Which Defence Secretary was the worst?

[steamchicken]

Well, seeing as no-one likes them, I thought I'd carry out a little experiment. SC proudly presents the Top Five Defence Sec Poll!

[Jimlad]

Would the early rise in votes for Sandys be becuase he took the RAF's toys away from them:)

I read an exceptionally good article on another website as to why Sandys was right in his decisions over the RAF. I shall try and post it here shortly- in a nutshell - army and navy were able to prove themsevles rather useful. RAF was scrabbling round for a role and failing miserably. sounds a lot like the situation today doesn't it:D (stands backand takes cover from incoming attacks - led by many jaguar squadrons! :) )

[Ed Winchester]

Would the early rise in votes for Sandys be becuase he took the RAF's toys away from them

What, 2 votes? Good to see we have got another fine poster who can turn any thread into an inter-service bitchfest at the drop of a hat.

Arrrrr Jimlad, I'll see your :D and raise you a http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/thefinger.gif.

[steamchicken]

Hmmmm..interesting so far. But does the large vote for both Healey and Hoon reflect their policies or the posters' political preference? It's also a pity we can't post more than 5 options, or I'd have put up more candidates. I will not be voting, as the poster of the poll.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Personally I don't think Hoon is to blame for the Sea Harrier debacle, so I didn't vote for him.

Portillo wasn't in the job long, so didn't votes for him.

Sandys was a LONG time ago, our forces had to be cut due to our reduced role in world affairs.

Can I vote for both Healy and Nott?

[Groundgripper]

I agree with WE, Hoon's just doing as he is told by Gordon Brown.

Then again, Healy was just doing as he was told by the Americans.

Could be worse, we might have Byers as Defence Secretary!

[Flatus Veteranus]

Groundgripper. "Healey was just doing what he was told by the Americans"? Bollux. SAC was in trouble with the Convair B58 Hustler and was seriously interested in TSR2. I discovered this at SAC HQ in '72. Command HQs are much more influential in the USAF procurement process than in the RAF's. :(

[Jimlad]

Ok - got this off an EZboard forum, the guy who wrote it is actually very knowledgable at his subject. I think it raises pertinent questions for today's planners.
As for the bitchfest - why not? Having just spent half an hour in the bar with a bunch of UAS types I am feeling not particularly well dispossesed (sp?) towards my light blue colleagues :)


(This is done in two parts due to length)

Duncan Sandys is a much-abused figure in British defense mythology yet most of the abuse heaped upon his head is grossly unjustified. In a very real sense he's been made to carry the can for a wide variety of sins that mostly predate his birth let alone his assumption of office.

Before looking at the decisions Sandys took. I think we have to try and look at the problems facing the UK as a whole. These can basically be summed up as "Imperial Overstretch", a term coined by Paul Kennedy and one that has peculiar relevence to the UK. The problem facing the UK defense establishment as a whole was that the functions which they were asked to fulfill far exceeded the resources that the country made available to them. The catch was that the resources that the country was already making to the defense establishment far exceeded its ability to support on a long-term basis. Put another way, the Government was making demands on the armed services that they would not fund and, worse, were grossly overestimating the capability that the funds they were making available would support.

This wasn't new; in essentials this ran back to before the First World War and British defense policy since the start of the 20th century had been to try and square a circle; to support defense commitments that were far out of proportion to the country's ability to fund. This had been done with varying success up to 1939 but post-WW2 had become impossible. In 1948 the Home Fleet was reduced to four destroyers; there were plenty more ships but there were not enough funds to provide them with crews or fuel. In that time-span the Government was selling ships for scrap because they needed the money to pay the daily operating bills for the Government. Just to make matters worse, the Government had inherited a bloated defense infrastructure that was intended to fight WW2. It was huge, expensive and totally obsolete.

In 1950-53 the UK had tried to mobilize in order to restructure its armed forces to fight in the Cold War. That mobilization was a disastrous failure that had to be bailed out by Uncle Sam. In the words of the Prophet "Something Had To Be Done". It was time for a radical rethink. This had been attempted three times in the period 1953-1957 but NONE of the efforts had achieved the necessary results. The primary reason was that the Defense Ministers had proved too weak and lacked the leadership to force the necessary changes through over the heads of the service chiefs.

In early 1957 MacMillan issued a new directive that stipulated British defense planning would now take place on a unified basis. Innocuous words but what they really meant was that the services would now be considered as part of a single coordinated defense policy. There would no longer be an Army Policy, an Air Force Policy and a Navy Policy. There would now be a Defense Policy with the execution of varying part of that policy sub-contracted to the service most suited to handling that particular aspect. All the armed services would be have to provide detailed justifications for their various capabilities in the context of the stipulated defense policy. Duncan Sandys was tasked with holding the investigations into that defense policy and making the appropriate policy decisions.

