Fwiw I've got no experience, but I do have a mind capable of rational thought, at least I think I have. I'd say the deep strike capability of GR4 and Stormshadow would be a massive loss had the 'govern'ment coin fallen the other way. GR4 can do most of the Harrier job, I'm not sure Harrier can do most of the Tornado job up to 2020. GR4 and SS would be crucial in a 'real' war, not to mention the SEAD role with ALARM.
A controversial point, but taking in to account there are Typhoons at MPA, other than a Falklands scenario against a really pikey adversary, what would we achieve in a real war with only 15 Ground Attack Harriers aboard a floating target that's akin to having all your eggs in 1 basket. How many sorties are achievable with only 15 a/c, not taking in to account attrition and serviceability issues. How much of an impact could they really have considering the massive cost of the whole operation i.e. the carrier, support vessels, defence vessels etc against the risk of 1 exocet rendering the whole basket useless.
I reckon 'they' made the right decision, although if they didn't continually waste our taxes, maybe the decision would never have had to have been made in the first place. I'd personally rather we keep the flexible kit that we can utilise in a real shooting war against serious adversaries, as it can also be used in small (politician ego) wars too.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 13th Apr 2011 at 22:02.