FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1922
1922 - 0426.PDF
JULY 27, 1922 AIRCRAFT AND THE NAVY AN interesting discussion occurred on July 18 during the Navy Estimates before Parliament upon the position of the Navy to aircraft and the relationship with the Air Ministry. Viscount Curzon, after referring to the much-debated question of capital ship construction, said the wisdom of building such naval craft was called in question owing to the menace from below and above the water. It was evident that all was not as it should be with regard to the Royal Navy in the air. The navy of the future must be prepared to take to the air, and a navy that could not do so would be at a hopeless disadvantage with regard to a navy that could. He asked whether the Admiralty were satisfied with the number of 'planes allocated to the Navy. We had nine fighters in the Navy. Could it be said that the Navy was prepared to repel air attack with only that number of machines ? Speaking of the necessity of skilled personnel, he said : How could observers make correct wireless spotting signals to the ships dependent upon them for observation unless they were properly trained ? The same applied to those who performed the exceedingly important work of scouting and reconnais sance. Unless the men had the proper training they would not be able to say whether they had seen a submarine or a battleship. Only by perfect co-operation between the aircraft and the Navy could they succeed under present conditions. He did not believe that skilled pilots could be supplied at a moment's notice. He would like to know how many observers were trained and how many would be required to bring the establishment up to full strength. He had heard that it was the case, and he believed it to he true, that the Fleet, which was going to carry out a gunnery programme, carried on with that programme until the ammunition ran out for the year. It was then agreed to interrupt the programme, and recommence when the following year's ammunition allowance became available. When the Fleet was ready to go ahead with their gunnery experiments and progressive training they found that the pilots and observers whom they had been relying upon had been drafted to another quarter of the globe, and the training had to be started de novo, and all the ammunition fired away the year before was absolutely wasted. There was absolutely no co-operation there. The Air Ministry further stated that new types of machines for the Navy were to be adopted. When was the Navy going to see those machines in present circumstances, and where were the new types to come from ? The Navy had no control over the question of how the money spent on aircraft was allocated. As we were supposed to have a one-Power standard as regarded the Navy, was the Air Force operating with the Navy up to the same standard ? The Burney aircraft scheme was a very important one, but they had not the airships necessary to that scheme, or the money to provide them. But other Powers had airships. The United States had no fewer than four working with the Navy and doing experimental work. We could not afford to disregard the experience of other countries. The present arrangement was working very badly from the point of view of the Navy. This was partly due to the system and partly to the spirit prevailing at the Air Ministry. We should do no good unless we had a thorough reconstruction of the Air Ministry. Lieut.-Col. Moore-Brabazon said the question of airships was one for experts. During the war it was proved that the hydrogen-built airship, from a military point of view, was one of the easiest things to knock out that ever went up in the air. True, America, from the naval point of view, looked with some hope to the airship, but that was because in America helium w.as found. In this and other countries helium was not findable. The complaint of the noble lord was really that we had not got enough machines. But was not that the complaint all round—of the Army, Navy and Air Force ? Everybody admitted that we had not enough machines, but that was a question of money. The system under which we were running our aircraft today was the most economical one ; if we went back to the old system there was bound to be duplication, which WAS SO extravagant. The Air Force today had ^10,000,000—just over the cost of one battleship—and it had with that to try to keep the Army efficient, the Navy efficient and to run its own independent air force, and, besides, sink money in capital undertakings such as 'buildings, because we could not have first-class mechanics kept in hovels. If the Air Force were to blame for not having sufficient aircraft, he thought they had been put in a very difficult position. In regard to ordering new machines—again this was a question of money. Although he thought the machines used for the Navy today were as good as those of any other country, there must come a time, and that early, when the subject of more efficient machines must be gone into. Viscount Curzon, he said, had brought up on, this vote the hardy annual of his own Air Force, and he complained bitterly, he thought, of the personnel attached to the Navy. But if they were short of trained personnel at the Admiralty, whose fault was it ? Was not the Admiralty asked to find 400 officers for the air and they were to go back to the Navy ? Who refused that ? The Admiralty, and nobody else. He had read in The Times column after column of arguments between the noble lord and Sir Percy Scott, in which the noble lord maintained how wonderful the capital ship was, and how it could not be knocked out by any aircraft. The noble lord was an expert, and he was not going to dispute that, but he did notice today an amazing nervousness of the possibility of what might happen and the plea that the capital ship might be defended, not by its own inviolability, but by other aircraft. He admitted that the Navy could be made more efficient than it was from the point of view of aircraft; but that was not a matter of organisation but of money. If the noble lord pressed for more money for the Air, he would get a smaller Fleet but one better equipped with aircraft. Mr. G. Lambert said the first duty of all three defensive forces was to defend this country. Although he did not anticipate any attack upon us at present, could the Admiralty say that the taxpayers' money was being spent to the best advantage, especially as to the ^16,000,000 to be spent on two capital ships ? Personally, he did not pretend to express an opinion as to the value of the capital ship, but surely it was useless, wasteful and extravagant to spend money on capital ships unless you had sufficient aircraft to protect them. He should like to ask whether some of this money would not be better spent upon aircraft. They wanted to have the question settled as to whether this ^16,000,000 should be spent before the Navy had secured a sufficient air force. Rear-Admiral Sir R. Hall said the complaint of the Navy was that the officers and men who were concerned with aircraft were not part of the Navy. It was only by full and enthusiastic co-operation of the rank and file that they could get full benefit from the new arm. Lieut. -Comdr. Ken worthy said that apparently Sir R. Hall's charge against the Air Ministry was that when the officers attached to the naval wing of the Air Service were sent to sea to fly aeroplanes used by the Fleet, when they were on board ship, they were not available for watch- keeping, they wore a different uniform and were under their own discipline. If the idea of the Admiralty, as represented by the late Director of Naval Intelligence, was that if be wanted to get control of officers trained in naval flying in order to make them naval officers first and secondly air officers, if their air duties were to be secondary to their naval duties, then heaven help the Air Service and heaven help the Navy. If that was the attitude of hon. and gallant Members, he did not wonder that the Air Minister was keeping a tight hold of his own naval air wing and was resisting the attempt to re-absorb it in the Navy. Mr. Amery, in replying to points raised, said there was nothing in recent experiments to justify the idea, that the capital ship was not capable of defending itself against the menaces with which it was threatened, but, having said that, he did agree whole-heartedly with what was said by Viscount Curzon, that, in an ever-increasing degree, the Navy must consider the importance of the air factor not only from the point of view of the defence of these islands against air attack, but also as an integral part of the fighting fleet. Upon the question of the relation of the Admiralty to the Air Force, over the marginal region where they came into contact it was vital that their co-operation should be of the fullest kind. One thing he would say was that there was not the slightest idea of challenging the general positions laid down by the Leader of the House in March as to the existence of the separate and independent air force. The only question in issue to his mind was that of con sidering how the integrity of naval control over the air units actually working with the fighting fleet could be most effectively secured, consistently with the fullest training of the personnel of those units in every aspect of air science. That question was at present under discussion by the Com mittee of Imperial Defence and by the Chief of the Air Staff and the First Sea Lord, together with the help and advice of the Colonial Secretary. The air policy for the Navy was laid down in the first instance by the Admiralty, and the 426
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
