So is this an admission that the Tornado GR4, for all its strengths, isn't quite as good for Close Air Support as Harrier would have been? Or is it an admission that in this case, even with friendly air bases being used, land based jets based 600 miles away are unable to respond quickly enough to deal with urgent (and fleeting) targets?
Neither; the Apache is a completely different capability... Hence why it is deployed in Afghanistan alongside GR4s, and formerly alongside GR9s. It is excellent at what it does and will no doubt be very helpful for the sorts of things that neither GR4s or GR9s (or fast jets in general) can do. I think the Tornado Force seem to be doing a pretty good job.
Firstly another volcano erupting in Iceland, with possible disruption to UK aviation. Are RAF sorties still being flown all the way from the UK to Libya? If so, this may be something of a problem
No, it really won't. Ash will not trouble a GR4 any more than it would a GR9, but if we are being
highly abstract and wished to invade Iceland right now, an engine failure would be more rapidly terminal in a GR9. Storm Shadow ops were presumably flown from the UK because it was logistically easier, not because it couldn't be done from elsewhere.
More significantly, the UK is now opting to deploy Ocean based Apaches to Libya, as mentioned here by the Telegraph, and on this PPRuNe thread
Agreed, an LPH is essential as helicopters are slow and range-limited. But the mischievous bit of me thinks that if the RN can drive the ship and another Service can operate the aircraft....
Honestly WEBF, I'm all in favour of a strong Navy and think that having Harriers would be better than not having Harriers (I suspect few would disagree), but since we have cuts forced upon us I'm not sure what I would ditch instead to pay for them.