Originally Posted by Engines
The Navy did not (and I know this to be true) advocate ditching the 'completely useless GR4'. They have aviation professionals just like the RAF does, and they don't indulge in stuff like that. The choice of 'GR4 versus Harrier' was convenient for the Treasury, but the Services didn't have to go along with it. Reductions in Tornado, keep some Harriers, or other alternatives weren't properly looked at, in my view. However, we can amicably differ on that.
You go a bit off the end next though. It's plain wrong that the carriers were incapable of being posted where they might be needed for fear of an air attack. 15 years of being unable to use them as they were designed? What staff course did you hear that one at?
Staff Course??? Wash your mouth out with soap Sir, I am a Professional Aviator, I don't do "staff". lol
End game is we have lost GR4s
and GR9, so I don't see how we could have given up more GR4s for GR9s without reducing below a critical mass, at least for current ops. And now that the time between op deployments is reduced, regaining contingency currencies is going to be even harder.
15 years was my stab in the dark. How long ago was the FA2 taken out of service? How long before the carrier has an airborne AD capability? 15 years was a rough guess. Reasoning....well if the carrier cannot defend itself out to the launch range of most anti-ship missiles, they will be heavily restricted as to where they can be deployed....effectively outside the range of any capable platform. I haven't looked at what ac or anti-ship missiles the Libyans have in their inventory, but I find it difficult to believe they don't have something which would have to be taken into account when planning the location of the carrier. This must massively reduce their capability to deploy the GR9 (how many can they carry when they also have FA2 embarked?) without land-based AR support. Does that make sense?