1957 Defence White Paper
Moderator
Thread Starter
1957 Defence White Paper
In my professional life, I've come up against various people (most of whom know ****** all about aeroplanes) trying to tell me that we can eliminate the use of manned research aeroplanes in various areas, and replace them all with UAVs.
I've no doubt that UAVs have their place, and will continue to - but for the next ten years plus, it's cobblers - certain research needs an aeroplane full of heavy and complex kit, with very clever human beings on board to nursmaid it and identify and chase the conditions they're trying to research.
Anyhow, this reminded me of the infamous 1957 defence white paper which Duncan Sandys used to axe numerous aircraft programmes and do enormous damage to the UK's aeronautical capability - on the grounds that guided missiles were now so mature that the RAF would never need another fighter after the "Supersonic P1". I've read the paper - it was a mandatory part of my early education, and suspect that I still have a copy buried in the bottom of a box in the loft somewhere - given a week with nothing else to do but look for it.
Which finally raises my question - do any of you clever aviation history chappies know of an online source anywhere that I can get a copy of the paper? I plan to use it as part of my argument against aeronautical ignoramuses who are trying to re-invent the argument that we don't need manned flying machines to do clever things.
G
I've no doubt that UAVs have their place, and will continue to - but for the next ten years plus, it's cobblers - certain research needs an aeroplane full of heavy and complex kit, with very clever human beings on board to nursmaid it and identify and chase the conditions they're trying to research.
Anyhow, this reminded me of the infamous 1957 defence white paper which Duncan Sandys used to axe numerous aircraft programmes and do enormous damage to the UK's aeronautical capability - on the grounds that guided missiles were now so mature that the RAF would never need another fighter after the "Supersonic P1". I've read the paper - it was a mandatory part of my early education, and suspect that I still have a copy buried in the bottom of a box in the loft somewhere - given a week with nothing else to do but look for it.
Which finally raises my question - do any of you clever aviation history chappies know of an online source anywhere that I can get a copy of the paper? I plan to use it as part of my argument against aeronautical ignoramuses who are trying to re-invent the argument that we don't need manned flying machines to do clever things.
G
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've used the national archives for naval research and it was hard going, but I got what I wanted.
You can try the national archives here Ghengis, but its a bit clunky because its in fractured sections and hard to navigate. Scroll down the page to Defence and good luck.
You can try the national archives here Ghengis, but its a bit clunky because its in fractured sections and hard to navigate. Scroll down the page to Defence and good luck.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I just tried that - surreally, the national archives doesn't seem to have any defence white papers before 1958! I can find numerous references to the 1957 white paper but not the paper itself.
Anybody got any other ideas?
G
Anybody got any other ideas?
G
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of any help Genghis?
Macmillan Cabinet Papers, 1957 - 1963
Macmillan Cabinet Papers, 1957 - 1963
Funny stuff history.
Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiments of the discussion, there is no doubt that I benefitted immensely from that Infamous White Paper.
Having been dragged kicking and screaming into National Service -which I had managed to defer for 4 years - I eventually, reluctantly, agreed to put my name forward for pilot training, and was accepted.
18 months later I decided that the my new found life in the RAF, as a newly qualified pilot who had been sent to Canada for training for 14 months, suited me, and please could I re-muster for a life time of service to Queen and Country ?
Not on your Nellie, said Duncan Sandys, the Country doesn't need your sort anymore - P*ss Off, or words to that effect, and furthermore you needn't lie around finishing off your 2 year commitment, I'm not going to let you upgrade to an Operational Conversion Unit, and get your hands on those expensive Meteor fighter aircraft that are now useless and a drain on the economy, you can go now. Not likely I retorted, I'm enjoying myself doing almost nothing, not even being allowed to fly anymore, at an airfield that is being re-modelled to accommodate the Vulcan V-Bomber, and will now start to study for my Civil Licences at RAF expense. So there.
some 40 years later I finally retired to New Zealand, having finished my airline career as a Boeing 747 Training Captain, and now enjoy a more relaxed form of recreational flying instruction.
How different it might have been had Duncan Sandys not been so misguided !! Who can tell, but I'm not complaining. Thanks, Duncan.
Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiments of the discussion, there is no doubt that I benefitted immensely from that Infamous White Paper.
Having been dragged kicking and screaming into National Service -which I had managed to defer for 4 years - I eventually, reluctantly, agreed to put my name forward for pilot training, and was accepted.
18 months later I decided that the my new found life in the RAF, as a newly qualified pilot who had been sent to Canada for training for 14 months, suited me, and please could I re-muster for a life time of service to Queen and Country ?
Not on your Nellie, said Duncan Sandys, the Country doesn't need your sort anymore - P*ss Off, or words to that effect, and furthermore you needn't lie around finishing off your 2 year commitment, I'm not going to let you upgrade to an Operational Conversion Unit, and get your hands on those expensive Meteor fighter aircraft that are now useless and a drain on the economy, you can go now. Not likely I retorted, I'm enjoying myself doing almost nothing, not even being allowed to fly anymore, at an airfield that is being re-modelled to accommodate the Vulcan V-Bomber, and will now start to study for my Civil Licences at RAF expense. So there.
some 40 years later I finally retired to New Zealand, having finished my airline career as a Boeing 747 Training Captain, and now enjoy a more relaxed form of recreational flying instruction.
