DOCSLIB.ORG

Aircraft Carriers: the Limits of Nuclear Power

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aircraft Carriers: the Limits of Nuclear Power -- Neptune Papers No. 7 -- Aircraft Carriers The Limits Of Nuclear Power Hans M. Kristensen William M. Arkin Joshua Handler June 1994 Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Summary and Main Findings ......................................................................................... 4 Part I: The Nuclear Carrier Mystique............................................................................... 7 The History of Nuclear Carriers ........................................................................... 7 Admiral Rickover and the Nuclear Lobby ............................................................... 9 Letters of Performance............................................................................ 11 "Fish Don't Vote" ................................................................................. 12 The End of an Era ................................................................................. 13 Studying the Justifications.................................................................................. 14 The Rise and Fall of the All-Nuclear Force ............................................................ 15 Supply: The Deception of Independence ...................................................... 17 Always Available -- Always Better? ........................................................... 21 Part II: Crises Response .............................................................................................. 24 Nuclear Carriers Preferred?................................................................................ 24 Nuclear Carriers Held Hostage............................................................................ 24 Part III: Wartime Use ................................................................................................. 29 A: The Nuclear Carrier Enterprise in the Vietnam War ............................................. 29 Initial Deployment ................................................................................. 29 Additional Aircraft Space ........................................................................ 30 Increased Speed .................................................................................... 30 Time on-station..................................................................................... 31 War Performance .................................................................................. 32 B: Nuclear Carriers in the Gulf War ..................................................................... 33 Response to the Iraqi Invasion................................................................... 34 Carrier Placement.................................................................................. 35 Air Operations...................................................................................... 36 Strike Operations................................................................................... 38 Ship Operations .................................................................................... 40 Part IV: The Penalties of Nuclear Propulsion .................................................................... 43 The Financial Burden ....................................................................................... 43 The Burden of Radioactive Waste ........................................................................ 45 No Waste To Go ............................................................................................. 47 Operational Constraints ..................................................................................... 48 Reactors in the Line of Fire................................................................................ 49 Endnotes ................................................................................................................. 51 Tables . 73 i Abbreviations AAW Anti-Air Warfare AE Ammunition Ship AEW Airborne Electronic Warfare AO Fleet Oiler AOE Fast Combat Support Ship AOR Replenishment Oiler AP Associated Press ARG Amphibious Ready Group ASUW Anti-Surface Warfare ASW Anti-Submarine Warfare CAP Combat Air Patrol CASREP Casualty Summary Report CG Conventionally Powered Guided Missile Cruiser CGN Nuclear-Powered Guided Missile Cruiser CINCUSNAVEUR U.S. Commander In Chief, Naval Forces Europe CLF Carrier Logistic Force CNA Center for Naval Analysis CNO U.S. Chief of Naval Operations COMUSNAVCENT Commander, U.S. Naval Central Command CV Conventionally Powered Aircraft Carrier CVBG Aircraft Carrier Battle Group CVN Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier CV-41 USS Midway, conventionally powered aircraft carrier CV-60 USS Saratoga, conventionally powered aircraft carrier CV-61 USS Ranger, conventionally powered aircraft carrier CV-66 USS America, conventionally powered aircraft carrier CV-67 USS John F. Kennedy, conventionally powered aircraft carrier CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier CVS Anti-submarine Aircraft Carrier DCNO U.S. Deputy Chief of Naval Operations DDG Guided Missile Destroyer DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy EIS Environmental Impact Statement FY U.S. federal Fiscal Year (1 October to 30 September) GAO General Accounting Office HAC U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee HASC U.