History of O-1 SS-62 - History

History of O-1 SS-62 - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

O-1 SS-62

0-1
(SS-62: dp. 520.6 (surf. n.), 629 (subm.); 1. 172'4", b. 18'~" dr. 14'5 '; s. 14 k. (surf.), 10.5 k. (subm.); cpl. 29; a. 1 3"/50 4 18" tt.; cl. 0-1).

0-1, the first of its class of submarine, was laid down 26 March 1917 at the Portsmouth, N.H. Navy Yard; launched 9 July 1918; and commissioned at Portsmouth 5 November 1918, Lt. Comdr. Norman L. Kirk, commanding.

Commissioned just before the Armistice, 0-1 operated in the Atlantic coastal waters from Cape Cod to Key West after the war. Reclassified to a 2nd line submarine 25 July 1924 and to a first liner 6 June 1928, 0-1 was converted to an experimental vessel 28 December 1930, and operated in an experimental capacity, out of the submarine base at New London, Conn. until decommissioning 11 June 1931. She was struck from the Navy Register 18 May 1938 and sold for scrap.


Chevrolet introduces the El Camino

On October 16, 1958, Chevrolet begins to sell a car-truck hybrid that it calls the El Camino. Inspired by the Ford Ranchero, which had already been on the market for two years, the El Camino was a combination sedan-pickup truck built on the Impala body, with the same �t’s eye” taillights and dramatic rear fins. It was, ads trilled, “the most beautiful thing that ever shouldered a load!” “It rides and handles like a convertible,” Chevy said, “yet hauls and hustles like the workingest thing on wheels.”

Ford’s Ranchero was the first �r-truck” sold in the United States, but it was not a new idea. Since the 1930s, Australian farmers had been driving what they called “utes”—short for 𠇌oupé utility”𠅊ll around the outback. Legend has it that a farmer’s wife from rural Victoria had written a letter to Ford Australia, asking the company to build a car that could carry her to church on Sundays and her husband’s pigs to market on Mondays. In response, Ford engineer Lewis Brandt designed a low-slung sedan-based vehicle that was a ritzy passenger car in the front, with wind-up windows and comfortable seats and a rough-and-tumble pickup in back. The ute was a huge hit eventually, virtually every company that sold cars Down Under made its own version.

In the United States, however, ute-type vehicles were slower to catch on. Though the Ranchero was a steady seller, the first incarnation of the El Camino was not and Chevy discontinued it after just two years. In 1964, the company introduced a new version, this one built on the brawnier Chevelle platform. In 1968, the more powerful SS engine made the El Camino into one of the iconic muscle cars of the late 1960s and 1970s.


Contents

Let f be a real or complex valued function and g a real valued function. Let both functions be defined on some unbounded subset of the positive real numbers, and g ( x ) be strictly positive for all large enough values of x . [4] One writes

In many contexts, the assumption that we are interested in the growth rate as the variable x goes to infinity is left unstated, and one writes more simply that

The notation can also be used to describe the behavior of f near some real number a (often, a = 0 ): we say

As g(x) is chosen to be non-zero for values of x sufficiently close to a , both of these definitions can be unified using the limit superior:

In typical usage the O notation is asymptotical, that is, it refers to very large x . In this setting, the contribution of the terms that grow "most quickly" will eventually make the other ones irrelevant. As a result, the following simplification rules can be applied:

  • If f(x) is a sum of several terms, if there is one with largest growth rate, it can be kept, and all others omitted.
  • If f(x) is a product of several factors, any constants (terms in the product that do not depend on x ) can be omitted.

For example, let f(x) = 6x 4 − 2x 3 + 5 , and suppose we wish to simplify this function, using O notation, to describe its growth rate as x approaches infinity. This function is the sum of three terms: 6x 4 , −2x 3 , and 5 . Of these three terms, the one with the highest growth rate is the one with the largest exponent as a function of x , namely 6x 4 . Now one may apply the second rule: 6x 4 is a product of 6 and x 4 in which the first factor does not depend on x . Omitting this factor results in the simplified form x 4 . Thus, we say that f(x) is a "big O" of x 4 . Mathematically, we can write f(x) = O(x 4 ) . One may confirm this calculation using the formal definition: let f(x) = 6x 4 − 2x 3 + 5 and g(x) = x 4 . Applying the formal definition from above, the statement that f(x) = O(x 4 ) is equivalent to its expansion,

for some suitable choice of x0 and M and for all x > x0 . To prove this, let x0 = 1 and M = 13 . Then, for all x > x0 :

Big O notation has two main areas of application:

  • In mathematics, it is commonly used to describe how closely a finite series approximates a given function, especially in the case of a truncated Taylor series or asymptotic expansion
  • In computer science, it is useful in the analysis of algorithms

In both applications, the function g(x) appearing within the O(. ) is typically chosen to be as simple as possible, omitting constant factors and lower order terms.

There are two formally close, but noticeably different, usages of this notation: [ citation needed ]

This distinction is only in application and not in principle, however—the formal definition for the "big O" is the same for both cases, only with different limits for the function argument. [ original research? ]

Infinite asymptotics Edit

Big O notation is useful when analyzing algorithms for efficiency. For example, the time (or the number of steps) it takes to complete a problem of size n might be found to be T(n) = 4n 2 − 2n + 2 . As n grows large, the n 2 term will come to dominate, so that all other terms can be neglected—for instance when n = 500 , the term 4n 2 is 1000 times as large as the 2n term. Ignoring the latter would have negligible effect on the expression's value for most purposes. Further, the coefficients become irrelevant if we compare to any other order of expression, such as an expression containing a term n 3 or n 4 . Even if T(n) = 1,000,000n 2 , if U(n) = n 3 , the latter will always exceed the former once n grows larger than 1,000,000 ( T(1,000,000) = 1,000,000 3 = U(1,000,000) ). Additionally, the number of steps depends on the details of the machine model on which the algorithm runs, but different types of machines typically vary by only a constant factor in the number of steps needed to execute an algorithm. So the big O notation captures what remains: we write either

and say that the algorithm has order of n 2 time complexity. The sign " = " is not meant to express "is equal to" in its normal mathematical sense, but rather a more colloquial "is", so the second expression is sometimes considered more accurate (see the "Equals sign" discussion below) while the first is considered by some as an abuse of notation. [6]

Infinitesimal asymptotics Edit

Big O can also be used to describe the error term in an approximation to a mathematical function. The most significant terms are written explicitly, and then the least-significant terms are summarized in a single big O term. Consider, for example, the exponential series and two expressions of it that are valid when x is small:

The second expression (the one with O(x 3 )) means the absolute-value of the error e x − (1 + x + x 2 /2) is at most some constant times |x 3 | when x is close enough to 0.

If the function f can be written as a finite sum of other functions, then the fastest growing one determines the order of f(n) . For example,

In particular, if a function may be bounded by a polynomial in n , then as n tends to infinity, one may disregard lower-order terms of the polynomial. The sets O(n c ) and O(c n ) are very different. If c is greater than one, then the latter grows much faster. A function that grows faster than n c for any c is called superpolynomial. One that grows more slowly than any exponential function of the form c n is called subexponential. An algorithm can require time that is both superpolynomial and subexponential examples of this include the fastest known algorithms for integer factorization and the function n log n .

We may ignore any powers of n inside of the logarithms. The set O(log n) is exactly the same as O(log(n c )) . The logarithms differ only by a constant factor (since log(n c ) = c log n ) and thus the big O notation ignores that. Similarly, logs with different constant bases are equivalent. On the other hand, exponentials with different bases are not of the same order. For example, 2 n and 3 n are not of the same order.

Changing units may or may not affect the order of the resulting algorithm. Changing units is equivalent to multiplying the appropriate variable by a constant wherever it appears. For example, if an algorithm runs in the order of n 2 , replacing n by cn means the algorithm runs in the order of c 2 n 2 , and the big O notation ignores the constant c 2 . This can be written as c 2 n 2 = O(n 2 ) . If, however, an algorithm runs in the order of 2 n , replacing n with cn gives 2 cn = (2 c ) n . This is not equivalent to 2 n in general. Changing variables may also affect the order of the resulting algorithm. For example, if an algorithm's run time is O(n) when measured in terms of the number n of digits of an input number x , then its run time is O(log x) when measured as a function of the input number x itself, because n = O(log x) .

Product Edit

Sum Edit

Multiplication by a constant Edit

Big O (and little o, Ω, etc.) can also be used with multiple variables. To define big O formally for multiple variables, suppose f and g are two functions defined on some subset of R n ^> . We say

∃ M ∃ C > 0 such that for all x with x i ≥ M for some i , | f ( x ) | ≤ C | g ( x ) | .

asserts that there exist constants C and M such that

where g(n,m) is defined by

This is not the only generalization of big O to multivariate functions, and in practice, there is some inconsistency in the choice of definition. [8]

Equals sign Edit

The statement "f(x) is O(g(x))" as defined above is usually written as f(x) = O(g(x)) . Some consider this to be an abuse of notation, since the use of the equals sign could be misleading as it suggests a symmetry that this statement does not have. As de Bruijn says, O(x) = O(x 2 ) is true but O(x 2 ) = O(x) is not. [9] Knuth describes such statements as "one-way equalities", since if the sides could be reversed, "we could deduce ridiculous things like n = n 2 from the identities n = O(n 2 ) and n 2 = O(n 2 ) ." [10]

For these reasons, it would be more precise to use set notation and write f(x) ∈ O(g(x)) (read as: "f(x) is an element of O(g(x))", or "f(x) is in the set O(g(x))"), thinking of O(g(x)) as the class of all functions h(x) such that |h(x)| ≤ C|g(x)| for some constant C. [10] However, the use of the equals sign is customary. [ citation needed ]

Other arithmetic operators Edit

Big O notation can also be used in conjunction with other arithmetic operators in more complicated equations. For example, h(x) + O(f(x)) denotes the collection of functions having the growth of h(x) plus a part whose growth is limited to that of f(x). Thus,

Example Edit

Suppose an algorithm is being developed to operate on a set of n elements. Its developers are interested in finding a function T(n) that will express how long the algorithm will take to run (in some arbitrary measurement of time) in terms of the number of elements in the input set. The algorithm works by first calling a subroutine to sort the elements in the set and then perform its own operations. The sort has a known time complexity of O(n 2 ), and after the subroutine runs the algorithm must take an additional 55n 3 + 2n + 10 steps before it terminates. Thus the overall time complexity of the algorithm can be expressed as T(n) = 55n 3 + O(n 2 ) . Here the terms 2n + 10 are subsumed within the faster-growing O(n 2 ). Again, this usage disregards some of the formal meaning of the " in-block"> Multiple uses Edit

In more complicated usage, O(. ) can appear in different places in an equation, even several times on each side. For example, the following are true for n → ∞

Typesetting Edit

Big O is typeset as an italicized uppercase "O", as in the following example: O ( n 2 ) )> . [11] [12] In TeX, it is produced by simply typing O inside math mode. Unlike Greek-named Bachmann–Landau notations, it needs no special symbol. Yet, some authors use the calligraphic variant O >> instead. [13] [14]

Here is a list of classes of functions that are commonly encountered when analyzing the running time of an algorithm. In each case, c is a positive constant and n increases without bound. The slower-growing functions are generally listed first.

Notation Name Example
O ( 1 ) constant Determining if a binary number is even or odd Calculating ( − 1 ) n > Using a constant-size lookup table
O ( log ⁡ log ⁡ n ) double logarithmic Number of comparisons spent finding an item using interpolation search in a sorted array of uniformly distributed values
O ( log ⁡ n ) logarithmic Finding an item in a sorted array with a binary search or a balanced search tree as well as all operations in a Binomial heap
O ( ( log ⁡ n ) c ) )>
c > 1
polylogarithmic Matrix chain ordering can be solved in polylogarithmic time on a parallel random-access machine.
O ( n c ) )>
0 < c < 1
fractional power Searching in a k-d tree
O ( n ) linear Finding an item in an unsorted list or in an unsorted array adding two n-bit integers by ripple carry
O ( n log ∗ ⁡ n ) n)> n log-star n Performing triangulation of a simple polygon using Seidel's algorithm, or the union–find algorithm. Note that log ∗ ⁡ ( n ) = < 0 , if n ≤ 1 1 + log ∗ ⁡ ( log ⁡ n ) , if n > 1 (n)=<egin0,&< ext>nleq 11+log ^<*>(log n),&< ext>n>1end>>
O ( n log ⁡ n ) = O ( log ⁡ n ! ) linearithmic, loglinear, quasilinear, or "n log n" Performing a fast Fourier transform Fastest possible comparison sort heapsort and merge sort
O ( n 2 ) )> quadratic Multiplying two n-digit numbers by a simple algorithm simple sorting algorithms, such as bubble sort, selection sort and insertion sort (worst case) bound on some usually faster sorting algorithms such as quicksort, Shellsort, and tree sort
O ( n c ) )> polynomial or algebraic Tree-adjoining grammar parsing maximum matching for bipartite graphs finding the determinant with LU decomposition
L n [ α , c ] = e ( c + o ( 1 ) ) ( ln ⁡ n ) α ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ n ) 1 − α [alpha ,c]=e^<(c+o(1))(ln n)^(ln ln n)^<1-alpha >>>
0 < α < 1
L-notation or sub-exponential Factoring a number using the quadratic sieve or number field sieve
O ( c n ) )>
c > 1
exponential Finding the (exact) solution to the travelling salesman problem using dynamic programming determining if two logical statements are equivalent using brute-force search
O ( n ! ) factorial Solving the travelling salesman problem via brute-force search generating all unrestricted permutations of a poset finding the determinant with Laplace expansion enumerating all partitions of a set

Big O is widely used in computer science. Together with some other related notations it forms the family of Bachmann–Landau notations. [ citation needed ]

Little-o notation Edit

Intuitively, the assertion " f(x) is o(g(x)) " (read " f(x) is little-o of g(x) ") means that g(x) grows much faster than f(x) . Let as before f be a real or complex valued function and g a real valued function, both defined on some unbounded subset of the positive real numbers, such that g(x) is strictly positive for all large enough values of x. One writes

if for every positive constant ε there exists a constant N such that

The difference between the earlier definition for the big-O notation and the present definition of little-o is that while the former has to be true for at least one constant M, the latter must hold for every positive constant ε , however small. [16] In this way, little-o notation makes a stronger statement than the corresponding big-O notation: every function that is little-o of g is also big-O of g, but not every function that is big-O of g is also little-o of g. For example, 2 x 2 = O ( x 2 ) =O(x^<2>)> but 2 x 2 ≠ o ( x 2 ) eq o(x^<2>)> .

As g(x) is nonzero, or at least becomes nonzero beyond a certain point, the relation f ( x ) = o ( g ( x ) ) is equivalent to

Little-o respects a number of arithmetic operations. For example,

It also satisfies a transitivity relation:

Big Omega notation Edit

Another asymptotic notation is Ω , read "big omega". [17] There are two widespread and incompatible definitions of the statement

where a is some real number, ∞, or −∞, where f and g are real functions defined in a neighbourhood of a, and where g is positive in this neighbourhood.

The Hardy–Littlewood definition is used mainly in analytic number theory, and the Knuth definition mainly in computational complexity theory the definitions are not equivalent.

The Hardy–Littlewood definition Edit

In 1914 Godfrey Harold Hardy and John Edensor Littlewood introduced the new symbol Ω , [18] which is defined as follows:

Simple examples Edit

The Knuth definition Edit

In 1976 Donald Knuth published a paper to justify his use of the Ω -symbol to describe a stronger property. [23] Knuth wrote: "For all the applications I have seen so far in computer science, a stronger requirement . is much more appropriate". He defined

f ( x ) = Ω ( g ( x ) ) ⇔ g ( x ) = O ( f ( x ) )

Family of Bachmann–Landau notations Edit

Use in computer science Edit

Informally, especially in computer science, the big O notation often can be used somewhat differently to describe an asymptotic tight bound where using big Theta Θ notation might be more factually appropriate in a given context. [ citation needed ] For example, when considering a function T(n) = 73n 3 + 22n 2 + 58, all of the following are generally acceptable, but tighter bounds (such as numbers 2 and 3 below) are usually strongly preferred over looser bounds (such as number 1 below).

  1. T(n) = O(n 100 )
  2. T(n) = O(n 3 )
  3. T(n) = Θ(n 3 )

The equivalent English statements are respectively:

  1. T(n) grows asymptotically no faster than n 100
  2. T(n) grows asymptotically no faster than n 3
  3. T(n) grows asymptotically as fast as n 3 .

So while all three statements are true, progressively more information is contained in each. In some fields, however, the big O notation (number 2 in the lists above) would be used more commonly than the big Theta notation (items numbered 3 in the lists above). For example, if T(n) represents the running time of a newly developed algorithm for input size n, the inventors and users of the algorithm might be more inclined to put an upper asymptotic bound on how long it will take to run without making an explicit statement about the lower asymptotic bound.

Other notation Edit

In their book Introduction to Algorithms, Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest and Stein consider the set of functions f which satisfy

In a correct notation this set can, for instance, be called O(g), where

The authors state that the use of equality operator (=) to denote set membership rather than the set membership operator (∈) is an abuse of notation, but that doing so has advantages. [6] Inside an equation or inequality, the use of asymptotic notation stands for an anonymous function in the set O(g), which eliminates lower-order terms, and helps to reduce inessential clutter in equations, for example: [30]

Extensions to the Bachmann–Landau notations Edit

Another notation sometimes used in computer science is Õ (read soft-O): f(n) = Õ(g(n)) is shorthand for f(n) = O(g(n) log k g(n)) for some k. [31] Essentially, it is big O notation, ignoring logarithmic factors because the growth-rate effects of some other super-logarithmic function indicate a growth-rate explosion for large-sized input parameters that is more important to predicting bad run-time performance than the finer-point effects contributed by the logarithmic-growth factor(s). This notation is often used to obviate the "nitpicking" within growth-rates that are stated as too tightly bounded for the matters at hand (since log k n is always o(n ε ) for any constant k and any ε > 0 ).

is convenient for functions that are between polynomial and exponential in terms of ln ⁡ n .

The generalization to functions taking values in any normed vector space is straightforward (replacing absolute values by norms), where f and g need not take their values in the same space. A generalization to functions g taking values in any topological group is also possible [ citation needed ] . The "limiting process" xxo can also be generalized by introducing an arbitrary filter base, i.e. to directed nets f and g. The o notation can be used to define derivatives and differentiability in quite general spaces, and also (asymptotical) equivalence of functions,

which is an equivalence relation and a more restrictive notion than the relationship "f is Θ(g)" from above. (It reduces to lim f / g = 1 if f and g are positive real valued functions.) For example, 2x is Θ(x), but 2xx is not o(x).

The symbol O was first introduced by number theorist Paul Bachmann in 1894, in the second volume of his book Analytische Zahlentheorie ("analytic number theory"). [1] The number theorist Edmund Landau adopted it, and was thus inspired to introduce in 1909 the notation o [2] hence both are now called Landau symbols. These notations were used in applied mathematics during the 1950s for asymptotic analysis. [32] The symbol Ω (in the sense "is not an o of") was introduced in 1914 by Hardy and Littlewood. [18] Hardy and Littlewood also introduced in 1916 the symbols Ω R > ("right") and Ω L > ("left"), [19] precursors of the modern symbols Ω + > ("is not smaller than a small o of") and Ω − > ("is not larger than a small o of"). Thus the Omega symbols (with their original meanings) are sometimes also referred to as "Landau symbols". This notation Ω became commonly used in number theory at least since the 1950s. [33] In the 1970s the big O was popularized in computer science by Donald Knuth, who introduced the related Theta notation, and proposed a different definition for the Omega notation. [23]

Landau never used the big Theta and small omega symbols.

Hardy's symbols were (in terms of the modern O notation)

and frequently both notations are used in the same paper.

The big-O originally stands for "order of" ("Ordnung", Bachmann 1894), and is thus a Latin letter. Neither Bachmann nor Landau ever call it "Omicron". The symbol was much later on (1976) viewed by Knuth as a capital omicron, [23] probably in reference to his definition of the symbol Omega. The digit zero should not be used.


O1 Steel – History, Properties, and How to Heat Treat

Thanks to Johnny Ngo and ALtheSciencePal for becoming Knife Steel Nerds Patreon supporters!

O1 Steel History

O1 steel was developed in 1905 by Halcomb steel which was acquired by Crucible Steel a few years later [1][2]. However, the history is a bit more interesting than that. In 1876 a large Sheffield steel company, Sanderson Brothers, purchased Sweet’s Manufacturing Company’s Geddes Steel Works in Syracuse New York. American tariffs had led to a large reduction in exported steel from Sheffield, and steel output from the USA had also greatly increased to match. So several English steel companies setup production facilities in the US, including Sanderson Brothers. Sanderson Brothers was a very old Sheffield steel company, founded in 1776. Tool Steel development began to explode starting in about 1900 due to the recent discovery of “high speed steel” which you can read about here: The History of the First Tool Steel. The year 1900 was doubly significant because in that year there was a major consolidation of 13 of the major steel plants which used “crucible” steel production methods, accounting for 95% of the crucible steel production in the United States.

The 13 crucible steel companies, including Sanderson Brothers, formed the Crucible Steel Company of America. Its new President and General Manager was Charles Herbert Halcomb, who had come to Syracuse from Sheffield at the age of 22 in 1881 to work at Sanderson Brothers. Halcomb was the son of the managing director of Sanderson Brothers and trained as a metallurgist while working there. However, despite being the President of this new giant crucible tool steel company, Halcomb left Crucible after only two years to form the Halcomb Steel Company which was incorporated in 1904. Halcomb employed former Crucible workers and built a new factory in Syracuse directly next door to the Sanderson Brothers Works of Crucible Steel. Halcomb Steel was the first company to build an electric arc furnace for steel production rather than the older crucible technology. The electric arc furnace was built in 1905 and began production in 1906. The electric arc furnace was cheaper than crucible production and also led to higher quality steel. The electric arc furnace can be used to reduce phosphorous and sulfur levels, common steel impurities. And the reducing action of the slag in electric furnaces means there is less loss of easily oxidizable metals like chromium, vanadium, and manganese. By 1934 crucible steel production had almost entirely been replaced by electric arc furnaces [3].

The early high speed steels which became T1 had 4% Cr which made them air hardening. However, the high speed steels were primarily used for cutting tools while the die steel industry primarily relied on steels that required a water quench. You can read about what controls required quenching rates for full hardness in this article on “hardenability.” Metallurgist John A. Mathews of Halcomb Steel developed a steel with hardenabilty in between the air hardening high speed steel and the water quenching steels and this became the first “oil hardening” steel. Mathews is famous for patenting additions of vanadium to high speed steels, which became T1, by far the most common high speed steel in the early 20th century. Dies had sometimes been hardened in oil before this but this new steel grade was the first that could be quenched in oil and achieve full hardness throughout in relatively large sizes. This new steel was given the name “Ketos” and was advertised for how little distortion, cracking, or size change the steel sees due to the oil quench method. This allowed the use of intricate shapes and designs and less grinding after hardening. These advantages meant that Ketos became rather popular in tool and die shops. I haven’t found anything about why the steel is called Ketos, though that is an Ancient Greek word that means sea monster [4]. It does not have anything to do with low-carb diets.

Despite the technology advantage provided by the electric arc furnace and exciting developments like Ketos, Halcomb Steel was relatively short-lived, at least as a standalone company. Halcomb Steel was acquired by Crucible Steel in 1911, which greatly increased the amount of tool steel produced by Crucible Steel in Syracuse. Crucible Steel kept the Ketos name and in fact the company still uses that trade name. Ketos was copied by several other steel companies due to its popularity, and was given the AISI designation O1 several decades later.

History of O1 Composition

The design and evolution of the composition that became O1 cannot be nailed down exactly, but it does look like a steel that grew out of what was common at the time [6]. The first tool steel was “Mushet steel” developed in 1868 with 2% C, 2.5% Mn, and 7% W. This steel was air hardening due to high manganese and had high wear resistance due to the high carbon and tungsten. It was the main tool steel used other than simple carbon steel for about 25 years. Prior to the work of Taylor and White in the development of high speed steel, there was some evolution of alloying, particularly with testing different combinations of Mn, Cr, and W. There were experiments with “chromium-tungsten” steels as a replacement for the “manganese-tungsten” Mushet steel. In the decade 1880-1890, experiments in France were being conducted on chromium-alloyed steels. And by 1890 there were some studies on low alloyed steels with a combination of chromium and tungsten. By 1887 there is record of a steel with a somewhat similar composition to O1 produced by Brooklyn Chrome Steel Works. Much higher chromium and tungsten contents were those primarily being explored from about 1894 onward leading to the 4% Cr 18% W steel that became the first high speed steel. Therefore O1 looks more like those earlier 1890-era steels which were not being explored specifically for high speed applications. The earliest reported composition I found for O1 is from 1925 [7], it is hard to say how much it might have changed between 1905 and 1925.

Ketos information from 1913

There is a potential alternate evolution to O1. There are a few claims from close to the time period (1920-1930) that O1/Ketos started out as something closer to what is now called O2, with higher Mn (1.25-1.75%) and no Cr or W [8][9]. The Mn was then later partially replaced by 0.5% Cr and 0.5% W. However, I cannot find a composition for Ketos that shows it as anything other than as O1 not O2, so it would have changed pretty early on. But if the account is accurate then John A. Mathews developed both of the common oil hardening steel types: O1 and O2. Because Ketos was very popular most of the major steel manufacturers developed their own versions by at least 1920. These versions ranged between O1- and O2-like compositions.

Update 7/22/20: I did a search through historical records of early O2-type oil hardening steels and the earliest I found was Crucible “Paragon Oil Hardening” steel which went back to at least 1911 (American Machinist, vol. 35, 1911). Therefore it is probable that Mathews, or at least Crucible, developed both of the major types (O1 and O2) though O2 came later.

Here is a range of measured compositions from seven manufacturers reported in 1925 [7]:

In the same 1925 article by James Gill (read about him here) he reported that the

1.6% Mn version was more prone to cracking and grain growth than the lower Mn version with Cr and W. He preferred the O1-type composition, particularly when it had the vanadium addition for grain pinning. Gill liked vanadium additions in general and he worked for the Vanadium Alloys Steel Company. The resistance to cracking and the lower sensitivity to hardening temperature of the O1 composition may have been what led to the modification from the original O2.

Design of O1

O1 gets its oil hardening properties from the combination of Mn and Cr, both elements that contribute to hardenability. In the early 1900’s it was also believed that W contributes to hardenability so it may also have been added for that purpose. O1 has approximately half the Mn of the original Mushet steel so perhaps it was an intentional modification of that early air hardening steel to bring down the hardenability to “oil hardening.” The vanadium addition is optional though that helps to maintain a fine grain size. The tungsten also helps with fine grain and wear resistance though the amount is small enough that its contribution to those properties is relatively small. The main benefit of O1 compared with simple carbon steel like 1095 is that it can be hardened in oil and better avoid cracking, distortion, and size changes.

Tool and Die companies were very excited about Ketos steel, such as found in a 1911 report in American Machinist by C.G. Heiby and George Coles of the H. Mueller Manufacturing Company [10]. “About six months ago our attention was called to Ketos steel…claims for which, in the light of long experience with carbon steels, were almost unbelievable…[W]e have been able to verify the manufacturers’ statement in regard to its nonshrinking and nonwarping qualities to our entire satisfaction.”

History of O1 Steel in Knives

Because O1 became a very popular tool steel, it is relatively difficult to determine who used it in knives first. It has been popular with both forging bladesmiths and stock removal knifemakers due to its wide availability in a range of sizes, and ease in forging and heat treating. One knifemaker known for his use of O1 was W.D. “Bo” Randall, who started making knives in about 1938 after buying a Scagel knife that impressed him [11]. From the first available Randall Knives catalog in 1940, it says that the knives were “Made of finest imported Swedish Tool Steel” [12]. This steel was not identified as O1 in the catalog until the 1985 edition [13] which called it “imported Swedish O1 tool steel” which uses the same terms but adds that it was O1. I contacted Randall Made Knives and they confirmed to me that their understanding is that the steel used did not change. An article on Randall knives by Jim Williamson identifies the steel as being produced by Uddeholm [14]. Uddeholm sold a version of O1 under the name UHB-46 at that time [15]. So while it is hard to say that Randall was the first to use O1 he was an influential user of it in the very early period of American-made custom knives. It is interesting that he used steel from Sweden when O1 was invented in the USA. I am not sure why he used Uddeholm steel. Perhaps it was available in a better size, cost, or he felt the steel was higher quality. Starting in the 1945 catalog [16] it says, “I use the finest Imported Swedish Tool Steel, which may not necessarily be better than our best American steels, but has the reputation of being made from the purest of ores and of being the finest of cutlery steels.”

Microstructure of O1

Below I have a micrograph of O1 that I took. You can compare it against other knife steels by reading this article. The carbides are relatively small and well distributed. Fine carbides generally mean good toughness and edge stability.

