I think the upgrade to the FA2 (which was meant to include enhancements to the cockpit and avionics as well as the improved engine) had been in the pipeline for some time - at least that is what the following suggest:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/07/0041914.htm
http://production.investis.com/baesy...ngs/2002-02-05
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cac...n&ie=UTF-8</a>
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/p...sus/detail.htm
The following exchange in the Commons is also of interest:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/20717-14.htm
If there is no need for dedicated naval air defence, then how come various Navies have been trying to obtain it? And we still train for defending a task force......
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3857.html
As for the performance of the Sea Harrier in warm climes, we have operated it in the northern Persian Gulf/Iraq, and in the 2001 exercises in Oman, plus of course the Adriatic. India has operated it for many years in the Indian Ocean. Thailand and India (and possibly other Middle/Far Eastern nations which tend to be hot) are interested in buying it in its current state.
Why won't the Government come clean and admit that the SDR and the concept of expeditionary warfare have been consigned to the bin? Not just talking about the SHAR here.
What changes in 2006 to remove the need for air defence? Could it be that it is election time, and the Government don't want a military disaster or a crisis we can't respond to before they have secured a third term (God forbid) in office?
Perhaps the worst thing is that it will coincide with a gap in shipborne defences, see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm. You couldn't make it up!!
Would an Admiral who said "No, we cannot do it" be listened to? Or would No 10's inner circle over rule him? I'm not convinced that the safety and welfare of members of HM Forces is seen as important.