Right descisions in right time

abc123

Banned
February 5, 1965, 10,00 AM London, Old Admiralty Building, London

800px-Admiralty_Extension_from_Horse_Guards_Parade_-_Sept_2006.jpg


A very important meeting was beeing held that morning in grand meeting room of Old Admiralty Building. Old building had a really rich history. It saw Royal Navy in time when she was by far the strongest naval power in the world. But, alltrough outside observer could think that current status of Royal Navy isn't much weaker, man with better informations would laugh on something like that. The truth was that Royal Navy was declining force that was daily falling behing by US Navy. The reason for that was simple, UK wasn't anymore capable for paying massive naval costs. And the purpose of this meeting was somehow ensure that Royal Navy, despite inevitable decay, remains potent force.

The present on meeting were:

220px-Lord_Mountbatten_Navy_Allan_Warren.jpg


Lord Mountbatten of Burma, Chief of Defence Staff

80px-Dluce.jpg

Admiral of Fleet Sir David Luce, First Sea Lord
Admiral Sir Desmond Dreyer, Second Sea Lord
Admiral Sir Horace Law, Third Sea Lord
Vice Admiral Sir Raymond Hawkins, Fourth Sea Lord
Vice Admiral Sir Frank Hopkins, Fifth Sea Lord

Someone outside of meeting hall could easily hear shouting inside. But, what was the source of that?
Lord Mountbatten said: I KNOW THAT FLEET NEEDS LARGE CARRIERS! YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAYING THAT TO ME! But do understand please, that this country at the moment has no enough money for all projects!

David Luce said: I understand that Sir Louis, but this country is in fact a island! And needs bloody Navy more than other services.

Lord Mountbatten: I understand that David, I WAS at your place only six years ago. And I said the same thing to our political masters in Whitehall. Do you know what they want to do? Do you?

David Luce: No, but I can presume...

Lord Mountbatten: I'll tell you what they want to do! They want to pull this country from East of Suez! And want to change the Royal Navy accordingly. To turn she in North Atlantic force with specialisation in chasing Soviet submarines and escorting american convoy's to Europe! That means an end of all fleet carriers.

Demond Dreyer interrupted: With respect Sir Louis, that's hardly a something new.
Other sea lords agreed with that.


To be continued....
 

abc123

Banned
Nice start off to the timeline.

Thank's Chris. I hope that my limited English skills will allow me to continue that path. Maybe it was smarter to use history-book approach instead of this discussion approach. Nevertheless, remember that English isn't my mother-tongue and try not to laugh too loud if I make some mistake.

Your future help is much appreciated.
 

abc123

Banned
The Meeting

Lord Mountbatten: You know that this country is in big economical problems. Our industry is antiquated, pound is weaker on daily basis, syndicates are on rampage with their demands, Labour can't decide are they for socialism or not etc.
And the worst thing is, things will not become any better in future.

David Luce: Come on Sir Louis, surely after the next elections a sane Conservative government will see that our demands are reasonable. After all, we had allready given up too much. You know that a few years ago we wanted 6 new carriers.
Later, we reduced that number on 5 and then on 4. And now, now we want only 3. Only 3. That's the absolute minimum of credible carrier force, you know that better than I am.

Lord Mountbatten: I would love to share your optimism David, but to be frank, I really can't see on political horison nobody, on left or on right side, that could make an end to all that problems. And even if I would, that wouldn't change the fact that even if new Goverment is "dream team" they can't change situation over night. At least 10-15 years will be nescesarry for this country to recover economicly, even if that recovery starts now.
And do you think that when some future Government realises that she has to pay for new carriers, AND for new nuclear fleet submarines AND new balistic submarines with Polaris missiles AND new frigates and destroyers etc. that they will not scrapp carriers?
In their brains, nuclear detterent is the absolute priority. And sincerely, I can't blaim them. You know that our V-bomber force isn't any more credible deterrent. Valiant bombers are allready grounded and will not come back, and Victors will most probably have similar fate soon. That leaves Vulcans, and they have more-less the same problem- they don't have a stand-off weapon.
So, money for Polaris and Resolution class will most surely be secured. In two years we should have first Resolution class submarine operational. Next 3 will follow in next few years.

