A dark day for British defence

[LE Greys]

The Strategic Defence and Security Review has now been published. You can read the whole lot here, but I'll give you the "highlights".

• Cyber warfare and terrorism are seen as the greatest threats, with actual shooting war a lower priority.
• Cuts of 7,000 Army personnel, 5,000 Navy and 5,000 Air Force
• Cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4, meaning that we're effectively out of the anti-submarine business except for helicopters flying off ships. The things are already in production AFAIK, so it's really too late to cancel.
• Grounding of the Harrier, meaning that we will no longer have a carrier-capable fixed-wing aircraft. We keep our fingers crossed until 2019, when we get JSFs to replace them.
• Tornadoes retained for now
• No decision on numbers of Typhoons
• Scrapping or sale of the Ark Royal. The Ocean may also be under threat, but the Illustrious will carry on as a helicopter carrier.
• Cutbacks in orders for the surface fleet
• Tanks and heavy artillery cut by 40% and 35% respectively

However, the decision about the replacement of Trident will be put on hold. This was after the review suggested that terrorism and cyber-warfare were the biggest threats, against which nuclear weapons are as much use as a sword against ants. Conventional forces are able to win wars and defend our overseas territories against attacks by smaller powers, nuclear weapons are not. In fact, there is no state that presents a clear WMD threat against this country for now, which they admit.

No state currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the independence or integrity of the UK

Even if there was, NATO would mean that an attack on us would be an implicit attack on all NATO countries. America would respond for us. If one of our islands was seized with conventional forces, we could not respond with nuclear weapons, it would be completely disproportionate. Essentially, it's like walking along a dangerous street with a bag full of cash and a gun. The gun might frighten robbers away, but if someone did attack, would you really use it rather than lose some money?

Essentially, this is us out of the second division in global terms, on a level roughly with the Netherlands or Denmark for now. I haven't looked at the figures, but I think we are compromising our national security and abdicating our responsibility to the overseas territories in favour of nuclear weapons. It's a dark day for British defence.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I hope some members of this Forum don't find this page, it'll turn into another Labour v. Tory argument. I will have to say, although unfair, and leaving us in potential danger etc, something had to be done, at least the Tories/LD are trying something, Labour would have left this country dead and biuried economically should they have won in May...

 

[LE Greys]

I hope some members of this Forum don't find this page, it'll turn into another Labour v. Tory argument. I will have to say, although unfair, and leaving us in potential danger etc, something had to be done, at least the Tories/LD are trying something, Labour would have left this country dead and biuried economically should they have won in May...

It might surprise you to learn that I am a (Red) Tory.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It might surprise you to learn that I am a (Red) Tory.

Yeah, I actually like UKIP, but that's just me. Something had to be done, and unfortunately it fell to the Tories to have to do it.

 

[imagination]

scrap the whole lot and be done with it.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is indeed a sad and dark day for Defence and I suspect for the rest of the country tomorrow. Personally I apportion blame on all of them Labour or Tory or any other, they all seem to be f-e-c-k-less and in it for the short term without any real care for the future.

 

[CarterUSM]

It is devastating news, although i'm perhaps guilty of re-living past glories. I'm not as up to speed on our defence capability as i used to be, but i cannot help feeling we are leaving ourselves a little short, not that we weren't already. Interestingly, i noted on the news the fact that Israel spend only a billion less than us on defence, though have about a fifth or sixth of the civil servants we have in their relevant governmental defence department.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They seem to be justifying the reduced volumes on the grounds that the technology is much better and vastly more efficient.

Maybe it is, but that does sound like a case of eggs and baskets doesn't it?

Example: If you have 500 lower technology warplanes at the same overall fleet price as 50 high tech ones to cover exactly the same task overall, you won't really notice any operation capability loss if you lose a couple of them. But if you lose a couple of the smaller fleet of 50, that's a huge chunk of your capability out of the strategy instantly.

It's also a lot more expensive ( ten times in the above example ) to cover those losses. And in addition have a far smaller pool of aircrews to fly them and groundcrews to maintain them, which means you are more vulnerable to an outbreak of illness in the barracks...

Now, I am not saying we should go back to having hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters as the RAF front line, but I do question whether the MoD are getting far too dependent on technology and relying on the assumption that they won't lose anything...

