DOCSLIB.ORG

The North American A3J/A-5 Vigilante Switched Roles from Nuclear Bomber to Reconnaissance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The North American A3J/A-5 Vigilante Switched Roles from Nuclear Bomber to Reconnaissance Vigilante Nuclear Bomber to Recce Specialist The North American A3J/A-5 Vigilante switched roles from nuclear bomber to reconnaissance. Bob Archer examines a career that included extensive service during the Vietnam War n June 13, 1979, North American RA-5C Vigilante, 156636, of the US Navy’s ORVAH-3 (Reconnaissance Heavy Attack Squadron Three), departed NAS Key West, Florida and fl ew across the Gulf of Mexico, before arriving at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. It was the last of 36 to be ferried for storage to the Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center (MASDC). From a total production of 156, only 36 were stored, while 78 of the remaining 120 were lost to various causes including accidents, damaged beyond economical repair, or destroyed in combat. The high loss rate underlined the di culties of fl ying such complicated aircraft of that size from an aircraft carrier and the inherent dangers of low- level combat operations within heavily defended areas. 62 AVIATION NEWS MAY 2021 A rare image of an A-5A bomber of VAH-7 aboard the USS Enterprise in November 1964. Soon afterwards the squadron transitioned to the RA-5C Del Laughney via author The Vigilante lasted into the late 1970s before The fi nal RA-5C fl ight took place on its role was outmoded. The delivery of replacement by F-14s with reconnaissance November 20, 1979 when 156608 of RVAH- nuclear weapons deep into enemy territory pods. RVAH-12 ‘Speartips’ was disestablished 7 was delivered from Key West to NAS was switched to the ballistic missile 13 months after this photo of two RA-5Cs in Memphis, Tennessee for display. The latter nuclear submarine force, with the navy fl ight was taken on June 3, 1978 Michael Grove base was home to the Naval Air Technical no longer needing carrier-based tactical Training Center which taught various heavy bombers. Therefore the A3J was mechanical trades, including for those only in service for less than two years as a maintaining the Vigilante. The fl ight ended replacement for the A3D in this strike role. the all-too-brief career of the Vigilante. However, the speed and endurance of the Preservation was appropriate for this giant aircraft o ered potential for other particular jet, as 156608 had the distinction roles, with the most promising being that of of performing the fi nal catapult shot by the photoreconnaissance. Again, this was a task last squadron carrying out the concluding of the Skywarrior – the A3D-2P (RA-3B) – Vigilante cruise. That event had taken at the time. place aboard the USS Ranger (CVA-61) on September 21, 1979. SERVICE ENTRY The original A3J-1 Vigilante was The fi rst A3J-1s began entering service intended to replace the Douglas A3D (A- on June 16, 1961, when the initial four 3) Skywarrior in the attack role, with the examples joined VAH-3 at NAS Sanford, delivery of a nuclear warhead being the Florida. The squadron had served as the primary mission. Unlike other platforms, Replacement Air Group (RAG) for the the A3J weapons delivery system involved Skywarrior, and was therefore ideal to the bomb being ejected rearwards from continue this task for Vigilante air and the internal bomb bay via a tunnel, and free ground personnel. The RAG together with falling to the target. However, the release fl eet squadrons VAH-1, 7 and 13 were part mechanism was unreliable with frequent of Heavy Attack Wing One (HATWING failures during training. All