"In war there is little use for anything unless it can be applied with some certainty that it would do what we want it to do, and unless you have some exactness in results. Now that stage (referring to aeroplanes) has not been reached."
That, as has been said, was in 1909. At this time, certainly, aeroplanes were unreliable, although the promise of their practicability was such that there was no excuse for ignoring them, from the military point of view.
But now let us turn to matters as they stand today. The modern aeroplane, with its engine as reliable as that in a motor-car, can be used with the greatest certainty for military work, and can fly long distances—heavily laden—without descending, besides attaining a speed through the air exceeding that of an express train.
III. The financial aspect—Money England is spending—The airship policy—Insufficient provision for aeroplanes.
In the year ending 31st March, 1912, a sum of £113,000 will have been expended by our authorities upon military aeronautics. Of this sum, an appreciable amount is devoted to establishment charges, and such items; and a sum of £28,000 was earmarked for building a new dirigible balloon shed at Farnborough, and in making improvements to the one at Wormwood Scrubs.
This leaves £85,000; and this sum of money, quite inadequate as it is, is free to be spent upon airships and aeroplanes. Quite an active airship policy is pursued, and a large percentage of this money remaining is dribbled away upon these costly machines—in building new ones, and in repairing old ones.
[Illustration: THE ENGINE-IN-FRONT BIPLANE. With the above machine—a type increasingly used for Service work—the Naval officers now experimenting at Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppy, have been carrying out recent tests. It was designed, and built, by Messrs. Short Brothers, who are now constructing special aeroplanes for Naval use.]
Criticising this policy trenchantly, soon after the announcement of the manner in which the War Office proposed to spend its money, Mr Arthur du Cros, M.P., the Hon. Secretary of the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee, remarked: "We, almost alone among nations, are developing the lighter-than-air type of machine to the exclusion of aeroplanes. France and Germany, formerly two of the staunchest advocates of the dirigible balloon, have almost ceased its development, in favour of the aeroplane.
"In a year, in regard to these two machines, the tables have been turned," added Mr du Cros. "Now the aeroplane, which costs so much less than the dirigible, is infinitely its superior. One aeroplane, costing say £1000, would, in the case of actual aerial warfare, have completely at its mercy a dirigible balloon costing perhaps £50,000."
Defending their policy, soon after Mr du Cros’ attacks, and responding to the definite statement that "aeroplanes have become immeasurably superior to airships for military purposes," War Office experts advanced the argument: "There would be work in war-time, such as very detailed reconnaissance, that an airship could perform better than an aeroplane. Both types should, therefore, be developed."