Admiral LEGGETT. The other new construction ships in the bill are 2 ammunition ships, AE, 7,500 tons each, and one general stores issue ship, AKS Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. One minute. What is the name of all these? Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point? Do these new ammo jobs and general stores ship involve the thinking or incorporate the thinking of Admiral Denebrink as far as building supply ships from the keel up? Admiral LEGGETT. They are really the thinking of the Ships Characteristics Board of the Chief of Naval Operations. Now, I know that Admiral Denebrink would be very close with Admiral Good who runs the Ships Characteristic Board over there. But these are really fleet-type ships and not many STS ships, Mr. Van Zandt. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Well, I am thinking of the type of ship that will represent the most modern-day thinking, present-day thinking, when it comes to mechanization for the handling of ammunition and supplies, and so forth. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir, they represent our very latest thought in the handling of ammunition and supplies. They are designed primarily for replenishment at sea with the fleet. Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is all. Mr. COLE. After you have completed the 6 carriers of 35,000 tons, or have converted them, how many of that class of that tonnage will remain for conversion, if it should be decided to convert them? Admiral LEGGETT. I don't think I have that figure. I haven't that figure in mind. Mr. COLE. Approximately? Admiral DUNCAN. There are 3, Mr. Cole, 2 of what we call the 27-C and 1 of the 27-A. Mr. COLE. There will be just three 35,000-ton carriers which have not been modernized after this program contained in the bill is completed. Admiral DUNCAN. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Admiral, what is the total number of new ships, conversions and auxiliaries, authorized in the bill? Admiral LEGGETT. Exclusive of service craft, sir, 51 ships. The CHAIRMAN. Fifty-one ships. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. I didn't finish just now your earlier question, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead with the auxiliaries. Admiral LEGGETT. On the auxiliaries-under conversion of auxiliaries we have two cable-laying ships, ARC Mr. RIVERS. Two what? Admiral LEGGETT. Cable-laying and repair ships. Mr. KELLEHER. (Aside to Mr. Rivers.) Admiral LEGGETT. And one seaplane tender, AC, 13,000 tons, which will be converted to handle the new and heavier seaplanes. That makes a total of 27 new ships. The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-seven new ships. Admiral LEGGETT. Twenty-four conversions, a total of 51 ships all together. The CHAIRMAN. Fifty-one ships. Admiral LEGGETT. Exclusive of service craft and small boats. The CHAIRMAN. Now, in the appropriations heretofore made and to be made that is, annually made by the committee, the Appropriations Committee, and passed by the House, a lump sum of money is given for ship construction, is it not? Admiral LEGGETT. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In the appropriations bill, it does not specify cruisers, carriers, submarines and destroyers and such like? Amiral LEGGETT. No, sir. We are given the money under a heading. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, under the appropriations bill you would have the authority to build that which in the judgment of the Navy they think they should build? Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir, in accordance with the The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, the wisdom of this bill is for Congress to determine and say specifically certain ships should be built? Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is the whole purpose of this legislation, for the Congress to control the type of ships to be built. As we all understand, they have the tonnage already previously authorized, that they can build all of these out of, or build any types of ships, after you get the money, that the Navy saw fit to do so, isn't that correct? Admiral LEGGETT. Legally, that is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Admiral LEGGETT. Of course, we are committed before the Appropriations Committee by types in the detailed hearing. The CHAIRMAN. I know. You merely break it down to justify it there. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But as far as the law is concerned, giving you a billion dollars, you could later on change your views and say that you think the facts and circumstances warrant building this type of ship instead of that type of ship. Admiral LEGGETT. I think that is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. So, therefore, the wisdom of what we are doing here is earmarking specifically that the Navy Department must build and is required to build, or the discretion is given the President to build, these particular types of ships. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we keep control and meet our constitutional responsibility of providing and maintaining a Navy. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is the justification of the bill. Now, any questions from any members of the committee to the Admiral? Mr. RIVERS. I want to ask him one question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RIVERS. You stated that you had developed a procedure whereby you could decontaminate a ship against fall-out from nuclear explosions. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. Mr. RIVERS. I heard it said that some of your Eniwetok ships are still radioactive and you were not successful in decontaminating them. Admiral LEGGETT. Mr. Rivers, we had in the Eniwetok tests certain ships equipped with the washdown system, only a few for test-only one, actually, which was run in for a specific test of the washdown system. It was accompanied into the heavy fall-out by another ship not so protected, and we are absolutely convinced of the effectiveness of the washdown system. Mr. RIVERS. I just wanted to get that for the record. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. General Devereux. Mr. DEVEREUX. Admiral, on page 3 you refer to 61 vessels, craft, boats and whatnot, for mutual defense. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVEREUX. Do you make reference to boats, craft and vessels that are being built overseas, in overseas yards, or not? Admiral LEGGETT. That is another program, sir. That is an offshore procurement program, Mr. Devereux. We have the MDAP ships which are built in this country. Mr. DEVEREUX. Would this be the proper time to make a report on how many vessels we are now building overseas? Admiral LEGGETT. I have that information, if you like it. Mr. DEVEREUX. Has it materially changed since the last report that you gave? You remember I brought-I don't know whether you remember or not, but I brought that question up about building so many vessels with United States money overseas for our allies, building up their yards, and so on, to the detriment of our own yards. And that is something that concerns me very much. Admiral LEGGETT. Mr. Devereux, we had a very small program last year of offshore procurement of ships. The big programs were 2, 3, and 4 years ago. Mr. DEVEREUX. Is that tapering off now? Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVEREUX. And for a considerable extent Admiral LEGGETT. It is tapering off to the vanishing point. Mr. DEVEREUX. Thank you very much. Mr. O'KONSKI. Along the same line, how will the contract for these ships be let out? Will it be let out solely to the lowest bidder or will the critical unemployment situation in the various yards in America be taken into account in awarding these contracts? Admiral LEGGETT. We will let the ships on competitive bidding as far as we can, the ships that go to private yards. Some of them will be allocated to naval shipyards. We may have to use-I don't think we will this year-ships to maintain mobilization potential. We do not have authority to make allocations on the basis of distressed areas. The whole shipbuilding industry has been declared a distressed industry. Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman. At that point, do you have authority, though, in the maintenance of your mobilization base, to make allotments? Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir; we do. Mr. DEVEREUX. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Admiral, in that connection I certainly hope that if the money is made available, this $1,317 million, which will extend over a 3-year period, that you will spread out this work all over the United States and not try to concentrate it all in one area. Give everybody that has the facilities an opportunity to bid, to see if they can do this work. If you can do it, why, give them a chance at it, as well as some of these great big yards which have been so much patronized in the past. Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bray. Mr. BRAY. Do you contemplate building or making any of this construction in this bill in foreign shipbuilding yards? Admiral LEGGETT. No, sir. Mr. BRAY. That is fine. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Admiral Duncan. You spoke, Admiral, the other day of the life expectancy of these various vessels in justifying the need for a continuous program of ship construction. How much is added to the life expectancy of these vessels that you are converting or modernizing? Are they considered added to as far as the life expectancy is concerned? Admiral DUNCAN. Yes, sir; very considerably, and in the conversions which have already been accomplished, and that has added to them very considerably, too. The unconverted ship in these classes is incapable now of operating airplanes which are actually being delivered. Mr. WILSON. In other words, these conversion programs add materially to our long-range shipbuilding program? Admiral DUNCAN. They do. Mr. WILSON. They fit in with it. Admiral DUNCAN. But I should say in particular, in these conversions that are in the bill, which are primarily including the angled deck that is the large job in this conversion-that contributes to safety and economy of operation, more than it does the length of the life of the ship, although it contributes somewhat to our ability to operate the faster airplanes. Mr. WILSON. You don't have any specific figures or percentages of the extension of the life, normal life expectancy, for any particular conversion? Admiral DUNCAN. No, sir. You would have to take that up on an individual basis. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Admiral Leggett, have you any further statement to add to anything you said? Admiral LEGGETT. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Admiral Nunn Mr. DURHAM. Just one question. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Durham. Mr. DURHAM. Admiral Leggett, I noticed here in your statement, toward the latter part, you said a vessel costing $7 million during the war on a mass production basis now would cost around $31 millionin other words, about 400 percent more than it did ten years ago. Will that supply to all of these vessels? Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. I think that would be somewhere near. All of them have not gone up that much, Mr. Durham, but some of them have gone up-well, I don't believe any of them have gone up more than that. Mr. DURHAM. In other words, dollarwise you are getting about a fourth now for a dollar as we got during the war? Admiral LEGGETT. No, sir; I don't think we can say that. Mr. DURHAM. Well Admiral LEGGETT. We are getting Mr. DURHAM. I am going on your own figures now. Admiral LEGGETT. We are getting one-fourth as many ships for a given number of dollars as we had before, but the ships themselves are larger. Mr. RIVERS. That is right. Admiral LEGGETT. And the equipment which they contain is infinitely more well, I won't say infinitely, but a great deal more effective for the job than the ones we had during the war. Mr. DURHAM. Well, couldn't we kind of break that down with a little clear explanation of the cost, than just what you have given us here? Because this thing is going to stagger some people, when they look at this. Tell us as to the technical advantages you have in your. vessels that you did not have during the war period. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes, sir. We have a very complete breakdown Mr. DURHAM. In your efficiency. Admiral LEGGETT. Yes sir. Thank you, and I will be glad to do that. The difference in cost between a World War II destroyer and one of postwar design is accounted for as follows: Cost of World War II destroyer (DD)-- Add cost estimates of factors causing increases: $7,575,000 Increase due to lack of mass production. Increase due to increased tonnage_. Increase due to armament requirements_. Incidental increases, such as shipbuilding plans, design developments and tests, and habitability improvements_ Estimated cost of postwar destroyer--- 4, 745, 000 2,715, 000 567, 000 5, 282, 000 8, 116, 000 1,900, 000 30, 900, 000 Admiral, there are three nuclear-powered submarines provided in this bill. Is it contemplated that any of the other ships will be nuclearpowered? Admiral LEGGETT. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, you are not building so that there can be a conversion of the powerplant of the type you are now constructing to nuclear powerplant? Admiral LEGGETT. No, sir; Mr. Chairman, we are not. With today's nuclear powerplants, it could not be done. If the nuclear powerplant is developed to a point where it might well reach, then we could substitute nuclear for present powerplants. But whether that would ever be advisable or not is a question which only the technical developments of the future will determine. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, have Mr. HARDY. If I might just follow up to conclude that. Certainly, if a nuclear powerplant is developed in time to incorporate it in any of these, you will certainly do it; won't you? |