All Hands 1975-09 (a Look at the Soviet Navy)

8/18/2019 All Hands 1975-09 (a Look at the Soviet Navy)

1/68

L L


2/68


3/68

MAGAZINE OF THE U. S. NAVY - 2nd YEAR OF PUBLICATION

SEPTEMBER 1975 NUMBER 704

ADMIRA L JAMES L. HOLLOWAY 111, USNChief of Naval Operations

CAPTAIN DAVID M. COONEY, USNChief of Information

CAP TAIN EDWARD G. McGRATH, USNROfficer in Charge, Navy Internal Relations ActivityLIEUTENANT COMMANDER D. McCURRACH, USN

Director, Print Media Divisionm

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Features

Soviet ‘Ships Visit oston ......... .. 2U. S. Navy Ships Visit USSR ..................... AA Look at the Soviet Navy ........................A U. S. Sailor in the Soviet .......................Second Time Around-U. S. Naval Officer

Revisits Leningrad ................................ 21Operational Test and Evaluation Force ..... 22The Sanctuary Experience ........................ 28Sequoia: Fit ting Out the Presidential Yacht 34Skinny Dragons of VP-4 ............................ 46

Underwater Photography .......................... 52Profile of a Ship and Her Crew-

USS Compass Island ............................. 60

Second Class Diving School, San Diego .... 50

Departments

From the Desk of MCPON-“Changing the

Naval War College-Off-Campus andCorrespondence Courses ...................... 41

Navy News Briefs .................................... 42Profiles of the Fleet ................................. 54Letters o he Editor ................................ 62Navy Humor ...................................... 63Taffrail Talk ............................................ 64

Watch ... And Introducing” ................... 38

John A. Oudine , ditorAsso ciate Editors

John Coleman News

Ann Hanabury ResearchMichael Tuffl i Art

LT John Alexander, USN Producti on

E. L. Fast Layout

WRITERS JOC Ken Testorff, USN; JO1 Tom Jansing, USN, 502 DanWheeler, USN; RESEARCH: Edward Jenkins; ART AND LAYOUT:502 Davida J. Matthews, USN; PHOTOGRAPHY: pH2 Terry C. Mit-chell, USN.

the vicinity of the Soviet Fleet replenishment ship Vladimir Kolechitsky.Left: A Patrol Squadron 17 (VP 17) P-38 Orion patrol aircraft in flight in

FRONT COVER: When U. S. Navy warships entered the port of Leningradand Soviet Navy warships entered the port of Boston on exchange visits,viewers had the unusual experience of seeing the flags of these wo seapowers flying together. For more on these visits and a “Look t the SovietNavy,” see the following pages.

United States “Doing Business at the Same Location or 200 years” isBACK COVER: The decorative presentation eaturing he heme of he

by ALL HANDS artist Michael Tuffli.


4/68

SOVIETSHIPSVISITBOSTON I

L -

Soviet warships made a port visit to the United States exceptionally smooth and successful operat ion.o n 12 May for the first time since World W ar11. In hisemarks ponrrival in Boston , Admiral

While uss Leahy (CG 16 and uss Tattnal l (DDG 19) Turner set he one of theweek'sevents ,saying, Iwere cal l ing at Le ningrad, the S oviet destroy ers Boyky look on this as a veryno rma l ac t i v i t y - an exchangeandZhguchy,bothKanin-class DDGs, steamed nto visit of warsh ips etwe enwo ountr ieswho aveBostonharbor or a six-daystay. As theyarrived hey r iendly elat ions."exchanged aluteswith nArmyNationalGuardbatteryTheSoviets ' chedulewas rammedwith ngage-on Castle slandand henwith uss Albany CG IO , mentsdesigned to give hem hebroadestpossible viewwhich had arr ived hedaybefore.Albanywas lagship of theAmer icanway of l ife . The ormali ty of initialof ViceAdmiralStansfield Turner,Comm ander of thecour tesy calls betweenRear Admiral A. M. Kalinin,U . S. Secondleet.heaskroupommander,nd local military ando-

This exchange of ship visi ts was partof the activities litical dignitaries quickly dissolved nto friendly relax-

scheduledby heUnitedStatesand heSovietUnionationas a full social schedule ookeffect.tocommemora te he30thanniversary of theend of Beginning with ecep tions in Bostonand a t t heSouthWorld War I1 in Europe, V-E Day. As such i t was an Wey mou th Nav al Air Stat ion on theirf irs t da y in port ,


5/68

:he Russians soon entered into the spirit of informalitymd personal contact which characterized their stay.rhroughout the week, a continuing series of exchanges

among he officers and men of Boyky, Zhguchjr afidAlbany permitted U. S. and Soviet navymen a uniqueinsight into shipboard routine and living conditions oftheir counterparts. Highlight of these activities was amidweek dinner aboard Albany for a large contingentof the Soviet crews, after which the visitors staged adisplay of traditional Soviet dances on Albany's fantail.

Few could have predicted he interest the visitingships elicited among he citizens of the city. I t wassustained and intense. During he 14 hours of totalpublic visiting, Boyky and Zhguchy attracted an esti-mated 40,000 curious Bostonians. In fact, visiting wasextended wo hours on the ast day to accommodatethe crowds.

Invititions poured in from ocal organizations andcitizens, offering everything from barbecue dinners tochess matches, most of which had to be declined be-cause of a hectic schedule. Nevertheless, the Soviet

of Sovlet guided missile destroyer Boyky. Left: Members of heFaclng p age top: Photographers film a Sovlet u l l o r on antail

Messachusetts National Guerd stand by to flre salute as Soviet

neet , VADM S. Turner, waves as the Sovlet ships make theirdestroyer Boyky enters harbor. Below:The Commander Second

departure from Boston harbor.

sailors had numerous opportunities to observe localevents and see places of interest at firsthand. Theiritinerary included tours of Boston's Freedom Trail, theNew England Aquarium, the Museums of Science andFine Arts, Boston University, M . I . T., the circus anda Red Sox game at Fenway Park.

One tour bus topped at a ast-food chain store wherethe visitors were treated to a free lunch. And aboveall, the Soviets were granted iberty hroughout heweek which afforded complete exposure to the city ofBoston. The personal contacts with the public generat-edby general ship visiting and Soviet in-port libertyseemed uniformly friendly and warm.

The degree of popular interest in the Soviet shipsran parallel o that of the media. Virtually all majorNew England newspapers and elevision stations randaily reports of the progress of the visit and local radiostations covered it almost hourly.

Admiral James L. Holloway 111, Chief f NavalOperations, paid a courtesy call on Rear Admiral Ka-linin aboard his flagship, Boyky. This and he arrival

of Soviet Ambassador A. M. Dobrynin at the outsetof the port call, provided extra interest by the area'smedia.

Net effect of the si xd ay Boston visit was to provruethe visiting sailors and their hosts with a valuable insightinto each other's way of life


6/68

L'


7/68

number of tours., including visits to the world-famousHermitage Art Museum, a collective farm, civilian andnaval schools, and Petrodvoretz-the baroque, formersummer palace of the Romanovs.

Transportation by city buses and trams was extendedfree to the American Navymen, as it is to all Soviet

military personnel. The uniform was the tlcket.Special evening entertainment for the crews includedballet, opera, ci rcus and popular music performancesin Leningrad halls and auditoriums. Many were alsoable to see an ice hockey game between Leningrad.andMoscow, where each ship received a souvenir hockeystick in an after-game presentation.

For most Soviets and Americans, meeting ach other

Left: CAPT Alexander Sinclair, CO of US8 Leahy, prepares forRussian visit. Bottom left: US8 Leahy dock. at Lenlwrad pier.Below: Soviet honor guard for arriv al of USS Leahy and Tattnai'in Lenlngrad.

was he highlight of he five days. Tens of thousandsof Leningraders lined the pier each day to alk withthe American sailors; during two afternoons of visit ing,a total of more than 13,000 boarded the ships.

The Soviets are lapel-pin collectors and display themprofusely on their coats and jackets. This turned out

to be the greatest medium of communication betweenthem and the Americans. These highly negotiable itemswere traded for anything American, from chewing umto old petty officer rating badges. Toward the end ofthe visit many of the American crewmembers beganto look like war heroes, festooned with dozens of pins,most ofwhich were in commemoration of the 30thanniversary of V-E Day.

The Americans also had close contact with the Sovi-ets at officer and petty officer funct ions hosted by theSoviet Navy and at two afternoon volleyball a,nd bas-ketball games with students of Leningrad physical edu-cation schools.

Leahy and Tatnall provided ours on board, anda dinner reception was held aboard Leahy.


8/68

A LOOKAT THE

Following he exchange visits of U . S. Navy shipsto Leningrad and Soviet Navy ships to Boston, manyAmerican ailors expressed a desire to know moreabout the Soviet Navy. Here is a brief historical report,followed by a roundup account of the Soviet Navy asit looks today.

6

“Every potentate who has only ground forces hasonly one hand; yet whoever has a navy too, has bc“hands. ” So saying, Peter I (The Great), Czar of Russbegan to build his second hand n the early 1700s tofight Sweden. In the 275 years since, the Russian Navyhas ndeed become a strong second hand. Today, it’sone of the biggest and best in the world. But it hasn’talways been so.

Peter built his Navy, defeated the Swedes and estab-

lished Russia as the maritime nation in theBaltics.Unfortunately, this was the last great Russian sea vic-tory for the next two and one-half enturies. There weresome victories in the 18th century against the TurkishNavy, but Russian ambitions were generally rustratedby the more powerful British and French navies.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there was lit tlerelief from, these frustrations. The Russians sufferedoverwhelming defeats in the 1904-1905 war with Japan.A decade later in WWI, the Navy found itself over-shadowed by the Army’s needs and impotent againstGermany. The Russian Navy ranked ast among the seaservices of the world’s major nations.

