Mr. VINSON. How much did the bill carry last year? Mr. VINSON. And how much this year? Assistant Secretary WARNER. $9,077,000, including $235,000 for airplanes for naval reservists, which has previously been carried in a separate item. There is also some increase in the contract authorization. Mr. VINSON. They have increased the authorized contracts from $4,100,000 to $5,000,000. It occurs to me that heavier-than-air ships have not suffered very much, if you did not need the 285 to make up your five-year program? Assistant Secretary WARNER. It has not suffered so much as lighter-than-air, which have been eliminated so far as new equipment is concerned, but it has suffered to the extent that we are getting away from a normal, continuous rate of reproduction. The number of machines procured in subsequent years will have to be largely increased if we work in accordance with the five-year program. Mr. MILLER. If all your training and observation planes are in actual use, where does your surplus come in? Assistant Secretary WAGNER. I would prefer that such a question be referred to Admiral Moffett. I was not in the department when those figures were compiled. I do not feel that we are going to suffer much from a surplus myself. Mr. MILLER. I should like to have this point cleared up. Admiral MOFFETT. Owing to the large increase in the classes at Pensacola during the last few years, we will need more planes at Pensacola than we have ever had. The average number we put down was the number we would need on an average; but just now and for next year we will need more training planes. The CHAIRMAN. If we are going to extend this program from 5 years to 10 years, as the testimony here indicates, how many airplanes must we build to have a thousand at the end of 10 years, and how much will they cost? Assistant Secretary WARNER. These figures I have given you are not based upon a 10-year program. The 5-year program estimate is still the basis of our estimate of the number of airplanes required for the present year. In other words, we are trying to hold to the 5-year program. The CHAIRMAN. My question is, if we are going to make a 10-year program for 1,000 airplanes, how many will we have to build in order to have a thousand available and how much will they cost? Assistant Secretary WARNER. The total expenditure for the five years would be reduced below the original estimate by assumed reduction of wastage. If we can really change from one-third to twoinths by improved practices or by changing the method of construction, or any other means, we will reduce by so much the necessary expenditures. The CHAIRMAN. How many airplanes would we have to build in order to have a thousand effective airplanes at the end of 10 years? If we build according to the program, we shall have to build 1,300 or 1,100 airplanes to have a thousand at the end of five years; and that will cost $90,000,000. Assistant Secretary WARNER. We have no estimates for that, because we have not considered changing it to 10 years. The Captain LAND. We went to Congress and got $85,000,000, and under the new program there is $58,000,000 or $60,000,000. actual figure is between $60,000,000 and $85,000,000. I would like to make four points; first, when this bill went to the Senate it was changed by definition so that it put an entirely different foundation upon what our program is built, in that they defined what the planes were in the law; second, the theory of wastage is a theory and not a fact. The figure one-third or the figure two-ninths is not right. In an effort to conform to the policy of the department as regards to economy and endeavoring to operate as cheaply as possible, two-ninths rather than one-third was used, but this is a theory and not a fact. Therefore, the answer to your question is somewhere between $60,000,000 and $85,000.000. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore it would cost less to build a thousand effective airplanes to be useful at the end of ten years, than it will to build a thousand effective airplanes at the end of five years. Captain LAND. We would have to build less each year if our wastage is less. However, we do not know that factor, and we are trying to hit upon something that is approximately correct. We believe now that with new aircraft we can do better than that, and that our wastage will not be one-third, but will be two-ninths. Another matter came up the Navy Department increased the training and increased the number of classes in training at San Diego and Hampton Roads, and is trying to train all graduates of the Naval Academy. That throws a new phase upon the situation. There are four classes a year and they are going to require more training planes than we estimated when we were here before. On hand and on order is another holiday. On hand and on order is not what you intended. You wanted them on hand. Those are the four discrepancies. The CHAIRMAN. I wanted the figures. Captain LAND. We can not give them. The CHAIRMAN. I want the figures covering the probability of changing from a 5-year to a 10-year program. Assistant Secretary WARNER. We have not considered a 10-year program. Mr. VINSON. If the wastage is less than you calculated last year and actually follows your expenditure to $85,000,000, it will be decreased and therefore you use the figure one-third as a basis, whereas that figure as a matter of fact is too high? Assistant Secretary WARNER. Yes; that is the assumption on which these estimates were based. Mr. VINSON. Then next year, on account of new inventions or developments in aviation, it may not be necessary to follow the same wastage you followed this year? Assistant Secretary WARNER. Yes; that is true. Mr. VINSON. In that way you will reduce your total appropriation from, say, $85,000,000 to something less and in that way you will in the end have a thousand planes within five years, even though they are older than we contemplated when we drafted the bill last year? Captain LAND. Yes; that is true. Mr. VINSON. If you buy 155 planes this year it might develop that you would not have to buy as many next year on account of less wastage? on. Captain LAND. Yes; again saying that it is a theory we are working Mr. VINSON. If you need 155 this year, and next year taking onethird as your wastage, how many would you have to buy in 1929, 1930, and 1931 to complete your program? Assistant Secretary WARNER. Taking one-third? Mr. VINSON. Yes; and 155 planes. Assistant Secretary WARNER. It would be necessary to have 418 planes per year, based on a wastage of one-third. Mr. VINSON. You will have to ask the Bureau of the Budget next year if your wastage is the same as it was last year to appropriate for about 400 planes in order to have a thousand planes in five years. Assistant Secretary WARNER. If the wastage is one-third; yes. The wastage during the last year has not been just two-ninths or one-third. The CHAIRMAN. It is now 1 o'clock and we will have to adjourn for the day. (Thereupon the committee, at 1 o'clock p. m., adjourned to meet at the call of the chairman.) о NUMBER AND SIZE OF GUNS, THE TONNAGE AND COMPLEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, BRITISH, AND JAPANESE CRUISERS OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE, NAVY DEPARTMENT, Summary of guns of light cruisers, first line, of United States, British Empire, and Japan Estimated. Information is not available showing the main battery and antiaircraft battery to be in stalled on six light cruisers (10,000 tons each) building, two light cruisers (10,000 tons each) authorized and appropriated for, and on one light cruiser (8,000 tons) authorized and appropriated for. The gun totals are obtained on the basis of an estimated battery on 10,000-ton cruisers of eight 8-inch and four 4-inch antiaircraft guns, and on the 8,000-ton cruiser of six 8-inch and 4-inch antiaircraft guns. Light cruisers, first line, authorized but not appropriated for 1 Authorized for 1927-1929, one 10,000 and two 8,000 ton cruisers each year. Japanese cruisers do not come under exact classification of "Authorized," but are part of the "Replacement program." Above data can only be estimated, as none of the ships have been appropriated for. |