Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Admiral Du BOSE. No, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. The $2,150,000, if allowed, will be expended as a part of the total amount authorized.

Admiral Du BOSE. We expect to come before the Appropriations Committee eventually and ask appropriations, from year to year, which will total $50,000,000.

Mr. WOODRUM. I do not understand what you will use the $2,000,000 for. How much of it will be for plans and how much for construction?

Admiral Du BOSE. I have no detailed figures on that. The Navy Department will assign some of these vessels to navy yards, and the navy yards will immediately start with the planning work. The navy yards will immediately start with certain other work, such as the making of templets, ordering material, and doing preliminary work of various kinds, leading up to the actual construction of the vessels.

Mr. WOODRUM. Some of it will be used for construction.

Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir; some of it will be used for construction work.

Mr. WOODRUM. But not a good deal of it.

Admiral Du BOSE. A very small part of it.

SUFFICIENCY OF PRESENT NAVY YARD FACILITIES FOR PROPOSED VESSEL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. WOODRUM. As to these vessels that will be built in private yards, is it conceivable that when contracts are awarded to private yards, some of them will have to have improvements or extended facilities in order to do the work?

Admiral Du BOSE. I should say not; no, sir.

Mr. WOODRUM. How about the navy yards?

Admiral Du BOSE. That would depend somewhat on the navy yards that were selected. For example, if we put one of the larger vessels in one of the smaller navy yards, such as Boston or Charleston, we might have to spend some money in getting them ready to build the vessels.

Mr. WOODRUM. That expenditure would be a part of the $50,000,000?

Admiral Du Bose. It would not be a part of the $50,000,000. This $50,000,000 contemplates the building of vessels with existing facilities.

Mr. WOODRUM. If the facilities were not sufficient, you would have to come back for more money.

Admiral Du BOSE. If the facilities at the navy yards were inadequate to build the vessels, we would have to ask for appropriations under another heading to provide the facilities. I do not think there is any question, so far as these particular six vessels are concerned, but that they can be built in navy yards and private yards with present facilities.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Would not the yards that have the facilities be selected?

Admiral Du BOSE. The navy yards to which, under the present plan, these ships would be assigned, could build them without increasing their facilities.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That did not work out in the case of the two recent battleships.

Admiral Du BOSE. The Navy Department knew when the battleships went to the New York and Philadelphia Navy Yards that certain additional expenditures would be required, and that was definitely set forth by the navy yards.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That was included in their estimated cost of the ships, or in the bids?

Admiral Du Bose. No, sir; but they knew that some additional facilities were required. They knew that additional facilities would be required, and that was definitely set forth by the navy yards in connection with their estimates.

Mr. TABER. Do you have $2,500,000 of velvet in the appropriation for 1938?

Admiral Du BOSE. We think we have.

Mr. TABER. How much more velvet do you have than that? Admiral Du BOSE. We cannot tell at this early stage of the fiscal

year.

Mr. TABER. Would you say there would be $5,000,000, probably? Admiral Du BOSE. We will so arrange our program that any expenditures made on these vessels can be met without exceeding the amount available on the first of July in this year's appropriation.

Mr. TABER. How many submarine tenders do we have now?
Admiral Du BOSE. Captain Ingersoll can answer that.

AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE, FISCAL YEAR 1938

Mr. WOODRUM. While you are looking that up, state how much carry-over you had in your replacement fund on July 1.

Admiral Du BOSE. The unexpended balance, on June 30, 1937, from the R. N. V. appropriation was $55,332.720.

Mr. WOODRUM. Then, with the $130,000,000

Admiral DU BOSE (interposing). We have $91,000,000 more, making a total of $145,000,000, in round numbers, available for expenditure in this fiscal year. That is under "Hull and machinery.'

Mr. WOODRUM. How about Armor, Armament, and Ammunition? Captain KIMMEL. The carry-over on June 30, 1937, was $26,655,000, and you gave us an appropriation of $40,000,000, making a total of $66,655,000 available on the 1st of July 1937.

Mr. TABER. That was under "Armor, armament, and ammunition."

