I certainly don’t join in with the sentiment expressed by a certain somebody that the RAF serves no perpous, tell that to the squadies who are living now because of RAF Chinooks evacing them for medical attention or fire support against enemy positions. Its RAF fighters that patrol our skies and defend the Falklands, I have and still do know many RAF personel who are straight up people who would certainly have a few stronger things to say if it was said to their faces.

The four Tornadoes at the Falklands hardly justify the RAF. It is a service that has not been fit for purpose since 1918. The Army should be given responsibility for CAS and airlift, after all they are the ones that actually need it/use it. And the RN should get the strategic strike and air defence capability.

Your post makes it very obvious that you did not read my remarks before commenting. I never said get rid of the chinooks I said pass them to the very people who rely on them, the army. 90% of what the RAF combat aircraft do is Army support yet the RAF has not had a true CAS aircraft since the Sopwith Salamander. The navy has the only truly strategic capability through Trident, Tomahawk and in Future the carriers. There is no reason for an independent air force.

In future read my remarks properly before posting.

Does anybody here actually consider what the purpose of the UK armed forces are……..or are you all obsessed with indebting your children for no logical purpose?

The resources would be better directed toward the next generation SSBN nuclear deterrent. It is doubtful if, based on current
projections, the Royal Navy will even retain a Surface Fleet that is fit for purpose. It is unfair to criticise the RAF for the effects
of that catastrophic White Paper delivered by the Wilson Government in the mid sixties, which, incidentally, ruined both services.

Here we go again. What is the purpose?

And what was wrong with the inumerable defence white papaers that have been produced? Has Britain fallen to a foreign power? Is their some great enemy just across the waves poised to strike? UK DEFENCE policy is extremely smart, spend on education and health and give the US just enough support that they guarantee UK security and provide the best in defence technology. And for those who did not notice the west won the Cold War.;)

Pointless defence spending is money wasted.

As for the RAF, whilst the Soviet Union posed a potential airborne threat to the UK its existence could just about be justified, now however it is a surface without a purpose.

I suppose you did not read my apology

Iread it and was immediately aware that it was not the product of genuine remorse but of realisation that your troll had been called out.

Ahhh threats….Wonderful debating skills you have there. It is great that you bring so much to the conversation.

I think it’s fantastic that you have decided to not adress the fact that the US Congress has legislated adequate testing before a deployment decision, calling it a “weak” article.

It’s also wonderful that you choose to not comment on the fact that your new President is essentially saying that he requires this testing to take place before any decision takes place.

And it’s simply awesome that you see a legitimate post referencing a legitimate article discussing a legitimate aspect of the debate as trolling.

Looking forward to how you address the fact that without adequate testing your country has the chance to be ripped off to the tune of tens of billions of precious dollars by contractors who may not be able to provide the level of capability you are paying for.

I have said this before and will repeat myself for emphasis. I am not attached to my opinions (unlike you appear to be). prove me your point in a reasonable fashion and I will become a disciple. But don’t dismiss out of hand anything or anybody who disagrees with you as a fanboy or a troll. You should be above this.

You were and still are trolling, that is why you decided to insult other forum members in your first post. The article did not deserve its own thread because the impact on the programme will minimal. Your initial post made it clear that you posted this article to suggest that the ABM programme had failed when clearly it has not.

Well…so much for an olive branch for you. Posting news about an important political development surrounding the issue of deploying this technology in Eastern Europe is not trolling. It is a legitimate news item that I think brings up a serious issue. I chose some unfortunate words that may have antagonized some and I apologized for it. You sir however choose to lash out personally with anybody who has a different perspective than yourself. It is pretty sad actually.

I would be more than prepared to change my position on the need, the workability, or the political ramifactions of this system being deployed if it could be proven to me that these concerns could be addressed. I think that you would not change your opinion on this topic under any circumstances and that it pretty weak.

Opinion is not fact. You seem to confuse the two.

But enough about you…..I am hopeful that people on both sides of this debate can take a dispassionate look at the state of the technology and have an enlightened discussion of the facts.

This could have been posted in any number of already existing threads and your use of the phrase ‘star wars fanboys’ proves that you are a troll.

I can’t help but think that to automatically assume that a project which hasn’t even had a single missile built will in fact work perfectly and without fail first time is somewhat more naive than suggesting the programme may, in fact, encounter problems, which may be significant. The delays and problems encountered in the deployment of missile defence systems so far have been massive and politicians are understandably wary that for such a potent geopolitical move they may not have everything those reassuring slideshows are telling them. While the successful tests of the 3-stage GBIs are a step in the right direction, with a system of this complexity, how can taking a large revamp of the whole structure with nary a prototype as a given ‘in the bag’ capability that will emerge working exactly as advertised, exactly on-time and on-cost be anything other than naive?

Again: The system is based on proven technology, its development will be considerably easier than that of the already successful GBI.