Newest U.S. Submarine Rescue System Debuts to the World
By Team Submarine Public Affairs, NAVSEA, June 6, 2008
WASHINGTON – This past week the U.S. Navy’s next generation submarine rescue system, the Submarine Rescue Diving and Recompression System (SRDRS), impressed the international community during a NATO submarine rescue exercise – Bold Monarch 08 (May 26 – June 6, 2008) – in the Baltic Sea off Norway’s southern coast.
Over the first five days of the 12-day exercise that was designed to train and demonstrate international submarine escape and rescue coordination, the SRDRS mated to and transferred personnel from three participating submarines, one each from Norway, the Netherlands, and Poland. Additionally, personnel from the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, India, Norway, Italy, Israel, Sweden, Spain, Singapore, the Netherlands, France, and China spent time aboard the SRDRS. “Submarine rescue is an international effort and it is vitally important for other nations to understand the capabilities that the United States has to offer so that, should the worst happen, they will know that we can assist them in a timely manner,” said Rear Adm. Tom Eccles, the Deputy Commander, Undersea Warfare, Naval Sea Systems Command.
One of the world’s newest submarine rescue systems involved in the exercise, the SRDRS is designed to be rapidly transportable and installed aboard pre-screened Vessels of Opportunity (VOO). The Navy certified SRDRS for use in April, and SRDS is being formally evaluated by the U.S. Navy Test and Evaluation community in conjunction with Bold Monarch prior to its official delivery to the fleet. “Immediately following the SRDRS certification, we prepared and deployed USNS Apache from South Carolina, flew the SRDRS components to Norway on a commercial Antonov-124 aircraft, and re-constituted the system aboard Apache for Bold Monarch,” said Capt. Gary Dunlap, Program Manager for Advanced Undersea Systems and the officer in charge of SRDRS’ acquisition and certification. “Everything came together as planned,” Dunlap added.
The SRDRS is a three-phased acquisition program that will provide one of the most responsive and capable systems in the world for the rescue and treatment of the crew from a disabled submarine. The first phase of the program delivered a submarine rescue intervention system – Atmospheric Dive Suit 2000 (ADS2000) - to the fleet in 2006. ADS2000 is a manned, one-atmosphere dive suit that is used to inspect bottomed submarines and clear away debris that could cover an escape hatch. The second phase of the program – the Rescue Capable System (RCS) – was introduced to the international community during Bold Monarch and will replace the Navy’s existing Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle. The SRDRS-RCS consists of Falcon, a tethered, remotely-operated submersible, that is launched and controlled from the VOO’s deck. Once mated to the disabled submarine, both Falcon and the submarine open their hatches to transfer up to 16 submariners who are then transported to the VOO.
The final phase of the SRDRS program, to be delivered in 2012, will provide a Transfer Under Pressure (TUP) capability. TUP will allow rescued submariners to remain under pressure during transfer from the disabled submarine to hyperbaric treatment chambers aboard the VOO. The SRDRS will be capable of providing hyperbaric treatment for up to 62 rescued personnel at a time, with repetitive use capabilities for 155 personnel in total. Current Navy systems lack the organic ability to decompress rescued personnel from a disabled submarine.
“With SRDRS, the United States will be able to rapidly respond to a submarine disaster, remove the crew from the bottomed submarine, and get them back to the surface safely. We are proud that the SRDRS and its crew performed so well in Bold Monarch 2008,” said Eccles.
For more information on Bold Monarch visit its website at: http://www.boldmonarch08.info/
Navy Times, June 5, 2008
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Secretary Michael W. Wynne were forced to resign Thursday during hastily arranged meetings with their Pentagon bosses.
Moseley was summoned from the Corona leadership summit at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to an early morning meeting at the Pentagon with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss a report on the Air Force’s problems handling nuclear weapons.
The report, by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, revealed widespread problems and convinced Defense Secretary Robert Gates that senior officials must be held accountable.
Moseley resigned in response.
Later in the morning, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England was dispatched to Wright-Patterson to ask for Wynne’s resignation, sources said. Wynne resigned during the meeting.
At a Pentagon press briefing Thursday afternoon, Gates said his decision to seek their resignations was “based entirely” on the Donald report, which uncovered a “gradual erosion of nuclear standards and a lack of effective oversight by Air Force leadership.”
Gates – who began his career as an Air Force missile officer in the 1960s – also said that a “substantial” number of Air Force general officers and colonels more immediately responsible for recent lapses could still be reprimanded or fired in the wake of the report.
It is not clear how quickly Wynne and Moseley will leave their positions. Moseley has requested retirement effective Aug. 1 and will take terminal leave before that, according to a memo from Moseley, but it is not clear when he will leave his position.
“I think the honorable thing to do is to step aside,” Moseley said in a statement released to the press. “After consulting with my family, I intend to submit my request for retirement to Secretary Gates.”
It is not yet known who will succeed Wynne or Moseley, but Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Duncan McNabb will likely become acting chief of staff. Mike Donley, the Pentagon’s director of administration and management, is being considered to take over as acting Air Force secretary, officials said. He served in that position for seven months in the early 1990s.
The stunning development follows a series of high-profile scandals and disagreements between Air Force leadership and Gates in the past year, during which both the Pentagon and congressional leadership have increasingly expressed frustration about the Air Force’s top bosses.
But a senior defense official said the nuclear report was the most significant factor. “Everything that preceded that is insignificant by comparison,” the official said.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement praising Gates’ decision.
“Secretary Gates’ focus on accountability is essential and had been absent from the Office of the Secretary of Defense for too long,” the statement says. “The safety and security of America’s nuclear weapons must receive the highest priority, just as it must in other countries. The Secretary took appropriate action following the reports of the Defense Science Board, the Air Force’s own internal review, and now most recently, the report of Admiral Donald.” Wynne became Air Force secretary in November 2005, and Moseley took office in September 2005. Moseley’s term was to expire in September 2009, and Wynne served at the pleasure of the president.
Moseley, a former fighter pilot, has been in the Air Force since 1972. Before becoming chief, he served as commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces and then as vice chief of staff from August 2003 until September 2005.
Wynne served as an Air Force officer from 1966 until 1973 and then began a nearly 30-year career in the aerospace industry. He rose to become president of General Dynamics’ space division and general manager of space launch systems at Lockheed Martin. He re-entered government service in 2001 and served four years as principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics before becoming Air Force secretary.
While the simultaneous removal of a service’s top civilian and uniformed leaders is unprecedented, there has been speculation for months among defense insiders that Moseley, Wynne or both could be in trouble.
The Air Force has been rocked by a series of missteps during the past year, and Moseley and Wynne’s relationships with Gates, England and members of congressional defense committees have steadily eroded.
Both men are well-liked personally, but that apparently was not enough to make up for a perceived lack of leadership.
Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute in Fairfax, Va., said the writing has been on the wall for several months, and that Moseley’s demeanor has changed noticeably during that time.
