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.
156 Naval Destroyer School
By Lieutenant Commander J. F. McNulty, U. S. Navy
162 The Weems Naviders
By Captain D. A. Paolucci,
U. S. Navy
165 The Imperial Ethiopian Navy By Lieutenant
Jack M. Aronson, U. S. Navy
167 Defense Management Program
By Commander
J. C. Wilson, U. S. Navy
170 Notebook
NAVAL DESTROYER SCHOOL
During the past five years a significant upheaval has taken place in the professional education of surface line officers in the U. S. Navy. A revolutionary concept has been implemented and brought to maturity with remarkably little notoriety, even within the naval service. This has been on abandonment of the traditional “school-of-the-ship” method in the development of the professional competence of career officers, and it must be viewed as revolutionary. Surely, the recently taken decision that ultimately all destroyer head of department billets will be filled only by products of this new educational concept—the Naval Destroyer School—must be viewed as the end of its experimental phase and confirmation of the validity of its method.
The so-called “school of the ship” has been the basis for the operational and administrative development of all surface ship department heads, executive officers, and commanding officers for generations. While the establishment of the U. S. Naval Academy in the mid-19th century represented early recognition of the fact that the ship is not the best classroom in all cases, even then, and evet since, the keystone of every officer’s development has been the ship. Certainly, the profession of serving at sea must be learned at sea, and this will always be so, but in recent years the requirements of manning an ever- larger and ever-more technical modern Navy have imposed on the professional naval officei a need for detailed comprehension of dozens of technical subjects far beyond the basic needs of the competent seaman. When the destroyer is viewed as a “weapons system composed of an infinite number of sub-systems it has definitely become time to acknowledge that the requirements of destroyer officer education have outstripped the capacity of the school of the ship to provide.
Even in the intensive operating environment of the destroyer forces it is no longer possible for sufficient numbers of young officers to “learn by doing” in the time available during their first sea tour to permit competent manning of all department head billets through the traditional “fleet-up on board”
method.
Senior officers of the Atlantic and Pacific Fleet Destroyer Forces first recognized this situation in the late 1950s and addressed themselves to the search for an answer to the joint problems of marginal competence and low retention of officers trained under the fleet-up method. It was immediately apparent that only a new and radical concept of functional training for destroyer officers could hope to meet these concurrent needs. Since the destroyer has long provided the basic platform for the operational development of all surface line officers, it was understood that such a revolutionary concept, if successfully applied to the destroyer forces, would ultimately have a significant impact in solving these same training problems on a Navy-wide basis.
Knowing of the successful experience of the aviation and submarine forces with their lengthy and intensively specialized training methods, then Rear Admiral Charles E. Weakley, U. S. Navy, Commander, Destroyer Force, Atlantic Fleet, outlined his view of the type of effort he envisioned.
In 1960, a joint study by the Bureau of Naval Personnel and the DesLant staff was Initiated to review existing conditions and consider the feasibility of the radical shift of training effort represented by the destroyer school concept.
The study group, convened as a result of Admiral Weakley’s request, took note of the need for growing reliance on shore-based schools to provide minimum levels of technical competence among destroyer officers, ascribing this situation to the fact that basic undergraduate education of officers had become broader and more theoretical at the expense of practical professional training. Further, the study pointed out that only 30 per cent of destroyer department head billets were being filled by lieutenants, with the majority being filled by lieutenants (j.g.) and up to ten per cent being filled by ensigns—officers with
less than 18 months commissioned service.
The Naval Destroyer School was formally established on 1 July 1961, as an activity under the military control of Commander-inChief, Atlantic Fleet and the administrative control of the Bureau of Naval Personnel. The mission of the new school was “to provide the destroyer forces, through a system of functional education and training, with officers professionally qualified and motivated to function as effective naval leaders on board ship.”
A team of destroyer officers, hand-picked from command and executive billets throughout the Atlantic and Pacific destroyer forces, assembled at Newport, Rhode Island, and commenced the thousand tasks which had to be completed before the first class of student officers could be admitted. The facilities and staff of the Afloat Schools Group in Newport were the nucleus about which the Naval Destroyer School was formed. A curriculum for a course of 26 weeks was drawn up with the assistance of educational experts from the Bureau of Naval Personnel.
The first class of some 30 officers was admitted in January 1962, with following classes being admitted at three-month intervals. Commanding officers in both fleets were asked to recommend for selection to the new school the finest young officers then in their wardrooms, on a non-returnable basis. This period of self-sacrifice lasted for more than a year before graduates of the new school began to return to the fleets in meaningful numbers. The enthusiastic response of those experienced destroyermen in accepting this short-term handicap is testimony to their belief in the urgent need for this new method.
The demand for graduates rose steadily following the graduation of Class One in July 1962. Succeeding classes grew larger as commanding officers became more and more aware of the advantages inherent in having department heads who were solidly grounded in all three line areas. By January 1965, the class size of 60 students had been reached. Further expansion required additional instructors. In April 1965, faced with unprecedented officer demands, BuPers directed that the school prepare to receive classes of 90 students beginning with Class 14 in September 1965, and additions to the instructional and support staffs were provided. When the cur-
THENCE ROUND CAPE HORN
By Robert Erwin Johnson The United States Naval Forces in the Pacific: 1818-1923
List Price $7.50 Member's Price $6.00 A U. S. Naval Institute Publication
(Book order form, page 193)
rent expansion program is complete it is the intention to graduate sufficient numbers of officers to provide three department heads every two years for each active destroyer-type ship except guided missile frigates. All squadron and flotilla staffs will also be provided with graduates under this program. In the interim, sufficient numbers of graduates will be available to eliminate almost entirely onboard fleet-ups of department heads in all but the older escort ships, although even these ships are reasonably assured of having at least one graduate on board.
Career-planning by all line officers must now include consideration toward qualifying to undertake this intensive program at Newport. More than 500 young officers have already attained the Educational Qualification Code signifying graduation from the Naval Destroyer School. In the future about 600 more will join them each year.
The process of selecting students to attend the course is a rigorous one, and oriented toward ensuring that students are mature, career-motivated officers of proven capability.
The basic requirements for selection to the school are set forth in instructions issued by the two destroyer force commanders, Com- CruDesLant Instruction 1520.23 and Com- CruDesPac Instruction 1520.9 Broadly summarized, the essential criteria are: (1) proven individual ability in a destroyer billet over a period of 18 months or more, including qualifications as OOD(F); (2) voluntary request for consideration as a candidate; (3) a meaningful appraisal of capability and favorable recommendation by the candidate’s commanding officer to appear as an endorsement to the application; (4) a service record indicating continued high performance and the capability of continuing professional growth) (5) demonstrated career motivation; (6) qualification as a member of the CRYPTO Board; and (7) written agreement to extend obligated service or not to resign, as appro* priate, for a period of two years following graduation.
Waivers are occasionally granted on the requirements concerning length of destroys service and qualifications as OOD(F), based on an individual request included in the application and endorsed favorably by the commanding officer, and provided that other criteria are met.
In order to avoid penalizing outstanding officers whose first tour of duty has been outside the destroyer force, applications are accepted for consideration from such officers, but the governing selection criteria are then oriented toward appraising the officer’s ability to complete the course of instruction which is predicated on the assumption of previous destroyer experience. If selected, such officers are normally ordered to the school via a two- to four- month tour of temporary duty in operating destroyers.
