STRENGTH OF NAVIES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 110, 3 February 1930, Page 11

STRENGTH OF NAVIES

DELETIONS FROM BRITISH PROGRAMME significance empmajised STRIKING COMPARISONS / The naval correspondent of the London "Doily Telegraph" emphasises the significance of the wholesale delations from the British building programme, and declares they have been made when every naval asset should be guarded until ft is known what the other Powers are going to reduce. (United Press Association.—Electric Tilegraph.—Copyright.) (Reo. February 2, 5.5 p.m.) London, February L The "Daily Telegraph's” naval correspondent states: The extraordinary significance of the wholesale deletions from the British naval programme has escaped general notice. Within fortyeight hours the Government has cancelled four cruisers—three 10,000 tenners and one smaller one—a total tonnage of 36,000. This amazing gesture has been made at a moment when it 'is almost desirable that the Empire should jealously guard every naval asset, potential and actual, till it is known whether the other Powers are going to reduce. Naval circles regard the dropping of four destroyers and three submarines as most ill-timed, as we are exceptionally weak in these categories compared with the other Powers represented at the conference. The five-year programme approved by Parliament in 1925 provided for the construction during the years 1925 to 1929 of nine 10,000 and seven 8000toii cruisers. Actually only nine ships have been built and are likely tb be built. The other seven have been cancelled. “Britain is the only Power which has cancelled a single cruiser in the last six years. President Hoover in July announced that he would defer the laying down of two 10,000-ton cruisers. These were merely suspended, not cancelled, and the guns and mountings for them are being manufactured. Until now no certainty has existed even among semi-official observers at the conference regarding the tonnage aggregates which France and Italy are aiming at. Strength of French Navy. “I am reliably informed that the French claim will be based on a statute adopted a few years ago under which the navy will attain the following strengths:—Capital ships 175,000 tons; light craft—cruisers and destroyers—39o,ooo tons, aircraft carriers 60000 tons; submarines 96,000 tons. But the statute ignores coastal submarines aggregating 30,000 tons. Approximately half the programme, consists of light craft and submarines already built or laid down, including three 8000 and seven 10,000ton cruisers. If the progress com tinues France will have thirteen 10,000tonners in 1936, when under the AngloAmerican conference proposals the British Empire will have fifteen and Japan nine. These figures foreshadow one of the most serious problems awaiting solution. The French submarine total of 126,000 tons is distributed over fifty-eight large and fifty coastal boats, showing the Importance which France attaches to the submarine arm. Of 390,000 tons of light craft, 210,000 tons are earmarked for cruisers and 180,000 for flotilla leaders and destroyers. It is doubtful whether the total Includes twelve new 2000-ton sloops for colonial service. The total displacement of the French navy to-day is 450,000 tons, so that between now and 1943 300,000 tons will be added.’-., Italy’s Tonnage. “The figures of Italy’s global tonnage, as at present projected, are conflicting. She has no naval statute extending over a long term of years, so it. is impossible to foretell the future strength of new shills. She has built or is building six 10,000-ton 8-inch gun cruisers, six 5300-ton 6-inch gun cruisers, forty-six destroyers. and thirty submarines. If Italy really intends to achieve parity with France she must build on an extremely costly ecale in the years to come.” COURSE OF THE CONFERENCE OPTIMISM INCREASED FURTHER PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS British Official Wireless Rugby, January 31. Optimism on the course of the Naval Conference was definitely increased by proceedings at yesterday’s public session. For the time being the delegations have now returned to the method of private conversations, with meetings of the committee appointed yesterday, and frequent consultations between the fiye chief delegates. As a result of these exchanges it is hoped that a plenary session at which further progress can be publicly recorded, will become possible before long. The so-called first committee, consisting of heads of delegations. is meeting this afternoon. This morning the British Commonwealth delegation met at Downing Street. At lun-

