Page images
PDF
EPUB

Fiscal year 1934-Ships initially appropriated for under National Industrial Recor

Navy AllotmentCategory CContinued

Ship

Appropri

ated, trans- Appropria- Allocation Appropria- | ApproTotal esti- ferred or tion re

of 1938 tion remated cost allocated to quired from appropria- quested quireis June 30, July 1, 1937 tion

1939 July 1937

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Gunboats-Continued.
Charleston (PG51):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

$4,301, 000 $4, 249, 000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1,347,000 1, 347,000
1,850-ton destroyers:
Porter (DD356):

Construction and ma-
chinery,

4, 445, 000 4, 317, 500
Armor, ar mament,

and ammunition.... 2,078,000 2,078,000 Selfridge (DD357):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

4, 425, 000 4,163, 500
Armor, armament,

and ammunition.. 2,070,000 2,070,000 McDougal (DD358):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

*4,415, 000 4, 196, 000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 2,070,000 2,070,000 Winslow (DD359):

Construction and ma-
chinery.---

4, 425,000 4, 190,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition.... 2,070,000 2,070,000
1,500-ton destroyers:
Mahan (DD364):

Construction and ma-
chinery..

4,639,000 4,619, 133
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225,000 1, 225,000 Cummings (DD365):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

4, 546,000 4, 474,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225,000 1, 225,000 Drayton (DD366):

Construction and ma-
chinery...

4, 363, 000 4, 121, 600
Armor, armament,
and ammunition...

1, 225,000 1, 225, 000 Lamson (DD367):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

4,372, 000 4,091, 000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225, 000 1, 225,000 Flusser (DD368):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

4, 293, 0004, 217,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition.... 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000 Reid (DD369): Construction and machinery.

4, 302,000 4,213,000 Armor, armament,

and ammunition.... 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000 Case (DD370):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

4,045, 000 3,800,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000 Conyngham (DD371):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

4,052, 000 3,800,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition. 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000 Cassin (DD372):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

3,953,000 3, 866,064
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000 Shaw (DD373):

Constructior and ma-
chinery....

3,653,000 3,858, 712
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000

[blocks in formation]

Fiscal year 1934Ships initially appropriated for under National Industrial Recovery

Navy Allotment--Category C-Continued

Ship

Appropri

ated, trans- Appropria- Allocation Appropria- AppropriaTotal esti- ferred or tion re- of 1938 tion re- tion remated cost allocated to quired from appropria- quested quired from June 30, July 1, 1937 tion

1939 July 1, 1939 1937

[blocks in formation]

1,500-ton destroyer--Contd.
Tucker (DĎ374):

Construction and ma-
chinery..

$3, 975, 000 $3,725,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition. 1, 225, 000 Downes (DD375):

1, 225, 000
Construction and ma-
chinery

3, 977,000 3, 670, 000
Armor. armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000 Cushing (DD376):

(Construction and ma-
chinery..

3, 718,000 3, 494, 000
Armor, armament,
and ammunition...

1, 225,000 1, 225, 000 Perkins (DD377):

Construction and ma-
chinery.

3, 719, 000 3, 419,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225, 000 1, 225,000 Sinith (DD378):

('onstruction and ma-
chinery...

3, 931, 000 3, 650,000
Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225, 000 1, 225, 000 Preston (DD379): Construction and machinery..

3,931, 000 3,650,000 Armor, armament,

and ammunition... 1, 225,000 1, 225, 000 Submarines: Shark (S8174): Construction and machinery.

4, 400,000 Armor, armament,

4,380, 163 and ammunition.... 410,000 410, 000 Tarpon (SS175): Construction and machinery....

4, 400,000 4, 372, 346 Armor, armament,

and ammunition.... 410,000 410,000 Total:

Construction and

machinery. 206, 421, 000 195, 043, 134 Armor, armament,

and ammunition.. 59, 552, 000 59, 552, 000

[blocks in formation]

CHANGES IN ESTIMATES AND COSTS OF COMPLETION OF VARIOUS AIR

CRAFT CARRIERS AND CRUISERS

Mr. UMSTEAD. In the case of the Yorktown and the Enterprise, I notice a decrease of $150,000 for each vessel in the total A. A. A. cost, and also a decrease in the total C. and M. cost of the Enterprise.

Admiral Du Bose. Yes, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. The Enterprise is being built under contract, is it not?

Admiral Du Bose. Yes, sir.

Mr. C'MSTEAD. So, therefore, should not the C. and M. cost remain the same?

Admiral Du Bose. That is due to the same reasons, in general, that were given to the committee in answer to changes in cost of the Brooklyn. It is due to reestimates or more accurate estimates at the present time.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, the Yorktown is in commission now?
Admiral Du Bose. Yes, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. You are asking for money for the Yorktown in 1934 in the sum of $200,000, and indicating that you will also ask for $502,000 in 1940. Why is that?

Admiral Du Bose. Because there will be expenditures incurred by the Navy Department on the Yorktown in 1940. In a previous ques. tion you referred to limits of costs on ships.

While the combatant vessels now under construction have no limits of cost set by Congress, every vessel under construction has a departmental limit of cost. The Secretary of the Navy has fixed the tota. expenditures that may be made on any vessel from the building appropriation, and as I have previously stated, the period, of time during which these expenditures, within the departmental limits, may be made is 27 months after the completion of the vessel.

Mr. UMSTEAD. The same inquiry which I made with respect to the Yorktown also applies to these estimates on the Enterprise and the Philadelphia. Is your explanation the same, Admiral?

Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir; because from year to year in presenting the estimates of total cost of the ships, we give the committee the benefit of the latest detailed information that we have.

Mr. UMSTEAD. I notice in these estimates for the cruisers Philadel. phia, Savannah, and Nashville, under C. and M. that the difference between the cost stated to the committee last year and the estimated costs stated to the committee in these estimates is $100,000.

Admiral Du BOSE. I will have to verify the figures. I have no doubt that is correct, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. I am interested to know just how it happens that the change in the estimate for the three cruisers is exactly the same.

Admiral Du BOSE. The similarity or the identical increase in the estimates is due to a reestimate of the total cost of changes. We made an estimate a year ago that the changes to be incorporated into these vessels would cost a certain sum of money. We have actually reached that limit, and we now estimate another $100,000 for changes.

Mr. UMSTEAD. In fact, there being no cost limit on any of the ships authorized to be built by the Navy, you are at liberty, of course, to raise or lower the estimated figures.

Admiral Du Bose. Yes, sir.

Mr. UMSTEAD. And Congress is looked to to provide up to such limits as you may fix, such annual increments as you tell us are warranted by work progress predictions.

Admiral Du BOSE. That is why I say it would be unwise for Congress to attempt to fix a limit in the beginning, because had there been a fixed limit on these vessels, we would have been prevented from undertaking additional necessary work to the extent of $100,000 or more.

Mr. UMSTEAD. In this list, under category "C", there are 28 vessels for which it is indicated funds will be needed for 1939 or 1940 or for both years and there are only four of the vessels on the list wbich. appear on the progress of work report. What would be the effect if you were not allowed these additional amounts for either 1939 or 1940

Admiral Du Bose. The Navy Department would be prevented from undertaking certain authorized work, for which, in many cases, material is actually provided, and we are waiting to install the material when the vessel can be made available within the 27-month period. The vessels would not be as satisfactory as efficient fighting units if we cannot spend this money.

CONGRESSIONAL LIMIT ON COST

(See p. 514) Mr. Ditter. Would it be wise for Congress to set a limit, Admiral?

Admiral Du BosE. I think not, sir, because it would limit the Navy Department's freedom of action in getting better ships for the Navy. We cannot tell Congress today exactly how much a certain ship is actually going to cost, that is, a certain ship just being started. Two or three years later we can have more accurate information. I assure the committee that the Secretary of the Navy is giving very careful consideration to the question of total costs, and these fixed administrative limits, I think, safeguard the expenditures.

