Admiral BowEN. No, sir; except the value of the scrap lead.
Mr. UMSTEAD. What is done with them?

Admiral BowEN. During the life of the battery you replace the parts just like you do with any other machinery, and you finally get to the place where further replacements are not justified, and the battery then has no value at all except as old lead.

REPLACEMENT OF STORAGE BATTERIES ON THE "DOLPHIN"

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, I understand that the Dolphin, which is included in the list under your item 28, Submarine Storage Batteries, was commissioned on June 1, 1932. You are asking us for an item of $240,000 for the replacement of the storage batteries on the Dolphin?

Admiral BowEN. Yes, sit.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Is that due to defective installation, defective material, or what is the reason for the replacement so early of the storage batteries on the Dolphin?

Admiral BowEN. I am not aware that there were any unusual features there. The battery itself will become eight years old in 1989. Mr. UMSTEAD. In other words, this is a case in line with your experience, that replacements are required in from 4 to 8 years! Admiral BowEN. Yes, sir.

DIESEL LABORATORY, ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION

(See p. 393)

Admiral BowEN. The next item is No. 29, Object 32. Diesel Laboratory, Engineering Experiment Station. In 1933 it became apparent to the Bureau of Engineering that a laboratory under laboratory control rather than shop control was essential for study. ing problems which had arisen and would arise in the future in connection with Diesel engines. Up to that time, most of this sort of work had been done at the Submarine Base, New London, Conn. I 1933 steps were taken to build up a Diesel laboratory at the Engineering Experiment Station, Annapolis, as a portion of that laboratory. For 5 years the initial steps of this establishment have been under way, and definite needs of the proposed laboratory are now know:. $100,000 is required for properly setting up this laboratory. $50,000 is being requested in this estimate and $50,000 will be required i 1940 to complete the project. The following work is contemplatei:

(a) Improvement to the building to provide for installation of the needed equip

ment.

(b) Purchase and installation of small engines of various types.

(c) Increase the size of the present cold room to provide for present needs of the laboratory..

(d) Purchase of various instruments such as indicators, micrometers, recording pyrometers, and recording gages.

(e) Purchase and installation of 2 dynamometers of 150 and 250 brake horsepower, respectively

(f) Purchase and installation of handling cranes and test stands..

10,000

5.000

5,000

Establishment of the laboratory will permit the Bureau to undertake the studies of the following problems with which it is already confronted:

(a) Test of the many devices which are continually being offered to improve the performance of engines, such as starting systems, fuel, and lubricating oil filters.

(b) Test of the many devices which are continually being offered to decrease the manufacturing or operating cost of engines, such as fuel pumps, special alloy pistons, and piston-ring sealing.

(e) Adapting new combustion systems which have become available since standardization to present engine designs for motorboats. (d) Continue the investigation which has been under way for several years toward broadening the fuel specifications and hence releasing fuels and assuring a commercial supply.

(e) Fostering development to insure that United States products are available for all applications and that competition on our schedules for material is assured.

At the present time (August 1937) there is in commission, as submarine main engines, yard and district craft engines, auxiliary gener ator service, and engines for small boats of all types, a total of 127,116 horsepower of Diesel engines. It is expected that this figure. will increase to 179,759 horsepower by fiscal year 1939, and 227,006 horsepower by fiscal year 1940.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, I believe that the Navy Department is now, and has been for the past 2 years, installing Diesel engines in certain types of small boats and ships?

Admiral BowEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. I believe it is also a fact that the possibilities of Diesel engines are not yet completely known?

Admiral BowEN. That is correct.

Mr. UMSTEAD. And the work in contemplation that you describe under this item involves further scientific investigation and study of the Diesel-engine problems?

Admiral BowEN. Yes, sir; that is correct, Mr. Chairman. The Diesel engine has not yet settled down like the gas engine. There is still a great deal of study and improvement to be made.

STATUS OF WORK ON DIESEL ENGINES

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Admiral, what is the status of the work on Diesel engines for which we appropriated $600,000 for the fiscal year 1937. Admiral BowEN. There are three experimental units on the test stand. One of them has passed specification requirements, and we expect the other two to pass them in the near future.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. One has already passed the specification requirements and tests?

Admiral BOWEN. Yes; one of them has already passed the tests and the specification requirements, and we expect the other two will pass the requirements shortly. They are very promising engines and unquestionably can be used for a large-sized installation in contradistinction to the smaller sized submarine engines.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Yesterday, Admiral DuBose stated with reference to the submarine tender and seaplane tender recently awarded, that Diesel engines had been contemplated, but that it finally was con cluded to employ steam. He stated that this was an engineering

matter primarily. Can you give an explanation of why the change was made from Diesel to steam?

Admiral BowEN. When we undertook preparation of the specifications for the destroyer tender and the seaplane tender, we were anxious to provide an outlet for these new Diesel engines in the seaplane tender. These engines, of course, are a new development and right now they are more expensive than a steam plant. Due to the fact, among other things, that a limit of cost was set on the destroyer tender and the seaplane tender by Congress, we specified

steam.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Do you refer to the authorization bill; to a limit of cost set in the authorization bill?

Admiral BowEN. Yes, sir; and on all of the auxiliaries. With a limit of cost on the seaplane tender it was not possible to install Diesel engines.

COMMISSIONING CHARGES

The next is item 30, "Commissioning charges," object 15. During the year 1939 the following ships are scheduled to be commissioned: Light cruisers: Nashville, Phoenix, St. Louis, and Helena.

NOTE-The Helena will not be commissioned until 1940 but her engineering commissioning outfit will be procured in 1939.

Destroyers, 1,850 tons: Davis, Jouett, and Sampson.

