Friday, April 25, 2014
Seventy Years Ago: Building Planes And Training At Corpus Christi
Here are some of the best photos I have seen of maintenance and repair of WWII Naval Aircraft and the people who did the work: Click on the link.
http://www.businessinsider.com/vintage-world-war-ii-photos-from-the-base-where-george-bush-senior-earned-his-wings-2012-2?op=1
http://www.businessinsider.com/vintage-world-war-ii-photos-from-the-base-where-george-bush-senior-earned-his-wings-2012-2?op=1
April 25, 1898 - 116 Years Ago - US Declares War On Spain
Here are photos of what the US Navy looked like during the Spanish American War:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-it-was-like-in-the-navy-116-years-ago-2014-4
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Moldova
I recommend Nicholas Kristof's article about Moldova in today's New York Times. A pretty small place under a significant threat from Russia.
Moldova, like Eastern Ukraine, Crimea, and the Baltic states, has pockets of Russians moved there while they were still part of the Soviet Union. It seems Putin wants them all back.
Not unlike the pockets of German speakers scattered across Central and Eastern Europe that Germany went after in the 30's and 40's. These Russian pockets should temper their enthusiasm for absorption into Russia. The analogous German experience didn't turn out so well.
In any event, I think this all shows that the Soviet Union was less about communism and more about Russian imperialism.
Moldova, like Eastern Ukraine, Crimea, and the Baltic states, has pockets of Russians moved there while they were still part of the Soviet Union. It seems Putin wants them all back.
Not unlike the pockets of German speakers scattered across Central and Eastern Europe that Germany went after in the 30's and 40's. These Russian pockets should temper their enthusiasm for absorption into Russia. The analogous German experience didn't turn out so well.
In any event, I think this all shows that the Soviet Union was less about communism and more about Russian imperialism.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Cox v Town of Oriental
Today was the day the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard my case against the Town of Oriental. This was at least the end of the beginning, if not the beginning of the end.
We won't know the outcome for weeks or perhaps months. I'm not counting any chickens yet, but I think my case is strong. Still, there are never any guarantees when a case goes before a court.
Without getting into the ins and outs of my legal argument and the Town's, I want to register a mild complaint in another direction entirely.
From the time I first brought my concerns before the mayor and the town commissioners, I had the impression that elected officials and the town's attorney dismissed my views out of hand. What could a naval officer possibly know about the law? And why would he make a big deal about whether the town was acting within its legal authority?
Those who don't go down to the sea in ships have possibly never reflected that a warship operates in a very complex legal environment. Commanding officers must not only understand Law of the Sea, but also grasp how his actions may affect the interests of the nation differently depending on where the ship is located. The legal regime may vary depending on whether the ship is in US waters, or even whether the ship is in the Mississippi river, on the Great Lakes, or in other special regimes. Is the ship in international waters? Is the ship in the territorial waters of another sovereign state?
What legal regime applies? How does the legal regime affect the captain's authority and legal responsibilities?
I first encountered these issues when I was seventeen years old and learning to be a naval officer. To be sure, I was taught navigation and seamanship. I was taught ordnance and gunnery. I was taught the operation and maintenance of ship propulsion plants. I learned radar, sonar, other electronic systems. But that wasn't all.
The very first semester of my four year course of Naval Science introduced me to "US Naval Regulations, 1948." This document spelled out the authority and responsibilities of Naval officers - the source of the authority and the limitations on that authority.
A little later on, I studied the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General Manual, and the Manual for Courts Martial.
These weren't just theoretical studies. They were central to my profession.
In those days, more so than today, unrestricted line officers performed most of the Navy's legal functions. We administered justice through non-judicial punishment as well as through our own criminal justice system under the UCMJ. In case of mishap, suspicion of criminal activity or in other cases, we conducted our own investigations using procedures in the JAG manual.
To do all of these things in 1954 when I began learning about it, the Navy had very few legal specialists. We did not even have a JAG corps of legal officers at all until 1950. You would not find one aboard most ships. Some major commands had a JAG officer assigned. The first JAG officer I served with was on a guided missile heavy cruiser in 1971.
When I was commissioned as a naval officer and reported to my first ship, within six months I was the ship's legal officer. I was also the navigator, the personnel officer, the administrative office, and a dozen other things. When the captain convened a court-martial, I was the trial counsel. Over the years, at various times I served as trial counsel, defense counsel, member of the court and president of the court.
