Navaleye,
Lovely. FA2s boldly sweeping their way into the target, hacking down the hordes of MiG-29s and Su-30s en route. Brings a quiver to the voice and a lump to the throat.
But when has that capability actually been required, since 1990? Remember that you're losing it from 2006 until 2012..... a six year gap. How often will it be needed then?
22 fixed wing with the SAR/ASW/AEW moved to another hugely expensive, vulnerable ship....? OK that doubles the cost of the deployment, but the calculations were that you needed a minimum of 16 AD aircraft to maintain AD cover (at an astonishingly tiny radius, and for an astonishingly short duration, though I suspect those figures are classified, or restricted) and 24 to sustain it for a longer period.
Which leaves room for a worthwhile number of GR7s, which (under present doctrine - mine and Geoff's not agreed with the Chiefs of Staff, of course) is the primary purpose of sending a carrier.
WEBF,
Bosnia? Just ask M2 how 'essential' the SHar was in Bosnia. To refresh your memory, no target in the Balkans required the use of carrier air power because all were within range of land based assets.
FEBA,
Decisions on defence spending cuts are made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice received from the Chiefs of Staff, whose decisions are, in turn, based on the well-established practise of running and comparing various 'options' put forward by the DECs, etc. The decision as to which options to consider are also taken by the services themselves, so that the RN may not have wanted to look at losing a Trident boat, and may not have put it forward, while the RAF may not have put forward a reduction in Typhoon numbers. But the option of prematurely withdrawing the SHar came from the services, as did the details of the cost savings and operational benefits that would flow from it.
The decision to axe the SHar was no different to any other. To claim that: "As is common practise for this government it was all done behind closed doors and those that were in charge were not consulted." is just plain wrong. It was not presented as a 'fait accompli' to the Admiralty. You're forcing me to defend people I despise, here. But I'm afraid that to think that Geoff and Tone took the decision unilaterally shows a total lack of understanding of how such decisions are actually taken.
Finally (and though I'm tired with your silly insults) it's not 'My' defence policy that "has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality". It's the policy of the Government of the day and its predecessors. Moreover, while it may be amusing (if you're sufficiently infantile) to characterise that policy as "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" it is wrong to do so. Acting in concert with our Allies has resulted in:
Desert Storm
Allied Force
Enduring Freedom
Iraqi Freedom
Now forgive me if I've missed something, but those ops seemed to "cut some ice" with some errant countries - Baathist Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan and the Milosovic regime in Serbia. Whereas pretending that we can still strut the globe enforcing our will unilaterally just looks like empty and pathetic posturing.
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "That's not the way we achieve foreign policy objectives any more, sir."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "The Gunboats we have aren't really fit for purpose any more, but we could send one configured to salvo rockets, which we think is a better way of employing these hulls."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "Neither the USA nor NATO would support sending a gunboat in these circumstances."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat"
Geoff: "We don't do that any more, we act in concert with our allies."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "We actually can't afford gunboats any more, and our defence budget is structured on the basis of undertaking coalition ops."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "I'd love to, but I'd have to have a bigger budget and would have to raise taxes. Any sensible suggestions?
FEBA: "Ah, now you put it that way, I'll engage in sensible conversation with you. You see I do have a solution......... Send a Gunboat."
I asked a simple question:
"When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?"
Your answer was that: "This is a great one, so I'll answer it with a question..."
No, don't answer it with some irrelvant comparison about nukes, that's an entirely separate debate. Just answer the £@ç&ing question.
You aksed: "One last question for you (i love asking really infantile and silly questions, it demonstrates my grasp of the subject so well.) How much will Washington charge us for providing AD for our fleet or will it be gratis because they like us so much??"
I suspect that Washington will charge us the same for providing AD as we do for providing them with tanker support, PR9s, Nimrods without the pointy tails, etc. etc. That's how coalition ops with your allies work, numb-nuts!