WEBF,
The RN may or may not have “consumed as much of the defence budget as the Army or the RAF”. That’s not what I said. I just pointed out that it had consumed a “disproportionate amount of our limited defence budget for decades” and that much of that expenditure has been on big ticket, grandiose and inappropriate systems (like Trident, Polaris and Chevaline).
You assume that proportionate means one third of the budget available, whereas I'd see a small Navy consuming a relatively small fraction of available funding. We need a small Euro-Navy (like the Dutch or the Germans) yet we persist in maintaining a global Empire-protecting and cash-quzzling monster.
And yes, I have read your letter on the other thread, and noticed a raft of lies and mistakes.
The Sea Harrier’s serviceability is not ‘good’
Sea Harrier cannot carry ALARM (never cleared or integrated)
Sea Harrier can no longer carry Sea Eagle (not in RN service)
Sea Harrier has no autonomous laser designation capability
Sea Harrier has no recce capability beyond a single oblique F95
Which CBUs and rockets are currently cleared for service use on the FA2, by the way?
Your claim that the Sea Harrier FA2 is the most versatile aircraft in Britain's inventory is a blatant lie. It’s capable enough in the air to air role, but apart from that it’s probably the least versatile fast jet aircraft in the inventory.
Sea Harrier may have had acceptable bringback in the Adriatic (though not according to some of those I’ve spoken to), but it is certainly inadequate in the Gulf.
£100 million was the figure given for the saving due to the cost of the upgrade (though this is a major under-estimate), and represents a tiny fraction of the total cost savings gained by early retirement of the SHar.