Captain KIMMEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TABER. In addition to the amount for "Hulls and machinery." Captain KIMMEL. Yes, sir.

NUMBER OF SUBMARINE TENDERS

Captain INGERSOLL. Answering the question as to the number of submarine tenders, there are six submarine tenders in the Navy at the present time. Five of them are in commission. One of them is a very old ship. She is a coal burner, and is of no use in time of peace.

Mr. TABER. You are not increasing the number of submarines. very markedly at the present time.

Captain INGERSOLL. No, sir. We have not a sufficient number of tenders to take care of the submarines we have.

Mr. TABER. I thought that five was quite a considerable number. Captain INGERSOLL. No, sir. At the present time, of the submarine tenders we have, two are not used as submarine tenders. Mr. TABER. What are they used for?

Captain INGERSOLL. The Bushnell, which was built more than 20 years ago, is not large enough to take care of large modern submarines. The Argonne is used as a tender for our small mine sweepers and the tugs of the fleet. The Canopus is on the Asiatic station, taking care of six submarines on that station.

Mr. TABER. That does not give an excessive number for the tenders you have.

Captain INGERSOLL. There are 47 submarines, and we should have one tender for every 12 submarines. We have only one modern submarine tender now.

Mr. TABER. What about the Argonne? You are using that as a submarine tender, are you not?

Captain INGERSOLL. We are not using it as a submarine tender, but we are using it as a tender for the minesweepers and tugs with the United States Fleet.

Mr. TABER. Do you mean that she is never to be used as a submarine tender?

Captain INGERSOLL. She would have to be overhauled and brought up to date, and we would still have to use another vessel for the duty she is now on.

AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE, FISCAL YEAR 1938

Mr. WOODRUM. There seems to be a conflict about the actual carry-over amount. You had better straighten that out in the record. Captain KIMMEL. We estimate that we will expend during the fiscal year $134,000,000 under "Construction and maintenance", and $48,655,000 under "Armor, armament, and ammunition". On June 30, 1938, we now estimate we will have a carry-over of $11,183,959 under "Construction and maintenance", and $18,000,000 under "Armor, armament, and ammunition.

Mr. WOODRUM. I want the figures showing the carry-over on July 1, 1937. That is about $211,000,000, is it not?

Captain KIMMEL. No, sir; that carry-over is $55,000,000 plus $26,000,000, and you gave us an appropriation of $130,000,000. Mr. WOODRUM. That is $211,000,000.

Captain KIMMEL. Yes, sir; $211,000,000 available for expenditure in the fiscal year 1938 is right.

DESTROYER TENDERS

Mr. TABER. How many destroyer tenders do you have at the present time.

Captain INGERSOLL. I would like to read the statement that Admiral Leahy made before the Naval Affairs Committee on that subject, as follows:

There are eight destroyer tenders in the Navy.

Six of these tenders are in commission. The Black Hawk is attached to the Asiatic Fleet. The Melville, Altair, Dobbin, and Whitney tend the destroyers of the United States Fleet in the Pacific. The Rigel is assigned to the Destroyer

Base, San Diego. Destroyers of the Training Squadron in the Atlantic have no ender.

The Melville, Dobbin, and Whitney were built as destroyer tenders. The Melville, the first one built, is too small to care efficiently for two squadrons of destroyers. The Dobbin and Whitney are satisfactory tenders.

The other five tenders are converted merchant vessels. They are much too slow. The Bridgeport has not been in commission for many years and her present speed is probably not over 10 knots. The Altair, Rigel, and Denebola can make 10 knots only under the most favorable conditions.

The tonnage in the destroyer category is now 190,000 tons. This allows for about 124 underage destroyers, 13 of 1,850-ton type, and 111 of the 1,500-ton type.

Mr. TABER. Does that mean you have that many at the present time?

Captain INGERSOLL. We have more than that now, because not many of them are of the older and smaller type.

Admiral Leahy's statement continues

We consider that the proper ratio of the new, modern destroyers to a tender is 18 to 1. On this basis, one tender is required for the squadron of 13 maintained on the Asiatic station and 6 tenders would be required for the 111 remaining destroyers. This requires a total of seven to provide modern tenders for all under-age destrovers. We now have two suitable modern tenders, the Dobbin and Whitney. The one proposed in this bill together with the Dobbin and Whitney will provide three of the seven modern tenders ultimately required.

