The Case For Trident

I think it's a pretty safe assumption don't you as we seem to be able to fly the current conflict zones with no issues

And there are plenty friendly countries left - in fact a damn sight more than unfriendly ones.

In the current middle east conflict we are fortunate to have our base in Cyprus. If it wasn't for that we would probably need aircraft carriers. The problem isn't always where you have a base, it can be what countries you have to fly over.
 
In the current middle east conflict we are fortunate to have our base in Cyprus. If it wasn't for that we would probably need aircraft carriers. The problem isn't always where you have a base, it can be what countries you have to fly over.

Well there is also Incirlik in Turkey , Ali and Udari in Kuwait , Dharhan and Riyadh in Saudi - even Thesselonki as well as Cyprus - lots of bases that we have flown out of over the years in both peace keeping and bombing runs. The whole area is littered with bases we can fly from
 
Well there is also Incirlik in Turkey , Ali and Udari in Kuwait , Dharhan and Riyadh in Saudi - even Thesselonki as well as Cyprus - lots of bases that we have flown out of over the years in both peace keeping and bombing runs. The whole area is littered with bases we can fly from

Well yes but they are not RAF bases so we can only use them with the permission of their State.
 
Can you name some friendly countries then, particularly Islamic ones in the Middle-East?

Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Dubai, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Can you name anywhere in the Middle East we can't reach from them?
 
As posted we need both Aircraft Carriers, Heavy Lift A/C and a Nuclear Deterrent imo, previous answer was direct response to Delc and The Middle East.
 
Falklands is pretty well protected right now

By what? 4 Typhoon aircraft, a destroyer and less than 800 frontline troops. Britain lost several destroyers/frigates and support vessels, 24 aircraft and over 1000 killed or wounded. The force there now is a deterrent, but I'd question its strength if a full scale invasion took place.

Are we expecting something to happen there ?

It was deemed necessary enough to dispatch another destroyer last autumn amid intensified sabre rattling....
 
By what? 4 Typhoon aircraft, a destroyer and less than 800 frontline troops. Britain lost several destroyers/frigates and support vessels, 24 aircraft and over 1000 killed or wounded. The force there now is a deterrent, but I'd question its strength if a full scale invasion took place.



It was deemed necessary enough to dispatch another destroyer last autumn amid intensified sabre rattling....
If it was a Type 45, it would probably break down on the way there! :rolleyes:
 
By what? 4 Typhoon aircraft, a destroyer and less than 800 frontline troops. Britain lost several destroyers/frigates and support vessels, 24 aircraft and over 1000 killed or wounded. The force there now is a deterrent, but I'd question its strength if a full scale invasion took place.



It was deemed necessary enough to dispatch another destroyer last autumn amid intensified sabre rattling....

Yes Hobbit that much has been enough of a deterrent to keep anyone at bay for over 30 years now - every now and then another frigate is deployed normally around Argentina election times and they have a little flying fun around Xmas day.

The Falklands is safe and there won't be a full scale invasion in any reality

And even then massive forces and AC can deploy a damn sight quicker than 30 years ago with the RAF capable of putting another 10 thousand troops plus 8 AC down there within a week 2 weeks.
 
Top