“It was clear the relationship between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force was deteriorating,” Thompson said. “But it wasn’t clear what that would mean for Air Force leadership. … “This [is] the final chapter in a long list of grievances between OSD and the Air Force.”
Those grievances include criticism of the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling, two major acquisitions programs that have been stalled by protests, the service’s inability to rush more surveillance drones to the war zones, apparent conflicts of interest of current and retired senior officials related to a $50 million contract to produce a multimedia show for the Thunderbirds, and repeated clashes with Pentagon leaders over the number of F-22s the Air Force will buy and other budget issues.
The most serious blow to the credibility of the Air Force and its leadership has been a scandal spawned by the service’s accidental transfer in August of six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La.
A B-52 from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot was supposed to transfer unarmed air-launched cruise missiles to Barksdale to be decommissioned, but munitions loaders accidentally attached nuclear-armed missiles to the pylons. The missiles were flown to Barksdale and sat unguarded on the tarmac for several hours before anyone realized what happened, some 30 hours after the mistake was made.
The 5th Bomb Wing commander, two group commanders and the 5th Munitions Squadron commander were relieved of their commands.
Moseley ordered a service-wide review of the nuclear enterprise two months after the incident, resulting in 36 recommendations for improvements. The review report was presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee, members of which were highly critical of the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling.
The 5th Bomb Wing in late May failed its defense nuclear surety inspection, despite having months to prepare and being under close scrutiny since the incident. Inspectors found glaring deficiencies in the wing’s ability to protect its nuclear stockpile.
Then, in March, it was discovered that the Air Force had mislabeled nuclear warhead fuses, which led to the classified components accidentally being shipped to Taiwan in 2006. Gates said the incident made him realize that problems with the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling procedures were systemic rather than isolated.
“The Taiwan incident was clearly the trigger,” he said.
In response, Gates ordered a military-wide inventory of nuclear weapons and components. That report was recently submitted to Gates, and large portions of it will be released Thursday.
It is believed to contain damning conclusions about the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling practices.
Without naming Wynne and Moseley, Gates said “individuals in command and leadership positions not only fell short in terms of specific actions, they failed to recognize systemic problems, to address those problems, or – where beyond their authority to act – to call the attention of superiors to those problems.”
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, said he agreed with Gates’ decision to relieve Wynne and Moseley in the wake of the nuclear problems.
“There is nothing more important than the security of nuclear weapons, and it appeared that the Air Force investigation was not thorough,” Murtha said.
Asia's Main Powers Are Building Up Their Navies. Is This The Start Of An Arms Race?
The Economist, June 5, 2008
IN THE 15th century China possessed a mighty navy of “treasure fleets”. They sailed as far as Africa and the Persian Gulf, spreading China's economic and political influence across several continents. Had this naval expansion continued, some scholars say, China could have dominated the world. But successive emperors turned the nation inwards on itself, seafaring was banned and the country's great shipyards were closed. In Asia as elsewhere, it is America that rules the waves—its naval might is still needed, for example, to help defend the Malacca Strait, route for much of the region's oil and other trade.
Today a resurgent, confident and globalising China is rebuilding its naval strength. Like India, its rising Asian rival, it already has an impressive army. But both countries are finding that rapid economic growth is providing the money to realise long-cherished dreams of building ocean-going “blue-water” navies that can project power far from their home shores.
In the past two years China's navy has acquired new destroyers, frigates and submarines, some home-built, some (including its most advanced kit) Russian. A recent study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) concluded that China was also close to beginning the production of aircraft-carriers, which would give it the ability to project airpower over great distances. China has long wanted to create a force capable of thwarting the intervention of America's Pacific fleet in any war over Taiwan. But it is also increasingly keen to protect its supplies of fuel and raw materials from threats such as piracy and terrorism.
America has particular worries about a naval base China is building on Hainan island, from where its vessels will have easy access to South-East Asia's shipping lanes—most importantly the Malacca Strait. The Indians are afraid that China's reason for building ports in Myanmar, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and conducting naval exercises with Pakistan, is to extend its dominance into the Indian Ocean. Thousands of Chinese-flagged merchant ships now cross the ocean each year, giving China plenty of justification for increasing its naval presence. India, in turn, is pushing into the South China Sea, and seeking port facilities in Vietnam.
India shares China's concern that, as trade volumes and energy consumption soar, its security is vulnerable to any disruption of sea traffic. The flagships of its new blue-water navy will be three aircraft-carriers—the same number as Britain. The first of two Indian-built carriers is now under construction, with a launch date of 2010. A third, bought second-hand from Russia, is suffering delays and disputes over its refitting.
Tim Huxley of the IISS says that with so much attention focused on China and India, the naval expansion of other Asian countries is often overlooked. Yet several, especially South Korea, are also building long-range naval capabilities. Besides new submarines and destroyers, the South Koreans, like the Japanese, are commissioning helicopter-carriers.
Is this an arms race? As Asia's defence ministers and military chiefs gathered in Singapore last weekend for their main annual summit, the Shangri-La Dialogue (organised by the IISS), the conclusion of most analysts seemed to be: not yet. A classic arms race, says Mr Huxley, consists of two main countries that have one dominating dispute. Asia is different. Instead, it has the makings of a pair of opposing alliances. A “quad” group (India, America, Australia and Japan) plus Singapore now conduct naval manoeuvres together. So do China and Pakistan. But China and India seem keen to avoid provoking each other. Indeed, they are seeking to build good relations between their navies.
Military chiefs at the summit insisted they were not seeking an arms race and gave various justifications for all their new warships. Rather implausibly, China and others insisted they were mainly to ward off pirates and terrorists. South Korea's defence minister, Lee Sang-hee, said North Korea's navy threatened its maritime supply lines. As if to prove him right, on May 30th the North test-fired three ship-to-ship missiles in the Yellow Sea.
Disaster relief is also commonly cited as a reason to have a bigger navy. Within days of Myanmar's cyclone, three existing blue-water navies—those of America, France and Britain—had ships off the country's coast, laden with supplies (see article). South Korea's and Japan's new helicopter carriers could also one day be useful for moving troops in United Nations peacekeeping operations.
So there are plenty of ways for Asian powers to use their navies co-operatively. Equally, plenty of disputes might more easily escalate into war if the countries concerned had the naval strength to wage it. The potentially oil-rich Spratly and Paracel Islands, for example, are claimed in whole or part by six countries. In 1988 more than 70 Vietnamese sailors died in a naval battle with China in the Spratlys. Dozens of Koreans died in battles over a disputed sea border in 1999 and 2002.
Even without any ill intent, accidents will happen at sea. France's defence minister, Hervé Morin, worries about all the new submarines that will soon be lurking in the region's shallow and crowded shipping lanes. If one went missing, or suffered a collision, there is a danger of this being misconstrued as hostile action. He argues that to prevent minor incidents escalating in this way, Asian countries need to invest a lot more time in discussions of regional security and do more to replace mutual suspicion with co-operation and confidence-building. If not, Asia's cautious naval build-up could indeed mutate into a classic, old-fashioned arms race.
