SHAR Wars; The PPruners Strike Back...

[Jimlad]

there was an article in AFM some time ago looking at the pros and cons of withdrawing F3, FA2 and Jaguar fleets from service.
I would like to know (as I am but an ignorant part time fishhead ) what role that jaguar fills that makes it unique in the RAF's OOB. It seems to me we have GR7/9 doing CAS and bombing, Jaguar does bombing and GR4 does bombing / recce and to some extent long range cruise missile firings once Stormshadow enters service. Given that you already have two plane types capable of bombing - why the need for a third for a fleet that is older than the FA2, is due to go out of service soon anyway - why not take it out NOW and save money?
I'm not trying to troll - but I can't see the justification for the Jag - we have recce Gr4's, FA2 can do recce so no need there for Jag. We have bombers and FA2 can bomb as well - so no need for Jag there - what on earth does the Jag do that no one else can?
FA2 provides fleet air defence and limited multi role capability - something that no other RAF plane can do. I cannot say the same about the Jaguar.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are the Jags based in a Labour constituency? That might give you a clue.

Losing the Jag would cost the UK some capability.
Losing the Sea Harrier will lose the UK ships and people.

So Vic, the Jaguar provides an ongoing and effective contribution to ongoing operations. Good. But so does the Sea Harrier....... without it there is no air defence of the fleet.

The role of the Sea Harrier in Kosovo is debatable, however, it was at the sharp end of things in Bosnia for three years constantly.

[West Coast]

Jacko
Nothing is ever as expensive as when you need it and don't have it.

The RAF may be able to project well in a host country assuming the logistical tail can keep up, but what if there is no host country, or the infrastructure of the host country is not up to speed, or is overburdened?

Do you think it might be an invitation for another Falklands type conflict by someone with an axe to grind if the harrier goes away?
Honestly looking for your opinion.

[Chinese Vic]

WEBF, I'd be genuinely interested to know where you think the air threat to the Fleet currently emanates from.
I'm not suggesting that the removal of a capability like this is a good thing, but if there is no more money to be had, you have to ask yourself what asset can we afford to be without? I would contend that loss of the SHAR will not automatically lead to loss of ships and lives. Potentially, yes - definitely, no.

Yes, other RAF platforms can perform the same or similar functions to the Jag (you missed recce Jimlad, something the Jaguar excels at) but assuming you remove the Jags from the frame who picks up the Northern Iraq task?
Do we go back to the days of Harriers operating over Northern Iraq, denying the JRRF and JHF access to their CAS assets, or does the GR4 fleet get to double its current commitment to ops, or do we just close up shop and admit we can't cope without less tasking/more money?

Please don't try to tell me that the SHAR equipped with an F95 is even remotely as capable in the recce role as the Jag/JRRP or Tornado GR4a/Vicon/RAPTOR (eventually, I'd admit) combinations.

[Jimlad]

hmmm

I agree that to remove the Jags from Iraq would overstretch other services - but surely to remove the SHAR from service will overstretch the JFH as there will be less airframes available for shipboard operations and power projection? (IIRC we're going from 47 FA2's + 72 GR7's to 63? GR9's)

My solution - why not let our glorious "allies" do the work in Northern Iraq - after all other posters seem to think they would be willing to provide us with a carrier if we need it so why not get them to provide a contribution now? If people disagree with that then maybe they could explain why joint naval ops are ok but not joint air force ops?

My point is simple - we should keep SHAR and all the other types in service and fund them properly. The RN should see JFH as an opportunity to get some decent bomb trucks on its carriers - which it hasn't had for a while and would make them more useful. The RAF should see the JFH as a good way of getting more bases (albeit floating ones) and the chance to get access to another source of AD assets. At the end of the day we all work for the same people and play on the same team - we should see CVF not as a threat, but as a great opportunity.

[ORAC]

Just to be provocative.

