Sorry WEBF, but I have to side with Captain Pugwash. Far too much has been said about the Harrier's all round panacea capability. It is after all a Battlefield Support Fighter and nothing more. I don't care what upgrades to the GR7 into the GR9 have been made or how it coped in Afghanistan, the remaining Harrier Force would have been much harder pressed to maintain operations in Afghanistan and still provide a Carrier full to go and participate in whatever venture or scheme Cameron had in mind for Libya.
But as Pugwash says, this was an R.A.F. asset. It is they who were ordered to lose one of the three remaining Fast Jet combat types. Even after the loss of two GR4 Squadrons they're still left with 5 squadrons to the single unit of Harriers they would be left with, if they ditched the Tornado instead. This might have been great for the prestige of Naval Aviation and popular as a result of the public appeal surrounding the Harrier, but it would have been a much greater disaster, than it is, for the R.A.F's already over diminished frontline. As for alluding to ditching the Typhoon for the sake of retaining jump jets, you've got to be joking.
I simply don't buy the argument that the Tornado is useless, just because it can't hover and operate from a Carrier deck. I've not heard any complaints yet about its operation in theatre. I'm sure there were no complaints about the Harrier either, but while I'd sign up anytime to retain the whole lot, if one has to go, then let it be the smallest cut of all, not the biggest.
FB