Mr. DITTER. It cannot be likened to a blank check proposition, can it, Admiral?

Admiral Du BOSE. No, sir; the committee knows the approximate cost as soon as we place a contract, and the additional costs for changes and trial-board items are a very small percentage of the contract price of the vessel.

ADEQUACY OF SUPERVISORY FORCE IN NAYV DEPARTMENT

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, since the rather large replacement Navy program was begun in 1933, have the supervisory bureaus taking control of construction in the Navy Department been overtaxed?

Admiral Du Bose. We have increased the force in the Navy Department by a number of additional people, both clerical and technical, and while we have been working under pressure and have, in many cases, had to work overtime, I should not say that we were really overtaxed. We have the number of people we that need, with certain exceptions, but it is within the power of the Navy Department to increase the force in the Navy Department as necessary to carry out the work.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Do the tremendous number of changes indicated in your presentation to this committee in the plans and specifications and equipment of vessels in the various categories after they are laid down, indicate that the Department is overtaxed ?

Admiral Du Bose. No, sir.
Mr. UMSTEAD. What does it indicate?

Admiral Du Bose. There is a constant effort on the part of the Navy Department to improve each succeeding class of vessels of the same type by incorporating in the plans and specifications for the succeeding vessels those items which have been brought to light as a result of service experience or industrial developments and, in some cases, it is possible to incorporate those changes in vessels already building by what is known as a change in the contract.

TIME, COSTS, AND PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN MAKING CHANGES IN PLANS

AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHIPS

Mr. UMSTEAD. Should not the changes referred to by you be made in the plans and specifications prior to the letting of the contracts and the laying down of vessels?

Admiral Du Bose. No, sir; because we do not know what they are. We authorize a vessel in the fall of 1937, for example. Now, we contemplate laying down certain vessels in the fall of 1938. The characteristics of the vessels to be laid down in 1938 are not definitely known by the Navy Department when the contracts are placed for the 1937 vessels, but within that year's time and before we actually place contracts for the 1938 vessels we can give consideration to embodying some of the improved features in the 1937 vessels, or, perhaps, even in the 1936 vessels, if the construction has not advanced too far.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Admiral, when you change a construction plan agreed upon for any given vessel after its construction is well on its way, it not only requires putting in or on something new or additional, but it also requires taking off or removing something already on or in, does it not?

Admiral Du Bose. It depends upon the status of the work, the actual progress of the work. If the work has actually been started, it would, as you say, involve putting something on or taking something off.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Where you have to remove equipment that is already installed, or where you have to change specifications already followed, it is a very expensive matter, is it not?

Admiral Du Bose. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. The changes are not all changes involving increased cost. There are many changes that are proposed by the Government or by the builder involving a decrease in cost. The figure that comes to the attention of this committee is the result of the increased and decreased cost changes.

Mr. UMSTEAD. I notice in some instances, mainly under A. A. A., there have been some decreases as against the figures given us last year, but in the main the changes for Č. and M. have increased rather than decreased.

Admiral Du Bose. That is true, sir; but there are many changes that are actually resulting in a decreased cost which do materially improve the military features of a vessel, and in some cases cheapen the cost of the vessel.

Mr. DITTER. Admiral, does not the degree of latitude that you presently enjoy invite considerable possibility of laxity in supervision?

Admiral Du Bose. I think not, sir. The Navy Department is exceedingly alive to the question of reducing expenditures and safeguarding all funds to the greatest possible extent.

Mr. DITTER. I used the expression “invite the possibility of laxity.' I did not ask you whether you were lax. I said whether that policy of allowing you that degree of latitude did not invite the chance of laxity?

Admiral Du Bose. There is that possibility, yes, sir; but I do not think it does exist.

Mr. Ditter. Do you not think there is some justification for this committee feeling that there might be laxity as a result of the number of changes we continue to find in these costs of construction?

« PreviousContinue »