the Prime Minister entertained the ! Djtyal experts of all the delegations and their wives. Sight-seeing Tour. Mr. MacDonald has invited all the American delegates and their wives to lunch with him to-morrow at Chequers, his official country residence. Afterwards he will conduct his guests on a sight-seeing tour through Buckinghamshire. Visits will be paid to Milton’s cottage in Chalfont Saint Giles, to Jordan’s, with its Quaker associations, to Penn and to Great Hampden churchyard, where John Hampden, the Cromwellian Parliamentarian, is buried. The American delegates will be particularly interested in the tour, for these places are historically associated with the Pilgrim Fathers. The French Foreign Minister, M. Briand, left London to-day for Paris, where he will spend a few days to attend to pressing State matters before returning to resume his work on the French delegation at the Naval Conference. THE FIRST COMMITTEE PROPOSED METHODS OF LIMITATION (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, January 31. The first committee of the Nhval Conference, consisting of all members of the Conference, met this afternoon at St. James’s Palace, Mr. MacDonald presiding, and took up the questions of limitation by global tonnage and limitation by categories. After statements had been made by Mr. Alexander, the British First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Wakatsuki (Japan), Admiral Sirianni (Italy), and Mr. Charles Adams (United States Secretary of Navy), M. Massigli, on behalf of the French delegation, gave an outline of the revised French compromise proposal. The committee adjourned until February 4 in order tb give delegates an opportunity to study the above-mention-, ed statements and any proposals that may be submitted to them. It is clear that no attempt is to be made to fix a rigorous programme. “The Times” points out that where a great number of interlocking questions are to be discussed and the solution of each of them may be affected by that of others, it may prove better to proceed along the informal lines adopted by the Conference. “When it ’becomes clear from conversations between the delegations which particular difficulty had best be got out of the way first, then a concentrated attack can be made upon it — as is now being made upon the difference over the method of limitation —and. while this is going, a further informal discussion will reveal the next most necessary step.” FRENCH COMPROMISE PROPOSALS ISSUED IN MEMORANDUM TONNAGE IN CLASSES TO BE SPECIFIED (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, January 31. The French compromise jiroposals, outlined at to-days meeting of the first committee of the Naval Conference, were issued this evening in the form of a memorandum. The memorandum proposes that limitation of naval material shall be by total or global tonnage. A maximum shall be fixed for individual standard displacement of. vessels and calibre of guns. Each high contracting party shall show by tonnage per class the way in which it intends to distribute the total tonnage to which it has limited itself. For each class th’is tonnage shall correspond to a figure which should not be exceeded by the total of the individual displacements of all vessels at any one moment on active service. U ? ’MP 4 " I ’ The classes are specified as follow:— Class A.—Vessels the individual standard displacement of which exceeds 10,000 tons, ■or with guns of more than 8-inch calibre. > Class B.—Light surface vessels with guns exceeding 6 inches. Class Cy—Light surface vessels whose guns do not exceed 6 inches. Class D.—Submarines, v Class E.—Aircraft carriers. Class F.— Special vessels, such as minelayers, training ships, and aircraft transports. Within the limits of the total tonnage and in the absence of more strict ..conditions resulting from special conventions, each of the high contracting parties may alter the distribution, subject to two conditions: (1) That tonnages by class shall in no case be the object of increase or subtraction of an amount exceeding certain figures. (2) The amount of tonnage of one class which is to be transferred to another class shall be notified to the other parties at least one year before the laying down of the ship or ships for the construction of which the transferred tonnage has been assigned. Each party shall notify within a month following the laying down of any vessel the type and displacement of the vessels. This information shill be supplemented when the vessel is launched by the publication of the main characteristics of armament of vessel. Press Comment on Proposals. The “Manchester Guardian,” discussing the French method, says that it means that the total tonnage, assigned to each Power would be fixed and the tonnage allotted to each category fixed, but that each country would be at liberty to transfer tonnage from one category to another. “In principle this freedom is objectionable. It involves the possibility of a continual unsettlement of whatever balance of forces is. arranged at the Conference. If it is necessary to accept the ‘transactional method at all in order to secure agreement, the transference of tonnage should be limited at every possible point. The French proposals speak only of a fixed percentage, and would allow transference in every category. But the percentage should be low and should be restricted to as few categories as possible. for to the extent that the transactional method is accepted the actual maximum in a particular category will be uncertain, variable, and subject to new programme making.” DOMINION DELEGATIONS CONFER REPRESENTATION ON ' COMMITTEE London. January 31. Mr. MacDonald and. the full British' and Dominion delegations conferred for over two hours at St. James's. Mr. Fenton stated that the Dominion status ns defined in 1926 was fully recognised and there was no hitch. It is believed that difficulties arose in .connection with the “Steering” Committee, on which nil the delegations were represented. Some objected Io extensive Dominion representation on this, believing thnt it would give Britain a balance of power. Mr. MacDonald pointed out that nothing could be adopted unless it was unanimous. Accordingly, it would not matter how extensive was the Dominions' representation. An earlier proposal for a committee of two delegates from each Power was abandoned, owing to the Dominions' insistence on full representation, which was granted.