Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
 

BBC - Democracy Live - Decision to axe Harrier jump jets branded 'bonkers'

"Ex-Navy man says shrinking Navy is bad shocker!"

Not that I am offering an opinion on the matter either way, but it does rather taint the argument.

It hardly comes across as an objective assessment, no. Still, this is the man who took the Labour shilling.

Though is be madness there is method in it.

As a letter to the Torygraph says today, saving acrue not from salami slices but by axing whole departments.

PN

Quite right - and its because w've salami sliced for the last 5 years (at least), as well as 'rolling' the end of year debt into the following year, that we are in such a state. Plenty of options (similar to the Harrier and Nimrod decisions) have been put forward over the years but the SofS has always bottled it. :mad:

Quite amusing to think of Navy, Army and Air Force peers having a go in the bar afterwards.

If we take West's statement (".. if we remove the Tornado force we are looking at £7.5bn by 2018. With the Harriers we are looking at less than £1bn. So in cost terms that does not make sense") and Craig's seeming acceptance of that, but (".. Tornado surely produces the better result particularly bearing in mind how many aircraft are needed to be supportive in Afghanistan"), then is he attaching the cost of £6.5 billions as acceptable for keeping Tornado in Afghanistan?

SDSR Video from CDS
 

Here is a link for those with access to the intranet to a video where CDS speaks to the MoD post David Cameron's speech.

However, for those without the access, cutting anything which impacted on ops in AFG was ruled out immediately. Hence Tornado survived since it had an enduring capability in AFG and Harrier did not.



http://www.photos.dii.r.mil.uk/video/PUS%20addressV6CDSmxd_Sm_Prog.wmv

Quite, and the point is that Lord West et al need to recall from their briefings when they bottled said decisions is that if the GR4s had been binned, it's not as if JFH would have been spending their time on a CVS anyway - as they'd have been (almost continuously) in Afghanistan.

How much deck time outside of Joint Warrior / JMCs have JFH had over the last five years? Not so much, IIRC.

Bottom line: would it have been nice to have retained both JFH and GR4? Of course - but that's not the world we live in, and I'd have kept MRA4 over JFH every day and twice on Sundays. (In fact, I'd probably have cut more GR4s to retain Nimrod, but that's a different argument.)

S41

There is the point, though, that the Harrier is ABLE to operate from carriers should the need arise, and would also retain a semblane of FJ deck operations training, if not cat n' trap...

Considering the fact that the shar (the fighter/fleet defence aircraft!) was withdrawn many years ago, surely our aircraft carriers would not have been able to sensibly deploy somewhere where there were hostile airforces capable of striking our ships since then?

So therefor the statement that we are losing such an important asset of carrier strike... well, its simply rubbish, we lost it in real terms years ago. Yes the GR7/9's could launch from the ship, but when has this been used to real effect, without aircover from SHARs or other fighter asset, in the past 20 years?

It is a sad loss of the Harrier force and a kick in the teeth for the pilots/engineers/etc, but savings needed to be made... and we are committed to 'stan for years to come where the best fleet to service that obligation are the gr4s.

Listening to Lord West the only thought in my head was that here is lord west of the Labour party trying to score political points and playing on his military career to aid his argument; but this argument is inherently flawed!

just my opinion though!

The SDSR is completely flawed; in that we are losing capabilities that we cannot afford to lose!

We need Tornado GR4 and the Nimrod MRA4. And if we are building two Aircraft Carriers; we need some jets to operate from them. Why scrap aircraft that we have bought and paid for that can be used until we can afford to replace them with new aircraft. So, therfore Harrier GR9 Should also be kept.

In my opinion this Government should be cutting from other budgets entirely, not the Defence budget.

I say leave the EU.. I really can't see any benefits to being in this useless club. We are paying so much for another useless tier of Government. :ugh:

The savings from this move would solve the financial problems at one stroke! It's the obvious thing to do..

I'm no fan of politicians, but I think we're wrong in lumping ALL of the blame onto the Government (either this one or the last)

According to all the pre-announcement PR, the point of SDSR was to solve the entire problem for Defence: not just the cut in our budget for the future (7.5% I understand), but also the £36Bn 'black hole' that Bernard Gray reported last year.

Now according to my calculations, 7.5% of £34Bn (last year's Defence budget) for 10 years, adds up to 'only' £25.5Bn. So the MAJORITY of the problem stems not from the 'global financial crisis' or from 'labour's financial mismanagement' (depending on whether you're Red or Blue), but from the MOD's ineptitude in controlling its own long term budget!

