Widger,
re your reply to my reply - again, we seem to be violently agreeing. I am not talking about "hopping on for a week or so". It is just that my unit of measure of air power naturally tends to be squadrons of jets, rather than carriers with jets on them. And in almost every post I have made on this subject, I have qualified my remarks by saying that I do appreciate that there is a great deal involved in getting a CAG effective. Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier
when I suggested that jets should not be automatically tied to a carrier (in the same post that I said I would expect them to be embarked most of the time). I think we are on the same side.
Also, for clarity,
The RN generically has neither the people or the kit to Command and Control FJ assets at either the operational or tactical level.
was posted by orca, not me. I found it naive and told him so in as many words in my last post.
Allthenick,
You're absolutely right that people are missing the point over who should own the assets - and I think you included. You said:
If the light blue got hold of the FJ's they'd never see any time on a carrier. The RN would have no control over it, I suspect it would nearly always be deployed elsewhere. And ultimately the RAF would always give a No to any request. Why? - simple! If you ask RAF personell to go to sea for months on end then your soon going to have a retention problem, Start filling those gaps with other personell then you will have a recruitment problem. Every crab I have ever met (and there have been many) have said no to the sea option. I think the status quo (jointery) is still the best solution.
Please read my comments to orca - your comment merely shows that you don't understand our current doctrine. When it comes to ops, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH SERVICE OPERATES THE ASSETS. That is the status quo (jointery) to which you refer. The RN does not request Harriers from the RAF, PJHQ directs force elements to an operation.
As for going to sea, RAF personnel have done it and I don't see them running out of the doors. If you want to have an idea of how offensive I find your assertion, think how you'd feel if I said that Naval Strike Wing shouldn't be used in Afghanistan because they joined up to go to sea so will all leave if you based them on land. We're servicemen - we go where we're told and if the way we operate changes a few people might bump their gums but after a few years, no-one really remembers any different. Yes, people matter, and, yes, we DID have a problem in certain parts of the RAF getting to grips with what being expeditionary really means, but we are way past that now and still working on it.