Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

[foldingwings]

I have every sympathy with the Harrier Force and I would have felt an equal wrench if, in 1994, the Bucc had been taken from Service as a cost-saving measure rather than at the end of its outstanding 25-year career in the RAF, which it was.

My take on it is, however, that the writing has been on the wall for the Harrier ever since the SHAR was taken out of service early - a decision, I believe, that was supported by the Navy to secure the future of JSF and the new carriers! In addition, the decision to withdraw Ark and insist on LUST being a helo platform until her withdrawal is a further indicator of a Navy that is hell bent it would seem (and damn the consequences) in pouring good money after bad on these 2 aircraft carriers that will now not enter useful service until 2020 (or thereabouts). No Ark, No LUST, No QE2 or PoW then what value a Harrier, for example, over a Tornado? Yes, it can turn tighter corners when doing CAS. Yes, it can carry a multitude of weapons at the same time. But it no longer operates off short strips and is not cleared for the strategically valuable Storm Shadow (a decision taken by a very senior Harrier pilot to remove it from that programme in the late 90s before contract sign). The Harrier doesn't have the legs a Tornado has and, consequently, it is a 'one-trick pony' which has proved great value in FI and Afghan but is probably less useful in a future (I accept different type) conflict in which we might be engaged and definitely so, if it has no sea-launch capability.

Of course, whilst I blame the Navy to some extent for putting themselves in the position of trying to recreate the 'Spirit of the 60s' with Global Power Projection - a game we can no longer afford to play, in my opinion - I firmly lay the blame at the door of the Blair/Brown combo who got us into this sticky mess (and here I mean in terms of: war; the financial cost of war (which was supposed to come from Brown's Contingency Fund but came mainly from the MOD Budget); and the signing of a contract for 2 aircraft carriers to secure votes in a constituency - a crazy contract that will cost us more to withdraw from than continue with whether we want, need or can use the carriers in the end!) in the first place.

It's also important to note that with another defence review in 2015 (a sensible Cameron decision to hold them every 5 years in future) there can be no guarantees that fleet carriers will survive that round as the govt's take could easily be - we haven't needed them for 5 years why should we need them 5 years in the future! I hate to say it but I can see the end of FAA Fixed Wing flying before 2020!

So it's sad that the Harrier had to go but something had to give and, I believe, the correct aircraft will be taken out of service next year. Those GR4s that remain bring more to the party than the Harrier would during our 10-year capability gap.

If I offend anybody here, I do not mean to. If I have got any facts wrong please correct me (politely).

Foldie