108 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 



between 2,600 and 3,800 tons. Within those limits, there has been 

 no standardization. We haven't established just one tonnage that 

 will be good for each class. 



Mr. Dingell. Now, Commander, I am concerned here, because as 

 I read it, we are constructing at least three different classes of ships 

 in the case of the ships that are being constructed by NSF, by the 

 Coast and Geodetic Survey, and by the Navy. What I am going 

 to ask you first is, is there any reason why there has to be so many 

 different kinds and types of vessels for oceanographic survey work? 



Commander Alexander. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Dingell. I am not talking about as between the small, the 

 medium, and the large vessel. I am talking about is there any 

 reason why we couldn't have a standard hull, let's say, for small ves- 

 sels, for large vessels, and for medium-sized vessels, and then change 

 the compartmentation to suit the needs of the agencies which are 

 going to use the vessel. 



Commander Alexander. Well, each agency has slightly dif- 

 ferent requirements than any of the others, and except in the case 

 of the National Science Foundation, the Coast Survey, and the Navy 

 research ships, there just was no way we could standardize on it. 

 The Maritime Administration uses different techniques than does the 

 Bureau of Ships. 



Mr. Dingell. Are you telling me that there is a sufficient differ- 

 ence in the requirements of the vessels that they could not use a stand- 

 ard hull design for the different classes of ships that they are going to 

 utilize within the respective agencies? 



Commander Alexander. Well, there are no major differences, 

 Mr. Chairman. There are minor requirement differences, but there 

 are major differences in ship design and shipbuilding techniques 

 among the different agencies. 



Mr. Dingell. Now, as a matter of fact, though, Commander, 

 isn't it true that it is possible to achieve substantial economies by 

 building classes of vessels as opposed to competing and different and 

 divergent classes of vessels? 



Commander Alexander. I am not so sure that this would be 

 so, sir. If we standardized on a class that was uneconomical, we 

 would have a turkey with us for the 30 years. 



Mr. Dingell. Of course, if you standardized on a turkey, it would 

 be true whether you were standardizing on a turkey in one instance, 

 or in a number of instances, and this is true in ship construction 

 generally. This is why you have architects and engineers; am I 

 right? 



Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; but right now we have three 

 basically different approaches to a medium-sized ship, one by a pri- 

 vate naval architect through the National Science Foundation, one 

 through a Maritime Administration architect for the Coast Survey, 

 and one through a Bureau of Ships architect, and they are all fairly 

 close. 



Mr. Dingell. Yes; but now substantial economies would be effected 

 in the taxpayers' interest by having these vessels for all three be stand- 

 ardized insofar as hull is concerned; right? 



Commander Alexander. I don't agree with that; no, sir. 



Mr. Dingell. You don't agree with that? 



Commander Alexander. No, sir. 



