FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1937
1937 - 0773.PDF
AIRCRAFT ENGINEER AND AIRSHIPS FIRST AERONAUTICAFWEEKLY IN THE^WOPLD \ FOUNDED woo Editor C. M. POULSEN Managing Editor G. GEOFFREY SMITH Chief Photographer JOHN YOXALL Editorial, Advertising and Publishing Offices: DORSET Telegrams : Truditur. Sedist, London. HERTFORD ST., COVENTRY. Telegrams : Autocar, Coventry. Telephone: Coventry 5210. GUILDHALL BUILDINGS, NAVIGATION ST., BIRMINGHAM, 2. Telegrams: Autopress, Birmingham. Telephone: Midland 2971. HOUSE, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON, S.E.I Telephone : Waterloo 3333 (SO lines). 20B, RENFIELD ST., GLASGOW, C.2. Telegrams: Iliffe, Glasgow. Telephone: Central 4857. 280, DEAN8GATE, MANCHESTER, 3. Telegrams: Iliffe, Manchester. Telephone: Blackfriars 4412. SUBSCRIPTION . HATES: Home and Canada: Other Countries: Year, 41 Year, £1 13 0. 10 0. 6 months, 16s. 6d. 6 months, ISs. od. S months, 8a. Od. 3 months, 9s. Od. No. 1474. Vol. XXXI. MARCH 25, 1937. Thursdays, Price 6d. Much Cackle : Few Osses I N the polished speech with which Sir Philip Sassoon introduced the Air Estimates in the House of Com mons last week, and in the debate which followed that speech, there was a great deal of speechifying and very little matter of importance. The Under- Secretary for Air could tell the House very little about the expansion scheme because nearly all the salient facts had already been made public. Sir Philip is not to be blamed for that. A rather long debate followed, in which no real opposition was raised to the Estimates, but many members made speeches apparently because they liked the sound of their own voices. Interesting points were raised, however, by Mr. O. E. Simmonds and Mr. Lees-Smith. Mr Simmonds told a story of the negotiations between the Air Ministry and civil flying schools for the training of pilots for the new R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve. He alleged that the Ministry had changed its mind three times in the proposals which it laid before the firms, with consequent delay in getting the scheme under way. Sir Thomas Inskip was put up by the Government to answer the points raised in the debate, and all that he was able to say in answer to Mr. Simmonds was that delays often take place when very great care is being taken to prevent the making of improper contracts which are likely to give excessive profits to the parties with whom they are made. That generalisation was, of course, no answer at all, but one cannot help sympathising with Sir Thomas Inskip on the difficult position in which he has been placed. He cannot possibly know all the details about all the three fighting Services, and he covered himself by admitting that some of Mr. Simmonds' points were bound to be outside his knowledge. The Government aught to provide a more satisfactory answer to such queries, if, indeed, any satisfactory answer can be given. Mr. Lees-Smith dealt with matters of more funda mental importance. He raised the question of whether air defence is likely to function against air attack. Of course, no definite answer could be given to such a query, but it is noteworthy that recently there has been a tendency on the part of students of the subject to give more credit to the chances of air defence than was the fashion a few years ago. The most notable utterance of this kind was Sir Samuel Hoare's claim that the battle ship fleet and naval bases could be made most unattrac tive targets for enemy bombers to attack. Mr. Lees- Smith also asked whether full use was being made of scientific research in the preparation of air defence, and on this point Sir Thomas Inskip was able to give a com pletely reassuring answer. Probably other nations are as far advanced as we are in taking advantage of science's help in this matter; but the most important point for British subjects to keep in mind is this—that if air defence can, on the whole, master air attack, the British Isles and the British Empire will be the chief gainers from such a development. Divided Defence Mr. Lees-Smith then turned to a subject of first-rate importance, namely, the division of responsibility for air defence between the Air Ministry and the War Office. He quoted Flight's assertions that this division had led to Dad results, and himself asserted that until a year ago it did lead to bad results. He might well have gone on to dilate on the far worse effects which may come from such divided control in time of war. Sir Thomas Inskip very definitely defended this indefensible system. It is worth quoting his words: "I should have thought that gunnery from the earth was an Army or War Office question, and that therefore, if you handed over gunnery from the earth to the Air Ministry in the expectation of having unity of control, Tou would immediately produce duality of control in another direction." Why? Oh, Sir Thomas! Why is it duality of control when onr- party owns some guns and another party owns other guns? Does not the Admiralty own some guns (not firing from the earth, of course, but still guns) while the War Office owns others? Is that duality of control? And if both
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
