Since 02-02-06
SS News Daily
for 02FEB06
Since 02-02-06
The Daily Internal Information Source for the U.S. Navy Submarine Force
For more news and information about the submarine force, visit our website at http://www.sublant.navy.mil/.
http://www.sublant.navy.mil/pdf/USE_overview.pdf
http://www.sublant.navy.mil/HTML/ssgn.htm
CLICK HERE http://www.sublant.navy.mil/html/photo.html to view photos from around the submarine force.
CLICK HERE to subscribe to Undersea Enterprise News Daily, your daily source of submarine news and information.
SIGN OF THE TIMES: Only the beginning?
SSBNs may see missions further reconfigured
By JO1Jennifer Spinner, Submarine Group 10 public affairs
Simmons calls for more subs
By Ray Hackett, Norwich Bulletin, 2 Feb 06
Simmons: Sub-building Capacity Eroding
Industry Told Slow Construction Pace Is Putting The Nation's Security At Risk
By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 2 Feb 06
Repair Design Pact Goes To Northrop
By John M. Moran, Hartfort Courant, 2 Feb 06
DD(X) R&D Investment $7.5 Billion
Designing Small Destroyer Would Cost Years, Billions Of Loss
By Dave Ahearn, DEFENSE TODAY 1 FEB 06
Pentagon Review Calls for
No Big Changes
By David S.
Cloud, New York Times, 2 Feb 06
Tula submarine is back from overhaul
The K-114 Tula submarine of the Delta IV/Project 667BDRM class returned to the Northern Fleet after an overhaul at the Zvezdochka plant and sea trials.
Bellona, 1 Feb 06
(REUTERS 02FEB06)
Iran Attack Difficult, But U.S. Maintains Military Options
By Scott
Nance, DEFENSE TODAY 2 FEB 06
SIGN OF THE TIMES: Only the beginning?
SSBNs may see missions further reconfigured
By JO1Jennifer Spinner, Submarine Group 10 public affairs
More changes to the Navy's SSBN fleet may be on the horizon, as the Defense Department prepares a nearly $100 million reprogramming request for Congressional approval that could jump-start a Pentagon effort to acquire a ''prompt global strike'' capability for ballistic submarines.
The proposal calls for refitting existing Trident D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. If the request is approved, the Navy could begin flight tests this year of a conventionally armed ballistic missile to be fielded on nuclear weapons carrying submarines.
According to Group 10 Chief of Staff Capt. Timothy Lindstrom, the arrival of conventional warheads keeps the SSBN fleet relevant to national defense.
''The addition of conventional strike capabilities to our SSBN force is a natural progression of the efforts we've made in the last few years toward enhancing the flexibility and adaptability of these ships to account for the end of the Cold War and the onset of the Global War on Terror,'' said Lindstrom.
The two different payloads would ride aboard nearly identical D-5 missiles and be launched from the same Navy submarines. These long-range missiles have only been capable of carrying only nuclear weapons.
The addition of conventional, non-nuclear warheads would give the missiles increased flexibility and maneuverability, allowing for attacks on critical targets once reserved solely for the U.S. nuclear warfighting plan. The weapons could even serve as ''bunker busters'' in penetrating hardened underground targets, according to Defense Department officials, and prove valuable in quick attacks against terrorist leaders when short-lived intelligence about their location becomes available.
Lindstrom said that though the addition of new technology will call for modification of current safety and operational procedures, he is confident the men of the submarine fleet, and in particular, Kings Bay, will rise to the challenge.
''It's an exciting time for us,'' Lindstrom continued. ''With the arrival of the SSGN USS Florida this year in Kings Bay and the development of this CTM concept, we are becoming a conventional strike center of excellence in addition to our traditional mission of nuclear strike supremacy.''
The Defense Department is expected to deliver this request to Congress in the spring, according to sources.
Simmons calls for more subs
By Ray Hackett, Norwich Bulletin, 2 Feb 06
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, took the congressional fight over new submarine construction to the one group that understands the role of submarines -- the Naval Submarine League.
Simmons, whose district includes the Groton submarine base and sub builder Electric Boat, was the keynote speaker Wednesday at the league's luncheon in Alexandria, Va. In his speech to the crowd, which included top Navy officials and leaders from the submarine industry, Simmons talked about the dire consequences of layoffs at Electric Boat.
