NEW BATTLESHIPS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8681, 14 March 1914, Page 13

NEW BATTLESHIPS

DETAILS CONCEALED

COAL TO EE REINSTATED AS FUEL. LONDON, January 15. To-day two new battleships will be laid down for tho Navy—the Royal Sovereign at Portsmouth and the Royal Oak at Devonport. They belong to the 1913-14 programme, in which the following battleships wore also provided for: — Ramillies (Beardmore and Co.), laid down November 12th, 1913. Resolution (Palmer’s Company), .laid down November 28th, 1913. Revenge (Messrs Vickers), not yet laid down. There is a great deal of mystery surrounding the details of these ships, but the following facts are known through the medium, directly or indirectly, of official statements: — They will burn coal instead of oil fuel, thus differing from the Queen Elizabeth class, of tho 1912-13 programme, which burn oil exclusively. Their speed will he three or four knots less than the 25 knots of the Queen Elizabeths. » They will cost considerably more than tho latter. Unofficially, it is known that they will bo some 2000 tons smaller than the vessels of tho preceding programme —that is to say, thtUjr displacement will bo in the neighbourhood of 25,500 tons, or only 500 tons more than that of the Iron Duke class, of which the name ship has practically completed her trials. It should bo noted, however, that tho “Navy League Annual” gives the Royal Sovereigns a displacement of 29,000 tons. It is a remarkable fact that although Great Britain was, after Japan, the first Power _to lay down a “mammoth” battleship, our .. now ships are exceeded in size by those of tho majority of foreign nations. This will he seen from the following:—

Considerable comment has been aroused by the fact that, after laying down one group of capital ships to burn oil fuel exclusively, the Admiralty should.have reverted to coal in the 1913 ships. It will, therefore, not be out of place to quote Mr Churchill’s reference to this very point, made on July 17th last, in the House of Commons : Oil is only required in big ships when an exceptional speed has to b© reached by a vessel of exceptional quality. The ordinary speed can bo effectively realised with coal as the main motive power. The fast division of battleships for 1912-13 consisted of vessels of exceptional speed, and therefore required oil. Speed is only relative, and if the general speed of the line-of-battlo were raised until it was equal to that of the fast division, the fast division would, ipso facto, fall back into the ordinary category. Wo have, therefore, no intention of raising the ordinary average speed of the line-of-battle, which remains at the maximum of 20 or 21 knots, and coal will continue to be the main basis of the motive power_of the line-of-battle for the present. This is fairly convincing, but the fact nevertheless remains that if oil had been used instead of ooial to produce the 20 or 21 knots of the battleships of the current programme, they could have been made considerably more powerful than will actually be the case, besides having a much greater radius of action. The general feeling is that the Admiralty reverted to coal because of the difficulty of solving the problems of supply; but if trouble is anticipated in this direction, what is the justification for laying down in 1912-13 four battleships, costing £2,350,000 apiece (five if the Malaya be included), which are to burn oil only p If, on the other hand, no difficulties of supply are anticipated, why have not the enormous advantages of oil fuel been conferred on the ships of the new programme? The suggestion that oil is only required in .the case of “exceptional speeds” will not hold water. The United States Navy Department is using oil exclusively in battleships, and the majority of our own oil-burning destroyers have very moderate speeds considering the class to which they belong. Another interesting feature about the new ships is their cost. When commenting on Unionist criticisms of the shipbuilding programme m July last, the First Lord said that in order to meet their demands it would apparently be necessary to build eighteen battleships, and to do so would cost £50,000,000. Unless this was a stage figure selected at random solely with a view to giving point to his statement, it follows that the Royal Sovereigns ere to cost about £2,800,000 apiece, or about £4S<TJ)OO more than the Queen Elizabeths.

Ship. Type. Tons. Britain Q. Elizabeth “Past Battleship" 1 27,500 Britain Battleship 25.500 Germany Battleship 29,000 Germany Battle Cruiser 32.000 Prance Battleship ” 29.5CO Italy Battleship 29,510 Kussia Battle Cruiser 32,200 Japan Battleship 30,000 U.S.A .... Pennsylvania Battleship 31,400 U.S.A .... New Type Battleship 38,000