FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1921
1921 - 0232.PDF
MARCH 31, 1921 11" Administrative Branch ' - The following relinquish their temp, commns. on appt. to T.F., and arepermitted to retain their ranks.—Lieut. C. W. Wilson, Sec. Lieut. W. A. Marshman. Sec. Lieut. B. W. N. Still relinquishes his temp, commn. onreturn to Army duty ; May 4, 1918 (substituted for Gazette, Feb. 25). Capt.- R. G. Wilson is transfd. to the Unemployed List; May 5, 1919. The initialsof Lieut. J. P. Scott are as now described, and not as Gazette, Aug. 30, 1918. Technical BranchPilot Offr. C. W. Booth to be Flying Offr. ; Oct. 1, 1919. Sec. Lieut. R. S. Davey to be actg. Capt., Grade A, while so employed, from April 29, 1919,to April 30, 1919, inclusive, and is graded for pay and allces.. as Capt., Grade A., from May 1, 1919, to Dec. 15, 1919, inclusive. Sec. Lieut. P. C.Jones to be actg. Lieut., Grade A, while so empld., from Dec. 29, 1918, to March 9, 1919, inclusive. Transferred to Unemployed List.—Sec. Lieut. R. B. Stewart ; May 23, 1919.Lieut. E. H. Trump ; July 3, 1919. Sec. Lieut. F. J. Nicholson ; Sept. 26, 10.19. GcuetU, Nov. ii, 1919, relating to Flying Ofir. F. H. Davis, is cancelled. MemorandaLieut. J. Hobbs is transfd. from S.O. to the Unemployed List ; March 1. Capt. J. F. Myles relinquishes his temp, commn. on appt. to T.F., and ispermitted to retain his rank. One Overseas Cadet is granted a temp, commn. as Sec. Lieut.; Feb. 15,1919. Sec. Lieut. L. P. MacDonald relinquishes his commn., and is permittedto retain his rank ; July 13, 1919. Five Cadets are granted hon. commns. as Sec. Lieuts., with effect fromdate of their demobilisation. ---•'-'•-;' --'••-•-• -•.•• ~; •;••;••• -.; London Gazette, March 22 Permanent CommissionsWing Cdr. C. E. Risk, D.S.O., is placed on half-pay Scale A ; March tl. Flying Ofir. C. Walkeris placed on half-pay, Scale B, from March 2 to March 1,both dates inclusive. Stores Branch . .The following are granted permanent commns. as Flying Offrs., retaining their present rank and sen. :•—D. Barron, L. H. Hillier ; June IJ, 1920.Medical Branch Fit. Lieut. F. J. Murphy, M.B., is granted a permanent commn., retaininghis present rank and sen. (subject to acceptance of final conditions of service) July 13, 1920 (Gazette of July 13, 1920, appointing him to a short servicecommn. is cancelled). Short Service Commissions /The following are granted short service commns. in the ranks stated, with effect from the dates indicated, retaining their ten. in the substantive ranklast held prior to the grant oi this commn., except where otherwise stated :— Flying Officers (from Fit. Licuts.).— C. B. Bond; March 10. G. F. Lines,M.C. ; March 5. Flying Officers.—j\ H. Bentham ; March 14. D. MacLaren ; March 8.A. M. West ; March 14. Officers appointed to commns. in a rank lower than their previous sub-stantive rank will be placed at the head of the list of officers of the rank to which they are gazetted, and will retain seny. relative to officers who havebeen similarly gazetted to columns., in accordance with their previous position on the gradation list. Fit. Lieut. A. B. Langridge, employed on law d^11^.is promoted to the rank of Sqdn. Leader; March 15. Flying Ofir. S. D. Carpenter relinquishes his commn. on account of ill-health contracted in theservice, and is permitted to'retain the rank of Lieut. ;' March 10. IN PARLIAMENT The Navy Estimates and Aircraft COL. SIR JAMES CRAIG, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whenintroducing the Navy estimates on March 17, said : With regard to naval air development, most hon. Members were present at the statement of the lateSecretary for War when he made his ispeech dealing with this subject. The naval staff working very closely with the air staff, and the lessons of theWar are being applied and numerous experiments carried out by both '-- Services, the result of which has been distinct progress, particularly in thedesign of aircraft carriers. I class this as a very important subject. The critics of the policy of the Government may rest assured that so far as theNavy is concerned, it is watching most carefully all developments in connection with aircraft and taking a permanent part with the Air Force inall the experiments which are carried out. Next to having an up-to-date and able staff, it is necessary for us toconcentrate as much as possible on the scientific side of naval warfare, and so important do we consider scientific work that there we have one of thefew increases in our Naval Estimates this year. The close liaison maintained between the Naval staff and the technical departments and the Director ofScientific Research has resulted in a scheme of priority for research work