If only there had been a top civil servant in MOD who could have teamed up with a top, non-partisan, military officer! They could have stopped the train wreck that everyone had seen coming for the last 5 years! Perhaps we should establish such posts...

As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).

In my many years in the Service and beyond it has been the most astonishing Defence decision made - I just hope the CAS (I understand the current CAS made a promise to the PM) at the time can deliver because the RN will have lost the ability. I presume the RAF will provide all of the manpower, including ship's company?

Didn't that all take place whilst West was 1SL.....?:\

@ Wrathmonk - sadly my memory a bit too hazy due to a few too many G&Ts and can't recall if West was involved, but wouldn't surprise me!!

If we could not afford both GR4 and GR9 then one had to go as half of each would soon have gone tango uniform.

The better economic option was to cut the GR4 giving much greater savings.

From a military view OTOH there are more GR4 and their projected OSD is beyond the Harrier. If we had got rid og the GR4 and the JSF was late then we would have had a bomber gap down the road.

Clearly the military view prevailed and we at lest retain a half viable force. The point about the GR9 being capable of either AFG or Carrier but not both is well made.

OT reply
 

Can't do that according to Call me Dave. :*:yuk:

:suspect:We have been ordered to increase our contribution as well !:suspect:

Wrathmonk, I think it was Adm Essenhigh.

Edit - 18 August 2012. Also edited in 2014 (see points 15 and 16).

Since the decision in May 2012 that we would purchase F35B as originally planned, and that future CVF operations would be STOVL ones, the issues of retaining STOVL skillsets amongst both aircrew and ships' personnel are more relevant than ever. The issue of whether of not the UK needs a fixed wing carrier capability in the next few years is brought into focus by talk of possible conflicts which may involve UK forces, for example possible hostilities in the Gulf or international action over Syria.

Potentially all of these things could be sorted out. We have STOVL capable ships, STOVL trained pilots and carrier crews, have a STOVL future to prepare for, and STOVL aircraft do exist. The politicians could make this into a success.

The comments and suggestions below apply even more now.

A few points:

1. At the time of the retirement of the Sea Harrier, we were assured (and I doubt the Admirals would have accepted it otherwise) that the Harrier GR9 would keep carrier flying going. The GR9 can perform a limited (fleet) air defence role - it is supposedly more agile than SHAR, has Sidewinders, and would hopefully be supported by Sea King ASACS. The support of an AEW/ISTAR asset would mitigate against the lack of radar. See later posts - including those on page 15.

It was also argued that we were more likely to need strike aircraft - ie the GR9. Now we rely totally on Host Nation Support and hoping that range, logistics, and security issues are not too tricky. What was that about Canada being denied use of a UAE airfield recently?

2. How will we maintain the skills of flight deck crews, planners, met types, FC and ATC types, and so on? What about the teamwork needed throughout the ship, from the bridge to the Operations Room to the Ship Control Centre? Before you ask, I have been aboard a carrier doing flying work ups. I also witnessed the GR9s doing an air defence exercise.

See this later post that talks about the skills needed by the carrier crew - here.

I think this review was rushed, and bodged. Would anyone with experience of these things really think that you can have a TEN year gap then pick up the baton and carry on? Were any people with carrier experience consulted?

Before the review, everyones' favourite General, Sir Richard Dannatt, was on the TV saying that certain capabilities can be put in extended readiness and then brought out of the cupboard when needed? Is this what he meant?

3. Will the next decade be like the last one (largely asymmetric enemies without navies. air forces, or anything like that) or the previous one - with nation state or pseudo nation (eg the Bosnian Serbs) enemies with air forces, navies, etc? Fortunately, the Prime Minister can see into the future, as he said in his statement when he said everything will be counter insurgency.

4. Supposedly HM Treasury has claimed that as there may be a post Harrier gap (assuming a 2018 OSD), then a ten year gap doesn't increase the risk. You can't argue with that sort of reasoning.

5. Why is Lord West not allowed to speak up? Because he is ex RN? Or because he (unwisely in my opinion) took up a post as a minister under the last Government?

6. Despite everything supposedly being COIN in the future, we are keeping the bulk of heavy armour and artillery? Are we expecting the third shock army to break through the West German boarder? Yes, scrapping it would be short sighted, but surely if we're just looking as Afghanistan.... You don't mean the report wasn't totally balanced?