"It goes beyond a simple pink slip or a simple layoff notice at an industrial facility," he said. "They are laying off the design force. They are laying off workers critically important to the future of our subsurface capabilities and our subsurface talents.
"What does it take to build a submarine?" he asked. "Designers, first. But the design work is being significantly reduced, and once we dissipate these talented Americans, it is very difficult to call them back."
The Navy's long-range construction plan is to maintain the one-sub-per-year schedule until 2012, mostly because of cost. The Virginia class of subs now under construction costs $2.4 billion each. The Navy would like that cost reduced to $2 billion each before increasing production to two a year. EB officials have maintained they can lower the cost, if the construction rate were increased to two a year.
At the current rate of one a year, the size of the submarine fleet will diminish, falling from the current 54 boats to the mid-40s.
Noting the increased production of submarines by the Chinese and Russians, Simmons said this is not the time to be cutting back on construction. He renewed the Connecticut congressional delegation's call for an increase in new submarine construction beginning in 2009.
"Two a year is going to allow us to sustain these critical industrial workers," he said.
"Two a year is cost effective, and cost effective is important," he said. "But what is absolutely important is maintaining our Navy volume."
Simmons: Sub-building Capacity Eroding
Industry Told Slow Construction Pace Is Putting The Nation's Security At Risk
By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 2 Feb 06
U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, told a gathering of senior Navy and submarine industry leaders Wednesday that the United States needs to begin building two Virginia-class submarines a year to prevent a further erosion of the submarine industrial base and national security.
“We've got serious national security problems below the surface,” Simmons told a meeting of the Naval Submarine League in Alexandria, Va. “And it goes far beyond the parochial concerns of one congressman in one district in one state in New England. It goes to every American.”
Virginia-based Naval Submarine League is a professional organization devoted to promoting the importance of submarines.
Simmons repeated his call for Congress to fund seed money in fiscal year 2007 that would enable the nation's two submarine builders, Electric Boat in Groton and Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia, to ramp up production to two submarines a year in fiscal year 2009. Currently, the Navy plans to move to two Virginia-class subs in fiscal year 2012.
EB and Newport News are now partnering to produce the equivalent of one Virginia-class attack submarine annually. Each sub carries a price tag of about $2.4 billion.
“Two a year is going to allow us to sustain these critical industrial workers. Two a year is going to allow us to sustain a 54-boat fleet,” Simmons said.
In addition, the congressman said the nation needs to begin designing the next generation submarine that would follow the Virginia class, to maintain naval undersea superiority and to stanch the loss of sub designers who have no future sub design work.
On Monday, EB announced the layoffs of 222 workers, including 169 members of the Marine Draftsmen's Association, the union that represents administrative, technical and design workers. The company has said it would reduce its overall work force of about 11,500 this year by between 1,900 and 2,400 workers because of a lack of design work and maintenance and repair work on existing subs. The Navy has said it plans to award future maintenance-related work to its four government-owned yards.
Navy officials earlier this week awarded a nearly $35 million contract to the Newport News shipyard for initial planning and design-related work on the USS Toledo as part of the sub's upcoming “depot maintenance period,” which involves extensive maintenance and repair work. Union officials have said the work would have required hundreds of EB workers.
“EB has just issued layoff notices to almost 200 designers and engineers,” Simmons told the submarine league. “I can't tell you how much that concerns me. It goes beyond a simple pink slip or a simple layoff notice at an industrial facility. They are laying off workers critically important to the future of our sub-surface capabilities and our sub-surface talents.”
Simmons said that as those designer ranks dwindle, it becomes difficult to build the ranks back up.
“Why is it that for the first time in half a century we don't have a new design order coming down the pike?” Simmons asked.
The MDA, which currently has about 1,700 designers among its ranks, is substantially smaller today than it was 15 years ago, Simmons told the submarine league.
He warned those attending the league's annual meeting that both the Chinese and Russians are ramping up production, including both diesel and nuclear-powered attack subs.
“They're designing new boats right now,” Simmons said. “They are launching them right now, for themselves and China and anyone else who will pay.”
