PTL, Navaleye,
Well done chaps, intelligent argument. I am disappointed.
Navaleye, yourself, WEBF and others have consistently argued the case for SHAR over the last few years. This is despite the majority of people, including serving SHAR pilots, putting intelligent reasons as to why the Sea Harrier is financially unviable. I like many people have suggested that in a perfect world, keeping the SHAR makes sense. I like many people have argued in favour of carrier aviation.
But the fact remains that our defence budget is under unprecedented strains. Whether you like it or not, we cannot have everything. However, as far as I'm aware, navaleye, you nor any of the other pro-FA2 guys have ever offered a reasonable suggestion as to what capability should be cut or reduced to enable the SHAR to be kept.
I'm now asking you to offer your suggestions in reasoned, sensible manner. If the best you can manage is trite comments, I'd suggest that the credibility of your case is weakened still further.
I therefore ask again, when the Army are driving around Iraq and Afghanistan in unarmoured land rovers, when your SKASaCs still lack key capabilities required for war fighting ops, when key RAF High value assets still lack DAS, what do you suggest we dispense with to allow the SHAR to be retained?
Regards,
MM