In1917, he Revolution erupted and he navy hada brief shining moment. Baltic Fleet sailors supportheBolsheviks and were, according to Lenin, “ U I Cglory and pride of the revolution.” They played leadingroles id breaking up the elected Constituent Assemblyand in the Cheka, an organization set up by Lenin toeliminate Bolshevik enemies. Following the successfulrevolt, Baltic Fleet sailors did a turnaround and dem-onstrated for free elections, press, speech and land use,and an end to absolute Bolshevik control. Riots brokeout and the “counter revolution” was ruthlessly sup-pressed. Sailors were purged and the Navy was placedunder he ight control of political commissars. TheRussian Navy’s brief moment of glory had ended. All

that remained was one battleship, eight destroyers andsome small craft. Other maritime activities, includingshipbuilding, also stopped.

Post-revolution economic and political problems de-terred further naval build-up. Three battleships, twocruisers and several small craft were recommissionedby 1924, but no large hips would be built until the 1930s.

In1928, a series of national economic plans wasbegun which included rebuilding the Navy. In the firstphase several small, defensive ships were built alongwith five submarines from old German plans. The sec-ond phase, begun in 1933, saw a sudden shift to largesurface ships after Stalin had been convinced by some

of his naval officers that he needed a large ocean-go-Navy. Destroyers and cruisers were launched,

RLL nANVS


9/68

DUP . . .three old battleships extensively modernized. The thirdphase saw large ship construction go into full swing.

As Admiral Nikolai G Kuznetsov, commander of t h e ,Soviet Navy at the time, wrote: “It was decided o buildbattleships, heavy cruisers, and other classes of surfacewarships; that is, a big surface navy. A large numberof submarines were also built. Not excluded either wasthe construct ion of aircraft carriers; rather they. wereonly postponed to the last year [of the economic plans,

1942, because of] the com .ities of construction ofwarships of this class and ~ ~~ -raft designed especiallyfor them.”

The final econo ase abruptly ended whenHitler’s army invauGu Russia in June 1941. As theSoviets went into WWII, their ocean-going Navy wasfar from impressive. In spite of the economic plans itconsisted of three pre-WWI battleships; 10 cruisers,only two of which were new; 66 destroyers, half ofthem old; and 218 submarines, the largest sub fleet inthe world at the time. Only the subs were active againstthe German Navy during the war, and their perform-ance was often poor. The’ rest ef the fleet was usedmainly for coastal defense and to support land opera-tions. Generally , during WWII the Soviet Navy showedpoor tactics, along with poor equipment and morale anddemonstrated, as well, little aggressiveness. The onlybright spot was the river flotillas which played an im-portant role in many land battles.

WWII had devastating effects on Russia. A thirdof the country had been overrun by German armies,20 million had been killed and millions more. werecrippled. Industry and the economy were in shambles.

The Navy was at an all ime ow. Industry wasincapable of rebuilding and sailors were needed else-where to help get the ountry back in shape. Yet, Stalindeclared that “the Sdviet people wish to see their fleet

grow still stronger and more powerful.” By the late1940s, the Soviets, with the help of German engineersfrom occupied territory and German technology, hadshipyards back in operation.

In March 1953 Stalin died, and with him, the plansfor the ocean-going Soviet Navy. Within months ship-building programs were cut back or canceled and newSoviet leaders, who were concerned with politicalproblems, shifted the emphasis to building submarinesand merchant ships. Only 14 of the 24 light cruisersplanned by Stalin were ee completed, and none ofhis large cruisers-or battleships was finished.

Nikita Khrushchev, a man of the, land, with ittle

understanding of the concept of seapdiwer, ascendedto Dower. Declaring that “cruisers and other bin war-

.

*


10/68

&) SOVIET.ine soviet union nas been a wor~d eader in subma-

rine forces since shortly before WWII. In September1939, when war broke out, it had 185 subs, comparedto Germany’s 57. Within two years the Soviets had builtthat up to 218. They have continued o s t ress submarinedevelopment and today have ver 300 subs in the activefleet. More than ne-third of these are nuclear powered,and over 40 per cent of the total submarine fleet arriesmissiles. Some of the more important classes of Sovietsubmarines are:

0 Foxtrot class. A300-foot-long, diesel-poweredattack S S ) submarine armed with 10 torpedo tubes.This class was introduced into tM fleet n the late 195Os,and some 55 are still in active service.

0 Golf class. A 320-foot-long, diesel-powered ballisticmissile (SSB) submarine armed with hree Serb missileswith a range of about 650 miles, plus torpedoes. Thisclass was originally built to carry a missile with a350-mile range, but most were later modified for thelonger range ones. The modified Golf subs can fire theirmissiles while submerged. Ballistic missiles re pre-tar-getted for use against land targ ts . Twenty-two of thisclass were built between 1958 and 1962.

0 Hotel class. A 380-foot-long, nuclear-powered bal-listic missile (SSBN) submarine armed with three Serbmissiles, plus torpedo tubes. Nine of these boats werebuilt ,between 1958 and 1%2.

0 November class. A 360-foot-long, nuclear-poweredattpck (SSN) submarine rmed with ight torpedotubes. The Soviets’ firstmuclear-powered sub, she wasprobably underway in 1959, but the official announce-ment was not made until October 1960. ,Fourteen ofthese subs were built between 1958 and 1963.

0 Echo class. A BO-focit-long, nuclear-powered anti-ship cruise missile (SSGN) submarine armed with six400-mile-range Shaddock missile tubes the ange capa-bility m a y vary), plus torpedo tubes. Five of these subswere, built from 1%0 to 1%2. In 1%3, a larger Echo41class was launched which has eight missile tubes. By1967, 27 Echo-11s were built. Their greatest drawbackis that they must surface to fire their missiles.

0 Juliett class. A 280-foot, diesel-powered cruisemissile S S G ) submarine armed with four Shaddockmissile tubes, plus torpedoes. About 16 of these werebuilt during the early 1960s.

0 Victor class. A 285-foot-long, nuclear-poweredattack (SSN) submarine armed with torpedoes.Deve1-oped as a foltowan to the November class, Victor iscapable of speeds over 30 knots submerged. -

0 Yankee class. A425-foot-long, nuclear-poweredballistic missile (SSBN) submarine armed with 16 mis-siles which have a range of 1300 miles, plus torpedoes.This ‘‘Pohris’’ type sub had her initial sea trials in 1968and 34 have been built.

0 Charlie class. A 295-foot-long, nuclear-poweredcruise missile (SSGN) submarine armed with eight un-derwater-launched missiles having a range of about 3 0 .

miles, plus torpedoes. This antiship sub first weW to :sea in 1968 and about 10 of them have been built.

0 Delta class. A 45O-foot-long, nuclear-powered b a l ,,’,listic missile (SSBN) submarine armed with 12 Wlistic ..,..;missiles with a range of 4200 nautical miles, c‘urrent1.y I, I ” ’the longest range missile in ,existence, plus torpedoes. I

’

Built as a follow-up to the Yankee class, the &st Delta ,was completed during 1473 and is the largest submarine , .’ _yet built by any Navy. About 10 of them are now in , [.operation. An improved Delta class sub with @Mr. ,’,,’missile battery is ‘believed to be under construction.

The Soviets now have about 44 Yankee and Deltaclass submarines carrying almost TOO missiles. Under.

current SALT greements they arq permitted a n h x i m q ‘ tof62 modern ballistic missile submarines with @O * :missiles. ,

’ ” ,

, , ( I ,


11/68SEPTEMBER 1975 9


12/68

. .

On% Soviet leaders were cpmmltted o building asurface Navy in the mid-I950s, hey went at i t with

a will. Whether they've achieved their goal of makingit the biggest and best is. hot1.y debated among Navywatchers, but hey do agree the Soviets have maderemarkable achievements. Their success didn't comeovernight. They first had 'to decide what kinds of shipsthey wanted, plans then had to . be drawn, shipyardsand related industries had to be retooled for t h e workand, finally, actual' construction had o 'be done. Itwasn't until late 1962 that he first ships of the newSoviet Navy went to'sea.

The irst were Kynda-class "rocket cruisers" de-signed specifically o counter U. S . aircraft carriers.Their main armament is eight Shaddock missile tubes,and t h e y also have a twin antiaircraft missile launcher,six torpedo tubes, antisubmarine rocket launchers andfour 76mm guns. All these' weapons are crammed intoa 465-foot hull, smaller than many western destroyerswith ess armament. Kyndas are capable of 35-knotspeeds.

$y the early 1960s, after four Kynda cruisers werebuilt, a slightly larger Kresta-I class began buitding. Inthis ship, the Shaddock tubes were reduced from eightto four, but a.second antiaircraft missile launcher andan ASW helicopter were added. 'A larger Kresta-IZ soonfollowed. Shaddock was replaced by25-mile-range,antiship missiles. The shift to these much shorter rangemissiles was apparently in line with a change in theSoviet Navy's mission from purely anticarrier to gen-eral use and sea control. Kresta-IIalso carries ad va ne dantiaircraft missiles and electronics equipment. Six ofthese 520-foot-long ships were built since 1970.

In 1973, another new missile cruiser was launched,the560-foot-long Karaclass , which wasbigger stillthan any modern missileequipped cruiser yet built byt h i Soviets. Improvements inlweapons were madi, andwith the larger size, operating range was increased-reflection of the Soviet global Navy strategy.

In addition to these new classes, several older Sverd-lovclass cruisers which were built n the late 1950s havebeen kept on the active list. Most of them have retainedtheir all-$un armament, but one' has a twin long-rangeantiaircraft missile auncher in place of a 6-inch gunturret. Two of these cruisers have been altered to actas command ships, complete with satellite com-munication devices. These wo give he Soviets thecapability for improved command and control n remoteareas such as the Indian. Ocean and South Atlantic.

There are currently about 30 cruisers in the activeSoviet fleet.

Along with cruisers, the Soviets began building somenew destroyers and frigates. One new class whichentered the fleet in 1 9 i O has been called "ton for ton,t h e heaviest rmed ndmost ffective destroyer

afloat." This 405-foot-long Krivak-class destroyer is,like most of the new Soviet ships, bristling with arms.


13/68

pposite pago top to bottom: A Kynd atias s Soviet cruiser; Kres--class guided missile armed destroyer leader off the coast ofawaii; Sverdi ovt iass crulser at anchor; guided missile armedestroyer of the Krlvak-class; and a Soviet K as h id as s destroy-. This page: A Russian-built Egyptian OSA class missile boatnderway; Nanuchka-class missile boat; a Soviet amphiMouship of the Aliigator-type; Soviet antisubmarine helicopter carriereningrad in the Indian Ocean.

1SEPTEMBER 1975

It is the world’s smallest warship having both antishipand antia ircraft missiles-four tubes for the former,

two twin launchers for the latter. Krivak also has anti-submarine weapons, eight torpedo tubes, four 76mmguns and mine rails. Her advanced electronics systemsinclude hull-mounted and variabledepth sonars.

Since 1963, the Soviets have alsobuilt about 20Kashin-class frigates. These 470-foot-long “antisub-marine, ships” are armed with wo arge antiaircraftmissile launchers, antisubmarine rocket launchers, fivetorpedo tubes, four 76mm multipurpose uns ndminelaying gear. A few have been fitted with short-range, surface-to-surface missiles and all have a heavyallowance of electronics gear. Kashin frigates are mostnotable for being he world’s irst arge gas-turbine-powered warships. These efficient engines can pushthem o speeds above 35 knots. The success of gasturbines in Kashin frigates prompted the Soviets toputhem n Kara-class cruisers, making hem heworld’s largest gas-turbine-powered ships.

Although they have some new classes, the majorityof the Soviet destroyer fleet is made up of older shipsfrom he 1950s and 1960s. Many, however, are nowarmed with antiship and antiaircraft missiles, along withtheir conventional guns. During he past few years amodernization program or these ships has been under-way and more advanced weapons are being added.

There are now about 80 frigates and destroyers inthe Soviet fleet.

The Mirka andPetya classes of escort ships irstappeared in 1963. They displace over I O 0 0 tons. Over100 of these and older escort ships are now in operationalong the Russian coast and in the open seas.

The Soviets also have a vast array of small combatcraft, more, in fact, than the rest of the world’s naviescombined.

Perhaps the best known of the Soviets’ small craftis the 130-foot-long Osa-class missile boat. Each arriesfour missile launchers for the 25-mile Styx missile. Theyalso have wo apid-fire twin 30mm guns. Their opspeed is over 32 knots.

The small size and imited capabilities of the Om

boats led to the introduction of the larger Nanuchka-class missile ship in 1970. The 200-foot-long ship hasan antiaircraft missile auncher forward and a twin57mm gun mount aft. Her main battery is six 150-mile-range antiship missile tubes. Nanuchka is one of theheaviest armed warships of this ize in any Navy.About 135 guided missile patrol boats are in service.

In addition to these two classes of missile boats, theSoviets have about 450 ASW, torpedo and patrol craft,and about 270 minesweepers in service.

Amphibious forces and ships have received addedemphasis by the Soviets in recent years. There arecurrently about 10,OOo naval infantry, as their Marinesare called, whose job includes not only amphibious

11


14/68

landings, but also “prolonged iver crossings” andnaval base defense.

To transport naval infantry, there are about twelve375-foot-long Alligator-class tank landing hips (LSTs),more than sixty 245-foot-long Polnocny-class mediumlanding ships (LSMs) and about 25 other miscellaneouslanding ships of 200 feet or more in length. The largerships are armed with rocket launchers and antiaircraftguns. Soviet amphibious capabilities are expected toincrease in the coming years.

In1967, the Soviets completed heir irst aviationship, Moskva, a radically designed half-cruiser, half-helicopter carrier. The second of these 625-foot-longantisubmarine cruisers, Leningrad, was underway thefollowing year. Each carries about 20 ASW helicopters,

and the entire aft half of the ship is a flight deck. In.the forward cruiser half, they are armed with two twin . ,,antiaircraft missile launchers, antisubmarine rocketlaunchers, 10 torpedo tubes and four 57mm antiaircraftguns. They also have advanced radar, hull-mounted andvariabledepth sonar and electronic countermeasureequipment. In addition to their ASW role, thkse shipscan also be used as task force and fleet flagships.

A second generation aircraft carrier is now beingcompleted by the Soviets. Also a variation, the 900-foot-long Kiev s a cruiser forward, but has an islandsuperstructure to starboard and an angled flight deckaft. The 600-foot-long flight deck does not have cata-pults or arresting gear, and the ship will probably carryabout 20 helicopters and about a dozen V/STOL aircraft.

Above: Artlst’s concept of tho now SovI.1 aircr aft w r r k r nowunder constructkn and exp.ct.d to k more than 900 oot long

guldod m l u l h destroyer. Mow: The &vkt In to l l~nce rawlerand displace some 4OOO tons. Also shown Is a Krlvakcl.88

Wr of on underway In the aulf of Tonkln wlth the attack ,akcraRcarrler USS Coral Sea (CVA 43) and her mcort shlp8 In the,background.

A second ship of this class is now under construction, .Closely allied with the buildup of warships has beenthe increase of surveillance and intelligence ships.

Probably the most famous of their intelligence c o llectors are the unarmed trawler-type AGIs. They aremanned byNavy crews and fly theRussian navalensign. Some 50 AGIs are presently in setirice and keepa close watch on important U. S . Navy bases such asRota, Spain; Holy Loch, Scotland; Apra Harbor,Guam; and Charleston, S . C. They have watched hun-dreds of U. S . military and civilian missile launches,and one was on hand when the first Polaris submarine,uss George Washington, tested her missile aunchingsystem in April. 1960; another was nearby when uss

j James Mhdison first fired he multiwarhead Poseidonmissile in August 1970.

AGIs regularly shadow and monitor Allied fleets inthe Mediterranean and South Pacific, and often sail intothe center of operating formations. Their boldness,aggressiveness nd fficiency are legendary mongU. S . and Allied. sailors. At the conclusion of oneexercise, for example, a British admiral signaled, withtongue-in-cheek, from his carrier to ask a trailing AGIif she needed to be refueled. The trawler replied, “Notif you maintain your original schedule.” The originalschedule was classified.

Besides these AGIs which openly collect intelligence,

no one knows for sure how many of the Soviets’ largeresearch and fishing fleet re also engaged in that work.

72 A L L H A N D S


15/68

SOVIET NAVALAIRCRAFTSoviet naval aviation has about 1200 planes, most of

which are based ashore, except for helicopters andVISTOLS. Aircraft are organized into squadrons whosecommanders report to each of the four combat fleetcommanders. Soviet naval aviation has four basic mis-sions:

0 Reconnaissance. This mission s achieved withabout 50 large, fourengine, turbo-prop Bear-D planes,about 50 twin-jet Badger aircraft (roughly equivalentto U. S . B47s) and a few supersonic Blinder jets:Besides ong-range reconnaissance and ocean surveil-lance, some of these planes are equipped o providemid-course guidance for antiship missiles aunchedfrom surface ships, submarines and other aircraft.

0 Antiship strike. Some 290 Badgers are assigned

this task. These planes are fitted with antiship missileswhose ranges vary from 55 to over 300 miles. A newvariable sweep-wing supersonic jet is now being putinto service for this mission, and is expected eventuallyto replace the Badger. In addition, some bombers ofSoviet Long-Range Aviation (counterpart of the U. S.Strategic Air Command) are fitted to attack ships. Allthese strike aircraft have in-flight refueling capability.

Antisubmarine. A large force of some 400 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are assigned this mission,including about SO May-class turbo-prop planes (similarto our P-3 Orion) and about 100 Mail-class twinengineflying boats. Antisub missions are flown mostly fromshore bases and concentrate on coastal defense; how-

Right: A Soviet TU95 Bear-D bomber. Below: Two U. S. Navy F-4Phantom II fighter aircraft and a Soviet TU16 Badger bomber

(CVA 63).In flight In the vlcinlty of the attack aircraft rrler USS KittyHawk

ever, helicopters from he Moskva-class cruisers andthe Kiev carriers will certainly get into this work. SovietASW planes carry a variety of detection equipment andantisubmarine bombs and torpedoes.

Support Aircraft. About 350 tanker, transport andutility planes are assigned to the Soviet Navy. About50 of this number are assigned to training missions. Thisnumber may seem small until you consider t h a t theSoviet Air Force handles all basic and advanced flighttraining and most of he airborne logistic support forthe Navy.

The construction of aircraft carriers and the promo-tion of the naval air commander to Marshal of Aviation,the equivalent of fleet admiral, indicate t h a t more im-portance is being placed on naval aviation.


16/68

I


17/68

wt: A Ruulqn “fish bnso ship”with.snulkr wssois go- Th.bas. shlp a n mportodiy stay atHI for 0 hys Rbht: Tho S o v k tocoanographlc r i soarch sh ipo .vr l l&r( t .hav und0ly.y.

. ,

estimated that more than 265,000 people work in the tool to the most complex computer-controlled machineindustry. before,it can be used by any yard. Naval and merchant

Every aspect of shipbuilding in the Soviet Union is shipbuilders freely exchange construction methods:controlled by the Ministry ofShipbuilding, and all The whole Soviet maritime scene fits ogether iketechnology and every resource is shared throughout the a giant puzzle. Shipbuilding, upkeep and design areindustry. All equipment is standardized and he Min- controlled by one single ministry. Ships of each mari-istry must approve every piece of it from a simple hand time organization actively support one another.

. .

SQVIET NAVY MISSIONSThe aoviet Navy s rnlsswrl I I ~ > ha,nged rom coastal

defenses following W I I , to deterring U, S. aircraftcarriers and’ their nuclear attack capabilities in themid-l950s, to a more offense-oriented one’ oday. Thisincludes four tasks: ( I ) Nuclear strike and deterrence,(2) Sea control and denial, (3) Presence, and (4) Sea-borne projection. Current trends indicate that this willremain the Soviet mission in the future.

