NAVAL DEFENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22285, 11 June 1934, Page 9

NAVAL DEFENCE

NEXT YEAR’S CONFERENCE Reports that, on the initiative of the British Government, preliminary technical discussions are to be begun., shortly in preparation for the Naval Conference of 1035 are of especial interest to Australia (says the Sydney Morning Herald). Apart from the wider questions involved, the principal ships of the Australian Navy are included in the British Empire quota under the terms of the Washington and London naval treaties.

The discussions 'will ultimately raise questions of the adequacy of the defence systems of the varibus units of the British Commonwealth, and their mutual obligations. Since the signing of the peace treaties, these questions have been allowed to fade relatively into the background on the assumption, it has been said, that the League system and the British Navy have been sufficient to protect the British peoples from any. apparent menace. Recent events have thrown doubt upon that assumption, and in the light of the new conditions many problems of Empire defence now present themselves for decision.

For these reasons, it has been suggested in unofficial quarters that an Imperial conference should be held next year to' consider the policy to be followed at the Naval Conference. If an . Imperial Conference was held, it would be confronted with questions related, it is suggested, to the type and distribution of vessels required in the light of the new conditions, the part to be played by air forces, and the respective roles to be taken by Great and the dominions in the air and on the sea. Japan, it is stated, is building warships up to the limit allowed by the ratios of the treaties, and is expected to demand that the Washington ratios should be raised in her favour. Further, there has been discussion, during Mr Latham’s visit to the Far East, of the freedom that might bo claimed by Japan from the- prohibition against fortification of the former German possessions in the North Pacific held under mandate from the League of Nations, this claim being the outcome of Japan’s withdrawal from the League. In any case, it is stated, Japan, if she wishes, can free herself in 1936 from the obligation not to fortify into which she entered in the Washington Treaty of 1022. The Japanese Foreign Minister (Mr, Hirota) is reported to have assured Mr Latham that Japan did not intend to fortify the islands. THE TWO NAVAL TREATIES. tinder the Washington Naval Treaty, the British Empire, the United States, Japan, Prance, and Italy agreed to limit their respective naval armaments in capital ships, to abandon capital ship-build-ing programmes, except within certain specified limits, and not to construct hr acquire new capital ships, except replacement tonnage. The signatories also agreed that no capital ships should be constructed which exceeded 35,000 tons, and that no capital ship should carry a gun of a calibre in excess of 16 inches. Cruisers were limited to a displacement of 10,000 tons, with guns not in excess of eight-inch calibre. Limitations were also placed upon the tonnage of aircraft carriers—upon the total tonnage of these vessels for each country and their armaments.

The. Washington Treaty was regarded as a valuable beginning. Designs were already in contemplation for battleships of 45,000 tons displacement, with 18-inch or 20-iuch guns, and the number of such vessels was only limited by the capacity of any nation to pay for their construction and maintenance. The Washington Treaty not only put an end to this tendency, but it proved the possibility of limiting by agreement the scale of anna-1 mcuts to be maintained. The treaty had a marked effect generally on Australia’s scheme of naval defence. All warship and naval base construction was suspended. The fleet personnel was reduced from 4843 in 1921 to 3500 in 1923, and | the ships in commission were reduced' from 25 to 13. H.M.A.S. Australia was sunk, in accordance with the treaty, in i April, 1924. Five years after the signature of the Washington Treaty, an attempt was made to extend the scope of naval disarmament. For this purpose the ThreePower Naval Conference, attended by the United States, the British Empire, aud Japan, met in Geneva in 1927. The British proposals provided for a red notion in the size, numbers, and cost of all classes o£ ships, and would have resulted in a substantial limitation of , naval strength. The British proposals I would have saved more than £50,000,000 to the British Empire in the replacement of capital ships; £1,000,000 on every cruiser to be constructed in the future; and there would have been proportionate savings in • destroyers and submarines. The United States delegates could not accept the proposals, and in consequence of this disagreement the conference broke , down. I The next important step was the Lon- I don Naval Conference of 1930, which was |

attended by Great Britain, the United States, France, Italy, and Japan. ' The matters of importance to which all five Powers agreed were that ho new battleships or battle-cruisers should be laid down before 1936; that five British, three United States, and one Japanese battleship should be scrapped by 1933 instead of by 1936 as the Washington Treaty had provided; and that the sire of large submarines should not exceed 2800 tons, and other submarines 2000 tons. In addition there was a three-Fower agreement between Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, which dealt with tonnage limitation, cruiser limitation, and replacement tonnage. Limits: were adopted for. the completed tonnage of Bin gun cruisers, 6in gun cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, and by 1936 the total tonnage of all these classes was not to exceed 541,700 tons for the British Empire, 526,000 tons , for the United ' States, and 367,050 tons for Japan. The number of Sin gun cruisers was limited to 15 for the British Empire, 18 for the United States, and 12 for Japan. The total cruiser strength of the British Empire was limited to 50. ■ AUSTRALIA'S SHIPS. H.M.A.S. Canberra and H.M.A.S..Australia, the two Australian cruisers now, in commission, are of great importance to these international commitments, as ; they constitute two of the 15 cruisers, with guns of more than 6in calibre, allowed to the British Empire iinder the London Treaty. H.M.AiS. Brisbane and. ; H.M.A.S. Adelaide, now in reserve, are in a different category. They belong to ;the class of smaller cruisers, but they are included in the total tonnage of 192,000 allowed to the British Empire for cruisers with guns of Gin calibre or less. H.M.A.S. Brisbane has passed beyond her effective “ life,” as a cruiser '-s; under the terms of the Londoil Treaty, and the Prime Minister (Mr Lyons) announced recently, that she is . to he scrapped by the end of 1936 and replaced by a cruiser of the Leander class, of 7250 tons with eight 6in guns. The two submarines, Oxley v and Otway, were also part of the Empire quota for their type. As their maihlcnance in the highest state of efficiency was difficult in Australia, where they were a small specialised unit, the British Government agreed to take them over as a gift and to maintain them at its expense. The destroyers are also part of the Empire quota. The age of Australia’s destroyer flotilla was a matter of concern for some considerable time. The Attorney-general (Mr Latham), when in England in 1032. discussed the matter . with the British Government, and the outcome of the discussion was that certain vessels were lent to Australia to replace similar vessels here which were approaching the end of their useful lives.

ILM.A.S. Stuart is now the flotilla leader, and has taken the place of H.M.A.S. Anzac, now in reserve, and the four “V” class destroyers are replacing “S ” class destroyers, which will be scrapped. The Anzac and the “S ” class destroyers were a gift from the British Government, and the action of Britain in lending the “ V ” class destroyers to Australia means that the Federal Government will be saved the cost of capital expenditure in replacing the “ S ” class destroyers when the time comes to scrap them. The aircraft carrier Albatross was dealt with specially under the London Treaty as an “ exempt ” vessel.