I'm assuming that he is criticising the ATO cycle, but the way he has written his letter, (and given his previous rants I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate) the general public reader would assume he meant that Harrier on a carrier in the Gulf could be on task in Afghanistan in 30 minutes.
Knowing the often heavy-handed editing that precedes the publication of most letters, I doubt what was printed bears much resemblance to what was submitted. However, even I can see that Sharkey isn't suggesting that a
carrier-based Harrier could be on task over Afghanistan within 30 minutes. He is questioning current procedural practices for their land-based equivalents which he states need 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces.
I have seen much from RAF sources about mission flexibility being restricted by the ATO published the previous day and the inability to provide blanket cover. Instead of simply castigating Sharkey and deliberately misinterpreting his words, would someone care to explain in a rational manner whether he has a valid point or not?