Planning and Policy

In January 1943 Rear Admiral Denis Boyd was appointed to the post of Fifth Sea Lord replacing Admiral Sir Frederic Dreyer, the contentious choice as Chief of Naval Air Services since July 1942, and thereby reestablishing the position of naval aviation on the Admiralty Board. The use of the title ‘Fleet Air Arm’ and its potential abolition or the restriction of its use was discussed in a minute by the Head of Air Branch in March 1943 [161]. Objections had been raised to the title as a result of its association with the former term ‘the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force’ and that it implied the Fleet Air Arm was not an integral part of the Royal Navy. However, the term was regarded with great affection by the public and widely used in official publications. While its use had been restricted by an Admiralty Fleet Order, any formal change would only be practicable after the war. The title Rear Admiral Lyster, a previous Fifth Sea Lord, had suggested to replace it was the Royal Naval Air Service.

As far as the future make-up of the fleet was concerned, Admiral Kennedy-Purvis, the Deputy First Sea Lord, laid out the Navy's Future Naval Building Policy in an important memorandum in January 1943 [142]. He acknowledged the central role of air power in naval warfare: ‘The increasing power of aircraft whether carrier-borne or shore-based must decisively affect the methods of applying Naval Strategy’ [142]. Perhaps most symbolic of the changes taking place was the assertion that in future the main role of the battleship was the Aircraft Carrier Heavy Support Ship while ‘the aircraft carrier must form an indispensable part of every naval force taking part in all operations other than purely minor and coastal ones’ [142]. Henceforth the completion of the new Fleet Carrier HMS Indefatigable was given priority over the battleship HMS Vanguard at John Brown's shipyard on the Clyde due to the former's importance and there was insufficient skilled labour to progress with the construction of both ships simultaneously [140]. There was a debate over the design of future carriers and whether the American open-sided design should be adopted for future Fleet Carriers in place of the British closed hangar design; key considerations were the operation of aircraft, the size and strength of the ship, protection against projectiles and fire risk [192, 198].