Britain in Vietnam

[bobtdwarf]

McCarthy was part of a group of people that thought "Ike" was a communist, same group of people that took out a full page "wanted dead or alive" poster for JFK in Dallas... and that group is the one that had and has pushed the narrative you refer to. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230616257_7?noAccess=true. An interesting confluence of the right and left in blaming FDR but for different reasons: The right he was to left leaning (Note that their same financial backers of the accusers also backed a pro fascist coup against Roosevelt in the 30's)... and the left because he refused to shift support from Chiang to Mao, or have anything to do with Mao.

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Nothing good came from McCarthyism. Good riddance.

Well if the far right are against you, AND the far left are as well... guess you are in the center lol

 

[Arjen]

Well if the far right are against you, AND the far left are as well... guess you are in the center lol

On top of hating each other's guts, the far right and far left have much in common.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Ok this needs dealing with.
No one here is saying that the Democrats are innately Communist.
What is being said is that Communist Sympathisers and Agents had penetrated the US Establishment and obviously that would implicate FDR's regime.
As they had in every modern first world state.
It's also necessary to point out that essentially Vanguardism led to the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Fascists in Italy and the National Socialists in Germany. All derived from the realisation the proletariat are inherently conservative in outlook.
Soviet penetration of other states societies was itself a substantial but ultimately minor component of the whole and sleepers were discovered during the latter part of the Clinton years who had sacrificed their lives to become sleepers in yje US.

Sections of human society are always susceptible to the charismatic idea of a universal solution and the violent breakdown of civilisation in order to create a perfect utopia.....no matter the horrors committed to achieve it.

sorry.. have a bit of a twitch in that regard.. hear it a lot locally lately, think you can understand.

But on to the topic: Tell me more about those tribesmen you referred to

 

[zen]

But on to the topic: Tell me more about those tribesmen you referred to

Errr you've never heard of the Dyaks of Borneo ?
Fearsome lot, some volunteered for Malaya and proceeded to....take heads. But I think we drew the line at eating 'long pig'
At least one SAS chap gained their respect by taking a head and turning the skull into a lampshade.

 

[uk 75]

The Conservative party by 1964 was mired in sleeze and the succession to Macmillan offered the unappetising choice of Butler, Maudling or even Powell. Macmillan engineered the choice of Sir Alec Douglas Home.
Home nearly beat the much more able and younger Harold Wilson in the 1964 General Election. In an age of continuing deference amongst older voters Home's simple honestry contrasted favourably with Wilson's slick approach.
Home might have made a decent PM. He had considerable experience of foreign affairs. Butler and Maudling were willing to serve as Foreign Secretary and Chancellor.
We know from many discussions on this site that TSR2, P1154 and HS681 were too flawed to be saved.
However, as other alt histories here have warped reality happily, I am going to keep them, with slight changes to reality.
HS681 is built with a straightforward Medway turbofan and reference to VSTOL is dropped (Italy did this with the G222).
P1154 is changed to STOL vectored thrust based on BS100 and in service date of 1969 is accepted.
TSR2 is already flying but BAC are still unable to fix costs on the aircraft. With the early demise of the Valiant and the clear obsolescence of the Canberra, Defence Secretary Carrington forces the RAF to accept a mix of Buccaneer S2 and a reduced TSR2 buy of 50 aircraft. Vulcan and Victor aircraft will retire early to pay for them.
Carrington has already been critical of the RN ambitions for CVA01. He sees through the F4 Hermes saga and tells the RN it must accept USN F4s and cancels the Spey variant.
By 1966 Carrington has had the CVA01 redesigned to be an updated version of Eagle with no CF299 and Broomstick but with the CVA01 flightdeck.
To save money Victorious is not converted and Hermes will replace Bulwark as a Commando Ship. Centaur is put up for sale.
With the end of the confrontation in Singapore and Malaysia Carrington looks to focus on NATO.
But Australia and New Zealand approach Home at the Commonwealth conference and seek British participation in South Vietnam.
A Gurkha Battalion joins the ANZUS forces in South Vietnam. A Wessex helicopter detachment and some Twin Pioneers from FEAF go with them.
The frigate Juno is assigned to join HMAS Melbourne on the Yankee Station followed by HMS Hampshire.
In her last commission as a conventional carrier, HMS Hermes deploys on the Yankee Station in 1968. In an unusual encounter one of her Sea Vixen FAW2 aircraft down a North Vietnamese Mi17 with two Red Tops after it strays into the zone patroled by the Commonwealth Squadron.
During the Tet Offensive HMS Albion with 45 RM Commando is assigned to the Commonwealth Squadron but the RMs are not used. The FCO tell critical journalists that they are there for a "services assisted evacuation of Commonwealth nationals" along with HMAS Sydney.
The Gurkhas acquire a reputation both for helping local villagers build and protect their farms and for swift night actions against the VC.

 

[Archibald]

HS681 - why not four Pegasus ? or four BS-100, damn it. STOL most of the time, VTOL at light weights.

 

[CJGibson]

VTOL at light weights.

Not without completely new wing and tail surfaces.

Chris

 

[riggerrob]

Well if the far right are against you, AND the far left are as well... guess you are in the center lol

On top of hating each other's guts, the far right and far left have much in common.

Eventually the far-left and the far-right travel full-circle and collide, becoming what they initially hated.
The average Russian peasant could not see much difference between the Tzar's secret police and Josef Stalin's secret police.

 

[zen]

HS681 is built with a straightforward Medway turbofan and reference to VSTOL is dropped

I'm sure I remember reading that was an option.

P1154 is changed to STOL vectored thrust based on BS100 and in service date of 1969 is accepted.

It was changing towards that anyway.

Carrington has already been critical of the RN ambitions for CVA01. He sees through the F4 Hermes saga and tells the RN it must accept USN F4s and cancels the Spey variant

Errr how many times must we go over the need for all the changes wrought on the F4 to operate from Ark Royal and Eagle?
The Spey delivers more thrust and is a significant factor in why it can fly off the 151ft stroke catapult with a useful load.
Only the larger CVA-01 with 250ft stroke catapults could entertain J79 powered F4s.

By 1966 Carrington has had the CVA01 redesigned to be an updated version of Eagle with no CF299 and Broomstick but with the CVA01 flightdeck

Errr on an Audacious hull, that flight deck wouldn't deliver much. Why would you bother?

 

[uk 75]

Random jottings on my part.
An Eagle sized simpler CVA01 seemed to be an easier sell (no new infrastructure).
The Spey F4 really necessary for 4 Sparrow and 4 Sidewinders?

 

[zen]

To get a reasonable load and a full fuel tank at Take Off. They had to extend the noseleg to raise the angle of incidence higher.
They not only jammed a pair of Speys in, they gave them water injection to raise thrust temporarily too.
There are plenty of references to USN F4s having to take on fuel immediately after launch from Ark and Eagle.

Anyway if we've funded P.1154 for the RAF, then the RN would be given little option but to use that.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 45

TSR2 is already flying but BAC are still unable to fix costs on the aircraft. With the early demise of the Valiant and the clear obsolescence of the Canberra, Defence Secretary Carrington forces the RAF to accept a mix of Buccaneer S2 and a reduced TSR2 buy of 50 aircraft.

Using the figures on Page 115 of The British Aircraft Corporation a history by Charles Garnder

• £440 million at £8.80 million per aircraft for 50 aircraft
• £610 million at £6.10 million per aircraft for 100 aircraft
• £780 million at £5.20 million per aircraft for 150 aircraft
• £950 million at £4.75 million per aircraft for 200 aircraft

This is because:

• The R&D costs of £270 million (£210 million for the airframe including the 9 development aircraft and £60 million for the engines & avionics) remained the same, and;
• The unit cost of £3.4 million per aircraft (£2.1 million for the airframe and £1.3 million for the engine & avionics) was the same regardless of how many units were produced.

Note that Garnder's costs are probably underestimates and they don't allow for inflation.

That being said the amount of money saved might not be large enough to justify buying a mix of Buccaneers and TSR.2s instead of an equal number of TSR.2s.

This is especially the case if the RAF wants Buccaneers with better avionics because it will push the cost up. I acknowledge that you have the RAF being forced to buy standard Buccaneer S.2s. But on the other hand the TSR.2s will probably have a less advanced avionics than planned which in turn will knock a few hundred thousand Pounds off the cost of each aircraft.

Another Part of Post 45

Vulcan and Victor aircraft will retire early to pay for them.

They can't be retired until Polaris becomes fully operational in the middle of 1969. Fortunately, that's around the time that TSR.2 would have come into service...

...and it fits Plan P of March 1964 which were the squadron patterns in force at the 1964 General Election.

​

The Vulcan B.2, Vulcan SR.2 and Victor SR.2 were kept in service for as long as they were because the aircraft that were intended to replace the Valiant tactical bombers and the Canberras (TSR.2 then the F-111K and AFVG) were cancelled. As a result the Vulcans and Victors had to be used "stop gaps" between 1969 when their nuclear deterrent role was taken over by the Polaris submarines and the early 1980s when the Tornado IDS finally arrived.

NB

The above isn't 100% correct because there are several "ifs" and "buts" like the Victor SR.2 only made it until 1974 when it was replaced by a squadron of Vulcan SR.2s. However, it's accurate enough for the point that I was trying to make.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 49

Carrington has already been critical of the RN ambitions for CVA01. He sees through the F4 Hermes saga and tells the RN it must accept USN F4s and cancels the Spey variant

Errr how many times must we go over the need for all the changes wrought on the F4 to operate from Ark Royal and Eagle?
The Spey delivers more thrust and is a significant factor in why it can fly off the 151ft stroke catapult with a useful load.
Only the larger CVA-01 with 250ft stroke catapults could entertain J79 powered F4s.

All of Post 50

Random jottings on my part.
An Eagle sized simpler CVA01 seemed to be an easier sell (no new infrastructure).
The Spey F4 really necessary for 4 Sparrow and 4 Sidewinders?

All of Post 51

To get a reasonable load and a full fuel tank at Take Off. They had to extend the noseleg to raise the angle of incidence higher.
They not only jammed a pair of Speys in, they gave them water injection to raise thrust temporarily too.
There are plenty of references to USN F4s having to take on fuel immediately after launch from Ark and Eagle.

Anyway if we've funded P.1154 for the RAF, then the RN would be given little option but to use that.

What @zen wrote.

Plus is it true that the wings were modified to improve the boundary layer control which reduced the take-off and landing speeds? Or at least something like that.

Except for @zen's last sentence. The P.1154RN was cancelled in favour of the F-4K Phantom before the 1964 General Election. I don't see it being cancelled in favour of P.1154RAF if the Conservatives remain in power.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 45

The Conservative party by 1964 was mired in sleaze and the succession to Macmillan offered the unappetising choice of Butler, Maudling or even Powell. Macmillan engineered the choice of Sir Alec Douglas Home.
Home nearly beat the much more able and younger Harold Wilson in the 1964 General Election. In an age of continuing deference amongst older voters Home's simple honesty contrasted favourably with Wilson's slick approach.
Home might have made a decent PM. He had considerable experience of foreign affairs. Butler and Maudling were willing to serve as Foreign Secretary and Chancellor.

Does the 1966 General Election still happen in this scenario? Except that the Conservatives under Sir Alec Douglas Home win instead of the Labour Party under Harold Wilson. Then Edward Heath becomes Prime Minister between then and the 1970 General Election which the Conservatives win as per the "Real World" and from then on, as far as domestic British politics, are concerned we're back on "Our Timeline."

If that's correct I have a "side question" which is...

