§ 31. Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Supply on what evidence he bases his estimate that the period of nine years required to develop a large bomber in this country is not longer than the period taken by other nations.
§ Mr. MaudlingThe hon. Member misquotes me. What I told the House on 7th February was that both here and in the United States it is about a ten-year job with a big bomber from the start of the design studies to the formation of the first operational unit. This was based on statements made to me by the authorities concerned when I visited the United States in December, and is confirmed by the reports received from time to time from the staff of my Ministry in the United States.
§ Mr. BeswickThe right hon. Gentleman is making his own case worse, because now he says ten years, whereas in the Adjournment debate he said nine years. Is it not a fact that in the case of the B.52, which is a not less complicated aircraft than any of our comparable medium bombers, the time taken from design to quantity production was six years, and according to all information the time taken for the Russian Bison was four years, which is even two years better? In view of that, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is even less cause for the complacency that he showed in the Adjournment debate?
§ Mr. MaudlingI have no reliable information about the Russian aircraft, but in the case of the B.52 the time taken was nine to ten years.