Date: 8/12/2010
To: Distribution List

=========================================================
NEWS-01: Ever wonder why the USSVI websites...
Submitted by: Tim VeArd on 8/7/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
Why the USSVI website:

* requires Session Cookies (or cookies for Firefox an other browsers)
* allows no Back Door calls to selected pages on the website

The conditions above usually send you to an "error" page that explains what you may need to do to prevent seeing this error page.

COOKIES: Over the years, cookies have gotten a bad reputation, that is often undeserved.  Many websites use them responsibly to make your visiting experience better.  But, the USSVI family of websites DO NOT use real cookies.  I only use what is called "Session Variables" (which are sometimes also called "Session Cookies".  Unlike real cookies, Session Variables DO NOT write information to either your computer or my servers.  They simply "temporarily" store a choice you made on one page and pass it to the next page, so that I can lookup what you want to see in the national database.  Once the next page is displayed, the Session Cookie normally "dies" unless I know you might drill down to yet another page. 

Microsoft's Internet Explorers (all versions from IE-4 to IE-8), allow you to block real cookies but allow you to enable using Session Variables (or Session Cookies).  Firefox and other browsers don't seem to make a distinction between Session Cookies and real cookies.  So, for these browsers you need to allow them for the sites that need them, like USSVI.  Here's how for Firefox (other browser probably a similar procedure):

Click on Tools
Click on Options
Click on the Privacy Tab
On the right side of "Accept Cookies from Sites", click the EXCEPTIONS button Enter "www.ussvi.org" and then close

The error page you see will also explain all of this and also show examples of what steps to take to prevent seeing this screen in the future.

Also note, that Session Cookies have a limited life.  They "time out" after awhile.  If you walk away from your computer (especially if you logged in using your password), the Session Cookies clear themself (they die in memory, never written to any disk).  Then when you try to go another page, you will see this error screen again.

NO BACK DOOR CALLS ALLOWED:  First, I need to explain what a back door call is.  It generally means you "bookmarked" a page on a website that you want to come "directly" back to.  Or, it might be a specific page you want a friend to see, so you send them a link like below:

https://www.ussvi.org/AmericanSubmariner.asp

If you click on the link above, you'll see an error screen that briefly explains why this direct call is not allowed.  It will explain that you need to call the main USSVI website's primary URL (www.ussvi.org) and see the home page first.  If you want a friend to see a specific page, you should give them directions for what button to click after that.

Why am I forced to do this?  And, yes I am very aware that many other websites don't require this.  And, yes, I'll be the first to admit that is a pain in the butt for lots of us.  This simple answer is ... to prevent hackers from gaining unauthorized access to our national database.

In contrast to the "back door", when you enter the USSVI using the primary URL (www.ussvi.org), you are coming thought the "front door".  Before you can see the HOME page, the "front door" detects in you are a hacker using techniques that I won't elaborate on here.  I belong to a consulting network of programmers, many of whom are much smarter than me.  We share techniques and warn each other of pending attacks.  For example, a few years ago, the White House's website and a well known submarine website, that were driven by a database, were hacked and shut down by an insidious hack known as the "SQL Injection attack".  I was able to immediately defend against it when friends shared their code with me, by adding it to USSVI's "front door".  Therefore, any page on the USSVI site that is connected to the national database, cannot be directly accessed.  You must come through the front door first, so I can protect us from attackers.

There are two general types of attackers.  One is a person trying to gain access by penetrating the site.  The other is a program that a hacker wrote that hits your site thousands of times a second, probing for holes in your security.  Therefore another function of the "front door" is to detect an automated attack and send the attacker what he expects to see if there is nothing of value to hack.  So, the "front door" handles both types, if it can.  You see an error screen.  Hackers see something else that I won't describe here.

Another benefit for having a "front door" is search engines like Google offer webmasters snippets of code that we can add to a "front door" that helps them develop a trend pattern that can improve our ranking when someone requests info about subs.  It is paying off and USSVI has benefited from this.

=========================================================
NEWS-02: Reflecting on our USSVI Creed...
Submitted by: Pat Householder on 8/7/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
Occasionally is it worthwhile to review and reflect on the purposes of USSVI.  I hope you will take the time to read it over and reflect on what it means to us all.

Our organization's purpose is defined in our Constitution "to perpetuate the memory of our shipmates who gave their lives in the pursuit of their duties while serving their country. That their dedication, deeds and supreme sacrifice be a constant source of motivation toward greater accomplishments. Pledge loyalty and patriotism to the United States of America and its Constitution.

In addition to perpetuating the memory of departed shipmates, we shall provide a way for all Submariners to gather for the mutual benefit and enjoyment.  Our common heritage as Submariners shall be strengthened by camaraderie.  We support a strong U.S. Submarine Force.

The organization will engage in various projects and deeds that will bring about the perpetual remembrance of those shipmates who have given the supreme sacrifice. The organization will also endeavor to educate all third parties it comes in contact with about the services our submarine brothers performed and how their sacrifices made possible the freedom and lifestyle we enjoy today."

