Professional Notes, Notebook and Progress

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.

CONTAINERS AND CONTAINERSHIPS FOR THE MILITARY

134 Containers and Containerships for the Military

By Lieutenant Colonel Fremont Piercefield, U. S. Army

136 The Soviet Black Sea Fleet

By Robert W. Wells

139 Mechanical Instrument Repair and Calibration Shops

By Commander Michael R. Travalio,

U. S. Naval Reserve

141 USS Waccamaw—A New Oiler, In Part

By Lieutenant Commander H. G. Gillette, U. S. Navy

143 The Sea Grant College Program

By Senator Claiborne Pell with Fitzhugh Green

Professional Notes

Edited by Captain Daniel M. Karcher,

U. S. Navy

The containership, SS Container Dispatcher of the American Export Isbrandtsen Lines (AEIL), was anchored in Long Island Sound five miles off Bridgeport, Connecticut, the delivery site. The cargo aboard the container- ship consisted of 31 aluminum units; standard eight by eight by 20-foot containers and special gondola-type containers. The weight of the loaded containers varied between 6,200 and 20,000 pounds. Off-loading the container- ship to the shore site was one Sikorsky S-64A Skycrane helicopter.

This is a summary of a demonstration of unloading a container ship by air, as recorded by the U. S. Testing Company, Inc., and an official report published on 3 February 1967 on the 27 January demonstration.

The local weather conditions were ideal for the demonstration. During the five-hour operation, 0820 to 1350 hours, the wind velocity varied between 10 and 50 knots, gusting at times to as high as 55 knots. These same winds created seven to eight-foot swells in the waters of Long Island Sound where the containership was anchored. The situation was further complicated by high humidity which changed to intermittent and ulti­mately steady rain. As an indication of the difficult weather conditions, the official report notes that the motor launch carrying steve­dores and observers could not come alongside the containership safely. Further, the Sikorsky passenger helicopter, ferrying observers to the ship, in most cases could not safely land on the ship to disembark passengers. The tempera­ture averaged about 40 degrees.

The demonstration illustrated that at least six containers per hour could be transported the five miles to the shore site by one heli­copter. All this was done under much less than desirable conditions. The average

round trip for the 31 containers and the two empty containers returned to the ship was nine minutes and 36 seconds.

The demonstration confirmed the practi­cality and capability of marrying the helicop­ter and containership for cargo loading opera­tions. The next step is the development of an over-all transportation concept.

Project Expedite was the name given such a ^{e lc}opter-containership concept proposed by ^^{EIL an}d Sikorsky and analyzed by the rrny s Director of Transportation, Deputy mef of Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG). This Proposal would embrace the use of a fleet of ^s,c\en ^containerships, specially rigged to be _t^{Isc lar}ged or loaded in the conventional manner alongside a pier or barge, or over-the- s ore by helicopter. The ships would sail be­y ^CCn the West Coast of the United States and _a/^etnam’ each ship making a round trip in °|^lt 37 days. In the target discharge area,

/ ^Se 'Sustaining fleet of at least six Skycranes ^r their equivalent by other firms, such as

Boeing) would be waiting to discharge the containers.

Internally, the containerships would be constructed with 104 vertical oblong cells for stowing a removable gondola-type carrying unit which is open at the top. The gondola dimensions are eight feet wide and 20 feet long; the height is adjustable between four and eight feet. Each gondola is designed to have a net cargo capacity of 18,000 pounds fully loaded. An average containership load might be 750 gondolas below decks and 248 containers on deck. Each ship’s net capacity would be about 20,300 measurement tons or 10,000 short tons.

To position gondolas or containers for dis­charge, each ship would be equipped with two movable gantry cranes. Each crane would have a lifting capacity of 40 short tons. Each crane would then lift two containers every four minutes. The Skycrane helicopter has a lifting capacity of 10 short tons.

Five of the six aircraft would be operational

136 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, September 1967

at all times with the sixth aircraft as backup. Using five miles as a ship-to-shore site plan­ning figure, each of the five aircraft would lift six gondolas or containers per hour. All ship­board people and all persons connected with the flight operations would be furnished by the contractor. The military would probably have to provide some support to the shore- based contractor. Commercial containers are built to handle dry, liquid, bulk, refrigerated, heated, or almost any type of cargo.

The value of the container can be illus­trated many ways, but most recently by its many uses in Vietnam. The current Conex container is famous and it has many uses be­sides being a cargo container. This eight by six by seven-foot metal box often shows up as a mailroom, a tactical command post, a PX, a kitchen, or a supply room.

The container for train, truck, or ship inter­change is being standardized within the con­tainer industry. This means that with a stan­dardized container, someday, you won’t need various types of cargo handling equipment or trucks to handle the containers unique to the many container owners. International stan­dards will feature dimensions of eight feet high by eight feet wide, in lengths of 10, 20, 30 and 40 feet. These containers will have maximum load limits of 22,400, 44,800, 56,000 and 67,000 pounds, respectively. Still under study are such specifications as forklift pockets and dimensions for smaller containers.

Conventional commercial containership service has been used by the Department of Defense since 1945, when service was estab­lished between the West Coast and Alaska. Since then, about 15 carriers have provided this type service to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Northern Europe and the Far East.

The Defense Department’s latest undertak­ing in commercial containership service be­gan with a full containership contract service between the U. S. and Okinawa in July 1966. This service—working through the Military Sea Transportation Service—was expanded to the Philippines in April 1967, and in July, Sea-Land Service, Inc., under a $70 million contract, started container service to ports in Vietnam. They agreed to ship 720,000 tons of containerized cargo annually at 15-day intervals in seven ships.

Initiated by DCSLOG, the helicopter-con- tainership concept is also under procurement study. Boeing (Vertol) and Seatrain Lines, Inc., as well as AEIL and Sikorsky are the major organizations interested. It is estimated that at least a year will be required to assem­ble the necessary material—ships, containers, and aircraft—for this type operation from the time a decision is made to contract.

The concept of containerization and the movement of containers is improving and is not restricted to surface movement. In Jan­uary 1965, the International Air Transport Association introduced a plan using contain­ers in aircraft that encouraged shipment con­solidation with a resulting tariff discount. This was successful in expanding volumes of air cargo. In December 1965, the Air Transport Association of America announced a plan to standardize containers.

What does all this mean? It means that the movement of war materiels in containers is the coming thing. Containerships discharged by helicopters can produce large savings in port handling, port congestion and delays, port construction, gold flow, inland line haul, and in the numbers of people normally needed.

THE SOVIET BLACK SEA FLEET

The recent flareup in the Middle East has suddenly propelled the Soviet Black Sea Fleet into prominence, and has made clear that there are serious misconceptions about the extent of its deployment. Coming on the heels of the recent collision incident involving the Soviet and American destroyers in the Sea of Japan, it is particularly important that the Middle East naval situation be put into focus to try to clarify a matter of national and international confusion. *

Historically, the Russian Black Sea Fleet

* See F. M. Murphy, “The Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean,” U. S. Naval Institute Proceed­ings, March 1967, pp. 38-44.

atant sea power just doesn’t appear to be th ■^CSSary- therefore, one must speculate on niei ^°^SS^^^e °ther uses for this fleet. Deploy- ^ei't into the Mediterranean Sea is an obvi- °^Us Possibility.

stric^CPl0yment °^{Ut of the Black Sea is re}' th ^CR ’ ^Bowever! since its only exit is through

Wate °^Si^30rus’ ^^ea Marmara, Dardanelles p _T^rwaY- This strategic passage is controlled q ^upkey in accordance with the Montreux mention of 1936. This treaty, to which the ^rp , states is not a signatory, invests _tra[^{r c}y ^w*th the authority to control all ship S ^Be*’^ween the Mediterranean and the _er , ‘ ^ea- The passage of warships is gov- II to i,^{)y /}4^lrt*^cles 8 through 22 of Section p_ro°.^e Convention. The substance of these nnit '^{Sl0ns as} t^y apply to Russian Fleet _#^{S ma}y ^ summarized as follows: minor ^{n l}*^mes °f P^eace> light surface vessels, freed " ^ ^{V essc}^^s’ ^ancl auxiliary vessels enjoy _v;d_eci^OIV transit through the Straits, pro- l'ght * 31 ^SUC^ ^transh is begun during day-

hlack Sea powers may send through cap-

as not been a major power in the Mediter­ranean; it is only within the last few years 1 at the Soviets have undertaken to maintain a deployed Mediterranean squadron of sur- ace units. In fact, one source indicates that it was not until 1964 that the Soviets managed to keep surface units deployed in the Medi­terranean the year around. The number of ^ese deployments has been increasing every )ear, with the summer months seeing the ■Host activity. These now-routine deploy­ments, well-known in U. S. naval circles, ^a' e been occurring regularly again this year without public notice. But now, aided by Press reporting, the Soviet Mediterranean T'adron for the first time is being exploited as an instrument of military diplomacy, j ^ecause the Black Sea is relatively small, ^ls f^easonable to assume that the Soviets do ,'ot intend for their Black Sea Fleet to be ^e y ^a defensive force. The Black Sea— oughly the same size as the Baltic—now ^J°rs a Soviet fleet consisting of several isers, a large number of frigates, de­i ^yers; ^and destroyer escorts, possibly 75 co '?^aianes’ ^and a large number of smaller l ¹¹¹-’atant and support vessels. In a closed ° y of water of this size, that much com-

ital ships as long as they are not escorted by more than two destroyers.

• Lightly-armed fleet tankers may transit the Straits singly without prior notice of transit.

• Black Sea powers may send submarines through the Straits, singly, on the surface, and by day, for the purpose of rejoining their bases or to be repaired at dockyards outside the Black Sea. Operational deployments out of the Black Sea are prohibited.

•  Prior to transit through the Straits, dip­lomatic notice must be given to the Turkish government, specifying the name, type, num­ber, and destination of the vessels. This notice must be given eight days in advance by Black Sea powers. Actual transit must occur within five days of the date given in the notification. When effecting transit, the commander of the naval force must communicate to the signal station at the entrance to the Straits the exact composition of the force.

FAHEY’S EIGHTH EDITION

THE SHIPS

AND

AIRCRAFT

OF THE

U S. FLEET

Compiled and Edited by James C. Fahey

An up-to-date listing by name and type of over 2,000 ships and 120 aircraft and missiles. Over 400 illustrations. 64 pages. Paperbound. List Price $3.50 Member’s Price $2.80 A U. S. Naval Institute Publication

• In time of war, Turkey not being bel­ligerent, free transit in accordance with peace­time regulations is assured. •

• In time of war, Turkey being belliger­ent, passage of warships is left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish government.

There are other more detailed provisions concerning warships, but the essence of the controls as they affect the Soviet Navy is as given. From these it is clear that while the Russians can deploy their Black Sea Fleet surface units into the Mediterranean at will in peacetime, it is done only after notifying the Turkish government. In time of war, assuming that NATO is involved, and Turkey is now a member of that organization, the Russians would be unable to use their fleet outside the Black Sea without taking the Turkish Straits by force.

With these background facts in mind, we can turn our attention to the current Soviet naval presence in the Eastern Medi­terranean. The spate of reports (June 1967) about Soviet Black Sea units entering the Mediterranean was based on a press story with an Ankara dateline, revealing that the Soviets had made diplomatic notification of intent to send some ten vessels through the Straits. The press immediately attributed to this fleet of ten unidentified Soviet vessels a major power move in the Middle East crisis.

The 1964 and 1965 issues of the Annual Re­port on the Movements of Warships through the Turkish Straits, an open publication of the Turkish government, indicate that we should expect numerous Soviet naval vessels to de­ploy into the Mediterranean in June and July of the year. Inasmuch as the types and exact identification of these units do not become known until they actually make their pas­sage, advance press speculation as to their mission is highly suspect. Also, since Soviet naval units are routinely rotated in the Medi­terranean, the figures on southbound transits are not meaningful without knowing how many northbound transits of relieved de­ployed units are being made at the same time. The ten southbound ships that the press re­ported were, in fact, more or less routine de­ployments, and could have been predicted from past years’ deployment statistics.

With the recent Soviet deployment thus put into perspective, we can take a look at what units might have been predicted. In 1964, for example, the announced cruiser and two escorts for the 15 June southbound pas­sage turned out to be the Sverdlov-class light cruiser Mikhail Kutuzov and two new gas- turbine-propelled “Kashin”-class frigates. In 1965, we saw an earlier deployment of the summer flagship when the old Kirov-class heavy cruiser Number 551 made the south­bound passage on 13 May. Destroyers, guided missile destroyers, “Kashin” frigates, and Riga-class destroyer escorts frequently get out into the Mediterranean. Fleet tugs, small oilers, water distilling vessels, and sub­marine tenders show up routinely. And hy­drographic ships, some of which are fleet in­telligence collection units converted from trawlers, often make Mediterranean patrols. In terms of actual numbers, the annual tran­sits of Black Sea units into the Mediterranean are composed primarily of support and non­combatant units, with a smaller proportion of combatant types. At no time has this Mediter­ranean Squadron represented a serious threat to the U. S. Sixth Fleet.

Three notable points were made evident by the recent Middle East crisis and the current role of the Soviet Navy in this crucial period.

(1) The recent deployment of Soviet units roni the Black Sea into the Mediterranean A^as spotlighted the growth of the Soviet ^{s ou}t-of-area deployment, v J The Soviets are now able to use their ack Sea Fleet as a demonstration of support ^°r the Arabs. This show of force, while not '^ery forceful and not very threatening, can ^ave significant propaganda and psychologi­st value.

, Press comment on the deployment of ^e °viet Black Sea surface units has signifi- ant y mislead and inflamed public opinion in

‘he current situation.

^ hile we must recognize that the Soviets in P°^{SSCSS a} limited single-strike capability thcs ^C*^{r deplo}>;^ed Mediterranean Squadron, e same units would be dangerously ex- ^ ^e in a wartime situation. In terms of re ^1Veness in a no-risk situation as we have be K ^seen> however, this squadron has cost'^{1 d}*^sP^roportionately influential. At no So ' ^<nehting from press reporting, the _m^V.^let Mediterranean Squadron has had a ^J°^r Psychological impact.

By Commander ichael R. Travalio,

(Retired) ^N*^{Val Reserve}>

Cent ’ , Parts Control                                            J

ter, Mechanicsburg, Pa. t \ ^ /

Mechanical INSTRUMENT REPAIR AND CALIBRATION SHOPS

I n ^^2, the then Bureau of Ships, signerT  Ships Systems Command, as-

_tor^{1 le} aval Boiler and Turbine Labora- rgpair ^{e tas}h to examine the calibration and m_ent, ^Worh performed on mechanical instru- ^recorn                       ^^eet‘ The objective was to

destr ^{niCnd an} improved instrument shop for fepair^iv ^tenders> submarine tenders, and based ^S ^    iⁱⁿP^rovements were to be

the Fl°^{n 1}.^nstrument support requirements in tore ff61 ^m. ^{dle areas} °f pressure, tempera- instr'u ^OW’ ^dpuid level, and speed measuring _T. *

^clttded ^tW° ^^ears °f study that followed in- ^a detailed survey of the instruments

serviced by 33 active tenders and repair ships. The survey showed that instrument re­pair was accomplished, at best, with anti­quated equipment, or in many cases not at all. It thus substantiated the need for an im­proved program, and it stressed the impor­tance of having a single, tender-based, central facility. Other aspects of the investigation were the selection of specialized equipment— and for the most part commercially avail­able—for the new Mechanical Instrument Repair and Calibration Shops (MIRCS) and the design of the tender. Funding, equip­ment procurement, personnel training, and test equipment calibration and procedures presented distinct problems which were es­sentially resolved during the development of the prototype.

In August 1964, after numerous ship visits and meetings of the representatives of the Naval Boiler and Turbine Laboratory, the Bureau of Ships, the Ships Parts Control Center, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the Naval Shipyards, and manufacturers’ repre­sentatives, a report was issued that proposed the details of the MIRCS Program.

The shop’s basic design was for the calibra­tion and the repair of instruments. While the facility contains master instruments which could set primary or secondary standards, the objective was to have a workshop and not a standards laboratory. Large storage spaces for repair parts and tools complement this goal. Each shop needs an over-all space of approximately 1,200 square feet divided into four separate rooms: temperature, oxygen clean, flow meter calibration, and a main shop subdivided into: pressure area, tachom­eter and torque area, office, library, work control area, cleaning, and work area.

The shop contains facilities for testing pressure instruments from vacuum to 10,000 p.s.i. pneumatically and hydraulically with minute pneumatic pressures attainable in inches of water. Thermometers of all types could be checked between — 50° F. to +1,000° F. and thermocouples checked up to 1,850° F.

The flow meter calibration facilities were designed to calibrate meters up to 100 g.p.m., tachometers tested to 10,000 r.p.m., and torque wrenches checked from 5 oz/in. to 1,000 lb/ft. Additional specialized functions include the calibration of automatic control

JOHN P. HOLLAND

1841-1914

Inventor of the Modern Submarine by Richard Knowles Morris

This Irish-born teacher- inventor built his sixth submarine in 1897. She was purchased by the U.S. Govern­ment and became the first sub­marine of the U. S. Navy (USS Holland). 211 pages, plus 32-page illustration section. Line drawings. Ship plans. Appendixes. Bibliog- graphy. Index.

