SECRET
Cory for HKD
Defence Policy Department
142
RECEIVED IN
RIGINEM Max $1
-7 OCT 1969
6 October 1969
DP 4/393/1
40
38
HKLKL 10/0
Will you please refer to your letter No. DS 8a/39/8/65 of 1 August about fighter aircraft for llong Kong. We have now received the Governor's reply to Carter's letter to him No. DP 4/393/1 of 27 August a copy of which was sent to you). To enable him to reach a final conclusion in this matter the Governor has asked for certain points to be clarified; and I deal with these below.
2. The Governor first seeks confirmation that the capital outlay (estimated at £90,000–100,000) required on the Kai Tak runway and hard standings in connection with routine transport movements is in no way connected with the proposals for visits by training detachments and is of no direct concern to the Hong Kong Government. Subject to your views we propose to confirm to him that this is 80.
3.
Secondly, he queries the basis of the provisional estimate of £100,000 for works which might be required to cope with the ateraft which would be making training detachment visits (in particular for the laying of concrete ends to the runway to withstand Phantom take-offs). In his letter the Governor states that the Commander Royal Air Force, Kai Tak, has had technical advice from London and Singapore on Fhantom performance; and that while this advice suggests that an asphalt surface would be subject to serious dana e from Phantom jets, it seems that Kai Tak has more than a sufficient stretch of runway surfaced in reinforced concrete to meet the minimum take-off requirement. In these circumstances the Governor does not see how the need for this expenditure could arise. In this particular context there seems to be a discrepancy between the information furnished locally to the Governor and that contained in paragraph 9 of the Air Force Department note which formed the enclosure to COS 1462/17/7/69 of 17 July, and which was accepted by the Chiefs of Staff at their meeting on 22 July. We recognise that our letter to the Governor made it clear that the need for this expenditure was by no means definite and that in any event the figure of £100,000 was no more than a provisional estimate. However, having regard to the information now provided by the Governor and to any other information that you may have received from your technical advisers on the spot you may now be in a position to give a firmer judgement whether these additional works would be required, and if so to let us have a closer estimate of their likely cost, together with a breakdown showing how the figure is reached,
R.N. Noyes, Esq.,
DS 8,
Ministry of Defence.
14.0 Thirdly,
SECRET