NAVIES OF THE FUTURE.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 November 1919, Page 12

NAVIES OF THE FUTURE.

SUBMERSIBLE WARSHIPS. THE ESCAPE FROM AIRCRAFT. VIEWS OF LORD FISHER. Revolutionary changes in naval construction are forecasted by Lord Fisher in an article in the London Times. He writes:— A period of change is near at hand as sweeping in its character as was either the introduction of steam or the advent of armour; for the fact is unquestioned that aircraft are even now making such prodigious developments that the only escape for vessels on the surface of the ocean from their attack will be to go under water. These types of submersible vessels of every sze and character instantly require great study and research and much experiment. The only reliable experiment is on a scale, of 12 inches to the foot. I have myself quite definite views and quite definite plans as to how those 12 inches to the foot experiments should proceed. Manifestly, I- should be a futile ass to disclose them. In such a revolutionary scheme there must be an overriding influence and power that will brook no doubts or fears and admit no waverings or compromises. THE FUTURE BATTLEGROUND. We had a submersible carrying a 12inch gun before the war ended. (It has nothing to do with what I am talking about but I must state the interesting fact that the very day this 12-inch gun submersible was ready for battle she heard by her own wireless installation a message, passing 0 n a far-distant sea). This 12-inch gun submersible I put forward on August 5, 11)15; but apathy and lethargy delayed her till the war was near its end. Imagination and audacity —those twin imperative necessities i'n war—were at that time absolutely lacking, and all initiative lapsed into a passhe quietude utterly foreign to our great Xelsonie past. We won the war certainly, and we won it on the sen; but it was a slumbrous win, and multitudes were unnecessarily slain or maimed. However, we got the 15 new Republics! Alas, but at what a sacrifice! Associated with this constructive economy we have this integral feature—the future battleground! Where will it be? Asia, which of old in one direction sent forth Moses and his multitude, will produce another exodus into Europe and into the western hemisphere from the borders of the raeilic. That ocean holds the future. Every fourth baby bom into the world is a Chinese. 1 have been many, many years in China and .Japan. 1 have an intense admiration for the inhabitants of both these countries. In the harbor of Malta, with a box of matches, I played Togo's decisive battle—a second Trafalgar—with Togo's Chief of Staff before that battle i was fought, It was an obvious battle! The Russian Fleet would be overloaded with coiil at Saigon so as to get to Vladivostok—so an already slow fleet would be all the slower fir it* - The Japanese Fleet, the faster fleet, normally, would be all the more fast as it would carry only sufficient coal for the battle. Consequently Togo walked round Rodjesvens.ky like a cooper round a cask, and sank, according to plan, one Russian battleship after another in a methodical order. SCANNING THE HORIZON. But whom are we going to fight? Is it either a Chinese or a Japanese Navy? I cannot conceive any earthly reason for such an event. Still more incredible, inconceivable, and impossible is our fighting the United States. To me it is criminal even to talk of it. Mr. Roosevelt said this also. John Bright, made an immortal speech—l repeated it at the entertainment of Mr. Josephus Daniels by the American Luncheon Club. His plan would make -us one family speaking the same tongue. I got this' from the late Andrew Carnegie, he wrote it in lf)ll:—"As the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America | united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited State, 'The British-American Union.'" If this family is determined not to commit the incredible insanity of allowing such a civil war, then for what else is a big navy required? Can't the American and English navies dominate the world at any time? We simply sav to all others: "Build no more or we fight 1 you! We'll 'Copenhagen' you here and now!" »

I know, of course, how brothers can hate each other. "How these Christians fight each oilier!" said a Roman Emperor. But the United States, with three times our population, ever increasing, with every self-sustaining requisite, and with its two oceans! Even on the lowest ground what madness it would be! And Canada cannot help herself siding with the United States; they are inextricably mixed up. The boundary line is only figurative, and on passing it it is a puzzle to realise it. I know the war theories about. Mexico and .lapan in unison; but remember-.lapan was at her utmost limit when she made peace with Russia Russia did not realise her population strength when she made peace It is population and self-contained resources that govern the outcome of a war in association with access to (he ocean. The United States have all these. Well! what does all this lead to in determining our sea policy? The answer is peculiarly simple. Mr. Barnes, that greatest of all editors of The Times, suid, "Repetition is the soul of journalism," so I repeat again what should be the British formula:— Build few and build fast, Each one better than the last. We shall thus get very cheaply aaid efficiently an airproof armada reiyuy for any service and fit for any eventuality.