List Price $8.50 Member's Price $6.80

equipment (pneumatically operated), envi­ronmental pressure gages, and a vacuuin- freon system for cleaning Bourdon tubes. Bench-mounted manifolds were also installed for the production testing of pressure gages. Accuracy in measurement was not a primary consideration, although some instruments showed laboratory level accuracies. Specifi­cally, the fundamental purpose of MIRCS was the calibration of ship’s operating instruments and not the calibration of master instruments. This is a basic difference, which was reflected in the design, equipment, personnel, and the environmental requirements of the shops. The environmental need was for air condi­tioning of 75°F. plus or minus five degrees and a 50 per cent (maximum) relative humidity, as well as certain features to pro­mote cleanliness comparable to ship living quarters as opposed to a machine or boiler shop.

In January 1965, the first MIRCS installa­tion was approved by the Bureau of Ships for the USS Cascade (AD-16). The Boston Naval Shipyard completed the work in January 1966 with the test equipment furnished by Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Penn­sylvania.

A joint innovation by Bureau of Ships and the USS Cascade resulted in the alleviation of the personnel training problem. Additional instrument men (iM) were approved for the MIRCS ships. The Cascade now has an allow­ance of 12 IMs.

MIRCS is planned for the USS Hector (AR-7), USS Tidewater (AD-31) and the Naval Training Center at Great Lakes, Illinois. The latter is to train men for MIRCS shops. Installation has commenced in the Hector and is in the design stage in the other units.

The Ships Parts Control Center will furnish test equipment for these three installations as well as for the MIRCS Program aboard all ships in these three classes. Future installations will be judged by the performance of the proto­type, the Cascade. The Chief of Naval Opera­tions has approved this facility for the Ajax (AR-6), Amphion (AR-13), Bryce Canyon (AD- 36), Grand Canyon (AD-28), Orion (AS-18), Shenandoah (AD-26), and Yosemite (AD-19) Fiscal Year 1967. Similar ships will probably receive MIRCS shops during the next five years.

J

/      * ^assumpsic (AO-107) and USS Pawcatuck

^C-108) in Fiscal Year 1964, marked the

^rst such conversion of a tanker by the U. S. ■Navy.*

Th                                             .            •

j ^e USS Waccamaw was originally built

Su ^              Maritime Commission by the

"" Shipbuilding and Drydock Company at

A ^CS,^ter’ ^^>ennsyl^vania. Her keel was laid 28

j ^ri ^45 and she was launched 11 months

it ^Cr_t°^{n 3}0 March 1946. Upon completion, the W,

accarnaw was transferred to the U. S.

N.

USS WACC AM AW—A NEW OILER,

IN PART

umboization, a term used to describe the splicing of a new and larger center section j^^{to a} tanker to increase its capacity, has ^en used for a number of years to convert Merchant tankers. However, a Ship’s Char­acteristics Board project, which authorized c conversion of the USS Navasota (AO-106) ^ USS 1Vaccamaw (AO-109) in Fiscal Year

3 and of the USS Mispillion (AO-105), USS P₍             -

Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, and commenced off-loading all material and equipment. She was then moved “dead stick” to Seattle, and on 2 March 1964, offi­cially commenced conversion. She was placed “In Commission—In Reserve” for the dura­tion of the conversion, and the crew was trans­ferred except for a nucleus crew of four offi­cers and 35 enlisted men.

The Waccamaw was moved by tugs into a sectional floating drydock where cutting torches neatly sliced the ship in two just aft of the bow and the after section floated away. Next, the new midbody was floated in, properly positioned, raised, and welded to the old bow. The new section, which contained the cargo tanks with a 50 per cent greater capacity, was fabricated in Japan and then towed across the Pacific to Seattle.

The third step in the operation-was to lift the 190-ton amidships superstructure from the old midbody to the new section. Next, the original stern section was cut from the old midbody and the old midbody was floated away. In the final step of the operation, the new midbody, with the old bow and super­structure, was floated into the drydock, raised, and welded to the old stern.

The enlarged Waccamaw now had an over-all length of 644 feet, a limiting draft of 35 feet nine inches, and a full load displacement of approximately 35,000 tons. The conversion was officially completed on 26 February 1965 when the Waccamaw was put back in com­mission.

To compensate for the longer underwater body, a major modification was made to the stern, including a new counter-balanced rudder, new struts, and shorter propeller shafts and stern tubes. As a result of these modifications, harbor pilots have expressed their amazement at the Waccamaw’s maneu­verability in restricted waters.

The latest design in fueling and replenish­ment at sea equipment was added. This in­cluded kingposts with outriggers, ram-tensioned span wires and high-lines, heavy-weather rigs with up to 300 feet for either hose or wire at each station, electric-hydraulic winches in place of the old steam winches, plus a heli­copter pick-up area on the forward weather deck. Each fueling station was equipped with new 7-inch lightweight hose with flow­through saddles, and double hose rigs were installed on the port side for working with the large combatants. The pumping capacity was improved by the installation of larger capac­ity, electric-driven cargo pumps and larger cargo pipes. Operating with ships alongside to both port and starboard, the Waccamaw is capable of transferring liquid cargo at the rate of 1.4 million gallons per hour. An auxiliary diesel-generator plant, developing 4,500 kw., was installed to power the deck machinery and cargo pumps. Fleet freight, bottled gas, and cargo mail are no longer stowed on the exposed weatherdeck. En­closed storage space was added for proper stowage of these items.

The welfare of the ship’s company was not overlooked. Habitability items included air conditioning of all office and living spaces, a new ship’s store, a well-stocked library, a barber shop, and a modern laundry. All berthing spaces were completely renovated. All piping on the new 01 deck was suspended from the overhead, making for greatly im­proved working areas as well as improving safety factors. Furthermore, the over-all lines of the ship have been cleaned up, giving her the long, sleek look of efficiency.

1 He sea grant college program |\|^ow is a propitious time to remind our­’ selves and the country that the mere Enactment of a Federal program is not enough ensure its success—particularly if it is a new p^CParture in its field. Like any infant, a new ^e eral program needs some postnatal nur­turing. The Sea Grant College Program is ^{e c}ase in point. All who can contribute to Peeding it into maturity are urged to do so, fi10 ^U^'ⁿS the U. S. Navy and other Execu- ^1Ve departments, the Congress, oceanolo- ^glSi^s> industry, and other interested citizens.

he National Sea Grant College and Pro­gram Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-688)

• , ^rhed a milestone in legislative history. Con- 1 ering that it was a new kind of Federal pro- ^ram, the bill went through both Houses of n ingress in surprisingly short order and with opposition at all against its basic, substan­ce Purpose:

v 1 to train oceanologists at every level ^m high school educated technicians to ^r^9^^Ca^ ^sc*^end^sts aiming for doctorates; w to initiate and conduct applied research o^^r°ughout the family of sciences called _t i^ⁿ° °&y> so as to develop the necessary ^c nology for exploiting the national marine

resources;

(3) to establish a system of disseminating ositive results of this applied research to all priv'^^S’ *^nstitutions, and individuals—both _acf^{Vat;e an}d public—working in sea-related ^lvities who may benefit therefrom.

Distribution of information on a new dis­covery is vital. Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus, who conceived this new method to expedite de­velopment of our riches of the sea, agrees strongly on this point. Just as the land grant colleges were buttressed by an agricultural extension service, under the Sea Grant Pro­gram we should create a sort of county agent in hip boots to report the latest technological improvements to the fisherman, the aqua- farmer, the undersea miner, or even some­day, the man building a house under the sea.

It is regrettable that only a million dollars in Fiscal Year 1967 and $4 million in Fiscal 1968 were requested instead of the $5 million and $15 million, respectively, authorized. However, no permanent harm has been done by the smallness of the budget for this year. It has taken some time to establish an ad­ministering staff at the National Science Foundation, which is the agency designated to run the program. Also, the Foundation, which until now has focused purely on basic research, has had to rethink its philosophy to absorb the Sea Grant emphasis on applied, mission-oriented, practical study.

Still, unless a substantial increase is re­quested in the President’s 1968 budget, it is feared that much of the excitement that has been created throughout the nation by the passage of this unusual program may be hurt and diminished. Without a substantial amount of seed money to build proposals into real programs, the impression may arise that the Sea Grant College Act has been falsely advertised and is something of a will-o’-the- wisp to any but the few largest institutions of oceanology.

National enthusiasm fully justifies the high hopes of the 200 participants from 30 states who first spoke in favor of the Sea Grant con­cept at Newport, R. I., in 1965. This con­ference was organized by the University of Rhode Island and the Southern New England Marine Sciences Association in order to pub­licize and gain backing for the bill which Senator Pell introduced in the Senate in August 1965.

Robert Abel, formerly the Executive Secre­tary of the Federal Government’s Interagency Committee on Oceanography, has been named to head the program. He is facing a torrent of inquiries. Even before the criteria

for winning grants were published in June, Abel had received proposals or requests for further information from 39 states, one foreign government, 102 universities and col­leges, four junior colleges, five high schools, 22 corporations, 11 state organizations, three national organizations, three county orga­nizations, and two Federal organizations.

