RAF Sedgeford

RAF Sedgeford was a Royal Air Force airfield, located in the East of England county of Norfolk, East Anglia.

RAF Sedgeford
Sedgeford, Norfolk in England
RAF Sedgeford
Shown within Norfolk
Coordinates52.90010°N 0.54290°E / 52.90010; 0.54290
Site information
OwnerAir Ministry
OperatorRoyal Navy
Royal Flying Corps
Royal Air Force
Site history
Built1915 (1915)
In use1915-1919
1940-1942 (1942)

History

RAF Sedgeford was used as an airfield in the First World War, as a satellite airfield (officially called "Night Landing Grounds") of RAF Great Yarmouth.[1]

First World War

During the First World War, the airfield was used for home defence duties, and was initially attached to the Royal Navy.[2] By 1916, the Royal Flying Corps, a precursor to the current Royal Air Force, took over the facilities.[2]

After the conclusion of the war, RAF Sedgeford was abandoned around 1919 to 1920.[2]

Units[3]

Second World War

RAF Sedgeford was reused during the Second World War, when it was classified as a 'Q-type' and 'K-type' bombing decoy.[2]

The buildings and hangars on site made it a dummy airfield, which prevented nearby, functional airfields from being bombed by enemy bombers. At night, the airfield was lighted up, and made to look like an active airfield in order to trick the enemy, again to prevent nearby airfields from being bombed.[2]

Official records recorded RAF Sedgeford to be in operation from June 1940 to August 1942.

Present state

Smaller buildings, dating back to the First World War, survive, as does an air raid shelter that was built during the Second World War.[2]

gollark: Especially since I think legally they'd have to pay for/raise it and stuff.
gollark: I don't see a significant reason they should be obligated to have the child for you.
gollark: Analogously, I would say you should probably not be required to have someone grafted to your circulatory system and stuff for 9 months if this would keep them from an otherwise lethal disease or something. You maybe *should* morally, but this is a different thing (and I don't think that really applies in the fetus case, as it isn't much of a "person").
gollark: Actually, I seem to have misread your angle, so it isn't entirely relevant. But regarding "I'll tell them what not to do with others bodies. And the child is another body. It's medically provable.", I would argue that you should not be *required* to put up with fairly substantial health risks/inconvenience because the fetus requires being attached to someone to survive.
gollark: No, before murdering someone you have to do a MRI scan to check brain development.

See also

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.