Evening star., 1948-02-16
A Super Carrier Advocate

To the Editor of The Star:
In connection with The Stars editorial on
February Q. regarding the Nays proposal to
you say has arisen is solely an invention of the
Air Force. The fact that the Navy has been
able to announce this proposal, and to ask
Congress for authorization, is indisputable
evidence that the dispute" has already been
settled within the National Military Establish
ment. For each such proposal must be cleared
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary
Of Defense before release. Does not such clear
ance indicate settlement? Where else would
one 60?
Your editorial shows further that you have
swallowed whole the carefully nurtured myth
that the Air Force has, or is likely to get in
the near future any "long-range lombard
ment capacity" In fact the Air Force has no
single plane capable of effective round-trip
bombing Of vital Russian targets from bases in
this country. The B-36 was an attempt. Against
the jet fighter it is already militarily obsolete
In fact the Air Force has never fully be-
lieved its own propaganda, though Gen. Spaatz
appears to have believed too much Of it. If you
explore its "70-group program" you will find
the Air Force expects to wage war in large
part with medium and light bombers and
fighters, at medium and long ranges. just as it
always has-in contrast to its newspaper
trumpetings about long-range air power.
Overseas Bases Vital.
These smaller planes are the ones that can
60 fast, but for far less than 5000 miles To
wage war with these-and quantitatively they
are the bulk of the Air Force programme will
have to get bases overseas
How will we acquire these bases overseas?
How else but through naval forces led by car
rier-b based air power? And how will we do any
strategic bombing during the to - months
after the start of war, which 1t will take us to
acquire such bases and develop them for use?
Are we to rely solely on a handful Of one-way
suicide missions by B-29s? Do we have to
sit on our hands and forego the opportunity
to use carrier planes against strategic enemy
targets merely because the Air Force likes to
think it should have total monopoly Of any
bombing called "strategic'? What will hap
pen to our American cities meanwhile?
Or should we not instead, ignoring the hum
cry Air Force generals develop and use the
fullest potentialities Of all the unique weapons
we have, such as our carrier force? Could we
not thereby gain time and advantage, while
we acquire and slowly build abroad the extern
sive chains of bases from which the Air Force
can eventually conduct the medium-range mass
bombing which is its true-and only-strategic
ability?
And what happens, by the way, If our bases
abroad are atomized as fast as we build them?
Might not the carrier be then our only strategic
bombing weapon?
And since you speak Of splitting up the avail
able dollars, which should properly come first.
the naval air weapons useful in the first vital
stages Of war (and without which the Air
Force would never have a chance, or Air
Force bombers which cannot reach the enemy
until the war is we'll advanced? And speaking
of costs, might we not inquire into the costs
of giant bombers and their mammoth bases
complete with their shops and anti-aircraft
defenses, as compared with the costs of car
riers? D1OGENES.