+2,000+627, 276-671, 525 +387, 434-10, 100 +397, 534

fense decided there would be no major increase in personnel strengths of any of the services at this time, and so our original request for 633,000 naval personnel was reduced to 625,000.

Mr. ANDREWS. The original $19-plus billion did not include a request for additional personnel?

Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, sir; it did. It included a requirement for additional people.

Mr. ANDREWs. How many?

Admiral HIRSCH. The objective there, I cannot be positive whether it was 633,000, or 636,000.

Mr. ANDREWS. Naval people, or civilian employees?

Admiral HIRSCH. Naval military people.

Mr. ANDREWS. That has nothing to do with the 6,000 requested in the supplemental?

Admiral HIRSCH. Not directly.

In fiscal year 1960 we ended with an on-board strength of naval personnel of about 619,000. The supplemental request added 6,000 to bring us up to the 625,000 base for the 1962 budget, which continues through fiscal year 1962 with a level program of 625,000.

Mr. ANDREWS. The strength of 1962 is 625,000?

Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, and reflects the additional provided by the supplemental of 6,000.

FRAM PROGRAM

Mr. ANDREWS. Can you tell me briefly how you are getting along with your FRAM program?

Admiral HIRSCH. The FRAM program is a lifesaver to the Navy, We would prefer to have more ships, but we recognize the problem. By FRAMing these ships and installing the new equipment we do prolong their lives and make them very acceptable and fine vessels for current use-particularly for antisub warfare and other important work.

Mr. ANDREWS. You started that program in 1960. Since that time, how many ships have been reconditioned and put in the fleet?

Admiral HIRSCH. I have the FRAM Mark II numbers here, which were funded out of O. & M. Navy.

In 1959, we had two ships at a cost of about $7 million.

In 1960, we had 26 at a cost of $85 million.

In 1961, 27 ships at a cost of $104 million.

And in 1962, there are in our budget 21 at a cost of $100 million. Mr. ANDREWS. How much life, in terms of years, do you add to these ships when you recondition them under this program?

Admiral HIRSCH. I would say an added 5 to 8 years and some may have to last longer.

Mr. ANDREWS. What would be the expected life of a comparable ship new?

Admiral HIRSCH. It varies.

We have been using the figure of about 20 years basically. Submarines might be less for some. Basically we consider 20 as a reasonably good average for new ships.

Mr. ANDREWS. You do not hope to get more than 6 or 8 years out of these reconditioned ships?

Admiral HIRSCH. That is expecting a lot of them. All of these are old World War II ships, and there is just a certain limit to our ability to modernize them, because some of these new weapon systems, like missiles, you simply cannot install all of them in an old hull. The ship has to be built around many of the systems.

RESERVE FLEET

f

Mr. ANDREWS. Do we have any battleships in the active fleet now, or are they all in mothballs?

Admiral HIRSCH. There are no battleships in the active fleet at the present time.

Mr. ANDREWS. How many do we have in mothballs? Supply that for the record.

(The information to be supplied follows:)

There are eight battleships in the reserve fleet and two additional battleships in process of disposal.

Mr. ANDREWS. If you had occasion to use any of the battleships, would you have to spend much time getting them ready for fleet duty? Admiral HIRSCH. There is a problem getting a ship out of mothballs and ready for sea. I think we have done the best we can with the money we have to take care of the ships in the reserve fleet, and particularly those for which it appears there will be a possible need. Mr. SHEPPARD. Of course, your governing factor there would be to the degree you would want to modernize the ship before taking it into service.

Admiral HIRSCH. That is indeed a very important element I overlooked.

Mr. SHEPPARD. That is what you have led me to believe in the past.

CLOSING OF SHORE ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you plan to close any shore establishments during fiscal year 1962?

Admiral HIRSCH. You may have noticed in the budget document the statement indicating that we were looking over our Shore Establishment and planned that some change in the number of facilities would take place during the year.

One of the study groups established by the Secretary of Defense is looking into this very point. We have provided all the information we have and we have not had a feedback as yet with regard to their decisions as to what might happen to our Shore Establishment. We do have a very serious problem in the Shore Establishment. For example, in the funds for the operation of air and naval stations. The amount we have in the 1962 budget is very austere indeed.

Mr. ANDREWS. Can you operate all the Shore Establishments in 1962 under this budget that were operated in 1961?

Admiral HIRSCH. There will be a serious problem of operating all that we have under this budget.

COST OF ADDITIONAL MARINE CORPS STRENGTH

Mr. ANDREWS. I believe you provide the same strength for the Marine Corps in 1962 under this budget that we had in 1961.

66865-61-pt. 1——7

Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, continuing at 175,000.

