FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1919
1919 - 1268.PDF
Still the rumours of an impending The Future dissolution of the R.A.F. are going the R.A.F6. rounds ! Official denials notwithstand ing, they continue to be repeated, until we really begin to wonder whether there is not fire behind the smoke. According to the diarist of the Pall Mall Gazette, he hears " on good authority " that the R.A.F. will shortly cease to exist as a separate arm. " As long," he says, " as the Indepen dent group of the R.A.F. was in existence there was a certain amount of excuse for the R.A.F. considering itself a separate arm, but now that the war is over and the bombing of enemy country a thing of the past, it is unnecessary to preserve the R.A.F. as a distinct force from the Army and the Navy." Dogmatic, to say the least ! Were it not that we know the Pall Mall to be deeply in the confidence of certain members of the Government, we should probably regard such a statement as this as being a lucubration of a diarist hard up for a topic to discuss in the columns of his journal and, hearing the gossip of the clubs, setting down the first thing that came into his mind. As it is, however, we take it more seriously than that, and are fain to ask what is behind it all ? Is economy to run mad and is the R.A.F. verily to be scrapped ? Is this not a ballon d'essai thrown up by the Government to see how such a proposal will be taken ? We do not propose to recapitulate all the arguments we have used on so many occasions against any such suicidal policy as that enunciated. Our readers are perfectly familiar with them and we will not weary them further. It is enough to say in this connection that the Parliamentary group which interests itself in aviation must be on the alert to stand between the R.A.F. arid its enemies. Incidentally, it may be useful to quote from a letter to the Telegraph, written by Col. Fullerton, in which he cogently and succinctly sets forth the whole case for the existence of a separate Air Service. He says :— " In order to understand the true function of an Air Force, it is necessary to consider the work done by the forces com posing the national fighting machine. The Army has to drive back or capture the advanced land forces of the enemy, the Navy performs similar duties as regards his sea forces, while the Air Force has to assist both by breaking up the lines of communication, destroying depots, etc., and thus preventing reinforcements of men and material reaching the fighting fronts. In all previous wars the necessity for destroying communications was fully recognised, but the difficulty in doing so was so great that practically little or nothing in that way was accomplished. The invention of the flying machine has, however, altered all this, and it is now possible for a well-managed air service to so damage an enemy's bases and lines of communication that retreat or collapse of his field forces is inevitable. But in order to ensure these duties being successfully carried out, an aerial campaign on an immense scale will be necessary. Hundreds of squadrons will be required, backed up by large reserves, the whole acting on a clear and definite plan, prepared and carried out just as carefully as those drawn up for the Army and Navy. The duties in connection with this aerial cam paign will be very heavy, and a great deal of technical know ledge will be necessary for its conception and working ; while the strategical and tactical operations, differing as they do very largely from those of the land and sea services, will require officers specially trained in such work to organise them successfully. " It is quite clear that no War Office or Admiralty could carry out such large and important operations in addition to its own work, and a separate Air Service independent of both the Army and Navy (but acting in conjunction with them when required to do so) is absolutely necessary. By all means, let us have retrenchment, but do not damage the efficiency of the fighting forces to save a few pounds." If the people who are so keen on seeing the R.A.F. thrown to the dogs will read intelligently and properly digest these words of Col. Fullerton who, both as soldier and aeronaut, knows well of what he speaks, they may see reason to change their opinions. Anv- thing more convincing we do not remember to have read. One day last week the Evening News Yellow came out with great " scare-heads " M^trTds announcing a " Blow to British Air- Again craft Builders," and made great play with the wholesale discharges which are alleged to be taking place at aircraft works all over the country. The " Economy Axe " had fallen and the Government apparently was determined that nothing but the ruin of the industry was to satisfy the economists of Whitehall. We cannot sufficiently deprecate these " yellow" methods of evening journalism. Certainly discharges are taking place at aircraft works, but not at all as a consequence of any new economy campaign originated by the Government. As a matter of fact, discharges have been taking place ever since the armistice, as was clearly inevitable. The whole world knows, as an official states, that we had bent almost the major part of our energies to the output of decisive aircraft, and it was obviously impossible to maintain the same high pressure of production after the war had been won. To have done so would have meant the expenditure of tens of millions of pounds on machines which would have been entirely superfluous and so much waste. True, there were contracts running which could not be immediately cancelled, and there were many hundreds, if not thousands, of machines and aero-engines in such an advanced stage of con struction that they could only be pushed on to com pletion, since it was cheaper to finish than to scrap them. Naturally, this sort of thing must come to an end some time or other, and it is coming to an end now. Consequently, further discharges are taking place in the factories. Further, the Evening News has just discovered, and makes a great song about its discovery, that certain works hitherto devoted to the building of aeroplanes are now driven to the expedient of manufacturing milk-churns and motor car bodies. That we have known for a very long time, and really fail to see anything remarkable in the fact that firms whose plant is suitable for the making of these articles should have turned from the arts of war to those of peace as soon as they could. To our mind, it shows a very commendable spirit of enterprise and is nothing to throw up at 'them as evidence of their being in desperate straits. These " stunts " do no good to anyone—even to the journal indulging in them. On the other hand, they may do harm by assisting to shake the con fidence of the public in an industry which really requires all the assistance it can get at the present juncture. The Evening News, in its effort to scare up a little passing sensation, has only made itself look ridiculous, but it has done a disservice to a deserving industry. Major Lloyd writes in the correspondence Bad Flying columns of the Daily Mail on bad flying at civilian aerodromes, and has one or two things to say that may very well be taken to heart by those engaged in the promotion of civil aviation. He points out that in the R.A.F. the commonest cause of a flying accident has been found 1270
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