Thats all background. Its intended to show that there was much, much more to the 1957 Defense Review than just a decision to substitute missiles for bombers. That interpretation omits something like 95 percent of the White Paper. For example, a key part of the White Paper was the decision to abolish conscription. This was purely political and taken on the grounds that public pressure was making the retention of conscription in peacetime impossible. It was recognized that the end of conscription would drastically increase the manpower costs of the armed services and that economic constraints meant that this could only be overcome by cutting the manpower strength of the services. That alone was a major driver towards radical changes.

So what were the tasks of the armed services in the new regime? Basically they were:

A) Strategic (nuclear) attack on the USSR and other enemies
B) The Defense of the UK from direct attack
C) The defense of the sea lanes and supply routes of the UK
D) Participation in the NATO defense of Europe
E) The protection of British interests outside NATO

And so we begin.

[Jimlad]

The Royal Navy was first on the chopping block. What happened next was undoubtedly Mountbatten's finest hour and what he achieved in late 1956 and early 1957 gains him the honor of being the finest professional head of the Royal Navy of the 20th century. Mountbatten had the wisdom and common sense to realize that times had changes and those who did not go with the tide would be swept away by it. Mountbatten looked through the defense policy, picked out those areas that the Royal Navy could do (and could make a good case should do) and offered to scrap everything else. Those roles were firstly protecting the sealanes to the UK - primarily against submarines but also against long range air attack. The first required frigates, the second carriers. Then he took the "defending UK interests outside NATO. Mountbatten pointed out there were only two ways of doing this. One was station army garrisons at every point of possible contention. the other was to use a mobile mix of carriers and amphibious troops to intervene where trouble threatened. He pointed out that such trouble did not flare up without warning but took time to come to the boil. Therefore good intelligence was also needed. Finally Mountbatten made a grab for the strategic attack role. He started by schmoozing Rickover into handing over details of the US nuclear submarine and Polaris programs. From that he was able to show Duncan Sandys that the stategic strike role could be taken over by nuclear-powered submarines carrying the new Polaris missile. Everything else not needed for this program; the cruisers, the battleships, the huge force of old, ineffective escorts etc etc would be scrapped. The results would be a much smaller, leaner but more effective Royal Navy. Sandys was converted. He had gone into the process bitterly opposed to the RN carrier fleet and naval forces in general. He came out an enthusiastic convert and supporter of the Navy.

Next was the Army. Montgomery was the antithesis of Mountbatten. He had nothing but contempt for Sandys and no regard whatsoever for the new orientation of defense. His contribution was that the Army knew what it had to do, was the way he wanted it, and that was the end of the matter so there. His policy documents made no concession to the political and financial realities that were breaking nor to the requirements of the Cold War. What little strategic vision they possessed was basically that World War III would take up where WW2 had ended. The rest of the Army would go about its business garrisoning various parts of the Empire. The result was the institution of the trip-wire strategy. On the basis of the Army's own submissions, it could not make a reasonable contribution to defending Europe on the basis of the resources available. Therefore its function was cut back to a trip wire that would hold the line just long enough to allow a final attempt to persuade the enemy to abandon the attack or face nuclear weapons. Even that required the legions to return home. There would be no British troops available for far-flung garrisons. What wasn't in Europe would be the UK garrison

That left the RAF. This is the only part of The Way Forward (the official name of the 1957 Sandys White Paper) that gets talked about, primarily due to the effects of the RAF propaganda machine. Again, some background is necessary. There was no doubt that the defense of the UK against air attack would fall to the RAF but how were they best to do that? Here its necessary to remember that the UK aircraft industry had a long history of delivering aircraft that were years late and never performed as well as they were supposed to. Furthermore all the investment made in the aircraft industry since 1945 had been wasted on a clutch of competing prototypes that had always been that little bit too late to be viable. There was no prospect of that changing unless the aircraft industry was totally reorganized. The RAF showed no signs of recognizng these limitations; their proposals rested on more fighters, more bombers. Duncan Sandys had been primed by his meetings with the Navy. He knew the key question to ask. Missiles.

Could the fighter defenses proposed fend off ballistic missile attack? No. Could the fighters get off the ground fast enough to avoid being destroyed by ballistic missile attack? No. Could fighters respond fast enough against bombers to prevent them launching long-range supersonic cruise missiles? No. Any good reason why we should build fighters then? Errrrrr - they look nice? Sandys knew that the USSR was investing heavily in ballistic missiles of various types targeted on Europe. He knew that they were building new generations of missile-carrying bombers. The fighters operated by the RAF and those supposed to enetr service were great for fighting the Battle of Britain but that was of no significance. they couldn't protect the UK against the most likely threats so what was the point of having them. On the other hand missiles could. They could respond instantly and offered the chance of defending against missiles. Sandys was well aware of what was going on in the USA and where the fabulous Nike system was going. there was a threat, missiles could meet it, fighters couldn't. Bye-bye fighters. There would, of course be an interim gap so that was filled by an interim fighter. Hello Lightning. A side benefit was that none of the proposed missiles would have been built by the existing aircraft industry (some of the names were the same but the design teams were not). So they didn't have a demonstrated record of failure.

The RAF wanted to keep strategic attack with bombers. Could bombers, existing or planned penetrate the missile-based air defenses of the USSR projected for the late 1960s (assuming they were at least equal to Nike)? No. Bye-bye bombers. Replace them with missiles. If the land-based missiles failed go with the Navy's Polaris. As an interim there was this thing called Skybolt.

So viewed in the context of the times, Sandys had the right answers to the right questions. In reality he did a good job. When he left office in 1959 he had placed Britain's defense forces on a secure strategic, administrative and financial base. If, as the question presumes, his White Paper had been abandoned, the results would almost certainly have been the total collapse of the UK armed forces and the bankruptcy of the UK. The British just couldn't have gone on the way they were where the defense forces were consuming more than 10 percent of GNP (and not getting a proportionate return on that money).

[Flatus Veteranus]

But did he not forget one or two little thingies? Like in peacetime if you pick up a strange plot on radar and cannot identify it, you cannot just blast off a missile or 6. The airlines and their passengers might get upset. And when the Sov massed armour comes at you, you cannot just nuke them (unless you want to get it back in spades!) You have first to try to deal with them at a conventional level. And in 50s/60s technology missiles were toally incapable against mobile targets. So, having disbanded "N" Hunter FGA squadrons they had to be expensively reprovided with Jaguars and, later, Harriers. Meanwhile, the Ark was commissioned, served out her life without doing anything useful (except making an amusing film and hosting endless cocktail parties) and was eventually paid off and her aircraft disembarked and put to work. Sandys was dazzled by that idiot Mountbatten. "Everyone loves a Lord".

I have not the gall to announce myself as an "expert on air warfare". But by Gosh I have more tax-paying time in than most Ppruners. And I will not willingly pay for a new Imperial role, which damaged our economy from the 1870s onwards, nor the trappings that go with it. And carriers and their associated hangers-on head that category.:mad:

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Wot - no Fred Mulley in the list?!

Oh, and those who voted for (against?) Denis Healey might like to heed the views of the senior military officers who led the campaign in Borneo against the Indonesian expansionists. A campaign in which the UK and her allies were completely successful (victorious is such a non-PC word - as well as excessively redolent of the grey funnel line...). So far as aforementioned SMOs were concerned, they could not have wished for a more competent, knowledgeable Defence Minister.

[Wycombe]

....haven't you forgotten Fred Mulley...well I guess he was pretty forgettable.

....wasn't he the one that fell asleep whilst sat next to HRH at an RAF Flypast (forget which one now)

(Bollox, T_and_B just beat me to it!!)

[Jackonicko]

Sorry, but that article is simplistic and wrong-headed tosh.

The solution to 'Imperial Overstretch' which you applaud was to disband UK AD squadrons and the fast jet FGA units (mainly Venoms and Hunters) facing the Bloc in Germany, (arguably the most relevant Cold War capabilities) and to cancel all future manned fighter and bomber aircraft programmes after the Lightning (TSR2 squeaked through) while leaving a bloated Navy virtually unscathed.

Top decision!

And another example of frantic money saving efforts disguised as sensible military policy.....

[Busta]

Wycombe

It was at HM Quoons silver jumbilee flypast at Finningly in 1975, I was the no 3 Vulcan, and still bear the scars.

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I am annoyed that this thread has turned into another light blue versus dark blue bitching contest. Jimlad, you should know better!

The reason why Duncan Sandys is criticised so much is that he predicted the end of manned aircraft, cancelling scores of aircraft projects (not all of them RAF ones) and left the UK without a decent fighter aircraft for decades. He had similar effects on other aircraft types too.

Remember, this is primarily an aviation forum.

[Jackonicko]

Webf,

You're partly right. The real problem with Sandys was that he attempted to bring about the end of manned combat aircraft when the technology of the day was inadequate to provide any replacement (let alone a viable one).

He was also completely oblivious to the need to retain conventional war-fighting capabilities, and slashed conventional forces in the UK and Europe to an extent that made trip-wire the only possible doctrine. Pre Sandys, there were sufficient fighter bombers in RAFG to make the idea of a conventional conflict bearable, afterwards, nukes were the only possible response to any Warpac push.

