DITYIWAHP
Would you prefer me to copy and paste my comments? I still see those comments (from others as well as myself - particularly regarding the carrier skills needed for the future) as pertinent - as is
SammySu's post that counters many Harrier related myths. Links to news stories are also worthy of note.
A recent
Telegraph letter from Major General Julian Thompson is of note:
SIR – Group Captain Alan Ferguson does not think the presence of HMS Ark Royal off the coast of Libya would have helped Britain’s mission there (Letters, July 28). But a carrier would have made our contribution to the campaign against Colonel Gaddafi more efficient.
The current effort from Italy involves huge sums spent on tanker aircraft flying from Cyprus, fuel for strike aircraft flying the 1,200-mile trip to the target and back, accommodating air crews and support staff in hotels, and flying supplies from Britain.
For a country short of cash, this is a crazy way to prosecute a campaign. Group Captain Ferguson is right to say that without boots on the ground an aerial campaign had little chance of bringing Colonel Gaddafi down. I wonder if senior airmen warned David Cameron of this.
Mr Cameron should heed Con Coughlin’s advice (Comment, July 27). He should press his “receive” button and listen to senior military officers. Messages such as “you do the fighting, I’ll do the talking” are offensive to those who know what fighting, and dying, involves.
Con Coughlin' comments are
here.
In a few months time
Illustrious will be taking over from
Ocean, if things continue that long. A carrier (with Harriers) would not only help relieve the
Charles De Gaulle, but also reduce the strain on the RAF. After all, we have already deployed
Ocean with Apache as a substitute carrier, but Apache has neither the range or payload of Harrier. We have shiips deployed on Libyan operations, and the CVS would not need a higher level of escort than
Ocean. Additionally Harrier would be a contribution to the defence of a task group, in addition to possible use against seaborne or shore based threats, it could be used to intercept and visually identify unknown and potentially hostile aircraft.
I wonder if resources are being taken away from the Afghan effort in order to support the Tornado, Typhoon, and tanker commitment (and that of ISTAR assets)? Yes, this is an acknowledgement that the RAF is under pressure.