storage space we have for it. If we really loaded food in there, we could stay considerably longer. DOD DISCUSSIONS WITH NUCLEAR SHIP SKIPPERS Chairman PASTORE. Captain Peet, did Dr. Brown discuss this matter with you? Captain PEET. No, sir, he has never talked to me. I don't think I have been available. Chairman PASTORE. How about Defense Secretary McNamara? Captain PEET. No, sir. Chairman PASTORE. How about you, Captain de Poix? Captain DEPOIx. Yes, sir, I had the pleasure of talking to Mr. McNamara. I have not talked to Dr. Brown. Chairman PASTORE. How about you, Captain Wilkinson? Captain WILKINSON. I have talked to Secretary Korth but no one else you have mentioned. Captain PEET. I have talked to Secretary Korth also. He has been aboard the Bainbridge. Chairman PASTORE. Are there any further questions? 21 MR. PAUL NITZE This committee has been honored all day with a distinguished presence and I want to compliment and thank him because we are very grateful for his participation and patience in sitting here, Mr. Paul Nitze, Assistant Secretary of Defense. We are ever so grateful to you for being here all day and following these proceedings the way you have. I was wondering if you wanted to tell us anything, Mr. Nitze. I am not asking you to do so. I am leaving it up to you because I know the position you are in. Secretary NITZE. I really haven't anything to say because this question of nuclear propulsion has not been in the sphere of responsibility of my office, International Security. I haven't been abreast of this problem since 1956 when I spent the summer working with Project Nobska with Admiral Ramage on undersea warfare. At that time we came out strongly in support of the Polaris submarine concept of nuclear propulsion with a solid fuel missile. Since that time this has not been a subject I have worked with so I have been getting briefed by Admiral McDonald, Admiral Rickover, and Admiral Connolly. I value very much the opportunity you have given me to listen to this discussion. Chairman PASTORE. We have been honored by your presence. You sat there patiently and I wanted you recognized and acknowledged. We are going to recess until 2:30 tomorrow afternoon. Between 2:30 and 3:30 we will hear other witnesses and then we will hear Dr. Brown at 3:30. CNO ENDORSEMENT OF NUCLEAR SHIP COMMANDERS' TESTIMONY Admiral McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, since I won't be here tomorrow afternoon, may I make just one comment. You heard Captain dePoix, skipper of Enterprise and Captain Peet, skipper of Bainbridge, state that there are certain tactical advantages 21 Mr. Nitze was appointed Secretary of the Navy on Nov. 29, 1963. from the CO's point of view. Admiral Hayward reinforced their statements from the task group commander point of view. It was my good fortune to be fleet commander over both of these ships and I would like to reinforce Admiral Hayward's reinforcement of these same tactical advantages. Chairman PASTORE. All this evidence and all this testimony we have had from these men who were there only complicates the mystery of the decision. These are men who have had more actual experience than anyone else. These are men who have had the responsibility of these great ships. To have them take their very positive position and then merely say, "It is not too clear the advantages are there,' mystifies me. BASIC NEED OF NAVY FOR SUPERIOR PROPULSION SYSTEMS Admiral RICKOVER. There is one thing I would like to add, sir. There has not really been a great deal of thought about what the future of all military organizations should be in view of the advent of missiles and atomic power. It is quite natural for the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chief of Naval Operations to be concerned about what the future of the Navy should be. In my opinion the Navy has been derelict in not taking the initiative to figure out what the Navy should be like and for this reason the Department of Defense has taken the initiative and the Navy has been put behind. There is one thing you can do. Suppose you start talking about an Army. You may not know what function an Army should perform, but you know you are going to have to have a soldier. At least you know that much. If it is at all possible we need a Navy, you know you have to have some kind of ships. From the shipbuilding standpoint weapons systems are changing now so fast that almost from the time a ship is authorized and the time it is completed you have a new weapons system. So you can't base your ship entirely on one weapons system. Therefore, you are going to need ships that have a good platform. You have to have the kind of platform which can take different types of weapons system, if necessary every 5, 6 or even 10 years. You also need a good propulsion system. That ship must last for 20, 25, or 30 years so it is highly important if you appropriate large sums of money for a modern warship that you put in a good propulsion plant and the one you know is the best. In my opinion it is foolhardy to put in a propulsion plant which you have today when you know something else is better. Further the requirements for electric power are growing tremendously. The first ship I took a midshipman's cruise on had 270 kilowatts reciprocating engine generators. On this four reactor carrier we plan to put in seven 8,000-kilowatt turbogenerators to take care of all future electrical requirements. If there is anything in the Navy that is growing, it is the requirement for electrical power. If you don't have a great amount of electrical power this ship won't be good several years from now. The important thing is to get a good platform; get good propulsion, and get a good electrical plant because 56,000 kilowatts of electrical power is more than twice the propulsion power of the battleship California. Just for auxiliary power. You can put that in with conventional oil, but the ship can't steam as far if you use large blocks of electrical power. You can do it with nuclear power. This is the point I want to make. If you are thinking 20 to 30 years from now, you cannot afford to put in obsolete equipment. Representative BATES. The rate we are going we won't have these ships anyway so it won't make much difference. Admiral RICKOVER. I think you will have ships. Representative BATES. I just want to say I was disappointed last year in the Navy presentation when you came up with 30 odd ships and