Repair Design Pact Goes To Northrop
By John M. Moran, Hartfort Courant, 2 Feb 06
Electric Boat, already reeling from a shortage of submarine work, has lost out
on a multimillion-dollar contract to plan upcoming maintenance on the USS Toledo
- a decision expected to cost even more jobs.
The Navy said it has awarded the $34.7 million contract for planning and
designing repairs on the Toledo to Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Newport News
shipyard.
Because the full maintenance contract usually goes to the company that wins the
planning and design work, it's likely that Newport News will ultimately receive
contracts worth $175 million for maintenance work on the Toledo.
Word of the Navy contract award was another blow to Groton-based EB, which has
already announced plans to lay off 1,900 to 2,400 workers this year because of a
declining workload.
EB had high hopes of winning the Toledo maintenance work. A company spokesman
said loss of the contract means that layoffs at EB are now likely to fall in the
higher end of its previously announced range.
Calling the Navy decision "disappointing news for the company and its
employees," EB spokesman Robert Hamilton said the outcome "will accelerate our
exit from the depot-level maintenance business."
Kenneth DelaCruz, president of the Metal Trades Council, a union, said loss of
the USS Toledo work was "adding insult to injury."
"I was shocked, to be honest with you," DelaCruz said. "We fully anticipated
that we were going to do the work here. The company had kept it in the manning
plan."
Earlier this week, EB said it would lay off 222 employees on March 31 as the
first step in its workforce reduction efforts. No timetable has been set for
future announcements.
EB is still in the running for another submarine maintenance contract, this one
on the USS Miami. A Navy decision on that project is expected in the coming
weeks.
Separately, the Navy has also announced that it is awarding a $9 million
contract to EB for maintenance work at the Navy submarine base in nearby New
London. That contract will temporarily sustain the work of 450 EB employees who
perform repair and maintenance duties at the sub base.
The overall job cuts at EB have been attributed to a Navy decision to move
submarine maintenance work to its own shipyards. Contracts for maintenance on
the USS Toledo and USS Miami are expected to be the last two awarded before the
Navy takes over the work entirely.
EB is also lacking contracts to design future submarines. Under a partnership
arrangement with Newport News, the company is splitting work on a new
Virginia-class submarine each year, essentially giving it half a submarine to
build annually.
Members of the Connecticut congressional delegation have said they intend to
push the Navy to increase production of Virginia-class submarines to two a year,
a move that would boost work and employment at EB.
DD(X) R&D Investment $7.5 Billion
Designing Small Destroyer Would Cost Years, Billions Of Loss
By Dave Ahearn, DEFENSE TODAY 1 FEB 06
Designing a new, much smaller destroyer would cost the Navy at least part of its $7.5 billion investment in developing the cutting-edge DD(X) destroyer that now is poised for construction, and also would mean five years or so in designing and developing what would be a far lesser warship, a key admiral said in an interview.
Rear Adm. Mark Buzby, deputy director for surface warfare, said the resultant ship wouldn't provide the Navy with many capabilities it requires to counter the current and clearly foreseeable threat environment.
Further, the salient point here is that the Navy may not have the luxury of years to design another destroyer, he said.
While he declined to respond to a question specifically citing the threat of China and its 700-plus radar-guided missiles aimed at waters near Taiwan, an island the Navy might have to defend from a Chinese invasion, he did say the DD(X) would be vital to meet the sort of threat posed by a near-peer competitor nation.
China is amidst an enormous military buildup, purchasing or producing advanced destroyers, aircraft and super-quiet submarines. The Chinese navy in the next decade is on track to become larger than the U.S. Navy.
The DD(X) destroyer would be a stealthy ship, showing up on enemy radar screens as a small commercial vessel.
Buzby's comments come as some military analysts have suggested the Navy could obtain much of the advances of the DD(X) destroyer, a 14,500- ton ship, in a vessel costing far less that would displace perhaps 9,500 tons, or a frigate size of roughly 7,000 tons or so.
But Buzby said that the DD(X) would be a 14,500-ton ship because that is what is required to provide the capabilities the Navy needs to counter clearly visible threats in the near future.
The DD(X) already has been down-sized, Buzby noted. When the Navy began conceptualizing the ship, estimates of its size ranged from 9,000 to 17,000 or 18,000 tons.