This is only a preliminary, unsolicited re­action from potential grantees. One cannot judge how many will try to meet just-pub­lished criteria which spell out the “how-to” aspects of being funded as a Sea Grant col­lege or an institution which is proposing a Sea Grant Program. But their number may far exceed the initial response to the passage of the Act.

If the government is to sustain the present momentum of interest, the Administration next year should call for the full $15 million authorized under the Act. In addition, there are other steps that can hasten the success of the program. One would be to use inactive naval facilities. For example, there are a num­ber of naval air stations which are being and have been deactivated and dismantled over the past few years. Some of these have build­ings which formerly served as barracks. These could be adapted, under the Sea Grant Pro­gram, to temporary housing and classroom space for oceanology students in training. Re­serve units in the process of deactivation may also offer properties which could be lent or leased at nominal prices to private institutions carrying Sea Grants. Another means to tap the Navy for help, with little cost to the tax­payer, would be to bring from mothballs some of its smaller World War II vessels, particularly sub chasers—once designated as SCs and PCs, minesweepers, and weather ships. The Navy might lend these ships to Sea Grant colleges so their research pro­grams could be expanded. Still another way might be to assign crash boats and old 50-foot motor launches to institutes that would give training in fishing techniques. Such Navy small craft could serve to approximate fishing boats. Another possibility would be the pro­vision of supernumerary berths for research oceanologists on various naval ships which perform defense duties off the coast of the United States. This arrangement would afford the scientist an opportunity to make high­speed trawlings with Nansen bottles and other underwater collection devices whose use re­quires a moving seaborne platform.

In the Navy’s own oceanology program, which is the finest and most extensive Federal activity of its kind, it is hoped that the co-op­eration called for in the Act may yield in­numerable, additional methods of co-opera­tion. The Act specifically permits and en­courages this:

The head of each department, agency, or in­strumentality of the Federal Government is authorized, upon request of the Foundation, to make available to the Foundation, from time to time, on a reimbursable basis, such personnel, services, and facilities as may be necessary to assist the Foundation in carrying out its functions under this title.

Perhaps these thoughts are over-ambitious for the program, but much assistance might be given without being “on a reimbursable basis.”

It is not proposed, moreover, that this kind of backing be restricted to the Navy. An ap­proach should be made to American shipping companies to allow scientists (perhaps ac­companied by their trainees and apprentices) to use living space on vessels plying regular passenger routes. Such donations of space could be on a tax deductible basis. These “ships of opportunity” could assist in evaluat­ing food resources in the sea, providing data on the occurrences of fish and larger mam­mals, and making collections of marine or­ganisms for comparative studies.

Oceanology’s ultimate, long-range exploita­tion of men and ships at sea, both in the Navy and in the merchant marine, might come from training regular crew members to become marine life identification specialists. These men could work in their off hours aboard ships to earn “moonlighting” money from the various oceanology agencies in the Federal government. (This practice could prove a crew morale booster, too.) Since a large pro­portion of the organisms being collected even now from the marine environment are of an undescribed species, such part-time specialists might be extremely valuable. Oceanologists say that the demand for accurate identifica­tion of organisms collected for study in a Sea Grant Program will be so great that existing specialists will be overwhelmed.

It is hoped that the Coast Guard may be drawn into the Sea Grant Program in similar fashion. Since the Coast Guard functions for Peaceful purposes, it would be most appropri­^ate that the cutters already on coastal patrol ^can be used on an increasing frequency for oceanologic research and training in addition to what that service is already doing. Imagina­tive programs suggested by Sea Grant Col- ^eges and other burgeoning marine institutes ^Can provide a plethora of additional ideas.

ft is important that all Americans who work ^or think or dream in the field of oceanology continue to keep an eye on the Sea Grant ^r°gram, if it is to achieve its purpose—to Provide manpower and technology for this nation’s great opportunity in inner space.

ontinuing publicity and the types of support suggested must be maintained. The Congress ^ust hear the public speak its interest in any ⁿew activity for which the Congress has sup- P ^led legislation. Congress does not operate its own in most cases, and the Sea Grant °hege Program is no exception. The Con­gress can bring more effort to bear on in­creasing the appropriations in years to come, hears from oceanology’s constituency— ^lch fortunately seems to reside in a broad Portion of the country. In fact, approval and

encouragement during the bill’ s passage rough Congress was not limited to the coas- 3 A ^F ^"^reat Lakes states.

'"erica’s competition in the race to con- u^uer the undersea frontier scientifically, tech- ■ 1 °8^lcafiy, and economically must, of course, Won. The Soviet Union appears to be aking the largest foreign effort in oceanol- L is not suggested that the contest be a Relive one. Actually, the exchange of in- 'nation between American and Soviet C1611 lists has so far proved an inspiring ex- ^a"iple of how to dissipate Cold War hostility.

Nevertheless, America should not risk the embarrassment of an underwater Sputnik. This could take the form of a vast undersea expedition. Such a party could stake out huge areas of the ocean bottom for its mother country’s exploitation; it could erect undersea fishing, mining, and exploration posts just beyond our own territorial limits; or it might perform some undersea wizardry that we have not yet even imagined but which could cause us consternation in terms of national security, national reputation, and economic opportunity.

Most Americans have by now heard or read the continuing “speech” which for several years has been delivered by public figures, scientists, and assorted others. This spiel demands that America drive hard to master the undersea and its many riches, both known and unknown. Each exhortation ends with a cry for immediate action, assuming always this is easy, as did Owen Glendower in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, when he bragged: “I can call spirits from the vasty deep.” We must still ask in response, as did Hotspur: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?”

The Sea Grant Program offers one sure route to ocean exploitation. The nation must nourish it from its present, weak infancy to strong and meaningful maturity. It cannot grow without enough money from the Fed­eral budget; cooperation—both technologi­cally and materially—from the Navy, the merchant marine, the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies already active in oceanology; and finally, it must have a con­tinuing public support through the nation’s constituency of oceanologists of all kinds— scientific, academic, technologic, and eco­nomic, as well as the private citizen. That support will measure the program’s success.

★

Research Craft—On 4 May Deep Quest, a Lockheed re­search submarine, was launched in San Diego. The 50-ton, 39-foot submersible has an outer hull of alumi­num and an inner one of steel. It has an operating depth of 8,000 feet with a crew of four.

Mixed Breed—The Army’s new Cheyenne AH-56A he­licopter by Lockheed fea­tures both the rotors of a helicopter and the fixed wings of an airplane. Called a winged rotorcraft, it has a top speed of 250 mph, twice that of helicopters. Note the two sets of propel­lers aft of the rigid-rotor. Scheduled for flight tests in September, the Cheyenne is designed to escort troop­carrying helicopters and to provide suppressive fire power support.

Lockheed-California Co.

Concorde—The European version of the super-sonic transport (SST) takes shape with the installation of the forward section of one delta wing at Sud-Aviation at Toulouse, France, one of the two assembly plants. The first flight of the prototype aircraft is scheduled for February 1968.

'Sud-Aviation

Detector Probe—This new electronic probe is used to detect weapons, grenades, and munitions on board Vietnamese junks. The Ord­nance Locator was devel­oped by the U. S. Naval Ord­nance Laboratory, White Oak, Maryland.

Q4 Liner—The British Cun- ard Line’s new 28.5 knot transatlantic passenger ves­sel will have 13 decks and a passenger capacity of 2,025 persons. Shown is a model of the 963-foot, 58,000-gross ton vessel due to be launched this coming September.

John Jochimsen, Ltd.

Mark 48 Torpedo—Claimed to be the most advanced anti-submarine weapon un­der development by West- inghouse. The Mark 48 torpedo has a self-contained search and homing system that seeks the target and is propelled by a pump-jet, thermal engine that burns liquid fuel. It will replace the Mark 37, and can be surface and submarine launched.

Notebook

U. S. Navy

h Pentagon Ask for Polaris Refit Funds

(George W. Ashworth in The Christian Science Monitor, 5 June 1967) A Polaris submarine is a major component in the U. S. nuclear de­terrent force. With the recent commissioning of the USS Will Rogers, the Polaris construc­tion program ended. Late this summer, the Will Rogers will go to sea to take its position in a 41-vessel fleet.

Congress has been asked to authorize de­ployment funds for Poseidon missiles to be mounted in renovated Polaris submarines. In this time of a delicate East-West balance, the Pentagon has foreseen the need for a larger deterrent.

Now the Pentagon is seeking funds for the Poseidon. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara told Congress that the total cost for the conversion of the 31 Polaris subma­rines to the Poseidon missiles will be S3.3 billion, or a little more than SI00 million each. Approximately $900 million is being sought for the purposes in fiscal 1968. The submarines originally cost about $107 million each.

The contract for the conversion of the first three Polaris submarines is to be awarded early next year, according to current plans. Reworking for the first submarine is to be completed in 1970, and work on the next two would be finished in 1971. Secretary Mc­Namara has testified that the reworking would be accomplished over a period of years to allow the fleet to remain in a state of opera­tional readiness.

