Page images
PDF
EPUB

NAVAL RADIO STATION, DIXON, CALIF. Admiral Chew. This is fleet broadcast facilities at an estimated cost of $2,974,000. The Dixon station is a transmitter component of the San Francisco Naval Communication Station, that is, for fleet broadcasts, and the proposed facilities include an addition to the existing transmitter building; two 650-foot-high vertical antennas and associated transmission lines.

The low-frequency components of the fleet broadcast will be installed at Dixon to replace the five 540-foot-high towers—correction there--they are slightly shorter, about 450-foot towers, at Mare Island, which must be removed because of their hazard to avigation at the present time; also to life and property, I think Admiral Wilson has seen them and they are in an advanced state of deterioration.

They are our primary towers there now, and this is a relocation on Government land of the same facilities.

Senator STENNIS. When were they built ?
Admiral CHEW. The towers at Mare Island were built-

Senator STENNIS. Well, I just asked you because you say they have deteriorated to such an extent that replacement is urgently required; personnel can no longer climb the towers.

Admiral PELTIER. They are 40 years old.

Senator STENNIS. I did not think anything used 40 years ago could be used now.

Admiral WILSON. A considerable element of modernization has been done in all of these. Senator STENNIS. All right. That is $212 million.

NAVAL RADIO STATION, SKAGGS ISLAND, CALIF. Now, the next item is a million and a half dollars, in round numbers, radio direction finder facilities.

Admiral Chew. There are in this program, Mr. Chairman, three of these stations. This one is a radio direction finder at Skaggs Island.

NAVAL RADIO STATION, WAHIAWA, OAHU, HAWAII

The next project is for construction of antennas at the Naval Radio Station, Wahiawa, Oahu, Hawaii, at the estimated cost of $357,000. This is the receiver activity for the Naval Communication Station at Pearl Harbor. The project is for relocation and rebuilding of existing deteriorated and obsolete antennas and the construction of additional antennas needed for the operation of special radio equipment. The new weapons systems employed by units of the fleet in ASW and other operations, require this iniprovement for command and control of the Pacific Fleets. Failure to provide this facility will prevent utilization of the shipborne counterparts of this essential communication capability, inasmuch as many units of the fleets are equipped with the special radio facilities designed for ship-toshore employment of this special system.

NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY, WINTER HARBOR,

MAINE

The seventh project is at the Naval Security Group activity, Winter Harbor, Maine, for construction of a radio direction finder facility at the estimated cost of $2,279,000. The mission of this station is to perform radio receiver and security group functions. Accurate radio direction finder bearings are required from this area for more accurate North Atlantic fixes in support of the ASW program and Naval Security Group functions. This is another Wullenweber installation similar to that proposed for the Naval Radio Station at Skaggs Island, Calif. This specially designed instrument satisfies the requirement by its capability of rapid control techniques and of providing more accurate and longer range bearings than existing facilities.

There are similar facilities in the classified section that I will mention later, so there is a total of four. These are in conjunction with our increased ASW effort.

Senator STENNIS. Are they such facilities that you could have considered them as being all in one package?

Admiral Chew. No, sir, they have to be located in different areas.
Senator STENNIS. Different places. All right.
Admiral Chew. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Engle, do you have any knowledge of these, anything special you want to ask?

Senator ENGLE. No, I do not.

Senator STENNIS. Let us return to Senator Engle's items then. Senator Engle will now proceed.

Senator ENGLE. I just wanted to ask one question. It related to the item in the House bill that was by amendment, increasing the Naval Shipyard at Charleston, S.C., maintenance facility, $17,355,000. That was raised by the House $15 million.

Did you folks approve that?

Admiral Chew. Senator, that is for a drydock of $15 million for the POLARIS submarines. We have a need for that, although it is not programed, nor is it funded for fiscal 1961. It will be funded in 1962.

Senator ENGLE. I read the House report, and here is what they said:

Excellent reports have been received from the Navy on the progress of the POLARIS weapons system.

Let me say parenthetically I have supported the POLARIS, and still do, and I think it is an excellent weapons system.

But they go on to say:

It is not unrealistic to expect that the POLARIS submarine will be fully operational later in this calendar year. In anticipation of the need for adequate support to service the components of a modern submarine, and the long time required in design and construction, the committee has included authorization in the bill for building a drydock naval shipyard at Charleston in the amount of $15 million. This will round out the support facilities for the POLARIS submarine at the first home port, Charleston.

If it is not classified information, would you tell me what that port will then be programed to handle in the way of POLARIS submarines, how many? I emphasize, if that is not classified information. Admiral Chew. It will be ready at that time to handle the presently programed submarines, sir, and this will be a repair facility to take care of those submarines that we now envisage.

Senator ENGLE. Well now, as I understand it, that has been announced to the public. How many is that?

Admiral CHEW. This will be

Admiral Wilson. The whole Charleston complex is predicated on two squadrons, actually.

Senator ENGLE. Two squadrons is how many?
Admiral WILSON. That would be 18.

Senator ENGLE. In other words, that would take care of, as I understood it, they added some, and that gets the POLARIS submarine up to about 20, it seemed to me.

Admiral WILSON. This is why we would like to have this authorization in this bill for this drydock, because under the original program, this was all phased in, of course, as we saw that we would need it, and we would have undoubtedly come in in the fiscal year of 1962 program for this under the original program, both authorization and funding

By getting the authorization now it gives us a little bit of flexibility so that if there are adjustments or a speedup in the POLARIS program—this would give us a little bit of flexibility. We would certainly be in favor of this being authorized at this time.