When selections for a class at the school have been announced by BuPers a briefing pamphlet and recommended review materials are forwarded to successful candidates at their current duty station. Students arc ordered to the school on permanent change of station orders, and are thus allowed to move dependents and household effects- Bachelor officers normally draw BAQ because of inadequate BOQ. facilities in Newport.
During the check-in process, proficiency examinations are given in specific areas and
In a dry-land classroom these destroyer officers are learning the finer points of reduction gears as part of a new concept in training seagoing officers. This classroom—part of the Naval Destroyer School—marks
an abandonment of the traditional school-of-the-ship method of training surface line officers in the Navy.
students who fail to demonstrate the required degree of proficiency in an area are placed in daily remedial classes conducted outside of normal class hours until the officers meet the required standard. The most common area requiring remedial work is that of flash- tng light signalling. It has been rumored that wives of destroyer school students frequently develop a five-words-per-minute capability in flashing light during their husband’s first few weeks in Newport!
Classes at the school are held from 0800 to 1700 daily except Saturday and Sunday, with occasional Saturday sessions required to meet unusual scheduling requirements. Frequently, Saturday morning sessions are conducted on a voluntary basis at the request of students who desire repetition or extra emphasis on some aspect of the course. A fundamental policy of the school is that instructors are available at the reasonable request of any student desiring additional instruction outside of normal class hours.
Currently each entering class is administratively organized into three approximately equal sections, with senior officers in each section designated as section leaders. Under the existing 90-man class arrangement, the three basic sections are further subdivided into subsections of 15 men each. For instructional purposes, lecture-type presentations are normally made on a section basis, while laboratory and practical sessions are normally administered on a subsub-section basis. Certain presentations lend themselves to even larger or smaller groups. The basic criteria in all cases is to ensure an instructor-student ratio appropriate to the complexity of the material to be covered, and this approach will remain even under the enlarged classes programmed in the future.
The six-month curriculum is unquestionably a severe test of the ability of each student, regardless of previous background. Yet, every effort is made to permit those who have not been outstanding students in the past to have an opportunity to excel while at the school. The entire curriculum constitutes 893 student hours. The final standings of the first 11 graduating classes indicate that there is only a secondary correlation between the previous academic standings of the individuals involved and their final standings at the school. The top graduates are not necessarily
the most brilliant students, nor are the anchor men necessarily the least brilliant. To excel at the school requires much more than the ability to be a “quick study,” or an adept quiz-taker. Since the school places heavy emphasis on the practical “how-to-do-it” aspect of the profession and a reasoned appraisal of individual aptitude, the top standings have repeatedly been occupied by officers who combined the ability to digest and comprehend the academic aspects of the course as well as implement them effectively during the many practical sessions which are interspersed throughout the course. More than one-half of the total instructional hours at the school are spent in practical or laboratory sessions, either at the school, the Fleet Training Center, or in the schoolships themselves. Each student has ample opportunity to display those qualities most desired in a destroyer watch officer and department head, i.e., initiative and the ability to act correctly under pressure. The habitually good student will do well while at the school, but he will find himself continually pressed to display the ability to put his “book-learning” to most effective use if he aspires to stand ahead of his less intellectually adept classmates.
The departmental areas of instruction at the Naval Destroyer School parallel the three shipboard line departments, operations, weapons, and engineering. The subject areas within each department cover all aspects of destroyer operation and administration, including personnel administration, leadership, naval justice, shipyard overhaul, damage control procedures, fire control, competitive exercises, and departmental training.
A guest lecturer program brings meaningful information to the student in all areas of the curriculum. The nearby Naval War College frequently makes available members of its staff or student body who have special competence in certain areas of naval warfare to serve as guest lecturers in the area of their interest or experience Members of all type commanders’ staffs have lectured on subjects such as replenishment, hunter-killer operations, special weapons, and oceanography. The most recent information in the intelligence area is presented by the Atlantic Fleet Intelligence Officer. Current operational problems in the destroyer forces are discussed
by the DesLant operations staff, and so on.
This program not only ensures that graduates remain up to date with the Fleet during their tour at the school, but also gives them some understanding of the tremendous scope of problems associated with all operations of the Fleet. If their shipboard experience had left them with the idea that fleet operations are a rather simple matter of getting ships to sea, performing a mission, and returning to port, their experiences over the six months at the Naval Destroyer School should convince them that, like the iceberg, there is much more than appears on the surface. Most importantly, they should receive considerable appreciation of just what they can do as individuals on board ship to minimize the problems of higher commands. Drafting a casualty report will seem much more meaningful to an officer if he has been shown the complications which can arise from an improperly drafted one, or one which fails to inform operational commanders properly.
The curriculum itself is arranged in trimesters of about two months each, with the first two trimesters concentrating heavily on classroom presentations, and the final trimester devoted largely to the three-week operating cruise phase and practical sessions oriented toward preparing the student for the cruise. Practical sessions in all three instructional areas are interspersed throughout the entire course as required to support the classroom presentations, but the academic load on the student is heaviest in the first trimester, primarily in order to develop minimum levels of broad competence before the cruise
NAVAL DESTROYER SCHOOL CURRICULUM
Operations Area | |
Operations | 132 hours |
General Line | 148 hours |
Weapons Area | |
Weapons | 117 hours |
Antisubmarine Warfare | 58 hours |
Engineering Area | 256 hours |
Cruise Phase | |
Operations | 38 hours |
Weapons | 74 hours |
Engineerings | 70 hours |
Total | 893 hours |
phase, but also to require the student to demonstrate the full scope of his capabilities before the commencement of the final trimester. Class standings at the end of the second trimester are used as an index of student capability by the school staff in considering recommendations for future assignments or, ln rare cases, the possible need for disenroll- ment of an individual. In order to permit orderly assignment to ultimate duty stations, the Destroyer Placement Officer in BuPers visits the school at about this time, and students are considered for placement in the order of their class standing based on the first two trimesters. Although all assignments of school graduates have been highly desirable ones, both from a career and a personal satisfaction point of view, this policy provides considerable encouragement to the student to maintain a continuously high level of performance in order to be among the first to be considered by the detail officer.
The most significant feature of the third trimester is the cruise which occupies most of the final month at the school. The cruise is conducted in two school ships, the USS Gainard (DD-706) and the USS Harlan R. Dickson (DD- 708). Both are unmodernized destroyers of the Allen M. Sumner class, and have undergone minor modification to permit them to accommodate 30 student officers each during the cruise and to give them improved bridge wing visibility to facilitate shiphandling evolutions by students. The assigned school ships are used on 58 of the 129 curriculum days of the course, while other ships hav- mg specialized features not appearing in the DD-692 class are used for an additional 11 days of practical sessions. Not all of these school ship sessions require the ship to be Underway. While on cruise, officer students actually man all required positions for both the engineering and weapons exercises conducted. Instruction in engineering casualty control is provided by instructors from the school itself, while on-station supervision dur- mg weapons and operations department exercises is provided by members of the ship’s Weapons department, backed up by officer- instructors from the school.
Final examinations in all three departments are administered just prior to the cruise, and final grades are computed to in-
elude the performance of individual students in only certain aspects of the cruise. For example, such evolutions as shiphandling alongside and others of similar nature do not lend themselves to meaningful numerical evaluation. Thus, in most instructional areas of the cruise phase, individuals receive only an objective grade which is reflected in one over-all cruise evaluation report, which is then appropriately weighted and averaged into final class standings.
