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.
BEACHMASTERS—THE AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT TRAFFIC COPS
140 Beachmasters—The Amphibious Combat Traffic Cops
By Lieutenant D. W. Orahood, U. S. Navy
144 The U. S. Navy’s Torpedo Inventory
By Steve Kurak
147 Value Engineering—
Profit Sharing Technique
By Lieutenant Commander Ruy S. Portugal,
U. S. Naval Reserve
150 An Unusual Case of Ship Salvage
By Commander Thomas N. Blockwick,
U. S. Navy
154 Notebook
When the rush-hour traffic at the end of the day ties up the freeway, the firm hand of a traffic policeman is usually required to bring order and get the commuters on their way home again. Just as in civilian society, the amphibious navy has its own traffic cops— the beach masters, who work to bring order out of chaos. This particular group of Navy- men is vital when the Navy lands Army or Marine combat forces on a hostile shore.
The very nature and characteristics of an amphibious assault combine to produce confusion. The sound of high explosives, strafing aircraft, rumbling, snorting, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and the pounding surf all compete to drown out verbal orders and commands. As waves of landing craft throw themselves upon the beachhead, disgorging combat ready troops and equipment, there is ample opportunity for traffic jams. A capsized or broached landing craft on the beach or a vehicle bogged down in the landing area could set off a chain reaction of events which might seriously impair the entire operation.
To prevent such deadly delays and confusion and to make certain that supplies and equipment arrive where they are needed when they are needed are the prime responsibilities of the beachmaster.
At the beginning of World War II the organization of beachmasters as we know it today did not exist. Although amphibious assault as a method of attack goes back into history many hundreds of years, the task began to take significant and modern advances in technique during the island hopping campaigns in the Pacific and the critically important invasions of North Africa and Europe. It was soon found that organization and cooperation between combat units and military
s
s
>f
a
d
r
r
1
services was at best difficult, and for an amphibious assault to have a reasonable chance for success some means was necessary to coordinate the naval forces offshore and the Army-Marine combat forces on the beachhead. To accomplish this co-ordination the basic beachmaster unit began to take shape.
Prior to the formation of today’s Beach- master Unit and the Naval Beach Group, the Navy-Marine shore party (as it was then organized) was an integral part of a combat division, and was organized around a Marine pioneer group or an Army engineer group. In both services the shore party formed the nucleus to which various naval support elements were assigned. The naval element included the naval beach party, underwater demolition team, a naval pontoon or causeway unit, and a boat pool, all of which were furnished by the attack transports (APA) of the amphibious task force. Each APA provided a beach party team of approximately two officers and 30 enlisted men to support the landing of the battalion of troops which she carried. The beach party team would land at the objective area and take charge of the beach in a manner similar to that which is used today. However, it was normally withdrawn with its parent ship upon conclusion of the landing of its assigned troops. This organization was based on the concept that the shore party was an instrument of the assault and would be relieved promptly by a more permanent garrison beach party to unload the follow-up shipping. This early organization of the shore party proved inadequate because of the poor state of training and lack of standardized methods and procedures. These problems led to the formation of the present- day beach party battalion.
The beach party battalion, of which the beachmaster unit was a part, was established for experimental purposes in 1947. As evolved, the basic mission of the beach party battalion was to provide, organize, and train a beach party of sufficient strength to ensure continuous and uninterrupted services on the beach, or beaches, during an amphibious assault and during the resupply shipping. In July 1948, the beach party battalion, located at the Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, California, was commissioned as Naval Beach
Group One with a beachmaster unit as a component of the group organization. The following year the beachmaster unit was itself commissioned Beachmaster Unit One. Today, Naval Beach Group Two and Beach- master Unit Two operate in the Atlantic area.
The present-day mission of the beachmaster unit is to provide the naval element of the Navy-Marine shore party in order to facilitate the landing and movement of combat troops, their equipment and supplies over the assault beaches. Of the over-all tasks assigned to the shore party by the amphibious landing force commander, those which are predominately naval and involve the employment of water craft are assigned to the naval element of the beach party. The specific functions performed by the beachmasters include:
• Provision and employment of navigational aids and marking of hazards to both landing craft and personnel in the vicinity of the beach.
• Removal of underwater and beach obstacles in the immediate landing area.
• Improvement of seaward approaches and designation of suitable landing areas for landing craft and ships based on surf and beach hydrography.
• Control of all landing craft and ships from the three-fathom curve to the beach, and control of all personnel and equipment from the surf to the berm line (highest point of the back shore) of the beach.
• Control and accomplishment of emergency repairs and salvage of landing craft and vehicles by off-shore salvage boats and beach salvage teams.
• Establishment and maintenance of communications with designated naval forces and control units afloat, including continuous liaison with the amphibious task force commander.
• Assistance in evacuation of casualties and prisoners of war.
• Assistance in the local security and defense of the beach area.
Because of the great variation in the demands of amphibious warfare the organization of the beachmaster unit must be flexible. The unit is organized on a division beach party level. With this type of organization, therefore, the beachmaster is able to provide all the required services and support for a small, quick raid on a hostile beach.
Tactically, the division beach party is made up of a headquarters group of five officers and 20 enlisted men and three beach party groups, each with two officers and 20 enlisted men.
Each beach party group is supported by two beach party teams, each having three officers and 45 enlisted men. The beach party team is the basic naval element of the beach party and operates on a battalion landing beach.
The beach party team has a headquarters and several sections. The communications section maintains lateral beach communications and contact with forces afloat with signal flags, searchlights, and radios. The traffic control and broadcast section directs landing craft and ships to the proper unloading sites, using signal flags, lights, megaphones, and loudspeakers.
The salvage section is equipped with a bulldozer, surf crane, and amphibian vehicle with an A-frame. The boat repair section can make emergency hull, engine, and electrical repairs. Underwater demolition team personnel make up the hydrographic section which conducts surveys, marks channels, and destroys obstacles. Seabees from the amphibious construction battalion form a limited construction section. Finally there are the boat pool, causeway section, and shipping element. These three components work separately, but report to the beachmaster for operational control.
Although todays’ beachmasters are Navy- men, they are seldom recognized as such because of their green utility working uniforms, differing from Marine uniforms only in in-
signia. Each man in the beach party is equipped with a pack, sleeping bag, tent, mess kit, canteen, a 7.62-millimeter M-14 rifle, gas mask, flak jacket, and steel helmet. Each man in the team is combat trained, and each team is organized and equipped to be self-sufficient for a prolonged period of time. It is not unusual for a beach party team to be left on the beach for several days without support from any other source.
The team normally lands on the beach in the third wave of assault craft. Although the beachmaster has no landing craft of his own and must use those of the assault ships, he can in an emergency use the two amphibious vehicles (DUKWs or LARCs) which are assigned for beach salvage.
Immediately upon arrival on the beach, the team establishes a compact but permanent communications relay station to facilitate the ship-to-shore movement. From this position the beachmaster team commander can advise the task force commander of surf action, hydrography, beach conditions, progress of landing equipment and supplies, and evacuation of casualties. With the bulldozer assigned to the construction section, trenches are scooped in the sand to conceal the radio vehicles and tents. Individual foxholes are dug in a defense perimeter. Members of the , team are spaced out along the assault beach to direct the incoming tanks, vehicles, and troops. Often working under intense enemy fire and for prolonged periods of time in the surf and on the beach, these men must be well trained and well versed in surf action, beach conditions, salvage, and all other phases of amphibious landings.
In place of the conventional traffic light, beachmasters use a series of multicolored flags, loudspeakers, portable flashing lights, signal flags, and radios. Should a landing craft run aground or broach, a stand-by beachmaster salvage crew is ready, with the aid of the amphibious DUKW or LARC, to Push or pull the broached landing craft back mto deep water. If the landing craft is too deeply mired in the sand, the stand-by offshore salvage craft, assigned by the landing force commander, may be called in to assist in Pulling the boat off the beach with a towline, ff the boat is capsized the bulldozer is equipped with lifting forks which can raise
the boat and release any trapped personnel.
