Sharky Watch LIVE
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Auto Land with JPALS and be on Easy Street
'Easy Street' F-35 pilots will be on easy street once JPALS is installed/certified everywhere or places where it counts the most initially. The X-47B used a special interim JPALS installation to do its thing automatically in the BUSH - that thread has details. Otherwise go here to read the long article:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8035197
Read about JPALS on this forum and the X-47B thread to see how auto-landings for the Super Hornet and F-35C on CVNs may become the norm in some future time according to LSOs.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8035197
Read about JPALS on this forum and the X-47B thread to see how auto-landings for the Super Hornet and F-35C on CVNs may become the norm in some future time according to LSOs.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-18 is capable of landing in an automatic mode at the moment. It is one of the modes available in the ACLS - which can give you HUD symbology or can be 'coupled up' to fly the aeroplane for you. It requires the system to essentially self-BIT (make sure boat is talking to jet) and the pilot to QA that the commands are being followed. It can do it all the way to the wires. It isn't 100% reliable - I've only seen one done in anger (well - anxiety/ fog) although that worked. You aren't even allowed to attempt them if you aren't current landing manually. A Mode 1A is the same but you de-couple as you call the ball at 0.7nm.
The issue comes when it doesn't work. At this point the pilot flies the jet as normal. So he has to be trained to the same high standard. And CAG can't believe in it 100% so has to call for the same fuel plan.
I don't know what the state of play is with F-35C...it ceased to affect me a little time ago!
I assume as we go on and these new systems mature one could start relying on them, rather than cater for their short comings.
The issue comes when it doesn't work. At this point the pilot flies the jet as normal. So he has to be trained to the same high standard. And CAG can't believe in it 100% so has to call for the same fuel plan.
I don't know what the state of play is with F-35C...it ceased to affect me a little time ago!
I assume as we go on and these new systems mature one could start relying on them, rather than cater for their short comings.
SpazSinbad - thanks for the pointers - interesting stuff.
To this layman's eye, the technical challenges involved in creating a triple-redundant failsafe automatic landing system seem at first sight to be somewhat simpler than those which have already been overcome to produce the F-35B's amazing STOVL system. Just saying!
To this layman's eye, the technical challenges involved in creating a triple-redundant failsafe automatic landing system seem at first sight to be somewhat simpler than those which have already been overcome to produce the F-35B's amazing STOVL system. Just saying!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
F-35B Control Laws by VAAC Harrier
The work on the control laws/incepts for the F-35B via the VAAC (Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control) Harrier has been going on for a decade plus. John Farley has written about it on this forum in various places and also for a PDF publication from the RAF. I'll search the link. Also there is an Aviation Mag'n artickle wot I'll link soonish like.
Work on JPALS has been ongoing for probably a decade (depending on when one wants to pedanticly start). Yes LSOs think in the future a normal carrier landing will be automatic whilst a semi-manual or forgorsake a complete manual will be some kind of emergency thingo.
But only with suitably equipped aircraft such as the Supers and F-35s, the ordinary Hornets will not be upgraded with this JPALS tech AFAIK.
Single Minded by John Farley, Flight International 17 Aug 1999:
british aerospace | lockheed martin | 1999 | 2360 | Flight Archive
&
A V/STOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE SCIENTISTS by John Farley
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net...rier-Story.pdf
&
VAAC Harrier Story:
The full story of the Harrier "Jump-Jet" Part Four - the "Second Generation" Harriers - The BAe / MDD AV-8B Harrier II, GR.5, GR.7, GR.9 & T.10 Harriers
&
THE HAWKER ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER | NUMBER 24 | SUMMER 2009
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerass...sletter024.pdf
Work on JPALS has been ongoing for probably a decade (depending on when one wants to pedanticly start). Yes LSOs think in the future a normal carrier landing will be automatic whilst a semi-manual or forgorsake a complete manual will be some kind of emergency thingo.
But only with suitably equipped aircraft such as the Supers and F-35s, the ordinary Hornets will not be upgraded with this JPALS tech AFAIK.Single Minded by John Farley, Flight International 17 Aug 1999:
british aerospace | lockheed martin | 1999 | 2360 | Flight Archive
&
A V/STOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE SCIENTISTS by John Farley
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net...rier-Story.pdf
&
VAAC Harrier Story:
The full story of the Harrier "Jump-Jet" Part Four - the "Second Generation" Harriers - The BAe / MDD AV-8B Harrier II, GR.5, GR.7, GR.9 & T.10 Harriers
&
THE HAWKER ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER | NUMBER 24 | SUMMER 2009
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerass...sletter024.pdf
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Sep 2013 at 08:51. Reason: VACC to VAAC we faced each other drew our swords and shot each other :-)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 9th Sep 2013 at 17:46.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Phoenix from the flames seems appropriate for the regeneration of the fixed wing FAA. Given it's motto, badge and history though I hope 892 NAS gets a look at in the future.
