The late Captain Nathan Sargent, commanding U. S. S. Baltimore, in accepting the gunnery trophy awarded to that ship, gave all credit to “the officer behind the man behind the gun.” In the training, coordination of the many factors entering into necessary teamwork, and the administration of a complex organization, much credit is due at that point.
Equally essential to effective development and employment of modern forces of the air is the coordinating authority behind those elements of the Army and Navy. With missions totally different, requiring highly specialized training along equally different lines, the fundamentals involved are nevertheless identical and afford a common ground relationship in respect to the development of the science and expenditure of effort.
Cooperation and coordination have been provided for. Perhaps more attention has been directed to this subject, due to the sensational development and picturesque activities of aviation, than in the case of any new weapon in modern times. Each new instrument of warfare, in its turn, has had proponents to advocate separation and exclusive specialization. The advent of the submarine, in particular, brought forth proposals for a separate and distinct submarine service and almost every branch of the Army and Navy has had loyal enthusiasts advocating varying phases of special consideration from favored position to abolition of all other arms. Only a few years ago a well-known officer of the Army, recently of the air service, admitted that cavalry had at last come into its own and, because of its mobility and efficiency, declaimed the end of the artillerist and infantryman.
After each war the prediction has been freely made that the next would be fought differently. We heard a few years ago that with the highly developed long range guns, the next war would be an artillerists’ duel, that opposing forces would rarely see each other. Battleships, and later submarines, were likewise to be the answer to all conflict. But we still have infantry, artillery, the battleship, and the submarine. Weapon begets weapon. Just as the destroyer was the answer to the torpedo boat, the answer to air attack is air force.
The broader vision of the responsible heads has kept a balanced Army and Navy and caused definition of the role of all elements in the ultimate mission of the armed forces. No arm has been relegated to the scrap pile; each still has its mission to perform as a part of the national defense.
The air force, then, is a component part of the national defense machine. It has a varying relation to each other part, and proper functioning requires an effective governor as in any other piece of machinery.
With the accomplishment of flight by heavier-than-air craft the relationship of aviation to the existing armed forces was recognized and problems arose which were met in the light of available information. These problems were multiplied with the rapid strides which immediately followed, and the Aeronautical Board was established to function as the needed governor.
Because of the far reaching influence of air force, this board includes a minority of non-flying members who are experts in the mechanics and tactics of the remainder of the machine as well as the larger subject of strategy. The board is charged with the development and employment of the army air service and naval aviation.
The first concerted effort in the development of the air forces followed a proposal of the Secretary of War in October, 1916 when a joint board of three army and three naval officers was formed to consider the development of a new rigid airship service. .Related subjects very soon indicated the need of broader jurisdiction and the “Joint Army and Navy Board on Aeronautic Cognizance” was created. From time to time the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy added new subjects to its jurisdiction.
The board as thus organized functioned during the World War and acted upon many questions such as the availability of localities for aeronautical purposes; the missions of army and navy aircraft; and the selection of insignia for marking United States aircraft. The President’s proclamation of February 28, 1918, added the power to grant licenses for war time operation of civilian aircraft.
After the armistice, the lessons of the World War led to the study of a definite policy for the development of aeronautics. Under a precept approved by the two secretaries on June 24, 1919, the study of such a policy was commenced and the name of the board was changed to the “Joint Army and Navy Board on Aeronautics’’ and later, to avoid confusion with The Joint Board, to “The Aeronautical Board.”
Having finally adopted a “Policy of the Army and Navy relating to aircraft” which defines the functions and spheres of operations of army, navy and marine aircraft, the Aeronautical Board was reorganized and its jurisdiction made clear in an order signed by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy on June 17, 1924. This order provides that members of the board shall at all times include the chief of the Army Air Service, the chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, their respective chiefs of training and planning divisions, and an officer of the war plans division of' the General Staff and one of the corresponding divisions of the Office of Naval Operations. To preserve an even balance in membership the board has no president or chairman and a permanent civilian secretary is appointed jointly by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy. The senior officer present at each meeting presides, for parliamentary purposes only, and all reports of the board bear the signatures of the senior officer of each service present at the meeting at which such reports are adopted.
The present membership of the Aeronautical Board is as follows:
The Chief of Air Service, Major General Mason M. Patrick, A. C.
The Chief of Training and War Plans Division, Air Service, Major H. C. Pratt, A. C.
Member of War Plans Division, General Staff, Colonel Edward R. Stone, G. S.
The Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, U. S. N.
The Chief of Planning Division, Bureau of Aeronautics, Commander N. H. White, U. S. N.
Member of War Plans Division, Naval Operations, Commander John H. Newton, U. S. N.
To accomplish its objective, the Aeronautical Board is required to investigate, study, and report upon all questions affecting jointly the development and employment of air forces of the Army and Navy. It is specifically charged with the duty of preventing duplication of effort, with providing “sufficiency and efficiency of cooperation and coordination,’’ and with originating consideration of pertinent subjects and submitting recommendations thereon when, in its judgment, necessary.
In the execution of this mission, the precept (published in G. O. 132 July 7, 1924) requires:
- All recommendations of the Aeronautical Board affecting joint policies or joint plans for the tactical or strategical employment of aircraft or for the location of air stations, will be addressed to the Joint Board for consideration and recommendation to the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy.
- The Aeronautical Board will formulate and submit to the Joint Board for approval, suitable joint Army and Navy aircraft problems to be carried out each year.
- The Chief of Air Service of the Army and the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy will submit to the Aeronautical Board all questions which concern jointly the Army Air Service and Naval Aviation.
