Pheasant,
OK, perhaps I have missed the point, because I don't seem to understand your post - it's almost as if you haven't read mine.
Yes, carriers and amphib forces are required as part of an expeditionary capability - I never said they weren't, and I'm not advocating getting rid of them - but this debate isn't about that. If you want to talk about the carriers, then perhaps you should be posting on the Future Carrier thread. I'm also not saying that we HAVE to cut Harrier - merely that there are tough choices and we can't exclude Harrier for the consideration - clearly we have a lot more Tornado and Typhoon, but as you will appreciate if you understand what has been going on in MoD and DE&S these past few years, cutting them wouldn't actually save us any money compared to Harrier. If we could come p with a practical way of making savings by reducing Tornado/Typhoon and still keep an embarked aviation capability, clearly that would be the best way to go - but carrier aviation is no more sacrosanct than than any other aspect of expeditionary capability (which, btw, isn't ALL from the sea). You can't just say "we
must have this, and so if someone else has to take some pain, then so be it" - there's more to it than that. It is simplistic in the extreme to suggest that CAS is trying to remove a capability from defence just because he wants to - you are absolutely right when you say he can't.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by
Under current policy there is a requirement to train RN aircrew.....so do it.
My understanding of current policy is that there is a requirement to train sufficient aircrew to fly the jets we as a nation need to operate. It doesn't actually say which service they have to come from, and while what is soon to be the contractorised, joint training system has its faults, it is again parochial and paranoid to blame "the RAF" for not training "enough" RN aircrew.
While I would be the first to admit that the RAF has an unhealthy emphasis on fast jets, I also think some in the RN need to grow up and start thinking about what's best for defence, rather than how they can keep as much capability organic 'dark blue' as possible regardless of whether it's best value or not. The RAF is not whiter than white in this regard either; but let's all concentrate on getting the job done. If we are to have carrier air power, then the important thing is that it is delivered most effectively and efficiently - and whether it has 'RAF' or 'RN' painted on the fin makes not a jot of difference to that. If it turns out that the best value for defence is to get the USN to train RN pilots then fine, but by the same token it might be best value for the RAF to run it all. I can contemplate both possibilities; if you feel your blood rising at the suggestion then you may be allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.