Well, assuming that there is some truth in this story as published on Timesonline; then this is all very sad. I hold our armed services in tremendous regard and to see the levels to which all have been reduced is nothing short of criminal, and yes I would be willing pay an extra penny on income tax if I was assured it would make some difference.
The timing of the Harrier story here makes me think it is a pre-emptive strike on behalf of 1SL, to try and build up some support for Harrier and FAA fixed wing aviation before Herrick becomes the responsibility of Tornado GR4. Will it work? I very much doubt it. Much like the Jag, SHAR’s, most of the AD fleet and many capabilities in other armed services that were once viewed as essential I suspect that the writing is on the wall for Harrier. My hunch is that the decision to cut has already been taken and that it will be announced as soon as it is politically expedient to do so – next Summer with a Apr ’10 close out date anyone? Maybe that’s a bit aggressive but I fear that in these economically challenging times anything is possible.
Is it the right decision? Of course not. I note with interest the use of the term ‘legacy’ by some pruners when referring to Harrier; surely this term is equally appropriate for Tornado GR4 and Typhoon as well as practically every other offensive and defensive platform out there – except may be some UAVs and F/A-22, F-35. Particularly with complex military systems, where they can take so long to reach maturity, I feel that use of the term legacy can be extremely misleading and implies a capability that is either no longer needed or is not fit for purpose any more – neither of which apply to Harrier in my opinion.
The root of all these funding problems is, in my opinion, due firstly to the Government of the days complete lack of respect for our armed services (and I don’t believe any of our political parties is any better than the others); and secondly in the requirement for our Armed Services to support our Defence Infrastructure rather than it being the other way round, as it should be. There is the obvious ludicrousy of spending circa £3.5bn to re-engineer 9-12 40-odd year old Nimrod airframes, plus the many billions that were thrown at Eurofighter in the development/bickering stages and next in line, the carriers. On top of that there is the slow drip-drip supply of funding, most of which the general public don’t have visibility of, which is done purely to allow BAESystems and others to keep the coffers rolling in – anyone remember the Adour 106 re-engine program shortly before Jag was canned or how about the £100 million Capability Upgrade Program on F3 just prior to drawdown, Link-16 on SHAR, the list is pretty much endless and it does add up to a lot of serious cash. GR9, upgraded Pegasus and Harrier obviously being another good example.
Not sure what the answer is though. All I will say is that if 1SL, CAS, CDS, etc still believe that, by taking a capability cut or two today, it will lead to more jam tomorrow then I am sure that they will end up being disappointed.