JAJ,
A Tornado (or any other aircraft, shore or ship based) can only respond to 'fleeting' targets if:
1. The target is identified, located and passed to the aircraft
2. The aircraft is equipped to hit it and:
3. if the aircraft is close enough to hit it in time.
3 depends on how many aircraft you have on task over the wide potential target area, and what they are carrying. News today from Misrata (excellent report from C4) indicates that NATO don't have enough aircraft on task, or they are not equipped to attack rockets and artillery (typical fleeting targets). In summary, the GR4s and Typhoons (and the other NATO jets) are not 'doing just fine', unless what is happening in Misrata counts as 'just fine'.
And this is where the controversy comes in. Are people still denying that 15 Harriers based around 10 miles off the coast (and moved close up to Misrata, or another area of interest) could not provide a greater density of CAS cover than 15 land based aircraft operating from around 300 plus miles away?
Harriers (8 aircraft squadrons) maintained 2 ship day CAP cover at around 100 miles for days on end from the early 80s. It's hard work, high flying rates, and not practised for some time. But it can be done. Damn shame we can't do it now.
And when fleeting targets are the problem, the Apache (from a CVS) would be exactly what is needed - precision 30mm cannon fire would deliver maximum effect and destroy morale faster than anything else. Not 'quite useful'.
As ever, this is not to denigrate the RAF crews who are wringing a fantastic performance out of their aircraft, and making a huge contribution to helping the Libyan people - they are the most professional air force in the world, in my book. We don't have a choice now, they are the people in the battle, and let's support them all the way. But let's not kid ourselves while we do that.
Best regards
Engines.