Japan, U.S. May Review Pacific Strategy
Sankei Shimbun, June 4, 2008
China is believed to have test-launched a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) in the midst of relief activities for Sichuan earthquake victims. This will likely have major repercussions not only on Japan and the United States but also on Taiwan and other neighbors, including India. China has now brought its new nuclear-powered submarine, which is called Type 094 and loaded with the Julang-2, to the island of Hainan, where China's South Sea Fleet is based.
This is more evidence that clearly shows China's south-oriented strategy. On their way to Pacific waters, nuclear-powered submarines with China's North Sea Fleet and conventional-type submarines with its East Sea Fleet pass through Japan's southwestern islands, where Japan and the United States are conducting warning and surveillance activities. They could be therefore spotted easily. However, Japan and the United States are less wary of naval moves in the southern waters down from Hainan. It is easy to pass through the Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Philippines, as the waters there are deep. Moreover, Hainan is also situated near the disputed Spratly Islets.
Hainan Island is a strategic keystone that is indispensable for the defense of sealanes from the Indian Ocean to China's mainland through the Straits of Malacca. A 094-Type (Jin-class) nuclear-powered submarine loaded with Julang-2 missiles, if deployed to Hainan Island, could cover some parts of the U.S. mainland. In addition, India will be also within range. India is considerably wary of China's deployment of a Jin-class nuclear-powered submarine to Hainan Island. Jane's Intelligence Review, a British journal on military affairs, says the Chinese navy has tunneled a hill in Hainan Island's southern coastal city of Sanya to build a large underground submarine base.
A submarine surfaces when leaving and returning to port, so it can be spotted by a military satellite. However, a satellite cannot detect underground-based submarines. The U.S. Navy and the Maritime Self-Defense Force, which are wary of China's naval advance into the Pacific Ocean, will therefore likely be urged to review their Pacific strategy.
Sankei Shimbun is a daily newspaper in Japan. Sankei Shimbun's name literally means "Industrial and Economic News." Its editorial view is generally nationalist, anti-communist, conservative, and pro-United States.
India, China Compete In Indian Ocean
CNN, June 6, 2008
HAMBANTOTA, Sri Lanka (AP) -- This battered harbor town on Sri Lanka's southern tip, with its scrawny men selling even scrawnier fish, seems an unlikely focus for an emerging international competition over energy supply routes that fuel much of the global economy.
An impoverished place still recovering from the devastation of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Hambantota has a desolate air, a sense of nowhereness, punctuated by the realization that looking south over the expanse of ocean, the next landfall is Antarctica.
But just over the horizon runs one of the world's great trade arteries, the shipping lanes where thousands of vessels carry oil from the Middle East and raw materials to Asia, returning with television sets, toys and sneakers for European consumers.
These tankers provide 80 percent of China's oil and 65 percent of India's -- fuel desperately needed for the two countries' rapidly growing economies. Japan, too, is almost totally dependent on energy supplies shipped through the Indian Ocean.
Any disruption -- from terrorism, piracy, natural disaster or war -- could have devastating effects on these countries and, in an increasingly interdependent world, send ripples across the globe. When an unidentified ship attacked a Japanese oil tanker traveling through the Indian Ocean from South Korea to Saudi Arabia in April, the news sent oil prices to record highs.
For decades the world relied on the powerful U.S. Navy to protect this vital sea lane. But as India and China gain economic heft, they are moving to expand their control of the waterway, sparking a new -- and potentially dangerous -- rivalry between Asia's emerging giants.
China has given massive aid to Indian Ocean nations, signing friendship pacts, building ports in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as Sri Lanka, and reportedly setting up a listening post on one of Myanmar's islands near the strategic Strait of Malacca.
Now, India is trying to parry China's moves. It beat out China for a port project in Myanmar. And, flush with cash from its expanding economy, India is beefing up its military, with the expansion seemingly aimed at China. Washington and, to a lesser extent, Tokyo are encouraging India's role as a counterweight to growing Chinese power.
Among China's latest moves is the billion dollar port its engineers are building in Sri Lanka, an island country just off India's southern coast.
The Chinese insist the Hambantota port is a purely commercial move, and by all appearances, it is. But some in India see ominous designs behind the project, while others in countries surrounding India like the idea. A 2004 Pentagon report called Beijing's effort to expand its presence in the region China's "string of pearls."
No one wants war, and relations between the two nations are now at their closest since a brief 1962 border war in which China quickly routed Indian forces. Last year, trade between India and China grew to $37 billion (&euro24.8 billion) and their two armies conducted their first-ever joint military exercise.
Still, the Indians worry about China's growing influence.
"Each pearl in the string is a link in a chain of the Chinese maritime presence," India's navy chief, Adm. Sureesh Mehta, said in a speech in January, expressing concern that naval forces operating out of ports established by the Chinese could "take control over the world energy jugular."
"It is a pincer movement," said Rahul Bedi, a South Asia analyst with London-based Jane's Defense Weekly. "That, together with the slap India got in 1962, keeps them awake at night."
B. Raman, a hawkish, retired Indian intelligence official, expressed the fears of some Indians over the Chinese-built ports, saying he believes they'll be used as naval bases to control the area.
"We cannot take them at face value. We cannot assume their intentions are benign," said Raman.
But Zhao Gancheng, a South Asia expert at the Chinese government-backed Shanghai Institute for International Studies, says ports like Hambantota are strictly commercial ventures. And Sri Lanka says the new port will be a windfall for its impoverished southern region.
With Sri Lanka's proximity to the shipping lane already making it a hub for transshipping containers between Europe and Asia, the new port will boost the country's annual cargo handling capacity from 6 million containers to some 23 million, said Priyath Wickrama, deputy director of the Sri Lankan Ports Authority.
Wickrama said a new facility was needed since the main port in the capital Colombo has no room to expand and Trincomalee port in the Northeast is caught in the middle of Sri Lanka's civil war. Hambantota will also have factories onsite producing cement and fertilizer for export, he said.
Meanwhile, India is clearly gearing its military expansion toward China rather than its longtime foe, and India has set up listening stations in Mozambique and Madagascar, in part to monitor Chinese movements, Bedi noted. It also has an air base in Kazakhstan and a space monitoring post in Mongolia -- both China's neighbors.
India has announced plans to have a fleet of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines at sea in the next decade and recently tested nuclear-capable missiles that put China's major cities well in range. It is also reopening air force bases near the Chinese border.
Encouraging India's role as a counter to China, the U.S. has stepped up exercises with the Indian navy and last year sold it an American warship for the first time, the 17,000-ton amphibious transport dock USS Trenton. American defense contractors -- shut out from the lucrative Indian market during the long Cold War -- have been offering India's military everything from advanced fighter jets to anti-ship missiles.
"It is in our interest to develop this relationship," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a visit to New Delhi in February. "Just as it is in the Indians' interest."
Officially, China says it's not worried about India's military buildup or its closer ties with the U.S. However, foreign analysts believe China is deeply concerned by the possibility of a U.S.-Indian military alliance.