He was also completely in thrall to Mountbatten and a group of highly partial advisers who ensured that the force reductions made were unbalanced and unhelpful.

The contention that "the UK aircraft industry had a long history of delivering aircraft that were years late and never performed as well as they were supposed to." and that "Furthermore all the investment made in the aircraft industry since 1945 had been wasted on a clutch of competing prototypes that had always been that little bit too late to be viable." is risible. In the Venom, for example, the RAF had a better ground attack fighter than the F-84 (and an aircraft which bettered the MiG-17 and Sabre in some regimes) while the Hunter, Canberra and Vulcan were all 'world beaters', which all gave an excellent return on the investment made in them. In a previous thread I was taken to task for 'dissing' the Javelin, which was apparently a very much better aircraft than has often been said.

The contentions about the inadequacy and vulnerability of manned fighters are also well off-base.

But I'm sorry the UAS mates upset you, Jimlad, perhaps they could have helped you spell the word 'disposed' and explained the difference between it and 'disposessed'?


Flatus

Concisely put, mate, and 'bang on'.

[Blacksheep]

None of the wonder solutions involved in Borneo though, was there Thud_and_Blunder? Ghurkas storm in on Blackburn Beverleys. The grey funnel line turns up with a clapped out WWII carrier converted to commando ship and fill the sky with Westland Whirlwinds, the RAF turn up with Hunter FGAs firing 30mm Adens and all the while the RN museum ship HMS Cavalier was moored out in Brunei Bay serving as command centre for the whole operation. Yet despite the lack of any proper weaponry or equipment, everything still went wonderfully well. Oh and never forget the Royal Marines making a 'seaborne' landing at Limbang after converting a gravel lighter into a landing craft. Heavy casualties but they hacked it. Of course. I suppose it must have had something to do with the quality of the manpower rather than the quality of the equipment we were made to do it with, thanks to Mr. Plonker the Defence Sectretary.

No, Duncan Sandys it has to be - for his services, not only to all three of the Armed (?) Forces but to the British aircraft industry in general. Instead of his acres of hi-tech wonder rockets the RAF staggered on with the poor old V force and its prehistoric bombing system, the radar core of which had seen actual service over the Third Reich, right up to the Falklands conflict. I'm amazed we ever managed to find the bloody Belgrano let alone sink it. :(

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Jimlad]

dispossed/ dispossed - its all the same to me after a few pints:)

RN - it was heavily cut post Sandys, they lost most of the trash that had been hanging round after the war, all the reserve units went, the battleships went and frankly a lot of the hangers on went. To say that the RN was left bloated is frankly untrue - it suffered major cuts. It seems to me that people are more jealous that mountbatten got his case together than any rational reason, judging by some of the comments against him.

The problem on this board is that some people seem to nurse an irrational hatred of all things carrier related and that is something I fail to understand. In my simple matelot like mind I see carriers as nothing more than a floating airbase pure and simple. Yes they carry a lot of crew but thats a generational thing - they were designed inthe 1960's so reflect the practices of the times. If you look at modern warship design crew numbers have been cut considerably since the war- the new Type 45 class will have a crew of 150- 180.
Secondly Carriers are great to provide air defence for the fleet - not just themselves. Yes theoretically the RAF could provide assests for A/D but it would take a massive effort to constantly keep an A/D CAP over the fleet + AEW + tanker support. I'd hazard a guess that if we were doing another falklands style op then it would tie up most of our resources just to provide a two plane CAP 24/7 with AEW cover. Carriers allow you to go away and do that self sufficiently - we don't need outside support as we take it with us, we can do AEw so your precious sentrys can stay at Waddington and we can handle our own air defence. The best bit is that we can get GR7/9's oboard for bombing as well.

Yes I'm sure the Jaguar could deploy easily, but that assumes that a base will always be available. In my opinion the events post 9/11 show that bases won't always be there and that investing in carriers will ensure a decent power projection capability that is not tied to a foreign airfield. Its far more flexible as the enemy don't know where it is and it can move close to other hot spots while the Jag force is waiting for political clearance to go to another country.

Don't get me wrong - carriers are not the be all / end all of aviation but they perfrom a very useful fire fighting role by getting a complete air package to an area very quickly without reference to foreign powers. They can hold the line till the Jags / Tornadoes turn up.

The sooner some of the dinosaurs on this board realise carriers are here to stay and that they are a joint force asset the better.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Sandys was inconsistent. Retaining the carriers was not in keeping with his ideas on defence. In fact, his decisions set the Navy up for Healy's decision in 1966 to scrap the big carriers.

Keep "Carriers are great" comments on the relevent threads please!

