Front Page Issue/date: 20191007

 Up-dated: Tuesday, October 08, 2019 06:29 PM

 

42.1 °F Min: 33 °FMax: 52 °F

Bangor Trident Base Weather

Check Your Booster Fund Donation

Current Scholarfship Raffle Gift Request Ltr

U. S. SUBMARINE VETERANSBremerton Base

(Founded in 1981, Membership today is (269^)

P O Box 465, Silverdale, WA 98383-0465 USSVI National Office Tel(360) 337-2978 (6-12 PST)

Base Meeting, Sat, Oct 19, 1000, FRA #29

521 S National Ave, Bremerton

  Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec                

 October (Ref: Pig Boats)

Lest We Forget!!! 

USS O-5(SS-66)

USS S-44(SS-155)

USS Wahoo(SS-238)

USS Dorado (SS-248)

USS Escolar(SS-294)

USS Shark (SS-314)

USS Seawolf (SS-197)

USS Darter (SS-227)

USS TangSS-306

W. Earle Smith, Jr. “Celebration of Life”Sandra Smith Sends:

W. Earle Smith, Jr.

“Celebration of Life”Location: “Admiral Theatre”

515 Pacific Ave, Bremerton, WA 98337

360-373-6810

Date & Time: Saturday, November 2, 2019

2:00-5:00pm

Parking: Kitsap Bank will allow cars to park in theirparking lot, since they will be closed on Saturday.

Do not block their drive-through lanes to their ATM machines.A Pay-by-the-Hour Parking Garage is across the street from the theater.

Please email fun stories to share to:

captstwo@wavecable.com

These stories will be part of the “Celebration”,

So…, Sandra wants them to be “clean”

Theme:

“Hawaiian”

Earle will be buried at sea off a Submarine in Hawaii

Menu:

Huli Huli Chicken & Island Fried Rice

Tropical Fruit Salad with Coconut Dressing

Green Garden Salad with Mango Dressing

Please RSVP to captstwo@wavecable.com or 1-360-876-0614

So we know how many to set up for.The tables are set for four people/table,

so you might want to plan who you want to sit with.

Join UsMonthly General Membership Meeting

3rd Sat, 10 AM(Except Summer Picnic & Dec Christmas Party)

FRA #29, 521 National Avenue, Bremerton

Membership Application

Read All

  

"They lived happilyuntil they got married."

 

USS Thresher Arlington National Cemetery Memorial Dedication Ceremony

FRONT PAGEFRONT PAGE BACK PAGEBACK PAGE USSVIUSSVI BREMERTON BREMERTON BASEBASE SOUP DOWNSOUP DOWN DETERRENT PARKDETERRENT PARK OTHER STUFFOTHER STUFF

http://deterrentpark.org./brickap.htmlNext install

Nov 10, 2019 0900Submit Brick Order by Oct 27!Brick Sponsors Orders to Date

TurneyDink

MelaoRairdan

Hyman(2)

CHUCKLE

Soup Down 19th Hole Bar and Grill

ChicoOctober 4, 2019

The USS Thresher Arlington National Cemetery Memorial Dedication Ceremony, Procession to Memorial & Wreath Laying Ceremonywas live streamed athttps://www.fosters.com/news/20190926/tears-in-my-eyes-uss-thresher-memorial-dedicated

Welcome Aboard a New MemberPublished September 22, 2019

Welcome Aboard Stuart A Smith (Louisiana, Houston, Springfield, John C Calhoun)

September 21st Monthly Meeting SummaryPosted September 22, 2019

Cdr Steve Corcoran commenced the meeting with traditional opening ceremonies. He then introduced new or possible new members.

 

 

 

 

 

Then six members of the Blueback Base (from Oregon), led byBase Cdr Bill Long (L) took charge and captured the coveted TravelingDolphins to take home to Oregon, Two members gave some amusing comments about their submarine careers which is required to takethe dolphins.

Click here for big picture2018 - 2017 - 2016 - 2015 - 2014 - 2013/12 - 2011

Member John Wardean's Subvet friend, Jack Jeffries from the Carolina Piedmont Base , was introduced and gave us a good review ofhis efforts for the Subvets (A Base Founder+)American Legion, VFW, WWII Subvets Roster, etc. Jack is a go getter!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was followed by a Holland club presentation to basemember Ron Seedorf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was followed by Commander Steve Corcoran'spresentation of a unique coffee cup to member and newChief Petty Officer, Ileene Davis CSC(SS) of USSMichigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Storekeeper Ralph Harris showed us a picture of himselffrom 1954-55 era taken overseas that he is proud of.

 

Dutch Kaiser, 2020 Election Chairperson, announced thosevying for office.

(Nominations are open to 30 October 2019 IAW Base By laws(Article VIII)

They are:

 

Commander: Dave Crawford Vice Commander: Don Carpenter Ileene Davis

 Secretary Wayne Sieckowski Treasurer Dennis Nardone

Chief of the Boat Wayne Peterson

 

========================================================= 

NEWS-01: CALL FOR NOMINATIONSSubmitted by: John E. Markiewicz on 9/11/2019------------------------------------------------------2020 is an Election Year. The Following National Officer Positions and Requirements for Office Are Available:

National Commander: Nominees for National Commander must have completed at least two years as a voting member of the Board ofDirectors by the time they take office as National Commander.

National Senior Vice Commander: Nominees for Senior Vice-Commander must have completed at least two years as a Member of theBoard of Directors and must certify that they have or will develop a working familiarity of the USSVI bookkeeping software.

National Junior Vice Commander: Nominees for Junior Vice-Commander must have completed at least two years as a Member of theBoard of Directors.

National Treasurer: Must be a Regular member in good standing and Nominees for National Treasurer must have some experience inbookkeeping, certify that they have, or will develop a working knowledge of the USSVI approved bookkeeping software, use the USSVIapproved software as part of his/her duties as National Treasurer, and cannot change to another software package without the Board ofDirector’s approval.

National Secretary: Must be a Regular member in good standing.

Regional Director: Must be a member in good standing of a Base within the Region.

Note: All nominations must be sent to the Nominations Committee Chairman on or before March 1st, 2020. The nomination isaccompanied by a letter from the Nominee indicating his willingness to accept the nomination and willingness to serve if elected. TheNomination Letter includes details of the nominee’s qualifications in less than one hundred (100) words.

The 2020 Nominations Committee Chairman is IPNC John E. Markiewicz, e-mail is jemjax2@att.net 

Up-dates on Bremerton Base events

Base commander Sends:

Hello Bremerton Base Members,

I hope this e-mail finds you doing well. It was a busy August (at least for me). We had the district picnic on the 10th, Rainer ballgame onthe 16th, and base picnic on the 24th, and not to mention the soupdowns on Friday. I want to thank all those members for joining us andmaking the events a success. I then finished the month on business travel to Minneapolis and then extended vacation in the UpperPeninsula of Michigan. Good times. Here we are in September and steaming into the end of the year. I want to share a few events anditems with you to keep you informed, and in an orderly fashion;

•Friday, September 13th, 1200, 251 1st Street, Bremerton, WA. 98337, USS Parche Memorial. CPO pinning ceremony for Ileene Davis.Ileene is serving on the USS Michigan. She has invited the Bremerton Base Submarine Veterans to this special event. Chief Select Davisis an active member of our base and has been nominated and accepted the nomination for Vice-Commander in the up-coming electionsfor Bremerton Base. I hope you can join us for this memorable event for Ileene.