Toughness Testing of O1

Here are toughness numbers of O1 austenitized at 1475°F or 1550°F for 10 minutes, quenched in fast oil, and tempered between 350 and 450°F. The samples were heat treated by Warren Krywko and machined by Alpha Knife Supply. Austenitizing at 1550°F led to a reduction in toughness either due to an increase in plate martensite or grain size. Tempering up to 450°F did not lead to tempered martensite embrittlement. It may be worth trying 1450 or 1500°F but for now my recommended austenitizing temperature is 1475°F. Medium oil like Parks AAA can be used with O1 due to the high hardenability. A cold treatment can be added after the quench for a small increase in hardness as well as a corresponding decrease in toughness (not tested here).

Despite the fine carbide structure of O1, its toughness is not particularly high when compared with other steels. For example, A2 is probably the closest counterpart to O1 in terms of use in die steels but is air hardening instead of oil hardening. However, A2 has both better toughness and wear resistance than O1, despite the fine carbide structure of O1. I believe this is due to “plate martensite” in O1 but can’t say for sure.

The relatively poor toughness of O1 seems to be a consistent finding whether in toughness testing of Knife Steel Nerds, Crucible, or Carpenter. It’s not that the toughness of O1 is especially bad, but that for its fine carbide structure and low level of wear resistance the toughness would be expected to be better. Here is a comparison between Knife Steel Nerds and Crucible toughness numbers showing that they correlate very well and that the results for O1 are also similar (note the scales are different due to different sample geometries):

Wear Resistance and Edge Retention

O1 is not known for high wear resistance, it has significantly lower abrasion resistance than D2, for example [17]. And generic ratings from steel manufacturers typically show O1 having lower wear resistance than the majority of their other die steels. There is one reported test of CATRA edge retention with O1 of which I am aware, commissioned by Jeff Peachey [18]. He sharpened each to a very low angle of 13°. O1 was tested at a very high hardness (64 Rc) but its edge retention was clearly lower than the other steels:

This is easy to understand through knowledge of the effects of carbides on edge retention which you can read about here. O1 has a relatively small amount of soft iron carbides which do not contribute as much to edge retention as chromium carbides in A2 or the molybdenum/tungsten and vanadium carbides in M2 and T15. Low alloy steels in general (1095, 52100, O1, W2, etc.) have relatively poor slicing edge retention.

Cost, Availability, Heat Treating, Finishing, and Sharpening

The biggest benefit of O1 over the years has been its availability nearly everywhere and relatively low cost. It is also relatively easy to heat treat due to its austenitizing requriements being similar to other low alloy steels with the benefit of being easy to quench for full hardness, even with slow oil because of its high hardenability. The downside is it is more difficult to anneal due to its high hardenability. Learn about annealing here: Part 1 and Part 2. O1 is also easy to finish and sharpen because of its low wear resistance. The forgeability of O1 is also very good.

Summary and Conclusions

O1 started out as a development of “oil hardening steel” in the explosion of steel development that occurred in the early 20th century. “Ketos” steel was released by Halcomb Steel in 1905 after being developed by metallurgist John A. Mathews. Halcomb Steel was a company formed by Charles Halcomb, the first President of Crucible Steel who left to form his own company, building the factory directly next door to Crucible’s in Syracuse, NY. Halcomb Steel was purchased by Crucible only a few years later but continued to sell the steel as Halcomb Ketos for many years, and Crucible continues to sell O1 as Ketos steel. O1 had a medium amount of Mn (

1.2%) along with Cr and W for hardenability, wear resistance, and resistance to grain growth. There is some confusion about whether O2 steel with its simpler design of Mn only (

1.6%) may have come first and been modified to make the final O1 composition. Oil hardening steel was very popular with tool and die companies due to the very small amount of warping, distortion, and size changes the steel would see due to oil hardening. The other major tool steel companies made their own oil hardening steels which were all versions of O1 and O2. O1 has a fine microstructure of cementite. Its toughness is only “good” despite its fine structure and relatively low wear resistance. Its edge retention is relatively low due to the small amount of soft iron carbides (cementite). O1 has been common in knives for decades. Famously O1 has been used by Randall Knives starting in 1938 or so and continuing to today.

[1] Tweedale, Geoffrey. Sheffield Steel and America: A Century of Commercial and Technological Interdependence 1830-1930. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

[2] Mathews, J. A. “Tool Steel Progress in the Twentieth Century.” In The Iron Age (1930): 1672-1676.

[3] Gill, James P., Tool steels: a series of five educational lectures on the selection, properties and uses of commercial tools steels presented to members of the ASM during the 16th National Metal Congress and Exposition, New York City, Oct. 1 to 5, 1934.

[6] Townsend, A. S. “Alloy Tool Steels and the Development of High-Speed Steel.” Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat 21 (1933): 769-795.

[7] Gill, J. P., and M. A. Frost. “The Chemical Composition of Tool Steels.” Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat 9 (1926): 75-88.

[8] Brown, C.M. “Standardizing Specifications for Tool Steel.” In Transactions of the American Society for Steel Treating 1, (1920-1921): 666-682.

[9] Thum, E. E. “The New Manganese Alloy Steels.” In Proc. Amer. Soc. Test. Mat, vol. 30, (1930): 215-236.

[10] Heiby, C. G., and George Coles. “Unusual Tool Hardening Results.” In American Machinist September 14, (1911): 487-489.

[15] Woldman, N. E. Engineering Alloys: Names, Properties, Uses. 1945.

[17] Bourithis, L., G. D. Papadimitriou, and J. Sideris. “Comparison of wear properties of tool steels AISI D2 and O1 with the same hardness.” Tribology International 39, no. 6 (2006): 479-489.


Social Security

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance provided by the following members of the Social Security Administration's Office of Legislative and Regulatory Policy: Peggy S. Fisher, Director, and Timothy K. Evans, and Richard L. Griffiths, staff, of the Division of Retirement and Survivors Benefits.

Today, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Federal social insurance program, now known simply as "Social Security," that emerged in 1935 as part of the Nation's response to the plight of its elderly. The Social Security program of the 1980's is the direct descendent of the limited program of contributory old-age benefits enacted in 1935. The program, which today covers virtually all jobs, continues to have certain basic characteristics found in the original program that is, eligibility is earned through work in covered jobs, participation is generally compulsory, the amount of the benefits is related to covered earnings, the program is intended to provide a base of protection, and benefits are financed primarily through dedicated payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers.

Yet, while the program fundamentals have remained the same over 5 decades, much has changed. As American work and life patterns have changed, so too Social Security has been adapted to meet current expectations. The legislative history of the program, described briefly below, shows clearly how Social Security has retained its essential characteristics as it has evolved to keep pace with the times.

By the end of the First World War, a primarily agrarian American society had become a primarily urban, industrialized one. Thus, on the eve of the Great Depression of the 1930's, a larger proportion of the American people were dependent on cash wages for their support than ever before. By 1932, however, unemployment reached 34 percent of the nonagricultural workforce. Between 1929 and 1932, national income dropped by 43 percent, per capita income by 19 percent. By the mid-1930's, the lifetime savings of millions of people had been wiped out.

For vast numbers of aged people, and people nearing old age, the loss of their savings brought with it the prospect of living their remaining years in destitution. At the height of the Depression, many old people were literally penniless. One-third to one-half of the aged were dependent on family or friends for support. The poor houses and other relief agencies that existed at the time to assist people who had fallen on hard times were financed mainly from charity and local funds. They could not begin--either financially or conceptually--to respond adequately to the special needs of the aged brought about by the cataclysmic events of the Depression.

Before Social Security, many people faced destitution in old age

Although by 1934, 30 States had responded by providing pensions for the needy aged, total expenditures for State programs for the aged that year were $31 million--an average of $19.74 a month per aged person. As the Depression worsened, benefits to individuals were cut further to enable States to spread available funds among as many people as possible.

Various national schemes to provide income to the aged received substantial attention. These included the Townsend Old-Age Revolving Pension Plan and a plan called "Share the Wealth" advanced by Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long.

Under the Townsend plan, every American over age 60 was to get a monthly pension, provided he or she did not work and promised to spend the entire payment during the month. Under Long's plan, large personal fortunes would be liquidated to finance (1) pensions for the aged and (2) cash payments to every family sufficient to buy a home, a car, and radio.

Due in large part to the public and congressional pressures for some Federal response to the chaotic conditions of the time, in June 1934, a Committee on Economic Security was established by Executive Order of President Franklin Roosevelt. This Cabinet-level Committee, chaired by Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor, was given the task of developing constructive, long-term proposals for the prevention of all the major causes of economic insecurity. Given the desperate conditions of the time, the Committee's major attention was focused on programs to protect the unemployed. Yet, amid some controversy about the feasibility and constitutionality of such a plan, there developed from the work of the Committee a proposal for compulsory, contributory old-age insurance, which was ultimately enacted as part of the Social Security Act.

The Social Security Act, enacted on August 14, 1935, provided a new federally administered system of social insurance for the aged financed through payroll taxes paid by employees and their employers. Under the system, which applied only to workers in commerce and industry, people would earn retirement benefit eligibility as they worked. With some exceptions, benefits would be related to workers' average covered earnings, and workers could not have earnings and still be eligible for benefits. No benefits were provided for spouses or children, and lump-sum refunds were provided to the estates of workers who died before age 65 or before receiving at least the equivalent in benefits of their taxes plus interest. Collection of payroll taxes began in 1937, and benefit payments were scheduled to begin in 1942.

Even as the Social Security legislation moved through the Congress in the late winter and spring of 1935, it was acknowledged by many supporters that the old-age program then under consideration was but a first step in providing comprehensive protection for American workers against loss of earnings. President Roosevelt, in signing the Social Security Bill into law noted that "This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete." In May 1937 the month in which the old-age program survived a crucial constitutional test in the landmark Helvering v. Davis case (in which the employer Social Security payroll tax was found constitutional), the Senate Committee on Finance and the Social Security Board jointly appointed an Advisory Council on Social Security. This outside advisory group, which would be the first of many to study and make recommendations concerning Social Security over the years,* was instructed to study possible ways of making the program more fully effective sooner than contemplated under the 1935 law.

(* Appointment of outside advisory bodies has long been institutionalized as a tradition in Social Security policymaking. Numerous advisory bodies have met over the years, and most of the changes made in Social Security have been based in large part on their studies and recommendations. The law has since 1956 required periodic appointment of Advisory Councils.)

The Council's fundamental finding was an endorsement of contributory old-age insurance as a way of preventing dependency in old age and thereby reducing reliance on needs-tested assistance. Further, the Council recommended a benefit structure that, in addition to basic benefits for workers, would provide protection for aged wives, widows, and surviving children starting in 1940.

Based on the Advisory Council's recommendations and recognizing the heavy dependence of most families on the male wage earner at that time, the Congress, in 1939, enacted legislation that eliminated lump-sum payroll tax refunds and provided benefits for aged wives and widows, young children of retired and deceased workers, young widows caring for a child beneficiary, and dependent parents of retired and deceased workers.

Unemployment affected many families during the Great Depression of the 1930s

The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee on Finance, in their reports on the 1939 amendments, reasoned that "Under a social-insurance plan the primary purpose is to pay benefits in accordance with the probable needs of the beneficiaries rather than to make payments to the estate of a deceased person regardless of whether or not he leaves dependents."

The 1939 legislation also provided a new method of computing benefits, based on average monthly earnings instead of on cumulative wages. The net effect of the 1939 amendments was to increase the annual cost of benefits payable during the early years and to decrease the annual cost of benefits payable during later years. Over the long range, the average annual cost of benefits remained about the same as under prior law.

In addition to these changes in benefits, the 1939 amendments made basic changes in the financing of the Social Security program by establishing the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and by changing the size of the financial reserves held by the program. The provisions of prior law would have resulted in the accumulation of a huge reserve fund over the years, similar to the reserves built up by private pension plans. The new legislation was designed to constrain the accumulation of reserves and, in effect, to move the financing of the program toward "pay-as-you-go" financing. This change in the reserve concept allowed the immediate payment of benefits to retired workers and to their dependents and survivors without increasing Social Security tax rates. This change in financing also permitted a 3-year postponement of the increases in the Social Security tax rate that had been scheduled for 1940.

Other recommendations of the 1938 Council that were enacted in 1939 included:

  • Provision for benefits to start in 1940 instead of 1942
  • Revision of the earnings test, allowing earnings of $14.99 a month before benefits were withheld and
  • A method of measuring whether an individual had worked long enough in covered employment to get a benefit--based on "quarters of coverage" the measure on which today's methods are based.

Following implementation of the 1939 amendments, the basic Social Security program was in place. It would remain essentially unchanged over the 1940's as the Nation concentrated its efforts on fighting World War II and toward building a healthy post-war economy. Social Security legislation enacted during these years included further postponement of tax rate increases, minor changes in coverage, and provision for coordinating the survivor benefits payable under the Social Security and Railroad Retirement Acts. Nevertheless, Social Security grew in importance both to the aged and to the economy. The number of beneficiaries grew from about 222,000 at the end of 1940 to over 3 million in 1949. Average monthly benefits grew only slightly, however--from $22.60 for a retired worker in 1940 to $26 at the end of the decade-- less than the rate of inflation.

The Advisory Council on Social Security, 1937-1938 The Post-War Era By the end of the immediate post-war period, Social Security had arrived at a major crossroads.

  • The purchasing power of benefits had been sharply reduced by inflation. (By 1950, the cost of living had risen by three-quarters since 1939.)
  • There was growing recognition that, as the Committee on Economic Security had pointed out, the hazards of economic insecurity due to disability were at least as great as the hazards faced by retirees.
  • The program had not reduced the need for public assistance among older persons. On the contrary, the percentage of the aged receiving old-age assistance was somewhat larger (22.5) in 1950 than it had been in 1940 (21.7).

To help it determine the appropriate ongoing role of social insurance in the Nation's income support system, in 1947, the Senate Committee on Finance named an Advisory Council on Social Security. The findings of this Council formed a major milestone in the history of Social Security by reaffirming in the post-Depression era the social insurance principles established in the 1930's. In the Introduction to its report, the Council said:

"Opportunity for the individual to secure protection for himself and his family against the economic hazards of old age and death is essential to the sustained welfare, freedom, and dignity of the American citizen. For some, such protection can be gained through individual savings and other private arrangements. For others, such arrangements are inadequate or too uncertain. Since the interest of the whole Nation is involved, the people, using the Government as the agency for their cooperation, should make sure that all members of the community have at least a basic measure of protection against the major hazards of old age and death."

