[No. 6] MAR SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3293, H.R. 3292, H.R, 1. 3291, AND H.R. 3290 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2, Washington, D.C., Thursday, February 19, 1959. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Carl T. Durham (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DURHAM. The meeting will come to order. Members of the committee, this is the first meeting of Subcommittee No. 2. I first want to welcome back all of the members who have served on the subcommittee and particularly I want to welcome the new members of the subcommittee. We have five bills this morning to consider, the first of which is the Navy's annual shipbuilding bill, H.R. 3293. The second bill on the agenda, H.R. 3292, relates to the furnishing of supplies and services to foreign vessels and aircraft. A bill virtually identical to this bill was reported out of this subcommittee last year and passed the House. It also passed the Senate in a slightly different form, but the Senate amendment was not accepted by the House due to the lateness in the session. The third bill would provide the Air Force with its own distinctive medals to replace the Distinguished Service Cross, and the Soldier's Medal. These two medals are actually Army medals and the only thing the bill would do would change their names to the Air Force Cross and the Airmen's Medal. The fourth bill, H.R. 3290, relates to the elimination of an annual report now required by the law to be made by Navy chaplains. The last bill, H.R. 3294, involves the sale of military clothing and textile material to contractors for use in performing Department of Defense contracts. I trust that we can finish all of these bills this morning in order that we may have them before the full committee next Tuesday. Our first bill is H.R. 3293, the ship construction bill. The bill follows: A BILL To authorize the construction of modern naval vessels Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized to undertake the construction of not to exceed twenty thousand tons of amphibious warfare vessels and landing craft and not to exceed four thousand tons of patrol vessels. SEC. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the construction of the foregoing vessels. Our two witnesses are Admiral Beakley, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, and Admiral Mumma, Chief of the Bureau of Ships. Admiral Beakley and Admiral Mumma, will you please come forward and present your testimony on H.R. 3293. Mr. KELLEHER. The witness statements for all of the witnesses this. morning are before the members now, Mr. Chairman. Admiral BEAKLEY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Vice Admiral Beakley, Admiral Burke's Deputy for Fleet Operations and Readiness. I am appearing before you in support of House bill 3293. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the President to construct not to exceed 20,000 tons of amphibious warfare ships and landing craft and not to exceed 4,000 tons of patrol vessels. If approved, this authorization will be used for two amphibious ships, two escort ships, and one patrol craft in our fiscal year 1960 shipbuilding and conversion program. I would like to discuss each of these briefly. Rear Admiral Mumma, Chief of the Bureau of Ships, will discuss in more detail the Navy's requirement for this tonnage authorization. I have brought with me some artists' sketches of each ship. The first is the amphibious transport dock. This with the amphibious assault ship (LPH) will form the nucleus of our assault landing forces of the future. These are new types which were developed by the Navy and Marine Corps especially for use in assault by vertical envelopment. The amphibious transport dock (LPD) which I will discuss first will carry transport helicopters and will also carry landing craft. It will transport and land about 900 troops and their landing equipment. It will transport troops by helicopter and the equipment and cargo that is essential, but too heavy to be transported by helicopter, will be delivered ashore by boat, to complement the assault elements landed by helicopter. The LPD will be similar to a dock-landing ship with a shortened well. The well will house the landing craft, which, like the helicopters may be launched when the ship is underway or stopped. The covered well provides a landing area for the transport helicopters the ship will carry. This ship can carry six of the large transport helicopters and three of the large utility landing craft or six of the smaller personnel landing craft. It was designed to replace the attack transport (APA) and attack cargo ship (AKA). The big advantage of this ship is that the men and their equipment will both be carried in the same ship. The first of these was included in our fiscal year 1959 program so this will be the second of this type. The first one will be in the fleet about June 1962. The second new type amphibious ship, the amphibious assault ship (LPH) will combat load and transport Marine Corps helicopters and troops but will not carry landing craft. The troops and their essential landing equipment will be landed by their transport helicopters, to effect a maneuver or vertical envelopment, from dispersed positions at sea. Troops may thus be landed over any type beach via helicopter from positions 50 to 100 miles off the coast. This will eliminate the haz ards of concentrating large numbers of men and equipment in a beach area in the early stages of an assault landing as was done in World War II. Such a concentration would be untenable in nuclear warfare. This ship may also carry antisubmarine helicopters and operate as an antisubmarine warfare ship when not in use as an amphibious ship. This ship will carry 20 of the large amphibious transport helicopters HR2's or 30 of the smaller HUS types and will land a battalion landing team of about 2,000 troops and their assault equipment. Two of these ships have been approved in previous programs. The first of these will join the fleet early in 1962. The two patrol ships which we call escort vessels or DE's are of a new design. They will incorporate the improved seaworthiness of the Dealey class plus significant improved antisubmarine features. This will be the first new ship to carry the integral bow-mounted long-range sonar and the drone antisubmarine helicopters (DASH). An antisubmarine rocket launcher and ASW torpedo launchers are provided for destruction of submarines at medium ranges and the drone helicopters carrying ASW torpedoes will be used for longrange destruction. One single 3-inch 50 caliber mount will be installed forward and one twin 3-inch 50 caliber rapid fire mount aft will provide for limited self-defense. The patrol craft is also a new design for a submarine chaser with hydrofoils added. It will patrol harbors, harbor approaches, and coastal waters. The "Grasshopper" operational technique similar to that used by ASW helicopters will be used in search operations. That is, ASW search will be conducted at a very slow speed to permit maximum detection range and high speed will be used between search positions and for the attack. Two sonars and magnetic detection equipment will be installed. One sonar will provide maximum detection under normal conditions. The other, a variable depth sonar, and magnetic detection equipment will provide for increased detection and classification below the thermal layer. For the kill it will carry ASW torpedoes to be fired from two twin torpedo tubes and depth charges to be dropped from a depth charge rack located in the stern. A twin 50-caliber machinegun is installed for close-in protection. This craft will be 115 feet long and have a light displacement of 80 tons. The ships represented here will make significant contributions toward a modern Navy capable of doing its job effectively. On behalf of the Department of the Navy, I strongly recommend your favorable consideration of this bill. Mr. DURHAM. Admiral, how many ships will this 20,000 tons give you? You didn't state, I don't believe, as you went along. Admiral BEAKLEY. It gives us two, sir. There will be a slight residue. Admiral Mumma will speak directly to the tonnage, sir. Mr. DURHAM. All right, then, I believe we will hear Admiral Mumma and then we will ask questions. Admiral Mumma, you may proceed. Admiral MUMMA. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to testify in support of H.R. 3293, a bill to provide tonnage authority for construction of two amphibious warfare vessels, two escort vessels, and one hydrofoil submarine chaser in the Navy's 1960 shipbuilding program. The Navy has adequate authorizations remaining from existing statutes to build all other ships and craft in the new program. The Vinson-Trammell Act and succeeding statutes provide ample authority for the 10 warships. Unobligated balances from the act of March 10, 1951 (Public Law 3, 82d Cong.) are sufficient for construction of the auxiliary vessels and the service and other small craft. However, the Navy has available from Public Law 3 a total of only 6,883 tons for construction of amphibious warfare vessels. The amphibious assault ship and the amphibious transport dock have a combined tonnage of about 19,000. For construction of patrol vessels, there is available from Public Law 3 and from the act of July 29, 1954 (Public Law 548, 83d Cong.) a total of only 314 tons. The two escort vessels in the fiscal 1960 program and the hydrofoil submarine chaser, which are classified as patrol vessels, have a combined tonnage of 3,360. The Navy has available from the Vinson-Trammell Act and succeeding statutes tonnage balances totaling over 1,900,000 for construction of certain major combatant ships. However, in other categories and subcategories of ships, consisting of amphibious warfare, mine warfare, patrol, auxiliary and experimental vessels and