We in the Navy go to sea for years at a time. It is not unusual in a normal 30- year career to spend over 25 years either at sea or intimately connected with seagoing operations. Yet most naval personnel take the sea for granted. We pay lip service to the oceans, professing a “love of the sea.” We respect its power (especially during storms). Still, it is doubtful whether one in a thousand naval officers really comprehends the advantages which can be had from the seas, or fully grasps the enormous potential concealed in the salt water which covers 71 per cent of our planet.
One of the most startling facts about the oceans is the economic advantage of water transportation. For example, it costs only one-third as much to send a pound of rubber from Singapore to New York by ship as it does to send the same pound of rubber from New York to Akron, Ohio, by any other means of transportation. It costs If cents per pound for the 12,000-mile trip to New York by ship and over 4½ cents per pound for the 600-mile trip from New York to Akron. This 60-fold pound-per-mile differential gives an idea of the economic advantages which accrue from using and controlling the sea.
The oceans have an average depth of 12,000 feet yet we are able to operate today only within the first few hundred feet. Our scientific information is not much better because we generally have water column data down to only about 900 feet (the limit of our bathythermograph observations). If we are to operate—and fight enemies—at all depths, we must understand the environment right down to the deepest depth of 36,000 feet. Most ships use their echo sounders to make sure there is enough water under the keel for safe passage, but they fail to record a detailed analysis of the ocean depth. This casual approach to oceanic soundings is illustrated by the fact that very few ships submit sounding information to the Oceanographic Office (formerly the Hydrographic Office) as is required by countless directives.
Another example of the “lip service” approach to oceanography is found in a proposal recently received from the Fleet to build a submarine rescue bell good for depths to 1,200 feet. The command which submitted the recommendation obviously failed to consider that only a very small percentage of ocean bottom lies between 800 feet (our present bell’s capability), and 1,200 feet. Figures show that 88 per cent of the oceans are 12,000 feet or deeper, and that the bottom slopes rapidly at the edge of the Continental Shelf, falling precipitously from 600 feet to 12,000 feet. Thus, the 800-1,200 foot region is so steep that a damaged submarine would in all probability roll right on down to 12,000 feet. The proposal never should have been submitted from a command supposedly familiar with the oceans. But, assuming that it were approved—it was not, our present bell was considered adequate—the bell undoubtedly could have been built. There certainly are no difficult engineering problems involved. But what a waste of time, money, and effort its construction would have been.
A general review of our naval weapon arsenal will show that every major weapon system or operating technique developed since 1952 has required extensive oceanographic data in the development stage. In each case, necessary data were (or are being) obtained on a “crash” basis with little time for orderly advance planning. And in almost every case, we originally underestimated data requirements by a factor of ten.
In one prominent instance it was estimated that one survey ship for one year would be more than adequate to do a specified job. We have, to date, expended over 50 ship- years of oceanographic or associated work on this particular system and are still going strong.
Missiles, too, require precise oceanographic surveys for locating the impact area during test firings. Submarines operating submerged for long periods obviously need environmental data. And all long-range detection devices must “know” how acoustic conditions will vary out to many miles. In addition, if one of our more promising operating techniques, ASWEPS, which is designed to predict oceanographic conditions for ASW purposes and is being tested in the North Atlantic, is to be improved and expanded, we have a lot more to do in terms of money, ships, and scientific effort.1
The need and importance of oceanography has rarely been more eloquently described than by B. D. Thomas, president of Battelle Memorial Institute, in a talk given at Mountain State Research and Development Clinic, Raton, New Mexico. An excerpt from his speech (as quoted in International Science and Technology, January 1962) should be given serious consideration by all naval personnel:
It is a sad commentary on our national support of science that much of it derives from a superficial response to Russian prodding. The Russians launch a satellite and we rocket into a headlong race into space. Is it a fair question to ask, can this be a ruse? I am not suggesting that our space program should be whittled down; I am merely asking that we consider for a moment the hypothesis that the next war will be won not in outer space but on the bottom of the sea. The Russians boast about their missiles and their 100 megaton bombs; they are very quiet about their submarines. They make a lot of noise about their men in space; they are very modest about an effort in oceanography several times as large as ours. What a brilliant military exploit it would be to send us off to the moon, while they seize the ocean. By some logic I have never been able to understand, it has been asserted that the power that controls the moon can conquer the earth. We might add . . . that the power that controls the oceans can control the power that governs the moon.
What do we have available to improve our knowledge of the oceans? Thirteen U.S. Navy survey ships under the technical control of the Oceanographer and about 20 private oceanographic ships sponsored by the Office of Naval Research now collect data at sea. Their data are supplemented by data from fleet and merchant units but the input from these two latter sources is extremely meager. For all intents and purposes our oceanographic information comes from our small fleet of oceanographic ships.
Following the motto “Where the Fleet goes, we have been,” these ships carry out two basic types of operations at sea. Research ships look for something new. Their scientific investigations are designed to improve knowledge, solve scientific problems, and develop new applications for using the oceans as an operating medium. Survey ships, on the other hand, are at sea for the systematic collection of all types of data. These data are for use in developing specific weapon systems, for improving charts and atlases, or for use in research. Both types of ships remain at sea for more than 250 days per year.
Perhaps we can pinpoint the difference between research and survey operations by considering how a 21st century expedition might explore a new planet. The advance party might search for paths through the jungles, investigate edibility of food, determine types of diseases to be encountered, etc. This group would correspond to an oceanographic research party. After the advance party had returned, other groups would perhaps be sent out to map the terrain, locate precisely the dangers discovered by the advance party, and in general, describe thoroughly the entire area. This group would correspond to a survey party.
Each group overlaps the work of the other in some respects, but each uses distinct techniques. Both groups are necessary if the area is to be understood. The advance party’s work is meaningless unless it is backed up by the detailed work of the follow-on party, and the follow-on group cannot function effectively without the results from the advance party. Similarly in oceanography, survey and research vessel operations are mutually interdependent.
The jungle analogy is particularly apt since the oceans are very much like a vast jungle peopled by strange animals. They are filled with countless perils for the unwary, but with untold wealth for those who know where and for what to look.
To increase its knowledge of the oceans, the Navy has developed a long-range program in oceanography known as TENOC (ten years in oceanography). The background and content of this plan have been described in an earlier Proceedings article by Lieutenant Commander Joseph R. Morgan.2 In amplification of this article, I should like to mention some recent oceanographic developments contributing to naval operations with their future applications.
The bathyscaph Trieste made its record- breaking dive to 35,800 feet in January 1960. The Trieste has given us valuable information on all sorts of fittings and equipment needed for deep submergence. But one of the most important results of the Trieste's dive was the observation of living animals moving along the bottom. Those little critters are living proof that oxygen gets down to the bottom. This, in turn, means that it is possible that there is circulation and water movement at all depths.
The importance of water movement has obvious applications for submerged navigation, underwater construction, and nuclear waste disposal. In this last case, especially, we dare not assume that there is no bottom circulation in very deep water. For nuclear disposal we will have to investigate each dumping site to make sure that these potentially deadly wastes will “stay put.”
In addition to the bathyscaph, the Navy is developing other deep research vehicles to operate at intermediate depths from the surface to the bottom. These vehicles (such as Aluminaut which will operate at 15,000-foot depths) will be forerunners of deep diving submarines of the future.
Another important development is the Swallow Buoy. These small aluminum buoys can be weighted to float at any desired depth and when fitted with a small sound source are used to track subsurface currents. In fact Swallow Buoys were used to locate the Cromwell Current, a large subsurface countercurrent in the equatorial Pacific. Before the Cromwell Current was detected in 1959, it was thought that water movement in the Central Pacific was westward at 3 knots. The Swallow Buoy revealed a current at 650 feet that flowed eastward at 5 knots. It is interesting to speculate on what would happen to a submarine navigating by dead reckoning not knowing that the current was in a direction opposite to that indicated on the chart.
The above are a few of the many benefits already derived from oceanography. Much more needs to be done, however, especially in the research and survey areas. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Oceanography describes many fundamental problems in all phases of oceanography which still require solution.
What are some of the research difficulties which will have to be overcome in order to improve naval operations?
We need to unravel the mystery of heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere in order to predict and control the weather. Most storms that devastate American shore communities come from the oceans where very few observations are available.
Measurements must be made of low-frequency electromagnetic waves penetrating the ocean floor. Such data are needed for bottom reflectivity and sedimentation studies. We must know how sediments are transported and dispersed across continental shelves and in the deep sea if we are to continue to put cables or any other such device on the ocean floor.
Fish navigation and IFF seem to be in the realm of science fiction but are critical problems. If we could find out how fish navigate thousands of miles to return to their home rivers, or how they can turn instantly as a group when schooling, or can identify food or enemies at great depths (and in the dark at that), we would be able to solve some very knotty ASW problems.
Vertical currents occur throughout the oceans and are the prime mechanism for bringing nutrients from the bottom to the surface. Useful to fish, these currents pose a problem to our ASW forces because bubbles and temperature difference play havoc with sound waves. The main problem here is that there are at the present time no instruments for measuring vertical currents directly. When the instruments are developed, we will have the big job of mapping the location of these vertical currents and determining their effects on sound waves.
We use the thermocline in all sorts of naval problems, but we need fundamental data on how these temperature gradients are formed and why they persist. One of the basic problems to be solved is that of finding why there is a lack of oxygen beneath the thermoclines in the tropical Atlantic and Pacific. An interesting aspect of the thermocline is that fish (particularly tuna) seldom go below the mixed layer. Our fishermen are learning from oceanographers that if they stream nets or lines below the thermocline, they will not get a heavy catch.
At present, sound waves offer the only “window” in the oceans and absorption is very great at high frequencies. For instance, if a target could be detected at 20,000 yards by 1-kc. sonar, it would only be detected at 5,000 yards with a 2-kc. set and at less than 600 yards with 4-kc. equipment. This means that to get the much longer ranges required for future warfare we must go to lower and lower frequencies. Lower frequencies, in turn, require bigger transducers with correspondingly larger ships to carry the transducers and associated equipment. We can build better sonars; but unless we know the environment out to the maximum range, the bearing and range accuracy will be so poor as to vitiate the entire system. The acoustic properties of sea water have been investigated for 20 years but we are still far from a solution. In order to find other “windows,” research must be carried out in non-acoustic techniques such as light (lasers), infrared, magnetic, electric, and thermal effects, as well as cosmic ray, gravity, and chemical changes.
These, then, are but a few of the research difficulties. Now let us consider what fleet personnel might do to assist in the solution of these problems.
Less than 3 per cent of the oceans are adequately sounded for military purposes, the remaining 97 per cent having an average of 50 miles between sounding lines. The situation for bathythermograms is equally grim. Yet, despite the great need for oceanographic information, only a very small amount of data comes from the 800-odd ships in our operating forces. To improve this situation, Fleet personnel must take a more active interest in the oceanic environment. For those who may want to help, H.O. 606a-e are a series of Oceanographic Office publications with detailed instructions on recording, annotating, and submitting sounding, BT, and other oceanographic information. These publications should be part of each ship’s official library so as to be available to all shipboard personnel, especially watch standers.
There are education programs too, through which fleet personnel will be able to improve their understanding of the oceans. Six enlisted men are now studying at the University of Washington at Seattle and should get their B.S. degrees in oceanography in four years under the Navy Enlisted Scientific Education Program (NESEP).The University of Washington also offers a two-year postgraduate course for commissioned officers. The billets for this course have recently been increased to ten.
Similarly, the meteorology curriculum at the Postgraduate School, Monterey, has been expanded to include one year of oceanography. In addition, a special one-year course in prediction techniques has been established. The number of billets for these oceanography/meteorology courses has been increased to 60 to provide the Fleet with a nucleus of trained personnel for oceanography in Fleet units as well as for ASWEPS-type predictions in ASW carriers for staffs. And finally, the Bureau of Naval Personnel has prepared a correspondence course in oceanography which is now available.
As can be seen, there is a need and plenty of opportunity in oceanography. I have tried to show that future naval technological progress depends on thoroughly understanding the oceans as a three-dimensional operating environment. I believe it follows that without active individual participation in data collection, postgraduate training, and correspondence courses, we will not get from the Fleet the data or trained oceanographic manpower needed for future naval warfare. It is up to each of us to help as best we can in ensuring that the weapons systems of the future have the necessary oceanographic environmental backup to make them effective.
1. See R.J. Alexander, “Oceanographic Prediction Through AWSEPS,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 1962, p. 145.
2. See Joseph R. Morgan, “A Decade of Oceanography,” U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 1962, p. 60.