With respect to the existing old-age and survivors insurance (OASI) program, the Council was unanimous in finding three major deficiencies: inadequate coverage unduly restrictive eligibility requirements for older workers and inadequate benefits. To remedy these problems, the Council recommended a general benefit increase a doubling of the minimum benefit provision of benefits for additional dependents and survivors and extension of coverage beyond the original boundaries of commerce and industry to self-employed workers, farm and domestic workers, Federal civilian employees not under a retirement system, State and local governmental employees, and employees of nonprofit organizations. In order to provide more adequate benefits to workers in these groups who were already middle-aged or older when their jobs were first covered, the Council recommended a "new-start" benefit computation. The 1948 Advisory Council also strongly recommended extension of the social insurance approach to provide a program of cash benefits to the permanently and totally disabled. The program recommended by the Council would pay benefits after a 6-month waiting period only to those with severe and long-lasting disabilities, would provide for expenditures of Social Security funds for rehabilitation of disabled workers, and would terminate benefits to workers who refused to accept physical examinations or rehabilitation. As its first order of business, in 1950, the Congress addressed the erosion in the value of Social Security benefits due to the inflation that had occurred since the inception of the program. The 1950 amendments provided for general benefit increases and increases in the minimum benefit that amounted to an across-the-board increase of about 77 percent. Echoing the view of the 1948 Advisory Council with respect to the ongoing role for the Social Security system, the Senate Committee on Finance said in its report of the 1950 amendments:

"Your committee's impelling concern in recommending passage of [this bill] has been to take immediate, effective steps to cut down the need for further expansion of public assistance, particularly old-age assistance. . .We believe that improvement of the American social-security system should be in the direction of preventing dependency before it occurs and of providing more effective income protection, free from the humiliation of a test of need. . ."

To finance this substantial benefit increase and other program improvements, the 1950 amendments increased the contribution and benefit base (the amount of annual wages subject to Social Security taxes and creditable for benefits) from $3,000 to $3,600 and provided a revised schedule of gradually increasing tax rates for employers, employees, and the newly covered self-employed. The new law also repealed a never-used provision which authorized appropriations to the program from general revenues if they were needed. These changes made clear the Congress' rejection of Federal general revenues as a major source of Social Security financing and underscored its view that Social Security should be self-supporting in both the short range and the long range.

The Congress also began in 1950 to focus on the coverage deficiencies identified by the 1948 Council. These deficiencies, of course, had previously been recognized by the framers of the original law. At the inception of Social Security, there had been virtually unanimous agreement among supporters of the social insurance concept that, in order to assure adequate protection to the greatest number of workers, coverage should be both compulsory and as nearly universal as possible. Universal, compulsory coverage was also looked upon as the best means of spreading the cost of the program over the largest possible group, and thus avoiding problems of adverse selection and windfall benefits.

As noted earlier, the 1935 Act provided compulsory coverage for workers in commerce and industry initially, about 6 in 10 jobs were covered. Coverage was not extended to other jobs for a number of reasons. Administrative considerations prevented quick development of methods of collecting taxes and providing coverage for the self-employed and for farm workers. Some groups, primarily railroad workers and Federal employees, already had retirement systems. In addition, legal and constitutional concerns involving taxation of States and localities prevented immediate extension of coverage to employees of State and local governments.

By 1950, with a decade of experience under the Social Security program behind them, the Congress concluded that many of the obstacles to universal coverage were not as formidable as they had appeared at the beginning. Thus, legislation enacted in 1950 extended coverage to several major categories of workers, including regularly employed farm and domestic workers non-farm self-employed persons (except professionals) Federal civilian workers and, at the election of employees and employers, State and local government employees not covered under another retirement program and employees of nonprofit organizations other than ministers.

Because many of the workers newly covered under the 1950 amendments were already middle-aged or older, the principle of enabling newly covered older workers to become insured more easily and making their benefits more comparable to those of other covered workers with similar earnings was established. The 1950 amendments included a so-called new-start benefit computation that based benefit amounts on earnings after 1950 and companion provisions for measuring insured status in terms of work after 1950.

Four years later (in 1954), another 10 million workers' jobs were covered in 1956, another million were added. Social Security legislation enacted in 1954 and 1956 extended coverage to (among others) the farm self-employed, certain groups of professional self-employed (generally with the exception of physicians), members of the uniformed services, and State and local government employees under a retirement system, under various conditions. Thus, by the mid-1950's, some 20 years after enactment of Social Security, the protection offered under the program was available to 90 percent of workers.

During the 1950's, the Congress also undertook lengthy consideration of another of the 1948 Advisory Council's recommendations--extension of Social Security protection to disabled workers.

The House-passed version of the 1950 Social Security Amendments would have provided for a program of disability insurance along the lines recommended by the Council, but the final bill made no such provision. Instead, the 1950 amendments provided for extension of the State-Federal public assistance program to the permanently and totally disabled, as had been urged by a minority of the Advisory Council's members.

Later, in 1954, the Congress enacted a disability "freeze" provision. No cash disability benefits were payable under this provision, but workers who were permanently and totally disabled and who also met insured status tests could have their Social Security earnings records frozen as of the date of their disability. Through the "freeze" provision, disabled workers could prevent their retirement benefits from being diluted by many years of no earnings. Other provisions of the 1954 amendments provided for expansion of State vocational rehabilitation programs to address the difficult problem of rehabilitating the severely disabled.

Eight years after the 1948 Advisory Council had recommended it, Congress in 1956 established a cash disability insurance program--with benefits first payable in 1957--with essentially the same eligibility requirements passed by the House in 1950. Because of concern about the high costs of a disability program and potential abuse, however, benefits were payable only to workers who were at least 50 years old. These amendments established basic principles under which the disability program continues to operate today:

  • "Disability" is defined as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity (prior to legislation in 1965, permanent disability was required the 1965 legislation provided the present-law requirement that the disability be expected to last at least 12 months or be expected to result in death) Disability must be established on the basis of objective medical evidence Eligibility is based on both duration and recency of work in covered employment
  • Benefits are paid only after a waiting period
  • A proportion of Social Security funds may be spent for rehabilitation of disabled workers and
  • Workers who refuse to accept physical examinations or rehabilitation may lose their benefits.

In 1958, the insured status requirements for disability benefits were relaxed through elimination of the currently insured status requirement and benefits were extended to spouses and children of disabled workers. Two years later, the minimum age requirement for disabled workers was eliminated and a trial work period provision added to encourage disabled workers to return to work.

By 1960, then, the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) programs were essentially in place as we know them today. Coverage under the program had been made nearly universal , so that virtually all people reaching retirement age in the decades to come would be able to establish benefit eligibility. Over the 1960's, the OASDI programs were refined through legislation to create new categories of beneficiaries, to increase benefits so as to maintain their purchasing power, and to adjust tax rates to assure adequate program financing. Moreover, legislation enacted in 1961 lowered the age of benefit eligibility for men. When the Social Security program was established, benefits were made available to men and women at age 65. The Social Security Amendments of 1956 had provided benefits for women as early as age 62. Benefits received prior to age 65 were reduced to take account of the longer period over which they would be received. The 1961 amendments extended eligibility for reduced benefits to include men.

In its examination of the adequacy of Social Security protection for the aged and the disabled, the 1965 Advisory Council came to the conclusion "that cash benefits alone are not enough." In its report, the Council said that:

"Monthly cash benefits, if adequate, can meet regularly recurring expenses such as those for food, clothing and shelter, but [they] are not a practical way to meet the problem that the aged and disabled face in the high and unpredictable costs of health care, costs that may run into the thousands of dollars for some and amount to very little for others. Security in old age and during disability requires the combination of a cash benefit and insurance against a substantial part of the costs of expensive illness."

The Council found in part that, while health care expenditures for the aged were twice as high as those of younger people, the great majority of the aged were neither well-off nor had adequate health insurance. Further, they found that, by the 1960's, the inability of the aged to meet health care costs had become the single most important reason that older people applied for public assistance. Based on these findings, the Council recommended establishment of a program to provide, through a contributory social insurance mechanism, protection against the costs of hospital and related inpatient services for aged and disabled. In order to protect people who were already old, the Council recommended that hospital insurance protection be provided initially without regard to insured status that is, that people at or near retirement age be grand-fathered into the new program.

Even as the Council was meeting, the Congress was actively considering proposals to provide health insurance benefits. In 1965, the Congress passed "Medicare" legislation, which, while it essentially embodied the Advisory Council's recommendations, differed in two major respects. First, in addition to providing protection against hospital costs through a payroll tax financed hospital insurance (HI) program, the plan enacted also included a voluntary program to be financed through monthly premiums and Federal general revenues. This supplementary medical insurance (SMI) program was designed to meet the costs of physicians' services and other outpatient care. Second, only people aged 65 and over, rather than both the aged and disabled, would be eligible for Medicare. (A few years later, in 1972, Medicare protection was extended to people who had been receiving cash disability benefits for 24 months or more.)

With the advent of Medicare, the body of programs which we refer to today as "Social Security" was complete. Yet, while there have been no major additions to the system over the last 15 years or so, there has been continuing public and congressional reassessment of the ongoing role of Social Security in the Nation's income support structure. For example, the 1975 Advisory Council on Social Security firmly endorsed the basic purposes and principles of the program, noting that:

"The earnings-related OASDI program should remain the Nation's primary means of providing economic security in the event of retirement, death, or disability. It should be supplemented by effective private pensions, individual insurance, savings, and other investments and it should be undergirded by effective means-tested programs. Future changes in OASDI should conform to the fundamental principles of the program: universal compulsory coverage, earnings-related benefits paid without a test of need, and contributions toward the cost of the program from covered workers and employers."

With respect to the OASDI programs, legislative considerations over these years have focused on three fundamental issues:

  • Maintaining the value of benefits over time
  • Assuring the financial soundness of the system and
  • Structuring the disability program so as to maintain its responsiveness to the needs of the disabled while curbing the potential for abuse.

As noted earlier, the Congress acted to increase benefits from time to time during the 1950's and 1960's. Nevertheless, there was concern that during the intervals between these ad hoc benefit increases, inflation eroded the purchasing power of benefits. The 1971 Advisory Council examined this issue and recommended that Social Security benefits be adjusted automatically to keep pace with increases in prices. The Council said:

"An automatic adjustments system would, the Council believes, give to both present and future beneficiaries a greater sense of security than would exist if a benefit increase can take place only after an action by the Congress. Beneficiaries would be assured, by virtue of an explicit provision in the law, that the purchasing power of their benefits would not deteriorate because of inflation."

In order to assure that Social Security would provide a consistent level of protection to workers over time as earnings levels rose, and to restrain payroll tax rates as benefit levels increased, the Council further recommended that the contribution and benefit base be increased automatically to reflect earnings growth. In conjunction with these recommendations, the Council also recommended that actuarial cost estimates for the program be based on assumptions that earnings levels would rise over time.* The Council also reaffirmed the view of prior Councils that the program should be financed on a current-cost basis in the near term and advocated frank recognition of this policy in longer-range financial planning.

(* Before 1972, actuarial estimates of program costs over the long range were based on level cost assumptions--that is, it was assumed that wage and price levels, as well as benefit levels, would remain unchanged over the 75-year valuation period. As wages did in fact increase, surpluses accumulated that could be and were used to finance benefit increases.)

In 1972, the Congress approved legislation that established automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLA's) in benefits based on price increases as measured by the Consumer Price Index and provided for automatically increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered under the system. Moreover, the payroll tax schedule adopted in 1972 reflected the 1971 Council's recommendations with respect to both the basis for 75-year cost estimates and current-cost financing. Soon after the automatic COLA provision took effect, it became evident that combining the automatic-indexing procedures with the existing benefit table resulted in a computation procedure that, because it took into account both wage and price increases, unduly increased benefits for workers who would retire in the future. This overcompensation resulted in cost projections which showed that the tax rates scheduled in the law would be inadequate to meet the long-range costs of the program.

Based on the recommendations of the 1975 Advisory Council, the Congress in 1977 addressed the problems by establishing a new "decoupled" benefit-computation formula for workers becoming newly eligible or dying after 1978. Under the new formula, which replaced the benefit table in the law, initial benefits are increased to reflect increases in average wages before workers reach retirement age, and the purchasing power of benefits is guaranteed after retirement through cost-of-living increases.

At the time that the 1977 amendments were enacted, it was thought that, due to the lower long-range costs resulting from the new benefit formula, changes the Congress made in the tax rate schedule would be adequate to finance benefit payments well into the next century. However, over the next few years, the Nation experienced a period of spiraling inflation and high unemployment along with low or negative real wage growth. These worse-than-expected economic conditions created a two-pronged drain on Social Security in the short term.

  • Benefit expenditures were pushed up rapidly by high inflation, while payroll taxes went up more slowly because of the relatively slower growth in wages and
  • High unemployment reduced payroll taxes.

In addition, new long-range projections showed that the decline in the birth rate and the likelihood of increased life expectancy would both have negative effects on Social Security in the 21st century, fewer workers would be paying taxes and retirees would be receiving benefits longer.

Due to these problems, it soon became clear that without significant further congressional action, the OASI Trust Fund would be unable to pay benefits on time by some point in the 1980's. Thus, in December 1981, President Reagan announced the formation of the National Commission on Social Security Reform (NCSSR) "to work with the President and the Congress to reach two specific goals: propose realistic, long-term reform to put social security back on a sound financial footing and forge a working bipartisan consensus so that the necessary reforms will be passed into law."

The NCSSR reported on January 20, 1983. Based on the recommendations of the NCSSR, the Congress enacted the so-called "bipartisan compromise" 1983 amendments. This package of provisions was designed to resolve the financing crisis by sharing the burden among affected groups, present and future. Among the major provisions of the 1983 legislation that became effective in the near term were:

  • Advances in tax rate increases already scheduled in the law for employees and employers
  • Permanent increases in self-employment tax rates
  • Delays in the effective date of automatic COLA's in benefits from June to December of each year and
  • Inclusion of up to half of benefits in taxable income for certain high-income beneficiaries (and appropriation of the resulting revenues to the trust funds).

In the long range, in recognition of improvements in longevity, the 1983 amendments provided for gradually increasing the age of eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits. Workers born after 1937 will be the first to be affected by this change the provision will be fully effective for workers born after 1959, for whom unreduced benefits will be available at age 67. Benefits will continue to be available at age 62, but the reduction in benefits at age 62 will increase as the age of eligibility for unreduced benefits increases.

As a result of enactment of the 1983 legislation, OASDI benefits can be paid on time in the short run and well into the next century on the basis of even the most pessimistic economic and demographic assumptions used by the Social Security Trustees in making projections. During the 1990's, current projections show, substantial excesses of income over outgo will replenish program reserves and build up substantial trust funds. After the turn of the century, program costs will rise substantially as the baby boom generation reaches retirement age, and use of trust fund assets will be necessary.