Destroyers, 1,500 tons: Anderson, Benham, Ellet, Hughes, Lang, Mayrant, Mustin, Rhind, Rowan, Russell, Sims, Stack, Sterett, Trippe. and Wilson.

Submarines, "fleet": the Sargo and the Sculpin.

Experience has shown that to put a new vessel into commission and on an operating basis requires an expenditure equivalent to two quarterly allotments for the same type ship for maintenance and operation. The following table summarizes the ships going into commission by types, shows the amount of the quarterly allotment granted by the Bureau to vessels of the type, and the total estimated. title C, object 15, commissioning charges for vessels of the type:

It is expected that the actual commissionings during 1939 will be somewhat less than is shown above. Because of this and to reduce the budget total as much as possible, the requested for this purpo has been reduced to $59,000.

COMMISSIONING CHARGES, HABROR TUGS

The next is "Commissioning charges, harbor tugs, $3.000." The three harbor tugs which are being constructed under the 1907 appropriation will be ready for commissioning during the fisca!

ear 1939. To put these vessels on an operating basis it will be cessary to provide them with an initial outfit of consumable suplies. This was not included in the original estimate of cost of the gs because it is not properly chargeable against the year in which e construction is authorized. It is estimated that the two larger gs will each require $1,200 and the smaller one $600, a total of 3,000 for initial title C outfits.

DECOMMISSIONING 13 DESTROYERS

The next is item 32, objects 15 and 1291, "Decommissioning 13 estroyers, $29,400.”

The present operating force plan for 1939 contemplates decomissioning of the following 13 destroyers during that year: Leary, aylor, Tillman, Barry, Borie, Childs, Gilmer, Humphreys, King, awrence, Sands, Williamson, and Schenck. Two of these may be onverted to light seaplane tenders. Estimates for that purpose are duced by the amount of the decommissioning charges.

In decommissioning a destroyer certain work is done on the mahinery to put it in proper shape for recommissioning and certain onsumable supplies, such as rust preservative compounds, are used or the purpose of preventing deterioration while the vessel is laid p. Past experience has indicated that the average repaid work ncident to decommissioning a destroyer is $1,250 and the average ost of supplies used is $1,200, a total of $2,450 per vessel. Past xperience has also indicated that changes in the operating force lan which may be expected, due principally to delay in completion f new vessels, result in slightly fewer vessels being decommissioned han was expected the year in advance. For this reason the Bureau f Engineering is asking for funds for decommissioning only 12 essels, a total of $29,400.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, when a vessel is decommissioned it is ither held for further service, if and when occasion may require, or t is junked, depending upon the condition of the ship at the time it s decommissioned?

Admiral BoWEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Your discussion of this item is directed toward the essels which are decommissioned on the theory that they are good nough to be used at some future time in the event of an emergency? Admiral BoWEN. That is correct.

Mr. UMSTEAD. What is the charge for decommissioning a vessel which is not in such condition as to permit its future use and which as to be junked?

Admiral BowEN. That is a rather difficult question for me to give A definite answer on, but, of course, in such a case all of the machinry and equipment suitable for future use is removed by the crew. Mr. UMSTEAD. In the event a ship is to be junked the only cost of decommissioning would be the cost of removal of the worthwhile equipment and tools to some other vessel or shore station?

Admiral BowEN. That is correct, the cost of salvaging such machinery and material as can be used over again. We might have that figure, Mr. Chairman.

Lieutenant Commander HAMILTON. It is about $1,200.

36929-38-25

Mr. UMSTEAD. Are any of these vessels enumerated by you in connection with this item to be junked?

Admiral BowEN. No. They are all to be decommissioned for possible recommissioning.

RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENT

The next is "Research and experiment, item 33, object 16. $1,553,000."

In making up the preliminary estimate for the 1939 budget, a total of 62 items under this title, with a total estimated cost of $2,537.000, was listed as necessary or highly desirable. Recognizing the neces sity for reducing the total budget estimate to the barest minimum, the total was reduced to 51 items at $1,553,000.

Of the 51 items included, all listed on the itemized statement of the estimate, pages 12 to 14, inclusive, the first 29, totaling $567,000, are for the continuation of tests, investigation, and research on materials and devices which are fundamental to naval engineering. The tests have been in progress for a varying number of years and each will continue indefinitely. It is by means of them that the Navy safeguards those materials which are essential parts of any engineering installation.

The next 11 items, totaling $429,000, are continuations of specific problems already undertaken during 1938 or previous years. With a very few exceptions, money requested for 1939 for these 11 items will provide for their completion as experimental projects and no more funds will be requested for them under object 16.

The last 11 items, totaling $557,000, are the only ones which will be new projects. These are the 11 of the 22 originally proposed new projects which are considered to be of the greatest importance. The other 11 were eliminated as an economy measure and not because of any lack of vital importance. It is impossible to tell at the present time whether any of these 11 items will require addtional funds in later years for completion. This will depend entirely on the way in which the projects develop after they are undertaken. Considering the rapidity with which engineering science is advancing: the appearance of new inventions and ideas; the necessity for the Navy, competing as it must with the inventive genius of a foreign naval powers, to keep up with the latest developments: ari the greatly increased severity of naval demands over commercial demands for engineering materials, it is considered that in an eng neering sense there is no upper limit to the amount of money which should be expended for research and experiment. The only limitation, and that an arbitrary one, is fiscal.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, the sum of $1,553.000 requested by your Bureau for research and experiment would be used exclusively by your Bureau for that purpose?

Admiral BowEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. And it is not involved in sums which may be carrie in the bill for research, experiment, and investigation by other bureaus of the Department?

Admiral BoWEN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. CASEY. Admiral, $1,553,000 is requested for research and experiment by naval engineers?