As this is only media speculation with no reliable information on how well informed it is, I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

You know, I'd take these things more seriously if they could be arrsed to get their facts correct.

Ignoring the fact that the crabs weren't created until 1918, the RFC and RNAS didn't have 200 fighters between them in 1914, or for quite a bit of 1915 for that matter.

Then, there was a period in the 1920s when the RAF had just one fighter squadron - 12 being slightly less than 200, last time I looked. The date Harding wants is somewhere between 1923 and 1925, and the latter date is open to question slightly, since the Bristol Fighter squadrons extant in 1925, while fighters, were used for recce and army co-operation.

Then there's the statement about the 36 C-130s. Thing is, the Ks are on their way out anyway, and the Js are going to be replaced by the A400 (as we've noted on here several times, the whole 22-strong A400M isn't going to arrive in one go). So that's at best misleading.

Then, if you do withdraw the GR4 over the next five years, we end up with fewer than 107 Typhoons by 2015, and a Harrier fleet which - given the exchange postings by the FAA noted on the F/A-18 thread leaves you with a Harrier force that would be hard pushed to deploy given the lack of fixed wing FAA pilots (the 12 sent on exchange represents an alarmingly high proportion of the RN's FJ pilots).

Then there's the pointed that these 'detailed documents' have been leaked to the Torygraph. I very much doubt that they've been handed over by the government, anxious to give the Telegraph a scoop. Where the Telegraph might be on to something is in the

The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military

.

Someone has, presumably, leaked some of the options on the table (or not on the table, but scoped out as part of the review process) - since no meeting has occurred to discuss and debate the options, then while the cuts outlined might happen, there's as much chance that some, or even many, of them won't...

As for:

The plans will lead to the RAF losing its status as the fifth biggest air force in the world.

Which decade is the journo living in? The RAF hasn't been the fifth biggest AF in the world for some time - even if you lump the four US services together as a single air force (don't tell them I've done that), you have China, Pakistan, India, Russia, the two Koreas, Iran, Israel (aircraft numbers, and when all AF reservists are counted), Germany, France, Turkey and Brazil ahead of us. I'm pretty sure that the Syrian, Iranian, Ukranian and Taiwanese AFs are larger than the RAF as well. Even if you merged the FAA and the AAC into the RAF (there'll be a paper on that somewhere which hasn't leaked, I'll bet...) we'd only go up the rankings slightly.

General Richards needs his arse kicked if he either agrees to this, or does not resign in protest.

Army - no Armour? No MBTs or AS90 or Warrior? So making a forced entry into a country with an Army will no longer be possible.

Navy - No Amphibious ships? So all ops happen in blue water then?

RAF - No Hercules? Yes, that's a crap aircraft, everyone over the last 50 years has said so. No Maritime Patrol? For an island nation? With nuclear missile armed submarines? That's not just stupid, it's downright irresponsible.

Actually, I suspect this may be some politicker in the MOD or on the MODs behalf floating these ideas so everyone with half a brain says "Hell NO!".

Originally Posted by Turk

ouch.

Not pretty reading.

It's Tory cuts 101. Announce something absolutely mega, then when the cuts aren't quite as bad, everybody goes home happy.

Hey, it's what you voted for - well 36% of you.

Printing headlines like "All is well" or "Nothing to worry about" does not sell newspapers, on the other hand "World about to end" or "Armed forces sacked" does.

Time for some leave methinks.....................

Originally Posted by ashie

It's Tory cuts 101. Announce something absolutely mega, then when the cuts aren't quite as bad, everybody goes home happy.

Hey, it's what you voted for - well 36% of you.

It's what you voted for as well, that how it works.

Originally Posted by ashie

It's Tory cuts 101. Announce something absolutely mega, then when the cuts aren't quite as bad, everybody goes home happy.

Hey, it's what you voted for - well 36% of you.

Yes, because the alternative was to keep spending money we didn't have. It's a shame they're cutting defense as it should almost certainly be exempt from the cuts but we all have to play our part in repairing the country.

Thinking bigger than the Armed Forces, as I'm sure they're doing, I would hope that the defence of the realm involves a structural rethink of both border and internal security. If we can't afford to defend Gan, Port Stanley or Gib, then at least we should stop London from becoming a suburb of Islamabad, Mog or Lagos.

Sadly, I'm not optimistic. Most newsreaders seem to have English as a second language now, and the concept of 'multiculturism' (outside of Northern Ireland, of course) appears to be in fashion.

But then, I'm an old racialist, with treacherous ideas about the worth of my tax and NI contributions.

Originally Posted by ashie

It's Tory cuts 101. Announce something absolutely mega, then when the cuts aren't quite as bad, everybody goes home happy.


Hey, it's what you voted for - well 36% of you.

Of course, your mob never did that at all, did they? Just like they didn't stuff the economy up because some nasty, horrid bankers did it all and then ran away, leaving poor, poor Gordon and the Labour party to carry the blame. Sorry, you'll have to forgive me - I keep forgetting that what appears to be reality is merely a creation of the right wing press which successfully misled 59% of the electorate into voting for one of the other two main parties because they couldn't stand the thought of a Labour government for another five years...