Looking for a way to improve Naval Aviation prewar in the 1930's.

[CV12Hornet]

Overall, I'd agree with the tanker suggestions; they were the major limitation on the US Navy early in the war, arguably more so than the numbers of carriers themselves. The Wake relief, which involved only two carriers, pretty much wiped out all the tanker-supplied fuel in the Pacific, and even by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign the US Navy was left with only the ability to sustain five "capital" units in the theater, which at the time worked out to the carriers Saratoga and Enterprise and battleships Washington, North Carolina, and Indiana.

 

[HB of CJ]

The world and national economic situation during the early to mid 1930's was very grim. There was no extra money anywhere. The politics pretty much reflected the economic situation. Considering little budget money the world's various navies had to work with, they did a very good job. Money and treaties had a very restraining effect. Just me.

 

[marathag]

He was already, but he was insane. (Spruce Goose syndrome.)

When Rich, you're just eccentric.

But he didn't go really nuts until the XF11 crash that nearly killed him

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Is this of any use?

The above are the tonnages of ships that the US Navy was allowed to have under US Law.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Text of the 1934 Act

March 27, 1934
HR 6604
Public, No. 135

AN ACT

To establish the composition of the United States Navy with respect to the categories of vessels limited by the treaties signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, and at London, April 22, 1930, at the limits prescribed by those treaties; to authorize the construction of certain naval vessels; and for other purposes.​

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That the composition of the United States Navy with respect to the categories of vessels limited by the treaties signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, and at London, April 22, 1930, is hereby established at the limit prescribed by those treaties.

Sec. 2. That subject to the provisions of the treaties signed at Washington. February 6, 1922, and at London, April 22, 1930, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to undertake prior to December 31, 1936, or as soon thereafter as he may deem it advisable (in addition to the six cruisers not yet constructed under the Act approved February 13, 1929 (45 Stat. 1165), and in addition to the vessels being constructed pursuant to Executive Order Numbered 6174 of June 16. 1933), the construction of:

(a) One aircraft carrier of approximately fifteen thousand tons standard displacement, to replace the experimental aircraft carrier Langley;

(b) ninety-nine thousand two hundred tons aggregate of destroyers to replace over-age destroyers;

(c) thirty-five thousand five hundred and thirty tons aggregate of submarines to replace over-age submarines:

Provided, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to replace, by vessels of modern design and construction, vessels in the Navy in the categories limited by the treaties signed at Washington, February 6. 1922, and at London, April 22. 1930 when their replacement is permitted by the said treaties:

Provided further, That the President is hereby authorized to procure the necessary naval aircraft for vessels and other naval purposes in numbers commensurate with a treaty navy:

Provided further, That the first and each succeeding alternate vessel of each category, except the fifteen-thousand-ton aircraft carrier, upon which work is undertaken, and the main engines, armor, and armament for such vessels, the construction and manufacture of which is authorized by this Act, shall be constructed or manufactured in the Government navy yards, naval stations, naval gun factories, naval ordnance plants, or arsenals of the United States, except such material or parts as were not customarily manufactured in such Government plants prior to February 13, 1929 : Provided further, That, if inconsistent with the public interests in any year to have a vessel or vessels constructed as required above, the President may have such vessel or vessels built in a Government or private yard as he may direct.

That not less than 10 per centum of the aircraft, including the engines therefor, the procurement of which is authorized by this Act and hereafter undertaken, shall be constructed and/or manufactured in Government aircraft factories and/or other plants or factories owned and operated by the United States Government.

The foregoing paragraph is subject to the following conditions:

(1) That if it shall be determined by the President that present plants, factories, and equipment owned by the Government are not such as to permit the construction and/or manufacture of the said aircraft and/or engines in such Government plants and factories, in the proportions herein specified and required, then and in that event such requirement may be suspended in whole or in part by his order. However, in the event of such order of suspension being made by the President, then at his discretion the existing plants, factories, and facilities now owned and/or operated by the Government shall forthwith be expanded and equipped to enable the Government to construct, manufacture, and repair not less than 10 per centum of its naval aircraft therein, except that it shall be discretionary with the President as to the per centum constructed and/or manufactured in Government plants if he should find it impracticable for the Government to undertake the construction and/or manufacture of not less than 10 per centum of its naval aircraft therein.

