I think everyone accepts that cuts were inevitable given the shambolic state of the MoD’s finances and I can understand the reasons as to why the Army shouldn’t be cut while there’s a major war on. What gets me is the way the RAF’s “Tornado Mafia” blew a hole in the SDSR at the 11th hour mainly as a way of putting one over the Navy. But of course even if JFH had been retained then we’d have the RAF’s cheerleaders bleating about how cutting Tornado was the wrong decision.

I’ve yet to actually hear any of these former top brass put forward a coherent plan as to how the MoD’s overspend could be closed while at the same time losing no capability, the answer is of course there isn’t! But the only answer many service chiefs past and present have is “No don’t cut us! Cut the other lot instead!!”

As to the fate of the planes, surely they remain the property of the Libyan government, hopefully a much better state is the end result of this revolt, and they can request their return just as Viktor Balenko’s Foxbat was returned to the Soviet Union in a somewhat “disassembled” condition?!

Yes Britain’s capability to retake the islands has diminshed significantly since 1982 but the ability to defend the islands is much greater with RAF Mount Pleasant and it’s Typhoons, the Army units and the RN patrols. Argentina’s ability to seize the islands has diminshed even more than Britain’s, in 1982 they had a CTOL carrier and a significant amphibious capability, they’re both gone.

Even more pertinent is that there is absolutely no appetite in Argentina for a “Falklands 2,” Argentines obviously still feel strongly about the issue but that doesn’t necessarily transfer into support for military action.

As for the oil, all the test wells so far have barely produced enough oil to fill your petrol tank! Unless someone makes a massive oil find, which looks increasingly unlikely, then I can’t see the Falklands becoming a major flashpoint in the future.

offtopic-
Sorry to disagree here, but Australia, using British tactics with our improvements had some great success, and the same could have been said for any british contribution. that and different media coverage and…….

Agreed but the Aussie’s success were on too small a scale to make any difference. Westmoreland criticised the Australian troops for “not being aggressive enough.” I’m skeptical if the British would have had any more success in persuading the Americans to implement a Malaya strategy. Unless that was done then the end result will still be the same.

For this to have happened then as a minimum the Tories need to win the 1964 election, they almost certainly would have committed a UK force to Vietnam. Given that the Aden and Borneo campaigns were ongoing until 1966/67 it’s doubtful how much the Army and the RAF could have contributed, though its possible that you could have seen V-Bombers carrying out raids on Vietnam from Singapore or Labuan.

However even with a different government unless they take a radically different economic policy then the costs of keeping a significan presence East of Suez and projects such as CVA-01 are going to become increasingly difficult to bear. So even if Britain gets involved in Vietnam then that’s no guarantee that CVA-01 would have gone ahead as the RN wanted. Perhaps the subsequent run down won’t be as dramatic but it will happen in some form.

A lot of English based media have gone on about basing F35 at Lossie and it being so far away from the Carrier’s base. Why not use that to it’s advantage. On each return to base the Carrier does a tour of the UK with fly pasts etc as flag waving exercises to boost recruitment etc. Drops off its aircraft and lets remember it doesn’t exactly have to dock at Lossie to off load, before heading back.

Obviously they have no idea about Lossie’s previous life as an FAA base for aircraft operating off carriers based in Plymouth. Fact checking and historical research mustn’t be a strong point of theirs! 😀

Indians dont want the aid okay…

Could you please let our Prime Minister know that? 😉

The big difference here is the Indian government is committed to being a power. The UK government is committed to no longer being one.

Another factor is that India has a rapidly growing economy and has money to burn while in contrast Britain is struggling to emerge from a severe recession and it’s public finances are in a complete mess.