The first in the series of Polaris-firing sub­marines was launched in 1959. Now, just eight years later, these subs already have be­come outmoded, according to those who must plan United States defenses.

A total of 31 of the 41 submarines are to be equipped with the larger, more potent, more accurate Poseidon. Ten of the Polaris subma­rines are to keep the old A-3 Polaris missile, the most recent of the series. The reason is not a desire to have a balanced force. Rather it is simply that the 10 older submarines, not yet a decade old, cannot accommodate the new missiles without alterations that would cost

more than the submarines did originally.

The Polaris submarines, the Titan and Minutemen series of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the manned bomber fleet com­pose the U. S. nuclear deterrent force. Oddly, none is considered the last word among war machines. The Polaris is, of course, to be re­placed by the Poseidon as far as practicable. The current Minutemen-Three missiles are to be improved and modernized. And the B-52 deterrent force of manned bombers is to be kept flying for several years yet, with the FB-111, the bomber version of the controver­sial TFX, to substitute for B-52s of earlier vin­tage as soon as it is in the skies.

The advantages of the more powerful Min- uteman-Three, McNamara told Congress, is that its “increased payload will enable the Minuteman-Three to carry more penetration aids to counter an ABM defense.” The same is true of the Poseidon.

Observers here note that there is an obvi­ous concern among Pentagon planners due to the threat posed by the X-ray output of anti­ballistic missile warheads. For the U. S. in­tercontinental ballistic missiles and Polaris missiles to have less vulnerability in encoun­ters above the atmosphere, where the X-rays are most effective, it is necessary to provide protective materials and devices. This in­creases weight and takes up space.

The response to more sophisticated defenses thus is, in the case of the reworked Minute- man and the Poseidon, a larger weapon with much improved protective devices. The Poseidon will theoretically be twice as accu­rate and twice as potent as the Polaris missile. Navy ballistics men interpret this to mean the Poseidon will be eight times as effective.

As of the end of June, Mr. McNamara has stated, there are to be 32 Polaris missile sub­marines deployed. Six are to be undergoing overhaul and one is to be still in refitting. All of the Polaris submarines are to have either the A-2 or the A-3 missiles for the time being, with Poseidon in store later. Both the 2,500- mile-range A-3 and the Poseidon will be able to reach any spot on earth from a safe posi­tion at sea.

elapsed

co-pilot was Maj. Thomas Wheeler.

time for the flight was five hours,

-Normally, Polaris missiles are launched ^rom a point well below the surface, although !A'^s Possible to launch them from the surface. 1 ormally, however, they are launched by air ^or steam and shoot to the surface where they ‘gnite and are off. When the Will Rogers joins ^e fleet later this year, 14 submarines will normally operate out of Holy Loch, Scotland;

¹ out of Rota, Spain; nine out of Charleston,

‘ • G., and seven out of Guam. Thus, seven ^W!^U operate primarily in the Pacific and 34 ^‘fl be in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

course, the submarines can and do go else- ^{W ere} frequently. The normal tour at sea is ^w° months, and the submarines can stay sub- ^n|erged that long or longer.

0        New U. S.-to-Paris Flight Records Set

1                            & Sp^ace Technology, 5 June 1. , 1 Several unofficial records were estab- '^s ed by U. S. military and civil aircraft ^cmg ferried from North America for par- ^1ClPation in the Paris air show. They in­cluded:

•              Two Navy/Ling-Temco-Vought A-7A ^orsa*r-2 attack aircraft, which flew 3,900

p1 ^es from the Patuxent River Naval Air Test enter, Md., to Le Bourget in 7:01 hours OK ^f!^{Ut re}f^llefing. The aircraft, flown by Cdr. Quf^r     ^' Fritz and Marine Capt. Alec

h * ,^esP*^e> carried four external fuel tanks and ^a approximately two hours’ fuel remaining Th ^andin§- Cruising altitude was 41,000 feet, e average speed of 560 m.p.h. was faster ^tflat of the F-lll, which flew a course 860 _no^es shorter. The flight was an unofficial, cr_a'!^St°fl record for single-engine tactical air- _w^ut plans for an official record attempt

*            turned down by the Pentagon.

_v . . 11 ^‘^r I' orce/General Dynamics F-111A j o *^a 3 ^'geometry fighter, which flew from _por^r;ⁿ^FB, Me., to Paris’ Le Bourget Air- tank ^Wlt^^out refueling and without external aircr ^{3n avera}S^{e s}P^ee<f of 540 m.p.h. The fully3 1 ^wfl'^ch flew mostly with its wings Dilnt ','^Xtendecl *ⁿ the cruise position, was

_na. -^e ^ Col. Ray O. Roberts, USAF. The Navigator - Fh 54 minutes. The unofficial record established was for a fighter-type aircraft completing a transatlantic flight without refueling and without external tanks.

• Two Air Force-piloted Sikorsky HH-3E rescue helicopters, which made the first non­stop transocean flight, New York to Le Bour­get.

• A privately owned North American Series 40 model of the North American Sabre- liner, which set a transatlantic speed record for a business jet aircraft. Piloted by Arthur Knapp, a retired industrialist and veteran pilot, the Sabreliner flew from St. John’s, Newfoundland, to Lisbon in four hours, 14 minutes. The average speed was 535 m.p.h. A stop was made at Lages Air Base, Azores. The former record was held by a Dassault Mystere 20 (Fan Jet Falcon), which recorded a total elapsed time of four hours, 38 minutes.

• A Mooney Mustang single-engine air­craft, which set a new light plane record, fly­ing nonstop from New York to Le Bourget in 13 hours, 10 minutes. The Mustang was flown by 23-year-old Paul Rachal, a student at Texas Christian University.

S3 U. S. Shipbuilders Win Concessions

(Baltimore Sun, 15 June 1967) The Defense Department has agreed to make two conces­sions to American shipyards which will give them a better chance in bidding against Brit­ish yards on the construction of 16 wooden- hull minesweepers for the Navy.

Representative Byrnes (R., Wis.), who for months has been objecting strongly to the de­partment’s decision to solicit bids from the British under any circumstances, said that the Navy has advised him that American ship­builders will not be required to submit per­formance bonds and will be able to import foreign parts duty-free.

These are conditions which a successful foreign builder would work under, Byrnes said. “These concessions will certainly be of help to American yards in attempting to meet the British competition,” he said. The 16 large, highly advanced minesweepers have been funded over three separate fiscal years and are intended to be built in one yard under a construction contract expected to total about $60,000,000.

However, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Congressman pointed out today that, if an amendment to the fiscal year 1968 defense budget which Byrnes sponsored successfully yesterday passes through the Senate as well, the seven minesweepers funded in that budget will have to be built in American yards. The amendment precludes the building of any Navy vessel overseas for which procurement funds have been provided in the 1968 budget.

Byrnes had protested that the cost of the procurement bond on a contract of some $60,000,000 “would throw out leading Ameri­can yards” and that in many cases the inter­ested yards would be unable to secure such a bond under any circumstances. A spokesman for Byrnes said today that cost of the bond had been estimated between $100,000 and $200,000. Normally he said, such a bond is required for defense contracts and smaller American yards have been able to provide it because the amount of the contract has not been that great.

s Navy Delays F-lllB Decision

(.Aviation Week & Space Technology, 8 May 1967) Navy will not make a final decision on whether to accept the General Dynamics F-lllB for the fleet until 1969, due to con­tinuing slippage in production and test sched­ules. Testimony before the House Appropria­tions Defense Subcommittee by Navy Secre­tary Paul H. Nitze and Chief of Naval Opera­tions Adm. David L. McDonald revealed that the first meaningful aircraft carrier tests can­not be started until the No. 7 aircraft is avail­able in late 1968. No. 7 will be the first fully carrier-configured F-l 1 IB.

Navy testimony, released last week, was given prior to last month’s crash of F-l 1 IB No. 4, which may cause as much as a six- month additional slippage in the test pro­gram. The Navy is now permitting its first three F-l 1 IB aircraft to fly again. But No. 5, which is the only super weight improvement program (SWIP) aircraft in existence, is still grounded. The Navy will not let the No. 5 aircraft fly until investigators fully assess the crash. An examination of the No. 4 wreckage showed that the engine air inlets were closed, and a theory is that the pilot did not push the switch that would keep the inlets open when the wheels retract on takeoff.

Meanwhile, the Defense Dept, has diverted No. 21 Air Force F-l 11 A, scheduled for de­livery this summer, to the Navy in an effort to speed the preliminary evaluation tests that were interrupted by the crash. The F-111A will be used in high-lift tests and qualifying systems common to both configurations.

@ Study Starts to Activate Battleship

(The Washington Post, 1 June 1967) Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara authorized the Navy yesterday to spend $800,000 for ex­ploratory de-mothballing of the battleship New Jersey to see how much it would cost to ready her for service off Vietnam. A Pentagon spokesman said McNamara signed a memo to Secretary of the Navy Paul H. Nitze authoriz­ing the action—the first step toward the pos­sible recommissioning of a U. S. battleship for the first time in about nine years. No bat­tleships currently are in the fleet.

