successors were ready. so now we have a top of the range carrier with nothing on it...
Except operating close to enemy lines off makeshift runways is something that Tornados and Eurofighters can do just as well. I understand your point about there being no point in having a carrier with nothing on it, but at this moment in time, we don't have a carrier, thus the seaborne ones at least would be useless, which is what I said.
There's a reason the US Military bought all of our Harriers God Cubed, besides the fact they were dirt cheap.
They are versatile, adaptable and the perfect Aircraft carrier aircraft, you can strap some JDAMs on them and you have an air to ground capability. So many options, cheaper options, to just upgrade the Harrier fleet. It's a nonsense why the MOD sold them all off, especially so soon knowing we were involved in Afghanistan and other threats in the region.
Yes, there is a reason, and that reason is that they were a decent stop-gap until they bring through some modern weaponry in the form of F-35s. If we didn't get rid of them now, we're just pushing it make and making it more and more expensive to maintain, and more and more obsolete. I do agree that it was probably a bit too soon and that everything seems to be mistimed and badly handled, but there's far too much of a song and dance about it.