(2) The President is also authorized to employ Government establishments in any case where—

(a) It should reasonably appear that the persons, firms, or corporations, or the agents therefor, bidding for the construction of any of said aircraft, engines, spare parts, or equipment have entered into any combination, agreement, or understanding the effect, object, or purpose of which is to deprive the Government of fair, open, and unrestricted competition in letting contracts for the construction of any of said aircraft, engines, spare parts, or equipment, or—

(b) Should it reasonably appear that any person, firm, or corporation, or agents thereof, being solely or peculiarly in position to manufacture or furnish the particular type or design of aircraft, engines, spare parts, or equipment required by the Navy, in bidding on such aircraft, engines, spare parts, or equipment, have named a price in excess of cost of production plus a reasonable profit, as provided in section 3 of this Act.

The funds necessary for the enlargement and expansion of such existing plants and facilities now owned by the Government for the construction and manufacture of naval aircraft, are hereby authorized to be appropriated.

Sec. 3. The Secretary of the Navy is hereby directed to submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget estimates for the construction of the foregoing vessels and aircraft ; and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act: Provided, That no contract shall be made by the Secretary of the Navy for the construction and/or manufacture of any complete naval vessel or aircraft, or any portion thereof, herein, heretofore, or hereafter authorized unless the contractor agrees—

(a) To make a report, as hereinafter described, under oath, to the Secretary of the Navy upon the completion of the contract.

(b) To pay into the Treasury profit, as hereinafter provided shall be determined by the Treasury Department, in excess of 10 per centum of the total contract price, such amount to become the property of the United States: Provided, That if such amount is not voluntarily paid the Secretary of the Treasury may collect the same under the usual methods employed under the internal revenue laws to collect Federal income taxes.

(c) To make no subdivisions of any contract or subcontract for the same article or articles for the purpose of evading the provisions of this Act, but. any subdivision of any contract or subcontract involving an amount in excess of $10,000 shall be subject to the conditions herein prescribed.

(d) That the manufacturing spaces and books of its own plant, affiliates, and subdivisions shall at all times be subject to inspection and audit by any person designated by the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Treasury, and/or by a duly authorized committee of Congress.

(e) To make no subcontract unless the subcontractor agrees to the foregoing conditions.

The report shall be in form prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy and shall state the total contract price, the cost of performing the contract, the net income, and the per centum such net income bears to the contract price. A copy of such report shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury for consideration in connection with the Federal income tax returns of the contractor for the taxable year or years concerned.

The method of ascertaining the amount of excess profit to be paid into the Treasury shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in agreement with the Secretary of the Navy and made available to the public. The method initially fixed upon shall be so determined on or before June 30, 1934: Provided, That in any case where an excess profit may be found to be owing to the United States in consequence hereof, the Secretary of the Treasury shall allow credit for any Federal income taxes paid or remaining to be paid upon the amount of such excess profit.

The contract or subcontracts referred to herein are limited to those where the award exceeds $10,000.

Sec. 4. That in the event of international agreement for the further limitations of naval armament to which the United States is signatory, the President is hereby authorized and empowered to suspend so much of its naval construction as has been authorized as may be necessary to bring the naval armament of the United States within the limitation so agreed upon, except that such suspension shall not apply to vessels actually under construction on the date of the passage of this Act.

Approved, March 27, 1934.

 

[McPherson]

'deck edge' elevators,

Ah yes! Make it so, make it so. That doubles an aircraft carrier's strike below efficiency.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Ok, so probably something I should have done in the OP, lets do now.

In this thread, I'm looking to outline the vague ideas I currently have, for writing a series of very short ATL's, that will all feature Howard Hughes Jr doing a variety of fictional adventures, basically deciding that he wants to be the first to accomplish this or that feat of daring do. These will be inspired by the recent "X Prize" competitions, for private sector folks to achieve space exploration goals.