Ian Storey of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore said China sent strong diplomatic messages expressing opposition to a massive naval exercise India held last year with the U.S., Japan, Singapore and Australia. And Bedi, the Jane's analyst, added "those exercises rattled the Chinese."
India's 2007 defense budget was about $21.7 billion (&euro14.1 billion), up 7.8 percent from 2006. China said its 2008 military budget would jump 17.6 percent to some $59 billion (&euro38.3 billion), following a similar increase last year. The U.S. estimates China's actual defense spending may be much higher.
Like India, China is focusing heavily on its navy, building an increasingly sophisticated submarine fleet that could eventually be one of the world's largest.
While analysts believe China's military buildup is mostly focused on preventing U.S. intervention in any conflict with Taiwan, India is still likely to persist in efforts to catch up as China expands its influence in what is essentially India's backyard. Meanwhile, Sri Lankans -- who have looked warily for centuries at vast India to the north -- welcome the Chinese investment in their country.
"Our lives are going to change," said 62-year-old Jayasena Senanayake, who has seen business grow at his roadside food stall since construction began on the nearby port. "What China is doing for us is very good."
Adm. Kelso Honored In Congress
The Elk Valley Times, June 9, 2008
Lincoln County native and Fayetteville resident (Ret.) Adm. Frank Kelso, recently honored with the 2008 Distinguished Graduate Award given by the United States Naval Academy Alumni Association, has been honored by the U.S. House of Representatives.
U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, who represents Lincoln County, entered a statement congratulating Kelso into the official record of the U.S. House of Representatives last week.
" … Watching over the air and sea while providing exemplary service support for our land based services, the United States Navy has a service record that history has looked favorably upon from the Revolutionary War through the Battle of Midway to their present day services around the globe," Davis read into the record Tuesday.
"One alumni of this cherished brotherhood, Adm. Frank Kelso, II, a man who dedicated his life to service of his country, was recently bestowed with the 2008 Distinguished Graduate Award during the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association’s annual ceremonies in Annapolis, Md.
"With a Naval career as long as it is distinguished, Adm. Kelso, born in Lincoln County, Tennessee, steadily rose through the ranks following his graduation from the Naval Academy in 1956," Davis continued.
"Serving various tours on Balao, Skipjack, Permit and LaFayette class submarines and attending the Navy’s Submarine School, Adm. Kelso was promoted to Commanding Officer of the Naval Nuclear Power School, USS Finback and USS Bluefish.
"In subsequent tours, the Admiral served as Executive Assistant to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command, and the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. He was then assigned to re-establish and command Submarine Squadron Seven.
"In 1980, he was selected as Rear Admiral, where his Pentagon assignments included Director, Strategic Submarine Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, and Director, Office of Program Appraisal, Office of the Secretary of the Navy.
"By 1985, Adm. Kelso was commanding the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea and NATO Naval Striking Force and Support Forces Southern Europe. During this time, the Admiral led successful operations against Libya.
"Earning his fourth star, Kelso was promoted to Admiral in 1986, shortly before assuming the duties of Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. Adm. Kelso later became NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command.
"Adm. Kelso’s naval career reached its high point when he was named the 24th Chief of Naval Operations in 1990, making him the first Tennessean to hold that position. He served as CNO for nearly four years.
"Beyond serving in a high-ranking military position in the U.S. government and the numerous medals he has earned, Adm. Kelso has remained humble and grounded, saying his greatest accomplishments are his children and grandchildren. As a father of three and grandfather to five, I can say family is the driving force in life and is to be cherished, as described by the Admiral.
"We are proud of have Adm. and Mrs. Kelso as native residents of the Fourth District and wish them the best."
Sunday, 20th April 2008
Could Israel use submarines against Iran?
Dan Williams, Reuters
An Israeli naval submarine docks at Haifa port.
Anticipating a showdown with Iran, Israel decides secretly to deploy a submarine off its arch-foe's coast.
But how? The quickest route from Israel's Mediterranean coast is via the Suez Canal, which runs through Egypt and which the classified vessels shun. So the submarine is hidden in the belly of a commercial tanker, which delivers it to the Gulf.
Such is the plot of an Israeli thriller, Undersea Diplomacy. Does it hold water? Perhaps not. Then again, the author, Shlomo Erell, is no mere novelist. He's an ex-admiral with experience in Israel's most sensitive military planning.
"It's pure fiction, but it's informed fiction," he said simply, when asked if his book reflects how the Israeli fleet of Dolphin-class submarines could be used against Iran, whose leadership has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map', stoking international concern over Tehran's nuclear programme.
Israel has three Dolphins, with two more on order from Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, a German shipyard is custom-building them at a steep discount as part of Berlin's bid to shore up a Jewish state founded in the wake of the Nazi Holocaust.
The submarines are a subject of deepest secrecy, given speculation that they carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
Many analysts believe the Dolphins are Israel's 'second strike' weapons, referring to the Cold War theory that a country can deter foes from launching nuclear attacks by maintaining the ability to retaliate, even after its own territory has been laid waste. A nuclear 'platform' out at sea is the best guarantee.
Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, and independent experts say it is years away from any such capability. Some, in turn, think Israel's expanding submarine fleet may be part of preparations to foil the perceived future threat through force.
"There is nothing on the horizon to suggest Iran would have the capability to knock out Israel's nuclear delivery means," said Sam Gardiner, a retired US air force colonel who stages Middle East wargames for US government and private clients.
The Dolphins, he said, may be part of 'a conventional capability to deal with the number of targets Israel believes would need to be struck in a conventional preemptive attack'.
Israel sent jets to bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and has hinted it could do the same against Iranian facilities if US-led diplomatic pressure failed to rein in Tehran's plans.
But the Iraqi raid was on a single site, relatively close to Israel's borders. Targets in Iran might be too numerous and distant for Israel's air force, especially as intermediate Arab states or Turkey would likely refuse overflight rights.
Israel is assumed to have ballistic missiles, yet its small size may make surprise launches impossible: an unannounced missile test in January became news within minutes as the startled residents of nearby towns reported the roaring takeoff.
Submarines could bridge the gap, especially if positioned in Iranian waters. That possibility has given rise to speculation that Israel wants five Dolphins in order to allow for at least one to be at sea at all times while others are being serviced.
The question remains of how far they might travel. Israeli navy sources say the Dolphins do not use the Suez to avoid being inspected by Egyptian harbourmasters. That means that, to reach the Gulf, Israel would either have to resort to fantastical ruses like the one in Undersea Diplomacy, or send the submarines around Africa − a month-long trip at least.
Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, is sceptical.
"I don't buy the idea of a rotation. These submarines have not been purchased with a view to operating in the Gulf," he said. As Dolphins run on conventional rather than nuclear power so require regular refuelling and shore maintenance, he described them as better suited to close Mediterranean missions.
Israel also has access to the Red Sea through Eilat port. But navy sources said there was no plan to dock submarines there because the narrow Red Sea, which is shared with several Arab states, is vulnerable to blockades at the Straits of Tiran.