The case for the Jag is Eurofighter. This replaces both the Jag annd the F3 and, at the moment, we are commited to buying 232 of them.

Bin the Jag and all that is left to replace is the F3, so why the big fuss to make the other consortium members make it dual role? Good point, someone says! So all funding for GA is cut and so is all the work being done throughout the consortium on the Mk2/3 and inproved GA capability.

(as a side issue, ironically, the other services will introduce it in a swing role, the RAF will not - go figure)

But if the only role is AD, and there is no AD threat to the UK (at least a da*n sight less than for an OOA TF), why buy it at all? Couldn't we make do with a few GR9s for UK AD? After all, we have that expensive ADGE to provide the control, who needs radar?

So why not bin the Eurofighter? And put BAe and half the UK aviation companies out of business to save the SHar for 6 years. I'm sure they'll love you for that one!! Now that has zero chance of success.

On the other hand, we have to find a use for 232 Eurofighters.

4 AD squadrons (60 jets) plus an OCU (15 jets) is 75. 20% attrition is another 15. Total 90. That leaves 142. Replace the Harrier force (same rough numbers) brings it up to 180.

Change tranche 3 to an extended range 2 seater and add about another 20 jets and you can replace the GR4 in the 20s.

What, you say, but they can't operate from a carrier? So what, cancel them.

And, while your at it, cancel the whole JSF order as well.

Now I'm not backing any of the above. But I will make the point that the present Eurofighter/JSF order is unsustainable in light of out present force structure. And the CVAs make it even more unsustainable. And trying to pick each services budget/ethos apart does not answer the problem.

if you can find a solution for the whole RN budget within it's own costs. Well and good. But I foresee far sharper cuts ahead over the next 2 to 3 years as things start to come home to roost.

Pissed rant over. Sorry.

[steamchicken]

Right well - In my last edit I deliberately pointed at the position of RN mines countermeasures craft in the northern Gulf. It's good to get some backup when you're trying to get people's backs up!

200 men for 3 Chinooks. Well, maybe so, but may I ask if Ocean cannot carry more aircraft than that? as well as a Marine battlegroup? and can RAF logistics' 200 men pick up their airbase, and walk off with it - to places in the world where they can't put it down and people will shoot at them? Also, I'll point out that the 200 probably don't include RAFRegt SAM/AAA defence, wot the Navy chucks in with the package. It's also interesting that one poster's estimate of Ocean's ship's company is exactly 950 men more than the reality! And what about perimeter security - no-one will sneak aboard a carrier going 25kts. It's interesting how much folk on this forum rant about how hopeless RAF Blunties are, but on this theme they are apparently absolutely reliable

[WE Branch Fanatic]

My point is......

Keeping the Sea Harrier going will be cheaper than losing just ONE ship.

Full stop.

For the reasons various people have outlined....

1. Land based air defence is a non starter if your ships are any distance away from friendly bases.
2. Our European allies do not have enough aircraft to defend our fleet was well as their own. Certainly no CAPs.
3. This applies, to a much less extent, to the US.
4. Our ships have a missile shortage.
5. Most of the places we will depoly to will involve an air threat.
6. If we don't retain the Sea Harrier, ships and lives will proabably be lost.
7. The politicians disagree with 1 to 6.

"Good Evening chaps. As your President.....whoops I meant Prime Minister, I never fail to be impressed by your commitment and dedication. As you know, eighteen years of Conservative mismagement left the Armed Forces in a soorry state. We have taken action to correct this with the Strategic Defence Review, Pay 2000 and Defence Training Review. In 2002 we took action to improve the air defence of the fleet, withdrawing the Sea Harrier and making sure no aircraft near our ships are endangered by fighters. This was on top of other action that we took including reducing the danger of shipborne missiles being involved in a fire by reducing the stocks and cutting down the numbers carried"

"Two minutes ago four Exocet missiles were fire by two aircraft that approached the task group. Or simulations show that as Type 42, such as yorself may be able to shoot one, two possibly, down. The others will, I'm afraid, hit you."

