FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 0254.PDF
252 FLIGHT, 27 February 1953 THE LORDS DISCUSS PRODUCTION —Civil v. Military Priorities, Naval Aviation and Other Matters CAUTIOUS optimism that Britain would be able to exploit her lead in the field of aircraft design was perhaps the main impression to emerge from a debate in the House of Lords on February 7th, when Lord Ogmore sought information about present arrangements for the manufacture and supply of military and civil aircraft. Contrary to expectation, the bogy of nationalization was not invoked to any great extent, but serious doubts were expressed on the financial aspect of the task now confronting the industry. In the military field, particular emphasis was placed on the progress —or otherwise—of Naval Aviation. LORD OGMORE devoted much of his speech to a survey of the contem porary position, and an attempt to establish the precise demand for civil and military aircraft, both at home and abroad, and the extent of our ability—in terms of materials, factory space, men, and finance—to meet that demand. He began by referring to the diversity of types reflected in current military production, and stressing the need for rationalization in respect of the latest bombers. He maintained that it was necessary not only to have bombers and fighters, but also a good sound civil aviation industry with stability of production and employ ment. He estimated that, with peak production of 70 Comets and 100 Viscounts a year, there would be an annual trading result of about £200 m in five years. With regard to finance, he noted that both Rolls-Royce and Hawker Siddeley had had to increase their capital, and mentioned a proposal, current in the industry, that the Government should consider some sort of development contract to the manufacturer, with recovery to the Government of an agreed sum for each aircraft sold. LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY, Secretary of State for Air, suggested that the aircraft industry was playing in our economy a part comparable with the old-established shipbuilding industry. It was a striking fact that, in 1952, aircraft exports totalled £43 m, which just about equalled our exports from the shipbuilding industry. It was hoped that in the current year the figure would rise to £60 m; perhaps in ten years, if not in five, Lord Ogmore's figure of £200 m would be achieved. The Minister then remarked that it would be wrong to be either over- optimistic or to set one's sights too low. But he refused to commit him self as to whether the industry had a lead of three, four, or five years over its competitors. Certainly it was to be expected that the great range of civil aircraft now in production—Comets, Viscounts, and Britannias— would not much longer remain, as they were today, unique in their class. Nevertheless, he thought that the industry's record with these latest types of civil aircraft was a good one, and he did not believe that the two- year production period for, say, the Comet 2 was excessive. It was not expected that these aircraft could be made for sale "off the shelf," for the • capital risks implicit were too great for any firm or Government to contemplate. He went on to assert that the time-lag between order and delivery was not due to lack of manufacturing capacity. Vickers-Armstrongs, for instance, could see their way to increase production of the Viscount, if necessary, up to 100 a year—the highest production ever contemplated for a big civil aircraft, either in America or in Britain. Nevertheless, using all the manufacturing techniques of a great concern, the cycle of production would still be about 24 months. Dealing with sub-contracting, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley said it was the Government's policy to encourage it, although he could discover no cases where production was being held up because of the omission to sub-contract. Civil-aircraft Production He then turned to the main emphasis of the Government's civil- aircraft production policy, which had been that of easing the industry's tasks in respect of labour and materials, and he was glad to report pro gress in both those fields. Nearly every firm in the industry had in creased its labour force during the past year and, all told, the total num ber employed in the industry rose during 1952 to 30,000—i.e., by 17 per cent. Similar progress had been made on housing and, with the co operation of local authorities, some 4,000 houses had been provided for aircraft workers, of which 3,000 were for firms engaged either partially or wholly in super-priority work. Behind these schemes there had been a general policy of trying to attract labour—particularly skilled labour— to the firms. Commenting on super-priority, the Minister said the scheme had really worked. He did not think that surprising, as there was a valuable record of good relations between Government and the industry. Over the super-priority period mutual respect and confidence had been built up and the functions of each side were, if not easy to define, well under stood. It was true, as Lord Ogmore had said, that the Government must play a big part in the civil field of the industry, and the general rule was that the Government financed the prototypes of large civil types of air craft, a proportion of the proceeds of sales being paid by the firms to the Government. This proportion was calculated on the assumption, after market research had been done, that a stated number of aircraft would be sold. The keynote of this whole set-up was partnership, as exempli fied in the joint enterprises represented by the Ghost, Avon, Proteus and Sapphire engines. The system achieved results, and he could not believe that any greater control by the Government—certainly not nationalization— would be of benefit to the industry. Healthy rivalry and competition between firms, more especially in design, was at the root of the great advances made since the war. . ,..- , Discussing rationalization of bomber types, the Ministerassured the House that the three medium bombers—H.P. 80, Valiant and Vulcan —did not, as had been suggested, cost £1 m each, but somewhere between £300,000 and £400,000. Until the matter could be tested, no one could say which of the later high-performance bombers, H.f. 80 or Vulcan, would be the most suitable. Both might be suitable for highly different but critical purposes. No one could tell which aircraft had the most development in it, and he hoped to discuss the whole matter in the forthcoming debate on the Air Estimates. LORD PAKENHAM confessed himself uncertain as to whether the indus try was taking advantage of the opportunities now open to it. He believed it was within their power to "collar" the jet market for a genera tion, but it would need a great increase of effort. He was similarly dubious about the Minister's assurances on workers' housing. On the question of finance, he was doubtful whether it was within the power of any single firm, unaided by the State, to launch out on the scale which the fleeting opportunity demanded, for it was important that the industry should be able to produce on a large scale before having firm orders. There was a case, he suggested, for some form of State assistance. It might be some sort of guarantee for aircraft produced for export purposes, or for the development of the Comet 3 and 4. In any event he hoped the idea of some new partnerships between the State and industry had not been abandoned. Touching on the subject of naval aircraft, Lord Pakenham said that a comparison with the aircraft of other countries indicated that Britain came out of it rather badly. An Assortment of Views LORD TEYNHAM concurred, and spoke of "something lacking" in the Admiralty at present. It might be a good thing, he said, to expand the Corps of Naval Constructors and have attached to it a Corps of Naval Air Constructors. That would be likely to lead to a much more con tinuous programme of design of naval aircraft. He urged the Govern ment to extend super-priority to include naval fighters. LORD STRABOLGI drew attention to the woeful shortage of labour caused by lack of housing. Many people were uneasy, he said, that the Government were still adhering, or were allowing local authorities to adhere, to those regulations which were hampering the policy of moving the factories to those places where labour was to be found. He was also disturbed by the fact that a modern British freight- carrying aircraft was not available, and that our operators had not been allowed to purchase American aircraft—as were K.L.M., through the World Bank with backing from the Dutch Government. Dealing with military aircraft, Lord Strabolgi suggested that in Korea a rather cheaper and simpler type of piston-engined aircraft, specially- designed for use with the troops in the field, was required in preference to the expensive, complicated and delicate jet fighter-bomber. LORD SEMPILL urged that skilled manpower and space made available by recasting of the defence programme should be used immediately to produce civil types of aircraft. LORD WINSTER said that the aircraft firms, and the men who worked in them, had presented the Government with a chance of a lifetime. Was the Government, in turn, producing the man and the men to take advantage of the opportunity the aircraft designers were presenting to it ? He hoped that, now the Transport Bill was passing out of the way, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, the Minister of Transport, would be able to place the imprint of his forceful and resourceful nature on the field of civil aviation. Lord Winster drew an analogy between air services and the great shipping services. When we were building up our great shipping indus try, he said, there were captains of tramp steamers who had a reputation for being able to smell out a cargo in the most unlikely and remote parts of the world. That same instinct was wanted in the air-freight business today, and that was a line of country particularly suited to some of the independent operators. What the industry required today was the assurance of firm orders from the Government for such aircraft as the Comets and Britannias, so that if orders came along the goods would be there for delivery when firm enquiries were received. It was too much to ask the firms to shoulder all the finance, and the granting of Govern ment assistance was not something absolutely unusual. Lord Winster then made a passing reference to the Ministry of Supply, and wondered whether, as at present constituted, it would take the strain which would be imposed upon it in war-time. He felt the Ministry should be so organized in peace-time that it would be able to take on war tasks and duties without having to undergo a great deal of reorganization. LORD DOWDING described "in a nutshell" why the Navy never had the best aircraft: it was because they would insist on fighters, which were designed for performing quite different tasks, and sometimes tasks which were almost mutually exclusive. First-class aircraft could not be secured if such divergent roles were demanded, and he believed the basic reason was that, during the war at any rate, the Admiralty did not have in the high positions people with practical experience. LORD MANCROFT, replying for the Government, said he had been asked point-blank to say whether the Government were satisfied with the present state of naval aviation. The answer to that, point-blank, was "no." Any government would have to give the same reply, but he (Concluded on page 259)
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