Blacksheep, you are right. I once read a book about cancelled aircraft projects, and Sandys scrapped more than most. We lead the world, and our politicians threw it away. Shame on them!!

[Jackonicko]

Sandys cuts got rid of 'most of the trash that had been hanging round after the war' - so not really painful, and the Battleships (didn't PoW and Repulse and Renown show that the day of the Battleship was well and truly dead, anyway?) and the reserves. The RN was left leaner than before, probably more efficient, and with a committment to its future. As you argue, Mountbatten turned the 57 Defence WP to the RN's advantage.

By bloated, I was referring to the scores of frigates and destroyers which were necessary only to support an Empire role which was clearly disappearing. The Navy in '57 was larger than its Cold War responsibilities and commitments required.

The Air Force was left much smaller, and has never, since 57, been more than a token force, capable of doing no more than buying time before inevitable nuclear escalation in the Cold War, and of delivering Armageddon to a handful of Soviet cities.

If money was no object, and were we spending 6% of GDP on defence I'd be an enthusiastic supporter of carriers. I might even admit that a European carrier force might be a useful tool, if spreading the costs that way would work. But in these times of extreme budgetary pressure, they just do not cut it as a cost effective solution. Moreover, in these times, when military operations require political and international supports, the basing flexibility they appear to offer is often illusory. If you can't get basing in a neighbouring nation, you probably can't conduct the op anyway. If you want to keep SHar and carriers you need to come up with an alternative 'big ticket' cut - like Trident or all UK armour or all fixed wing land-based offensive support and attack FJs.

[Jimlad]

The problem with Trident is that although the Navy uses it, we don't desperately want it! It was foisted on us by the politicians who then said we had to pay for the privelege of a system that we don't use.
i'd argue though that it is a relatively cheap system to run now that its in service - but I doubt we will see a follow on SSBN class.

Heavy armour - rumours I've picked up from Tankies (sorry Cavalry officers :) ) say that Challenger is the last generation of MBT - after that we're onto wheeled things. Quite right too.

The RN knew that battleships were obsolete back in the 40's = the problem being that the admirals didn't realise this and besides they were nice toys to play with. Same as their Airships with their bomber forces - useless but pretty. The history of the RN escort fleet is one of a service which has realised it needs to change - the construction programs of the 1950's + 1960's show a shift towards high quality anti sub units - exactly what was needed at the time. The older units were kept around for less than 10 years after 1957 and by 1970 the RN was a radically different force indeed.

As for the carriers I'd argue that they are to the RAF's advantage in that they provide a range of capabilities which support all three services and as long as HMG decides on an expeditionary warfare style of defence policy they are vital to our national interest. If theyu are so expensive and obsolete why do nations like Italy, Thailand, Brazil, spain etc use them and why do so many countries want to acquire them?

[Hairy Crosswinds]

Sorry to butt in here chaps, I´ve been following this discussion
with interest.

If Battleships had had their day post WW2, then why was the
US Navy bringing their New Jersey class war canoes out
of mothballs in the seventies and eighties, to fight in places
like Vietnam and the Lebanon?
Wasn´t one of them used as recently as the Gulf War?
Also the Russian Navy had some kind of Heavy Battlecruiser.
(Kirov class?), commisioned in the eighties which would have
had the task of searching for and destroying US Navy carrier
units.
I´m not suggesting we bring back the Battleship here,
just asking a question.

[Jackonicko]

Good point, which adequately illustrates the point that weapons systems appropriate for the Cold War may be less suitable in the post Cold War world, and vice versa.

[ORAC]

Jimlad:

"In my opinion the events post 9/11 show that bases won't always be there and that investing in carriers will ensure a decent power projection capability that is not tied to a foreign airfield".

Really, where? If you mean Afghanistan, the USN operations would be impossible without tanker support operating from land bases. There would also be no proper reconnaissance or C2 which operate from land bases. It should be pointed out that the USAF B1, B2 and B52 forces delivered around 80% of all munitions dropped.

If anything has come out of the last 10 years it is the continuous reinforcement of the need and efficacy of a heavy bomber force.

It is not surprising, therefore, that everyone is still buying hundreds of tactical jets designed for the Cold War.

[Jimlad]

I agree that heavy bombers still do have a role to play - I merely believe that a carrier battle group offers a very useful first reaction force. In the early days of the war most sorties were done from carriers in the Indian ocean to get tactical aircraft over the target. Yes the bombers flew - but is sending a B1 on a 24 hour round trip to drop a limited number of bombs the best way of delivering airpower?

If you look the only way much of the strikes was done was through intense diplomatic pressure to get bases - not a given thing in any situation - if anything this is an unusual situation as so many countries are playing on the American team. Next time the nearest country may not be willing to play ball - look at airstrikes against Libya - the F111's had to go the long way while the carriers sailed where they wanted and launched where they wanted.