But, let's go on, do you think that they will significantly reduce number of our escort force? I don't think so. After all, that IS our most important contribution to NATO. And we have a large number of antiquated destroyers and frigates that are approachin the end of their useful service. New Leander class is in production and allready 7 of them is in service, but there's another 20 that are in construction or their construction will soon commence.
And, don't forget, we will need at least 20 another modern frigates in next 15 years.
We have in service 4 modern County class destroyers and another 4 is in different stages of construction. For next 5 years they will consume large amount of our budget. And they are nescesarry. And allready some are saying that when last member of that class is commissioned, they will be obsolete. That means that we will have to build a new class of destroyers, and they will not be any cheaper than Counties.

Same thing with SSNs. We will have to oreder one SSN each year for the next say 10- 15 years if we want remain modern submarine force and not to fall behind Americans and Russians. And they will also be very expencive.

That's to mention only the most important projects.

David Luce interrupted: We all know that Sir Louis, but if economical and political situation for UK is so dire, what to do?

Louis Mountbatten: I'll tell you what to do. Simply, you have to be happy with current carrier force, somewhat reduced, for about next 10- 15 years.

David Luce: That's impossible! You all know that Americans are constructing their large carriers, even with nuclear propulsion, and now we have to be satisfied with our WW2-age small carriers.

Lord Mountbatten: I know that. But this isn't a choice between 6 carrier force and 3 carrier force. This isn't a choice between small carrier force and non-existant carrier force. I said allready, they wan't to pull us East of Suez. And get rid of all carrier force if possible. Do you want't that to happen?

David Luce: No, of course not.

Lord Mountbatten: Then we have to be clever and try to buy time. Time that this country recovers economicly and that our carrier capability, however small- remains alive.
And that's really possible. We allready know that our defence budget will be reduced. So, we will reduce it, but on projects of our choosing.

Because, we all know that our two large carriers HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal can carry a decent airgroup of Buccaneers and Sea Vixens. I admitt, Sea Vixen is old aircraft, but american F-4 Phantom is large enough that it can fit this two carriers without large reconstructions. HMS Eagle has last year out of refit that prolonged his life until about mid-80s, maybe even more. With small investment of only 5 millions of pounds, she can be fully ready for Phantoms.
If we make similar large refit on HMS Ark Royal we will get a pretty god carrier force that will can last until at least mid-80s. Phantom is certainly a capable aircraft, same as Buccaneer, so with modernisations, we can expect that they will outlive the carriers.

David Luce: OK, I see the merits of your proposal, but that would leave us with only one fleet carrier while HMS Ark Royal completes his refit and that means 1970+.

Lord Mountbatten: Yes, that's true. But we can use HMS Victorious. I admitt, she can't use Phantoms, but we were planing to use Sea Vixens until 1970 this way or another. It isn't the best solution, but I can't think anything better than that.

David Luce: And what about our smaller Centaur class carriers? We had plans to replace them with 3-4 new through-deck cruisers, for ASW duties and to act as Commando carriers.

Lord Mountbatten: And why waste money on that new ASW-cruisers when we have more than enough older, but still half-new carriers like Centaur class that can serve in both roles?
If we keep HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark and maybe HMS Centaur, and convert Centaur into Commando carrier, so that we allways have in service one ASW carrier and one Commando carrier, and if we sell HMS Hermes to, say, India or Australia, that would leave us with pretty good capability. These ships can, if refitted last at least until mid-80s.


David Luce: I see. But, new carriers will have to be constructed, sooner or later...

Lord Mountbatten: Absolutly. But, the sad reality is that we can't expect first new carrier in service before mid-80s and second in end-80s. But, not all is bad. That would give to us more than enough time to make a decent plans for new carriers, you all know how much compromises have you accepted in current CVA plans. And sincerely, new carriers wouldn't have been the best carriers in the world.
 
Last edited:
Subscribed.

You give a very description of the problems facing Britain's defence planners at that time, a number of big bills became due at the same time and the financial situation of the country meant that something had to give. Unfortunately the biggest bill of all was the politically sacrosanct Polaris Project.

Keeping Eagle and Ark Royal in service to the mid 1980's also means that money won't get pissed away on the conversion of the Tiger class cruisers to helicopter cruisers to act as flagships. The conversions of Tigerand and Blake went way over budget and behind schedule, that money could well have been used to keep the carriers going.

Looking forward to the next installment!
 

abc123

Banned
Keeping Eagle and Ark Royal in service to the mid 1980's also means that money won't get pissed away on the conversion of the Tiger class cruisers to helicopter cruisers to act as flagships. The conversions of Tigerand and Blake went way over budget and behind schedule, that money could well have been used to keep the carriers going.