7. There is a petition: Saving the Harrier. You could also think about writing to your MP, or even contacting the Prime Minister. Of particular interest are points 1, 2, and 9. Following the sale of the GR9 fleet to the United States, point 11 (below) should be of interest.

8. The RN has paid a price of ships, aircraft, personnel, and capabilities under this review. If the predication of no wars for ten years is wong, then the consequences will involve blood and fire.

9. For a practical suggestion of how this issue might be resolved, carrier related skills retained for the future, a carrier strike capability retained for use in Libya and other places this decade, and the issue of the retired GR9s dealt with, see this post from later on:

10. Alternatively, there was the "out of the box" RNR/Harrier proposal discussed here and here.

11. Here is another "out of the box" proposal that I made after the decision was made to sell the entire GR9 fleet to the United States. This one would make use of existing (Sea Harrier) assets that are still mostly in MOD (or at least UK) hands. Regenerate a pair of Sea Harriers (and maybe a T8N trainer) and attach them NFSF(FW), for operation by UK based RN fixed wing jocks and/or RNR WAFUs, and regenerate a larger number if needed for an operational deployment. UK based RN fixed wing types would have something to fly, and we would have something to embark at sea.

12. On a similar (and more straightforward) note, why can we not attach just a few (a couple?) borrowed AV8Bs to Naval Flying Standards Flight (Fixed Wing), or a similar small organisation, to give something for UK based RN fixed wing pilots to fly, and to provide a jet to embark aboard the carrier pre F35B?

After all, ETPS safely and economically operate small numbers of aircraft (including the Grippen and the Alpha Jet) not in normal UK service. Why can the RN not do the same with leased/borrowed jets?

13. HMS Illustrious is in a good condition, and could easily remain in service post 2014, to 2016/7 when HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready to put to sea. Or beyond.

14. There is still the issue of building up the cadre of RN fixed wing pilots for the future, but there seems to be a problem (discussed here) in that there is no suitable jet for them to fly in the UK (when not on exchange Stateside). Edit - 30 August 2014: It appears that this issue has been largely resolved with the reformation of 736 NAS as somewhere RN jocks can go.

15. Preparing future deck crews and air engineers remains a challenge, as mentioned here. Measures beyond the exchanges with the US Navy and the Marine Nationale (France) may not be needed. Can enough personnel be sent? How will they practice skills upon return? How do they practice working as a team - a whole flight deck party or ship's company?

16. HMS Ocean was designed and built with a secondary role of transporting Sea Harriers/Harriers in an emergency, but would be unable to support them for any length of time due to limited fuel and weapon stowages. However, she would be able to embark a small number of Harriers for a limited period, if it was felt desirable to give UK based RN Pilots experience of landing a V/STOL aircraft (borrowed/leased Harriers) aboard a ship and doing short take offs at sea. This would also provide continuation training for chockheads/air engineers not on exchange or returned from exchange, and training for future Queen Elizabeth/Prince Of Wales Officers Of the Watch et al, as would embarking US/Italian/Spanish Harriers. It would also address whole ship aspects.

@ WE

"The GR9 can perform a limited (fleet) air defence role " - limited being the operative word. SHAR had a radar and a rocket with legs, GR7/9 with heaters only and mk 1 eyeball... I know who I would put my money on out of those two in a scrap!

Lord West can speak up all he likes; if he were doing so as 'exRN' it would be interesting and worthwhile hearing his viewpoint.
But in this case it appears far more like political point scoring (he is a politician now, not an admiral and thus tarnished with the political brush) - ironic considering the only reason the harriers have been binned is because 'his' party overspent for 10 yrs, and under the same govt binned the RN Shar (which at the time had the same backlash from members of the RN).

UK Plc is watering down our global role in line with what we can afford - which is not much... sad, but true.

Looking at the decision from a completely agnostic viewpoint – I am retired now and have no axe to grind on future employment etc, I have the following points:

Cost was a clear driver, salami slicing would not achieve the aim so one Force had to go.
Harrier is the smaller and, arguably, less capable of the 2 when looking at all of the air-to-Ground roles required and ability to sustain force elements – Carrier Ops aside. Therefore, if one had to go the decision was almost made for them if they wanted to retain the maximum capability across the board until the arrival of JSF.

As to maintaining carrier capability. The wider ship’s company will always be difficult to maintain, I guess even now the RN believe they are losing the capability so perhaps we have to admit that it will take time to regain it in the future.
As to the aircrew, I have no first hand GR7/9 carrier Ops experience so admit my expertise is a bit thin on their flight deck operations, but I have flown a modern FW aircraft (well it was in service until about 5 years ago) from conventional carriers on exchange with the USN. From my viewpoint, apart from flying over water and hence having few divert opportunities, the Harrier operating procedures on and around the carrier were very different to that required for conventional aircraft ops. Therefore Harrier pilots would offer little expertise to the future JSF Force – indeed I saw some US Marine pilots having considerable difficulty transitioning to the conventional approach patterns and ‘ball’ landing techniques so perhaps the Harrier Force are the last people we should rely on.

On the other hand, the RN currently has ab-initio pilots training with USN F-18’s and this would seem the best place to grow our future capability, be it RAF or RN. Given the timeframe of JSF, we do not need to do it now, but perhaps aim to take slots in preparation for the first squadron.

Just a thought.

Lone Kestrel.

Doesn't (sorry didn't) GR9 carry/or be capable of operating ASRAAM?

I have every sympathy with the Harrier Force and I would have felt an equal wrench if, in 1994, the Bucc had been taken from Service as a cost-saving measure rather than at the end of its outstanding 25-year career in the RAF, which it was.

My take on it is, however, that the writing has been on the wall for the Harrier ever since the SHAR was taken out of service early - a decision, I believe, that was supported by the Navy to secure the future of JSF and the new carriers! In addition, the decision to withdraw Ark and insist on LUST being a helo platform until her withdrawal is a further indicator of a Navy that is hell bent it would seem (and damn the consequences) in pouring good money after bad on these 2 aircraft carriers that will now not enter useful service until 2020 (or thereabouts). No Ark, No LUST, No QE2 or PoW then what value a Harrier, for example, over a Tornado? Yes, it can turn tighter corners when doing CAS. Yes, it can carry a multitude of weapons at the same time. But it no longer operates off short strips and is not cleared for the strategically valuable Storm Shadow (a decision taken by a very senior Harrier pilot to remove it from that programme in the late 90s before contract sign). The Harrier doesn't have the legs a Tornado has and, consequently, it is a 'one-trick pony' which has proved great value in FI and Afghan but is probably less useful in a future (I accept different type) conflict in which we might be engaged and definitely so, if it has no sea-launch capability.

Of course, whilst I blame the Navy to some extent for putting themselves in the position of trying to recreate the 'Spirit of the 60s' with Global Power Projection - a game we can no longer afford to play, in my opinion - I firmly lay the blame at the door of the Blair/Brown combo who got us into this sticky mess (and here I mean in terms of: war; the financial cost of war (which was supposed to come from Brown's Contingency Fund but came mainly from the MOD Budget); and the signing of a contract for 2 aircraft carriers to secure votes in a constituency - a crazy contract that will cost us more to withdraw from than continue with whether we want, need or can use the carriers in the end!) in the first place.

It's also important to note that with another defence review in 2015 (a sensible Cameron decision to hold them every 5 years in future) there can be no guarantees that fleet carriers will survive that round as the govt's take could easily be - we haven't needed them for 5 years why should we need them 5 years in the future! I hate to say it but I can see the end of FAA Fixed Wing flying before 2020!

So it's sad that the Harrier had to go but something had to give and, I believe, the correct aircraft will be taken out of service next year. Those GR4s that remain bring more to the party than the Harrier would during our 10-year capability gap.

If I offend anybody here, I do not mean to. If I have got any facts wrong please correct me (politely).

Foldie

GR wrote

House of Commons - Defence - Fourth Report

'With the MoD's recent announcement that it will withdraw Sea Harrier by 2006, however, it will not now be fitting it with ASRAAM. Work to date, which will now be nugatory, had cost £1.2 million.[274] And ASRAAM will also no longer be fitted to the Harrier GR7/9.[275]'

TJ

I don't think you can blame the navy for the Global Power Projection concept that resulted from SDR98 (and in actual fact is still supported in the new SDSR). All three services signed up to it and in fact the concept behind it originated back in the early 90's as the Cold War ended.

