Telegraph- Why Britain’s F-35s could be consigned to the scrap heap

[TonyO]

I wish we could have F-35A, F-35B and Typhoon like the Italians possibly eventually replacing Typhoon with Tempest if it does go ahead.

If honest I am not really a carrier fan and would have gone with F-35A and suitable tankers all along.

In my honest opinion, we are no longer an empire, I see the two super carriers as very costly white elephants.

Given that it looks like we will be taking a step back from the previous government's commitment to the Asia-Pacific, I couldn't agree with you more.

[warthog81]

I suppose my dream peace time RAF for the 2020s would consist of 150x F-35A to equip 3x combat wings (with the ability to deploy them across the UK to various deployment bases if needed), A330 with booms, C-17, C-130J, E-7, P-8, RC-135, UH-60 and CH-47.

[Finty]

I suppose my dream peace time RAF for the 2020s would consist of 150x F-35A to equip 3x combat wings (with the ability to deploy them across the UK to various deployment bases if needed), A330 with booms, C-17, C-130J, E-7, P-8, RC-135, UH-60 and CH-47.

I've thought about this (i.e my ideal RAF) before and more or less tallies with what I'd want, just add tiffies and F-35Bs to the mix. Keeping the Harriers and Tonkas till 2025 would've been nice but outmoded kit doesn't win wars or help their crews survive!

[Finty]

In my honest opinion, we are no longer an empire, I see the two super carriers as very costly white elephants.

I do have to agree that we are no longer an empire, but we are a committed member of NATO and as such the two carriers are a significant contribution I think.

Both good points. I am probably, like many on here, bias towards the RAF and would like to see more assets. I think it also makes sense in spending more on air assets as they are both able to defend our country, and can also move overseas to become our contribution to NATo. Ultimately what do Tanks and aircraft carrier offer to the defence of the UK? I see them as purely assets that will only be required to fight in areas well away from the UK?

So by your logic, the British Army of the Rhine and our old Harrier carriers were pointless? Defending the UK doesn't always mean having to fight on British turf.

[Philly1971]

I do have to agree that we are no longer an empire, but we are a committed member of NATO and as such the two carriers are a significant contribution I think.

Both good points. I am probably, like many on here, bias towards the RAF and would like to see more assets. I think it also makes sense in spending more on air assets as they are both able to defend our country, and can also move overseas to become our contribution to NATo. Ultimately what do Tanks and aircraft carrier offer to the defence of the UK? I see them as purely assets that will only be required to fight in areas well away from the UK?

So by your logic, the British Army of the Rhine and our old Harrier carriers were pointless? Defending the UK doesn't always mean having to fight on British turf.

Well, if you are going to dig up history, of which the British in the Rhine and the previous aircraft carries are very much part, how much did our European based assets help us in WW1 or WW2? Time moves on, and as I said it seems our main contribution to NATO can be best maintained by aircraft, which ultimately are more mobile than trying to shift an army, particularly in countries where we no longer have a base. Also, as seen in Ukraine, any asset like a tank is an absolute sitting duck unless you have dominant air cover anyway. The aircraft carriers are nice to have, but at best will probably stop Argentina eyeing up the Falklands. If we are using them to fight a serious adversary, I don’t particularly fancy their, or our chances.