The above describes the mission and purpose of USSVI at all levels.

Questions, concerns or comments?  Please give me a shout back at nc@ussvi.org

Fraternally,

Patrick Householder
Natl Commander

=========================================================
NEWS-03: U.S. Navy to help restore USS Batfish
Submitted by: Pat Householder on 8/7/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Navy Reserve to help restore USS Batfish

Muskogee (OK) Phoenix Newspaper:  On Aug. 28, the Oklahoma Naval Reserve will be out to help paint the USS Batfish. Visitors are welcome, but during this day the submarine will be closed to the public. The museum and grounds will remain open.

To reach the USS Batfish Submarine and Military Museum, take Muskogee Turnpike to Exit 33, turn east, then turn north at the Batfish sign.

The Naval Reserve will host a car wash and cook-out for donations as well as have a squadron gear shop open to help raise funds for the day’s activities. Information: Rick Dennis at 682-6294.

=========================================================
NEWS-04: The U.S. Navy And Internal Rot
Submitted by: Strategy Page on 8/8/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
by James Dunnigan, August 2, 2010

The U.S. Navy has noted a decline in the readiness (for operations, and combat) of its ships over the past decade, and finally conducted an intense inspection of the situation. What was found were several trends, all of them bad, that resulted in it being much more difficult, and often impossible, to maintain ships as they had been in the past. The biggest problem was leadership at the top, which allowed this to happen. The leadership angle was not mentioned in any of the recent studies, but it is at the heart of all the other problems.
 
Getting down into the details, the most obvious problem is that the ships are getting older, and so is their equipment, especially the electronics. As stuff gets older, it becomes more difficult to get spare parts, or to get them on a timely basis. This is particularly true with Cold War era electronics, which have since been replaced, in the commercial market,  by several generations of new (cheaper and more efficient and reliable) gear. The navy chose to try and maintain the older systems. It has not been working at the ship level. Worse yet, the procurement bureaucracy has not kept up with the times (it's a real hassle to order anything), and sailors often give up on trying to get spares, especially when their officers can't make the system work either. All this was made still worse by navy attempts to "streamline" things resulted in smaller spare parts budgets for ships (sometimes based on false belief in a faster spares delivery system that did not exist). Another streamlining disaster was a push for "minimum manning" (only having as many sailors on board as you actually needed). The analysis done to find the optimal crew levels ignored (or simply missed) a lot of manpower intensive jobs that led to many more ships failing their readiness inspections.
 
The senior admirals now have all this staring them in the face. The question is, can they fix what their predecessors screwed up? The fixes are expensive, and there is still a lot of pressure in the navy to spend lots of money to replace aging ships. To fix the current readiness problems means you will not be able to afford some  new ships. The fix is replacing older equipment in current ships, with new, more reliable and easier to maintain systems. Most of the problems are on surface ships (the "surface combatants" like frigates, destroyers and cruisers). Most admirals see the carriers and nuclear ships as the key naval vessels. Should money be shifted from subs and carriers to fix the surface combatants, and similar problems aboard carriers and subs? The navy budget is shrinking, and the answers to these questions will be pretty obvious over the next few years. There are definitely two factions in the navy on this subject, and keeping score is as simple as counting new ships built, and the number of existing ships failing their readiness inspections.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20100713.aspx

=========================================================
NEWS-05: Upcoming Boat Reunions
Submitted by: T. Michael Bircumshaw on 8/9/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
Shipmates,
A couple more Reunions that did not make it into the American Submariner Inbox are coming up in October of this year.  Please remember that getting thme in the calendar does not get them into the American Submariner.  Reunion coordinators must send their info to SubVetsEditor@yahoo.com.
Best,
Michael
T M Bircumshaw Editor American Submariner

 4-8 October  2010 USS CAPITAINE SS-336 Las Vegas NV  Thomas H. Morris  23 Timm Street Sheridan, WY 82801-8604  307- 672- 6593  (775) 751-9435 (fax) bigtom@fiberpipe.net

21-24 October 2010  USS CLAMAGORE SS-343  Branson, MO  Welks Resort Hotel 800-268-4014 “Mention Clamagore”  Sam Bass 714-636-7238  geobass@earthlink.net  Wayne Owens 410-944-1806

=========================================================
NEWS-06: Why the USS SCORPION (SSN-589) Was Lost on 22 May 1968
Submitted by: James A Fox on 8/12/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
6 August 2010
 
From: B. Rule, 3931 Brookfield Ave, Louisville, KY 40207-2001 
To: VADM David J. Dorsett, Director of Naval Intelligence, Office of Naval Intelligence,
  4251 Suitland Road, Washington, DC 20395-5720
 
Subj: Why the USS SCORPION (SSN-589) Was Lost on 22 May 1968
 
Ref: (a) Originator’s ltr of 14 Mar 2009
  (b) SCORPION SAG Report: "EVALUATION OF DATA AND ARTIFACTS
  RELATED TO THE USS SCORPION (SSN-589) (U)" of 29 June 1970,
  prepared for presentation to the CNO SCORPION Technical Advisory Group by
  the Structural Analysis Group: Peter Palermo, CAPT Harry Jackson, Robert
  Price, et al.
  (c) Originator’s ltr of 28 Oct 2009
 
