You continue to speak as if certain things are cast in stone Sheff and I just don't think there is currently any factual basis for that or any point presenting them as such. An opinion might not be speculation but presenting if it were something we should all accept as being factual is just wrong.Sheff wrote:Er, okay, I'll answer as concisely as I can:-
Surely you're just speculating just like the rest - furnishing us with your opinion doesn't make it factual
Offering an opinion isn't speculation. My point was that the offer to dispose of Tornado and Nimrod isn't a rumour, so presumably it is reasonable to offer an opinion about it.
But now we've reached a situation where the RAF has put Nimrod on the proverbial table as a potential sacrifice - have we?
Yes.
Offering to sacrifice Nimrod and Tornado (and - by implication - Harriers and some Typhoons)" - have we??
Yes.
The reality is that so few aircraft would be available that there's little point in having any at all." - no fan of JSF but not sure how you can predict that?
Do the math. Work-out how many aircraft the RAF is likely to get and then - based on history - extrapolate a figure for how many aircraft will be serviceable at any given time.
"There's no doubt that in reality Britain has no need for carriers of any sort" - that's just your opinion, not a fact.
Er, yes, I would have thought that was obvious. But if you think that opinion is wrong, then look at the history of the past 30-40 years and establish precisely when we've needed carrier power. I would suggest that if one excludes the Falklands (which was a situation created by Governmental stupidity) there has not been any need for carrier power since 1956 - and even that was hardly a case of national expediency. Using carrier power because we have it is one thing - using it because we need to is another. On this basis it is clearly unaffordable which is why MPs on both sides of the House are almost all set-against the new carriers.
Being in Jane's doesn't make it fact
Think it probably does, actually.
"The Navy cannot remain in the fixed-wing business nor should it." - as above.
Obviously my view, and one shared by an awful lot of people. It's self-evident to anyone (outside the Navy) if one looks at the finances we have and the foreign policy we've adopted.
surely the RAF vision has been to fly just two main fast jets for some time now - JSF and Typhoon
Yes - I think I said that. Point is, the whole notion of adopting F-35 came from the Navy and without their obsession with it (for obvious reasons) the RAF would probably have never even looked at it. Now the notion of operating just F-35 and Typhoon has become paramount - to the exclusion of everything else and as I said, this is a very risky attitude as the final result may well be that the RAF ends-up with just Typhoon.
Hope that clarifies everything.
Are you telling us that it's fact only because you read it in Jane's or the Times from a "leaked document".
Presumably a cut in the amount of uniforms the RAF buys isn't as newsworthy as the GR.4 or Nimrod fleet however? A very simplistic example but you know what I mean and I guess no one bothers to leak that kind of document to the press as they are all put together so they can be reviewed as per the process.
I'm not suggesting for one minute that nothing of that sort is going to happen, no one can deny there clearly will be heavy cuts and it might end up affecting Nimrod and GR.4, but it just doesn't make any sense for anything to have been decided / offered up until everything has been examined.
Cheers
G