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.
U. S. Navy Considers Building Naval Base at Diego Garcia
(Dana Adams Schmidt in The Christian Science Monitor, 29 January 1974)
The U. S. Navy now finds it necessary to maintain a permanent and substantial presence in the Indian Ocean.
This significant shift in U. S. global strategy was triggered by the October war in the Middle East and is likely to continue as long as the energy crisis continues. But it has not been announced as such, according to knowledgeable Pentagon sources, because it could stimulate competition with the Soviet Union in these waters and is frowned upon by some of the countries in the area, notably India.
It is closely related to an added point of sensitivity represented by Navy plans to ask Congress for $20 million to develop the joint Anglo-American communications center on Diego Garcia,[1] a coral island close to the middle of the Indian Ocean, 1,200 miles southwest of Ceylon and the tip of India. The goal is a naval base capable of supporting the American presence. The Navy wants to lengthen the airport runway, deepen the lagoon that forms a natural harbor, and install fuel-storage tanks.
Another reason the Navy wants to develop Diego Garcia, in spite of Indian objections, is that the lease on its small facility at Bahrein, an island in the Persian Gulf, north and west of Diego Garcia, may expire in October 1974. The
ruling sheikh, who canceled the lease in the heat of the October war, now says he would like the Americans to stay. But anti-American demonstrations that already have taken place on the heavily populated island make the further usefulness of the facility questionable.
The two destroyers and command ship now based at Bahrein bear the grand name of Middle East Force.
Diego Garcia, 2,000 miles (two full steaming days) south of the critical Straits of Hormuz, through which every Persian Gulf oil tanker has to pass, is not the perfect substitute for Bahrein. The Navy would prefer something on the coast of Pakistan, but this appears to be politically excluded by Indian objections.
The first symbol of the new American presence in the wider reaches of the Indian Ocean was the aircraft carrier Hancock, which was detached from the Seventh Fleet during the October war. It was followed by the carrier Oriskany which remained until a few weeks ago and was relieved by the nuclear frigate Rainbridge as part of a task force including three destroyers and two oilers.
According to still unconfirmed reports, the Bainbridge will be followed in due course by the recently refitted 80,000-ton Kitty Hauk. The Kitty Hawk or a similar carrier may be expected to be in the Indian Ocean about the time the Suez Canal is reopened, probably in about six months, thereby giving the Soviet fleet easy access to an area where the Russians at present maintain 20 to 30 ships, most of them operating out of Vladivostok.
The strategic effect of reopening Suez for the Russians may be illustrated by
the fact that whereas Bahrein in the Persian Gulf is at present about 11,000 miles distant from Black Sea ports by sea around the Cape of Good Hope, or one of the most distant points on the globe for the Russians, it will now be only 2,200 miles away.
One of the Soviet ships expected to traverse the canal is the new Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev, which has a displacement of 45,000 tons but a draft of only 32 feet.
The Kiev is the Soviet Union’s first full-fledged carrier. She is now undergoing sea trials in the Black Sea and is expected by students of Soviet naval affairs to venture out through the Bosporus into the Mediterranean in the early fall.
Navy Planning Large Outlay For Its ASW Research Program
(Drew Middleton in The New York Times, 17 January 1974)
The Navy will spend an average of $3.6-billion a year over the next five years on antisubmarine warfare in search of weapons, ships, aircraft, and sensors to counter the expanding Soviet undersea fleet, according to a leading technological market research organization.
The research organization. Frost & Sullivan, reports that the Navy will carry out between now and 1978 more than 40 programs specifically related to antisubmarine warfare. Expenditures will reach a peak of slightly more than $4-billion in Fiscal Year 1975, it says.
The seriousness of the Soviet threat was underscored recently by a senior
Notebook 123
naval officer who admitted "serious reservations” about the United States ability to provide adequate protection in a war for large convoys sailing from North America to Europe.
Another reason for concern is the steady growth of Soviet ballistic missile submarines.
According to the Defense Department the Russians are developing a nuclear-powered submarine expected to carry 16 ballistic missiles—compared with 12 missiles on the present Delta class—each with a range of 4,000 miles.
