I thank Mr Farley for his comment but I do believe that the letter that he refers to is misleading:
In the case of the Tornado accidents Mr Dow mentions, these were associated with runway length and hot and high aspects of performance.
I do believe that the Tornado accidents he refers to do not indicate any superiority of the Harrier over the Tornado. In fact for the one that was lost outside the wire, the very same result would have occured with the Harrier.
Secondly, on the subject of suggesting a nuclear QRA capability reads across to a scramble shout of a current GR4 in Afghanistan is definitely dodgy, I cannot fathom this. Whether sitting RS-whatever in a portacabin in the desert or in a HAS has almost direct read accross and the fact that the INUs (probably the slowest part of any scramble) have been improved over that of the GR1 only serves to improve the situation.
Finally, my experience as an ALO on the ground in Afghanistan was that neither the Harrier, the Tornado or the F-15E were the No1 choice for my land forces. The choice of champions for FIRES support was either the A-10 or AC-130 backed up by an MQ-9 REAPER doing armed-overwatch and a pair of Apaches covering the HAF by UK support helos. This was often much to the annoyance of the Harriers on GCAS, who just weren't wanted
.
Good day to you Mr Farley.
Mr Jabachjabicz