In fact, I had a plan that Tiger class is decomissioned right away, and their manpower is used to solve manpower shortage in the fleet at the time. And money planned for their conversion could be used for buying third Fearless LPD. That could be cold to Government as preparing for supporting Norway, and in the same time, it can serve for expeditionary purposes...
 
Last edited:
In fact, I had a plan that Tiger class is decomissioned right away, and their manpower is used to solve manpower shorpage in the fleet at the tima. And money planned for their conversion could be used for buying third fearless LPD. That could be cold to Government as preparing for supporting Norway, and in the same time, it can serve for expeditionary purposes...

Like it! :cool:
 

abc123

Banned
The Meeting, part II

After a short pause for tea and cookies, the meeting was continued.

David Luce: Sir Louis, I was speaking with my colleagues and we agree that your proposal has it's merits. In fact, if it suceeds we could say that it saved Royal Navy. But, there's one big problem that you hadn't mention here. We all agree that our main problem is our Government that want's that we concentrate ourselves on North Atlantic area. How to solve that?

Lord Mountbatten: I know, and that would be harder part of problem. But, large part of problems that were coming from Treasury and Defence was in my opinion caused by announcements of new, even higher costs for Royal Navy, and essentially for al three services. Our political masters are worried that inter-service rivalry will become public and that they willl have to choose between Navy and RAF. If we alone offer to them that we will keep our costs low ( at present state ) or even that we will decrease them, they will avoid any problems with Opposition and general public. They will be in position to have a reduced spending, satisfied Navy, satisfied RAF and in general, they will avoid public problems. Also, we would sell them that if Americans have 20+ carriers and are in NATO, that we also have to have at least a couple of them, for NATO service, off course. And also, for some, however unlikely event, that we have to make some intervention somewhere where Americans/NATO will not want to support us.

But, we also have to smart here. We will reduce our spending right away, but we will leave something for later, after next government would make their defence review. We will present to them that retiring/sale of HMS Victorious and HMS Centaur is because they wan't that, not because we allready decided to do that.

David Luce: Smart idea Sir Louis. I also have a few ideas on my own. If we scrapp all three Tiger class cruisers that would be big saving of money and manpower. Firstly, they are now scheduled for big modernisation into ASW cruisers, our current estimates is that it will cost at least 15 millions of pounds to modernise them, maybe even more. And what we will get is, at best, a mediocre ship. With that savings only we can pay for big refit of HMS Ark Royal and "Phantomisation" of HMS Eagle.
Also, they have now 700 members of crew each, after modenisation they would have 900 each. That's about 2700 sailors ( about 4% of total manpower number of RN ) who we can redistribute to other needs. If we add there about 4-5000 members of crew of HMS Hermes, HMS Victorious and HMS Centaur, we will solve allmost all problems with manpower in RN for a forseeable future.
Also, by withdrawing/selling HMS Herme we won't have to convert him as commando carrier, and existing carriers can do that job excellently. That's another large saving. If we cancel the conversion of HMS Centaur we will save even more money, and it would better look if we later give away a real fleet carrier, and in the same time, it will be easier to sell HMS Centaur is it isn't converted into commando carrier. Also, I have another reason why this proposal couldbe useful. At present, because of our East of Suez policy, we keep in Europe only 28 escort ships. If we pull back ships from East of Suez deployments, or the most of it, that would give us a chance to modernize our fleet by decomissionning older units or increase our participation in NATO.

Lord Mountbatten: There you go, now you fully see the merits of my proposal. You know, I'm allready 6 years Chief of Defence Staff. The guy who would replace me ( I'm goeing into retirement this year ) may not be so keen to save the Navy. So let's try to do the most we can while I'm still here.
Do we have a agreement gentlemen?
 
Last edited:

abc123

Banned
Now, after this agreement of admirals, will they suceed to convince current Labour politicians that few carriers must stay in service?
Harold Wilson, Denis Healy and others...
 

abc123

Banned
Meeting in Whitehall

Two weeks later, Whitehall

After some additional preparations, Lord Mountbatten and Sir David Luce arrived at Downing Street No. 10 to have talks with Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Wilson's Secretary of State for Defence Denis Healey and Navy Minister Christopher Mayhew also were present.