Navy sources refused comment on the Frost & Sullivan report. They noted, however, that a similar report issued two years ago had been substantially accurate.
Antisubmarine warfare is highly technical. It involves the development of sea and air vehicles; of underwater, airborne'and surface sensors that can locate submarines and of new weapons.
Developments in these areas result from long-term research in general physics, oceanography, terrestrial science, and mechanics.
Some of the new ships and aircraft in the antisubmarine warfare program can perform other missions in addition to hunting submarines. These include such vessels as the DD-963 Spruance-chss destroyers and the SSN-688 nuclear-attack submarines.
But by 1975, the Navy hopes to acquire ships whose main task will be antisubmarine warfare. These will include patrol frigates and hydrofoil missile ships.
The major aircraft now involved in the program are the P-3C and the S-3A.
Ships and aircraft are the major element in the program’s cost. Their cost for fiscal 1974 is estimated at $2.47- billion and is expected to rise to $3.195- billion in 1975.
The most innovative vessels in the program are a hydrofoil missile ship, a small helicopter carrier, and a high-speed vessel called the surface-effect ship.
The first two hydrofoil ships, designed to operate primarily in enclosed and coastal waters, will be tested this year and next. Their ability to operate at high speeds is expected to reduce the vulnerability of shipping in inshore waters. In World War II, every British battleship, carrier, cruiser, or submarine
sunk or damaged by enemy submarines was in coastal waters.
The hydrofoils will operate at much higher speeds than ordinary ships. Grumman Aerospace Corporation claims a maximum speed of 50 knots for its 83.5-ton super Flagstaff.
The hydrofoils will be armed with the Harpoon antiship missiles and guns, and will be able to carry a wide range of antisubmarine sensors and weapons.
Italy and West Germany are sharing in design and development costs of the hydrofoil program.
Naval officers are enthusiastic about a 14,000-ton carrier equipped with helicopters and other short-takeoff-and- landing aircraft. The primary mission of the vessel, termed a sea control ship, will be protection of convoys and task forces unescorted by orthodox carriers.
To the Navy, the ship provides capabilities beyond its antisubmarine role, such as air surveillance, surface attack, air interception, limited ground attack and antiship missile defense.
Frost & Sullivan’s report, based on data from the Navy and from manufacturers, concluded that the small carrier offers "significant advantages unmatched by any other system.”
The third vessel being tested is the surface effect ship, which travels on a cushion of air at speeds of better than 80 knots. Two 100-ton, surface effect vessels that are now being tested are driven by waterjet propellors mounted in the stern. Powerful engines drive the waterjet pumps as well as the lift fans that maintain the air cushion.
Congress is not as enthusiastic as the Navy about the vessel. Critics in Congress feel that the ship will duplicate the roles of other vessels and that the two test ships have encountered major technical problems that have not been solved.
The more conventional vehicles in the antisubmarine program include the patrol frigate, an escort ship smaller and cheaper than existing frigates, and destroyers. A 50-ship program is planned.
The frigate will be a gas-turbine- propelled vessel of about 1,500 tons capable of defending convoys, amphibious forces and supply forces.
The Spruance-chss destroyers and the SSN-688 (Los Angeles-class) nuclear attack submarines are multipurpose weapons.
There will be 30 Spruances if the Navy requests are met. But by the end of 1974, there will be only 74 operational attack submarines, 31 fewer than at the end of 1968. This decline is offset by a substantial increase in nuclear-powered submarines; 62 are planned for the end of 1974, compared with 33 at the end of fiscal 1968.
The primary mission of the highspeed P-3C patrol aircraft is to detect, to classify, to track, and to destroy conventional and nuclear submarines (of the 1968 to 1980 period), to conduct long- range patrols, to escort convoys and to act as coordinator between other ships and planes in an action.
The P-3C is a land-based, four-engine turboprop plane. Its antisubmarine systems include acoustical data processing, radar, low-light-level television, and electronic countermeasures.
By 1980, the Navy hopes to have 15 P-3C and nine P-3B squadrons in operation. Eventually, the P-3B will be phased out and there will be an all-P-3C active force.