The buildup of the large attack submarine fleet fol-lowing W I I was intended to deter Allied use of ship-ping lanes, particularly in the Atlantic, during wartime.Later anticarrier and anti-Polaris forces expanded thesea’ denial mission. In the late 1960s, sea control alsobecame important. This shift brought he buildup ofmodern, missile-carrying surface ships with increasedcapabilities. The sea control mission has also causedthe Soviets to expand their operating areas from justthe Baltic and North Atlantic to areas farther awayfrom the Soviet landmass, for example, the Med.

Presence has been a natural by-product of the ex-pansion, but it is also a conscious, well-planned missionto spread the political goals of the’communist Partythrough use of the Navy. In the past few years, Sovietwarships have visited more ports in more nations than

ever before. Naval presence increases in importanceas more nations bedome more dependent on he sea

SEPTEMBER 9751

. .1

. .I

. .

for their resoufces, trade, political interests and militarysecurity.

The final mission, projection, is the use of the militaryto project a nation’s power into remote sea and landareas. Traditionally, the Soviet Union has relied on itsArmy for projection into land areas adjacent to heUSSR, and the merchant marine for projection over-seas-Cuba in 1 2, for example. The Soviet Navy hasnow assumed an overseas projection role. Expandedoperations in all oceans, the buildup of naval infantry,ocean-going amphibious ships, the Kiev-class carrierand a large, technologically advanced fleet indicate this.

All aspects of this mission are closely related. Eachcalls for a large, modern, well-balanced fleet. Proof thatthe Soviets have his andcan now carry out theirmission was dramatically demonstrated by the recentworldwide “Okean” exercises, the argest peacetimenaval exercise in history. Soviet ‘Navy and merchantships simultaneously conducted maneuvers in the At-lantic , Mediterranean, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Theseincluded antisubmarine, antiaircraft carrier and am-phibious landing operations. Land-based naval aircraft,the Soviet Air Defense Force and Long-Range AirForce also participated with simulated attacks against

enemy ships. The whole exercise was apparently coor-dinated from Soviet Naval Headquarters in Moscow.

5


18/68


19/68

guided mj rri ie armed destroyer. Above.: A Sovlet Navy officer.Left: Sovkt u l i o r s ride a Ilberty boat from their Karhin-olarr

dertroyer Bipyky.Right: Crew member8 of the Soviet Kan in tl asr guided missile

to offer both undergraduate and graduate education,well as intensive political ndoctrination. Virtually a l lSoviet naval officers are naval school graduates. Stu-dents are trained as line officers or in a specialty suchas engineering or electronics. The undergraduate courseis four years long, or six for engineering officers. Thefew non-Nakhimov graduates who are selected for thehigher naval school must attend a preliminary six oeight weeks of basic training.

Upon graduation he student is commissioned andreceives orders to a ship or aviation unit. During thisfirst tour of duty he will attend special training coursesand echnical schools. Later, he willbe rotated forseven-year tours between sea and shore duty and willprobably attend graduate and joint service schools and

the Naval Academy, the Soviet equivalent of our NavalWar College. Soviet officers can earn advanced degreesup to the Ph.D. in naval sciences.

Soviet naval officers are highly intelligent and welleducated. Enlisted men are disciplined and well trained.All Soviet navymen are dedicated,.highly motivated andextremely proud of their service .

SOVIET NAVAL LIMITATIONS

For all ts assets, the Soviet Navy is not withoutlimitations. A sufficient number’of all-weather ports isa problem, but his has been partially overcome byusing icebreakers and covered building and repair waysin northern ports.

A lack of air cover for ships operating ar from homeis another problem. The Soviets are trying to solve itwith surface-to-air missile systems, shore-based airpower operating from overseas bases, and-now-sea-based aircraft operating from the new Kiev-class air-craft carriers.

Open ocean replenishment has also been somethingof a problem, but the large, modern merchant fleet andnew underway replenishment ships are solving this.

Old problems of getting hrough controlled straits,such as the Danish Strai ts into he Baltic and heTurkish Straits from the Black Sea into he Mediter-ranean, have argely been overcome by ship deploy-

shot” N a v y - a strong initial strike power with relative-ly little eft after that. This “limitation” however, isnot something hat just happened, it has apparentlybeen carefully developed for the future in what heSoviets believe would be short-duration conflicts ofdays or even hours.

A summation of a report fr om Secretary of DefenseJames R . Schlesingerhad his tosay astyear, “Aswe look ahead we see a Soviet Na vy tha t is becomingincreasingly apable of overseasdeployment,whosesubmarines could pose a significant threat to free worldshipping, and whose urface ombatants,with theirconsiderableantishipcruisemissilecapability,could


20/68

Journalist William G . Clark’s response when he wasincluded in a group invitation to visit Russia this pastyear-the grou p beingmembers of the Washing ton,D. C.-base d Arena S tag e. Clark is a full-time journalistattached to the O fice of the Chief of Information; byavocation he’s a part-time member of Arena Stage and,a l so , a part-time artist, adept with b oth brush an d pen.He took an extended leave, gaining Navy approval tovisit a restricted country. Following a briefing b y theState Department, he and the actors of Arena Stagewere 08 on a whirlwind tour (18 days were spent intravel) which ncluded performances of twoAmericanclassic s in Mosco w and Leningrad.

His reaction to his Russian visit is illustrated in wordsandictures on theseage mericansailor in Soviet Russia.

“Wha t’s it like , wha t’s Russia really like?”Without fail, thisis the most f requent ques t ion asked

of me since isitingMoscowndLeningrad as amember of the Arena Stage touring company.

After long negotiations, two Am erican classics, “ I n -heri t the Wind” and Tho rnton Wilder ’s “Our To w n , ”were ccepted o epresent he U . S. as part of a

cultural exchange program between the two countr ies .From repertory companies across the country, ArenaStage of Washington, D. C. , waspicked,and I wasincluded for several understudy assignmentsn “Inheritthe Wind.”

I n bothLeningrad ndMoscow,Arenaplayed oselloutcrowdswho avishedsustainedstandingova-t ionsupon heperformances nd,not nfrequently,del ivered lowersandgif ts a t curtaincalls.Simulta-neous translat ions of the productions by an interpreterdetractedsomewhat rom heplays’ uster;neverthe.less , both productions must be abeled overwhelmingsuccesses.

Russiaas l i count ry’veverisi ted.I had envisioned a cou ntry don e up in austere black,white and varying hues of gray. These thoughts were

dispelled themomen t our 68-membercompany, woton-sof scenery and one l ive s tage monkey-arr ived a tthe S here me tyev o irport in Moscow . “Inheri t heWind” oncerns he 1925 Scopes MonkeyTrial .”)New sights and sounds constantly assaulted my senses.Mythswereshatteredas I wasgreeted by freew ays,traffic lights, eon igns,elevisionowers nd m -merous mode rn buildings.

AndLeningrad,“Venice of theNor th ,” is like noother ci ty I’ve seen, unique in char acter.

Inconsistency is the noun one uses to label the vastdifferencepresentedbyMoscow’soniondomed,By-zantine St . Basi l’s in Red Squa re, only two blocks fromthe oinnacle of 20th centurv Russ ian a rch i tec ture . themod ern, 2000-room glass nd teelho(Russia).

Rossiya’s rooms were small, yet modern-and ov er-c rowded . I was one of themorefortunatewhodrewa room with an excel lent view of the southern part ofthec i ty romacross he“Moskva” Moscow) iver.Standingo n the tiny balcony,I saw the Kremlin, visibleto the west, and to the east w as on e f five of the tallestskyscrapers in M osc ow , an apa rtm en t building built inLenin’s ime.

No tew orthy in Rossiya was he mult i tude of “deskclerks.” Every floor had several a t various points and

theirprimary unctionwas hat of a n ysuch clerk-pick-up point and repository for room keys, arrangingfor laundry service and the l ike. Their second function


21/68

seemed to be maintaining social decorum and ensuring weari ly swung into a chair at the dining room tableonethat the local citizenry stayed out of the hotel. ning,“When I die , I plan o pend he first 1OW

fr iendly, even concerned, not unlike many of our s t of the company was involved in both produc.people. Their desires and amb itions appeared little I was one of the ucky ones who perform ed ir,

TheRussian eople I met o n theourwere ourte rs i t t ing own.”

~-ferentf romanyone else’s-the right to l ive comfort-ab ly, do meaningfu l work , and provide for home andfamily.When ne onsidershat nce erson is

assigned oborpro fessio n in Russia his rightochangedoesnotbelong ohim,whether itbe waiteror warden, then the chal lenge presented by such goalsand desires can be m ore easi ly understood. Tovstono-gov, director of the Gorki Theate r an d onef the USSR’sgreatart is ts ,said,“Humannature is l ike heocean,unchanging, today’s calm, tomorrow’s empest-but it’sall theamecean.Man i as heas, as b-always wil l be.”

Our t ime in MoscowandLeningradwasspent e-hearsing, performing and trying to see everything. Oneof theArenacompa ny eflectedourmoodwhen he

only he one show, al lowing me o ake advantage ofmost of the oursandeventsarranged or us by theMinistry of Culture. During our two-week tour, I man-

aged oat tend heopera,“Carmen,” a t theBolshoitheater; the play, “Bolsheviks;” the Moscow and Len-ingradcircuses; heLeningradSymphony;and oursof theKremlin,Lenin’somb,heHermitage ndCatherine’ssummerplace.Itbecameapparent om ethat heSoviets had made oncentrated ffort oarrange a successful cul tural expose of the count ry.

In the f ree moments I couldgrab in any fash ion , Iventure d into the streets, sketchb ook in hand.

With wide ariations inall categories, it was nosurprise to discover that Russian foods a kaleidoscopeof eat inghabits of manynationalities.Russianmealsprovided a t the hotels were tasty and nourishing, withtheexception hat he ervingswe re ligh tly Emallerthan are rece ived a t hom e.

