BRITAIN’S DANGER

Hokitika Guardian, 18 July 1931, Page 6

BRITAIN’S DANGER

SHRINKING NAVY

MORE CRUISERS- NEEDED.

OBSOLETE VESSELS.

The First Lord of the Admiralty recently raised the question whether the decline in our own maval expenditure was sane policy, in view of the steady rise in that of almost every other country, writes Hector C. By water in the “Daily Telegraph.” In v this connection I am able to disclose further startling evidence of the waning of British sea power. The process of wastage in th* material of the Navy continues at an alarming pace, and the measures being taken to check it are wholly inadequate Already the British Fleet contains a higher percentage of obsolete vessels than any other, and unless a large programme of replacement is put in hand without avoidable delay the bulk of our tonnage a few years hence wall be unserviceable for war. On the evo of the London Naval Conference the Prim© Minister declared! that “• Brit-ain’s-Navy is Britain herself. We are a people of the sea, and the sea is our security and our safety.” Nevertheless, up to now the Government has consistently shirked its naval responsibilities. Not only has it cancelled, on the pretext iof promoting disarmament,.- many new; ships that Parliament had formally Authorised, but at is deliberately retarding the construction of the few vessels that survive. As a , result, our relative strength, at sea is shrinking visibly, and it seems inevitable that our future Navy will be far below the very modest standard of power prescribed by the London Treaty. MANY OBSOLETE.

Between now and 1935, inclusive, thirty-one of our cruisers will become obsolete by passing the age limit of sixteen years. To meet .this heavy wastage the Government. has so far ordered four new cruisers, which will not be- ready for sea before tin' end of 1933. Y

Consequently, by the date in question a substantial proportion of our cruisers will be of an antiquated type which would fall an easy prey to the powerful modern cruisers with which every major foreign navy- will then be amply provided.

As I have already [minted out, the Government, has repeal ted ly claimed credit for. utilising the 1930 naval programme as a palliative for unemployment.

What arc the facts? Although the three small cruisers in the programme were authorised ns long ago as last July, practically ho money has been, set aside for them, and- they are not likely to lie laid down until the late summer or autumn of this vear.

1 a.m able to reveal that the eight destroyers included in the programme have not oven, been ordered, though, in December last Government spokesman were dwelling .upon the relief to unemployment; -which these contracts would bring to,'the Clyde, Tyneside, Barrow, and Southampton. V ;’ 1 UNCERTAIN. On inquiry at the Admiralty I was officially informed that the destroyer contracts were expected to be placed almost at once, hut that it was impossible to say when tile vessels would he actually begun. No information could bo gleaned as to the dates of laying down the destroyer-leader Duncan, the submarines Porpoise, Starfish, and Seahorse, the net-layer Guardian, or the sloops Falmouth, .Mil fjord, Weston-super-Mare: and Dundee, which make up the rest of; the programme.

it •wdlf Be seen, therefore, that the Government’s 1930 naval programme, which whs !to do so much to alleviate unemployment, exists as -yet only on papor.;’i|jnhe total cost is estimated at £9,500,000,: but of tin’s amount little more than £23,000 is to be expended beforeHthe close of the financial year. 'l'he'’cruiser position becomes increasingly grave. The British Empire now possesses fifty-four cruisers. Five years hence thirty-one of these ships will be over age, and up to the present only five’’ replacement ships have been ordered, giving a total of twenty-eight cruisers likely to be, serviceable in 1936.

CONFERENCE HANDTCAP. As the London Treaty allows us fifty cruisers,‘in all, w:e ought not merely to build,, hut ‘complete, 'twenty-two 4 new vessels- by that year- Under current conditions it will take about thirty moiit-hs ,tp complete a small cruiser, so that to, reach our Treaty strength , we should lav down six or seven cruisers each financial year up to 1933-34. Needless to say, the present Government show no readiness to- undertake such large shipbuilding commitments, the necessity for which -is due to their studied neglect of naval-requirements. They apparently propose to Iffave this onerous burden to their successors, but hv then it will almost certainly he too late to make good the ground we have lost. - In that case we shall go into theNaval Conference of 1936 handicapped hv a huge deficit in modern cruiser tonnage, and therefore in no. position to bargain for a measure of sea power consistent with security. SHRINKING PERSONNEL. • Nor is the process of starving the Navy confined to shipbuilding alone.

As Admiral Sir Roger Keyes 'has just 1 reminded the country, our naval personnel lias shrunk from 146,000 in 1914 to 90,000 odd in the present year, while within the same period the naval personnel of the United States lias grown from .67,000 to 114,000, and that of Japan from 50,000 to 85,000. Our personnel to-day is the smallest we have had for thirty-four years. So ruthlessly has the Fleet’s fuel allowance been cut down that our warships are scarcely ever able-to travel at high speed. Owing to shortage of fuel oil—caused in part by the sending of seven ships to' the West Indies —the forthcoming combined exercises of the Atlantic and Mediterranean Fleets, by far the most important of the naval year, must be curtailed.