Mr. TABER. You used to have over 300,000 tons of destroyers. That was back 6 or 7 years ago, and they were of poorer quality and in poorer condition than those you have now. There is no reason why we should have any more tenders to take care of the destroyers you will have coming in commission for awhile.

Captain INGERSOLL. Of the tenders we have now, the Dobbin and the Whitney are the only two that would be of any real value to accompany the fleet in time of war. The other four are slow but unsuitable to accompany the fleet.

Mr. TABER. But they are very useful in port.

Captain INGERSOLL. When tied up at buoys, and as long as they are afloat, they will continue to be useful, but they are of no use as auxiliaries to accompany the Fleet.

UNAVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATION

FOR LESS THAN SIX VESSELS

Mr. WOODRUM. I would like to ask this question: The act authorizes the construction of six vessels, with a top limit of cost of $50,000,000. Now, suppose you find yourself in a position where, when you get bids, you cannot build them for $50,000,000: Has any opinion been given on the question of constructing, say, five of them, and leaving the other one to go over?

Admiral Du BOSE. We have not received any authoritative opinion on that question, but my belief is that unless we can build all six vessels for $50,000,000, we cannot build any of them. In other words, we would not be carrying out the intent of Congress which authorized six vessels. We would not be carrying out the intent of Congress if we build only five.

Mr. WOODRUM. You could not proceed with the expenditure of any of this $50,000,000 until you knew you could build all of these ships. Admiral Du BOSE. I think that is correct. We would not proceed with the development of plans for ships that we knew we could not build. We will know definitely at the end of this calendar year, in December, or early in January, what we can do under this program.

Mr. LUDLOW. Are costs rising?

Admiral DU BOSE. Yes, sir; decidedly.

Mr. LUDLOW. At what period of the rising costs were these estimates made?

Admiral Du BOSE. These estimates totaling $50,000,000 were prepared several months ago. They were prepared on the basis of the best information that was available. to the Navy Department as to the cost of labor and material. The reason for the letter the Chairman referred to as having been written by the Secretary of the Navy to the Chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee, asking for an increase in the limit of cost, was because of definite knowledge coming to the Navy Department, since the estimates were prepared, that material costs had gone up to such an extent that the estimate submitted, totaling $50,000,000, might be found inadequate.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Referring to the chairman's question about the total cost of $50,000,000, you gave a break-down of each one of the ships. Now suppose you find, if this $2,000,000 is allowed, that you can build one of those ships within the estimates that you have given in your break-down, would it be possible to undertake the construction of one of these ships, or two of them, in line with these estimates, even if you found you could not construct all of them within the limit of $50,000,000?

Admiral Du BOSE. I think I answered that question, but, in order to make it perfectly clear, let me say this: We will have bids from private shipyards on all six of these vessels, and we will have estimates from the navy yards on all six of the vessels. When we get that data, we will get the best combination for the six vessels as between the navy yards and the private yards, with the hope and expectation of building them within the sum total of $50,000,000. If it is over $50,000,000, we will have to revise our plans and specifications and readvertise certain of the vessels, perhaps, so as to come out with the program of six vessels with an expenditure of $50,000,000.

Mr. WOODRUM. We thank you for your statements.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1937.

MARINE CORPS

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. HUGH MATTHEWS, QUARTERMASTER

EXPENSES, MARINE BAND, NATIONAL ENCAMPMENT OF THE GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC, MADISON, WIS.

Mr. WOODRUM. In Document No. 324 we have a supplemental estimate of appropriation for the Navy Department for the fiscal year 1938 in the sum of $7,500. General Matthews, will you tell us about that?

General MATTHEWS. This estimate covers the cost of sending the Marine Band to the National Encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic at Madison, Wis. The cost is made up of transportation and subsistence.

Mr. WOODRUM. Do you have a break-down of it?
General MATTHEWS. I have a break-down of it.

« AnteriorContinuar »