The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1921. THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.

Southland Times, Issue 19295, 5 August 1921, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1921. THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.

After lengthy discussions the Admiralty Las at last decided for capital ships and the House of Commons has adopted the programme providing for the construction of four new battle-cruisers of the Hood type. Mr Winston Churchill is reported as saying that the battle-cruisers had not been reinforced in the past seven years, but it is difficult to accept this version of his remarks as correct. In 1916 the Repulse was added to the fleet and the Renown followed shortly after. These battle-cruisers are more powerful than the Tiger, carrying six 15-inch guns as against eight 13.5-inch in the main battery and they embody some of the lessons of the early part of the war. The battle-cruiser squadrons, lost three vessels during the war: Queen Maiy (27,000 tons), Indefatigable (18,750 tons) and Invincible' (17,250 tons). The Invincible was built in 1908 and the Indefatigable in 1912, and the four representatives of these two classes now in commission are practically obsolete, but in their place the fleet has received: the Hood (41,200 tons), Renown and Repulse (26,500 tons), and the three special types Courageous and Glorious (18,600 tons) and the Furious (19,100 tons). The Navy is relatively weaker in battle-cruisers than it was at the outbreak of war, especially as the Lion and Princess Royal are getting to that stage in which their usefulness must be discounted. The Hoods, however, will more than make up for these depreciations and will Serve also as reinforcements to the battleship line. The Hood is as well protected and as heavily armed as any battleship and she. enjoys an

immense advantage in speed over any of her rivals, and it is probable that in future rating vessels of the Hood class will be regarded as the equal of any of the superdreadnoughts. The building programme adopted by the House of Commons means that the Admiralty is satisfied that the capital ship still holds its place as the basis of naval defence. Supporters of the submarine-aeroplane, theory will scoff at this outlay on great ships, but the Hoods embody the lessons of the war, among which are the striking facts that attacks from the air could not cripple any warship and that submarines did not sink one capital ship while it was moving at any speed. The torpedo did not secure one victim among the capital ships at Jutland and its greatest success was in the hands of the Italians who sent one Austrian dreadnought to the bottom. High speed and “blister” sides proved to be effective replies to the submarine and the former will probably be used as a defence against an attack from the air. From the vote of the House' of Commons on this question it may be taken that there is little expectation of any immediate results from the disarmament conference, and it seems to u» that this view is the right one to take. Even the Americans are saying that they will not interrupt their building programme to wait on the result of the conference and the Japanese are not slackening their efforts. At most the disarmament conference will establish the question as a topic for official consideration, but further than that we cannot expect the Powers to go as an immediate step. In these circumstances the House of Commons has ,elected to maintain our naval defence at its present standard and it has acted wisely in taking that course.