dustry. But we must have more than their testimony to convince the Congress that such a merchant marine must receive support in the form of financial aid. Therefore, the burden must fall on the military experts-the Department of Defense-to tell the extent to which a merchant marine and complementary industries exist in peacetime for war or emergency utilization and expansion; and the burden is on the economic experts of the Government-the Departments of Commerce, State, Treasury, and MSA-to tell us the national importance of a merchant marine for the carriage of essential commerce.

We must therefore know why and to what extent we, as a Nation, need a merchant marine before we can evaluate the degree to which we should provide support for its survival over and above the returns of compensatory operation under today's complex conditions in both the foreign and domestic trades.

In furtherance of the foregoing, on May 14, 1953, this subcommittee had an executive hearing with representatives of the Departments of Defense, Commerce, State, and the Mutual Security Agency. It was an executive rather than a public hearing, because we wanted to give the Government representatives a full and complete opportunity to "let their hair down"-be as informal as they wished, and, generally, to allow us to consider, together, the nature of the problems for which we, the executive and the legislative, are charged with the duty of trying to solve. I believe that hearing was highly successful, and served the purpose of providing us with the basis for this and our future hearings, which will be public.

Today, we will want to confine testimony to the general matter of the size and composition of the merchant marine, as it is, as it ought to be, for defense and commerce requirements. We believe that that is the No. 1 problem in our study of the subsidy question. In this phase of our studies, we hope to hear not only from the Government, through Defense and Commerce witnesses, but also from all segments of the industry-the operators, shipbuilders, labor, marine underwriters, and others and also from those who sometimes are overlooked in the consideration of shipping legislation, the shippers.

We intend to make our studies as comprehensive as necessary before we propose or consider any specific legislation.

Today we are privileged to hear testimony from the Defense Department on the subject of the size and composition of the merchant marine, viewed in the light of the requirements of our security in time of war or national emergency. I have great hopes and every reason to believe that, for the first time in many years, we will hear tangible estimates and constructive suggestions, from those best qualified to know, as to the constitution of our "fourth arm of defense."

Senator Pastore, we are happy to have you aboard.
Senator PASTORE. I am happy to be here.

Senator POTTER. Admiral Wilson, are you ready to testify? Admiral Wilson is the deputy commander and chief of staff of the Military Sea Transportation Service, Department of Defense.

Admiral, I wish to thank you for the cooperation you have given the committee in working with our counsel and myself in preparation for the hearings today and the hearings that will follow.

We would be glad to have you make your statement as to the defense needs of the merchant marine, as viewed from the Department of Defense.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. R. E. WILSON, UNITED STATES NAVY, DEPUTY COMMANDER AND CHIEF OF STAFF, MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

Admiral WILSON. Thank you, Senator. I am very grateful of the opportunity to come before you, as you say, and "let my hair down."

am here as a representative of the Department of Defense. I would like to say, before going into my formal statement, that some of the facts and figures in this formal statement are at some variance with the data which I prepared and gave to this committee in executive session a short time ago.

The changes in those facts and figures represent refinements of the problem which we have been able to accomplish since that last meeting, and should, in no sense, be considered as anything in conflict with that, other than of the nature of refinements.

Senator POTTER. This has been under serious discussion, and as your thinking progressed on it, there have been some changes? Admiral WILSON. That is correct, sir.

The strategic importance of ocean transportation in a future war supports the concept that the United States-controlled merchant fleet should be of such a composition as to adequately meet the planned requirements of the Department of Defense by providing modern, high-speed ocean transportation with suitable self-loading and unloading facilities and an ability to be utilized in any port as required.

The Department of Defense is concerned about the lack of a comprehensive merchant ship construction program which would provide for the orderly replacement of the vast proportion of our merchant fleet which is fast approaching obsolescence.

In the past, upon the sudden outbreak of a war, it has been necessary to hastily improvise a shipbuilding program which was not only costly, but resulted in an accumulation of ships so quickly designed and constructed as to be limited, in an unfavorable manner, in their capability to meet modern military needs.