With the enactment of the 1983 amendments, which assured the soundness of the Social Security system both through the 1980's and well into the 21st century, the Congress once again reaffirmed its commitment to the use of the social insurance mechanism as the Nation's first line of defense against dependency in old age, disability, or upon the death of a worker.

During the past decade and a half, the disability insurance program has also undergone substantial change. During the early 1970's, the disability insurance (DI) program began to experience tremendous growth. As the decade unfolded, it became clear that continuing rapid growth in the DI program was beginning to pose a serious threat to the DI Trust Fund. Studies aimed at discovering the causes of the unexpected growth in the disability program suggested that (1) the beneficiary rolls included many ineligibles, and (2) the program structure tended to discourage people who might be able to return to work from doing so.

The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 included a limit on monthly family disability benefits, additional work incentive provisions, and administrative improvements, including mandatory reviews, at least once every 3 years, of the continuing eligibility of disabled beneficiaries whose disabilities are not necessarily permanent. On the basis of these amendments, the financial solvency of the DI Trust Fund was restored, and, in fact, the trust fund was projected to increase rapidly after 1981.

Shortly after implementation of the 1980 amendments, however, the periodic review provision began to be criticized by the public and Congress. Although, beginning in 1982, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services made many administrative changes to deal with these criticisms, public and congressional attention remained fixed on the DI program, as advocacy groups for the disabled petitioned Congress for legislative relief. Throughout 1982 and 1983, amidst great controversy, the Congress considered a variety of reforms to mitigate the effects of the periodic review process.

These efforts culminated in the enactment of the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. The major provisions are mandatory application of a medical improvement standard in continuing disability reviews, continuation of disability benefit payments during appeal of termination decisions, and a moratorium on reviews of cases involving mental impairments pending development of revised review criteria.

Today, 37 million people get Social Security benefits of more than $15 billion a month OASDI benefits this year will total $188 billion. In 1985, about 122 million people will work in employment covered under Social Security, which applies today to 95 percent of all jobs in our economy.

As a Nation, we can take particular pride in having made the Social Security program the most successful domestic program in our history. Over the years, Social Security has been a vital contributor to the security of virtually all Americans. Today, 50 years after its inception, it remains the foundation of well-being for us in our later years or if we are disabled and for our families if we die before retirement.


Step By Step

Here's a look inside one of today's high-performance small-blocks with roller camshafts, high-compression pistons, a custom-stroke crankshaft, and very high-flowing cylinder heads.

This Corvette Gen III LS1 engine has 346 ci, 10:1 compression, and an aluminum block and heads. Although it looks entirely different than the first 265 small-block, this engine is still designed with the 4.40-inch bore spacing.

The new LS6 engines (for '01) produced 385 hp and 405 the following year ('02). At the time these engines boasted "performance never before seen with a small-block." Today, the small-block's advancements with 505 hp from the LS7 overshadow the LS6. Technology is always moving ahead at Chevrolet.

As noted, the ultimate factory small-block Chevy (as of '06) is the LS7 with 427 ci, 505 hp, forged titanium connecting rods, and CNC-ported LS7-specific pattern cylinder heads. This all-aluminum engine (generally designed for the '06 Z06 Corvette) is sporadically available as a crate engine (sold through GM parts centers) under PN 17802397. Installed in a '06 Z06 Corvette, the engine will propel the car 0 to 60 mph in 3.5 seconds (all in First gear), blast through the quarter-mile in 11.5 seconds, and if there is enough room to continue up, you can expect top speeds of 195 mph. Do radar detectors work on cars like this?

Gen III
The Gen III small-block was introduced as the LS1 5.7L (346ci) engine in the '97 Corvette, while Vortec versions of the Gen III for trucks were introduced in '99. This engine is configured in four displacements, 293 (4.8L), 325 (5.3L), 346 (5.7L), and 364 (6.0L). All 5.7L LS1 engines are aluminum blocks, while most other Gen III displace-ments (typically used in trucks) are cast iron. The best known is the 346, or 5.7L, and may be why many hot-rodders call all Gen III engines LS1.

The Gen III engine benefited from completely new technology (designed from a clean sheet of paper) and production methods, but even still its design drew upon more than 40 years of research and continuous improvements from the Gen I and Gen II small-blocks. Ongoing improvements on the Gen III project also supported the development of new efficiencies and power increases in the Gen IV. In many of today's modified musclecars, the Gen III/LS1 is a very popular engine swap. At the foundation is a deep-skirt, six-bolt main block that definitely has the structure to provide for a strong and dependable engine. What's especially exciting inside a Gen III are the good-flowing cylinder heads with replicated ports. Inside you'll find 2.00-inch intake and 1.55-inch exhaust valves. And if you would like to retain a carburetor, there are LS-series four-barrel carburetor manifold kits available at reasonable prices. Other good news is that used engines of this variety are beginning to surface. To help with an LS1 engine installation, lots of aftermarket companies, such as Year One, offer installation kits for musclecars, like early Camaros. GM also sells an installation book (PN 88959384) for an LS1 or LS6 going into an older vehicle.

The New Gen IV
Recently, GM introduced the Gen IV small-block V-8, 50 years after the first small-block appeared. This engine is available in V-8-equipped models of the '05 Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT, GMC Envoy XL, GMC Envoy XUV, and in the soon-to-be-released '06 Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Impala. The new LS2 and LS7 Z06 engines are part of this engine family.

Some of these engines now offer fuel-saving Displacement on Demand (DOD) technology, and there are plans to have this feature on all Gen IV engines. This fuel-economizing feature has the capability of disabling the combustion process of half the engine's cylinders during certain driving conditions, enabling fuel savings of up to 8 percent. The process is instantaneous and virtually imperceptible, and the engine delivers horsepower and torque bands comparable to previous non-DOD small-block engines. We've driven new GM vehicles with this feature and the cylinder transition is seamless. Most recently a 6.0L V-8 version of the Gen IV engine without DOD is available in the Corvette.

Looking Ahead
Beyond the latest power numbers, the significance of the small-block Chevy has been how well GM Powertrain has continued to develop a product to surpass market demands by finding new ways to incorporate the latest technology. Just as in the past, the engine is continually positioned to reign the most hot-rodded engine ever. Something we all look forward to.

The Small-Block's Timeline
'55: The small-block V-8 is introduced in '55 Chevrolets as a 265. This is the beginning of the Gen I.

'57: 1/8-inch bore increase raises displacement to 283ci the Ramjet mechanical fuel-injection system was introduced, bringing horsepower to 283--1 hp/ci.

'62: Displacement increases to 327ci with a 4-inch bore and a 3.25-inch stroke. Ramjet fuel-injected versions are rated at 360hp.

'64: Cylinder head improvements (2.02-inch intake valves) bump the 327's highest horsepower rating to 375 with fuel injection.'67: A little-known option called Z28 is released for the Camaro only, which includes a high-revving 302ci small-block for competition in SCCA Trans Am road racing. A 350ci (5.7L) version (in the Camaro) debuts and will become the quintessential small-block variant.

'68: A Camaro Z28 wins the Trans Am championship.

'70: 350ci LT1 debuts in the Z28 Camaro and Corvette and is rated at 360/370hp respectively 400ci small-block is offered--the largest-displacement small-block built to date.

'75: With fuel economy prevalent in consumers' minds, a more efficient 262ci small-block is introduced. This engine, offered in the small Chevrolet Monza, makes spark plug replacement next to impossible.

'78: V-6 engine based on small-block design introduced it would become the Vortec V-6 truck engine more than a decade later.

'80: Last year for the 400 small-block, by now offered only in light-duty trucks.

'82: Fuel injection reintroduced with the Cross-Fire Injection system on Corvette and the redesigned (third-gen) Camaro Z28.

'85: Tuned-port fuel injection replaces Cross-Fire Injection, bringing in the modern era of electronically controlled, port-injected engines.

'86: Aluminum cylinder heads debut as standard equipment on Corvette block changed to accept new single-piece rear main seal.

'87: Hydraulic roller lifters introduced on fuel injected engines.

'89: The H.O. 350 crate engine offers a ready-built performance engine from the factory, changing the way hot-rodders approach engine-building in the next decade.

'92: The LT1 engine in the Corvette introduces Gen II small-block design, which features reverse-flow cooling, revised cylinder head design, and crank-triggered optical distributor. The engine will later be used in Camaros and will become a favorite of police officers in '94-96 Caprices with a top speed of 140 mph.

'96: The Vortec V-8 engines are introduced in trucks, featuring cylinder heads with swirl-inducing combustion chamber design to increase power and torque.

'97: Gen III 5.7L LS1 small-block introduced with all-new Corvette, featuring all-new deep-skirt block casting with six-bolt mains, redesigned cylinder heads with symmetrical ports and combustion chambers, and coil-near-plug ignition system.

'99: Gen III-based Vortec V-8 engines introduced in GM trucks displacements include 4.8L, 5.3L, and 6.0L.

'00: The Z06 debuts with the LS6 engine pumping out 385 hp.

'05: The Gen IV small-block is introduced 50 years after the original. LS2 and LS7 are part of this engine series.

'06: 7.0L LS7--introduced in Corvette ZO6--becomes the largest, most powerful small-block ever built.


Contents

The Royal Netherlands Navy purchased the submarine O 1 mainly to gain experience in the use of the underwater weapons. [4] The submarine was laid down in Flushing at the shipyard of De Schelde under the name of Luctor et Emergo on 1 June 1904, as it was not yet certain the Dutch navy would purchase the ship. The design came from the American company Holland Torpedo Boat Co. The engineer Marly Hai was sent to the shipyard to assist in the construction of the submarine. The launch took place on 8 July 1905. [3]

A series of trials and tests were held that were overseen by committee appointed by the Ministry of Defence. The committee was not satisfied after the first series of tests but after the second series of tests the ship was purchased by the navy for 430,000 Dutch guilders. [3]

On 21 December 1906 the ship was commissioned in the navy as Onderzeese boot 1 (Submarine 1) it is uncertain at which point the ship was renamed to O 1. [3]

Since the O1 quickly proved its value during various exercises and one boat was not sufficient to base new tactics and strategies on, the Royal Netherlands Navy ordered five new submarines, which were put into service in the period 1911-1914: the O2 to O5 and the KI. The last boat was specially designed for the service in the Dutch East Indies. [4]

In 1907 Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands watched the submarine as it made a dive. On 27 March 1908 Prince Henry made a visit to the O 1 while moored in Nieuwediep in Den Helder. [3]


3. Nautilus: 1800

Cross section of a Fulton-designed sub. (Credit: Public Domain)

While working for the French government in 1800, American inventor Robert Fulton designed the “Nautilus,” an-all metal craft often called the first modern submarine. The 21-foot ship featured several revolutionary innovations including a cigar-shaped hull and a copper conning tower. It used a hand-powered, four-bladed propeller to move underwater, but also sported a collapsible mast and fan sail for surface travel. Diving planes were used to assist in submerging, and Fulton also experimented with storing compressed air in copper bottles to provide oxygen for his crew. The Nautilus made several successful test dives in the early 19th century, but it was dismantled and sold for scrap after it failed to win over both the French and English navies. Fulton, meanwhile, later returned to America and won fame for developing the world’s first commercially viable steamboat.


History of Decorative Concrete

Between 1890 and 1920 many companies, especially precast companies who produced members for building facades, used colors and stains to make their work more interesting. Some mixed pigment into fresh concrete for a casting others submerged their castings in solutions similar to chemical stains. Some of these creative and ingenious techniques are described in journals and publications from that era, which can be viewed today at the Portland Cement Association (PCA) library in Skokie, Ill.

The “fathers” of this industry were

  • manufacturers of materials for contractors with quality controls in place to ensure a consistent outcome time after time
  • developers of tools or systems that allowed others to be involved in the creative process, and
  • innovators who developed specific techniques.
Joe Nasvik

Some were in the right place at the right time others went through painstaking research to develop products and processes. Today the decorative concrete market is growing faster than any other segment of the concrete industry, with hundreds of manufacturers and thousands of contractors. But none of this could have happened if not for the development of strong, durable concrete. It takes highly skilled concrete finishers and an understanding of concrete basics to install work that makes owners want concrete.

Here are some of the people and companies that got us started.

Adding color to concrete

L.M. Scofield Company Lynn Scofield was the first to manufacturer color hardeners and integral color for concrete, making a dependable range of colors available to everyone.

We've known for a long time that metallic oxide colors aren't faded by ultraviolet light. At the turn of the century, many concrete craftspeople were blending pigments to color a specific application. Some kept recipe files for their color formulas used on projects. But to increase the use of color required products that were consistent batch after batch. Contractors wanted color admixtures that would mix evenly in concrete and be permanently bonded in the cement paste. In 1915, Lynn Mason Scofield started a business on Dearborn Street in Chicago that was later renamed the L.M. Scofield Company. It was the first company to manufacture color for concrete. His first products included color hardeners (cement, color, and aggregate broadcast on the surface of fresh concrete to color and harden the surface), colorwax integral color, sealers, and chemical stains. In 1920 he moved the company to Los Angeles, believing that southern California was a better market for decorative concrete than the rest of the country. Charlie Chaplin, Groucho Marx, Mary Pickford, and other famous people used large amounts of his products when they built their homes.

Stamping patterns

Brad Bowman caused significant interest in decorative concrete with his invention. He developed and patented the tools and process for stamping patterns in concrete flatwork. The genius of his work is that others could use his process to install their own creative ideas.

As a contractor, Bowman installed exposed aggregate concrete walls and slabs in Carmel, Calif. By 1950 he began experimenting with ways to pattern his work. He first tried a single wooden blade, then two blades set apart the width of a brick, and finally platform stamps that imprinted several pattern units at a time. His first stamps were of wood, then sheet metal, and finally cast aluminum platforms. In 1970, the Bomanite Corp., using his patents, franchised contractors across the United States to install decorative concrete using this process. Bowman's fascination was with the creative process—a passion that stayed with him until his death at age 90.

In 1956 Bill Stegmeier, owner of the Stegmeier Co., began installing his company's “Cool Deck” process for swimming pool decks—a finish that kept bare feet from getting too hot on sunny days. By adding color to a powder broadcast onto the surface, he achieved an antiquing effect. But it turned out that this “release powder” also kept texture stamps from sticking to the concrete. So Stegmeier invented a latex rubber tool to impart a wood grain texture to fresh concrete.

Joe Nasvik In the late 1970s Jon Nasvik invented a urethane stamp that imprinted both texture and pattern.

Bowman's cast aluminum tools were heavy, had a limited life, and printed only patterns, not textures. Jon Nasvik became the first to develop urethane stamps that were light and long-lived. In the late 1970s he built a plastic stamp that imprinted both pattern and texture on fresh concrete. The first pattern for commercial use was a broken used brick pattern. The patterns that followed were used by Bomanite contractors exclusively and were called “Bomacron.” Stegmeir's release powder made it possible to use these stamps.