which will ensure the most urgent problems receiving the direct andconcentrated attention of the scientific staff. By these means it is also ensured that items of research are undertaken only if necessary to the workingof the whole scheme, and that they hold a definite and essential place in the chain of Naval development. There may be some in the House who are captivated by the picturesqueappearance of a vessel being bombed from the air that appeared in some of the Press at home, and a copy of which I have from the New York Herald.The design shows the " Indiana," well peppered by aircraft, which is practising on purpose to elucidate that problem. I can only point out, as some hon.Members have pointed out already, that that is a problem for experts, and I would only advance this argument, so far as the air is concerned, thatthe air is much more dangerous to the submarine type than it is to the ! battleship or cruiser or even smaller surface craft. That is the experience of the War. I was told on good authority, for instance, that the Goeben, whichstruck a mine and which was towed into Gallipoli, was for five days the subject of attack by the aircraft of the Allies, and although they came downto within very low range, and had five days in which to do it, they only managed to strike her twice, and the resultant damage was of a comparativelyslight nature. Lieut.-Col. Moore-Brabazon : What was the date of that ?Gen. Sir Ivor Philipps : And the size of the bombs? Sir J. Craig: The total weight of the bombs was 15 tons.Sir Ivor Philipps : What was the weight of the individual bombs Sir J. Craig: They were 65 to 112 pounds. As I say, this is a matter forexperts, but it has to be borne in mind further that the Goeben was a stationary target. I have here an extract from the report of a Germannaval officer who stated to our Committee of Control that the German destroyers on the Flanders coast were frequently bombed by Allied aircraft.Several destroyers were damaged, but not one was sunk by these means. The Germans consulted their records before making the above statement.Consequently, so far as I have been able to learn, the fear of the damage done to any of our capital ships from the air is much less than one mightbe led to suppose. I am told that, of course, our anti-aircraft preparations are keeping well ahead of the other experiments that are taking place. Lieut.-Col. Moore-Brabazon said : I appreciate perhaps more closely thanmost people how intimately wrapped up the Navy is with the Air. Some say that the power of the air is capable of knocking out the battleships.Others maintain that the capital ship of the future is going to be upon one vast aeroplane carrier. I think the thing is too empiric to lay down definiteopinions of that type. The powers of aircraft are limited to what they can do. We do ourselves and the things of the air enormous damage by writing aboutall sorts of impossible things in regard to the warfare of the present day. I want to draw attention to what aircraft can do at the present moment innaval warfare. They can bomb, drop torpedoes, and scout—not very well, I think, anyof the three. While I am on this subject I want to refer to something which was said by the hon. and gallant gentleman in his opening speech which Ithought was very unfair to the Air Force, because he drew attention to what happened in the Dardanelles in 1915. He quoted those who reported as clearlysaying or showing that the Royal Air Force of that date could not do any damage to the battleships by day. But the hon. and gallant gentlemanmust remember the enormous development that took place in aircraft during the War, and to compare the aircraft of today with that of 1915 is perfectlyridiculous. The only things that could be sent down by an aeroplane in those days of 1915 were tiny little bombs that did as much damage as an orange.It was very different three years later. I should like to see the hon. and gallant gentleman putting out our airships now for a few days and seeingwhat damage could be done. It would be a very different thing. To go back to what can be done by aircraft to help the fleet, there are,I say, these three things—bomb-dropping, torpedo-dropping, and scouting. These three functions are at present being carried out by the;destroyer. Itis along that line that development must take| place in the air. We have got to build machines—there are already such in sight, though not visiblefor the moment, and machines will slowly become bigger—tha>'will go to sea by themselves and cross the Atlantic on the water, or if need fce in theair, which will be able to take two or three torpedoes and drop them—if they wish to—afid they can carry bombs ; and, of course, they