Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The Coast Guard FY 1968 program continues the FY 1967 impetus by internal reallocation of an additional ship year to oceanographic investigations. The President's FY 1968 budget request to Congress also contains funds for a new oceanographic research ship; additional personnel for postgraduate training and data analysis ; and Loran C and navigational satellite receivers for selected ships to improve the geogrphical accuracy of oceanographic observations.

Analysis of the Coast Guard oceanographic program shows that while it was designed originally to provide the ice and current surveys and research essential to an effective ice patrol, the major portion of our oceanographic investigations is now in support of other national programs. It is a user oriented program that is a logical extension of the other Coast Guard missions involving services to maritime interests. The Coast Guard, by reason of net cost on a systems basis and quality of data provided, is well equipped to develop, construct, operate, maintain and service oceanographic platforms—be they ships, aircraft, or buoys. Such programs can be totally responsive to agencies generating the basic require ments, just as the existing programs are now responsive to the requirements of the Departments of Navy, Interior and Commerce and other agencies. We wel. come the emphasis placed on increased direction of the national marine sciences program. We have been and will continue to utilize our marine sciences ca pability, and in concert with the Department of Transportation will work with the National Council and Commission to ensure that the Coast Guard's capabilities are used in the national interest.

Mr. LENNON. Are there any other questions, gentlemen ?

If not, the committee will stand in recess until further call of the Chair.

We thank you gentlemen for your presence.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION, 1968—ICEBREAKER

PROGRAM

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Edward A. Garmatz (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will please come to order.

We are here this morning to receive a briefing from the Coast Guard on their program for replacing their overage polar icebreaking fleet of ships, which for the most part were built during the early 1940's.

As far back as 1957 and early 1958 this committee recognized the need for enhancing our existing and potential requirements for supporting our commitments in the polar north and the polar south.

Extensive and convincing hearings were held on the subject of new icebreakers.

Legislation proposed nuclear power as being particularly applicable to ships having to operate in those distant and difficult areas-far from normal fuel sources and being called upon for unusual power and endurance.

As a result of those hearings a bill passed both Houses of Congress overwhelmingly in the second session of the 85th Congress.

The bill was vetoed on fiscal grounds.

Similar legislation was reintroduced and further hearings held in the 86th Congress.

That bill passed the House but, unfortunately, the legislative process was not completed.

Nevertheless, we felt—as I am sure the eight remaining members of the committee who were with us at that time will agree that we had produced a pretty effective and convincing record.

Now, some 9 years after we first reviewed this subject in depth, we can see some progress being made.

In the authorization hearings held on Tuesday, we heard the Coast Guard's request for $1,500,000 for icebreaker design work.

The Coast Guard has offered to give us this briefing to describe their icebreaker project in detail and tell us of their progress in this vital and special field of their endeavors and responsibility.

Admiral Trimble is here with quite a few of his staff. Admiral, whenever you care to start, if you have a statement to make beforehand, you may give it.

STATEMENTS OF ADM. W. J. SMITH, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST

GUARD; VICE ADM. P. E. TRIMBLE, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT;
REAR ADM. M. A. WHALEN, CHIEF OF STAFF; REAR ADM. JOHN
B. OREN, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING; CAPT. F. M. FISHER,
JR., CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON OFFICER; AND COMDR. VIRGIL W.
RINEHART, PROJECT OFFICER, ICEBREAKER PROGRAM
Admiral TRIMBLE. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Admiral Smith will be here very shortly. He is at present briefing our new Secretary, Mr. Boyd, on another matter, and we expect him momentarily.

I would like to furnish just a little background before we launch into the briefing on our icebreaker replacement program.

As you are aware, within the last 2 years all of the polar icebreakers have been transferred to the Coast Guard that the Coast Guard was not already operating: We were operating three polar icebreakers plus the lakes icebreaker, the Mackinaw, and five were transferred from the Navy, so that we now have responsibility for operation of the Nation's entire fleet of polar icebreakers.

We and the Navy were performing a similar mission in this field. This clears the way for a perhaps more orderly operation of the program and also a replacement program. That is, the two military services will not be competing for funds or competing with separate designs.

In connection with this responsibility for the operation, we also have the even greater responsibility for trying to replace these breakers which were built back during the war with the exception of the Glacier which was built during 1954. This committee is, of course, aware of our problems as far as obtaining funds for capital improvements, for vessel replacements, so that they are aware of the problems that we face in coming up with the strongest possible justification for the need for certain types of icebreakers, and toward this end we have been working to get the justification needed.

We have reviewed the record of the 1958 and 1959 hearings that you referred to, Mr. Chairman. We are appreciative of the meeting that the chief counsel, Mr. Drewry, arranged about 2 years ago with leaders in Government and science and the industry in general. This, plus the reports of the hearings, has identified people and contacts that have been most helpful to us as we have been working toward a program of replacement.

We, also, recognizing that it would be a number of years before most of the icebreakers have been replaced, have with the support of this committee obtained funds to rehabilitate our existing icebreakers. This has improved the habitability as well as the operating features. This is one of the steps.