On completion of the cruise, the student is one week from graduation, and he has been thoroughly exposed to all areas associated with destroyer operations and administration, from training programs and leadership to engineering casualty control and actual shiphandling.
Selection criteria for assignment to duty on the Naval Destroyer School instructional staff are consistent with those imposed on candidates for assignment as students. The commanding officer, a captain, is expected to be an officer of broad destroyer experience such as command of a destroyer division or service on a destroyer force staff. The executive officer and heads of departments are normally former commanding officers of destroyers, and the remaining officer instructors are normally former executive officers or department heads of destroyers having specialized destroyer experience in their instructional area. Enlisted instructors are all chief petty officers, grades E-7 through E-9, with solid operational background in destroyers over many years. In addition to specialized knowledge in their instructional areas, all instructors and staff are expected to display qualities of personal leadership consistent with encouraging in the student high esprit and pride in the title “destroyerman.”
If the true test of the value of the school is to be found in the worth to their ships of existing graduates, then there is little doubt that the school is in fact fulfilling its mission of “Providing the destroyer force . . . with officers professionally qualified and motivated to function as effective naval leaders on board ship.” Yet, there is an even more significant criteria for appraising the value of this new concept in officer training. The fears of the “jack-of-all-trades” school of thought have been effectively laid to rest by the frequency of reports received concerning graduates who have served in an outstanding fashion in one department for a year, then transferred to another within the ship and continued to perform at the same high level of competence. Further, some of the more mature graduates of the earliest classes have now been assigned to executive officer billets in destroyers, and show no signs of being lost in the job despite a significant lack of seniority.
Not only in destroyers, but throughout the Navy itself, the graduates of this school will establish the validity of this training method through the fundamental quality of their performance as supporting members of all the operating forces as they progress upward through ship’s company and staff billets toward the fundamental goal of all fine officers, command at sea.
THE WEEMS NAVIDERS
Captain P. V. H. Weems, U. S. Navy (Retired), a foremost authority on navigation, has developed a navigating instrument which can greatly reduce the time needed to perform, accurately, most plotting tasks on board ship which involve the use of dividers.
The device, a pair of proportional dividers especially configured for navigators, is copyrighted by the Weems System of Navigation under the trade name NAVIDERS. I became particularly interested in the proportional dividers because of my research some years ago on various plots and devices which would make easier the solution to the “bearings only” fire-control of submarine aSW operations—the problem of determining a fire- control solution of a maneuvering target from the measurement of bearings only. At that time I recognized the need for, but did not know of the existence of, proportional dividers.
The NAVIDERS is a double-ended set of
R
dividers with a pair of pointed legs at each end. The novel feature of the proportional dividers is an adjustable pivot. If the pivot were set, for example, at the geometric center of the device, the distance between the open pointed legs set on one end would be exactly equal to the distance of the legs set on the other end. Such a setting is of limited value. An accurately calibrated sliding pivot scale permits the user to adjust the pivot in such a manner that the distance set on the legs on one end is a precise, desired proportion or fraction of the distance set on the opposite end. Furthermore, the scale is calibrated on two sides. On one side is a scale of proportions, e.g., 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, and a distance scale, 60-600; and on the other side is a speed scale, 6-60.
This interesting feature provides the quartermaster, navigator, or CIC plotter with a simple hand analog computer which can divide and multiply. If, for example, the pivot is set at the 3:1 mark, then one could measure with the shorter pair of pointed legs a particular distance on any linear scale and, with a twist of the wrist, lay the legs of the opposite end on the same linear scale and read precisely three times the measured distance. This is the multiplying feature of the device. The reverse procedure permits dividing.
The specific application to navigation plots alone is worth the cost of owning a pair of proportional dividers. The standard method of determining the time necessary to travel a measured distance at a particular speed is to: (1) measure the distance with a pair of standard dividers, (2) lay the dividers on the latitude (or chart) scale and read and note the distance, and (3) compute the time, using a time-distance-speed slide rule or other computational device. During this process, the plotter’s hands are very busy with dividers, pencil, and slide rule.
With the Weems proportional dividers set at the speed of advance, the plotter simply (1) measures the distance at one end of the dividers, and (2) without reading, but with a twist of the wrist, lays the other end on the latitude scale and reads the time directly. The inverse problem is also easily solved.
If the problem is to determine what speed of advance is necessary to arrive at point B from point A in 1J hours the distance (to be
Mum
LOGISTICS
By Vice Admiral G. C. Dyer, USN (Ret.)
A basic text in logistics written for the naval officer seeking knowledge in this critical field. Emphasizes applied logistics within the Navy, describes joint, national, and international logistics planning. List Price $7.50 Member’s Price $6.00
measured) is to be divided by 1.5. With the pivot set at 1.5:1, simply measure the distance of the track with the larger end, lay off the other on the latitude scale, and read off the speed of advance in knots. The rapidity with which one can lay off a navigational track is quite evident.
Where speed of computation is particularly important-—-as in maneuvering board problems—the proportional dividers are of even greater utility. The necessity for rapid computation and the cramped quarters of many aircraft make the Weems dividers extremely useful in air navigation. In some cases high speeds would necessitate a pivot setting so close to one end that the distance between the legs near that end might be too small for accurate reading. A mental division by ten will usually solve this problem.
The added advantages of the proportional dividers may not be as great in ordinary radar plotting when the time between observations varies, but it must not be overlooked that the proportional dividers can always be used as standard dividers when desired.
The particular application to the bearings- only problem of ASW submarine fire-control is significant. The basic method of solution is one of trial and error and iteration. One normally does not know the target speed, the course, or the range, but has accurate knowledge of the bearing and a little less accurate knowledge of the rate of change of bearing rate. These variables are connected by the relationship:
3
B X R = — S X sin A
7T
where B is the bearing rate in degrees per minute, R is the range in miles, S is the relative target speed in knots, and A is the relative angle-on-the-bow (target angle measured right or left on a relative plot). The submarine fire-control plotter solves this equation by trial and error. He assumes a target speed and tries to fit the speed to the other information he has. On a dead reckoning tracer plot he attempts to fit the distance traveled by the target at an estimated speed between bearing lines, attempting to converge to the solution of target course. With the estimated speed set on the variable pivot, the proportional dividers would permit him quickly to measure off the time between bearing observations, twist his wrist, knowing that the distance traveled in that time is set on the other end (even though he does not read the distance), and fit this distance between the bearing lines. A re-setting of the pivot allows rapid recalculation at a different assumed speed.
Any imaginative officer or quartermaster who uses the Weems NAVIDERS will find more and more uses for this novel device in his everyday plotting.
I recommend that each Navy command and school responsible for training of quartermasters, navigators, and associated plotting teams obtain a set of proportional dividers for evaluation and the development of plotting procedures which will take advantage of the NAVIDERS. * I would also recommend that a knowledgeable operational officer write a more comprehensive paper on the practical uses of the NAVIDERS for publication in the Naval Institute Proceedings.
* The proportional dividers are listed in the Federal Stock Catalogue as FSN-6605-682-4548.