It is clearly recognized that the special characteristics of merchant ships which are desired for ultimate military use must, of necessity, be modified and limited to conform to acceptable requirements for successful commercial enterprise. Within the limits imposed by peacetime commercial utilization, and an acceptable burden on the national economy, it is strongly recommended that the Congress support a phased merchant ship construction program of those ships required (1) to bring the active operating United States merchant fleet possessing acceptable defense characteristics up to the numerical limits required to meet the initial needs of the Department of Defense— Senator PASTORE. May I interrupt you at this point? Isn't it a fact that Congress, or the Senate, just recently did the opposite? It deleted the subsidies to the building of several ships?

Admiral WILSON. I believe that is correct, Senator.
Senator PASTORE. Only within a matter of weeks?
Admiral WILSON. Yes; as regards the subsidy feature.

I will continue: (2) Provide the means for the orderly replacement of existing operating tonnage now rapidly approaching obsolescence. It is further recommended that, either as a part of the program recommended above, or supplementary thereto, the means be provided for the construction and operation of sufficient prototype vessels

which can serve as the basis for emergency vessel-construction programs upon the outbreak of a war.

It is considered appropriate to also recommend that the Congress place the maximum reliance on United States-flag merchant shipping to support the defense of the United States.

It is important to note that, while the total national-defense fleet (active and reserve) is deficient only to a minor degree to meet initial defense requirements from a quantitative point of view, there is a serious deficiency from a qualitative point of view. Of special reference is the fact that there are 1,713 Liberty ships, of which 242 are active and 1,471 laid up. These are considered too slow for modern military needs. In addition, there are 57 T-2 tankers (exclusive of those in Navy custody) which have reached more than one-half their life expectancy. These also should be replaced.

Senator POTTER. Admiral, would you yield there? I recall the debate on the floor of the Senate when some challenge of the life expectancy of 20 years of a vessel arose. Do you believe the 20-year life expectancy of a vessel is a true life expectancy?

Admiral WILSON. I believe it is a reasonably accurate figure, Senator, particularly in regard to tankers. We are already experiencing, in our own fleet, very expensive repairs of these T-2 tankers, which have been in service approximately 10 years. You arrive at a point, certainly, beyond 20 years where the expenditure is not any longer justified to maintain those ships in active service.

Senator POTTER. Do you feel the 20-year life expectancy of a ship is realistic?

Admiral WILSON. Yes.

Mr. DREWRY. Why do you mention specifically tankers, Admiral? Admiral WILSON. Primarily because of corrosion that you run into in tankers. The deterioration of the hull structure is more rapid, I believe, in tankers, than in any other type of ship.

Mr. DREWRY. Would it be, too, that tankers are in active use. more of the time than a dry-cargo ship because of the loading and unloading facilities, so that it has lived a faster life by the time it is 20 years old?

Admiral WILSON. I think that is an element.

Mr. DREWRY. Are the repairs you are experiencing mostly to the hull or machinery?

Admiral WILSON. I am referring to the structural members of the hull, the bulkheads between tanks, and the general longitudinal strength members of the hulls themselves.

Senator PASTORE. Could you pinpoint that statement? You say, "These are considered too slow for modern military needs." How fast are they and how fast should they be to meet the requirements? Admiral WILSON. The 1,700 Liberty ships, Senator, that I referred to, have an optimum speed of 10 knots with reciprocating engines. Later on in my statement I will emphasize the fact, from a defense point of view, that we believe cargo ships should have a minimum of 18 knots. So they are almost half of what should be built into new ships.

Mr. DREWRY. This was brought out in the executive hearing. I would like to ask the question again. In connection with these 57 T-2's, is it your thought that because of the expense of maintaining them, and perhaps their obsolescence, in the light of modern military

needs, they should be scrapped, rather than headed for the reserve fleet?

Admiral WILSON. I don't think-it is my firm conviction, as a matter of fact-you can consider scrapping vessels until you have reached the quantitative numbers required. Beyond that point, I think a scrapping program would be a very excellent basis on which to proceed.

Mr. DREWRY. At the outset, as far as these 57 ships are concerned, it would appear the soundest procedure would be to replace them with more modern ships, but keep them?

Admiral WILSON. Withdraw them from service and keep them in a reserve fleet, yes, sir.