245px-Dodwilson.JPG

Right Honourable Sir Harold Wilson, Prime Minister

At the meeting, Lord Mountbatten and Admiral Luce proposed to their political masters what did they concluded two weeks before.

Lord Mountbatten: So, Prime Minister, you see, our previous studies that our fleet carriers HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle would soon become too small because of technological development of aviation ( growth of aircrafts ) seem to be unaccurate. It seems that fighter aircrafts, like current USN fighter F-4 Phantom, will not grow significantly any more. In our opinion, their key parameters like, size, spped, avionics, combat capabilities have reached a stage where progress will not be so rapid as it was during last 10-15 years. So, we can say with 90% of accuracy that our current carriers can be very good assets for at least next 15 or 20 years.

PM Wilson: But, aren't they too old?

Admiral Luce: No, Prime Minister, in fact, they are young ships. Niether of them didn't pass half of their lifetime. Also, the have been toroughly modernised and refitted. So, with smaller refits for HMS Eagle and one larger refit for HMS Ark Royal, we are confident to have them operational until at least mid-80s without any problems.

PM Wilson: So, does that means that new carriers, what was the name of project, CVA, right? will not be nescesarry?

Lord Mountbatten: Yes Prime Minister. Of course, old carriers would have to replaced one day, but it is our opinion that there's no rush to do that. new carriers should be ordered about 1980 to have first in service by mid 80s and second by end of 90s.

Denis Healey: So that means that Royal navy will remain with only 2 fleet carriers? If I understud correctly, you propose retirement of HMS Victorious in first half of 70s?

David Luce: That's right Minister.

Christopher Mayhew: But, isn't number of only 2 carriers too small?

David Luce: Well, yes and no. If we would have the same military commitments it would be too small. But, it is pretty obvious that withdrawal from East of Suez missions is allmost a sure thing. So, with concentration of our military capabilities on our NATO roles, 2 carriers will be just the minimal capability for independant reaction, in case that something happens in area/situation when our allies would/could not support us.
Other force changes that we propose will also go in that direction, of increasing our role in NATO area, keeping strong nuclear deterrant trough our new Polaris submarines, increasing of ASW capabilities in North Atlantic area etc.

Denis Healey: So, am I wrong if I say that Navy will have their budget demands in subsequent years significantly reduced?

Lord Mountbatten: It seems so. I must say that i was very pleasantly surprised when Admiral Luce approached me with this proposal. It will free significant amounts of money for our defence projects from other services. So, naturally I supported this proposal at once. It was

Harold Wilson: So, it seems that Navy is ready for new Defence Review. I must say, that's the spirit. You have seen the fingers on the wall and decided to do something about that. I won't lie to you, large reducing of our military expenditures is nesceasrry, because this country is in deep economical problems.
So, Denis, if youdon't have any problems with that, can you include this proposal in your new Defence Review, so that we can look into other defence projects that will, I'm afraid have to suffer significant cuts.

Denis Healey: Of course that I have no objections Prime Minister and I will do that as soonest as possible. I must say lord Mountbatten that this, how should I say, reasonable stance of yours and Admiral Luce too, has helped us a lot. You see, we would have to bring unpopular descisions like this, this way or another, so it's much better if there's no significant opposition from the Navy. For us politicians, and frankly for our party, it's very important to look like strong on national security issues and in the same time, strong at responcible fiscal behaviour. You have both done a big favour to us gentlemen and we will not forget that.

After short talk about some other issues, the meeting was ended. Lord Mountbatten and David Luce exited from Number 10 with a smile on their face. Mountbatten said: You see david, it all went smooth. As I said it will. Luce replied: Yes, it sure seems so, let's hope it will remain so.

Inside Downing Street Harold Wilson and Denis Healy were also verypleased by outcome of this conversation.

Harodl Wilson: I must say Denis, that this meeting was really a pleasant surprise. I expected that they will ask for more money for navy, and instead, such responcible attitude.

Denis Healey: Yes Prime Minister, it seems that Mountbatten has made the significant pressure on Sea Lords so they have decided to back down from their previous demands. When I remember that only a few years ago demanded 6 new carriers!

Harold Wilson: Indeed. Your'e maybe right about Mountbatten, he surely played significant role here. You know, I have a idea. Mountbatten was scheduled for retirement form Chief of Defence Staff position in sommer, right?

Denis Healey: Yes, why?