Restricted to the Mediterranean, analysts point out, the Israeli Dolphins could pose a 'second-strike' threat to Iran only if they carried nuclear cruise missiles capable of hitting targets as far as 1,500 km away.
Lee Willett of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, noted that Dolphins lacked the vertical tubes used by much bigger Western and Soviet-era submarines to launch ballistic missiles.
Cold War tests showed nuclear warheads are too heavy to be delivered long distances on cruise missiles, so Israel could hit Iran only with conventional warheads if they were fired from the Mediterranean, he said.
A nuclear attack on Iran by a Dolphin, Willett argued, would have to be from the Gulf, which in turn would give away an unsupported submarine's position and probably doom it to being destroyed by surviving Iranian forces.
"The whole point of a deterrent is that it's never used," Willett said. "In designing the Dolphins as a second-strike platform, I imagine the Israelis were thinking 'it's not ideal, but it's the best we've got'."
Israel does not discuss its nuclear capabilities, under an 'ambiguity' policy billed as warding off regional enemies while avoiding the kind of provocations that can trigger arms races.
Erell appeared to support such thinking. The message of his book − which made a modest splash in Israel, and is currently available only in Hebrew, was, "how to use a submarine without resorting to war". "It's about affecting statecraft," he said.
Next Block of Virginia-Class Subs To Have More In Common With SSGNs
By Geoff Fein, Defense Daily, April 28, 2008
The Navy's next multi-year Virginia-class submarine contract, expected to be signed by the end of the year, will not only mark the beginning of building two subs per year in fiscal year '11, it will also introduce changes to make the boats more common with the SSGN-class, while maintaining the teaming agreement between contractors, Navy official said.
Additionally, the Navy is already laying in the research and development plans for the follow on Block IV, Capt. Dave Johnson, Virginia-class program manager told Defense Daily in a recent interview.
The new eight ship contract, currently under negotiation, will continue the unique teaming arrangement between General Dynamics [GD] Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman [NOC] Shipbuilding, even though the Navy will move to building two ships a year under the contract, Johnson said.
"It was a very unique construct for anybody to build a ship, but we've now got it to where we have centers of excellence for building parts of the ship," he said. "Teaming is the way we put forth for this next block we are buying...the next eight ships. Teaming is integral to that."
Northrop Grumman builds the bows and sterns at Newport News, Va., The facility is on its sixth and seventh ones right now, Johnson said. GD's Groton, Conn.-based Electric Boat has built the engine rooms, hull cylinders and the combat control module.
The teaming arrangement was mandated by congress, Johnson noted. However, he was unsure whether the arrangement would remain in the future buys.
"For Block III, [we] don't know if there will be any language in this years authorization act that says it. To me it does not matter. Teaming is part of my acquisition strategy," he said. "It would cost too much to break apart from that and relearn at Electric Boat to build the bows [and for] Northrop Grumman Newport News to build the engine rooms. We've gotten it down to where this is the way we want to keep building our Virginias."
For the Block III buy, some changes were made to the design including changing the large tube and the sonar arrays, Johnson said.
At last month's annual Navy League Sea Air and Space expo, Johnson described how the Navy took out the sonar sphere which was an air backed water tight system with a truck that ran all the way back to the enclosure on the submarine.
"We removed that and replaced that with a water-backed array," he said. "We call it the Large Aperture Bow Array (LAB)."
The LAB Array, was developed for some time on congressional plus ups. Then at the right point, the Navy determined it was a technology that could really save them money and improve the submarine's capability. So a decision was made to go invest in it, Johnson added. "That got inducted into the Virginia cost reduction program."
Operators gave a thumbs up to the new system, so the Navy went ahead and put it into the design, he added.
"Once you...eliminated the sonar trunk, now you didn't need that center-line hole there," Johnson said.
That change enabled the Navy to neck down from 12 vertical launch tubes to two large diameter tubes, similar to what is on the SSGNs, he said.
"Going from 12 to two saves not only in the cost of the build, but it saves a lot in the cost to maintain," Johnson said. "We had a strong pull from the people who maintain these ships that [they'd] rather maintain two large diameter tubes instead of 12 little ones, which is what later flight 688s and all the Virginias, through hull 10, will have. So it was a smart change."
The change will enable Virginia-class subs beginning with hull 11 to carry the same payloads as the Ohio-class conversion SSGNs, Johnson said.
"We can use their payloads...the multiple all-up round canister (MAC). A MAC from a SSGN can come right out of that ship and go right into a Virginia," he said. "So all the work they are doing with the SSGN...all the payload work...that is now applicable to your front line SSNs. You are going to have 20 Virginia-class submarines out there with these large tubes in them instead of just the four SSGNs."
Additionally, some of the payloads the SSGN's will carry for Special Operations Forces will now also be available for use on Virginia-class boats, Johnson added.
SSN-784, a FY '09 ship, will be the first submarine to get the new tubes.
The Virginias will still have capability to shoot 12 tomahawk cruise missiles, he noted.
Looking ahead to potential modifications in the Block IV buy, Johnson said there could be plans to improve hull mounted sensors, for example.
"We are just now developing the plans, but the important thing is you need to be working in FY '10, '11 and '12 in research and development so that you are ready to induct that, and price it into the contract in FY '14," he said. "We are already thinking about Block IV. In fact some of the things we wanted to do in Block III, that were not quite mature enough, we decided to target that for Block IV. So we have already put in a request with our sponsor for research and development funds."
Those funds will be laid into the budget through the Program Objective Memorandum process to work on the Block IV research and development strategy, Johnson said.
Don't lose focus
By Al Konetzni, The Day, April 27, 2008
With these positive steps in mind, and as Congress begins to consider the Fiscal Year 2009 defense budget, we must not lose focus of the need to bolster our submarine fleet as expeditiously as possible. Here are important reasons why:
According to Navy data, in 2007 there were enough submarines to fulfill only 54 percent of total mission requirements. Although our submarine force met nearly all of the military’s “critical” missions, it could respond to just 11 percent of missions labeled “high priority” - the level of importance right below “critical.”
The submarine force has been able to meet fewer missions each year since data became available in 2004. That year, it was able to fulfill 66 percent of total requirements.
Unfortunately, it appears this downward trend will continue in the immediate years ahead. This is because scheduled submarine decommissionings outnumber new boats coming on line. As a result, the current submarine force will fall below the Navy's stated requirement.
Meanwhile, China and other countries - particularly in the western Pacific - continue to expand their submarine fleets. In its recent annual report to Congress on China's military capabilities, DOD stated that China has 57 attack submarines. Although the Chinese subs are technically inferior to our nuclear attack submarines, they are capable of firing cruise missiles at surface ships.
Russia has been aggressively selling relatively low cost (a little more than $200 million) Kilo diesel submarines to China and other potential U.S. adversaries. China received its 12th last year; Venezuela has purchased five through 2020 and is reported to be negotiating for more.
Modern diesel submarines are extremely quiet and hard to detect. And because there are so many of them in the Pacific - including Russian and North Korean subs - anti-submarine warfare is the highest priority for our Pacific Fleet. As Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead said recently, a submarine is the best anti-submarine weapon.
