Back in the days when the Harrier was coming into service and throughout the Cold War - the Harrier was useful to the RAF because it could be very effectively dispersed. In the event of hostilities with the Soviet Bloc, the Harrier force could be operated from very simple concrete strips and forest clearings in Germany and at home - due to the fact that it can do VTOL & STOVL. That was fine - our jets would survive for longer than they would have at one of the main bases (hopefully!), therefore being able to do thier job of dropping BL755 (cluster bombs) and the like on Ivan and his pals. Handy in giving the navy some air defence from the baby carriers too. That, my dear chaps, is why STOVL came about - and what a good British idea it was too!(Not trying to give a history lesson!
)
The Harrier is still great at its job - it proved useful in Telic and is busy in Afghanistan by all acounts. How important is STOVL in modern day ops though?? Granted in Afghanistan it is just what is needed, but now that we don't need to conduct dispersed ops in Germany and the navy have the chance of acquiring these 'bigger than everything except Nimitz' CVFs, isn't purchasing CTOL a good idea? As has been very sensibly said just above - more miles and bombs must be better than having a couple of choices of approach back at base?!
Do the RAF need STOVL badly enough today to forego the chance to acquire a jet with increased capability? The CVFs will be big enough for CTOL so the navy don't have to have STOVL. Just why is it that STOVL is the 1st choice for UK MOD?? I'm not saying it shouldn't be and I am eager to hear reasons why we still need it over jets that are simply, well - better?!
