FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 0617.PDF
FLIGHT, 6 May 1960 Ifijssiles and Spaceflight 617 THE BLUE STREAK DEBATE THE Opposition motion of censure on the Governmentdebated on Wednesday April 27 was phrased as follows:That this house deplores the refusal of the Governmentto establish a committee of inquiry into the circumstances sur- rounding the initiation, continuance and cancellation of the BlueStreak missile, which has involved the expenditure of a large amount of public money on a project long believed and nowofficially declared to be of no military value. Among the more important parts of the speech made by Harold Watkinson, Ministerof Defence, during the debate were the following passages: — "Allegations that this project was carried on to a point wheremoney was wasted on it must imply that it was carried on in the face of scientific, technical and military advice that it shouldbe stopped. Such advice was not tendered to me in November last year, as it was not tendered to my right hon Friend (DuncanSandys) before this time. ... Of course, the decision was a narrowly balanced one. All big decisions are. . . . "The V-bombers, with the Blue Steel flying bomb—that is tosay the bomb now being fitted—will meet our full contribution to the West's nuclear deterrent until the mid-1960s. In other words,we do not need to add to our major commitment here over this period even if the means were available. After the mid-1960s,which is when Blue Streak was planned to become available, we are now able to choose what type of missile we shall adopt, onthe principle that we shall provide our own warhead and our own mobile launching platform by sea or air. . . . "After the Blue Steel bomb, which is now our current nuclearcarrier, faded-out in the mid-1960s, we were going to go ahead with a second mark of that weapon. The fact is that the secondmark has now become too vulnerable as a surface-to-air guided missile. Sky Bolt is the perfect and almost invulnerable replacementfork. . . . "We have had people integrated in the Sky Bolt team for aconsiderable period. Therefore we have kept a close watch on its progress. The initial specification drawn up by the United Statesauthorities included the requirement that Sky Bolt should be capable of being carried in the Mk 2 V-bombers as well as in theB-52. In other words, the V-bombers have been in this programme from the beginning. "Two British teams are at present in the United States studyingthe detailed problems involved in the installation of the missile in our aircraft. The United States government have just senta team over here to explain to us at first-hand the operational and technical aspects of the Sky Bolt programme as it stands now.It was their reassuring report, coupled with the fact that the United States government had put a very large sum of moneyinto this weapon's development, which certainly assisted me in coming to the decision which I did. "Lastly, the United States government have taken a firm deci-sion to press on with the development of Sky Bolt with the highest priority. A programme for the progressive fitment of this missileto the Mk 2 V-bombers is being worked out. Wind tunnel trials are going on, and it will shortly be necessary to have closer con-tact and, in due course, to send production Mk 2 V-bombers for flying trials in the United States. This does not mean that weshall not go on with our consideration of the submarine-launched Polaris missile. I have asked the Admiralty to put in hand anurgent study of the requirements for British-built submarines capable of carrying the Polaris-type missile." A Comment on the Debate One of Flighfs representatives present at the debate was FrankBeswick, who has contributed the following genera] commentary. The Commons' inquest on Blue Streak [he writes] producedone of the most remarkable defence debates in recent times. There was a freshness and spontaneity about it that is oftenmissing in the staged debates on the annual White Papers. Of the five ex-Ministers who spoke from the back benches, threefrom the Government side, not one was content simply to toe the party line. Although George Brown called the Blue Streakproject the "personal cross" of Mr Sandys, it was everywhere realized that issues much wider and deeper than any personalresponsibility were involved. One such issue was undoubtedly that of parliamentary pro-cedure itself. No one can claim that the present system of discuss- ing defence matters enables Parliament to be adequately informedon the matters which, nominally, they decide. One of Mr Brown's charges, of course, was that the Governmentcollectively, and Mr Sandys personally, had persisted in spending money on Blue Streak long after expert technical opinion hadturned against it. The charge was pressed in these very interesting terms: "I am not at liberty to quote those who