service craft, we have balances totaling only 46,283 tons remaining from prior statutes. We are faced with deficiencies in tonnage for such vessels and craft because the Navy possesses overage replacement authority only for certain major combatant ships. The two amphibious warfare vessels, which are of the same basic design as ships in previous programs, will further implement the vertical envelopment concept of amphibious assault. The two escort vessels will be of new design, incorporating the latest electronics detection equipment and antisubmarine weapons systems. The hydrofoil submarine chaser will be a prototype patrol craft for combating submarines in coastal waters. The authority provided by H.R. 3293 will enable the Navy to build these five ships. I strongly recommend its enactment. Mr. DURHAM. Are all these vessels included in this year's budget? Admiral MUMMA. Yes, sir. Mr. DURHAM. All have been included by the Department and also by the Bureau of the Budget? Admiral MUMMA. That is correct, sir. Mr. DURHAM. Any questions? Mr. PRICE. And they can be built within the figure approved by the budget this year? Admiral MUMMA. Yes, sir. The current estimates of fiscal cost are included in the budget and are completely funded in that budget. Mr. PRICE. As a matter for the record, what do you estimate as the cost of these different types of ships? Admiral MUMMA. The amphibious transport dock is estimated at $29 million, sir, for this repeat ship. That is the first one you saw, sir, which has the decked-over well. The other ship that carries a larger number of helicopters, called the amphibious assault ship, LPH, is $40 million, sir. Then the escort vessels are estimated at $38 million for the two of them. One, a lead ship, costs a little more than the second ship of the class. We estimate in submarine chased at something in the vicinity of $3,700,000. Mr. PRICE. Projecting your plans into the future, what does the Navy believe to be the minimum that these ships would require to meet any requirement for so-called limited warfare-that isn't completely defined-to be their needs, say 5 years hence? sir. Admiral MUMMA. I think Admiral Beakley can respond to that, Mr. LANKFORD. Will the gentleman yield? Admiral, will you tie in with that the ASW requirements as well. I don't think that was a part of your statement. Mr. PRICE. No, but I want to get first-what I am thinking about now is I can see the necessity for an adequate amphibious warfare setup and looking well into the future, 5 years from now, how will we be sitting as far as the Navy is concerned on adequate amphibioustype ships? We will need an amphibious type for meeting this limited warfare phase in future conflicts. How would you describe that? Mr. DURHAM. I would gather it had a twofold purpose. Mr. PRICE. That is a different phase of it. First, the attack, to meet a so-called limited war. How would you be sitting 5 years from now with equipment? Admiral BEAKLEY. We have a program, Mr. Price, that phases in these larger ships so that we will eventually in 1972-which is the the end of our program-we hope to reduce from 124 ships presently in our line to carry a division, a wing and a half-a division and a half-to 76 ships, which will carry 22 division wing lifts. Mr. PRICE. Will these 76 ships all be modern equipment? Mr. PRICE. As far as you will be able to conceive, that will be the best type of amphibious ships available? Admiral BEAKLEY. No, not 5 years, this is 1972. Mr. PRICE. At least you have a projection or a plan to carry you beyond a few years? Admiral BEAKLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. PRICE. What I am trying to get at is whether or not the program will be sufficient, as far as you can recognize now, to meet the threats of limited war? Admiral BEAKLEY. When I say a two-division wing lift, I mean an assault Mr. PRICE. I am talking about the assault. I am not talking about the antisubmarine warfare. That is a different phase, a very important phase, but you can touch on that later. Admiral BEAKLEY. I am sure I feel that this should meet our requirements. In limited war you don't imagine a crosschannel operation of five, six, or seven divisions in assault. One division in assault followed by the administrative lift of followup divisions should be enough. For this reason we plan two-division wing assault and lift. Mr. DURHAM. Without this type of ships which you showed this morning, you would have to proceed today on the basis of present crafts. This changes the whole complexion of the landing facilities. Have you settled on this as your type of vessel you are going to use for the next 10 or 12 years? Admiral BEAKLEY. We expect this will last 20 years. Mr. DURHAM. This is firm? Admiral BEAKLEY. Yes, sir. There might be some changes, but we don't foresee them. Mr. DURHAM. But I mean the basic principle of the thing has been settled on by the Navy as something you necessarily would have to |