The government decided on significant reductions in the defence budget, with defence being the primary target of the government's efforts to reduce public spending due to wider economic problems. It resulted in cutting a number of significant new capital projects, among which included the CVA-01 aircraft carrier and the TSR2 tactical strike aeroplane. The reasoning for this was the belief that the era of manned combat was at an end and that guided missiles were all that would be needed in future. Within a decade this philosophy became thoroughly discredited, but at the time, it may have made a great deal more sense in the climate of the cold war and mutual deterrence.
Budget Rivalry
In the early 1960s, the Royal Navy began to plan for new aircraft carriers to replace its ageing fleet. To the Navy, this was a perfectly legitimate and necessary common sense exercise, not in need of explanation. The Royal Air Force, however, saw the renewal as a chance to defeat the Royal Navy and win the budget share which would have been necessary for new carriers. In order to do this, they compiled a history of Royal Navy aircraft carriers and a history of Royal Air Force tactical bombers, comparing the two and finding in favour of bombers. They then submitted this to the Treasury, proposing the BAC TSR-2 tactical strike aircraft in place of the RN's new generation aircraft carriers.
The Treasury then cancelled CVA-01 and TSR2, showing that 'when the individual armed forces fight, only the Treasury wins'.[1]
Relevance
Professor Andrew Lambert has described the 1966 Defence White Paper as the 'perfect example of what happens if your enemy knows your history better than you do',[2] the enemy in this case being the RAF. In order for individual armed forces to win budget rivalries and public opinion, it is necessary for them to own their own history, to understand what it is and how to employ it.
Encyclopedia
top