Recommended size of the active operating United States merchant fleet

(a) Numbers by category: The Department of Defense, recognizing that the requirements for United States merchant shipping are subject to review and modification in the light of changing strategic situations, considers that in accordance with the latest approved plans the active operating United States merchant marine (exclusive of merchant-type vessels in Navy custody) should be comprised, as a minimum, of the following numbers of vessels:

(1) Dry cargo ships: There is a requirement for 13,899,600 deadweight tons. This corresponds to a requirement for 1,287 notional dry-cargo ships.

Senator POTTER. Would you explain what you mean by "notional"? Admiral WILSON. That follows shortly, Senator, in the statement. (2) Troop transports: There is a requirement for 250,900 gross tons. This corresponds to a requirement for 26 notional troopships. (3) Tankers: There is a requirement for 7,062,000 dead-weight tons. This corresponds to a requirement for 428 notional tankers. Notional tankers are ships having a capacity of 100,000 barrels of fuel oil, or 115,000 barrels of diesel, or 130,000 barrels of gasoline, with a dead-weight tonnage of 16,500 at a speed of 15 knots.

Notional troopships are considered to be those that have a capacity for 2,400 troops at a speed of 15 knots.

Notional cargo ships are those having a dead-weight tonnage capacity of 10,800 at 10 knots.

I would like to say, here, the term "notional ships" is nothing, more or less, than a unit of measure. It has no significance as regards the type of ship we are recommending. It is a means by which you convert tonnage requirements to a unit of measurement in terms of ships

Senator PASTORE. This is what we need in addition to what we already have, in order to meet the standards you set? Admiral WILSON. This is in addition.

Senator POTTER. In addition to what we have today?

Admiral WILSON. No, this is the total. I am sorry. This is the total needed initially.

Senator PASTORE. Are you going to give us a comparative figure to show what we have

Admiral WILSON. I will get to that shortly.

Senator POTTER. Is there any special connotation to "notional"? Admiral WILSON. It is a planning term, Senator, that has been used very widely in military and maritime planning. It is used merely as a unit of measure.

Minimum speeds desired for military purposes:

(1) Dry cargo ships.-Dry cargo ships should have at least 18 knots sustained speed.

(2) Troop transports.-Troopships should have a sustained speed of 22 knots, or greater.

(3) Tankers.-Tankers should have a sustained speed of 20 knots, or greater.

Senator POTTER. Admiral, why are your speed requirements different here than when you were explaining your notional requirements?

Admiral WILSON. The only difference, I believe, is in cargo ships. After a further review of that situation with the Maritime Administration and Navy Planning, we raised that speed 1 knot, as being something that was readily achievable and much more acceptable from a military point of view.

The Department of Defense considers that these speeds are highly desirable from a military point of view and represent a target to shoot for. Some compromise may prove necessary, however, in order to prevent a construction program, otherwise acceptable, from being finally blocked by standards which are not consistent with production capacity and economic feasibility.

Senator POTTER. Would you care to elaborate on that a little more, Admiral, as to just what you mean by that statement?

Admiral WILSON. In order to obtain a speed that is in excess of 18, or any of these standards, it is necessary under marine engineering, to go to high-temperature steam, the utilization of special metals, and other features of design which are not only expensive but, under mass production conditions, would be very hard to produce rapidly on a large scale.

I think the best example of that is when the Liberty ships were designed, the foundations were built into the ships for steam turbines of a rather modest type, but when they got into production, those steam turbines simply could not be had. The demand of the Navy, and other sources, for machinery of that type was so great that the Liberty ships were finally fitted with reciprocating engines, which was a 30-year backward step, as far as marine engineering was concerned. Senator PASTORE. You would be inclined to adhere to the orthodox production in order not to interfere with the program?

Admiral WILSON. If necessary, we would be prepared to compromise if that was absolutely necessary, recognizing that any compromise made in these speeds would add to the hazards and the jeopardy of the shipping under wartime shipping. There is also another feature, in that these speeds, as I have defined here, are not currently acceptable from a commercial point of view.

Senator POTTER. The cost to operate?

Admiral WILSON. Fuel consumption, primarily.

Mr. DREWRY. You stated in increasing the target speed for dry cargo ships that you consulted with Maritime and decided they could bring it up one more knot. Was the industry also consulted?

Admiral WILSON. No; the industry has not been consulted on these speeds. These are speeds from a military point of view. As I say, the commercial utilization of ships of this type, even if they were built to those speeds, commercially they would probably be used at lesser speeds.