THE IMPERIAL ETHIOPIAN NAVY
Located at the seaport of Massawa, Eritrea, J Ethiopia, on the western coast of the Red Sea is the Haile Selassie 1 st Naval Base, home °f the Imperial Ethiopian Navy. This is the Navy of the Conquering Lion of Judah, Emperor Haile Selassie 1st, now almost as legendary as the Queen of Sheba, whose union With Solomon is claimed as the origin of his dynasty. Haile Selassie’s forces have come a long way since he mobilized “all boys old enough to carry a spear” in an effort to repel die Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.
The need for an Ethiopian sea force was drst felt on 11 August 1952, when the United Nations voted Eritrea as an internally selfgoverning province of Ethiopia. Thus, for the first time in centuries, a coast line some 500 miles long, with numerous off-shore and Red Sea Islands, including the Dahlak Archipelago, was added to the Ethiopian Empire.
In September of 1953, the Imperial Ethiopian Coast Guard was established as a part of die Department of Marine under the Ministry of Defense. The former Italian naval base ln Massawa was reconstructed from ruins to serve the new sea force. A short time later, m January of 1954, a Norwegian admiral was contracted as commanding officer of the Ethiopian Coast Guard. A Norwegian captain was appointed naval-officer-in-charge of the Massawa base, and 16 other Norwegian officers and civilians were brought to the country as instructors.
In September of 1955, the first 47 cadet recruits commenced their training to become the first national officers of the future Ethiopian Navy, and a year later his Imperial Majesty inaugurated the Haile Selassie 1st Naval Base at Massawa. Although the sea force was still called the Coast Guard, this marked the birth of the Ethiopian Navy.
Other key dates in the history of the Ethiopian Navy were in June 1957, when the submarine chaser PC-1616, built in France under the U. S. Navy’s off-shore procurement program, was transferred to Ethiopia under the Military Assistance Program, and January 1958, when Commander Iskander Desta, a grandson of the Emperor and graduate of the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth, was appointed Deputy Commander of the Ethiopian Navy. In January 1959, the first class of national officers graduated from the Imperial Ethiopian Naval College.
The flagship of the Navy is the Ethiopia, formerly the U. S. seaplane tender Orca (AVP-49). The 310|-foot, 1,766-ton ship is employed for at-sea training and has cruised to many parts of the world. Built during World War II, she was transferred to Ethiopia in late 1961.
Indian
Ocean
KENYA
SUDAN
Suez
The nation’s other naval craft consist of two motor torpedo boats, five patrol boats, and several LCM and LCVP type landing
One of the world’s newest navies, the Imperial Ethiopian Navy operates in a strategic area of the world, as indicated by the map on the preceding page. The ships and men of the Ethiopian Navy include the training ship Ethiopia, at top with patrol boats and at upper right returning to base; the patrol boat PC-15, at upper left during a high-line exercise; and the sailors, above, on parade for Emperor Haile Selassie I at Assab.
Imperial Ethiopian Navy
craft. The MTBs are former Yugoslavian craft, built in 1951 and received by Ethiopia in January 1960. They displace 60 tons, are
8 feet long, and were designed to mount one 40-millimeter cannon, two 50-caliber ma- chineguns, and two torpedo tubes. They have not been greatly used because of their gasoline engines, but the Ethiopian Navy is trying to recondition them and install diesel engines.
All five patrol boats are of similar design and built in the United States. Two are former Coast Guard 95-footers and three were built under the Military Assistance Program. They are steel-hulled, twin-screw craft mount- lng a single 40-millimeter gun.
The Ethiopian Navy’s first ship, the 173- foot Zjerai Deress, built under MAP as the PC-1616, was returned to U. S. control in 1958 for technical reasons and then transferred to the Italian Navy.
The Ethiopian Navy receives the great majority of its material support from the United States in the form of ships, machinery, ordnance, and support equipment under the Military Assistance Program. A contingent °f Norwegian officers and technicians how- over, is still helping this young navy. From a high point of more than 50 officers, the Norwegian advisors have constantly decreased as national officers have moved into more billets. Other personnel helping train the Navy are British, French, and Israeli. A small Navy Section of the U. S. Military Advisory Assistance Group is also present to provide assistance in the use of the U. S. equipment.
The approximately 1,000 men of the Ethiopian Navy represent the educated, young talent of the country. All are relatively well educated and well trained. The official language of the Navy is English.
Officers are recruited from high school graduates, attend indoctrination and selection schooling, and are then enrolled in the Imperial Naval College at Massawa. The college conducts a three-year course consisting of three terms each year, two theoretical and one practical. After graduating as sub-lieutenants, each officer then has a minimum of one year abroad and one year at sea before he is considered to have completed his training. The officers of the Ethiopian are divided into three branches—administrative, engineering, and executive. A few naval officers are also abroad receiving training as medical officers.
Enlisted personnel are recruited from grammar school graduates (an eight-year curriculum) and are then sent through a recruit course after which they attend a basic course prior to specialized training-in-rate at naval schools. Many enlisted personnel also receive training abroad.
An elite, French-trained, diving section, whose members are trained parachutists in addition to being attack-divers, and a budding marine corps provide a small but efficient mobile striking force.
The principal operating and support base of the Ethiopian Navy is at Massawa. A training camp for recruits and the Imperial Naval Schools is located in Embatcalla, a small town in the cooler climate of the hills, 30 miles inland from Massawa. The Naval Headquarters Building is in the capital city, Addis Ababa. A recent addition is an operating facility in Assab, 225 miles south of Massawa, which is located 50 miles north of the Straits of Bab el Mandeb, the narrow southern entrance to the Red Sea.
With its historical affiliation with the Middle East and a 500-mile indented coastline, Ethiopia should find itself increasingly involved with the sea.
The embryo Ethiopian Merchant Marine, the nation’s fishing industry, and the problems of smuggling and infiltration are very real justification for this young Navy.
DEFENSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Increasing costs of military security coupled with increased technology have placed great demands on the managers of the Department of Defense to ensure that resources allocated are utilized in the most efficient
* Commander Wilson is a graduate of the Management Course, Naval Postgraduate School.
manner possible. When Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara took office, he introduced many new techniques to the Department’s management, problem-solving, and decision-making fields. The rapidity with which the new concepts were introduced left many military and civilian personnel associated with allocating resources with a great deal of study to do before they could effectively perform their assigned duties. Even then only a few personnel fully understood the over-all system concepts.
To aid in the indoctrination of senior military and civilian personnel and allied foreign officers in the basic concepts and practices of the Defense Management System, a four- week Defense Management Program has been established at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
Each of the eight classes during the year consist of 50 to 60 students organized into small seminar groups. During the summer, a one-week course is planned for flag and general officers. Technical supervision over the Defense Management Program curriculum is exercised by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
The program has the objectives of:
1. Developing knowledge and understanding of the concepts, principles, processes, application, and techniques of the defense management system (i.e., planning, programming, budgeting, and related activities).
2. Providing an over-all view of general management concepts as applied to defense management systems.
3. Developing understanding and improving competence in techniques of problemsolving and decision-making in the Department of Defense.
Students are not expected to develop technical skill in the various disciplines and subjects included in the curriculum. Rather, emphasis is placed upon orientating the individual to his position in the over-all management process.
Instruction is presented by the lecture and discussion method, supplemented by practical exercises and collateral reading. The case study method and management games are also used to stimulate the student into testing his ability and knowledge of the defense management system.
The curriculum is divided into several subject areas. During the first few days an orientation period is held to introduce the program and to provide an inclusive look at the system. In addition, a military planning game is played to demonstrate to the students the complexities of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and technical and budgetary constraints.