too often the ONE). All four exchanged the Skywarrior for mechanism failed to eject the training the Vigilante. The new type was assigned round as required. Furthermore, it was not to the air wings of fi ve carriers: USS unknown for the bomb bay fuel tank and Enterprise (CVAN-65), Franklin D Roosevelt potentially an attached weapon to slide out (CVA-42), Independence (CVA-62), Ranger of the tunnel during a catapult launch and (CVA-61), and Saratoga (CVA-60). Indeed end up on the aircraft carrier deck, resulting VAH-7 initiated the operational debut for in a full blown emergency to safely clear the A3J-1 in August 1962, when aircraft the obstruction ahead of returning aircraft. deployed aboard the USS Enterprise. The However, sadly for the Vigilante, no sooner Mediterranean cruise was to have been had the type begun to enter service than of short duration, but the ship was WWW.AVIATIONNEWS.CO.UK 63 RA-5C, 151630, of RVAH-13 ‘Bats’ on approach to NAS Oceana, Virginia in May 1971 Ron Picciani collection via author redirected to the Caribbean Sea in October to respond to the Cuban missile crisis. VIGILANTE PRODUCTION While the reconnaissance mission was Designation Serial batch Number built Subsequent designation Converted to RA-5C being evaluated there was a request to XA3J 145157/147158 2 A-5A 1 confi gure two aircraft for a secret mission A3J-1 146694-146702 9 A-5A 5 to provide photographic coverage of A3J-1 147850-147863 14 A-5A 10 Cuba during the crisis. Within 24 hours, the aircraft were ready, with cameras A3J-1 138924-148933 10 A-5A 6 installed and appropriate electronic A3J-2 149276-149317 42 A-5B 39 countermeasures fi tted. Maintained on A3J-3P 150821-150842 20 RA-5C 20 standby, they were not employed. RA-5C 151615-151634 20 n/a 20* On September 18, 1962, the introduction RA-5C 151726-151728 3 n/a 3* of the tri-service designation system RA-5C 156608-156643 36 n/a 36* changed the A3J to the A-5, while the A3D became the A-3. Total 156 140 As there was little likelihood of the strike * indicates ordered as the RA-5C, and therefore not converted version being fl own in anger, the Navy halted production of the A-5A with half the fi rst RA-5Cs joined RVAH-3 for training each of the Carrier Air Wings to have a planned number having been constructed. on December 10, 1963. Others followed dedicated squadron for the impending Reluctant to abandon the investment in the in quick succession for assignment to commissioning of the new aircraft carrier A-5, it proposed converting existing aircraft fl eet squadrons, with RVAH-1, ’5, ’7, ’9 USS John F Kennedy (CVA-67). to a dedicated photoreconnaissance and ’13 transitioning during 1964, and tasking. A ventral canoe measuring almost then RVAH-6 and RVAH-12 the next year. HEAVIEST CARRIER half the length of the aircraft was fi tted to The fi nal units were RVAH-11 in 1966 and JET contain the various camera systems. RVAH-14 two years later. The latter was The Vigilante was the heaviest aircraft to Having been cleared for service, the formed on February 1, 1968 to enable regularly deploy aboard aircraft carriers, NAS Key West became the home of the Vigilante squadrons when NAS Sanford closed. Here an RVAH-1 ‘Smokin’ Tigers’ jet touches down at the Florida base in August 1977 Michael Grove Vigilante markings were colourful but not as much as some other US Navy aircraft. RVAH-3’s 156625 was photographed in October 1978 with a black radome Peter R Foster 64 AVIATION NEWS MAY 2021 Basking in the sun at NAS Lemoore, California, 156627 of RVAH-7 ‘Go Devils’ was assigned to the USS Forrestal air wing during March 1976 EMCS/Steve Hill collection via author narrowly nudging the Douglas A-3 