Who's showing themselves up?
Skybolt was cancelled by the US before we could buy it. It was cheaper than Polaris. The last strategic air launched nuke carried by RAF aircraft was Blue Steel. It wasn't carried by Nimrods, but by Vulcans and Victors.
Any weapons system could be seen as a national asset. The RN, however, took over the strategic deterrent role (with alacrity) and therefore took reponsibility for it. To describe the Admiralty as 'never really wanting it' is bonkers.
The cost effectiveness of Polaris is extremely controversial, but few would describe it as having represented value for money. Chevaline is widely reckoned to have been an almost complete waste of time and money.
If the aim is to provide a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent I'd argue that Trident is similarly weak.
Yes, a small Euro Navy. And like the Dutch or the Germans and not the French because they spend to much on sea power too, doubtless labouring under a similar legacy of Imperial and Colonial tradition. Why not? Especially if we could then spend money on more relevant and frequently used capabilities like SEAD, or could avoid FSTA being a half-arsed PPP or PFI, or could afford a couple of squadrons of C-17s, or a proper number of Longbow Apaches, etc.
Your bias against air power is beginning to show, especially in your comments about Allied Farce!
1) Couldn't be arsed to go through it in detail, just highlighted the real problems.
2) Exactly. By comparison with other FJs the SHar has a poor serviceability record (fair enough, it's an old jet and it operates in an unfavourable environment). You specifically said the opposite.
3) Sea Eagle is no longer in service. The capability no longer exists - except in India!
4) AFM, god love 'em, are wrong on ALARM. It's never been integrated on SHar, and I've never even heard of it being fit-checked or seriously feas.studded. I'm not going to tell you whether or not I write for them - you might realise that I am, in fact Oscar Wilde, and thereby destroy the anonymity of my PPRUNE handle.... (Oh Bu**er!)
5) You inferred that the SHar ("the most versatile aircraft in Britain's inventory") had a viable PGM capability. It doesn't except as a dumb, bomb truck.
6) You described the SHar ("the most versatile aircraft in Britain's inventory") the FJ with the poorest recce capability in the inventory as being the most versatile, and highlighted its recce capability. An F95 does not really count!
7) Bringback's an issue, especially if you're claiming that SHar is an all-singing, all-dancing, versatile multi-role aircraft. Andits relevant in the AA role, too, sometimes, especially since AMRAAM cannot be jettisoned by SHar, but (god forbid) has to be fired if the aircraft cannot get down to landing weight with them attached!
8) You don't want to talk about cost. What a surprise. Any cutbacks will result in some increase in risk, it's all about risk assessment and risk management. More lives would be saved by spending the SHar pot of money on (say) decent SEAD capability or better EW for other FJ types.
8)