The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 7th, 1925.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 April 1925, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 7th, 1925.

THE CLAIMS OF AIRCRAFT. Ttif. fact that tlie Secretary uf the United States Navy has decided to institute an inquiry into the failure of the naval anti-aircraft guns to score hits against aircraft targets is a distinct score .to the aircraft advocates and is hound to become a matter of tvorld-wide interest, says an exchange.

Early in the present year General Mitchell, Assistant Chief of the United States Air Service, created a sensation in Army, Navy and politiial circles at Washington by dropping what were aptly dcsciihed as verbal bombs in bis testimony to Congress. The “Chicago Tribune’’ drew an amusing picture ot the consternation caused amongst elderly generals and ndmiials running in circles around the State War and Navy building as a result of “the Flying General ,s” vigorous advocacy of a unified air service independent alike o. the Army and Navy, General Mitchell did not- mince matters in staling bis ebarges. He claimed that “vested interests'' in the Army and Navy were resisting any change which would iu any way modify or curtail their authority, and that in consequence the defence of the United States would he seriously compromised .should emergency arise. Air power lie asserted could now destroy any battleship that had been built or ever could be built. Congress, lie declared h»d been misled by the wilful ignorance ami falsification of < er-

tain Government agents; and in spite of tile expenditure of over £8(),000,000

in live years on aviation they weie not getting results. The main reason fur this deplorable condition of things, according to General Mitchell, is that the Navy and Mar Departments are temperamentally unlittcd to see aviation as it is. I hey ran only see it through the eves of the Navy or Army,

mul not as a servile capable of independent action for defence purposes. Kadi Department of the Govei iinient, lie adds—and there are about 20 interested in aircraft—wants its Own special service for its own needs. Meanwhile the main work of aircraft defence of the country is koine neglected. Xo Department is speeili ally devoted to aviation how that is nut tied up with something else which aviation threatens. The plan on which General Mitchell proposes that the defence of the United State's should he remodelled involves the partial snapping of the existing system and the creation of a new Department of National Defence. Under the Secretary in charge of this Department would he an Assistant Secretary in charge of the Army, another Assistant Secretary in charge of the

Navy, mul a third Assistant Secretary "hose duties would include responsibility for the air service and a development of the airplane industry. Tl champions of the Army and Navy, of course, have not allowed General Mit- • I chell’s views and claims to pass unchal- | lenged. The conflict has been been and

at times hitter. Their contention is that the aircraft service cannot act - independently of the Army or Navya that it can never he a dangerous weapon unless it operates in conjunction with one of the two main organisations. Admiral Sims goes further and asserts that the Army Mini Ntlvv to-day fail • to co-ordinate and act in unison, and matters would he made a great deal worse if still another bureau such as proposed by General Mitchell were created. In the meantime it has been [ demonstrated hv actual experiment (1) that aircralt can destroy liattle- . ships; (2) that the anti-aircraft guns of the American licet have failed to hit aircraft targets; (3) that the am, aircraft guns of the United States Army were almost equally inefficient. Thoc

these facts may not prove conclusively that General .Mitchell is sound in all lii.s contentions they are helping him in his campaign. The “Boston Transcript” quotes him as saying: Do you realise that not a single American battleship engaged in comhat with another battleship during the world war? Submarines and airplanes wore the decisive factors. Have we profited from that lesson? Most of us feel that the Army is ready. Some of us believe the Navy isn’t. In the air we are not J ready and cannot be as we have things I organised to-day. Opinion in the Uni- | ted States seems to incline rather sym- j pathetically towards General Mitchell's views, more especially as they ultimately promise an enormous saving in defence expenditure. It js interesting to note, for instance, that, the General in the course of an interview stated that if they could get half the cost of a battleship each year for construction o’ planes and the building of a separate air service, they could get control of the air in two years.