Although the team is equipped to perform salvage operations it is usually limited to temporary repairs sufficient to permit damaged landing craft to clear the surf zone and return to off-shore ships, designated as boat havens, for more extensive repairs. If a boat is so severely damaged that it cannot be salvaged, it is either pulled up on the beach clear of the surf and landing area by the bulldozer, or, particularly in war time, destroyed by demolition. Boat ramp failures and swamped boats on the beach are also a frequent salvage problem within the capabilities of the beach party team.
The Navy’s beachmasters are today in combat in Vietnam, plying their skills in a war that is in large part a sea war with amphibious operations ranging from beach reconnaissances to multi-battalion landings. Components of Beachmaster Unit One, based at Coronado, California, and its Western Pacific Detachment, at Yokosuka, rotate as members of the Seventh Fleet’s Amphibious Force now fighting in the Vietnamese War.
Robert D. Moeser
By Steve Kurak,
Head, Planning Office,
Ships Material Department,
Naval Ships Engineering Center
THE U. S. NAVY’S TORPEDO INVENTORY
If asked to write a definition of a torpedo, today’s naval writer would probably see it as a crewless, self-propelled and self-steered underseas weapon, carrying an explosive charge which detonates on contact with or in proximity to a target. This definition embodies some relatively recent developments in torpedo technology.
The state of the art in today’s torpedo technology is the result of innovations introduced within the last 15 to 20 years. This is despite the fact that the first practical torpedo made its appearance a century ago in Fiume, Austria. It was the work of Robert Whitehead, a Scot working under the auspices of the Austrian Navy. The “Whitehead” torpedo was the inspiration for all subsequent torpedo design and incorporated all of the fundamental principles of today’s torpedoes. The Whitehead torpedo was adopted for use by most of the powers of the day and was manufactured under license by these powers. When the U. S. Navy adopted the self-propelled torpedoes, it was this basic design that the E. W. Bliss Company manufactured for the Navy.
Torpedo design is dictated by the mode of weapon delivery, by the system of guidance or control employed, and the type of target against which the weapon is to be used. As noted, torpedo technology evolved slowly and the torpedoes used up to and even during World War II were based on the 1866 design and were little more than a round of ammunition fired from a barrel when compared to the sophisticated propulsion and guidance systems in use today.
The earliest torpedoes were driven by compressed air, which gave way to steam propulsion, which in turn gave way to electric propulsion. Guidance long consisted of pointing the ship, submarine, or torpedo tube at the target and pulling the trigger. Improved kill capabilities were achieved by using plotters and fire control systems, but the weapon itself remained essentially unchanged until the advent of electronic sensors, active guidance systems, and high-energy chemical fuels.
Below is a brief description of the torpedoes in use in the U. S. Navy today. While some of the torpedoes are classified as obsolescent or obsolete, they are included because they are in fact still in use in the Fleet. Some have been declared obsolete but are being retained by fleet commanders for training. These are not included below. The ASROC and SUBROC are also deleted. The ASROC projectile may serve as a booster for the Mk-44 or Mk-46 torpedo, but it in itself is not a torpedo and has no internal guidance system. The SUBROC missile, while fired from a torpedo tube in the newer nuclear-powered attack submarines, has a nuclear or conventional depth charge for a warhead.
Mk-l4 The Mk-14 torpedo was first introduced in the Navy in 1935 and is the last of the steam-driven torpedoes. A large torpedo, the Mk-14 is of the standard 21-inch diameter, is 246 inches long, and weighs 3,282 pounds. It is a submarine-fired, antishipping weapon which is straight running (unguided) or which can be preset to run a pattern. This veteran is classified as an obsolescent weapon, but still can be fired by every submarine in service.
Mk-16—Mod 8 This torpedo is the standard anti-shipping torpedo in Fleet use today. It was designed as a successor to the Mk-14 and it too draws heavily from the early torpedo designs. It is submarine launched against surface targets. Like the Mk-14, it can be fired by every submarine in active service. It is NAVOL (hydrogen-peroxide) propelled at extremely high speeds and can be employed as a straight running weapon or can be preset to run a pattern. It carries a 732-pound explosive, which is the largest used in a U. S. torpedo. This 21-inch torpedo is also among the heaviest, carrying 4,000 pounds on its 246- inch frame.
Mk-27—Mod 4 This weapon employs a passive acoustic guidance system, a successor to the straight running or preset pattern family of torpedoes. The Mk-27 is an electrically propelled torpedo designed for submarine launching against both surface and submarine targets. It is the first of the 19-inch family of torpedoes, being 125 inches long and weighing 1,174 pounds. It was recently declared an obsolete weapon. However, indications are that many will be retained by the Fleet for training purposes.
Mk-34—Mod 1 The Mk-34 is the second generation 19-inch torpedo, the same length as the Mk-27, but 20 pounds lighter. As with the above torpedo, this weapon has a passive acoustic guidance system and is electrically driven. It is designed for launching from fixed-wing aircraft against submarine targets. This weapon too has been declared obsolete. However, disposal has not yet been authorized.
Mk-35—Mod 3 This is the first of a generation of deep-diving torpedoes. It is a surface launched weapon for use against submarine targets. Electrically propelled and using one of the earliest active guidance systems, this weapon has a 21-inch diameter, a 162-inch length, and weighs 1,800 pounds. The torpedo is classified as an obsolescent weapon and is being phased out.
Mk-37—Mod 0 and Mod 1 This is one of today’s standard torpedoes and can be both surface and submarine launched. In both the Mod 0 and Mod 1 configurations it is electrically driven. This design returned to the 19-inch diameter in both Mods, but Mod 0 is 135 inches long while Mod 1 is 161 inches; Mod 0 weighs 1,430 pounds while Mod 1 weighs 1,690 pounds. In the Mod 0 configuration it can be used against both surface and submarine targets and accordingly can be passively or actively guided. In the Mod 1 configuration the Mk-37 is a wire- guided ASW torpedo, invulnerable to many existing countermeasure systems. Both Mods have long range and deep-diving capabilities, and both can be launched from all submarines in service besides being capable of surface launching from Mk-23 and Mk-25 tubes. The Mk-48 will ultimately replace the Mk-37, but the older weapon still has a long and active service life ahead of it.
Mk-43—Mod land Mod 3 The Mk-43
is the first and the smallest of the light-weight torpedoes, being only 10 inches in diameter, 92 inches long, and weighing a mere 265 pounds. This ASW weapon is designed to permit both air and surface launching. The Mod 1 configuration can be air launched from helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft; the Mod 3 is designed for launch from helicopters only. Both Mods are electrically driven, are deep diving, but have relatively short range. The Mod 1 was recently classified as an obsolete weapon but disposal has not been authorized. The Mod 3 is currently classified as obsolescent which indicates that it undoubtedly will soon follow the Mod 1 in the process of removal from active service.
Mk-44—Mod 0 and Mod 1 This second
generation lightweight torpedo is the most widely used of all those in the arsenal. This wide use can be attributed to its great versatility. The Mk-44 is an ASW weapon which can be air launched by fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft, including the DASH system. It can be surface launched from the Mk-32 torpedo tube, and is used as the primary payload for ASROC. The weapon is electrically propelled with an active guidance system that can automatically seek and destroy a target moving at great speeds and at great depth. Both Mods are 12.75 inches in diameter. The Mod 0 is 100 inches long and weighs 422 pounds while the Mod 1 is 101.3 inches long and weighs 433 pounds. The Mk-44 torpedo will eventually be replaced by the Mk-46,
but for several years the 44 will continue to be the Navy’s primary ASW torpedo.