interceptor presence, the Vigilante would Hawk (CVA-63) with CVW-11, which ended Skywarrior into second place. In keeping be accompanied by fighter escorts, such in December 1975. with its size, the Vigilante was something as the F-4 Phantom. A-5 pilots joked that During the intervening period, 18 of a handful to land on a carrier, since it the Vigilante was so fast at low level that Vigilantes were lost to enemy fire with a was not only big but also very sleek. A Phantom crews would sometimes struggle further eight suffering accidents in the hard landing often resulted in the aircraft to maintain formation. The A-5 normally region. The aircraft had the highest loss ‘bouncing’, with the nosewheel tyre prone flew clean, whilst the Phantom had rate of any navy aircraft during the war, a to popping and tearing apart on the underwing fuel tanks, and various external testament to the dangers of pre- and post- second strike to shed pieces of rubber into stores, which enhanced drag, thereby strike reconnaissance missions. There was the engines. In addition, the nosewheel giving the crews of the former a distinct an equivalent human cost, with 25 aircrew strut had proved weak and so was required speed advantage. killed and a further 12 taken prisoner. to be reinforced. The first loss was on December 9, 1964, Some Vigilante pilots claimed that the VIETNAM CRUISES suffered by RVAH-5 from the USS Ranger. aircraft's reputation for being difficult to During the 11 years of WestPac/Vietnam The aircraft involved was 149306, the first land was exaggerated, but did admit that cruises, the RA-5C deployed 35 times to be converted to RA-5C configuration, it was unforgiving. The aircraft acquired aboard eight different aircraft carriers. and is believed to have crashed into the a reputation as something of a beast Combat deployments to the Gulf of Tonkin sea off South Vietnam. The last combat that required particular skill to fly, with began with RVAH-5 in August 1964, aboard loss was by 156633 on December 28, Vigilante pilots not quick to disagree. The the USS Ranger (CVA-61) as part of Carrier 1972 flown by RVAH-13 aboard the USS position of the pilot was 8ft forward of Air Wing Nine (CVW-9).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Edwin A. Shuman III, CAPT USN (Ret.) 6/59-1/60 VA-43, NAS Oceana (A-4)
    1968 2007 RV-6A Edwin A. Shuman III, CAPT USN (Ret.) 6/59-1/60 VA-43, NAS Oceana (A-4). “Ned” 1/60-10/60 Test Pilot School, NAS Patuxent River, MD (Various Airplanes). Date of Designation: October 1955 11/60-6/62 Weapons System Test Division, Project pilot, Patuxent River (Various R&D Test Airplanes). Total Flight Hours: 5,100 7/62-6/63 USNPG School, Monterey, CA (T-2A). 7/63-10/63 RVAH-3, NAS Sanford, FL (TF-9J). Carrier/Ship Landings: Fixed wing: 374 11/63-2/66 USS Roosevelt, Catapult Officer, Mayport, FL (C-1A, A-4, T-33, SNB). Approximate Flight Hours: 3/66-8/67 CVW-7, Operations Officer, NAS Oceana/ Jet: 2,600 Prop: 2,500 VF/VA: 2,800 VT: 250 USS Independence (A-6A, F-4J, A-4E). T&E & Misc: 750 General Aviation: 1,300 9/67-3/68 VA-35, Maintenance Officer, Executive Officer, NAS Oceana, VA/ USS Enterprise Combat Tours: (A-6A). Vietnam: VA-35, 1968 USS Enterprise (CVN-65) (A-6A) 3/68-3/73 POW, Hanoi, Vietnam. POW Hanoi 1968-73 8/73-6/74 Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Total Combat Missions: 18 North Vietnam (A-6A) 7/74-8/75 VF-43, CO, NAS Oceana (A-4, T-38). 9/75-10/75 Aviation Safety School, Monterey, CA. Commands: 11/75-1/78 Naval Safety Center, Norfolk, VA. CO, VF-43, 1974-75 (A-4, T-38) 2/78-6/82 CO, Naval Station Annapolis. MD. CO, Naval Station Annapolis, 1978-82 7/82-7/84 OIC Naval Annex Bermuda (C-131).
