Page images
PDF
EPUB

during 1938 are not the same as for 1939. The representative of the Chief of Naval Operations will furnish any additional data required by the committee as to the determination of the quantity requirements.

MANEUVERS PLANNED FOR THE YEAR 1939

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, are there any unusual maneuvers planned for the year 1939?

Admiral CONARD. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. UMSTEAD. I believe that the Chief of Naval Operations stated when he appeared before the committee several days ago that there were no unusual maneuvers planned for the fiscal year 1939.

Admiral CONARD. That is my understanding.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Do you know whether or not there are planned any fleet maneuvers in the Atlantic for that year?

Commander KIRKPATRICK. May I interject there, please?
Mr. UMSTEAD. Yes.

Commander KIRKPATRICK. The primary plan for the operation of the fleet for 1939 calls for the annual fleet problem to be held in the Caribbean in the spring, followed by a visit to east coast ports. including a visit to New York, during the exposition. The fleet to return to a normal west-coast bases in the fiscal year 1940.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Well, that would entail the use of a rather large quantity of oil to carry the fleet from the Caribbean area to New York, would it not?

Commander KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir; but it is my observation based upon the study of the oil consumption over the past years, and the varying fleet problems, that the time consumed by the problem is a nearer guide to the consumption of oil than is the locality; in that, naturally, the more days of steaming that are performed, the more fuel consumed.

And assuming an approximate set amount of time devoted to the fleet problem, whether it be held in the Canal Zone area, the Hawaiian area, or the Caribbean area, it is my belief that the fuel consumption will approximate the same.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Commander, what phase of maneuvers would necessitate or even indicate the desirability of taking the fleet from the Caribbean area to New York in the fiscal year 1939?

Commander KIRKPATRICK. No phase of the maneuvers, as suggested, sir, would require a trip to New York.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Is the only inducement the New York exposition Commander KIRKPATRICK. As to that, I am unable to say. I merely know what the general plan is.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Do you know of any other reason for taking the fleet from the Caribbean area to New York, other than the presence there of the World's Fair, or the World's Exposition?

Commander KIRKPATRICK. No, sir: presumably the same reasons that dictated the fleet's visit to the east coast here in 1934, when the fleet visited many east coast ports. You are acquainted with that, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. Not fully.

Commander KIRKPATRICK. In 1934 the fleet spent a good part of the time from the late spring up to the fall of 1934 on the east coast.

STIMATE OF FUEL-OIL REQUIREMENTS AND AMOUNTS USED, FISCAL YEARS 1932 TO 1937

Mr. UMSTEAD. Well, if the fleet remained in the Pacific, and assumig that no emergency arises, upon what basis would there be any call or more fuel oil than was provided in this year's appropriation bill? Commander KIRKPATRICK. May I read a prepared statement here n that, sir?

Mr. UMSTEAD. Yes, sir.

Commander KIRKPATRICK. A review of the hearings before the comittee for the past several years indicates the strong desire of the mmittee that the Department's estimate of fuel-oil requirements ore closely agree with the actual expenditures than has been usually

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

It will be noted that for the 6 full years shown the table indicates very consistent error of about 17 percent, which we do not consider xcessive in view of the many variables which enter into the compuations.

If we knew exactly how many miles each and every vessel would ruise at each separate speed throughout the year, then we could give o you an estimate of fuel requirements that would be correct to within about 2 percent, but obviously it is impossible to even approximate asic data of such accuracy.

To better explain the problem permit me to point out a few of the najor difficulties:

Our initial type mileages are obtained from the annual Proposed Fleet Employment Plan-a document which sets forth for each type of naval craft the number of weeks of each quarter that will be devoted to ordinary cruising, to gunnery, to tactics, and at anchor. Since each underway task requires a different speed range, with correspondingly different fuel-oil consumption, any appreciable change 'n the proposed plan introduces errors in our estimates for the force or forces concerned.

