This is really hard work.
Capt P U G Wash,
Do you run the Media Handling Course? Your ability to answer - bridge and communicate away from the points I raise to sell Tornado is quite alarming (do you see what I did there?)
You general comments about transition are all super. What capabilities we will be allowed to leave behind once combat ops cease (due to cost and what the emerging Defence Strategic Direction guides us towards) may or may not include fast jets. As a balanced force, of course it should. They do not need to be Tornado.
Your points:
1. I agree. They don't need to be Tornado. There are plenty of other aircraft that deliver munitions from nowhere. Folks reading might think that you're over egging Tornado capability.
2. Good for them. But they don't need to be in theatre.
3. It's not my doctrine. I'm not suggesting anyone be so blinkered as to be black and white about anything. I'm not saying that you don't need aircraft. The point of me entering this debate was to hopefully have a more intelligent debate than someone spouting AP3000 at me. When the Army are asked what they lose first, their response will be that as long as they get fast jet support - or just air support of any kind that fulfils their requirements for fires - from
someone they'd prefer to lose non-combat personnel before they lose combat numbers. Go and speak to an Army bloke, he's the one that drives UK doctrine whether the RAF or Navy like it or not.
I'm glad you disagree with the (incorrect) assertion that 150 troops gives the same or better effect as 8 GR4. I disagree too. It is clearly not comparing apples with apples and you have misunderstood the point and ABC'd to a whole new bit of
PR.
4. I agree. I've never disagreed. But they don't need to be Tornado.
5. I'm not making a false assumption - where did I say it was the only device in the chain? Tornado being in theatre is not the reason we're successful against IEDs.
6. Couldn't agree more. Which is why (I assume) the USMC is investing in heavily in Bastion to ensure that its fast air is really on the doorstep where it's needed (as opposed to being XX minutes away.)
"This thread is not really about Tornado options..." Oh, I thought it was. ('Tornados to be axed' is the name of the thread?)
What this thread most certainly is not about is a
PR campaign to keep Tornado in theatre by spinning capabilities that can and will be achieved by other platforms if the tough decisions on manpower reductions need to be made.
I reiterate: If we could keep UK fast jets in theatre, we should keep them. But let's not for a minute pretend that other assets couldn't mitigate the capabilities provided by Tornado even if that increased some risk.