How do you get a job where you can talk about anything you like with absolutely no regard whatsoever for reality.
This article in the Telegraph from our old friend Con Coughlin caught my eye, it looked pretty promising until I started to read.
It starts with a similar thought to what I posted yesterday, that is Nick Harvey is obviously trying to defend forthcoming cuts as agility and adaptability, that one of the reason for our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan is not because have a lack of agility or adaptability but because we have a lack of numbers.
So far so good.
In fact it is very perceptive and normally I would say, bloody brilliant article there Mr Coughlin
But then it veers off into the same tired old drivel spouted by people who really should know better, about Typhoon or CVF.
This is what he said
Thus the RAF has spent billions of pounds on its new Typhoon Eurofighter, which is brilliant at intercepting any Russian aircraft that attempts to breach British airspace, but useless when it comes to Afghanistan, because the Taliban has no air force to intercept, and the Typhoon has no ground-attack capability.
What utter utter drivel
Not missing a chance to get a cheap dig in by calling it Typhoon Eurofighter he spectacularly misses the point that Typhoon is a brilliant swing role fighter that can guarantee air dominance and thus freedom of movement for ground or naval forces it can also provide excellent strike and close air support. it does this is a moire economic fashion than any aircraft the RAF has ever had. In fact, if you discuss this with anyone in the air land integration world (i.e. CAS teams) they will tell you that Typhoon is the best CAS aircraft they have ever worked with. The reason it is not in Afghanistan and another ‘Cold War Relic’ is, is because the Government decided to sell production slots of the Typhoon overseas, thus meaning there isn’t any spare to go to Afghanistan. Instead, another Euro project, the Tornado is providing valuable Close Air Support and ISR.
On the subject of CVF
The desire to project Britain’s military prowess across the world has led the Senior Service to dupe the Government into building two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers. But in their haste to steer the contracts through Whitehall, they overlooked vital details, such as making sure the landing deck can accommodate American fighter aircraft.
The decks have been built to accommodate the Joint Strike Fighter, the preferred option to fulfil the Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. They haven’t overlooked anything and the JSF is made by a company called Lockheed Martin, American when I last looked and the JSF will be replacing a large number of ‘American fighter aircraft’
What he perhaps means is that it will not be equipped with cats and traps so it can accommodate certain types of American naval fighter aircraft but to characterise it as an oversight is patently absurd.
On the Army
Meanwhile, the Army has shown a marked reluctance to dispense with all the heavy armour – tanks, artillery etc – that it acquired during the Cold War, most of which is now mothballed in Germany
Some of that heavy armour is in fact in Afghanistan and proved pivotal in many recent conflicts from the Balkans to Iraq so one might have some sympathy with the Army for not wanting to get rid of something that has been used in many operations to such great effect.
I really do despair at the quality of journalism in this area, one doesn’t even need to be an expert but even the most basic level of research would allow an argument that as it’s heart, is spot on, become much more potent.
Instead, let’s just talk about Cold War Relics