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee INREP Inport Replenishment JCAE Joint Committee on Atomic Energy LPH Amphibious Assault Ship ii MARG Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group MLF Mobile Logistic Force N.D. No Date OASD Office of the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense PACOM Pacific Command PGBF Persian Gulf Battle Force RSBF Red Sea Battle Force RRF Ready Reserve Fleet SAC U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee SASC U.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee UNREP Underway Replenishment (U) Unclassified USS United States Ship V/STOL Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing iii About the Authors Hans M. Kristensen is a research associate with Greenpeace International's disarmament campaign. Formerly regional coordinator of the Nuclear Free Seas campaign in Scandinavia, he is a co-author of the Neptune Papers monograph series and has published numerous reports and articles on naval issues. William M. Arkin is an independent expert on military affairs and nuclear weapons issues. A consultant to Greenpeace and the Federation of American Scientists and a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst, Arkin is author of many books and monographs on national security and nuclear weapons. Joshua Handler is research coordinator for the Greenpeace International disarmament campaign. He is a co-author of the Neptune Papers monograph series, and has published numerous reports and articles on naval nuclear issues. He has an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago. The authors are grateful to John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, for valuable comments and suggestions to the report. We also acknowledge the help of James Burrus and Giselle Foss at Greenpeace in editing and proofreading. iv Introduction The U.S. Navy is asking Congress to fund admission that military justifications are no its tenth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, longer paramount; the desire to retain a nuclear designated CVN-76, the ninth of the USS reactor and shipbuilding infrastructure is now Nimitz (CVN-68) class. With a price tag of the primary reason for building more nuclear $4.5 billion, the CVN-76 is the most expensive carriers. "Neither the carrier [CVN-76] nor the single weapons system in the FY 1995 defense SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine] work budget.1 The new carrier is scheduled to join is being justified on the basis of force levels," the fleet in the year 2003, with funding for Nuclear Propulsion Director Admiral Bruce another (projected at over $6.1 billion)2 to DeMars bluntly admitted before Congress in follow at the turn of the century. April 1992. Rather, he explained, "The issue is how to sustain essential capabilities which, if Can the United States afford to build more lost, cannot practically be reconstituted."3 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers? And more Building nuclear ships to keep an industry alive importantly, is nuclear propulsion needed for which has no utility in the civilian economy is aircraft carrier operations at all? incompatible with U.S. national security policy and interests. The Navy claims nuclear aircraft carriers are necessary and that additional construction and The United States would gain more from support costs are justified because of significant pursuing a global ban on the use of nuclear military advantages gained from nuclear power for naval warships than struggling to propulsion. Neither is true. Not only are sustain a too expensive and shrinking nuclear nuclear carriers more expensive in every facet industry for scenarios and conflicts that are of their life cycles, but the promises and unlikely ever to happen. Whether it be a expectations of significant military advantages Russian Navy returning to blue water from nuclear propulsion are not evident from ambitions, or a hypothetical scenario of a past and current naval operations. In fact, the hostile country suddenly surging dozens of yet Navy itself does not make use of the advantages to be built nuclear warships into the world's it highlights as justifying nuclear propulsion. oceans, no credible threat can justify continuing to build nuclear warships. A ban on nuclear The United States is cutting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • December 2017.Pdf
    MILITARY SEA SERVICES MUSEUM, INC. SEA SERVICES SCUTTLEBUTT December 2017 A message from the President Greetings, The year 2017 was another good year for the Museum. Thanks to our Member's dues, a substantial contribution from our most generous member and contributions from a couple of local patriotic organizations, we will end the year financially sound and feeling confident that we will be able to make any emergency repairs and continue to make improvements to the Museum. As reported in previous Scuttlebutts, most of our major projects have been completed. Our upgraded security system with motion activated cameras inside the Museum and outside the shed John Cecil should be completed this month. The construction of a concrete structure for the mid-1600s British Admiralty Cannon should be completed early next year. I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a New Year that is happy, healthy and prosperous. On this Christmas day let's all say a prayer for our troops that can't be home with families and loved ones. They are doing a great job of preventing the spread of terrorism and protecting our freedoms. Please say a prayer for their safe return home. John Military Sea Services entry in Sebring's 2017 Veteran's Day Parade The construction on Fred Carino's boat was done by Fred and his brother Chris. The replica of the bow ornament was done by Mary Anne Lamorte and her granddaughter Dominique Juliano. Military Sea Services Museum Hours of Operation 1402 Roseland Avenue, Sebring, Open: Thursday through Saturday Florida, 33870 Phone: (863) 385-0992 Noon to 4:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization
    Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, May 1988 Seattle University, Seattle, WA Master of Science in Technical Management, May 1997 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Master of Arts in International Science and Technology Policy, May 2009 The George Washington University, Washington, DC A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 10, 2020 Dissertation directed by Kathryn Newcomer Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of November 26, 2019. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Dissertation Research Committee: Kathryn Newcomer, Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, Dissertation Director Philippe Bardet, Assistant Professor,
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Ships and Submarines of the United States Navy
    AIRCRAFT CARRIER DDG 1000 AMPHIBIOUS Multi-Purpose Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear-Propulsion) THE U.S. NAvy’s next-GENERATION MULTI-MISSION DESTROYER Amphibious Assault Ship Gerald R. Ford Class CVN Tarawa Class LHA Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 USS Peleliu LHA-5 John F. Kennedy CVN-79 Enterprise CVN-80 Nimitz Class CVN Wasp Class LHD USS Wasp LHD-1 USS Bataan LHD-5 USS Nimitz CVN-68 USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 USS Harry S. Truman CVN-75 USS Essex LHD-2 USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 USS George Washington CVN-73 USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 USS Kearsarge LHD-3 USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77 USS Boxer LHD-4 USS Makin Island LHD-8 USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 SUBMARINE Submarine (Nuclear-Powered) America Class LHA America LHA-6 SURFACE COMBATANT Los Angeles Class SSN Tripoli LHA-7 USS Bremerton SSN-698 USS Pittsburgh SSN-720 USS Albany SSN-753 USS Santa Fe SSN-763 Guided Missile Cruiser USS Jacksonville SSN-699 USS Chicago SSN-721 USS Topeka SSN-754 USS Boise SSN-764 USS Dallas SSN-700 USS Key West SSN-722 USS Scranton SSN-756 USS Montpelier SSN-765 USS La Jolla SSN-701 USS Oklahoma City SSN-723 USS Alexandria SSN-757 USS Charlotte SSN-766 Ticonderoga Class CG USS City of Corpus Christi SSN-705 USS Louisville SSN-724 USS Asheville SSN-758 USS Hampton SSN-767 USS Albuquerque SSN-706 USS Helena SSN-725 USS Jefferson City SSN-759 USS Hartford SSN-768 USS Bunker Hill CG-52 USS Princeton CG-59 USS Gettysburg CG-64 USS Lake Erie CG-70 USS San Francisco SSN-711 USS Newport News SSN-750 USS Annapolis SSN-760 USS Toledo SSN-769 USS Mobile Bay CG-53 USS Normandy CG-60 USS Chosin CG-65 USS Cape St.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968
    BALANCING CONSENSUS, CONSENT, AND COMPETENCE: RICHARD RUSSELL, THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT OF AMERICA’S DEFENSE, 1955-1968 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joshua E. Klimas, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor David Stebenne, Advisor Professor John Guilmartin Advisor Professor James Bartholomew History Graduate Program ABSTRACT This study examines Congress’s role in defense policy-making between 1955 and 1968, with particular focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), its most prominent and influential members, and the evolving defense authorization process. The consensus view holds that, between World War II and the drawdown of the Vietnam War, the defense oversight committees showed acute deference to Defense Department legislative and budget requests. At the same time, they enforced closed oversight procedures that effectively blocked less “pro-defense” members from influencing the policy-making process. Although true at an aggregate level, this understanding is incomplete. It ignores the significant evolution to Armed Services Committee oversight practices that began in the latter half of 1950s, and it fails to adequately explore the motivations of the few members who decisively shaped the process. SASC chairman Richard Russell (D-GA) dominated Senate deliberations on defense policy. Relying only on input from a few key colleagues – particularly his protégé and eventual successor, John Stennis (D-MS) – Russell for the better part of two decades decided almost in isolation how the Senate would act to oversee the nation’s defense.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms International 300 N
    INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the Him inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin Hlming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy.
