Talk:BAC/Dassault AFVG

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on AFVG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105085913/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105085913/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2027A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Birth%20of%20Tornado.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I claim BS on this
"In order to justify the absence of any new strike aircraft following the failure of multiple projects to develop or procure one, Healey decided to entirely dismantle the requirement for one. Thus, in 1968, Prime Minister Harold Wilson, alongside Healey, announced that British troops would be withdrawn in 1971 from major military bases in South East Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Maldives, collectively known as 'East of Suez'.[28][29][25]"

I think this statement is BS. The East of Suez decision was made for a number of reasons, but none of them appear to have anything whatsoever to do with this aircraft.

The first claimed citation states exactly the opposite, that the F111 order would be reduced by 50 (is that all of them?) because there would no longer be a role for them overseas. That is, the aircraft was a victim of the decision, not the other way around. Further, the AFVG appears nowhere in this document.

The second citation is more of same. There are several mentions of cutting various aircraft programs, even in the context of troop withdrawls, but all of these are stating both will be withdrawn for the same underlying economic reasons. The term "strike aircraft" or any reasonable variation appears nowhere I can find, and the only mention of aircraft specifically for the overseas role is one mentioning the need for new transport aircraft.

And finally, the third citation does indeed finally mention AFVG, but in this case says exactly nothing whatsoever about east of suez.

I believe this statement is SYN and should be removed.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)