The New Jersey and two other battle wag­ons—the Iowa and the Wisconsin—are moored near Philadelphia. A fourth battleship, the Missouri, is in the reserve fleet at Bremerton, Washington. The Pentagon has been under strong pressure from influential members of Congress to bring out one of the four remain­ing battleships so her powerful 16-inch guns can be trained on targets in the coastal areas of North Vietnam.

The Pentagon spokesman said the process authorized by McNamara involves a careful examination of all of the New Jersey's co­cooned equipment and machinery and a close look at the ship’s structure. This study is ex­pected to produce an estimate of the time and money it would take to deploy her.

He had no cost estimate, but there have been reports that some Navy experts believe it would take $25 million to do the job of readying the New Jersey for battle.

Under McNamara’s order, the Navy has conducted several paper studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of battleships and cruis­ers and battleships and tactical air power under various conditions. On 1 August, the Pentagon announced that the 45,000-ton New Jersey will be reactivated at Philadelphia for $27 million. She will be ready within a year.

Navy Needs Another Jet Fighter

{Wall Street Journal, 2 June 1967) Influential admirals told Congress the Navy needs an­other new jet fighter to fly missions for which General Dynamics Corporation’s F-111B is not suitable. Some said the best bet may be McDonnell-Douglas Corporation’s proposed swing-wing version of the F-4 Phantom, to­day s work-horse of the fleet’s air arm.

Under current Defense Department plans, the fixed-wing Navy Phantom would be phased out of production after fiscal 1968 which begins July 1. But it is known that Mc- onnell-Douglas has been working with the ^aval Air Systems Command to develop a ° low-on model incorporating the swivel wing eneral Dynamics pioneered for the contro­versial and costly F-l 1 IB.

Adm. T. F. Connolly, Deputy Chief of • aval Operations for Air, says he is “in­trigued” by McDonnell-Douglas’ plans. And ear Adm. R. L. Townsend, Chief of the - aval Air Systems Command, doesn’t see ^an>' reason why the Navy couldn’t order more Phantoms in 1969, keeping production ^lnes open for transition to the swing wing.

ut one ranking civilian official sounds ess enthusiastic. “McDonnell came in and "‘ade a pitch,” this Navy official remarks, ^a ding; “The proposal is being looked at but s not a live proposition at the moment. ’ f he admirals’ comments were made in testimony given in April, but not released un­! yesterday, to the House Defense Appropria- !°^ns Subcommittee. Adm. Connolly in par­ticular was complimentary toward General ynamics’ F-l t ib, prompting suggestions from ^Publican committee members that the air ^d mirals were softening earlier criticism in exchange for assurances from Defense Secre­cy McNamara that he would let them buy Vet another carrier-based fighter.

omewhat surprisingly, in view of earlier ^secretiveness, Pentagon censors let stand an \^C|^nowledgment that cost of the F-l 1 IB had j.^a °°ned to almost three times the $4 mil- y?mp^er"PUne _estj_{mate Q}£ £952, the year Mr.

^c N amara overruled nearly unanimous mili­ary advice to choose Boeing Company as the •niff ^{C COntractor}- The new estimate of $11 , ^{lon to} $12 million a plane includes, among _r . ^{Cr C}°^sts f°^r which General Dynamics is not ^esponsible, unanticipated costs of the Phoe­nix missile, being developed by Hughes Air­craft Company as the chief armament of the F-l 1 IB. Later the Pentagon issued a statement attributing part of the additional per-plane cost to a smaller total of planned purchases, which boosts unit costs.

Adm. Connolly, who became Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air in December, ex­pressed confidence that the heavier-than-ex- pected F-l 1 IB would nonetheless “land on a carrier like a lady” after all improvements have been incorporated. Full testing of the plane and its complex missile-control system won’t be completed for perhaps another year; the craft has not yet flown from or landed on an aircraft carrier.

Funds for the Air Force aren’t being con­tested; the Air Force regards its version as “highly acceptable.” But several Congress­men say they can’t understand why McNamara wants to buy the unproved Navy plane.

As Adm. Connolly expressed it, the F-lllB can be viewed as a high-flying “missile shooter” standing guard far from the fleet rather than a fighter in the ordinary sense. As a consequence, he said, there’s an “absolute” need to develop an advanced fighter for attack, escort and other duties. One “highly feasible” possibility, according to Adm. Con­nolly, is McDonnell-Douglas’ proposed swing­wing Phantom. “I’m not prepared to count out the F-4 yet,” he said.

NAVAL BOOKS AVAILABLE

Many hundreds have responded to our earlier Proceedings ads. They are still with us as satisfied customers and continue to receive our bi-monthly catalogs, which list scarce, elusive and interesting books on the navy, ships, the sea, whaling, etc. For your free copy of our large (over 500 items) catalog, write to . . .

ANTHEIL BOOKSELLERS

Dept. P, 2177 Isabelle Court

No. Bellmore, New York, 11710 ILarge and small naval book collections purchased)

Though not necessarily sharing the Admi­ral’s enthusiasm for the Phantom, Navy civil­ian officials do not rule out the possibility that the McDonnell-Douglas plane could meet specifications for a joint Navy-Air Force fighter, dubbed VFAX-FX, that is beginning to

emerge from Pentagon drawing boards. Secre­tary McNamara allocated $4 million in the fiscal 1968 budget to continue the plane’s “concept formulation.”

s Navy Deep-Sea Search Units Urged (Evert Clark in The New York Times, 28 May 1967) A special study group has urged the Navy to form immediately two fast, mobile units that could recover hydrogen bombs or other lost objects from the ocean floor. The group said “many objects of value to the United States” now lie in the ocean depths.

Speed in retrieving such objects is “manda­tory” to keep “foreign national or commercial interests” from reaching them first, the group said. This is the primary recommendation growing out of a 15-month analysis of the Navy’s recovery of a hydrogen bomb off the coast of Spain last year.

The analysis was made by the Chief of Naval Operations’ Technical Advisory Group. A final report consists of 1,200 pages in four volumes.

The advisory group urged a number of short and long-range steps to give the nation both a military deep-sea recovery capability and the ability to have civilian organizations do the work “where direct Navy participation might not be appropriate.” The Navy has been working since the nuclear submarine Thresher was lost in 1963 to develop a deep sea search, rescue and recovery capability.

But the study group said that interim teams should be formed now. One each for the Atlantic and Pacific, using existing vessels and recovery gear. Meanwhile, work on more advanced diving vessels, manned and un­manned, by the Navy’s Deep Submergence Systems project office should be accelerated, the group said.

In all, the Palomares operation required 3,000 Navy men and 33 Navy vessels, not counting the ships, planes and people needed to transport equipment to the site. The bomb was lost on Jan. 17, 1966, from an Air Force B-52 bomber, that collided with a tanker while refueling. The recovery took 80 days, during which the bomb was found and then lost again several times.

Last summer, the President’s science ad­visory committee expressed a concern for ur­gency about recovery capability similar to that in the Navy group’s report. The Presi­dential panel said in a report on oceanography that there would be a continuing need to re­trieve “objects related to the national de­fense.” These would include submarines with survivors aboard, weapons systems and data capsules and hardware and debris needed either for diagnostic purposes or because of economic considerations, the panel said.

Since the hydrogen bomb recovery, nine experimental torpedoes have been retrieved from a depth of 3,000 feet off St. Croix, V. I., in the Caribbean and “a classified test shape” has been recovered from the Atlantic, accord­ing to the Navy report. In both cases, im­provisation of the recovery work was “still very much in evidence,” the analysts said.

s Study Leads to Better Rescue Aircraft

{Aviation Daily, 23 May 1967) A Navy study due out June 15 will clear the way for the services to acquire improved aerial rescue vehicles. The Air Force has already outlined its needs and completion of the Navy study will enable the two to be matched and a single best package to be procured, Pentagon sources said last week.

A joint board is expected to have recom­mendations by fall but procurement may not be started immediately since an advanced de­sign could be the result, it was learned.

In the meantime, the military is not only upgrading present helicopter forces but is conducting a technical evaluation of com­pound helicopters and V/STOLs for use within the next three to five years. For the present the Air Force will introduce the HH- 53B helicopter into Vietnam by August. A modified version of the Marine Corps heavy assault helicopter, it has more powerful en­gines, inflight refueling gear, armor plate, Doppler navigation, an internal hoist and sup­pressive fire weapons as well as a top speed of 190 mph.

The general feeling seems to be that the HH-53 is the best craft that can be expected for the time being because V/STOLs and com­pound helicopters have not been proved fully successful yet. However, the Pentagon is being pressured to move faster by Rep. Daniel J. Flood (D-Pa.) who told Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in a recent House appro­priations hearing, “Really, we needed some-

® Navy Concept for Force Support Ship

(Michael Getler in Technology Week, 22 May 67) A new Landing Force Support Ship ^FSS) designed to bring improved barrage ^r°ckets, long range Naval guns, and ship-to- sunface guided missiles to bear in support of 1 arine amphibious assaults—is shaping up within the Navy.