•Saturday, September 21st, general membership meeting, 1000, Fleet Reserve, National Ave., Bremerton.

•Thursday, September 26th, Bells Across America for Fallen Service Members. Naval Base Kitsap, 0900, NBK Bangor Chapel. Socialhour to follow ceremony. (I will forward e-mail)

•September 27, 2019, the Rogue-Umpqua Base will hold it's regular bi-monthly meeting at the Smokejumper Base Museum on Highway199, a few miles south of Cave Junction. (Please see District Commander Jim Demott's e-mail that I forwarded). Any questions, pleasecontact Jim or me.

At the general membership meeting we will also discuss the future of our base float. The E-board had a pretty good discussion at ourrecent meeting . The float is close to 40 years old and it is time for the base to discuss which direction to go. ( Keep repairing or build anew float). Very preliminary at this time, but a topic that needs attention.

Well, that is it for now. Thanks for your time and support. Any questions or concerns, please contact me.

P.S. I must give a special thanks to COB Wayne Peterson for his outstanding effort concerning the base picnic. He did a great job.Thanks Buddy.

Steve CorcoranBase CommanderU.S.S.V.I. Bremerton BaseP.O. Box 6216Silverdale, WA 98315Cell (360) 471-2704

Base Elections 2019Posted July 26, 2019

Base Commander Sends

Hello Base Members, I am sending this on behalf of our Election Chairman, Gary "Dutch" Kaiser.

ARTICLE VIII. BIENNUAL ELECTIONS (Amd 10-18-11) http://gertrude-check.org/bylaws.pdf

Section 1. The Chairman of the Nominating Committee shall conduct the nominations for the five elected offices.

Section 2. The chairman of the Nominating Committee shall call for nominations of eligible candidates for the five elected offices to allmembers on or before August 30. Nominations shall be submitted by any member in good standing on or before October 30, to theChairman of the Nominating Committee, but only if such nominations are accompanied by consent of the nominee that he will accept thenomination and serve if elected and he must be a member in good standing. Upon receipt of all nominations, the Chairman of theNominating Committee shall have published the names, in alphabetical order, of all candidates properly nominated, at least thirty daysprior to the date of elections. Additional nominations, when called for, shall be made from the floor, on the day of the election, and shallbe accepted upon the oral or written consent of the nominee that he accepts the nomination and will serve if elected. Elections willnormally be held at the business meeting in November. The new officers shall be installed during the month of January. (Amd 10-19-10& 10-18-11)

Section 3. For any position with more than one candidate, elections shall be by secret ballot vote of attending members in good standing.If any position has only one candidate, election may be determined by simple showing of raised hands of attending members in goodstanding. (Amd 10-18-15)

Serving as an Officer for Bremerton base is fun and rewarding. Please give a thought to serving your base. If you have any questions orconcerns, please contact me or any E- Board member. Please find attached the nomination paperwork. We will also have the nominationforms available at the picnic in August and the meetings in September and October. Thank you.Preview attachment 2019_Bremerton_Base election form.doc2019_Bremerton_Base election form.doc12 KB

Steve CorcoranBase CommanderU.S.S.V.I. Bremerton BaseP.O. Box 6216Silverdale, WA 98315Cell (360) 471-2704

Left Click on Headline to go Directly to Back Page ArticleUn)Mind the GapNavy's new attack submarine, future USS Oregon, is christened in ConnecticutThe Loss of USS Dorado (SS 248)USSVCF InformationDecember 7th Remembrance & Memorial Service

Millions more will soon be allowed to shop on military bases. But some veterans wonder how they’llget access.Good riddance, blueberries! Navy bids farewell to its worst uniform everLast Call for November 10th Deterrent Park Engraved Brick Installation

Top Archives Back PagePublished for American Submariners by USSVI Bremerton Base -Webmaster Don "Red" Bassler

Back Page

Issue/Date 20191007

Updated:

Thursday, October 10, 2019 08:37 AM

gertrude-checkU. S. SUBMARINE VETERANS BREMERTON BASE

P O. Box 465, Silverdale, WA 98383-0465"Stuff you won't see in the local fish wrappers"

" I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather.. Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."

Left Click on Headline to go Directly to Back Page Article 

(Un)Mind the GapNavy's new attack submarine, future USS Oregon, is christened in ConnecticutThe Loss of USS Dorado (SS 248)USSVCF Information

December 7th Remembrance & Memorial ServiceMillions more will soon be allowed to shop on military bases. But some veterans wonder how they’llget access.Good riddance, blueberries! Navy bids farewell to its worst uniform everLast Call for November 10th Deterrent Park Engraved Brick Installatio

 (Un)Mind the Gap The GIUK Gap was a vital antisubmarine warfare chokepoint during the Cold War, but countering the Russian undersea challenge today requires integrated, open-ocean capabilities.By Andrew Metrick | October 2019 | Proceedings | Vol. 145/10/1,400 In the past few years, Russian submarine activities have become a focal point for U.S. and NATO planners, part of the larger discourse on Russia’s revanchist role in the wake of its illegalannexation of Crimea. Several military leaders have observed that Russian activities in the undersea domain have reached the highest levels seen in 20 years, and this heightened pace of

operations has set off alarm bells from the United Kingdom to Finland and spurred comparisons to the Cold War.1 Such comparisons have led to a focus on the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap, a vital antisubmarine warfare (ASW) chokepoint during the Cold War and a major component of

NATO force and operational planning.2 Unfortunately, the focus on the GIUK Gap showcases the danger of planning for the last war. While the challenges feel familiar, rapidly expanding long-range strike capabilities mean Russian submarines no longer have to transit the gap to have a dramatic impact on the European military balance. Rather, they can operate from the relative safetyof bastions in the Norwegian and Barents seas and strike targets across Northern and Central Europe. A response centered on the GIUK Gap risks misprioritizing future investments. Russian Naval Power: 1950–Today The fundamental mission of the Russian/Soviet Navy has not changed since the 1960s. It is a force designed to prevent NATO from using the sea as a maneuver space. The Soviet Navy was thequintessential sea-denial force. It relied heavily on submarines and surface vessels with considerable antiship armaments, supplemented with long-range naval aviation assets armed with potent

antiship missiles to prevent adversary “aeromarine” attacks on Russian territory.3 While the Soviet Navy focused on keeping NATO out, NATO was concerned about Soviet nuclear capabilities. In the early stages of the Cold War, Soviet ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)needed to transit the GIUK Gap to reach targets in the continental United States. The first- and second-generation submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) did not have the range to reach

targets in the United States from secure bastions in the Arctic.4

Under the auspices of Project Hartwell and Project Nobska, the U.S. Navy made revolutionary investments in ASW capabilities and operations to address the threat.5 This included creation of theSound Surveillance System (SOSUS), a network of seafloor hydrophones to monitor and track Soviet submarines. All of the then–relatively noisy Soviet submarines that passed through thenatural chokepoint of the GIUK Gap would be detected by SOSUS and subsequently tracked. Allied ASW, including SOSUS, provided NATO forces a significant advantage in the Cold War

undersea competition.6 The nature of Cold War ASW changed in the mid-1970s with the launch of the third generation of Soviet SSBNs, the Project 667B Delta class. These boats carried the long-range R-29 SLBM

capable of hitting targets in the United States from the far North Atlantic, Barents Sea, and Arctic Sea. The U.S. Navy no longer could rely on Soviet SSBNs coming to it.7 It would need tooperate forward, near Soviet territory, to conduct counterforce operations. The requirement to operate forward and penetrate Soviet SSBN bastions was further stressed by dramatic improvements in acoustic performance made by the Soviet Union in the early 1980s.The final incarnation of the Delta-class design, the Project 677BDRM Delta IV, sent shockwaves through the U.S. naval establishment when it launched. Its acoustic performance was a giant leap

forward, challenging U.S. capabilities for submarine detection and tracking.8 In response, U.S. submarine operations moved forward into the Barents Sea and Arctic Sea. The last phase of underwater competition between the United States and the Soviet Union wascharacterized by forward attack submarine (SSN) operations and near acoustic parity. This informed the design choices for the U.S. Seawolf-class SSN, including an increased weapons load,

extensive sonar arrays, increased diving performance, and new propulsion technology.9 Together, these systems enabled the Seawolfs to operate persistently in contested areas while maintainingthe high search rate needed to hunt quiet Soviet submarines. While the GIUK Gap no longer was important in the context of the nuclear counterforce mission, the Soviet Navy maintained a core of SSNs (including the Project 945 Sierra, Project 971 Akula,and Project 671 Victor classes) equipped to attack NATO naval forces in the wider Atlantic. In addition, it deployed the Project 949 Oscar- and Project 949A Oscar II–class guided-missilesubmarines (SSGNs) specifically designed to kill U.S. carrier battle groups. The clear desire of the Soviet Navy to deny NATO use of the seas meant the GIUK Gap, and the associated barrierdefense concept, retained a degree of importance even after the Soviet SSBNs retreated to bastions in the far north. The last generation of Soviet SSNs and SSGNs from the 1980s were just as quiet as the Delta IVs. The final batch of Akulas built before the dissolution of the Soviet Union were quieter still.SOSUS and the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System no longer were the silver bullets they had been during the halcyon days of the 1960s. The United States and NATO responded with both

FRONT PAGEFRONT PAGE BACK PAGEBACK PAGE USSVIUSSVI BREMERTON BREMERTON BASEBASE SOUP DOWNSOUP DOWN DETERRENT PARKDETERRENT PARK OTHER STUFFOTHER STUFF

technical and operational solutions. On the technical front, the United States invested in new deployable acoustic surveillance systems, including the Surveillance Towed Array Sonar System

(SURTASS) and its controversial low-frequency active component.10 Concurrently, technical solutions were paired with increased cooperation between surface and aerial assets to track Sovietsubmarines.After the Cold War, the United States and NATO largely abandoned their ASW capabilities, but the reemergence of Russian antagonism has refocused them on the submarine threat. They havereached for the familiar: focusing on the GIUK Gap, deploying U.S. ASW aircraft to Keflavik in Iceland, and holding major NATO ASW exercises off the Norwegian coast. This is the wrongpath to confronting the modern Russian undersea challenge. The Advent of Russian Long-Range Strike The primary mission for Russian attack and guided-missile submarines is to prevent the reinforcement of the European theater from the United States by sea. Today’s Russian platforms mayresemble those of the Cold War, but their weapon systems have improved dramatically. Russia does not need to hunt sealift vessels in the open ocean to halt reinforcement of NATO across theAtlantic. Its long-range land-attack cruise missiles can strike the vital North Sea port infrastructure in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany from launch platforms in the Norwegian andBarents seas. The revolution in Russian naval long-range strike capabilities has dramatically decreased the relevance of the GIUK Gap. The long-range strike payload of a single Project 885 Yasen-class SSN likely would cripple Bremerhaven, the primary U.S. surface port of debarkation in Europe. This is the single mostimportant node for moving heavy equipment to the European theater. Bremerhaven would be particularly easy to disable, as the vehicle port is accessed through two locks. In addition, the railline to the port goes over two rail bridges. Destroying these targets would render the port largely inoperable for U.S. needs.

U.S. Army (Micah VanDyke) Today, Russia does not need to hunt sealift vessels in the open ocean to halt U.S. reinforcement of NATO. Its long-range land-attack cruise missiles can strike vital North Seainfrastructure such as the port of Bremerhaven—the primary U.S. surface port of debarkation in Europe—from the Norwegian and Barents seas.

Alternative ports such as Rotterdam and Antwerp are more resilient because of their larger size, but they have some of the same weaknesses as Bremerhaven. For example, a portion of Antwerpis accessed through a lock system that if rendered inoperable would bring port operations to a halt. In addition, onward rail movement relies heavily on a series of bridges that span the Dutchcanal system. Brittle points in the European logistics system were thought to be secure during the Cold War; this no longer is the case.

The Russian Navy is in the middle of a generational change in its power projection and long-range strike capabilities, as demonstrated by its support of combat operations in Syria.11 Russianthinkers during the 1980s understood that precise long-range strike capabilities could reach targets previously believed to be rear area sanctuaries. Writing about a “military technical revolution,”

they foresaw how increases in range and precision would render previous classes of weapons largely impotent. The Gulf War confirmed the Russian views.12

Precise deep strike against rear logistics areas was the exact problem NATO imposed on Soviet forces at the end of the Cold War. This is the world NATO planners now face. While Russiananalysts and policymakers, including President Vladimir Putin, have complained loudly about the destabilizing effects of long-range strike weapons, they have been diligently developing their

own versions.13 The now-infamous 3M14 Kalibr naval land-attack cruise missile, with a purported range of up to 1,500 miles, gives the Russian Navy a long-range strike capability it has never

before possessed.14

SputnikLand-attack weapons now are included on nearly all new-design vessels for the Russian Navy. The Project 636 Improved Kilo-class submarines Kolpino and Veliky Novgoroddemonstrated their strike capabilities, launching Kalibr missiles at targets in Syria.

The importance of land-attack weapons to Russian naval power is evident in their inclusion on nearly every new-design vessel the Russian Navy has commissioned in the past five years. The

Yasen-class SSNs often are termed SSGNs because of their significant missile payload, believed to be up to 40 Kalibrs.15 Russia also has prominently displayed the long-range strike capabilities

of its new Project 636 Kilo-class submarines and is planning to modernize the Oscar II class to carry up to 96 Kalibrs.16 This last step would give the Russian Navy a capability akin to that of theU.S. Ohio-class SSGN. The New Future for NATO Maritime Forces Russia’s new strike capabilities give its navy and, in particular, its submarine fleet a tremendous ability to influence the European military balance. The GIUK Gap will not provide a geographic