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you know whether or not there is any talk going on at this time about strengthening the Marine Corps personnel? Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, sir; I have heard there is, and I know that the Secretary of Defense's studies are considering both the naval and military strength requirements and Marine Corps strength require

ments.

Mr. ANDREWS. What figure is being discussed?

Admiral HIRSCH. I have heard various figures, and I do not think I am qualified to mention any one. I might say last year during the budget discussions with Secretary Gates, there was a discussion of raising the Marine Corps up to 180,000 at the same time we are talking of raising the Navy strength up to 633,000.

Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would insert in the record for me what the additional cost would be of raising the strength to 180,000 and 190,000.

Admiral HIRSCH. We will be happy to provide that. (The information to be supplied follows:)

COST OF ADDITIONAL MARINE CORPS STRENGTH

(a) Since the Marine Corps entered fiscal year 1961 below strength, sufficient funding is available to end this fiscal year at a strength of approximately 177,000. If authorized to do so, the following additional amounts will be re quired in fiscal year 1962 to rapidly increase the budgeted strength of the Marine Corps to 180,000. This buildup would be attained by the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year and a level strength maintained thereafter.

Military personnel, Marine Corps.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps----
Operation and maintenance, Navy---.

Total

1 For medical care of personnel in naval hospitals.

Thousands

(b) If authorized to end fiscal year 1961 at 177,000, as indicated above, the following additional amounts will be required in fiscal year 1962 to increase the budgeted end strength of the Marine Corps to 190,000. This buildup would be attained on a straight line basis throughout the year.

Thousands +$19,900 +4, 200

1

2,900

+27,000

1 For medical care of personnel in naval hospitals and increased support requirements for Marine Corps aviation units.

SHORTAGE OF PERMANENT-CHANGE-OF-STATION FUNDS

Mr. RILEY. Did I understand you to say that you are running short on your permanent-change-of-station funds?

Admiral HIRSCH. You heard me absolutely correct-we are running very short, simply because our requirements have exceeded the limitation that was placed on that appropriation early in this year. Mr. RILEY. I am a little curious to know why.

On page 5 of your statement, you indicate you are only asking for $121 million, the same amount available for last year. If you were short in 1961, do you think you can do better in 1962?

Admiral HIRSCH. We think in the Navy and the Marine Corps we have been doing right well in this area for many years. We have been endeavoring to cut down both numbers of moves and travel costs wherever we could.

In connection with our 1962 request, there was a decision made by the Department of Defense that all the services would put in for the same amount they got in 1961, in other words, our 1962 request would reflect staying with the same dollars that were received in

1961.

Mr. ANDREWS. If you could not take care of your requirements in 1961, that would not be a very practical approach to it, in my opinion. Admiral HIRSCH. I would agree with you 100 percent, and we are having a problem right now, and I am sure it is not going to be reduced in 1962, but this was a decision. I think it may well have been made on the basis that it was more important to get the limitation. raised, or lifted, recognizing that if the limitation could be lifted next year we might reprogram dollars from other areas.

Mr. SHEPPARD. That sounds to me like an unsound approach. Admiral HIRSCH. I might add the 1962 amount is very inconsistent with the supplemental because our requirement for permanent change of station here in fiscal year 1961 is now up to $136 million, and we have only $121 million in the 1962 budget.

Mr. RILEY. Your supplemental will increase it by $15 million?

Admiral HIRSCH. It will increase this permanent change of station area, in fiscal year 1961 by only $3 million; it will increase the "Military personnel, Navy" appropriation $15 million, in fiscal year 1961. Mr. RILEY. Will that take care of your requirements until the end of the fiscal year?

Admiral HIRSCH. I would like to explain what our supplemental includes.

Our supplemental includes a request for increasing the total Navy travel limitation by $20 million, but additional dollars only to the extent of about $3.6 million in new obligational authority.

At the time we submitted our supplemental, the ground rules were such that we could only request additional dollars that would be directly associated with people aboard those additional ships deployed, and with the bringing in of the 6,000 additional people into the Navy. Of course, that was only a small portion of the amount of travel we have to do, so that the basic ground rules for the supplemental did not permit us to ask for new additional dollars we really required to carry out our program.

We are in a very difficult situation insofar as "Military personnel, Navy" appropriation, is concerned, because, although we have the $13 million increase in travel limitation, we only have about $1.9 million additional new obligational authority to go with it. The only way we can fund the increased travel is to take dollars away from the area of paying people, pay and allowances of people. And with this augmented readiness and the large number of people we have brought into the Navy, there is a real question in my mind as to whether we will be able to recoup enough dollars from the pay of people to pump into the travel area to do the travel we have to do for the rest of the

year.