In Mo scow one night, fiveof us venture d to a largerestaurant o sample local fare-the main co ur se wa:chicken, ervedwithchoppednutsandblueberrries.Total cost for appetizers ,ive meals, two bottlesof wineand a bottle of vodkawas $34 ( U . S . ) . Fortunately,tipping is one of the few western custom s that has yetto arr ive in the Soviet Union.

One a f t e rnoonI decided to brave theery s tore and purchasea can of coffee.nce it fromanative’sooint of view.

congested gro-, just to experi-

I managed ostation myself a t the fro nt of the line at the store ’s d oorwhich was ust opening after he 1-3 p.m. break . Thedooropened, I raced n ,andsangout ,“Kofe .”Theclerk ignaled, What ind’?’’ I pointedohe ed-labeled container. The clerk wrote out a ticket hat I

Opposite page top: Awaiting departure from Dulles International.

the Terrible’s Bell Tower behind he Kremlin Wall. Left belowBott om: “ Song of Stone,” St. Basil’s, Moscow. Left above: l v a r

Clock Tower. Below: Southeast corner of the Kremlin. Sketchesby the author, JOC William G. Clark.

19


22/68

took o hecashierandpaid.From hecashier,whoused n bacus, eceived econd icket , his inlonghand, which I took and continued battling my waythrough the hrong of pushing and shoving shoppe rs.1 finally reached the counter and pickedup my “ko fe . ”It is incon ceivable o magineamotherwith a smallchild or twoundertaking he amilymarketingunderthese awesome condit ions. Then there is the fact thatfish must be obtained rom he fish ma rket,meata tthe butche r, fruit at the fruit store, and so on.

Although my pound of coffee was considered a bar-gain at 60 cents ( U . s.), Russia is not a shopper ’sparadise. Prices are high, even by our standards, andthe overall quality is inferior. Sinceall stores are gov-ernment-owned and all pr ices are s tate control led, thereare n o bargains.The edeem ing eature is thatwhileone cannot locate a sale, nei ther are there any dangers

everywhere.Crowdedcondit ionsarenot Jus t confined o necessity” tores-you oundthem in the s treets , s tores and cinema al ike. With allthepeopleon hestreets, requently oundmyself

wondering, “Who is doing the work?”In.Leningrad, the Russians tel l a joke on them selvesregarding their crowded main street, Nevsky P rospect.

tafdf~t “What do he people do when hey aren’t walk ing upare walking down

clued oattenuapon arrival at he obby, I thought I

g my ticket. After 20 minutes of limited progressmass of humanity, a bell rang and a large portioncrowd dispersed. With numerous jabs at watchesd o he cheduleover he icketwindow, he

k of violent crime was evidenced by the largeof peop le oundwalking he treets of the

all hours of the night . When one considers the

cated a specific amount of living spac e and livingrters are assigned accordingly. Granted, everyoneuaranteed a place to l ive and emergency si tuat ionsbe akencare of within a f ewdays, butunder

inary conditions, it takes about two years to ge t an

p: Guests n Rossiya Hotel, Moscow . Right: Behind the stage,

thorpe, Jr., talks with a Soviet sailor during a ecent visit oPushkin heater, Leningrad. Opposite page: CDR Willi am Man-

Leningrad by th e guided missile cruiser USS Leah y (CG 16).

apartment .Oneannotxpectomoveoargerquarters simply because he can affordi t . That’s impos-sible. An engineer,who pokeEnglish, nd I metbetween matinee and evening performances one day,and he and I went walking and talking to kill the time.He disclosed that he and his wife worked and togethertheyearned heequiva lent of abo ut $400 U . S. permonth. Thev didn’t pay taxes, medical and dental care

20 A L L H A N DS


23/68

rde r to the PacifictheBarentsSea .

liam Hr J . Mantho rpe ,Jr., hisvisit toLeningrad in They oundRuss ia obe a country tr iving o qual IMay was no exception. the m ilitary, industrial and agricultural strengtt

asAssistantNavalAttache in Moscow .During hat The com ma nde r said his recetime I mademore han 50 trips oLeningrad,”said him the opportunity to meet , talk and exchange ideasCDR Manthorpe . “There a re few c i t ies I know be: zr. with his counterp,--*cin the Sov iet I\r-\/y in the Le ’ -Return ing was l ike see ing an o ld f r iend .” grad area .

by wo U. S. Navy warships o Leningrad in com mem - I xchange w x virtually mpossible ”oration of the end of World War I1 in Europe .

Because of hisprevious xperience in theSo\Union and his ability o spea k the lang uag e, anthorlwho is assigned to the Office of the Secrfense,accompanied uss Leahy CG 16 t o e rveinterpreter and aid in cnnrdinating activities during tvisit.

He conducteda series of orientatlon lectures forship’s crew on the Soviet Union and the ci tyof Lergrad.

Of his three-yearssignm ent in Mo sco w, CIManthorpe a id , “I found heduty hal lenging ndinteresting, personally as well as professionally. I wasthe epresen tative of theU . S . Navy o heSovie tUnion.”

He stated that fo r mo st of the three years the oppor-tunity obringabout heexch ange of ideasbetweenthe Am erican and Soviet navies was quite l imited.

“However,”hesaid, ‘‘ I wasable oparticipate inarrangingexchangesbetween heAmer icanandSoviet 1Incidents-at-Sea delegations.”

During his tour, his wife, Judith, and their young erdaughter, Jennifer, l ived in Moscow’s diplomatic com-munity. Jennifer at tended the Anglo-A merican Schooland K imberly, their elder daughter, joined the familyin Mo scow for he f inal yea r af ter complet ing schoolin England.

While serving as a t tache , hecommande rand hisfamily had ampleppor tuni tyo of

“ 1 spent hreeyea rs in theS o v i e t U n i w (I971 -74 United

’

CDRManthorpewaspart icipat ing in the ive-dayvisit“It’samazing,”hesaid,“but ust a yearago

SE


24/68

22 A L L


25/68

The dmiral began, For DT&E, hedeveloping

agency would properly optimize all conditions. Hewould preselect a missile for firing and peak and tweakit with field engineers and contractor reps doing mostof the work. The PHM. also with technical peopleaboard, would sortie specifically for this test, in goodweather. The PHM would probably steer a steadycourse and speed at a predetermined range and wouldlaunch a missile at an anchored target hulk. If a memberof the contractor's launch teim made a personnel error,the shot would properly be labeled a 'no test.'

"Now we'll consider the 'operational' aspects oftest and evaluation.

"For OT&E, by COMOFTEVFOR, the PHM and he

Harpoon missile would be handled only by the ship'sregular crew; no engineers or contractor reps would beallowed aboard. Several Harpoon missiles, selected atrandom, would be loaded in thePHM's auncher amonth or two before he firing test and subjected tothe normal shipboard environment of high seas, .vibra-tion, sun and spray, gun firing and perhaps even paintchipping in port.

"The Harpoon firing would take place at the end ofa typical five-day mission profile at sea, hopefully inpoor weather. The PHM would close he arget atmaximum speed, using zigzag courses to avoid simu-lated return fire. The ship would have other tasks toperform (such as gun firing, contact reporting, naviga-tion) during the run-in. The target ight be a high-speedSeptar, equipped with remote-control chaff launchers

Above: F-4 Phantom ii fighter aircraft of Air Development Squad-

caliber lighiwelght gun s test-fired for the first time from a ship,ron Four (VX 4) in flight. Facing pag e: The Navy's ma1Fr &inch

the destroyer USS Hull (DD 045).

and expendable defensive electronic countermeasures

(DECM) equipment to counter the Harpoon."Thehydrofoil wouldhave to detect the target,

identify i t , make tactical decisions on engagement, firethe missile, assess the effect of the shot and makedecisions on subsequent act io n4 11 of which would bepart of the evaluation. If the shot missed because ofa personnel error among the crew, the firing would beevaluated a failure in. some aspects, even hough heHarpoon itself performed well.

"Although his example is somewhat overdrawn, itemphasizes that DT&E attempts to optimize all condi-tions and evaluates hardware only, whereas OT&Tattempts to create combat conditions in d evaluates the

entire system, including he men in the oop and heinterfaces with other systems."According to DoD Directive 5000.3, "the T&E

bible," in order to be classed as OT&E. testing must;0 Be planned by COMOFTEVFOR, rather than by the

developing agency;0 Be conducted by fleet-type personnel, both for

operation of the equipment and for maintenance;Be carried out at sea, under typical fleet onditions

and against a simulated enemy who fights back;0 Have the actual testing supervised by COMOPTEV-

FOR, in terms of making on-the-spot decisions, andfinally;

0 Be reported independently to the CNO by COMOP-

The entire effort at COMUkTEVFOR is to save time andTEVFOR.

SEPTEMBER 1975


26/68

LCDR J. C. Richardson and STCS J. H. Walters, members of COMOPTEVFOR staff.

mone y; to save time by planning, rather than by beingforcedntoast-minuteescheduling to test riticalaspects of new equipment, andto save money by fixingone modelbeforeproduction, ather han etrofittinghundredsonce heyare in the fleet.AdmiralMonroesays, “What we’re talking about here isfleet readiness.If thenewequipmentarriving in the fleet will do tsjob, and is reliable, then we have a fighting chanceofdigging o ur way out of the readiness hole. Butif thenew equipm ent has as many problems as the old. thefight will never be won. OT&E gives the Navy theo n l ymeasure it has as to how he equipment will performin the fleet and it provides thisin time to decide whetherto produce or fix.”

A t the end of April 1975,OPTEVFOR had 362 CNO-as-signed projects for T&Eof futuristic hardware, rangingfrom m issiles to shipboard sewage systems.This repre-sents a vast growth since the endof calend ar year 1970

when the command had a totalof 139 projects assigned .Since that time, there has been a steady increase, with187 proje cts at th e en dof 1971, 21 at the en dof 1972,248 at the end of 1973 and 324 at the end of 1974.

All projects assigned to OPTEVFOR by C N O initiallygohrough dministrative rocessing ndhen reassigned by Operat ions andPlans to a warfare division.Responsible officers then plan the evaluation, developtest plans, condu ct he ests at sea, and analyze estresults. Following his, evaluations of test resul ts areprovided CNO by COMOPTEVFOR for a decisiononoperational effectiveness and operational suitability ofequip men t for the f leet.

