At last, Brain Potter finally brings some intelligence to what is possibly the most puerile thread I’ve ever read. I don’t know what is sadder. The hoop that is being posted here or the fact that some grown men had nothing better to do on Christmas Day than to add to it! Unbelievable.
Tourist, Bismark and Gullwings in particular have demonstrated quite breathtaking levels of hypocrisy by posting biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate information; the very failings they so vociferously accused other posters of. Indeed, I’m beginning to suspect that one of you is Lewis Page!
May I suggest that you at least have the courtesy to research your subjects correctly prior to posting. If you cannot remain objective in a debate, you add nothing to it.
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
BP has hit the nail on the head with his post regarding the usual ‘the nasty Crabs moved Australia/Diego Garcia/Gan* 50/100/200* miles to undermine CVA-01’ claim.
To further his comments, this urban myth has been subjected to a fair degree of academic scrutiny of which I believe at least one contributor to PPRUNE has been privy to. As with the Hansard verbatim records of contemporary official debates, the CVA-01 saga was well documented and is available for public scrutiny. Interestingly, nowhere in the official documentation of the period is there recorded any suggestion that the RAF moved land masses to undermine CVA-01. Nor, to my knowledge have any of the RN personnel involved in the debate at the time ever made similar claims.
In fairness, I suspect that TSR2/F-111K* performance data for the aircraft was manipulated by both sides to add weight to their arguments. I suspect that therein lays the genesis to this particular conspiracy theory as factors such as ambient temp, payload, cruise speed and sortie profiles can easily impact upon stated range figures by hundreds of miles.
What has been acknowledged by numerous sources (including Baron Healey’s autobiography) however is that there were other factors in the demise of CVA-01 which far overshadowed any nefarious intentions my own Service may have had. Moreover, I would suggest that the RN itself was the chief (naval?) architect regarding the demise of CVA-01.
As intimated by BP, the Wilson Government had correctly identified that the UK was unable to support its existing overseas commitments. Accordingly they sought to withdraw ‘East of Suez’ and focus upon NATO. Whilst carrier based air power was (and in my opinion remains) not at variance to such a Eurocentric policy, the RN showed little flexibility in negotiations regarding CVA-01 (and the associated Type 82 DDG) requirements. This intransigence alienated Healey as well as the Treasury. The Senior Service’s position was further weakened by poor staffing resulting in unconvincing and flawed arguments for fixed wing carriers.
During a similar period, the RN was manoeuvring to assume the nuclear deterrent in the form of Polaris. As with Trident and SSBN(F), this procurement involved enormous cost and inevitably eroded the wider capabilities of the RN, notably any hope of retaining an expansive fixed wing carrier fleet. Indeed, I would suggest that the procurement of Polaris was utterly disastrous for the Senior Service in the long term and was arguably the most significant reason for the demise of CVA-01.
Whilst I would certainly agree that the RAF and RN were engaged in mutually and exceptionally damaging inter-service politics during the 1960s let’s cut all the propaganda that it was one sided. Mountbatten (as CDS) and the RN argued vociferously against several major RAF projects at the time, notably TSR2 and HS681. Indeed, the then CDS personally intervened with an RAAF delegation to kill off Australia’s consideration of an export order for the former. This stance was ultimately crippling for the UK aerospace industry and it has never recovered.
Worryingly, when you look at the CVA-01 v F-111K tombstones, it is easy to see parallels with today. CVA-01/CVF. T82/T45. Polaris/Trident replacement. F-35/P1154RN and RAF. It all seems rather familiar. In addition, having heard several flag officers state that ‘I don’t care who flies the aircraft, as long as we get CVF’, I sometimes wonder if the wider RN care one jot for the FAA beyond it being a leverage to obtain some big carriers.
I sincerely hope that the Treasury do not succeed in the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics again. Regrettably, the bias of some posters on this thread only garners ammunition for the civil servants.
For my part, I hope that we do not adopt the Israeli practice where AF aircrew operate all manned aircraft, whether it be from land or sea.
XT668
I have my own thoughts and opinions on each of my sister services. However, I would never lower myself to publicly referring to one as a ‘farce’ and you would do well to remember the conditions which all 3 services are operating under at this time. Conditions which you will be unable to appreciate just as I am unable to appreciate the conditions you served under several decades ago. Posts such as yours are disrespectful to those members of my Service who have died on current operations and those who continue to place our lives on the line. Frankly, such comments do a disservice to your own former Service, many of whom operate alongside the RAF on current ops with mutual respect.
As a former Wessex aviator, you may be interested in viewing
this and
this link covering the evacuation of a mortally wounded soldier in Afghanistan by an RAF Chinook crew. If you still consider the RAF a farce after having viewed it then that is your prerogative. However, please have the good manners to keep such sentiments to yourself.
What a load of rubbish about Kandahar runway being too short - too short for what?
Google is your friend curvedsky. You may find that there has been a minor conflict which directly affected Afghanistan and Khandahar airfield between 1998 and 2005 when the GR7s first deployed.
Regards and best wishes for a safe 2009 to all.
MM
* Proponents of CVA-01 conspiracy theories should delete as appropriate and insert their favoured option.