Navy Designing Smaller Ships With High Speed, Lower Cost
(Marine Engineering/Log, April 1971)
In anticipation of ever-mounting costs, naval planners have, in the face of expected resistance to ship prices on the part of the Congressional appropriations committees, embarked upon some simpler ship designs. Under what we suspect is the prodding of the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Zumwalt, U. S. Navy, the Ship Systems Command is working on handier-sized vessels that will not necessarily carry every seagoing weapon known to man.
For instance, design is progressing rapidly on the Navy’s PF, a fast destroyer of approximately 4,000 tons displacement. She would not necessarily replace the DD-963 class, but rather would complement the 30 DDs presently planned. There have been rumblings from some naval circles, however, that the super-duper DD already is obsolescent, even before her keel is laid.
The new PF presumably would take part in ASW and AAW warfare, and also perform general Fleet duties, including patrol and escort functions. Naval planners envision a gas-turbine propulsion plant of the COGAG or COGOG type. It is not yet decided whether the PF will be powered by a cruising gas turbine of 3,000 to 4,000 h.p. with a booster engine in the 25,000-h.p. range on two shafts (much like the Royal Navy’s Type 42 DD), or simply two 25,000-h.p. engines clutched into a single reduction gear driving a single controllable pitch propeller.
Turning to a simpler ship does not necessarily mean that the Navy is pulling back on its research and development programs. There are many classified studies going on now that will result in increased top speed and endurance for the Navy’s oceangoing weapon platforms. Judging from what we have read (we are not speaking for the Navy) the admirals are still pushing development of vessels operating on the air-cushion principle, all the way from landing craft up to the 100-ton SES prototypes and beyond.
As a tribute to R&D, the new PF will have nearly twice the displacement, probably higher speed, and less total horsepower than the late World War II DD-692-class destroyer.
Plans To Build Two Frigates Are Dropped By The Pentagon
(Baltimore Sun, 7 May 1971)
The Pentagon canceled plans to build two more nuclear-powered guided-missile frigates, bringing to more than $1.3-billion the value of naval ship construction either dropped or postponed indefinitely.
Citing a “significant increase in the cost,” the Defense Department announced it is cutting back construction of a new class of 10,000-ton frigates from five to three. According to new figures, the Pentagon’s action means a cut of about $500 million from construction of new frigates.
The move comes in the wake of the decision to defer indefinitely a proposed fourth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier which would cost a historic high of about $810 million. The decision to cut back on the new frigates is one more sign that the carrier’s future is bleak.
Jerry W. Friedheim, the Pentagon spokesman, told reporters that one reason the Pentagon could make the move is that “. . . you won’t have the carrier to escort . . . you don’t need the nuclear escort.” Admirals have testified that the new frigates would have the mission of destroying enemy aircraft and missiles which were threatening aircraft carriers and other ships.
The decision by David Packard, Deputy Secretary of Defense, came “. . . after careful review . . .” with both John H. Chafee, Secretary of the Navy, and Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., U. S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, the Pentagon said. It did not say that Chafee and Admiral Zumwalt favored the action. Admiral Zumwalt is known to have opposed strongly the deferral of the new 95,000-ton, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, but top Pentagon officials went ahead anyway.
The Navy said the price estimate for a frigate of the new class has risen from about $222 million to a current $250 million each.
Female Crews Are Considered For U. S. Navy Ships by CNO
(The New York Times, 2 May 1971)
Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, U. S. Navy, who introduced beards and beer to the Navy, now says he is considering ships with an all-female crew.
Speaking to 50 members of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service, Admiral Zumwalt said he had not made up his mind on the feasibility of staffing ships entirely with women. Mixed men and women crews, on the other hand, were impractical, the admiral said. Not enough “facilities.” The committee is urging more women to volunteer for the military services. About 42,000 women currently are in uniform.
Defense Secretary Laird Says Navy May Get Lady Admiral
(New York News, 23 May 1971)
It will not be long before the Navy has a lady admiral. Defense secretary Melvin R. Laird said.
“The Air Force has come through; the Army has come through, and I can assure you that the Navy will,” Laird said in a speech to leaders of a number of national organizations who visited the Pentagon.
“There will be more lady generals and admirals in the future,” he said.
Russian Navy Moving Forces Throughout Indian Ocean Area
(C. L Sulzberger in the Houston Chronicle, 6 May 1971)
The name of the game in the Indian Ocean is: “The Russians are coming.” From South Africa to Australia and from the Persian Gulf to the Malacca Straits there is increasing obsession with Soviet gunboat diplomacy. If, as is traditional, the purpose of such diplomacy is to unbalance an adversary, Moscow is succeeding.