This sounds relat ively simple and clear-cut , but anyof the 22 OPTEVFOR project officers and coordinatorsinter view ed for this article will readily tellyou it is a

24

time-consuming, ntricateanddemandingprocess. Amajor consideration is the am oun tof travel involved,says Lieutenant CommanderG . F. Monell, assistant foradvanced ntegratedmissilesystems,surfacewarfaredivision. He has logged abou t 125.000 air milesin twoand one-half years at OPTEVFOR.

According to Lieutenant Commander, J . C. Richard-son, assistant for med ium range missilk system s,y o uworkrom mo ving esk.” It necessitates our“keeping a bag packed” at all t im es. They and othersagree, how ever, that the work is “challenging, reward-ing a nd exciting.”.

For hemostpart, OPTEVFOR projectofficersandcoordinators welcome the opportunity to view and learnfirsthand abou t ‘all the latest propose d pieces of equ ip-ment for the fleet. I t could becom e a bit mind-bogglingkeepingup-to-datesimultaneously on 30. 40oreven50 pieces of equipment, but as resident “experts” atOPTEVFOR headquarters,his is anbsolutemust.Whe ther the “expert” is an o fficer or onef the enlistedmen, he is required to keep “up to speed” o n anyproject assigned to him and be prepared to make afullreport o n a mom ent’s notice.

Thisbringsupapointwhich sets OPTEVFOR apartfrom most if not all other comm andsin the Navy. Dueto the unique ness of its rol e, as well asthe fact hatan individual assigned a project is labeled the “expert,”all project officers and coordinators areon a one-to-onebasis among hemselves, a s well a s with he admiral.Anytime a project is being discussed, the “expert” isexpected to take a firm stand on. the points which hedeem s vi tally important to the subject , evenf it meanstaking an opposing view to a senior man.

Although generally senior types them selves, enlisted

A L L HANDS


27/68

personnel assigned to OFTEVFOR readily admit that ad -justment to this sort of working relationship presentedcertain inner co nflictsin the beginning.In time, howev-er, as one becomes horoughly ndoctr inated with OP-TEVFOR'S workings, hisnewway of doing hings is

accepte d withou t hesitation. Wh en the initial inner re-luctancehasworn off, enlistedmen find them sdlveseasilydiscussingand, on occasion,disagreeingwithofficers. As Chief SonarTechnician F. Millerput t,"They alway s listen tous here, whether our opinionis good, bad or otherwise."

OPTEVFOR is the sceneof constant act ivi ty. With morethan 300 projects on the l ine, and tasked to ensure thateac h one is fleet ready, there is little time for anythin gother hanbusinessduring heworkingday. All as-signed personnel agree on this, just as they do one othermajor point and that is the extremely high job satisfac-tion derived from work at~ E V F O R .That was the mostcommo n remark by all interviewees at the comm and.

OPTEVFOR is ma ny hings,butmost mpo rtant. it'sa little comm and doing a big and extrem ely critical job.All thosehundredsand housands of "blackboxes"that command personnel deal with dai ly represent po-tentially great investmentsof taxpayers' dollars,so theymustbescrutinizedverycarefullybeforeproductionbegins.

What's a "black box"? Very simply, it 's any com po-nent box of a system, so. called because i t is paintedblack.

A history of OPTEVFOR follows.4 0 1 K. Testorff

Above: U. S.' Navy Surface Effect Ship (SES 100s) speeds acrossthe water during test run. Below: Guided Mlssiie Patrot HydrotoilPegasus PHM 1) skims the waters of Puget Sound, Wash., atspeeds n excess of 40 k n o b during a test.


28/68

1 , .. .

COMOPTEVFOR traces its origin to the final months ofWorld War I1 when he need arose for an effectivemeans to combat Japanese kamikaze attacks.

On 2 Jul 1945, theComposite Task Force, U. S .Atlantic Fleet, was formed to develop tactics and eval-uatequipment to counter the kamikazes.This force was commanded by Vice Admiral W. A. Leeand consisted of miscellaneous types of combatantships with supporting aircraft and drone control groups.

When World War I1 ended, the Composite TaskForce was consolidated with other fleet units doingdevelopment work and, in December 1947, was redes-ignated the Operational Development Force (OPDEV-FOR). In he early years, COMOPDEVFOR flew his lagin uss Adirondack(AGC 15). but in the summer of 1949.thecommand moved ashore to headquarters at theNorfolk Naval Base.

During the ensuing years, changes .were made to themission and tasks to provide wider responsibilities inoperational test and evaluation. For example, in 1952.the Tactical Development Group was formed and be-came part of OPDEVFOR. Changes were 'also made inthe organizational structure, to expartd test and evalua-tion capabilities and to form a subordinate commandwithin the Pacific Fleet.

Accordingly, in May1959, the command was re-named Operational Test and Evaluatioe Force (OFTEv-

FOR) to reflect more accurately i t s increased responsi-Wt ie s. Headquarters then -was moved to Camp Allen

RADM Robert R. WMOi k *mmander of the 0p. ra tknol TOIand Evaluatlon Force.

Brief ' Historical Sumin Norfolk, in 1 9 6 0 and has remained there since.an operational command reporting to CINCLANTFLT. Itsmission was primarily concerned with fleet introductionof new weapons systems, including operational est andevaluation and development of tactics.

In the early 1970s. however, OFTEVFOR was desigtyt-ed the Navy's sole independent agent for operational .test and evaluation. This move was in response .toCongressional nd Secretary of Defense iniliiativesaimed at improving he defense material acquisitionprocess. The force retained its former responsibilitiesand added the new ones o making early, independentassessments of operational effectiveness and opera-tional suitability during the research and development(RLD) process.

Ineepingwith these new responsibili ties, whioh ,moved OITEVFOR'S participation ahead of the prodtlc-tion decision, the Force Commander now reports di- .rectly' to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNQ) asAssistant Director for Operational Test and Evatuation(OP-098C). In addition to these duties, RADM Monroe .also serves as Director, Test and Evaluation Division(OP-983), thus giving T&E a strong focal poinF within

From inception until he arly 1970s. OFTEVFOR was

OPNAV.OFTEVMIR i s a two-ocean operational leet ommand

with policy direction, technical and procedural guidance

and financial support coming from CNO. For opera-tional control of fleet units, COMOPTEVFOR reports to ,. ,


29/68

k

ary O f COMOPTEVFOR-Z I N C PA C F LT, C I N C L A N T F LT and, when necessary, C I N -X S N AV E U R . C I N C L A N T F LT providesdministrativesupport for headquarters staff and logistics services forAtlantic Fleet operations. C I N C U S N AV E U R provides lo-gistic ervices orSixthFleetoperat ions nd C I N C -D A r F LT providesogisticervicesor Pacific Fle et

To permit COMOITEVFOR to carr y out his mission, hemust closely ollow all R&Dprograms of theNavalMaterial Comm and and the Office of N aval Research .CNO accordingly has authorlzed direct l iaison betweenCOMOITEVFOR and the headsof developing agencies forall technical matters relating to N avy research, devel-opme nt test and evaluat ion programs.

Th e staff of COMOITEVFOR is organized along flexiblelines that give primary consideration to typesf warfareandproject dministration.Evaluation of equipmentand sys temsis carried out by personnel w ith operationalexperience in the ype of equipment or w arfare overwhich their divisions have cognizance.

On 1 Jul 1974, a major new division was created tocoordinateoperational valuation of new lasses ofships. Also in 1974, in response to increased emphasis,the Special Operations section was given divisional rankand was retitled the Ocean Su rveillance Division. Thefollowing is a n ou tlineof headquarters organizat ion atthe close of 1974: comptroller, adm inistrative division,operations and plans division, ship evaluation division,undersea s warfare division, air warfare division, com-

rat ions.

mand n d ontrol ystemsdivision, urfacewarfaredivision and ocean surveillance division.

TheDeputy C O M O P T E V F O R , Pacific, ocated in Sa nDiego, m aintains liaison withC I N C PA C F LT, Pacific Fleettype, unctionalandsupportcommandersand,whendirected,heads of Pacific shoreactivitiesengaged indevelopment wo rk, including contractors . He adm inis-ters, coordinates and supervises projects being prose-cuted in the Pacific Flee t areas as direc ted by COMOP-T E V F O R andreparesroposedrojectlansndreportsas equired.Whe n equested by C I N C PA C F LT.he renders assistance for Pacific Fleet assist projects.

In addit ion o he eputy omm ander, O R E V F O Rmaintains three aircraft squadrons and two detachments

which assist in OT& E pro grams. These includeAir Te stand Evaluation Squadron One ( V X - I ) , Naval Air Sta-tion,PatuxentRiver,Md.; Air Test ndEvaluat ionSquadronFour ( V X - 4 ) , Naval Air Station.Pt. [email protected].; nd Air Test ndEvaluat ionSquadronFive(VX-5) , NavalWeaponsCenter,ChinaLake,Calif . ;andNewLondonTest ndEvaluat ionDetachment( N L O N T E V D E T ) , FortTrumbull ,NewLondon,Conn. ,and Sunnyvale Test and Evaluat ion Detachment ( S U N -TEVDET), Moffett Field, Calif. The three air squadronsarender COMOPTEVFOR'S operationalo only ;adm inistr ativ e con trol rem ains with)he*$pprc. ate typecommande r. ; p~$ .>:? - :


30/68

The

sanc tuaqExDeHence

Above: Sanctuary crewmembers at chow. Right: Crewmemberat bow of ship. Facing page: Women on he job aboard Snn ctuary.Photos by LCDR T. Marquer, PHC Ralph Warmer and PHC RonaldJ. Ollver.

Federal law today prohibits women from serving onboard vessels of the Navy other than hospital ships andtransports.Historically,womenofficers of theNurseCorps and Medical Service Corps have been assignedto the medical departments of h ospital ships for man yyears. n act ,Navynurses first served board hetransport shipsuss Mayflowerand Dolphin in 1913, andfirst served aboard the hospital shipuss Relief in August1920.