And things don't just get put out of action by enemy activity. As a good example, a couple of months ago the brand new very expensive HMS Daring ( the one that's supposed to be able to detect and track 3000 moving objects as small as a tennis ball hundreds of miles away ) unfortunately failed to detect a tug boat right next to it and it sustained a large and expensive dent. Could have been a lot worse, but it illustrates the point exactly. It's one of a fleet of 6 of the type; had the damage been worse that would have been 17% of the capability out of action at once. If it had been one of 50 cheaper vessels of lower technology covering the same tasks ( albeit with a wider geographical spread ) that would have been a negligible 2%.....

 

[ainsworth74]

Interestingly, i noted on the news the fact that Israel spend only a billion less than us on defence.

I think the most interesting defence spending comparison is actually with Japan who spend about $23bn less than we do yet have a larger army and air force, and one of the most powerful navies in the world. What I want to know is why don't we get some Japanese experts into the MOD to make our money go further?

They seem to be justifying the reduced volumes on the grounds that the technology is much better and vastly more efficient.

Maybe it is, but that does sound like a case of eggs and baskets doesn't it?

Me thinks you've hit the nail on the head there.

 

[Oswyntail]

As ever, it comes down to what is a realistic assessment of our future need. The idea that we are likely to be dealing with terrorism and technological attack rather than more historic methods is probably about right (IMHO), and a lot of the outcry is from those who disagree and can envisage hordes of tanks sweeping across the German plains in the next couple of weeks. They could be right, but it seems improbable.
And then we look at Afghanistan, and both sides use this to support their view. Again IMHO, that campaign is not working because (as with every other campaign in that country since Alexander the Great) it was treated as a traditional campaign that putting more forces on the ground than the enemy would win. If it had been examined more closely before troops went in, the logical conclusion would have been that a much smaller force was needed, but combined with sensible economic and political strategies that neutralised enemy support.
So, if the assessment that has led to the current review is a sign that we will be taking that more considered approach in future, then that is good, and the reduction in our force capability is not that bad an outcome.

 

[CarterUSM]

I think the most interesting defence spending comparison is actually with Japan who spend about $23bn less than we do yet have a larger army and air force, and one of the most powerful navies in the world. What I want to know is why don't we get some Japanese experts into the MOD to make our money go further?

Extraordinary! I had no idea of Japans defence budget. Do they build and maintain the majority of their equipment themselves?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They seem to be justifying the reduced volumes on the grounds that the technology is much better and vastly more efficient.

Maybe it is, but that does sound like a case of eggs and baskets doesn't it?

Example: If you have 500 lower technology warplanes at the same overall fleet price as 50 high tech ones to cover exactly the same task overall, you won't really notice any operation capability loss if you lose a couple of them. But if you lose a couple of the smaller fleet of 50, that's a huge chunk of your capability out of the strategy instantly.

It's also a lot more expensive ( ten times in the above example ) to cover those losses. And in addition have a far smaller pool of aircrews to fly them and groundcrews to maintain them, which means you are more vulnerable to an outbreak of illness in the barracks...

Now, I am not saying we should go back to having hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters as the RAF front line, but I do question whether the MoD are getting far too dependent on technology and relying on the assumption that they won't lose anything...

And things don't just get put out of action by enemy activity. As a good example, a couple of months ago the brand new very expensive HMS Daring ( the one that's supposed to be able to detect and track 3000 moving objects as small as a tennis ball hundreds of miles away ) unfortunately failed to detect a tug boat right next to it and it sustained a large and expensive dent. Could have been a lot worse, but it illustrates the point exactly. It's one of a fleet of 6 of the type; had the damage been worse that would have been 17% of the capability out of action at once. If it had been one of 50 cheaper vessels of lower technology covering the same tasks ( albeit with a wider geographical spread ) that would have been a negligible 2%.....

Spot on Peter, that is exactly what i was thinking!

 

[AndyJB]

Who wants to wager that MP's won't include themselves in the public sector cuts?

 

[ainsworth74]

Extraordinary! I had no idea of Japans defence budget. Do they build and maintain the majority of their equipment themselves?

Its a bit of a mix over there. Most of their equipment is home built and maintained, but a fair bit of it is designed abroad (mostly from the US) they have for instance the Kongo class destroyers which were built in Japan but are essentially clones of US Arleigh Burke destroyers as well as the F-15J which is a Japanese built clone of the US F-15. But as I say both those examples are built in Japan and maintained by Japan and the weapons for both are built in Japan. As I say, we should get the Japanese in to have a look at our defence establishment.

