‘In respect of Afghanistan: 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; 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; can destroy surface units with Maverick, rockets and smart bombs; has nearly twice as many airframes provided with precision-guided ground attack capability; 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 ten years, seven times as much to keep in service as Harrier. Was the recent exercise not supposed to save money?’
‘The operational availability of Harrier aircraft to frontline squadrons has been below target since 2001...Operational availability dropped further in April 2003, with the start of the Harrier upgrade programme at BAE Systems site at Warton, but improved as work was transferred to the new depth repair hub at RAF Cottesmore. In the last half of 2006 aircraft availability has been at or close to 100 per cent against a revised target.’
Aircraft and Argentina aside, Britain has pioneered a new line in deploying military hardware. We are at an impecunious juncture where we have either aircraft-less carriers or grounded jets to defend our overseas possessions.
PS: As I've written before, the Falklands are well defended in any event. Besides, if we're a basket case, God knows what Argentina is...