Perhaps we could try to get back on topic?
1. Was the decision to go without the carrier strike capability for a decade made upon a policy of non intervention?
2. Does the intervention in Libya (note the enthusiasm of our Prime Minister) signal a change of policy? If so, do the SDSR decisions need to be looked at again? The last letter I received from the Minister made specific mention of SDSR highlighting non combatant evacuation operations as something we need to be able to do - but surely we are going far beyond a NEO now?
3. Do the ongoing changes in the Middle East and North Africa render the SDSR assumptions null and void?
4. What percentage of sorties being flown over Libya are by shipborne aircraft? Are there verifiable statistics?
5. What would happen if Italy decided to no longer allow their bases to be used for offensive missions?
6. Long term strategy is that we should have carrier strike capability in 2020. Without embarking jets over the next few years, is that feasible? Plots can be sent on exchange with the Americans or French, as can a FEW others,
but what about the large numbers of aircraft handlers who need exprience of working with live jet aircraft on deck, the OOW and bridge personnel, navigator, ATC and fighter controllers, not to mention Marine Engineering watchkeepers, personnel to operate and maintain sensors, communications systems, and landing aids....amongst others, not to mention the Captain, Cdr(Air) and other members of the command team.
How will
their skills be maintained? How will the
corporate experience be retained? (MOD does not know.)
7. Since
Illustrious is being retained until 2014, and
Queen Elizabeth should enter service in 2014 (or so), most of this decade we should be able to embark Harriers from the US, Italy, or Spain. Will we? Or would that be too embarrassing for the Government?
8. Apparently (according to the Minister) Italy and Spain retain smaller Harrier fleets than us at lower cost because they have a Memorandum of Understanding (with the US?). Why can't we do the same? In recent years the USMC has embarked AV8Bs (ok AV8B+ I know) aboard Illustrious or Ark Royal to have a period of flying, the RN has benefited from having jets embarked during the period of the Harrier commitment to Afghanistan, and the USMC has had a ship where their Harriers were the main focus instead of playing second fiddle to the helicopters.
I see little benefit in writing/emailing the Minister again (doesn't stop others though), but
why do we not sign a MOU giving the USMC a period of training with their jets embarked for up to a month, perhaps a couple of times year, in exchange for a loan/lease of ten or so AV8B(+)s?
9. What is happening with our seventy odd Harrier GR9s? They still exist......
10. Does the massive number of views that this thread has been getting mean that politicians, journalist, academics, etc., are reading?
11. See
RN Year Zero
Even in the few months since SDSR was announced there have been several happenings with the potential for strategic shock (a topic that we have discussed here before). These include North Korea’s shelling of South Korea, the civil unrest in North Africa, Egypt and the wider Arab world, and the continuing world financial crisis. It is, by definition, harder to predict what strategic shocks may occur in the future, but, as Colin Gray has reminded us in his book, ‘Another Bloody Century’, there will be war of one sort or another. To meet these dangers, the UK’s Naval Staff is predicting change, yes, but change in straight-line, uniform ways.
12. These two videos may interest you.
Oh look, a Harrier landing on a ship....
Sensible responses that deal with points 1-12 will be appreciated, as opposed to personal attacks on retired Officers commenting in the media, or going of on a tangent. If YOU are a journalist or politician, why not contact the MOD and/or No10 Downing Street and see if you can get any answers.