The vessel, though still in the concept for- 11111 ^at*°n stage of development, is seen as the !!^Cxt most likely project to follow along the total package procurement” lines for Navy j *P^S in the fashion of the Fast Deployment ogistic Ship (FDLS) program, the large Dx /hibious assault ship (LHA), and the new • / DXG destroyer project. If the program is _i PP^royed by the Dept, of Defense for move- ’J7 lnt0 the contract definition phase (CDP) ot'clopment, requests for proposals to in- "stry f_or d_esig_n; development and produc-

'^4

4>i

i

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

/

/

)

)

thing last night.” Flood said the Piasecki ompany could start producing its 16H Path- tuder compound helicopter within 18 months ^{at a cos}t of $13 million for 18 to 20 of the new craft.

t°n estimates will go out in Fiscal Year 1969. in        ^Nayy Planning estimates place the

ten" ^{XT s}ltiP^s required at between five and > and the total cost of the program at be­tween $200-400 million. The CDP is expected sc- l^{3St a}^^{out one} year, with a three-year full- o ^{a e} development period to follow. Initial erating capability is expected in the 1973- /5 Period.

th ^A,^,n0nS ^t^^le weapon system candidates for ^e LFSS are:

jy* Navy-modified version of the Army’s to • 7^,m- '^lowi^tzer, roughly equivalent in size mil* - ^lnc^ ^naval gun, has a range of about 20 _ar^CS' ^ ^very important feature is the high, rou'ⁿ^ ^trai^ectory achieved with the 175-mm. _tr .^{n s}’ jⁿ comparison to the relatively flat ^sfioiTr]^OIaeS characteristic of naval guns. This hivh ^aH°^w attacking targets well beyond 1 ^lcrrain near the assault area. odi ^neW ^^arrag^e rocket, already in devel- and"'^nt’ ³^^e t0 double the 10,000-yard range ^lncrease the accuracy of 5-inch rockets _su currently operate in the ship-to-shore to s °^{Pt r}°^^e' ^{new wea}P^on would be used •'^Th ^neutrah^zation-type area fire.

n^e Landing Force Support Weapon

(Sea Lance), or possibly a completely new and comparatively small inertially-guided Navy shore bombardment ballistic missile.

Tests of Sea Lance, a modification of the Army-LTV-developed field missile, have been going on at the Army’s White Sands Missile Range, and Navy officers admit that accuracy demonstrated thus far in the simulated ship firings has been quite good.

With Lance aboard an LFSS, officers say that enemy surface-to-air missile sites as far inland as 40-60 miles could be taken out from off-shore batteries. With use of the extended range version of the missile, now in develop­ment, these ranges could probably be ex­tended to 100 miles.

The Marines, among the most ardent sup­porters of Lance for the LFSS, believe the weapon will be useful against a variety of enemy targets and troop and hardware con­centrations normally beyond the range of Naval guns.

In addition to offensive armament, the LFSS may well be equipped with some light­weight 3-inch or 5-inch antiaircraft guns and a Point Defense Missile System for protection against air strikes. Also, because the rocket fire role will bring it relatively close to the beach, new and reportedly highly advanced armor plate may be used. The principal studies now under way by the Navy on the LFSS concept are due to be completed this summer, in time to allow inclusion of CDP funds in the FY 1969 budget request if the project appears to be feasible. These studies are being carried out by the Center for Naval Analysis, the Naval Ship Systems Command and the Ordnance Systems Command.

NEW SHIP MODELS

Waterline 1:1250 Scale

New NAVIS. HANSA. DELPHIN, MERCATOR and VIK­ING-COPY models now in stock, highly detailed, hand painted, many American prototypes.

New complete catalog now available for 350 HANSA Fleet Data 250, plus the following naval books: German Warships of World War II, 168 pp.                     $5 95

U.S. Warships of World War II, 442 pp.                                              (^95

Japanese Warships of World War II, 400 pp.                                     7 95

Warships of World War I, comb. vol.

Warships of World War II, comb. vol.                                                 §'75

Wever’s Flottentaschenbuch 1066-67                                              15 95

Groener's Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945                        25.00

NATHAN R. PRESTON & CO.

P.O. Box 187—Des Plaines, Illinois 60017 * Immediate Delivery

Other U. S. Services

0 Computer to Aid C. G. Forecasts

(The New York Times, 28 May 1967) The Coast Guard’s annual vigil over ice dangerous to shipping in the North Atlantic promises to become an easier task in the future, according to the commanding officer of the service’s International Ice Patrol.

Cmdr. John F. Murray, in an interview at patrol headquarters at Governors Island, said the service was studying the feasibility of applying computer techniques to the laborious and now manually performed task of process­ing data on winds, currents and water temper­atures in a continuing effort to forecast ice drift and ice melting rates. Information on these factors comes into patrol headquarters regularly from ice observation flights, made by a Coast Guard aircraft based at Argentia, Nfld., and from ships at sea.

“With the eventual aid of a computer,” Commander Murray said, “We will be able to process more data and will be in a better

NAVY MUTUAL AID

ASSOCIATION

Membership Provides

$12,000 TOTAL DEATH BENEFITS

$7500 Primary Death Benefit (available from five permanent membership plans)

$4500 Additional Death Benefit

No War Restrictions Membership does not terminate upon retire­ment, discharge, or release from active duty. Amount of Benefits Not Affected by Increase

in Age VALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO BENEFICIARIES (Accredited by VA to represent survivors) IMMEDIATE LOAN SERVICE (Membership accrues cash and loan values) ALL Active Duty Officers of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard are eligible to apply Membership over 50,000 Assets more than $96,000,000

NAVY MUTUAL AID

ASSOCIATION

Navy Dept., Washington, D. C. 20370

Since 1879

Write for Further Information and Brochure position to predict more accurately ice be­havior in the Grand Banks area off Newfound­land.” The patrol’s activities are controlled here for the first time since the patrol was established by the Coast Guard in 1914.

The heart of the headquarters is staffed by five officers and enlisted men. The operations room has a large wall map, on which is plotted the most recent information on icebergs south of Labrador as well as the daily positions of vessels in the area.

The ice data on this chart are forwarded daily to the Navy Oceanographic Office in Washington for daily dissemination to the maritime industry, and to Argentia for dis­tribution by radio facsimile via the Coast Guard radio station NIK to ships at sea equipped with facsimile receiving gear. The facsimile chartlet provides ships with up-to- date information on ice likely to be en­countered in the fog-shrouded waters off the Grand Banks.

s C. G. Increases Its Role in Vietnam

(Peter Shays in The Christian Science Monitor, 25 May 1967) The arrival of three U. S. Coast Guard ships in Vietnam during the past week, with two more on the way, has been disclosed here. A spokesman said the five ships will patrol off the coast and inter­cept any vessels suspected of supplying Viet Cong forces ashore.

U. S. Navy ships previously carrying out this function will reportedly be used for shore bombardment in support of ground troops.

Though the Coast Guard has been in Viet­nam since the spring of 1965, the arrival of these 311-foot ships—each with a crew of about 150—more than doubles the number of Coast Guardsmen on duty in the Indochina area. Up to now, Coast Guard forces have served three functions in Vietnam:

• Some 26 patrol boats have been blocking the movement of men and materials from North Vietnam south along the coast. Each of these 82-foot boats has a crew of 12, includ­ing one Vietnamese liaison officer. Each is armed with an undisclosed number of 50- caliber machine guns and 81-mm. mortars.

• Some 19 dangerous-cargo specialists have been supervising the loading and un­loading of explosives at several Vietnam ports. Some of these men, with additional

Gaining in port security, have been serving ^as advisers to other military units in the more active ports.

• (Joast Guardsmen have been building °ur Loran (Long Range Aid to Navigation) stations—three in Thailand and one in Viet­nam to provide an air-sea system of radio ^S1gnals by which allied navigators can de­termine their positions during times of poor ' ^ls'bility. Each Loran station will be manned y an average of 24 Coast Guardsmen.

The Coast Guard also has been maintaining ^an administrative staff in Saigon. And buoy tenders have been making periodic stops in ^letnam to service aids to navigation.

0 Army’s Portable, Inflatable Hospital

\^Navy Times, 7 June 1967) One of the newest innovations in emergency field medicine ^Ccl^uipment is being checked here now and soon will be sent to Vietnam.

^rhe equipment, called MUST No. 1 and - °- 2 for Medical Unit Self-Contained, is a complete field hospital unit of 50 beds, which j;^a.n heli-lifted to a battle zone. It arrives " y operative, including sterilization. Addi- °ⁿally, MUST provides a controlled environ- '^lent for hospital cleanliness, including con- ^ant temperature and humidity controlled teosphere free of dust or contamination.

he units are divided into three sections; ^X£?^n<i^abl^e, inflatable and utility.

