Following is a brief summary of inspections under the bureau during the fiscal year as compared with two years immediately preceding: Inspections at place of manufacture of material other than timber and lumber [Data does not include poles, piles, ties, knees, or similar material] REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF BUREAU OF ENGINEERING NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, Washington, D. C., September 1, 1924. APPROPRIATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS The funds provided for the support of the bureau during the fiscal year 1924 were as follows, the amounts for the preceding year being shown as a matter of comparison: 1924 1923 Engineering.. Engineering experiment station, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Salaries, Bureau of Engineering. 254,000 Salaries, additional employees.. 35, 390 Allotment to the bureau from appropriation under Secretary of the Navy: 255, 000 Contingent expenses, Navy Department. 5,170 Funds appropriated under joint appropriations: 6,800 Increase of Navy.. 19,097, 000 Scrapping of naval vessels (available until June 30, 1924)_ 7,500,000 17, 500, 000 Total.. 33, 971, 170 40, 292, 190 PERSONNEL In these days the fleet's mobility is given by machinery. This machinery must be adequate to the purpose giving to the fleet its necessary speed and radius of action. The machinery must be safe to ship and to personnel. It must be reliable, not subject to frequent breakdown. The cost of operation and maintenance and repair must be low, so that the time a vessel is deprived of mobility may be small. In connection with limitations of weight and space, inseparable from naval conditions, these primary qualities demand nicety in design, workmanship, installation, and operation. The parts subject to wear must be capable of ready access and of easy adjustment or renewal. The system of operation must be simple, well standardized, and well understood by the personnel. A superior material condition of naval machinery reflects an understanding of naval requirements and shows skill, experience, foresight, and imagination of naval personnel. The greatest advantage of self-maintenance of the machinery plants of the Navy lies in the development of the skill, initiative, and general character of the operating personnel. At the bottom of all engineering problems always lies the question of personnel. The men must be well trained; the operating methods must be well defined; the overhaul of the machinery must be systematic; the repairs must be accomplished with thoroughness and exactness; instructions must be prepared with care and must reflect knowledge, based upon experfence, and these instructions must be executed with exactness. In our Navy we have, it is believed, a great advantage over other navies, in that engineering work is a function of the executive branch of the line of the Navy. Just as in the days of old, superiority in seamanship decided many a battle favorably, in these days superior familiarity with the modern substitute for the sails and spars of bygone days gives to the American Navy an advantage of almost inestimable value. The operation, the maintenance, and the repair of the machinery of our fleet is directly in the hands of line officers. The ideas of the bridge pervade the engine room, and the necessities of the machinery are understood by the admiral and the captain. Our fleet is provided with means that may render it powerful and fit in any sea. That relieves us from reliance upon shore-based repair facilities in a greater degree than would be possible in any fleet where engineering is not a function of the line of the Navy. There is a price that we pay for this advantage. American naval officers must have more varied experience than is necessary for officers of other navies to possess. A greater degree of zeal is necessary for an officer in our Navy to be competent than if the field of his activities were more restricted. For the general run of officers the requirements are met, as well as may be, by the course of postgraduate technical instruction. This school is of the utmost importance to naval efficiency. It should be nurtured; its growth should be fostered until at least one-third of all the officers of the line of the Navy are its graduates. Another need of the Navy is for designers. The number of such skilled experts necessary to successful operation of our fleet is considerable. At least one such expert adviser is a necessity to every flag officer. At least one such expert adviser should be present in every destroyer or submarine squadron. At least one such expert is necessary at each of our large navy yards. A considerable number of such experts is required in the designing rooms of the bureau and, in certain important districts, as inspectors of material and of machinery in process of manufacture. These officers, in order to acquire their necessary character as experts, must in the very nature of things give their entire time to engineering subjects. The present law provides for such experts. They are chosen from regular officers of the line in numbers as approved by the Secretary of the Navy to meet the needs of the service. After such selection they become extra numbers. The present number of officers designated for engineering duty only is 65. This number is ample. Future selection should be restricted to officers with at least 18 years' commissioned service. Under the present law officers designated for engineering duty only have certain restrictions placed upon their performance of duty. Officers of the rank of commander are allowed to serve at sea only as fleet or squadron engineers. It should be possible to assign them to duty as senior engineer officers of capital ships. It has not been customary to assign officers in this category having the rank of captain to any sea service. They should be available for engineering staff duty. It is recommended that the present statutory restrictions be removed so that designation of a line officer for engineering duty shall become a distinction and not a restriction of his functions as an officer of the line. of No officer should be allowed to hold a position as an engineering expert who is not a thoroughgoing well-qualified line officer of the Navy. On the other hand, it should be specifically understood that performance of engineering duty is the performance of the duty of an officer of the line of the Navy, and in considering the fitness of an officer for promotion the character of his assignments to duty made by superior authority should not be taken into account, but the manner in which he has performed such duty should be the gauge his worthiness for promotion. Officers selected for engineering duty only would preferably be styled engineering experts. Upon examination for promotion, engineering experts, in addition to a thorough examination in naval engineering, should be required to demonstrate their knowledge of general line duties though not in as much detail as other line officers whose duties are usually those of command, as it is manifestly impossible for them to continue their specialized engineering studies as well as to attain thorough proficiency in strategy, tactics, international law, ordnance, etc. They should, however, give evidence that they are familiar with the problems which confront all line officers, in order that they may correctly direct developments in engineering to the end that the machinery of the fleet may be constantly better able to meet the demands imposed upon it. Ample reward to these officers would be furnished in the intellectual satisfaction of special accomplishments in the line of design that would be theirs, and that should at least be indicated in the Naval Register by some mark such as "X" opposite their names. If the above recommendations were adopted the effect would be to make these officers greatly distinguished officers of the line of the Navy-an accomplishment much to be desired. MAINTENANCE OF THE FLEET AND ADMINISTRATION A ship is not the product of a single designer, although it actually appears to be the product of the general board with the details worked out by the material bureaus. A ship has built into it the personality of every officer and man in the Navy past and present and each has contributed his share, even if it be only to establish the limit of human efficiency in operation. From information available of past performances, the Bureau of Engineering works out the design of the machinery which, when installed in the hull, will fill the requirements of speed, cruising radius, reliability, safety, and economy. The actual performances of ships, as given by the collected trial data, show a surprising closeness to the designed performance. There are, however, some errors in design, or some obsolescence, the subsequent rectification of which enables a marked improvement in all of the above-mentioned characteristics. When a ship is turned over to the Commander-in-Chief for service it has well established characteristics, which include the readiness of the material for service and the steaming qualities. The performance of the ship during its life of usefulness then becomes the index of the performance of the crew. The development of that 26870-NAVY 1924- -20 |