FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1954
1954 - 1692.PDF
and AIRCRAFT ENGINEER First Aeronautical Weekly in the World Founded 1909 No. 2368 Vol. 65. FRIDAY, 11 JUNE 1954 EDITOR MAURICE A. SMITH, D.F.C. ASSISTANT EDITOR H. F. KING, M.B.E. ART EDITOR JOHN YOXALL Editorial, Advertising and Publishing Offices: DORSET HOUSE, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON, S.E.1. Telegrams, Flightprts. Sedist, London. Telephone, Waterloo 3333 (60 lines). Branch Offices: COVENTRY 8-10, Corporation Street. Telegrams, Autocar, Coventry. Telephone. Coventry S210. BIRMINGHAM, 2 King Edward House, New Street. Telegrams, Autopress, Birmingham. Telephone, Midland 7191(7 lines). MANCHESTER, 3. 260, Deansgate. Telegrams, lliffe, Manchester. Telephone, Blackfriars 4412 (3 lines). Deansgate 3595 (2 lines). GLASGOW, C.2. 26b Renfield Street. Telegrams, lliffe, Glasgow. Telephone, Central 1265 (2 lines). SUBSCRIPTION RATES Home and Overseas: Twelve months £4 10s. U.S.A. and Canada, $14.00. IN THIS ISSUE: Viscounts for America - 750 African Accident Repercussions 751 Twin-turbine Helicopter 753 Scharfoldendorf 1954 - 755 Auster A.O.P.9 ... 761 D.H.C. in their New Quarters 766 Aircraft in Agriculture - 768 Canada's New Aeronautical Body 770 Too Many Hands Make Uneconomical Work A SUBJECT of increasing importance is the co-ordination of effort in the develop ment of purely military equipment for aircraft. For reasons of cost alone, duplication of effort among the Allied countries must be avoided. We have men tioned the matter to individuals in the industries at home and in America, and we have found them to be in agreement. This adds a special significance, we feel, to the announce ment that while the Minister of Supply, Mr. Duncan Sandys, is in America (whence he is due to return in time for the re-assembly of Parliament on the 15th) to see something of weapon research and development and to exchange information, he will also discuss the possibilities of closer collaboration in this field. It must be apparent to everyone that the cost of national defence has become almost insupportable. Even in America the talk shows signs of a swing towards the European outlook of "what must we have?—because we obviously cannot have everything we should like" rather than "we had better have some of those, and those, too—they will all come in useful." The Communist danger could easily become primarily one of Western financial collapse instead of die more-publicized violent kind. Even the most prosperous countries simply have to minimize the drain on their resources of materials, brain and brawn as well as of plain cash. It no longer makes sense for close allies to be working along parallel lines to develop certain kinds of very expensive equipment for the same purposes. If this contention is accepted it is logical to look for ways of pooling resources and of avoiding any unnecessary overlap of work and expense. Fortunately there already exists between the two principal aircraft and armament-producing countries in the Western World a degree of understanding which would have been inconceivable a decade or so ago; no completely new principle would be involved, but rather an extension of present relationships. Where, for example, aircraft and engines are concerned, ordinary commercial con siderations cannot easily be set aside. And we are dealing with proud, powerful, vigorous and competitive peoples. Military aircraft are saleable commodities and, moreover, most types are also related in one way or another to civil designs bearing the same maker's names. But this cannot be said of high-altitude radar bomb-sights, of gun-laying radar, of missiles, and the variety of non-atomic bombs. It is this class of product that offers opportunities for great economies in resources, materials, the time of top-line scientists and, of course, pounds and dollars. Joint effort on each project might also be expected to result in earlier deliveries, and good timing is one of the most vital matters where new weapons and their counter-measures are concerned. We have remarked in the past, incidentally, that bombers lacking bomb-sights matched to their performance characteris tics are, to say the least, badly handicapped. Today such equipment may take five or ten years to develop and the work may cost as much as £20m. What reason can there be for straining separately all our economies over such major items? We believe that steps should be taken at once to increase Anglo-American collabora tion. Each country has a great deal to offer the other. A start would be the mere listing of all wholly military equipment the standardization of which would be advantageous and acceptable from the development and production points of view. So far as existing equipment is concerned, national prides should here and there be set aside in favour of increased international standardization. If one design can be made to suit the require ment of all or most of the NATO countries, provided that there are proper safeguards and insurances, then the luxury of more than one must be forgone. In fact, it may not be so long before a similar course is intentionally accepted for some complete aircraft, although so far the state of the art, the somewhat different requirements, and the com plication and importance of the products, have made it advisable for individual countries to order two or more aircraft to meet each of their own specifications. Whenever British and American designers and other technicians have sat round a table together to exchange thoughts on their tasks, difficulties and aspirations, they have afterwards gone their ways convinced of the mutual benefit. An extension of this spirit to bring about a sharing-out of the work and of the products in place of the present duplication should be the next step. We hope that Mr. Sandys returns from his American visit thinking along these lines. C
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
