I hate to break up the "who said what?" game, but this is getting silly.
Wrathmonk
NATO did have such a capability didn't they?
Yes, but if NATO still needed that capability after
Charles De Gaulle left station NATO would have had a real problem - and the same applies in other conflicts this decade when the UK and France play a leading role. Why was it that HMS
Ocean was retasked, and instead of her planned deployment or design role of amphibious operations, was sent to Libya to operate Apaches in a strike role?
What's the old phrase "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions"
If you insist. One possible solution to the problems of the capability gap, the loss of skills, the political embarassment of destroying perfectly good aircraft, and the loss of influence over allies, was what I (and I think possibly others elsewhere) suggested
here - lease/buy some AV8Bs partly in exchange for the GR9s as a spares source, and continue to offer the USMC continued Harrier embarkations aboard
Illustrious and
Queen Elizabeth.
Or continue embarking foreign Harriers for practising skills, and marinise more Apaches, although I remember hearing many saying that Apache would be very hard to marinise properly. I suspect that the Army would not be too keen on this idea either. Maybe we should lease some Cobras from the US instead? Oh but hang on....
GBZ
Wrathmonk. Perhaps WEBF Doesn't want to play the politicos' and beancounters' game?
I certainly do not. A phrase about the cost of everything and the value of nothing comes to mind.
Perhaps like me, WEBF, believes that less than 3%, against the Government's foreign policy aspirations and Home trade and industry hopes, is woefully inadequate. Personally, I think the whole exercise has been yet another vast "save to spend" one.
HM Government: Penny wise, pound foolish. Save now, pay later.
Sorry, still don't know how to do quotes with "Originally posted by......" at the top of the quote box. It can't be that hard - anyone?