Ships initially appropriated for under replacement of naval vessels, fiscal year 1937

Continued

INCREASED COSTS IN BUILDING THE "NORTH CAROLINA" AND THE

"WASHINGTON"

Mr. UMSTEAD. The North Carolina is building at the New York yard and the Washington at the Philadelphia yard. What were the yard estimates for building these two boats?

Admiral Du BOSE. $36,845,643 for the North Carolina and $36,506,000 for the Washington. Those estimates include what the Navy calls "statistical overhead" but excludes the cost of plant improvements necessary for the battleship construction.

Mr. UMSTEAD. What were the private bids?

Admiral Du BOSE. The Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation bid $49,870,000; New York Shipbuilding Corporation $47,829,994; Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., $46,212,500.

Mr. UMSTEAD. What objection would there be to writing into this bill a clause limiting the cost of thse two ships to the yard estimates, plus the estimated cost of items not embraced by such estimates either under your Bureau or other bureaus, and plus, perhaps, a reasonable amount for unforeseen contingencies?

Admiral Du BOSE. If the limit was high enough to cover changes, trial board items, as well as other specific items that must be allowed for, I can see no particular objection. Such a limit of expenditures might handicap the Navy Department in building the best possible ship, and we would much prefer no limit except our present Navy Department administrative limit previously referred to as established by the Secretary of the Navy for all combatant ships.

Mr. UMSTEAD. The A. A. A. cost of these two ships was given to us last year in the total figure of $38,346,000. Here we find that amount stepped up to $52,000,000. What is the explanation?

Admiral FURLONG. Estimates for battleships 55 and 56 were based on the best information possible at the time of the preparation

of the estimates and before the final characteristics of these ships were determined. Even the present estimated cost is difficult to determine for the reason that no battleships have been laid down for approximately 20 years.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Why is the A. A. A. cost of this group of 1,500-ton destroyers about $225,000 per vessel in excess of the A. A. A. cost of the group started in 1936?

Admiral FURLONG. The increase in the cost of the 1937 destroyers over those of 1936 is due to the cost of fire-control equipment, which accounts for approximately $165,000 of the increase. This increase is occasioned by the adoption of am improved type director and rangekeeper involving new design; by use of a larger and more accurate rangefinder, and by increased price of identical equipment furnished by one contractor. The rest is due to a moderate increase in the cost of projectiles and fuzes and to a lesser degree in torpedoes.

SHIPS INITIALLY APPROPRIATED FOR IN 1938

The following table lists the vessels authorized in the fiscal year 1938 for which funds are being requested in 1939 and subsequent years:

Ships initially appropriated for under replacement of naval vessels, fiscal year 1938

Category A

Ships initially appropriated for under replacement of naval vessels, fiscal year 1938— Category A-Continued

Mr. UMSTEAD. This is the program covered by the appropriation for the present fiscal year?

Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir; for the current fiscal year.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Are all of these vessels under way or under contract? Admiral Du BOSE. They are all under way or orders or contracts have been placed for them. In the case of many of the vessels no actual work has been done but plans are being prepared and the material ordered.

Mr. UMSTEAD. The total cost of this program was given to us last year as $78,364,000. That is, for eight destroyers and four submarines. The total cost, according to the statement just inserted, is estimated at $93,120,140 which is an increase of approximately $14,756,140.

These figures are exclusive of the cost of the two auxiliary vessels and the test boilers which appear in this table. How do you explain that rather large difference?

Admiral Du BOSE. The estimates given last year were furnished prior to actually placing contracts for the vessels. We have received bids and placed contracts and orders for eight destroyers and four submarines, and the present estimates are based on the figures received as a result of the bid opening.

FACTORS AND PROBLEMS ENTERING TO PREVENT DIESELIZATION OF

AUXILIARIES

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Admiral, toward the bottom of the table just inserted, under the heading "Auxiliaries," there appears a seaplane tender AV4, and a destroyer tender AD14. Are those the two vessels for which contracts have been recently let to the New York Shipbuilding Corporation?

Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir. The contracts have gone to the New York Shipbuilding Corporation.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. What was the date, approximately, of letting these contracts?

Admiral Du BOSE. December 8.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. They originally provided for Diesel-engine propulsion. As I understand from previous testimony given before tis committee, due to the limitation on cost it was found impracticable to build them for the money allowed, and, therefore, the specifications were changed and steam equipment was substituted.

Admiral Du BOSE. That is not entirely correct. The proposals sent out by the Navy Department for the destroyer tender were for steamdriven machinery. In the case of the seaplane tender, we asked for proposals on a Diesel plant and a steam plant.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. And the proposals for a Diesel plant were event!ally eliminated for the reasons just mentioned?