I first worked really closely with Navy JAG officers in the Pentagon in 1972. We collaborated on international negotiations, on issues involving status of forces agreements with foreign powers, in negotiations on Law of the Sea matters.
By that time, I had degrees in international law and diplomacy. Many of my civilian counterparts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in the State Department were attorneys. I learned a lot from them. After I retired, I continued working on international issues as an engineer and policy analyst in the field of international technology cooperation.
I certainly don't know as much about courtrooms as practicing attorneys do. That's why I retained one to represent me in my appeal of the trial court's dismissal of my complaint against the town.
There are a lot of terms of art in the legal field that don't come tripping off my tongue. Though I dare say few practicing attorneys know more about Law of The Sea than I do.
The best way for professionals to relate to each other is with mutual respect. The better to learn and to join forces.
My goal all along has been to protect the public interest and the rule of law.
We won't know the outcome for weeks or perhaps months. I'm not counting any chickens yet, but I think my case is strong. Still, there are never any guarantees when a case goes before a court.
Without getting into the ins and outs of my legal argument and the Town's, I want to register a mild complaint in another direction entirely.
From the time I first brought my concerns before the mayor and the town commissioners, I had the impression that elected officials and the town's attorney dismissed my views out of hand. What could a naval officer possibly know about the law? And why would he make a big deal about whether the town was acting within its legal authority?
Those who don't go down to the sea in ships have possibly never reflected that a warship operates in a very complex legal environment. Commanding officers must not only understand Law of the Sea, but also grasp how his actions may affect the interests of the nation differently depending on where the ship is located. The legal regime may vary depending on whether the ship is in US waters, or even whether the ship is in the Mississippi river, on the Great Lakes, or in other special regimes. Is the ship in international waters? Is the ship in the territorial waters of another sovereign state?
What legal regime applies? How does the legal regime affect the captain's authority and legal responsibilities?
I first encountered these issues when I was seventeen years old and learning to be a naval officer. To be sure, I was taught navigation and seamanship. I was taught ordnance and gunnery. I was taught the operation and maintenance of ship propulsion plants. I learned radar, sonar, other electronic systems. But that wasn't all.
The very first semester of my four year course of Naval Science introduced me to "US Naval Regulations, 1948." This document spelled out the authority and responsibilities of Naval officers - the source of the authority and the limitations on that authority.
A little later on, I studied the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General Manual, and the Manual for Courts Martial.
These weren't just theoretical studies. They were central to my profession.
In those days, more so than today, unrestricted line officers performed most of the Navy's legal functions. We administered justice through non-judicial punishment as well as through our own criminal justice system under the UCMJ. In case of mishap, suspicion of criminal activity or in other cases, we conducted our own investigations using procedures in the JAG manual.
To do all of these things in 1954 when I began learning about it, the Navy had very few legal specialists. We did not even have a JAG corps of legal officers at all until 1950. You would not find one aboard most ships. Some major commands had a JAG officer assigned. The first JAG officer I served with was on a guided missile heavy cruiser in 1971.
When I was commissioned as a naval officer and reported to my first ship, within six months I was the ship's legal officer. I was also the navigator, the personnel officer, the administrative office, and a dozen other things. When the captain convened a court-martial, I was the trial counsel. Over the years, at various times I served as trial counsel, defense counsel, member of the court and president of the court.
I first worked really closely with Navy JAG officers in the Pentagon in 1972. We collaborated on international negotiations, on issues involving status of forces agreements with foreign powers, in negotiations on Law of the Sea matters.
By that time, I had degrees in international law and diplomacy. Many of my civilian counterparts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in the State Department were attorneys. I learned a lot from them. After I retired, I continued working on international issues as an engineer and policy analyst in the field of international technology cooperation.
I certainly don't know as much about courtrooms as practicing attorneys do. That's why I retained one to represent me in my appeal of the trial court's dismissal of my complaint against the town.
There are a lot of terms of art in the legal field that don't come tripping off my tongue. Though I dare say few practicing attorneys know more about Law of The Sea than I do.
The best way for professionals to relate to each other is with mutual respect. The better to learn and to join forces.
My goal all along has been to protect the public interest and the rule of law.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Ukraine's Aspirations
In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof visits the Ukrainian village his father grew up in. The people Kristof describes are like the Ukrainians I know. They just want to be a normal European country.
We can and should help.
