The Shar Decision - Questioning "Their Lordships"`

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jacko

You are starting to show yourself up. Polaris was a NATIONAL system, not a naval asset. Polaris was cheaper than Skybolt or similar being carried by RAF Nimrods. Chevaline was an upgrade to Polaris. As for Trident, the same arguments applied. the Navy never really wanted it, and the Naval vote got clobbered for paying for it. Does the 1981 Defence White Paper mean anything to you?

So, you want a "small Euro-Navy" do you? Why do you think it should be like the Dutch or the Germans? Why not the French? We have world wide involvements, and these simply cannot be achieved without naval forces. The whole modern idea of expeditionery warfare means we need more than a brown water Navy. Look at the UK contribution to Operation Sharp Guard, the NATO enforcement of the arms embargo on the warring parties during the conflict in Bosnia. We deployed (over the years) TWENTY frigates and destroyers AND five Fleet Submarines. This was entirely seperate to the deployment of a CVS and Sea Harriers etc.

Certainly your ideas would mean the ending of any amphibious capabilities. But hey, maybe your idea of a balanced fleet is a few RAF Regiment Gunners patrolling the waterways around Norfolk?
The idea that a maritime nation like ours can do without a reasonable fleet is ludicrous. You should consider what Churchill said to a similar statement in 1914: "Are you sure? It would be a pity to be wrong". During the Kosovo "war" people kept criticising the NATO leaders and pointing out the the only way to really effect events would be to use (or threaten to use) troops on the ground. The same is true at sea, the capbilities of airpower are limited. You need ships, and the means to protect these ships.

Now for your criticisms of my letter....

1. My letter was six pages (of A4) long. You have only found a few things to argue with. Hardly full of lies and misinformation, is it?
2. The Sea Harriers servicabilty. Interesting topic isn't it? "Good" and "not good" are not particularly helpful terms. Various people have told me the Sea Harrier's servicability is much the same as the other FJ aircraft the UK operates. Servicabilty is largely due to the ability to get spare quicky. With the current DLO fiasco, this is a impossibilty. Consider the problems the RAF Sea Kings are having due to lack of spares. Or the Tank regiments. Or ANYONE else.
3. Yes, Sea Eagle is no longer routinely carried aboard the carriers, but the capability still exists.
4. Air Forces Monthly (I assume that you don't write for them) was the source for much of the information I used, and it was confirmed by various people, including a friend who is involved the the world of defence journalism. This is where the ALARM info came from.
5. I never said the Sea Harrier had a Laser target designator, did I? Stop twisting my words.
6. Nor did I say it carried more than a F95 for reece.
7. Bringback is not such an issue with air defence weapon loads than with air to ground ones. As I said, the new engine would improve this. Anyway, why would you take off with a full bomb load unless you expected to drop them? So hence the ability to bring them back is less important. 8. I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about cost. But the savings gained by getting rid of the Sea Harrier will be more than wiped out if we lose several ships needlessly. Personally I care more about the lives at risk.