Around this same time The Disney Corporation was designing EPCOT in Orlando and wanted unusual decorative concrete patterns for the project. It liked Bomacron and commissioned the development of the first 12 to 15 patterns. Today textured, patterned stamps are the standard.


History of O-1 SS-62 - History

The Chancellorsville (CG 62) is the U.S. Navy's 16th Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser and is named after the Confederate victory over Union forces at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Virginia, in the American Civil War. Her keel was laid down on June 24, 1987, at the Litton - Ingalls Shipbuilding shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., and she was launched on July 15, 1988.

July 23, The Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Chancellorsville was christened during a ceremony at Ingalls shipyard. Mrs. Sharron M. Martin, the wife of retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin, served as sponsor of the ship. Capt. Gordon H. Rheinstorm is the prospective commanding officer.

May 22, 1989 PCU Chancellorsville underway for the first time to conduct Builder's (Alpha "A") sea trials. Underway for Bravo trials on June 26 Underway for acceptance "C" trials with the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) on July 17.

November 4, USS Chancellorsville was commissioned during a ceremony at Pascagoula, Mississippi.

November 6, The guided-missile cruiser underway for a Dependent's Day Cruise.

November 11, CG 62 moored at Naval Station Rodman in Balboa, Panama, for a brief stop to refuel after transiting Panama Canal. Port visit to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, from Nov. 17-19.

November 22, USS Chancellorsville arrived at its homeport of Naval Station San Diego in San Diego, Calif., after a 15-day transit from Pascagoula, MS.

From Dec. 4-15, the Chancellorsville was underway for Refresher Training (REFTRA) in the SOCAL Op. Area. Ammo onload at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Calif., from Jan. 24-25.

January 29, 1990 USS Chancellorsville departed homeport for a Combat Systems Ship's Qualification Trials (CSSQT) in the Hawaiian OPAREA. Emergent repairs to the #2 CRP system in San Diego from Feb. 4-5 Port call to Pearl Harbor from Feb. 13-20.

March 1, The Chancellorsville anchored off Lahaina, Maui, for a four-day liberty visit. Inport Pearl Harbor from March 12-15 Returned home on March 21 Underway for local operations from April 9-11 Underway for final contract trials on April 17 Conducted Single Shot Shock Test (SSST) on May 2.

June 1, CG 62 entered the dry-dock at NASSCO shipyard for a two-month Post Shakedown Availability (PSA). Departed dry-dock on June 23 Returned to Naval Station San Diego on Aug. 20 Underway for sea trials from Aug. 21-23 Magnetic deperming at Naval Submarine Base Point Loma from Aug. 27-29 Underway for local operations on Sept. 17 Ammo onload at NWS Seal Beach from Sept. 20-24 Inport Naval Air Station North Island from Sept. 28- Oct. 5 Underway for routine training from Oct. 15-19, Oct. 29- Nov. 2, Nov. 5-10 and 13-16th Underway for Operational Propulsion Plant Examination (OPPE) from Nov. 27-29.

From Dec. 7-14, the Chancellorsville was underway for READIEX 91-1A with the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Battle Group. Underway for READIEX 91-1B from Jan. 9-23.

March 1, 1991 USS Chancellorsville departed San Diego for its maiden deployment in support of Operation Desert Storm. Port call to Subic Bay, Philippines, from March 24-29.

April 9, The guided-missile cruiser anchored off the coast of Phuket, Thailand, for a five-day port visit. Arabian Gulf operations on April 20.

April 29, USS Chancellorsville pulled into Mina Qaboos port for a five-day visit to Muscat, Oman. Returned to Arabian Gulf on May 5.

May 24, The Chancellorsville moored alongside USS Cape Cod (AD 43) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for a five-day tender availability. Anchored at Bahrain Bell-Sitrah from June 14-17.

July 2, CG 62 pulled into Jebel Ali, U.A.E., for a five-day port call to get tender support services from USS Samuel Gompers (AD 37) Departed Arabian Gulf on July 13.

July 24, The Chancellorsville anchored in the Gulf of Thailand for a five-day visit to Pattaya Port call to Hong Kong from Aug. 2-7.

August 7, USS Chancellorsville collided with USNS Ponchatoula (T-AO 146) during refueling at night. The collision ripped off the port hurricane bow, damaged the sonar dome and bent the centerline anchor. The Ponchatoula suffered extensive external damage.

August 18, The guided-missile cruiser pulled into Pearl Harbor for a two-day port call to embark "Tigers."

August 27, USS Chancellorsville returned to Naval Station San Diego after a six-month deployment in the U.S. 5th and 7th Fleet Areas of Responsibility (AoR).

October 13, The Chancellorsville arrived in San Francisco, Calif., for a six-day port visit to participate in a Fleet Week celebration.

November 19, CG 62 conducted Tomahawk Block III Operational Test Launch (OTL) off the coast of southern California.

November 23, Capt. William J. Keating, Jr., relieved Capt. Gordon H. Rheinstorm as CO of the Chancellorsville during a change-of-command ceremony at Pier 2.

December 14, Rear Adm. James R. Fitzgerald relieved Rear Adm. Philip M. Quast as Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group (CCDG) 3, during a change-of-command ceremony aboard the USS Chancellorsville at Broadway Pier in downtown San Diego.

January 13, 1992 The guided-missile cruiser departed homeport for Naval Gunfire Support (NGFS) qualifications off San Clemente Island. Port visit to Vancouver, Canada, from Jan. 17-20 Anchored in Nanoose Harbour, B.C., for CNO project from Jan. 20-23 Port visit to Seattle, Wash., from Jan. 23-27 Ammo offload at NWS Indian Island, Wash., from Jan. 27-29 Returned home on Feb. 3 Underway for local operations from Feb. 24-28 and March 2-6 Moored at Broadway Pier for an "Open House" from Feb. 28- March 2.

March 20, USS Chancellorsville arrived at NASSCO shipyard for a two-month Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA) Underway for sea trials on May 13 Underway again on May 26.

June 2, CG 62 arrived in Longview, Wash., for a brief stop to embark guests Port visit to Portland, Ore., from June 3-8 to participate in Rose Festival Ammo onload at NWS Indian Island from June 10-12 Port visit to Seattle, Wash., from June 12-15 Returned home on June 19.

July 1, Rear Adm. James Stark relieved Rear Adm. Archie Clemins as Commander, U.S. Pacific Training Command, during a change-of-command ceremony on board the Chancellorsville.

From July 6-10, the guided-missile cruiser was underway for local operations Underway again from July 14-16, 28-30 and Aug. 3-6.

August 12, USS Chancellorsville, with an embarked Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 45 Det. 5 and Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) 8, departed Naval Station San Diego for a counter-drug operations in the U.S. 4th Fleet Area of Responsibility. Inport Rodman Naval Base on Aug. 21, Sept. 9-12 and Sept. 18.

September 24, The Chancellorsville arrived in Mazatlan, Mexico, for a three-day port visit Returned home on Sept. 30.

From Oct. 30 through Nov. 6, USS Chancellorsville was underway for FLEETEX 93-1A Underway for COMPTUEX and NGFS from Nov. 16-20 Underway for local operations from Dec. 3-4 and 7-10th Underway for FLEETEX 93-1C from Dec. 14-17 Underway for TSTA I from Jan. 11-13 Underway for Pacific Missile Test Range from Jan. 20-21.

February 19, 1993 USS Chancellorsville departed San Diego for a surge deployment as part of the USS Nimitz BG. Inport Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, from Feb. 25-28.

March 7, CG 62 pulled into Apra Harbor, Guam, for a two-day port call Inport Sembawang naval base, Singapore, from March 15-18.

March 19, The Chancellorsville anchored off Penang, Malaysia, for a four-day port visit Turnover with USS Cowpens (CG 63) on March 23 Entered the Arabian Gulf on March 31.

April 4, The guided-missile cruiser anchored at Bahrain Bell-Sitrah anchorage for a five-day port visit to Manama Port call to Dubai, U.A.E., from April 18-24 Upkeep at Dubai from May 11-18 Another visit to Manama from June 6-10.

June 26, USS Chancellorsville launched 9 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs), around 23.30 local time from the North Arabian Gulf, at the Iraqi Intelligence Center in Baghdad in retaliation for aborted assassination attempt on former President Bush. USS Peterson (DD 969) launched 14 TLAMs from the Red Sea Another visit to Manama, Bahrain, from June 30- July 2 Departed Arabian Gulf on July 3 Brief stop in Diego Garcia on July 10.

July 17, The Chancellorsville pulled into Fremantle, Australia, for a five-day visit to Perth Port call to Sydney from July 28- Aug. 2 Brief stop at Pago Pago, American Samoa, to refuel on Aug. 6 Port call to Pearl Harbor rom Aug. 11-13.

August 19, USS Chancellorsville returned to homeport after a six-month deployment in the U.S. 5th and 7th AoR.

August 28, Capt. Gerald J. O'Donnell relieved Capt. William J. Keating, Jr., as CO of CG 62.

September 24, USS Chancellorsville conducted two Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) Operational Test Launches (OTL), from the Pacific Missile Range off the coast of Port Hueneme, Calif., on Sept. 21 and 22nd Ammo offload at NWS Seal Beach from Oct. 5-7.

October 9, The Chancellorsville moored outboard USS Cowpens (CG 63) and USS William H. Standley (CG 32) in San Francisco for a five-day port visit. Inport Naval Station Everett, Wash., for a port visit to Seattle from Oct. 17-21 Port visit to Vancouver, B.C., from Oct. 21-25 Returned home on Oct. 28 Underway for MISSILEX from Oct. 30- Nov. 3 Underway for local operatins from Nov. 8-10.

November 18, CG 62 entered the dry-dock at the NASSCO shipyard in San Diego for a three-month Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA). Departed dry-dock on January 13, 1994 Underway for sea trials from Feb. 10-11 Underway for Type Training from March 15-18 Underway for CART II from March 24-25 Ammo onload at Seal Beach from April 4-7 Underway for TSTA I from May 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20th Underway for COMPTUEX 94-9T on June 2 Inport Longview, Wash., from June 6-7.

June 7, USS Chancellorsville pulled into Portland, Ore., for a six-day port visit to participate in annual Rose Festival. Returned home on June 17 Underway for TSTA II from June 27- July 1, July 5-8 and 11-15th Underway for OPPE from Aug. 3-4 Underway for a Career Orientation Training for Midshipmen (CORTRAMID) cruise from Aug. 8-9 Underway for TSTA III and "Leaders to Sea" program from Aug. 15-19 Underway for a Family Day Cruise on Aug. 27 Underway for TSTA III from Aug. 29- Sept. 1 and Final Evaluation Problem (FEP) from Sept. 12-16.

From October 25 through Nov. 17, the Chancellorsville was underway for a COMPTUEX 95-1A. Port visit to San Francisco from Nov. 11-16 Underway for a COMPTUEX 95-1B from Dec. 12-18.

From Feb. 13-23, 1995, USS Chancellorsville was underway for MEFEX 95-2 in the SOCAL Op. Area. Ammo onload at Seal Beach from March 1-2 Underway for Material Inspection on March 14.

April 28, USS Chancellorsville departed homeport for a scheduled deployment.

May 4, The guided-missile cruiser pulled into Pearl Harbor for a two-day port call.

May 19, The Chancellorsville anchored off Manila, Republic of the Philippines, for a three-day port visit.

May 26, CG 62 anchored at Man-O'-War Anchorage for a three-day visit to Singapore.

May 30, USS Chancellorsville anchored in Makham Bay, Thailand, for a four-day visit to Phuket. Entered the Arabian Gulf on June 11 Port call to Dubai, U.A.E., from June 12-14 Anchored off Bahrain for Inchop brief with NAVCENT from June 15-16 Inport Dubai from July 2-6 Upkeep in Dubai from July 22-31.

August 9, The Chancellorsville pulled into Dubai for the fourth time for a 15-day port call to get tender support services.

August 10, Capt. Edward R. Hebert relieved Capt. Gerald J. O'Donnell as CO of USS Chancellorsville during a change-of-command ceremony on board the ship.

September 10, The guided-missile cruiser anchored at Bahrain Bell-Sitrah for a four-day visit to Manama.

October 2, The Chancellorsville arrived in Sydney, Australia, for a six-day port visit Brief stop in Pago Pago to refuel on Oct. 13 Inport Pearl Harbor from Oct. 19-21.

October 27, USS Chancellorsville returned to San Diego after a six-month deployment in the U.S. 5th and 7th Fleet AoR.

From Nov. 29- Dec. 1, CG 62 was underway for FIREX II and spotter services off San Clemente Island Ammo offload at NWS Seal Beach from Dec. 4-6 Underway for COMPTUEX as part of opposition forces from Dec. 11-15.

January 22, 1996 USS Chancellorsville commenced a two-month Planned Restricted Availability (PRAV) Underway for sea trials from March 20-21 Underway for "Leaders to Sea" program from April 3-4 Ammo onload at NWS Seal Beach from April 9-10 Embarked "Leaders to Sea" via helicopter on April 11 Returned to homeport on April 12 Underway again on April 22.

April 26, The Chancellorsville anchored off Acapulco, Mexico, for a four-day port visit.

From May 28-31, the guided-missile cruiser was underway for engineering training off the coast of southern California Underway again for routine training from June 4-7 and 10-14th Underway for local operations from July 15-19 Underway for MISSILEX from July 22-24 Underway for Seattle SeaFair Festival on July 27 Inport Port Hadlock, Wash., from July 30-31.

July 31, USS Chancellorsville pulled into Seattle, Wash., for a five-day port visit Returned home on Aug. 8 Underway for practice engineering certification from Aug. 22-23 Underway for ECERT from Aug. 26-27 Underway for ECERT Preps. from Sept. 9-13 Underway again for ECERT from Sept. 23-27 Underway for FEP rehearsal on Oct. 1 Ammo onload at Seal Beach from Oct. 3-4 Underway for Final Evaluation Period (FEP) from Oct. 8-10 Underway for a Friends and Family Cruise from Nov. 1-2.

November 6, USS Chancellorsville, with an embarked Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 47, departed Naval Station San Diego for a counter-narcotics deployment Inport Naval Station Rodman to refuel from Nov. 14-15 before transiting Panama Canal Anchored off Cartagena, Colombia, on Nov. 26 to refuel Brief stop in Colon, Panama, on Dec. 2.

December 6, USS Chancellorsville arrived in Oranjestad, Netherlands Antilles, for a four-day visit to Aruba Inport NS Rodman from Dec. 12-13, 23-24 and Dec. 30- Jan. 4.