We employ certain formulas to determine speeds required for different tasks. While these formulas are reasonably accurate for average conditions, quite frequently the unusual occurs, with the result that the oil calculations for the unit or force concerned are in error. The effect of different speeds on oil consumption is enormous. For example, a destroyer steaming at 10 knots can cover a certain distance on 500 barrels of oil, but that same destroyer will require 880 barrels of oil to cover the same distance if steaming at 20 knots. Or a certain cruiser requires 1,620 barrels to cover a given distance at 15 knots, but will require 5,520 barrels to cover that same distance at 30 knots.

From this you can see how difficult it is to arrive at an accurate prediction of requirements when the varying character of problems. situations, or emergencies may require an entirely unexpected speed. On fleet problems, for example, when approximately 120 naval vessels of all classes are engaged in war maneuvers over a wide sea area the distances to be steamed, speeds to be used, and consequent fuel-oil consumption present a problem that cannot be solved with accuracy.

Again, we must be prepared for the unexpected. Each year wholly unanticipated requirements arise which often mean large expenditures of fuel. For example, the dispatch of the Quincy to Spanish duty required 18,718 barrels; the Oklahoma to Spanish duty, 11,276 barrels: the New York to the British coronation ceremonies, 24,452 barrels, and so forth. In fact, the unexpected requirements for 1936 totaled 108,275 barrels; for 1937, 172,024 barrels; and for 1938 has already reached 200,000 barrels.

Sizable errors frequently result from changed dates in the commissioning of new construction or from delays which occur in the actual reporting dates of new construction vessels for duty with the operating forces. Since these calculations are made a year or more in advance of actual use of the oil, errors in connection with new construction allowances are inevitable. Notwithstanding the difficulties mentioned, every effort has been made to arrive at esti mated requirements for 1939 that will more nearly agree with actual consumption figures. As evidence of this, it will be noted that ou estimate for 1939 is 660,687 barrels less than our estimate for 193notwithstanding the fact that the Proposed Operating Force Plan for 1939 calls for the operation of 10 more ships than did the pro posed plan for 1938: a total tonnage approximately 4 percent greate for 1939 than for 1938, and a total horsepower approximately 900,0 (or 10 percent) greater for 1939 than for 1938.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Your statement is both comprehensive and illumi nating but the fact remains that we have appropriated a large sun of money here for a number of years with the result that a consi erable portion reverted to the Treasury at the end of the appropria tion year for the reason that consumption had been quite appr ciably overestimated.

Commander KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Certainly it should be possible to arrive more near at the needs of the Navy than has heretofore been done.

Commander KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir, we agree and these estima represent a very honest effort to arrive at a reasonably accurate f

I do not believe it would be safe to reduce the barrela requested.

Mr. THOM. Is there going to be any deficiency this year? Commander KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir. That is because of pri rather than the quantities.

Admiral CONARD. The fact that quantities of oil required in pr vious years were overestimated resulted in returning to the Treas unexpended balances only during the periods when prices were 1 During the years 1935, 1936, and 1937 when actual prices had a vanced above the estimate, the fact that there was an overestims in quantity resulted in requesting smaller deficiency appropriati during 1935 and 1936 than would otherwise have been required.

y the most drastic curtailment of activities in 1937 was it possible prevent a deficiency in that year. The following statement is ibmitted:

[blocks in formation]

Mг. THOм. What did you pay for oil the other day on the Pacific oast?

Commander KIRKPATRICK. I will have to refer to Supplies and Accounts on that, sir.

Captain ZANE. Our last price at San Pedro was $0.8802 per barrel and at San Francisco $0.977 per barrel.

Mr. THOM. Now, the Pacific coast price for oil is always considerably higher than the Atlantic coast price?

Captain ZANE. Just the reverse.

Mr. THOM. What?

Captain ZANE. That is much lower. At San Pedro it is the lowest. Mr. SCRUGHAM. What is the Atlantic coast price at the present time, as compared with the Pacific coast price which you just gave us? Captain ZANE. At New York, the latest price is $1.4057 per barrel. At Philadelphia, $1.5138.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. How does that compare; does that contain the Same British thermal units as the Pacific coast oils?

Captain ZANE. The same specifications: yes, sir.

Mrs. SCRUGHAM. What is the cost for shipping a barrel of oil from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast, approximately?

Admiral CONARD. Well, we have no records on Navy shipments of that sort. We have shipped from the Gulf.

I will ask Captain Zane here to see if he has any figures.

Captain ZANE. We do not have any figures from the Pacific to the Atlantic. From Gulf to New York the latest price we have is SepTember 1937, the tanker rate being 33 cents a barrel.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Just for shipment?

Captain ZANE. The price for shipping was 33 cents per barrel. Mг. THOм. Let us understand that. Thirty-three cents per barrel for bringing it around?

Captain ZANE. From the Gulf to the north Atlantic ports.

Mr. THOM. That is from the Gulf of Mexico.

Admiral CONARD. From the Gulf of Mexico; that is, Gulf portsGalveston, Houston, or other ports on the Gulf.

Mr. THOM. 33 cents a barrel.

Captain ZANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. That was in oil-tanker ships?

Captain ZANE. Yes, sir; that was really in a commercial tanker.

ITEMS OF INCREASE IN ESTIMATE

Admiral CONARD. I desire at this point to present a statement explaining increases and decreases under projects 2 to 13.

[blocks in formation]

NOTE A.-With regard to projects 4 and 5, gasoline for motorboats is not susceptib of much control. Ships' motorboats are continually engaged in carrying personnel " supplies from ship to ship and from shore to ship and vice versa, and they must mak these trips as necessity requires. Consequently, about all that can be done is to mate the probable cost of these projects on the basis of past performance and set th up as the probable obligation to the appropriation, absorbing any excess in project No 1 "Fuel oil," which represents the major part of the whole appropriation.

NOTE B.--When naval vessels are at navy yards for repairs or otherwise their ow power plants are shut down and they obtain their requirements of water, ice, elect current, etc., from the activities on shore. Power plants at navy yards are operate } a manner similar to commercial utility plants; that is, they "sell" their output to th customers. The "customers" of a navy yard power plant are the shops and ships u ing the output of the power plant. In the shops, work is done under most naval ang priations and the several varieties of power utilized in the performance of such wer enters into the cost of the work chargeable to the proper appropriation.

Similarly, the power furnished ships while at navy yards is "sold" to ships as a charc to the appropriation under consideration. It is never definitely known precisely w ships will visit navy yards during a given year, nor the duration of their stay at t yards. This factor alone makes it impossible to compute accurately how much of th appropriation must be spent to cover the services in question.

Again, ships never know what they are going to have to pay for the services furnishe them by the navy yard power plant because the value of such services depends large on the output of the power plant. By this is meant that when a great deal of power used, its unit rate may be lower than when the reverse is true.

Consequently, there is little direct control over the expenditures covered by projec 7 to 12, inclusive, and, therefore, it is necessary to estimate what the expected" cha"to each of these projects may be during the year, basing this on past performance these figures up as obligations under the appropriation, and absorb any project Ï, "Fuel oil," which represents the major part of the appropriation.

CHANGE IN LANGUAGE IN RE PROCUREMENT OF FUEL OIL

excess 1

Mr. UMSTEAD. Now, Admiral, I notice on page 75 of the committe print of the bill that you are asking for the elimination of the follow ing language:

Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be available, an provision in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, for the purchase of an kind of fuel oil of foreign production for issue, delivery, or sale to ships at point either in the United States or its possessions where oil of the production of th United States or its possessions may be procurable, notwithstanding that oil o the production of the United States or its possessions may cost more than oll foreign production, if such excess of cost, in the opinion of the Secretary of th Navy, which shall be conclusive, be not unreasonable.

« PreviousContinue »