DECREASE IN CERTAIN SQUADRONS

Mr. SIKES. I noted in the President's budget document on page 486 a table showing various naval aviation force levels. In this table the Navy patrol and warning squadrons show as 41, on June 30, 1960, 38 at the end of 1961, 37 at the end of fiscal year 1962. I would like to know what these reductions involve.

Admiral PIRIE. I would like to answer a part of this question off the record, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Mr. SIKES. Please put it on the record, then you may delete confidential material prior to publication. That will be kept for the confidential use of the committee.

Admiral PIRIE. Thank you. I will first answer the unclassified portions as a part of the record.

These units, the nature of which is unclassified, that are being decommissioned involve the airborne early warning squadron. For the past several years, we have had a major portion of our fleet early warning capability contained in the WV-2 aircraft. These are fourengine Constellations. They are operated from shore bases. This was before the state of the art in the early warning field allowed us to develop a capable aircraft of such size that it was practicable to operate from aircraft carriers.

We now have such an aircraft in the WF-2 and in the W-2F which we are developing.

Now that the WF-2 is operating in the fleet and the W-2F is progressing nicely we can decommission the large shore-based unit. One of the units involved in the reductions is a squadron of this type. (Discussion off the record.)

Admiral PIRIE. Lighter-than-air units, as most of you know, were reduced from four to two squadrons last year. At that time we told the committee that we wanted to keep the art alive in the lighter-thanair field if at all possible. We would like to keep it alive, had not we been assessed a 134-percent cut in our O. & M. area during the final days of the budget review. This cut took place after the budget left the Navy. This cut amounted to $17.7 million under Major Activity 2. By that time we had been stripped to the bone in operating funds. No possibility existed of taking any further across-the-board cuts. We had to look at force reductions. Admiral Stroop and I agreed on the fact that we could not possibly reduce funds further in this activity without reducing forces.

Consequently, our two staffs set to work on evaluating the situation. They came to the conclusion that lighter-than-air would be the first capability to go because this weapons system contributes to the national defense in a lesser degree than any other air weapons system.

We did not want to decommission an element of our forces which is so full of tradition, especially since the U.S. Navy is the only service I know of in the world today that is still operating the dirigible. However, weighed against other weapons system, lighter-than-air units were the logical choice, if sufficient funds are not made availabel to operate all of the current forces.

The funds involved in this cut amount to $4.1 million. This $4.1 million reduction had to be increased by $13.6 million addition to offset the total cut of $17.7 million assessed against this activity. (Discussion off the record.)

Admiral PIRIE. The budget does not include funds for continuation of the lighter-than-air program.

It is our considered opinion that under the circumstances these two force elements should be deleted rather than other combatant forces, such as the attack carrier air groups, antisubmarine warfare aircraft, or Marine aviation units.

Mr. SIKES. Is this something that you have anticipated would have to come sooner or later and under the present budget it had to come sooner?

Admiral PIRIE. Yes, sir, stringency of funds to operate the forces that we are permitted to operate under the Joint Chiefs of Staff force levels.

Mr. SIKES. This then is the Navy's agreed position, that if you must make cuts, these are the best areas in which to make the cuts? Admiral PIRIE. Yes, sir.

It has been approved so far by the Chief of Naval Operations, and we are waiting for the decision on the other matters from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Our Secretary, Mr. Connally, has not yet signed the lighter-thanair program cut.

It is in his hands at the moment.

Mr. SIKES. Are you in position to tell this committee whether similar reductions were inflicted on the other services?

Admiral PIRIE. I would like to ask the budget officer to answer that if he would.

FINAL CUTS IN DEVELOPMENT OF BUDGET

Admiral HIRSCH. In the final throes of developing the budget, it was determined that the DOD had to get within certain expenditure limitations or ceilings and at that time the Department of Defense assessed to all O. & M. appropriations a 134-percent across-the-board cut, in addition to some other cuts. All services were given like treatment of the 134 percent in order to save a certain amount of money for the total Defense Department.

Our share was $48 million, which we assessed as best we could across a budget that had already been very much depressed below the level that we required by actions that had taken place before this last-minute decision.

I might mention also that the Marine Corps' share was $3 million. Their O. & M. was cut $3 million.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. SIKES. Yes.

Admiral HIRSCH. The $3 million is in addition to, so actually, the Navy Department share was $48 million for O. & M., Navy, and $3 million for O. & M., Marine Corps, a total of $51 million.

Mr. FORD. Do I understand that this means that all lighter-thanair craft programs will terminate in fiscal year 1962 or is it just going from four to two squadrons?

Admiral PIRIE. No, sir, the cut last year which we made and which we told you about has taken place and two active squadrons are all we have in commission now. We now propose to terminate the program, with the possible exception of keeping one in operational condition for research and development work.

It is a good vehicle for certain electronic research and we have been asked to study that. That would probably be done under contract with Goodyear, but we would not keep the facilities at Lakehurst for lighter than air.

Mr. FORD. Can you tell me whether a reclama or an appeal has been made to these various study groups at the present time to reverse this decision?

Admiral PIRIE. I believe the Defense Department study groups did consider these two questions.

Mr. FORD. The Navy did make an appeal or did submit an E-budget or do whatever is necessary to bring this matter to the attention of the study group?

Admiral HIRSCH. I believe the study groups are well aware of the action that has been taken within the Navy to live within these dollars, but the Navy has not actually presented a reclama to the final action that was taken, the final amount in the President's budget.

Mr. FORD. In this specific case? Admiral HIRSCH. That is right. The reason we have not is the opportunity has not been afforded any of the services to make a general reclama. The study groups, it is my understanding, are looking over the entire situation as the Department of Defense feels it should be looked over and I would hope that after they complete their deliberation, we will have an opportunity to discuss some of the areas where we feel we still have shortages.

By and large-for other programs that have been mentioned-for example, the Constellation fire. We are still trying to get the funding of those items taken care of, but for these other items, cutting back some of these squadrons, et cetera, have not been specifically reclamad

as yet.

Mr. SIKES. How do you propose to get funds if you have not yet obtained them to repair the damage done by the Constellation fire?

FUNDS FOR REPAIR OF FIRE DAMAGE TO "CONSTELLATION"

Admiral HIRSCH. The repairs to the Constellation are going on at the present time and the funds are being derived from those funds that were provided in the shipbuilding appropriation for completion of the ship, but this additional cost of repairing the fire damage will of course raise the cost of completing the ship over and above that originally contemplated.

Mr. SIKES. What is it now contemplated the additional cost will be? Admiral HIRSCH. In the neighborhood of $48 million, sir.

Mr. SIKES. How much delay will you encounter in the commissioning of the ship as a result?

Admiral HIRSCH. I would want to check for sure. As I recall it offhand, it is about 6 months, sir.

Mr. SIKES. I have heard that you are going to have a better ship. There was some apprehension that the ship had been very seriously damaged and this was a damage that could not be corrected but I have heard from good authority that you are going to have a better ship as a result of the fire.

Do you have an opinion on it?

Admiral HIRSCH. I would prefer that you ask Admiral James, Chief of the Bureau of Ships this question, sir, because I do not know the

1

details of the improvements or changes that have been made as a result of the fire.

Mr. SIKES. We might get a short statement to go in the record at this point setting forth how much.

(The information requested follows:)

The Constellation (CVA-64), as planned for completion in May 1961, embodied the latest available equipment for a ship of its type. In the period immediately following the fire, the practicality of incorporating new developments was explored and the time factors involved in repairing the ship for earliest possible service with the fleet were considered. Where it was found possible to incorporate a later model equipment for one that had been destroyed in the fire, substitution has been authorized. An example of this is the substitution of a continuous-flow tray-type conveyor for stores handling as a replacement for stores elevators destroyed in the fire. This equipment improves the stores strikedown rate about threefold. The primary objective of repairing the ship for service with the fleet will be accomplished with only 7 months' delay. Thus the ship will be a better ship and will also join the fleet as fast as we can get it there.

