shifts? How much warning of air attack do we expect to get? How does the mobility of Nike missiles compare with the mobility of airborne missiles? Answer: I am sorry that I cannot give specific answers to this series of questions because to do so in public would be endangering the national security. Question 28: Are the Navy's carriers expected to be a substitute for strategic airpower? Who decided to start on the second and third supercarriers? Did the Joint Chiefs of Staff approve these two carriers? Answer: The Navy's aircraft carriers are not expected to be a substituteand I emphasize the word "substitute"-for strategic air power. Nor were naval aircraft carriers designed for that purpose. In addition to their ability to perform essentially naval tasks, however, certain types of carrier-based airplanes have long range and are capable of carrying atomic bombs. These aircraft will be able to assist the Air Force and supplement its activities in discharging its primary responsibility for strategic air power. The term "supercarrier" is not, in the opinion of the Navy, the proper des ignation for the new modern aircraft carriers which have been designed for special purposes and for aircraft which could not operate satisfactorily without the modern aircraft carrier. Aircraft development makes it essential that aircraft carriers be developed along with their aircraft if the two are to operate successfully together. I am informed that it is not the practice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specifically approve or disapprove any particular items such as a type of tank, ship or aircraft. The formulation and content of shipbuilding programs for the orderly replacement and modernization of ships are recommended to the Seeretary of Defense by the Navy Department and to the Congress by the President of the United States. Modern carriers, with their larger and improved decks and more fuel capacity, are just as essential for the Navy as are improved bases, with their longer runways, for the Air Force. The number of such carriers, just as is the case in the number of air bases and bombers, is an overall problem of national defense. Question 29: How far inland over enemy territory can carrier planes operate at the present time? Under such conditions, how close would the carriers have to operate to enemy shores? How far away can an atomic bomb fall and still destroy a carrier? (Answer: Admiral Fechteler has said 1,500 yards would do it.) How many ships are needed to protect one carrier from enemy submarines? What percentage of the aircraft aboard a carrier must be used to maintain defensive air cover over the carrier? Answer: Most of the information sought by these questions is again of a type that cannot be disclosed without endangering the national security. I can, however, disclose that the range of certain types of aircraft currently assigned to carriers is extraordinarily long and that these aircraft are capable of carrying certain types of atomic bombs. I can also disclose that the number of ships needed to protect one carrier from enemy submarines depends entirely upon the tactical conditions at the time. Furthermore, carriers seldom operate singly and the number of aircraft necessary to protect a carrier varies with the number of carriers in the carrier group. Approximately the same number of fighters is required for the protection of two carriers as is required for four carriers. Likewise, in aid of protecting carriers at sea, naval aircraft will attack the submarines at their sources-in their bases, pens, and building yards. In this manner it is often possible to reduce the number of enemy submarines which might be encountered at sea. Question 30: What are we doing to meet the menace which the Soviet submarines present to our convoys? Does the Navy program provide for enough escort ships? How many escort ships could be bought with the funds used for the construction of one supercarrier? Do we plan to use the supercarriers as escort ships? Answer: The Navy is fully aware of the Soviet submarine menace. The escort ship is only one instrumentality in the defense against that menace. The importance of attacking the submarines in their bases and pens is recognized, as is also the mining of waters through which submarines must pass to reach the sea lanes. We have other means of meeting the submarine menace, for instance, patrol planes to search the vast expanses of the ocean to locate submarines and hunter-killer troups to destroy them. The number of escorts needed for close protection of convoys depends on the effectiveness of other means of combatting the submarine menace. The Navy believes it has a balanced program at the present time but are very conscious of doing everything they can to improve the situation. Approximately 7 destroyers could be built for the cost of 1 attack aircraft carrier. But, of course, both are needed in a balanced program. Question 31: What are we doing to protect our coastal ships from the menace of Soviet naval mines? Have we found a practical means of sweeping pressure mines yet? Answer: We are also fully aware of the enemy capability to mine the coastal waters of the United States and its allies by the use of submarines, surface craft, and aircraft. Meeting this mine threat requires many different measures, and continual efforts are being made to make these measures more effective. I am sure the