January 13, 1997 CG 62 arrived in Salinas, Equador, for a four-day port visit Inport Rodman, Panama, from Jan. 25-26 Anchored of Acapulco, Mexico, from Jan. 30- Feb. 2.

February 6, USS Chancellorsville returned to San Diego after a three-month underway period in the U.S. 4th Fleet AoR. The ship recovered more than 3 tons of cocaine.

From Feb. 27-28, the Chacellorsville was underway for NGFS qualifications off San Clemente Ammo offload at NWS Seal Beach from March 4-6.

March 24, The guided-missile cruiser entered the Southwest Marine Shipyard in San Diego for a nine-month Regular Overhaul (ROH) In dry-dock from April 1 to June 25.

September 26, Capt. Vincent J. Andrews relieved Capt. Edward R. Hebert as CO of CG 62.

From December 15-17, the Chancellorsville was underway for sea trials and returned to Naval Station San Diego.

From February 17-20, 1998, USS Chancellorsville was underway for TSTA I Anchored off Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, from Feb. 28- March 2 Underway for TSTA II from March 30- April 3 Underway again on April 7 for TSTA II.

April 13, The Chancellorsville pulled into Pearl Harbor for a brief port call before conducting routine training in the Hawaiian Op Area. Returned home on May 2 Underway for ECERT from May 11-12 Underway for TSTA II from May 18-21 and FEP on June 3 Ammo onload at Seal Beach from June 8-11 Underway for a Friends and Family Day Cruise on July 1.

July 7, CG 62 departed San Diego, Calif., for a homeport change to Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, and to participate in exercise RIMPAC '98 off the coast of Hawaii Inport Pearl Harbor from July 13-15, 20-23 and July 30- Aug 2.

August 11, USS Chancellorsville arrived in its new homeport of Naval Base Yokosuka.

September 28, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka for its first Fall Patrol as part of the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) Battle Group.

October 12, The Chancellorsville anchored off Chinhae, Republic of Korea, for International Fleet Review (IFL) in conjunction with the 50th Anniversary celebration of the ROK Independence Port call to Busan from Oct. 13-15 before participating in exercise Foal Eagle Participated in ANNUALEX 10G from Nov. 5-12 Returned home on Nov. 13.

From Jan. 20-31, 1999, CG 62 was underway for Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) exercises off Farallon de Medinilla Island Inport Apra Harbor, Guam, form Jan. 22-25 Underway for sea trials from Feb. 18-19 Ammo onload on Feb. 23 while anchored in Yokosuka Harbor.

March 2, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka Naval Base for a scheduled deployment as part of the Kitty Hawk BG.

March 19, The guided-missile cruiser pulled into Apra Harbor, Guam, for a two-day port call before participating in exercises MTX '99 and Tandem Thrust Inport Apra Harbor again from April 2-6 Class "A" fire in the uptakes of the forward gas turbines on April 16 Entered the Arabian Gulf on April 20.

May 8, USS Chancellorsville anchored at Bahrain Bell-Sitrah anchorage for a four-day port visit to Manama Port calls to Dubai, U.A.E., from May 25-29 and June 10-14.

June 15, An SH-60B, assigned to Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 47 Det. 4, rescued a pilot and RIO that ejected safely from an F-14A Tomcat (NF101), from the VFA-154, in the Arabian Gulf.

June 30, CG 62 pulled into Jebel Ali, United arab Emirates, for a five-day upkeep Departed Arabian Gulf on July 15 after turnover with the USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55).

July 27, The Chancellorsville arrived in Fremantle, Australia, for a six-day port visit. On July 26, the ship suffered a five-foot rupture on sonar dome Anchored off Pattaya, Thailand, from Aug. 10-15.

August 12, Capt. Gordon O. Dorsey relieved Capt. Vincent J. Andrews as CO of the Chancellorsville during a change-of-command ceremony on board the ship.

August 25, USS Chancellorsville returned to homeport after a nearly six-month deployment in the U.S. 5th and 7th Fleet AoR.

From Oct. 12-14, the Chancellorsville was underway for sea trials after repairs to sonar dome Underway for a Friends and Family Day Cruise in Sagami Wan on Oct. 15.

From October 22 through Nov. 10, CG 62 was underway with the Kitty Hawk BG for exercises Foal Eagle '99 and ANNUALEX 11G Ammo offload at A-12 anchorage from Nov. 15-17.

November 23, USS Chancellorsville entered the Dry Dock #5 at Yokosuka Naval Shipyard for a Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA).

February 4, 2000 The guided-missile cruiser moved from dry-dock to Pier 6 at Fleet Activities Yokosuka Underway for sea trials from Feb. 17-18 Ammo onload from Feb. 22-24 Underway for local operations on March 9, March 14-17 and 29-31st.

April 11, USS Chancellorsville departed homeport for a Spring Patrol with the USS Kitty Hawk.

April 17, The Chancellorsville arrived in Guam for a brief stop to drop off five ATG riders and to embark a team of Navy and Marine Corps spotters for NSFS exercise Inport Apra Harbor again from April 22-25.

May 6, CG 62 moored at Sembawang shipyard in Singapore for a four-day port call.

May 14, The Chancellorsville anchored off the coast of Pattaya, Thailand, for a three-day port visit before participating in exercise Cobra Gold in the Gulf of Thailand.

May 26, USS Chancellorsville anchored in Victoria Harbour for a five-day port visit to Hong Kong Returned to Yokosuka on June 5.

June 14, The guided-missile cruiser departed Yokosuka Naval Base for a four-day underway period to conduct LTT-E Underway for Engineering UD on June 22.

July 20, Over 7,400 people visited USS Chancellorsville during the Chibbiko Youth Festival, while the ship was moored at JMSDF side at Yokosuka Harbor.

August 2, The Chancellorsville arrived in Qingdao, China, for a three-day port visit Returned home on Aug. 12 after a 15-day underway period Underway for TSTA III from Aug. 21-25 and FEP from Sept 6-8.

October 2, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka, Japan, for a Fall Patrol with the Kitty Hawk BG.

October 15, The Chancellorsville moored at Hakata Port for a four-day visit to Fukuoka, Japan Inport Chinhae, Republic of Korea, from Oct. 20-21 before participating in annual exercise Foal Eagle from Oct. 23-28 Port call to Busan, ROK, from Nov. 2-5 Participated in ANNUALEX 12G from Nov. 9-12 Anchored in Buckner Bay, Okinawa, from Nov. 15-16 before participating in MISSILEX 01-1 Returned to homeport on Nov. 20.

From Nov. 27 through Dec. 12, USS Chancellorsville was underway for NSFS qualifications off Farallon de Medinilla Port call to Apra Harbor from Dec. 5-9.

From February 8-14, 2001, CG 62 was underway in support of the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) sea trials.

March 2, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka for an extended Spring Patrol, as part of the Kitty Hawk Battle Group Inport Yokosuka from March 4-6 to repair the helo hangar door that jammed on March 3 due to heavy seas.

March 22, The guided-missile cruiser pulled into Changi Naval Base in Singapore for a four-day port call Arrived in Gulf of Thailand for Thai PASSEX on April 1.

April 5, USS Chancellorsville anchored off the coast of Pattaya, Thailand, for a four-day port visit.

April 20, The chancellorsville arrived in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, for a 10-day port visit.

From May 10-20, CG 62 participated in annual exercise Tandem Thrust, within Austalia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Every night the ship moved outside the park to pump-and-dump trash and waste.

May 24, USS Chancellorsville arrived in Sydney, Australia, for a five-day port visit Brief stop in Apra Harbor on June 7 to embark "Tigers."

June 11, The Chancellorsville returned to homeport after more than a three-month underway period in the western and southern Pacific.

July 20, More than 4,000 people visited the cruiser during an "Open House" at Pier Y1 in conjunction with the Chibbiko Youth Festival Underway for PCO operations from July 30-31.

August 3, Capt. Thomas S. Kennedy relieved Capt. Gordon O. Dorsey as CO of the Chancellorsville during a change-of-command ceremony on board the ship at Yokosuka.

November 5, USS Chancellorsville underway for ammo onload at A-12 anchorage after a two-month Selected Restricted Availability (SRA).

November 9, The Chancellorsville departed Fleet Activities Yokosuka to participate in exercise Neptune Thunder.

November 11, The Chancellorsville moored at Busan naval base, ROK, for a two-day port call Inport Busan again from Dec. 5-6 Returned home on Dec. 14.

October 2?, 2002 USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka for a seven-week Fall Patrol with the Kitty Hawk BG Participated in ANNUALEX 14G in November.

From January 14-16, 2003, the Chancellorsville was underway for ammo onload at A-12 anchorage.

From Feb. 15-28, CG 62 was underway for NSFS qualifications off Okinawa Inport White Beach Naval Facility from Feb. 21-24 Underway for INSURV rehearsal on March 5.

From March 6 through April 7, USS Chancellorsville was underway in the Sea of Japan for intelligence gathering.

April 28, The Chancellorsville entered the Dry Dock #5 at Yokosuka Naval Shipyard for a Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA) Departed dry-dock on July 3 Underway for ammo onload at A-12 anchorage from July 15-18 Underway for sea trials and PCO operations from July 21-25.

July 25, Capt. Jonathan E. Will relieved Capt. Thomas S. Kennedy as CO of CG 62 during a change-of-command ceremony on board the ship at sea.

August 3, Nearly 1,000 people visited the Chancellorsville during an "Open House" at Pier 10, Fleet Activities Yokosuka.

August 11, USS Chancellorsville departed homeport in support of Counter Special Operations Forces Exercise (CSOFEX) Port call to Busan, ROK, from Aug. 14-17.

August 25, The guided-missile cruise arrived in Kagoshima, Japan, for a three-day port visit Returned home on Aug. 30 Underway for ammo onload from Sept. 2-3 Unerway again on Sept. 22 Inport White Beach, Okinawa, from Sept. 30- Oct. 1 Anchored off Hong Kong from Oct. 4-8 Brief stop in Okinawa from Oct. 11-12 Returned home on Oct. 14 Underway again on Oct. 18.

October 22, The Chancellorsville pulled into Apra Harbor, Guam, for a three-day port call. The ship is acting as a host vessel to two warships of the People's Republic of China, PLAN Shenzhen (DD 167) and PLAN Qinghai Hu (AO 885), which are making their navy's the first ever port visit to Guam Returned to homeport on Oct. 28.

November 1, USS Chancellorsville departed Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka for a Fall Patrol as part of the USS Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group. Inport White Beach, Okinawa, Japan, from Nov. 3-4 before participating in a MISSILEX 04-1.

November 10, The Chancellorsville moored at Changi Naval Base, Singapore, for a four-day port visit to participate in International Maritime Defense Exhibition (IMDEX) Asia 2003.

November 21, CG 62 moored at White Beach Naval Facility for a brief stop to take on fuel and supplies Inport Sasebo, Japan, from Nov. 22-23 and Nov. 28- Dec. 2 Returned home on Dec. 4 Underway for UD from Dec. 12-13 Underway for INSURV assessment on Dec. 17.

May 4, 2004 The Chancellorsville provided humanitarian assistance to an Indonesian fishing vessel in the Molucca Sea.

July 19, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka, Japan, to participate in the Summer Pulse 2004 and training exercise Joint Air and Sea Exercises (JASEX) '04, with the USS Kitty Hawk CSG Returned to homeport on Sept. 7.

February 20, 2005 CG 62 is currently undergoing a nine-week Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA) period at Yokosuka Naval Shipyard.

April 22, Capt. King H. Dietrich relieved Capt. Jonathan E. Will as the 9th CO of USS Chancellorsville.

August 20, USS Chancellorsville returned to Fleet Activities Yokosuka after a three-month underway period in support of Talisman Saber 2005, the third annual Orange Crush and Joint Air and Sea Exercise (JASEX) 2005.

November 28, The guided-missile cruiser departed Hong Kong after a scheduled port visit Participated in Annual Exercise (ANNUALEX) 17G, with the Kitty Hawk CSG, from Nov. 9-18.

December 12, USS Chancellorsville returned to Yokosuka, Japan, after a seven-week Fall Patrol.

February 25, 2006 The Chancellorsville recently anchored off the coast of Pattaya, Thailand, for a scheduled port visit. The ship also visited Singapore in mid-February.

April 6, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka Naval Base for a Friends and Family Day Cruise.

August 29, Capt. Kevin S.J. Eyer relieved Capt. King H. Dietrich as CO of the Chancellorsville.

September 18, CG 62 arrived in Vladivostok, Russia, for a scheduled port call. The Chancellorsville will change its homeport to Naval Base San Diego, Calif., later this year.

November 6, 2007 The guided-missile cruiser is currently conducting routine training off the coast of southern California.

December 10, USS Chancellorsville is currently participating in a Tailored Ship's Training Availability (TSTA) period, with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) CSG, in the SOCAL Op. Area.

February 9, 2008 Capt. John P. Nolan relieved Capt. Kevin S.J. Eyer as commanding officer of USS Chancellorsville.

May 19, USS Chancellorsville departed San Diego for a scheduled deployment with the Reagan Carrier Strike Group.

July 14, The guided-missile cruiser pulled into Busan, Republic of Korea, for a routine port call Inport Yokosuka from July 28- Aug. ?.

August 21, The Chancellorsville departed Port Klang, Malaysia, after a three-day visit to Kuala Lumpur.

October 18, USS Chancellorsville pulled into Goa, India, to participate in exercise Malabar 2008.

November 1, The Chancellorsville participated in a bilateral exercise with a Royal Thai Navy ship off the coast of Phuket, Thailand.

November 25, USS Chancellorsville returned to Naval Base San Diego after a six-month deployment.

May 27, 2009 USS Chancellorsville departed homeport, as part of the USS Ronald Reagan CSG, for a western Pacific and Middle East deployment.

June 24, The guided-missile cruiser pulled into Changi Naval Base, Singapore, for a scheduled port visit.

August 26, Somali pirates aboard the Taiwanese-flagged Motor Vessel Win Far, fired what appeared to be a large caliber weapon, around 8:00 a.m. local time, at a U.S. Navy SH-60B from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 49, embarked aboard the Chancellorsville. The helicopter was not hit and the crew did not return fire. It was flying over the Win Far which was captured by Somali pirates April 6. More than 30 crew members are still being held as hostages aboard the ship at anchorage south of Garacad, Somalia.

October 21, USS Chancellorsville returned to San Diego after a five-month deployment.

November 13, Capt. Michael A. Hegarty relieved Capt. John P. Nolan as CO of the Chancellorsville.

June 28, 2010 CG 62 arrived in Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam to participate in the first phase of exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010.

February 2, 2011 USS Chancellorsville departed Naval Base San Diego for a scheduled deployment with the Reagan CSG.

