When the Indians and the Omanis both manage to operate Jags hot and high, there seems to be no compelling reason why we shouldn't. Especially if the rumoured offers of basing from Quetta are true.
The real question is why the Jag is being sidelined and isn't being used.
If we need more CAS than the Harrier force can provide, then why aren't the Jags being used? The Jag will never have any short field capability, but its ability to operate from austere strips is well proven. Surely to god it isn't beyond the wit of man to find a long enough runway for this jet (which is more FOD resistant that the Hooverrier GR7)?
I'm by no means convinced that loading more on the Harrier force is remotely sensible. These jets will have a hard enough job stretching to the planned OSD of 2017 (and may require expensive rear fuselage replacements to do so) and if the F-35 is delayed any more, then that OSD will have to slip further.
Retaining Jags offered a heaven-sent opportunity to keep hours off the GR7s/9s, helping to baby them through to their OSD, and ensuring that we had enough Harriers, for long enough, to man the boat and do all those things that only a puffer jet can do.
Could it be that to use the Jag in Afghanistan would be to confirm its usefulness, and would thereby raise questions as to the wisdom of withdrawing it early?
Can any other RAF FJ platform use the JRP to its full capability yet, in the way that Jag already does? Or will they ever? Does any other RAF FJ offer such low operating costs? Does any other RAF FJ offer the same avalability and sortie rate during deployed ops? Does any other RAF FJ have as good a TIALD integration yet?
Or perhaps an interim buy/lease of 24 surplus Swedish Gripen As would plug the gap?