    [Show full text]
  • US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes
    US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NEW VANGUARD 211 US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 ORIGINS OF THE CARRIER AND THE SUPERCARRIER 5 t World War II Carriers t Post-World War II Carrier Developments t United States (CVA-58) THE FORRESTAL CLASS 11 FORRESTAL AS BUILT 14 t Carrier Structures t The Flight Deck and Hangar Bay t Launch and Recovery Operations t Stores t Defensive Systems t Electronic Systems and Radar t Propulsion THE FORRESTAL CARRIERS 20 t USS Forrestal (CVA-59) t USS Saratoga (CVA-60) t USS Ranger (CVA-61) t USS Independence (CVA-62) THE KITTY HAWK CLASS 26 t Major Differences from the Forrestal Class t Defensive Armament t Dimensions and Displacement t Propulsion t Electronics and Radars t USS America, CVA-66 – Improved Kitty Hawk t USS John F. Kennedy, CVA-67 – A Singular Class THE KITTY HAWK AND JOHN F. KENNEDY CARRIERS 34 t USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) t USS Constellation (CVA-64) t USS America (CVA-66) t USS John F. Kennedy (CVA-67) THE ENTERPRISE CLASS 40 t Propulsion t Stores t Flight Deck and Island t Defensive Armament t USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 INDEX 48 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FORRESTAL, KITTY HAWK AND ENTERPRISE CLASSES INTRODUCTION The Forrestal-class aircraft carriers were the world’s first true supercarriers and served in the United States Navy for the majority of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uss Liberty Story
    THE USS LIBERTY STORY The USS Liberty – the most decorated Navy ship (single action) 1 PURPOSE -- The USS Liberty Veterans Association (LVA) has tried for over 45 years to expose the true story of the deliberate Israeli attack on the US S Liberty to the American people through books, news media, movies, and letters to the President of the United States and congressmen. The mission of the LVA is to pursue the publication of the true story. While we have encountered politicians and news m edia personnel who were willing to help, they have been unable to interest their superiors or others in supporting our cause. Due to political correctness, many people believe it is just too risky to say anything negative about Israel. FYI: The USS Li berty is the most decorated US Navy ship in the history of the Navy for a single action. THE ISSUE -- The Israelis and the US Government do not want the truth to be told. It is obvious that they fear that America may be less of a supportive ally if the t ruth were known. The truth of their deeds and the Johnson Administration require an objective and complete investigation. Congress has never officially investigated the attack and so the attack continues to be a cover - up of the worst magnitude. The Hous e has a constitutional mandate to “define and punish Pirates and Felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations (Article 1, section 8)”. Regarding the Arab/Israeli ’67 War, we believe the operational plan was Operation Cyanide .
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chronicle Thursday
    THE CHRONICLE THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 4, 1988 © DUKE UNIVERSITY DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA CIRCULATION: 15,000 VOL. 83. NO. 93 Ticket Reagan to speak on campus Monday information By DAN BERGER all students who don't get tickets to the President Reagan will visit the Univer­ speech will come out to see the landing," Undergraduates: ASDU will distribute sity Monday to speak at a conference on he said. Several local high school bands 2,500 free tickets for President substance abuse, the White House an­ and community groups will also attend Reagan's speech to undergraduates nounced Wednesday. the ceremony at the landing site, Mizell presenting a student ID between 10 Reagan will address the conference said. He added that the men's basketball a.m. and 4 p.m. Thursday at the upper "Substance Abuse in the Workplace: team will likely participate in the fevet of the Bryan Center. Another dis­ Strategies for the 1990s," which is being program at the lacrosse field prior to the tribution table may be set up at the East sponsored by the University and the office president's landing and to a lesser extent Campus Union during the same hours, of North Carolina Gov. Jim Martin. The after he arrives. but a final decision will not be made un­ president's trip from Washington D.C. Before taking the dais, Reagan will hold til Thursday morning. Of the 2,500 tick­ will be made exclusively to attend the a closed meeting in Cameron with several ets, 750 will be allocated to East Cam­ event. community leaders affiliated with the pus.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986
    Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Steven T. Wills June 2012 © 2012 Steven T. Wills. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwtaer Nichols Act of 1986 by STEVEN T. WILLS has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Ingo Traushweizer Assistant Professor of History Howard Dewald Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT WILLS, STEVEN T., M.A., June 2012, History Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 Director of Thesis: Ingo Traushweizer The Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 was the most comprehensive defense reorganization legislation in a generation. It has governed the way the United States has organized, planned, and conducted military operations for the last twenty five years. It passed the Senate and House of Representatives with margins of victory reserved for birthday and holiday resolutions. It is praised throughout the U.S. defense establishment as a universal good. Despite this, it engendered a strong opposition movement organized primarily by Navy Secretary John F. Lehman but also included members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prominent Senators and Congressman, and President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger. This essay will examine the forty year background of defense reform movements leading to the Goldwater Nichols Act, the fight from 1982 to 1986 by supporters and opponents of the proposed legislation and its twenty-five year legacy that may not be as positive as the claims made by the Department of Defense suggest.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library & Museum Audiovisual
    Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library & Museum Audiovisual Department Robert B. Anderson Photographs 2004-7-1--1320 2004-7-1 Portrait of Major Robert Anderson, a Civil War soldier and West Point graduate. This is a copy of a Matthew Brady photo. Photo sent by E. Robert Anderson of San Diego, California, on July 10, 1953. Copyright: public domain. One B&W 6 ½ x 9 print. 2004-7-2—6 Five photographs of a landing field near Tipton, Oklahoma, taken from the air. Photo sent by Frank Beer of Phoenix, Arizona on December 15, 1954. Copyright: Norma Greene Studio; Vernon, Texas. Five B&W 8 x 10 prints. 2004-7-7 Photo of Alvin L. Borchardt, Jr., of Vernon, Texas, a U.S. Air Force pilot. Photo sent by Borchardt on March 29, 1955. Copyright: unknown. One B&W 2 ½ x 3 ½ print. 2004-7-8 Photo of Leon H. Brown, Jr. of Mission, Texas, a jet pilot at Williams Air Force Base in Chandler, Arizona. Photo sent by Brown’s mother, Mrs. Leon H. Brown on June 6, 1954. Copyright: unknown. One B&W 3 x 5 print. 2004-7-9 Photo of the staff of Rheumatic Fever Research Institute of Chicago, Illinois. Photo sent by Alvin F. Coburn, director of the Institute on March 17, 1954. Copyright: Evanston [Illinois] Photographic Service. One B&W 8 x 10 print. 2004-7-10—12 Three photos of the children of Dr. Alvin Coburn of Chicago, Illinois. Photo sent by Alvin F. Coburn on September 8, 1954. Copyright: unknown. Three B&W 2 ½ x 3 ½ prints.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Battle
    NAVAL WAR COLLEGE NEWPORT PAPERS 16 The Third Battle Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines N ES AV T A A L T W S A D R E C T I O N L L U E E G H E T R I VI IBU OR A S CT MARI VI Owen R. Cote, Jr. Associate Director, MIT Security Studies Program The Third Battle Innovation in the U.S. Navy’s Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines Owen R. Cote, Jr. Associate Director, MIT Security Studies Program NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island Naval War College The Newport Papers are extended research projects that the Newport, Rhode Island Editor, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the Center for Naval Warfare Studies President of the Naval War College consider of particular Newport Paper Number Sixteen interest to policy makers, scholars, and analysts. Candidates 2003 for publication are considered by an editorial board under the auspices of the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. President, Naval War College Rear Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, U.S. Navy Published papers are those approved by the Editor of the Press, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the President Provost, Naval War College Professor James F. Giblin of the Naval War College. Dean of Naval Warfare Studies The views expressed in The Newport Papers are those of the Professor Alberto R. Coll authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy. Naval War College Press Editor: Professor Catherine McArdle Kelleher Correspondence concerning The Newport Papers may be Managing Editor: Pelham G.
    [Show full text]