Professional Notes

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.

Page

World Freedom under World Law—Guest editorial by Eugene E. Wilson........................................................ 131

Navy in the Space Age..................................................................................................................................... 132

By Captain Frank G. Marshall, Jr., USN

Polaris Blue and Gold...................................................................................................................................... 133

By Captain Norvell G. Ward, USN

Marines in Modern War................................................................................................................................... 134

By Colonel Victor J. Croisat, USMC

Operations Research, Aid to Military Decision................................................................................................. 137

By Captain Conrad Abhau, USN

DCNO/DEVELOPMENT—Vice Admiral Hayward.......................................................................................... 138

THE NOTEBOOK—Briefs of current military news........................................................................................ 142

PHOTONOTES—Military pictures in the news........................................................................................... 148, 149

NEWS FROM OVERSEAS—Translated briefs by Professor C. P. Lemieux, USNA. Report from Ger­many by Siegfried H. Engel, Rear Admiral, former German Navy....................................................................................................................................... 151

HOW IT WORKS—Inertial Earth Navigation—by Ensign Lee I. Reber, USN................................................ 155

WORLD FREEDOM UNDER WORLD LAW

By Eugene E. Wilson [1]

When man unleashed air power, nuclear power, and undersea power, these new forces induced a breakdown in international law which deprived man of control of his destiny. To a mariner and practitioner of international law it is obvious that the only way to recover control is to make world freedom under world law the American national goal.

The breakdown in the rules of war is clearly chargeable to the lack of a positive deterrent capable of bringing swift retribution to out­laws without excessive hazards to society. A promising deterrent has since become avail­able in the undersea missile launching system called “Polaris.” Combining secrecy with mobility it possesses the invulnerability to capture or surprise attack essential to dis­criminating use. When perfected it can be pinpointed on an outlaw stronghold without harm to hostages or bystanders.

Another deterrent may be developed in some air or space borne system. In either case, other things being equal, in a duel between autocratic and democratic powers, the stra­tegic advantage must rest with the democratic state, for it alone can disperse its headquarters without critical loss of internal security.

With a weapon comparable to “Polaris,” man can recover control over his destiny through world freedom under world law. The corresponding social posture is “Give me lib­erty or give me death.” The corresponding military posture is that of law enforcement. The corresponding military strategy calls for selective and discriminating uses of military force. Sea power, an instrument of interna­tional law, conditioned in this posture, dedi­cated to this strategy, and equipped to imple­ment it, is this nation’s hope for recovering man’s control of his destiny through world freedom under world law.

The F4H-1, with the greatest firepower and longest range of any Navy jet fighter, is undergoing armament system development tests at the Pacific Missile Range. Built by McDonnell, and designed to carry Sparrow III, this 56-foot long jet already has flown more than Mach 2 and is rapidly approaching the world altitude record.

r

The first of the new airships was delivered to the Navy 19 June. These big ships, longer-legged, more stable, and with greater radar range than the ZPG-2W airship presently in use, will be operated by AEW Squadron One on the seaward flank of the contiguous radar barrier operated by CONAD.

NAVY IN THE SPACE AGE

Sputnik I introduced the space age on 4 October 1957. Since that date the United States has placed seven satellites into earth orbits, attempted lunar probes, established a National Aeronautics and Space Administra­tion (NASA) and has allocated about 830 million dollars for FY 1960 in astronautics re­search and development. There can be no question that space vehicles, already within the realm of technical feasibility, will directly influence the manner in which the Navy per­forms its task of controlling the sea lanes. The influence of space vehicles upon naval opera­tions can be as revolutionary and challenging as the development of the aircraft. With such a tremendous challenge, it is only natural that naval officers, particularly the younger officers, are concerned about the role of the Navy in the space age—how will space affect the Navy; what about policy; and do we have any space capabilities?

The Navy is most definitely interested in space exploration and has actively partici­pated in research and experimental investiga­tions relating to space technology since 1942. In fact, much of the information gathered in the Navy’s earliest investigations had a bear­ing on the establishment of the feasibility of creating man-made satellites. Thus in June of 1954 the Navy, in co-operation with the Army, established a satellite program known as Proj­ect Orbiter which had as its goal the place­ment of a series of instrumented satellites into earth orbit. This program was shelved in favor of Project Vanguard; however, it is in­teresting to note that the Orbiter concept ap­peared later as the Army’s Explorer I, the first U. S. satellite in orbit. The strength, ex­perience, and proven competence of the Navy’s research and development complex will continue to make a major contribution to the space program.

The Navy’s policy in relation to the use of space has been stated by the Secretary of the Navy to Congress: “To Use Space to Ac­complish Naval Objectives and to Prevent Space from Being Used to the Detriment of These Objectives.” The Navy also believes that, because of the tremendous costs involved and the need to husband our technical knowl­edge, there must be one National Space Pro­gram. Within this program, and with the national objectives in mind, we must pursue those courses of action that contribute direct­ly to the Navy’s capabilities. Vice Admiral J. T. Hayward has stated: “Space Is a Place— Not a Program.” We must temper our actions with the cold facts of feasibility, cost in rela­tion to degree of improved capability and degree of threat.

