So I was intrigued to read a letter in today's Times by the leader of Britain's heroic commandos and paras during the Falklands War (former Royal Marine major-general Julian Thompson), along with some retired admirals, which argues that the Coalition's recent decision to scrap the UK's force of Harrier jumpjets and preserve the RAF Tornado bomber fleet was a huge mistake and should be reversed.
The letter to the Times runs thus:
'Harrier could still use Kandahar runway if half of it were blocked by Taleban action; can use any make-shift landing site; has a response time of less than 10 minutes, as against 30 [for the Tornado]; performs better in hot weather; requires fewer ground crew; and has better availability.
Harrier can deliver close air support of ground forces anywhere from the existing carriers ... [it] has nearly twice as many airframes provided with precision-guided ground attack capability [as Tornado]; will not require a further £1.4 billion to re-engine in 2014; and can remain in service until 2023 without significant investment.
The existing Tornado force will cost, over 10 years, seven times as much to keep in service as Harrier ...
The decision to axe the entire Harrier force is strategically and financially perverse.'
Signing the letter alongside Thompson is another Falklands veteran, Lord Alan West who later became head of the navy. Also signatories are former First Sea Lord, Julian Oswald, and two retired vice-admirals, Jeremy Blackham and John Mcanally.
Remember the Falklands, a war that happened (at least partly) because the Argentinians decided that the UK wasn't serious about defending the Falklands. Land-based RAF aircraft couldn't reach the theatre of battle effectively (remember the incredible feats required to get one Vulcan to bomb Port Stanley airfield) and so it carrier-borne Harriers that had to to fight the Argentine air force for control of the skies. Without the Harrier carriers the war of 1982 would have been a bloody, disastrous defeat for the UK.
I remember a TV piece about the Harrier operating in Central Europe that impressed me then and has stuck in my mind. It compared the length of time required to build a runway for conventional jets as opposed to clearing the space needed by a Harrier; the versatility was incredible.
I doubt that the Tornado is suited to flying out of Kandahar, the runway is too short for safe takeoffs and too easy to damage thus making in unusable by Tornados.
Flexibility is the most important factor in modern warfare and I know which of the Harrier and the Tornado is more flexible; the Harrier. It also being the only plane that could give the UK a carrier borne plane until (and if) the new carriers and planes come into service.
The experts have spoken, so has common-sense; is it too much to hope that David Cameron, Liam Fox and the Chiefs of Staff reconsider their decision?
No comments:
Post a Comment