So you navy types... is it true?

[SkippyBing]

although that photo is of RAF harriers at Cottesmore.

Errr.. you do know the RN fast jet fleet borrowed RAF cabs and operated out of Cottesmore from about 2004/5 don't you? It wasn't called Joint Force Harrier because they liked smoking illegal substances.

[Ant1981]

although that photo is of RAF harriers at Cottesmore.

Errr.. you do know the RN fast jet fleet borrowed RAF cabs and operated out of Cottesmore from about 2004/5 don't you? It wasn't called Joint Force Harrier because they liked smoking illegal substances.

Yes, I never said they didn't. Borrowed is the whole point, they're RAF ones and the story mentions only the NAVY getting 'their' (RAF) Harriers back and no mention of the RAF.

[SkippyBing]

Yes, I never said they didn't. Borrowed is the whole point, they're RAF ones and the story mentions only the NAVY getting 'their' (RAF) Harriers back and no mention of the RAF.

Right, I'll make it simple because I've been drinking.

There are ~60 harriers in a lock up at Cottesmore.

You'd need ~20 to form an air group for the remaining aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious which even CDS seems to have forgotten about at times) plus say 10 extra for training/attrition.

IF it's decided to reintroduce them so they can fly off ILLUSTRIOUS for operations near/over Libya the logical choice is to use the RN's fast jet pilots who're currently under-employed, to fly them, which by extension implies forming them into an FAA squadron. Thus the Navy would get 'their' Harriers back in the sense that anything actually belongs to the individual services rather than HM Gov/The Queen.

You may be extending an unwarranted degree of pedantry to a newspaper article.

[Ant1981]

[SkippyBing]

No go on, what?