FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 0360.PDF
362 FLIGHT The Fleet Air Arm INTRODUCING AN ILLUSTRATED "FLIGHT" REVIEW OF BRITISH NAVAL AVIATION TODAY the men and women of the Fleet Air Arm this issue comes as a simple tribute—to their many skills and talents, to their loyalty, and to their exceptional blend of enthusiasm and responsibility. Their standards (and our admiration) are the highest. We believe that the story of their work today is well worth telling. To help us tell it, we invited the co-operation—readily given—of the senior officers whose messages are on these two pages, of the Director of Naval Air Warfare, and of the gifted inventor of the mirror sight. And we of Flight travelled thousands of miles to visit Naval air stations in the United Kingdom and carriers in the Mediterranean, receiving full facilities and true hospitality every- where. The overall picture is built up from this page onward—the Fleet Air Arm's general role; the work of Home Air Command; front-line aircraft and ships; Naval air warfare philosophy and technical developments; impressions of peace-time carrier flying; and a reminder of carrier flying in earnest. In the six years since our last special issue of this kind much has happened in Naval aviation. A new generation of aircraft has appeared and is serving with the Fleet, and some of the most significant advances in operating technique since carrier flying began have been adopted. Now the next generation of the Navy's aircraft, in the form of the Scimitar and later the Sea Vixen, are expected. With the shadow of defence economies causing uncertainty in many parts of Whitehall as we write this, the future of the Fleet Air Arm is not crystal-clear. Its future potential, however, can be gauged from its present strength—as indicated by the three important messages which follow. From Vice-Admiral A. N. C. Bingley, C.B., O.B.E., DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF AND FIFTH SEA LORD WHAT is the Fleet Air Arm? What is it for? What can it do? What can it not do? There is no subject connected with Defence about which more people know less. Widespread ignorance of the functions, capabilities and limitations of aircraft carriers and their aircraft is at the root of most of the arguments about their value. Thinking on defence matters is left too much to those who are paid to do it. The average man has little concern with our needs and responsibilities overseas until reserves are called up and casualty lists appear. This is wrong. An enlightened democracy should have an under- standing of the country's defence problems, and an influence on decisions about the number and kind of weapons it can afford; the difficulty for the ordinary citizen is to get the facts in a form which he finds entertaining and easy to read, and which he can understand. This special issue of Flight will, I hope, give to the "average man," both inside and outside the Services, factual information about the Fleet Air Arm on which to base his discussions and reach an informed view. It is for this reason in particular that I welcome it. The roles of ship-borne and shore-based air power are complementary: an examination of the main differences between them makes this clear. The carrier is mobile, the airfield static. This means that the carrier can get to troubles in most parts of the world, whereas the airfield can only influence those within range of its aircraft, though it should be able to do so more cheaply and efficiently than the carrier. Most airfields operate only one type of aircraft and thus enjoy the organizational and logistic advantages of specialization: nor are they subject to the restrictions of size and approach-speed which govern the design of naval aircraft. The carrier, on the other hand, is usually complemented with several types of aircraft: moreover, each type is equipped and its crew trained to do some other job effectively when not required in its primary role. The carrier thus provides a less massive but more flexible form of air power, whereas the airfield and its aircraft can better meet a particular need such as fighter defence of our island. The carrier gets certain tactical advantages from her mobility; she can, for example, to a great extent choose the range, and sometimes the weather, which is more advantageous to her than to the enemy. On the other hand, she is subject to the hazards of the sea, both natural and enemy-originated. The airfield is cheaper than the carrier and normally lasts longer, but our airfields overseas are often subject to the play of international politics and may no longer be available for our use when we need them most. They may even come to be used against us. With these basic differences in mind it is not too difficult for anybody who is willing to put his mind to the problem to decide which of our world-wide defence commitments are best provided for by means of carriers and ship-borne aircraft, which by airfields and shore-based ones, and which by a bit of both: readers will draw their own conclusions on the matter. The truth is that each sort has its uses and advantages, and we need both. The problem is, in fact, not so much the military one of deciding which form of air power to provide for any given commitment, as the political one of deciding which commitments we must be able to meet
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