crutch to help mitigate the threat, as long-range weapons allow Russian submarines to operate from the relative security of the Norwegian and Barents seas.17 For example, a submarine-launchedcruise missile (SLCM) with a range of 1,000 miles would give the Russian Navy a potential patrol area of 100,000 square miles from which it could strike Bremerhaven while remainingreasonably secure. An SLCM with a notional range of 1,250 miles would increase the likely patrol area to more than 220,000 square miles, including waters north and west of the island of JanMayen, 500-plus miles from the nearest NATO ASW base. A longer range would allow Russian boats in the White Sea to strike targets in northeast Europe, most notably the Aegis Ashore site inPoland. In addition, likely North Atlantic patrol zones are only one to three days’ sail from Russian bases on the Kola Peninsula, decreasing their exposure to NATO ASW assets. This new reality cannot be addressed by focusing on the GIUK Gap. To respond adequately, the United States and NATO must move beyond the outdated barrier-defense concept and fullyembrace open-ocean ASW, with far greater emphasis on operating in contested waters well north of the Arctic Circle. Instead of static ASW barriers, the United States and NATO must shift to amodel of mobile ASW nets that can be rapidly constituted and focused on likely areas of operation. This will require developing a new generation of ASW capabilities. Chief among potential systems are large unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) with considerable on-station time to provideinitial cueing for other ASW assets. In addition, the Navy will need a new family of disposable acoustic ASW payloads. A major element would be small, disposable UUVs and unmannedsurface vessels (USVs) deployed by ships, aircraft, submarines, or large UUVs that could quickly be seeded into an area and provide persistent ASW coverage for upward of a week. These new capabilities will be effective only if they are paired with a new networking concept that knits together aerial, surface, and subsurface assets to understand the undersea battlespace. Thisis a daunting technical challenge, likely achievable only if subsurface platforms have considerable onboard processing and analytic capacity and are supported by persistent communication nodes.While these technical solutions, and the new operational concepts they enable, will help detect and track Russia’s submarine fleet, they must be paired with SSNs with the speed, stealth, andsensors to hunt the latest generation of Russian submarines. By unshackling themselves from past modes of thinking and forging new and existing capabilities together, the United States and itsNATO allies will be able to meet the evolving challenge posed by the Russian submarine fleet. 1. Thomas Gibbons-Neff, “Report: Russian Sub Activity Returns to Cold War Levels,” The Washington Post, 4 February 2016.2. Owen R. Coté Jr., The Third Battle: Innovation in the U.S. Navy’s Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines, Newport Paper #16 (Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 2013).3. Office of Naval Intelligence, The Russian Navy: A Historic Transition (Washington, DC: ONI, 2015), 1–5. 4. Norman Polmar and Kenneth J. Moore, Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2004), 107–14.5. Edward C. Whitman, “SOSUS: The ‘Secret Weapon’ of Undersea Surveillance,” Undersea Warfare 7, no. 2 (2005); Gary E. Weir, “Deep Ocean, Cold War,” Undersea Warfare 7. 6. Coté, The Third Battle, 41–46.7. Coté, 63–67.8. Polmar and Moore, Cold War Submarines, 197–98. 9. Coté, The Third Battle, 71–76. 10. Coté, 76–78.11. For example, see Sam LaGrone, “VIDEO: Pentagon Officials Confirm Russian Ships Fired Cruise Missiles on ISIS Positions in Syria,” USNI News, 31 May 2017.12. Dima Adamsky, “Through the Looking Glass: The Soviet Military-Technical Revolution and the American Revolution in Military Affairs,” Journal of Strategic Studies 31, no. 2 (2008): 258–60.13. Vladimir Putin, remarks at the “Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club,” Sochi, 24 October 2014 (official transcript available here).14. Kathleen Hicks, Lisa Sawyer Samp, et al., Recalibrating U.S. Strategy Toward Russia: A New Time for Choosing (Washington, DC: CSIS, 2017), 75–82.15. Stephen Saunders, Jane’s Fighting Ships (London: HIS Global Limited, 2016).16. Ryan Maass, “Russia to Arm Antey Nuclear Subs with Kalibr Missiles,” UPI, 7 March 2017.17. Russian submarines operating in the Mediterranean and Black Seas will create similar problems for NATO planners. However, the Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines that operate in these basins cannot achievelarge salvo densities and are more limited in terms of magazine depth in comparison with the Northern Fleet’s SSGNs and SSNs.^  

Navy's new attack submarine, future USS Oregon, is christened in ConnecticutBy ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 5, 2019

GROTON, Conn. — The U.S. Navy's newest attack submarine, the future USS Oregon, waschristened in Connecticut on Saturday.Politicians, shipyard leaders and Navy officials gathered for a ceremony at the General DynamicsElectric Boat shipyard in Groton, where they spoke about the importance of Virginia-class submarinesand praised the skills of the thousands of shipyard workers in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Virginiawho built the Oregon. Vice Adm. James Kilby said the Oregon, outfitted with the most modern weapons and sensors, willdisappear beneath the waves and never be detected until a time and place of its choosing. It "trulyrepresents naval combat power," said Kilby, a deputy chief of naval operations. The submarine is expected to cost about $2.7 billion and join the fleet next year. It will officiallybecome the USS Oregon when it's commissioned. Electric Boat, which has facilities in Connecticut and Rhode Island, builds attack submarines withNewport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. Jennifer Boykin, president of Newport News Shipbuilding,said the submarine represents the "very best of American innovation, quality and pride." About 100 Electric Boat workers, upset over a proposed new contract, protested outside of theceremony, according to The Day newspaper in New London. A vote on the contract is scheduled fornext week. Inside the shipyard, the ship's sponsor, Dana Richardson, christened the nuclear submarine with sparkling wine from Oregon and water from Crater Lake National Park in Oregon. Richardson, anative of Corvallis, Oregon, said the privilege of being a ship sponsor is beyond her wildest dreams. She's married to retired Adm. John Richardson, who served as the chief of naval

operations from 2015 until this summer. The submarine is the third Navy ship to honorthe state. It will carry on the proud legacy of itspredecessors, said Republican U.S. Rep. GregWalden of Oregon, who delivered the keynoteaddress. Walden said the submarine has thecapability to prevent nuclear war. Construction began in the fall of 2014. It's the20th Virginia-class submarine. The class ofsubmarines, equipped with torpedoes andmissiles, are designed to carry out a wide range

of missions, including surveillance work and the delivery of Special Operations forces. The Oregon is part of a group of submarines with design changes so the submarines will need one less period in theshipyard for maintenance over their lifespan, according to the Navy. Consequently, they will be able to do one moredeployment over their lifespan, for a total of about 15 deployments. ^

http://www.gdeb.com/christenings/   The Loss of USS Dorado (SS 248) Naval History and Heritage Command  

Dorado, a newly commissioned submarine, under Lieutenant Commander E.C. Schneider, sailed from New London, Connecticut, on 6 October1943 for Panama. She did not arrive at Panama nor was she heard from at any time after sailing.The Commander in Chief, United States Fleet in his comments concerning the Court of Inquiry covering the case, lists three possible causes forthe loss of Dorado: operational casualties, enemy action, and attack by friendly forces. The standard practice of imposing bombing restrictions within an area of fifteen miles on each side of the course of an unescorted submarinemaking passage in friendly waters and fifty miles ahead and one hundred miles astern of her scheduled position was carried out and all concernedwere notified. A convoy was so routed as to pass through the bombing and attack restriction area surrounding Dorado on the evening of 12October 1943, assuming correct navigation and adherence to schedule by both. A patrol plane which was assigned by Commandant, Naval Operating Base, Guantanamo to furnish air coverage on the evening of 12 October,received faulty instructions as to the location of the bombing and attack restriction area surrounding Dorado and at 2049, local time, the planedelivered a surprise attack of three depth charges on an unidentified submarine. About two hours later, the plane sighted another submarine withwhich it attempted to exchange recognition signals without success. This submarine fired upon the plane. A German submarine was known to beoperating near the scene of these two contacts.