809 NAS was temporarily reformed during the Falklands conflict with Sea Harrier. Not sure what exactly that proves....
With reference to my posts here and here (and elsewhere - like from the start of the discussion about the Harrier decision!) about the issue of preserving and developing skills etc for the future, I am simply pointing out concerns expressed by others, including others I have met in real life, who might reasonably be described as naval aviation subject matter experts.
I agree. But we do have a chance of doing things to make it easier. Work in progress......perhaps? Would it not have been easier to take the path of least resistance all along?
Well written.
With reference to my posts here and here (and elsewhere - like from the start of the discussion about the Harrier decision!) about the issue of preserving and developing skills etc for the future, I am simply pointing out concerns expressed by others, including others I have met in real life, who might reasonably be described as naval aviation subject matter experts.
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
Will it be easy and painless - of course not. Will there some lessons to (re)learn - of course. Can we do it - I think so.
Originally Posted by AutoBit
Interesting post and you raise some good points, but its worth considering why these Admirals didn't dig their heels in. Pull up a sandbag...dit on.
Late 90's RAF GR7's and FAA FA2's in the gulf flying Northern Watch missions. AMRAAM FA2 providing escort for LGB equipped GR's. Quite a nice little package and also fits the RN's desire to move the CVS away from ASW and more towards a 'Strike Carrier'. Some bright spark says 'Why dont we combine the two fleets into a single force?' Enter the birth of JF2000. Only problem here we are told is that you cant really have two separate C2 organisations, so why dont we txfer control of the Force to the RAF.
Few raised eyebrows from the RN, but dont worry, we'll make a dedicated Maritime Group (3 Gp) that, although part of Strike, will be commanded by an RN 2* who will also have control of all maritime air assists i.e. Nimrod and SAR as well. Sounds reasonable?
3Gp formed and all is looking rosey, but now we're told that there isn't enough money to keep the FA2 going and the GR. Lets scrap the FA2 but use the money saved to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 with 107 engines (ideal for hot weather CVS Ops). Again a few raised eyebrows but OK. It makes sense. Now the only problem here is that, having retired the FA2, 3 Gp is now not big enough to justify Gp status, and so it is disbanded and moved entirely to RAF control in 1 Gp, but with JAMO over site (of note about the same size that 1Gp is now).
RN getting very uncomfortable by now, but we're in it and so have to make do. Added to this GR9's with 107 engines are the best solution for delivering Carrier Strike.
Herrick kicks off and GR7/9 is deployed. Unfortunately the commitment is such that we're going to have to sacrifice some Carrier Strike skills to keep the Force going on Herrick. Cant really argue with that, although again its deeply concerning for the RN. But not to worry, when the Force returns from Ops Carrier Strike will be the No1 priority. The rest, as they say, is history.
Now this is only one side of the story, but for the likes of Sharkey and his allies the whole JF2000/JFH episode shows that the RAF will always drop the Carrier capability at the first sign of difficulty.
So where the Admirals naive? Possibly, but it was death by a thousand cuts, rather then a sweeping blow. I think this episode goes some way to explain the RNs current attitude.
Late 90's RAF GR7's and FAA FA2's in the gulf flying Northern Watch missions. AMRAAM FA2 providing escort for LGB equipped GR's. Quite a nice little package and also fits the RN's desire to move the CVS away from ASW and more towards a 'Strike Carrier'. Some bright spark says 'Why dont we combine the two fleets into a single force?' Enter the birth of JF2000. Only problem here we are told is that you cant really have two separate C2 organisations, so why dont we txfer control of the Force to the RAF.
Few raised eyebrows from the RN, but dont worry, we'll make a dedicated Maritime Group (3 Gp) that, although part of Strike, will be commanded by an RN 2* who will also have control of all maritime air assists i.e. Nimrod and SAR as well. Sounds reasonable?