To that end, I'm going to make a thread w/poll, that will ask what kind ideas were there historically, that HH Jr and his contemporaries were actually doing in those days, and what other things could have been done, that would lead us to earlier development of technologies. Keep in mind, that although my main focus is the earlier development of technologies useful for Naval Aviation, I need a pretty good list of ideas that help me write the ATL's.

My personal health is NOT good, and I cannot make any promises for when I'm going to be writing these stories, but I am looking forward to some lively and spirited discussions.

Here is the first thread.

 

[sonofpegasus]

One interesting link is that Doxford Marine diesels were licensed for construction by the sun oil ship yard in Pennsylvania, So have your character involved in the oil business and have him/her order a number of oil tankers fitted with a pair of 6500hp, two stroke opposed piston direct drive diesel engines. Ideal for use as naval supply ships and as the basis for an aircraft carrier. Very fuel efficient, good for the Pacific campaign. At economical cruising speed these engines would burn only about 12/15 tons per-day each from the figures I have seen for their smaller three cylinder version of the same engine.

 

[McPherson]

One interesting link is that Doxford Marine diesels were licensed for construction by the sun oil ship yard in Pennsylvania, So have your character involved in the oil business and have him/her order a number of oil tankers fitted with a pair of 6500hp, two stroke opposed piston direct drive diesel engines. Ideal for use as naval supply ships and as the basis for an aircraft carrier. Very fuel efficient, good for the Pacific campaign. At economical cruising speed these engines would burn only about 12/15 tons per-day each from the figures I have seen for their smaller three cylinder version of the same engine.

10 engines and 10 electric motor generator sets?

Not too sure that is warship grade.

McP.

 

[Astrodragon]

Er... there was a tonnage limit on carriers. 135,000 tons total, Washington Naval Treaty.

1936 treaty. Earlier, there is simply no credible threat that needs large carriers or CVL's

 

[Astrodragon]

You need to change a few parameters to your PoD hypothesis.



Then educate the Congress. Three important words: "combat sortie radius". And a two word solution that does not impinge on ANY naval treaty, because it is lighters, ro/ros (LSTs in that era), fast tankers, ammunition ships, subsidized ocean liners (i.e. troop transports), break bulk subsidized cargo ships (STUFT ships that will mimic AKs, tenders, and other assorted auxiliaries), floating dry docks, ocean going tugs, etc., that can be summarized as the "fleet trains".



He was already, but he was insane. (Spruce Goose syndrome.)



The IJN lost their marbles, but they were in the ballpark out in left field. Instead of seaplane tenders and passenger ships, the correct hull to use was Mister Oil Tanker.


Problems:
1. Not efficient for aviation at sea.
2. Not efficient as a gun platform.
3. Being master of nothing, it will soon obsolesce as the planes become too fast to trap or launch without a catapult.



A fleet train is part of the navy budget, but if you have subsidized contract shipping *(STUFT) fleet, that can be hid from Congress as part of the Post Office Budget, Department of Commerce and Treasury, too, what the hey? What are all those Coast Guard revenue cutters doing with K-guns and sonars again?


Why? Buy up William Cramp and Sons, fire the incompetent 1930s management and make it part of Hughes Tool Co.



You just did (^^^). Philadelphia needs the help.




Standard Oil needs 20,000 tonne 25-30 knot oil tankers to ship crude to England. Why? Unrefined Venezuelan crude precipitates during shipping? How should I know? Make an excuse and build at least 12 of them, 6 will become flattops.



General characteristics
Class & type: Fleet oiler/ notional
Displacement: 20,000 tons (light); 43,987 tons (full load)
Length: 820 ft (250 m)
Beam: 98.425 ft (30 m)
Draft: 34 ft 9 in (10.59 m)
Installed power: 60,500 hp (45,515 kW)
Propulsion: diesel electric, four screws, twin rudders
Speed: 26 knots (48.15 km/h, 13.38 m/s)
Capacity: 380,000 barrels (58,000 m3) of fuel oil
Complement: 2,004 (as aircraft carrier)
Crew: when as tanker 108 civilians plus U.S. Navy detachment (as USNR)
Notes: It either is a big tanker or a soon to be modified into aircraft carrier. Obvious hints are the split side by side stacks and the peculiar "pilot house".

