Evening star., 1949-06-13
Joint Chiefs Rejection
OF Modernizing Of
Carriers Reported
Johnson Seen Foced
With New Problem;
Navy outvoted Again
By David Laurence

Secretary of Defense johnson
has before him for decision q
problem bigger in some respects
than whether or not to build q
new and larger aircraft carrier.
That decision really should never
have been put UP to him In the
first place, but now he has some
thing even more perplexing.
For Gems. Bradley of the Army
and vandenberg of the Air Force
two Of the three members Of the
Joint Chiefs Of Stad-have again
voted against the Navy and this
time have refused to approve the
recommendation Of Admiral Den
field, Chief of Naval Operations.
that approximately $45. .000, 900 Of
money already allocated to the
Navy by Congress shall be used to
modernize existing aircraft car
yierS.
The United States has an in
vestment Of nearly $4,000, ,000. 900
in carriers that need to have their
decks strengthened and certain
other improvements made to en-
able them to catapult their planes
faster and to carry their load
more efficiently. This would in
crease their range by 300 miles
against attacks from land-based
fighter planes and enable the car
riers to stay farther away from
the shores Of the enemy. To refuse
to spend $45 1000. 900 already ap-
propriated by Congress because
two other services wish to veto
what O third shall do epitomizes
the whole squabble between the
armed services.
Never Set Foot on Carrier.
Neither Gen. Bradley nor Gen.
vandenberg has ever set foot on
an aircraft carrier to watch it
operate, despite the repeated invi-
tations of the Navy to have them
60 aboard. 1t is understood that
Secretary johnson has recently
persuaded the two generals to do
the Navy the courtesy Of q visit
soon.
But this very incident empha-
sizes what the real problem Is.
Neither of the generals should be
expected to know the technical
matters in the Nays operations
or needs. 1t would be absurd to
expect Admiral Denfeld to spend
his time learning tank operations
or artillery maneuvers. The three
armed services are each specialize
ed and 1t takes q lifetime Of ex-
perience to know any one Of them.
Merely to exchange officers for q
brief period isn't q substitute,
though it does help mutual under
standing Of each others problems.
It is being said around the Pen
tagon that Secretary johnson will
soon decide the issue Of moderni-
cation Of carriers by approving
Admiral Denfeld's recommends
ton. But it would be- most unfor-
tunate IL he took upon himself the
responsibility Of veto over what
any one or two or three members
of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff want
to do on any military or technical
matter.
Agreements Cited.
The decision which Secretary
johnson ought to make Is to send
the problem back to the Joint
Chiefs and set out for them o pro-
cedure which will make it possible
for them to reach q satisfactory
conclusion themselves.
First of all. the Key West and
Newport agreements which the
Joint Chiefs agreed upon unani-
mously last year outline specifically
the missions and purposes OF each
armed service. Congress. on the
other hand. upon the advice Of the
President, the Director Of the
Budget and the Secretary of De-
tense puts an overall limit on
what each service shall spend.
Once q lump sum has been al
located to each service. 1t should
be the duty Of each service to de-
termine what weapons III shall use
and how 1t shall spend its money
in order to attain the efficiency
needed to carry out the missions
and purposes outlined In the Key
West and Newport agreements.
This does not mean letting each
service spend all the money 1t
wants nor does it mean useless
duplication. The test lies in what
is needed to perform a given mis-
sion. II the Navy. for instance.
needs aircraft carriers to main
tain control of the seas and to
fight submarines by air patrols
over q wide range. then the fact
that the Navy needs a gun on its
ships similar to that used by the
artillery or a plane similar to that
of the Air Force should not be Of
any concern to some other service.
In fact, a double-purpose weapon
is an even greater advantage to
our defense than a single-purpose
weapon.
Actually there has been set up
O Joint Evaluation Board to ap-
praise the effectiveness Of weapons
for all three services, but this
board hasn't really gotten into
operation yet and may take two
or three years to do only O portion
Of its important work--for it must
do a thoroughly scientific job. In
the meantime, the Joint Chiefs
should be asked to require each
service to be responsible for the
efficiency of its weapons-provided
1t comes within the budget for
that service fixed by Congress.
CReproduetion rights reserved)