| Tango01 | 16 Apr 2015 10:19 p.m. PST |
"The U.K. Ministry of Defense has released an accounting of all the aircraft in Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and British Army service — and the overall tallyis tiny … and getting tinier. As of March this year, the air forces of the United Kingdom possess no more than 362 combat-ready warplanes and drones plus 249 helicopters — a mere 611 military aircraft. Britain's air force, navy and army together have another 93 planes and copters that are in deep maintenance or rework plus 18 that are in storage. None of these 111 aircraft are immediately available for combat…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 17 Apr 2015 3:16 a.m. PST |
It always surprises me how little we seem to have considering the size of our budget. |
| foxweasel | 17 Apr 2015 3:36 a.m. PST |
That's plenty for home defence, we just need to keep our noses out of other countries business until we know what direction we need to go globally. With the States or with Europe. In my opinion we should stick with the yanks, but I'm not in charge! |
| paulgenna | 17 Apr 2015 9:47 a.m. PST |
That is the same mindset that Chamberlin had in WWII and it cost Britain a lot of her territories and would have the war if the US had not given Britain aid. |
| Gaz0045 | 17 Apr 2015 10:01 a.m. PST |
Isolationist appeasers of the world unite! (-probably under a tyrannical regime……) In 1935 the RAF had 880 aircraft of all types in regular service ( not in reserve or with reserve units)……..these were dispersed all over the globe too……….all to familiar with 'Herr Putin' gobbling up territory in the east. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 17 Apr 2015 10:03 a.m. PST |
Britain divested all her imperial possessions after WWII, so there's no need of a large military to maintain them. As foxweasel says, plenty for home defense. |
| cwlinsj | 17 Apr 2015 10:13 a.m. PST |
"Home Defense" is best when fought in someone else's home. |
| Visceral Impact Studios | 17 Apr 2015 12:49 p.m. PST |
"That is the same mindset that Chamberlin had in WWII and it cost Britain a lot of her territories and would have the war if the US had not given Britain aid." Recently declassified documents show that Chamberlin got a raw deal. He did indeed try to delay confrontation with Hitler but not because he thought "appeasement" would work. His hands were tied because the nation wasn't willing to spend the money and manpower needed to put up a credible defence. He needed time to build support for the sacrifices a war footing would require. In the end, he ran out of time. Today, here in the U.S., we take a different approach. We borrow lots of money to fund the largest military on the planet. However, too often we don't get a lot for our (borrowed) money. : -( |
| Weasel | 17 Apr 2015 1:14 p.m. PST |
Hitler analogies in 4 posts. Nice. People are sharp this morning. |
| Mako11 | 17 Apr 2015 2:15 p.m. PST |
362 sounds like a pretty decent number, as long as a shooting war doesn't start, since I imagine modern attrition rates will be rather high. Takes a bit longer to build more now, I suspect too, than those old Hurri's and Spits. |
worries about not losing his rules stuff.
