19.04.2015 Views

The Navy Vol_70_No_4 Oct 2008 - Navy League of Australia

The Navy Vol_70_No_4 Oct 2008 - Navy League of Australia

The Navy Vol_70_No_4 Oct 2008 - Navy League of Australia

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

NAVY LEAGUE<br />

2007 ESSAY COMPETITION<br />

SECOND PLACE<br />

PROFESSIONAL CATAGORY<br />

Nearly too Little, Nearly too late<br />

A comparison <strong>of</strong> the problems faced by the RN’s Fleet Air Arm in the<br />

Mediterranean 1940-42 and the Falklands Conflict 1982<br />

By Lieutenant Desmond Woods, RAN<br />

HMS ARK ROYAL. With ARK ROYAL’s sinking and ILLUSTRIOUS’s departure for extensive repairs, Somerville’s Force H in Gibraltar<br />

ceased to be a strike force. A case <strong>of</strong> too little.<br />

<strong>The</strong> RN Fleet Air Arm (FAA) has had a disappointing history <strong>of</strong> just scraping through in the many conflicts it has<br />

fought in. This has been due to a misunderstanding <strong>of</strong> the applicability <strong>of</strong> naval air at sea by the powers that be in<br />

Whitehall. Desmond Woods, in this his 2nd place <strong>Navy</strong> <strong>League</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Essay Competition entry,<br />

examines the RN FAA over two conflicts and uncovers some remarkable similarities. Who said history never repeats?<br />

Royal <strong>Navy</strong> aviation suffered severely in the inter war period<br />

from the fact that Britain’s airman were not sea-minded and<br />

Britain’s seaman did not choose their own aircraft. This situation<br />

can be largely accounted for by the fact that after the demise <strong>of</strong><br />

the RN Air Service following WW I, aircraft embarked in ships<br />

had two fathers. <strong>The</strong> Admiralty had operational control and<br />

the Air Ministry administrative management. This decision, in<br />

retrospect, was an error <strong>of</strong> judgement which resulted in naval<br />

aviation being an under-resourced orphan during the years<br />

when it should have been gaining strength from every technical<br />

advance and new design for maritime aircraft available.<br />

Senior RAF <strong>of</strong>ficers were aware <strong>of</strong> the need for carrier<br />

embarked aircraft but saw them as fulfilling minor secondary<br />

reconnaissance roles. <strong>The</strong>y assumed that they would operate<br />

without threat from enemy aircraft and would not, therefore,<br />

need to be high performance aircraft. Some senior naval<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficers remained convinced that carrier borne aircraft would<br />

be useful as the ‘eyes <strong>of</strong> the fleet’ and to deter an enemy battle<br />

fleet but that the battleship was, and would remain, the only<br />

true capital ship. <strong>The</strong> saying was that only battleships ‘did<br />

it at night and in bad weather.’ This dated approach became<br />

increasingly inaccurate as the USN and the IJN in the 1930’s<br />

brought naval aviation to new heights <strong>of</strong> efficiency and striking<br />

power.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Air Ministry remained responsible for the selection and<br />

provision <strong>of</strong> the Fleet Air Arm’s (FAA) aircraft till August<br />

1939. Admiral Andrew Cunningham described this as the<br />

period <strong>of</strong>, “ trials and perplexities for the Fleet Air Arm when<br />

working under the control <strong>of</strong> the Air Ministry, and the fatal<br />

inefficiency <strong>of</strong> depriving the <strong>Navy</strong> <strong>of</strong> full command <strong>of</strong> what<br />

was rapidly becoming one <strong>of</strong> its principal weapons.’’<br />

<strong>The</strong> RN Fleet Air Arm’s history is frequently one <strong>of</strong> courage,<br />

flair and sacrifice being required to take the place <strong>of</strong> the<br />

modern aircraft and weapons which could and should have<br />

been available. It is a history <strong>of</strong> nearly too little, being supplied,<br />

nearly too late by planners that initially had trouble adapting<br />

to the new reality, which was that sea power was unsustainable<br />

without sea borne air power to complement it.<br />

Mediterranean 1940-42 and Falklands 1982<br />

Though separated by time and technology Admirals<br />

Cunningham, Somerville and Woodward were faced with<br />

the same fundamental problem <strong>of</strong> trying to fight and win a<br />

campaign at sea when they lacked enough carriers and suitable<br />

aircraft to ensure victory.<br />

<strong>The</strong> first <strong>of</strong> these campaigns, entrusted to Admirals James<br />

Somerville and Andrew Cunningham in 1940, evolved from<br />

the initial broad strategic aim in 1939 <strong>of</strong> ‘keeping open the<br />

Mediterranean to allied shipping.’ In practice this three<br />

year long naval campaign entailed such diverse operations<br />

as evacuating the army from Greece and Crete, neutralising<br />

the Italian Fleet, fighting convoys through to Malta, sinking<br />

Rommel’s supply ships, and ensuring the maritime supply lines<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Eighth Army. At no time were any <strong>of</strong> these operations<br />

anything less than dauntingly difficult in the face <strong>of</strong> land<br />

based air forces and became increasingly untenable after Axis<br />

bombers were able to operate from Greece and Crete as well<br />

as Italy and Sicily.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second <strong>of</strong> these campaigns, entrusted to Admiral Sandy<br />

Woodward, was simpler in design but equally complex and<br />

risky in execution. It was to retake the Falkland Islands in<br />

eight weeks from the time <strong>of</strong> their seizure by the Argentineans<br />

in April 1982. Neither campaign could have been attempted,<br />

far less won, without the Fleet Air Arm and the RNs carriers.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se campaigns, though distant in time and place, were not<br />

dissimilar in terms <strong>of</strong> the grave shortfalls in equipment and<br />

capability provided to their commanders.<br />

24 VOL. <strong>70</strong> NO. 4 THE NAVY

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!