...will a Conservative Government have the same domestic policy as the 1964-70 Labour Government? I'm thinking of things like the abolition of capital punishment, legalisation of abortion, legalisation of homosexuality, reform of the divorce laws and the Race Relations Act 1965.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Another Part of Post 45

We know from many discussions on this site that TSR2, P1154 and HS681 were too flawed to be saved.

However, as other alt histories here have warped reality happily, I am going to keep them, with slight changes to reality.
HS681 is built with a straightforward Medway turbofan and reference to VSTOL is dropped (Italy did this with the G222).
P1154 is changed to STOL vectored thrust based on BS100 and in service date of 1969 is accepted.
TSR2 is already flying but BAC are still unable to fix costs on the aircraft. With the early demise of the Valiant and the clear obsolescence of the Canberra, Defence Secretary Carrington forces the RAF to accept a mix of Buccaneer S2 and a reduced TSR2 buy of 50 aircraft. Vulcan and Victor aircraft will retire early to pay for them.
Carrington has already been critical of the RN ambitions for CVA01. He sees through the F4 Hermes saga and tells the RN it must accept USN F4s and cancels the Spey variant.
By 1966 Carrington has had the CVA01 redesigned to be an updated version of Eagle with no CF299 and Broomstick but with the CVA01 flight deck.

What's your Point of Departure (POD) for the above? Is it 15th October 1964 or are there several pods earlier than that "as and when" applicable? Also Lord Carrington was Minister Without Portfolio while Douglas-Home was Prime Minister and I infer from the above that he's Secretary of State for Defence from the POD and keeps the job for the next 10 years, that is assuming that the Conservatives remain in power until 1974.

As you should well know that's not how I'd have done it. That being said, it's your thread so it's your choice.

 

[Hood]

Maudling had been a penny pincher at the MoS in the 50s, as Chancellor he'd have been keen to have cut costs by cancelling P.1154, TSR.2 and AW.681, or at least some of these.
CVA-01 and EoS is completely open to speculation, we don't know what the Defence Secretary might have had in mind post-1966. There might have been greater commitment to support Malaysia and Singapore into the early 1970s but the loss of Aden would be a logistical blow.
As I've said before, any Vietnam commitment means keeping the EoS commitment in a fairly large form for the supply train.

One upside might be that the RAF does actually get its hands on some C-5A Galxaxies. Though doubtless Mason will flog em back to the Yanks once Vietnam is over (1975 review that binned a lot of the transport fleet).

 

[Archibald]

Maudling had been a penny pincher at the MoS in the 50s, as Chancellor he'd have been keen to have cut costs by cancelling P.1154, TSR.2 and AW.681, or at least some of these.
CVA-01 and EoS is completely open to speculation, we don't know what the Defence Secretary might have had in mind post-1966. There might have been greater commitment to support Malaysia and Singapore into the early 1970s but the loss of Aden would be a logistical blow.
As I've said before, any Vietnam commitment means keeping the EoS commitment in a fairly large form for the supply train.

One upside might be that the RAF does actually get its hands on some C-5A Galxaxies. Though doubtless Mason will flog em back to the Yanks once Vietnam is over (1975 review that binned a lot of the transport fleet).

Considering the cost overruns and the teething problems the C-5A suffered, if I were the British I would run away from it like the Black Death. C-141s would be much cheaper and closer from C-130Ks.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Part of Post 45 quoted in Post 55.

We know from many discussions on this site that TSR2, P1154 and HS681 were too flawed to be saved.