In August of 1972 a program began w ith the purposeof studying the pros and consof women at sea in otherthan medical billets. As a result, a imited numbe r ofwomen officers and e nlis ted members w ere assigned to

28


31/68

ship’scompany of USS Sanctuary (AH 17) inapilotprogram to gain experience regarding the employm entof wom en at sea in a nonmedical environment.

During he pilot program, approximately 23 womenofficers (including five line and Supply Corps officersand 18 nurses) and 97 enlistedwomenwereassignedto uss Sanctuary, with as many as69 of these Nav ywomen being on board at he same ime ( total ship’s

company was about 400).Women worked in al l departments except engineer-ing,andperformed u ch asksasdeck eamanship,navigat ion, and assignment to general quarters s tat ionsand repair part ies .

They w ere also assigned watches and other m il i tarydut ies comparable to the i r ra t ings and on an equal bas isand rotation with men.

Som e of the findings:0 The women aboa rduss Sanctuary performed their

assigned duties with expertise equivalent to their malecounterparts .

Both men and women among he crew generally

had he amekind of comm ents nd/or omplaintsconcerning h ipboard ivingcondit ions,withwomencrewmembers expressing greater need for privacy andhabitability than did the men.

With the recent decomm issioning of uss Sanctuary,the Navy pi lot program came to an end and i ts capabil-ity to assign wo men to sea no longer exists. The lessonslearned from his pilot program, however, have beenvaluable. Namely, the commanding off icerf Sanctuarygaveasummary of hisobservat ionsand ecommen-dations as they related to the experiment . I t is emp ha-sized that these general izat ions and recom mendationsapply only to uss Sanctuary (AH 17). a highly special-

1


32/68

ized ship with features and functions unlike hose ofother navalvessels. Indeed, it was heonlyship ntheNavywith ccommodationspermit t ing uch nexperiment obeconductedwithoutextensivealter-at ions.) These points were maden the summary repor t :

0 There was no special quali tative screeningof menandwom en ersonnel eforemakingssignments;howev er, only single women without dependen ts were

assigned. Members of one sex were not allowe d in theberthing or sanitation areas of the others .0 The wo men performed their assigned duties in an

excellentmanner, ndicat ing hatwomenperformedtheir assignments with equal ease, expe rtise, and dedi-cat ion as their male counterparts n he same assign-ments. Difficult jobs were accomplished through mutualassistanceof men andlor women personnel . For exam-ple,aweakerperson manorwoman)wasaided bya stronger person to accomplish a specif ic task. Crew-members eported no problemwith he trength ofwomen personnel .

0 The male membe rs aboard ship (about83 per centof the crew) seemed to be ei ther pleased with or indif-ferent to having women aboard ship. Mostof the ship’screw appeared to have mature a t t i tudes about the re la -tionshipsbetween ndividuals.Antagonismwasmini-mal. The mo rale of the ship’s crew was h igh. Officersand enlisted men, including personnel both experiencedand inexperienced with sea duty, general ly bel ieved thathaving women in the Fleet had som e beneficial effects.

The conclusionof the CO’s observat ions was thatwomenaboard uss Sanctuary performed heirdutieswell. They caused no major shipboard problems, sinceno major changesin habitabi l i ty for women aboard shipwere equired.Hedeem ed he pilot program,withinits set limits, a suc cess .

If the legal restrictions-that is, Title IO, U . S Code,Sectio n 6015-which proh ibithessignment of

Below from eft to right: LT Peggy Harlow, LT Mary Anne Gardnerand LTJG Bonnie Latsch. Above from efl to righ t: Befo re assign-ment to Sanctuary, women went through damage control schoolat Treasure idand . Preparations for going ashore bring on a bitof teasina from shiamates. Linehandlers on deck of Sanctuary.

women to ships other than hospitalor t ransports, w ereto be removed, what would he Navy be expected odo?

It is probable that the Navy would first assign w omento serve on la rge auxi l ia ries such as tenders (AD) , fas tcombatupporthipsAOE) ,eplenishmentilers(AOR), amm unit ion hips AE),combat tores hips(AFS) , or amphibious ships (LHAs and LPH s), beforeat tempting their assignment to other combatants . (Theproblems of designingadestroyer, orexample, to ’accomm odate a male-female crew staggers he magi-nation )


33/68

Based upon the possibility of such a contingency ai

some uture ime, he pilot program esulted in anumber of recommendations.

0 IniQally, a cadre of esperiqnced (seagoing) senior

rated enlisted women would be available to provideleadership example and standards for the maintenanceof good order and discipline.

The recommendations suggested modifications of


34/68

vides some tender, loving cere o young patlent who was broughtAbove: During Unitas vlslt to South America ports, nurse pro-

aboard ,&nctuary for treatment. Below: L iberty-bovnd lady bidsfarewe ll to duty watchstander. Below center: emele phone-talkeron bridge of ship. Faclng page top: A woman of the Navy takespart In a tralnlng session at amege control schooh Faclng pagebottom: Navy woman makes t “on the double” to her next ship-board assignment.

aboard Sanctuary in non-corps billets woreoff, male

crewm embe rs offered little resistance, LT Harlow re-marked.“We’re different . We’re new. To a arge exte nt, it’s i

a visible difference,” L T Harlow says of the men ’s first’‘ireactions. If wom en went to sea as a matter of course ,“people would just get used to each other.”

LTJG L atsch echoes that with her own impression:“It was no big deal ,” she says of women going to sea. ,

Th e fo urth officer who sailed inSanctuary is Lieu- ’:,tenantMaryAnneGardner.She is anurseand staff Jmem ber at NETC’S Officer Indoctrination School. W hile i3prior Navy experience proved invaluable, she “learned.’

i

ALL HANDS


35/68

more in the first three mon ths aboard ship than in herprevious three-year tour at the naval hospital in Beth-esd,a, Md.”

Healthproblems ncounteredduring hegoodwil lcruise, “Operat ion H andclasp,” to Colombia and Hait iin 1973, included those found in America, plus specificcases that involved p arasitic diseases and birth defects.

Host country doctors and nurses joint ly s taffed ship-board cl inics with their A merican counterparts , a l low-ing them to share techniqu es.

LT Ga rdn er erself had a health problem o cop ewithduring shipboard assignment. Whilen Hait i shefell andinjured her back. A doctor ordered her to soak in hotwater. Consequ ently, she is forced o agree with LTJohns’ comment tha t some women a t sea may have apenchant for water.

Able to move only with great difficulty, she managedto negotiate Sanctuary’s brow and ladders to the areawhete$W:WpoSed:.a big, blue bathtub, possibly theonly one in the Fleet.

“When 1 finally had maneuvered myself into positionto get into the tub,” she recalled, “ I felt guilty ”

As fa r as the fourfficers are concerned , the quest ionof sending w omen to sea is moot. “We’ve proved that‘we could do t ,” LT Harlow contends. LTJG Latschagrees, saying, “It got past the pointof being an exper-iment because it wo rked .”

LT ohnsagrees,“Abso lutely,” he says,andLTGardnerpointsoutonce gain, Nurseshavebeengoing to sea fo r a long time.”

Navy wives reacted to the si tuat ionf women servingaboard Sanctuary with cons iderable ap lomb, L T Johnsadded. Many became “sea mothers” and adopted fe-malerewmembersntoheiramilies.nevitably,

a

k ’ e s and adoptees often ‘became persona-What Bonnie Latsch hadto say while aswos studentstillholds true: “I’m not trying oprovesomething.I’m not a wom en’s ibber. This is like order sto any-where else in the Navv where I have a job to do .”

So rnat, in small part, is the Sanctuary experience. r .It does not mea n hat wom en will be sailing in N av yships in the not-too-distant future. But in an era whichhas its share of controversial subjects here is one moreto add to the agend a. Com ment from the Fleet is ex-pected-and invi ted.

33


36/68

BEWOIA:

Fitting outPresidential Yacht


37/68

~~ ~

today receibot many me n /etain to"rep lank he hull," buta small conting ent ofsailors in Wash ington did get such orders.

Last winter, the men. attached to the Naval Admin-istrative Unit, replanked approximately one-third of thehull of Sequoia, the Presidential yacht. Berthed at theWashington Navy Yard, Sequoia is used by he Pres-ident on the Potomac and A nacost ia Rivers during thesailing season, April-Oc tober.

Built by theMathishipbuilding ompanyndlaunched in 1925, Sequoia was christened Savarona andwas riginally wned by Mr. ndMrs.Richard M.Cadwalladerof Philadelphia. The Cadwalladers sold herto theSequoiaPetroleumCompany of FortWorth,Tex., in1928 and she was rechristened Sequoia.

TheDepar tment of Commercepurchased he 1 0 4 -foot, seven-inch boat in 1931 for use asa patrol vessel.She kept the nameSequoiu and in 1933 was transferredto the Nav y for use as one of the Presidential yachts.DesignatedAG-23, she served Presidents Hoov er andRoosev elt until 1936, then she wa s con verted for useby the Secretary of the Navy.

During he period 1936-68, three other boats served

theComm ander in Chiefs .They ncluded Potomac,which ervedPresidentRoosevelt ; he Williamsburg,in w hich Presidents Truman and Eisenhower rode, andthe Barbara Anne-Honeyfitz-Patricia, ne vesselwiththree names, that served Presidents Eisenhower, Ken -nedy, Johnson and Nixon.

Under President Johnson,Sequoia again became oneof the Presiden tial vessels and her hull designation wasdropped romNavy ecords . ohnsonwasheastPresidentto use her on an overnight cruise; Nixon sed

Facing page: Sequoia, before replanking and repainting by NavyAdmi nistrativ e Unit. Above: One of the oldest marine railways n

the United States s still in operation at he Washington NavyYard where Sequoia s overhauled. Right: Sequoia rests in a slipoff the Potomac River after coming out o f drydock .

