DISARMAMENT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17058, 1 February 1921, Page 7

DISARMAMENT.

| BIG SHIP POLICY. ! OPPOSING OPINIONS. I (By Cable —Press Association—Copyright.) ! ("The Times.") j LONDON, January 30. The deadlock in the big ships enquiry is duo to the predominantly civilian character of tho committee, which is dealing with a highly technical subject. On the one hand, they are impressed by the march of invention and tho lessons learned through the air and undersea activities, and on the other hand, they have found a big rally throughout the higher ranks of tho Admiralty in favour of big ships. AN EXPERT'S BELIEF. (United Service.) LONDON, January 30. Rear-Admiral Patey, in a contribution to the naval discussion, says he knows nothing to justify the statement that up-to-date battleships are obsolete and valueless. He believes a combination of surface ships, submarrines, and aircraft essential for the protection of the lines of sea communication, commerce, and coasts. He says: —"The suggestion that we should wait and do nothing attracts tho politicians, but the Empire cannot afford to iwait. Unless we immediately do our besti for ourselves, we shall be reduced in four years to the position of a second naval Power, which is intolerable. The most pressing need in Australia and New Zealand is dockyards. Whether Great Britain or Australasia provides the ships, the docking facilities must be made available. This is urgent, because the presence of ships in Australasian waters would be imperative in the event of Pacific complications." Rear-Admiral Patey believes Australia and New Zealand should concentrate on dockyards, aircraft, and submarine bases, while Great Britain supplies the largest surface vessels.