 

[CarterUSM]

Its a bit of a mix over there. Most of their equipment is home built and maintained, but a fair bit of it is designed abroad (mostly from the US) they have for instance the Kongo class destroyers which were built in Japan but are essentially clones of US Arleigh Burke destroyers as well as the F-15J which is a Japanese built clone of the US F-15. But as I say both those examples are built in Japan and maintained by Japan and the weapons for both are built in Japan. As I say, we should get the Japanese in to have a look at our defence establishment.

Yes, i don't think that is such a bad idea!

 

[37401]

No helicopters for troops but when the pope came he got 3...

 

[LE Greys]

They seem to be justifying the reduced volumes on the grounds that the technology is much better and vastly more efficient.

Maybe it is, but that does sound like a case of eggs and baskets doesn't it?

Example: If you have 500 lower technology warplanes at the same overall fleet price as 50 high tech ones to cover exactly the same task overall, you won't really notice any operation capability loss if you lose a couple of them. But if you lose a couple of the smaller fleet of 50, that's a huge chunk of your capability out of the strategy instantly.

It's also a lot more expensive ( ten times in the above example ) to cover those losses. And in addition have a far smaller pool of aircrews to fly them and groundcrews to maintain them, which means you are more vulnerable to an outbreak of illness in the barracks...

Now, I am not saying we should go back to having hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters as the RAF front line, but I do question whether the MoD are getting far too dependent on technology and relying on the assumption that they won't lose anything...

And things don't just get put out of action by enemy activity. As a good example, a couple of months ago the brand new very expensive HMS Daring ( the one that's supposed to be able to detect and track 3000 moving objects as small as a tennis ball hundreds of miles away ) unfortunately failed to detect a tug boat right next to it and it sustained a large and expensive dent. Could have been a lot worse, but it illustrates the point exactly. It's one of a fleet of 6 of the type; had the damage been worse that would have been 17% of the capability out of action at once. If it had been one of 50 cheaper vessels of lower technology covering the same tasks ( albeit with a wider geographical spread ) that would have been a negligible 2%.....

The concept of the force multiplier, which sometimes turns out to be flawed. The idea is that you use a single high-tech weapon instead of a large number of low-tech ones, because the technology multiplies the force effectively. That's been NATO thinking for as long as I can remember. Soviet thinking used to be the opposite, either build as many tanks as you can or give your missiles bigger warheads, making up for the lack of technology with sheer weight of numbers and strength of force.

Trouble is, sometimes it doesn't work. A few low-tech 20mm rounds in the wrong place can do untold damage to one stealth bomber. No great loss if it was one B-52 out of 200, but a disaster because it is one B-2 out of 20. The same applies to ships. One Shukula in the wrong place can sink any ship, but if it's a big, rare vessel, then you're in real trouble. I remember how someone in 1943 worked out that 1 Mosquito is worth 3 Lancasters. The Mossy's loss rate was lower, it cost about one fifth as much as a Lancaster, it carried 4,000lbs of bombs as opposed to 13,000, but only needed 2 crew instead of 7 and 2 engines instead of 4 (it was also stealthy, being of wooden construction). For every £1,000,000 invested in Lancasters, you only got one third of the return (in terms of destruction of the enemy) for the same ammount invested in Mosquitoes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its a bit of a mix over there. Most of their equipment is home built and maintained, but a fair bit of it is designed abroad (mostly from the US) they have for instance the Kongo class destroyers which were built in Japan but are essentially clones of US Arleigh Burke destroyers as well as the F-15J which is a Japanese built clone of the US F-15. But as I say both those examples are built in Japan and maintained by Japan and the weapons for both are built in Japan. As I say, we should get the Japanese in to have a look at our defence establishment.

Sounds like a good idea. It's curious though that Japan's forces are "Self-Defence Forces" rather than an Army, Navy and Air Force. Perhaps that influences their thinking and spending patterns.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sounds like a good idea. It's curious though that Japan's forces are "Self-Defence Forces" rather than an Army, Navy and Air Force. Perhaps that influences their thinking and spending patterns.

Indeed, it would be wrong to suggest that we should just do what the Japanese are doing, because they don't do expeditionary warfare like we do. Their constitution pretty much forbids it, there was a massive political storm a few years ago when they wanted to send tankers to the Indian ocean to help re-fuel ships destined for Iraq, because there was a strong element saying that it was against their pacifist constitution to aid other powers in that way. Whereas we have no such problem in fulfilling roles like that. My thinking was the Japanese Self-Defence Forces demonstrate some top class capabilities (the only thing missing from the Maritime Self-Defence Forces is Carriers and Amphibious ships for example) whilst spending much less than we do on defence. So I think we can learn from them, but of course we don't like doing that seemingly.

 

[At_traction]

• Cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4, meaning that we're effectively out of the anti-submarine business except for helicopters flying off ships. The things are already in production AFAIK, so it's really too late to cancel.

Maybe they think that sub threat per se is diminished enough and that a conflict with a seriously sub-wielding nation is a distant possibility to warrant only surface combatants' own ASW helos. The USN at least have the P-3 even though the S-3 was retired as a carrier-based sub hunter. So, no serious long range patrolling capability for the RAF, but maybe the decision can be justified. After all, with diminished FAA assets, the surface fleet is more unlikely to sortie out of North Atlantic anyway...

• Grounding of the Harrier, meaning that we will no longer have a carrier-capable fixed-wing aircraft. We keep our fingers crossed until 2019, when we get JSFs to replace them.
• Scrapping or sale of the Ark Royal. The Ocean may also be under threat, but the Illustrious will carry on as a helicopter carrier.
• Cutbacks in orders for the surface fleet

So, it's back to the 1970s, the RAF getting the fixed-wing tasks lock, stock & barrel. Especially if the new JSF-carrying carriers get cancelled along the way too...

• Tanks and heavy artillery cut by 40% and 35% respectively

MBTs and SPGs certainly seem on the surface like something that might have a reduced importance on "lower intensity" conflicts - unless there is a conventional war with time for a logistics buildup in the pipeline. On the other hand, Vietnam wasn't (mostly) a conventional conflict, neither is perceived as one, but heavy artillery played its part against enemy infantry in the jungle as did MBTs (as successfully used by the Australians).

I think the most interesting defence spending comparison is actually with Japan who spend about $23bn less than we do yet have a larger army and air force, and one of the most powerful navies in the world. What I want to know is why don't we get some Japanese experts into the MOD to make our money go further?

The IJN has indeed a rather healthy complement of vessels, but seem to lack the "testosterone" units that the US, UK, Russia and France have, such as aircraft carriers with jet combat wings (and assigned support and escort assets), nuclear-powered SLBM and attack subs and large assault ships. All these are pricey to build and operate, certainly more than IJNs destroyer (even AEGIS) surface combatants, (diesel) subs and helos.

Perhaps the Japanese have had a credit crunch for so long that they really can make a Yen go far.

 

[ainsworth74]

The IJN has indeed a rather healthy complement of vessels, but seem to lack the "testosterone" units that the US, UK, Russia and France have

Indeed its the only real weakness of the JMSDF they lack the ability really project power around the world in the way that the US, UK, France and Russia can (though Russia only do it when there is a nearby sea tug ). But my thinking is that we spend $23bn more than they do, yet the basic fleet that the JMSDF have is superior to ours. Surely we could afford a basic fleet, army and air force like they have and still have $23bn left over for bells and whistles like CVF, SSBNs, SSNs and so on.

Like I said I'm not saying Japan is what we should be looking at copying (we need to be able to project power around the world after all), but I don't think it would do us much harm to see how they afford what they have for less than we do.

 

[the sniper]

Essentially, this is us out of the second division in global terms, on a level roughly with the Netherlands or Denmark for now.

No idea how you've worked that out!

Current British number of tanks: 1340
British after cuts: 800
Current Dutch tanks: 274
Current Danish tanks: 96?

Current British amount of heavy artillery: 213
British after cuts: 138 (with the retained ability to regenerate those capabilities if needs be).
Current Dutch artillery: 24 + 40 Reserve (26 to be sold)
Current Danish artillery: 32?

British Army/Navy/Air force personnel: 113,970/39,100/44,300
British Army/Navy/Air force personnel after cuts: 106,970/34,100/39,300
Dutch Army/Navy/Air force personnel: 30,500/10,000/47,500 (apparently)
Danish Army/Navy/Air force personnel: 10,560/3,400/3,400

Current British major surface combatants/submarines: 24/12
Current Dutch major surface combatants/submarines: 6/4
Current Danish major surface combatants/submarines: 6/0

Neither the Dutch or the Danes have aircraft carriers, so we'll be on a par with them in this respect for a few years, I suppose... the number of personnel in the Dutch Air Force is the only area where we are otherwise out done. Even after the cuts we'll still be spending in the region of £50 billion more on defence then the Dutch.