it ought to have been in the neighborhood of 70. We are going to have to face this one day or another. We have some $25 billion worth of ship construction that you have to put into effect in the next 10 years somewhere somehow. Admiral MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to have so many people on my side. Representative BATES. We want you on our side. Chairman PASTORE. Tomorrow we will hear testimony on the operational characteristics and the various studies that have been made. I know Admiral McDonald can be here. I don't know about Dr. Seaborg. Are you going to return? Dr. SEABORG. I am not sure I will be here in the morning. Chairman PASTORE. I would like to have you return in the afternoon. I would hope everyone else will return tomorrow if they can do so at 2:30 p.m. (Whereupon at 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 30, 1963, the meeting was adjourned, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 31, 1963.) NUCLEAR PROPULSION FOR NAVAL SURFACE VESSELS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1963 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., pursuant to recess, in room AE-1, the Capitol, Senator John O. Pastore, chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Pastore and Hickenlooper; Representatives Holifield, Price, Aspinall, Morris, Hosmer, Bates, Westland, and Anderson. Also present: John T. Conway, executive director; Edward J. Bauser, assistant staff director; George F. Murphy, professional staff member; James B. Graham, technical adviser; and Jack Rosen, staff consultant. Representatives of the Department of Defense: Dr. Harold Brown, Director, Defense Research and Engineering; Hon. Paul H. Nitze, Assistant Secretary of Defense; Capt. E. R. Zumwalt, Jr., aide to Mr. Nitze; Rear Adm. Carlton B. Jones, Chief, Navy Office of Legislative Affairs; and Col. Grover K. Coe, Congressional Liaison Office. Representatives of the Department of the Navy: Hon. James H. Wakelin, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R. & D.); Vice Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, Assistant Chief for Nuclear Propulsion, Bureau of Ships; Capt. Vincent P. dePoix, duty under instruction at National War College, former commanding officer, U.S.S. Enterprise; Capt. Raymond E. Peet, commanding officer, U.S.S. Bainbridge; Rear Adm. T. F. Connolly, Director, Strike Warfare Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Capt. S. T. De La Mater, Strike Warfare Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Capt. N. Sonenshein, Bureau of Ships; Capt. E. L. Beach, Navy Program Planning Office, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Cdr. R. O. Welander, Navy Program Planning Office, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Capt. W. J. Moran, naval aide to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R. & D.); Capt. S. E. Robbins, Director, Congressional Investigations, Office of Legislative Affairs; Capt. Eugene P. Wilkinson, Submarine Warfare Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Cdr. Leroy Hopkins, Congressional Investigations, Office of Legislative Affairs; and Milton Shaw, Office of Secretary of the Navy. Representatives of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission: James T. Ramey, Commissioner; Gerald F. Tape, Commissioner; John G. Palfrey, Commissioner; Gen. A. R. Luedecke, General Manager; Vice Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, Manager, Naval Reactors, Division of Reactor Development; David T. Leighton, Assistant Manager for Surface Ship Projects, Naval Reactors, Division of Reactor Development; Richard X. Donovan, congressional liaison; and A. A. Wells, Director, Division of International Affairs. The CHAIRMAN. If you gentlemen are ready, we are. We will resume the hearings we started yesterday on the use of nuclear power for surface vessels of the Navy. First this afternoon I would like to obtain testimony on the various studies which the Navy has made on this matter and on the research and development plans of the Navy in this field. At 3:30 Dr. Brown is scheduled to return for examination on the statement he made before the committee yesterday. Now I would like to call on Admiral Connolly who has been in charge of all the Navy studies of economics and effectiveness of nuclear and conventional surface ships. I would like to add that although we have repeatedly asked for copies of the studies made on this matter of both the Navy and Defense Department we have only obtained studies which have been made by the Navy. Is Admiral Connolly here? Admiral CONNOLLY. Yes, sir. Chairman PASTORE. We are honored to have you, Admiral. Will you take any one of the chairs which seem most comfortable and bring along with you anybody you wish. I think, Captain, if you can arrange that chart in such a way so that most everyone in the room can see it it will be most interesting to them. Admiral CONNOLLY. I am going to stand up and talk to it. Chairman PASTORE. I know but turn it in such a way so that the people in the back can also see it. That is fine. Have you a preliminary statement to make? Admiral CONNOLLY. I would like to say a few words. STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. Admiral CONNOLLY. I would like to tell the committee how I arrived here in this way. When Dr. Seaborg addressed the Secretary of Defense with his memorandum of early January of this year inviting the attention of the Department of Defense to the fact that a four-reactor plant could be placed in the CVA-67, that letter was turned over by the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Navy and then to the Chief of Naval Operations and then to his Deputy Chief for Fleet Operations and Readiness and then to me. (See p. 80.) I am the Director of Strike Warfare. I have among several shops the air warfare which includes carriers as well as aircraft characteristics. Like Admiral Hayward I have had command of the carriers of the 7th Fleet. A little over a year ago I was commander of Task Force 77. I have been engaged since January, not 100 percent but a good deal of the time, in working up the various positions that the Navy has provided on the subject of nuclear propulsion and particularly for a CVAN-67. Throughout this work I have been assisted not only by many people but in particular by Capt. De La Mater who has helped a great deal in these studies. I should like to show you a few of the |