How different it might have been had Duncan Sandys not been so misguided !! Who can tell, but I'm not complaining. Thanks, Duncan.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan Sandys used to axe numerous aircraft programmes and do enormous damage to the UK's aeronautical capability - on the grounds that guided missiles were now so mature that the RAF would never need another fighter after the "Supersonic P1".
I just noticed this. It's a common misconception. Sandys is always portrayed as a hooligan now by authors of romantic books and articles that do not relate to the reality of 1957. Sandys was in fact merely the "Hit Man" for Macmillan and he simply did what had to be done.
Britain couldn't afford the over-inflated defence posture it had in 1957. Nuclear deterrence was the way forward, and the Government believed that spending money on other forms of defence was simply pointless and (more importantly) couldn't be afforded. Sandys expressed the Government view that pouring more money into fighter defences was pointless, when the country's defence would rest on MAD.
He didn't have an obsession for missiles, as so many people often say. This is simply an urban myth fed by lazy authors. He was advised that missile defences would work (and they eventually did - to a degree) but the main thrust was the concept of ICBM and IRBM programmes (Thor and Blue Streak).
Yes, Sandys did dispose of a lot, but it wasn't the work of some obsessive lunatic. He agreed to take-on the big hatchet job that the PM wanted. He savaged Fighter Command (and RAFG, National Service, etc.) because he simply regarded significant fighter expenditure as pointless. The prevailing view was that defence spending should rest on the ability to prevent a war by deterrence, not spend money on the means of fighting one.
It's amazing how the Sandys legacy has been so badly corrupted.
I just noticed this. It's a common misconception. Sandys is always portrayed as a hooligan now by authors of romantic books and articles that do not relate to the reality of 1957. Sandys was in fact merely the "Hit Man" for Macmillan and he simply did what had to be done.
Britain couldn't afford the over-inflated defence posture it had in 1957. Nuclear deterrence was the way forward, and the Government believed that spending money on other forms of defence was simply pointless and (more importantly) couldn't be afforded. Sandys expressed the Government view that pouring more money into fighter defences was pointless, when the country's defence would rest on MAD.
He didn't have an obsession for missiles, as so many people often say. This is simply an urban myth fed by lazy authors. He was advised that missile defences would work (and they eventually did - to a degree) but the main thrust was the concept of ICBM and IRBM programmes (Thor and Blue Streak).
Yes, Sandys did dispose of a lot, but it wasn't the work of some obsessive lunatic. He agreed to take-on the big hatchet job that the PM wanted. He savaged Fighter Command (and RAFG, National Service, etc.) because he simply regarded significant fighter expenditure as pointless. The prevailing view was that defence spending should rest on the ability to prevent a war by deterrence, not spend money on the means of fighting one.
It's amazing how the Sandys legacy has been so badly corrupted.
Last edited by WH904; 13th May 2013 at 18:10.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of who said what (or even because of why they said it) from where I sit it looks remarkably like the UK has procured and operated manned fighters from 1957 to the present day and that they even have plans for another after Typhoon.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course this is true. But as you know, defence procurement is based on the circumstances of the time, and Sandys saw no future in which Britain would be fighting in the Falklands, Iraq or anywhere else. In 1957 the only issue was the Soviet Union, hence the Government's view that the way forward was nuclear deterrence, and the abandonment of pretty-much everything else.
Whether that was the right view is of course open to question, but my point is that it's become almost accepted wisdom to paint Sandys as some lunatic who didn't understand anything other than missiles. He did - he simply saw no need for significant fighter defences.
Whether that was the right view is of course open to question, but my point is that it's become almost accepted wisdom to paint Sandys as some lunatic who didn't understand anything other than missiles. He did - he simply saw no need for significant fighter defences.
A chum of mine was recommended for a permanent commission by his CO/Stn Cdr (my chum was a Meteor pilot).
His interview with the AOC Group took place the day after the Sandys White Paper was released.
He says that he and the AOC spent a couple of hours crying on each others shoulders!
He left the RAF shortly afterwards and had a successful career in the airlines.
His interview with the AOC Group took place the day after the Sandys White Paper was released.
He says that he and the AOC spent a couple of hours crying on each others shoulders!
He left the RAF shortly afterwards and had a successful career in the airlines.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Surrey
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macmillan had already written a paper when he was Minister of Defence entitled 'No More Biggen Hills', basically saying Figter Command was redundant.
In addition, we had spent an awful lot of money on SAMs in the late 40s/early 50s, and these were just being deployed. F155 gives way to Bloodhound.
In addition, we had spent an awful lot of money on SAMs in the late 40s/early 50s, and these were just being deployed. F155 gives way to Bloodhound.