The S-3A antisubmarine plane is carrier-based. It is designed for search-and- attack missions and to protect high priority operations. It is a subsonic, all-weather, long-range jet, with a weapons system controlled by a general purpose digital computer.
124 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 1974
proof that Moscow was showing a "great deal of vigor” in developing new strategic weapons.
The Defense Department is expected to stress such Soviet weapons developments in the months ahead as it seeks to defend an increased Military budget calling for continued construction of the Sl-billion Trident submarines and development of new strategic warheads.
Defense officials said it was becoming increasingly evident that the Soviet Union was intent on building missilelaunching submarines up to the maximum level permitted under the interim agreement of 1973 with the United States on strategic weapons. This was seen as the main reason that the Soviet Union had decided to move to a larger class of missile submarines.
The new class of submarines was described as somewhat larger than the Delta class, which joined the Soviet fleet in 1972. But the key difference is that the new class is expected to carry 16 ballistic missiles with a range of 4,000 miles compared with 12 on the Delta- class submarines.
The five-year interim agreement in essence placed a ceiling on the number of offensive missiles that each side could possess. The Soviet Union, by dismantling some of its older missile submarines and land-based missiles, is permitted to build up to 62 submarines carrying 950 missiles. If it had continued with construction of the Delta class, with its 12 missiles, it would not have been able to reach the maximum of 950 missiles without exceeding the limit on the number of submarines. Defense Department officials have concluded that Moscow has decided to move to a larger class of submarine carrying more missiles to have the maximum number of submarines and missiles permitted under the agreement.
At the time of the arms-limitations agreement last spring, the Soviet Union had about 45 missile submarines in operation or under construction, including 31 carrying 16 missiles with a 1,500-mile range. At present, according to Pentagon estimates, it has slightly more than 50 missile submarines in operation or under construction.
The United States now has 41 missile-launching submarines—15 of the original Polaris class, 20 of the new Poseidon class, and six being converted to carry the 2,800-mile Poseidon missile. The Soviet submarine missiles are so far equipped only with single warheads, while the United States submarine missiles have multiple independently tar- getable warheads, known as MIRV. So, while the United States submarine fleet has 656 missiles, it can deliver far more warheads than the Soviet fleet.
By trading in its 54 Titan land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, the United States, under the interim agreement, can have up to 44 submarines carrying 710 missiles. Looking ahead to replacement of the older Polaris boats as well as the expansion of the missile submarine fleet, the Navy is speeding up construction of the larger Trident class of submarine, each of which will probably carry 24 missiles with a 4,500-mile range.
I
A Naval Institute Press Book
(Please use book order form in Professional Reading section)
List Price: SI 5.00 Member’s Price: $12.00
Add 50© to each order for postage and handling
The third in the United States Naval Institute Series in Oceanography, OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENTATION, is intended to serve as a bridge between the disciplines of oceanography and electronics. Its purpose is to acquaint marine scientists with some of the problems faced by the instrument designers, and to motivate electronics engineers to learn more about the marine environment.
Although individual components are discussed, the emphasis is on systems. The entire chain, from the sensor to the final data analysis, is examined as a whole. Primary emphasis is given to instrumentation concerned with the physical and geological processes of the marine environment—those instruments capable of producing quantitative information.
1973. 414 pages. Illustrated.
More worrisome than the new Soviet missile submarine to some defense officials are the long-term implications of
Notebook 125
the Soviet Union’s expansion of its shipyards for building nuclear-powered submarines.
With one yard on its north coast near Murmansk and another on its Pacific coast near Vladivostok, the Soviet Union, according to Navy officials, already has three times more submarine building capacity than the United States.
In recent years, the Soviet Union has been turning out nuclear powered submarines at the rate of about 12 a year— split about evenly between missile submarines and attack submarines. The United States is at present producing nuclear powered submarines at the rate of two a year. This is expected to climb to about five a year.
Italians Discuss Armament Used On. Board Soviet Ships
{Aviazione e Marina Internationale, No. 102, July-August 1973, pp. 60-61,
Italy)
Unlike the navies of the NATO member nations, and of Western countries in general, which are demonstrating a renewed interest in medium-caliber automatic guns with a high rate of fire for antiship and antiair purposes, the Soviets are continuing to arm their medium and large ships with 57-mm. and 76-mm twin mounts. This is not attributed to any Soviet deficiency or failures in this area, as witnessed by the completely stabilized 130-mm. and 100-mm. guns installed many years ago on the early Russian destroyers and on board the Sverdlov class cruisers.
Although perfectly capable of devel- oping guns comparable to or even better than those in the West, the Soviets continue to base their A A capability on missiles. Since the main mission confronting the Soviet Navy is not escorting convoys, patroling, or defending against high-speed patrol boats, but rather in attacking task forces of substantially greater strength, the missile is better suited for antiship purposes and for long-range interception of U. S. carrier-based aircraft. The 76-mm. automatic gun now on the Kynda, Kashin, Mirka, and Petya will therefore probably continue to be found on board Soviet ships. The estimated maximum eleva
tion of this gun is about 80°; maximum range is 16,000 meters against surface targets and 10,000 meters against aerial targets.
Marine Corps Developing Advanced V/STOL Aircraft
{Marine Corps Headquarters News Release DRL-13-74, 8 January 1974)
The Marine Corps is working on development of an advanced vertical short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft, based on current Harrier design. Such a move would increase the Corps’ light attack aircraft capability.
As planned, the new aircraft would have approximately double the payload of the present AV-sA Harrier, due chiefly to an increased wing size which would provide for greater fuel and ordnance capacity. The aircraft will sport an advanced weapons delivery system.
For the past year, the Marine Corps has been participating in a joint study between the United States and the
United Kingdom for possible development of an advanced Harrier. Although the United Kingdom would share development cost, the new Harrier would be manufactured in the United States.
Marine Corps officials have determined that future plans call for an all- V/STOL light attack force. The advanced Harrier would be introduced into the current force by the early 1980s. Achieving the all-V/STOL concept would make the A-4M Skyhawk the primary reserve light attack aircraft.
Soviet Ship Unloads Equipment At The Syrian Port Of Tartus
(Vodnyy Transport, 15 September 1973, p. 3, U.S.S.R.)
S14,5M
increased Death Benefits
LIFE INSURANCE PROTECTION Up $1,000 with no increase in membership cost
Membership provides permanent life insurance protection, with cash and loan values—not aflected by increase in age or release from active duty.
• Membership provides assistance, without cost, to beneficiaries in obtaining all federal benefits to which they may be legally entitled.
Our membership exceeds 58,000 members—and our assets are in excess of $160 million.
ALL ACTIVE DUTY OFFICERS OF THE NAVY, MARINE CORPS, COAST GUARD AND NOAA ARE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP.
Write For Further Information and Brochure
NAVY MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION
Navy Dept., Washington, D. C. 20370 • Phone: (202) OX 4-1638
Insurance Protection and Service
Recently, the steamship Kaluga of the Latvian Merchant Shipping Line called for the first time at the Syrian port of Tartus. Major embankments and new modern wharves with greater depths are being built there. The port is equipped
with good crane equipment and storage facilities.
Equipment for the Euphrates hydroengineering complex, being built with Soviet aid, trucks, tractors, and various construction equipment are being shipped from the Soviet Union through Tartus.
Polish Landing Craft Used For Commando Operations
(Soldat und Technik, No. 7, July 1973, p. 371, West Germany)
1
A previously unknown type of landing launch (Polish designation—Kuter Desantouy), which is obviously used for the transport of naval infantry, has been pictured several times recently in various Polish publications. Of course it does not have the usual landing craft equipment, bow and/or stern ramps, but instead does have an enclosed personnel transport space which apparently extends as far as the forecastle. Based on estimates, the boats have a length of 17 meters and a beam of about 4 meters. Evidently, the power boat can do 12 to 14 knots. It is assumed that about 15 to 25 naval infantrymen with their equipment can be accommodated. These boats are also suitable for surprise commando operations, since the)' are not easily recognizable as naval craft from their design. They can be completely mistaken for civilian craft, for example pilot boats, buoy tenders, and fireboats, but they carry pendant numbers like all Polish Navy ships.
Computer Procurement Strategy
EDP
Utilization Strategy
AUERBACH
PHILADELPHIA
WASHINGTON
ASSOCIATES. INC.
j
Changes in Status of Ships and Shore Establishments
Ships Commissioned: | Date: |
(DE-1094) Pharris | 1/26/74 |
(SSN-682) Tunny | 1/26/74 |
Ships Stricken: | Date: |
(DE-1035) Charles Berry | 1/31/74 |
Ships Transferred | |
to Naval Reserve Force: | Date: |
(dd-862) Vogelgesang | 1/31/74 |
2 Jan 1974
2 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974 1 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974 1 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974
2 Jan 1974
NEW YORK LONDON (215) 491-8200
Compiled by Commander J. B. Finkelstein, U. S. Navy 1-31 January 1974
U. S. Navy Shore Establishment— Facilities Established:
2 Jan 1974
Navy Publications and Printing Services Management Office, Washington, DC.
Human Resources Management Center, Washington, DC.
2 Jan 1974
Naval Regional Dental Center, Great Lakes, 111. Naval Reserve Personnel Center, New Orleans, La. (Developmental Status) Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Philadelphia,
Pa.
2 Jan 1974
Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Seattle, Wash. Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Cleveland,
Ohio
2 Jan 1974
Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Great Lakes,
III.
Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Denver, Colo.
U. S. Navy Shore Establishment— Facilities Modified:
2 Jan 1974
1 Jan 1974 Change Navy Publications
and Printing Service, Eastern Division, Philadelphia, Pa., to Navy Publications and Printing Service, Northern Division, Philadelphia, Pa.
j 9 Jan 1974
2 Jan 1974 Change Naval Electronics
Systems Command Activity, New Orleans, La., to Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Center, New Orleans, La.
Change Naval Electronics Systems Command Activity, Philadelphia, Pa., to Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Center, Philadelphia, Pa.
Change Naval Electronics Systems Command, Southeast Division, Charleston, S.C., to Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Center, Charleston, Charleston, S.C.
Change Naval Electronics Systems Command, Midwest Division, Great Lakes, 111., to Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Center, Great Lakes, Great Lakes, 111.
Change Naval Electronics Systems Command, Atlantic Division, Portsmouth, Va., to Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Center, Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Va.
Change Naval Electronics Systems Command, Southwest Division, San Diego, Calif., to Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Center, San Diego, San Diego, Calif.
Change Naval Electronics Systems Command, Western Division, Vallejo, Calif, to Naval Elecronics Systems Engineering Center, Vallejo, Vallejo, Calif Change Naval Electronics Systems Command, Washington Division, Washington, D.C. to Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Center, Washington, Washington, D.C. Change Naval Security Engineering Facility, Washington, D.C., to Naval Electronics Systems Security Engineering Center, Washington, D.C.
Change Naval Administrative Unit, Naval District, Washington, Washington, D.C. to Naval Administrative Unit, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Navy Shore Establishment— |
| ||
Facilities Disestablished: |
| ||
1 Jan 1974 | Navy Publications and Printing Service, Central Division, Great Lakes, 111. |
| |
1 Jan 1974 | Navy Publications and Printing Service, Northeast Division, Brooklyn, N.Y. |
| |
15 Jan 1974 | Commander Naval Air Reserve, Naval Air Station, Glenview, IE. |
| |
15 Jan 1974 | Commander Naval Surface Reserve, Fort Omaha, Omaha, Neb. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Examining Center, Great Lakes, 111. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Training Publications Center, Naval Air Station, Millington, Tenn. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Auburn, Calif. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Modesto, Calif. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, San Rafael, Calif. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Santa Cruz, Calif. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Santa Maria, Calif. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Yuba, Calif. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Wood River, Calif. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Iowa City, Iowa |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Danville, Ky. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Colts Neck, N.J. |
| |
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Norman, Okla. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Corvallis, Ore. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Grants Pass, Ore. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Brownwood, Tex. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, KingsviUe, Tex. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Lufkin, Tex. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, New Braunfels, Tex. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Charlottesville, Va. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, WaEa Walla, Wash. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Appleton, Wise. | ||
31 Jan 1974 | Naval Reserve Facility, Concord, Calif. | ||
31 Jan 1974 31 Jan 1974 31 Jan 1974 31 Jan 1974
Pass-Down-The-Line Notes
Notebook 127
*5$SVi-------------------
^ Waterline Ship Models ^
r 1:1250 Scale
I Over 1300 Models
Send for catalog listing for SI airmail, deductible from first order over S10.
We are now in full stock on all NAVIS, NEPTUN, MERCATOR, HANSA, DEL- PHIN, MERCURY, and many other brands. World’s largest stocks to select from; shipment the same day as order received.
Royal Oak 1939 Algerie 1932
Vincennes 1944 Verite 1907
Brooklyn 1940 Patrie 1903
Normandie
. . . and many others now in stock. Also many new- books. Write us today.
PRESTON HOBBY M0DELLE oHG
Postfach 2388 — 86 Bamberg. West Germany Model Trains. Model Aircraft. Remote Control, Model Ships. Everything in the Hobby field
Richard Winer is preparing a book, Flight Into the Unknown, about five Navy TBM aircraft that took off from i Fort Lauderdale Naval Air Station in ■ December 1945, and were never seen again. He is trying to locate certain officers who may have specific knowledge of the flight—Captain W. O. Burch, Jr., Commanders Howard S. Roberts, and Robert F. Cox, U. S. Navy (Retired). Anyone knowing the whereabouts of these officers, or anyone who may have served at Fort Lauderdale at that time should contact Richard Winer, 812 SW Fourth Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312.
Walter Lord is completing a book ; about coastwatchers in the Solomons campaign of World War II. He would like to get in touch with anyone who . had contact with a Coastwatcher during that time. Address correspondence to: Walter Lord, 116 East 68th Street, New York, New York 10021.
The Brodie Gear was tested in Sep- : tember 1943 at the Army’s New Orleans Field. This system for launching and recovering light planes from a taut wire was demonstrated, in December 1943, on board the MV City of Delhart. During : 1944, it was installed in several LSTs. In
Naval Reserve Facility, Dinuba, Calif.
Naval Reserve Facility, Hayward, Calif.
Naval Reserve Facility, Santa Rosa, Calif Naval Reserve Facility, Bradenton, Fla.
Addendum:
U. S. Navy Shore Establishment—
Facilities Modified:
15 Dec 1973 Change Naval Air Engineering Center, Philadelphia, Pa., to Naval Air Engineering Center, Lakehurst, N.J.
19 Dec 1973 Change Chief of Naval
Training Support, Pensacola, Fla., to Chief of Naval Education and Training Support, Pensacola, Fla.
December, 1944, off Pearl Harbor, Marine pilots qualified in its use on board LST 776. Some later flew from this vessel during the Iwo Jima assault. The 77th Division artillery spotters used the same ship at Kerama Retto. Rear Admiral G. van Deurs, U. S. Navy (Retired), of 312 Golden Gate Avenue, Belvedere, California 94920, is collecting material for a story about this gear, and will appreciate hearing from anyone who was involved in its operation.
Professor Allan P. Millett is conducting a study on current military history research, in collaboration with Professor Carl Boyd and Dr. B. F. Cooling, III. The study is designed to identify scholars and their works which focus on the institutional history of military forces, the interrelationship of civilian and military organizations in the political and social life of regions and nations in war and peace, and the history of warfare. The study will focus on scholarly research, published and unpublished, completed and in progress, which uses archival materials and primary sources. Military historians of all nationalities are invited to write Carl Boyd, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, describing their research.
[1]S« D. W. Urish, -To Build a Link-The Seabees at Diego Garda," pp. 101-104, April 1973 Proceedings.
Larger Soviet Nuclear Subs Are Challenge To U. S. Navy
(John W. Finney in The New York Times, 14 January 1974)
The Soviet Union is expanding its capacity for building nuclear submarines and starting work on a new, larger class of missile submarine, according to Pentagon officials.
The developments were not completely unexpected, but Pentagon officials said that they provided further evidence that the Soviet Union was determined to challenge the long-standing superiority of the United States in nuclear submarines.
The appearance of the larger class of Soviet missile submarines was first hinted at by Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger. He cited that development and the Soviet testing of four new intercontinental ballistic missiles as