Looking on the bright side, Connecticut's Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding - our two nuclear submarine builders - have done a wonderful job controlling costs and producing new submarines on time. In fact, the next Virginia-class attack submarine, the USS New Hampshire, is currently eight months ahead of its delivery schedule. By contrast, other elements of the shipbuilding industry are struggling with spiraling costs and production delays.
All of these factors underscore the importance of building on the favorable 2005 BRAC outcome and last year's congressional funding success by bringing new attack submarines on line as quickly as possible.
This year there are competing shipbuilding needs and difficult fiscal constraints. Even among our defense leaders in Congress and others who support a more rapid expansion of submarine production, there are different approaches toward a common goal.
My own view is that we should finish the job started in 2007 and begin building two submarines a year as soon as possible. With our submarine program on track, attention can then be given to other important Navy shipbuilding concerns. I am confident that our congressional leaders will weigh all of these factors as they steer a course toward meeting our most pressing national and homeland security needs.
Al Konetzni is a retired Navy vice admiral, career nuclear submarine officer, and former commander, Pacific Fleet Submarine Force. Back to top
Set A Course That Meets Security Needs
By Al Konetzni, The Day, April 27, 2008
Almost three years ago I testified before the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission in strong opposition to the Department of Defense proposal to close the Naval Submarine Base in Groton.
While there were many reasons why the proposal made no sense - chiefly, military value and economic factors - my argument was based on national security concerns. Closing New London would have irreversibly impaired U.S. capability to support a robust submarine fleet in the 21st Century.
Thanks to forceful state of Connecticut-led opposition and a clear-eyed BRAC Commission, the closure proposal was soundly defeated. Last year saw another significant success, with Connecticut's congressional delegation leading the effort to double attack submarine production - from one to two submarines - earlier than 2012, as DOD had planned.
Don't lose focus
With these positive steps in mind, and as Congress begins to consider the Fiscal Year 2009 defense budget, we must not lose focus of the need to bolster our submarine fleet as expeditiously as possible. Here are important reasons why:
According to Navy data, in 2007 there were enough submarines to fulfill only 54 percent of total mission requirements. Although our submarine force met nearly all of the military's “critical” missions, it could respond to just 11 percent of missions labeled “high priority” - the level of importance right below “critical.”
The submarine force has been able to meet fewer missions each year since data became available in 2004. That year, it was able to fulfill 66 percent of total requirements. Unfortunately, it appears this downward trend will continue in the immediate years ahead. This is because scheduled submarine decommissionings outnumber new boats coming on line. As a result, the current submarine force will fall below the Navy's stated requirement.
Meanwhile, China and other countries - particularly in the western Pacific - continue to expand their submarine fleets. In its recent annual report to Congress on China's military capabilities, DOD stated that China has 57 attack submarines. Although the Chinese subs are technically inferior to our nuclear attack submarines, they are capable of firing cruise missiles at surface ships.
Russia has been aggressively selling relatively low cost (a little more than $200 million) Kilo diesel submarines to China and other potential U.S. adversaries. China received its 12th last year; Venezuela has purchased five through 2020 and is reported to be negotiating for more.
Modern diesel submarines are extremely quiet and hard to detect. And because there are so many of them in the Pacific - including Russian and North Korean subs-anti-submarine warfare is the highest priority for our Pacific Fleet. As Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead said recently, a submarine is the best anti-submarine weapon.
Looking on the brightside, Connecticut's Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding - our two nuclear submarine builders - have done a wonderful job controlling costs and producing new submarines on time. In fact, the next Virginia-class attack submarine, the USS New Hampshire, is currently eight months ahead of its delivery schedule. By contrast, other elements of the shipbuilding industry are struggling with spiraling costs and production delays.
All of these factors underscore the importance of building on the favorable 2005 BRAC outcome and last year's congressional funding success by bringing new attack submarines on line as quickly as possible.
This year there are competing shipbuilding needs and difficult fiscal constraints. Even among our defense leaders in Congress and others who support a more rapid expansion of submarine production, there are different approaches toward a common goal.
My own view is that we should finish the job started in 2007 and begin building two submarines a year as soon as possible. With our submarine program on track, attention can then be given to other important Navy shipbuilding concerns. I am confident that our congressional leaders will weigh all of these factors as they steer a course toward meeting our most pressing national and homeland security needs.
India Test-Launches Submarine Missile
By Wade Boese, Arms Control Today, USA, April 2, 2008
India took a recent step toward its longtime goal of deploying nuclear weapons at sea by test-firing a missile from beneath the ocean’s surface. The submarine that this missile type is supposed to arm is scheduled to be put to sea for the first time next year.
Official details about the Feb. 26 missile test are scant, and the Indian government did not respond to Arms Control Today inquiries requesting information. India’s media, however, reported on the event at length, albeit with some conflicting data.
In addition, the Pakistani government confirmed March 5 that it had been “duly informed” of the test in advance by India. The two rivals agreed in October 2005 to give each other prior notice of their surface-to-surface ballistic missile flight tests. (See ACT, November 2005.) That notification suggests that the missile tested was a ballistic missile and not a cruise missile as some reports stated. A cruise missile is powered through its entire flight and can maneuver, unlike a ballistic missile, which is only powered during the early stages of its flight and then follows a trajectory dictated by gravity to its target.
The missile India fired from a submersible platform about 50 meters deep in the Bay of Bengal waters was most frequently cited as the K-15. Some reports also called it the Sagarika, which is a missile that two years ago India’s defense minister told lawmakers did not exist.
All reports generally agree that the tested missile can fly approximately 700 kilometers and carry a nuclear warhead. Most reports also declare the experiment was the missile’s inaugural undersea launch. Agence France-Presse Feb. 18 quoted S. Prahlada, a top official of India’s Defence Research and Development Organization, as telling reporters, “[W]e have completed all preparations for the first-ever launch of the missile.” But some reports indicated the missile may have been previously tested secretly, perhaps several times.
Rajesh Basrur, author of the book Minimum Deterrence and India’s Nuclear Security, told Arms Control Today in a March 20 e-mail that the previously reported tests were “component tests” and “the recent one was the first ‘undersea’ trial.” He added, “[T]hat would partly explain the publicity given to it.”
Another expert on Indian nuclear weapons, Bharat Karnad, also e-mailed Arms Control Today March 23 that the February launch was a “full-system test.” Formerly a member of India’s National Security Advisory Board and a participant in crafting India’s 1999 draft nuclear doctrine (see ACT, July/August 1999), Karnad contended the launch was a success but “some kinks appeared thereafter in [the missile’s] flight which need ironing out.”
India has at least a few years to try and perfect the missile. Sureesh Mehta, India’s top naval official, disclosed last December that the first Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) would be ready for sea trials in 2009. If the trials go well, it could be inducted into service two or three years later.