Then the Navy began jettisoning some lessneeded capabilities, establishing those most critical, and worked down from 18,000 tons to a 14,500 ton weapons platform, he said To further diminish the ship by any substantial amount would mean losing capabilities required to meet known threats, he said.
For example, a downsized ship might still have two guns (the Advanced Gun System), capable of destroying targets as much as 100 miles distant, but it might lack sufficient numbers of Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells for missiles. The DD(X) would use VLS to provide a shield against airborne threats, both for itself and for other Navy ships.
Further, a downsized ship might not have the stealthy sloping hull and reverse-raked bow that afford the DD(X) the ability to elude enemy radar detection, he said.
As well, a smaller vessel might not have the stability in high seas of a 14,500 ton ship, a critical point in a craft intended to conduct helicopter and unmanned aerial vehicle operations from its aft deck, he noted.
The next destroyer "needs the open ocean seakeeping capabilities" of the DD(X), he said.
In moving to take out any single segment of the DD(X) during a downsizing move, that could affect the overall capability of the ship to counter the threats it must address, Buzby said.
Design and development of this futuristic ship "was not just a capricious" exercise in blithely assembling unrelated systems. Rather, "this was a fairly well thought-out" system of interrelated components working together as a unified entity, he said.
Losing Time, Money
Designing a new ship would leave a five- tosix- year gap in providing futuristic capabilities, "at a
minimum," Buzby said.
Deciding at this late hour to deep-six the DD(X) design and start from scratch to plan a smaller vessel would create "a five- to six-year gap to get to where we are today" with the DD(X), ready for construction to begin, he said.
One proposal for designing a smaller destroyer would, to be sure, call for building four, or perhaps five, DD(X)s before shifting to a smaller destroyer, which by that time might be more or less fully designed.
But Buzby said the DD(X) is poised for a construction run now, having passed a critical design review in the fall, and this spring being set for a final design review and construction contract. Further, he said, roughly $7.5 billion has been spent thus far on research and development of the new ship, and part of that investment would be lost if the DD(X) is abandoned or cut short in favor of a smaller ship.
To be sure, he added, some of the cutting-edge technology in the DD(X) program could be scavenged and incorporated in the sister ship, the future CG(X) cruiser, and in the next-generation CVN 21 aircraft carrier, such as sensors and radar suites.
The Navy, which at one time proposed building perhaps 24 to 30 DD(X)s, more recently suggested building just eight of the ships. Some lawmakers have suggested building just five, or perhaps one or two as technology demonstrators, or building no DD(X)s, moving instead to design a smaller and cheaper ship.
But the question is what would take the place of the DD(X) if another ship is to be designed and developed, and when that vessel might be available. While Buzby declined to address the threat of China specifically, "there are capability gaps that exist today" in addressing threats posed by "a major peer competitor," he said.
In assessing the DD(X) program, "this ship helps fill that void," he said. While the current Arleigh Burke DDG 51 Class of destroyers aren't stealthy, China possesses hundreds of radar-guided missiles. As well, North Korea and Iran also possess sophisticated missiles technology.
It is critical for the Navy to deploy ships able to counter nations with advanced military capabilities, he indicated.
Otherwise, lacking platforms with stealth and other advances, the Navy might be confronted with unpalatable choices such as foregoing a mission, altering the concept of operations as to how to fight a war, or being forced to take other difficult steps. But should the Navy possess DD(X)s in sufficient number, then "a ship with this capability would be useful," he said.
Two Shipyards
Buzby also endorsed the rationale that Congress decided upon in mandating that DD(X)s will be built in two shipyards, widely separated geographically. General Dynamics Corp. unit Bath Iron Works shipyards is in Maine, while Northrop Grumman Corp. unit Ship Systems has yards in Louisiana and Mississippi.
When Hurricane Katrina caused substantial damage to Ship Systems yards, the storm caused no major damage to Bath Iron Works. "Certainly strategically there is sense in not having one shipyard" be the only one capable of building surface combatants, he said.
The current plan to build DD(X)s at a pace of merely one per year might entail some extra costs, perhaps $300 million per ship, to split the work between General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, it has been estimated. Building all DD(X)s at a single yard might yield efficiencies and volume savings, according to this view.
And that argument can be made, Buzby said, noting that one might choose to have all the work performed by just one contractor to obtain more efficiencies and cost reductions.