3Gp formed and all is looking rosey, but now we're told that there isn't enough money to keep the FA2 going and the GR. Lets scrap the FA2 but use the money saved to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 with 107 engines (ideal for hot weather CVS Ops). Again a few raised eyebrows but OK. It makes sense. Now the only problem here is that, having retired the FA2, 3 Gp is now not big enough to justify Gp status, and so it is disbanded and moved entirely to RAF control in 1 Gp, but with JAMO over site (of note about the same size that 1Gp is now).
RN getting very uncomfortable by now, but we're in it and so have to make do. Added to this GR9's with 107 engines are the best solution for delivering Carrier Strike.
Herrick kicks off and GR7/9 is deployed. Unfortunately the commitment is such that we're going to have to sacrifice some Carrier Strike skills to keep the Force going on Herrick. Cant really argue with that, although again its deeply concerning for the RN. But not to worry, when the Force returns from Ops Carrier Strike will be the No1 priority. The rest, as they say, is history.
Now this is only one side of the story, but for the likes of Sharkey and his allies the whole JF2000/JFH episode shows that the RAF will always drop the Carrier capability at the first sign of difficulty.
So where the Admirals naive? Possibly, but it was death by a thousand cuts, rather then a sweeping blow. I think this episode goes some way to explain the RNs current attitude.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Sep 2013 at 14:33.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AutoBit
Interesting post and you raise some good points, but its worth considering why these Admirals didn't dig their heels in. Pull up a sandbag...dit on.
Late 90's RAF GR7's and FAA FA2's in the gulf flying Northern Watch missions. AMRAAM FA2 providing escort for LGB equipped GR's. Quite a nice little package and also fits the RN's desire to move the CVS away from ASW and more towards a 'Strike Carrier'. Some bright spark says 'Why dont we combine the two fleets into a single force?' Enter the birth of JF2000. Only problem here we are told is that you cant really have two separate C2 organisations, so why dont we txfer control of the Force to the RAF.
Few raised eyebrows from the RN, but dont worry, we'll make a dedicated Maritime Group (3 Gp) that, although part of Strike, will be commanded by an RN 2* who will also have control of all maritime air assists i.e. Nimrod and SAR as well. Sounds reasonable?
3Gp formed and all is looking rosey, but now we're told that there isn't enough money to keep the FA2 going and the GR. Lets scrap the FA2 but use the money saved to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 with 107 engines (ideal for hot weather CVS Ops). Again a few raised eyebrows but OK. It makes sense. Now the only problem here is that, having retired the FA2, 3 Gp is now not big enough to justify Gp status, and so it is disbanded and moved entirely to RAF control in 1 Gp, but with JAMO over site (of note about the same size that 1Gp is now).
RN getting very uncomfortable by now, but we're in it and so have to make do. Added to this GR9's with 107 engines are the best solution for delivering Carrier Strike.
Herrick kicks off and GR7/9 is deployed. Unfortunately the commitment is such that we're going to have to sacrifice some Carrier Strike skills to keep the Force going on Herrick. Cant really argue with that, although again its deeply concerning for the RN. But not to worry, when the Force returns from Ops Carrier Strike will be the No1 priority. The rest, as they say, is history.
Now this is only one side of the story, but for the likes of Sharkey and his allies the whole JF2000/JFH episode shows that the RAF will always drop the Carrier capability at the first sign of difficulty.
So where the Admirals naive? Possibly, but it was death by a thousand cuts, rather then a sweeping blow. I think this episode goes some way to explain the RNs current attitude.
Interesting post and you raise some good points, but its worth considering why these Admirals didn't dig their heels in. Pull up a sandbag...dit on.
Late 90's RAF GR7's and FAA FA2's in the gulf flying Northern Watch missions. AMRAAM FA2 providing escort for LGB equipped GR's. Quite a nice little package and also fits the RN's desire to move the CVS away from ASW and more towards a 'Strike Carrier'. Some bright spark says 'Why dont we combine the two fleets into a single force?' Enter the birth of JF2000. Only problem here we are told is that you cant really have two separate C2 organisations, so why dont we txfer control of the Force to the RAF.
Few raised eyebrows from the RN, but dont worry, we'll make a dedicated Maritime Group (3 Gp) that, although part of Strike, will be commanded by an RN 2* who will also have control of all maritime air assists i.e. Nimrod and SAR as well. Sounds reasonable?
