2
on Phantom performance from London and Singapore, and while this suggests that an asphalt surface would be subject to serious damage from Phantom jets it seems that we have more than a sufficient stretch of runway surfaced in reinforced concrete to meet the minimum take-off requirement. It looks therefore as though there will be no need to consider how the £100,000 should be borne, since the need for this expenditure does not arise.
3. As to recurrent costs the figure you have quoted should, I think, be further investigated. Can you please go into this again as the C. B. F. was originally advised that the costs would only run out at £2,500 a year or at the outside £3,000. We should no doubt have to accept a commitment to contribute to the recurrent cost of these visits (in the context of the post-1971 defence contribution discussions) but I think we should need to be assured that the figure claimed was in all the circumstances a reasonable one.
6. I would be interested to know something more also about the cover to be provided between March 1970 when the Hunters go and the beginning of the post 1971 arrangements. At present the only information we have so far gleaned is that there is a possibility of a visit by some Buccaneers some time in 1970 as an offshoot of a reinforc ment exercise for the Far East Theatre at present in planning.
Yours ever
David
(D. C. C. Trench)
SECRET
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.