advise me. TheHouse must accept it from me that all through that year (i.e., 1958) I was receiving lots and lots of advice from people who it wasinconceivable to believe were not also talking to the Minister. . . . There was virtually nobody in the Service Departments at thattime who was not taking the trouble to tell anybody about it who would listen. I have minuted notes of receptions and ofconversations in which leading Service men made only the reserva- tion, 'Do not quote me.' They took no trouble to avoid beingseen talking to me and urging this policy upon me." Though gossiping and lobbying at cocktail parties cannot, ofcourse, be legislated against, it is surely undesirable that respon- sible parliamentary spokesmen should have to rely so heavily uponinformation gleaned that way. For one thing there is always the tendency for those whose opinions are not accepted, or whoseproducts are not sold, to lobby the most vigorously. Apart from any question of the ethics of the matter, a balanced judgment ismore difficult to reach when the discontented have had the biggest say. Those Members who have been asking for some form ofCommons Defence Committee, on American lines, at which Ministers and departmental heads can be questioned in a rationalmanner, will have their case strengthened by this recent debate. Long-term Continuity There is another aspect of this matter of informing Parliamentwhich was quietly but most impressively made by Aubrey Jones. He put it this way: "A project such as Blue Streak lasts the greaterpart of ten years. Any significant technological project these days lasts the greater part of ten years. In the course of ten years wein this country are likely to have three administrations. Within those administrations we have many Ministers, each Ministerbringing to the project, and being expected bv public opinion and by the Press to bring to the project, a new look." In these circumstances, as Mr Jones went on to say, someelement of continuity there must be if anything is ever to be produced. But to get that continuity there must obviously be awide and genuine acceptance of any prime decision—and an acceptance based upon fairly full information. Mr Jones proved to be the only speaker who had doubts aboutthe wisdom of stopping Blue Streak. He recalled the great argu- ment of 1957 between the manned aircraft and rhe missile. Thepresent Minister of Aviation, then Minister of Defence, decided to cancel the supersonic bomber and to retain Blue Streak. "Inmy judgment," said the former Minister of Supply, "that decision was right for the reason that, important as mobility was, BlueStreak opened up an entirely new field of technology far transcend- ing in importance the purely military application, a field likely inthe course of time to be important civilly as well as militarily. By mastering the technology of this rocket, this country in the course,of time would make a contribution befitting its talents in an entirely new sphere. That was the real case for the decisiontaken in 1957, and in my judgment that case is every bit as valid todav as it was three years ago." Mr Jones was very sceptical of both Sky Bolt and Polaris.Neither, he claimed, had the same significant potential for civil application. And then, unperturbed by the hostile glances on thegovernment Front Bench below him, Mr Jones went on to make other criticisms of the defence supply arrangements with whichhe had so recently been associated. We were unwarrantably maintaining two surface-to-air guided weapons (the Army andthe Air Force having "failed to reconcile their reauirements"): and the 45-ton tank, the Lightning intercepter and the TSR.2aircraft were all develooed to specifications so peculiar to ourselves that they were unlikely to command a sale abroad. And, in themissile age, we still maintain a sizeable Fighter Command. Having tolerated this expenditure we now cavil, complained Mr Tones,at an annual expenditure on rocket development which was 50 per cent less than the annual cost of subsidizing egg production. Sir Arthur Harvev was a good deal more enthusiastic aboutSky Bolt than other back-bench speakers. He said, "I was talking to "one of the most eminent men in the British aircraft industry. . . technically minded . . . good commercial outlook . . . made a great contribution to the industry . . . just returnedfrom the United States and is verv optimistic about Skv Bolt ... he thought there was a reasonable chance of it being deliveredin three years." Sir Arthur went on to ask the Minister to make up his mind quickly whether the VC10 or the Super VC10 wouldbe required as a carrier for Sky Bolt. But from other speakers, on both sides of the House, therewere earnest pleas that we should make up our minds on issues more fundamental than that of aircraft and missile types, "we
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
