Mr. AYRES. That is, for the purpose of supplying aircraft complements for all ships or vessels built, building or to be built: Is that right?

Admiral KING. The 1,600-odd planes will provide only for ships built or building.

Mr. AYRES. Including funds in the present Budget for commencing the last of the eighteen 8-inch gun cruisers.

Admiral KING. The 1,600 planes provide only for ships actually built or building today. The automatic clause that has been incorporated is intended to provide for any new ships that may be laid down in the future. The last of the eighteen 8-inch gun cruisers falls under this automatic clause.

Mr. AYRES. In addition to all of such vessels, what number of planes do you estimate will be required for other than replacement vessels that may be built within existing treaty limitations?

Admiral KING. There remain, to be built under the Navy treaty approximately 4 cruisers (depending on whether these cruisers are 10.000 tons or smaller) and 1 aircraft carrier. These ships if of conventional design will have an aircraft complement of 141 planes.

Mr. AYRES. Admiral, since we have agreed with the other powers signatory to the London treaty to meet in another conference in the calendar year 1935, owing to the uncertainty as to the agreements that may or may not be entered into, I am wondering if it would not be better for the present to abandon the idea of a program calling for a stated number of planes, and seek authority merely for an appropriation for the planes called for by the shipbuilding program for or on account of which funds already have been provided, but, also, including the last of the 8-inch gun cruisers., What do you think of that?

Admiral KING. I believe that the proposed legislation covers these points. It provides for a specific number of airplanes required for the ships now laid down; and it also contains an automatic clause which will automatically provide for any future increases or decreases that may be brought about by treaty agreement.

Mr. AYRES. Admiral, you may proceed with your general statement.

INCREASE IN EFFICIENCY OF AIRPLANES

Admiral KING. The speed of naval airplanes has been steadily increased, and new instruments and installations contribute to their efficiency. As far as funds permit, new and improved navigational instruments are being installed to insure safer and more accurate navigation of airplanes over the open sea and to enable naval planes to undertake night flying on a more extended scale. These instruments include gyro horizons, directional gyros, sensitive altimeters, and improved aircraft compasses. The only Navy planes equipped with these instruments are those purchased within the past year. Controllable pitch propellers have been recently developed for airplanes. These are especially valuable in the Navy for operations of carrier-based planes and patrol planes. They are being installed wherever funds will permit...

The performance of airplane engines has been materially advanced by development of the two-row radial engine and by use of superchargers and other improved installations. Altogether, our naval air

planes have been materially improved in efficiency in recent years. They are faster, more dependable, and of greater durability.

The average airplane attrition contemplated by the 5-year aircraft act of 1926 was 33% percent. The actual attrition is now only 25 percent, thus causing the average naval airplane to last 4 years instead of 3. It is hoped that structural improvements recently made will still further reduce this annual attrition.

Mr. AYRES. The 25 percent, I understand to be the average figure for a number of years.

Admiral KING. That is correct.

While the many improvements now being made in naval airplanes and engines all produce greater efficiency, they also necessarily increase the unit cost of airplanes.

In the lighter-than-air field, the new airship Macon has met its contract requirements and its performance has been satisfactory. The airship is well constructed. Its maneuverability and other necessary qualities have been thoroughly tested. Steady progress has been made in perfecting airplane hook-on arrangements and in developing other features contributing to the military value of airships.

Attention is requested to the fact that the project "New construction and procurement of aircraft and equipment-including Naval Reserve"-includes the cost of original outfits of planes for new ships, and so does not present a correct picture of the Navy's need for replacement aircraft which is the true measure of the year-to-year needs.

It is therefore recommended that the cost of original outfits of planes for ships be included under the appropriation "Increase of the Navy" just as guns, boats, and other equipment are provided for. If this recommendation be followed, then the annual appropriation "Aviation, Navy," will include only the cost of replacement planes and so present more nearly a correct statement of the current annual

costs.

I think I ought to add that that, to my mind, is closely tied in with the question of aircraft numbers and the amounts provided for. If this recommendation were followed, along with the other one, the two would mesh together very closely. I think that is one of the difficulties. I will not say that it is within this committee, but certainly it is within the Navy Department, and in many instances outside of the Navy Department. That is one of the difficulties in understanding what the costs are. They have loomed to a point where they seemed rather large, but that essential fact-that the original outfits of planes are included in the annual appropriation acts, whereas the ships to which they are to go are provided for under another appropriation-brings about a situation which is undesirable. and in some cases misleading.

NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF AVIATION PERSONNEL

Mr. AYRES. Admiral Leahy presented quite an argument the other day for more officer pilots, not only to meet the present alleged shortage, but to take care of future replacements as measured, by what can now be foreseen in the way of matériel expansion. Suppose we look at this time at the personnel statement you have transmitted to us, and which I shall ask to have inserted at this point,

Very aviation personnel (Heavier-than-air and lighter-than-air, Navy, Marine Corps, and civil forces)

Mr. AYRES, Admiral, what percentage of your planes, on an averare undergoing overhauls? I have understood that the percentwould run anywhere from 12 to 20 percent. Ei ota by Admiral KING. It runs about 20 percent.

Mr. AYRES. Is that the maximum? of Gamolar ti9n19121- 9pTa Admiral KING. I would say that it averages about 20 percent. The percentage undergoing overhaul, I ought to explain, has come down for two reasons: The first is that the later planes are of better construction, and, if required, can run a longer time before the first overhaul. The second factor is that our overhaul methods are much better and are improving all the time. Tied in with that second factor is the reduction of the time required for an overhaul. Obviously, if you can overhaul by improved methods in 3 months instead of 6 months, then the availability of the plane is increased. For that reason, the tendency is downwards.

Mr. AYRES. Do you plan to operate during the fiscal year 1935 all the planes in condition for operation?

Admiral KING. Yes, sir; because the average interval between overhauls is about 1 year, and I would expect, with the replacement feature, that that would cause all planes to be opearting.

ZATOTT P AVAILABLE OFFICER PERSONNEL 250 tryll 40'1

Mr. AYRES. This statement you have presented shows that you have 924 officer pilots, Navy and Marine Corps, including 12 warrant officers, and 362 enlisted pilots, including the Marine Corps, or a total of 1,286 trained, qualified pilots, as of September 30, 1933. In addition, Navigation told us the other day, if I remember correctly, that there are 15 Reserve aviators on 1-year fleet details. I should say you have roughly 1,300 pilots available. Is that about the correct statement of the situation?

L

Admiral KING. That is correct as to the total number available, Mr. AYRES. Are your 2-seaters dual-control planes for the most part?

Admiral KING. They are all dual control,

1

AVIATION PERSONNEL ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE IN AIR

Mr. AYRES. As to your program as now projected on the basis of 1,000 planes, will you insert a statement showing the officer personnel actually required to be in the air, divided as between pilots, pilots and observers, both (and there I have in mind dual control planes where the second man would be primarily an observer, but also should be a pilot) and merely as observers. If the statement completely discounts enlisted pilots, so indicate. If it makes allowance for enlisted pilots, so indicate, and the number of them divided as I have asked you to divide the officers.

Admiral KING. I will supply that statement for the

record.

INSUFFICIENCY OF FLYING-PAY ESTIMATES

Mr. AYRES. For flying pay, Admiral, the Budget holds to the present year limitation, although the estimates have been built upon a 100 percent pay basis, and the justifications presented by the Paymaster General show that expansion was contemplated in the number of officers drawing flying pay from 941 to 1,056.

Now, what do you propose to do if the appropriation should be made in accordance with the estimates and there should be an addiional demand made upon it through the restoration of all or a part of the now prevailing pay cut?

Admiral KING. In the first place, I would like to say that the repetition of the amount previously appropriated is insufficient because that was reduced by 8% percent below what the full pay would be. Following that, if only the present amounts are allowed, it will have the effect, since the fleet has to be taken care of, of reducing the number of officers nder training, which will still further accentuate the shortage we now

Mr. AYRES. That is, the number will fall below the present number of941?

Admiral KING. Yes, sir; it will reduce the efficiency of naval aviation in that respect more than it is now reduced, because we have what I consider a very serious shortage in our pilot strength. If we cannot train people to make up that shortage, the situation as regards lots will become more serious. Training of new pilots cannot be accomplished because sufficient flight pay to provide for the necesary students has been eliminated by the Bureau of the Budget. Further than that, we will drop below the present strength, because, Tery probably, we cannot even make up the attrition.

Mr. AYRES. What was the attitude of the Budget officials upon 'his matter?

Admiral KING. I am sorry, but I did not come in contact with the Bureau of the Budget. I am not aware as to why they reduced this em, unless they operated under the general principle of keeping costs down, or thought, perhaps, that since the Navy had carried on nder this sum for the current year, it should do the same next year. If I may, I should like to say a few more words on the subject of Fight pay.