FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1966
1966 - 0540.PDF
fUGHT internal*™/. 24 February 1966 325 Morale and the Carrier Run-down THE PROPOSED SLOW DISSOLUTION Of the Fleet Air Arm, to which we referred last week in the context of its inhibiting recruitment during the final years of the existing carrier force, is likely to have an even more pronounced and potenti- ally disturbing effect on morale. While Service accident figures are a closely guarded secret in Britain (unlike the more healthy policy prevailing in the US, where they are published), it is no secret that the Fleet Air Arm is, for aircrew, the most disciplined branch of the British air Services. Unavoidably, carrier flying takes a proportionately higher toll of lives than does land-based flying. The FAA has been particularly de- pendent on a very high level of morale to sustain efficiency and enthusiasm in the face of the greater hazards, com- bined with living conditions which, in the words of a naval aviator writing to Flight earlier this week, "compare with the London Underground in the blitz, for ratings, and furnished lavatories if one is lucky enough to be an officer." Nobody who has seen the extremely im- pressive spectacle of maximum-intensity carrier operations, particularly at night, ran fail to be impressed by the very high degree of co-ordination which it requires on the part of hundreds of superbly highly trained and perfectly Harmonised men. It is the high morale, on which this perfect teamwork is based, that iS> at risk now that the British earners' doom has been pronounced, such efficiency cannot be sustained in roe face of a gradual wastage of the Service, with personnel jumping to seize career opportunities elsewhere It is al- most certain, therefore, that the final years of the carrier force will be difficult for all concerned. Suggestions that the Fleet Air Arm's ^Ke and fighter squadrons might be Soviet surface-to-air missiles, with the NATO codename Ganef, showing the blanked-off air inlet, for the ramjet sustainer, and the wrap-round solid boosters "ordered ashore" to operate, as a naval entity, from shore bases after the car- riers' retirement, were made last week. Such a "compromise," if this is indeed proposed (we are necessarily writing before publication of the Defence White Paper), is certain to be recognised by the Fleet Air Arm as nothing but the political measure that it would be. It would be unlikely to prevent the slow decline we, if not the MoD central plan- ners, fear. A purely land-based FAA has no raison d'etre whatsoever; a small land-based air force wearing naval uni- forms would be completely at variance with any "rationalisation" of the Ser- vices. It is a suggestion not seriously to be considered. Tigercat for the RAF Regiment SOME UNITS OF THE RAF REGIMENT are to receive the Short Tigercat surface-to- air missile (picture overleaf) for airfield defence against low-flying aircraft. The Tigercat system is adapted from that of Seacat, which to date has had a highly successful export career, while the Tigercat and Seacat missiles are themselves identical. When in service with the RAF, the system will be mounted on two trailers, each drawn by a Land-Rover, and will therefore be fully mobile. One trailer will carry a three-round launcher, the other a direc- tor. The gunner, seated in the second trailer, commands the launch and mis- sile-tracking phases by means of a visual director consisting of binoculars and associated thumb-controlled joystick. Very few details of either Seacat or Tigercat have been released, but it is believed that the latter, developed on a private-venture basis, may be offered with a variety of fire-control systems. F-lll, Spey-Mirage and Fixed Bases THE LETTER BELOW was received after our Letters page had been prepared for press. Because of its relevance to the events of this week, we take the unusual step of printing it on this page rather than of delaying its publication: — SIR,—One cannot let Gp Capt Harrop's letter pass by unanswered. First, let us consider bases. We have to consider war and, equally important, we have to consider the "peace" which profoundly influences the war if and when it occurs. The real question is "Can the base be taken from us?" In peace time there are two ways in which the fixed base can be taken away or neutralised—by nuclear threat or by stealthy political or other subversive action. Both these things have happened. The aircraft carrier cannot be assailed in this way. Continued overlamf
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
