NavalEye, WEBF...
I've stayed out of this thread for ages, thinking that there was nothing more to be said. And yet like "Groundhog Day" the same arguments keep coming up-again and again and again.... but one more time:
WEBF --
MM and Biggus are absolutely right!
As we've all said before, losing SHar isn't ideal, but given the current and likely threat environment in a necessarily finite budget, it makes much more sense to scrap this than other things. And those who know more about this than me seem confident of four things:
(a) that 800 and 801 NAS will use GR7/9 very nicely thank-you;
(b) that CVS cannot embark a meaningful number of SHars and GR7/9s at the same time to have a meaningful independent organic strike force (c. 20+ jets on a CVS? Can't see it somehow....);
(c) that flying, fighting and maintaining the SHar is sufficiently different to GR7/9 that sticking some in a nice warm hangar for a rainy day is pointless;
(d) that this is deeply regrettable but within the current budgets, this is also best decision.
Which leads me to ask you who you are going to elect who would increase the defence budget to the extent that when unfunded exisiting requirements are ranked by priority, that we get far enough down to fund SHar...?
Two clues chaps:
- no-one is running on a "increase the defence budget" or "save the SHar" platform; and
- SHar is
not at the top of the unfunded exisiting requirements list!!
I'll shed a tear at the end of March too... but then it's over, and that's that until JSF. If 800 and 801 NAS are moving on, shouldn't we as well?
S41