The New York herald., 1922-06-28
NAVY MEN SEEKING
FULL FLEET RATIO
Believe Each Branch Should
Be Kept Up to the 5-5-3
Standard.


New York Herald Bureau,
Washington, ID. c., juno 27 "
If the five-five-three naval ratio Tor
capital ships embodied in the agreement
for the limitation of naval armament
is to prove an effective ending for COM
petition in naval strength, the policy OF
the United States Government should bc
to maintain the same ratio for every
branch of the naval service
That, in effect, Is the conclusion OF
experts of the Navy Department who
have completed a survey of the build
ing and projected programs of the
Powers and already see the possibil-
ity that the United States may be COM
PEELED to compete not merely to main
tain a well rounded fleet but simply 10
keep the strength in every branch at
such figure that 1t could be made the
basis of reduction and still leave a suf-
ficent margin to give to this country
the same quota Of strength in auxiliary
tonnage as the naval treaty gives in
capital ships.
Their reasoning differs entirely from
that of members of Congress, for in
stance. The latter argue that all the
United States will have to do Is to main
tain its quota of capital ships and such
a proportion Of auxiliary vessels as will
be enough to round it into compact
and perfect fighting unit.
Call Theory Wrong.
Naval officers, on the other hand, dis
miss this theory as basically unsound.
Their contention is that the United States
at all times should maintain the five
five-three ratio down the line and apply
1t to every type Of vessel in the naval
service.
In support OF their contention they
point to the fact that the existing naval
strength of the Powers was made the
basis for the reduction of capital ships
in the Washington conference and they
assume that when the time comes to
apply the principle of limitation to the
auxiliary squadron a nation with pre-
ponderance of this type of craft would
not forego the precedent established
when the agreement on capital ships was
reached
If Japan, for instance they say, at the
end of the ten year period. should find
herself with greater amount Of auxil-
iary tonnage than the United States, the
former would be quite Justified in in
sisting that existing ratio at that time
should-be the basis of any limitation.
1t is from this reasoning that many
naval experts contend that the American
naval policy for the next ten years
should be based on the application Of
the five-five-three principle as now ap-
piled to capital ships. They believe such
policy would assure. the keeping Of the
spirit of the treaty and strengthen the
probability Of the nations that are party
to the treaty being willing to apply the
same ratio to every branch Of the ser
vice when the time comes for another
scaling down process.
Japan Is Ahead.
The Navy Department has just COM
pleted a chart showing that whereas
the United States is building thirty
six first line submarines, Japan is
building or has projected seventy-five.
When these are completed the strength
of the Japanese submarine fleet will be
out of all proportion to her three-five
ratio in capital ships. as compared with
the United States.
The principle on which naval officers
would proceed in this case Is to take
the present submarine strength of both
powers and to project for the United
States five thirds of whatever addition
to her strength Japan decides on at
any time. This would apply to the
other powers as well.
Another instance of how the building
program Is working is seen from the
fact that whereas the United States has
only three destroyers under construction
Japan has fifty The United States has
under construction ten light cruisers.
whereas Japan has fifteen building or
projected. In light cruisers Japan has
already preponderance of strength over
the United States and the program under
way would increase the margin.
In destroyers, on the other hand, the
United States is greatly superior and
the rule for the application of the five
five-three ratio would not need to come
into effect until the ratio was actually
distorted. That is already the case
with submarines and light cruisers and
il at once raises the question of Ameri-
can policy with regard to auxiliary ves-
sells. Whatever Congress does, the Navy
Department will stand strong for the
application of capital ships ratio right
down the line, it is indicated.