• . J^lc expandable element is a collapsible, j'J'¹, 'Panel shelter that can be erected into a . y ^8-foot room, ready for use in 30 to 45 u r]^UteS ^ⁿ'^{ts con}tain four sections: two are as operating rooms, one for supply Tl?⁶’- th^c other as a dental clinic, f , . ^e Inflatable section is a double-walled _roQ^{ric s}helter erected into a 22 by 52-foot _Un°^{m use}d primarily as a hospital ward. Most _Us * ^s contain five of these sections which are ca^ ^{aS rece}^^vlng and disposition wards, surgi- p„n^Warc^^{s an}d laboratory, pharmacy, X-ray

^and cast rooms.

. ^e ntility section is a power package h_e^suPPhes electrical power, refrigeration, p ⁿ.S’ air circulation, water heating and ping, and air pressure for the inflatable

elements.

the*¹ 311 ^e^^{ort to} simulate combat conditions, jp_e f.^{ntlre u}nit was erected and equipped with ^lca supplies, beds, and surgical and den­tal instruments. Within minutes after the power was turned on, the unit was inflated and ready for use. With the power off the in­flatable sections slowly deflated until they resemble stacks of tractor tires.

Units currently are being used by the Army in Vietnam. Lt. Richard Boyle, officer-in­charge of MUST No. 1, who will take the unit to Vietnam, said “The unit costs in the neigh­borhood of one million dollars but it promises to revolutionize field medicine.”

Maritime General

S3 Lykes Seabarge Model Shown

(Helen Delich Bentley in Baltimore Sun, 15 June 1967) Details of the world’s newest all­purpose cargo ships—the highly touted and heralded seabarge carriers—were revealed publicly tonight in Washington officialdom and shipbuilders by Lykes Brothers Steam­ship Company.

As a working model of the new ocean giants was unveiled by the company’s two top execu­tives, they also invited American shipyards to bid on the construction of three of the sea- barges, each of which will consist of a mother ship and a fleet of barges.

Members of the House Merchant Marine Committee and the Senate Commerce Com­mittee were on hand along with Defense De­partment and Maritime Administration offi­cials to hear an explanation of the operation details and performance expectations of the vessels as commercial carriers and as standby units in meeting any military or economic emergency facing the country.

ARMSTRONG

WRENCHES

Over 100 types, each, in all sizes. Drop forged, carbon and alloy steels. Open end, socket, box socket, detachable socket, hol­low screw and other types.

Write for Catalog

ARMSTRONG BROS. TOOL. CO.

5226 W. Armstrong Ave. Chicago 46, U.S.A.

standard 8x8x20 feet size. ,. equivalent to approximately 1,500,000

^c"nic f_eet of _carg0.

1 hi ’ '

This is

e ship also is designed to carry special b^ydift cargo of up to 2,000 tons and can

^To be called the Seabee Class after the • S. Navy Seabee battalions which gained ante in World War II and which are ob­serving their twenty-fifth anniversary this War, the ships will be 875 feet in length, 106 eet in beam and 75 feet wide.

These will be giant ships, no matter how ^{you m}easure them. They will be the largest ass of common-carrier cargoliners ever ^Ul And they’ll cross the ocean at 20 knots ^r, ^etter. Together with the barge outfits and ^ot er facilities they will represent a total ex­penditure of about $90,000,000,” Lykes presi­dent Frank A. Nemec said. q he Lykes officials explained that the new ^{ea e}es can carry either 38 fully loaded barges neasuring 97.5 f_eet i_ong ancj 35 f_{eet w}ide, or

otal of between 1,500 and 1,600 cargo con­tainers of the

ivy-lift

u . . vehicles, roll-on roll-off cargo and ^^ed loads with equal facility. In addition lj_{^ . ''hip can carry about 15,000 tons of _th^)Ul cargo in its deep tanks. It is estimated i ^ ^each carrier can be loaded or discharged *0.5 hours.

rj_er biggest advantage of the Seabee car- the ^ *^{tS Un}P^recedented flexibility in carrying in']' ^COrnPLtc spectrum of commercial and bj ^ary ^cargoes as they become available, time ^CC‘^Sa^" °^{nly l}h^ree days cargo handling _r    1:16 required for the ship on a typical

the ° 1^'^ ^voy^aS^e using two loading ports on j hu f and five discharge points abroad. _at^{n a}ddition, the ship does not have to dock in ^rC^'d^ar berths in a port, but can anchor its b? P^rotected or semi-protected area where _eli_ii)⁾.^arT^e.^{s ca}n be loaded and unloaded, thus and ^lnf^t'ⁿ£ P°^rt congestion, dock limitations,

_Pv; . ° ^er Problems normally encountered by

listing _Ship_s.

(j-< ‘*vantiah Kept in Service adini ■^eW Times, 21 June 1967) The that ^reversed itself and has agreed

i_{n Q}^e .clear Ship Savannah should be kept July       during the year that begins

that th ^rcs'dent Johnson’s budget proposed the e ^e vessel be kept out of operation during 6 ^Com‘ug fiscal year.

“But where will I get the electronics men to maintain it?”

Because of the severe shortage of technically- qualified military personnel, new and complex electronic equipment is frequently received with mixed emotions.

Chances are you're engaged in a continuing effort to improve the technical competency of your en­listed personnel. CREI can help you in this task as it has helped officers since 1927.

CREI Home Study Programs give your men an opportunity to acquire technical knowledge beyond the scope of military courses. They 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 man who enrolls in a CREI Program studies on his own time and pays his own tuition. The cost to the Armed Forces is nothing.

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.

J. W. Gulick, acting Maritime Administra­tor in the Department of Commerce, an­nounced the switch at a hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The House of Representatives voted funds to continue operation of the ship. “In view of the great interest shown in the continued operation of the Savannah, we have reconsidered our position and concluded that, on balance, the vessel should be kept in operation through fiscal 1968,” Gulick said. The original decision brought protests from Congress and the maritime industry.

Foreign

S8 Australia Builds Naval Base

(Shipbuilding and Shipping Record, 18 May 1967) The Australian Navy will spend $3.5 million (Aust.) building a patrol boat base on Manus Island, north of Papua-New Guinea, during the next two years. The island will be used as headquarters for five of the Navy’s 20 new patrol boats being built in Australia. A Navy spokesman said in Canberra that the first of

The first fully detailed account of the icebreaker Northwind's polar adventure exploring the forbidden Northeast Passage

ACROSS THE TOP OF RUSSIA

by Richard Petrow

The author, a veteran reporter and former Coast Guard officer, sailed aboard the Northwind on her historic mission to explore and traverse the arctic passage from the At­lantic to the Pacific that is blocked by the Russians. With a careful eye for detail, he tells the story of the adventurous voyage in 1965 that turned into an explosive interna­tional incident.

"Good both from a scientific point of view and an engrossing true-adventure story."

— Publishers' Weekly $6.95 at your bookstore

DAVID McKAY COMPANY, INC., N.Y. 10017 the new boats for Manus Island would be launched at the end of this month. The island, in the Territory of Papua-New Guinea, is a former U. S. war base. Since 1949 it has been used by the Navy mainly as a fuel base.

The $3.5 million will be spent on im­proving buildings and facilities. The Navy plans to have most of this work well under way before the end of the year. The five boats will be manned by crews from Papua-New Guinea working under Australian command. Each boat will have a complement of 19 men. They and maintenance crews will be housed on the island. The Navy is building a school and complete facilities as well as a new slipway with an 11-ton crane, fuel installations and a headquarters building. The base is unlikely to be able to take other naval vessels such as Oberon-class submarines and Charles F. Adams- class destroyers.

s Huge Lisbon Drydock Opens

{The New York Times, 18 June 1967) Europe’s largest drydock and repair facilities, built on 75 acres of marsh in the Tagus estuary across from Lisbon, was formally opened here on 23 June. More than 7,000 guests were invited to the inaugural ceremony of the Lisnave shipyard, including Adm. Americo Rodrigues Thomaz, the President of Portugal, members of the Government, bankers and shipowners as well as the yard’s personnel.

The program featured the entry of a heavy tanker into the drydock, which is 1,100 feet long, 177 feet wide and 40 feet deep, and can receive the largest existing tankers and ore carriers.

A special advantage of Lisbon as a ship- repair center, according to experts, is that tankers from Northern Europe can perform gas-freeing and tank-washing operations dur­ing the three-to-four-day sailing time here, thereby saving port costs. Lisnave will begin operations with two drydocks, one for ships up to 100,000 dead weight tons and the other up to 300,000 tons. Initially, the drydocks had been planned for 65,000-ton ships, but this was changed with the tremendous increase in the size of tankers in recent years.

A second phase of the project calls for the construction of a third drydock for ships of more than 100,000 tons and the reclamation of further 50 acres of land.