Because of the lack of evidence, the Court of Inquiry was unable to reach definite conclusions as to the cause of the loss of Dorado.^

 

Lost USS Escolar (SS 294)Naval History and Heritage Command

Escolar (Commander W.J. Millican) departed Pearl Harbor on 18 September 1944, to proceed to Midway to top off with fuel. There she joined Croaker and Perch and left on 23 September toconduct a coordinated patrol (Escolar's first patrol) in the Yellow Sea north of 30°-00'N. Commander Millican was in command of this coordinated attack group, which was designated "Millican'sMarauders."

On 30 September, when Escolar was estimated to be about north of the Bonin Islands, the following partial message was received from her: "This from EscolarX attacked with deck gun boatsimilar to ex-Italian Peter George five OTYI - ." Although no further transmissions have ever been received by bases from Escolar, who was forced to break off the transmission and theengagement with the gunboat at this time, the Commanding Officer of Croaker has stated that she suffered no damage and was in frequent communication with Perch and Croaker until 17October 1944.

Perch reported that on 17 October she had received a message from Escolar stating that she was in position 33°-44'N, 127°-33'E, and was heading for Latitude 33°-44'N, Longitude 129°-06'E.Neither Perch nor Croaker could raise Escolar by radio after this transmission was received.

Had Escolar left her area on the scheduled date, she would have arrived at Midway about 13 November 1944. All attempts to contact Escolar failed and she was reported on 27 November 1944 aspresumed lost. It is assumed that she was lost about 17 October. Information supplied by the Japanese on antisubmarine attacks gives no clue as to the cause of her loss, but the Yellow Sea area isthought to have been mined. A course line plotted between the two positions given above does not cross any known Japanese mine lies, but positions of mines laid before April 1945 are notdefinitely located. The known minefields in Tsushima Strait were laid in April 1945. However, there were mines in the general area of Escolar's predicted position, and the most likely explanationfor her end at present is that she detonated a mine. (A more recent investigation has raised another pssiblilty for Escolar's loss.) ^

 

 

USSVCF Information

Submitted by: Bob Frick, National Scholarship Committee Chairman on 10/4/2019------------------------------------------------------

The USSV Charitable Foundation Academic Scholarship Program will be open for applications on 30 October 2015. All process and procedure instructions are located on the USSVI.ORGwebsite by logging in, navigating to the Charitable Fund page and from there to the Scholarship and finally the Scholarship application page.

Any questions should be sent to Bob Frick, Scholarship Chairman at refrickussvcf@gmail.com

Bob Frick

^

  

December 7th Remembrance & Memorial ServiceUSSVI WD4 Cdr Sends:

Base Commanders,

I am forwarding this message from Mike "Willie" Williamson, District Commander for Western District 6. It is for a ceremony on December 7th, in Riverside, Ca. He asked that you share withyour base members. You may have some dual members that live near there. (I know Willie is a dual member of Bremerton Base.) Feel free to spread the word however you see fit, whetherannouncing at meetings, putting on website, or in newsletter.

Thanks for your support,

Jim DeMottWestern District 4 CommanderDistrict Cmdr. Of the Year(360) 895-0547 (h)(360) 710-0411 (c)jedemott@hotmail.comPride Runs Deep ^

 

 

Some veterans have contacted Military Times to say that they are eligible for the new benefit that takes effect Jan. 1, but are concerned they won’t have access to the stores.(Defense Commissary Agency/Kevin Robinson)

(old news) As defense officials get ready for 3 million more people who will be able to shop at military stores on base, some veterans are wondering whether they’ll be able to use their new benefits. Some veterans have contacted Military Times to say that they are eligible for the new benefit that takes effect Jan. 1, but are concerned they won’t have access to the stores. That’s because theydon’t have the specific credential required ― the Veteran Health Identification Card, or VHIC, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Based on responses to Military Times queries, there are no answers yet for these veterans. Information was not immediately available about how many veterans could be affected. Under a 2018 law, Purple Heart recipients; former prisoners of war; veterans with a service-connected disability from 0 to 90 percent as documented by the Department of Veterans Affairs; andcertain primary veteran caregivers will be newly eligible to shop at commissaries and exchanges. It applies to all military bases, including Coast Guard. Medal of Honor recipients and veterans with a VA-documented service-connected disability rating of 100 percent and their authorized family members have long been authorized these privileges,under DoD policy.

Commissaries sell discounted groceries. Military exchanges sell a variety of items ranging from clothing and shoes to toys, furniture, home appliances and electronics. They have on-base gasstations and stores that sell alcoholic beverages. This newly eligible population will also be able to use certain morale, welfare and recreational, or MWR, facilities such as golf courses, movie theaters, clubs and certain other programs andfacilities that are self-sufficient, generating enough revenue through fees and/or sales to pay their operating costs. The departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense and Homeland Security have been working together for months on plans for how the program will be implemented. A crucial part of that is thecredential required to get onto the base and to shop at the stores, because most veterans who aren’t retired don’t have access to installations. Defense officials are working to enable technology at the front gate to scan those veteran cards so veterans can get in to use those benefits. Commissary officials are working on adjusting theirtechnology to enable systems to read the cards. Some veterans have said they are eligible for the new benefits because of their disability rating, but don’t qualify for the VHIC, for various reasons. One veteran said she has tried to get answersfrom VA about what she can do to be able to shop, but has been unsuccessful. “I hope the VA and DoD will work together to ensure that no veterans with a service-connected disability areoverlooked on this benefit,” said the veteran, who asked to remain anonymous. “The VHIC is the only credential that DoD resale and MWR facilities will accept from veterans authorized privileges solely under the Purple Heart and Disabled Veterans Equal Access Act of2018,” said DoD spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell. “Specific questions about who can and how to obtain a VHIC should be directed to the Department of Veterans Affairs.” For their part, VA officials say DoD is in charge of this benefit expansion. "We are working with DoD to accommodate all eligible veterans,” said VA spokesman Randy Noller. For veteran caregivers who are newly eligible, the process will be different, initially, since caregivers aren’t directly affiliated with DoD or VA, other than through the annual appointment to be acaregiver. The benefit applies to the primary caregiver of wounded/injured veterans who are registered in the VA caregiver program. The VA will post a memo to VA.gov for caregivers, to be

used for access at the front gate, along with driver’s license or other authorizedform of ID. The VA process will later transition to a caregiver-type ID card,which will have scanning swipe capability. Some other questions from readers: Where do I get VHIC Card?

Q.https://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/news/two_forms_id_needed_vhic_card.asp ^

 

The Loss of USS_O-5_(SS-66)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

O-5 was laid down on 8 December 1916 by the Fore River Shipbuilding Company of Quincy, Massachusetts. She was launched on11 November 1917, and commissioned on 8 June 1918 with Lieutenant commander George A. Trever in command. During the finalmonths of World War I, O-5 operated along the Atlantic coast and patrolled from Cape Cod to Key West, Florida. On October 6,1918 O-5 was at the Brooklyn Navy Yard when Lieutenant (Junior Grade) William J. Sharkey noticed that the submarine's batterieswere giving off toxic gas. Sharkey informed his commanding officer and the two went forward in the submarine to investigate. Thebatteries then exploded killing LTJG Sharkey and fatally injuring LCDR Trevor. LTJG Sharkey was posthumously awarded theNavy Cross. O-5 departed Newport, Rhode Island on 3 November 1918 with a 20-submarine contingent bound for Europeanwaters; however, hostilities had ceased before the vessels reached the Azores.