"Can I say what a privilage it was to have men like you in MY armed forces. Thankyou and Goodbye. Must dash.....I'm off to see Alistair Campbell about how to tell the public this was the Tories' fault....."

[Chinese Vic]

Jimlad,
It's a small point, I know - but the last time I was at Cottesmore the majority of the anti-JFH rumblings were down to the fact that most of us in the light blue did not join up to spend our lives bobbing around the world's oceans in a tin can (no matter what size/tonnage/capability). If we'd wanted to do that we'd have joined the RN!
So viewing the future super carrier as 'an opportunity' might be slightly difficult to swallow....

CV (but not CVS!)

[BlueWolf]

Jacko, you may well be right. It is quite possible that I am unbalanced. Without prejudice, I guess the same could be said for any of us. However, I have held certain opinions for a long time prior to my "loss"....and for the moment at least, I think I'm probably as rational as the next man - who is, incidently, your good self.
Laugh about the predicted demise of the Euro and the EU if you find it helps.
Were you old enough to remember when certain other things were considered fantastic pipe dreams, you would quite possibly have laughed at them too.....the Berlin Wall coming down perhaps? Vaclav Havel becoming President of Czechoslovakia? Lech Walensa becoming President of Poland? Nelson Mandela becoming President of South Africa, for goodness sake? It is only madness, or misguided flights of fancy from liberal socialist dreamers which could possibly countenance such events.....Yugoslavia breaking up after the demise of Tito? The entire Soviet Union disintegrating??! Ridiculous!!
Eastern Bloc countries gaining membership of NATO? Ha! Hong Kong was never, really, ever, going to be handed back to the Chinese. And here's a good one for you: "Argentina will never attempt to retake the Falklands by military means. We're their single most important trading partner. They'd never risk it."
By comparison, the breakup of an amorphous grouping of nations, sold as an "Economic Community" (remember that one?), and evolved as a wannabe United States of Europe, coddling together a multitude of races, languages and religions with a couple of millenia of mutual animosity behind them, is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Why on earth do you think Britain didn't join the Euro? Absolutely nothing to do with Tony Blair or 'public opinion', I can promise you that; everything to do with the Anglo-American Financial Establishment, who ultimately hold the reigns, and good for them.
If you are old enough to remember these things and still insist on pushing the party line, I hope for your own sake you have an alternative excuse which is equally compelling as youthful ignorance.
Endless promotion of the tired old cost/affordability line only illustrates that you haven't bothered to research the entrenched social vote-buying profligacy of left wing governments the world over.
Do a cost comparison between the price of a fully fitted aircraft carrier, and the bill for keeping half of Bradford in beer coupons; then count the votes which come back from either one; then see if you can still swallow the "sincerity" of politicians who claim that the defence of the Realm is just too costly to be affordable.
Mate, the people contributing to this forum are not stupid. They are, as I have said before, intelligent, well informed, and passionate about their cause. The necessity of a system such as the SHar is not in question. The integrity, or at least the capacity for social awareness, of someone who shamelessly upholds a fictitious and unjustifiable doctrine, may not be as easy to confirm.
Nail your colours to the mast honestly, old chap. People will respect you for it.

[Nozzles]

Jacko,

Sorry for delay in reply-I've been out skinnin' red air for a couple of days. Sometimes life just sucks

I think you expect the same from a multirole a/c as I do-the trouble is we haven't got anything that can do all those roles so well, so we make do with what we've got. Specialist a/c are almost always better in their role than multirole a/c in the same role.

As an aside, the ol' Bumper Fun Jet used to have a robust ASM capability, as did the Tornado (Sea Eagle) but guess what? Nobody wanted to pay for it anymore. The UK's anti-shipping standoff instantly went from many tens of miles down to visual range, in the shape of Paveway III.