Admiral DU BOSE. The proposal from the shipbuilder covered s vessel to contain Diesel machinery which was to have been supplie: by the Government, and the price of the Diesel machinery was obtained by the Navy Department at a separate bid opening. Th combined price of the shipbuilder's cost plus the Diesel-machinery cost was in excess of the limit.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. If the combined price had not been in excess of the authorized amount the Navy would have had the Diese equipment installed?

Admiral Du BOSE. The Navy Department wished to have Diese! installation in the seaplane tender.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Now, I read from this magazine, Marine Ergineering and Shipping Review, of June 1937, which was previously referred to by Mr. Thom. In an article on page 322 it is stated that [reading]:

German shipowners have struck out a line of their own in their new tonnage They are relying on Diesel propulsion to the extent of about two-thirds of the ships building.

and so forth, the substance of the article being that the Diesel propulsion is deemed by their experts to be more satisfactory than steam propulsion for certain classes of vessels, presumably on account of increased cruising radius and other factors which have been previously mentioned in the testimony.

In my opinion it was the intention of this committee that Diese propulsion should be given more of a trial on Navy ships than it had hitherto been given. Is there any suggestion that you have to offer the committee, whereby we can be assured that Diesel propulsion will be given more of a trial? Would the removal of limitation of cost of these ships be of any material assistance in the matter?

Admiral Du BOSE. The Navy Department in seeking an authoriza tion for the construction of six auxiliaries wanted to have those vessels authorized with no limit. The Naval Affairs Committee in the House, in proposing the legislation which was eventually passed by Congress, required that a limit be set. The limit as set by Congress finally was a limit of $50,000,000 for the six ships. There was no individual limit, nor was there any limit for hull and machinery or ordnance.

The six vessels were to be built complete with the necessary ordnance at $50,000,000 maximum cost. In connection with that matter before the Naval Affairs Committee, the Navy Department stated that it was exceedingly desirable not to have individual limits, because the detailed estimates at that time submitted which added up to approxi

mately $50,000,000 were estimates, and we could not tell definitely whether any particular vessel could be built at the then estimated cost or not, and that it was more than probable that when bids were actually received or estimates obtained from the navy yards, that in the case of some of the vessels our estimates would be found too high, and in the case of other vessels the estimates would be too low. The Navy Department, therefore, did not want individual limits set, but wanted freedom of action to place contracts or orders for the six vessels, not exceeding $50,000,000 for the six.

The authorization given to the Navy Department to expend funds. toward the construction of these vessels as contained in the Third Deficiency Act authorized two vessels to be started, and specified that the cost of either vessel was not to exceed the sum specifically mentioned by the Navy Department in the detailed estimates submitted to the House when the limit was set. The authorizing act, the Third Deficiency Act, did not specify which two vessels.

The Navy Department itself selected the destroyer tender and the seaplane tender because it was felt that those two vessels were more urgently needed than the other four, and being authorized to undertake construction at that time of only two vessels, we selected those two and obtained the bids and the estimates, and made the award under the financial conditions imposed by the limit set.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. By Congress?

Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir; by Congress. We could not have obtained a Diesel-driven seaplane tender within the limits specified by Congress.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. I understand the contracts were let December 8, at which time Congress was in session. Was any effort made by the Navy Department to bring the matter before Congress with a view to increasing the authorization?

Admiral Du BOSE. There was not.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Why, if it was desired to obtain an increased authorization in order to get an engine of the type we have described, was it not done? Otherwise it would not have been specified.

Admiral Du BOSE. My understanding is that the Navy Department desired to obtain, at the earliest practicable date, a destroyer tender and a seaplane tender.

The Navy Department is very desirous of further Diesel experimentation, but it was felt that by accepting bids for the seaplane tender with a steam plant, the best answer to the Navy's needs was obtained, because there are four other auxiliaries, and in one or more. of those vessels we can probably provide Diesel installations.

There was a further fact that was confronting the Navy Department, which was that we did get exceedingly satisfactory bids for these two vessels. So that subtracting the present estimated cost of these two vessels from the $50,000,000 leaves us, apparently, sufficient money for the remaining four to get what we want. Whether we can do that or not will depend upon the bids and estimates actually received.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Admiral, I want to emphasize that this inquiry is not being pressed in a spirit of fault finding. It is in what, I hope, is a spirit of constructive criticism. It was clearly the desire of this committee, if I interpreted it correctly, that money be appropriated for experimental work on this form of propulsion in view of the fact