details of these measures should not be disclosed at a public hearing. Question 32: What percentage of the Navy budget is devoted to the problem of combating the Soviet mine menace? How many radar-picket ships has the Navy assigned to extend the cover of our radar network off our northeast and northwest coasts? Are these ships permanently assigned? How many more are needed to do an adequate job? Answer: No one can specifically say what percentage of the Navy budget is devoted to the problem of combating the Soviet mine menace, since various elements of the Navy perform more than one function. It is impossible to sort out what part of a destroyer, carrier, or other device or instrumentality should be charged solely against an antimining effort. The integrated nature of a naval force and the multipurpose employment of ships and aircraft provide for the employment of many types of ships, aircraft, and instrumentalities to combat the mine menace. The details requested about the radar-picket ships and the other detection instrumentalities possessed by and planned for the Navy are information of the type that cannot be disclosed publicly without endangering the national security. CONTENTS CHARTS Page European organizations__ European Payments Union, cumulative payments positions of member countries, July 1950 to date_-_ 42-43 44 Defense expenditures and gross national product, dollars per capita (United 47 Total budget expenditures and defense expenditures as percentages of gross national product (United States fiscal years) __ 48 World production of crude steel in 1952 (estimated in millions of short tons) 50 EDAC (Economic Defense Advisory Committee) structure. 78 79 Trade of certain countries with Soviet bloc, 1951-52 (millions of dollars)_. 80 82 191 Geographic breakdown of Mutual Security Programs for fiscal year 1953 and fiscal year 1954 (millions of dollars)_. 193 NATO $560 million joint aircraft program_ 199 1952, the economic relationship of the United States to the world (in millions of dollars) ___ 216 Organization for military assistance, North Atlantic Treaty countries. 318 320 Mutual Defense Assistance Program, principal duties of Secretary of 321 Military assistance screening process (NATO countries) 322 328 Status of MDAP appropriated funds (fiscal years 1950–53). 329 The Mutual Security Program, fiscal year 1954 budget requests (billions of dollars) _ Mutual Defense Assistance Program, comparison of fund utilization, previous MDAP versus proposed fiscal year 1954 legislation, Europe (billions of dollars). 336 350 Total defense expenditures by category, European NATO plus Germany (billions of dollars). 369 Taxes as percent of GNP, total tax receipts of all levels of government as a percent of gross national product.... 375 European country aid, obligations, expenditures, and pipeline (millions of dollars) _ _ _ 379 Offshore procurement by service and commodity (in millions of dollars) _ 440 Facing p. 441 Fiscal year 1951-53 offshore procurement programs, value of contracts Facing p. 448 452 Typical harbor defense layout--- 462 European productive capacity to meet a balanced OSP program, fiscal year 1954. 477 Growth of European defense production (value of deliveries). Air Force, fiscal year 1950, through fiscal year 1953, funds allocation____ 1189 Fiscal years 1950-53 MDA materiel program, Air Force__ Department of the Air Force MDAP materiel, fiscal years 1950-53- Department of the Army, fiscal years 1950-53 MDAP, as of April 30, 1953- Composition of Navy MDAP programs-Source of Navy MDAP materials. This is how MSA intends to use the funds it already has that will not be Page MAPS The waters of the Jordan__. 1021 Palestine, showing current armistice lines, approximate area under Israeli 1024 STATEMENTS AND MEMORANDA SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Letter from the Honorable Harold E. Stassen, Director for Mutual Secu- Memorandum submitted by the Department of State on "boondoggling" in 62 136 208-211 Memorandum submitted by the Mutual Security Agency on present prob- Memorandum submitted by the Mutual Security Agency on United States Statement submitted by Department of Defense on analysis of status of funds for military assistance (in millions of dollars, as of Mar. 31, Memorandum submitted by the Department of Defense on procurement Memorandum submitted by the Mutual Security Agency on relation of Statement submitted by Mutual Security Agency on defense expenditures Memorandum submitted by the Mutual Security Agency on comparison of estimated United States military expenditures in Europe for fiscal year Statement of Gen. Thomas T. Handy, United States Army Deputy Com- mander in Chief, United States European Command, on United States military organization and procedures for handling military aspects of military assistance in Western Europe and military defensive strength in Western Europe and the effect of United States military assistance thereon___. 334 374 374 --395-402 Statement submitted by the Mutual Security Agency on evaluation team recommendations and proposed fiscal year 1954 Mutual Security Pro- Statement provided by the executive branch in connection with the testi- 502-504 517 Memorandum submitted by the Defense Department on construction at Memorandum submitted by the Defense Department on ownership of and 523-525 528, 529 Memorandum submitted by the Mutual Security Agency on financing of 539 |