My view is that Carriers provide a superb platform to launch initial strikes from - the planes are there and more importantly so are the weapons + spare parts - you don'#t have to wait for weeks for all the bits to be flown in from another base as you already have them. While the air force do their bit to get their strike planes ready the carriers hold the line and do what is necessary. They are just another way of projecting airpower in harms way to do the job we need to do.

[ORAC]

1. The carrier based aircraft couldn't have reached or operated safely over Afghanistan without land based support.

2. A carrier group can take weeks to deploy to the scene. A bomber can be there within 24 hours - worldwide.

3. A heavy bomber is the most efficacious way of delivering ordinance - and a couple of bombers out of Diego Garcia is a lot more efficient than a carrier,and it's air group and support.

[Scud-U-Like]

The services are, by nature, resistant to change and it has always fallen to the Defence Secretary (at the behest of the Treasury) to wield the hatchet when the composition of our forces cannot be reconciled with the political and economic realities of the day.

This is why we'll never see a thread in an armed forces forum asking 'Which Defence Secretary was the best?'!

[Jimlad]

2. A carrier group can take weeks to deploy to the scene. A bomber can be there within 24 hours - worldwide.

A carrier can reach speeds of over thirty knots = which means it can sail well over 700 miles per day - in the USN's case they don't need to stop and refuel as they are nuclear powered. It won't take "weeks" to deploy - a week maximum. By contrast how long does it take a single squadron of fighters to deploy, work up, get spares / munitions in and be ready to fight? At least one week - multiply that by 4 and you have 50 odd aircraft all needing basing rights, fuel supplies and personnel. Thats the same as one carrier.

Yes the bomber can be there in 24 hours - but given that a SINGLE B2 costs well over $2 billion don't you think there are more efficient ways to spend $40 billion than on twenty bombers?

As for Diego Garcia - this time we were lucky and had a handy base in the locality - next time we might not be so lucky - we take our land bases for granted at our peril.

[Jimlad]

should have been more clear - the 50 aircraft figure was of course referring to the current peacetime load of a single USN carrier - complete with spares / munitions embarked. Carriers are exceptionally flexible and very capable ships - sure a bomber can do an overflight or two - but how many bombers + AAR tanekrs did it take to do black buck raids? To do that again would cripple our AAR assets at the same time as they are being used for other things- again carriers don't need that.

I still fail to see why people here argue against carriers - it is a floating airfield nothing more. There seems to be much hostility to the idea of carriers existing - is this due to inter service rivalry rather than rational thinking I wonder?

[ORAC]

Jimlad, I am not arguing against carriers. Just the use of false and spurious arguments being made for them. it does the case no good when they are disproved.

As in your latest answer.

A carrier may well be able to do over 30 knots. But to deploy a full carrier group, including escorts, replenishment and other vessels which are not nuclear powered, takes substantially longer.

The case of deploying a FJ squadron is spurious to the case in discussion, which was about heavy bombers. Please leave your aunt sally's at home.

The cost of the price of the original B-2 aircraft were inflated by adding in all R & D costs. The actual unit cost is more representively shown by the price being offered per unit for additional aircraft of around $500-600 million each. Which sounds expensive untill you compare it with the 747-400, coming off a continuous production with amortized costs, which is over $200 million apiece. And the F-22 which is escalating through $190 million apiece - before the latest projected costs.

Regardless, I was making the case for a bomber force - not a particular bomber.

[nav attacking]

Just to get back to the point, and to remind you all it was the question " Which defence secretary was the worst?" It is bloody obvious to all isn't it?

None of them was worse than the other! They all allowed the penny pinching treasury to put far too many shackles on the defence budget. They were all bad.

Whilst I realise that there must be some sort of accountability to the taxpayer (including all of us!) I'm sure the taxpayer would be more than interested in the way we do our business now. Going for the cheapest option isn't ever going to give you the best kit that we all need when up against any adversary.

As to the Carrier Battle Group vs land based aircraft. In these times of expeditionary warfare, to quote a phrase, we need all of them! The bombers wouldn't be able to get in to drop all of their bombs without the initial SEAD and GA boys. Likewise the SEAD and GA boys wouldn't go in without the long range tanker and AWACS support. The carriers wouldn't be able to get close enough to the target to launch or be able to sleep at night if it weren't for the long range MPA. Etc, etc, etc. The problem is we don't have a big enough Golf Bag and the treasury won't let us pay the full club membership. Fair enough if El Presidente B Liar only wants us to play 5 days a week!!! However they want the Rolls Royce answer whilst only paying for a Skoda (to mix my metaphores).