Our engineers have visited some of the foreign countries that are specialists in icebreaking, and we have obtained very good technical information.

The committee may have heard the results of one of our engineers' visits at a Finnish yard which is very famous for its icebreakers.

As an outgrowth of this there were some rumors in the maritime building trade that we are contemplating building our replacements

foreign. I would like to assure the committee that was never in the Coast Guard's mind, but nevertheless we did get useful information from this source.

(Off the record.) Admiral TRIMBLE. Working then with the design money that we were able to get last year and continuing the funding for this part of the program as proposed in our procurement program for 1968, we tare accumulated a wealth of material pointing toward the objective.

We have Commander Rinehart here, our naval engineer who is our icebreaker specialist and project officer for this program, who will brief you on our program.

This is a recapitulation. There are much more data behind what we will say. He is free to answer any questions the committee may hare. If you want to break in during the briefing session, this is all right. If you want personal opinions from him, he will be glad to be as frank as he can as far as the situation is concerned.

Commander Rinehart.
Comamnder RINEHART. Thank you, Admiral Trimble.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, gentlemen, I am pleased to have the opportunity to come before you to present a report of the Coast Guard's progress in the devlopment of a design for a new class of C.S. polar icebreakers.

These icebreakers will become the core of our national surface fleet in the Polar area. Since much of the information I will present will be in the form of pictures, graphs, statistics, et cetera, I have arranged for this information to be shown visually.

I would also like to comment that during the course of this presentation certain information may be developed which will be of a secret Dature.

Title 14 of the U.S. Code states in part that

The Coast Guard ... shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate, with due regard to the requirements of national defense, icebreaking facilities . . . for the promotion of safety on and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Unite States;...

The history of the Coast Guard's efforts in carrying out these duties is summarized in the first slide.

The Coast Guard ice operations started with the acquisition of Alaska in 1865. During the subsequent years Coast Guard vessels rentured into the Arctic waters and by the 1880's were making frequent cruises.

The Corwin was one of the principal vessels engaged in these operations. Early in the 1880's the Greeley expedition was marooned in the eastern Arctic and the Bear, which has become famous as a Coast Guard ship was purchased for the rescue operations of this expedition.

The Bear came into national prominence again in 1897 when the crew of the Bear was dispatched to drive a herd of reindeer to stranded whalers at Point Barrow.

It wasn't until 1927 that the Coast Guard obtained a vessel which relieved the Bear of many of its duties. This vessel was the Northland. When last heard of I believe the Northland had been sold to the Israeli Navy as a training ship.

In 1941 the Storis, which is a longer and strengthened version of our 180-foot buoy tenders was constructed for Greenland service, and

shortly after that we entered into a program of design and construc tion of the Wind class for Greenland service during World War II

The first three of these vessels, the original Southwind, Northwind and Westwind, were lent to Russia and remained there until the early 1950's. During the same period a fresh-water version of the Wind class, the Mackinaw, was built for service on the Great Lakes.

It wasn't until 1955 that the next major addition to the U.S. Polar icebreaking fleet was made. This was the Glacier which was approximately one and a half times as large and twice as powerful as the Wind class.

The final significant event that I have listed was the transfer agreement in the summer of 1965 which transferred responsibility for the operation of all U.S. icebreakers to the Coast Guard.

The present ships which comprise our heavy icebreaking ship fleet are shown in the next slide.

Note that the newest vessel, Glacier, is 12 vears old and that the newest of the Wind class which make up the bulk of the fleet is 20 years old. These vessels have had arduous service. Three of them saw wartime service under the Soviet Union and were finally returned to this country during the period of 1950 to 1951.

The fact that they are still serviceable is a tribute to their designers, operators, and maintenance personnel. Funds authorized by this committee have contributed to the extension of their useful life.

I would like now to show a series of four color slides which will give you some idea of the configuration of these vessels.

Mr. EDWARDS. Commander, while we are waiting, did the ships that Russia had, come back in good shape? Can you comment on that?

Commander RINEHART. Yes, sir. I can comment in the negative. They did not come back in good shape. Extensive overhaul and repair was necessary. I think that this was in part at least due to the fact that the Russians were not able to obtain spare parts as easily as we might have if we had had the vessels in our operation.

Upon return of these vessels we found that many systems just did not operate any longer because of failure of parts in those systems. Does that answer your question, sir?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. I thank you.

Commander RINEHART. This is a picture of Northwind which is representative of the Wind class. These vessels are somewhat over 6,000 tons in full load displacement and have 10,000 shaft horsepower on two shifts.

This is a picture of the Glacier, the largest of the fleet. It displaces about 8,600 tons and has about 20,000 shaft horsepower. You notice that this is a fairly recent picture because the Glacier is now in her Coast Guard white paint.

This is not a very good angle on this picture, but it does show effectively the very broad beam that icebreakers have compared to their length. This particular vessel is the Mackinaw, and due to the fact that she was designed for freshwater service and is limited in draft, it was necessary to increase the beam to compensate for this lack of volume.

Another characteristic feature of all icebreakers at present is the shape of the bow. This bow is inclined at an angle of approximately

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »