PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
View Single Post
Old 28th Mar 2011, 16:47
  #455 (permalink)  
Finningley Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,854
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
Why would CAS be influencing frigates or destroyers? He doesn't operate any and never will. The RN/RM operates on the land, on the sea, under the sea and in the air so 1SL has an absolute requirement to ensure he influences what happens with aircraft that flew from his decks.

Given the binary SDSR requirement of either GR4 or Harrier you would not have found me arguing for the complete deletion of GR4. But that would have been an objective capability based position as opposed to those who might have other motives.

By SDSR the mass of Harrier had been whittled down well below that required of Defence so in order to achieve the most cost effective, most flexible, most deployable acceptable minimum mass of Offensive Support Defence should have gone for a GR4/GR9 mix until Typhoon (or JCA) provided what one or both could now.
FB11,

My point about the CAS influencing the number and use of Frigates and Destoyers was a purely hypothetical analogy, not a literal suggestion of what might be the case. As for the GR4/GR9 mix, I couldn't agree more, indeed I'd have thought retention of both airframes with the more abundant GR4s making a sacrifice of two or even three squadrons would have been a more realistic application of defence cuts while still accepting, albeit resentfully where the treasury is concerned, the need to allow military thinking influence the outcome of the SDSR. When the press were talking about the R.A.F. having to give up a Fast Jet type, it struck me they were talking out of their backsides again. If I may be indulged another WWII analogy, it was like saying you can have Lancasters or Spitfires, but not both. I can't help thinking that the loss of Ark Royal and Illustrious and of course, the Harriers in total, was a price the 1st SL had to pay in order to retain the future two carriers. Lose 'em in order to get bigger and better ones a decade down the line! If there is one thing about this SDSR which is for sure, it is devoid of any military rationale. And I would know, cause I'm very interested in this kind of thing!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline