BRITISH DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18188, 22 June 1927, Page 7

BRITISH DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE.

U.S. UNLIKELY TO ACCEPT JAPANESE SCHEME. By Telegraph.— Tress Assn.—Copyright. Aus. and N.Z. Cable Association. GENEVA, June 21. An examination of the proposals hy British naval experts puts them in a different light from that which the actual speeches convey to the layman. In an interview one expert declared: " The British proposals are far more comprehensive than the American scheme. Our proposed extension of the life of capital ships alone would effect an important change in the burden of naval armaments on the taxpaj'er. We suggest a definite limit to the number and power of cruisers, and favour a clear statement from every nation of its actual requirements in cruisers, destroyers and submarines. America does not propose to reduce the power and size of her capital ships. While the suggestion of the maintenance of the 5-5-3 ratio for cruisers, destroyers and sub- ; marine leaves a wide range of sizes, theoretically it allows the smaller Powers to build according to capacity. fron ? experience after the Washington Conference the maximum size permitted would become the standard. A close examination shows that the maintenance of the ratios is only in the total tonnage, instead of in the numbers of vessels. It means that America would be enabled to add con» siderably to her cruiser tonnage. Britain would have to reduce hers, and Japan s would remain unchanged. Yet the effect would be that America would be able to scrap many of her old, wornout cruisers and rep:auc them with new and more powerful ones. America’s programme would be really to increase and not to reduce naval armaments, because her proposed reductions do not apply to new ships. Our concrete proposal to limit the number and size of ships constitutes a real step forward in the direction of disarmament. America's does not. “ Similarly Japan proposes a shorter life and quicker replacement of ships than we do. Under the Japanese proposition. Britain would have 62 cruisers of all sizes, the United. States 15 and Japan 29. The figures for destroyers would be:—Britain 173, America 280, Japan 104; and for submarines Britain 164, America 114, Japan 71. The United States is unlikely to accept these. Fortunately Japan has intimated that she is willing to view sympathetically our suggestion that the powers should openly state their actual requirements in the various categories of ships.” Replying to a question, the expert said that France and Italy would be welcomed with open arms if they were willing to join the conference" even now. In any case, Britain was anxious for their adherence to any agreement that the three Powers might reach. It is pointed out that under the Washington Agreement, Britain and America may lay down fifteen new capital ships during the decade commencing 1941. The British proposals would reduce this, but retain the 5-5-3 ratio, thus lowering the first cost and maintenance charges, while by fixing the life period of auxiliaries, they would reduce the cost of replacement. Moreover, the reduction of battleships from 35,000 to 30,000 tons, and guns from 16in to 13.5 in would be logical curtailments not affecting relative strength. While aircraft carriers of 20,000 tons are fully practicable, also the reduction of their guns, it is logical to apply the 5-5-3 ratio to 10,000-ton cruisers which operate with the battle fleet. The possibility of producing 7500-ton vessels with 6in guns with the qualifications of cruisers, will be considered, also the checking or increasing of the size of capital ships or cruisers. It is thought desirable, while submarines are retained, to introduce- two types, one for harbour defence and the other for more distant operations.