The idea that "good money is being poured after bad" on the carriers is also a fallacy. If you subscribe to the idea that power projection is required, then naval air is also required, which means carriers. Ark & Lusty cannot be extended much beyond their present OSD, partly because the ships are totally sh@gged but mainly because their futures are inevitably linked to the only aircraft they can fly (the Harrier - F35B cannot operate from CVS). Therefore new ships are required and the fact is that new carriers need to be significantly bigger than the CVS, partly because of the aircraft and partly to ensure the deck has enough room to operate a useful number of aircraft. The sorties required were all supported by campaign-level OA, which drove the rate and therefore the deck park requirement and hence the size of the ship.

At this point it should be pointed out that a conventional carrier (or larger STOVL ship) might not be tied to a single aircraft type - size has a flexibility all of its own - something which is often overlooked. Indeed, the biggest objection to the carriers has always appeared to be based on their size, as opposed to their cost. Should we be paying £5Bn for two CVF? Hell, no - we could and should have got them for around £3.5Bn the pair (assets that will last 50 years and operate at least two generations of aircraft). The reason we didn't get them for that price is largely to be laid at the door of Cyclops, although the actual root cause is the failure to update the long-term costing lines originally generated for the ships circa 1998 when they were 40000 te concept designs costed at £2.7Bn. Is there an alternative - unfortunately not (the spanish and italians must be sweating a bit now Dave B is at risk, the Indians and Chinese on the other hand have no such problems).

Those concept designs were based on fitting aircraft into a ship (ie how many can you fit on the deck and in the hangar), rather than decks designed to generate sorties. Once the more detailed studies began, it quickly became clear that larger ships were needed and at that point, the LTC lines should have been updated. They were not (a MoD MB failing) and in 2003 the result was that when BAE / Thales came back with a price of £3.2bn, panic ensued. Four years was then spent trying to fit the budget cost-effectively (they couldn't). Result, lots of folk wanting to cover their @rses, while cost escalated (nothing ever gets cheaper by deferral). Lord Drayson eventually blackmailed the remaining shipbuilding industry into consolidation (the Maritime Industrial Strategy) through use of the carrier contract as a none-too-subtle blunt instrument at which point it became inevitable that the remaining industry would only sign up with some eye-watering cancellation clauses. Ironically, at this point, Cyclops belatedly realised that his constituency had a vested interest in the ships being built and started being supportive - just in time to pick up the sobriquet "Gordons carriers". In truth, were it not for the fact that they're being assembled in Rosyth, he would not have given 1% of two-thirds of a flying f8ck whether they were built or not, which brings us back to the reason for where we are now.

SDR98 endorsed the carriers (as has SDSR) - it's just that Cyclops never wanted to pay for them and the navy has paid a blood price ever since trying to keep the programme, as there is literally nowhere else to go. Either we have a global navy (and armed force for that matter) capable of doing at least some things alone, or we collapse on home defence in which case OPV, MCMV and SSK for the navy, Tiffy, Sentry and a few tankers for RAF (no need for strike or long-range AT), plus a home defence force for the army. Anything else is to become another nations political fig-leaf, nothing more, nothing less.

Not a Boffin,

As I said:

But thanks for the other interesting aspects of the debate.

Foldie

Punching above our weight
 

As Cameron said, "we should be rightly proud of our ability to punch above our weight". Well, if we take this analogy. We may have lost our jab, right upper cut and left hook, but we still have a puncher's chance if we connect with a hay maker. Over to you Mr Oppenheimer..................

Have I missed something? Did the PM not state that Tornado only remains to cover the Afghanistan deployment. That being the case, the remainder of the Fleet after the initial drawdown (half the current Squadrons) gets chopped in 2015 when we leave.

Also and now we have opted for the F-35C, does it not make sense for this to be the version adopted (bar the USAF and Marine Corps) by other NATO allies and Australia? This would allow co-operation with other friendly nations as well as the US and French, further building on the point made by the PM and considered so important that it was worth delaying the carrier(s) to alter their design at an estimated cost of £500 Million. :confused:

Did I also miss something?? :sad:

Looks like tha Navy has been doing some sort of exercise in the Solent:

Pompey news

RN website: RN Warships Demonstrate Awesome Capability

Commanding Officer of HMS Albion Captain James Morley said: “This is a staged event to show our industry partners, national and international audiences exactly what we can do. It is important for us to show what we can deliver and the aim is to develop the understanding of how we work together and how we are configured to deal with a crisis.