Senator ENGLE. Well, there are two basic questions, and let me say, if this takes care of current needs of submarines presently programed, and either funded or in process of being funded, I would not object to it.

But what I want to find out is how far the Navy is going with the POLARIS until such time as the POLARIS is a proven weapon system.

Now, I have observed, Mr. Chairman, that there are two ideas abroad which, in my opinion, are erroneous.

One is that the POLARIS is a proven weapons system and, No. 2, that it is relatively invulnerable.

Now, these questions may not be appropriate to you gentlemen at this level, but I want to ask you this question, if you can answer it: Does the Navy now believe that the POLARIS submarine is a proven weapons system?

Admiral Wilson. Yes, sir, we do.
Senator ENGLE. Have you ever fired one from under water?
Admiral WILSON. They have been fired from under water, yes.

Senator ENGLE. Yes, but they have not been fired from a submarine, have they?

Admiral WILSON. The test vehicle has, which is of the same dimensions as

Senator ENGLE. I understand that, but I am talking about a submarine, and I understand there are very grave technical problems yet to be solved Admi on. A test vehicle has been fired from a submarine. Se

surface? A

abmerged.

the broad side of a continent with it?

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

Admiral Wilson. This was a test vehicle to develop the launching capability. It was not the operational missile.

Senator ENGLE. Well, I am advised that there are extensive technical problems yet to be solved in connection with the POLARIS as a weapons system, and although I think it is fine to go ahead with it, I would certainly raise some questions about going head over heels here until we know we have something that is going to work from an operational standpoint, and that is the reason I raise this question.

I assume they are going to work out these technical difficulties, and I am not expecting you people to answer these questions. I intend to pose these questions more directly to the Secretary of Defense in order that we can see precisely where we are; and it seems to me in the meantime that although we ought to make progress as far as we can on it, it is a mistake to get too far out on a limb before we know what we are doing. I have had some questions raised as to whether or not the POLARIS can overcome these problems, the technical problems.

For instance, the Air Force, as I understand it, is having trouble equalizing the coordinates of gravity in order to fire a missile off a railroad track.

I would like to find out how the Navy is going to get the gravity coordinates on a submarine touring around under the water. Maybe you fellows have the answer to that, and I am not going to burden the time of the committee here with it, Mr. Chairman, because I intend to submit these questions in detail to the Secretary of Defense.

But it seems to me it would be a very grave error to commit ourselves clear over the cliff on the POLARIS until we know precisely what we are doing.

Now, when are you going to have an operational POLARIS ?
Admiral WILSON. In the fall of this year.

Senator ENGLE. That means you will have one to sea, and you will have it out?

Admiral WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ENGLE. At that time you presumably will have solved the problems of stability of the platform in a three-dimensional medium, and be able to fire it with accuracy; is that right?

Admiral Wilson. Yes, sir.
Admiral CHEW. That is correct.
Senator ENGLE. Have you done that at the present time?

Admiral Wilson. The system has not been tested in its entirety, but the weapon has been tested; there have been many successful firings; simulated weapons have been fired from submerged test stands, and also from a submerged submarine.

Senator ENGLE. I understand, but what I want to know is whether or not, as an operational weapons system, it has been proven, and that is the red light I am flashing about going overboard, and deciding that we have perfected an operational weapons system when we never put one in a submarine, put it to sea, and fired it under water, under what would be, would simulate, combat conditions.

That is why I ask about this particular appropriation. I just did not know how far you were going with it.

Admiral WILSON. Senator, this is not a request for funds.

Senator ENGLE. I understand that. I understand it is not, but I detected an inclination to make assumptions which are not, in my opinion, on the information I have, justified by the facts, and I just wanted to find out how far we are going.

This is the military construction bill. This is about all you have in for POLARIS?

Admiral Chew. We had some smaller requests. That will come in the classified area, too.

Senator ENGLE. I would be glad to see you come in, too, for some funds for further development on POLARIS, but I want to be sure we are not committing ourselves to a series of installations programed for a number of these submarines when we haven't as yet proven that we can take it out to sea, get it under water, in rough water, and fire it at a position under water and, as I say, hit the broad side of a continent.

That is the only thing that concerns me. Your testimony relieves my concern at this point. I understand that this facility brings this into a position to serve nuclear submarines and the POLARIS weapons system presently in the program?

Admiral Wilson. That is right.
Senator ENGLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator STENNIS. All right. Thank you, Senator.

.
All right, you are over on page 60. Shall we continue ?

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

SHIPYARD FACILITIES

Admiral CHEW. Mr. Chairman, we are now prepared to discuss the Navy's requirements for stations outside the United States. The first class in this group is shipyard facilities, which consists of only two projects for $1,108,000. Both of these projects are required to further the important field of oceanographic research.

NAVAL FACILITY, BERMUDA The first project is at the Naval Facility, Bermuda, for replacement and enlargement of temporary buildings at the estimated cost of $908,000. The existing buildings are quonset huts which are too small to house satisfactorily the two sets of terminal equipment now being used, a third additional set which is required, and other associated equipment. Also the huts have deteriorated to the point where the very valuable equipment is in danger of serious damage by wind, dust, and rain. The new terminal equipment building will provide adequate space for the equipment together with the temperature and humidity control necessary for its proper operation. In addition, a second small new building will replace three quonset hut generator buildings, a quonset hut recreation and training building and a quonset hut administration building.

Senator STENNIS. It does not show any investment there now.

Admiral CHEW. The existing buildings we have there now, sir, are for oceanographic research, and they are quonset huts. This is purely

« PreviousContinue »