DEAR SENATOR O'MAHONEY: I have your recent letter with which you enclosed a newspaper item concerning aviation in the Army. on The present-day Army aviation was established by the War Department June 6, 1942. At that time it was known as organic field artillery air observation and consisted solely of light airplanes for use as serial observation posts to adjust artillery fire. The employment of these airplanes was so successful during World War II that similar airplanes were made organic to infantry, armor, signal, and engineer units, and the program was renamed, "Army Ground Forces light aviation." Subsequently, when the Army Air Forces became a separate service, the Army designated its remaining organic aviation as "Army aviation." Army aviation is not organized as a separate branch of the Army, but, instead, is distributed throughout the combat and combat support elements as integral parts of those elements. Army light fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are used in a variety of fashions in the field for reconnaissance, transportation of senior officets between units for personal supervision of these unis in action, for emergency wire laying and local messenger and courier service. They have performed valuable service in emergency evacuation of casualises, traffic control, and similar activities. New uses for these aircraft are continually being developed as their full potentialities realized through actual experience. One criterion for their employment is their ability to operate from hastily prepared air strips, open road spaces, and, in the case of helicopters, from any cleared surface large enough to accommodate the aircraft. The reports from all echelons of our forces in Korea continually empha size the importance of these aircraft in their operations. are Although the Army does have organic aircraft, it relies on the Air Force for tactical air support in the form of fighter, bomber, and troop-carrier aviation as well as aero medical evacuation, aerial supply, and long-range aerial reconnaissance, including aerial photography. These are Air Force missions and are properly the functions of the United States Air Force. There is no intention within the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense to introduce an additional air force which would duplicate or overlap the functions presently assigned to the United States Air Force. As new developments occur, adjustments in our operating doctrines and assignment of functions will be made as required. Any differences of opinion as to the operation of liaison aircraft and helicopters will be worked out by the Department of the Army and the Air Force within the spirit and regulations of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. I sincerely appreciate your interest in this matter and trust that the above will provide the information you desire. In the event I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me. With kind regards, I am, Faithfully yours, ROBERT A. LOVETT, Senator O'MAHONEY. The committee will recess until next Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 6 p. m., Thursday, August 9, 1951, the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m., Tuesday, August 14, 1951.) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1952 TUESDAY, AUGUST 14 1951 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to recess, in room 224, Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph C. O'Mahoney, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators O'Mahoney, Chavez, Maybank, Hill, Bridges, Saltonstall, Knowland, and Thye. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY STATEMENTS OF HON. THOMAS K. FINLETTER, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; HON. JOHN A. McCONE, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; GEN. HOYT S. VANDENBERG, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; LT. GEN. C. B. STONE III, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, COMPTROLLER, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; MAJ. GEN. W. E. TODD, ASSISTANT FOR PROGRAMING, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, AND BRIG. GEN. MANUEL J. ASENSIO, DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, COMPTROLLER, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE FORMULATION OF BUDGET POLICY Senator O'MAHONEY. I may say, Mr. Secretary and General Vandenberg, that the committee has come to the general conclusion that detailed examination of these estimates is not likely to produce a great deal of valuable information for the committee because, after all is said and done, your judgment of what must be expended in the national defense in detail is much more important than ours. But the committee will need to know more than it does know about the general objectives of military expenditure. I have been impressed by the fact that since the beginning of these hearings the witnesses who have appeared, without exception, have been defending or advocating a budget which was, so to speak, laid in their laps. You will recall that in the opening session of the hearings it was revealed to us by Secretary Lovett that the various branches of the armed services, when originally called upon to submit estimates, asked for appropriations of $104 billion and that within the Department of Defense those estimates were cut down to $60,650,000,000. That was 6 months ago. The situation now is very different from what it was at that time. We hear talk and read stories published in the newspapers about what the Pentagon stand is, and that does not come to us from the lips of the witnesses who appear here because, of course, they are, as I say, sustaining the program that was approved by the General Staff and the Secretaries 6 months ago. These news stories are based upon projections of what is to happen in the future. The supplemental deficiency bill which is likely to come-and which must come indeed because of the expenditures of material and money in Korea-before the two Houses, is now under consideration by the Armed Services Committees. With regard to the public works authorizations, although the budget which was submitted to us in January contained a general ,estimate of about $4 billion for public works, that is not included in the bill now before us as passed by the Senate. There is nothing in this bill to pay for the expenditures in Korea. The matériel and equipment that has gone into the Korean War has been taken from our supplies. We have had some estimates submitted by General Moore, on the basis of information rather than in the detailed study, that if the Korean War were to continue on the minimum basis through 1952 it would probably cost in the neighborhood of $4 billion more, but that if it were to continue on a maximum basis it would cost about $5 billion. Congress does not know as yet what the final judgment will be with respect to military aid abroad and with respect to economic aid. Of course, we know nothing as yet definitely about expenditures that will be made for bases abroad. That is a very broad and important subject. So, in opening this hearing, I wondered if it would not be possible for you, Mr. Secretary, to present to the committee your judgment with respect to the over-all picture, what is ahead of us; what possibilities are there to expand the Air Force; what are the needs for bases. I ask these questions because, when all is said and done, the tax bill which is now drafted or amended in the Senate Committee on Finance, is the bill which will or will not bring in the receipts to the Federal Government in sufficient amount to pay as we go or to create a deficit, provided the expenditures are there. Senator SALTONSTALL. Would the Senator accept a very mild suggestion? Senator O'MAHONEY. Sure. Senator SALTONSTALL. The long-range intentions of the Air Force, it seems to me, are the important things. Senator O'MAHONEY. Not only of the Air Force, Senator, but of all of the departments. Senator SALTONSTALL. Because General Vandenberg says that it is a shoestring air force, and I think it was Mr. Finletter or General Marshall who said that it was an interim air force. Senator O'MAHONEY. I was going to ask that before these sessions on the Air Force are closed, you let us know how much of the money |