Largely kept secret, the ATV would be India’s first indigenous nuclear-powered submarine and India’s first submarine able to fire nuclear-armed missiles. India reportedly is building three of the boats. It began developing nuclear power submarines in the 1970s, but their development was delayed by troubles in building a power reactor small enough to fit onboard.
India’s interest in nuclear-armed submarines has been no secret. The 1999 draft nuclear doctrine endorsed a sea-based nuclear delivery capability. In its May 2006 “vision document,” the Indian navy stated its intent to conduct operations from “conventional war fighting to nuclear deterrence.”
Basrur and Karnad stated that India wants nuclear-armed submarines due to the notion that they are more “invulnerable” than air or ground systems. The thinking is that such arms more persuasively dissuade an adversary that, in a first strike, it will be able to minimize or eliminate the possibility of retaliation. India claims it particularly needs survivable forces because it has forsworn the first use of nuclear weapons. Basrur disagrees, contending that submarine-delivered nuclear weapons invite instability by increasing “risk precisely because they are hard to detect…thereby reducing reaction time and encouraging early warning and launch.”
Admiral Muhammad Afzal Tahir, chief of Pakistan’s naval staff, reacted to the Indian test by reportedly calling it a “very serious issue” and warning it could provoke “a new arms race in the region.” In a lengthy interview several months ago with Asian Defence Journal, however, Tahir discounted the possibility that Pakistan would pursue a sea-based nuclear force, stating, “[P]resently, we do not have [the] technological capability and we cannot afford it.”
Other countries with nuclear-armed submarine missiles are China, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, which recently commissioned its latest nuclear-armed submarine (see page 35). Israel, which neither confirms nor denies its widely believed nuclear arms possession, also allegedly has equipped submarine-based cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. (See ACT, November 2003.)
Flag Officer Announcements
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced today that the President has made the following nominations:
Navy Capt. Douglass T. Biesel has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Biesel is currently serving as director, platforms, manpower policy and budget, N871, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Barry L. Bruner has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Bruner is currently serving as chief of staff, Carrier Strike Group Five, Yokosuka, Japan.
Navy Capt. Jerry K. Burroughs has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Burroughs is currently serving as major program manager for special operating forces and undersea mobility, Program Executive Office for Submarines, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. James D. Cloyd has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Cloyd is currently serving as special assistant to the Commander, Naval Air Forces, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, Va.
Navy Capt. Cynthia A. Covell has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Covell is currently serving as the executive assistant to the assistant secretary of the Navy (manpower and reserve affairs), Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Thomas A. Cropper has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Cropper is currently serving as deputy director for operations and plans, N31B, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Dennis E. Fitzpatrick has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Fitzpatrick is currently serving as head, Fleet Warfare Requirements and Program Planning Division, N80, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Va.
Navy Capt. Michael T. Franken has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Franken is currently serving as chief of staff, Third Fleet, San Diego, Calif.
Navy Capt. Donald E. Gaddis has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Gaddis is currently serving as the program manager for presidential helicopters, Program Executive Office for Aviation, Patuxent River, Md.
Navy Capt. Bradley R. Gehrke has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Gehrke is currently serving as chief of staff, Submarine Group Seven, Yokosuka, Japan.
Navy Capt. Robert P. Girrier has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Girrier is currently serving as executive assistant to the commander, Allied Joint Forces Command, Naples, Italy.
Navy Capt. Paul A. Grosklags has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Grosklags is currently serving as major program manager for H-60 programs, Program Executive Office for Aviation, Patuxent River, Md.
Navy Capt. Sinclair M. Harris has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Harris is currently serving as assistant deputy director for international affairs and military affairs, J5, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Norman R. Hayes has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Hayes is currently serving as the commander for Center of Naval Intelligence, Virginia Beach, Va.
Navy Capt. David C. Johnson has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Johnson is currently serving as the major program manager for Virginia (SSN 774) class submarine programs, Program Executive Office for Submarines, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Margaret D. Klein has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Klein is currently serving as commandant, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.
Navy Capt. Terry B. Kraft has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Kraft is currently serving as commanding officer, the USS Ronald Reagan, San Diego, Calif.
Navy Capt. William E. Leigher has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Leigher is currently serving as commanding officer, Fleet Information Warfare Center, Norfolk, Va.
Navy Capt. Patrick J. Lorge has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Lorge is currently serving as chief of staff, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, Bahrain.
Navy Capt. Brian L. Losey has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Losey is currently serving as director, combating terrorism, National Security Council, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Michael E. McLaughlin has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). McLaughlin is currently serving as chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command Special Activities Atlantic, Norfolk, Va.
Navy Capt. Thomas J. Moore has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Moore is currently serving as the major program manager for aircraft carriers, Program Executive Office for Carriers, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. William F. Moran has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Moran is currently serving as executive assistant to the chief of naval operations, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Samuel Perez Jr., has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Perez is currently serving as assistant deputy director for regional operations, J3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. James J. Shannon has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower Half). Shannon is currently serving as executive assistant to the assistant secretary of the Navy (research, development and acquisition), Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Clifford S. Sharpe has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Sharpe is currently serving as division director for the surface warfare officer career management division, PERS 41, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, Tenn.
Navy Capt. Troy M. Shoemaker has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Shoemaker is currently serving as executive assistant to the commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Navy Capt. Dixon R. Smith has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Smith is currently serving as commanding officer, Naval Base San Diego, San Diego, Calif.
Navy Capt. Robert L. Thomas Jr., has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Thomas is currently serving as director, training and readiness, N3/N5, Naval Special Warfare Command, San Diego, Calif.
Navy Capt. Douglas J. Venlet has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Venlet is currently serving as deputy director, Maritime Security Cooperation Division, N52B, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.
Navy Capt. Maude E. Young has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Young is currently serving as the major program manager for National Reconnaissance Office and National Remote Sensing System, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Space Field Activity, Chantilly, Va.
strategypage.com, April 8, 2008
After a decade of decline, the torpedo business is being revived. That's impressive, considering that torpedoes hardly ever get used. Submarines have only fired torpedoes in combat twice since World War II. Once in 1971, when a Pakistani (a French thousand ton Daphne class diesel-electric) sub fired three, and sank one Indian frigate and damaged another. The third torpedo failed to detonate. The second occurrence was in 1982, when a British Churchill class (4,900 ton) nuclear sub sank an Argentinean cruiser using three World War II type torpedoes. No one has yet used a modern, wire-guided torpedo to sink anything. For torpedoes, that's normal. When the first modern torpedoes appeared in the late 19th century, it was 25 years before one was used in combat. No lightweight torpedoes (for aircraft) have been used since World War II, but thousands have been built, maintained for a decade or more, then scrapped as improved models became available.
During the past 63 years, far more torpedoes have been used for training and testing. But the appearance of new generations of torpedoes, and more subs, kept the torpedo manufacturers busy. Since the end of the Cold War, and the sharp drop in submarine construction, and increase in submarine retirement <http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20080408.aspx> , the torpedo market has not done well. The main problem is that, even in normal times, most torpedoes get scraped, after two decades or so of sitting in a submarine, or a storage area of an aircraft carrier or naval air base (for lightweight torpedoes carried by helicopters and aircraft).