    [Show full text]
  • Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units
    Finding the Right Balance JOHN F. SCHANK • HARRY J. THIE • CLIFFORD M. GRAF II JOSEPH BEEL • JERRY SOLLINGER Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units Prepared for the United States Navy NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE R Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Navy. The research was conducted in RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-95-C-0059. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Finding the right balance : simulator and live training for navy units / John Schank ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. “MR-1441.” ISBN 0-8330-3104-X 1. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States. 2. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States—Simulation methods. 3. Anti-submarine warfare— Study and teaching—United States—Evaluation. 4. Fighter pilots—Training of— Evaluation. 5. Effective teaching—United States. I. Schank, John F. (John Frederic), 1946– II. Rand Corporation. V169 .F53 2002 359.4'071'073—dc21 2001057887 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the World – a New Star Is Born
    CHAPTER ONE Welcome to the World – A New Star is Born The End of an Era… she was sold for scrap on July 1, 1958. Opposite page: Big E tended by a gaggle of The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise Then, in 1959, the shipyard at Kearney, tugs during her first year (CV-6) was the star of the US Navy in New Jersey, systematically deconstructed of life. World War II. From the outset, Big E Big E. “Starved and stifled by the years USN was renowned for her greatness as a ship long coma of inaction, the great spirit and the greatness of those who operated of Enterprise flickered and sank toward and flew from her. She also embodied extinction. And yet the spirit did not some magic: she was a lucky ship, seem- die.” Many opposed the inauspicious ingly always where she needed to be and scrapping of CV-6, and many more by good fortune always far from where hoped she would be immortalized as a things might have ended badly for her. museum. This was not to be. However, in A case in point was December 7, 1941, a fortuitous twist, a new carrier was being when she was not in port during the built not far from where CV-6 was built a Pearl Harbor attack – where she would third of a century earlier. This carrier was have had to take on the sizable Japanese to be bold, revolutionary, inspirational, armada alone. She operated success- and would bear the name Enterprise also. fully in almost every major Pacific fleet There would be an immortalization of encounter from 1941 to 1945, and was the name in a new body.
    [Show full text]
  • Pueblo—A Retrospective Richard Mobley U.S
    Naval War College Review Volume 54 Article 10 Number 2 Spring 2001 Pueblo—A Retrospective Richard Mobley U.S. Navy Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Mobley, Richard (2001) "Pueblo—A Retrospective," Naval War College Review: Vol. 54 : No. 2 , Article 10. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol54/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mobley: Pueblo—A Retrospective PUEBLO A Retrospective Commander Richard Mobley, U.S. Navy orth Korea’s seizure of the U.S. Navy intelligence-collection—officially, N“environmental research”—ship USS Pueblo (AGER 2) on 23 January 1968 set the stage for a painful year of negotiations. Diplomacy ultimately freed the crew; Pyongyang finally released the men in December 1968. However, in the first days of the crisis—the focus of this article—it was the military that was called upon to respond. Naval power would have played an important role in any immediate attempts to force the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea to re- lease the crew and ship. Failing that, the Seventh Fleet would have been on the forefront of any retaliation. Many works published over the last thirty-three years support this view.1 However, hundreds of formerly classified documents released to the public in the late 1990s offer new insight into many aspects of the crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Navy Training System Plan N88-Ntsp-A-50-8501B/D
    DRAFT NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AGM-65F IMAGING INFRARED MAVERICK MISSILE N88-NTSP-A-50-8501B/D MAY 1998 Enclosure (1) N88-NTSP-A-50-8501B/D AGM-65F IMAGING INFRARED MAVERICK MISSILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Air Force is the Executive Service for development of the AGM-65 Maverick Missile System series. In October 1978, the Air Force began engineering development of the Air Force Imaging Infrared (IIR) Maverick AGM-65D, and in 1980 the Navy started development of the Navy AGM-65F IIR Maverick utilizing a modified IIR tracker from the Air Force AGM-65D Guidance and Control Section (GCS) and the Center-Aft Section (CAS) from the Navy AGM-65E. The AGM-65F IIR Maverick Missile is currently in the Operational Support Phase of the Weapon System Acquisition Process. The AGM-65F IIR Maverick Missile is designed primarily for use against targets requiring instantaneous or delayed blast fuzing for destruction of hardened ground and waterborne targets during day or night operations and in adverse weather conditions, with sufficient standoff range to permit limited exposures to terminal defenses. The IIR Maverick does not replace any weapons in the current inventory. The IIR Maverick does not affect current manning levels or existing Navy Enlisted Classification codes and Marine Corps Military Occupational Specialties. Manpower requirements at the organizational, intermediate, and depot level maintenance activities are based upon total workload requirements for a specific work center, and the skills needed to perform maintenance on the systems supported by that work center. The IIR Maverick operator training is provided at the appropriate Fleet Readiness Squadrons for P-3C pilot and Naval Flight Officer personnel, for F/A-18 pilot and Weapons System Officer personnel, and for AV-8B pilots.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicole Aunapu Mann (Ltcol, U.S
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 March 2021 Nicole Aunapu Mann (LtCol, U.S. Marine Corps) NASA Astronaut Summary: Nicole Aunapu Mann was selected by NASA in June 2013. She is currently training for the crew flight test of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, the first experimental flight test for that spacecraft. Mann and her crewmates are working closely with Boeing to develop their new spacecraft systems, which will provide roundtrip crew transportation services to the International Space Station and, along with SpaceX’s CrewDragon, return the ability to launch humans into space from United States soil. The California native holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering. Mann is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps and served as a test pilot in the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. She deployed twice aboard aircraft carriers in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personal Data: She was born in Petaluma, California and married Travis R. Mann. They are proud parents of a son and live in Houston, TX. Education: Graduated from Rancho Cotate High School, Rohnert Park, California, in 1995. Earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, in 1999. Earned a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering with a specialty in Fluid Mechanics from Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, in 2001. Experience: Mann was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps in 1999. Following graduate school, she completed The Basic School (TBS) in Quantico, Virginia and reported to Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola, Florida, for flight training in 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • APRIL 2021 Note: Items Underlined Are Changes Made Since the Previous Report
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EISs) and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EAs) INVOLVING THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS) APRIL 2021 Note: Items underlined are changes made since the previous report. EISs INVOLVING SRS Title, Document Number, Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Milestones Comments Document Manager, point-of- contact (POC) Disposal of Decommissioned, Notice of Intent On May 31, 2019, the Department of the Navy (DON), with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Defueled USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 05/19, Public as a cooperating agency, announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 65) DOE/EIS-0524 Comment Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (EIS-0524) to evaluate the Department of the Navy (DON): Period ended potential environmental impacts of alternatives for disposal of the decommissioned, defueled ex John C. Wa ker, Document 07/19; Notice Enterprise (CVN 65) aircraft carrier, including its reactor plants. The proposed action executes the Manager of Public Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) policy for inactive ships stricken from the Naval Vessel Register SR POCs: Scoping Period and designated for disposal by dismantling to reduce the Navy’s inactive ship inventory and Tracy Williams, EQMD; Re-opening eliminate costs associated with maintaining the ship in a safe stowage condition. The 45-day public Charles Comeau, WDPD 08/20; Public scoping period began May 31, 2019 and ended July 15, 2019. Public scoping meetings were held EM POC: Bill Ostrum, EM- 4.31 Scoping Re- on June 18 in Newport News, VA; June 20 in Brownsville, TX; June 25 in Bremerton, WA; and June opening Closed 27 in Richland, WA.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-18-523, Aircraft Carrier Dismantlement and Disposal
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees August 2018 AIRCRAFT CARRIER DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSAL Options Warrant Additional Oversight and Raise Regulatory Questions GAO-18-523 August 2018 AIRCRAFT CARRIER DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSAL Options Warrant Additional Oversight and Raise Highlights of GAO-18-523, a report to Regulatory Questions congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Navy is planning to dismantle and The Navy is assessing two options to dismantle and dispose of its first nuclear- dispose of CVN 65 after 51 years of powered aircraft carrier—ex-USS Enterprise (also known as CVN 65). CVN 65 service. In 2013, the estimated cost to dismantlement and disposal will set precedents for processes and oversight that complete the CVN 65 work as may inform future aircraft carrier dismantlement decisions. originally planned increased to well over $1 billion, leading the Navy to Characteristics of the Navy’s Potential CVN 65 Dismantlement and Disposal Options consider different dismantlement and Naval shipyard option Full commercial option disposal options. General approach Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Commercial company(ies) The Senate Report accompanying a dismantles a distinct section of the dismantles entire ship; potential bill for the National Defense ship—the propulsion space companies and work locations yet section—that contains the 8 to be determined Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 defueled reactors and all other included a provision for GAO to review Nuclear-related
