DANGERS ALOFT

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 945, 11 April 1930, Page 9

DANGERS ALOFT

NAVY’S CHALLENGE TO AIR SERVICE BRITAIN’S DILEMMA British Official Wireless RUGBY, Wednesday. Lord Trenchard, formerly a Marshal of the Royal Air Force, made his maiden speech in the House of Lords today. He called attention to the importance of an adequate and efficient Air Force to the British Empire. Recently, said Lord Trenchard, the Under-Secretary for Air, Mr. W. F. Montague, had stated that today France had a first-line strength of 1,300 airplanes, Italy 1,100, America 900 and Birtain 770. That meant that Britain was fourth among the Powers in air strength. The fact required very earnest consideration. The Empire today was as dependent for security upon air power as upon the Navy. Lord Thomson

Secretary of State for Air, said the elements in air power were: An Air Force of sufficient strength to carry out a policy of country air com munications, a suf llciently deevloped air transport sys tern nourished and fed by an adequate

aircraft industry, and, lastly, a highly-developed system of aeronautical research.* SAFETY FROM ATTACK No means of purely passive defence had been devised for dealing with attacks from the air. The Government was giving its most careful attention to the subject. The Prime Minister was taking an active part as head of the Committee of Imperial Defence. In regard to air disarmament, Lord Thomson said Britain had never claimed a one Power standard. Air disarmament was one of the biggest problems that lay ahead. If air development went on there was no town in Britain which was safe from bombing. The Minister said his own view was that no country could possess air power that was not progressive and highly developed. The countries which could possess air power were very few end fortunately they were democratically governed. Without their political co-operation and agreement, however. there was no prospect of air disarmament in the strict sense. The ensuing debate was remarkable for the arguments against the Air Force by Earl Beatty, for the Navy, and the Earl of Cavan for the Army. CASE FOR NAVY Lord Beatty declared that the Navy would willingly forgo its disagreeable work in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea in favour of any better agency. How could airmen tell the nationality of boats smuggling arms? It was necessary for a sloop to draw alongside suspected vessels and examine their papers. Moreover, the weather for nine out of the twelve months in the waters referred to precluded the use of aircraft.

Finally, Lord Beatty asked, how could an airplane discharge that important function of the Navy—the showing of a flag? Lord Cavan said the question was essentially one for the Cabinet and the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Air Force depended upon the other services. He proceeded to attack indiscriminate warfare in the air in the course of which, he said, the innocent and the guilty alike were punished. Why the matter was never on the agenda at Geneva was inconceivable to humanitarians. *