A 26-kt auxiliary would be illegal under the treaties. IIRC. limited to 20kt
Of course, if its just a merchant ship, that's fine. But I qu estion who would believe you need a tanker that fast, especially under and American flag

 

[Astrodragon]

What CV12 Hornet said. Plus this...

The tonnage quotas came to an end at the end of 1936, but the size of the US Carrier Force was still limited to a maximum of 135,000 tons under US Law. That is why Wasp had to be an "improved" Ranger instead of a repeat Yorktown. The law wasn't changed until 1938 when the permitted tonnage was increased to 175,000 tons. It was this law that allowed Hornet and Essex to be built.

Lexington and Saratoga absorbed 66,000 tons of the USN's tonnage quota, which left them with 69,000 tons.

The plan was to build five 13,800 ton carriers and AIUI the USN asked Congress to authorise all five in the late 1920s. Fortunately, Congress only authorised one. I wrote fortunately because the single ship that was built was Ranger.

When Ranger was revealed to be a failure the USN decided to build two 20,000 ton ships, which became Yorktown and Enterprise, and a second small ship which became Wasp.

All I can suggest is that Ranger and Wasp are built to designs that have "more balance" that is fewer aircraft, but faster and better protected. Something along the lines of the Saipan class.

The 1936 treaty allowed the USN to build more carriers up to 23kt if they wished.
Domestic policy limits are easier to change than international treaties

 

[Astrodragon]

AFAIK the Americans and the British both investigated the possibility of converting liners to aircraft carriers.

The Americans didn't convert any because they though they weren't worth the effort and the ships were more valuable as troopships.

IIRC the British did earmark four liners for conversion before the war. However, when the war came there wasn't enough capacity to build and/or convert all the ships that were wanted and other ships took greater priority. Eventually, only one ship was converted and this was the Pretoria Castle.

Friedman mentions a study to convert the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth into aircraft carriers. However, in common with the American XCV studies it decided that the result would be two unsatisfactory ships. Plus the conversions would take too long and they were more valuable as troopships.

The big liners would have made poor carriers, with a surprisingly low aircraft capacity for their size. 80-odd planes

 

[McPherson]

A 26-kt auxiliary would be illegal under the treaties. IIRC. limited to 20kt
Of course, if its just a merchant ship, that's fine. But I question who would believe you need a tanker that fast, especially under and American flag

You lie and run it at 10 m/s (19.5 knots) until you cut in those 6 extra diesel electric motor generator sets y0ou installed and did not tell anyone about. The USN would need them since 10 m/s battle speed for CTFs past 1935 is normal. 15 m/s would be ideal.

 

[Astrodragon]

You lie and run it at 10 m/s (19.5 knots) until you cut in those 6 extra diesel electric motor generator sets y0ou installed and did not tell anyone about. The USN would need them since 10 m/s battle speed for CTFs past 1935 is normal. 15 m/s would be ideal.

Yeah, and when everyone else points out the cheating?
The USN gets pilloried by certain parties in Congress for lying and breaking armament treaties. America was big on these, so its likely to cause a major shitstorm.

Now allowing space to plug in those diesels later is quite a different matter!

But the issue remains - where is the money coming from, and why is the USA happy about spending more on the Navy? You cant just reallocate existing budgets, there were fully needed

 

[McPherson]

Yeah, and when everyone else points out the cheating?
The USN gets pilloried by certain parties in Congress for lying and breaking armament treaties. America was big on these, so its likely to cause a major shitstorm.

Now allowing space to plug in those diesels later is quite a different matter!

But the issue remains - where is the money coming from, and why is the USA happy about spending more on the Navy? You cant just reallocate existing budgets, there were fully needed

How would they know? You think a "derated diesel plant" is going to stand up and say; "I'm really a 45,000 kW plant cranking out only 25,000 KW? That is why you lie.

Since the FDR Administration is already busy replacing 500 US merchant marine hulls (2.5 million GWT) under the Maritime Construction Act, what's a dozen more oil tankers?