Torpedoes are basically robotic miniature submarines. These were the original guided missiles, although for the first sixty years, the guidance system strove to keep the torpedo moving in a straight line. Running on batteries, modern ones can use a combination of their own sensors, or sensors aboard the sub that fired them, to find a target. In the latter case, the torpedo communicates with the sub via a thin wire. These "wire guided torpedoes" are very common, because they allow the sub to control the torpedo, if need be.
By the end of World War II, homing (usually on the noise of a ships propeller, but also the wakes of ships) torpedoes entered use. These features became standard after World War II, although high-end torpedoes now have their own sonars.
Russian torpedo makers have had a particularly rough time of it, as the Russian sub fleet suffered the most cuts when the Cold War ended. Then, and now, the Russians had developed two innovative torpedoes. One was the oversize 650mm (25.5-inch) torpedoes, which was designed to take down a U.S. aircraft carrier with one shot. Only a few Russian submarine classes can handle these oversize torpedoes. This is not a new idea, using something larger than the most common diameter (533mm, or 21 inch). During World War II, Japan frequently used, for its surface ships, a 610mm (24 inch) "Long Lance" model. This torpedo was designed to take down enemy ships, including battleships, with one hit.
The other Russian development was the rocket propelled torpedo. This, however, suffers from steering difficulties (thus it is less effective against fast moving targets) and short range (12-15 kilometers). But the high speed (360 kilometers an hour) means that these Shkval torpedoes will reach their target in about two minutes.
Russia has a wide variety of more common 533mm torpedoes, and has been selling some of them to China since (and before) 1991. But China has been developing its own torpedo manufacturing capabilities, aided by vigorous espionage activities, which have obtained much torpedo technology from the West, as well as Russia.
Most torpedoes are 533mm in diameter, about twenty feet long and weigh about 1.5 tons. These have two modes of operation. High speed mode will propel them at 80-120 kilometers an hour, but for short distances (20-40 kilometers). At slower speeds (50-90 kilometers), the range is more than doubled (70-100 kilometers).
Lightweight torpedoes are smaller (324mm in diameter, ten feet long) and lighter (a third of a ton). They tend of have hundred pound warheads, versus 500 pound or larger for 533mm torpedoes.
More powerful batteries and electronics have been the main areas of improvement over the last decade. That, and the evolution of torpedoes into UUVs (unmanned underwater vehicles.) Just as UAVs have transformed air operations, UUVs are providing users with more control of the underwater space. After more than a century of development, torpedoes proved to be the perfect jumping off platform for developing robotic underwater vehicles. Some of these will operate from subs, launched, and even recovered, via torpedo tubes. But most UUVs are used by surface ships, aircraft and land based operations.
Dole Wants More Subs, but Why?
By David Axe, Wired.com, April 7, 2008
Elizabeth Dole, senator from North Carolina, wants us to build more submarines. "Today's Navy includes 280 vessels, down from President Reagan's Navy of 568 ships. Additionally, we are building only one Virginia-class attack submarine per year, compared to China's annual production of four to five advanced subs," she wrote in a recent Washington Times editorial.
Now, we should point out that those Chinese boats are, for the most part, quality-control disasters that are a bigger threat to their crews than to the U.S. Navy. Still, Dole's got a point, according to naval blogger "Galrahn."
But what she fails to do is explain why we need to build more than one nuclear attack submarine per year, Galrahn contends. (The one-a-year rate gives you a long-term fleet of around 30, by the way, since nuke boats last around 30 years.) "The reason the Navy needs more submarines to execute the maritime strategy is so the Navy can shift the war-fighting burden from its surface fleet to the underwater service, and in that way enable the surface combatant fleet to shape its force to better execute the maritime strategy," he writes.
Translated into lay terms: more subs would free up our battleships, cruisers, destroyers and corvettes to fight terrorists, pirates and insurgents-at-sea and to show the flag at foreign ports: you know, the day-to-day bread and butter of Navy operations that subs can't do.
Then why subs at all? Because, despite the best efforts of naval technologists over the past 100 years, submarines are still by far the most powerful seaborne weapons ever developed. Nothing's better for winning a full-scale sea war. Need proof? See here and here. Forget $5-billion DDG-1000 battleships. Submarines rule the waves.
For once, there's good news. Nearly every other aspect of Pentagon weapons-buying might be spinning out of control and piling on cost, but submarines construction is actually going remarkably well. Our brand-new, super-powerful Virginia-class attack boats are on-time, on-budget (around $2 billion per copy) and getting cheaper. If all goes according to plan, Dole will get her wish, and Virginia production will jump to two-per-year around 2012. In the meantime, the Navy's got the "Tango Bravo" science project underway to develop smaller, smarter, cheaper and more lethal submarines for the next generation.
Coast Guard Hunts Drug-Running Semi-Subs
By Jeanne Meserve and Mike M. Ahlers, CNN.com, March 20, 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sophisticated submarine-like boats are the latest tool drug runners are using to bring cocaine north from Colombia, U.S. officials say.
Although the vessels were once viewed as a quirky sideshow in the drug war, they are becoming faster, more seaworthy, and capable of carrying bigger loads of drugs than earlier models, according to those charged with catching them.
"They tend to be one of a kind," U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen said. "They cost up to a million dollars to produce. Sometimes they are put together in pieces and then reassembled in other locations. They're very difficult to locate."
The boats are built in the Colombian jungle. They sail largely beneath the surface of the water but cannot submerge completely like a true submarine.
But they are the latest escalation of a tactical race between smugglers and the U.S. Coast Guard.
In the past three months the Coast Guard has learned of more semi-submersible vessels smuggling drugs than it did in the previous six years, when there were 23 cases, officials said. Watch the Coast Guard chase down a semi-sub »
U.S. Coast Guard intelligence officers predict 85 cases this year and 120 next year.
In some instances, the semi-subs are towed behind other vessels and are scuttled if they are detected, Allen said. Authorities are investigating reports that some semi-subs are unmanned and are operated remotely, he said.
Diplomatic agreements give the U.S. Coast Guard drug-interdiction jurisdiction in partner countries' waters.
Encounters have become so frequent – and the dangers of boarding the vessels so pronounced – that the Coast Guard is pushing for legislation that would make the use of "unflagged" semi-submersibles in international waters a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison, even if authorities can't recover drug evidence because the smugglers scuttle the transports.
"There's really no legitimate use for a vessel like this," Allen said.
An unflagged vessel is one not registered with a government.
Allen believes the semi-subs are a response to the Coast Guard's tactic of using snipers in helicopters to shoot out engines on smugglers' speedboats. The submersibles' engines are beneath water level.
"We're seeing an evolution in the construction," he said. "Early on we saw fiberglass and now we're seeing steel."
Early semi-subs were capable of carrying 4 or 5 metric tons of cargo; newer ones can carry 12 metric tons, Allen said. Their speed has increased to 12 knots, which is "a pretty good speed on the ocean."
Despite the incr