The fact is we all need each other, well except for the Tankies!! AH can do their job! Oh and don't forget we don't need the blunties either ( I jest before my wife posts a reply or anyone else wishes to jump down my throat). Its time we all agreed to stop attacking each other and present a united front. Its the penny pinching politician who is our enemy and we are just providing him/her/it with even more ammunition to ask even more stupid parliamentary questions in the house.

Sorry to add some more but I think Jim Lad needs to check out the payloads of the B52, B1 and B2 and work out how many FJs would be needed over the target for an equivalent amount of weaponry. I think it would take UK PLC about three years to do the same amount of damage as one nights work for the big boys.

Missive ends (thank god I hear you say).

[Jackonicko]

There is the world of difference between a US CVN and the kind of c arrier we might get. An Air Wing with F/A-18s, Bombcats and S-3 tankers, plus dedicated SEAD etc.

But even then, land based air power was available first in Afghanistan (and there were an embarrassment of countries offering land basing) and the sortie rate generated by the carriers was a) pathetic and b) dependant on land based tanker support.

Historically, FJs like Harriers, Jags and Tornados can get there before the carriers, except when a carrier is already in the area.

And I'm not against carriers or heavy bombers per se. If we could afford them I'd want both, but I'm afraid that we can afford tactical jets and PGMs only. It's sad, but it's reality, and by trying to punch above our weight we'll only compromise our ability to do anything properly.

And they have all been poor, because Defence has not actually been a priority since the early 1950s. The Tories have talked the talk on Defence but have been responsible for equally ill-considered and harmful cuts as have successive Labour Defence ministers. And they will get worse, as previous military service becomes less and less common, and as the status of the job is progressively reduced. Remember that George R got the defence portfolio to make up for the disappointment of not getting the important Scottish job!

I wonder how much blame should also attach to generations of often gutless senior officers - Whitehall warriors who seem to go from being Lions in the Cockpit (or on the bridge or in the lead tank turret) to being administrative mice who lack the backbone to stand up for the interests of their services. Just wondered.....

Who was the best? Heseltine perhaps? Robertson?

[ORAC]

I'd have to go with Tarzan.

Disagreed with himk over Westlands and think he stabbed Maggie in the back.

But, from all I heard, he really did an excellent job of sorting out the MOD.

[Jackonicko]

Orac, crikey! We agree. To an extent.

Tarzan did at least have an ex Guard's Subaltern's inside knowledge of defence and was energetic and sympathetic and willing to listen and even change his mind. Once in post he was willing to argue his Department's case against Party interests (and his own) which was refreshing!

We disagree a little, too. Stabbing Maggie surely did us all a huge favour (she was bonkers, after all, wasn't she?) and we must agree to disagree on Westland.....

[Flatus Veteranus]

I was a great admirer of Tarzan - until I found myself trying to fill in the forms for his famous management study of MOD. He wasted a huge amount of everyone's time trying to decypher what in hell he wanted. It was all a mess of misapplied business-school buzz-words. Trouble with our Tarzan was that (even allowing for his dislexia) he was lazy and thick. His idea of controlling defence expenditure was to ignore his In-tray! Engaging chap, though, and certainly not a contender for "worst SofS"

[Mike RO'Channel]

I would say that any ballot is a bit premature for now. That is, until we see what Geoff Hoon can do.

Uncle Geoffery has the potential to be the best, or the worst, Def Sec ever. On one hand, Hoon could stand up for this beleaguered bunch of masochistic loonies with whom I am proud to serve and call my comrades-in-arms. GH could realise all 3 Services are stretched to breaking point and demand a surge in defence investment..... hmmmm!?

More likely, as things surely must come to a head with Gordon 'Scrooge' Brown and the Treasury soon, GH could be the one who hammers the final nails in our coffin as we become the UK-Defence Force or the British Corps of the Joint Euro Forces. Of course, someone will have to tell Our Glorious Leader, El Tone, that he won't be World President after all.

Over to you, Mr Hoon......!

Until then, Master Portaloo gets my vote as the Sof S with the least cred and b~gger all ability.
:mad: :mad:

[steamchicken]

Well...as the poster of the poll I will not vote, bit like a promoter betting on his own fight, but I would say Mr. Michael Portillo.

[OldBonaMate]

John Nott has to be the man! If Galtieri had chosen to wait another few months, we would not have been able to accomplish Op Corporate at all and the Falklands would not have been retaken! However, having said that, Messrs Portillo and Hoon come an awfully close joint second for the massive damage to Service morale over which they have both presided.

Jimlad, as you may guess from my 'handle' I was of the light blue persuasion. However, I feel that the value of the Carrier is underrated. Perhaps the hostility from the light blue comes from the idea that "if I wanted to go to sea, I'd have joined the bally Navy"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jimlad]

simple solution - give all the harriers to the navy :) No more moaning RAF pilots - they're in the navy now and its part of the job description!

