FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1922
1922 - 0096.PDF
the Army to a little more (about 26-6 per cent.), while the 5! million reduction proposed for the R.A.F. amounts to as much as 35 per cent. If it were not for the fact that a great proportion of the reductions suggested are based upon certain reductions in per sonnel and organisations, which are considered to represent overlapping and waste or luxury, we should take a more serious view of the " cuts " proposed. It must, however, be conceded that in any organisa tion there is room for improvement, and it would be futile to claim that the efficiency of the R.A.F. reaches the 100 per cent, figure ; nor, for that matter, do those of the Army and Navy, and we venture the opinion that the R.A.F. as a whole is at least as efficiently conducted as are the other Services. That, however, is scarcely the point. Reductions all round have to be made, whether we like it or not, and the main thing is to effect them where they will do least harm. We think that, taking a long view of the situation, the suggestion of doing away with Halton is probably unwise, as the training of personnel is one of the greatest importance. It may be conceded, however, that for the time being, at any rate, the other establishments, such as Cranwell, can do all that is required, and therefore, although we would rather not have seen Halton scrapped, we are not inclined to quarrel violently with the Committee over its decision in this respect. There are, however, certain other re- Technical spects in which we cannot find ourselves quipmen .^ agj-ggment with the suggestions made. For instance, the Committee suggests a reduction of £1,000,000 under the Vote for Technical Equipment. Progress in aviation is so rapid that material very soon becomes obsolete. The retention of obsolete or obsolescent machines may therefore easily prove not only at least as but more costly in the long run than the acquisition of progressively modern flying craft. To us it seems that to suggest saving a million on technical equipment is a very short-sighted policy. The Committee itself states in its report that " It can no longer be denied that by the intelligent application of air power it is possible to utilise machinery in substitution for and not as a mere addition to man-power." Therefore, one would have thought that a million pounds cut under the heading of Technical Equipment would prevent such substi tution of machinery for man-power, or at any rate tend to minimise its full utilisation. If the Com mittee have in mind obtaining the greater part of the million reduction from the certainly somewhat exces sive figures for motor and other transport, and for buildings and land, we think the efficiency of the R.A.F. would not suffer greatly, but if a large por tion is to be deducted from the sums set aside for the purchase of new and improved machines, then we do say that the efficiency cannot but be very seriously affected. The whole science is as yet so young that progress is abnormally rapid, and a machine is generally obsolete within a few months of its launching. The report states that a saving can be effected in technical equipment, owing to the suggested reduc tion of the number of squadrons from 32J to 24. We do not pose as military experts, and consequently we do not presume to say whether such a reduction is justifiable, but even if it is, it should be remembered that, as suggested by the Committee, the use of R.A.F. units to replace Army units abroad will mean using the flying stock in countries whose climatic conditions are such as to call for frequent renewal of machines, quite apart from the question of crashes. Closely connected with the question of technical equipment is that of research. The Committee realises that there is probably more justification for continued research m" connection with the Air Force than there is in the older Services. Nevertheless, it suggests that the amount spent on aeronautical research should be limited to £1,000,000. This may seem a generous sum, but those intimately connected with the extraordinarily complicated nature of the different classes of research required will realise that a million will not go very far. We would also point out that it is reasonable to suppose that a fairly liberal expenditure on research might, and in all pro bability would, result in establishing information that would, in the long run, save vast sums on new types of machines. The Committee strongly urge the co- Min^ t ordination of the three fighting Services of Defence under a Ministry of Defence, in order that the necessary economies may be effected and overlapping and duplication avoided. Again, as we do not pose as military experts, we shall not presume to say whether or not such a scheme would be in the best interests of the country. We would say, nevertheless, that to us it appears that, if the right man can be found, such a Ministry would tend to ensure that each of the fighting Services did its share of the work of defending the Empire, and was supplied from the funds available in direct pro portion to its value in Imperial defence. The main difficulty, to our mind, is that of finding the right man for the position. He would have to be a man of the very strongest personality, to begin with, and it is essential that he should not have been connected directly or indirectly with either of the three Services, otherwise he could hardly be expected to be entirely unbiassed when it came to considering and weighing the respective claims made by the different Services. This would necessarily mean that he would not have any very intimate technical knowledge of any of the Services. That, we think, would not necessarily be a disadvantage. A judge has continually to hear cases in which evidence of a highly technical nature is given. It is for him to decide which of the contending parties has succeeded in proving its case. And so with a Minister for Defence. He would hear the claims made by the Imperial Staff of the three Ser vices, of which the Ministry should be composed, and would have to decide, on the evidence presented, which Service had the greatest claim—in other words, which Service could do the particular piece of work most efficiently. On the whole, we are inclined to think that the establishment of such a Ministry would be an advantage. That it will materialise in the coming financial year is, perhaps, open to doubt. It will mean a great amount of reorganisation and will necessarily take time. This fact need not, however, mean that the scheme will be permanently abandoned ; and certainly, when, as is bound to occur sooner or later, the R.A.F. is the great service, it will be far better for it to have been removed from the shackling effects of the jealousies of the older Services. 96
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
