ay NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1965 
Perhaps the most important achievement of this Panel is a con- 
tinuing interchange of technical information on ships, equipment, and 
operations. Technical personnel are often prone to follow their own 
line of work too closely and forget that there are other people with 
similar problems. As with all segments of ICO, we bring together 
people with mutual interests. This interchange results in several 
things, some of which are informal, some formal. As an example 
of the first we have the detailed exchange of information on how cer- 
tain design features are working out, or how particular equipment 
is performing. An example of formal work, on the other hand, is 
the annual review of agency shipbuilding programs, and making 
recommendations concerning them to the ICO. Another is the prepa- 
ration of an annual summary of ship operations which is developed 
by the Panel, covering ship operations which are scheduled for the 
coming year. I have the current 1965 copy of this available for the 
committee’s use. It contains principally details which probably 
would not be suitable for insertion in the record but it is available 
for your inspection. 
Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Captain, we are happy to have that 
document. 
Captain Treapwet. This preparation of an annual ship operation 
summary permits considerable cooperative usage of ships and greatly 
decreases the possibility of duplication. 
Decisions regarding shipbuilding are particularly critical, and re- 
quire a great deal of soul searching on the part of the agencies and 
the Panel. The initial cost alone is a tremendous capital invest- 
ment—over the first 5 years of our formal national oceanographic 
program, 27 percent of all funds have been spent on ship construction 
or conversion. Operating costs, when totaled over the expected use- 
ful life of 20 to 30 years, adds an even larger amount. As a result, 
probably no other part of the national program receives such scrutiny 
at all levels—within the agencies, the ICO, the executive offices, and 
the Congress. 
Two other factors also make our decisionmaking particularly diffi- 
cult. First is the long leadtime required for ship construction; fre- 
quently 8 to 4 years are required between the submission of a budget 
request and the actual placing of a ship in operation. Coupled with 
this lag is the unfortunate fact that oceanographic techniques, instru- 
mentation, and equipment are making rapid strides, far more rapid 
than we can get the ships built; in effect, making up for long past 
years of neglect. How, then, can one assure that a ship designed and 
built today will not be obsolescent, or at least of limited usefulness, 
by the time it becomes operational? If I may cite just one example, 
when the designs for the Navy AGOR (research ship) class were 
drawn up 5 or 6 years ago, no one foresaw clearly the impact that 
buoys, aircraft, deep-diving vehicles, and improved instrumentation 
would have. We all try as best we can, to look into the future. The 
Navy is currently restudying the AGOR design, with a view to 
modifying it to follow these new trends. The Coast and Geodetic 
Survey also has completed a study which resulted in major design 
changes to their large survey ship. As we accumulate operation ex- 
perience with new vessels, we will be able to speak with more assurance: 
about what improvements should be made. 