Stop shaving me bombload! It's 5 thousand pounders, not 4! Can't remember a ripple of 5 being dropped, but the Deliberate Force loadouts were 4-ships carrying 3 each. That way they retained the gas tanks. You know the dates for that operation, I'm sure you could get the temperature data (it was hot). Either side of that op, the jets fragged for Swing were recovering to the ship with
2 x AIM9M and a single centreline 1000lb'er still attached.

Anyhoo, must fly.............

N

[Jackonicko]

Blue,

what you call "the entrenched social vote-buying profligacy" of left wing governments is what we call democracy, and while I may personally place a higher priority on defence than on social welfare or health, the public's priorities are what count, and in this environment, defence must cut its coat according to its cloth. Moreover, in a time of financial hardship, it's immoral not to insist that defence should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and accountability and that 'bang for buck' should be a vital consideration. Talk about 'Beer tokens in Bradford' is just gutter right wing nonsense.

Why is the Jag vital in the RAFs orbat?

In the Post Cold War world the Jaguar is the perfect air power tool. Rugged, robust, dependable and maintainable. It's a low-cost, easily deployable, rapidly deployable and versatile aircraft lacking only payload (but in the post Cold War world small weapons accurately delivered are what counts, not truckloads of dumb 1,000-lbers) and thrust (Take off performance hot and high is only just tolerable), ok, and perhaps with inadequate EW, too.

Moreover, it's also a high quality platform, with well integrated systems, an in service Helmet sight, a superb mission planning system, and IDM with good TIALD/PWII and PWIII capability, the ability to fire CRV7 rockets and packing two internal 30-mm cannon. For self defence it has two overwing 'Winder stations and is wired for ASRAAM (with a digital ASRAAM integration tested on a Boscombe jet). The same jet has demonstrated RAIDS and the PRISM card for IDM, which gives a realtime recce capability with the EO Vicon (JRRP) pod, which my sources tell me works better than Raptor.

IDM makes it SF's OS jet of choice, too, I understand......

Moreover, the Jag's fatigue problems were minor (frame 25) and have been solved, and the aircraft could serve on without a major life extension programme, and there are dozens of spare jets sitting at Cosford with 1-2K Flying Hours on them, each one of which could become a GR3A for the cost of a major and about £550K per jet.

Compare that to the cost of the Harrier GR 9 upgrade and the required 'back end fix' or with the cost of a life ex for the Tornado GR 4. The sensible course might be to run on two Jag squadrons and reduce the Harrier and Tornado forces by a squadron each, using the pool of surplus airframes to 'hours spread' on those types, and thereby save money on relifes and structural programmes.

The Jag force is also 'retention positive' which is no bad thing and no mean feat, and has demonstrated its worth over Bosnia and over Iraq. Interesting that a Jag squadron could have been operating over Sierra Leone (with guns, rockets and bombs, from Dakar in Senegal which was cleared) quicker than the carrierborne GR 7s were. And in those hot and high conditions its been said that the GR7's sole cleared weapon was 'noise'!

It's not my intention to 'diss' the SHar, it's been a great aircraft and has done a sterling job, but in an era of difficult decisions and hard choices, it's an easier cut to make than most others!

[Nozzles]

Jacko,

Before you start giving me a hard time about ASM capability, I just realised this morning that you were talking about Air-to-Surface Misiles (generic), and not Anti-Shipping Missiles. Don't you just find TLAs so confusing?

Re: GR7 Vs hot 'n' high.........they launch from an altitude of 45 ft above sea level (depending on how heavy the boat is/how many wrens on board) Their launch payload is actually quite awesome-don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could launch from the boat with more 'morale suppression devices' than a jag could from a runway at the same temperature. Whilst you're correct in saying that a lot of attack is 'surgical', big targets need a lot of ordnance-that's why the manky old B52 is still in service for the biggest challenges. Now the GR7 would struggle to bring back any ordnance at those temps, but it's a bit of a rule of thumb that if you take off armed like Tackleberry, it's because you intend to use it. In Peace Support Operations where folks are 'policing' with little probability of weapon release, they don't tend to carry as much. I do believe, although am open to correction from any tailhookers who might be reading, that aircraft do not recover to conventional carriers with bombs on board-the violent landing makes it too risky.