After the Armistice with Germany, O-5 operated out of the Submarine School at New London, Connecticut until 1923. O-5 thensailed to Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, for a brief tour. On 28 October, as O-5 entered Limon Bay, preparatory to transiting thePanama Canal, she was rammed by the United Fruit Company steamer Abangarez and sank in less than a minute. Three men died;16 others escaped. Two crewmembers, Henry Breault and Lawrence Brown, were trapped in the forward torpedo room, which they

sealed against the flooding of the submarine. Local engineers and divers were able to rig cranes and other equipment and lift O-5 far enough off the bottom that the bow broke the surface,exposing a hatch which led to the compartment where the two men were trapped, allowing them to be freed. Henry Breault was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions.

Struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 28 April 1924, she was raised and later sold as a hulk to R.K. Morris in Balboa, Panama, on 12 December 1924. The sinking made O-5 valueless forfuture naval service. She was stripped of valuable fittings and equipment when sold for $3,125. Her original cost had been $638,000.^

   

Starting Oct. 1, sailors who are currently being forged by the sea will at long last nolonger blend in with i After 11 perilous years of parading around looking like victims of an airplane toilet explosion, the Navy finally is saying sayonara to the Type I Navy Working Uniform, a heinous half-nylonboondoggle that not only wasted hundreds of millions of dollars but endangered the lives of everyone who donned the accursed “blueberry." That’s because until 2012, sailors didn’t realize that a mere spark could turn them into blueberry flambé. Or — as the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility eloquently put it after testing a uniform that doubled as “a thermoplastic fiber” Yankee candle that “melts and drips” when lit — it “willburn robustly until completely consumed.” Surveys suggest most sailors, if given the opportunity, will robustly choose to avoid welding clothing to their skin. A pile of blueberries and a lone Zippo might’ve solved the Navy’s NWU I problem in 2013 but, instead, the admirals embarked on a three-year process of swapping it out for what lookssuspiciously like Marine Corps digital woodland cammies. At least sailors falling overboard today will stick out like a deciduous forest inexplicably bobbing from the sea and be saved.

If there’s a hero in this sordid sartorial story, it’s probably the vice chief of navaloperations, Vice Adm. Robert P. Burke, who orchestrated the blue-to-green shiftbeginning in 2016 when he was the chief of naval personnel. “Our sailors want uniforms that are comfortable, they want them to be lightweight andbreathable and ultimately, they want fewer of them,” Burke told Navy Times in 2016. Fewer uniforms in a seabag already overflowing with unnecessary items is a welcomeconcept for any sailor.A cash-strapped seaman apprentice shouldn’t be required to maintain as many uniformsas the Nike-fueled University of Oregon Ducks football team. Fleet feedback told Burke that the Type III was favored because it’s "lighter, it breathesgood in hot weather climate, it’s got the rightaccessories for cold weather climates — and itjust wears better.” Even if it’s green and brown and makeseveryone look like a plumper Marine. But that’s not the only change! The NWU Type III eight-point cover with theAnchor, the frigate Constitution and Eagle —“ACE” — logo replaces the old cover withrank insignia. Beginning on Oct. 1, 2017, sailors were givena full 24 months to purchase all the newrequired NWU Type III components and theNavy hiked their annual clothing replacementallowances to purchase them. And they did that because sailors would neverblow their money on beer or something ill-

advised, which is why they won’t desperately dial the NEXCOM emergency uniform hotline tonight at 877–810–9030 to figure out a way to passinspection tomorrow morning. Instead, they’ll gather with shipmates, family and friends on this last day of the federal fiscal year to say fair winds and following seas to the blueberry,the ugliest, most flammable Navy working uniform ever invented.^

  

Last Call for November 10th Deterrent Park Engraved Brick InstallationPosted September 30, 2019

 

We are nearing the deadline for the second and last 2019 Deterrent Park engraved brick installation. Application with check should be given to me, Don Bassler or Treasurer Dennis Nardoneat the October 19th meeting or received by the base, by October 27, 2019 through the US mail. That is (Bremerton Base, P O Box 465, Silverdale, WA 98383-0465).

^

   

 A nerve-jangling noise shattered the silence inside the submarine.

It did not sound like the Klaxon diving alarm. And it did not sound like the collisionsiren.

It sounded like, well, the crew called it “Hell’s Bells.”

Each time the ship’s experimental sonar picked up a deadly mine in the water, itresounded, sending a chill through every crewman on board the Skate as it and eight

other American submarines attempted an underwater penetration of the heavily minedwaters of Tsushima Strait leading to the Sea of Japan.

Theirs was a mission rooted in vengeance.

Two years earlier, in October 1943, the Wahoo had been patrolling in the Sea of Japanwhen enemy forces attacked and sank it with all hands, including its commander, the

legendary Dudley W. “Mush” Morton.

The loss devastated Vice Adm. Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the U.S.Pacific Fleet’s Submarine Force.

 

“This is the worst blow we’ve had,” he wrote in his diary. “I’m heartbroken. Godpunish the Japanese.

 

To Lockwood, Morton represented his ideal of the undersea warrior: “He had averitable lust for combat and he was the deadliest kind of fighter — the cold kind.”

Lockwood “resolved there would come a day — a day of visitation — an hour of

revenge.”

Now, almost two years after the Wahoo was lost, that day had arrived. The mission of the American wolf pack, a band of nine submarines dubbed the Hellcats, was to penetrate submergedminefields in the Sea of Japan, surprise the enemy, and devastate their shipping.

The legend of the Wahoo began in January 1943, when Morton assumed command of thesubmarine for its third war patrol.

He proved himself an aggressive skipper by sailing into New Guinea’s Wewak Harbor and goingafter a Japanese destroyer. After his first five bow torpedoes missed, the enemy spotted him,

turned, and charged straight at the Wahoo. Morton coolly waited until the destroyer was within800 yards and fired a torpedo down the destroyer’s throat.

“Broke his back,” Morton noted in his patrol report. “The explosion was terrific.”

The Wahoo sank another four ships before heading back to Pearl Harbor.

On its next two patrols, the Wahoo sank nine more large merchant ships and damaged two,

including a 15,000-ton seaplane tender. But its subsequent two patrols — both into the Sea ofJapan — were failures.

During the first, the submarine fired nine torpedoes without sinking or even damaging a singletarget. Morton angrily reported that the torpedoes were defective. After returning to Pearl, theWahoo was given a load of new torpedoes and, on Sept. 9, 1943, set sail for the Sea of Japan

through its northernmost gateway, La Pérouse Strait.

Morton sank four ships during the first week of October.

Then something went wrong. At 9:20 a.m. on Oct. 11, Japanese anti-submarine forces, alert to the presence of a sub in the northern reaches of the Sea of Japan, spotted an oil slick floating in thestrait.

Concluding a damaged submarine was attempting to escape into open waters, the Japanese sent six aircraft and five ships to the site and, over the next eight hours, pounded it with 69 depthcharges and 40 aerial bombs.

By late afternoon the Japanese forces returned to base, satisfied they had destroyed an American submarine.

They had. The Wahoo and its crew and commander were a grave loss to the U.S. Navy. In just nine months, Morton had sunk 19 enemy vessels; a spectacular record that made him an iconamong American submariners. Read much more WWII submarine history here

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/09/29/operation-barney-bloody-payback-in-the-pacific/ ^

 

Naval Hospital Bremerton doctor sentenced for being drunk on duty

BREMERTON — A Naval Hospital Bremerton doctor was convicted recently of being drunk while on duty, according to documents from his general court-martial.