Mauritius is only one of dozens of islands caught up in the chess match of bases and counterbases between Suez and Singapore. The British have renovated the moribund ANZAM agreement with Australia and New Zealand to defend the Malaysian area at the Indian Ocean’s eastern gate. They have restored new life to the Simonstown naval understandings with South Africa.
Everywhere, the Russians are said to be feared or suspected to be moving in. P. W. Botha, South African defense minister, claims Moscow is using the nuclear stalemate to “. . . infiltrate by indirect strategy and is increasingly active in the Indian Ocean. I can tell you that the Soviets are present at 39 points in Africa, either politically, militarily, or economically.”
Moscow’s fleet has become a formidable factor. Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, its commander-in-chief, proudly contends: “The Soviet Navy has been converted into an offensive-type, long-range armed force which could exert a decisive influence on the course of armed struggle in theaters of military operations of vast extent.”
There are three Russian shipping units in the Indian Ocean: A fishing fleet operating southward to the Antarctic, a space-effort support fleet, and a potential combat force. The warship flotilla is not large and usually runs around 20 vessels of all types dependent upon shore-based air support. Siegfried Breyer, a West German naval expert, believes it could be swiftly hunted down in any war but adds:
The aim of the present-day Red fleet is to reduce the offensive power of the Western allies by forcing them to commit far greater forces to the defense of the sea lanes than the Soviet Union commits to their attack.
For the present, Washington regards Russian naval demonstrations around here as handwriting on the wall without immediate security problems. Nevertheless, Defense Secretary Laird predicts that as the Vietnam war runs down, more resources will become available for a stronger showing in the Indian Ocean.
Until recently only a converted seaplane tender plus two ancient destroyers were maintained by the United States in this region, but a task force just sailed in from the east and includes a carrier, four destroyers, and a submarine.
British strength is principally geographical. Various installations, mainly communication or staging areas, exist at Masirah, east of the Persian Gulf; Gan, south of the Maidive Islands; Aldabra, north of Madagascar; and Diego Garcia in the Chagos archipelago.
Slowly but persistently, the Russians are trying to offset this advantage, a process which will be enormously facilitated once the Suez Canal is reopened and Moscow can move directly from the Black Sea, past Soviet facilities in Egypt and the Red Sea, into the Indian Ocean.
Already Russia has established a series of mooring buoys in this area for submarine support. The Yemeni port of Hodeida is under Soviet supervision as is Socotra off the northeast horn of Africa where Russian construction gangs are working. Britain’s former port of Aden, now has a Russian harbor master.
Moreover, far to the northeast, Soviet diplomacy is apparently intruding on the important island of Ceylon, where the once great British base of Trincomalee has been abandoned but could easily be rehabilitated. It is ideally situated for Gorshkov’s purposes, being midway between Sevastopol in the Black Sea and Vladivostok.
Cuba To Become Major Base For Russian Naval Forces
(The Register, Santa Ana, 25 April 1971)
The Soviet Union plan to develop the island of Cuba into a major naval operating base involves the modernization of several harbors on the northern coast and Santiago de Cuba and Cienfuegos on the southern coast, said Dr. Herminio Portell-Vila, editor of Radio Free Americas, a daily Spanish language network of the American Security Council.
The internationally renowned Cuban historian and former diplomat said north coast harbors include Nipe, Caibarien (Cayo Frances), Matanzas, Havana, Mariel, Cabanas, and Bahia Honda.
“Cienfuegos—the Russian submarine base in the Caribbean—is merely the tip of the Soviet iceberg in the Western Hemisphere,” he said.
“Mariel, 20 miles west of Havana, already has submarine pens that are operational, and construction crews are working day and night at Caibarien and at Cayo Alcatraz in Cienfuegos Bay,” said Portell-Vila.
Two Soviet admirals and three high-ranking civilian engineers were flown there non-stop from Russia in the long-range Soviet TU-95 Bear aircraft the first week of December 1970 to supervise the naval construction program, according to Portell-Vila. He said one nuclear plant reportedly is operating in Cuba and another, “. . . capable of producing military quality fissionable material, is expected to become operational this year.”
Intelligence reports, he pointed out, indicate that as of last September 1970, the Soviet Army strength in Cuba was estimated to be between 20,000 and 22,000 soldiers “. . . who conduct regular maneuvers in the mountains of Pinar Del Rio province.” Portell-Vila added that Cuban intelligence sources reported the development of an important Soviet military complex in the mountains at La Cubilla, near the towns of Cumanayagua and Seibabo, “. . . complete with electrified wire fences, pill boxes, trenches, artillery emplacements, and mysterious mounds covering entrances to underground installations.” No Cuban is allowed to enter this area,” said Portell-Vila, “. . . and construction has been carried out entirely by Russian troops.”
‘Triple-Threat’ Destroyer Reported Tested By Russia
(L. Edgar Prina in the San Diego Union, 11 May 1971)
The Soviet Navy is testing a new triple-threat, guided missile ship, a 3,000-ton destroyer which could be the fastest surface ship in the Red fleet.
According to NATO sources, the 45-mile-an-hour, gas-turbine destroyer was first spotted undergoing sea trials in the Baltic in December 1970. The ship, latest in a string of new Soviet surface combat ships, is believed to be a prototype. Some Western naval officers say she could be the first one of many of her class-given the name “Krivak” by NATO—and the workhorse of the fleet by the mid-1970s.
While the principal mission of the Krivak destroyer is believed to be antisubmarine warfare (ASW), she has substantial surface-to-surface and antiaircraft capabilities. The 400-foot ship, which is loaded with the latest electronic gear, is armed with two quadruple ASW rocket-launchers, two triple ASW torpedo tubes, four surface-to-surface missile launchers, one twin surface-to-air missile launcher, and two twin 76-mm. guns.
As one Western naval officer said: “All those weapons systems on a ship of about 3,000 tons! Pound for pound, she’s got to be the most powerful surface ship in the world.” The officer noted that the Russians do not concern themselves too much about habitability for their crews—nor do they have to worry very much about recruitment and retention of personnel.
Largest Tanker Launched From Japanese Shipyard
(Baltimore Sun, 3 May 1971)
In an age of supertankers, the biggest of them all has been launched at Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries’ shipyard in Kure, Japan.
With a length of 1,130 feet and a width of about 180 feet, the Nisseki Maru is nearly four football fields long and substantially wider than a football field. The mammoth vessel has a capacity of about 372,400 tons, nearly 50,000 tons more than the Universe Ireland, the biggest ship now in operation.
Scheduled to be delivered to Tokyo Tanker Company, Ltd., in September, the tanker will carry petroleum from the Persian Gulf to Kagoshima Bay, Japan.
The vessel’s draft of some 88 feet is so great that the ship will be unable to go through the Malacca Straits when loaded. Instead she will have to take the longer route from the Persian Gulf to Japan via the Lombok Straits.
The Ishikawajima-Harima yard in Kure has successfully held the record for building the world’s largest ship ever since it constructed the Tokyo Maru in 1966. At 153,000 deadweight tons, she was the biggest vessel built up to that time. But the Nisseki Maru will not hold the record long. Next February, the Kure yard is scheduled to begin construction on the first of two 477,000-ton tankers for Globtik Tanker, Ltd., of Great Britain.
Pass-Down-The-Line Notes
The Professor of Naval Science, NROTC Unit, Georgia Institute of Technology, requests any U. S. Naval Institute member to consider donating pre-1941 copies of the Proceedings to that Unit to assist it in completing its reference library. Please contact: Reference Librarian, NROTC Unit, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332.
Proceedings’ readers having direct or indirect recollections of the late Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan are invited to forward them to Dr. Robert Seager, II, Dean of the College, Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland 21620, or to Mrs. Doris D. Maguire, West River, Maryland 20881. Dr. Seager and Mrs. Maguire are collecting the letters and papers of Admiral Mahan for publication by the U. S. Naval Institute, and are compiling a biographical essay to accompany that work.
The District of Columbia Chapter of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association announces an intensive effort to search out all survivors of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor and other military installations on the Island of Oahu on 7 December 1941. Eligible persons do not have to reside within the District of Columbia to become members. Requests for membership will be honored from all survivors, regardless of place of residence. Interested survivors desiring more details and a membership application should write to John H. Shark, 7205 Giles Place, Springfield, Virginia 22150. Those living in the metropolitan areas of Washington, DC., may phone (703) 451-2025.
The theme of the Fifth Military History Symposium at the Air Force Academy, to be held on 5 and 6 October 1972, is “The Military and Society.” At this point the program is quite tentative, however; three conventional working sessions in addition to a combined Banquet Address and Harmon Memorial Lecture are being planned. An additional session consisting of several workshops has been added to the agenda.
The purpose of this advance notice is to allow supporters and prospective participants to mark the date on their long-range planning calendars. Additional information detailing the theme, program, and some of the participants will be published in the near future. For further information about the Symposium write Major Ronald Fogleman, U. S. Air Force, Executive Director, Military History Symposium, Department of History, U. S. Air Force Academy, Colorado 80840.