Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

[draken55]

High Spirits

To a large extent we agree but you have to bear in mind that in the UK that we still have doctrinal issues over what should really be a question of a practical nature. Perhaps this started with Lord Trenchard who himself called "for the replacement of land and sea forces by air power", which he maintained, "could do the same job at less cost". A read of the Libya thread on this site reveals many believe that air power alone can still achieve the desired result at less cost in financial and human terms, at least to us. Land or Sea based I don't think this will ever prove to be the case short of all out conflict between States.

So I don't believe a politician went to CAS and demanded the removal of an entire aircraft type. All the evidence is that CAS offered the Harrier (and LRMPA) to retain Tornado and Typhoon as this was the right answer for the RAF at a time when cuts were being demanded. It discarded years of Nimrod experience and also left the Navy without aircraft for it's carriers but thanks to the slash and burn rationale behind SDSR this call was made. In any event Carrier Strike was not about Maritime Air Power but Power Projection pure and simple and the latter remains for many the RAF's prime function. Pending the F-35 the Harrier could not be the answer to that question in the meantime!

In the next few years we will make do with what we have with Typhoon perhaps advancing more quickly to become a genuine swing role aircraft thanks to the impact of the Libya ops. I can see a Typhoon deployment to Afghanistan in a year or so and then a hastened drawdown of Tornado as the next RAF contribution to reduce the MOD's structural deficit.

As to the creation of that MOD deficit, it just too depressing but let's just say that in common with most Government spending it's shocking how much is wasted! We spend piles, often for no obvious return in terms of new and working kit.