 

[Astrodragon]

How would they know? You think a "derated diesel plant" is going to stand up and say; "I'm really a 45,000 kW plant cranking out only 25,000 KW? That is why you lie.

Since the FDR Administration is already busy replacing 500 US merchant marine hulls (2.5 million GWT) under the Maritime Construction Act, what's a dozen more oil tankers?

The trouble with lying in the USA in peacetime is that someone will notice and talk. Its hardly subtle that the ships have 2-3 times the stated power available.
Why do that when there isn't a need? Just allocate extra space in the engine room for some more diesels, build them and store them. Then you just have to fit them

 

[McPherson]

The trouble with lying in the USA in peacetime is that someone will notice and talk. Its hardly subtle that the ships have 2-3 times the stated power available.
Why do that when there isn't a need? Just allocate extra space in the engine room for some more diesels, build them and store them. Then you just have to fit them

Because a 1935 5000 kW US diesel/electric motor generator set is built around a 2 stroke opposed piston diesel engine design that is unit machinery (a marine power egg)? It is as big as a freaking locomotive. Cutting a pass through hole is not too smart. You need 6 of them to add to the 6 you have built and sealed in. Plus all that added plumbing. Just install 12 sets and tell the workers that it is a 2,500-3,000 kW setup. And, if you needs must, seal off the 6 engine rooms for the 6 wartime sets so Nosy Norbert doesn't wander in there.

 

[Astrodragon]

Because a 1935 5000 kW US diesel/electric motor generator set is built around a 2 stroke opposed piston diesel engine design that is unit machinery (a marine power egg)? It is as big as a freaking locomotive. Cutting a pass through hole is not too smart. You need 6 of them to add to the 6 you have built and sealed in. Plus all that added plumbing. Just install 12 sets and tell the workers that it is a 2,500-3,000 kW setup. And, if you needs must, seal off the 6 engine rooms for the 6 wartime sets so Nosy Norbert doesn't wander in there.

"Why do you need another 6 diesel generators?"
"To power the ice cream makers of course!"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What CV12 Hornet said. Plus this...

The tonnage quotas came to an end at the end of 1936, but the size of the US Carrier Force was still limited to a maximum of 135,000 tons under US Law. That is why Wasp had to be an "improved" Ranger instead of a repeat Yorktown. The law wasn't changed until 1938 when the permitted tonnage was increased to 175,000 tons. It was this law that allowed Hornet and Essex to be built.

Lexington and Saratoga absorbed 66,000 tons of the USN's tonnage quota, which left them with 69,000 tons.

The plan was to build five 13,800 ton carriers and AIUI the USN asked Congress to authorise all five in the late 1920s. Fortunately, Congress only authorised one. I wrote fortunately because the single ship that was built was Ranger.

When Ranger was revealed to be a failure the USN decided to build two 20,000 ton ships, which became Yorktown and Enterprise, and a second small ship which became Wasp.

All I can suggest is that Ranger and Wasp are built to designs that have "more balance" that is fewer aircraft, but faster and better protected. Something along the lines of the Saipan class.

The 1936 treaty allowed the USN to build more carriers up to 23kt if they wished.

I'm not sure if you're reinforcing the part I highlighted or saying I had overlooked an important point.

Domestic policy limits are easier to change than international treaties.

True.

FWIW this is the text of the Second Vinson-Trammel Act, which AIUI it took the Panay Incident and the Japanese Third Fleet Replenishment Programme to persuade Congress to pass.

May 17,1938
HR 9218
Public No 528

AN ACT

To establish the composition of the United States Navy, to authorize the construction of certain naval vessels, and for other purposes.​

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in addition to the tonnages of the United States Navy as agreed upon and established by the treaties signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, and at London, April 22, 1930, and as authorized by the Act of March 27, 1934 (48 Stat, 503), as amended by the Act of June 25, 1936 (49 Stat. 1926), the authorized composition of the United States Navy in underage vessels is hereby increased by the following tonnages :

(a) Capital ships, one hundred and five thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of six hundred and thirty thousand tons : Provided, That vessels of tonnages in excess of thirty-five thousand tons each may be laid down if the President determines with respect to the tonnage of capital ships being built by other nations that the interests of national defense so require, in which event the authorized composition of the United States Navy of capital ships is hereby increased by one hundred and thirty-five thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of six hundred and sixty thousand tons;

(b) Aircraft carriers, forty thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of one hundred and seventy-five thousand

(c) Cruisers, sixty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty-four tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of four hundred and twelve thousand, five hundred and twenty-four tons;

(d) Destroyers, thirty-eight thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of two hundred and twenty-eight thousand tons;

(e) Submarines, thirteen thousand six hundred and fifty-eight tons making a total authorized underage tonnage of eighty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six tons.

