Magic Mushroom - For what it's worth, Ray Lygo gives a clear account of his discovery that Australia had been moved 200 miles to the west in his autobiography. Not saying it's right or wrong, only that he makes the claim ...

I have evidence that the Wilson Government in 1964/65 actually wanted to retain east of Suez bases at the expense of NATO. When Patrick Gordon Walker and Denis Healey met Dean Rusk on 7 Dec 64 Rusk was at pains to say that the US needed UK in Asia as we could do things in places where they could not.

I believe the SEATO UK/US AOR boundary was 105 deg E.

It was certainly the UK Government's plan to "intention to run down the size of the UK’s armed forces over 10 years as defence spending would be maintained at its present levels"

Where do I start Gullwings? To avoid repetition, if you wish, I'll PM a few examples.

Yes there were equally blinkered comments from some of the pro RAF/anti CVF corner. But I believe that bias being used against bias serves nobody.

TVM NYF. I think I may have read that bio many years ago but will re-check.

Regards,
MM

No problem. It was brought to his attention while he was Deputy Director of Naval Air Warfare in the MoD. You'll find it on pages 285 and 286. Save you the trouble of wading through the whole thing ...

Well has this fella resigned yet?

(If enough of us ask then perhaps we can get an answer):ugh:

MWD

Read the title of the post.
If indeed he did threaten to resign, it would surely make sense for him to resign if they do scrap the harriers, not before they scrap the carriers, or if they don't scrap the carriers?
Just a thought......

Very senior RAF officers do not resign - they serve through whatever the politicians do to their service and personnel and invariably draw their full pension on normal retirement.

Resignations on a point of honour are reserved for the other two services it seems.

Was it not the head of the RN who was threatening to up sticks and go?

So, has he gone yet, or is it all hot air?

Slug Balancers Strike Again
 

A well written article here:

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register

Interesting fact about how many aircraft have been shot down by fighters since WWII.

Well written????????????????

Chump.

RAF and it's continuing love of strategic deep bombers? Please!!!!!!!

Bit harsh, Proone - Lewis Page writes reasonably well.

It's just that his reasonably crafted prose can't hide the fact that the substance of everything he produces is badly researched, ill-thought out and hopelessly prejudiced.

As with all of Page's stuff, the style's pretty readable, but the content is utter $hite.

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again
...

1930s, 1970s ... disaster every time they do it

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Government, 8th December 2008 15:03 GMT

...

But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.

Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans.

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register

Very expert opinion, yes indeed.

... Yeah Typical Bl00dy jouro, Their all the same :ok:

Modern Elmo

"But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.

Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans"

Interesting that you picked that paragraph to mock.
I don't agree with Lewis on everything, and as always his attention to detail is not as good as his overview in my opinion, but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result.

On the face of it I'd agree, particularly the AEW options would be far more attractive. However, if we consider the possibility that if (big if) Ocean and Ark eventually get replaced, we may find that going STOVL offers the option of building two commando carriers with ski jumps, similar to the Navantia designs being built by Australia. If that ever becomes the case having four STOVL capable carriers would offer advantages over two dedicated CTOL carriers only.

But as the USMC is finding out, Dave B is a big aircraft and hard to support on a mid-sized ship - particularly along with transport helos, grunts, grunt food &c. For a "commando ship" role you'd be better off with a smaller, CAS-optimized "Harrier III".

Quote
"but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result."

Which is what most have being saying from day1 along with reactors to power the bloody things.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Before we get carried away with a nuclear powered option, remember that would limit the ships to X/Z Berths. Such berths don't grow on trees, particularly when considered against deployments. CVF is supposed to increase our flexibility.