The Washington times., 1924-07-11
j. s. NAVY WEAK
ON A|RPLANE
CARRIERS
Britain Near Limit Allowed,
Says Admiral FuIIam, While
America Lays

AnteTtc1'6 Sh0Ttd0e OF otfHt1w0 Oot
rters Is emphasized IN az GrttoIS torH-
toddT bv Rear Admiral W, r. F"HGnI,
u. s. ~, retired, an 6~thortty upon
the muVieS of the tOorId. Although the
Umifed Htates Is dIIot0ed 10000 tons
of d4YpIGne carriers By the WGsHfmO-
tom Ddct. Rear Admiral FTIlnnt pointed
out that the American ndDy nos out
one 14,O0O-ton vessel used for traMs-
mort of dI1pLGnes and this shtpI SsIsC ,y
speaking. 70 not on GwR'@ rttsn V nj at
The present time to strengthening tHs
tGVGI air forces.
By REAR ADML w. F. FULLAM,
U. 8. Navy, Retired.
TEminent American Naval ExpertJ
copyright, 1924. by International News
Service.)
The latest and by far the most
important item of naval news from
abroad gives us an outline OF Eng
lands wide-awake policy in develop
ing. to the limit permitted by the
Washington conference, q Ileet OF
airplane carriers as the one most
vital link in the naval chain tnat
binds together the widely separated
doninions of the British empire.
The military and naval journals
and writer's of Great Britain make
no secret of their plans and their
beliefs. Indeed, it would be futile
for them to do so. Thinking men
and up.to.date experts IN every coun'
try have noted and acclaimed the
rising sun of air power.
Five Carriers.
~ he
leading service journals Of England
that the British navy now has five
carriers in commission, aggregating
1900 tons displacement and that
two more--the Glorious and the
Courageous, of $4,000 tons each, are
nearing completion. The writer
points out that these seven carriers
will bring the British navy to within
25, 900 tons of the limit prescribed
by the Washington conference. 1t
is admitted that all these ships, ex'
cept the Hermes, have been trans
formed from other types, and 1t is
frankly stated that to meet the de-
mands of future naval warfare, some
of these adapted" carriers may
soon be scrapped and replaced by
new ships carefully designed to EN-
to be desirable as a result of ex-
haustive experiments with carriers
during the past five years.
And British constructors appear
to be leaning toward carriers Of
comparatively small displacement.
This is a significant step. The
! Washington conference placed TO
limit on the number OF cruisers or
carriers below the 10000 ton mark.
It must be clear even to the lay
man that a carrier Of 10000 tons,
or even smaller. could perform all
the functions of q cruiser and at
the same time contribute to the air
power Of the fleet. And 1t is gen.
orally admitted, even by conserva-
tives, that command of the air will
win in the next naval war. Why,
then, should we not strive to secure
this winning force?
u. S. Nays Position.
And now let us see where the
United States Navy stands. We
are allowed 10000 tons Of car
riers. We have at present the
Langley" a converted collier OF
$4,000 tons displacement. She has
the ice wagon speed of IA knots.
In truth, she is not a carrier at
all, She Is a mere seagoing landing
platform very useful for certain
experimental purposes-n o ii 6
more. AS such, she Is doing ex-
cellent service in establishing the
primary principles Of airplane work
with the fleet. In war she would
be practically useless.
In other words, we have no car
riers at present and we have no
naval air force that could De
counted on in offensive or defensive
operations against fleet that had
even one fast, up.to date carrier.
It is an amazing and inexcusaole
naval situation. In truth, our navy
today is a mere aggregation OF fine
surface ships with splendid per-
sonnet but with no power to strike
through the air, and it Is powerless
to resist attack even from an In
significant fleet Of airpalnes.
Without exaggeration we may de-
clare. therefore, that it is an ancient
weapon quite useless in modren war.
Ratio With Britain.
It is true we are now transform
ing two battle cruisers into carriers.
But these ships will not be in all
respects ready for battle within three
long years. And when completed,
our carrier tonnage will be only
70,000-about one-half the allowance
under the naval treaty. At present
our ratio with Great Britain is SO.
In two years the best we can hope
is that it may be 5:2h.
The pending naval appropriation
bill made no mention of submarines
or air forces. Not a word.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Are we to fiddle while the United
States navy is bombed and torpedoed
aqe 4I,a