Cmdr. Warren K. Frey pleaded guilty in March to offenses including drinking while on duty and, when restricted to the Naval hospital and from possessing alcohol, violating those conditions, thedocuments said. Much of the conduct was said to have occurred in January 2018.

Separate charges of using marijuana and possessing a device to beat a drug test were ultimately dropped, according to Joe Kubistek, a spokesman for Navy Region Northwest.

On March 1, a military judge sentenced Frey to 120 days in jail, but that was reduced to 30 days if he followed terms of the pretrial agreement. Frey served his time at the Joint RegionalConfinement Facility at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Kubistek said. 

Frey is a radiologist and is certified through 2021 by the American Board of Radiology. He is still assigned to Naval Hospital Bremerton in a supervised position, Navy Region Northwestconfirmed. He is not involved in direct patient care.  

"We can assure our beneficiaries that Naval Hospital Bremerton is committed first and foremost to the safety and well-being of our beneficiaries," Navy Region Northwest said in a statement tothe Kitsap Sun. Frey's case's disposition was posted to Navy Region Northwest's court docket this month. ^

 

Greeted by rough waves, guided-missile cruiser Normandy and the destroyer Farragut nosed inside the Arctic Circle this week, part of an ongoing effort by the Navy to rediscover its sea legs upnorth, U.S. 2nd Fleet leaders said Wednesday.

Second Fleet commander Vice Adm. Andrew “Woody" Lewis told reporters that the crews of the Virginia-based cruiser and the guided-missile destroyer — which is homeported in balmy Florida— are getting accustomed to sailing seas that often become cold and windswept.

“Successful operations in the Arctic require practice,” he said.

Navy officials declined to pinpoint where in the Arctic his warships are roaming, but 2nd Fleet stood up an expeditionary Maritime Operations Center in Keflavik, Iceland.

Helmed by Capt. Chris Slattery, it’s coordinating the operations of the Normandy and Farragut but guided-missile destroyers Forrest Sherman and Lassen won’t join them above the Arctic Circle. The four form a Surface Action Group controlled by 2nd Fleet. They were supposed to deploy as part of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group but the flagship flattop returned to Norfolk lastmonth following reports of electrical glitches. In an era of receding Arctic sea ice — what scientists say is a symptom of global climate change — military leaders anticipate a growing presence of Russian and Chinese forces in northernwaters, something Pentagon planners want to match.

But to operate in the polar region, sailors and their offices must master navigation, logistics, communications and medical support in cold and austere areas, Slattery said.

The Navy resurrected 2nd Fleet in 2018 to focus more forces on the North Atlantic and portions of the Arctic, what was an underwater thoroughfare for Soviet submarines during the Cold War.

Lewis said Wednesday that the SAG’s deployment has yet to encounter any Russian vessels. “I’m sure the longer we stay up there the opportunity would increase…but for now the Normandy and Farragut are training,” Slattery added.

When Truman entered the Norwegian Sea nearly a year ago, sailors brought baseball bats to bash ice off the superstructure.

Josh Farley, Kitsap Sun Published 3:44 p.m. PT Sept. 25, 2019 | Updated 5:41 p.m. PT Sept. 25, 2019

But for personnel trying to conduct flight operations, it wasn’t just plummeting airtemperatures during a 12- to 14-hour workday that became their enemies, but also thewind.

“Even the strongest sailor will have a hard time with it,” Lewis said.

And while his warships are built for rough conditions, he conceded that the Arcticpushes his vessels “a lot closer to the limit than we traditionally do.”

In the Arctic, mundane chores like refueling become expeditionary efforts, Lewissaid. He pointed to a recent trip by the guided-missile destroyer Gravely that saw theship travel 1,800 miles with no opportunity to top off. The Royal Danish Navy’s command and support ship Absalon conducted exercisesoff the coast of Greenland in mid-August with Gravely. “If you look at the map of the Arctic…and you look at what we have forsupportability in the Arctic…it’s not much,” he said.Slattery said that Normandy, Farragut and crews from Naval Air StationJacksonville’s Helicopter Maritime Squadron 72 are “trying to do flight operations inthose higher seas.” “Tomorrow they’re going to be doing a replenishment-at-sea,” he continued. “Highseas make it much more difficult…but it’s something we have to do regardless.” ^

 USS S-23 (SS-128)United States S-class submarine 

 The keel of USS S-23 (SS-128) was laid down on 18 January 1919 by the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation…a subcontractor of the Electric Boat Company of New York City, New York…atQuincy, Massachusetts. The submarine was christened by Miss Barbara Sears and launched on 27 October 1920. The S-boat was commissioned on 30 October 1923 with Lieutenant Joseph Y. Dreisonstok in command.

When commissioned, the S-1 Class coastal and harbor defense submarine was 219’3″ in length overall; had an extreme beam of 20’8″; had a normal surface displacement of 854 tons, and, whenin that condition, had a mean draft of 15’11”. Submerged displacement was 1,062 tons. The submarine was of riveted construction. The designed compliment was four officers and thirty-fourenlisted men. The boat could operate safely to depths of 200 feet. The submarine was armed with four 21-inch torpedo tubes … installed in the bow. Twelve torpedoes were carried. One 4-inch/50-caliber deck gun was installed.

The full load of diesel oil carried was 41,921 gallons, which fueled two 600 designed brake horsepowerModel 8-EB-15NR diesel engines manufactured by the New London Ship and Engine Company atGroton, Connecticut…which could drive the boat…via a diesel direct drive propulsion system…at 14.5knots on the surface. Power for submerged propulsion was provided by a main storage battery, dividedinto two sixty-cell batteries, manufactured by the Electric Storage Battery Company (EXIDE) atPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania…which powered two 750 designed brake horsepower main propulsionmotors manufactured by the by the Ridgway Dynamo and Electric Company at Ridgway, Pennsylvania… which turned propeller shafts … which turned propellers … which could drive the submarine at 11knots for a short period of time when operating beneath the surface of the sea. Slower submerged speedsresulted in greater endurances before the batteries needed to be recharged by the engines and generators.

Initially assigned to Submarine Division 11, Control Force, USS S-23 (SS-128) was based at the UnitedStates Naval Submarine Base at New London/Groton, Connecticut, through the 1920s. During that time,the submarine operated off the New England coast of the United States from late spring until earlywinter; then moved south for winter and spring exercises. From 1925 on, her annual deploymentsincluded participation in fleet problems; and those maneuvers occasionally took her from the Caribbeaninto the Pacific. With the new decade, however, the S-boat was transferred to the Pacific; and, on 5January 1931, she departed her Connecticut submarine base for the Panama Canal, California, and theTerritory of Hawaii. En route, she participated in Fleet Problem XII and, on 25 April, she arrived at hernew homeport, Pearl Harbor, whence she operated, with Submarine Division 7, for the next ten years. InJune of 1941, Submarine Division 7 became Submarine Division 41; and, on 1 September, USS S-23 departed the Hawaiian Islands for California. An overhaul and operations off the West Coastof the United States took her into December…when the United States entered World War II following the Japanese attack on the Territory of Hawaii on 7 December 1941.

The crew of the World War I-design submarine then prepared for service in the Aleutians. Radiant-type heaters were purchased in San Diego, California, to augment the heat provided by the galleyrange.