But with the threat of storms, or terrorist attacks, or some debilitating sicknesses that might strike across a given region, "that's probably strategically wise not to limit yourself" to one yard, he said.
And the savings of using just one yard might be overstated. For example, Bath Iron and Ship Systems, while separated by more than 1,000 miles, easily can exchange computerized blueprints for the DD(X), so that in essence it is more akin to a ship being designed in a single yard.
The key, he concluded, is to move the DD(X) program forward in a manner that spends tax dollars wisely and well, while providing capabilities required to counter enemy threats and meeting needs of warfighters, and at the same time meeting mandates of Congress.
The Navy must "come up with the most costeffective and congressionally approved" means of providing all that, a plan that yields best value for the military and taxpayers, he said.
Pentagon Review Calls for No Big Changes
By David S. Cloud, New York Times, 2 Feb 06
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - A comprehensive military strategy review once billed as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's architecture for revamping the armed forces eliminates no major weapon systems and calls for only incremental change in other priorities, according to Pentagon officials, outside advisers and independent analysts.
The plan, which is due to be made public next week along with the Bush administration's fiscal 2007 budget, does contain some significant shifts like calls for training thousands of additional special operations troops and for building futuristic weapons to defeat terror groups and potential new adversaries like China.
But initial hopes by Defense Department civilians to use the yearlong reassessment, which takes place every four years, to force far-reaching changes in spending priorities have not materialized, in part, analysts said, because of resistance by the military services.
With much of his time taken up with managing the war in Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld was far less involved in this year's review than he was in 2001, when the last review was conducted, officials and analysts said. He delegated much of the decision-making to aides and to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England.
In addition, some of the Pentagon civilian leadership's more innovative ideas were rejected because they were judged too expensive or ineffective by the many teams of the officers and analysts who have been combing through drafts of the blueprint for the past year.
Even Mr. Rumsfeld played down expectations on Wednesday that the review would produce monumental shifts, calling the document "a way point along a continuum of change that began some years past and will continue some years hence."
From the outset, the administration itself raised high expectations for the review, and the theme of "transformation" came to be something of a mantra in the Pentagon's corridors. Some said the fruits of the review might be as lasting a legacy of the Rumsfeld years as the outcomes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ryan Henry, a top Pentagon planning official, declared last fall that the effort, instead of the usual "periodic tool of refinement," would be the "fulcrum of transition to a post-9/11 world."
Instead, by keeping alive some programs whose projected costs have soared in recent years like the F/A-22 fighter, the Army's Future Combat Systems and the Navy's DD(X) destroyer, the review has raised questions about how more exotic weapons and capabilities that Mr. Rumsfeld believes are vital to fight terror groups and other unconventional foes can fit into future military budgets.
Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments who participated in the review, said there was a widespread expectation that the review "would find the Defense Department confronting some tough decisions."
"In a sense, a lot of these tough choices are kicked down the road," Mr. Krepinevich said.
The essence of Mr. Rumsfeld's agenda for the military is to make the armed services more mobile and lethal, more capable of dealing with emerging threats from terror groups and insurgents, including weapons of mass destruction, while still able to dominate conventional battlefields. His imprint is plainly visible in decisions like the move to expand the number of special operations troops trained in psychological warfare and civil affairs by 3,700.
Mr. Rumsfeld also has long been worried that the armed forces lack the capability to strike quickly anywhere in the world with conventional weapons.
The review, known formally as the Quadrennial Defense Review, or Q.D.R., calls for doubling the procurement of attack submarines, from one a year to two, by 2012, and arming submarine-carried Trident missiles with conventional warheads.
But beyond such relatively small-scale initiatives, the review generally is better at defining the new threats the armed forces must deal with than precisely laying out how to defeat them, military analysts said. In the past few days and weeks, the conclusions of the review have been widely previewed in Washington.
"While the thrust of the document is that traditional threats are receding and unconventional threats are growing, you don't get the impression that they know what to do about it," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a research organization in Washington.
Even small-scale initiatives in the plan could be derailed in Congress. A proposal to reduce the number of National Guard combat brigades from 34 to 28 has run into opposition from governors and lawmakers, who have argued that reducing the Guard's combat capability at a time it is playing a substantial role in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make sense.
Pentagon aides say the idea is to consolidate often underequipped and undermanned Guard units, increasing their effectiveness.
One reason this year's review did not make more far-reaching changes seems to be that the conflict in Iraq prevented Mr. Rumsfeld from devoting as much attention to this review as he did in the past.
"In 2001, you couldn't make a major decision without Secretary Rumsfeld in the room," said a former Pentagon official, Michelle Flournoy, who took part in the last review. "This time, he didn't take the hands-on role that he did in 2001."
Mr. Rumsfeld delegated much of the daily work to his aides and to Mr. England, a former weapons industry executive who was Navy secretary before succeeding Paul D. Wolfowitz in April. Several analysts who followed the process closely said that when Mr. England took over the review in early summer, he helped a process that was adrift but that he shied away from far-reaching changes in the priorities of the Army, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines.
When Mr. Rumsfeld's aides did try to pare down the services' wish lists, they were often outmaneuvered, analysts said. The Air Force was able to defeat a proposal to require it and the Navy to buy the same basic version of the Pentagon's next-generation fighter plane, an idea proposed as a cost-savings measure.
But Air Force officials argued that its needs differed substantially from the Navy's, and that it would end up needing costly modifications to any common design, said Mr. Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
"Analysis played a key role, and a lot of times the analysis did not support a lot of trendy ideas," Mr. Thompson said.
Tula submarine is back from overhaul
The K-114 Tula submarine of the Delta IV/Project 667BDRM class returned to the Northern Fleet after an overhaul at the Zvezdochka plant and sea trials.
Bellona, 1 Feb 06
The plant’s and the Northern Fleet representatives signed the act of the submarine’s acceptance. Tula can operate 10 years more thanks to the overhaul.
The same type submarine - Bryansk is likely to leave the plant this year if the financing is stable. The Defence Ministry financing for Bryansk finished in spring 2005. And some reports suggested the plant’s administration would not release Bryansk until the Defence Ministry pays all the debts. The deputy head of the armaments agency of the Defence Ministry lieutenant general Vladimir Mikheyev said there is no debt, simply the initial price for the repairs was much less, than the price announced recently by the plant’s administration. Earlier, the navy officials promised both submarines would join the Northern fleet in 2005, Interfax reported.
However, it is probably too early to say Tula is back in service - it may have to wait till it gets its complement of missiles. Flight tests of the R-29RM Sineva missile, which will be deployed on Tula, have been completed relatively recently, in June 2004, and Tula is the third in line to get them - after K-51 Verkhoturie and K-84 Ekaterinburg, russianforces. org reported.
K-114 was built at the Sevmash plant in 1987. Tula is one of the last Soviet-built subs and it got its name in 1995 together with the sponsorship from the city of Tula. Submarines of the Project 667BDRM (Delta IV) class entered service in 1985-1991. The total of 7 ships of this class was built. Submarines of this class carry the D-16RM missile system with 16 R-29RM (SS-N-23) missiles.
(REUTERS 02FEB06)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking to dissuade China from building its military forces to a level not warranted by its security needs, and the issue is addressed in a new long-term Pentagon plan, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday.
Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said Washington wanted to make sure the Chinese ``have the forces necessary to provide for their genuine security needs and not to go beyond that.'' He gave no further details.
He said the matter was addressed in the Quadrennial Defense Review, a blueprint for changes to U.S. strategy and forces due to be sent to Congress on Monday with President Bush's fiscal 2007 budget.
The Bush administration frequently has voiced concern about China's growing military spending. After as many as 17 years of double-digit defense spending increases, China is currently spending two to three times more than the $30 billion publicly announced as its defense budget, U.S. officials estimate.
According to a draft of the review made available by InsideDefense.com, a trade publication, the Pentagon is calling for a range of new weapons and capabilities ``to help shape the choices of countries at strategic crossroads.''
Michael Pillsbury, an advisor to the Pentagon who is author of two National Defense University books on the Chinese military, said the U.S. goal was to discourage China and Russia among others from sinking large sums into ``offensive, first-strike systems.''
Henry, who advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on military strategy and national security policy, said the United States wanted China ``to make what we would view as the right sort of choices, and that is addressed in the QDR.''
He made his remarks at an event sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a private research group, to preview in general terms the Pentagon review, which is mandated by Congress once every four years.
