FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 0393.PDF
FLIGHT, 30 March 1961 401 The New Shape of the Industry as seen by SIR ROY DOBSON CBE, Hon FRAeS, JP Managing Director, Hawker Siddeley Group in an interview with FRANK BESWICK I F there had been time to put one question to Sir Roy Dobsonon matters apart from aviation and politics (his answers onthe latter subject are not recorded here) it might have been to ask about his recreation. One feels that the answer would havebeen "work." Before Mr Sandys, in that autumn of activity in 1959, told theleaders of the aircraft industry what was in his mind about their future, the Hawker Siddeley Group was already a massive empirestretching out far beyond aviation, and Sir Roy's responsibilities were already very wide. "It was not / who wanted these extraorganizations," he explained at one point. But the twinkle in his eye suggested that he had not been averse from taking on the extrawork which the added slice of aircraft industry must have entailed. Moreover, as will be seen from the answers to questions whichfollow, Sir Roy's approach is direct and simple. If the British industry can be further strengthened by making even larger groups,that, it seems, is the sensible course to adopt. My first question was a general one about the industry as a whole. We have had all these changes in the British aircraft industry;would you say the present shape is about as effective as we shall, or can, get? "No, it seems to me that we have failed in this. The idea was toget two main groups on the aircraft construction side, but there are at present two large firms outside altogether. They are both takinggood technical men." Do you mean that because the two big groups are not all-embracingit lessens their efficiency ? "I mean that it lessens the efficiency of the industry as a whole.There are these loose ends, and they should be tidied up. We all want technicians, and it really is not good enough that there shouldbe this competition for them. I think this is a major criticism." Apart from the possibility of further changes, looking at your owngroup as a national asset, in what way would you say its efficiency, or competitive capacity, has been improved as the result of recentchanges? "We have brought into the group the civil experience and connec-tions of de Havilland—that is a major development. If the group is to participate in civil projects then that is where the work will bedone; other organizations in the group have the military experience. Now, being blessed with hindsight, if we were starting all over againI would have put the 748 project into de Havilland." But what about the individuals involved? There is a school ofthought which holds that if you have more designers, for example, working together they strengthen and help each other; is that yourexperience ? "Oh, design, research and development—that's a different thing.We now have more strength there in the group as a whole. We swop about a good deal and exchange ideas and help. We have ateam of about a hundred men quite separate from the manufac- turing companies; they spend their time examining the feasibilityof all kinds of projects and considering what we should be doing in the future. Moreover, they are available if trouble breaks out withany one of the manufacturing companies. "We have a case right now where four companies are all co-operating in solving certain problems. Another company is calling upon two others in the group. We have a lot of experience todraw upon, and it gives greater strength to each part of the group." Have you one individual to co-ordinate or act as design leader forthe group ? "We have a technical leader in S. D. Davies, the technical directorfor HSA. He spends his time visiting all the companies; he knows the situation and he knows who to bring in if trouble arises. Andhe would present a case to the Ministry. "On the missile side there is Guy Gardiner—formerly leader ofthe Blue Streak team; he is our authority on missiles, and he can see that there is proper co-ordination." You have spoken once or twice, Sir Roy, about the necessity ofavoiding overlapping between the two big British groups; how would you propose to eliminate this without inviting all the dangers of acomplete monopoly ? "Well, you have a virtual monopoly in any case. But what 1have wanted to do is to put up a united British front. I think it is eminently sensible to keep out of one another's fields. The Britishmarket is not large, you must agree; it cannot be cut up. One or other of the two big groups has to have the business in any onesection of the British market, and after that the competition is just wasteful. After all, from the country's point of view, it is the exportorders that count. "What I wanted to do was to decide on what should be ournational projects—have some arrangement for sharing experience and resources if you like, but not two opposing projects in the samefield; that way, neither of us could possibly make any money. Or, looking at it from the country's point of view, we might both missthe export orders." You speak of a national project; is it not necessary also to think interms of an international project—in a supersonic transport, for example ? "Some people talk in these terms, but there will need to be amaster-mind in a project like that, and if we are going into the business seriously we shall have to scheme it here in Britain.There might be sub-contracting to other countries, and we might be co-operating in other ways; but when it comes to putting themachine together and flying it, that must be done here." What about your proposals for co-operation with SEREB*;what is the next step there ? "We have put our case and discussions are going on, but thenext step is with the Government. The proposals are realistic financially and I think the technical case is accepted—especiallyfor the communications satellite. But, of course, it needs Treasury approval." We spoke a little earlier about the division of responsibility asbetween your own group and BAC; would you accept that it would be reasonable to draw a line which gave the work on a supersonic trans-port to the one company and space developments to the other ? "No; for one thing, the design work on either of these would notprovide all that much subsequent employment. I believe it is essential that Britain takes these space proposals seriously, if onlybecause we shall learn so much that will be applied elsewhere—in metals, techniques and miniaturization for example, but the actualamount of work involved for us is not so great. "The same thing applies to design-studies on supersonic aircraft.What we really should do there is to aim at a feasible transport machine to fly within the next eight or nine years and order eight ornine of them for the RAF. Let them accumulate experience, and then we should have something for the commercial market in the1970s. "It is not only research contracts that are wanted. We need development work. There is VTOL, STOL, jet flap work, and so (Concluded at foot of page 401) * Societe pour I'Etude et la Realisation d'Engins Ballistiques; seepage 270, Flight, March i.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