N

[NEZ]

Well if I was any of you guys flying jets in the Navy. I would make the most of the last few years of the Seajet...

.... then f*** off and leave the RAF to do all the sea time. LMFAO. Well that is what I would do. It's the last years of the FAA so make em the best!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From my favourite paper....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$WLMXXVYAAAOQDQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2002/05/08/ndef08.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/05/08/ixnewstop.html

THE Royal Navy will be left unprotected and one of its three aircraft carriers will be mothballed as a direct result of a government decision that "rips the heart out" of Britain's defence strategy, the Tories will warn today.

Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, will accuse the Treasury of putting "intolerable pressure" on the defence budget, leaving Britain without the capability to mount a war-time expedition to match the Falklands taskforce.

He will use a Commons debate to highlight the scrapping of the Navy's Sea Harrier fighter aircraft, which he will blame on a £1 billion cut in defence spending since Labour came to power in the 1997 election.

The loss of the Sea Harriers from 2006 will mean that for the next decade any Royal Navy expedition will have to enlist the help of an American aircraft carrier to provide the planes needed to protect the fleet, he will claim.

Mr Jenkin will point to the decision to withdraw Invincible, one of the Royal Navy's three aircraft carriers, from service in 2006 as evidence that the decommissioning of the Sea Harriers has a far-ranging impact on the Navy.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, announced in February that the Sea Harrier FA2 would be withdrawn from service by 2006, instead of 2012, when the new Joint Strike Aircraft being developed with the United States are due to be introduced. This will leave the fleet without air cover for six years.

"It is simply unbelievable that in the middle of the war against terror the Government continues to cut our frontline forces," Mr Jenkin will tell MPs. "Moreover, this shows how the Government's 1998 Strategic Defence Review is unravelling because of lack of money.

"This decision rips the heart out of the Joint Task Force capability, which was central to the Government's defence policy."

The MoD expects to save what Mr Jenkin described as a "mere" £109 million. But senior Royal Navy officers privately admit that because of the decision the Navy will be unable to send a taskforce to war for at least six years unless it is accompanied by an American aircraft carrier to mount air defence of the fleet.

They conceded that if Argentina reinvaded the Falkland Islands, as it did 20 years ago, between 2006 and 2012, Britain would be unable to recapture them without support from Washington.

The Government's defence policy states that its prime commitment is to provide forces to defend the UK and "overseas territories, our people and interests".

Underfunding of the defence budget - now £23.5 billion - at a time when all three armed services are undermanned, is causing acute concern to senior officers. Lord Guthrie, who stood down as Chief of the Defence Staff, accepted last December that the defence programme "was underfunded".

Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh, the First Sea Lord, is retiring three months early amid widespread speculation that he is unhappy about the funding issue after accepting the decision to axe the Sea Harriers.

Warships regularly put out to sea without their full crew complement; another frigate, HMS Sheffield, was effectively decommissioned last month; and the attack submarine fleet will shrink from 12 to 10 over the next couple of years, according to the Conservative Research Department.

Although ministers at the MoD declined to discuss the Sea Harrier issue, Mr Blair insisted during Prime Minister's Questions on April 10 that the decision would not affect Britain's defence capacity.

He maintained that Labour had delivered the first defence budget increase in real terms after many years of cuts under the Conservatives.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

And...

BRITAIN loses taskforce capability, writes David Graves


AS with many Government announcements, it was not immediately clear that it contained a significant change in defence policy. On Feb 28, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, made a seemingly innocuous statement about the future of the Joint Force Harrier operated by the Royal Navy and RAF. His bombshell was carefully concealed.

Masked within the statement about upgrading all the Harriers in the force was the announcement that all the Navy's Sea Harrier FA2s would be withdrawn from service by 2006.

Not only had the Secretary of State announced the scrapping of Britain's best all-weather fighter, but he had also disclosed that for at least six years from 2006, until the planned Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter was introduced, Britain could not unilaterally deploy a naval taskforce because it would have inadequate air defence.

If the Government wanted to go to war, a taskforce would have to be accompanied by an American aircraft carrier to provide fixed-wing air defence. If Washington vetoed the operation, there would be little, if anything, the Navy could do.

The potential ramifications were so serious that several admirals, including Adml Sir Sandy Woodward, who commanded the Falklands taskforce, and Sea Harrier pilots mounted a campaign to change the Government's mind. They reasoned that ministers must have been kept in the dark by MoD officials before agreeing to such a radical "own goal".

At present, a combination of Sea Harriers and RAF GR7 and GR9 Harriers are deployed on the Navy's three aircraft carriers. The Sea Harriers provide air defence to the fleet, while the RAF Harriers are ground attack aircraft. When the Sea Harriers are withdrawn from service, the RAF Harriers will be unable to fill the void caused by the demise of the Sea Harriers.

The Sea Harrier FA2, introduced in 1993, is highly regarded by the United States Air Force as the "small aircraft with the big radar" and regularly beats the RAF's frontline fighter, the Tornado F3, in mock "dog fights".

It has sophisticated air-to-air radar able to track more than 20 targets simultaneously and a proven beyond visual range advanced medium range missile system, able to engage four targets simultaneously more than 30 miles away.

The RAF Harriers do not have the Sea Harriers' radar or missile system and have a very limited air defence capability using Sidewinder missiles, which can be used only at short range and in daylight. It has no ability to defend itself against enemy fighters armed with beyond visual range radar or medium range air-to-air missiles and needs to be escorted by friendly fighters.

At present, the Navy's outer layer of air defence is provided by Sea Harriers. They patrol about 100 nautical miles from the centre of the taskforce. Using their powerful radar, they can detect and intercept enemy aircraft over land and sea more than 70 nautical miles away.

The middle layer of air defence is provided by ageing Type 42 destroyers armed with the outdated Sea Dart missile system, which is no longer deemed capable of reliably engaging and destroying modern air-to-surface missile systems.

The Type 42's diameter of detection is limited to 40 nautical miles. Therefore, six destroyers would be needed fully to cover a 180° threat sector; or 12 if facing an all round threat.

The last layer of detection is provided by Sea King helicopter early warning aircraft, which normally operate not far from the centre of the fleet with a detection capability of about 40 nautical miles. Last ditch defence is provided by point defence missile and gun systems, such as Sea Wolf and Goalkeeper and decoy systems. However, it is more than likely that even if a sea skimming missile is hit, it will still strike the target ship.

Without the Sea Harriers from 2006, a taskforce would have no ability to deter, detect and intercept an enemy aircraft or missile. The Type 42 destroyers, designed in the Sixties, are also due to be withdrawn but, if still in service, Sea Dart would be largely dysfunctional. Their replacement, the Type 45 with its state-of-the-art PAAMS weapons system, has had problems of its own and will not be available in sufficient numbers until after 2010.

The effectiveness of the Type 45's weapons systems have yet to be definitively established during trials. Although the first Type 45 is due to enter service in 2007, there is scepticism that it will not be ready for full active service before the end of 2008. Only three Type 45s, which will still be restricted to a 20 nautical mile radar horizon, are expected to be in service by 2010.

The sombre reality is that, after the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, the "last ditch" layer of air detection and defence, the early warning helicopter and weapons systems, would be easily saturated and overcome by enemy aircraft delivering air-to-surface missiles, Smart weapons and even iron bombs. That is the legacy the Government has left Britain's Armed Forces, whose achievements are often lauded by Tony Blair.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

On TV tonight, Lewis Moonie MP (from the MOD) claimed that half a billion pounds would be needed to keep the Sea Harrier until the JSF comes along.