The United States is eager to head off any showdown with China over Taiwan, the self-governing island off China's coast over which Beijing claims sovereignty and has vowed to attack if it formally declares independence.
President George W. Bush vowed in April 2000 to do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself if attacked, although his position has become more ambiguous as the administration maneuvers to forestall any possible conflict.
Policy toward China is only one part of the report, which looks at U.S. defense strategy over the next 20 years.
According to the draft, which may have been subject to changes, the Pentagon wants to boost U.S. special operations forces by 15 percent and the number of special operations battalions by one-third as part of the U.S.-declared war on terrorism declared by Bush after the September 11 attacks.
It outlined Pentagon plans to beef up homeland security and expand forces whose role is to prevent terrorists getting chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.
In the Pacific, the U.S. Navy will add at least one aircraft carrier strike group and maintain 60 percent of its submarines, the draft said.
In addition, the Navy is to double the number of attack submarines it buys to two a year by 2012.
The Air Force is to bring forward by nearly 20 years its plan for a new long-range strike capability, according to the draft. The vice chairman of the joint chiefs, Adm. Edmund Giambastiani said this would be a ``mixed bag'' including aircraft and missiles.
Iran Attack Difficult, But U.S. Maintains Military Options
By Scott Nance, DEFENSE TODAY 2 FEB 06
A direct attack on Iran's burgeoning nuclear capabilities could be difficult, but there are several military steps the United States could take to stem the rogue nation, several experts told lawmakers.
"Crafting an effective strategy for dealing with a nuclear Iran if or when it acquires the bomb is likely to be one of the most difficult defense and foreign policy challenges facing the United States in the coming decade," Michael Eisenstadt, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told members of the House Armed Services Committee in a hearing.
As Iran stands up its nuclear arsenal, it might seek to provide an atomic "punch" to its fighting endeavors, Eisenstadt said. Iran claims its nuclear program is merely for peaceful civilian electrical power generation purposes, but many analysts and U.S. officials doubt that assertion.
To counter Iran's warfighting capabilities, he said, the United States and its allies will need to enhance their ability to:
• Detect and interdict attempts to covertly deliver nuclear devices by sea, land or air.
• Identify and neutralize terrorist groups
affiliated with Tehran.
• Detect and intercept nuclear-armed strike aircraft as well as cruise and ballistic missiles.
• Counter Iranian naval mines, small boat and submarine warfare operations.
Finally, the United States maintains the option of a nuclear response if Iran were to use nuclear weapons, Eisenstadt said.
"I believe for now the less said about this option, the better," he said. A direct U.S. attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be difficult, because the regime has scattered, hardened and fortified them against attack, according Ilan Berman, vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council.
"It's not assured that we will hit all of them," Berman said. Some Iranian decision makers might believe that atomic weapons would provide them a free hand to undertake military actions against its neighbors with impunity, Eisenstadt said.
For this reason, it is important that the United States help its allies in the region obtain the means to counter Iran's naval and other forces on their own, Eisenstadt said.
"Countering these [Iranian] capabilities would also require a significant U.S. military presence in the [Persian] Gulf," Eisenstadt said. "As a result, the U.S. Navy will remain susceptible to Iranian attempts to intimidate U.S. allies into denying U.S. forces access and basing."
This will remain a potential vulnerability for the foreseeable future, Eisenstadt said in his testimony.
For this reason, the U.S. Navy "Sea Basing" concept may be particularly useful for operations in and near the Gulf, Eisenstadt said. Sea Basing, a part of the Sea Power 21 vision for the future Navy authored by then- Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, holds that the Navy should be capable of providing a platform at sea to project force into enemy territory, without a "permission slip" from any foreign nation, and without having to borrow use of land bases in other nations as staging areas for invasion or war efforts.
The United States and its allies also should continue to encourage the networking of regional air and missile defense early warning and related networks to enhance regional capabilities, Eisenstadt said.
For example, he said, American Aegis equipped cruisers and destroyers in the Persian Gulf can provide early warning and a first line of defense against air or missile attacks from Iran toward Saudi Arabia or other southern Persian Gulf states, with the AN/SPY-1 radar and Standard SM-3 missile systems that are mounted on those U.S. Navy ships.