However, as other alt histories here have warped reality happily, I am going to keep them, with slight changes to reality.
HS681 is built with a straightforward Medway turbofan and reference to VSTOL is dropped (Italy did this with the G222).
P1154 is changed to STOL vectored thrust based on BS100 and in service date of 1969 is accepted.
TSR2 is already flying but BAC are still unable to fix costs on the aircraft. With the early demise of the Valiant and the clear obsolescence of the Canberra, Defence Secretary Carrington forces the RAF to accept a mix of Buccaneer S2 and a reduced TSR2 buy of 50 aircraft. Vulcan and Victor aircraft will retire early to pay for them.
Carrington has already been critical of the RN ambitions for CVA01. He sees through the F4 Hermes saga and tells the RN it must accept USN F4s and cancels the Spey variant.
By 1966 Carrington has had the CVA01 redesigned to be an updated version of Eagle with no CF299 and Broomstick but with the CVA01 flight deck.

This was going to be the second half of Post 55 but real life got in the way and it's been semi-ninja'd by @Hood's Post 56.

The following figures might not be 100% accurate and my argument doesn't include all the "ifs" & "buts" but both are close enough to the whole truth to prove my point.

The Conservative's plan in 1964 was to maintain defence spending at current levels and the projected spending for 1970 was £2,400 at 1964 prices.

The Labour Government came to power promising to reduce defence spending. Their target of £2,000 million in 1970 at 1964 prices. However, they also promised to do so without cutting any of the UK's defence commitments. Their expressed intention was do it cheaper than the Tories.

To give Harold Wilson & Co their due that's what tried to do until until 1967-68 when the economic situation (which was exacerbated by events beyond their control) forced them to announce the withdraw from "East of Suez" first by 1975 and then by the end of 1971.

That's why we had the cancellation of HS.681, P.1154 and TSR.2. Dennis Healey thought AFVG, C-130K Hercules, F-4M Phantom, F-111K, Harrier and Jaguar would be cheaper. The "Island Base" beat the "Strike Carriers" because the estimated cost of the former was less than £2,000 million and the estimated cost of the latter was more than £2,000 million.

My guess is that if the Conservatives had won the 1964 General Election their policy would have been to stick to their expressed plan of £2,400 million in 1970 at 1964 prices until 1967-68.

Therefore, the cancellations of 1964-66 in the "Real World" would have been put back to 1967-70 in @uk 75's "Version of History". Except that the numbers of HS.681, P.1154 and TSR.2 built would have been reduced because the projects would have been too far advanced to be cancelled outright.

The "Strike Carriers" will beat the "Island Base" concept because the cost estimates for the former were within the £2,400 million ceiling in spite of being more expensive than the "Island Base" concept. Or at least they do for long enough for CVA.01 and CVA.02 to survive for long enough to avoid being scrapped on the slipways. However, they have to make do with a Type 965 AKE-2 radar instead of Type 988 and be "fitted for but not with" Sea Dart. These ships replace Ark Royal, Hermes and Victorious (I know that's two ships replacing three). If the Conservatives with the 1970 General Election CVA.03 will be built to replace Eagle. The cost of CVAs 01, 02 and 03 will in part be offset by not "Phantomizing" Ark Royal, not converting Blake and Tiger to Helicopter Carriers and not building Invincible.

I've not included the other Invincible class "Through Deck Cruisers" because they were ordered after 1974 and my "Wishful Thinking" is that two or three Commando Carriers would be built in their place.

At the very least the fifth Polaris submarine would have been built.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 56 by @Hood and all of Post 57 by @Archibald

One upside might be that the RAF does actually get its hands on some C-5A Galxaxies. Though doubtless Mason will flog em back to the Yanks once Vietnam is over (1975 review that binned a lot of the transport fleet).

Considering the cost overruns and the teething problems the C-5A suffered, if I were the British I would run away from it like the Black Death. C-141s would be much cheaper and closer from C-130Ks.

From what I remember from reading Hansard on-line the British Government abandoned its plans to buy the Galaxy in 1970 when the Conservatives were back in power and Lord Carrington was Secretary of State for Defence.

The Starlifter had been out of production for several years by 1970 and the cost of re-starting production is likely to have been prohibitive. It might have been nearly as expensive as resurrecting the Short SC.5/45 (with RB.211 engines instead of RB.178s) or sticking to the Galaxy.

