Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Cutting the next generation of military fast jets would leave Britain vulnerable to attack, the head of the RAF has warned.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 7:14PM GMT 15 Feb 2010

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the Chief of the Air Staff, insisted that air power must not be seen as an “optional luxury” when Britain’s future defence capability is considered.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to strategic defence review after the election, and both acknowledge that cuts will need to be made to bring down the Government deficit.

Related Articles
Defence budget cuts 'will leave Britain reliant on war allies'
'Severe cuts' in public services revealed
Armed Forces merger
Top brass face cull in defence cuts
General Sir Richard Dannatt: 'Government is squandering defence cash'
Shut-down of RAF squadrons 'to go ahead a year early'That has raised questions about high-price defence procurement projects. One of the most costly is the plan to buy more than 120 new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy, which will cost at least £10 billion.

Neither Labour nor the Tories have given any assurances about the number of JSFs that will eventually be bought, and some military insiders say the order should be cut to focus money elsewhere.

But in a speech to a London think-tank, Sir Stephen argued that systems like the JSF will be vital to maintaining Britain’s military edge in future conflicts.

“Air and space power isn’t an optional luxury that can be added to an erstwhile military operation on the ground or at sea,” he said. “It provides the essential foundation for any sort of military endeavour.”

In a tacit reply to military critics of the RAF, he insisted: “I am not arguing for high tech boys’ toys – my concern is about capabilities.”

Sir Stephen’s speech also revealed the latest sign of tension between the heads of the Armed Services that have been caused by the coming cuts.

General Sir David Richards, the head of the Army, has argued that future planning should focus on the ground troops that lead the mission in Afghanistan and would do so in similar conflicts in future.

Sir Stephen challenged that view, suggesting that Afghanistan may be the exception, not the rule, for future conflict.

He said: "Even if we are faced with conflicts that are similar in character to Afghanistan in the future – and that isn't certain – we cannot assume that there will be the political or popular appetite to fight them in the same way again.”

Instead of deploying large numbers of British troops into foreign conflicts, Sir Stephen said, Britain should plan to use a small number of specialists backed up by a well-equipped RAF.

He said: “It’s only too easy for a foreign contingent to be portrayed as an alien and occupying force; it’s much better for the majority of ‘boots on the ground’ to be indigenous, supported and assisted by appropriate and highly trained specialists and Special Operations Forces with access to the higher-tech capabilities – including air and space power – that are difficult for local security forces to acquire and operate.”

F-16.net Sponsor

Please don't put words in his mouth.

Please post links with the news.

Thanks...

"“Air and space power isn’t an optional luxury that can be added to an erstwhile military operation on the ground or at sea,” he said. “It provides the essential foundation for any sort of military endeavour.” "

That's all he said really.

Vipernice wrote:

Please don't put words in his mouth.

Please post links with the news.

Thanks...

"“Air and space power isn’t an optional luxury that can be added to an erstwhile military operation on the ground or at sea,” he said. “It provides the essential foundation for any sort of military endeavour.” "

That's all he said really.

I copied it exactly...........Yet, I will be happy to post the link! Rolling Eyes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -jets.html

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

RAF chief: Don't cut F-35 fighter jets