Fg Off Bloggs (and others)
Sorry, but I really have to come in here. You start your post with the stament 'are these not the facts' - err... not really, sorry. Taking your 'facts' in turn:
1. 'The Navy got rid of the Sea Harrier during Gordon Brown's tenure because they (The Sea Lords) decided that they could not afford it whilst the surface and submarine fleets might face the wielding of the Defence Budget axe, despite the fact that air defence of the fleet would be compromised!' - wrong on all counts. The Sea Harrier was canned soon after it was transferred to the RAF. The RAF offered it up as a savings measure. It was an RAF owned asset that the RAF decided could not be afforded, in large part because the GR7/9 upgrade costs had ballooned more than four fold. It was an RAF decision. Fact.
2. 'Some Navy pilots were absorbed into Harrier Force and formed a Navy badged Harrier GR9 Squadron (with help from the RAF in manning terms) to take to sea on the one remaining carrier!' - again, plain wrong. JFH was formed with three SHAR squadrons and four RAF squadrons. On cancellation of the SHAR, a plan was hatched to form five squadrons (2 RN 'heavy', 2 RAF 'heavy' plus one joint OCU). The RN formed the first 'RN heavy' GR squadron, (800), and were in course of setting up the second (801) when the RAF unilaterally imposed RAF manning criteria they knew the RN could not immediately meet. Soon after, the RAF decided to unilaterally ditch the UK's maritime strike capability. Fact.
3. 'The Harrier GR9 was incapable of carrying Storm Shadow. During the Operational Requirement stage of its procurement, we tried to fit CASOM to the Harrier when I was in OR(Air) but there were ship magazine issues and carriage limitation issues which, in the end, were financially insurmountable.' - I worked in DA Arm at the time for this one. Storm Shadow NEVER had a ship carriage requirement, nor a requirement to recover to the ship on a GR anything. GR7 could carry a SS with conventional TO and rolling landing, but with severe limitations, not surprising for such a big weapon. No money was ever put aside to get the weapon to sea. Want to trade facts? Ready and waiting.
4. 'Returning to the deck with an asymmetric bomb load (Paveway III, for example) on Harrier GR9 was a non-starter and would have had to result in the jettison of valuable weapons into the sea!' - God, I don't know where to start on this one. Let's try. The GR9, GR7, and FA2 were perfectly capable of getting back to the deck with an asymmetric 1000lb weapon load (PW2, PW4). PW3 was a 2000 lb weapon, and once again never required to go to sea. (By the way, if you are the genius in OR(Air) that paid out hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' money to have the PW3 modified to remove the thermal safety coating from the bomb, so rendering it unsafe to go on board our ships, I'd love to meet you and have a chat).
5. 'Tornado GR4 suffered from none of the above and whilst it could not launch from a carrier with a Conventionally Armed Stand Off Missile (Storm Shadow) or any other weapon it could reach many targets that the Harrier could not!' - you are perfectly correct that the GR4 could land on with a SS or a PW2. However, to the best of my knowledge, it couldn't launch off a carrier AT ALL. Care to specify 'many targets'? Libya? Well, yes, plus hours of flying plus a tanker or two. Oh, could the Tornado land back on on land with a loaded JP233 fitted? Come on, let's have some 'facts'.
Look, I don't mind anyone having a view. That's why we have a free society and free blogs. But please, for the love of all that's holy, please don't rewrite history and then try to use it to justify the RAF's point of view. Harrier's gone. Damn shame, but it was a political choice. Move on. But let's leave facts as 'sacred', shall we?
Best Regards as ever
Engines