Archimedes
Thanks. There is an easier way - simply using the quote button and then manually entering = and the name of the poster after the word quote.
caz
Good points, but how are they related to carrier aviation?
Wrathmonk
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk
OK - now we are getting somewhere. As there is no new money what capability do you think should be removed from Defence in order to pay for your ideas? It needs to be a capability rather than salami slicing a current capability as we all now that neither works nor saves the required money.
I guess it depends on how much extra expenditure is needed. Embarking foreign Harriers should cost nothing or next to nothing, yet it would do a great deal to retain carrier related skills for the future, and reduce the risks involved when CVF and F35 arrive.
The idea of acquiring a small number of AV8Bs from the United States would only be feasible with a Memorandum of Understanding for support - as Italy and Spain have to support their Harriers. I did say this in the post that I provided a link to, and things such as having no need for a UK Design Authority would reduce costs dramatically.
As for marinising more Apaches, surely the actual process cannot be that expensive? However, given the situation regarding flying hours/spares, the Army may say no. Likewise, is the Army going to fund and support (both with manpower and machines) a shipborne capability? The Cobra suggestion was because the response might be that we might as well acquire some AV8Bs instead. Nobody in Government would approve of obtaining a second type of attack helicopter. I assume that it was also assumed that Apache would not be needed for lengthy shipboard deployments.
I am not tempted to go down the "what should we scrap instead?" route, as I suspect there is nothing left to cut.