Mk-45—Mod 0 and Mod 1 This weapon is commonly referred to as ASTOR (antisubmarine torpedo), but is designed for use against both surface and submarine targets. The ASTOR can carry a nuclear warhead, is submarine launched, and can be configured for straight running against surface targets or wire guided against submarine targets. All nuclear submarines and some of the later diesel-electric submarines can fire this torpedo. Electrically propelled, the Mk-45 has high speed, long range, and deep-diving capabilities for its main use against fast, elusive submarines. The Mk-45 is a new breed of heavyweight. Returning to the 19-inch diameter design, it is 227 inches long and weighs 2,400 pounds.
Mk-46—Mod 0 and Mod 1 Designed as a replacement for the Mk-44, the Mk-46 can be launched in all the same manners as the Mk-44. It is also a lightweight torpedo, being f 2.75 inches in diameter, 105 inches long, and Weighing 570 pounds. The major difference between Mk-44 and Mk-46 is in their power source. In the Mod 0 configuration, Mk-46 employs a solid propellant, hot-gas generator, not only for propulsive power but also to Provide electric power for the guidance system and hydraulic power for the steering control module. The Mod 1 configuration, mstead of the solid propellant, employs a liquid monopropellant called OTTO fuel. (A monopropellant is a chemical fuel which contains its own oxidizer.) The hot-gas generator gives the Mk-46 higher speeds, greater range, and a greater depth capability over the Mk-44. The hot -gas generator power source development is being followed with Merest in connection with the further advances in torpedo technology. The Secretary °f Defense has stated that the Mk-46 is “adequate for use against all current Soviet conventional and nuclear submarines.”
Mk-48 This weapon, still in the experimental state, is planned to replace eventually hie Mk-37 torpedo. The Mk-48 is approximately the same size and weight and is being designed to fulfill the same need as Mk-37, but Will be “far superior” according to the Secre- fary of Defense. The Mk-48 is hot -gas genera- for propelled using OTTO fuel of essentially the same properties of that used by Mk-46, giving it a considerable increase in speed, depth, and range over Mk-37. Like Mk-37 it can be preset or wire guided, and like the Mk- 37 it can be surface or submarine launched.
Lieutenant Commander Ruy S. Portugai,
U. S. Naval Reserve
VALUE ENGINEERING- PROFIT SHARING TECHNIQUE
Value Engineering is a relatively new feature of contracting between the government and defense contractors which analyzes the function of a product with the idea of achieving the required performance at the lowest over-all cost. Ultimately, it becomes a profit sharing of savings between government and contractor, the latter reaping the bonus at a pre-negotiated rate. Savings can be realized by evaluating a piece of hardware, analyzing its details, and making it as functional as possible. Here the term “functional” means that neither more nor less than what is actually needed and wanted is provided.
The methodology attained in analyzing the hardware can be developed in seven stages: (1) product selection, (2) determination of function, (3) information gathering, (4) development of alternatives, (5) cost analysis of alternatives, (6) testing and verification of alternatives, (7) proposal submission and follow up. The drawing together and utilization of these seven stages require a formal, explicit, organized effort to bring the required engineering, scientific, and managerial abilities to bear on specific value engineering tasks.
The amount of resources which can be allocated to the value engineering function is limited. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that these resources be applied where there is high potential for cost reduction. Value engineering should thus concentrate on products exhibiting high total costs in relation to function performed. There are ways of selecting the products which seem to have the
highest cost reduction potential. A preliminary analysis of all subsystems of a weapon system enables the manager to select subsystems according to cost reduction opportunities. The cost reduction projects are weighted as to materials and manpower savings and then rated in order of priority for further consideration in reliability studies. In attempting to explain the function of the hardware, one considers the explicit performance characteristics that must be possessed by the hardware if it is to “work.” These characteristics define the limits of what the hardware must be able to do in relation to the larger system of which it is a part. The method for doing this “work” is only implied by these performance requirements; it is the designer’s job to make this method tangible and explicit. Thus, functional requirements are the ends that imply the means (i.e., the hardware design) to provide for these ends.
The definition of function in explicit, quantitative terms is a difficult task. There is often a temptation to overlook the required function of the product. The designer often wrongly assumes that certain functions are required. Often, components of the product (or the product itself) can be eliminated and the entire assembly or system will still work satisfactorily. Thus, the ideal of value engineering has been achieved.
For example, in a cartridge feed tray for the M-60 machinegun, the designers had ten parts sub-assembled into a pawl assembly. These parts were all eliminated for a casted feed tray when the weapon’s pawl assembly was redesigned.
Once having defined the function, the value engineer next embarks upon an intensive information gathering effort in two phases: (1) specific information about the product itself, such as cost of the present design, quality and reliability requirements, maintainability characteristics, volume to be produced, development history, etc.; and (2) general information concerning the technology of the product, including present state-of-the-art, vendor sources of supply for components of the item, processes to be employed in its manufacture, and establishment of contact with individuals in the organization who have technical knowledge of the type of product.
The value engineer should compile all information about the product under study, within the time constraints of the project and to the best of his ability. Particular emphasis must be placed on obtaining accurate cost data on the item as now designed. This will require contact with cost estimators, cost accountants, purchasing personnel, and any others within the organization who may have cost data. No element of cost should be overlooked. Direct labor, material, and factory burden must all be included with a careful discrimination between the fixed, semi-variable, and variable items of factory burden.
In addition to obtaining all available cost information, it is necessary to pull together all data relating to the performance of the item. All applicable specifications and standards must be analyzed to determine all requirements of the product. It will also be necessary to assemble all drawings, technical data sheets, tooling descriptions, and any previously authorized engineering changes. The more knowledge the value engineer has concerning the product, the better job he will be able to do in determining if there is a less expensive way of achieving the function.
More than just specific knowledge about the product is required if a thorough study is to be done. It is essential to possess, or have access to, all available information concerning the particular technology involved. Awareness of the latest developments in the particular field—such as electronics or metallurgy— is required. A particularly good source of information is provided by specialty vendors, who supply components for the type of product under study. The value engineer should familiarize himself, to the maximum practical extent, with the various manufacturing processes that may be employed in the manufacture of the product. He should avail himself of any knowledge concerning the particular product area which may exist anywhere in the organization. The more information brought to bear on the problem, the more likely is the possibility of substantially reducing the cost of the product under study. An intimate knowledge of the item under analysis has been developed and a basis for the most difficult and intangible portion of the process formulated. This is the creative portion of the value engineering activity and, depending upon the individual or individuals involved, may take
many forms. The purpose is to generate ideas about the item’s function and design and conceive of more economical and equally effective means of performing the same function. Analytical methods, repetitious methods such as check lists, and creative procedures such as brain-storming may also play a part in this process. Whatever methods are used, the purpose is to create a series of alternative designs, all of which will guarantee the required function, and one of which will, hopefully, reduce cost. Next comes an abbreviated check list, directed toward mechanical types of items, which provides a series of useful questions. Some of the typical questions for use in developing alternative designs are: Can the design be changed to eliminate the part? Can the present design be purchased at lower cost? Can a standard part be used? Can a less expensive material be used?
After the alternatives have been developed they are then subjected to a test of their economic feasibility in which the cost of each alternative is examined, with the goal of finding the least costly, the next least costly, and so on until all alternatives are ranked according to their cost. This, then, permits detailed technical and economic study of the alternatives on a priority basis, with the highest potential savings alternative to determine whether the alternative will lead to significant cost reduction. It may also cause further efforts at developing alternatives or may lead to a cancellation of the value engineering study, since it may show that no alternative is significantly less costly than the present method of meeting required function.
Estimating the costs of alternatives should take place in two broad steps: First, a gross cost estimate is made and, secondly, based on the gross estimate, more detailed and refined estimates are prepared. The cost data derived in analyzing an alternative can be used in other ways, such as calculating the breakeven point, figuring return on the value engineering investment and for future reference in preparing cost estimates for similar hardware.
All economically feasible alternatives developed in the value engineering study must be tested to ensure that they will provide the required function. If they do not, they are rejected from further consideration unless modified to meet functional requirements.
Each required function is examined in turn in assessing technical feasibility. As previously described, primary and secondary functions are originally defined in terms of what the product or item must do, with what accuracy it must perform, how dependable the product must be and under what environmental conditions it must operate. In addition, required function may include elements related to operation and maintenance, such as safety, ease of repair and accessibility, etc. The value engineer attempts to determine whether the alternative method meets each of these elements of required function.
A general check list may be used to evaluate each and every specific functional requirement of each category, as for example: Does the alternative provide necessary performance requirements? Are quality requirements met by the alternative? Are reliability requirements met by the alternative? Is the alternative compatible with the system of which it is a part? In developing answers to the questions posed by the check list, the value engineering group may perform the testing and verification or they may call on specialists in their own organization. Depending on the nature of the alternative, it may vary from easy to assess, to extremely difficult.
Once the value engineering team has assured that an alternative is economically and technically feasible, and is the best alternative of all developed, a formal proposal is prepared recommending adoption and implementation of the alternative. The preparer of the proposal should be guided by considering the procedures used by others in evaluating it. Specifically, he should view his proposal as others will view it. If the report does not communicate effectively, the whole study is in jeopardy. The responsible value engineer should regularly make a check on who has the proposal and what its current status is. The evaluation procedure should be carefully followed until final action, in the form of approval or disapproval, and implementation once approved, has been completed.
A typical example of value engineering was experienced in the SUBROC missile system. The contractor had designed a mounting bracket for the rate gyro, which was one of several high cost mechanical parts in the missile. This design specified that it be ma-
chined from flat aluminum alloy stock at a factory cost of $68.13 each. Three brackets were required per missile. The alternative method called for an aluminum casting, with straps to hold the gyro, at a cost of $5.56 each. The bench and flight tests proved the acceptability of the alternative. Thus the cost reduction resulted in a saving of $181.71 per missile. In this contract the supplier earned 25 per cent of the savings and the government obtained the part for less than had been budgeted.
As an organized function, value engineering (1) challenges the feasibility of an existing design by invoking cost criteria, and (2) originates design alternatives that will not jeopardize function, but will reduce future costs—production, operating, and maintenance—of the hardware.
By Commander Thomas N. Blockwick,
U. S. Navy,
Former Ship Salvage Officer, Seventh Fleet
AN UNUSUAL CASE OF SHIP SALVAGE
Despite improved aids to navigation such as loran, radio, radar, and the Fathometer, ships are still stranded and lost, just as they have been since man first used the seas. The reasons ships are lost or go aground are as many as the numbers of ships, since they are nearly all unique. Most of these ships are small, but large ships are also vulnerable. However, a number of ships which go aground often are saved. An unusual case of such a ship that was saved from destruction on a coral reef was the SS Dona Ourania. The Pan- amanian-flag ship grounded on Pocklington Reef, about 200 miles south of Guadalcanal, on 28 April 1962.
The reef is submerged except for a small spit of sand about the size of a football field at the northern end. The reef is about 25 miles long and some five miles wide. Within the reef is a large lagoon. This reef is about 200 miles from the nearest land, and is not readily visible even in the best weather.
The Dona Ourania was steaming at 14 knots when she struck the reef at 0415, 28 April 1962. The location of grounding was 10 degrees 47 minutes South, and 155 degrees 49 minutes East. Members of the crew on watch stated that there was no shock, but a barely discernible deceleration; some said that they were not aware the ship was aground.
A 12,000-ton grain carrier, the Dona Ourania is 483 feet long with a beam of 62 feet. She was empty at grounding and had 1,900 tons of water ballast in her tanks. After unsuccessful attempts to back off the reef, all personnel left the vessel in a coastal ship.
The U. S. Navy was requested to salvage this ship as there were no salvage ships in the area capable of such work. The salvage ship Bolster (ARS-38) was assigned the task of refloating the Dona Ourania. The Bolster was in Yokosuka at the time. She got underway immediately and stopped at Guam to embark the Seventh Fleet/Service Squadron Three ship salvage officer, and additional salvage gear. A large supply of explosives was loaded since it was known that the Dona Ourania was hard aground on a coral reef with no significant removable weights.
The Bolster arrived off Pocklington Reef on 15 May 1962. The original ship’s crew had departed to Australia and an Australian, representing the British owner, and his diver were alone on the Dona Ourania.
An inspection revealed that the ship was
2,0 tons aground for the first 180 feet. The center of pressure was the forward part of number three hold, and it was working heavily. The forepeak and double bottom of number one hold were open to the sea. With such a heavy ground reaction, moving the ship was out of the question. The most promising course of action appeared to be coral removal by blasting. The prospects for a successful refloating did not appear good. The ship was aground on the reef to about the middle of number three hold and there were gross structural deformations in this area. At this point the reef dropped off precipitously and no bottom could be seen although the Fathometer indicated about 500 feet. The ground reaction was so great as to place the forefoot above the
water. The tide was only about one foot, and it was on a 24-hour cycle rather than the usual 12-hour cycle. It was possible to walk on the reef from forward of midships around the how, although swimming was easier. There Were many exotic forms of marine life on this reef, including killer clams and moray eels.
A couple of sample shots of HBX explosives were fired some distance from the ship to determine if the coral could be removed by blasting. This test proved successful. On 16 and 17 May a number of HBX charges were fired alongside and under the ship. They too "'ere successful, and the ground reaction shifted forward about 20 feet. Most of the shots were fired 20 to 40 feet from the ship. They were placed in coral caves by scuba divers. (These explosions killed many fish which in turn attracted other fish, including sharks.)
A most effective blasting signal system was devised by striking the main deck with a ten- Pound sledge: five blows the signal for “get ready,” four for “stand by,” and three for fire.” They were foolproof and clearly audible aboard the Dona Ourania as well as the uearby Bolster. The Bolster was forced to remain underway at all times because the water Was too deep to anchor. However, she could eome alongside the Dona Ourania to unload equipment.
At the same time as the charges were being set off, an attempt was made to light off the uuxiliary boiler and machinery in the Dona Ourania. This was partially successful, but Unfamiliarity with the plant caused serious Problems. The ship is powered by a 4,800. P-j four piston diesel with direct drive. Later 't was discovered that the crew had blanked the fuel lines prior to abandoning ship.
In view of the success of the blasting operations, it was decided that a nucleus of the original crew was needed to operate the ship. Arrangements were made to pick up the crew at Tulagi. On 18 May the Bolster departed ocklington Reef and steamed to Tulagi to Pick up 14 members of the original Dona Ourania crew who had arrived there by seaplane. The Bolster returned to the site on 21 Oay after an underway replenishment from the oiler Navasota (AO-106).
The following day was spent positioning and test running the ship’s salvage pumps. At the same time the original crew started the ship’s main and auxiliary machinery.
On 23 and 24 May, 27 underwater shots were fired. The point of reaction now shifted another 30 feet forward and the ship was estimated to be about 1,000 tons aground. On 23 May the Bolster attached a two-inch wire towline to the stem of the Dona Ourania to see if she could be wrenched. The ship moved through an arc of about 70 degrees. Later that day eight more underwater shots were fired.
During the wrenching operation, the engines of the Dona Ourania were used to back full. During these operations, a knock developed in the number one piston. Four Bolster engineers worked all night with Dona
Ourania personnel and succeeded in repairing the engine by next morning.
On 26 May, the Bolster hooked up to the stern and wrenched it 11 times through an angle of about 60 degrees, with the Dona Ourania backing full. The ship moved about five feet. Later that day four more shots were fired, but with marginal effect since the coral caves were no longer available for placing effective charges. The Bolster remained hooked up to the Dona Ourania during the night, steaming as necessary to hold her position so that wrenching operations could begin at first light. The tide was also building up to a maximum during the early morning hours.
The wrenching operations began again at 0620 on 27 May. The ship, backing full, was wrenched 60 to 90 degrees each time. Each wrench took about 15 minutes and the ship was moved about two feet each time. The backing force of the Dona Ourania was estimated to be about 30 tons.
Wrenching was stopped at about 1200 when the bow was just aground for an examination of the point of contact and the entire ship’s bottom. The wrenching operations had worn a smooth saddle in the coral. Except for the forepcak and number one double bottom, the underwater hull appeared sound. Wrenching operations were resumed, and at 1326 the Dona Ourania came off the coral reef, with the wind and the Bolster moving her seaward.
The ship got underway on her own power at 1540 after the towing pendant to the Bolster was cut. The delay of the Dona Ourania in getting underway was caused by water in the after spring bearing. This water came from the ruptured after peak tank which was probably damaged by the blasting. The ship built up speed to 12 knots and followed the Bolster, which was doing the navigation since all navigation equipment in the Dona Ourania, except the magnetic steering compass, had been damaged by the blasting. With a nucleus salvage crew of two officers and nine men, the Dona Ourania proceeded under her own power to Brisbane, arriving on 31 May. The ship was taken directly into the Cairn Cross Drydock. After a thorough hull and machinery examination, she was undocked and steamed to Japan, where permanent repairs were completed. The cost of repairs was about
250.0 dollars.
It is believed that this is the first time blasting was used as the primary means of refloating a ship. A total of 59 shots of HBX (chain demolition outfit, Mark 135 Mod 2) were fired ranging from 20 to 80 pounds each, at a distance of 20 to 50 feet from the hull. No hull damage was done except for the after peak rupture. There was a striking dissimilarity in the effects of the shots under almost identical conditions. The effects of some shots were so mild that a misfire was suspected. Other effects were extremely violent and nearly all radar radio and navigation equipment was damaged badly, not to mention dishes, glass ports, etc. However, engine room damage was negligible. All shots were fired with Prima- cord by personnel aboard the Dona Ourania. During some of the more violent blasts, there was a distinct visible whipping of the bow and stern, with an amplitude of one to two feet and a frequency of about one cycle per second. One blast displaced cargo hatch beams. The ship’s ability to withstand repetitive shocks without serious damage was remarkable.
It is seldom that a U. S. Navy ship is in a position to earn money. But in this case the U. S. Government was reimbursed about
145.0 dollars for the use of the Bolster and her crew and for material expended. The Dona Ourania was refloated in ten working days by the Bolster working independently in an isolated area with no outside assistance. This is all the more remarkable since the great depth of water did not permit anchoring and necessitated that the Bolster steam continually. This ship salvage operation illustrated that a heretofore abandoned ship in a difficult position can be saved by persistence and ingenuity.
★
Notebook
U. S. Navy
s Hydrofoil Gunboat Ordered (The New
York Times, 10 July 1966): The United States Navy has awarded a $3.6-million contract to the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation for the design, construction, and testing of a prototype hydrofoil patrol gunboat.
The craft, designated PG (H), will be 75 feet long, have a beam of 22 feet and will displace 57 tons. Its hydrofoils will be submerged while cruising. The foils are controlled by an autopilot system manufactured by the Garrett Corporation.
The propulsion system of the patrol boat will be a 3,600 horsepower marine version of the Rolls-Royce “Tyne” gas turbine engine, driving a pusher propeller mounted on the end of a tail strut pod. Turbine and propeller are to be linked through a novel right angle transmission built by the Indiana Gear Works.
The hullborne propulsion system will be comprised of two General Motors diesel engines driving twin water jets manufactured by the Buehler Corporation.
The speed, range and other performance characteristics, as well as weapons equipment of the PG(H) are classified.
Grumman has built other hydrofoils, including an open ocean hydrofoil craft, the Denison, which was constructed for the U. S. Maritime Administration and went into service with the Navy last year. The Denison is an 80-ton vessel with a rated speed of 60 knots.
s Navy Backs 12-mile Fish Limit (Christian Science Monitor, 15 June 1966): The Navy has supported legislation to extend the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States to 12 miles offshore. The present limit is three miles.
Rear Admiral Wilfred Hearn, Judge Advocate General of the Navy, told a House fisheries subcommittee that a 12-mile jurisdiction can be supported under international law, but anything farther cannot.
Admiral Hearn said the Navy always has opposed extension of the exclusive fishing limits beyond the three-mile mark, but he said the Navy accepts the position taken recently by the State Department that sovereignty and fishing rights can be separated.
“We consider it imperative from the standpoint of security to preserve the right of freedom of navigation on the high seas for warships and aircraft,” he said.
“We believe that our security interests are best served when nations are limited to narrow territorial seas which interfere only slightly with this freedom of navigation.”
To extend fishery jurisdiction beyond 12 miles, he said, would be illegal under international law and would encourage other nations to make extensive claims in the high seas.
He noted that a pending bill would extend the fisheries zone to the outer edge of the continental shelf, or to 200 miles. Such an action would “ratify the extensive fishing claims of certain Latin-American countries which we have always considered to be illegal.”
s Seabee Brigade Recommissioned (Navy Times, 22 June 1966): The 3d Naval Construction Brigade has been recommissioned by its new commander, Rear Adm. R. R. Wooding (CEC), marking the first time since World War II a construction brigade has been brought into service.
The 3d originally was commissioned in January 1944 and inactivated December 1945 after participating in projects in the Philippines, Australia and New Guinea.
Brigade headquarters is in Saigon. Capt. N. R. Anderson (CEC), commander 30th Naval Construction Regiment, is deputy brigade commander at Da Nang.
The brigade is under the operational control of Commander, Naval Forces, Vietnam and will assume control of naval construction regiments in Vietnam.
Nearly 5,000 Seabees have been used extensively in building and maintaining U. S. facilities. Projects range from living quarters and storage facilities to harbor, airfield and port facilities.
Adm. Wooding will continue his duties as Deputy Commander, Pacific Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command for Southeast Asia in addition to his new duties as brigade commander.
0 Admiral Decries Space Emphasis (Journal of Commerce, 16 June 1966): A high-ranking naval officer suggested in Washington yesterday that the nation should come out of the clouds of space and start paying more attention to ships.
Rear Adm. Edward J. Fahy, Commander Naval Ships System Command (the former Bureau of Ships), speaking before the ninth annual Seapower Symposium of the District °f Columbia Council of the Navy League said:
“Too many people today are being carried away by the glamor of space and the strides which are being made by the aircraft industry. Consequently they overlook the importance of ships.”
The Vietnam war, he continued, has demonstrated shortages of manpower that “are aggravating the Navy’s problems in terms of crew training for ships and in terms of delivery of ships from shipyards.”
Another speaker, Daniel D. Strohmeier, vice president in charge of shipbuilding for the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, said the rnedian age for vessels in the American merchant marine was over 21 years.
Mr. Strohmeier, the second of four participants in a panel discussion moderated by Edwin M. Hood, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, said that the standard for normal economic life of a merchant vessel was 20 years.
He noted that there were now 658 ships among the 950 vessels in the active privately owned American merchant marine that are over the median age of 20 years.
“If we were to undertake to build 94 new ships a year,” he went on, “it would take until 1975 before our fleet got down to an average age of 10 years—an age at which the Beet could be considered to be of average desirable quality.”
Another panelist, William H. Jory, president of the American Shipbuilding Company, Lorain, Ohio, asserted that shipyards could not progress and grow . . . and could not attract investment capital as long as there was a lack of firm direction as to the future.
Mr. Jory said that as long as there were “those in government who suggest that all or any part of our naval and merchant shipping might be built in shipyards of other countries, the proper environment will never be created and our seapower will suffer accordingly.”
The fourth speaker, Rear Adm. Nathan Sonenshein, program director for the Fast Deployment Logistics Ship project of the Navy, noted that initial shipbuilding industry proposals for the construction of this type of naval supply vessel were due on June 20.
Admiral Sonenshein said those companies submitting bids might be asked to define their proposals further.
He said the second phase of the project would run from July 1 to Dec. 31, 1966 and the cost of work undertaken by the companies in this phase would be reimbursed by the Government. Until now the development work was for the private shipyards.
The Navy plans to build 18 to 20 of these fast ships, which would be loaded with a wide range of military supplies and hardware and would be positioned in strategic areas in the world for quick responses to future emergencies of a Vietnam nature.
0 New Atlantic Escort Squadron (Atlantic Fleet Cruiser-Destroyer Force News Release, 24 June 1966): A brand new squadron with equally new escorts and guided missile escorts will join the Atlantic Fleet Cruiser- Destroyer Force July 1 in Newport, Rhode Island.
Captain William S. Mayer will assume command of the new squadron, Escort Squadron Six, in ceremonies aboard the escort Garcia. First of a new class of escorts, Garcia will serve as flagship for the new squadron.
Now under construction are three guided missile escorts which will join the squadron
)
/
/
/
)
)
/
)
)
)
i
V
t~
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
)
)
/
iL.
upon their completion: Talbot, Richard L. Page, and Purer. Other ships which will make up the squadron are the escorts Edward McDonnell and Voge, and the escort research vessel Glover.
The decision to establish a squadron of all new escort vessels was made because of the ships’ similarity to one another and because they can operate most effectively within a single group.
The establishment of Escort Squadron Six will bring to three the total of escort squadrons in the Atlantic Fleet.
s Variable-Geometry Phantom Proposed
(George C. Wilson in Aviation Week & Space Technology, 11 July 1966): McDonnell is offering the Navy a variable-sweep wing version of its F-4 fighter, an aircraft that could become a substitute for the overweight General Dynamics F-111B even though the Defense Dept, is prepared to sign a $1.85-billion contract for slightly less than 500 F-lllAs and F-lllBs.
McDonnell already has talked to Navy leaders about its new F-4 and is expected to submit a formal, unsolicited proposal soon. The improved F-4 would be powered by two 17,900-lb.-thrust General Electric J79-GE- 10/17 engines, carry an advanced version of the Raytheon Sparrow 3 air-to-air missile instead of the Hughes Phoenix slated for the F-111B, and incorporate airframe changes to accommodate the new wing.
Although purposely not portrayed by its backers as an F-ll IB substitute to avoid becoming embroiled in the F-111 political controversy still smoldering, the new 1*-4 is being offered in quantity under a fixed-price con-
MODEL SHIPS
Waterline 1:1250 Models
NEW: Over 150 beautiful new models by HANS A, NAVIS. MERCATOR. DELPIIIN and H-R. more than 650 models In all, world's largest selection of 1:1200-1250 ships of all types.
Complete Catalog 35*
HANS A Fleet Data 25*
NEW: U.S. Warships of World War II, 442 pages, hundreds of illustrations. $6.75 .......
Warships of World War I. 352 pages, hundreds of illustrations. including losses. $0.75 World's Warships. 256 pages and lllus., $3.95 Weyer’s Flottentaschenbueh. 403 pages. $15.95 Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945. $25.00 Schiffe und Flugzeuge der U.S. Flotte 1966, 330 pages. Illustrated, $15.95
NATHAN R. PRESTON & CO.
P.O. Box 187—Des Plaines, Illinois 60017 Immediate Delivery
tract. One preliminary proposal is for 300 variable sweep wing F-4s to be built within two years. The advanced F-4 is being offered at the time the Navy is experiencing development problems with the F-111B. Consequently, Pentagon budget chiefs will have to make a choice this winter between the proposed F-4 and the F-111B in allocating Fiscal 1968 aircraft money.
The Defense Dept. $1.85-billion contract with General Dynamics, on the verge of being signed as of late last week, calls for a production buy of about 475 Air Force F-lllAs and 25 Navy F-lllBs. This results in a unit cost— not including the price of the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines—of about $3.8 million. Great Britain and Australia plan to buy 50 and 24 F-lllAs, respectively, for a total production buy of 574 F-ll 1 aircraft. In addition, the Air Force plans to buy about 250 FB-111 bomber versions of the aircraft—basically the Air Force fuselage and the Navy wing.
Senate and House military committees have told the Navy not to commit itself to buying the F-l 1 IB in quantity until it is satisfied that the aircraft will perform its fleet defense mission adequately. This pressure, plus Navy promises to withhold judgment until after finishing preliminary flight evaluations of the fourth and fifth F-l 1 IB prototypes this winter and early spring, makes the production contract far from final. The Defense Dept, still could cancel the plane if flight evaluations dictate this course of action.
The variable-sweep wing F-4 is seen not only as a competitor to the F-ll IB, but to the Navy’s VFAX and Air Force FX advanced tactical fighter concepts as well. McDonnell declined to comment on its new F-4 proposal. But reliable sources said the concept, a outgrowth of advanced fighter studies funded by both the company and the Navy, is attracting widespread Defense Dept, interest.
Backers of the variable-sweep wing version of the F-4 say it promises to narrow the performance difference between itself and the F-l 1 IB and offer the Navy a fleet defense aircraft of lighter weight and less cost. Just what the F-ll IB will cost ultimately is unknown. When pressed on this point earlier this year by the House Armed Services Committee, the Defense Dept, said the F-111A on a production order of 1,398 aircraft would have a unit
NAVY MUTUAL AID
ASSOCIATION Membership Provides
$11,500 Permanent Insurance Protection
($7,500 Primary Benefit Plus $4,000 Additional Death Benefit at no extra cost) ★ _
Competent, Sympathetic Assistance in Securing Government Benefits ★
Membership Loans Without Delay ■k
All Active Duty Officers of the Navy, Marine Corps & Coast Guard Are Eligible. ★
Vor Further Information and Brochure Regarding Our Services and Benefits, write
NAVY MUTUAL AID
ASSOCIATION
Navy Dept., Washington, D. C. 20370 Since 1879
flyaway cost of $4.6 million. But now that the eventual buy is expected to be closer to 800 aircraft and many engineering changes have been made, the cost of both the F-111A and F-111B almost certainly will be more than that estimate.
Latest versions of the F-4—which do not have a variable-sweep wing—compare favorably with the F-111B performance to date in many categories.
The F-111B is designed to fly at altitude Mach 2.5, compared with Mach 2.25 for the F-4. The F-111B and F-4 can fly at about Mach 1.2 on the deck, although the F-111B can fly at this dash speed for a significantly longer period of time. With wings that could be swept, the F-4 most likely could improve its dash capabilities.
s Hawkeye Progress (Flying Review International, July 1966): The recent decision to place no additional orders for the Grumman E-2A Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft was only partly due to the difficulties experienced with the development of the Hawk- eye’s radar. The U. S. Secretary of Defense,
Robert S. McNamara, stated recently that the radar problems have been overcome to some extent, and that those funded up to and including Fiscal 1966 will be sufficient to provide Hawkeye detachments for each of the 12 attack carrier wings.
Other U. S. Services
Tankers for Army (The New York Times, 23 June 1966): To meet urgent electrical needs in Vietnam, the Army is reactivating 11 World War II oil tankers for conversion into floating power plants.
Each ship, drawing on its own 150,000- barrel oil capacity, will be able to produce power continuously for about two years without refueling, the Army said.
The 11 T2 petroleum cargo ships are expected to be on station in Vietnam before the end of September.
Each tanker is fitted with an electrical turbine to drive a large motor that, in turn, drives the propeller. The Army’s plan is to divert this power from the propeller motor for use on land.
After the ships are moved to Vietnam, they will be tied in with five local power systems.
The Army said the step, a multimillion- dollar operation was being taken because it “urgently requires additional electrical power to provide for troop welfare needs and for administrative and logistic installations, communications, and other equipment.”
The ships will be withdrawn from the maritime reserve fleet and converted for active service at shipyards in Seattle, Wash., the Beaumont, Tex., area, and the Norfolk, Va., region.
Civilian crews are being recruited in the United States. They will be returned to this country after sailing the vessels to Vietnam.
When tied up in Vietnam, the ships will be operated as fixed power plants, using Koreans and other non-Vietnamese personnel.
The contract to run the power plants is held by the Vinnell Corporation.
The T2 tankers have an overall length of more than 520 feet. Their electrical turbines, of two types, produce 5,000 kilowatts.
Each ship displaces more than 16,000 tons and travels at speed of about 15 knots, when fully loaded.
It has not been decided yet whether all the ships will be moved to Vietnam under their own power or towed. This will depend on the condition of each vessel, as well as cost and time required.
The first of the group, the French Creek, is due to undergo sea trials early this month.
S F-lll: USAF Confidence Reaffirmed
{Flight International, 9 June 1966): “The F-lll programme is on schedule and delivery of the first aircraft to TAC in the U. S. is expected early in 1967.” That was a flat statement from Major General John L. Zoeckler, who is in charge of the F-lll project USAF Systems Command at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, in an informal talk in New York recently.
There is only one exception to the “completely on-time” delivery schedule the F-lll has achieved to date and will continue to achieve in the future, according to General Zoeckler. That exception is the twelfth development aircraft which will incorporate many changes in design as well as the separate crew module which long has been planned for the twelfth aircraft.
“Number 12 will be a milestone,” declared the speaker, “for it will include many new features,” some of which he mentioned in broad terms.
First is a redesign of key structural areas to reduce weight, taking some 4,000 lbs. off the present weight of the aircraft “and at the same time improving weight-to-strength aspects.” Even so, the F-lll will be 3,000-4,000 lbs.
ARMSTRONG
WRENCHES
heavier than expected, and this is being compensated for by incorporation of full-span flaps and slots in the wing.
At the same time, studies have been carried out to make some lesser changes to reduce drag and also to improve engine thrust so as to get aircraft performance up to specification, or to where it will exceed initial specification. General Zoeckler exuded confidence that the F-l 11 will more than meet its goals, and he indicated an air-defence version as well as a “recce” version of the F-l 11A already are under study. As yet full growth potential had not been fully explored. No mention of a bomber version of the F-lll was made by the General.
Nor was mention made of the current USN attitude toward the F-l 1 IB or of Navy plans for it. The original concept was an aircraft with great “commonality of parts” that would be used by both the USAF and USN. However, the Navy has been rather reluctant to reach a definite decision on the F-l 1 IB and has yet to make a firm, final commitment. The Navy’s complaint has been that the aircraft is too heavy for carrier operations. The present weight-reduction programme and efforts to improve performance may, presumably, overcome U. S. Navy reluctance.
Although the testing programme for the F-lll is ahead of schedule in terms of the number of hours flown, more than half of the flight-test programme remains. General Zoeckler said: “The variable-sweep wings have worked well every time in flight, but the fanjet with afterburner has presented some problems.” He did not elaborate.
“At May 18 we had 954 hours of flight time of F-l 11s,” he declared, “and of these hours, 30 hrs. and 21 mins, were at supersonic speeds. In fact, we have exceeded Mach 1.2 at very low levels.” This particular low-level speed was cited by GD executives months ago.
He did not give any other details with respect to the supersonic regime. However, it was indicated that as a result of flight experience to date the “unrefuelled range of the aircraft will exceed requirements.” In addition, one F-lll has been loaded with 26 bombs of the so-called 750-lb.-class (actual weight per bomb is 825 lbs.) and no vibration or other problems were encountered in flying with this load at subsonic speeds. The FB-111, SAC-s
version, is to carry up to 50 bombs.
Work on the separate crew module, to be incorporated in future development and production aircraft, is proceeding well. Tests made with rocket-powered sleds at Holloman AFB show that it will meet requirements for separation at zero altitude through a speed range up to 800 kt. This is considered one of the more severe tests of the unit, which is propelled upward and forward by a 47,500 lb- thrust rocket.
Foreign Military
s British Warship Carries 2 Women (The
New Tork Times, 22 June 1966): For the first time in British naval history, and only for the time being, two women will officially be part of the crew of a warship.
H.M.S. Fife, a destroyer commissioned yesterday, will carry two women to program the computerized weapons system of the guided-missile warship,
The women, both civilians, are Mrs. Joan Hayter, 34-year-old, navy senior scientific officer, and Miss Jill Wicken, 25, an assistant experimental officer.
The captain of the Fife, Comdr. Robin Graham, said today that the Admiralty gave special permission to carry the women. The two will stay aboard the ship for several months, until naval personnel are trained.
British Plan SH-3D Order (Aviation Week and Space Technology, 4 July 1966): First move in the long-deferred British government decision on helicopter re-equipment for the armed services came last week when the Royal Navy said it would order an undisclosed num-
WARSHIP MODELS
ALNAVCO
Dept. P Box 3 Westfield, NJ. 07091 ber of Sikorsky SH-3D twin-turbine helicopters, probably about 60.
The helicopters will be built in Britain under license by Westland Aircraft Co., Ltd., a long-time associate of the U. S. firm in license production at its Yeovil, Somerset, plant.
The SH-3D will replace the Westland Wessex, also a Sikorsky design, when it enters service in 1969 in an anti-submarine warfare role. The helicopter will be armed with homing torpedoes and sonar gear by Plessey Electronics Group. Radar will be developed by Ekco Electronics, and Marconi, Ltd., will provide the Doppler navigation system.
Powerplants will be two Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd., Gnome H-1400 series. This engine is a derivation of the General Electric T58. The engine produces 1,500 shp. The company last week received a Ministry of Aviation contract for the first six engines for flight test, plus two more for bench testing. Three company-funded engines have now run 500 hr. on bench tests.
s British Air Cushion Vehicle Unit
{Flight International, 2 June 1966): The British Army will form its first operational ACV unit early next year. A Royal Corps of Transport squadron will undertake logistic support duties with four modified Westland SR.N6s. These will be the first British military AC Vs used in a single Service and operational context—all previous ACVs having been operated by joint Service trials teams. The N6 modification is likely to involve the removal of the cabin, for an open-topped freight compartment (with full-width bow ramp), and a raised crew position behind, abeam the intakes. Bell has proposed essentially this modification, designated the SK-6C, for U. S. forces in Vietnam.
German Naval Aviation (From Flying Review International, May 1966): The Marwe- flieger der Bundeswehr is in the process of reequipment. The first Hawker Sea Hawks (Mks. 100 and 101) were recently phased out of active service and these aircraft have been replaced by F-104Gs. The decision to use the F-104Gs was vigorously opposed by the Navy because they would have preferred to replace the Sea Hawks with aircraft specially de-
Notebook 165
signed for operations over sea, such as the Buccaneer. This was refused by the Ministries in Bonn. The next choice was the Phantom II, but this was also refused for two reasons: firstly its cost and second because it did not fit mto the policy of standardization. The continuing naval opposition to the F-104G was finally silenced by a strict military order given by Bonn, and the F-104Gs now equip the Marinefliegergeschwader MFG 1 at Egge- beck and MFG 2 at Schleswig-Jagel.
A Navy spokesman, asked recently how the pilots feel today after they have had some experience in operating the unwelcome F- 104Gs, stated: “We expected to run into the same trouble the Luftwaffe experienced. To our surprise we had no trouble at all. Our Pilots are really enthusiastic about the handling characteristics of the F-104Gs, which has proved a fine and very stable Weapon platform irrespective of the altitude they fly. It is more stable than anything else. We have not experienced navigation problems at all; our pilots do well.” The stability of the F-104G was also highly praised by Luftwaffe Pilots (the stub wings offering little area to respond to ground turbulence). The experience of naval pilots is not surprising, for turbulence ls usually light over sea. The lack of navigation problems also confirms experience during the last war, when naval pilots and crews hit their targets with great accuracy because they were better trained in navigation than normal Luftwaffe crews.
Imminent introduction of the Atlantic long range antisubmarine and maritime reconnaissance aircraft as a replacement for the obsolete Gannets will mean a tremendous increase in efficiency. The first two Atlantics have already been handed over to the Navy and are stationed at the Nordholz air base. All 20 Atlantics at present on order will be operated by MFG 3.
In addition to Eggebeck, Schleswig-Jagel and Nordholz, the Marineflieger has a fourth base at Kiel-Holtenau, and the service’s inventory includes a small number of Pembroke G.54s for communications and transport duties, Magister trainers, Sycamore and Sikorsky S-58 helicopters, and, for search and rescue, Grumman HU-16 Albatross amphib- lans. The acquisition of more HU-16s, or pos- Slbly Dornier Skyservants for the same role is
If you have half the electronics specialists you need...
... you have your share. Reliable estimates indicate that the Armed Forces are getting only half the skilled technicians they need to cope with rapidly increasing electronics maintenance requirements. CREI offers you an extra source of qualified electronics personnel—at no cost to the service. Men enrolled in CREI Home Study Programs acquire technical knowledge beyond the scope of military courses. They give up their off-duty hours for study and pay their own tuition.
CREI Programs cover every phase of modern electronics—from communications to spacecraft tracking and control—as well as the increasingly important field of nuclear engineering technology. The military man who enrolls in a CREI Program becomes part of a tradition that began in 1927. Many officers not only encourage CREI students but also suggest CREI study to particularly ambitious men. And they welcome the CREI Field Service Representative who visits their command. If you are not familiar with CREI Programs, we'll be glad to send you complete information as well as typical lesson material for your evaluation.
NAVAL BOOKS—ANYONE?
Hundreds have responded to our first Proceedings ad. Many of these persons are now satisfied purchasers of our naval book offerings. Our specialist services are known throughout the world. We invite you to inspect our most current catalog of naval books. For a free copy (consisting primarily of out-of-print items) write to . . .
ANTHEIL BOOKSELLERS
Dept. P, 2177 Isabelle Court No. Bellmore, N.Y. 11710 (Large and small naval book collections purchased)
now under consideration. Replacement of the helicopters with the Bell UH-1 D will take place over the next few years, the Marinejlieger being scheduled to receive a proportion of the 406 helicopters of this type ordered for the German services.
s Soviet Navy Boosting Missile Power
[Wall Street Journal, 12 July 1966): The Soviet Union is steadily increasing its naval missile power and now has over 100 missiles at sea that can be fired from submarines, according to Institute for Strategic Studies.
But the Russians’ seaborne missile strength is still only about one-fourth or one-fifth that of the U. S., according to recent estimates by the institute.
The institute cautioned, however, that missile-bearing submarines were being given an increasing role in Soviet strategy. Some of Russia’s cruisers and destroyers also are known to carry missiles.
The Russian missiles at sea were understood to be gaining in range and some apparently can be fired under water. But they still are a long way from catching up with the Polaris missiles, according to the institute.
Its reports said it is clear that Russia is attaching increasing importance to naval rocket power and has stepped up considerably efforts to match the Polaris.
Of the Soviet Union’s estimated 370 conventional and 40 nuclear submarines, at least 40 can fire ballistic missiles and carry an average of three each, the institute said in its recent report.
Nuclear submarine production was said to have settled down to a rate of about 10 a year.
Over 300 Soviet submarines were said to be ocean-going and the 40 missile-carrying submarines were said to be divided between the Arctic and the Far East fleets.
Until recently there have been doubts that Russia could fire its missiles from submerged vessels. The Russians have claimed that they now can do so.
According to the Institute for Strategic Studies, the Russians appear to have successfully developed submerged firing of a missile which may equate to one known as the Sark which has been shown in Moscow parades. Its range is said to be far below that of the American Polaris. Some Soviet submarines are believed to be equipped with a crude missile, with ranges of between 300 to 500 miles, compared with ranges of well over the 2,000 miles of the Polaris rockets.
s New Zealand to Hire H.M.S. Blackpool
{British Naval News Summary, May 1966): The British and New Zealand governments have agreed to arrangements for the hire of a Type 12 frigate to the Royal New Zealand Navy to replace H.M.N.Z.S. Royalist on paying off. The frigate to be transferred is H.M.S. Blackpool and the planned date for handover is June 7 at Chatham. The period of hire will be between four and five years and during this time the R.N.Z.N. will bear all operating and maintenance costs including refits.
Blackpool was launched in February 1957 at Belfast and she commissioned in August 1958 and has a ship’s company of about 250 officers and ratings. She returned to the U.K. in February this year after service in the Far East where she carried out patrols in support of Malaysian operations against Indonesian infiltration. H.M.S. Caprice at present completing a refit at Rosyth will replace her in the operational fleet.
s Orions for New Zealand {Flying Review International, July 1966): The first of five Lockheed P-3B Orion maritime reconnaissance aircraft for the RNZAF is now in final assembly, and is scheduled for delivery to New Zealand in August. No choice of strike fighter to replace the Canberra from 1968 had been announced by the RNZAF at the time of closing for press. The Australian-built Mirage IIIA is still considered to be the most logical choice to replace the Canberra.
Progress
Intruder Linkup—An A-6 Intruder modified into a flying tanker is shown fueling another A-6A during recent tests. Production A-6 tanker aircraft would have air-to-air TACAN equipment, possibly 20-millimeter cannon, and could transfer 21,500 pounds of fuel to another aircraft immediately after taking off or some 16,000 pounds when 300 nautical miles from base. Fuel tanks can be carried on all five weapon attachment points, with the fuel hose and reel installed in the fuselage.
Grumman Aircraft Engineering
MOL Ship—Six SH-3A helicopters crowd the helicopter deck of the USS La Salle (LPD-3) during tests of the ship’s capabilities as a space flight recovery ship. She and other amphibious transport docks will be used as recovery ships in the Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL) program. The evaluation included recovery of a dummy space flight capsule and communications exercises. (For a fuller description of LPD capabilities, see "USS Raleigh (LPD-1),” U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings), January 1964, pp. 84-99.)
Rubber Nose—A score of new Navy harbor tugs are being built with rubber fenders which are larger and more durable than the fiber fenders now in use. Also, the rubber fenders extend beneath the tugs’ keels, providing protection when the tugs ride up on low-lying submarines. The tugs, being built by Marinette Marine Corporation of Marinette, Wisconsin, are the YTB-774 through YTB-793.
Marinette Marine
MS
■ w.'
STOL Flying Boat—Production of a short-take-off flying boat has been started by the Shin Meiwa Industry Company of Japan. Similar in size and appearance to the P-5 Mariner, the Japanese PX-S will have a wing span and length of 110 feet, a maximum weight of 74,000 pounds, and will be powered by four 2,850- horsepower turboprop engines. The Japanese Defense Agency reportedly plans to purchase 20 to 30 of the PX-S flying boats.
Aviation Week and Space Technology
Glass Sub—A 56-inch diameter glass sphere carrying two men will be the "control room” of this "submarine” to be built for the Navy. Two 16-foot fiberglass pontoons will house the power supply and propulsion system for the vehicle. Equipment will be mounted outside of the glass sphere and controlled by optical signals. The Naval Ordnance Test Station at China Lake, California, is working with 44 j-inch glass spheres to prove the feasibility of such craft.
Corning Glass Works
Tight Fit—This drawing shows how the larger and more powerful Poseidon missile (right) will look in the cross section of a ballistic missile submarine in comparison with the existing A-3 Polaris missile (left). The Westinghouse Electric Corporation has been awarded a contract to develop the Poseidon tubes which will be fitted in existing Polaris submarines.
Westinghouse