FB11,
I'm sure you have deliberately failed to notice the deliberate understatement in my use of the word subtle. Please don't try to give me a history lesson on World War II. If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't have axed the bluidy carriers and Harriers either if it was my responsibility. Furthermore, those on here making the light blue argument doubtless feel the same. But trying to suggest that faced with the strict confines of making a decision to lose either 45 Harriers or 130 Tornados (please don't point out in your reply that two sqns of GR4s are going anyway, it still leaves a much bigger force than the Harriers) is, to use the modern oft used expression, a no brainer! I'm sure if the 1st Sea Lord had his way, indeed it would be the other way round. Wouldn't it be great if the CAS could inluence which Destroyers, Frigates and Submarines were to be axed. The influence over ditching the carriers, was unfortunate, but as the Harriers are an R.A.F. asset.. well there you go. Bring 'em back by all means, but not at the expense of the bulk of the R.A.F's offensive capability. Perhaps the Harriers could be brought back as a purely Naval asset? Wouldn't that be a good idea!
FB
