New article on why in 1978 the Royal Navy looked at keeping HMS ARK ROYAL into the 1980s

Yellow Palace said:
That's a rule of thumb that works for a specific deployment model – in particular 3 ships to maintain one in station.

The Royal Navy's planning that justified four carriers and three air wings was one in the Indian Ocean, one in the Med, one in home waters, and one refitting. The one at home was working up for deployment, and the one in the Med was on the way to or from the Indian Ocean.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

They should have sprung for 4 air wings, to give one time off of operational flying while their carrier was in refit. Gives you time to rotate planes through heavy maintenance and send pilots to whatever schools they need for currency and career development.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Interesting.

They should have sprung for 4 air wings, to give one time off of operational flying while their carrier was in refit. Gives you time to rotate planes through heavy maintenance and send pilots to whatever schools they need for currency and career development.
Click to expand...
The fourth air wing was an early casualty of attempts to sustain that force level. Given that RN planning at times also called for a different (ASW-heavy) air wing composition in home waters to that in the Far East, I suspect they weren't viewing the squadrons as permanently attached to the ships but rotated as required.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The fourth air wing was an early casualty of attempts to sustain that force level. Given that RN planning at times also called for a different (ASW-heavy) air wing composition in home waters to that in the Far East, I suspect they weren't viewing the squadrons as permanently attached to the ships but rotated as required.
Click to expand...
Hrm.

I don't know that I like that idea, but it's certainly valid.
 
More and more it look likes the British carrier aviation was killed off by indifference and neglect. And the infuriating part is that it was not even deliberate. Death by a thousand cuts and inertia.
 
GK. Dundas said:
And the infuriating part is that it was not even deliberate
Click to expand...
No, it was very definitely deliberate. There was an explicit decision in the 1960s that the Royal Navy did not need aircraft carriers, and that the aircraft carrier force would be run down. The Royal Navy managed to postpone the end, but the direction had been set politically.
 
This fits in with the idea floated about of leasing one of the Coral Sea or Forrestal class to the RN in the late 70s. Ark's air group was transferable and had operated off Saratoga and Independence. The problem was manpower and the water cooled JBDs for the F-4Ks.
 
You know it is really a pity that 1972 Ark Royal show of force couldn't reverse the carrier force decisions. Same for the 1977 proto - Falklands crisis, when Callaghan show of force pushed back Argentina.
With Thatcher cuts from 1979 no surprise Argentina just waited until the RN was definitively castrated. John Nott was their best ally. By August 1982 it would be over.
 
Archibald said:
You know it is really a pity that 1972 Ark Royal show of force couldn't reverse the carrier force decisions. Same for the 1977 proto - Falklands crisis, when Callaghan show of force pushed back Argentina.
With Thatcher cuts from 1979 no surprise Argentina just waited until the RN was definitively castrated. John Nott was their best ally. By August 1982 it would be over.
Click to expand...
Agree!!!!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom