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.
United States........................................................................................................................................ 699
The New Strategy—Naval Developments—Air Clue Reveals Red H-Secret—Heavy-Lift Ships—Steps on the Road Back—Weather Ships Stay on the Job—Jet Pilots to Get Instrument for Latitude, Longitude
U.S.S.R..................................................................................................................................................... 707
Soviet to Return 38 More U. S. Ships—Soviet Air Bases—Russians Boast of Atomic Might—Soviet Push?—Reds Say They Invented Jet— Reds Report H-Bomb Can Be Sent by Air
Other Countries.................................................................................................................................. 710
British Paper Declares U. S. Ahead in Defensive Air Development —Britain Discloses New Air Cannon—British Naval Developments —Netherlands Navy—Shipbuilding in 1953—The British Navy’s New Submarine
UNITED STATES The New Strategy
Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1954.—In a speech last January, Secretary of State Dulles made the following statement: “Before military planning could be changed, the President and his advisers, as represented by the National Security Council, had to make some basic policy decisions. This has been done. The basic decision was to depend Primarily upon a great capacity to retaliate, instantly, by means and at places of our own choosing.”
Mr. Dulles is a distinguished lawyer, accustomed to choose his words with care and to read the fine print of every document. Not all his critics have been equally meticulous. There was a wide assumption that here was a reckless policy of turning every minor clash into an atomic Armageddon. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, at Miami Beach, posed the rhetorical question: “Are we leaving ourselves the grim choice of inaction or a thermonuclear holocaust?”
The confusion over the precise meaning of Mr. Dulles’ words was enhanced by two recent developments. President Eisenhower gave an assurance that the United States would not become involved in war in IndoChina except by act of Congress. The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Lester Pearson, questioned the use of the word “instantly” and asserted the right of America’s allies to be consulted.
Statement of Policy Amplified
Later statements by the President and by Mr. Dulles and an article which the Secretary of State contributed to Foreign Affairs have served to straighten out the new policy and to resolve what, on the surface, might have seemed to be divergences of viewpoint.
In the modern age of supersonic speeds and weapons of terrifying mass destructiveness the traditional procedure of holding a leisurely legislative debate about a declaration of war would, in many cases, be utterly obsolete. The type of war that is now possible is made, not declared.
The damage which the Japanese bombers inflicted at Pearl Harbor is almost negligible, compared with the havoc which a sneak attack with atomic weapons could inflict. A President who, in the face of such an attack on main American industrial and population centers, would authorize no counter-action until Congress could pass a declaration of war would richly deserve impeachment, as Mr. Eisenhower himself said. Had we possessed the capacity, in 1941, to resort to “instant retaliation” for the attack on Pearl Harbor with an attack on Tokyo this should have been done.
Had we possessed such capacity and announced our intention to employ it, the gamble of attacking Pearl Harbor, a disastrous one for Japan as it turned out, would probably never have been taken. Here is the justification for Mr. Dulles’ statement about “primary” dependence on “a great capacity to retaliate.”
Constitutional processes would not be ignored, even in such an emergency. Congress would be called into session as swiftly as possible. But what it would have to do, in such a situation, would be not so much to declare war as to register the fact that a state of war existed. And this same philosophy of prompt massive retaliation would probably apply in the event of deliberate large-scale enemy attacks on the nations with which we are allied in NATO. Mr. Pearson’s question, in the light of such a development, seems academic, if not quite beside the point. No matter how quickly consultation might be arranged, action to be effective would quite probably have to be still swifter.
A Flexible Strategy
This almost inevitable split-second reaction to a mass attack with atomic weapons does not mean that, under the “new look,” we propose to turn every little clash, every peripheral instance of Soviet intrigue or subversion, into an atomic war. Mr. Dulles spells out this point very plainly in his article in Foreign A fairs.
“That does not mean turning every local war into a world war. It does not mean that if there is a Communist attack somewhere in Asia atom or hydrogen bombs will necessarily be dropped on the great industries of China or Russia. . . . The potential of massive attack will always be kept in a state of instant readiness, but our program will retain a wide variety in the means and scope for responding to aggression.”
In other words, discretion, common sense and flexibility will be employed in handling the terrible weapons which modern science has made possible. Mr. Dulles’ statement of January was in no sense a commitment to use atomic weapons on the slightest provocation; it may be taken for granted that such weapons would be used only in a very grave emergency.
Keep the Enemy Guessing
Another feature of the new defense strategy is that we feel no obligation to tip our signals to a future aggressor. It is a healthy situation when a power that may be contemplating aggression is kept guessing as to what kind of response aggression will evoke.
The ground rules that made a draw the best obtainable outcome in Korea have been officially declared off in the event of similar attack in the future. This makes a new Korea, the crossing of a recognized frontier in force by an organized and well equipped army, much less likely in the future.
It would be unwise to spell out publicly in detail just what our action would be in any conceivable set of circumstances. In the first place, there seems to be no reason why we should furnish free intelligence service to prospective enemies. In the second place, it is beyond the wit of man to foresee precisely when, how and under what circumstances the next big crisis, if there is to be one, will occur. These matters the new strategy understands very well.
Naval Developments
Navy Times, April 17, 1954.—Washington.—The modernization and installation of a canted deck on the carrier Midway, the installation of canted decks on the York- town, Bennington and Wasp; 30 new ships (including a third atomic-powered submarine and a fourth Forrestal-type carrier); newer and faster jet planes and deadlier, improved guided missiles are part of the Navy’s program for fiscal year 1955.
The fourth Forrestal-type attack carrier gets top billing in the Navy’s 1955 shipbuilding program because “we consider that as the most important according to a modernized fleet.”
So spoke Adm. Robert B. Carney, Chief of Naval Operations, when he outlined the Navy’s plans to the House Appropriations Committee in testimony published this week.
But this “offensive operation” requirement also includes requests for five destroyers, eight destroyer escorts, three submarines (one the third nuclear-powered sub), two LSDs, eight LSTs and three 165-foot sweeps.
Also included in the budget request were funds to buy 1455 new modern aircraft, which would enable the Navy to maintain an air force of 9941 operating aircraft.
The Navy plans to operate 1080 ships in the active fleet, with another 1362 vessels in the Reserve fleet in fiscal year 1955.
Added to these “offensive” forces will be S70 million worth of more deadly and improved guided missiles and drones for use of the fleet.
. -^s in previous years, the Navy has estab- •ished a priority list for its shipbuilding and conversion program. Here’s how the priority list looks:
1.The fourth Forrestal-type attack carrier.
2.Five new destroyers. They will be similar to those built in recent years, but will embody latest developments in equipment, to combat the snorkel submarines and high altitude jet bombers.
3. A third nuclear-powered submarine.
4.Converting six destroyer escorts into radar pickets.
5.Converting four Liberty hull cargo vessels into radar pickets.
The Liberty hull pickets are a new concept in Navy shipbuilding plans, but the conversion of destroyer escorts to radar pickets is a continuation of a program begun last year. These radar picket vessels are for primary use in the continental defense system.
6.Two new submarines with conventional diesel propulsion.
7.Installing canted decks during their regular overhaul periods on the previously modernized .Essex-class carriers] Yorktown, Bennington and Wasp.
8.Converting one escort aircraft carrier to a helicopter transport. This ship will be used by the Marine Corps in amphibious landing operations.
In adapting the helicopter for use in amphibious operations, the sea services found it undesirable to deploy the high-speed attack carriers for such operations. The converted CVE will not only provide carriage for helicopters but also take care of the assault troops.
9.Eight new destroyer escorts to bolster the Navy’s antisubmarine forces. They will be equipped with the latest sonar and targetseeking weapons.
Navy Secretary Anderson revealed that, in addition to the improved devices for locating submarines, both by sonar and radar, the Navy is developing such new weapons as rockets with propelled charges and homing torpedoes.
10. One thousand new LCVP landing craft, totalling 8000 tons.
11. Three new 165-foot minesweepers.
12. Two new dock landing ships.
13. Eight new tank landing ships.
14. Modernization of the carrier Midway. This includes installation of the canted deck.
15. The following new service craft: 2 LCU utility landing craft; 18 YC open lighters; 4 YRBM submarine repair, berthing and messing barges; 12 YFN covered lighters; 2 YOGN gasoline barges; 2 YON fuel oil barges.
16. Converting one submarine for the launching of guided missiles.
17. Replacing the diesel engines in the 1700-ton destroyer escort Mills with two gas turbines.
The conversion is to get operational experience in the use of gas turbines aboard U. S. Navy ships. The Navy believes that replacement of the present diesel engines on the Mills with gas turbines will reduce plant weight by approximately 15 per cent while delivering 67 per cent more power.
The Navy, which is planning to reduce its active fleet strength by 50 ships—including seven combatants—to bring its 1955 operating strength to 1080 ships, revealed that two escort carriers and one hospital ship will be laid up soon.
Earlier this year the Navy announced that the cruiser Quincy would go into the mothballed fleet. The battleship Missouri is also scheduled for mothballing.
Naval aviation will get money to buy 1455 new modern planes during fiscal year 1955 if Congress approves of the Navy’s budget request for this important procurement item. The planes will not be delivered until 1956.
The Navy and Marine Corps plan to operate 13,191 aircraft, of which 9941 are combat and 3250 are logistic support.
A total of 2766 new, modern aircraft will be delivered to the Navy and Marine Corps during fiscal year 1955.
Air Clue Reveals Red H-Secret
Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 1954.—
The story of the hydrogen bomb shows that complete military secrecy is a myth.
In this case it was the Russians who had the secret and the Americans who learned it.
The type of secret involved is the fact that a certain line of research is more practical than others.
This is the kind of information that American 'engineers learned from analyses of air samples from the Soviet hydrogen explosion in August, 1953. The Communist experts had found a way to use the light metal lithium in their bomb, and discovery of this fact led their American counterparts into a worthwhile investigation. The ease with which this has enabled them to solve some hydrogen bomb problems has astonished almost everyone.
Once competent engineers know that a certain line of research is profitable, they can drop other work and concentrate on it. This is precisely what the information from the Soviet explosion enabled American experts to do. In this way, without benefit of spy rings or captured reports, their own development was enormously speeded by knowledge of what they were trying to achieve.
Expensive Material
As late as 1950, many nuclear experts believed that the H-bomb presented extremely difficult problems. Two of the biggest involved the particular properties of various forms of the element hydrogen.
At that time it seemed essential to have quantities of tritium, triply heavy hydrogen, to make the bomb work. But this is an expensive material.
At least 80 kilograms of plutonium would have had to be diverted from atomic bomb production to make one kilogram of tritium. Even after it was made, storage would have been difficult, since half of the tritium would have decayed in 12 years. This would have meant continuing production of an expensive material just to maintain a stockpile of hydrogen bombs, presuming they could be developed.
The second obstacle lay in the fact that hydrogen is a gas at ordinary temperatures and pressures. But to be useful in a bomb, it was thought that tritium and deuterium (doubly heavy hydrogen) had to be in liquid forms. This meant they would have to be cooled to hundreds of degrees below zero under heavy pressures.
Transportation of the materials in liquid form would be extremely difficult. They would have to be carried in vacuum containers surrounded by liquid air.
The nuclear engineers overcame these obstacles by moving around them. Tritium seems no longer to be an essential material for the bomb; and deuterium, while still required, can be used in nonliquid form.
According to a report by William L. Laurence, natural science reporter of the New York Times, the deuterium is now combined chemically with the light metal lithium 6. In this solid form, it can be stored and used with ease.
The materials now being used cost only a few dollars an ounce as compared with several thousand dollars for tritium. There is no problem of decay either, since the compound of lithium and deuterium is stable.
It was the solution of these problems in this unexpected way that has led to the reports that the hydrogen weapon is easier and cheaper to make than the old-fashioned fission bombs.
Lithium Useful
The greatest secret of this solution, the experts explain, was the discovery of the fact that it was not only possible, but that it was extremely useful, to use lithium in the bomb.
The Russians, it seems, had found this out independently and many months before Americans did. Their successful demonstration in August came six months before America’s. It was an explosion of a more powerful and efficient device than the United States had used in its first exploratory hydrogen blast in November, 1952, that wiped out a Pacific sandspit.
It indicated that there was a way to make the bombs easily and cheaply, and it was this gratuitous clue, as valuable as a major espionage report, that helped make the American success possible.
Heavy-Lift Ships
Marine Progress, April, 1954.—Bethlehem Steel Company’s New York District shipyards have converted two C-4 cargo vessels into the heaviest-lift ships under the U. S. flag. Operated by the Military Sea Transportation Service, the vessels are the USNS Pvt. Leonard C. Brostrom and USNS Marine Fiddler which can now handle cargo loads of 150 long tons at the hook in a singleboom lift.
Heretofore, the privately-owned M. V. Gadsden, with a rated 110-ton lift, was the American heavy-lift champion. A C-l- MAYIl, the Gadsden was converted to her present role by Bethlehem’s Baltimore Yard in 1946.
Although still rare in comparison with most other types, heavy-lift ships have been in increasing demand in recent years for the unloading of cumbersome cargoes at ports which do not have large-capacity shoreside cargo-handling facilities. At present, there are believed to be about a dozen heavy-lift ships flying foreign flags, mainly British, Norwegian and German, and some claim single-boom lifts of as much as 180 tons.
While the safe working-load of the big booms on the Brostrom and Marine Fiddler is rated at 150 long tons, both of these ships lifted as much as 180 long tons in singleboom lifts during yard tests. On this basis, the MSTS ships may well claim to be able to lift as heavy a load as any other vessel of this class in the world.
Korean Experience a Factor
The Brostrom was the lead ship and was converted in Bethlehem’s Brooklyn 56th Street Yard. The Marine Fiddler was converted at Bethlehem’s Hoboken Yard.
Decision of the MSTS to have the two vessels converted to heavy-lift ships grew out of American experience early in the Korean conflict. Few Korean ports had adequate facilities for the unloading of such huge cargoes as railroad locomotives. Because there were no American-flag ships available for the purpose, several heavy-lift foreign-flag ships had to be chartered. Ships of this type also proved invaluable during World War II in the unloading of big cargo at bombed-out northern European ports during the allied invasion.
The Technical Unit, COMSTS, developed and prepared contract plans and specifications for the conversions. The work was awarded to Bethlehem in September, 1953.
The Brostrom is a C4-S-B1. The Marine Fiddler is a C4-S-B5. They are turbine- propelled by a single screw and have an overall length of 520 ft., length between perpendiculars 496 ft., breadth molded 71 ft. 6 in., depth molded (to upper deck) 43 ft. 6 in., and deadweight of about 13,500 tons.
Selection of this type of ship was made because its dimensions permitted the enlargement of cargo holds without loss of required stability and hull strength. The machinery aft feature simplified the rigging arrangement by permitting the use of one centrally located mast and machinery compartment for the heavy-lift booms.
Inspection Tour
Details of the conversion were made known March 22, immediately prior to delivery of the Brostrom, during an inspection tour of the vessel by Army, Navy and Coast Guard officials.
An official of the yard called attention to the fact that the big-lift cargo gear was not readily available because of the unusual sizes involved. The 56th Street Yard met this problem by designing and fabricating most of the necessary equipment. The Hoboken Yard fabricated a considerable amount of essential equipment. The big booms and all of the lashing-ring and padeye forgings for securing the railroad locomotives came from Hoboken. The Bethlehem Staten Island Yard fabricated heavy hatch pontoon covers, and also cast huge upper bushings, resembling stern tubes, for the big rigs. The company’s 27th Street Yard aided by handling much of the smaller blacksmith work.
Other Bethlehem units also played a role in the conversions. The huge steel topping- lift and cargo hoisting blocks were designed by 56th Street but cast and fabricated by the Bethlehem Supply Company plant at Corsicana, Texas. Bethlehem Steel Company’s wire rope division supplied the rigging rope and fabricated the special 2-inch cable slings for the railroad locomotive lifting beams.
Ship Arrangement Changed
The arrangement of the ships was completely changed between the poop and forecastle bulkheads to obtain increased hatch sizes, deck-heights and compartment lengths. Existing watertight bulkheads and tween decks which formed ten cargo spaces on the Brostrom and 16 spaces on the Marine Fiddler were removed, or relocated, to form four new cargo areas. One of the major tasks on the Brostrom was the lowering of the second deck by 4 ft. and stiffening it to form a new third deck. The original third deck was removed except for stringers at the shell.
The four new cargo areas, making up the new Nos. 3 and 4 holds, are each 100 ft. long, with one tween deck. Clear deck-heights are 15 ft. 6 in., throughout. The new No. 3 hold forward and the No. 4 hold aft were separated by two watertight bulkheads 16 ft. apart to form the new heavy-lift machinery rooms and fuel oil deep tanks below. This arrangement maintains the one compartment subdivision of the ship. Double bottom tanks were altered by opening existing floors and installing new oil tight floors, drainwells, piping, manholes, etc., to conform to the new bulkheading and ballasting systems.
Hatches were increased in size from 36 by 20 ft. to 75 by 35 ft. for loading of large cargo units. Hatch openings extend to within 18 ft. of the ship’s side and to within 10 ft. of the compartment ends to reduce the necessity for skidding of heavy cargo into the wings.
Structure Reinforced
The deck structure was reinforced to permit loading of 120-ton locomotives on the upper deck, tween deck, tanktop and on the Nos. 3 and 4 hatch covers. Due to widening of hatches and the tween deck removals, it was necessary to add heavy doubler straps to the sheer strake and upper deck for maintenance of hull girder strength. The outboard upper deck doubler on the Brostrom and the gunwhale angle on the Marine Fiddler were riveted to provide crack-arresters. Heavy hatch-coaming girders also were installed on the upper deck. To permit the loading of long-dimensions cargo outboard of the hatch- side girders, only two columns were provided in each of the large holds. This resulted in a girder span of 62 ft. between column and bulkhead.
As converted, the C4 ships will now be able to handle from 30 to 60 railroad locomotives, some weighing as much as 120 tons and ranging to 58 ft. in length.
In order to limit the ship’s angle of heel when lifting heavy cargo, 1200 tons of pig iron and concrete ballast were added low in the ship. Additional salt water ballast can be carried in the centerline double bottom tanks and forward deep tanks which were changed from fuel oil to clean ballast service. Fuel oil is carried in the outboard double bottom tanks and midship deep tanks. The after peak tank carries salt water ballast for trimming purposes. The combination of fixed ballast and tanks provides maximum flexibility of operation with a minimum loss of available cargo cubic, deadweight and cruising radius.
Steps on the Road Back
New York Times, March 25, 1954.—The recent passage of the Officer Limitations Act by the House of Representatives is the first milestone on the long road back to improved service morale.
The act, known as the Arends bill for its sponsor, Representative Leslie C. Arends, Republican of Illinois, passed the House without any noticeable dissent after Representative Dewey Short, Republican of Missouri and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, warned Congress that “we are playing with dynamite” by whittling away service benefits.
The bill undoes some of the harm done by legislation that went into effect some years ago and that severely curtailed officer promotions and retirements.
The repeal of this legislation, which is coupled in the Arends bill with a variable “ceiling” on the numbers of officers of the ranks of majors and lieutenant-commanders and above, will have the effect of restoring the voluntary twenty-year retirement privilege and should speed up promotions, particularly for younger officers.
House passage of the Arends bill has been accompanied by other indications that the Pentagon, the White House and Congress are at last giving more than lip service to the problem of service morale and service incentives.
Hannah Program Recalled
Assistant Secretary of Defense John A. Hannah presented to Congress last month a program intended to restore service attractiveness and retain “hard core” professional personnel in uniform. His program was a preface to and explanation of remedial legislation in several fields that he said would be submitted to Congress.
The Arends bill, which in the interest of the services should be passed by the Senate quickly, covers in part two of the five main points Dr. Hannah made—liberalization of promotion and retirement regulations.
Three other points that deserve early Congressional attention are improved service housing, adequate medical care for dependents, and protection of commissary and post exchange privileges.
These legislative efforts on the long road back from the current low point in service morale have been accompanied by some intra-service reforms, which are not yet, however, adequate.
The Army, under a plan to go into effect this fall, has at last undertaken to restore some of the prestige and authority of the non-commissioned officer and give special recognition to troop leaders, as distinguished from technical specialists. As now planned, and this revision is still subject to change, the only NCO’s in the Army will be troop leaders or troop supervisors. The technical and administrative specialists will not even be known as non-coms, although they will be in the same pay grade.
Grades Are Outlined
The NCO grades will be corporal, sergeant, sergeant first class and master sergeant. They will rank above all specialists, who will be specialist third class, specialist second class, specialist first class and master specialist. And, of course, there will still be privates of the three lowest grades, who will continue to be addressed as “private.”
The specialists in the Army thus become a separate category, with separate designations.
These changes are intended to return the emphasis in the Army to the field soldier, the troop leader, the man who fights. War and post-war reforms, in attempts to provide recognition for the technician, went too far, in the opinion of many in the Army, and the tail started to wag the dog.
It is now hoped that the real troop leader can be recognized, while at the same time providing distinctive grades, titles and insignia for the indispensable technician. These proposed changes follow the recent decision to return the first sergeant to his former role of glory and authority and abolish the warrant officer as unit administrator.
Whether or not these changes are exactly what is required, it is clear they are steps in
the right direction. An Army exists only to fight. Leadership of men is the key to its success or failure, and all reasonable measures must be taken to foster sound troop leadership.
All of these steps are heartening indications that at last the danger in the depressed state of the services is being properly evaluated. But these are only the first short steps on what will certainly be a very long road back. There is as yet no indication that some of the basic reforms essential to service wellbeing are being made within the services.
At last champions for the services are arising in Washington. But neither Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson nor the services themselves have yet shown that the intangible psychic rewards of military service —pride of unit, pride of uniform, pride in a job worth doing and pride in a job well done —are yet being sufficiently stressed.
In tangible and intangible service incentives there is still a very long way to go.
Weather Ships Stay on the Job
Aviation Week, March 29, 1954.—Official decision to retain nine North Atlantic weather stations is good news to trans-Atlantic airlines and their pilots.
Earlier, Washington officials had decided that U. S. financial support would be drastically reduced and the program was nearly scuttled. But in an emergency conference of International Civil Aviation Organization in Paris, 11 other nations and the U. S. have signed a two-year agreement, readjusting their shares of operating costs for nine stations, requiring 21 ships for uninterrupted year-round service. Only one station will be eliminated.
The U. S. government had taken the position that it no longer could contribute SI7 million a year, about half the program budget.
These ships, scattered over the ocean at designated stations, offer important communication and navigation links with en route aircraft, furnish quick and dependable weather data, and are always on standby duty in case of emergency ditchings.
They are considered so important to aviation that the ICAO conferees assessed aeronautical benefits as 80% of the program’s value, and non-aeronautical benefits 20%.
Such an expeditious and important decision as this is a commendable example of teamwork by ICAO.
Jet Pilots to Get Instrument for Latitude, Longitude
Ends Navigation Worry
New York Herald-Tribune, March 20, 1954.—The Air Force disclosed yesterday that it has a remarkable new aircraft navigational instrument which automatically gives a fighter or bomber pilot his latitude and longitude at all times during a flight. It does this without communication of any kind between plane and ground.
The device, known as a Ground Position Indicator, would be of tremendous value on missions over enemy territory where no friendly beacon signals existed and radar or radio transmissions from a plane might be picked up by enemy anti-aircraft. Air Force officers familiar with the new instrument say that it promises to free jet pilots from most of their navigational worries in combat. It already is in production.
Electronic Computer
Basically, the Ground Position Indicator is an electronic and electro-mechanical computer or “brain” which mechanizes mathematical calculations continuously so that a pilot is not required to set in the elements of his navigational problem each time he wants to know where he is.
A pilot sets the latitude and longitude of his take-off point into the Ground Position Indicator as soon as he enters the cockpit, on the instrument’s “computor control” he dials wind speed and direction, together with magnetic variation information taken from his map. The plane’s standard compass and air-speed indicator are connected up so as to feed “true air speed” and a magnetic heading into the computer without interruption.
As soon as the plane becomes airborne, the computer begins calculating and, with no further attention from the pilot, displays on a dial the airplane’s changing latitude and longitude.
Result of Collaboration
It was revealed yesterday that the Ground Position Indicator resulted from collaboration between the Air Force’s Wright Air Development Center and the Ford Instrument Division of Sperry Corp., which has headquarters at 31-10 Thomson Ave., Long Island City, Queens. The Ford company was founded by Dr. Hannibal Choate Ford, seventy-seven-year-old inventor of many gun-fire control mechanisms aboard Navy ships, and of Army robot weapons directors.
A particular Air Force stipulation was that the new instrument should be light and small enough to fit easily into a jet fighter plane without disturbing its high performance. The Ground Position Indicator in production has a total weight of only forty-five pounds, with a volume of less than one and one-half cubic feet.
Although there has been no commercial production as yet, it was pointed out that the indicator has many potential air line uses, particularly in long over-water flights.
The Ford company at present is designing a special slow-speed computer for helicopters and other rotary wing aircraft flying at speeds under seventy nautical miles an hour in rescue or search missions and on commercial geological surveys for oil and mineral deposits.
It also is working on a high speed version for guided missiles. In this case the position data automatically computed as a supersonic flight progressed would be flashed back to a control station by some means of communication.
U.S.S.R.
Soviet to Return 38 More U. S. Ships
New York Times, March 27, 1954.—-The Soviet Union will return in May and June thirty-eight small naval craft from the lend- lease ships it received from the United States during World War II These will be a first installment of the several hundred lent to Russia.
Five hundred seventeen other vessels and eighty-seven merchant ships are still in Soviet hands, but Moscow agreed last Oct. 20 to return 186 of the naval group. The thirty-eight, to be turned over to United
States authorities at Istanbul in May and June, are part of the latter number.
A State Department announcement of today’s agreement said that discussions would continue on details for the return of the remaining 148 naval craft. The main question is over the ports to which they would be returned. Some of the vessels are in the Far East and others in Northern European waters, officials said. Little or no progress seems to have been made, however, on the settlement of the over-all $10,800,000,000 lend lease account with the Soviet Union. The total figure represents the cost of aircraft, transport equipment, industrial materials and supplies, food and farm products, and services.
After beginning with a demand of $2,600,000,000 as a settlement for the full account, the United States eventually brought its price down to $800,000,000. The asking price is still considerably higher than the Soviet offer, which was raised from $240,000,000 to 8300,000,000 after months of hard bargaining.
Return of the ships, however, had been the main objective of the United States negotiators in recent months.
The thirty-eight craft to be returned this spring are twelve motor torpedo boats and twenty-six submarine chasers. They are the property of the United States Navy, but naval authorities have given no indication of the use they intend to make of the ships, State Department sources said.
The Soviet Government previously returned twenty-seven frigates and three ice breakers from the ships it received under the lend-lease agreement.
Moscow agreed last October to turn back the 186 small naval craft, but only after more than five years of persistent prodding by the United States. The first request for the vessels had been submitted to the Soviet Union on Sept. 3, 1948.
Soviet Air Bases
Revista Maritlima, February, 1954.—According to the journal Morgeniscope, the Soviet Union has 543 airports near the Iron Curtain. Without mentioning the source of this information, the journal states that 147 of these airports were built in the period
1947-1949. In the summer of 1950, a new airport was built in the Archangel zone, where there are 5 aeronaval bases. In northern Europe the Soviet Union is said to have 91 airports.
From various sources there are inferences that the Soviets have installed a jet aircraft base in Soviet-occupied territory not far from the eastern suburbs of Helsinki. However, the experts are awaiting further confirmation of these rumors. The area occupied by the Soviets is too small (146 square miles) to permit jet planes to manoeuver without violating Finnish territory. It would appear that up to this time the Soviets have studiously avoided incidents of this nature.
Russians Boast of Atomic Might
New York Times, March 18, 1954.—Four top Soviet leaders last week told their people in guarded language that nuclear weapons had increased Soviet strength, implying that Russia could reply in kind to any nuclear attack.
The most boastful tone was taken in speeches of Foreign Minister Vyacheslav M. Molotov and Marshall Klimenti E. Voroshilov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, or President of the Soviet Union. Mr. Molotov said:
“Our scientists all the more occupy advanced positions in the development of world science. By the example of their successes in the field of atomic energy, our scientists and technicians have vividly shown how much the increased might of the Soviet state and the further growth of its international authority depends on their efforts and practical successes.”
Marshal Voroshilov said, “Soviet science has honorably fulfilled its duty to the people. Our scientists have uncovered the secrets of atomic energy. In a short time they have succeeded in putting atomic energy at the service of the socialist economy and of the further strengthening of the defensive capabilities of the country. This is a great patriotic service of Soviet science.”
Malenkov Warns Russians
Premier Georgi M. Malenkov did not mention atomic energy specifically, but said that any new world war “under contemporary conditions of war means the death of world civilization.”
Marshal Nikolai A. Bulganin, Soviet War Minister, stressed the great postwar progress of the Soviet Union in providing modern weapons for all its force. He then expressed current Soviet military thinking in this oblique fashion:
“We may not count on the imperialists’ having spent great material means and billions in money for armaments only to scare us. We may not count either on the humanity of the imperialists who are capable, as life has shown, of applying any means of mass destruction. We must constantly be prepared crushingly to reply to any enemy possessing any weapon.”
Since 1949 the Soviet Union is believed to have carried out at least a half-dozen nuclear explosions, including one test of a hydrogen bomb last August. Reports in informed circles suggest that may have been more powerful than the initial United States hydrogen explosion which took place in November 1952.
Analyses of atmospheric radioactivity and other phenomena produced by this Soviet explosion, these reports indicate, suggest strongly that the Soviet hydrogen bomb pioneered vitally important new techniques in this field.
Soviet Push?
Avialion Week, March 29, 1954.—Conferences between Russian airline officials and air transport executives of several Western European countries in recent weeks have stirred considerable apprehension among U. S. State Department officials that the Soviet Union is planning to extend its airline system westward.
Washington is watching developments closely since word of the Russian visits first became known. Marshal S. F. Zhavoronkov, head of Russia’s Aeroflot, has been visiting French, Swedish and Danish officials {Aviation Week, Mar. 22, p. 73), accompanied by Col. 0. Toleg Sopanov, secretary of the Red airline, and Col. Peter Eromasor, chief pilot. Zhavoronkov is a marshal in the Soviet air force.
Air France Talks
In Paris, the Russians talked with Air France executives. In Stockholm, they conferred with Scandinavian Airways System officials, returning a visit to Moscow by SAS officers some months ago.
Russia reportedly has the world’s biggest internal network of air routes from Moscow to Vladivostock in the Far East and from the Arctic Ocean to Turkestan. The Reds are flying the four-engine 11-18 transports over longhaul routes and the twin engine 11-12 on all others. This twin-engine transport carries from 27 to 32 passengers.
It is known they have both a first-class and aircoach service, the latter 15% cheaper. In some cases they combine first-class and tourist service aboard a single airplane.
Trade, Influence
These talks with Western officials indicate a desire to hook up with the lucrative West Europe airline traffic, the State Department believes. The Russian plan may be to expand trade or to extend its influence throughout Western Europe.
It seems reasonable to assume, State officials claim, that an extension of Soviet air routes also would mean an agreement with the airlines involved to fly over Russia on their far Eastern routes, which in some cases could shorten considerably present bypass flights.
New Transports?
Aviation Week reported last July (July 27, p. 72) that Russian civil air transport “trailed” the West’s transport system by a considerable margin.
Aeroflot was reported at that time as hav- lng made little progress over the past three years. The military gets first crack at equipment, and the civil airline takes the leftovers.
There is no evidence that the airline is operating any newer equipment than the H-12s and -18s, introduced in 1948. However, if the Russians are interested in extend- lng their air lanes, officials believe new transport equipment must be in prospect.
Reds Say They Invented Jet
New York Herald-Tribune, March 24, 1^54.—Moscow, March 23.—The Soviet armed forces newspaper Red Star declared today the Soviet Union invented the jet- powered airplane and still leads in its development. Red Star said:
“The Soviet Union is the home of jet aviation. Soviet scientists were the first in the world to work out the theoretical fundamentals for the construction and exploitation of jet planes.”
Briton Credited
Sir Frank Whittle, of Great Britain, is generally credited in the west with developing the first successful jet turbine engine for use in planes. He took out his first patent on a jet propulsion engine in 1930 and his first experimental jet-powered plane was flown in 1941.
The British-published Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft says Russian work in the jet field has been devoted to the improvement of a type developed by Germany in World War II and the production of British- style power plants.
Reds Report H-Bomb Can Be Sent by Air
New York Times, April 8, 1954.—-A broadcast by the Soviet-controlled East German radio last week-end asserted that the Soviet Union had developed a hydrogen bomb deliverable by long-range aircraft.
The statement was made in a broadcast by the East German radio’s military expert Baron Egbert von Frankenberg, a former Nazi air force colonel. The core of the Soviet development, he said, was the creation of a hydrogen bomb that did not require a “super-atom bomb as a detonator.”
The Communist commentator declared that the Soviet Union led the United States in this field since, he asserted, the United States still did not have a hydrogen bomb deliverable over long distances by aircraft.
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, seemed to hint that the United States was at least near having a deliverable hydrogen bomb when he said last week:
. . one important result of these hydrogen bomb developments has been the enhancement of our military capability to the point where we should soon be more free to
increase our emphasis on the peaceful uses of atomic power—at home and abroad.”
Some reports in the last several months have suggested that one of the hydrogen bomb test explosions in the current series in the Pacific area is or was intended to be that of a bomb carried by and dropped from an airplane.
OTHER COUNTRIES
British Paper Declares U. S. Ahead in Defensive Air Development
Manchester Guardian, March 17, 1954.—- Yesterday’s disclosure by the United States Navy that it was developing an aircraft capable of taking off without any forward run carries implications of importance to those responsible for the air defence of Great Britain. There are at present two basic tactical weaknesses in Britain’s defensive air force: the first is lack of knowledge and experience in the means of obtaining ultimate speeds and heights, and the second is the need for long concrete runways for the operation of interceptor fighters.
Tactical specialists have become increasingly concerned about the absence of research work with rocket-driven, piloted, supersonic aircraft in this country, and about the dilatoriness with which the development of “spot-launched” aircraft is being undertaken. For the defences of Great Britain the absolute requirement is an interceptor fighter capable of a speed of Mach two and of attaining heights of over 20,000 metres (65,600 ft.). At the same time, there should be a high-performance fighter capable of being launched into the air without a forward run along a runway.
Britain has in preparation a number of fighters which will be capable of supersonic speed, but she is doing nothing in the region of the extreme speeds and heights attained by America’s rocket-driven research machines. Britain is known to be working also on the means of securing direct lift without using rotating wings.
If a fighter aircraft could be “spot- launched” either by being shot up along a ramp or by being otherwise lifted vertically into the air, it would be of the highest tactical value because its bases could be concealed.
The runways required by existing conventional fighters cannot be camouflaged. They are therefore a target for enemy action.
Statements made in Parliament at the time of the presentation of the Air Estimates revealed a deplorable lack of realism on the part of the Air Ministry. It accepts the fact that the funds available to it must at the present time be narrowly limited, yet it adheres to the principle of the “balanced Air Force,” incorporating all the major types of fighting machines in harmoniously arranged numbers. The Air Ministry does not realise that Britain’s Budget at the present time prohibits the realisation of an effective “balanced Air Force.” There must be an emphasis on one side or the other, and geography makes the choice for us. We must first concentrate on interception and the protection of the sea routes. In both these things ultimate air performance and “spot-launching” are desirable.
Our conventional interceptor fighters are neither fast enough nor capable of climbing high enough. We are doing too little to develop a means of “spot-launching” so that they may take off vertically or almost vertically from the ground. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy is not allowed to concern itself with flying-boats, and the Royal Air Force dislikes them.
In both major fields of air defence, interceptor work and sea route protection, Great Britain is falling further and further behind other countries.
Britain Discloses New Air Cannon
New York Times, March 27, 1954.— London, March 26.—Britain unveiled today her newest semi-secret weapon, a 30 mm. aircraft cannon, which is already being mounted on a Supermarine Swift jet fighter. It is stated that the Swift will be able to pour “eight times more high explosives” on to an enemy target than had been possible with previous weapons.
This statement was made by Duncan Sandys, the Minister of Supply, who visited the Vickers Armstrong factory in South Marston, Wiltshire, where the new cannon, called the Aden, is being manufactured.
“Its revolutionary design gives the Aden cannon about twice the rate of fire of the
20 mm. Hispano-Suiza gun, which has been our standard fighter weapon since 1941,” Mr. Sandys declared.
Neither Mr. Sandys nor the Ministry of Supply would give further details of the Aden weapon, but it was ascertained here that the normal rate of fire for the 20 mm. Hispano- Suiza was approximately 600 rounds a minute. The new Aden cannon is believed to fire at a rate of more than 1,200 rounds a minute. Four will be mounted on each fighter.
The most significant factor in the new gun, according to outside specialists, is its radically improved gun sight. This is a combination of radar, which ranges into the enemy target and which then automatically “feeds” information into a gyroscopic sight, which guides the aircraft.
Moreover, the new 30 mm. ammunition, according to independent sources, is extraordinarily sensitive. It is designed to explode on virtually the slightest contact with a target. But, if it misses the target, it can destroy itself by an automatic internal device before falling to earth.
The major disadvantage with a new rapidfiring cannon, such as the Aden, is its tremendous consumption of ammunition, military students say. The new ammunition is one-third bulkier in diameter than earlier 20-mm. ammunition, they point out, and it is disproportionately heavier. This poses a grave space and weight problem in modern trans-sonic interceptor aircraft.
The problem had been partly solved, they believe, by developing the new almost “fool proof” gun sight which makes a miss in aerial combat virtually a thing of the past. The development of the new gun sight had to precede the adoption of the Aden cannon because of the limited period of sustained fire that the weight-space factor in new aircraft had imposed.
Comparable United States fighter interceptors such as the F-86, F-84 “Starfire,” F-89 and F-100 series are generally armed with six 50-caliber M-3 machine guns capable of firing 1,200 rounds a minute, or with 2.75- inch rockets or a combination of both.
British Naval Developments
London Times, March 10, 1954.—Reductions in the periods of oversea service in the Royal Navy, and other measures which it is hoped will stimulate recruiting, were announced yesterday by Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, First Lord of the Admiralty, when he introduced the Navy Estimates in the House of Commons.
A new scheme of general service commissions afloat limits to one year the maximum period of absence from the United Kingdom. A second scheme reduces all other forms of foreign service so that those who cannot be accompanied by their families, and unmarried officers and men, will not normally be away from the United Kingdom for more than 18 months, compared with up to two and a half years at present.
The total amount of oversea service will remain the same, but periods of absence abroad will be shorter but more frequent. The scheme will be started in June and it is hoped that it will be in full operation after 18 months.
Buying Discharge
Now that the retention of time expired men and recalled reservists is coming to an end, it has also been decided to reopen facilities for men to buy their discharge from the Navy.
In general, discharge by purchase will be governed by the pre-war rules, which admitted no absolute right for men to purchase their discharge; but there will be two important modifications: Men with less than three years’ man service will be ineligible, and the rate of discharge will be controlled by the Admiralty.
Mr. Thomas also gave encouraging news of the development of new weapons for the Royal Navy, and this was amplified later in statements by the Admiralty.
Foremost among the new weapons are guided missiles, which are being developed in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply.
One, a heavy missile for the protection of convoys, will be installed in a special trials ship, which is now being prepared. Another will be an air-to-air guided missile, which could be mounted in the Supermarine twin- jet naval. interceptor fighter, an aircraft
which is also capable of carrying an atomic bomb.
A new 6 in. gun with a rate of fire practically three times that of any 6 in. gun in service will be fitted in three new cruisers. It can be used against both aircraft and surface targets. Fed with information from radar through an electronic “brain,” the gun will be automatically locked on to any target and will follow the target’s movements. It will automatically begin and cease firing.
Fire Control
A new 3 in. gun, designed as the standard medium range anti-aircraft weapon, has also been developed. This gun, which is being fitted in the cruiser Cumberland for sea trials this year, will have a rate of fire comparable to that of a heavy machine-gun. An improved Bofors anti-aircraft gun for short-range protection is also being developed.
Both weapons will have the advantage of new fire-control systems, said to be “10 times as effective” as any used in the last war. Another new control system is being developed for the defence of merchant ships.
Among new equipment with which aircraft carriers are being fitted is an improved radar system for controlling the approach of aircraft. High-performance radar, combined with improved fighter-direction systems, will enable interceptors to be directed on to a number of targets at increasing distances from the fleet.
The de Havilland Sea Venom all-weather fighter will come into squadron service this year, and production of a swept-wing carrier- borne fighter has begun.
An operational force of anti-submarine helicopters, fitted with a locating device which can be lowered into the sea, is already in service.
New anti-submarine frigates are being fitted with a weapon, known as the “Limbo,” which automatically controls a development of the Squid anti-submarine mortar. New radar sets, fitted in such frigates, can detect the periscopes or Snort air intakes of submarines at considerable ranges.
Submarine Trials
Two experimental submarines, one of them the Explorer, which was launched last week, are under construction and may undergo sea trials this year. Both will use high-test peroxide in closed cycle engines. New and improved midget submarines are being built and should be completed this year. The study of nuclear propulsion is being continued.
A large research and testing device, virtually a ship of 700 tons which can be made to pitch and roll in a small dock by mechanical means, has been produced to help in the development of weapons and fire-control devices.
Netherlands Navy
La Revue Maritime, March, 1954.—The year 1954 was particularly favorable for the Netherlands Navy. It saw the following activities:
—entry into service of the 9,300-ton cruisers De Ruyter and De Zeven Provincien, ships which have no equivalent in European navies;
—launching of five 2,400-ton excorts;
-—laying down of the first 2 of a series of 32 coastal minesweepers of a series of 14 Bedum class;
—the loan of 2 modernized American submarines, permitting return to the Royal Navy of 2 old F-type submarines;
■—laying down of rapid submarines 032 33, 34, 35;
—transformation of a squadron of Fireflies equipped for ASM aboard the Avengers;
—beginning of the transformation of a squadron of Harpoons on 'the P2V Neptune;
—delivery of 3 Sikorsky helicopters and a few training Beechcrafts.
The rapid escort Groningen was launched 11 January at Amsterdam. It is the sixth of a class of 12 vessels. The Groningen, like the 8 last units of the series, is an improved version of the initial type (2,450 tons, -36 knots, instead of 2,160 tons, 32 knots; armament remains the same: 4/120 semi-automatic, 6/57, ASM rocket launcher).
Shipbuilding in 1953
Engineering, March 1954.—Though Germany led the world in 1953 in the number of merchant ships launched, namely 244, the gross tonnage of these ships was only 818,221 compared with the 1,317,463 tons of the 220 ships launched in the United Kingdom. The world total (excluding Russia, China and Poland) was 1,143 ships of 5,096,050 tons gross. Except for the war period this was the highest figure recorded since 1920. The great majority of the ships (843) were oil-engined, and 22 had Diesel-electric drive. Geared turbines were to be fitted to 142 of the ships; reciprocating steam engines to 117; and a combination of reciprocating engines and turbines to 16. Only two ships, one launched in the U. K. and the other in the Netherlands, were designed for turbo-electric drive.
The United Kingdom output was higher than that for 1952 and slightly higher than the average for the past five years. As a percentage of world output (25.9 per cent) it continued the decline which has taken place annually since the percentage of 56.7 in 1947, though the gross tonnage was still by far the largest of any country in the world. Oil tankers launched during 1953 in the United Kingdom (762,442 tons) showed a substantial increase of 116,414 tons compared with the total for 1952. The 1953 tonnage launched represented 57.9 per cent of the total U. K. output for the year. Oil tankers represented 55.6 per cent of all tonnage launched abroad.
Japan was the only country to show a decrease since 1952, when her output was the highest since 1919. The countries abroad with the greatest tonnages of ships launched in 1953 were Germany, Japan, the United States, and Sweden, in that order.
These figures are taken from the Annual Summary of Merchant Ships Launched in the World During 1953, published by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping.
The British Navy's New Submarine
Hydrogen Peroxide Fuel
London Ernes, March 25, 1954.—The Admiralty announced yesterday that the submarine Explorer, which is to be launched today at the Barrow-in-Furness yard of Vick- ers-Armstrongs, Ltd., will be propelled by engines of a new type, using hydrogen peroxide fuel. These engines, also manufactured by Vickers-Armstrongs, are expected to give the Explorer a maximum underwater speed of more than 20 knots.
The launching of this, the first British submarine of post-war design, is the beginning of an important phase in submarine development and is the result of research which has aroused much interest in naval circles during the past decade.
Before the end of the Second World War German naval scientists, led by Dr. Walther, had produced a fast submarine which, had it gone into flotilla service in 1944, would probably have had a profound effect on the course of the war. One experimental German boat, powered by a hydrogen peroxide engine, fell into British hands and, renamed H.M.S. Meteorite, underwent a series of evaluation trials. As a result the Admiralty decided to hasten the development of closed-cycle, high- test peroxide propulsion, but until the technique was perfected, to rely for operational purposes on improved submarines of conventional type. For security reasons little can be said about future British submarine production, but it has been disclosed that in addition to the Explorer an interim class of submarine, with a better performance than any predecessor, is also being built.
New Conning Tower
Since 1945 the submarines of the Royal Navy have undergone extensive modernization. All operational boats have been fitted with the “Snort” air intake, and a number of “T” class boats have been lengthened, fitted with higher capacity batteries, and have been streamlined. This streamlining has led to the introduction of a new conning tower resembling a tall dorsal fin.
There are more than 50 submarines, all of them completed between 1942 and 1948, in service with the Royal Navy, and of these only two are in reserve.
The Explorer is expected to be ready for sea early next year.