FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 1605.PDF
FLIGHT, 9 November 1956 SEA, LAND AND AIR ... Although the U.S.A.F. is backed by immense resources ofmoney and production potential, its resultant size and global commitments have not been based upon the wasteful expenditureof the taxpayer's money. Each command, each unit and each commander is accountable to the U.S. legislature for every dollarthat is spent. To outsiders its surface activities might appear somewhat brashand unnecessary. However, behind the facade of good and energetic publicity— such as that indulged in at "box-office" level—there is a most purposeful efficiency. This efficiency in the use of available resources and manpower appears to be founded upontwo precepts: first, the absence of any demarcation between active and cold-war conditions; and, secondly, as stated, the carefuluse of its money, which in 1955 totalled $15.5 billions. The command which best exemplifies the whole of the U.S.A.F.activities is Strategic Air Command. Under the generalship of Curtis E. LeMay there are 55 wings of strategic bomber squad-rons (a U.S.A.F. wing is comparable in size with two R.A.F. wings). The primary function of S.A.C. is to deliver a thermo-nuclear deterrent bomb to any part of the world at a moment's notice. To ensure that it is always ready for such operations it iskeyed to wartime conditions, so that the highest possible propor- tion of its aircraft are serviceable and manned by fully trainedcrews. In addition, S.A.C. is always mindful of a possible "Pearl Harbour" blow; therefore, it guards its installations in a mostthorough manner. Although the U.S.A.F. is as independent as the R.A.F., it hasyet to acquire full control of all ground-to-air missiles and anti- aircraft guns. This introduces another facet of inter-Serviceresponsibility. In 1940 the R.A.F. exercised operational control over the anti-aircraft guns of the Royal Artillery, whereas itsopponent the Luftwaffe controlled and administered its own Flak units. A similar situation existed in the wartime U.S. services.It is interesting to note that General Pile contemplated handing over the anti-aircraft service to the R.A.F. in tow. However (andas in the development of the U.S.A.F.) such a step was difficult to 763 take in the middle of an all-out war. Nowadays such a situationmay not arise, as guided missiles and rockets used for anti-aircraft purposes are more closely related to aircraft operating and guid-ance techniques than are guns. As far as can be ascertained, Britain's anti-aircraft defence responsibilities of Fighter Commandwill be entirely under the operation and administration of the R.A.F. As has been indicated, the situation in the U.S. is some-what confused, as all three Services are hard at work developing guided missiles and rockets independently of each other. Suchdevelopments prompt the suggestion that as the future missiles are related only to air force operations—in so far as aircraft wererelated to motor vehicle and ship operations in 1914—a new Service might arise, which in Britain and the U.S. would be thefourth. Of course, it is reasonable to assume dial the majority of missile development and operations will remain with air forces forsome time, particularly as these forces have established the com- munication and information transmitting networks, such as radar,which can be adapted to control missiles. What is most likely to occur in the majority of countries inthe future is the gradual development of specialized Services, each based upon die exercising of one overall military function. Asan example, the "Defence Service" would comprise sea, land and air components, all under one command, charged with die repul-sion of attacks from all three media. The "Offence Service" would be also a triphibious one, consisting of specialized task-forces, bothtactical and strategic. Communications, including "track" main- tenance of seaways, roads, railways and airways along with trans-port in all media and personnel services, would together form a third Service. An additional Service would be needed if therewere large areas of land to be retained after being conquered by the Offence Service; it would be similar to present-day armiesemployed as policemen in a subdued territory. All four Services of the future will most likely be directed fromone ministry. In such a possible disposition of a nation's military strengthaircraft will be used by all forces both as a vehicle and as a weapon; but as things are at present the independent air force,together widi guided missiles, seems to be the best way of using air power—if, of course, it can be afforded. CRANFIELD'S ANNIVERSARY DINNER O PEAKING at the College of Aeronautics tenth anniversary^ dinner in London on October 26, Sir Roy Fedden disclosed details of the original conception of the College. It may berecalled that Sir Roy was chairman of the 1943 committee which prepared detailed plans for the establishment of "a school ofaeronautical science" following the recommendation of the A.R.C. report instigated by Sir Stafford Cripps. "I have heard different claims as to the authorship of puttingthe germ of the College into the brain of the late Sir Stafford Cripps," Sir Roy said. "I know that Sir Henry Tizard was veryconscious of our limitations on technical staff after the war, and talked to him on the matter, but I believe the idea first tookconcrete form during a railway journey Sir Stafford made with Professor Blacken. Resulting from these talks ... Sir Staffordwrote to Sir Melvill Jones ... in the spring of 1943, with a request that the whole matter should be referred to the Aero-nautical Research Council." Sir Roy, who was proposing the toast to "The College andthe Future," reviewed the first ten years of the College, and went on to compare the number of aeronautical engineeringgraduates in one recent year in Britain (60), the U.S.A. (1,000), and Russia (2,500). He then turned to consider the future. "Anew breed of engineer," he said, "fundamental enough in basic science, and yet at the same time advanced enough in mathematicsand humanities, is necessary to meet the tremendous demands of the future ... I hope that at Cranfield we may lead a renaissancein British engineering to help meet the second industrial world revolution already upon us, in which there will be bitter com-petition such as we have never known before." Replies were made by the chairman of the Board of Governors,Sir Frederick Handley Page; and by the Principal, Prof. A. J. Murphy, who disclosed that the 1956 student entry numbered98—the highest total in the history of the College. An additional current activity was the one-year course on guided weaponsorganized for students of the NATO countries. The chairman at the dinner, which was held at the ConnaughtRooms, London, was Mr. Harold Caplan, a member of the first (1946) student entry and present chairman of the CranfieldSociety. Graduate representatives from each year since the College's formation were among the 150 people present; unfor-tunately unable to attend were Mr. E. F. Relf, the first Principal, and Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, the first chairman of the Board. Seen at the College of Aero- nautics London dinner: (upper left) Sir Roy Fedden,Sir Frederick Handley Page, Prof. A. J. Murphy and Sir Matthew Slattery; (up- per right) organizers of the dinner — Mr. Harold Caplan, Mrs. F. Dixon, Mr. Cyril Clever- don and Mr. T. L. Palmer; (lower left) ex-presidents of the Stud- ents' Society — Lt-Cdr. D. G. Titford, Mr. R. C. Davison, Mr. T. M. Corson, Cdr. A. J. Monk and S/L L Ellerd-Styles; (lower right) Sir Victor Goddard and Sir Harold Roxbee Cox. "Flight" photographs
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