Encl: (1) Enclosure (1) to Originator’s ltr of 14 March 2009
 
ASSESSMENT
 
The USS SCORPION was lost because hydrogen produced by the 65-ton, 126-cell TLX-53-A main storage battery exploded in two-stages one-half second apart at 18:20:44Z on 22 May 1968. These events, which did not breach the pressure-hull, prevented the crew from maintaining depth-control. As discussed by reference (a), the SCORPION pressure-hull collapsed at 18:42:34Z at a depth of 1530-feet. Noted times are actual event times on board SCORPION.
 
This assessment is NOT the generic attribution of the loss of a submarine to a battery-explosion advanced as a default explanation in the absence of any more likely construct. This assessment is based on (1), the results of examination and microscopic, spectrographic and X-ray diffraction analyses of recovered SCORPION battery material that confirm an explosion occurred, and (2), the July 2008 reanalysis of the SCORPION “precursor” acoustic signals that identified these signals as explosions contained within the SCORPION pressure-hull. Collectively, these findings indicate battery explosions were the initiating events responsible for the loss of SCORPION on 22 May 1968.
 
DISCUSSIONS: EXAMINATION AND METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF A RECOVERED SCORPION BATTERY COMPONENT
 
Section 7.1.3, page 7.2 of reference (b) states: (quote) ....the general battery damage is violent. The high velocity intrusion of pieces of the flash arrestor into both inside and outside surfaces of the retrieved plastisol cover attest to violence in the battery well. The damage to the terminal battery post coupled with the violent tearing of the plastisol covers indicates the possibility of a battery explosion. While it is possible that this damage could have been an after-effect of hull implosion, the SAG (Structural Analysis Group) feels that the intrusion of particles into the plastisol cover would have been much less severe had water been in the battery well at the time. (end quote)
 
Section 5.3.6, page 5.17 of reference (b) states: (quote) The battery installed in SCORPION was a TLX-53-A, manufactured by Gould-National Battery, Inc. Battery cell debris is in evidence over the entire debris field. Table 5-2, page 5.38 provides a list of the battery debris identified by the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard analysis team. (end quote) Comment: Table 5-2 notes damage from heat and melting. The presence of melting eliminates the possibility that such damage occurred as a result of pressure-hull collapse (implosion) because analysis of acoustic data discussed by Section IV of reference (c), confirms SCORPION was fully-flooded within 0.112-seconds of pressure-hull and bulkhead collapse; hence, the melting damage (and the battery explosion) had to have occurred within the still-intact SCORPION pressure-hull.
 
In consonance with this conclusion, Section 5.3.6, page 5.17 of reference (b) also states: (quote) the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Analysis Group reports that the available evidence indicates the battery probably exploded at some time before flooding of the battery well occurred. Review of Figure 5-13 indicates that the threads on the terminal posts were sheared off and there are no cover seal nuts remaining. This indicates that an explosion took place on the inside of the cells. The covers were completely blown off. Had the pressure been applied on the outside of the covers, the cover support flange on the terminal posts would have held pieces of the covers and it is expected that the cover seal nuts would have remained in place in at least some instances. ( end quote)
 
Further, Section 5.3.6c, page 5.18 of reference (b) states: (quote) The (battery cover) sample from SCORPION had been violently, but locally, torn, particularly at the location of the bus connection bolts and nuts. The deformation in this region appears to have started on the inside, or battery side of the cover. (end quote)
 
And finally, Section 5.3.6e, page 5.18 of reference (b) states: (quote) Some 20 equally small (nearly sub-visible) fragments of material were imbedded at high velocity in both the inside and outside of the sample. The trajectories of the fragments were essentially random, ranging from grazing to vertical incidence. Microscopic, spectrographic and X-ray

=========================================================
VET-01: TRICARE Sets Gray Area Retiree Premiums
Submitted by: John P. Dudas on 8/10/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
Week of August 09, 2010

Last year, Congress approved the creation of the TRICARE Reserve Retired program, a premium-paid TRICARE Standard coverage plan for "gray area" Reserve retirees. The program is planned to start in October. The Premium rates were unveiled on Aug. 6. The premiums -- $388.31 per month for single coverage and $976.41 a month for family coverage -- have been set high enough to cover the full cost of the program because the benefit is not subsidized by the government.


=========================================================
VET-02: VA Ordered to Release Agent Orange Rule
Submitted by: John P. Dudas on 8/10/2010
---------------------------------------------------------
Week of August 09, 2010

A coalition of veterans' service organizations won their case to force the VA to issue a final regulation authorizing payment of claims for ischemic heart disease, Parkinson's disease, or B-cell leukemia for any veteran who stepped foot in Vietnam during the war, or their survivors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit instructed VA to issue the rule by Sept. 1, 2010