Harold Wilson: Well, we could retain him for another year or two. After all, he has great influence and reputation in Armed Forces, he's a member of Royal Family and indeed a very popular figure in general public. So, why not to use him as somebody who will put reason in that unreasonable soldiers heads, like today? At least until our new defence policy is made. A new Chief can wait for couple of years.

Denis Healey: Excellent idea Prime Minister.
 
Last edited:
I do.

I would question where it is going. Britain did not have any naval combat commitments until 1982 (the Falklands). Is this intended merely as a alternative British naval profile of the post war era, or is there something coming that would actually employ those carriers that Lord Mountbatten is trying so hard to save?

Mike Turcotte
 

abc123

Banned
I do.

I would question where it is going. Britain did not have any naval combat commitments until 1982 (the Falklands). Is this intended merely as a alternative British naval profile of the post war era, or is there something coming that would actually employ those carriers that Lord Mountbatten is trying so hard to save?

Mike Turcotte

Don't know yet. It might be both solutions. Maybe alternative naval profile, and maybe something else...

Callahan's Government in 1977 sent pretty strong force south to dissuade Argies from invasion. Maybe this time he send's carrier too.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Interesting premise, but it seems somewhat optimistic. IOTL the RN had to literally sneak the Invinvibles past the Budget Hawks by more or less lying about what they were. "Through-deck cruisers" indeed.

Also a minor nit. Ships in your navy and those of your allies are refered to using female pronouns (she, her) and your opponents in the male (him, his) during peacetime and and "it" during wartime (although it is not uncommon to hear the opposition's ships called her when tensions are low).
 

abc123

Banned
Interesting premise, but it seems somewhat optimistic. IOTL the RN had to literally sneak the Invinvibles past the Budget Hawks by more or less lying about what they were. "Through-deck cruisers" indeed.

Also a minor nit. Ships in your navy and those of your allies are refered to using female pronouns (she, her) and your opponents in the male (him, his) during peacetime and and "it" during wartime (although it is not uncommon to hear the opposition's ships called her when tensions are low).

Really intresting thing about naming of opposition ships. :eek: I really didn't know that. But since my English isn't good, please understand that my mistakes aren't intentional.
;)

About sneaking, well IMO, 60s were for RN period where "perfect storm" happend. On one side, dissolution of Empire and withdrawing from Suez. On another major financial crisis. On another, expectation that LAARGE investments are nescesarry to keep carriers as credbile asset. ( that means NEW and expencive carriers ). On another, big money was wasted on poorly managed projects that were useless or never finished. On top of all of that came interservice rivalry and the fact that Navy has found itself in period when price of independent nuclear deterrent ( a absolute priority of ANY UK Government ) had to be payed so there was not enough money to pay for carriers.

All of that created wish of HM Governments at the end of 60s that, since there's no money for new carriers, Navy should find another priorities, like North Atlantic ASW actions.
But, if we remove need for new and expencive carriers and somewhat reduce interservice rivalry and cut useless investments as it is possible than maybe Government will not be so eager to cut down RN.
 

abc123

Banned
Another meeting

800px-BAC_TSR-2_at_Duxford.jpg


Ministry of Defence Building, London

Not too long after meeting with Lord Mountbatten and Admiral Luce, Secretary of State for Defence Denis Healey had also a very important meeting.

Present were: Denis Healey, Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Elworthy- Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Sir John Grandy- Commander-in-Chief Bomber Command, Air Marshal Sir Douglas Morris- Commander-in-Chief Fighter Command and Lord Mountbatten, Chief of Defence Staff.

Denis Healey: Good morning gentlemen, I'm pleased to see you here. Let's go on our agenda. As you know, a few week ago representatives from Royal Navy came to me and agreed, even more, proposed that current budget of RN can be somewhat reduced. While we didn't established exact numbers yet, significant number of future projects of RN will be abolished or delayed. And we are now here to see what we can done with budget of RAF.

Charles Elworthy: With respect Minister, but RAF has planned to make significant investments in near future. Big number of important projects is in process and sincerely, I really can't see that any of these projects is unnescesarry.

Denis Healey: Sir Charles, I understand that you think that all programs are important to you, but you have to be aware that this country can't, simply can't finance all of them. It's not a question of wish, it's question of money. So, you would have to give up something. As you see, Navy has give up their new carriers, refurbishment of cruisers, they plan to reduce number of carriers for 2 etc.