“Afghanistan is the focus for the Services at the moment, and we have hundreds of Royal Navy sailors working out there right now, but we must also be ready as a country should a crisis happen elsewhere in the world and this demonstrates to our guests our enormous capability in doing so.”

I thought the Prime Minister had looked into the future and saw no crises for ten years?

Anyway, I hear the MOD refused permission for Ark Royal or the Harrier to take part.

Not A Boffin:

You say F-35B cannot be operated from a CVS, on what do you base this? It's academic now as we aren't getting any 'Bs anymore, but this myth has been doing the rounds for a while. A couple of years ago I was visiting Lusty and got chatting with some of her officers and crew about this. At the time they had a full sized mock up of the F-35B on board so I asked the obvious questions: Can you handle the real thing?

Yes they can, the Lightning fits on the lifts (it's a bit of a squeeze length wise but in rough weather they would just load it on diagonally), and it's empty weight is well within the 18.5 tonne limit for the lifts. The Lightning is substantially heavier than the Harrier when fully loaded but not proportionally larger. The Harrier has a spot factor of 0.89 and the F-35B has a spot factor of about 1.05. If you can get 12 Harriers aboard a carrier plus helos, you can also get 12 Lightnings aboard to replace the Harriers, not 8 or 6.

But as I said, it's all academic now.

My mistake as according to Air Forces Monthly:-

"Despite the Harrier being axed entirely, the Tornado force will also be reduced by two squadrons and one of the two operating bases, either RAF Lossiemouth in Moray or RAF Marham in Norfolk, will be surplus to requirements".

When we are out of Afghanistan, does that not mean the end for Tornado in 2015 around the time of the next Review?

:oh:

Mr Boffin,

Many thanks for a most interesting piece. Am confused by this though:

and

How much bigger is Principe de A and Cavour than a CVS? Not a flame, but thought that they are a much of a muchness. Confused (as usual, no?).

S41

draken,

lots of ifs, buts and maybes in that....

Obi-Wan & S41

It's not a myth. Numerous "can Dave fit on CVS" studies were done circa 1998 and repeated in the very early noughties. All concluded that F35 ops from CVS would be extremely tenuous. Just because you can physically fit the thing on does not mean that you can operate it (here we go with RVLs again).

As an example, think about vertical recovery with any sort of bring-back. Pegasus develops around 106kN of thrust on four separated nozzles, F-135 generates upwards of 170kN (and that still wasn't enough, hence the RVL idea) on a single nozzle (albeit with a fan as well). What's that going to do to a deck not designed for it? The technical term is buckle it to b8ggery. Never mind the damage it does to the deck crews who have to be in proportionally closer proximity.

As for our Spanish & Italian friends, PdA is of similar vintage to the CVS (and Garibaldi) and will go the same way. Cavour and the new Spanish ship (King Juan Carlos?) have been designed from the off to accommodate Dave-type thrust. However, neither ship has ever been conceived to offer more than a minimal FW capability - nor could such easily be accommodated in Sp/It infrastructure. However, no FW at all (should Dave B bite the dust) really does leave them limited to LPH within land-based air cover, which is pretty minimal. Do the fuel calcs to keep a two or four ship from a land base sufficiently close to a moving maritime force (even with tanker support) with adequate reaction time and it's eye-watering. That's one reason CVS grew SHAR, but also why a larger vessel is required to avoid the old self-licking lollipop charge and provide meaningful strike.

CVF is large enough to carry a CAG to defend against a credible threat and provide real punch - remember that you can veer and haul between DCA, OCA and strike as allowed by the threat. You can buy aircraft and train aircrew within a relatively short period (even if you are the MoD!) However, a largish ship generally takes 3-4 years to complete detailed design, with another six or so to build. A shortage of airframes is easier to fix than a shortage of ship.

But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment?

Basic problem is that we have in UK Inc what my Great Uncle Johnnie would have called:

"Champagne tastes and four ale money" - (Four ale being 4d a pint beer)

there's allus lots of "nice to have" but we must (another GUJ dit) "cut our coat according to our cloth!" :(

But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment?

Absolutely - but that is a different (no less important) problem with a different solution.

Which is fine, except for the fact that Rosyth wasn't in his constituency. It's in Dunfermline West, not Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (or his former one of Dunfermline East)

Word from friends who work at Rosyth was that it was a concern even with CVF. Lack of suitable deck paint being mentioned.