For what it's worth the last squadron patterns that I have are Plan Q from mid-1967. This is the plan to withdraw from "East of Suez" by and runs from June 1967 to March 1978. It shows 23 Britannias in 2 squadrons at 30.06.67 and 15 Galaxies in one squadron at 31.03.78. There were no backing aircraft for either type.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

By 1966 Carrington has had the CVA01 redesigned to be an updated version of Eagle with no CF299 and Broomstick but with the CVA01 flightdeck

Errr on an Audacious hull, that flight deck wouldn't deliver much. Why would you bother?

What @zen said.

Plus it wouldn't be significantly cheaper than a CVA.01 without "Kojak" and Sea Dart. Plus there'd be the time and cost of producing the modernised Eagle instead of sticking to CVA.01.

Also it's got one 151ft stroke & one 199ft stroke steam catapult v two 250ft units and one-and-a-bit lifts block the angled flight deck of Eagle while both lifts on CVA.01 were clear of the landing lane. Similarly both steam catapults block the angled flight deck on Eagle and only the waist catapult blocks the landing lane.

This is reminiscent of the second half of the 1970s when the USN was forced to study alternative to the Nimitz class which opponents of the Super Carrier claimed were cheaper. The conclusion was that Nimtiz was more cost effective for the USN than the VSS, CVV and a modernised John F. Kennedy. However, the delay cost the USN two or three Nimitz class ships.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 56

... (1975 review that binned a lot of the transport fleet).

To reinforce what you wrote...

More than half of it in fact. The brunt was borne by the Strategic Transport Force.

At that time the RAF had 12 transport squadrons. That is one squadron of VC.10s, one squadron of Belfasts, two squadrons of Britannias, one squadron of Comets, six squadrons of Hercules and one squadron of Andovers. This was cut to 5 squadrons made up of the VC.10 squadron and four Hercules squadrons.

Furthermore:

• The number of tanker squadrons was cut from three to two.
• The number of Nimrod squadrons was cut from the equivalent of six (four in the UK, one Malta, a detachment at Gibraltar and a detachment at Singapore) to the equivalent of four-and-a-half (four in the UK and the detachment at Gibraltar).

The Mason Review was the end of "East of Suez".

Although most of Britain's forces "East of Suez" were withdrawn by the end of 1971 most of the Strategic Reserve (the Army's 3rd Division & 16th Airborne Brigade and the RAF's 38 Group) remained. Although reinforcing NATO's flanks was added to it's responsibilities reinforcing Britain's allies "East of Suez" was still part of its job description and was tested in one major deployment to Malaysia in the first half of the 1970s that I know of and I'm sure that we'll be told if there were others. Although the Eastern Fleet was disbanded at the end of the 1971 there were regular visits by Royal Navy squadrons to the Far East that included a Tiger class cruiser or County class destroyer and a SSN.

Roy Mason decided to concentrate on the Central Front & Eastlant at the expense of the Mediterranean & most of what was left outside the NATO area. In his defence the UK was in the middle of what (at the time) was the worst economic recession Britain had gone through since the 1930s.

 

[uk 75]

It is pretty difficult to come up with a way of saving the Tories in 1964 so I am certainly.not wedded to my version.
But without a Tory Government you get back to what happened in real life.
Maudling as Chancellor may well have axed defence spending too.
Perhaps one needs to go further back and have Macmillan survive and no scandals..

 

[Archibald]

Maudling as Chancellor

I red "mauling a chancellor" and had a brief WTH moment...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Maudling as Chancellor

I red "mauling a chancellor" and had a brief WTH moment...

I first read you post as "Red Mauling a Chancellor" and thought it was the nickname for a socialist politician that I'd not heard of.

Monty Python did "Number Fifteen: The naughty bits of Reginald Maudling"

Reginald Maudling was highest-profile victim of the Poulson Scandal which was part of the plot of a 1996 BBC drama series called Our Friends in the North starring Christopher Eccleston, Gina McKee, Mark Strong and someone called Daniel Craig.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It is pretty difficult to come up with a way of saving the Tories in 1964 so I am certainly not wedded to my version.

Perhaps M.I.5 could take a leaf out of the CIA's book and give Harold Wilson some exploding tobacco for his pipe. Although the story is that he preferred cigars but thought smoking a pipe would win more votes.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It is pretty difficult to come up with a way of saving the Tories in 1964 so I am certainly not wedded to my version.

Wilson famously visited the Cavern Club. Douglas-Home could have gone to the Marquee Club.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It is pretty difficult to come up with a way of saving the Tories in 1964 so I am certainly not wedded to my version.

There's the story that Harold Wilson persuaded Hugh Carleton Greene the Director-General of the BBC to postpone Steptoe & Son until after the Polling Stations had closed because he'd loose 20 seats if it was shown at its scheduled time.

The Labour Party won with a majority of four.

 

[alertken]

Nom: never heard that one, tks.

(for those so unfortunate as not to know of Steptoe & Son: UK TV situation comedy, very high ratings, so folk scheduled their week around it. All folk, not just Labour voters. The underlying thrust of the "story", though, is that Labour voters are less diligent about hauling themselves out of the house to go and vote - received wisdom is they won't go out in the rain).

 

[zen]

On Island based airpower being cheaper than Carrier based airpower.
‐----
This one needs to a little examination!

The only way fixed bases are cheaper is because of their location and sunk costs in their establishment.
In essence they only look cheaper, because years ago maybe even centuries ago, the investment in acquisition and infrastructure had been expended.
But when a fixed base is too far from the area of interest, another fixed base is needed closer and suddenly we have a more direct comparison.....even when we own the territory in question.
It is then that the carrier starts to shine, since all it has to do is move to the area of interest.

Because then we are comparing the building of a carrier force and it's sustainment with the building of infrastructure to operate airpower. From the airfield, to the port, the fuel storage, roads, air defence system, even the shops and warehouses.

For Vietnam, we have Hong Kong, Brunei, and Singapore. Are they enough? Only Hong Kong is really close and yet that site is both the most limited in space and the most provocative politically.

In this the carrier is able to get closer and shorten the flight times. Without Conflicting with South Vietnam's Airforce and the US Airforce.

 

[Archibald]

re: fixed bases vs carriers

France has used quite similar reasoning, balancing "Rafales on CdG" with... "Rafales in Djibouti" or "Rafales in the Emirates". Same aircraft except flying off Earth solid ground but having Airbus tanker (whatever its name, I forgot) support.

 

[zen]

Certainly it's a lot easier and safer if you occasionally need naval aviation to fly from land in a pinch.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Nom: never heard that one, tks.

(for those so unfortunate as not to know of Steptoe & Son: UK TV situation comedy, very high ratings, so folk scheduled their week around it. All folk, not just Labour voters. The underlying thrust of the "story", though, is that Labour voters are less diligent about hauling themselves out of the house to go and vote - received wisdom is they won't go out in the rain).

For the benefit of American readers Steptoe & Son was remade for American TV as Sanford & Son.

According to its Wikipedia entry (so it may not be true) Sanford & Son was NBC's answer to CBS's All in the Family which was an American remake of Till Death Do Us Part another British programme. Archie Bunker played by Carroll O'Connor replaced Alf Garnett played by Warren Mitchell.

Una Stubbs (who is probably best known, outside the UK, for playing Mrs Hudson in Sherlock) played Alf's daughter Rita. She died last year.

And Anthony Booth who played Garnett's son-in-law, Mike "The Scouse Git" Rawlins, went on to be the father-in-law of a British Prime Minister and said PM also went to the same school as Mr Bean.

According to their Wikipedia entries there were several foreign adaptations of Steptoe & Son and Till Death Do Us Part in addition to those made by American TV.

 

[kaiserd]

The “Britain in Vietnam”/ “Steptoe & Son” discussion topic

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I wasn't expecting that...