I really have no idea where you got that comparison from. I really don't like when people make such broad statements which often reflect badly on the UK which simply aren't true.

At the report you linked to says, we'll still be in the top 4 of world military spenders after the cuts. I believe this is actually slightly wrong though as this year Russia announced a major increase in military spending over the couple of years as they're embarking on a major modernisation project. We could still stay in the top 4 nevertheless, as I can't see France being able to continue pumping in as much money as it has been.

I think the most interesting defence spending comparison is actually with Japan who spend about $23bn less than we do yet have a larger army and air force, and one of the most powerful navies in the world. What I want to know is why don't we get some Japanese experts into the MOD to make our money go further?

If you look at the most recent figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the most widely regarded source for military spending figures, the Japanese were only $7 billion behind us in 2009: http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15

Though you laud the Japanese military quantity to cost ratio, it's important to recognise the differences between the British and Japanese militarises. The British military maintains a blue water navy, maintains at least two overseas bases (Cyprus and Falklands) and is currently fighting one major war on the other side of the earth and is still winding down from another. This isn't cheap.

The Japanese by comparison have a larger force (though our Air Force's are similar) which as you say is constitutionally and operationally almost completely limited to operations in or near Japan. I'm sure if almost all British military operations took place on mainland Britain, our budget would be cheaper too.

No helicopters for troops but when the pope came he got 3...

Yeah, if only the MoD had access to a chartered civilian helicopter for three days, we'd have won that damn war in Afghanistan by now... :roll:

 

[ainsworth74]

If you look at the most recent figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

I was looking at the 2008 figures so apologies there

Though you laud the Japanese military quantity to cost ratio, it's important to recognise the differences between the British and Japanese militarises.

I think I've said it at least twice so this will be the third time. I am fully aware that there are significant differences between the British and Japanese armed forces in that Britain has a true power projection capability and Japan doesn't

 

[the sniper]

I think I've said it at least twice so this will be the third time. I am fully aware that there are significant differences between the British and Japanese armed forces in that Britain has a true power projection capability and Japan doesn't

I must apologise actually, as I started writing my post before your first response, but once I'd written all that and posted it, I didn't want to delete it...

I Lazily added the 'which as you say is' to acknowledge that you'd pointed out the difference between the two in the mean time, but apologies again.

 

[ainsworth74]

I must apologise actually, as I started writing my post before your first response, but once I'd written all that and posted it, I didn't want to delete it...

Don't worry about it, no hard feelings here! I've often had the same experience myself of writing a long reply and finding out someone else has posted something which changes things!

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Currently we have more Admirals and more Generals than we had in WW II.
We are fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan (like we did in the 19th century - we never learn) that is costing us untold millions per day..

 

[LE Greys]

No idea how you've worked that out!

Current British number of tanks: 1340
British after cuts: 800
Current Dutch tanks: 274
Current Danish tanks: 96?

Current British amount of heavy artillery: 213
British after cuts: 138 (with the retained ability to regenerate those capabilities if needs be).
Current Dutch artillery: 24 + 40 Reserve (26 to be sold)
Current Danish artillery: 32?

British Army/Navy/Air force personnel: 113,970/39,100/44,300
British Army/Navy/Air force personnel after cuts: 106,970/34,100/39,300
Dutch Army/Navy/Air force personnel: 30,500/10,000/47,500 (apparently)
Danish Army/Navy/Air force personnel: 10,560/3,400/3,400

Current British major surface combatants/submarines: 24/12
Current Dutch major surface combatants/submarines: 6/4
Current Danish major surface combatants/submarines: 6/0

Neither the Dutch or the Danes have aircraft carriers, so we'll be on a par with them in this respect for a few years, I suppose... the number of personnel in the Dutch Air Force is the only area where we are otherwise out done. Even after the cuts we'll still be spending in the region of £50 billion more on defence then the Dutch.

I really have no idea where you got that comparison from. I really don't like when people make such broad statements which often reflect badly on the UK which simply aren't true.

At the report you linked to says, we'll still be in the top 4 of world military spenders after the cuts. I believe this is actually slightly wrong though as this year Russia announced a major increase in military spending over the couple of years as they're embarking on a major modernisation project. We could still stay in the top 4 nevertheless, as I can't see France being able to continue pumping in as much money as it has been.

I'm afraid I sometimes let my rhetoric get out of hand compared with the facts. Apologies for that, maybe I should be a politician. Give me some time to look at the figures and work out where we might actually end up, although I will exclude from the spending figures anything relating to nuclear-armed forces, since my main concern is that we are not spending enough on conventional forces that we might need to defend out territory from small state incursions or terrorism. I'm not trying to talk the UK down, I just think that we are going about things the wrong way by relying too much on Trident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe they think that sub threat per se is diminished enough and that a conflict with a seriously sub-wielding nation is a distant possibility to warrant only surface combatants' own ASW helos. The USN at least have the P-3 even though the S-3 was retired as a carrier-based sub hunter. So, no serious long range patrolling capability for the RAF, but maybe the decision can be justified. After all, with diminished FAA assets, the surface fleet is more unlikely to sortie out of North Atlantic anyway...

The Vikings might have been useful as land-based aircraft rather than trying to update the Nimrods, if they were compatible with our systems. I think they were going to be replaced (along with the CODs and Hawkeyes) by something called the 'Common Support Aircraft', which may have been cancelled. The major possible sub threats today would come from a rebuilt Russian fleet or an expanding Chinese fleet if they ever start penetrating into the Atlantic. Neither are likely in the next decade, but the decade after that would be a bigger concern.

So, it's back to the 1970s, the RAF getting the fixed-wing tasks lock, stock & barrel. Especially if the new JSF-carrying carriers get cancelled along the way too...

I would have thought we learnt the lesson of limited range with the Falklands. The longest-range combat aircraft we had at the time was the Vulcan, which needed to refuel several times to reach its target. There won't always be a friendly country with airbases near a likely trouble zone. We currently don't have anything with that sort of range.

MBTs and SPGs certainly seem on the surface like something that might have a reduced importance on "lower intensity" conflicts - unless there is a conventional war with time for a logistics buildup in the pipeline. On the other hand, Vietnam wasn't (mostly) a conventional conflict, neither is perceived as one, but heavy artillery played its part against enemy infantry in the jungle as did MBTs (as successfully used by the Australians).

In terms of fighting a major land war, we are probably not going to be involved in many more of those for some time. That's the only area where I agree with the review. However, as Sniper pointed out, we still have a reasonable force available if we need it. Perhaps we need to scale back our commitments in Germany (which is no longer the eastern frontier of NATO anyway) but it isn't as bad as I thought.

 

[At_traction]

The major possible sub threats today would come from a rebuilt Russian fleet or an expanding Chinese fleet if they ever start penetrating into the Atlantic. Neither are likely in the next decade, but the decade after that would be a bigger concern.

You read between my lines, I didn't mention those states, even though I meant exactly them...

Although it would be rather the US which will have its hands full with the Chinese in the future, perhaps for dominance of the waters around Taiwan and Japan, they are not to be dismissed even as an adversary for the RN. Russia is of course most definitely a back yard problem, should its navy advance to a fully budgeted blue water surface and underwater asset from the rusting and floating disaster of yesteryear...

The longest-range combat aircraft we had at the time was the Vulcan, which needed to refuel several times to reach its target.

And even then the complexity of the operation and the number of refuellers (and refuellers' refuellers) made the bombing operation quite a stretch, literally. The US long-range capability has indeed prospered largely due to a network of air-refuelling aircraft bases.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Currently we have more Admirals and more Generals than we had in WW II.
We are fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan (like we did in the 19th century - we never learn) that is costing us untold millions per day..

I'll second that. I think the fact the Russians got their arses kicked there should tell us something.

 

[CarterUSM]

I'll second that. I think the fact the Russians got their arses kicked there should tell us something.

Yeah, by John Rambo, in Rambo 3 also!!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Yeah, by John Rambo, in Rambo 3 also!!

Yeah, but being honest, if Russia, one of the greatest armies in the world can't win, that tells us we never have a chance...

 

[CarterUSM]

Yeah, but being honest, if Russia, one of the greatest armies in the world can't win, that tells us we never have a chance...

I know mate, just my poor attempt at a little humour! We had several wars with the afghanis in the 19th century also, that were long drawn out stalemates at best or pyrrich victories.