Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

(The matter referred to follows:)

Hon. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA,
Secretary of Defense.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

March 1, 1963.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: For some time now there has been concern on the part of some of the members of the Joint Committee over the slow progress in the application of nuclear power for the propulsion of surface vessels of the Navy. [ understand that the last nuclear-propelled surface ship authorized was a destroyer which was added to the fiscal year 1962 program 2 years ago and that no nuclearpropelled surface ships are being proposed for fiscal year 1964. This is a source of concern to me particularly in light of the demonstrated advantages of nuclear propulsion in the few surface ships we already have in operation in the Navy.

With other members of the Joint Committee, in a cruise aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise on March 31 and April 1 of last year Í had an opportunity to observe firsthand the operating characteristics of one of our nuclear-propelled surface ships. Testimony of those responsible for operating the ship, during hearings held aboard the Enterprise, pointed out the advantages of nuclear propulsion. (A copy of the unclassified record of these hearings is enclosed for your information.)

The Joint Committee has kept itself informed of the major advances which have taken place in the Navy's and Atomic Energy Commission's research and development program on nuclear propulsion plants for surface ships. The prototype naval propulsion reactors which the committee has supported have proven to be very valuable in advancing the technology of nuclear propulsion for surface ships. Many of these advances have taken place since the Enterprise has gone to sea. This work has resulted in the possibility of building nuclear propulsion plants of much higher power, longer life, and building such plants at much lower cost. (The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in his January 7 letter to you, a copy of which he transmitted to the Joint Committee, presents a very good summary of the advances which have been made.) p. 80.)

(See

In summary, major advances have been made in the development of improved nuclear propulsion plants for our surface fleet but the application of such plants is not materializing. Accordingly, I would strongly urge that consideration be given to increasing utilization of nuclear power in our surface fleet. It appears we are in excellent position to take advantage of this application without any further delay.

I understand that it is still possible to consider the installation of a nuclear propulsion plant in the aircraft carrier authorized in the fiscal year 1963 shipbuilding program. I would hope that every consideration will be given to the installation of nuclear propulsion in this carrier.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman.

Enclosure: Unclassified record of Enterprise hearings.

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING,

Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE,

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Washington, D.C., March 18, 1963.

Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Congress of the United States.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 1, 1963, to the Secretary of Defense has been referred to my office for reply. In your letter you mention the concern of the members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy regarding the slow progress in the application of nuclear power for the propulsion of naval surface ships.

This question has also been of increasing concern to the Secretary. He has therefore asked members of his staff and the Navy to reexamine, as a matter of high priority, our planned shipbuilding program in the light of these technical advances in naval reactor development and of the demonstrated performance of ships, such as the Enterprise.

The results of this review are expected in the near future, and we shall advise you of our proposed action at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

HAROLD BROWN.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
October 9, 1963.

Hon. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA,

The Secretary, Department of Defense.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In my March 1, 1963, letter, I indicated to you my concern and the concern of a number of the members of the Joint Committee over the slow progress in the application of nuclear power for the propulsion of naval surface vessels.

Dr. Harold Brown responded to my letter by letter dated March 18, 1963, stating that the matter was being reexamined on a priority basis and that the Joint Committee would be advised of the results in the near future. We have not heard further from you or your staff on this matter, although a number of articles have appeared in the press concerning the results of various studies.

The latest article which I have read on the Defense Department's plans for nuclear power in surface vessels was an article by Mr. Jack Raymond which appeared in the September 29 issue of the New York Times. This article indicated the administration has already decided not to install nuclear power in the aircraft carrier authorized by the Congress in fiscal year 1963. Mr. John Conway, executive director of the Joint Committee, upon reading this article, wrote to Dr. Brown on September 30 and asked for information concerning the accuracy of the statements in the article and reiterated my earlier request to you for information on what action the Defense Department proposed to take on this matter.

According to newspaper reports since last spring, the Navy and your office have completed a number of evaluations of the performance of the first three nuclear surface ships and the advantages of nuclear propulsion. I would appreciate receiving copies of these reports in order that we may be apprised of what factors are being considered and what the results of these evaluations are. I would also appreciate being informed of what action you propose to take on future applications of nuclear power to surface vessels of the Navy.

As I indicated in my March 1 letter to you, the Joint Committee has enthusiastically supported the development phase of nuclear propulsion plants for naval surface vessels. We have been encouraged with the progress which has been made in this field. Based upon the committee's cruise on the Enterprise and the testimony we received during hearings at sea aboard the Enterprise, there is no question but that the performance of the Enterprise is superior to conventional ships such as the carrier Forrestal. I would be very interested in obtaining information on the relative performance of nuclear and conventional carrier forces.