I'm thinking of writing a book - How to destroy whats left of RAF morale in one easy step... :p

[Archimedes]

simple solution - give all the harriers to the navy - No more moaning RAF pilots .

Er... a possibility of no more pilots, full stop methinks, Jimlad...

[Jimlad]

There's always a flaw in the plan :)

More seriously I agree that pilots didn't join the RAF to go to sea - but how serious is this as a morale issue. I spent some time last year on a course with some groundcrew who were going to be at sea on a carrier during Saif Sareea and they were dreading it. I suppose that this is one strong argument in favour of scrapping SHAR - we don't need to send RAF pilots to sea as a matter of routine as we can just send a navy squadron with the same plane.

Incidentally does anyone know if the current 2 x RN squadrons will be exclusively assigned to carrier ops or will there be moves afoot for a truly joint organistion? Eg while 801 squadron are flying from Italy bombing Serbs (for example) an RAF squadron will be at sea doing their thing?

PS - Archimedes - you wouldn't happen to hail from the same purple establishment campus outside Watchfield as I do would you? (I'm not at the purple place but the academic place but I am spending insane amounts of time there at the moment)

[moggie]

I see one early poster saying that "Healey was just doing what he was told to by the Americans".

If you believe Peter Wright (author of "Spycatcher") then Healey was actually doing what the USSR told him to! Healey and Wilson were both "ex" communist party members.

OK, so if TSR2 was not the way ahead, why cut up the jigs and prototypes and shred the plans? My mother in law actually had to shred the plans as she was working at MoD at the time (claim to fame?). The only reason for this would be to ensure that the project could not be ressurected.

So we order F111 - then cancel - just in case that gives us an edge over the Warsaw Pact?

Conspiracy theory or fact - I tend to go with fact, myself.

[canberra]

this post has become a slanging match between the 3 services maybe the canadians had the right idea after all in amalgamating all 3 services! but i digress, in my opinion the worst one i thought in my short time in the raf(23 years 3 months 2 weeks) was tom king, reason? well when i saw him on the tv during the gulf war, you know the one it was in all the papers i believe john wayne won it single handed, sorry back to the real world, king had no prescence or charisma when i saw him ont telly with sir david craig(he was cds at the time) i thought what a pair of muppetts!

[BEagle]

Dear 'canberra'
Please learn some basic English grammar if you're going to post on PPRuNe! Most people will ignore the txt msg style which lazy children think that they can get away with in this day and age. I (that's 'I', not 'i' incidentally) don't wish to appear too much of a pompous old git, but people simply won't take you seriously if you can't write in English.

[Jackonicko]

but beagul yoo shud kno that he was being delishusly ironic and was also making a very fair stab at composing and writing the longest PPRUNE post ever which was all in one sentence as it were and you didn't get it which leads me to conclude that i must be kleverer than what you are cos i notissed that there were spellong mastiks as well as the ironically orientified grammer and have decided that anything what he can do i can do better (bolloks! i almost writed i with a capitul letter just then but i noticed just in time) blimey i have renewed respeckt for canberra cos its actually quite exhausting writifiying in this manner and style and you are a pompus old gitt wotever that mean and a muppet too also what r u doing up at 5.46 editing your post you are sposed 2 b a glamorous jet pilot and shouldnt you be shagging birds and recuvring from mega drinking sesh with flaming drambuey snortters and gorrilasnots and other posh drinks

[canberra]

srry 4 the punctuation, only got 2 o levels. u must be ether an x or serving fast jet (is there a slow jet and why is it that only uk uses the term?) cos u sure are arrogant, or are u a bitter and twisted failed fj jockey, get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[BEagle]

Good point about the silly 'fast jet' appellation used by the RAF.

It came in when aircraft like the Jaguar, Harrier, Buccaneer and Tornado came into service. The fighter pilot ego simply couldn't come to terms with flying 'bombers', so a new description was introduced to keep the little dears happy.

At one point in the '70s, 208 Sqn at Honington used to say they were going to practise 'DFGA' tactics - Day Fighter Ground Attack! In Buccaneers?

I fly a jet which is pretty fast. It's a fast jet, but not a Fast Jet, 'twould seem................

[KC-10 Driver]

Some choices not in your poll -- actually, not even from your side of the Atlantic.

I nominate Robert McNamara, followed closely by Les Aspin.

[BlueEagle]

Come on chaps, aren't we missing somethig? The reason that MH stormed out of a cabinet meeting and generally set himself against the leadership of the day was nothing more than him setting up his stall for a run at becoming the next PM, yes?