Coverage of Other Navies
Mark C. Jones
Outgoing editor Richard Latture, in his “On Our Scope” column in the June 2020 issue (p. 2), explains the origin of the article about development of the ironclad as a warship type (“A Global Phenomenon,” pp. 12–19). He acknowledges that Naval History’s focus on U.S. naval history sometimes precludes treatment of naval history topics from elsewhere in the world.
While Naval History should continue to feature primarily articles about U.S. Sea Service history, it also should seek to publish articles about the history of other navies, marine corps, and coast guards. As Bruce Taylor’s most informative article about ironclads demonstrates, advances in one navy may influence other navies. Even if there is not a clear influence of a foreign sea service on a U.S. Sea Service, an article about a foreign sea service is still worthy of inclusion in Naval History. The magazine has built a sizable literature since its establishment in 1987, one that is available from the U.S. Naval Institute periodicals archive. While the Institute seeks to promote interest in the U.S. Sea Services, it also can take steps to advance the collective knowledge of naval history from all eras and regions of the world.
As a longtime Naval Institute member and reader of Naval History since its inception, I hope that incoming editor Eric Mills will regularly feature excellent articles about international sea services. However, an editor can publish only what is submitted for consideration. For that to happen, potential authors of articles about topics without an obvious connection to the United States must consider submitting their work to Naval History.
More on Crescent’s Designer
Commander Tyrone G. Martin, USN (Ret.), former commanding officer,
USS Constitution
Regarding William Prom’s article “The Seventh Frigate” (August, pp. 48–53), Crescent designer Josiah Fox was a thorn in Joshua Humphreys’ side. Humphreys of Philadelphia had been selected in May 1794 as the United States’ first Naval Constructor and to design the six frigates recently authorized by Congress. Itinerant Englishman Fox, who had completed three years of a seven-year apprenticeship at an English dockyard, saw an opportunity for employment, and no doubt with the endorsement of the Surveyor General of the United States, his cousin Andrew Endicott, secured himself a position as a clerk in the War Department that July.
Given his presumed experience in shipbuilding, Fox was assigned to work for Humphreys, who wanted him to make the builders’ draughts, precise copies of his original plans whose accuracy was critically important in the construction of the revolutionary frigates. It was beyond Fox’s limited talents; he kept trying to render the plans in accordance with his limited—and conventional—experience. In September, Fox was moved to less worrisome tasks and Humphreys brought in his clerk of the yard, William Doughty, to make the copies. They were completed and delivered by the end of the year. Fox had contributed nothing to the design, the persistent claims of his descendants notwithstanding.
P.S. It’s James, not John, Hackett.
Mr. Prom replies:
I appreciate Commander Martin’s response, as it demonstrates the importance of continuing research and writing on these topics. Even after more than 200 years, and with plenty of scholarship during that time, misconceptions can still persist.
I am well aware of the debate surrounding Fox’s influence on early U.S. Navy ship construction. However, I considered the issue outside the scope of my article. I was not writing in praise of Fox (after all, the Crescent, which he did design, did not last as long as the frigates where his input is in question). Instead, I was sharing a relatively unknown story that provides greater context to understanding the period’s naval and diplomatic history. And concerning Hackett’s name, I have found it listed as both John and James in the historical record—again, another reason why this period and these topics deserve more attention.
The Power of Diesels
Grant Lee Graeber, retired vice
president of engineering, Fairbanks Morse Engine
Although I always enjoy Lieutenant Commander Thomas Cutler’s “Bluejacket’s Manual” department, I found the section about diesel engines in the “Moving Ships through the Water” column (August 2020, p. 5) a bit disappointing. The notion that only “relatively small ships that need no more than 5,000 to 6,000 horsepower” is where diesel engines are “frequently used” is very outdated.
A brief review of U.S. naval vessels discloses the use of diesels as the primary or preferred method of propulsion for a significant portion of the present-day fleet. Beginning with the Whidbey Island–class dock landing ships and the Henry J. Kaiser–class replenishment oilers, the U.S. Navy began using diesel engines of significantly greater horsepower than those alluded to in the column. To illustrate, the following are some not so relatively small ships and their engines, provided to the Navy by my former employer, Fairbanks Morse Engine:
• Whidbey Island (LSD-41) class (16,360-ton displacement): four Colt-Pielstick 16 PC2.5 main propulsion diesel engines (MPDEs), total ship horsepower: 34,000.
• Henry J. Kaiser (T-AO-187) class (42,000-ton displacement): two Colt-Pielstick 10 PC4.2 MPDEs, total ship horsepower: 32,000.
• San Antonio (LPD-17) class (25,300-ton displacement): four Colt-Pielstick 16 PC2.5 STC MPDEs, total ship horsepower: 41,600.
• Lewis and Clark (T-AKE-1) class (41,000-ton displacement): four FM-MAN 48/60L main propulsion diesel generator engines; integrated 6.6kV electric propulsion system, total megawatts: 35.7.
When diesel-powered submarines and, particularly, emergency diesel generator (EDG) sets are included in the description of “critical” propulsion plant equipment, the list goes on and on. To be sure, the very first diesel engines produced by Fairbanks Morse for the U.S. Navy were two sets of two EDGs, FM 6-cylinder 38A5s, for the Yorktown (CV-5) and Enterprise (CV-6), with another set of two for the Hornet (CV-8) to follow. After that came the FM 38D8-1/8 opposed piston engine, several thousand of which have been produced for Navy and Coast Guard ship and submarine applications for more than 80 years. No less a satisfied user and authority than retired Navy Rear Admiral Richard O’Kane referred to it as “the rock crusher.”