It is my intention to schedule a series of hearings in the near future to review the status of naval nuclear propulsion, with particular emphasis on surface ships. During these hearings, I would expect to review in detail the costs of nuclear propulsion as compared with conventional propulsion when all factors are considered, including logistic support, superior performance, and overall forces required to carry out similar tasks. When the dates of the hearings are firm, I will notify your office.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,

Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE,

JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman.

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., October 11, 1963.

Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter to Secretary McNamara of October 9, 1963. Contrary to reports in the press, final decision with respect to the type of propulsion to be installed in the aircraft carrier authorized by Congress in fiscal year 1963 has not yet been made. As soon as we are in a position to do so, we will inform you of our action with respect to this matter.

We shall, of course, be happy to cooperate in the hearings you propose to hold with respect to the general question of nuclear propulsion for naval surface ships.

Mr. McGiffert will be in touch with Mr. Conway concerning this and other matters raised in your letter.

Sincerely,

ROSWELL GILPATRIC.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
October 22, 1963.

Hon. HAROLD BROWN,

Director of Defense Research and Engineering,
Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DR. BROWN: I was pleased to learn, by letter dated October 11, 1963, from Deputy Secretary Gilpatric that, contrary to reports which have appeared in the press to the effect that a conventional plant had been selected, a final decision concerning the type of propulsion planned for installation in the aircraft carrier, authorized by the Congress in fiscal year 1963, has not been made.

This is to confirm that the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has scheduled executive hearings beginning 10 a.m. on October 30, 1963, concerning the advantages of nuclear propulsion vis-a-vis conventional propulsion in the planned aircraft carrier. Notification of the selected date for this hearing was given by Mr. John Conway, executive director of the Joint Committee, in a telephone conversation this date with your office.

In a previous letter of October 9, 1963, to Secretary McNamara, I indicated my plans to hold hearings on this subject. I would appreciate it if you and any other qualified representatives you wish to accompany you from the Department of Defense would be present and prepared to testify concerning the present available information pertinent to this decision.

My letter of October 9 to Secretary McNamara requested that the Joint Committee be furnished with any studies which have been carried out by the Navy or your office in connection with the utilization of nuclear propulsion in surface ships. In view of the scheduled hearing, it would be most helpful if these studies can be provided to us at the earliest possible date.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman.

Chairman PASTORE. I would also like to insert in the record copies of my press releases dated October 11, 23, and 29, 1963, publicly announcing this hearing.

(The releases are as follows:)

[From the Office of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy-No. 425, October 11, 1963] JOINT CONGRESSIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN PASTORE WANTS DEFENSE TO CONSIDER ATOMIC PROPULSION FOR AIRCRAFT CARRIER

A reported decision by the Defense Department to build a conventional aircraft carrier instead of a more advanced nuclear-powered ship was questioned today by Senator John O. Pastore, chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. He stated that the Joint Committee plans to hold hearings on the matter.

Senator Pastore stated: "Testimony received by the Joint Committee in the past and in hearings held aboard the nuclear carrier U.S.S. Enterprise on March 31, 1962, indicate that the military performance of a nuclear carrier is far superior to conventional ships.* If only economic factors were the basis for deciding the types of ships the Navy will have, then it would not have converted from sail to coal burning and then from coal burning to oil."

Senator Pastore released an exchange of letters he has had with the Defense Department, beginning in March 1963, indicating the concern of the Joint Committee over the slow progress in the application of nuclear power to Navy surface vessels.

In a letter dated October 9 (copy attached) to the Secretary of Defense, Senator Pastore announced his intention to schedule a series of hearings by the Joint Committee on progress in the application of nuclear power for surface ships of the U.S. Navy. Senator Pastore's letter raised doubt that conventional ships were more economic than nuclear vessels and in this connection Senator Pastore stated that the planned hearings "would expect to review in detail the

*Tour of the U.S.S. Enterprise and Report on Joint AEC-Naval Reactor Program," hearing held by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Mar. 31, 1963.

costs of nuclear propulsion as compared with conventional propulsion, with all factors considered, including logistic support, superior performance, and overall forces required to carry out similar tasks."

[From the Office of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Oct. 23, 1963]

NUCLEAR VERSUS CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT CARRIER HEARINGS ANNOUNCED BY JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY

The Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy will hold executive session hearings beginning Wednesday, October 30, 1963, at 10 a.m. to receive testimony from representatives of the Department of the Navy, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Defense Department, concerning the relative advantages of a nuclear aircraft carrier versus a conventional carrier, it was announced today by Senator John O. Pastore, chairman of the Joint Committee. In making the announcement, Chairman Pastore referred to the large sums of money that had been spent in the past and the additional funds which the committee will probably be requested to approve to advance nuclear reactors for naval surface ships. He expressed his concern that these funds may all be wasted if the Navy does not utilize the advanced technology.

He stated: "To date the AEC and the Navy Department have expended over $400 million in developing and improving nuclear reactors for naval surface ships. This year alone over $50 million is to be spent for this purpose. The Joint Committee is interested in knowing the advantages of developing nuclear propulsion for surface ships vis-a-vis conventional power before justifying expenditures of additional Government sums in this type of research.'

Senator Pastore named Dr. Harold Brown, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, and Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, as two of the witnesses being called to testify. Although he did not release the full witness list at this time he advised that he also expected to have Adm. David L. McDonald, Chief, Naval Operations; and Vice Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Ships (Nuclear Propulsion); and other naval officials, furnish the Joint Committee their views in this matter.

[From the Office of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Oct. 29, 1963]

As previously announced the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy will hold hearings beginning Wednesday, October 30, 1963, to consider the need for nuclear propulsion for naval surface vessels, it was stated today by Senator John O. Pastore, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Senator Pastore pointed out that the Joint Committee had scheduled hearings prior to the announcement by the Secretary of Defense of his decision to construct a conventional aircraft carrier rather than a nuclear carrier.

Senator Pastore released the following list of witnesses who will testify Wednesday and stated that the Secretary of Defense is scheduled to testify at a later date:

Department of Navy:

Hon. Fred Korth, Secretary of the Navy.

Hon. James K. Wakelin, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and
Development).

Adm. David L. McDonald, Chief, Naval Operations.

Vice Adm. John T. Hayward, Commander, Antisubmarine Warfare Force,
Pacific Fleet.

Capt. Vincent P. dePoix, former commanding officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise.
Capt. Raymond E. Peet, commanding officer, U.S.S. Bainbridge.

Atomic Energy Commission:

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman.

James T. Ramey, Commissioner.

Vice Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, Manager, Naval Reactors, Division of
Reactor Development.

Department of Defense:

Dr. Harold Brown, Director, Defense Research and Engineering.

Hon. Paul H. Nitze, Assistant Secretary of Defense (designated to be
Secretary of Navy, effective November 1, 1963).

Chairman PASTORE. I Would like to insert in the record at this point a series of reports prepared by the Navy and correspondence of the Navy and Defense Department on nuclear propulsion, which the committee received on October 25 and 26 in response to our request.

(These letters and reports are attached to and considered part of the original Joint Committee on Atomic Energy classified transcript. Copies of these documents with classified material deleted are printed on pp. 197 to 245; also pp. 25-26 and 104-107.)

Chairman PASTORE. Based upon the information we received since last Friday when the decision was announced, the question of the propulsion plant for the next carrier has been under intensive study since January of 1963. Just 2 days after I announced the date of the hearing on nuclear propulsion of aircraft carriers and just 5 days before the scheduled date of the hearing, a decision was reached on this matter. Obviously the announcement of the decision by the Secretary of Defense just prior to this hearing would appear to be directed at having a restraining influence on the testimony of the Department of Defense witnesses before the committee. I have taken this matter up with Mr. Gilpatric. I have been assured by him this is not the case. That of course is very reassuring and refreshing. He has said that the witnesses are free-and I repeat that, are free to give their own professional views and opinions. I made quite an issue of that with Mr. Gilpatric. He came into my office and assured me timing had nothing at all to do with the free expression on the part of witnesses who come here.

Representative MORRIS. Will the chairman yield for a question at that point?

Chairman PASTORE. Yes.

Representative MORRIS. Does this also mean, Mr. Chairman, that these witnesses are free to testify as to their professional and objective opinions in this matter without any fear of retaliation from anyone else?

Chairman PASTORE. This is my understanding.

As a matter of fact the Secretary of Defense feels that he has his reasons for making this decision and he has already expressed the willingness to come here and justify that position and he is not interested in what anybody says and they are perfectly free to say what they want to say.

Representative MORRIS. I am happy to hear that because I know— and I am sure the chairman understands-there is always a way for putting the "knife" in people without seeming to do so and without expressing a public opinion on it.

Chairman PASTORE. I would hope that would not be the case. Representative HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as it was the Secretary of Defense who made this decision, can we look forward to hearing from him at a future time?

Chairman PASTORE. Yes, I have been assured of that as well. (See pp. 151 to 195.)

Representative HOSMER. Thank you.

Chairman PASTORE. I would hope therefore that the witnesses will cooperate to the maximum degree possible to assure that the committee will receive all of the pertinent information relative to this matter. I want to make it abundantly clear that we are all on the same ball

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »