FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1922
1922 - 0184.PDF
In connection with the possibility of converting commercial aeroplanes into bombers, Gen. Groves calls attention to the paradoxical attitude of our Government, which, while agreeing with our Allies that German Civil Aviation may constitute a danger, owing to the possibility of converting machines for military purposes, yet refuses to admit that British Civil Aviation is, or would be if it existed, of any military value in the event of a war. This in spite of recommendations made by the Civil Aerial Trans port Committee and other representative bodies. Instead of fostering Civil Aviation, the Government, as represented by the Air Ministry, has pursued an archaic militarist policy which has virtually ruined the aircraft industry. The arguments advanced by Gen. Groves, in the main the same as have been put forward in FLIGHT for the past three or four years, maintain that Civil Aviation is not a form of locomotion which must stand or fall by its commercial success, but is rather to be looked upon as a form of national insurance. It is no manner of use saying that we cannot afford Civil Aviation. Looked upon from our point of view, and that of Gen. Groves, we simply cannot afford, if only from the mere self-preservation point of view, not to develop it. The maintenance of an Air Force of sufficient proportions adequately to meet the requirements of the units co-operating with the Army and Navy, for home defence, for " policing " in the East, etc., would at present, for reasons of economy, be out of the question. By making a better and fuller use of Civil Aviation this expense could be greatly reduced, while at the same time giving all the advantages of the most rapid means of communication. The result of this failure on the part of the Government to recognise the potential value of Civil Aviation has been that the Navy will find itself in a serious position owing to lack of squadrons for naval duties, while in the case of the Army the position is very nearly as bad. Th Having outlined the present unsatis- Remedy factory position, Gen. Groves proceeds to summarise what, in his opinion, is the course we must adopt in order to secure an adequate defence against invasion by air. The aims of British air policy, Gen. Groves states, should be :— i. First and foremost, to build up as rapidly as possible and in the most economical manner a Striking Air Force for home defence. If this is not done the heart of the Empire, England itself, will be open to sudden direct attack from the air. 2. To provide the Navy and Army with the specialised air forces essential to their efficiency. 3. To create a Royal Air Force organisation to carry out duties at present performed by the two other Services where such duties can be effectively and more economically so performed. 4. Last, but not least, to maintain and develop the air craft industry. This will be secured automatically if the above specified aims are achieved. The only possible method for us to create and maintain a defensive air fleet is by making use of Civil Aviation, by subsidies if necessary, and to organise and develop it in such a manner that the H S China's Air Service Wilting CHINESE " finance " was ever a thing to be marvelled at, and one of the latest enterprises to suffer at its hands appears to be the Air Service which was inaugurated last year under such favourable auspices with the assistance of Messrs. Vickers, Ltd. It seems that the cash provided, MARCH 30, 1922 bulk of the personnel and matdriel shall be instantly available in the case of a war. Gen, Groves suggests that, in addition to the escorting fighting machines, which are specialised aircraft to be developed by the R.A.F., the squadrons of converted civil bombers should be led by " Service Bombers" acting as formation leaders. As regards the question of administration, Gen. Groves emphasises that unless there is the closest co-operation between the Service and Civil depart ments of the Air Ministry the policy outlined obviously cannot be realised. At the present moment it is no secret that this co-operation does not exist. We therefore cordially endorse the suggestion that it would be well to have Civil Aviation more strongly represented on the Air Council, and this might be done by placing it, as Gen. Groves says, " under the wing of the Under-Secretary of State for Air." There would then be two members of the Air Council responsible for Civil Aviation, one politically and the other administratively. No less important is the question of Air Force units required for tactical co-operation with the Army and Navy, and we entirely commend the suggestion of Gen. Groves that, failiflg a Ministry of Defence, it might be advisable to add to the Air Council, as ex officio members, a representative from the Ad miralty and one from the War Office. We are quite certain that both Navy and Army fully realise the vital, importance of the air to their Services, and the inclusion of representatives on the Air Council should go a long way towards establishing better relations. The proposed reductions in the squadrons allotted for co-operation with the Navy and Army cannot but be felt to a very great extent by these Services, and the gain which it is expected to realise thereby— three squadrons for home defence—is extremely small. As a matter of fact, regarded as anything beyond a mere nucleus, three squadrons for home defence are totally inadequate. In conclusion, Gen. Groves claims as an essential that, in view of the fact that our first line of defence is now the R.A.F., the post of Air Minister should be held by a statesman of Cabinet rank. We hardly think anyone will seriously quarrel with that conten tion, as it follows as a logical corollary of the para mount importance which the air is assuming, indeed already has assumed. As we have already stated, the views expressed by Gen. Groves have, for the greater part, been voiced in these columns time after time, and it is therefore with the deepest satisfaction that we welcome his extremely valuable contribution to the discussion of our air policy. He has made many very frank statements, but he has not, we think, put forward a single one which cannot be justified or has already been substantiated. His reasoning is so logical that his arguments are incontrovertible, and it is sincerely to be hoped that his timely warning will be taken to heart before it is too late. To quote his own words, " Let the leaders of light and learning in this sphere not forget that, in accordance with the teaching of history, those who cease to learn fail to lead." H B which should have gone to run the service to a commercia' success, has filtered away through the Government inaptitude until nothing remains for wages, coupon interest, or anything else—without some financial miracle happens. From latest reports it looks as if the whole scheme may easily become another monument to Chinese methods of how not to do it 184
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
