Originally Posted by Archimedes
Sharkey's claims:
Launched from a carrier, the Harrier has at least as good firepower as the Tornado and can be on task delivering weapons within 30 minutes of a call for urgent support from ground forces.
Bit of an ask for Afghanistan, since I imagine that the transit from a CVS to the TIC would take a bit longer than 30 minutes...
Now you're having a laugh. You know perfectly well he's referring to the Libyan scenario. As for the claim about weapons, I know Harrier wasn't cleared for Brimstone but am led to believe this was in the pipeline before it was withdrawn from service. I also know Harrier is unsuited as a platform for Storm Shadow but this could still have been launched by land-based a/c when necessary; I've always regarded land and sea-based air as complementary, not mutually exclusive. However, carrier-based Rafales have launched SCALP EG, the French equivalent of Storm Shadow.
Originally Posted by Archimedes
In stark contrast, the Tornado and other land-based aircraft operating from Italy have a transit time of 1.5 hours to get to the target and require air-to-air refuelling. Further, these land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours' notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces
Others can comment from experience (within the constraints of OPSEC, of course), but my understanding from both TGR and Harrier mates (including dark blue in the latter) would lead me to conclude that either the letter has been edited to the point that it is nonsense, or that Cdr Ward wrote nonsense in the first place.
Sharkey's first point is self-evident. Isn't his second point prescribed by the ATO i.a.w a set target list if you don't have sufficient quick reaction a/c available close to the JOA?
Originally Posted by Archimedes
This major delay puts lives at risk; not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan, where the same appalling procedural practices are employed.
Clearly depends upon the accuracy of his previous paragraph, but are the 'same appalling procedural practices' not the ones which were in place when the Harrier force did Herrick, in which case they can't be as bad, since Cdr Ward was claiming elsewhere that Harriers from Kandahar could respond to calls for support in a manner so swift that if one blinked, you'd miss it? Or did the Harriers not operate in an ATO cycle? Or perhaps he means that with the departure of the Harriers, has the TGRF turned up and 'said 'flexibility? Pah! You're not having that'?
I'm not qualified to comment. Perhaps Sharkey has got the wrong end of the stick here but as a general point, isn't any inability to react quickly liable to risk lives?
On this occasion, I am more impressed with Rector16's clarification which I have just read and for which I thank him.