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.
24 Cubic Feet of Supervision
By Lieutenant Charles F. Willett, USN[1]
I believe that every naval officer who has occupied an administrative billet in the past few years has become aware of the ever-increasing amount of paper that he is expected to digest, consider, and comply with in the execution of daily tasks and in every decision which he renders. Simple tasks and tasks with relatively simple solutions have become extremely difficult, and difficult tasks have become practically impossible. The days of quick decision based on experience and knowledge are gone, the decision must now await hours, and probably days, of research involving a minimum of six to eight sources to comply with prescribed formats, special existing circumstances and interim changes of policy.
As an example, take the destroyer executive officer seeking the solution to a particularly knotty personnel problem. He first goes to what used to be the bible on such matters, BuPers Manual, and he finds an answer. But then, in order to avoid disobedience of an effective directive, he peruses the BuPers instruction file, and finds several which hold a section of BuPers Manual in abeyance rather than changing it, and he finds more information, some pertinent and some not. After the BuPers file has been searched he must then check directive files of the command exercising control over personnel distribution, the type commander, squadron and possibly division commanders in order to insure that he is complying with all directives which have been issued on the subject. And finally he is able to take action on the problem and hope that he has done the right thing. If he hasn’t, the correspondence will most likely be returned with the comment that such-and-such an instruction has not been complied with. However, in most cases, the barrier is usually penetrated on the first or second try, provided the problem is one for which a standard solution has been determined by higher authority.
I am presently serving as Flag Secretary on the staff of Commander, Alaskan Sea Frontier /Commandant, Seventeenth Naval District, and am therefore relatively conscious of the amount of administrative supervision emanating from the Navy Department bureaus and offices and the Fleet Commander levels. The amount of directive type material which this staff, commanded by a Rear Admiral, has to control the actions or decisions of the staff members is demonstrable. It includes all confidential and unclassified instructions and notices in effect, bureau manuals, regulations and other miscellaneous directives originated by the bureaus and offices and Fleet Commander. No technical publications or manuals, such as the Naval Civilian Personnel Instructions (another six binders), are included in this assemblage and there is still a total of 24 Cubic Feet of directives which weighs approximately 600 pounds and would require an horrendous amount of timetoread. Another indication of the deplorable and absurd situation is found in the fact that there are 3,644 instructions listed in the latest Consolidated Check List of Instructions of Record (AO INST 5215.12C) which are applicable to this staff, and these are only the instructions is-
ROCKET-ASSIST BOOSTER FOR A GUIDED MISSILE
Regulus II being launched from Edwards Air Force Base, California with the aid of single 115,000-pound rocket-assist booster. The supersonic missile attains 325 miles an hour speed in four seconds after it leaves the mobile ground launcher. Designed for launching from nuclear-powered submarines now under construction for the Navy, Regulus II is faster than Mach 2 and has a range of more than 1,000 miles.
WITH VF-32 IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
An F8U-1 Crusader leaves the angled deck of the carrier Saratoga, after being launched by one of the ship’s steam catapults. This is the world’s fastest naval dayfighter in regular operation.
sued by the bureaus and offices of the Navy Department. This is the amount of supervision which the Navy has found expedient to exercise over a Rear Admiral, an officer who is in the upper six-tenths of one per cent of the commissioned and warrant officers of the regular Navy and obviously devoted to loyal service. There are also approximately 25 cubic feet of Secret and Top Secret plans, instructions, and operations orders which must be reviewed and complied with.
The preceding paragraph is well laced with figures which, I hope, have adequately demonstrated that the amount of paper which must be dealt with in order to function within the desires of all commands concerned is, if not ridiculous, practically unsurmountable. Whether, as many people say, this situation is due to the conversion from the circular letter system to the instruction and notice system, or is due to a lack of confidence in subordinates since World War II, I do not know. Regardless of the cause, the situation is upon us and should be rectified if we are to build any amount of competence in our officers and petty officers or permit officers and senior petty officers to get their feet out from under a desk for a sufficient amount of time to supervise, train and counsel their subordinates.
The solution to this problem is not an easy one and is going to require a change of attitude on the part of a good many people. It will require the rebuilding and cultivation of initiative which has been virtually eliminated. Individuals must learn to accept the professional capabilities of subordinates. If the capabilities are substandard, training and leadership are the logical remedies and not an overdose of directives. Seniors are going to have to stop leading their subordinates by the hand and let them learn to walk on their own.
They must accept the professional capability of a subordinate until proven incompetent on an individual basis. The present apparently prevalent attitude of “no confidence until there is overwhelming proof of capability” is not developing responsible naval officers, nor is it providing any incentive for the individual to make a career of the Navy. The subordinate must be elevated above the status of a messenger from the beginning if he is ever going to become a competent, reliable naval officer, and if the training invested in him is going to bear fruit by his remaining in the Navy.
This change of attitude must be manifested in part, in an overhaul of the present mountain of paper and halting the abuse of the directive system. I fail to see the purpose of a given bureau, office or staff issuing a manual which permanently sets forth procedures to be followed by subordinates, and issuing instructions which also set forth permanent policies. Why not abolish the instructions and require issuance of changes to the manual? This would reduce the number of directives issued because originators would be reluctant to issue them unless absolutely necessary, due to the research involved in determining just what sections of the manual must be changed in order to promulgate the directive. Fleet, force, sea frontier and district commanders (commandants) could, then, issue addenda to these manuals, as necessary, to promulgate supplemental directives to their subordinates. These addenda could be color coded to set them apart from the basic manual, yet permit the filing of them in the appropriate section of the manual. Changes to these addenda would be issued in lieu of instructions in the same manner as discussed for the basic manual. In view of the small number of instructions required from lower echelons, they would then issue instructions which were supplements to specific paragraphs of the above manual and require that notation of the existence of a supplemental instruction be made opposite the appropriate paragraph. This would create a bulkier manual, but would give the user of the manual one source of information on a given subject rather than as many as six or eight. The notices should be continued in order disseminate directives of a temporary nature, as presently done.
I am firmly convinced that this revision of the directive system, and the resultant elimination of confusion in the lower echelons, would be a large step toward one of the basic qualities of a military organization; delegation of authority downward and respect upward.
Navy's “Vanguard” in Orbit
The Annapolis Evening Capital, March 17, 1958.—The Navy’s Vanguard rocket hurled
the second US satellite into orbit around the earth today.
With its back to the wall after two highly- publicized failures, the Navy launched the Vanguard on one of the most perfect flights ever seen at the nation’s missile test center.
Belching fire and smoke, the slender gray- green rocket left its launching pad at 7:16 a.m.
Two hours and 23 minutes later, President Eisenhower told the world the trouble- plagued Vanguard had succeeded in the space mission for which it was created.
His announcement that the Vanguard’s tiny ‘moon” was circling the earth with the Army’s Explorer I and the Soviet Sputnik II touched off a celebration in Navy circles here and among personnel of the Martin Co., which built the rocket.
The Army launched Explorer I with the Jupiter-C missile here Jan. 31.
In sharp contrast to previous Vanguard countdowns, today’s preparation of the rocket Went off with perfect precision.
There was only one holdup and it was due to trouble in a tracking station, not because °f any malfunction in the rocket itself.
The firing originally was scheduled for 7 a.m. It was just 16 minutes off this pinpoint schedule when it blasted into a clear blue sky.
So smoothly did the rocket make its way into space, observers here were certain long before the President made it official that the Vanguard had done its job.
Test-range instruments indicated that the rocket’s three stages and the small “moon” in its nose separated successfully.
John P. Hagen, director of the Vanguard project, flashed a broad grin and sighed, after hearing a telephoned description of the Vanguards smooth flight.
Do “The Best Men” Quit?
Baltimore Sun Editorial, February 14, 1958. —Newsweek magazine’s recent issue does a sore injustice to our professional soldiers, sailors, and airmen by declaring that “the best of them” are getting out of the Armed Forces. It is simply not so.
Some very good men have indeed left the Armed Forces; so have some men distinguished only by ambition, dissatisfaction, or a yen for a fast buck. This has always been the case and probably always will be. Newsweek’s long article on the morale problem in the Armed Forces today . . . fails to disclose a single complaint that hasn’t been prevalent in military life since our democracy had a defense establishment.
Probably the most important complaints are those bearing on congressional neglect, negligence, or misunderstanding, which in various niggling, niggardly ways have made the lot of military professionals unnecessarily vexatious. Complaints about inadequate pay and promotion for specialists long antedate the electronic age; so do complaints about advancement based on seniority. But only in lush times does this chorus of grousing—a normal concomitant of life in the Services— rise from a subdued murmur to an angry growl, for only in such times do the disadvantages of Service life appear to outweigh the advantages.
Adoption by Congress of the major Cordi- ner Report recommendations . . . might go far to correct some of the more pressing difficulties, for which public apathy and the Congress itself are largely responsible. But almost equally important from a psychological stand-
point would be public comprehension of the facts about Service morale.
It is not high; it never is in peacetime, still less in a generally opulent era. But the best men do not get out. The best men knew what they were getting into before they got into it, and they stay with it. They chose military or naval or aviation careers not because such careers are ever comfortable or lucrative, but rather for the same reason others choose careers in teaching or the ministry or similarly honored, indispensable, inadequately rewarded callings. The best men, or most of them, remain in those callings because they have a sense of vocation. That’s what makes them the best men.
Navy Pushes Research Aimed at Producing Atom Seaplane by 1965
The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1958.—- The Navy is pushing ahead with research studies aimed at producing a militarily useful atom-powered seaplane by 1964 or 1965. And defense officials have hinted the Navy program may be accelerated if it shows promise in the next few months.
A key phase of the Navy’s efforts, it was disclosed, is centered at its Aeronautical Materials Laboratory in Philadelphia. There the radioactive cobalt-60, an isotope of cobalt, is being used to test whether materials such as rubber, plastics and synthetic textiles can stand up under the radiation emitted by airborne nuclear power plants, or whether substitutes will be needed.
“The studies will provide the basis for development of a fleet operational nuclear seaplane system in the 1964-65 period,” the laboratory said.
Both the Navy and Air Force are continuing, without let-up, work on their respective atom-plane projects. Last week it was disclosed that the White House has vetoed an Air Force proposal for building a quickie atom plane for propaganda purposes. Such a craft could be aloft within two years, possibly before the Russians develop a nuclear plane, the plane’s supporters said.
This plane, of no military value, would consist of a nuclear aircraft engine put in an existing airframe, such as a B-52 bomber or KC- 135 jet tanker. But opponents of the scheme contended it would divert effort from the long-term Air Force program to develop a militarily useful nuclear plane designed around a special airframe and capable of supersonic speeds. President Eisenhower said he is taking personal responsibility for the decision to kill the quickie plane project.
But the Administration apparently has left the door slightly ajar to a rival Navy scheme for speeding up work on a nuclear seaplane. This craft would use turbo-prop engines instead of the pure jet engines in the Air Force scheme. Navy men contend a turbo-prop would produce less radiation. Under-Secretary of Defense Quarles has hinted this plan may yet get the green light.
Referring to Navy studies along this line, Mr. Quarles last week told a Senate-House Atomic Energy subcommittee: “We expect that it will be some months before the results of these Navy studies will be available. We also anticipate that at that time there will be further significant results from reactor development work now under way. We propose at that time to re-evaluate the whole situation in the light of all the facts available.”
The conclusions drawn from these studies, and “any changes we might then propose” in the over-all military atomic plane program, will then be reported to Congress, Mr. Quarles said.
Nations to Survey Sea Law, Atomics
By Paul Cremona
The Christian Science Monitor, Februarv 13, 1958.—Two major international conferences will be held at Geneva during the current year—the Law of the Sea Conference and the Second International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Both will be attended by a number of eminent jurists and natural scientists.
The conference on the Law of the Sea is to open Feb. 24 and will sit for nine weeks. Its principal task is to prepare a maritime code for universal application on the basis of the recommendations made by the International Law Commission which has devoted several years to studying all the aspects of the proposed maritime legislation.
Diplomatic Level
In addition, the conference is expected to recommend the establishment of a new United Nations specialized agency, the World Maritime Organization, which is to be set up on the same lines as the other specialized agencies, and particularly the International Civil Aviation Organization.
The conference will be held at the diplomatic level under the auspices of the UN. All together some 90 states will be represented. They will include all the UN members as well as those belonging to the UN specialized agencies but are not UN members. Among the latter are the West German Federal Republic, Switzerland, South Korea, South Vietnam, San Marino, and the Vatican State.
Moreover, 15 intergovernmental bodies, mostly concerned with fisheries and other maritime questions, have been invited to send observers. The only countries which will not participate in the conference are Communist China, East Germany, North Vietnam, and North Korea.
Problems to be considered by the conference include the breadth of the territorial waters, the right of innocent passages, the nationality of ships, penal jurisdiction in maritime collisions, slave trade, pollution of the sea and piracy, including piratical acts by aircraft if these are directed against ships on the high seas.
Access to Sea
Various questions dealing with fisheries and the conservation of the living resources of the sea, the continental shelf, and the right to explore and exploit its natural resources will likewise be examined. Finally, the question of free access to the sea of land-locked countries will be studied.
The conference will draw up an international convention or a series of conventions which will be submitted to all participating governments for their approval and ratification.
The Second International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy is to be held in the first two weeks in September and may be considered as a continuation of the conference held in Geneva in the summer of 1955. Its detailed program has not yet been prepared, but in view of the great technical advance made during the past three years important results are anticipated.
Both conferences will be held at the Palais des Nations, the European headquarters of the United Nations.
USNS “Comet,” Prototype Vehicle Cargo Ship
Maritime Reporter, February 15, 1958.—A new type of ship joined the Navy recently as the USNS Comet sailed on her maiden voyage from Philadelphia to St. Nazaire, France. The first vessel ever built from the keel up as an ocean-going roll-on, roll-off vehicle carrier, the Comet was delivered to Vice-Admiral John M. Will, Commander, Military Sea Transportation Service, by Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Chester, Pa.
The Comet is the result of more than three years of study by MSTS, Army Transportation Corps, the Navy Bureau of Ships and private marine industry. (See Maritime Reporter, November 15, 1957.)
Providing quick, convenient sea transportation for large vehicle lifts and a means of sealifting cargo without breaking bulk has been a special logistics problem for MSTS. The Comet holds the answer to this problem. Dockside or floating cranes and other conventional terminal facilities are not required at either end of the voyage. In addition, the Comet, having all the equipment of a normal cargo ship, is capable of carrying general cargo in the conventional manner.
This prototype embodies many unusual features which enable vehicles ranging in size from a jeep to a semi-truck and trailer, to be
THE USNS COMET IS THE FIRST VESSEL EVER BUILT FROM THE KEEL UP AS AN OCEAN-GOING, ROLL-ON, ROLL-OFF VEHICLE CARRIER driven in and out of the ship under their own power.
To accomplish this method of loading and unloading, the ship is equipped with four side ramps which are lowered to dock level and a stern ramp which can be lowered much like the bow of a landing craft, for vehicle loading from a barge or pier depending on the facilities available.
In the ship’s two vehicle holds, which measure 75 feet by 128 feet, there is approximately 60,000 square feet of parking space. This space does not include the ramp areas.
A vehicle being loaded aboard over the stern ramp will, (1) go down a ramp into the lower levels of the forward hold, or, (2) go over a bridge ramp and into the second deck level of the after hold or (3) go up from the forward hold to the main deck. If a vehicle is destined for the lower level of a hold, for instance, the driver follows a circling corkscrew route that takes him down deck-by-deck to his assigned space. Here, the vehicle is lashed and stowed securely for sea.
Drivers of the vehicles are directed through the maze of the Comet's ramps and U-turns by a colored-light traffic control system. Should a vehicle stall on the ramp during loading operations, electric car pullers at the head of each ramp will pull it up the 14-degree slope. When the loading of the ship is completed, the drivers and their vehicles have accomplished in a matter of hours that which would have taken several days if the vehicles had been loaded by conventional means.
The vessel is propelled by two four-bladed,
Maritime Reporter Photograph
MK 42 CARRIAGE, TWIN 40-MM GUN, LOADING ON PORT BOW OF USNS COMET solid bronze propellers which measure 16 feet in diameter. It is the first ocean-going vessel of United States registry to employ singlecylinder geared propulsion turbines since World War I. The propulsion turbines, as well as the reduction gears for the Comet, were produced by the General Electric Company. The propulsion turbines use steam at 600 psig at 855 degrees F. Each turbine produces 6,600 hp at 124 rpm, and both units combined deliver 13,200 maximum shaft horsepower. Double-helical, double-reduction, articulated General Electric DT-type reduction gears connect each turbine to the propeller shaft.
Electricity controls and operates some 200 various apparati aboard the vessel. It is generated by two steam turbine generator sets constructed by General Electric. Each set is rated 600 kw, 60 cycles, three phase, 450 volts.
Twelve Maxspeed cargo-winch systems are installed on board the Comet. The system automatically provides faster speeds for light loads and slower speeds for heavy loads, in both hoisting and lowering, without using relays or other circuit-changing control devices. On deck are twelve 50-hp, 625-rpm, 230-volt, d-c motors which pay out and haul in the cargo cables.
An interesting aspect of the Comet is the 883 tons of diversified hydraulic cargo-handling equipment aboard. Unusually massive main and tween-deck hatch covers, the latter capable of sustaining closely stowed 40-ton Army tanks and vehicles on their flush surfaces, huge internal horizontal and vertical watertight sliding doors linking the vehicle holds and equally immense hinged vehicle ramps and side ports, all operate smoothly and quietly at the touch of a hydraulic control lever. One gets the impression that practically every square foot of decks and bulkheads is mechanized in one form or another; for this, the world’s largest application, involves over
24,0 square feet of hydraulically operated equipment. MacGregor-Comarain, Inc., has designed, developed and fabricated all of these devices.
The 499-foot vehicle cargo ship is now one of the fleet of 65 MSTS transports, cargo ships and miscellaneous vessels under the command of Rear Admiral Donald T. Eller, usn, Commander, Military Sea Transportation Service, Atlantic Area. MSTS hopes to evaluate further the potentiality of this type of vessel and make the information available to the marine industry and other branches of the Armed Forces.
Navy Plans Step-Up in Arctic Operations
By John W. Finney
The New York Times, March 3, 1958.— The Navy is accelerating Arctic research in the belief that the polar region is a potential battle area for nuclear-missile fleets.
The expanded research program follows a recent Navy decision calling for Arctic operations, both above and below the ice. The ultimate effect of this unannounced decision will be to open a new ocean, the Arctic, to naval operations.
While interested scientifically in the polar regions—in particular, the Antarctic—the Navy in the past has not tended to regard the far northern waters as suitable for fleet operations. The Navy’s attitude has been changed by two principal factors: the necessity for running cargo ships into the north to supply radar networks and the advent of the nuclear submarine.
Nautilus Cruise Recalled
The potentiality of naval operations in the Arctic was demonstrated last summer when the atomic submarine Nautilus spent five and a half days under the Arctic ice and traveled to within 180 miles of the North Pole.
In the view of top-ranking naval planners, the Arctic cruise of the Nautilus presaged a new day in naval and missile warfare—a day when atomic submarines armed with long- range ballistic missiles will be able to lurk virtually undetectable under the polar ice cap and then surface where there’s open water or thin ice and launch its missiles.
In the coming months it is planned that atomic submarines will make more submerged cruises into the Arctic sea, obtaining such information as the thickness of the ice cap and the depth of the Arctic Ocean.
Cruises To Be Limited
The Navy’s research command would like to have an atomic submarine set aside for extended Arctic research. But because of the many demands for the new submarines, their Arctic cruises must be limited.
Despite the general acceptance of the concept of Arctic operations, there is still a debate within the Navy over how to carry it out. For instance, there is a current argument over whether all future atomic submarines should be adapted for Arctic operations.
A proposal of submarine and research planners is that all atomic submarines be specifically designed and strengthened for reliable operations beneath the ice. This would require two reactors and two propellers for every atomic submarine and strengthening their superstructures.
One of the primary objectives of the expanded Arctic research program will be to determine what type of ship and plane equipment is necessary to carry out the new requirement of Arctic operations.
The research will be carried out in close cooperation with Canada.
Among naval research planners there is a feeling that the Navy has been putting too much scientific effort into the Antarctic and neglecting the Arctic, which, they believe, is a much more likely area of military operations. This feeling was reflected in a recent recommendation of the Navy’s Science Advisory Board, which urged a threefold increase in naval research in the Arctic.
New Navy Rocket-Shot Torpedo Parachutes to Sea to Hunt Foe
By Gladwin Hill
The New York Times, February 11, 1958.— The Navy has announced the development of a radically new torpedo. It is shot into the air by a rocket, dropped into the water by parachute, then “hunts” underwater for enemy submarines.
The weapon was officially described as “the greatest advancement in anti-submarine warfare since World War II.” The Navy said it would “go a long way toward neutralizing the Russian submarine threat.”
The statement reported that alien submarines were “afloat today by the hundreds,
ready to choke off our lifelines across the oceans and to fire missiles with atomic warheads at our production centers—one of the great threats to our nation.”
The new device, called the Rat, for “rocket- assisted-torpedo,” is in operational use in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.
The submarine “kill” area around such craft as destroyers has been extended to “many square miles.” The surface craft now will not have to engage in close-range depth- charge combat or call for carrier-borne torpedo-plane assistance. The Rat will enable a destroyer to demolish a submarine without going within range of the submarine’s torpedoes.
Dr. William B. McLean, civilian technical director of the China Lake (Calif.) Naval Ordnance Test Station, where the weapon was developed, expressed enthusiasm for it with qualifications.
He said at a news conference:
“It is a very fine weapon, a great improvement to our capabilities, although I am loath to say it’s a complete answer to our submarine problem, when submarines are being made faster and harder to detect. I think there’s a lot more to be done in the anti-submarine field.”
A Rat was displayed to reporters today at the ordnance station annex here, but some of its most important construction and performance details remain classified. A motion picture was shown of the weapon in test operation at sea off California.
It is sixteen feet long and weighs 450 pounds. It is shot into the air by a solid-fuel rocket motor. Near the top of its arcing trajectory, the aluminum outer casing hinges open like a clam shell, releasing a torpedo about eight feet long.
Two six-foot parachutes slow the torpedo and drop it into the water at a speed calculated not to damage its sensitive secret “hom- mg” mechanism.
The torpedo was shown diagramatically closing in in ever-narrowing circles on a target submarine, but it was acknowledged that Its “hunting” maneuvers actually were somewhat different.
Launched from Track
The Rat is launched from a short track attached to a standard five-inch gun mount on destroyers or larger craft. The missile is aimed automatically by an electronic computer linked with a standard sonar submarine detecting unit. Sonar senses underwater bodies by transmitting supersonic vibrations and then receiving the reflected “echoes.”
The rocket engine is started by throwing an electric switch linked to the aiming computer. Launching crews need virtually no special training.
The Rat was described as “inexpensive” and logistically foolproof. The complete missile units are sent from assembly points on both coasts to ships. They are in metal containers, ready to be put on the launching tracks. Officers said that they could be launched one minute after detection of a submarine.
The torpedoes could carry atomic warheads, but officers observed that conventional explosives generally had proved sufficient to dispose of submarines.
Asked if the weapon had been tested against the new fast atomic-powered Nautilus, Commander O’Brien replied: “We know how effective it is against all types of submarines.”
The Rat was successfully tested last spring. The weapon was brought from conception to operational use in less than four years.
United States Navy to Construct 20 Ships and Convert 7 in Next Fiscal Year
The New York Times, February 16, 1958.— The Navy plans to build twenty new ships, convert seven others and make a start on items for an atomic-powered carrier in the fiscal year 1959, which begins July 1.
This information was given to the House Armed Services Committee by Admiral Ar- leigh A. Burke, Chief of Naval Operations, in a closed-session statement that the committee has made public.
The problem for the fiscal year 1959 includes five atomic submarines. These are in addition to three new ones authorized in legislation just passed by Congress.
Admiral Burke gave the program for new ships as follows:
Five guided-missile destroyers, six guided- missile frigates, one guided-missile nuclear-
The USS Ranger (CVA-61) stands by for Captain’s Inspection at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during her shakedown cruise.
powered frigate, one nuclear-powered guided- missile submarine, four nuclear-powered attack or anti-submarine submarines, one amphibious transport dock, one amphibious assault ship and one ammunition ship.
The conversion program for the next fiscal year, he said, includes two cruisers to launch surface-to-air guided missiles, one submarine, three landing ship dock conversions to sea plane tenders and one mariner hull to an attack transport.
In addition, the program includes funds for long-lead items for an atomic-powered attack carrier, although the carrier itself is called for in the following year’s program, he
said.
As for over-all numerical Navy strength, however, Admiral Burke gave the committee a picture of a gradual decline between the current fiscal year and June 30, 1959.
He said the total number of ships in the fleet was dropping from 967 to 901 this year and would decrease further to 864 by mid-
1959.
Similarly, the number of operating naval aircraft will decline from 9,421 to 8,733 this fiscal year and to 8,360 in the next fiscal year, he said.
Active duty personnel, Admiral Burke reported, will decline from 677,000 to 645,000 this fiscal year and will drop another 15,000 to 630,000 by June 30, 1959.
Thomas S. Gates, Jr., Secretary of the Navy, testified that of the 864 ships, seventy- nine would be mine warfare ships, fifty-five would be patrol ships, 124 would be amphibious ships and 210 would be auxiliaries.
Issue of Antarctic Rule
By Walter Sullivan
The New York Times, February 16, 1958.— Britain’s decision to support multi-nation rule of Antarctica greatly increases the likelihood that one tenth of the world’s land area will come under international control.
The United States proposed such a step ten years ago. Recent developments have persuaded many in Washington that it is even more desirable, now that the Soviet Union has established outposts in the Antarctic. London’s new policy, reports of which were published Thursday, contrasts sharply with the
CLAIMS BY VARIOUS COUNTRIES IN ANTARCTICA previous British view, which was distinctly cool to the earlier American suggestion.
British Commonwealth countries claim a large part of the continent. The so-called Australian Antarctic Territory embraces almost half of Antarctica. The report from London said that Britain was discussing its plan for internationalization with the other Commonwealth claims to the Palmer Penin-Zealand.
The 1948 American proposal for “some form of internationalization” was made in the wake of a crisis in which Britain and Argentina had sent cruisers to reinforce their rival claims to the Palmer Peninsula.
The Latin American claimants, Argentina and Chile, rejected the 1948 plan outright. So far there has been no indication of their reaction to the new British attitude.
An Indian proposal that the United Nations deal with the question is in abeyance during the International Geophysical Year. But it is evident that any move for international rule of Antarctica will receive such wide support that it would be difficult for any nation to block it.
Part of Birthright
This issue presents a serious problem in Chile and Argentina, where schoolchildren ure taught that the region to the south is part °f their birthright. Both nations are united in their opposition to British claims, which overlap their own. Nevertheless, their chances of accepting international rule are increased by the fact that their own claims overlap and are therefore unresolved.
The new element that has revolutionized national attitudes towards the Antarctic has been the entry of the Russians into the area.
When the International Geophysical Year was organized, the Russians accepted an invitation, issued to all participating nations, to send expeditions to Antarctica. Their station sites, all in the area claimed by Australia, were allocated to them at an international conference.
* * *
American ships reach the coast behind Navy icebreakers. The inland stations are supplied by Air Force Globemasters. The answer will probably be an agreement to permit Antarctic operations by non-combatant units of the armed forces.
International control raises many problems. The British are said to favor rule by a commission made up of nations with an interest in Antarctica. This would clearly include the United States, Soviet Union and the seven present claimants, including Norway and France. But what about Japan, which has an important whaling interest in the area? Or the Union of South Africa which lies close by?
To date no resources have been discovered that might have rivalry in exploitation. This has simplified the problem of internationalization. But the question remains, who will be there when they are discovered?
There is still one sector of Antarctica that has not officially been claimed. However, it has been spoken for by various American explorers including the late Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd. Washington’s attitude has been that one could not claim sovereignty over unoccupied territory.
The unclaimed sector is virtually impossible of access from the sea because of heavy pack ice offshore. Byrd Station, the first base to be set up there, was reached last year by a cumbersome, 647-mile overland route from Little America, which is in the New Zealand claim.
Some bills pending in Congress recommend that this sector be claimed, but such a move now appears unlikely. “Some form of internationalization” seems to be in the wind and Washington may act in this direction shortly.
One of the advocates of such a step has been Edward Shackleton, the British explorer and son of the man who blazed the trail to the South Pole. He has noted that it would set a precedent for the inevitable question of sovereignty over the moon.
Polaris-Type Sub Expected by ’60
By Mark S. Watson
The Baltimore Sun, March 11, 1958.—The layman’s doubts that the Navy will be able by 1960 to produce the Polaris-type submarine (which will launch the 1,500-mile missile from underwater) seem to be disposed of by naval authorities’ testimony before a congressional committee now available.
The old-time, three-year requirement for building submarines much less complex than this type has been cut down sharply.
Now it is figured that even this most advanced submarine (with nuclear power, highspeed hull design, improved launcher and a new navigational system for precise orientation of the submerged vessel) can be built in 27 months from authorization.
27 Months Can Be Cut
And through advance procurement of long lead-time components (the nuclear reactor, steam generator, turbines and gears) the 27 months can be cut by one third.
“Once we get a program under way we can grind it out in less than eighteen months,” says Rear Admiral A. G. Mumma, chief of the Bureau of Ships.
The facilities for building nuclear-powered submarines, limited to one yard when the pioneering Nautilus was built, now have been extended to five yards, and it is figured that four such submarines a month could be turned out on the eighteen-month cycle, should events require so rapid a production.
The Navy is inclined to oppose so swift a pace under normal conditions, on the reasoning that a high production peak, with simultaneous obsolescence, would result.
Not “Crash” Program
Rear Admiral W. F. Raborn, director of special projects (which include the several components of the Polaris system) gives assurance that the rapid production of the first three nuclear missile-submarines is not a “crash” program with attendant flaws.
Rather it is an orderly program benefiting by a speed-up in procedure and from developmental results (including missile and navigational system) more rapid than originally anticipated.
“The program will not stretch capacity to maximum limits,” he added.
The Polaris type does not call for complete new design, but for adaptation of the existing Skipjack type. The first Skipjack is itself a pioneer in the new series, following the Albacore pattern—a fish-shaped design which permits higher speed under water than on surface.
Report from Germany
By Rear Admiral Siegfried H. Engel, former
Germany Navy
At the beginning of this year the German Navy numbered 86 naval vessels, and it is hoped that 28 more will join them in the course of this year. In 1957 4 PT boats, 7 coastal-minesweepers, and 2 harbor guard- vessels were launched. Seven British frigates, bought from England and now refitting in British yards, will probably be taken over at the beginning of this fall.
On January 17th the first U.S. “loan”-de- stroyer hoisted the German flag at Charleston. Her first skipper, Commander (Fregatten- kapitan) Hans Trummer, joined the German Navy in 1931 and has been serving in destroyers right from the beginning of his career.
Other U.S. naval vessels, though rather small ones, now fly the German flag also. They are craft belonging formerly to the U.S. Rhine River Patrol and now form part of the Territorial Defense Forces.
At the beginning of February the well known yard of Messrs. Stulcken, Hamburg, started building the first three German-constructed destroyers of 2,500 tons each. By 1960 the Federal Navy will muster 12 units of this type. The same yard has laid the keel of the first of 6 escort vessels to be commissioned in 1959.
Another PT boat—named Wolf—the third of her class and a sister-boat of Jaguar, has left the yard of Fr. Luerssen, Bremen, to join her two predecessors forming the 3rd PT- boat Squadron stationed at Flensburg. It is hoped that the squadron will consist of a total of 10 boats by the end of this year.
In spite of the tragedy of Pamir—the bark went down in an Atlantic hurricane on September 21st, 1957 with only six apprentices being saved—the future officers and petty officers of the navy will be trained under sail. The Ministry of Defense has decided that the yard of Blohm & Voss in Hamburg shall proceed with the construction of a three-masted training vessel of 1,600 tons. The Navy will certainly turn to good account the lessons learned by the loss of the Pamir. There are many sailors in this country who will welcome the Navy’s decision. Some weeks ago your correspondent heard a classic answer to the much aired question, whether training in sail still is necessary. That answer was given by Alan Villiers of Mayflower II fame, and he, one of the last of the Cape Horn breed, said: “No, it isn’t necessary at all, but . . . it’s wonderful. For no matter how many Sputniks, Laikas, and all such nonsense will be started, one thing this old earth will always need: men . . . full men! And that’s exactly what training under sails produces.”
As for the Navy’s air arm, twelve pilots are now being trained in Scotland for Seahawks to be bought from England.
New Marine Set-Up to Use Helicopters
The New York Herald Tribune, March 2, 1958.—The Marine Corps has announced a reorganization plan under which its three combat divisions will be equipped to land behind enemy lines by helicopter.
General Randolph McC. Pate said the shakeup also will cover the corps’ three aircraft wings and supporting units. He said the changeover will begin April 1 and be completed by October.
Basically, he said, the move will equip the corps to throw its troops into attack by helicopter and land deep behind enemy lines. In World War II and in Korea the marines suffered heavy losses in landing by boat on strongly-defended beaches.
The reorganization will reduce the numerical strength of each combat division from
21,0 officers and men to 19,000. General Pate said they will have “complete air-transportability” and will be better able to disperse in an enemy atomic counter attack.
Britain Revamps Naval Elements
The New York Times, February 19, 1958.— Reorganization of the Royal Navy for “greater mobility and immediate readiness” will involve abolition of the Nore Command and closing of the famous dockyards at Sheerness and Portland.
The Earl of Selkirk, First Lord of the Admiralty, announced these measures to the House of Lords when he presented the naval estimates. The changes are necessary, he said, to concentrate more resources on the paramount purpose of maintaining the strength of a seagoing fleet.
The strength of the fleet during the coming year was set at four aircraft carriers, six cruisers, twenty-four destroyers, thirty frigates, one fast minelayer, twenty-eight minesweepers, thirty-nine submarines and a number of auxiliary vessels.
Ships under construction at the end of March will include one aircraft carrier, three cruisers, five submarines and fourteen frigates.
Depletion Since World War I
Some idea of the decline in the numerical strength of British seapower can be seen from the fact that at the start of World War I the Royal Navy had seventy-one battleships and battle cruisers, 118 cruisers, 125 destroyers and seventy-five submarines. When World War II began there were fifteen battleships, fifty-four cruisers, 166 destroyers, fifty-nine submarines and seven aircraft carriers.
Lord Selkirk’s announcement sounded the knell of some of the most famous names in British naval history. To a seafaring nation it was a poignant reminder of the change from Nelson’s “far off, storm-tossed ships” to the ballistic missiles soon to be installed in Britain.
Two-Century History
Isaac Townsend, first Commander in Chief of the Nore, hoisted his flag in 1752. The
HMS VICTORIOUS NOW MOST UP-TO-DATE CARRIER IN ROYAL NAVY
command will be abolished by April, 1961. The Nore is a sandbank at the mouth of the river Thames, three miles from the Essex coast.
The Nore Command embraces the east coast of England from Newcastle in the north to Dungeness in the south. From its bases in World War II came ships that covered the Dunkirk operation and helped ferry the Army home. Later, ships that supported commando operations against the French coast and light coastal forces that harried German convoys were based in Nore stations.
Sheerness Dates to Pepys
Sheerness was first suggested as a suitable dockyard in 1572. Samuel Pepys, then an Admiralty official, noted in his diary in 1665 that he had been to Sheerness, where he had seen preparations for building a yard.
The dockyard will close in April, 1960. At near-by Chatham, the dockyard will be retained, but barracks and other naval establishments will be closed by 1961.
At Portland, the dockyard will be closed, but the naval base will be retained. The Torpedo Experimental Establishment at Greenock in Scotland will be transferred to Portland next year.
Portland has been a naval base since the middle of the last century. The Home Fleet sailed from Portland in 1914 to take up battle stations at the outbreak of World War I.
The reorganization also will affect the Fleet Air Arm. One repair yard and five other air establishments, including three operational stations, will be closed in about a year.
Abroad, the dockyards at Singapore and Gibraltar will be retained. The future of the Malta dockyard is under consideration. The East Indies Command is to be abolished next year.
Manpower Cuts Planned
Eventual reduction in manpower will total about 23,000 civilians and 6,000 to 7,000 naval personnel. The financial saving will be about £15,500,000 ($43,400,000) a year.
The navy, Lord Selkirk emphasized, is going through a period of rapid change in which the emphasis is on guided missiles, nuclear propulsion and long-range attack.
“We have reached the stage,” he said, “when visual firing either above or below water ceases.”
The Government’s intention is to establish a flexible naval force able to deal with three contingencies. These, Lord Selkirk said, are a local situation containing “seeds of greater trouble,” major operations of total war and “all gradations of limited war.”
The announcement forecast the loss of jolts for thousands of civilian workers. The outcry reached formidable proportions.
New Radar Now Being Developed
The Baltimore Sun, March 7, 1958.—What is spoken of as a “revolutionary” development in radar detection, of particular value to the Navy with its peculiar need or compact and light-weight equipment, now is under development in electronic laboratories.
A pioneering device, visible to casual passers-by, is on the roof of the Avco research plant near Boston.
When in practical form instead of its present research stage, Sarac (for “Steerable Arrays for Radar Communications”) is expected to replace for special purposes the enormous radar antenna system needed for today’s long-range detection.
360-Degree Search
A change of electrical phase or frequency will permit a 360-degree search of the horizon, which now is possible only by mechanical rotation of a huge antenna “dish.”
A HIGH-POWER LONG-RANGE RADAR SUCH AS MIT LINCOLN LABORATORY’S SHOWN ABOVE GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAND BASED AND SEAGOING SPACE AND WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Only yesterday Rear Adm. Frederic S. Withington, Naval chief of ordnance, spoke of today’s search-radar as the “Achilles’ heel” of the Navy’s new guided missile cruisers.
That is, the huge antenna system with its mechanical rotator, now conspicuous on large naval vessels, weighs perhaps fifteen tons, and because it must be placed high aloft it constitutes a serious problem in stormy weather. A still larger “dish,” to reach still greater distances, is out of the question.
Instead of doing this necessary and constant scanning of the horizon by rotating the “dish,” the new project would get identical results by a change of electrical phase or frequency, by techniques not yet publishable.
For shipboard use, the generator weight would be below deck, escaping the present disadvantage of the mechanical rotator.
Beyond this matter of weight location, there is importance in the fact that the whole weight is much less, permitting a high degree of portability. This aspect is of obvious importance for all installations scattered over the continent and concerned with detection of incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Snark Range 6,300 Miles
The Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1958.— Manufacturers of the Northrop Snark guided missile said today the weapon now has a range of more than 6,300 miles. It heretofore has been credited with 5,000 miles.
Able to cruise for ten hours at almost the speed of sound, the Snark was described as the only current weapon capable of low altitude attack upon virtually any target in Soviet Russia.
A powerful tool for “massive intercontinental deterrent” purposes was the way John R. Alison, of Los Angeles, Northrop vice president, described it.
Misunderstanding Corrected
New or little known facts about the pilotless bomber were brought out by Alison and other Northrop aircraft officials at a briefing here designed to correct what they said was “widespread misunderstanding” of the Snark’s mission and performance.
They said a new electronic device, specially installed on the Snark, can trick enemy radar into mistaking the fighter-size missile for the largest of the jet bombers. Thus Snarks can be flown ahead of a B-52 bomber attack as decoys to cut down enemy interception of United States strategic bombers.
A “big-load carrier,” they said the Snark can plunge a large thermonuclear warhead into enemy targets with “truly amazing accuracy.”
Once it has left the ground, a Snark is on its own. A preset self-contained inertial-guidance system directs it on a straight, zigzag or looped course.
Can Be Called Back
Although the Snark cannot be “jammed” by the enemy, it can be called back from its mission if a suspected enemy attack turns out to be a false alarm.
More than 50 Snarks have been launched
part of the snark production line
at NORTHRUP AIRCRAFT PLANT, HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA.
from the Air Force missile test center at Cape Canaveral, Fla. Altogether they have flown the equivalent of three times around the world at the equator.
Some of them, fitted with landing gear, have been brought back and landed and then flown again, as many as three times.
Other Snark test vehicles have been flown 1,800 miles down the missile test range into the West Indies and then turned around and dropped into waters near Florida so that ‘instruments and other parts could be recovered.
SIX-THOUSAND-MILE RANGE SNARKS IN PRODUCTION.
Could Have Struck Moscow
A number of them—“more than three”— have been flown all the way to Ascension Island, 5,000 miles from Florida in the South Atlantic, since the test range was extended to Ascension last October. If they had been launched from Cape Canaveral in another direction, they could have struck Moscow.
Expressing concern at “the degree to which the weapons of the future have caught the public’s imagination,” Alison said:
“Although we believe the capability of the Snark is beginning to be recognized, there has been a tendency on the part of the public to consider weapons such as manned aircraft and missiles like the Snark as obsolescent.
“We look ontheSViar^ascomplementingand supplementing our present inventory of strategic manned bombers, and as a transitional weapon between aircraft and ballistic missiles.
Will Be Highly Effective
“This missile will be highly effective over the Soviet system well into the middle 1960’s and far beyond.
“We believe the Snark can make a major contribution to United States security.”
The Snark is 68 feet long and 15 feet high, has a 42-foot wing span, and weighs less than
50,0 pounds or about the same as an F-89 interceptor.
It is powered by a Pratt & Whitney J-57, the same jet engine that is used on the eight-engine B-52 heavy bomber.
It is launched from a mobile launching platform by two 130,000-pound-thrust solid propellant rockets manufactured by Allegany Ballistics Laboratory, Cumberland, Md.
Contracts Total $143,000,000
The Air Force Research and Development program on the Snark cost $400,000,000, and Northrop has been given two production contracts totaling $143,000,000.
A Snark squadron is in training at Patrick Air Force Base, Fla. The first squadron site is under construction at Presque Isle, Maine, 4,200 miles from Moscow. The number of Snarks in a squadron has not been disclosed, but the personnel total is 500.
★
Sydney’s Harbour Bridge was a welcome sight to the visiting crewmen of the USS John S. McCain, for Australian hospitality is famed among the American armed forces. Next month’s Proceedings will show a large number of current Australian activities as illustrations for a study of the defense problems of that staunch Southern Hemisphere ally.
OUR THIRD BIG CARRIER ENJOYS A CARIBBEAN SHAKE-DOWN CRUISE
Like the Forrestal and the Saratoga, the Ranger makes it possible for naval aviation to bring its full share of power to the defense strategy of the United States.
[1] Lt. Willett, now serving as aide and flag secretary to Commander Alaskan Sea Frontier/Commandant Seventeenth Naval District, was commissioned Ensign from the University of Washington V-12 and NROTC. He commanded the USS Morgan County (LST-1048) on last sea duty.