You have a limited number of aircraft
And we all now how flush the RAF is with working aircraft...
But this is not a Royal Air Force conflict. Or a RN one for that matter. It is a NATO issue. Therefore NATO requests contributions from its members to meet the expected ATO and those members provide what they can. This latest "scud hunting" task that WEBF appears to have made up is nothing new. Quote from
here:
Earlier in the conflict the Nato-led coalition targeted rocket launchers and Scud missile containers near Sirte, saying the weapons could be used against civilians or on areas beyond Col Gaddafi's control.
So they are already "scud hunting". Without calls for additional assets from the NATO members (or at least not those made public as yet). NATO seems to be coping with what it has got. Could it do better? Probably - assuming its members had both an unlimited budget and the willingness to get involved. But you may have noticed finances within NATO (particularly the key players) are not good at the moment.
But to drag it back to a good old RAF v RN bitch fest .....
You have a limited number of aircraft
But far far more than there are UK carrier based assets.
assuming equal numbers of aircraft
I believe there are 26 aircraft (mix GR4/Typhoon) deployed, plus long range sorties being flown by assets from Marham. And exactly how many UK carrier based assets could we deploy (for longer than a six month period) pre SDSR? And I'm talking about how many the UK were funded for, manned for and equipped for not the number of airframes we actually had nor the number you could squeeze on a carrier if you kicked everything else off. No where close to 26 (and probably nowhere close to just the TGRF contribution (particularly if the GR9 was still deployed in AFG....)!
I can't believe I've been sucked back into this pointless discussion. Should we have fleets of carriers, squadrons of F18 / GR9 / AV8B / Prowlers / carrier capable AAR, oodles of long range bombers for the Falklands scenario, dozens of AD squadrons to protect UK shores as well as a fleet of ships and boats befitting an island nation and an army suitably sized to retake the Empire? Of course we should. But back in the real world we don't have the cash. So we had to make cutbacks.
To bring this right back to the thread title - was the decision to axe Harriers bonkers? With hindsight I would suggest to cut the GR9 force rather than the GR4 force was actually a fantastic idea (it was an all or nothing option - no salami slicing despite the fact that 2 squadrons of GR4s were later removed....) - we could not have been conducting an on-going enduring operation in Libya, as well as providing CAS in AFG, with just JFH. However, I am really looking forward to the day when QEII or PoW steams over the horizon, with its gazzillions of F35s onboard, to save the day. But like cazetou I will sadly by then probably be drawing my military pension, if not my state pension!
Until then - make do and mend!