We can and should help.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Seventy Years Ago: USS Houston (CL-81) Ready For Sea
USS HOUSTON (CL-81)
Boston, MA April 15, 1944, Newly commissioned Cleveland-class light cruiser Houston, after completing shakedown cruise in the Caribbean, provisioning, training, and final outfitting, reports Ready For Sea. Her orders: get underway April 16, 1944, proceed through Panama Canal to San Diego, California. On arrival, report to Commander, US Pacific Fleet for combat duty.
Ship Characteristics:
| Awarded: 1940 |
| Keel laid: August 4, 1941 |
| Launched: June 19, 1943 |
| Commissioned: December 20, 1943 |
| Decommissioned: December 15, 1947 |
| Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding, Newport News, Va. |
| Propulsion system: geared turbines, 100,000 shp |
| Propellers: four |
| Length: 610.2 feet (186 meters) |
| Beam: 66.3 feet (20.2 meters) |
| Draft: 24.6 feet (7.5 meters) |
| Displacement: approx. 14,130 tons fully loaded |
| Speed: 32.5 knots |
| Aircraft: four |
| Armament: twelve 15.2cm 6-inch/47 caliber guns in four triple mounts, twelve 12.7cm 5-inch/38 caliber guns in six twin mounts, 24 40mm guns, 21 20mm guns |
| Crew: 70 officers and 1285 enlisted |
Monday, April 14, 2014
US Navy Electrical Propulsion
Department of "History Begins When I Was Born." Yesterday's News and Observer printed an AP report about the Christening of USS Zumwalt, named for a former Chief of Naval Operations from the 1970's. Good. I am proud to have served under Admiral Zumwalt's strong and innovative
leadership.
On the other hand, the AP article explained that USS Zumwalt is "the first U.S. Ship to use electric propulsion." That is not accurate. In 1912 the Navy launched a new fuel ship, USS Jupiter, powered by a prototype turbo-electric propulsion system. After serving in World War I, Jupiter was converted to become USS Langley, CV-1, the Navy's first aircraft carrier. The next two aircraft carriers, USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3) were also electrically powered. In the 1920's, the navy adopted diesel electric propulsion for its new S-Class submarines and continued using diesel-electric propulsion for its submarines until the switch to nuclear power. These submarines were propelled by electric motors, drawing electricity from diesel generators when on the surface and from batteries when submerged. At least six US battlehips of the era were also powered by electrical propulsion: (Tennessee, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Maryland and West Virginia,) as were three classes of destroyer escorts (Evarts, Bulkley and Cannon classes) used to protect WWII convoys.
Langley, still in service in 1942, was converted in 1936 to function as a seaplane tender. She supported Australian anti submarine air operations out of Darwin, and then was pressed into service to transport crated P-40 fighters to Tjilatjap in the Dutch East Indies. Attacked by Japanese Aichi dive bombers on February 27, 1942, she was so badly damaged she had to be scuttled and abandoned by her crew to keep the ship out of the hands of Japan. When she went down, her 30-year-old electrical propulsion plant was still working reliably.
USS Langley Under Attack By Japanese Navy Aircraft February 27, 1942
So electrical propulsion is far from new.
On the other hand, the AP article explained that USS Zumwalt is "the first U.S. Ship to use electric propulsion." That is not accurate. In 1912 the Navy launched a new fuel ship, USS Jupiter, powered by a prototype turbo-electric propulsion system. After serving in World War I, Jupiter was converted to become USS Langley, CV-1, the Navy's first aircraft carrier. The next two aircraft carriers, USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3) were also electrically powered. In the 1920's, the navy adopted diesel electric propulsion for its new S-Class submarines and continued using diesel-electric propulsion for its submarines until the switch to nuclear power. These submarines were propelled by electric motors, drawing electricity from diesel generators when on the surface and from batteries when submerged. At least six US battlehips of the era were also powered by electrical propulsion: (Tennessee, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Maryland and West Virginia,) as were three classes of destroyer escorts (Evarts, Bulkley and Cannon classes) used to protect WWII convoys.
Langley, still in service in 1942, was converted in 1936 to function as a seaplane tender. She supported Australian anti submarine air operations out of Darwin, and then was pressed into service to transport crated P-40 fighters to Tjilatjap in the Dutch East Indies. Attacked by Japanese Aichi dive bombers on February 27, 1942, she was so badly damaged she had to be scuttled and abandoned by her crew to keep the ship out of the hands of Japan. When she went down, her 30-year-old electrical propulsion plant was still working reliably.
USS Langley Under Attack By Japanese Navy Aircraft February 27, 1942
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