SEPTEMBER 1975 35


38/68

, .

her for brief respites from the rigors of office. Thisseason President Ford, as expected, made his firstcruise aboard Sequoia as the nation’s chief executive.

Whoever ode Sequoia thisyear ound her ship-shape and ready to cruise at a moment’s notice. Thisis due to the dedication of the men charged with herupkeep and the fact that all Sequoia’s maintenance isperformed olely by members of the administrative

unit.Sequoia’s enlisted boat captain, Senior Chief Boats-wain’s Mate Lynwood Claytor, supervises her upkeepand maintenance. “We train all our own men and doall the work ourselves,” he said. “The entire ship ismadeofwood and during overhaul we replace alldeteriorated wood.”

Each year Sequoia is pulled into drydock and over-hauled. While in drydock she rests on one of the oldestoperational marine railways in the United States, builtin 1865.

Sequoia’s hull,which was once made entirely ofjuniper wood, is now 80 per cent douglas ir. Chief HullMaintenance Technician Joseph Brunner, one of thefew HTs in the Navy today who still works with wood,explained:

“The reason for choosing fir s its availability andcost. We only accept knot-free because knots couldcause seepage.”

Most of the wood topside is teak, including the capboards and deck, which is covered with painted anvas.All the handrails are mahogany and the bright work ischrome.

Below deck, the Presidential abin is finished inwalnut paneling. A small cedar closet is built into onecorner of the cabin and two prints of Seminole Indianchieftains hang on the cabin’s walls. hree other cabins,

the captain’s and two guestrooms, are finished in ashwood paneling. The crew’s quarters and dining area arefinished in teakwood paneling.

Topside are the pilothouse, and main nd attersalons. From his vantage point in the pilothouse, Se-quoia’s captain can keep‘in full view two Coast Guardboats that always accompany the vessel whenever thePresident is aboard.

As many as 22 persons can be served dinner at asingle sitting in the main salon. Normally, the Presidentsits in front of a replica of the Presidential Seal, facinga portrait of George Washington. For larger atherings,a maximum of 40 people can be entertained buffet stylein both the main and after salons. Meals are prepared

and then served by the seven-man crew.In addition to replanking of the hull and upkeep onthe engine, Sequoia’s crew makes all ts own wind-screens, curtains and canopies. Working in their ownsail loft, the men can fashion canvas and cloth ntomany functional and decorative designs. And. if anyof the upholstery needs repairing, they can handle hat,too.

AI1in all, it is the men of the unit that are preservingthis vestige of our’nation’s history and allowing ourPresident to enjoy a few brief moments of rest andsolitude.

” 5 0 2 M. Siostek

A L L H A N D S


39/68

Facing page from top o bottom: Two Sequoia crewmen measurecanvas before cutting and sewing.it into an awning. During eachperiodic overhaul, Sequoia s repainted and made shipshape forsailing. A cluttered main salon s transformed into a formal diningarea by the crewmen. Top of page: Sequoia’s fantail is a placewhere he President can elax after he igors of a hard day.Above: Sequoia dinner setting. Right: Sequoia at her mooringafter replanking and repainting.

SEPTEMBER 1975


40/68

places, and events that snail orget.Now that the time has come to change the

watch, leave the MCPON billet with no reluctance.While there have been a few difficult times, the

from thedeskof'theM a e t e r Ch ief

P e t t y O f f ic e rof the N a v y'Changing the Watch'

MACM John D. Whlttet$ y ~ ; . < > , .

'$;";-vi,,:

When I first joined the Navy during World WarII, looked forward to the challenges of sea serv-ice. I was proud to have the opportunity to servemy country during wartime, when a country reallyneeds its citizens' support. Three decades andthree wars later, my feelings remain the same.

Partly because of these challenges and oppor-tunities, decided to make the Navy my career,and dreamed of becoming a respected profes-sional sailor. But, never did I dream that one dayI would have the chance to represent our entireenlisted community as the Chief of Naval Opera-

.%>-. _ , .< &

rewards of service and the privilege to serve far

outweigh any disappointments.I feel sure that my successor will also sensea feeling of fulf illment and purpose. The new~ c ~ o ~ , - M a s t e rhief Robert J. Walker, currentlyserving as COMNAVAIRLANT Force Master Chief, isan outstanding shipmate who will go forward inpursuit of the best interests of our country, ourNavy, and our enlisted community.

One aspect of the MCPON job that Master ChiefWalker will surely enjoy will be his frequent con-tact with the highest levels of naval leadership.During my tour have been fortunate enough toserve with three Secretaries of the Navy, twoChiefs of Naval Operations, and three Chiefs ofNaval Personnel. All of these men have workeddiligently for their country and the Navy and haveconsistently provided the high level of leadenshipand inspiration necessary to maintain our Navyas the world's greatest.

Under the leadership of these men, I have wit-nessed many beneficial and necessary changeswit hin the Navy's enlisted structure. Thesechanges have had a significantly positive effecton the enlisted community as s reflected in re-tention igures which have risen from 11.6 percent i n fiscal year 1971 to 39.9 per cent for fiscalyear 1975.

Paramount among these changes were a BEQmanagement system, and the implementatioh ofthe E-7 Selection Board process and the QualityReview Board. Other significant progress wasmadeforms,

in sealshore otationthe enlisted evaluatic

policies,In system

Uavy Iand

mi-the

~, , - .,.~ ,

~ human goals programs, which include equal op-t~ portunity, drug and lcohol ehabilitation, race$>$relations training and leadership management.?: ;$Two other improvements which I consider to be,>i-.;; of the utmost significance were the implementa-: G - . tion of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the@, : Fleet/Force/Command program and, more re-, . . : , .. .. , cently, the new Enlisted Records Review Roo;n

ri:I at the Bureau of Naval Personnel.::;'.. None of these changes came easily. Change inzitia technical operating organization such as the.?:+ Navy usually requires endless hours of discus-;..-,i3.sion, Dlanning, and diff icul t decisions concerning

tions' senior enlisted advisor. p$?$: the details of any proposed alteration to the SyS-My naval career since leaving Cranston, R. &%h$ ij tern. attribute many of the advances in our sys-

in 1943 has taken me to every corner of the world &?, tern to two major factors: Teamwork and im-and has allowed me to work closely with some ; roved communications.of our ountry's inest men and women. Being The Navy works well because people make itMaster Chief Petty Officer of the Navy has been work well. Any contributions hat the MCPON Officethe most mportant and rewarding phase of my ortedcareer and has left me with memories of people, given

. .

38 A L L


41/68

us the assistance required to encourage fresh,new thinking. I believe hese and ll Navymembers realize that such accomplishments canonly be achieved with the cooperation, dedica-tion, and support of'everyone in the Navy.

Some of the recent changes are now nsti tu-tionalized and their benefit to the system alreadyevident. In other areas, such as the entire humangoals program and the proposed ea pay propos-al, much work remains to be done. I know thatyour new Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navywill continue to pursue hese areas;and I'm surethat he will receive the same cooperation fromthe fleet that I have enjoyed.

Loyal support and administrative assistancehave been particularly notable during my tour asMCPON by my office staff; whose services havebeen except ional. My current staff includes YNC

Bob Ferris office manager and administrativeassistant), YN2 Barbara Williams (clerk-typist ndcaseworker), and YN2 Bob Abwtt (journalist andcaseworker). I have also received valuable assis-tance and counsel over the years from past staffmembers YNC Jerry Traver, YN2 Catalina Lopez,and ' J02 Steve Maddox,, as well as the currentMaster Chief of the Command for PersQ UTCMBob Evans. I thank each of them for their loyalty,dadication, and devotion to duty.

The immediate family plays' a .most importantrole n he career of any Navy member. I havebeen fortunate to have had support from my wifeHelen. For nearly 30 years, which have broughtus three children and six grandchildren, e haveworked together as a NaVy team. Helen contin-ually asserts with pride that she is a Navy wifeand a Navy mother.

I also want to thank the men who have servedas Master Chief Petty Officers of the Fleet andForce. Each of these has contributed greatly toany success we have enjoyed during my tour byproviding invaluable input and counsel.

But, most of all, I want 'to thank you-my ship-mates-for your sustained support. I never trav-eled to a ship or station where I was not greetedwarmly. The input I received from you during my

travels was instrumental in providing counsel toour naval eaders whose responsibility it is tomake ch'anges when necessary in our egulationsand policies. I will always be thankful that I hadthe opportunity o work and erve with the world'sfinest men and women, my shipmates in the Unit-ed States Navy.

So, now the hour is at hand to pass the watchto Master Chief Walker. I wish him and his lovelywife, Frances, the best of luck during their tour.I can assure them they are in for four wonderful,exciting, and unforgettable years.

And, to my shipmates everywhere, I wish you

Godspeed.

... n dI n t r o d u c i n g

Th e varied responsib ilities associated with the posi-tion as Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON) &

.'. :,

demand he utmost crutiny of candidateswhen hetime com es to pick a new one . That is why only the

' I:@

most skilled and highly recommend ed individuals make

.y, .

OSCM Robart J. Walker

SEPTEMBER 975 39


42/68

. a n dI n t r o d u c i n g

it to the final rounds of selection procedures.In the most recent search, four Navymen were in

the running during final considerations. These includedUTCM Robert L. Evans of BuPers, NCCM CharlesH. Griva of ComNavSurfPac, PNCM Joe D. Pierce of

CNATRA and OSCM Robert J. Walker of ComNavAir-Lant. The age span of these veterans was 38 to 46 andtheir active service ranged between 19 and 27 years.In a sense, these men represented the best of the Navy.

As is true in most competition, however, there canbe only one winner and or MCPON it was Master ChiefOperations Specialist Robert J. Walker. The third Na-vyman o hold his title, he relieved MCPON John D.Whittet in September. He and his wife, Frances, havefour children: Robert, Jr., 18; Teri, 15; Michele, 12;and M

All Hands 1975-09 (a Look at the Soviet Navy)

Documents

Transcript of All Hands 1975-09 (a Look at the Soviet Navy)