@goggyturk

Why do you say the Harrier is overrated? It could be better, yes, but as a means to get steel on target in the minimum amount of time, it's quicker than a helicopter and almost as capable. There are plenty of stories coming out of Afghanistan from UK forces and US Marines who would rather get help from the Harriers than the other, conventional, aircraft like the Hornet.

Tornados have only just gone out there (well, the last couple of months) and we don't have enough trained aircrew and "spare" airframes for Typhoon to be deployed there yet - and with the latest cut in the Tranche 3 buy, the war might be over before we do.

Tornado can carry what, twelve or so Brimstone missiles, five LGBs or a mix of these two, but that isn't why Typhoon will need to replace them eventually. Heck, even Harriers can carry half-a-dozen LGBs or a shed-load of Brimstone (plus all the 'dumb' bombs) and put 'em where they need to go - it's only because the MoD (or, more accurately, the politicians holding the purse strings) don't want to pay the money needed to keep the Harriers flying that we haven't still got them out here.

And the figures for hit probability, while impressive, do not tell the whole story. Don't forget that, back in the day, Valiant, Victor and Vulcan crews would regularly achieve the same sort of accuracy *without* the current generation of whizzo toys like laser designators and satellite (GPS) guidance - the Black Buck "fiasco" was caused by a desire to keep the runway so we could use it without too much trouble rather than any lack of ability on behalf of the crews - we proved we could get a bomber to the Falklands and put bombs down, and that was further away than the Argentinian mainland...

I agree with you about the likelihood of (lack of) decent press coverage happen Typhoon does well in Afghanistan - of all the ordinance dropped to date, the only stuff that gets press recognition is that which ends up in the wrong place. Even then, journos have often failed to point out that the bombs hit where intended, but it was due to one local wanting to get rid of a rival, or ground troops hearing gunfire and assuming that the wedding party was the ones aiming at them and told the pilot to drop in the wrong place, or one lot of troops losing track of another lot of troops and not being able to tell the difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" that causes the problem.

Not sure El Reg comes anywhere near as bad as the Torygraph though - even on Mr Page's worst days!

@Graham Bartlett

It's not just a case of how capable the planes are compared to who *you* think they need to fight, there's things like airframe life, servicability, spares and so on to consider as well. I do not know where you get the idea that our current aircraft are (quote) "still superior to what all potential opponents have"(endquote) - bearing in mind that Russia is showing signs of reasserting herself on the global stage, and some of the satellite Republics (especially, but not limited to, Georgia and the Ukraine) are not happy about it, and that nobody really expected the Argentinians to go for the Falklands in 1981, I'd be thinking long and hard about exactly who has what to throw our way, happen I were you (don't forget that the MoD employs people to come up with "worst-case scenarios", then ignores most of what they say anyway.)

Air power is not, despite your suggestion otherwise, only of use during the initial stages of a conflict. While it will never replace the man (and woman) on the ground, air power can get heavier weapons to bear on the opposition than ground forces. It's all very well giving your PBIs heavy body armour, tons of small-arms ammunition and a happy smile to show the locals but if you need to get at a well-entrenched enemy fighting from ambush then there is no replacement for air power. Don't forget, too, that helicopters are part of the "air power" you seem to think unnecessary - air power is not all fast jets and fighter-vs-fighter combat.

I agree that faster air-to-air fighters are not really needed at the moment, but don't forget that few aircraft are still dedicated to that role only - and when you're neck-deep in incoming fire, you want the Big Guns (or bombs and rockets as the case may be) onsite soon as possible. If you've got a ground patrol ambushed by a well-concealed enemy, you don't really want to send in more ground troops because there could easily be another ambush force waiting somewhere between the inital contact and your base - and then you end up with two lots of ground-pounders in the mire. Also, unless your troops are close to their base, it may be some time before relief can reach them - by which time it may be too late.

While you have a government happy to claim for their everyday food bills from the public and give billions to propping up banks or overseas aid and all the useless programs they have created, you will never get decent pensions for our fightin' men. But to suggest that you can cut one part of the military budget to feed another part is wrong - all our armed forces need more money, not less.