FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 1124.PDF
FLIGHT, NOVEMBER 10, 1932 DISARMAMENT AND AIRCRAFT FORTY Members of Parliament belonging to the Parliamentary Air Committee have tabled a motion as follows: — ' That this House is entitled on a matter of such vital importance as disarmament to be consulted before His Majesty's Government's delegates at Geneva enter into any arrangements which may permanently prejudice the security and peace of the British Empire." Capt. F. E. Guest's Views In the following letter to The Times, Capt. Frederick Guest (Chairman of the Private Members' Parliamentary Air Committee) and Wing Com. James (Hon. Secretary) put forward facts and figures in support of the fight against the foolishness and danger to the British Empire of jeopardising her future supremacy in the air, which can hardly be ignored by those responsible for the protection of the British community and its interests: " The Private Members' Air Committee of the House of Commons desire at this moment to call the attention of the British public to the true facts in regard to the way in which Great Britain has set the pace in disarmament. Attention has not been drawn as yet to what appears to us the most striking factor of all, and that is the way in which Great Britain has set an example by unilateral disarmament in the air. We have been looking up the records and find that in terms of first line strength—i.e., aircraft actually in com mission—we were at the time of the Armistice very slightly behind our good friends the French, who had far out stripped all countries but our own. But we had alreadv (a) a larger number of trained flying personnel, and (b) a larger total of aircraft on charge (i.e., machines in reserve as well as in commission) than any other nation, including France, while (c) production of both aircraft and engines was, thanks to careful planning and our immense manu facturing resources, advancing with unparalleled rapidity. We were, in short, taking all these factors in combina tion, the leading air Power of the world. After the war, however, we proceeded to scrap this mighty instrument almost entirely and waited hopefully for other countries to follow our example. Far from doing so, even nations whose strength in the air was negli gible in 1918 have steadily developed their air forces. As long ago as 1922 we were forced to prepare the Home Defence scheme which was announced in 1923 under the Bonar Law Administration, and subsequently approved by three successive Governments and three successive Par liaments. It seems to be forgotten that originally it was intended to complete this modest initial measure of expan sion by 1928. Time after time the programme has been slowed down in the interests of disarmament and economy until to-day—four years after the date by which it should have been completed—we are still, according to the Government's recent White Paper on Disarmament, short by 10 units (or some 20 per cent.) of the 52 squadrons envisaged in 1923 as the very minimum required for keep ing our protection in the air. Of recent years British air policy has continued to dis play this same unique moderation. From information recently furnished it appears that our gross Air Estimates, Service and civil, for 1932 are -some 7 per cent, lower than they were in 1925. In France, the United States and Italy, on the other hand, air expenditure has over the same period gone up by leaps and bounds. In the two former in particular the increase is between 150 and 200 per cent. The result is that in Great Britain air expen diture to-day is only some 2| per cent, of our national Budget as a whole, while in France the corresponding figure is, roughly, 5 per cent., and in the United States and Italy about 4 per cent. We now rank fifth of the nations in terms of air power, and if civil air strength is also counted, as it must be, then our relative position is infinitely weaker. It must not be forgotten that in our anxiety to set a good example in the matter of air armaments, we, as the B s m The Polar Medal IT was announced in the London Gazette of Novem ber 4 that H.M. the King has been graciously pleased to trustees for a far-flung Empire, have deliberately kept ourselves short of a method which combines economy with efficiency in both civil and military matters. Let it not be forgotten that in the Middle East and elsewhere, where we have inalienable responsibilities, the judicious use of aircraft has, in the past decade, saved millions of pounds and (what is even more important) thousands of lives— vide Sir Henry Dobbs's recent weighty testimony in your columns. Moreover, just as the ocean has through the centuries been a potent factor in our commercial develop ment, so we stand to derive greater benefits from air transport than any other nation, if only we have not lost the vision and enterprise of our forbears which gave us our primacy at sea, and are alert to grasp our opportuni ties before it is too late." Sir Eric Geddes' Views The Rt. Hon. Sir Eric Geddes, Chairman of Imperial Airways, had an article in the Daily Mail of November 7, arguing that international control of civil flying would damage British air lines. In the course of his article he wrote: " Civil aircraft as we have developed them are drawing farther and farther away from military aircraft in design and performance. In other countries this may not be so, but our air liners are developing strictly on commercial lines, and we give the taxpayer better value for the sub sidy than does any other country in the world to-day. If subsidies are paid on the number of machines kept in service, or the number of aeroplane miles flown, or if any subsidy is given for the number of competent pilots employed, then I say without hesitation that that civil aviation is not being developed on commercial lines. The more we develop on commercial lines, however, the less useful for military purposes becomes our fleet. The more we develop on commercial lines the smaller our fleet in comparison with the work we do. A daily service to Australia could be run with about 25 aeroplanes : 20 aeroplanes could operate and maintain a daily service to the Cape. Imperial Airways employs only 32 pilots, which, so far as aerial warfare is concerned, is a negligible number. If anyone were crazy enough to use them as fighting machines, our air liners would be so vulnerable in war time that one might well say that their military value was even less than the fighting value of an Atlantic liner in naval warfare. A single-seater scout would destroy the first just as a submarine would sink the latter." Sir Eric Geddes concluded his article by giving the following interesting table : — - France Germany . . Italy Gt. Britain Aircraft employed in regular transport 269 177 77 32 Average pay load per aircraft lb. 1,380 1,849 1,836 4,858 Number of pilots employed in regular air transport 135 160 61 32 Approx. weekly scheduled mileage. 109,000 299,000 60,000 35,000 The Diplomatic correspondent Of the Observer, in the issue of November 6, inclined to the belief that the former proposals for disarmament made by the British Govern ment are not at present being revised, and also that British opposition to all schemes for internationalising air craft (or other armaments) is likely to continue. S3 S3 S3 approve the Polar Medal in silver with clasp " Arctic, 1930-31 " being granted to (among others) Fit. Lts. H. I. Cozens and N. H. D'Aeth, R.A.F. 1043
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