AIRCRAFT REWORKS

Mr. SIKES. The question I am about to ask has been answered in part. However, I would like a clearance on this for the record.

On page 2-14 of the justification book, I note that it is shown that there will be 3,595 aircraft reworks during fiscal year 1962 as contrasted with 4,178 in fiscal year 1961.

I would like to know whether the Navy's aircraft operating program declined between these 2 years to allow scheduling approximately 600 fewer reworks.

Admiral PIRIE. No, sir.

The average operating aircraft goes up from fiscal year 1961 to fiscal year 1962. We will operate 6,943 in 1961 and 6,995 in 1962. You will also note on page 2-14 that we have 18.9 million less in the aircraft rework program in 1961 than in 1962.

This program is low and will result in an increase of deferred reworks of almost double the fiscal year 1961 number operating past the normal overhaul period.

In

We have never been faced with such a similar serious situation. my opinion it is dangerous and will result in grounding aircraft as unsafe to fly.

I do not want to needlessly endanger the lives of our pilots for the want of a few dollars to rework aircraft; although the safety of our pilots is my main concern, on the other hand, I do not want to reduce our combat readiness by not having planes available. This is a doublehorned dilemma that can only be solved by adding a few million to this area.

We have looked through every budget activity and cannot find money to shift into the rework program.

We would like to add $33 million to this program. We could then get the best return for the dollar out of the planes we do have.

I would like to add that this is really serious in the area of providing additional combat planes in case we get into any kind of a conflict that would use up aircraft at a faster rate than peacetime rates.

We just don't have any backlog at all. This situation is so bad right now that we are deploying units without full complements of planes today.

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT

Mr. SIKES. Admiral Sylvester, at several places in the justifications I notice reference to NATO infrastructure support. I would like you to tell me what this refers to, how it relates to the mutual security appropriation, why it shows up now for the first time.

Admiral SYLVESTER. Admiral Hirsch will cover that, sir.

Admiral HIRSCH. The infrastructure support, referred to in our justification books under "Weapons and facilities and servicewide supply," provides support for NATO facilities which the United States is a user nation and for which the Navy has been assigned the responsibility of paying this Government's share of the operating costs.

In each instance, the amount budgeted-is the Navy's share of operating these particular bases-based on agreements between the host NATO nation and the United States.

Facilities involved include airfields, loran stations, ammunition storage and fuel supply activities for the most part. There are others.

The dollars you see in this budget are for our share of the operating

cost.

The share of construction costs of these bases, borne by the United States, is included in the mutual security appropriation, which provides our contribution to the construction of these military and logistic fields under the NATO infrastructure program. Subsequent to this construction, then the United States shares in joint use.

We have requirements under "Weapons and facilities, ships and facilities, and servicewide supply" in fiscal year 1961 and fiscal year 1962. In fiscal year 1960 there were no obligations by virtue of the fact that after the facilities were completed there was a delay in billing us for our share of the operating costs.

We now have a better estimate of the amounts that we are going to be billed. While there may be some delay, we are sure the bills will come through and we have included them in our budget. The total amount for fiscal year 1961 will be just under one million and a half dollars and, for fiscal year 1962, in the neighborhood of $3 million.

REDUCTIONS UNDER LIMITATION ON DEPARTMENTAL CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

Mr. SIKES. I would like for someone to tell us generally what has been done within the limitation on departmental administration. In other words, how many civilian positions have been eliminated, how many military personnel have been added or eliminated in this area?

Admiral HIRSCH. As of December 31, the Department of Navy had already effected the civilian and military reductions in Washington and in the field administrative type headquarters in compliance with the intent of the Congress and the agreement which Mr. Gates made to reduce military personnel.

Of the departmental civilian personnel, Navy and Marine Corps, we had 15,627 on board on December 31, 1959.

Mr. FORD. These are military and civilians?

Admiral HIRSCH. These are civilians only. We had 15,818 in our budget for end fiscal year 1961. That was an increase. It was the intent of Congress to keep our onboard count basically at the level we had on December 31, 1959.