Rubbish. What a lying b******!!! £100 million was the approximate cost but the again, this Government does seem to have a problem with statistics.

Also he claimed aircraft carriers are for force projection and not for fleet air defence any more. Fleet air defence is still a major role.

Lying git. I think that Bernerd Jenkins, the Tory Defence spokesman made some good points though. Wish that I had put some of them in my letter......nevermind.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Yesterday in the Commons...

Sea Harrier axe will 'put sailors at risk'

THE Conservatives warned the Government yesterday that the lives of sailors would be at risk over its plans to scrap the Royal Navy Sea Harrier.

In addition, the country's defence strategy would be undermined before a replacement is in place.

Bernard Jenkin, the Tory defence spokesman, accused the Government of being "militarily illiterate" and said the Sea Harriers had been a symbol of Britain's military prowess and expertise.

Sea Harriers, operating off Invincible and Hermes, played a pivotal role in the Falklands conflict, destroying 22 Argentine aircraft.

They will be phased out of service by 2006, instead of 2012 when the new Joint Strike Aircraft being developed with the United States was due to be introduced.

With the Labour benches empty, several Tories took the floor during a debate in Westminster Hall, the Commons parallel chamber, to criticise the Government's decision. Mr Jenkin insisted that the decision to scrap the Harriers ". . . not only puts potentially the lives of our servicemen at risk, it not only imperils the operational capability of the British Navy, it is actually a militarily illiterate decision."

He continued: "Our services are absolutely brilliant at making do and if they've been told they have to make do with less than they really need they're not going to appear on the television screens and say it can't be done."

Lewis Moonie, the junior defence minister, said scrapping the Sea Harriers would lead to an altered risk but insisted that it was an acceptable one.

"We are not saying that there is no change in the balance of risk here. What we are saying is that the advice which we have had . . . is that the balance of risk is acceptable."

In the real world decisions had to be made with a "finite budget".

Richard Ottaway (C, Croydon S) said: "The world is an uncertain place. What we are doing is putting at risk many men and women serving in the interest of this country."

Patrick Mercer (C, Newark) said the Sea Harriers were the "eyes and ears" of the Royal Navy. "I do feel that . . . this aircraft . . . is battle proven and still has the faith and trust of its pilots, most importantly."

Mark Prisk (C, Hertford and Stortford) said: "The pivotal role of the Royal Navy in future defence strategies is being undermined. It is going to undermine the Navy's expeditionary role. Any expeditionary sea force needs air defence."

Crispin Blunt (C, Reigate) said the decision violated the principles of the whole direction of British defence policy as set up in 1998.

It was "plainly a scratching round within each of the areas of the MoD's budget for savings in order to reach the budget line".

David Laws (Lib Dem, Yeovil) said the Government was taking not just a risk but a "serious gamble" with its security policy. Scrapping the Sea Harrier would reduce the flexibility of the forces.

After the debate, Mr Jenkin said he was "very disappointed" that the Government had completely failed to explain the basis of its decision. "The minister was insulting and did little more than read out a prepared statement. It shows how threadbare the Government's arguments really are."

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Well, this thread seems to have gone a bit quiet of late so I thought I'd make another contribution.

Recently the Sea Harrier issue has started to become more high profile. In the last few days, there have been articles in the Daily Mail and the Western Morning News criticising the cutbacks. Admiral Woodward supports our case. Maybe he can give leadership and force to our cause.

Keep pushing......

Incidently..... Nozzles, did you get that letter I sent you?

[blended winglet]

scandalous...no air cover for the fleet, toatally stupid !!

bad enough when we lost the F4's, now the FA2's,
(showing my age a bit there.)
bring back the ark.