Heavier and more waterproof clothing, including ski masks, were added to the regular issueprovided to submarine crews. The boat, itself, was fitted out for wartime service, and, duringJanuary of 1942, USS S-23 moved north to Dutch Harbor in Unalaska.

On the afternoon of 7 February 1942, USS S-23 departed Dutch Harbor on her first war patrol.Within hours, she encountered the heavy seas and poor visibility, which characterized the Aleutians.Waves broke over the bridge, battering those on duty there; and sent water cascading down theconning tower hatch. On the 10th, USS S-23 stopped to jettison torn sections of the superstructure, aprocedure she was to repeat on her subsequent patrols; and, on the 13th, the heavy seas causedbroken bones to some men on the bridge. For another three days, the submarine patrolled the greatcircle route from Japan, then headed home, arriving at Dutch Harbor on the 17th. From there, shewas ordered back to San Diego for overhaul and brief services to the ping jockeys at the soundschool located there.

On her arrival, requests were made for improved electrical, heating, and communications gear andinstallation of a fathometer, radar, and keel-mounted sonar. The latter requests were to be repeated after each of her next three patrols, but became available only after her fourth patrol.

On 20 May 1942, USS S-23 again transited to the Aleutians. Proceeding, via Port Angeles, she arrived in Alaskan waters on the 29th and was directed to patrol to the west of Unalaska to hinderan anticipated Japanese attack. On 2 June, however, 20-foot waves broke over the bridge and seriously injured two men. The boat headed for Dutch Harbor to transfer the men for medicaltreatment. Arriving the same day, she was still in the harbor the following morning when Japanese carrier planes attacked the base.

After the first raid, USS S-23 cleared the harbor and, within hours, arrived in her assigned patrol area, where she remained until the 11th. The submarine was then ordered back to Dutch Harbor;replenished; and sent to patrol southeast of Attu, which the Japanese had occupied, along with Kiska, a few days earlier.

For the next 19 days, USS S-23 hunted for Japanese logistic- and war-ships en route to Attu and reconnoitered that island’s bays and harbors. Several attempts were made to close targets, but fog,slow speed, and poor maneuverability precluded attacks in all but one case.

On the 17th, the S-boat fired on a tanker, but did not score. On 2 July, the submarine headed back to Unalaska, and arrived at Dutch Harbor early on the morning of 4 July 1942.

During her third war patrol, 15 July to 18 August, USS S-23 again patrolled primarily in the Attu area. On 6 August, however, she was diverted closer to Kiska to support the bombardment of theisland; and, on 9 August, the submarine returned to her patrol area, where her previous experiences in closing enemy targets were repeated.

Eight days after her return to Dutch Harbor, USS S-23 again headed west; and, on 28 August, she arrived in her assigned area to serve as a protective scout during the occupation of Adak. Duringmost of her time on station, the weather was overcast, but it proved to be the most favorable she had experienced in eight months of Alaskan operations. On 16 September, she was recalled frompatrol to meet her 20 September scheduled date of departure for San Diego for upkeep and sound school duty.

On 7 December 1942, USS S-23 returned to Unalaska; and, on the 17th, she got underway for her fifth war patrol. By the 22nd, the submarine was off western Attu; and, on the 23rd, she receivedorders to take up station off Paramushiro. On the 24th, the S-boat headed for the Kurils. Two days later, 200 miles from her destination, her stern plane operating gear outside the hull broke. Sincesubmerging and depth control became difficult, she turned back for Dutch Harbor. Moving east, her mechanical difficulties increased; her stern planes damaged her propellers; her fouled rudderresulted in a damaged gear train. Nature added severe snow and ice storms after 3 January 1943. But, on the 6th, USS S-23 made it into Dutch Harbor.

Using equipment and parts from USS S-35 (SS-140), USS S-23 was repaired at Dutch Harbor and at Kodiak; and, on 28 January 1943, she departed her Unalaska base for another patrol in theAttu area. The submarine spent 21 days on station, two of which, 6 and 7 February were spent repairing the port main motor control panel. She scored on no enemy ships and returned to DutchHarbor on 26 February.

Refitted, the submarine got underway for her last war patrol on 8 March 1943. Moving west, she arrived off the Kamchatka Peninsula on the 14th, and encountered floe ice 2 1/2 to 3 feet thick.Her progress down the coast in search of the Japanese fishing fleet slowed; and, initially limited to moving during daylight hours, she rounded Cape Kronotski on the afternoon of the 16th, andCape Lopatka on the morning of the 19th. She then set a course back to the Aleutians, which would take her across Japanese Kuril-Aleutians supply lanes. On the 26th, the S-boat took up patrolduty in the Attu area; and, on the 31st, she turned her bow toward Dutch Harbor.

During April of 1943, USS S-23 returned to San Diego. During the summer, the S-boat underwent an extensive overhaul; and, in the fall, she began providing training services to the soundschool, which she continued to do through the end of World War II hostilities…which officially occurred on 2 September 1945, when the Japanese signed the instruments of surrender on boardbattleship USS Missouri…which was anchored in Tokyo Bay, Japan, for that occasion.

On 11 September 1945, USS S-23 commenced a transit to San Francisco, California. There, the S-boat was decommissioned on 2 November 1945. Fourteen days later, the submarine’s name wasstruck from the Navy List. Subsequently, Submarine S-23 (SS-128) was sold for scrapping and was delivered to the purchaser, Salco Iron and Metal Company of San Francisco, California, on 15November 1946.

USS S-23 (SS-128) was awarded one battle star for her service during World War II.^

 

The Loss of USS CISCO (SS-290)By Education Specialist on Monday, 29 September 2014 at 8:00 am | Posted in Submarine History |

On 10 May 1943, the U.S. Navy commissioned USS CISCO (SS-290) at Portsmouth Navy Yard in Kittery, Maine. Soon after, the boat set out for Darwin, Australia, arriving in the middle ofSeptember. While there, Chief Radioman Howell B. Rice became sick and was sent to the local Navy hospital. On 18 September, his boat set out on her first war patrol without him. A leak inher hydraulic system forced her to turn back for repairs, but two days later CISCO headed back out. She was never heard from again.

CISCO was scheduled to patrol in a rectangular area in the South China Sea, between Luzon in the Philippines and French Indo-China. On 28 September, her expected position was in the center

of the Sulu Sea, through which she would have had to pass to reach her area. On that date just north and east of that location, Japaneserecords indicate the discovery of a submarine. “Found a sub tailing oil,” the records note. “Bombing. Ships cooperated with us. The oilcontinued to gush out even on tenth of October.” Because no other American boats were operating in the area at the time, it is presumedthat the victim was CISCO. The terrible irony is that she was probably destroyed at least in part by one of her sisters: USS LUZON (PR-7), a U.S. gunboat that had been captured by the Japanese, renamed Karatsu, and deployed to attack American forces. This vessel wasaided by purely Japanese forces: Type 97 “Kate” attack bombers belonging to the 954 Naval Air Squadron.

On 4 November and again on the fifth, Headquarters Task Force 71 attempted to raise CISCO on the radio. There was no response. Theboat was ultimately declared lost; it is possible that a recurrence of her hydraulic headaches created the oil slick that drew the enemy toher.

76 men went down with CISCO. Rice, who would recover from his illness, was the crew’s only survivor. ^

 Top Archives Front Page

Published for American Submariners by USSVI Bremerton Base -Webmaster Don "Red" Bassler