The Navy’s stated interests in space are based upon firm operational requirements wherein the possibility of best fulfilling these requirements will be the employment of a space vehicle. Right now we are extremely in­terested in intelligence, navigation and com­munication by satellites. The possible contri­butions of these systems to our Polaris weapon makes their vigorous prosecution essential. This does not, however, indicate a lack of in­terest in ship surveillance, meteorology, and manned space vehicles. The Navy is develop­ing the navigation satellite which can become the first operational satellite system providing accurate, all-weather position data through­out the world. We recognize that certain operational requirements are common to our sister services and that other service efforts in those areas are going forward, but it must be understood that Navy requirements can best be met by Navy participation in the R&D effort which produces operational vehicles.

The all-important point is that today’s state of technological advance can and will affect today’s Navy—we cannot afford to ig­nore the direct impact of space vehicles on future naval missions, composition, and opera­tions. The Navy must not stand idle and allow space technology to pass by. Our space pro­gram must be a program that is part of a bal­anced Navy effort in all science and technol­ogy. The correct balance must be sought and then the program must be treated sensibly as a most important but not the only important program in the Navy.

1959]

POLARIS BLUE AND GOLD

By Capt. Norvell G. Ward, USN, Commander Submarine Squadron 14 (Polaris Ballistic Missile Squadron)

“I relieve you, Sir.” Four short words that mean so much to a naval officer. In the Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines, the first of which, USS George Washington (SSB(N)598), was launched on 9 June 1959, these words will be said often for all duties in the ship. Each FBM submarine will have two crews alter­nating on board. Thus, the traditional words of relief will take on a new meaning, a mean­ing not normally associated with a change of command. Rather, the new commanding officer with his crew will be saying to the old, “We will watch our ship for you until you re­turn to relieve us.”

The concept of two crews in Polaris subma­rines was developed so that these submarines could spend a maximum time at sea on their “Peace Patrols” with in port time limited to that necessary for ship maintenance. Each crew is an integral unit, capable of operating their submarine under all conditions. To avoid creating an incorrect connotation of a first or second crew, or a best crew, the train­ing and operation equality of the crews is em­phasized by using the Navy’s colors to desig­nate them—“Blue Crew” and “Gold Crew.”

Although the concept of relieving the full crew of a major warship at one time is new to the United States Navy, it has been practiced successfully in the British Navy for some time. As concepts of warfare change, so must we change our state of mind to accept the chal­lenge posed by the intriguing and revolution­ary Polaris Weapon System. Tradition offers a number of minor roadblocks to full accept­ance of the “on-again, off-again” crew con­cept, all of which necessitate only administra­tive change to satisfy regulatory procedures. The principal stumbling block is in the mind of many of our people who are “sure the sys­tem won’t work, because it has never been done before!” We will make it work!

The two crews eliminate human endurance as a limiting factor in Polaris submarine oper­ations. Following a period of leave and inten­sive shore-based training, a refreshed crew re­lieves the watch in their ship ready to com­mence operations. With the same crews alter­nating in one ship an esprit de corps will de­velop within the ship so that each member of each crew will be proud to have his name as­sociated with his ship. They will take pride, too, in attempting to outdo each other in turning over well-maintained equipment along with a clean and ready ship. The old timer who has prided himself in “living with his gear” for years will be noticeably missing, but each man, knowing he will later be sub­jected to inspection by the same man he re­lieved, will take pride in not being found remiss. Good turnover procedures combined with complete and realistic maintenance and operating records will assure smooth reliefs and good inter-crew maintenance.

Procedures have been developed to ensure good submarine training at sea as well as ade­quate training and rehabilitation while in port. With the FBM submarine operating on a continuous patrol-upkeep-patrol cycle from a submarine tender, the upkeep will be kept as short as possible by having Blue and Gold turn-to together on maintenance and repair of equipment. When not at sea, Blue and Gold Crews of the first Polaris Submarine Squadron will be “homeported” in New Lon­don, Connecticut, where they will receive training, leave, and rehabilitation.

Two crews per ship mean twice as many personnel and dependents. To care for these, and to provide for proper in-port training, the New London Submarine Base is building ad­ditional facilities and adding services. A Po­laris Team Trainer is being built so the crews can get operational training in both ship qual­ification and the weapons system between pe­riods at sea. A large housing development is under construction. Chaplains have been as­signed to the Submarine Force Staff to aid Polaris personnel and their dependents with specific duty to provide recreational and re­ligious facilities to the FBM submarine crews and their dependents ashore in New London. Aiding the chaplains to care for dependents of the “at-sea” crew will be their shipmates, the “in-port” crew and their families.

134

MARINES IN MODERN WAR

By Col. Victor J. Croisat, USMC, Head, Strategic Plans Section, G-3, Headquarters Marine Corps

Recent attempts to classify the phenome­non of modern war has led to the use of the terms cold war, limited war and general war. This classification is not precise. It is readily apparent that one such form of war can easily develop into another, and the definitions will vary with the point of view. In spite of these drawbacks, these terms have gained in popu­larity and the functions of the armed forces are increasingly being related to their capa­bilities in the three kinds of war. The role of Marines in modern war should thus be con­sidered within these new terms of reference.

Cold war basically is the conflict of ideolo­gies between the West influenced by the United States, and the East dominated by the USSR. The role of military forces in a con­flict which involves no open combat must necessarily be modest. Yet, the contribution of naval forces in cold war is significant. The presence of such forces throughout the world is needed to provide evidence of the willing­ness and ability of the United States to meet its international obligations. While this is the traditional role of “showing the flag,” its im­portance has become vital to a world with growing numbers of new and struggling na­tions. The Marines add to the effectiveness of show of force by their capability of extending the fleet’s power and influence ashore.

The contribution of Marine Corps combat forces to the nation’s readiness for limited war has been well established since the earliest days of the Republic and in countless small wars since then. Other Services can make sig­nificant contributions to any limited war ef­fort. However, limited wars are most probable in the underdeveloped and remote world areas. These areas are usually accessible by sea, but they lack the ports, roads, and air­fields found in more advanced and industrial countries. Thus naval forces, quite independ-

ent of the limitations inherent in a primitive geographical environment, are particularly suited to initial intervention in limited war.

Under certain circumstances airlift can be used to advantage to deploy forces in a limited war. This is particularly true in the case of relatively small forces moving only short dis­tances. However, when it comes to moving major forces over long distances, a number of restricting factors must be carefully consid­ered. The deployment of large forces requires great numbers of aircraft and extensive facili­ties at the points of departure and destination. Such operations are quite inflexible once they are commenced. Movement over long dis­tances most often will necessitate obtaining overflight and base rights from intermediate sovereign states. Finally, airborne forces lack the ability to sustain combat operations with­out prompt reinforcement. Thus for reasons of economy, flexibility, and effectiveness, air­lifted forces of any Service will best be used to reinforce other forces already committed from the sea. It follows that the balanced fleet with its Marines is the only fully integrated com­bat force which alone possesses the means to initiate operations in almost any limited war situation, and has the flexibility to respond with the degree of force required to meet rapidly changing political developments.

In contrast to well defined roles in cold and limited wars, the task of the Marine Corps in a general war involving the unrestricted use of nuclear weapons is unclear, probably be­cause such a war transcends man’s experi­ence. The only realistic assumption which can be made is that general war will result in unprecedented destruction of the fixed facili­ties of both sides. Under such conditions of chaos, victory will go to the side which first re­gains control over its resources and uses its naval and military forces to seize remaining enemy power centers.

The contribution of naval forces in support of national policies in the cold war is signifi­cant. In limited war, the unquestioned ef­fectiveness of Marine Corps combat units in association with the fleets, ensures the vital effectiveness of naval forces in this field. In a general war, surviving Marine Corps units employed in conjunction with remaining fleet elements will help permit the United States to gain control over enemy lands.

OPERATIONS RESEARCH, AID TO MILITARY DECISION

The “ Thinking Teams”—costing $1.5 billion yearly—that produce the studies for national strategy determination are based on Operations Research. Here's how it works.

In something less than twenty-one years, Operations Research has come of age. This new science, created hurriedly at the begin­ning of World War II, developed rapidly but haphazardly during that conflict. Immedi­ately after the war there was uncertainty re­garding its peacetime utility and disagree­ment in connection with how it should be or­ganized and employed. Now, after more than a decade of postwar growth and accomplish­ment, it is accepted as a permanent part of the military structure. While comparatively few naval officers have direct contact with the functioning of Operations Research, all should have an appreciation of what it is and the part it plays in reaching decisions of ma­jor importance.

Operations Research has been defined as the application of scientific method to the study of operational problems in order to give executives a quantitative basis for decision. While this is undoubtedly factual, it is not necessarily helpful. At the heart of the matter is scientific method. Basically, this consists of observing and classifying data, developing theories that fit the observations, and using the theories to predict the effects of changes in conditions or procedures. While all aspects of a problem are seldom amenable to mathe­matical analysis, the attack is invariably as quantitative as possible. Finally, it is impor­tant to recognize that the result is not an end in itself, but an aid to decision by the responsi­ble executive or military commander.

There is a long record of scientific assistance in the development of improved instruments of war, Archimedes and Leonardo da Vinci being among the more famous early contribu­tors. What is new is scientific interest in the use of weapons. Our Navy has been a promi­nent patron of this development. During World War I Thomas Edison undertook the study of antisubmarine warfare for the Naval Consulting Board. His work included prob­lems of search and attack, the evaluation of zigzagging, and the development of a tactical game board. All of these activities are now recognized to be within the scope of Opera­tions Research.

Our British cousins must be credited with creating the first recognized “Operational Research Groups” during the Battle of Brit- ian. A similar group established for the study of mine warfare at the Naval Ordnance Labo­ratory in March 1942 is considered to have in­augurated Operations Research in this coun­try. An antisubmarine warfare group, formed two months later under Professor Philip Morse of MIT, developed into the Navy’s Operations Evaluation Group, the first per­manent organization in America. The Opera­tions Analysis Office of the Air Force grew out of various units established in the fall of 1942. By 1948 the Air Force had created the Rand Corporation, a non-profit institution special­izing in problems of research and develop­ment, and the Army organized its Operations Research Office. Later the same year, Mr. Forrestal, impressed by the work of the Oper­ations Evaluation Group while Secretary of the Navy, brought about the formation of the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group in the Department of Defense. WSEG uses the re­sults of work done by the services as inputs for studies at its level in the military struc­ture.

Many subordinate activities in the defense establishment have their own groups, fitted to their special needs. Additional work is done on contract by universities and corporations. The Navy took another pioneering step in 1951 by establishing postgraduate instruction for officers in Operations Analysis. Although several universities already had seminars or lecture courses in Operations Research, the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School was the first institution of higher learning to offer a formal curriculum in the field.

Operations Research in World War II was a relatively simple affair, dominated by a sense of urgency. With combat operations in progress, attention was directed toward meas­ures that could be put into effect promptly. Since the war, problems of much greater scope have been undertaken. The scale has been increased from the individual engage­ment to the entire campaign. In part this ex­pansion is a normal growth resulting from in­creasing experience, but basic conditions have accelerated it. In war we draw on actual large scale operations for data. In peace we cannot afford maneuvers of comparable intensity and magnitude as tests of our methods and equip­ment. Also, in peace we must look much fur­ther into the future than is either necessary or allowable in wartime. Decisions must be tested against circumstances expected to pre­vail years afterward.

The various methods of attack on opera­tional problems of large scope all have points in common as well as distinguishing charac­teristics. Risking some offense to the theorists, we may divide the methods into analytic, gaming, and simulation techniques. The an­alytic approach involves the development of a mathematical problem, representative of the real situation, that can be solved either exactly or approximately. The processes are those of differential equations, probability, statistics, and the theory of games. While com­puting equipment may be used, the emphasis is on the formulation, manipulation and in­terpretation of the mathematical expression of the problem. Gaming derives from the map exercises long used for instruction purposes at the war colleges. In one form, a game is de­vised that represents the problem to be studied in the form of a three-map exercise, the opposing teams being in separate rooms with an umpire in a third compartment using a composite map to determine the informa­tion to be released to each team. Simulation may be thought of as an alternative form of gaming, the game being devised so that the playing of it can be simulated by an electronic computer.

Each of the basic approaches has its advan­tages and limitations. The analytical technique may require considerable simplification to permit solution. With reasonable expendi­tures of effort, it may provide only the aver­age, or expected, value of the result. On the other hand, the analytic solution is inherent­ly reliable. Gaming of the map exercise variety is time consuming and uncertain It is relatively easy to construct a game that ap­pears to be a reasonable fit to reality, but diffi­cult to play it often enough to have faith in the result. Simulation permits repetitious play at the cost of simplification of the game. It permits approximation of the distribution of results as the inputs are varied, but provides little measure of the confidence level of the result. In some respects it may be considered as intermediate between analytic techniques and the map exercise.

One common aspect of the differing ap­proaches should be carefully noted: each is a simplified model of the real problem. The question of how well the model fits reality must be considered carefully by both the sci­entific analyst and the military executive. A second common point is that all approaches equally require determination of the numer­ical value of the input parameters. For a com­plex, future situation, this preliminary work may well be the major part of the problem.

A brief paper cannot treat all aspects of Operations Research, nor can Operations Re­search pretend to solve all our problems. Its functions are to define the decision which must be made, to narrow the scope of this decision, and to test the decision in terms of the results to be expected. Used properly, it gives assurance that the decision made is the best possible under the circumstances, and thus helps the responsible commander to sleep at night.

DCNO/DEVELOPMENT

In the June issue of Armed Forces Manage­ment is an excellent “Pentagon Profile” of the officer, Vice Admiral John T. Hayward, usn, whose new job as DCNO/Development is re­ported little more than official Navy endorse­ment of the position he already held in fact. Says Hayward, “The Navy has needed some one spot where the boss could go to find out how we stand in R&D, without having to hack at this thing in 20 different places.”

a

On a first name basis with leading scien­tists, he is reportedly becoming a near-indis-

Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations (Development)

Assistant DCNO (Development)

Technical Advisory Group

pensable man in building tomorrow’s Navy. Sounding off when he thinks it needed, he re­cently urged, contrary to Administration policy and the exhortations of military col­leagues, that all space exploration be under one civilian agency. During the Symington Committee hearings this spring he voiced ob­jections to what he termed a “Fortress Amer­ica” continental defense setup.

Self-taught in theoretical physics and with a solid atomic and R&D background, he de­scribed himself to Congress recently as “a gung-ho pilot and physicist third class.” He makes a good team with Navy research chief Rear Admiral Rawson Bennett (“We under­stand each other very well.”), and is moving fast to give his organization the solid weight of authority carried by opposite numbers Generals Trudeau and Schriever in the other services.

Complete staffing for the new office will take time, a scarce commodity in Navy R&D. Major accessions to date have come from vir­tually intact “shop” transfers from other spots in OpNav and ONR. The ultimate organiza­tion should look like the chart above.

ASHORE POLARIS NAVIGATION CENTER

Working in an exact duplicate of the Polaris sub­marine’s navigation center, Sperry specialists check out the installation. The case in the upper left of the photograph is part of the housing for the in­ertial navigation system’s gyros and accelerometers. For an explanation of the inertial system, see page

THE NOTEBOOK

Briefs of Current Military News

First missile A-Sub launches: USS George Wash­ington, first of the Polaris submarines, was launched at Groton, Conn., on 9 June. Carry­ing 16 missiles and a crew of 100, the 5,400- ton sub will be the first to use the two-crew concept described in Captain Ward’s Polaris Blue and Gold article elsewhere in this section. She commissions 31 December of this year, and will be operational in 1960.

Regulus delivers rocket mail: When the subma­rine Barbero fired 3000 letters from 100 miles at sea to the Florida coast on 8 June, Post­master General Summerfield was on hand to receive the letters and predict regular rocket mail deliveries “before man reaches the moon.” Commentators mixed acclaim with comments that the cost was $1.75 a letter and that Austria had tried rocket mail 30 years ago. For a souvenir envelope, send a Aj stamp to PIO, Naval Station, Mayport, Fla.

Army missile supplies cut-off troops: The Army has introduced a 9-foot supply missile, accurate within two football fields at five to eight miles range, for battlefield delivery use. Built by Convair, it costs under $1,000 and is 70% re­usable.

Tests start on A-Power for rockets: A nuclear re­actor, part of the AEC-NASA program to de­termine feasibility of nuclear power for rock­ets, began operation on 20 June. First test of the series for the KIWI-A reactor was carried out deep in the Nevada desert.

Polaris Sub makes own oxygen: An electrolytic oxygen generator, using electric current to separate oxygen atoms from water, will add 50% more oxygen to the supply normally car­ried in cylinders on board submarines. Such a generator, providing oxygen for lengthy • underwater cruises, will be installed in the USS George Washington.

Vinson’s committee approves BuWeap: By a vote of 29-1, the House Armed Services Commit­tee approved a bill merging BuOrd and BuAer into a new Bureau of Naval Weapons. Mr. Vinson said the consolidation was “a proper step forward.” He suggested that the rank of the new bureau chief should be rear admiral.

BuPers initiates overseas information kits: Avail­able from NSD Norfolk and Oakland are comprehensive kits for overseas-bound units. They include language guides, maps, guide­books, phrase books—even language phono­graph records.

Navy scientists develop weather rocket: Payload of the new weather projectile developed by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory is a narrow strip of copper chaff that falls at 3,100 feet per min­ute compared with 450 for aluminum chaff, enabling accurate following of the wind struc­ture. During test, wind speeds at 100,000 feet averaged 20 mph, but at 50,000 feet reached jet stream velocities of 160 mph.

Polaris sub is navigation laboratory: Nothing navigational is left to chance in the George Washington. Besides three inertial sets, she has a star tracker in a special periscope for under­water fixes, a radiometric sextant for taking radio fixes of the sun through clouds, equip­ment for LORAN and other radio aids, and a gravity meter to measure the earth’s gravi­tational anomalies.

Project Mercury spacemen go UDT: Little Creek’s Frogmen checked the 7 astronauts out on SCUBA diving recently, both to familiarize them with the physiology of a sensation akin to weightlessness and to give them water survival training—the first space capsules are planned for ocean recovery.

Antarctic biological research laboratory begins operations: Located at the Naval Air Facility on Ross Island, McMurdo Sound, the new laboratory is most complete facility in Ant­arctica. While two biologists collect fish through holes blasted in the ice, a Navy doc­tor carries on “Operation Snuffles” to investi­gate respiratory infections among the winter­ing-over party.

Navy tests internal combustion catapult: With 50% greater capacity than steam cats, the jet fuel- compressed air engine can launch a 100,000- pound aircraft at 125 knots, and other planes at speeds up to 175 knots. Delivery will start later this year.

Naval Gun Factory is no more: With the end of an era, the Gun Factory changed its name on 1 July to the U. S. Naval Weapons Plant, to correspond to its new mission of building guided missiles and other modern weapons.

Navy keeps Thule harbor de-iced: Deep-laid com­pressed air lines, perforated to create up- currents of warmer bottom water, kept pier areas icefree 40 days past normal closing time at this arctic defense post only 800 miles from the pole. The test campaign was carried on by U. S. and Canadian naval personnel.

Navy-developed solion bids to replace transistor: Product of a Naval Ordnance Laboratory discipline called chemtronics—the movement of ions in solution rather than electrons—the new device requires 100 to 1,000 times less power than transistors. Even better, it’s cheap, long-lasting, light, and simple to make.

Liberty ships to go: Nearly 1,200 of the 1,400 mothballed Liberties are to be scrapped. The Navy says they have virtually no value in modern war. This will reduce the reserve fleet to some 900 ships.

Air Force takes over ARP A deputy spot from Navy: Major General Don R. Ostrander, USAF, re­lieves Rear Admiral John E. Clark in the top military spot under Director Roy Johnson on 1 October. Admiral Clark goes to sea.

Navy builds biggest radio telescope: Taking top honors from Britain’s 250-foot antenna at Jodrell Bank (and easily topping a 350-foot Soviet scope reported building) is the Naval Research Laboratory’s mammoth 600-foot antenna under construction at Sugar Grove, W. Va. When the two-football-field scope com­pletes in 1962, Navy scientists hope to reach out towards the “limits” of the universe.

Gates selection may indicate limited war emphasis: The publication, Armed Forces Management, editorially conjectures that appointment to the Deputy Defense spot of former Navy Secretary Thomas Gates, outspoken advocate of limited war preparation, may herald a de­fense-wide shift in policy. There is reported growing service feeling, particularly Army and Navy, that “massive retaliation” has been overemphasized to the detriment of less glamorous programs.

What’s behind the arms squabble? Attempting to highlight the problem, U. S. News and World Report asks: Can we get by with air transport for less than two Army divisions? Should Polaris be Navy-controlled as a seagoing weapon, or Air Force-controlled as a stra­tegic weapon? Is it sound to pour millions into manned bombers in the missile era? Should we build nuclear carriers, or have missile subs outmoded them? Should ground force weapons be modernized at $15 billion, or are they really obsolete? And are SAGE, inter­ceptors, radar nets worthwhile when bomb­ers are on the way out?

Recoverable-relaunchable satellite planned this year: Director Roy Johnson of ARPA told the House Space Committee on 27 June that we will have the capability this year for satellites that can be brought down on command, re­covered, and relaunched. By 1962 or early 1963 ARPA plans a large communication satellite 22,000 miles out, circulating at earth’s speed and thus stationary over some point; and later there will be a program for men to visit it and return to earth.

Navy-Air Force fund magnetic pinch plasma engine research: The Office of Naval Research and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research have given Republic Aviation a contract for study of a propulsion system that ionizes a heavy gas, pinches and accelerates it through a magnetic “vessel” for tremendous velocities. The basic theory has been proven in earlier research.

Space Handbook for sale: For sixty cents you can buy from the Government Printing Office a 252-page book, “Space Handbook; Astro­nautics and Its Applications,” with pictures, bibliography and space information. It was prepared for a House Committee by RAND Corporation.

Britain flies 34-foot flying saucer: Yes, Virginia, there is a flying saucer. Unveiled in England 11 June, it is supported on a cushion of air just off the ground or water, and can travel with minimum resistance or roughness. The prototype could lift 20 people and travel at 25 knots, though only a foot off the surface. Later machines are expected to fly up to five feet at 120 knots. A 400-ton Hovercraft would carry twice an aircraft’s payload at a quarter the power. (In this country, a model has

been displayed at the David Taylor Model Basin—see “Skimmer” in the photo section of Professional Notes.) And Curtiss-Wright has mailed a brochure advertising an Air-Car to “qualified persons”—price not specified.

Jet-propelled destroyer: July’s Our Navy tells the story of USS Witek, “first warship without propellers since paddle wheels went out of fashion.” The two units are each nearly 10 feet in diameter and 15 feet long, and have guide vanes and a pump impeller. The ship is not as fast, but she’s a lot quieter—big asset in this sonar age.

The next ten years in space: Aviation Week’s 22 June issue has expanded some ARPA re­leases and a good deal of staff digging into a first rate 36 page report on this subject. Too lengthy to brief here, it is must reading for military professionals.

Nuclear Navy is history’s biggest reconversion pro­gram: July Nucleonics magazine carries a com­prehensive progress report on the Nuclear Navy—75 to 100 reactors over the next eight years, and a complete conversion of the com­bat fleet to nuclear propulsion. Volume of work on Navy contracts is so great that, far from need for orders to accelerate civilian reactors as discussed in the Gore bill debate, there may be danger of conflict between Navy and civilian orders for the limited manufac­turing facilities.

SecDef explains master plan: Secretary McElroy recently stated that Nike-Hercules and Bo- marc both have places in our defense plans, but in reduced numbers. We are not trying, he explained, to decide which missile to keep; it is a defense-in-depth concept. Bombers penetrating the interceptor perimeter would meet Bomarc B with its 300- to 400-mile range; any bombers clearing this screen will be met at high priority targets by Nike-Hercules and Nike-Ajax as close-in defense.

Service rivalries produce strength. Speaking at the NEA convention, Undersecretary of the Air Force MacIntyre said that service rivalries “would and should exist even if there were only one service.” He stated that competition in ideas and ways of doing a job had con­tributed to our strength as a society, and our political, economic, and military power.

Ready for this year’s Hurricanes: The weather man is ready with a new roster of girls’ names for this year’s hurricane season, starting with Arlene, Beulah and Cindy, and ending with Xcel, Yasmin and Zasu. Last year they only got as far as Janice.

AF picks fourth Titan site: Larson AFB, Wash., has been designated as the fourth base for the Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, add­ing to Lowry (Denver), Ellsworth (S.D.) and Mountain Home (Idaho). There are seven ATLAS bases.

U. S. won’t face Cold War demands: Admiral Arthur W. Radford, serving as military con­sultant to DOD, stated on a television inter­view that “the people of the U. S. are reluc­tant to undertake long range programs; they don’t like to hear about the bad news.”

Second series of stratoscope flights: This summer the Office of Naval Research and National Science Foundation jointly sponsor balloon flights to 80,000 feet of the 12" Stratoscope I solar telescope. Feature of this year’s flights will be a closed circuit television link, with remote control aiming of the telescope from the ground. Above the turbulent Tropopause much clearer pictures can be obtained. With this equipment, interesting areas such as sun spots can be followed with high resolution. The resulting pictures will be of great impor­tance to astronomers.

NASA plans telescope satellite: NASA recently announced plans for a satellite to carry a bank of telescopes into a 500-mile-high orbit, in an ambitious plan to map the heavens with­out atmospheric screening. Probable vehicle will be a VEGA rocket.

6-Wing Bonn Air Force in operation: West Ger­many has operational today, and due for NATO acceptance this year, six wings (four fighter-bomber, one fighter, one support), with twenty wings planned by 1964. By the end of this year, West Germany’s NATO con­tribution will exceed that of Britain and prob­ably France as well.

Symington calls master plan unsound. Senator Symington blasted the new air defense plan as a waste of billions of dollars, saying it gives “the same false sense of security once given the French people by the Maginot Line.”

NEWS FROM OVERSEAS

Soviet Fleet Reviews “Radio War at Sea”

In the Russian naval newspaper, Soviet Fleet, an Engineer Colonel and an Engineer Captain describe “radio war.” Their article was written to review and explain some of the “new military adventures worked out by the bosses of the Pentagon.”

The importance of new electronic means of detection and counter-detection is indicated, they say, by the fact that “the United States spends no less than 400 million dollars an­nually on electronic devices for jamming.”

Radio war is defined as the overall meas­ures for impeding the enemy in the use of his electronic apparatus, and defending one’s own devices from enemy counter measures. It may take two forms: passive (radio moni­toring) and active (destruction of radio­electronic devices or their nullification by jamming, radio disorientation, etc.)

Monitoring of enemy radio-technical de­vices is done to detect a ship or plane on which the devices are operating. Americans consider that this enables one to avoid the enemy or to determine how to attack him.

The monitored object is located at the mo­ment it turns on its radio locator or radio sta­tion. A/S devices were developed during World War II, but the U.S.A. now has specialized radio locating A/S ships of the “Deely” type and reconnaissance planes of the WV-2 type in its so-called “barrier forces.” The modern atomic submarines are similarly equipped.

Monitoring is conducted to obtain data on enemy radio devices: operating frequency, power, jamming defense, battle use, etc. Data on shore stations includes their location, ef­fective zones, blind sectors.

American specialists believe that any radio locating station or control system for guided missiles may be broken. Hence, the American Command is bending every effort to control its jet missiles by inertial and astro-naviga­tional methods, and to conduct its observation and detection by means of infra-red technique.

The development of transmitters for jam­ming radio-locators has entailed increase of power (up to 5-6 KW) and the use of new types of radiation (impulse, for example). In all cases, their effectiveness increases in pro­portion to the distance from the transmitter and the object on which the radio locating station is installed. Jamming transmitters op­erate from ships, planes, and shore. They may also be dropped by parachute, and are most useful in protecting ships from missiles of the “air-ship” variety.

The American Navy is presently giving high priority to imitative jamming designed to mislead the enemy. Transmitters of this type are installed on planes and special guided missiles which precede the formations of bombers and draw to themselves the at­tention of the radio locating stations and the fire of the AA installations.

Imitation of targets is effected by receiving the impulses of the enemy radio locating sta­tion and re-transmitting them on the same frequency. By changing the lag in re-radia­tion of the impulse, one may create a false target at any distance from the enemy radio locating stations and in some cases on any azimuth.

Mention should be made of the use of metallic tape during World War II in con­fusing radio location stations. Such reflectors were used to simulate large surface units or to mask shore targets.

Anti-location defense is most often used to further the actions of submarines. At the mo­ment, an American firm has produced an anti-Loran screen for submarines which greatly lessens the power of reflected signals. Similar devices for the cover of aircraft are on the drawing boards.

“Radio espionage is carried on in peace time by the imperialistic powers.” The Brit­ish journal Isis reports that the NATO coun­tries have set up numerous listening stations along the borders of the U.S.S.R. and other “socialist states.” Operators, trained in the Russian language, carefully pick up the slight­est “pisk” from Russian transmitters on ships, planes, tanks, and military groups. At a press conference of the U.S.S.R. embassy in the “German Democratic Republic,” ex­amples were cited indicating that the Ameri­can intelligence service monitors radio com­munications of the Soviet Northern Fleet.

According to the West German daily, Der Abend, eight cruisers of the Soviet Baltic Fleet have been armed with guided missiles which can be equipped with atomic warheads. Such missiles, having a range of eighteen miles, are

HOW IT WORKS—INERTIAL EARTH NAVIGATION

By Ensign Lee I. Reber, USN

A former Electronics Technician, Ensign Reber re­ceived his Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Purdue this July under the Naval Enlisted Ad­vanced Science Program.

When the accelerometer (Fig. 1) is acceler­ated to the right, the mass (m) will be dis­placed to the left. The spring restraining force (F= —kx) must equal the inertial force (F=)ma; thus the displacement and the out­put voltage are proportional to the accelera­tion.

However, tip the accelerometer a bit, and an output, caused by gravity, will also occur. Therefore the accelerometer must always re­main normal to gravity, i.e., normal to the true vertical—the line of action of pure mass attraction. The measured acceleration will then be the absolute acceleration in respect to inertial space and will contain centripetal and Coriolis components. Corrections are made for these, though, so that only the ac­celeration of an earth-bound reference system remains. This latter is arbitrary, and various frames are used; but for an earth navigator, the most logical choice is to align one axis (N-S) with the local meridian of latitude, another (E-W) with that of longitude, and the third (azimuth) axis with the true vertical. Thus, by measuring the N-S and E-W accel­erations and double integrating, a contin­uous solution of position is possible.

This reference frame must be stored in the system; three single-degree-of-freedom gyros (Fig. 3) are used for this purpose. At the in­put is a “torquer” (basically, a motor) which

can apply a torque to the frame. At the out­put end is a sensitive generator which pro­duces an output whenever the input axis varies from the vertical. This gyro is hermet­ically encased and rigidly mounted on the “platform” (Fig. 2).

FIG. 3. A SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM FIG. 1. A SIMPLE LINEAR ACCELEROMETER GYRO

Suppose, now, that the platform starts to turn about the input axis due to yaw. Im­mediately, the gyro begins to precess about the output axis producing a generator output. This voltage is fed to a servo amplifier (Fig. 5) which, in turn, energizes the gimbal servo motor causing the platform to rotate in the opposite direction of the original motion and

W

ICT**

FIG. 4(b). THE PROJECTION OF EASTERLY VELOCITY VECTOR ON THE SENSITIVE AXES

cancelling it. This action is, of course, con­tinuous and instantaneous. The two gyros mounted vertically maintain similarly the other two axes by correcting for pitch and roll.

Assume, now, that a current is applied to the torquer. The gyro frame will begin to ro­tate about the output axis, but, immediately, a generator output occurs which again ener­gizes the gimbal servo motor. This action causes the platform to turn about the input axis producing a precessional torque equal and opposite to the electrical torque and re­ducing the generator output to zero. Thus, when a current is applied to the torquer, a re­positioning of the platform occurs which is necessary to maintain the earth coordinate system in spite of the earth’s rotation and the ship’s movement.

Refer now to Fig. 4(a). The earth’s angular velocity vector will have projections on the E-W and Az axes as derived in the geometry. To correct for the earth’s rotation, currents, proportional to these projections, are fed into the respective gyros to reposition the platform.

Next, assume the ship travels due north. During its motion, the acceleration is contin­uously integrated to obtain the velocity. This linear rate (Fns) is changed to an angular rate (cons) by dividing by the earth’s radius (from kinematics, & = cor). This angular rate is then fed to the N-S gyro to maintain the co­ordinates.

Suppose, now, that the ship travels due east at L° north latitude (Fig. 4(b)). The ship is now rotating on a circle of radius R₀ cos L with a linear velocity Few- Thus, cjew = Few/A, cos L directed along the earth’s rotational axis. This vector has two projec­tions: Few/A, on the E-W axis, and Few/A. tan L on the Azimuth axis. These two com­ponents position the platform to maintain stability as the ship travels easterly.

Obviously, as the ship approaches the pole, the mode of operation must be changed since the tangent approaches infinity. One method is to “trick” the system into thinking the poles are elsewhere when the ship is within, say, ten degrees of the true pole.

A second integration and a trig computa­tion complete the solution of position.