NAVAL OR AIR ARM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21717, 5 February 1934, Page 12

NAVAL OR AIR ARM

POLICY FOR PROTECTION SIR KINGSFORD SMITH'S VIEW REJOINDER BY " TAFFRAIL" Captain Taprell Dorling ("Taffrail") writes: — I notico that in a recent interview published in the New Zealand Herald of February 2, that eminent aviator, Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, is reported to have said: "It has lately been demonstrated that a single fighting aeroplane can destroy tho most ; powerful battleship, and with the vast coastline of Australia, future defence will need to bo from tho air. Now Zealand will also do well to strengthen her aerial armaments. A battleship soch as the Rodney or tho Nelson costs, I believe, £10,000,000. That would build 1200 to 1500 aeroplanes, each capable of sinking such a ship. For the cost of ono of our Australian cruisers, which, I understand, is about £3,000,000, we could have 500 fighting aeroplanes." With all duo deference to Sir Charles, I would point out that both Australia and New Zealand are entirely dependent for their prosperity and existence upon their oversea communications, and that in peace, as well as in war, hundreds of millions of tons of cargo are annually carried in merchant ships which have to be protected. At present, these communications can neither be protected, nor carried on, by aircraft.

Moreover, it is not correct to say that it has been demonstrated that a single fighting aeroplane can destroy a modern battleship, which can be protected against aerial bombs or torpedoes as easily as against shell or torpedoes fired by other ships. The price of the Nelson and Rodney is about £7,500,000 apiece, not £10,000,000, and though many aircraft could bo built for either sum, tho average life of a battleship is 26 years. Tho average life of an aeroplane in war is 14 days. I grant that aircraft are valuable adjuncts to the work of a fleet at sea, and a useful auxiliary arm for coastal defence, also that Australia and Now Zealand would do well to strengthen their air forces for these purposes. All the same, aircraft ara most susceptible to weather conditions, and there are many days in tho year when they cannot operate over water. However, the principle of securing all the individual territories of tho Empire against invasion is a mistaken ono. We should begin by securing tho safety of our sea communications, and the safety against invasion follows. It is also as well to remember that a smaller navy than ours can seriously damage our sea trade (recollect the Einden, which sank or captured in eight weeks 16 merchantmen valued at £3,500,000), and that a larger fleet is required for defence than for attack.

If every penny that Australia or New Zealand could afford were spent upon .land or coastal defence, this would not strengthen their security. On the contrary, it would weaken it, for the reason that the money thus expended would inevitably be taken away from the sea forces which protect sea communications and which alone can ensure the security of the widely-scattered nations of a maritime empire united together by the sea, and depending upon the sea for their very existence.