3Gp formed and all is looking rosey, but now we're told that there isn't enough money to keep the FA2 going and the GR. Lets scrap the FA2 but use the money saved to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 with 107 engines (ideal for hot weather CVS Ops). Again a few raised eyebrows but OK. It makes sense. Now the only problem here is that, having retired the FA2, 3 Gp is now not big enough to justify Gp status, and so it is disbanded and moved entirely to RAF control in 1 Gp, but with JAMO over site (of note about the same size that 1Gp is now).
RN getting very uncomfortable by now, but we're in it and so have to make do. Added to this GR9's with 107 engines are the best solution for delivering Carrier Strike.
Herrick kicks off and GR7/9 is deployed. Unfortunately the commitment is such that we're going to have to sacrifice some Carrier Strike skills to keep the Force going on Herrick. Cant really argue with that, although again its deeply concerning for the RN. But not to worry, when the Force returns from Ops Carrier Strike will be the No1 priority. The rest, as they say, is history.
Now this is only one side of the story, but for the likes of Sharkey and his allies the whole JF2000/JFH episode shows that the RAF will always drop the Carrier capability at the first sign of difficulty.
So where the Admirals naive? Possibly, but it was death by a thousand cuts, rather then a sweeping blow. I think this episode goes some way to explain the RNs current attitude.
Gentleman Aviator
RN cared more about ships than aircraft at that point in time
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Yeovil,Somerset
Age: 52
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem has been that most of the last few Heads of the navy have been ex 'Ship-drivers', so have no real knowledge or experience of aircraft.
Hopefully now Admiral Zambellas is in charge (ex FAA) things might be different......
Hopefully now Admiral Zambellas is in charge (ex FAA) things might be different......
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
.... and when (fiscal) push comes to (financial) shove - they always will.....
I'm sure "the RAF done it" is scrawled somewhere in the pages of BRd2.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that over the same period the RN haemorrhaged DD/FF numbers to keep the carriers alive. So the 'RN cared more for ships' argument is at best simplistic.
(More than aware that a carrier is a ship, before the kindergarten level argument resumes.)
(More than aware that a carrier is a ship, before the kindergarten level argument resumes.)
Last edited by orca; 17th Sep 2013 at 20:31.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: somerset
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex FAA? No such thing. You never leave the Fleet Air Arm - life membership applies at all times.
engineer(retard)
Not sure that was the case with the SDSR. The First Sea Lord at the time was an ex CVS Captain, who knew more about running fixed wing flying at sea than those who ignored his advice.
Head of Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap
[quote=The Telegraph]The highly-controversial cut to the Harrier force – condemned last week by several former heads of the service as "perverse" and risking "national humiliation" – was decided only three days before the final announcement of the defence review, sources said.
......
In a tense meeting, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice" the decision to axe the Harriers and considered it a "political, not military decision."
Later (in May 2011): Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief
The raison d'ętre of an aircraft carrier is to carry aircraft. The raison d'ętre of carrier aircraft is to operate from a carrier. Deleting one to save the other makes little sense.
teeteringhead
I wonder if different arrangements could have been found had things not been decided at the last minute?
lmgaylard
The previous First Sea Lord was an ex CVS Captain, as was the one before him. They do not need to be pilots to get the ship/aircraft integration issue, and to understand the skills needed, and the whole ship nature of things.
Not sure that was the case with the SDSR. The First Sea Lord at the time was an ex CVS Captain, who knew more about running fixed wing flying at sea than those who ignored his advice.
Head of Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap
[quote=The Telegraph]The highly-controversial cut to the Harrier force – condemned last week by several former heads of the service as "perverse" and risking "national humiliation" – was decided only three days before the final announcement of the defence review, sources said.
......
In a tense meeting, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice" the decision to axe the Harriers and considered it a "political, not military decision."
Later (in May 2011): Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief
LONDON - The head of the Royal Navy says retaining Britain's carrier strike capability would have been top of his "wish list" if the recent strategic defense and security review were to be rewritten.
First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Mark Stanhope told the parliamentary defense committee that if Britain still had a carrier available, it would be deployed off the coast of Libya helping to enforce U.N. Resolution 1973.
Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Mark Stanhope told the parliamentary defense committee that if Britain still had a carrier available, it would be deployed off the coast of Libya helping to enforce U.N. Resolution 1973.
Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
teeteringhead
I wonder if different arrangements could have been found had things not been decided at the last minute?
lmgaylard
The previous First Sea Lord was an ex CVS Captain, as was the one before him. They do not need to be pilots to get the ship/aircraft integration issue, and to understand the skills needed, and the whole ship nature of things.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE Branch Fanatic said:
You have to be careful with that sort of teleological argument chap, it's the sort of naive statement that can get the rug pulled out from under you when talking with the adults. They tend to respond with something along the lines of "Fine, carriers no use without aircraft - we don't have any aircraft - get rid of the carriers"
As a general rule of thumb, never link two things you want together as dependencies - you'll lose them both in a funding debate.
Sun.
The raison d'ętre of an aircraft carrier is to carry aircraft. The raison d'ętre of carrier aircraft is to operate from a carrier. Deleting one to save the other makes little sense.
As a general rule of thumb, never link two things you want together as dependencies - you'll lose them both in a funding debate.
Sun.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The raison d'ętre of an aircraft carrier is to carry aircraft. The raison d'ętre of carrier aircraft is to operate from a carrier. Deleting one to save the other makes little sense.
I thought that over the same period the RN haemorrhaged DD/FF numbers to keep the carriers alive. So the 'RN cared more for ships' argument is at best simplistic.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Guys there has been a lot talk about where the blame lies for the dropping of harrier in the Last SDSR. I have been wanting share my thoughts on this for a long time so here goes…
From an RAF perspective – The Choice was a No-brainer. Getting rid of Tornado instead of harrier would have reduced operational availability of CAS by a factor of what - 2˝? – Probably more as at least 1 squadron of Harriers would have been shipboard. Then there is the Manning issue. The post of WSO is rapidly going the way of the Dodo this would have meant that a lot of Officers most of whom would still have career aspirations would have either been made redundant or given ground appointments. Same with ground crew the redundancy situation would have been even worse. So all-in-all I believe this was the right thing to do.
HOWEVER
The RN should have been given time to find the budget for retaining the harrier even as a pure FAA Aircraft. With a little determination and imagination The RN could have made this work. They have always been good at Heath-Robinson in the past. It seems to me however that the RAF announced this pretty much at the last so draw your own conclusions.
Mine Are…
The RAF did the right thing by its own people and the country by have a greater availability of CAS resources
The RAF tried to get the RN out of Fixed wing Flying by timing the announcement. However the RN should have anticipated this as they have been stiffened by the RAF on a couple of occasions previously.
Cheers
Al
From an RAF perspective – The Choice was a No-brainer. Getting rid of Tornado instead of harrier would have reduced operational availability of CAS by a factor of what - 2˝? – Probably more as at least 1 squadron of Harriers would have been shipboard. Then there is the Manning issue. The post of WSO is rapidly going the way of the Dodo this would have meant that a lot of Officers most of whom would still have career aspirations would have either been made redundant or given ground appointments. Same with ground crew the redundancy situation would have been even worse. So all-in-all I believe this was the right thing to do.
HOWEVER
The RN should have been given time to find the budget for retaining the harrier even as a pure FAA Aircraft. With a little determination and imagination The RN could have made this work. They have always been good at Heath-Robinson in the past. It seems to me however that the RAF announced this pretty much at the last so draw your own conclusions.
Mine Are…
The RAF did the right thing by its own people and the country by have a greater availability of CAS resources
The RAF tried to get the RN out of Fixed wing Flying by timing the announcement. However the RN should have anticipated this as they have been stiffened by the RAF on a couple of occasions previously.
Cheers
Al
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF tried to get the RN out of Fixed wing Flying by timing the announcement. However the RN should have anticipated this as they have been stiffened by the RAF on a couple of occasions previously.
Perhaps a more balanced view of the decision processes at work would be in order:
http://thinpinstripedline.********.c...sr-debate.html
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eng
Cant get the link to work sorry
Timing was everything. It was pretty much announced last minute, you cant honestly tell me that the RAF wern't going to do this all along. However equally the RN should have had a contingency plan for this.
It didn't help that the whole SDR thing was rushed through though. The Bottom line is that all 3 services will do what they can to protect their assets. The RAF did a sterling job here, and as I said it was the right thing to do. My Criticism is more at their lordships than the Airships!
Cant get the link to work sorry
Timing was everything. It was pretty much announced last minute, you cant honestly tell me that the RAF wern't going to do this all along. However equally the RN should have had a contingency plan for this.
It didn't help that the whole SDR thing was rushed through though. The Bottom line is that all 3 services will do what they can to protect their assets. The RAF did a sterling job here, and as I said it was the right thing to do. My Criticism is more at their lordships than the Airships!