FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1934
1934 - 0963.PDF
September -'!*, 1934. AIRCRAFT ENGINEERAND AIRSHIPS ^_^ bounded in 1909 by Stanley Spooned fmsr_ AERONAUTICAL DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS, IN THE PRACTICE AND PROGRESS OF OFFICIAL ORGAN OF THE ROYAL AERO CLUB No. 1343. Vol. XXVI. 26th Year SEPTEMBER 20, 1934 Thursdays, Price bd.By Post, 7Jd. Editorial, Advertising and Publishing Offices : DORSET HOUSE, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON, S.E.I. Telegrams: Truditur Watloo, London. - Telephone: Hop 3333 (50 lines). HERTFORD ST. COVENTRY. GUILDHALL BUILDINGS, 160, DEANSGATE, MANCHESTER, i. 20B, KENF1ELD ST.,NAVIGATION ST., BIRMINGHAM, 2. GLASGOW, C.2. Telegrams: Autocar, Coventry. Telegrams: Autopress, Birmingham. Telegrams: lliffe, Manchester. Telegrams: Hide, Glasgow.Telephone: Coventry 5210. - Telephone: Midland 2S71. Telephone: Blackfriars 4412. Telephone: Central 4857. SUBSCRIPTION Home and Canada: Year, £1 13 0; 6 months, 10s. fid.; 3 months, 8s. 3d. RATES: Other Countries: Year, 0 15 0; 6 months, 17s. 6d.; 3 mouths, 8s. «d. The US. Army Air Corps PERIODICALLY the United States Army istroubled by the problem of air organisation.The question keeps cropping up whether the Air Corps should be made into a separate Service, like the Royal Air Forces of the United Kingdom and Italy, or should remain a corps of the Army. A few years ago General Mitchell headed the movement for separation so vehemently that he and the Army had to part company. A perusal of his book, Air Defense, gave us the impression that the cause which he had adopted was not likely to gain much from the advocacy of Gen. Mitchell. That does not, however, condemn the cause. Recently a new body known as the Baker Committee has been considering the question afresh, and has de- cided (Major Doolittle dissenting) that the Air Corps is an auxiliary to the Army in general, such as are the cavalry, infantry, artillery, engineers, etc. The recom- mendations submitted by officers of the Air Corps were unanimous in desiring an organisation free from the con- trol of the General Staff, but remaining for the present under the control of the War Department. An un- pleasant feature of the discussion seems to have been that the ground officers accused the Air Corps officers of seeing chances of better promotion in a separate organisation, while the air party, possibly not the Air Corps officers, but at any rate advocates outside the Ser- vire, accused the ground officers of jealousy of the new arm. It does not appear that the Naval Air Service is concerned in the discussion, and from what we can hear we gather that the naval airmen are satisfied with the present position. This reminds us that in 1918 the Royal Naval Air Service did not, on the whole, wel- come their transfer from the Navy to the Royal Air Force. We have no intimate knowledge of the affairs of the United States fighting Services, and we should not pre- sume to advise Americans how to manage their own affairs, but we may offer some observations based on British experience in forming and maintaining a separate Air Force. All the reasons for maintaining such a Force were not apparent in 1918, when, in the stress of war, the R.A.F. came into being. Our main trouble then was that there was some undesirable rivalry between the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service (mainly in placing orders for machines) and some waste- ful overlapping of effort. The R.N.A.S. sometimes con- trived to get the better machines, e.g., the Sopwith Tri- plane. The Army had to borrow squadrons from the R.N.A.S., and it became obvious that a pooling of air resources was a necessity. Since then other reasons for the present British arrangement have appeared, and these are actually of greater weight than the original reasons which operated in 1918. For us the question of the air defence of Great Britain is of such supreme importance that it cannot be left as a sort of side-show to either the Admiralty or the War Office. This consideration does not apply to the United States. Special work in the British Empire and in lands connected with it, such as Iraq, has been en- trusted to the R.A.F., and this so-called air control has worked most successfully. Again, the cases of the British Empire and the United States are not identical. The Air Ministry deals also with the scientific and technical development of aeronautics, with meteorology, with flying training, and with contracts for the supply of equipment. It is a definite saving of effort that one Department of Government should concentrate all these functions in its hands. In this way the evils of rivalry and overlapping are avoided, and a pool is created on which the air arms of the Navy, the Army, and Air Defence and Air Control can, and do, draw. The idea of a pool can, of course, be carried too far, and may prove a hindrance to desirable specialisation ; but as regards research, supply, and flying training, it is a good thing. The whirligig of time may bring it about that the Navy and the Army will again possess their own air arms (the painter which holds the Fleet Air Arm to the Royal Air Force has several frayed strands), but
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
