AUSTRALIA'S NAVY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 740, 12 February 1910, Page 5

AUSTRALIA'S NAVY.

DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP. FISHER AND COOK PROGRAMMES. By TolccroDh—Press Association—Copyrlcht. • Melbourno, February 11. Tho Minister ifor Dcfoncc, Mr. J. Cook, has replied to the. claim of the Federal Labour Leader, Mr. Fisher, that his, (Mr." Fisher's) . Governmentwas .responsible for the initiation qf the Australian'naval defence scheme, and was'tlie first to' put the idea into'concrete form,- VMr. Cook, who describes Mr.. Fisher's speech as "so much moonshine,"'says that the Opposition Leader is trying to creato the impression that the'present Govern-: rnenfs naval scheme was originated by his own party. "The. two arfcquite distinct,", says Hr.'.Cook,' "and havo a different purr pose; and' different objective. <; .

'TVhat tho Fisher' Government ■ did' in the way of originating a new navy , was to order three small, boats, and instead of getting tho best advice, of the naval authorities in Britain, it put the matter in the hands of a , private naval architect, who was,'being: paid.a.2:per cent/'commission to supervise them. .' ■

TONNAGES AND COST COMPARED. . Mr. Cook, recently made an interesting comparison; between' the / present ' naval soheme and the Australian flotiUaprojecfc f. e iJ a^e Fisher Government. • fie sarcastically ;-. >• ; | -.'is no: more differenco between the-two schemes than between an infant - u 'f,v oor ! , P! lre 'a ship of 17,250 tons. with one .of 880 tons isridiculous. The cables show that this'is to be our:navy_:—l armoured cruiser (improved indomitable),-17,250 tons; -3 cruisers) (Bristol class),.4Boo tons each, 14,400 tons; . 6 destroyers!. (River class), 700. tons, 4200 tons;. 3 submarines (C class), 313 tons, 933 tons;;,total -t0nnage,'36,789.; '. -. : . ' v. ,"The Fisher scheme, as outlined at' Gympie 1 and by Senator Pearce, was;—t ocean destroyers, 8(10 : tons each,. 3440 tons; 19 destroyers .(River, class), 700 tons each; .18,300.-tons;' 1 armed 1 vessel;-'-2000 tons;'total tonnage, 18,740. -. - ■; ' . -; , •. i 'The. capitalcost; compares,' roughly, as follows :--Our ■ scheme; sav, .£3,750,000; the Fisher ■'5cheme,^62,264,000. " "Numbers of -officers" and : men:—Our scheme, 2271; Fisher schemc, 1072. i ■}:. "Cost' of maintenanceOnr scheme begins. at about ' .£750,000. and; probably eventually breaches . . '.C], 000,000 j ' Fisher schemej '.£326,000. ' "If to build a: ship 'of; 17,250, tons is the same as i>he,of;B6o tons',-onr scheme is the same' as ,tlieirs. .- Perhaps; your readers will. perceive-:, the difference,' although appar 7 iently;;these:Eehtlcmch,;do ! not. ■: ../

•' '"Another'■ important. difference, is ' thi difference ~: of aim - arid ; purpose. - Their boats /were : to be used "solely, for the defence ;of:the: coasts..of Australia. :••• Ours are,; in; conjunction.'with, two'other'units, to. constitute;the Pacific Fleet. V The' only point of. similarity, is .tho: six destroyers. 5 '