Kaikohe76
What is so very sad, but not at all suprising over this particular situation, is that absolutely nobody in authority has put their hand up & said, the idea to scrap the harrier is total c*ap!
The assumption here is that "deleting" the Harrier is the only option. Is it? Or is this some very unprofessional whining by CNS (or his staff) who have been economical with the full truth in order to gain sympathy (or an attempt at gaining the emotional/moral high ground). I would be VERY surprised if there are not "reduce" options being proposed for either or both fleets. Or, as Jacko has alluded to, if neither of these are achieved there may be a need to bring forward out of service dates (again, for both fleets).
Orca
approximately 1/3 of all combat air sorties come from a boat
Which means, due to the transit time, they cannot maintain runway readiness (or whatever the buzz phrase is these days) but must maintain airborne patrols. Which eats into fatigue life and airframe hours. Which brings forward the Harrier OSD considerably (unless oodles of money are spent on them). Lose/lose sadly. Whichever platform we use to provide the capability in this particular theatre of ops must, IMHO, be land based.
Still think carrier aviation has its place in the broader defence requirements but I also believe that the only way we are going to be able to maintain that capability through to QEII/PoW with Dave B on board (personally prefer Dave C) is with a leaner, reduced JFH. And, broken record time, I still don't care what the colour of the pilots cloth is! After all he (or she) will soon tell me they are a Harrier pilot
