Aircraft Carriers, Harriers and the truth

Commander Salamander seems to think that Liam Fox and the MOD may not be telling the whole truth; have a read.

Getting rid of political and personal enemies/rivals via 'leaks'

Chris Huhne and Liam Fox both the victims of leaks; one personal, one political. Ask yourself who has something to gain personally and politically from each? In Chris Huhne's case I think the answer may lie in 'cherchez la femme', in Liam Fox's I think it may be rather more political - and that does not necessarily mean another politician...

A pot's supporter calling a kettle black?

Earlier this evening Denis 'Parliamentary Labour Party whip withdrawn while he is under criminal investigation' MacShane tweeted this:

'What's up with Liam? Shouty, rattled, off balance by Jim Murphy's idea of stronger military covenant. He is so bad tempered'

I think my reply was in order:

'@DenisMacShane You think Liam Fox is bad tempered; what was your opinion of Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor and then Prime Minister?'

You will not be surprised to learn that Denis MacShane has not replied; but then he never does.

Scrapping the Harriers

I am a huge fan of the Harrier jumpjet and just could not understand the decision to scrap the UK's force of Harrier jumpjets and preserve the RAF Tornado bomber fleet instead.

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?

Burglary or Labour dirty tricks?

The news that Dr Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman, has had his laptop stolen on the morning he had been due to outline the Conservative's armed forces manifesto seems a touch coincidental. I wonder what else was on the laptop and how useful it would be to the Labour election campaign...

I thought they were probably Labour MPs

The BBC article about MPs (and former MPs) having to repay expenses is missing a few details. The first two MPs named are described as "Tory Liam Fox... and Labour's Shahid Malik". But after that the MPs named seem to be missing their political party affiliations; my suspicions were aroused so I had to do some fact-checking:

"Other MPs who had appeals rejected were Roger Casale, Chris Pond and Betty Williams.

Six MPs had their appeals upheld in full and a further four - John Lyons, Denis MacShane, Alan Simpson and Derek Wyatt - had their sums requested reduced by sums ranging from £121 to £7,866. "

Let's see that's MPs whose appeals were rejected in full or part:
Roger Casale - former Labour MP
Chris Pond - former Labour MP
Betty Williams - current Labour MP
John Lyons - former Labour MP
Denis MacShane - current Labour Minister
Alan Simpson - current Labour MP
Derek Wyatt - current Labour MP

No I can't see why the BBC would drop the listing of party affiliations, can you?