This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
tion between the Garibaldi and the British Invincibles or the now-abandoned American sea control ship (SCS). These latter ships were conceived simply to provide a well-dispersed shipboard air capability—a cheaper alternative to big carriers. In practice, they were destined to be little more than a platform for aircraft and/or helicopters. These ships were designed to operate in areas of low surface threat, such as the North and South Atlantic. Being aircraft platforms, they would need to be escorted in any case.
This is not to say that such vessels have no fighting value, but they have been designed to operate where an enemy threat can be identified and countered within a reasonable margin of time and space. But an attack can be launched in the Mediterranean from any direction, and with little or no warning.
To summarize, the missions that the Italian Navy will entrust to the Garibaldi are the following:
► Antisubmarine warfare with her helicopters, acting as the center of an escort group (protection of merchant convoys) or of a task force engaged in an active sweep.
► Antiship warfare, using helicopter- guided, over-the-horizon Teseo missiles (the Garibaldi's helicopters can also guide missiles fired by other ships), or the Marte air-to-surface missile.
The most innovative point about Garibaldi's mission is her ability to conduct sweeps against missile-armed FPBs by using her Sea King/Marte system. Other air-to-surface helicopter-borne missile systems developed for this purpose are now in service or at the evaluation stage (e.g., the British Sea Skua), and a wide variety of weapons is available for aircraft (either land-based or shipboard). But this is the first time—at least to this author’s knowledge—that a surface ship has been projected as being able to conduct such operations, and at a range greater than that of the embarked missile. A defense that until now has been essentially passive —electronics warfare, close-in point defense systems, etc.—is becoming active.
Discussion of the mini-carrier—or air-capable ship—idea has followed two lines of thought. On one hand, navies and shipyards are trying to produce an economical carrier of small dimensions; on the other, some people have realized that shipborne fixed-wing aircraft and/or helicopters are outstanding weapon systems and want to embark these on any ship of sufficient size. To clarify this difference, the ill-fated SCS was a ship of the first line of thought, whereas the planned air-capable Spruance derivative belonged to the second.
The Giuseppe Garibaldi should be the first ship of the second group, and probably the first mini-carrier. The British Invincible is too large—at least from the European point of view—to be called "mini,” and the Spanish Dedalo (based on the lines of the SCS) will probably be a long time joining the fleet.
It would be very interesting, in the mid-80s, to compare the operational capabilities of the Invincible, Garibaldi. Dedalo. the French PH-75 (although she l's essentially an amphibious warfare ship) and. most of all, the results of the carrier studies currently being carried out in the United States. The naval revolution of our time has been said to be one of surface-to-surface missiles, or one of nuclear propulsion and weapons. In truth, it will probably be one of air-capable ships.
Mr. Bonsignore is the editor of Milium Technology magazine.
This Way to the Egress_______________
By Commander G. A. Beange. Royal Australian Navy (Retired)
The title is not original. I borrowed it from Lieutenant Commander Wood who borrowed it from Phineas T. Barnum.[1] Wood wrote “. . . young ex-officers who have recently left the service have an amazing lack of knowledge of what they left behind in the Navy or of what they face in civilian life. They are like the customers of P. T. Barnum’s Circus who followed the signs—This Way to the Egress—only to find themselves out in the cold.”
I attained the rank of commander in the Royal Australian Navy in 1959. My service career included eight commands—one ship, several air squadrons, and two shore establishments. After compulsory retirement in 1972,
I gained practical experience in many
fields—real estate, publishing, printing, advertising, aviation, liquor, racing, and others. I sought experience over a wide range of employment in areas which were new to me and covering a broad scale of positions. I wished to avoid the power politics of business and consequently found short-term projects with a predetermined terminal date to be the best answer for my objectives.
My civilian occupations included personnel officer and then operations manager to the third largest rotary wing operator in the world: coordinator of a $2.5 million building project; bookmaker’s clerk; drive-in bottle shop manager; dairy farmhand; and salesman.
Over a period of four years in the world of commerce, I had done all I set out to do, gained the experience I wanted, and finally received an offer that was too good to refuse. I reentered the navy.
I was delighted to be back in uniform, and you may be interested to know why. First, let us examine some of the views commonly held by many servicemen.
Big business is more efficient than the military. I have seen nothing in industry or commerce that could compare for efficiency with the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight operations. As 1 gained commercial experience, 1 rapidly concluded that the navy was by comparison truly superior in efficiency. Proof of this opinion is evidenced in the large number of commercial enterprises which end in bankruptcy and liquidation. On the other hand, I do not recall one peacetime incident when the navy did not meet a commitment or carry out efficiently any assigned task.
A civilian occupation is more satisfying than a military career. My remarks specifically exclude the serviceman who knows exactly what he
intends to do in civilian life, be it farming, business, or whatever. 1 address myself to the majority who gaze at the greener grass through the fence and determine to leave the service and “get a job" without any clear idea of how to even seek employment, let alone what the job entails.
Satisfactory employment is a luxury and is quite rare. In commerce, the motivation is profit. Servicemen are cost conscious, but they are seldom profit oriented. And I question whether, once the novelty has worn off, the greedy and incessant quest for profit can ever be as satisfying to the ex-serviceman as is the pride he took in doing his military job well. The major motivation for a serviceman, it seems to me, is simply to get on with the job and do it to the best of his ability.
Moreover, many common civilian business practices often conflict with the serviceman's ideas of integrity. It is usual not to believe what a business competitor says, or what a contractor says. Most of us know this from personal experience with having cars repaired or houses built. But it still comes as a shock to the ex-military man to receive a dishonored check. “Rubber" checks, relatively rare in the military, are so commonplace in business that banks now have a printed form on which they convey the sad tidings to their customers who have lodged such checks for collections.
No, there is absolutely no evidence to conclude that the unknown civilian occupation is going to be more satisfying than the service job with which one is familiar. Satisfaction? It could be argued that command of a warship is the ultimate in job satisfaction.
A civilian job will be less demanding than a military career. Not so. For the same salary or financial return in civilian life, you will work a much longer week than in the service. Cost out your present salary at so much per working hour and then calculate what a profit-oriented industry will require for similar rates.
So you will take a drop in salary and accept a decrease in status. Be sure you know how small the basic civilian wage is in reality. If you are going to work for $419.29 a week, it could mean just over $268.12 cash in hand and the drop in status can be devastating. Your superiors will treat you according to your job status—the
more menial the work, the more insults and degrading remarks you are likely to encounter.
If you have been a good manager in the service, your potential will be quickly recognized by your new employer, and it will be virtually impossible to avoid promotion. Once again, you will be back in the managerial role but with unexpected deficiencies and considerably less remuneration.
The civilian will spend more time at home than his military counterpart. Your civilian counterpart on a similar pay scale probably spends more time in the office, on the job, and traveling than you ever did. “Success" in business often also entails loss of home life and family. A wallet full ol credit cards and a generous expense account are inadequate compensation.
As a civilian, one can take it easy and play golf every day. It is very pleasant to have unlimited time to fix up the house and garden; time to look over the car market, take a holiday, and spend time with the kids. But after a few months, the average active man will become bored with such activities and look for employment, even if it is an unpaid occupation.
The civilian lives in a less disciplined environment than the military professional does. Discipline exists on the civvy street, and is far more severe than service discipline. 1 he civilian can be fired at short notice without recourse or redress. Civilian employers do not have to provide a reason. But consider how difficult it is to dismiss the serviceman. Even for disciplinary reasons the process is protracted and infinitely fair.
Having offered alternative thoughts on some widely held views of civilian life, let us now see what the serviceman has going for himself by continuing to serve in the military.
Status and pride in occupation must never be underestimated, and the status of the serviceman these days is high. No matter what the level of your civilian job, you will be the new boy, learning on the job. This situation can also occur in the service, but it is made easier when backed up by your experience, rank, and colleagues.
My remarks are mainly in reference to commissioned officers, but they apply in general to all ranks, since it is my experience that the service rank structure seems to persist onto the civvy street.
In the service, you have a smart uniform, certain authority, access to mess life, and variety in occupation and location. And the pay scale is actually attractive.
You may be frustrated by a staff job or a desk position ashore. But at least that period has a terminal date. In business, you will be equally irritated by paperwork, and you may have to manage with fewer personnel to support you than you had in the military. It is almost certain that an employer will take you on because he requires your staff officer ability and experi-
ence. Not many people can write good letters and reports. So beware of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
The service offers job security. And it is not difficult to get time off for private business or sport. The leave is generous.
Despite the turmoil of the frequent moves associated with life in the military, it is always interesting and sometimes exciting to be transferred. This provides a variety in occupations and locations, and the uncertainty of where you may be next year is very stimulating.
I suggest that for the average career serviceman (in fact, for anybody) a satisfactory way of life is paramount after the age of, say. 40. Financial requirements and obligations should be lessening. Friendships are meaningful and valuable. Some compromise is acceptable. Accept the facts that you will never be Chief of Naval Staff (or Chief of Naval Operations), that your chance of another sea command is remote, or that you may never go to sea again.
But you are by now an expert at your job. You work with people you have known for as many as 30 years—and the bond between you is much stronger than you realize. Your working conditions are quite satisfactory, and you have only to be late in the morning or to have disappeared early on Friday when sent for to discover how much you are wanted and appreciated.
In the service, you should feel very much that you are a member of a select club. Nobody can buy his way into the wardroom. You have done things others may like to have experienced had they been more venturesome. Your long experience commands respect, and you are decidedly not one of the mob. You are one of an elite few.
Now, are you going to chuck it all and begin to prove yourself all over again, the hard way, and just maybe at a disadvantage when it comes to age?
And what about loyalty? It should not be dismissed as old fashioned. We have a responsibility to give value for money expended by way of courses and training, and if we are any good, the service can ill afford to lose investments like us.
Most of us joined the navy to go to sea for a life of adventure. Most of us
have traveled around the world, lived in foreign countries, and shared excitement and danger. The wonder of it all is that we are paid to fly marvelous aircraft, sail in beautiful ships, and serve in remote and interesting localities.
Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is a penalty clause in return for participation in the glamorous side of navy life. In particular, there is a severe penalty for promotion.
The usual penalty is the paperwork and frustration of an office job which is an anathema to the man who loves the outdoor life. An additional penalty of responsibility and staff work can also be exacted. If you decline to pay the price for your good times in the navy by throwing in the towel when the going gets rough in the office or the endless procession of files, reports, and briefs becomes almost insufferable, you are passing the buck to somebody else. But that person may not be as capable as yourself. Not only does your action shift the burden to another, it also permits the promotion of the mediocre.
I refuse to believe that men who joined the service and stayed with it for 20 years or more can reject almost overnight the principles of loyalty and duty which combined with their aptitude and ability to make them such excellent and valuable professionals of the armed forces. Examples of devotion to duty and a ready willingness to endure hazard and sacrifice are constantly evidenced. There is not a day that goes by when servicemen are not called upon—on or off duty—to undertake special missions by day or night, from the air, the bush, on the sea, or under it. And always there is an element of peril.
In time of war, the trained serviceman is invaluable, and members of the permanent forces will be first into the front line. But, in “peacetime,” the same trained man can and is called upon to do the nation’s dirty work—serving in peacekeeping forces in foreign countries, responding to assist in cleaning up after natural disasters, countering threatening civil disturbances, etc.
Such experience creates a bond of understanding shared by servicemen and is incomprehensible to most of the civilian populace. There is every reason to be proud to belong to such an elite body.
The naval officer has access to clubs and places not normally available to the ordinary citizen. Consider the hospitality extended to visiting ships. In your career it should be natural for the commissioned officer to meet and mix easily with diplomats, cabinet ministers, senior officials, judges, mayors, heads of departments, and many others, both in the course of duty and on the golf course. It’s all interesting and pleasant. A wide variety of sport from game fishing to skiing is available to you at nominal expense. Sailing, gliding, football, and more, as the ads say. And, not infrequently, on the Queen’s (or government’s) time.
All of this is not to say that there are no advantages of leaving the service to take up a civilian job. The very act of job seeking can be stimulating—but for heaven’s sake, start looking before you leap. It is infinitely more difficult to face a job interview and land a job if you are out of work. And there will be plenty of knock- backs. Job searching when out of work can be shattering to morale and pocket if the period of unemployment extends more than a couple of months.
But, let us say you land a job. The change of environment should be exciting and, if you want it to be, challenging. In a new and interesting job, you may look and feel years younger. You may meet a whole range of new people and develop new interests and expertise. So long as you retain enthusiasm for the new way of life, the change will benefit both you and your family.
To go or to stay. That, then, is the question we must answer with both our head and our heart. And, more often than not, we must make our decision at an age (middle) when we are prone to impulsive and foolish actions . . . like taking up with a younger woman or buying a fast sports car.
Sooner or later, we all have to find our way to and through the egresses of life. We can choose wisely and well only if we consider all the alternatives.
Commander Beange outlines his career in this contribution.