February 23, The guided-missile cruiser is currently at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, participating in a Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield 2011, an annual antiterrorism and force protection exercise that is conducted on all continental U.S. naval installations.

March 13, The Chancellorsville arrived off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture to provide humanitarian assistance in support of earthquake and tsunami relief operations in Japan.

April 19, USS Chancellorsville pulled into Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan, for a three-day port call.

May 1, The guided-missile cruiser anchored off the coast of Phuket for a four-day visit to Thailand.

August 12, The Chancellorsville arrived in Hong Kong for a four-day port call Inport Apra Harbor, Guam, from Aug. 21-2?.

September 9, USS Chancellorsville returned to San Diego after a seven-month deployment in the U.S. 5th and 7th Fleet Areas of Responsibility (AoR).

February 10, 2012 Capt. William A. Hesser, Jr., relieved Capt. Michael A. Hegarty as CO of the CG 62.

February 12, The Chancellorsville is currently off the coast of southern California participating in a bilateral exercise Iron Fist 2012, between United States and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) ships.

April 17, USS Chancellorsville commenced an 11-month Extended Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (E-DSRA) at the BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair facility, as part of the Navy's Cruiser Modernization program Underway for sea trials on March 25, 2013.

March 29, Naval Sea Systems Command completed the first-ever Air Defense Cruiser Aegis Baseline 9 combat systems upgrade for USS Chancellorsville.

August 22, The Chancellorsville launched two Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) interceptors that successfully destroyed two cruise missile targets, in the first over-the-horizon tests at sea, at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) sea test range off Point Mugu, Calif. Returned to Naval Base San Diego on Aug. 23.

November 16, An BQM-74 aerial target drone crashed at USS Chancellorsville, approximatelly 1:14 p.m. local time, while the ship was underway for Combat Systems Ship's Qualification Trials (CSSQT) at the Point Mugu Test Range. Two sailors were treated for minor burns Returned home for damage assessment on Nov. 17.

January ?, 2014 USS Chancellorsville commenced, $30 million worth, emergent repairs that will last around six months.

February 4, Capt. Curt A. Renshaw relieved Capt. William A. Hesser, Jr., as the 14th commanding officer of Chancellorsville.

June 21, USS Chancellorsville completed a three-week Midshipmen Summer Cruise.

July 28, The Chancellorsville arrived in Naval Station Everett, Wash., for a brief port call.

July 29, USS Chancellorsville moored outboard the USS Howard (DDG 83) at Bell Street Cruise Terminal in downtown Seattle, Wash., for a six-day port visit to participate in the 65th annual Seafair Fleet Week.

August 2?, CG 62 departed homeport for a two-week underway to conduct Combat Systems Ship's Qualification Trials (CSSQT). She is the first guided-missile cruiser to receive the AWS Baseline 9A upgrade.

February 13, 2015 USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 1, Pier 8 on Naval Base San Diego after underway for routine training Underway again from March 31- April ? and April 29.

May 19, The Chancellorsville moored at Bravo Pier, Naval Air Station North Island for a brief stop to offload ammo Underway for a Friends and Family Day Cruise on May 20.

June 18, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 7 in its new homeport of Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, after a three-week transit from San Diego, Calif.

July 22, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka for a western Pacific patrol.

July 27, The guided-missile cruiser moored at Echo Fueling Pier in Apra Harbor, Guam, for a four-day port visit Transited the Surigao Strait southbound on Aug. 3 Returned to Yokosuka on Aug. 13 Anchored at A-136 for ammo onload after underway for the second part of patrol on Aug. 31.

September 19, The Chancellorsville recently joined the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), in the Guam Op. Area, for escort duties Participated in an air defense exercise (ADEX) from Sept. 23-24 Returned home on Oct. 1.

October 15, USS Chancellorsville departed Harbor Master Pier (HMP) East, Fleet Activities Yokouka for a Fall Patrol as part of the Reagan CSG Participated in Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Fleet Review, in Sagami Bay, on Oct. 18.

October 22, CG 62 anchored off the east coast of Busan, Republic of Korea, to participate in ROK Navy&rsquos Fleet Review on Friday Participated in ADEX from Oct. 26-29.

October 30, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 6, Busan Naval Base for a five-day port call.

November 16, An MH-60R Seahawk, assigned to the Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 75 Det. 1, conducted a medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) of a crew member of USNS Able (T-AGOS 20) to the USS Ronald Reagan, while the Chancellorsville was underway in the northern Philippine Sea in support of Annual Exercise (ANNUALEX) 27G.

December 3, USS Chancellorsville moored outboard the USS Antietam (CG 54) at Berth 6, Fleet Activities Yokosuka following a seven-week patrol.

January 15, 2016 USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka to conduct Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) qualifications off Okinawa, Japan.

January 22, The guided-missile cruiser recently moored at Navy Pier, White Beach Naval Facility for a routine port call and to embark Marines from the 1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment for transportation to Camp Fuji, Japan, to conduct exercise Fuji Viper 16-3 Returned home on Jan. 25.

March 1, The Chancellorsville departed Berth 6, Fleet Activities Yokosuka in support of a Multi-Sail exercise, off the coast of Guam, with Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 15 Moored at Berth 2, Tango Wharf in Apra Harbor from March 4-7 Transited the Surigao Strait southbound on March 14.?

March 16, USS Chancellorsville moored at Sepanggar Naval Base in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, for a five-day port visit Transited the Luzon Strait eastbound on March 24 Returned home on March 28.

May 16, The Chancellorsville departed Berth 6, Fleet Activities Yokosuka for local operations Returned home on May 22 Brief underway on May 31.

June 4, USS Chancellorsville departed Berth 8, Fleet Activities Yokosuka for a Summer Patrol as part of the USS Ronald Reagan CSG Inport Yokosuka for emergent repairs from June 8-11.

June 20, USS Chancellorsville, along with the USS Shiloh (CG 67), USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), USS Benfold (DDG 65) and USS McCampbell (DDG 85), participated in a joint air defense exercise (ADEX) with the U.S. Air Force's 18th Wing, while underway in the Philippine Sea Transited the Luzon Strait westbound on July 1 Transited eastbound on July 23.

July 26, CG 62 returned to Yokosuka after a month-and-a-half underway period Emergency sortied due to approaching Tropical Storm Mindulle from Aug. 21-23 Emergency sortied due to approaching Typhoon Lionrock from Aug. 28-30.

September 7, USS Chancellorsville, commanded by Capt. D. Wilson, departed Fleet Activities Yokosuka for a Fall Patrol as part of the USS Ronald Reagan CSG.

September 24, The Chancellorsville moored at Berth 3, Tango Wharf in Apra Harbor, Guam, for a five-day port call after participated in at-sea phase of a biennial field training exercise Valiant Shield 2016.

October 16, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 2 in Busan Naval Base, Republic of Korea, for a scheduled port visit after participated in a bilateral training exercise Invincible Spirit Participated in ANNUALEX 28G/Keen Sword 2017, north of Okinawa, Japan, from Oct. 30- Nov. 11.

November 18, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 7 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka following a two-and-a-half month patrol.

December 13, The Chancellorsville entered the Dry Dock #5 at Yokosuka Naval Shipyard for a Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA).

May 31, 2017 The guided-missile cruiser undocked and moored at Berth 7 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka.

January 26, 2018 USS Chancellorsville moored outboard the USS Mustin (DDG 89) at Berth 7 after a four-day underway for sea trials Moored outboard the USS Shiloh at HMP East on Jan. 27 Underway again from Feb. 7-10 and Feb. 27 Anchored at A-12 for a brief stop to onload ammo before moored at HMP East on March 2.

April 2, The Chancellorsville departed Fleet Activities Yokosuka for routine training Underway in Sagami Wan from April 2-3 Brief stop off White Beach Naval Facility, Okinawa, on April 8, 9 and 10th Moored at Berth 6 on April 13 Underway again from May 4-8.

May 15, CG 62 moored at Berth 7 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka after a four-day underway for carrier escort duties Underway for routine training on May 19 Moored at HMP West on May 23 Day-long underway on May 25.

May 29, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka for a Summer Patrol as part of the USS Ronald Reagan CSG-5.

June 15, USS Chancellorsville, along with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), USS Antietam (CG 54), USS Benfold (DDG 65), USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723), JS Ise (DDH 182), JS Suzunami (DD 114), JS Fuyuzuki (DD 118), JS Soryu (SS 501), INS Sahyadri (F49), INS Kamorta (P28) and INS Shakti (A57), participated in a PHOTOEX east of Saipan, as part of a trilateral exercise Malabar 2018.

June 16, The Chancellorsville conducted Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) qualifications off Farallon de Medinilla Island, approximately 45 n.m. northeast of Saipan.

June 26, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 4, Pier 15 in Manila South Harbor, Republic of the Philippines, for a four-day liberty port visit.

July 6, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 7 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka following a 38-day patrol.

July 27, Capt. Marc D. Boran relieved Capt. Wilson D. Marks as the 16th CO of Chancellorsville during a change-of-command ceremony on board the ship.

August 28, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka for a Fall Patrol, as part of the USS Ronald Reagan CSG.

September 2, The Chancellorsville moored at Navy Pier, White Beach Naval Facility in Okinawa, Japan, for a brief stop.

September 17, USS Chancellorsville participated in a photo exercise (PHOTOEX) at the start of a biennial field training exercise Valiant Shield 2018, in the Guam Op. Area Moored at Naval Base Guam from Sept. 24- Oct. 2.?

October 12, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 1 in Busan Naval Base, Republic of Korea, for a three-day port call.

November 16, The Chancellorsville participated in a PHOTOEX with the USS Ronald Reagan, USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), USS Stockdale (DDG 106) and USS Spruance (DDG 111), as a "show of force" in the Philippine Sea.

November 21, USS Chancellorsville anchored at Kellett Anchorage #1 in Victoria Harbour for a four-day liberty port visit to Hong Kong to celebrate the Thanksgiving Day Anchored off Yokosuka for ammo offload on Nov. 30.

December 2, USS Chancellorsville moored outboard the USS Antietam at Berth 7, Fleet Activities Yokosuka following a three-month patrol.

February 25, 2019 The Chancellorsville departed homeport to participate in annual Multi-Sail exercise, in the Guam Op. Area Anchored at A-12 for ammo onload from Feb. 25-27.

From March 1-3, the guided-missile cruiser participated in Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) qualifications off the coast of Okinawa Moored at Naval Base Guam from March 6-8.?

March 25, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 9 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka Held an "Open House," in conjunction with the 26th annual Spring Festival, on March 30 Underway again on May 20 Moored at Berth 6 on May 24.

June 2, USS Chancellorsville departed Fleet Activities Yokosuka for a Summer Patrol, as part of the USS Ronald Reagan CSG.

June 12, The Chancellorsville conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS John Ericsson (T-AO 194), while underway in the South China Sea Transited the Luzon Strait eastbound on June 14 Entered the South China Sea again on June 17.

July 5, USS Chancellorsville moored outboard the USS William P. Lawrence (DDG 110) at Wharf 1, Container Terminal in Port of Brisbane, Australia, for a five-day liberty visit.

July 11, USS Chancellorsville participated in a PHOTOEX with the USS Ronald Reagan, USS William P. Lawrence, USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Wasp (LHD 1), USS Green Bay (LPD 20), USS Ashland (LSD 48), USS Key West (SSN 722), HMAS Adelaide (L01), HMAS Canberra (L02), HMAS Melbourne (FFG 05), HMAS Parramatta (FFH 154), JS Ise (DDH 182), JS Kunisaki (LST 4003), HMCS Regina (FFH 334), USCGC Stratton (WMSL 752) and USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204), commencing the biennial exercise Talisman Sabre 2019 off the coast of Queensland, Australia.

August 7, The Chancellorsville moored outboard the USS Antietam (CG 54) at Pier 15 in Manila South Harbor, Republic of the Philippines, for a four-day port visit Transited the San Bernardino Strait northbound on Aug. 12 Conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS Richard E. Byrd (T-AKE 4) on Aug. 13.

August 21, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 7 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka following an 80-day patrol in the U.S. 7th Fleet AoR Underway again on Sept. 14.

September 18, The Chancellorsville conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS Carl Brashear (T-AKE 7), while underway in the Philippine Sea Participated in a PHOTOEX with the USS Ronald Reagan, USS Boxer (LHD 4), USS Antietam and USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108), while underway in the South China Sea on Oct. 6 Conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) on Oct. 9 Conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS John Ericsson on Oct. 14.

October 17, USS Chancellorsville moored at RSS Singapura for a four-day liberty port visit to Singapore Conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE 11) on Oct. 25 Transited the Taiwan Strait northbound on Nov. 12.

November 15, USS Chancellorsville moored at Berth 6 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka following a two-month patrol Underway again on Nov. 18.

From November 20-24, the Chancellorsville participated in exercise Pacific Vanguard with the ROKS Choe Yeong (DDH 981), HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341), HMAS Stuart (FFH 153), HMAS Parramatta (FFH 154), HMAS Hobart (DDG 39) and one Australian Collins-class submarine, while underway in the Philippine Sea Returned home on Nov. 26.

December 2, USS Chancellorsville departed Yokosuka in support of carrier escort duties for USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) Conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS Big Horn (T-AO 198), while underway in the South China Sea, on Dec. 7 Transited the Strait of Singapore westbound on Dec. 9 Transited the Malacca Strait southbound from Dec. 22-23.

January 8, 2020 The Chancellorsville moored at Berth 2, Tango Wharf in Apra Harbor, Guam, for a two-day port call Moored outboard the USS Cutis Wilbur (DDG 54) at HMP East in Fleet Activities Yokosuka on Jan. 16.

January 2?, CG 62 moved from HMP East to Berth 7 on Fleet Activities Yokosuka Underway again on Feb. 3 Conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS Richard E. Byrd, while underway in the East China Sea, on Feb. 10.

February 15, USS Chancellorsville transited the Taiwan Strait southbound Moored at Navy Pier, White Beach Naval Facility in Okinawa from Feb. 20-21 Anchored at A-12 for ammo offload on March 3 Moored at Berth 9 in Fleet Activities Yokosuka on March 6.

April ?, USS Chancellorsville entered the Dry Dock #6 at Yokosuka Naval Shipyard for a Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA).

August 5, Capt. Paul M. Allgeier relieved Capt. Marc D. Boran as CO of the Chancellorsville during a change-of-command ceremony in front of the ship at dry-dock.

January 31, 2021 USS Chancellorsville returned to water and moored at Berth 14 in Dry Dock #6 Moved to Berth 6 on April 9 Underway for sea trials from May 18-21.


Watch the video: Whats the Best Age to Claim Social Security 62, 66, or 70?