Twenty-five hours are devoted to introducing the quantitative tools of decisionmaking and problem-solving. Key subjects in this area are model building, the role of probability and statistics, and analysis techniques. This phase of the course is followed by lectures in economic theory and its relationship to military strategy and the allocation of scarce resources for national security. Marginal analysis, exchange curves, and the concepts of cost are covered.
After a short discussion of current military planning, functional resource management, and the use of computerized information systems, three important areas are discussed- First, cost estimating and analysis introduces the costing of individual systems and total force structure costing. Eight hours are devoted to effectiveness analysis which considers measures of effectiveness, risk, uncertainty, and political environment. Cost and effectiveness are then integrated into the techniques of systems analysis. The case study method is employed to demonstrate the use, as well as the pitfalls and limitations, surrounding the application of systems analysis to military problems.
Finally, Defense programming and budgeting practices are studied to provide the student with an over-all examination of the concepts, methodology, and techniques of the defense management system for integrating planning, programming, budgeting, and control as they relate to resource management.
The staff of the Defense Management Program is composed of military officers from each of the three services and civilian professors with backgrounds in managerial economics, operations analysis, industrial relations, and the behavioral sciences.
Notebook
U. S. Navy
s Navy Seeks to Alter Its Image (Jack Raymond in The New York Times, 15 January 1966): The Navy is worried about its image, so much so that it is considering hiring a civilian public relations concern to help it do something about it.
“Not to do our public relations job for us,” a Navy public information officer emphasized testily, “but to help us study our problems and advise us on what we could do.”
The problems, he pointed out, center chiefly on “the image of the Navy” in the mind of the general public and the consequent difficulty in recruiting new men and retaining the men already in uniform.
For the first time since the Korean War, the Navy and its Marine Corps have had to resort to the draft in recent months in order to maintain their personnel strength.
Secretary of the Navy Paul H. Nitze confided some of the Navy’s problems to a gathering of retired admirals and Marine Corps generals at the Shoreham Hotel in New York.
He said there were two areas of primary concern—first, the Navy’s image, and second, the influence of sea power in world affairs.
“You can tell they’re worried,” a retired admiral in the audience commented. “This is the first time I ever heard anyone in the Navy say the ‘influence of sea power in world affairs’ was second to anything.”
Mr. Nitze said that there was a “definite correlation” between the Navy’s image and its influence.
“It has become apparent that what we are accomplishing is not getting fully across to the public,” he declared.
Mr. Nitze quoted the conclusion of a recent Navy survey, part of a study on naval personnel problems:
“ ‘There is no question that the Navy is not getting credit for its splendid performance in military situations now and in recent years.’ ”
The Secretary observed somewhat sadly that the Navy’s image was “outdated.” He asserted that one famous Navy slogan had “come back to haunt us.”
The slogan, “join the Navy and see the world,” a feature of many recruiting posters and illustrated by pictures, suggests “happy- go-lucky sailors who spend most of their time on liberty, with relatively little discipline and doing little work,” he said.
In blunter language, a Navy officer later said that authorities were worried by the impression often given of drunken sailors who are carousing on liberty with no compensating reputation about the men who hold down difficult and dangerous responsibilities in warplanes and on warships.
The image, Mr. Nitze declared, “has been fortified by motion pictures with Navy background in which Hollywood scriptwriters have capitalized on this character profile.” Movies and television, he said, have “led people to live in the past with naval forces of World War II vintage.”
Mr. Nitze cited the motion pictures “In Harm’s Way,” “PT 109,” “Now Hear This!” “Broadside,” and “The Whackiest Ship in the Army” to show that scenarios of the Navy all had World War II settings.
“The Navy has every reason to be proud of the role it played in World War II, but, although jealous of its traditions, it is not living in the past.” He insisted. “Times have changed and we have a much different Navy than we had in September 1945.”
Mr. Nitze emphasized the role of the Navy in delivering 98 per cent of the men and cargo needed for United States forces in Vietnam, its role and that of the Marines in actual combat there, and, especially, the role of the Polaris missile submarine in American global strategic power.
A Navy spokesman emphasized that the service’s public relations would not be turned over to a private concern but that consideration was being given to obtaining additional professional advice.
The Air Force and the Army customarily hire advertising agencies to handle recruiting programs. The Navy, however, handles its own recruiting advertising.
Five years ago, the Army hired a private concern to make a survey and recommend ways of improving the public attitude toward that service.
BS Overhaul Ended on Polaris Sub (Navy Times, 9 February 1966): The Navy said the eighteen-month overhaul of the Polaris submarine George Washington has been completed and the vessel will head for Charleston, S. C., February 8 to load her missiles.
The giant nuclear undersea ship has been overhauled mainly to enable her to carry A-3 class missiles, with a firing range of 2,500 miles. She had carried the A-l with a 1,200- mile firing limit.
After being loaded, the George Washington will be put through firing tests at Cape Kennedy, Fla., and then return for active service at Holy Loch, Scotland.
@ Southern Cross Program Re-Evaluated
(Aviation Week & Space Technology, 10 January 1966): Navy’s Southern Cross program, a broad attempt to convert fleet communications to secure, long-range over-the-horizon communications using techniques such as satellite relay or troposcatter is undergoing re-evaluation because of the competitive pressure for funds for Vietnam.
Southern Cross is sponsored by the Navy’s Bureau of Ships and administered by the Navy Electronics Laboratory in San Diego. The laboratory recentiy organized a new division to develop a capability of enabling ships at sea to communicate with satellites. The USS Bunker Hill, a specially equipped aircraft carrier had been made available for sea-based troposcatter and satellite tests, now temporarily suspended.
The Southern Cross program may be resumed soon, however, at least to satisfy pressing naval fleet need for extending communications off Vietnam and Cuba.
One of the major technical problems confronting Southern Cross is the difficulty in properly stabilizing shipboard microwave or
VHF communications antennas so they do not lose lock-on satellites. Reducing antenna size for smaller ships also poses a problem.
The relay of television pictures of Gemini 6 recovery from the carrier Wasp demonstrated feasibility of a satellite communications link with a large ship at sea.
Under Southern Cross, the Navy did test a Hughes Aircraft troposcatter system aboard a ship but it had excessive error rates and inadequate range, reliability and data capacity.
Ultimately, the Navy would like to have the capability of communicating securely over long ranges by several methods, possibly including besides active satellite relay and troposcatter, relay via passive reflectors or dipoles as shown in West Ford experiments.
s Spey A-7A Proposed {Flight International, 6 January 1966): Ling-Temco-Vought’s A-7A ground-attack fighter is being offered in export markets with the Rolls-Royce Spey-25 in place of the P&W TF30-P-6 engine of the version being built in quantity for the USN and USMC. USN export clearance is conditional upon omission of the TF30 and certain electronic equipment.
A modified version of the A-7A, including an afterburner for short field operations, is being considered by the USAF for its requirement for a close-support fighter. Odds are shortening in favor of the A-7A despite the success of the evaluation squadron of rival Northrop F-5s already in Vietnam. Recent USAF emphasis since Mr. Harold Brown became Air Force Secretary has been less on supersonics-for-all-combat and more on weapons load and range in the particular context of Vietnam, where load and endurance is considered more valuable than sheer speed. Thus the massive-load-carrying (up to 20,000 lbs. of fuel and weapons) but transonic A-7A is favored over the fully supersonic, smaller- load, shorter-range F-5A.
The Northrop F-5A might still be ordered for the USAF, however, but more as a light escort fighter than as a ground attacker.
NAVY MUTUAL AID
ASSOCIATION Membership Provides
$11,000 Permanent Insurance Protection
($7,500 Primary Benefit Plus $3,500 Additional Death Benefit at no extra cost) ★ _ _
Competent, Sympathetic Assistance in Securing Government Benefits ★
Membership Loans Without Delay ★
All Active Duty Officers of the Navy, Marine Corps & Coast Guard Are Eligible. ★
For Further Information and Brochure Regarding Our Services and Benefits, write
NAVY MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION
Navy Dept., Washington, D. C. 20370 Since 1879
s Removing Sea Growth (Ocean Science News, 17 December 1965): A new, effective and inexpensive method of removing sea growth from ship hulls has been tried and apparently proven at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Hawaii. How? Water-blasting! During recent tests a hydro-blast machine capable of generating a jet stream of water at a working pressure of more than 5,000 pounds per square inch effectively removed a thick coating of sea growth from the hull of the submarine Tang—at a cost saving of approximately $7,000. Following this experience, the unit was shipped to Japan to be used for the removal of polyurethane film from the inside of the destroyer Frank Knox which had run aground in the South China Sea and had been refloated, using the foam technique.
The water-blasting technique is not expected to replace abrasive blasting when cleaning a surface to bare metal is required, but it has definite advantage in removing sea growth, light rust or loose paint. These advantages include cheapness, no interruption of ship repair work during the blasting process, no residual sand or blasting material to be removed from the bottom of the dry- dock, and a reduction of hazard to personnel and equipment.
Other U. S. Services
s Army to Reorganize Aviation (Aviation Daily, 18 January 1966): The Army is planning sweeping changes in the makeup of its aviation units but this will not affect greatly the number of aircraft to be bought. Col. Delbert L. Bristol, acting director of aviation, threw this new light on the long-awaited Mueller Board study before the eighth annual Army Aviation Contract Services Symposium in Washington yesterday.
Bristol spoke in place of the former director, Brig. Gen. George P. Seneff, Jr., who left last week for Viet Nam, at the meeting sponsored by the National AeroSpace Services Assn. (NASS A).
He said the “Aviation Requirements for the Combat Structure of the Army,” conducted by the Mueller Board, has been ap' proved by the secretary of the Army and is under review by DOD. There had been rumors the group recommended more Army aircraft but further details had not been clear until now.
Bristol, who will be relieved April 15 when the new director, Brig. Gen. Robert R- Williams, arrives, said parts of the study are already being adopted. Underlying theme of the study “was the premise that no aviation support was required unless it could be proven otherwise.”
“Where aviation support requirements were identified, only those necessary for satisfaction of sustained requirements were recommended to be organic to units,” Bristol said- “The balance of the support requirements (are) being pooled at some higher echelon of Army command where aviation support could satisfy several ‘customers’ without sacrifice m responsiveness.”
Generally, Bristol continued, the study “makes extensive recommendations for the revision of aviation in the Army combat structure and in the supporting forces.” However, “overall quantitative requirements for aircraft and personnel to support the recommendations represent only minor changes from objectives previously stated by the Army.”
Among the changes Bristol mentioned was inclusion of air traffic control units in divisions to cooperate with Army air traffic control companies, provision of personnel and equipment so ground divisions can establish fixed-wing airstrips for supply, courier and other traffic and cutting back of aircraft in infantry and airborne divisions to 88. The aircraft complement of armored and mechanized divisions will drop to 57. About 100 aircraft are now in standard divisions.
But, Bristol indicated, this slack will be taken up by changing organization of corps and army aviation companies. They will be pooled so as to serve “requirements of units located in the corps area, field army area and communications zone as well as reinforce divisions in other units having organic aviation,” he told the NASSA audience.
Foreign Military
Q British to Buy F-llls (The Washington Post, 23 February 1966): Unfazed by a naval revolt, the British government yesterday announced plans for buying 50 American F-lll bombers, for reducing bases in the Middle East, and for allowing the Royal Navy’s air arm to dwindle out of service.
These decisions were embodied in a defense white paper issued the same day that Adm. Sir David Luce, the First Sea Lord, resigned in protest over a decision not to build a new aircraft carrier.
A tense and fractious House of Commons heard Defense Minister Denis Healey extol the white paper as an exercise in realism, and then heard Christopher Mayhew explain why he quit last Saturday as Navy Minister.
Mayhew asserted that the armed forces were being given “too large tasks, too few resources” and that Britain might become subservient to America in carrying out a China policy that Britain opposes.
But government officials expressed confidence that the country would support the conclusions of a defense review begun 15 months ago, the most drastic since the end of the last war. The white paper contends that Britain should:
“Acquire 50 scissor-winged F-lll bombers from America as a stop-gap until an Anglo- French aircraft of similar design comes into service in the mid-1970s. The ceiling cost will be $5.95 million per plane. To offset foreign exchange costs, Britain will be enabled to compete without discrimination for U. S. defense contracts.
“Relinquish a major Middle Eastern base in Aden by 1968, where 25,000 troops are now stationed, cut back forces in Cyprus and Malta, and withdraw entirely from the Caribbean and southern Africa. This would mean a withdrawal of 50,000 troops by 1970.
“Retain military facilities in Malaysia and Singapore so long as both governments ‘agree that we should do so on acceptable terms. Once the conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia eases, Britain’s 54,000-man force could be reduced.
“Continue to station some 60,000 British troops in Germany, while seeking to reduce costs now running to $549 million a year.
“Allow the navy’s force of five aircraft carriers to go out of service by the 1970s because Britain cannot afford to build, man and maintain a new carrier fleet. At the same time the navy will get new cruisers and missile-destroyers. ’ ’
These and other steps are intended to keep the entire defense budget in 1969-70 at $5.6 billion at 1964 prices. The goal is to keep defense expenditures at about 7 per cent of gross national product.
“Our position is neither a position of scuttle or pigheaded conservatism,” Healey said. He concluded:
“Those who believe we have failed to bring our commitments and resources into proper balance must have the courage to say whether in their view the government should spend more on defense, and where they will get the money, or cut Britain’s commitments further and, if so, where.”
In brisk questioning, some Tories challenged the assumption that sales of British equipment would help offset the purchase cost of the F-lll, which will be paid for on credit terms spread up to 1977.
Healey reiterated that Britain would be able to compete without “buy America” and other discriminations for U. S. defense contracts on items jointly identified by the two governments.
ARMSTRONG
TOOL HOLDERS
Permanent, multi-purpose tools for every operation on lathes.
planers, slotters, and shapers that take tool bits ground from standard high speed steel shapes.
Write for Catalog.
As a first step, he said, the United States will extend to Britain the opportunity to bid for the construction of naval auxiliaries to the value of some $50 million. He said Britain was aloneinreceiving such opportunities (although observers note that a similar arrangement exists between the United States and Canada).
A high British official said that U. S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara has guaranteed to meet the total dollar cost for the F-llls over 12 years through contracts and through joint defense sales to third parties.
Last December, for example, Britain and the United States announced a cooperate sale of aircraft and missiles to Saudi Arabia. Britain got the largest sale of the Saudi purchase—$300 million worth of aircraft— while the Americans will supply about $60 million in surface-to-air missiles.
These assurances from America helped explain the deft confidence Healey displayed as he listened to Mayhew’s statement.
In accord with custom, Mayhew’s personal statement was not subject to debate or question. The former Navy Minister delivered his 30-minute statement from the second-row seat traditionally used on such occasions.
Essentially, Mayhew reiterated arguments already made in a statement that followed his resignation on Saturday. He said the $5.6 billion ceiling on defense expenditures was “purely artificial,” an amount that was “too small if we want to stay east of Suez, too much if we don’t.”
Speaking calmly before a hushed house, he argued that more aircraft carriers were essential if Britain were to stay east of Suez for four reasons: they would allow Britain to use air power in any part of the ocean; they would provide an assurance against losses of bases; their deterrent power had been proved; they were extremely flexible in meeting unpredictable situations.
But he stressed that he has been on record since 1963 as favoring an end to East-of-Suez commitments. Mayhew said that he was a warm supporter of the Anglo-American alliance. But if Britain stayed in Asia on a reduced budget, the result, he said, would be to reduce Britain to a mere extension of U. S. power.
Mayhew said there was “something totally incongruous in a nation carrying out a proud function—peacekeeping—on borrowed money- The sound of our gunpowder will be drowned by the rattling of a collection box.”
In particular, he questioned whether Britain should support an American policy of containing Communist China in a region where “the first white soldier will always raise against himself the colored people—and indeed, wouldn’t we feel the same?”
Government sources reply that MayheW accepted the idea of a flat ceiling on expenditures 14 months ago and that as long ago as last September he knew of Healey’s decisions-
The government dealt quietly with the resignation of Adm. Sir David Luce today- “I very much regret that he felt it necessary to resign when he was overruled on this issue,” Healey said. The First Sea Lord was due to retire in August.
Adm. Sir Varyl Begg, who is more amenable to government defense plans, will succeed as Sea Lord. Like his predecessor, Begg is a former Commander in Chief of British forces in the Far East.
s Churchill to Join Atomic Submarines
{Armed Forces Management, January 1966): Construction of a fourth nuclear-powered hunter-killer fleet submarine by the Royal Navy, by Vickers, assisted by Rolls-Royce was announced. Christopher Mayhew, Minister of Defence for Royal Navy, said the vessel will be named Churchill after the late Sir Winston- Cost of the vessel is $56 million and the construction will be all-British. In addition to the
four nuclear hunter-killer subs, Vickers is building two Polaris missile-carrier subs, while another UK yard, Cammell-Laird, is constructing two Polaris subs.
S3 Australians Increasing Amphibious Capability (Shipbuilding & Shipping Record, 16 December 1965): The Australian Army plans to increase its amphibious mobility by buying 25 new landing craft at a cost of about £A1.25m during the current financial year. The craft will carry combat troops, vehicles and light armour. They will be used in beach assaults and other coastal operations.
An Army spokesman said headquarters had placed orders with the Supply Department for 13 LCM(6)s (landing craft mechanised), and 11 larger LCM(8)s, all of which would be built in Australia. The Army had also bought for £A8,400 from a Hong Kong shipyard a prototype 35-ton LCVP (landing craft vehicle personnel) which would be given evaluation tests to try out its suitability for Army amphibious operations. The small craft being purchased are not replacements but additions to Army equipment in line with the current three-year defence expansion programme. However, the Army intends to replace its 25- year-old LSMs (landing ship medium) with a larger and longer range troop and vehicle carrier. It has given naval architects specifications for a 250-ton LSM(L2). Although still in the design stage, this vessel would be the backbone of any large scale amphibious operation.
Building of the new amphibious craft will begin in Australia next year providing the final design gains Army approval.
mTdelships
Waterline: 1:1250 Models
fastings by: HANSA, VIKINGS, NAVIS, SUPERIOR 1 [ (formerly AUTHENTICAST), MERCATOR, STAR, \
( DELPHIN, MERCURY, TRI-ANG, and ANGUPLAS. f
' Over 700 models, from Ironclads to Missile Cruisers, from Sub- 3 marines to Sailing Vessels, Carriers, Merchantmen, beginning f as far back as the Civil War. They are authentic Navy recog- J nition models, precision cast with detail plus. Perfect for the * collector, war-gamer, or fancier of ships. America's most ex- V elusive hobby. 2
t Just out: U. S. Warships of World War II. 442 pages, hun- \
J dreds of illustrations, includes losses. $6.75 •
( New 56 pages catalog: 35# HANSA Fleet Data: 25£ J
» Over 100 new models f
3 NATHAN R. PRESTON & CO. )
C P.O. Box 187—Des Plaines, Illinois 60017 i
• Immediate delivery *
S3 Spain Branches Out (Raymond Blackman in British Navy League’s Navy, January 1966): One of the more surprising items of naval news in 1965 was that Spain is to acquire a former United States aircraft carrier. The question which immediately springs to mind is—what for?
Except two, none of the European countries have ever found it necessary to have aircraft carriers. France, a former imperial power, has three, and the Netherlands, which also had a rich empire overseas, has one. Both countries might find it expedient to deploy an aircraft carrier to protect their remaining interests abroad.
In August, 1965, the United States Congress, through its House Armed Services Committee, approved the loan to Spain for five years of the USS Thetis Bay. This ship was built for the United States Navy as an escort aircraft carrier with the designation CVE 90. In 1955, after eleven years service as a fixed wing aircraft carrier, she was reclassified as an assault helicopter carrier with the new designation CVHA 1, and she was completed and commissioned as such, after the necessary conversion, in 1956. In 1959 she was again re-rated as an amphibious assault ship with the designation LPH 6, and she served as such until she was decommissioned and stricken from the List of U. S. Naval Vessels in 1964.
Ship Notes
s United States: The following ships have been placed in commission—Wainwright (DLG-28) on 8 January 1966; Brooke (DEG-1) on 12 March 1966; George Bancroft (SSBN- 643) on 22 January 1966; Confidence (WPC- 619) on 19 February 1966.
The following ships have been launched— Juneau (LPD-10) on 12 February 1966; De Steiguer (AGOR-12) on 21 March 1966; Talbot (DEG-4) on 6 January 1966; Sturgeon (SSN- 637) on 26 February 1966; Queenfish (SSN- 651) on 25 February 1966.
The following ships have been laid down— Roark (DE-1053) on 2 February 1966; DE- 1055 on 1 March 1966; LPD-13 on 21 February 1966; Narwhal (SSN-671) on 17 January 1966; AE-26 on 12 March 1966; AFS-5 on 26 March 1966.
Research and Development
@ First Nuclear Research Sub (General Dynamics News, January 1966): Navy Under Secretary Robert H. B. Baldwin announced this month that Electric Boat division of General Dynamics will build the nation’s first nuclear-powered oceanographic research submarine, designated NR-1.
Baldwin made the announcement at a Washington symposium, “Man’s Extension Into the Sea,” which evaluated the Navy’s Sealab II experiments. The Division will build the submarine for the Navy.
Baldwin said the Navy has a requirement for a long-endurance nuclear-powered research and ocean engineering submarine. “The technology that will result from the design, construction and subsequent operations of this first generation vehicle will be of tremendous value to industry,” he stated.
Speaking here at the January 17 keel laying ceremony of the nuclear attack submarine Narwhal, Congressman Chet Holifield, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, said the NR-1 is “another major first assigned to Electric Boat.” Holifield said the vehicle will be the vanguard of our advance into inner space.
Primary mission of the NR-1 is to determine as quickly as possible the feasibility of nuclear propulsion for this application. Because of the vastly increased endurance made possible by nuclear power, the capability of NR-1 will be an order of magnitude greater than any other vehicle developed or planned to date.
The sub is part of the Navy’s $200 million Deep Submergence Systems Project (DSSP). The project was given five years to develop an advanced submarine rescue and salvage system under the Navy’s Special Projects Office.
s Greater Oceanographic Effort (Heather M. David in Missiles and Rockets, 24 January 1966): The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to meet shortly to start action on legislation that would set up machinery for a coordinated national oceanographic effort.
While oceanographic bills were passed by both the House and Senate last year, no conference between the two bodies was called to resolve the differences between them. The
Senate group, however, is expected to take this step in the near future.
Meanwhile, Rep. Joseph Karth (D-Minn.), in a speech before the National Space Club, said that he felt that the $ 140-million oceanographic budget, which is divided among 22 agencies, “does not seem to be consistent with our present capability and the potential benefits.”
Karth labeled the present rate of growth of the composite budget—which is from 8 to 15% per year—“not fast enough,” although he said the determination of a figure should be considered by either a council or a commission.
Karth called for establishment of a “wet NASA” as probably the best way of achieving a coordinated government effort in oceanography. He pointed out that the Senate bill proposes a council for oceanography to be headed by the Vice President somewhat like the Space Council; the House bill does not.
53 NOL to Get 2-Million-Gallon Test Tank (Bill Kreh in Navy Times, 9 February 1966): Sometime this summer Navy scientists will start shooting miniature missiles and torpedoes into two million gallons of super-clean water at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in White Oak, Maryland.
The water will be contained in a nine-story building, lined with stainless steel, that’s now under construction. It’s costing the Navy $3 million to build, but it’s money well invested. Because with it the Navy will be able accurately to observe and test one-fifth-scale models of new ASW and other underwater weapons—something that’s impossible to do right now.
The man behind the NOL Hydroballistics Tank Facility is a congenial young scientist, Dr. Arnold E. Siegel, head of the laboratory’s ballistics department. He doesn’t hide his enthusiasm for the project which has long been a dream for him and other scientists faced with the task of designing and developing more and more sophisticated weapons for the Navy.
In fact, it was because of the growing complexity of underwater weapons that the dream turned into reality. A major problem in ASW missiles is the high speed of water entry—and exit, as in weapons like Subroc which is fired under water, travels through air, then goes into the water again. To design such missiles, the forces experienced at entry must be known. And the missile’s stability must be guaranteed.
Right now, the Navy’s limited to designing and developing new underwater weapons that hit the water at less than 750 feet a second. The scientists just don’t have the data on what happens to missiles that hit the water at speeds higher than that.
But the new hydroballistics tank, 75 feet deep, 100 feet long and 35 feet wide, will change all that. It will allow testing models °f missiles hitting the water at speeds up to 6,000 feet a second. These models will be fired into the tank by special guns from any one of 15 positions located above the water on overhead travelling cranes, in the sides and on the bottom of the tank. Cameras and electronic devices will record exactly how the missiles behave in water.
And, because of the high visibility needed for photography, the water will be about the purest and clearest you can imagine. It will he put through special water treatment equipment and filters before entering the tank, and the same water will be used over and over again, being pumped—again
0 Launching Aircraft from the Ocean
{Naval Research Reviews, December 1965): According to the invention of a Navy engineer, aircraft having high-performance body configurations can be based on and launched from the ocean’s surface. The concept, which •s quite different from the one that applies to the stationing and take-off of conventional seaplanes, it described in U. S. Patent No. 3,152,779, which was issued October 13, 1964, to Eugene H. Handler of the Bureau of Naval Weapons. The patent is entitled “Zero-length Landing Device for Piloted and Unpiloted Water-Based Aircraft.”
Notebook 183
through filters—between the test tank and a nearby storage tank.
To keep the water clean, the models will be sterilized before each firing, and the guns used to propel the missiles are equipped with a unique gun blast and muzzle flash eliminator to keep gunpowder from entering and contaminating the tank.
Because of the terrific shocks caused by the projectiles when they hit the water at such high speeds the tank’s walls are 14 inches thick and are supported by reinforced concrete buttresses.
It’ll probably be a few months yet before the valve is turned, the tank filled and the first model missile hits the water. When it happens, it’ll mark a big step forward in the Navy’s search for better ASW weapons.
And by the way, want to know what two million gallons of water cost? Officials responsible for water supply in this Washington suburb say that NOL’s water bill will be $500 more the month the tank is filled. But it’s a real bargain—as is the $3 million price tag on the facility itself—when you remember that full-scale tests in the ocean, often unsatisfactory, cost about $15,000 each. With the new hydroballistics lab, scientists will be able to do the same thing for $150—and learn more.
A) Aircraft at rest on ocean; B) Float is detached; C) Rockets are fired; D) Aircraft takes off from water; 1) Location of engines used for normal flight; 2) Auxiliary rocket motor; 3) Float; 4) Aircraft’s center of gravity when in flight.
The high-performance aircraft, which may utilize one or more engines for its normal powered flight, is fitted with an auxiliary rocket engine that extends rearward from its tail section. To keep the plane in an approximately horizontal position while it is at rest in the water, a float is attached to the tail section also. When the aircraft is to be launched, the float is detached, causing the booster to pull the tail downward. At about the same time, the plane’s engines and the rocket booster are fired, and take-off is accomplished. The rocket booster is jettisoned after it has burned out and the plane is airborne.
In the Navy Now—Three Bell K-5 air cushion vehicles are being tested by the Pacific Fleet’s Amphibious Force. These are "Americanized” versions of the SR.N5 hovercraft built in England by Westland Aircraft, Ltd. The 39-foot craft can be pushed to 60 knots by its General Electric LM-100, 1,000-horsepower gas turbine power plant.
Chopper First—In the first known aerial hookup of a helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft, an Air Force CH-3C received a refueling probe from a Marine KC-130F Hercules. The only major modification to the helicopter was a 16-foot nose probe. Although no fuel was transferred, the aircraft made some ten connections, on one occasion being linked together for five minutes, two more than necessary to fuel the helicopter. The prop and wing wash of the Hercules provided an envelope of stable air in which the helicopter could fly at about 105 knots with 50 per cent of the power normally required for such speed.
Moon Ship—The USNS Vanguard (T-AGM-19), the nation’s first Apollo instrumentation ship, has gone to sea on trials. The Vanguard and two sister ships are T-2 type tankers which have been lengthened 72 feet (to an over-all length of 595 feet) and converted to floating electronic tracking stations for use with Apollo spacecraft flights.
Space Landing—This experimental "aircraft” will pioneer landing techniques for spacecraft returning to the earth. Designated HL-10, the vehicle will first be dropped from a B-52 jet bomber and piloted to earth in a glide descent. In later tests the HL-10 will be powered by rockets. The unusual craft was recently delivered to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by the Northrop Corporation.
Submarine Tank—This Army combat engineer vehicle can ford water 15 feet deep when equipped with a deep-water fording kit which includes a collapsible conning tower (called snorkel in the Army). The vehicle is adapted from an M60 tank chassis and is equipped with a 165-millimeter demolition gun, a bulldozer blade, and a collapsible boom.