Sec. 2. The President of the United States is hereby authorized to undertake such construction, including replacements, as is necessary to build the Navy to the total authorized underage composition as provided for in section 1 of this Act.

Sec. 3. The President of the United States is hereby authorized to acquire or construct additional naval airplanes, including patrol planes, and spare parts and equipment, so as to bring the number of useful naval airplanes to a total of not less than three thousand.

Sec. 4. The President of the United States is hereby further authorized to acquire and convert or to undertake the construction of the following auxiliary vessels:

(a) Three destroyer tenders, a total of twenty-seven thousand tons light displacement tonnage ;

(b) Two submarine tenders, a total of eighteen thousand tons light displacement tonnage;

(c) Three large seaplane tenders, a total of twenty-five thousand tons light displacement tonnage;

(d) Seven small seaplane tenders, a total of eleven thousand five hundred and fifty tons light displacement tonnage;

(e) One repair ship of nine thousand five hundred tons light displacement tonnage;

(f) Four oil tankers, a total of thirty-two thousand tons light displacement tonnage ;

(g) One mine layer of six thousand tons light displacement tonnage ;

(h) Three mine sweepers, a total of two thousand one hundred tons light displacement tonnage ; and

(i) Two fleet tugs, a total of two thousand five hundred tons light displacement tonnage.

Sec. 5. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act, which purposes shall include essential equipment and facilities at navy yards for building any ship or ships herein or heretofore authorized.

Sec. 6. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $15,000,000 to be expended at the discretion of the President of the United States for the construction of experimental vessels, none of which shall exceed three thousand tons standard displacement, and the sum of $3,000.000 to be expended at the discretion of the President of the United States for the construction of a rigid airship of American design and American construction of a capacity not to exceed three million cubic feet either fabric covered or metal covered to be used for training, experimental, and development purposes.

Sec. 7. The allocation and contracts for construction of the vessels herein authorized and the replacement thereof, as well as for the procurement and construction of airplanes and spare parts, shall be m accordance with the terms and conditions provided by the Act of March 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 503). as amended.

Sec. 8. For the purposes of this Act, the term "underage" shall be construed in accordance with the terms of the treaty signed at London, March 25, 1936.

Sec. 9. The United States -would -welcome and support an international conference for naval limitations and in the event of an international treaty for the further limitations of naval armament to which the United States is signatory, the President is hereby authorized and empowered to suspend so much of its naval construction as has been authorized as may be necessary to bring the naval armament of the United States within the limitations so agreed upon, except that such suspension shall not apply to vessels and aircraft then actually under construction.

Sec. 10. (a) The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a board consisting of not less than five officers to investigate and report upon the need, for purposes of national defense, for the establishment of additional submarine, destroyer, mine, and naval air bases on the coasts of the United States, its territories and possessions.

(b) The Secretary of the Navy is further directed to cause the report of the board authorized by this section to be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives during the first session of the Seventy-sixth Congress.

Sec. 11. That the Navy Department shall construct upon the Pacific coast of the United States such vessels as the President of the United States may determine to be necessary in order to maintain shipyard facilities upon the Pacific coast necessary and adequate to meet the requirements of national defense.

Sec. 12. The construction, alteration, furnishing, or equipping of toy naval vessel authorized by this Act, or the construction, alteration, furnishing, or equipping of any naval vessels with funds from toy appropriation available for such purposes, contracts for which are made after June 30, 1938, shall be in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 846, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved June 30, 1936, unless such course, in the judgment of the President of the United States, should not be in the interest of national defense.

Approved, May 17, 1938.