Tim
Nice use of exclamation marks and smiley faces.
"whether or not he's flown the aircraft in question is of course completely irrelevant!" Not when an individual overstates capabilities of a platform to try and influence or bolster a point of view. It weakens the case and makes the author look desperate. Or myopic. Or loyal. If you require examples from either of the two authors I mention, I can supply about 10 for each of them without blinking.
"You'd be hard-pressed to find any aerospace commentator that could offer any plausible defence for the withdrawal of either the Jaguar or the Sea Harrier" I and almost all the other exhausted (addicted?) readers of this thread 100% agree with you. A browse back over the hundreds of replies you haven't read recently will refresh you.
"whereas we're talking about politics here! (smiley omitted)" Well Tim, anyone with a grasp on operational needs would replace the word 'politics' with 'reality.'
War fighters don't balance books, they take what they actually have, not that which they would like to have, and optimise the people and equipment to the best of their ability to achieve a result.
They don't rake over the past and make empty and nugatory statements about how the Jaguar would have been great in Sierra Leone flying from the Azores or how the Sea Harrier would be great now to fend off the threat of the Iranians. Note: I am not disagreeing with either of these repeated claims but the reality (aka politics) is that neither was or is going to be the case.
The point of my light hearted thread, so skillfully misinterpreted (I must improve my communication skills) was that all of the expended effort on lost causes may have a negative effect on the causes that remain.
Or are you a part of the cup half empty brigade too?
I'll drink an orange juice for you on the 31st. Ice?