    [Show full text]
  • NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 1998 NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers GAO/NSIAD-98-1 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-259298 August 27, 1998 The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable C.W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable John P. Murtha Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on National Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The aircraft carrier forms the building block of the Navy’s forward deployed peacetime presence, crisis response, and war-fighting forces. The nuclear-powered carrier is the most expensive weapon system in the Nation’s arsenal and represents a significant portion of the Navy’s shipbuilding and conversion future years defense program. As requested, this report discusses the cost-effectiveness to the Navy of using conventionally and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. As the Defense Department and the Navy assess design concepts for a new class of carriers, they will evaluate a number of factors, including different propulsion types. This report contains information and analysis that you may find useful in the process of allocating future defense resources. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, Navy, Energy, and State and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others on request. Please contact me on (202) 512-3504 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Salvage Diary from 1 March – 1942 Through 15 November, 1943
    Salvage Diary from 1 March – 1942 through 15 November, 1943 INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT WAR DIARY COLLECTION It is with deep gratitude to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in San Bruno, California for their kind permission in acquiring and referencing this document. Credit for the reproduction of all or part of its contents should reference NARA and the USS ARIZONA Memorial, National Park Service. Please contact Sharon Woods at the phone # / address below for acknowledgement guidelines. I would like to express my thanks to the Arizona Memorial Museum Association for making this project possible, and to the staff of the USS Arizona Memorial for their assistance and guidance. Invaluable assistance was provided by Stan Melman, who contributed most of the ship classifications, and Zack Anderson, who provided technical guidance and Adobe scans. Most of the Pacific Fleet Salvage that was conducted upon ships impacted by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor occurred within the above dates. The entire document will be soon be available through June, 1945 for viewing. This salvage diary can be searched by any full or partial keyword. The Diaries use an abbreviated series of acronyms, most of which are listed below. Their deciphering is work in progress. If you can provide assistance help “fill in the gaps,” please contact: AMMA Archival specialist Sharon Woods (808) 422-7048, or by mail: USS Arizona Memorial #1 Arizona Memorial Place Honolulu, HI 96818 Missing Dates: 1 Dec, 1941-28 Feb, 1942 (entire 3 months) 11 March, 1942 15 Jun
    [Show full text]
  • Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) : Lessons for the Future / John F
    Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the (CVN 68) Lessons for the Future John F. Schank, Mark V. Arena, Denis Rushworth, John Birkler, James Chiesa R National Defense Research Institute The research described in this report was conducted for the U.S. Navy within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-01-C-0004. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Planning and executing the refueling and complex overhaul of the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) : lessons for the future / John F. Schank ... [et al.]. p. cm. “MR-1632.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3288-7 1. Nimitz (Ship : CVN-68) 2. Nuclear aircraft carriers—United States— Maintenance and repair. 3. Marine nuclear reactor plants—United States— Maintenance and repair. I. Schank, John F. (John Frederic), 1946– VA65.N625 P53 2002 359.9'4835—dc21 2002035781 Cover photo: USS Nimitz (CVN68), courtesy of Northrop Grumman Newport News, Mike Dillard, photographer. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. Cover design by Maritta Tapanainen © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
    Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Updated October 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. Section 1749 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2019) prohibits the Secretary of Defense, in naming a new ship (or other asset) or renaming an existing ship (or other asset), from giving the asset a name that refers to, or includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America, including any name referring to a person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy, or a Confederate battlefield victory. The provision also states that “nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.” Section 1749 of the House-reported FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395) would prohibit the public display of the Confederate battle flag on Department of Defense (DOD) property, including naval vessels.
    [Show full text]