can always do thescouting work for their main fleet. The principle that these particular types of machines are going on is to be self-supporting. They are goingto be really the flying destroyers of the future, and they have got to look after themselves on the high sea. You may say : " Where does the aircraftcarrier come in ? " The answer of that is that nothing is going to knock out the flying destroyer but the little hornet—what I call the hornet—thatis a very fast tiny type of aeroplane which we found at the end of the War was the only thing that dealt really with the big'aircrait. Consequently,the Navy is bound to have, and alwaysj must have, ships that will carry small fast aircraft in order to knock outline aircraft which arc tuilt to dealwith the capita] ships. During the next five years, I think, great changes and great trodifieationswill have to be made; it is scarcely possible to go so much ahead at the present time. Yet we have got to keep in mind the technical side of the Navy. Theair is what we should be spending money on today. It is on the technical side that we are going to win out, because, remember, six years ahead is onlythe expression of our technical knowledge today. We do not see the result of technical knowledge for many years, and the technical side of the Admiraltyand Air Ministry is responsible for what is in creation, and will be ready for use in six years' time. The future of the Navy is so wrapt up with theAir Service that they must work together, and therefore 1 appeal to the Financial Secretary to continue as much as possible to keep these technicalmen and to co-operate with the Air side. Lieut.-Com. Kenworthy, during his remarks, asked: Why on earth arewe spending £3,300,000 in turning a Dreadnought into a seaplane carrier r Could the hon. gentleman let me know whether a more suitable vessel, anex-German liner, could not be used as a seaplane cairier? Here y- u have this enormous Dreadnought and you are to spend £3,300,000 on it. Youcould have built an efficient seaplane carrier for that. It means that she will be a bad compromise ; she will have all the disadvantages of an enoirrocsDreadnought and she can never be a proper seaplane carrier. I hope these constructive suggestions will be considered. Railway Servants and Air-Raids -' - ^ CAPTAIN MARTIN on March 22 asked the Minister of Transports he isaware of the fact that certain employes of some of the great railways have received no recognition of any sort for special services rendered during theair-raid period ; and what steps are going to be taken to rectify this omission ? Mr. Neal: The hon. and gallant gentleman will remember that he recentlymade representations to the Minister of Transport in favour of some extra payment being given to certain grades employed on a particular section ofrailway who have been required to be on duty during air-raids, and that it was explained to him that this request could not be granted. Japan (Air Service) MR. HOGGE, on March 23, asked the Secretary of State for Air if anexpedition consisting of 30 former officers of the Royal Air Force is leaving for Japan in order to organise a naval air service ; and whether membersof this expedition have been sent on courses to Rc^yal Air Force stations in order that they may be conversant with the latest developments of Britishmilitary and naval aviation ? Capt. Guest; It is understood that a certain number of civilians havebeen engaged by the Japanese as flying instructors. No mission has teen sent by the Royal Air Force. The answer to the last part of the questionis in the negative. Mr. Hogge asked whether British Government aeroplanes and enginesare being sent to Japan ? Capt. Guest : The British Government have neither sold nor sent to japanany aeroplanes or aero engines. It is, however, possible that the Aircraft Disposal Company—in which, as the Secretary of State for Air explainedto the House on December 14, 1920, the Government have retained an interest —may have sold certain obsolete or surplus engines to that country. Surplus Government Aircraft (Disposal) MR. HOGGE, on March 23, asked the Parliamentary Secretary to theMinistry of Munitions what is the policy cencernirtg tfce disposal of British aeroplanes and engines to foreign Powers ; hew many have been sold : andwhat prices have been obtained ? Mr. Hope : In view of the fact that all surplus Government aircraft wassold by the Disposal Board to a British company under a contract dated March 12, 1920, I am unable to give the information asked for by tte hon.member. I may say, however, that sales of aircraft to foreign Powers aw governed by International Regulations. 232
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