- The development of new types of aircraft, aircraft motors and aircraft accessories, or of weapons to be used from aircraft will, so far as practicable, be assigned to the Army or to the Navy and shall be carried on only by the service to which assigned. This restriction will not prevent the employment by either the Army or Navy of any types of aircraft or weapons which, after development, are considered to be necessary for the accomplishment of its functions. Questions relating to the development of new types of aircraft, aircraft motors and accessories or weapons to be used for aircraft will be referred to the Aeronautical Board for recommendation as to whether the Army or Navy shall be charged with the development.
- Whenever possible, training, repair, and other aviation facilities of either the Army or Navy will be made available for or be used by the other service.
The Aeronautical Board is specifically charged with the following:
- Plans to prevent competition in the procurement of material. Before arranging to purchase aircraft, each service will ascertain whether aircraft of the type desired can be obtained from the other service. Joint plans for procurement of material in time of war will be submitted to the Army and Navy Munitions Board.
- Consideration and recommendation of all projects for experimental stations on shore, for coastal air stations, and for stations to be used jointly by the Army and Navy, or for extensive additions thereto.
- Consideration of and recommendation in regard to all estimates of appropriations for the aeronautical programs of the Army, and Navy before such estimates are submitted to Congress.
- Coordination of the activities of the Army Air Service and Naval Aviation in the purchase of material abroad and coordination of their activities with the aeronautical activities of other branches of the Government and with civilian aeronautical organizations.
- Recommendations as to action to be taken on invitations of foreign governments to participate in aviation activities abroad and on the invitations of civilian organizations to participate in such activities in the United States.
- Cognizance of the issuing of licenses to civilians to operate aircraft in time of war.
From the foregoing it will be seen that in aeronautical matters not directly involving other branches, or joint policies and plans, the action of the Aeronautical Board is final, subject only to the approval of the Secretaries of War and Navy.
In those cases in which concurrence of the higher military board is required, it may be interesting to note that twenty-three such cases have gone up to The Joint Board—which has no air officer a member—twenty of which have been approved; one approved except as to additional subject introduced; and two were amended and approved. All subsequently received the approval of the Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy as passed by the Joint Board.
Reports and recommendations of the Aeronautical Board submitted direct to the two secretaries, as well as those required to pass through the Joint Board, have likewise received the secretaries’ approval. This procedure is in accord with the traditional policy of subordinating the military organization to the civilian government. Action of the secretaries, and that of the Joint Board is an index to the confidence reposed in the cooperating agency of the military and naval air forces both by the civilian heads charged with the responsibility of the national defense, and by the military “high command” responsible to them for preparation and execution of plans.
Both military and naval authorities are fully aware of the important position which aviation has achieved as a military weapon. Members of the Aeronautical Board in their daily duties carefully observe and study development both at home and abroad and bring into the discussions of the board the most advanced thought on each subject. The participation of aircraft in all recent army and navy maneuvers, as well as in the theoretical studies and war games of the Army and Naval War Colleges is likewise considered.
From such experience and studies the missions of aircraft are evolved, based upon sound premises and proved capacity. With the spheres of operations determined, the time of the board is occupied with furthering the development of aeronautics and avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.
Cooperation is effected through such measures as the exchange of technical notes and reports on principal development work in aircraft and accessories conducted by the Army at the engineering laboratories of McCook Field and by the Bureau of Aeronautics; the similar interchange and discussion of contracts for aircraft material let by either the Army or the Navy, and of the reports of trial boards on acceptance tests of aircraft.
In the interest of economy and the avoidance of duplication, specialization in the development of particular types of aircraft, as well as certain accessories, has been assigned to one service or the other. And for the same reason the joint use of air stations, wherever practicable, is effected.
In the preparation of the annual estimates for each service, the first step is presentation of such plans and figures to the Aeronautical Board for the purpose of eliminating duplication.
The board’s consideration of estimates for the fiscal year 1920-21 disclosed that each service included provisions for the establishment of a rigid airship hangar on the Pacific coast. In order that one might be properly eliminated, the question of the assignment of the development of rigid airships to one service was determined. Hearings gave opportunity to officers of the army and navy air services to express their views as to the present development of the rigid type of airship, its future possibilities, and related factors.
All investigations involve careful study from many angles. The conclusion that the Navy be charged with the development, procurement, and operations of rigid airships, for example, is predicated upon such considerations as the necessity for avoidance of duplication; the enormous expense entailed in the development, operation, and upkeep of the type; the necessity for the greatest economy; and important development steps already taken by the Navy. Other factors included the greater immediate need of the Navy for the type and the fact that rigid dirigibles developed for naval purposes would be equally suited to army use.
The practical result of this illustration is more far-reaching than the mere edict that one service is charged with a particular function. Desired assistance by the service relieved is provided for while the benefit of experience and experimentation is saved to both.
I he endeavor of the Aeronautical Board, therefore, is to facilitate development in the Army of the most efficient air service obtainable, both in personnel and material, making available to it, when practicable, development and other facilities belonging to the Navy; and to similarly assist the Navy in providing the most efficient air service attainable, within limitation only as imposed by Congressional appropriations. In its consideration of methods and means to this end, the conclusions reached are actuated by interests of efficiency, economy, eliminating duplication of effort, and providing for the joint use of facilities whenever practicable.
The precept of the Aeronautical Board, set forth above, indicates that there exists today machinery for advising upon the effective and economical development and use of aeronautics to the fullest extent of its capabilities as an element of the national defense. The precept expressly contemplates cooperation with civilian effort in advancing the science. This feature alone is of vital importance, for every step in the development of civilian aeronautics increases the resources available for national defense and at the same time is most desirable as a peace time commercial activity. With our national resources, industrial organizations, great distances, and other factors, commercial aviation in the United States can, if it will, lead the world.