Charles Elworthy: I understand all of that Minister, and I commend austerity and prudence of Senior Service, but RAF is allready in some respects way behind of other leading air forces like VVS or USAF. If we don't invest significant amount of money in it, it will definitly condemn this country on having third-class air force, and we don't wan't that, dont we?

Denis Healey: No, of course, but we also don't want to live in bancrupted country either.

Charles Elworthy: OK, tell me one project that isn't nescesarry.

Denis Healey: With pleasure- TSR-2. Costs of development of that aircraft are simply enormous. Navy could have bought their two desired new carriers for that money. Until now, we have spent about 200 millions of pounds on development, and BAC still can't tell when aircraft will be in service nor wich final price will be.

Charles Elworthy: Yes, I know that the costs are large, and me too share your worry about possible rise of costs, but what's the alternative? We allready decided to make painful compromise on performance of TSR-2 to reduce price and we really don't see any more space for saving in that direction.
Should we scrap TSR-2? If we do that, this country will loose tactical bomber for future. Tactical air strike, very important function in our independent nuclear deterrent will become allmost impossible.

Lord Mountbatten: With respect Minister, if I may? I would offer you a solution Sir Charles. Here, in my bag, I have model of TSR-2, a fine aircraft indeed, as you can see. But, instead of this tactical bomber, who still doesen't fly and whos'e cost we still dont know, I have here also 4 models of allready existing, flying and cheap aircraft, that can, or will in future, could do about 90% of tasks of TSR-2. And for a fraction of cost of TSR-2. 20-25 % in current TSR prices, to be exact.
So, Air Chief Marshal, there's alternative.

Charles Elworthy: With respect Lord Mountbatten, but studies of RAF from few years ago show that Buccaneer is unsuitable for role that you want that he fulfill and that only aircraft like TSR-2 can fulfill.

Lord Mountbatten: First, these studies are made for S.1 model and, secondly, what role is that?
Dropping nuclear bombs on enemy strategic targets? We allready decided a few years ago that new Polaris SSBNs will take over that role. Even real strategic bombers like Vulcan will be retired in a few years after these submarines become fully operational. Droping nuclear bombs on tactical targets? I really don't see why Buccaneer couldn't do that? Same with conventional ordnance. After all, total bomb load of TSR-2 is only about 10 000 lb while Buccaneer can carry up to 12 000 ls. So, this way or another, your precious TSR-2 is dangeroulsy uneconomical aircraft.

Charles Elworthy: Sir Louis, I understand that you wan't to destroy this project from the beginning, but even if we decede that in name of austerity cut this project, we have to remember that we have spent about 200 millions of pounds on this project. Would it be smart use of budget money just to cancel the aircraft now when we are on verge of sucess?
That would mean that we wasted 200 millions of pounds.

Lord Mountbatten: There are other alternatives. Buying that aircraft would mean throwing good money after bad money. Instead, we should buy Buccaneers ( and I even have information that Hawker Siddeley is ready to begin development of S.3 variant, that would be supersonic, so there goes your main objection ), buy 110 or more Buccaneers, scrap ( unfortunatly ) allready wasted money, and invest that excess money in something else.

Denis Healey: I must say Air Chief Marshal that Lord Mountbatten's arguments really do have sence. And we can't expect that the Exchequer will simply pay any bill that we made here. Britain is in this situation because of such practice in the past.

Sir John Grandy: With respect gentlemen, but as commanding officer of Bomber Command I must say that if we wan't to have Bomber Command, we need bombers. TSR-2, alltrough not strategic bomber, it is bomber. Buccaneer simply isn't bomber. He has no speed or range to do the job. If we won't buy TSR-2, than someting else similar must be bought, like American F-111.

Lord Mountbatten: Why fill pockets of american companies if we have a good domestic solution that will retrn large amount of that money in our Treasury?

Sir John Grandy: But the RAF is service that saved Britain in past war. It still guards that what has remained of Empire. Buccaneer will simply be inferiour aircraft in comparison with TSR or F-111.

Lord Mountbtten: Even if I agree on that, and I don't, Buccaneer will still be more than enough to do the trick.

Denis Healey: One sidenote gentlemen, Ministry has allready contacted General Dynamics and asked about the price of future F-111. They aren't sure yet, but they can say that price of single F-111 will be about 1/4 or 1/3 of TSR-2, with current price.

To be continued...
 
Last edited:
Top