A SEAL delivery vehicle team (SDV) performs a fast-roping exercise from a MH-60S Seahawk helicopter to the topside of Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine USS Toledo (SSN 769), Jan. 17. SDV teams use "wet" submersible vehicles to conduct 100 percent long-range submerged missions, or to secretly deliver SEALs and other agents onto enemy territory from a submarine or other vessel at sea.

Video: USS Ohio (SSGN 726) returns to service after SSGN Conversion

Naval Media Center, Daily News Update, Feb. 1, 2006

Click here to view the video: http://www.navy.mil/management/videodb/player/video.aspx?id=6424

Other online SSGN resources include:

· SSGN Conversion website: http://www.sublant.navy.mil/html/ssgn.htm

· SSGN Photos from USS Ohio: http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/slide_show.pl?Lbox=SUBFORCE.SSGN_Conversion

Defense Review Will Affect Sub Fleet's Size

First QDR Since 9/11 Adjusts Military's Priorities

By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 3 Feb 06

The Pentagon today will release its blueprint for defense-related priorities, the Quadrennial Defense Review, which is expected to call for the continued defeat of extremists as well as preventing terrorists and dangerous regimes from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.

The report will be closely read by the state's congressional delegation and others for indications of the Pentagon's priorities for the submarine fleet, such as overall force requirements or stepped-up production of the Virginia class of submarines.

Congress requires that the Quadrennial Defense Review be done every four years as a means of updating the country's defense capabilities as well as its mission and strategy.

Pentagon officials will brief the media this afternoon about the report, including comments from Ryan Henry, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy matters, and Vice Adm. Evan Chanik, who directs force structure, resources and assessment.

U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, said Thursday that he hopes the report supports the building of two Virginia-class submarines a year. Currently, Groton-based Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia build the equivalent of one Virginia-class submarine a year.

The 377-foot-long Virginia sub carries a $2.4 billion price tag. Navy officials said the planned 30-boat Virginia class, which follows the three-sub Seawolf class, currently has 10 boats under contract and six under construction. The lead ship, the USS Virginia, has been delivered to the Navy.

The Navy has advocated ramping up production to two submarines a year by fiscal year 2012. Simmons said some press reports on the defense review have said wording calls for production that begins “no later than 2012,” or possibly sooner.

“But whatever the final QDR report says, the force requirements leave no doubt that we need to start on two submarines per year today, not tomorrow, so that is what we are fighting for right now,” he said.

Simmons is advocating congressional funding of seed money, or advanced procurement funds, in fiscal year 2007 with full funding for two submarines a year in fiscal year 2009. Simmons said the Navy “can no longer afford to delay recapitalizing and modernizing the submarine force.”

During press briefings this week, Pentagon officials said the report is expected to emphasize four priorities: defeating extremists, defending the United States, helping countries at strategic crossroads and preventing terrorists and extremists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush next week will request a $439.3 billion Defense Department budget for 2007, a nearly 5 percent increase over this year, according to senior Pentagon officials and documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

The spending plan includes $84.2 billion for weapons programs, a nearly 8 percent increase, including billions of dollars for fighter jets, Navy ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. The total includes a substantial increase in weapons spending for the Army, which will get $16.8 billion in the 2007 budget, compared with $11 billion this year.

Senior defense officials provided the totals on condition of anonymity because the defense budget will not be publicly released until Monday. The figures did not include spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the Bush administration said Thursday would total $120 billion for 2006.

Report: Pentagon may boost submarine demand; could benefit EB

By Katherine Hutt Scott, Norwich Bulletin, Feb 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon may be open to doubling U.S. submarine production to two per year earlier than 2012, according to a draft version of a Pentagon planning document.

Although that date is consistent with previous Pentagon plans, Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman see the language proposed for the new Quadrennial Defense Review as a hopeful sign.

The Department of Defense is scheduled to release the review today. A draft version dated Jan. 18 says the department will "return to a steady-state production of two attack submarines per year not later than 2012, while achieving an average per-hull procurement cost objective of $2 billion."

An increase in submarine production could mean more jobs for southeastern Connecticut. The submarines are built by the Groton shipyard of General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division and Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

"This is a step in the right direction, because it suggests that the Pentagon is coming around to the realization that the Navy can no longer afford to delay recapitalizing and modernizing the submarine force," Simmons said Thursday.

But a defense analyst was more skeptical about whether the planning document represents a significant change.

"The budget we will get next week will likely represent no material change from the budget we had a year ago in terms of attack submarine procurement," said Ronald O'Rourke, Naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.

The planning document language gives the Pentagon wiggle room if Congress decides to speed up the submarine-purchasing schedule, O'Rourke said.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., noted the Navy has pushed back the date for increasing from one submarine per year to two several times.

"The Navy has continued to push these target dates back, so no matter what the QDR says, I intend to press the Navy to increase submarine production immediately, because we can't afford to wait," Dodd said. "Building two submarines a year immediately protects both our national security and our submarine industrial base."

In 2003, the Navy planned on switching to two submarines per year in fiscal 2007, according to a Jan. 18 Congressional Research Service report. In 2004, the date was pushed back to fiscal 2009. In 2005, the date was pushed back to an unspecified year after 2011.

Electric Boat had announced it expects 1,900 layoffs this year. But after the Navy decided in late January to award a $34.7 million maintenance contract to a competitor, Northrop Grumman shipyard in Newport News, Va., Electric Boat said the total layoffs this year would be closer to 2,400.

The first wave of 222 layoff notices, effective March 31, went out Monday.

The planning document wording of "not later than 2012" is an acknowledgement by the Pentagon the United States can't afford to lose its dominance in undersea warfare, said Fred Downey, defense and foreign policy adviser to Lieberman.

If current production rates continue, China's submarine fleet could equal the U.S. fleet by 2020, Downey said.

A Navy spokeswoman didn't respond to requests for comment.

It's not certain the Pentagon will buy two submarines per year sooner than 2012 because of the cost. Submarines now cost $2.4 billion each to build.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of Naval Operations, said late last year once the production cost could be reduced to $2 billion, the Navy would start buying two per year. But Electric Boat President and CEO John Casey said Thursday the efficiencies need to reduce the cost to $2 billion could only be achieved by doubling production to two submarines per year, according to company spokesman Bob Hamilton.

U.S. Eyes Carrier-Led Sea Bases For Greater Pacific Presence

Plans include “60 percent” increased submarine presence

Kyodo News, 2 FEB 06

The United States plans to build larger fleets led by aircraft carriers and employing special operations forces to use as forward sea bases for greater Pacific presence, effectively projecting a second carrier strike group without actually forward-basing it, defense sources said Wednesday.

The initial home-porting of a nuclear-powered carrier, which Japan has accepted, held the key for the U.S. Defense Department to map out the strategy in its upcoming defense review report, the sources said, noting that it helped shelve a costly plan to forward-base a second flattop and solve domestic political hurdles to reduce the total number of carriers but increase the number in the Pacific.

But this key role played by Tokyo may raise questions in Japan, where many in local communities remain opposed to hosting a nuclear-powered carrier.

The sources said the Japanese government accepted it in exchange for concessions in the ongoing bilateral talks on realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.

Both Tokyo and Washington denied any connection with the realignment talks when they decided late last year to let the U.S. Navy station the nuclear-powered carrier George Washington at the naval base in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, in 2008 to replace the retiring conventional flattop Kitty Hawk.

The new Pacific strategy will come in the Quadrennial Defense Review report due out next Monday, the sources said. It will serve as the underlying guideline for the military realignment in Japan so to more efficiently, rapidly and flexibly deal with emerging powers like China, threats of weapons of mass destruction from North Korea, terrorism, and other "asymmetric" contingencies, they said.

Based on the "Afloat Forward Staging Bases" concept, the strategy calls for "joint maritime capabilities" that combine special operations forces with carrier strike groups to deal with terrorists and threats of weapons of mass destruction together with conventional targets, the sources said, referring to a draft QDR report.

The Pentagon has shelved the long-held, publicly stated plan for a second forward-based carrier in either Hawaii or Guam, they said.

It plans instead to provide "at least six operationally available and sustainable" carriers, up from the current five, and 60 percent of its submarines to the Pacific to "support engagement, presence and deterrence," the sources said.

Given the expanded assets, the Navy will increase the rotations for the carriers to sail out and keep at least one of the five based on the West Coast operating at sea to maintain at least two carrier strike groups, including one in Japan, effectively deployed forward in the Western Pacific, the sources said.

The Pentagon wants to keep the increased forward deployment flexible and ambiguous to avoid overly agitating China as the underlying strategy of the QDR is to "help shape the choices of countries as strategic crossroads, strengthen deterrence and hedge against future strategic uncertainty," the sources said.

Against this backdrop, the Pentagon plans to boost production of attack submarines and the coverage capacity of unmanned aircraft, the sources said, noting the number of unmanned planes and submarines will sharply increase in Guam.

The new Pacific strategy also comes in line with the Pentagon's overall plans to minimize presence, reduce large overseas bases, and keep military assets away from hotspots to reduce "exposure to asymmetric threats" such as terrorist attacks, the sources said.

At the same time, it will advance joint operations and share roles with allies, as underscored in the planned realignment in Japan.

Securing a home port for a nuclear-powered carrier in Japan will facilitate the deployment rotations, making it easier for other nuclear carriers to make port calls and erasing the need to build costly facilities in Hawaii or Guam.

As a nuclear-powered carrier is more operationally capable than a conventional flattop, which requires frequent refueling, its stationing in Japan is necessary to implement the overall strategy to keep carriers at sea and maneuver as sea bases.

Japan's acceptance was a "big favor" to the Pentagon, one source said, noting that Tokyo must have also gained some major concessions from Washington in exchange for it in the realignment talks.

It remains unknown what Japan sought or is seeking from the United States, and the source said it remains to be seen as the realignment talks are ongoing.

But the decision came at the cost of strong opposition by local communities hosting the carrier and U.S. congressional support for replacing the Kitty Hawk with the only other remaining conventional carrier, the John F. Kennedy, in an effort to prevent the Pentagon from reducing the number of flattops.

Given that Japan accepted a nuclear-powered carrier, the Pentagon cleared the congressional opposition about its plan to mothball the JFK, and included its planned reduction of the carriers to 11 from the current 12 in the QDR report.

The acceptance came Oct. 27, only two days before the two countries reached a realignment agreement, which highlights the transfer of 7,000 U.S. Marine Corps troops from Okinawa -- 6,000 to Guam and the rest to other parts of Japan -- and an alternative plan for relocating the Marines' Futemma Air Station within the prefecture.

The two countries are working to compile a final implementation plan by March amid lingering opposition in Okinawa and other affected local governments.

QDR Won't Call For 'Whole New Direction' In U.S. Defense, England Says

By Gopal Ratnam, DefenseNews.com, February 2, 2006

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review is more of a midcourse correction to the long-term U.S. defense posture and policies rather than a definitive document that sets the future course, said one of the top architects of the congressionally mandated Pentagon review.

The review “is not a radical 90-degree turn, this is not [an attempt] to cleave out sections of the budget,” Gordon England, the U.S. deputy defense secretary, said in a brief interview Feb. 1. “This is a midcourse correction and not a whole new direction.”

England and U.S. Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the review at an event organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington.

Drawing on the military campaigns of the past four years, the review attempts to “shift the emphasis from conventional areas of warfare to a whole range” of new approaches, England said.

Giambastiani offered about 20 examples of such shifts in emphasis during the presentation, including:

· From single, focused threats to multiple, complex challenges.

· From nation-state threats to decentralized network threats from nonstate enemies.

· From responding after a crisis starts to preventive actions to avoid crises.

· From threat-based planning to capabilities-based planning.

· From focus on kinetics to focus on effects.

· From static-defense garrison forces to mobile expeditionary operations.

· From massing forces to massing effects.

· From set-piece maneuver and mass to agility and precision.

· From static alliances to dynamic partnerships.

· From vertical structures to transparent, horizontal integration.

· From Department of Defense solutions to interagency approaches.

A preface to the review includes nearly 35 such shifts. But the U.S. military has talked about some of these changes for many years.

Asked how the shifts in emphasis would be implemented without a matching shift in resources, England said the budgets would change gradually over a period of time to correspond to the emphasis.

“Implicit in the shift in emphasis is a shift in resources,” he said. Based on “where we are now and what we have learned, we can shift emphasis to new areas. Whatever we could do leading-edge in the 2007 budget, we have and will continue to do so in 2008 and 2009.”

In his prepared remarks, England compared the so-called global war on terrorism to the Cold War. Just as the Korean War was the start of a four-decade standoff between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the events of Sept. 11 and ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq should be seen as the opening act of a long conflict with “violent extremists.”

England, echoing President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech that called for bipartisan support to carry out national goals, said the Cold War was won only because of national will, which “transcended presidents from different parties and Congresses over an extended period of time.”

Similarly, the “midcourse correction” being offered by the QDR is part of a long struggle against “extremists” and will be implemented over several years through “execution roadmaps,” he said. It will not be a “fire-and-forget” document, he said.

Though the 1997 law establishing the Pentagon’s once-in-four-years review focused on the periodic assessment of defense strategy, threats, force structure, roles and missions of the armed services and resources necessary to carry out the tasks, the 2005 review’s “central feature” will be an attempt to “change the institutional culture of the Defense Department,” England said.

The emphasis on speeding up the business processes, how the Pentagon buys weapons and management of resources is necessary because the existing processes slow down decision making and affect fast-paced combat operations, England said. “We can’t improve the military speed without changing the business processes, and they are two sides of the same coin.”

Contrary to tough warnings and suggestions of a big shift in spending, the review largely appears to postpone the tough decisions about matching resources to the strategy.

When the Pentagon began the review in early 2005, senior defense officials - including Christopher “Ryan” Henry, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and a key player in the review - often said the U.S. military was “optimized for traditional warfare” and had “significant overmatch” in conventional modes of war, suggesting that the review would address this imbalance.

In September 2005, Ken Krieg, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for acquisitions, invoked President Dwight Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” in an address to defense industry executives in Arlington, Va. Noting that demands on the military were expected to grow, Kreig asked if “defense resources will be challenged, if not diminished, then how will the nation balance this equation?”

Industry executives who heard Krieg concluded he was warning of deep cuts to big weapons programs. But those fears have proven baseless as the Pentagon nears the finishing line.

Nearly 12 months of reviewing and debating later, the QDR is complete. The Pentagon will release the recommendations Feb. 3 and submit them to Congress Feb. 6 along with the 2007 budget.

Defense review hints at change

The coming Pentagon study focuses on fighting terror but could hurt shipbuilding in Hampton Roads

By David Lerman, Daily Press, 3 Feb 06

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon plans to unveil a blueprint for military reform today that favors commando units over airmen and unmanned vehicles over aircraft carriers.

The long-awaited Quadrennial Defense Review - conducted every four years to help reshape the military - is expected to focus on ways to combat terrorism while downsizing more of the traditional military.

The Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers, for example, would be scaled back from 12 to 11 - even though Congress passed a bill last month blocking such a plan.

The Air Force would see its personnel trimmed by about 10 percent, or 40,000 full-time positions, in coming years, according to excerpts of the document.

Savings from those cuts would be used in ways that officials say could better prepare the military for terrorist threats. The report is expected to call for increasing Special Operations Forces by 15 percent, expanding psychological operations and civil affairs units by a third, and nearly doubling the coverage capacity of unmanned aerial vehicles .

"More than a decade has passed since the Cold War ended and the Soviet empire went, as once predicted, into the ash heap of history," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Today, in a different world with new and unpredictable enemies, the task again is to make the appropriate adjustments and arrangements needed to protect the American people."

Those adjustments could include some economic pain for Hampton Roads.

In a potential blow to Northrop Grumman Newport News, the new defense budget that President Bush will present Monday is likely to call for delaying the start of construction of a new aircraft carrier from 2007 to 2008. The delay, officials have said, could trigger hundreds of temporary layoffs.

The defense review calls for delaying a doubling of submarine production until as late as 2012.

A new Navy shipbuilding plan, released in December, calls for enlarging the size of the fleet modestly, from about 280 ships to 313. But most large, expensive ships like carriers and submarines would be scaled back.

The fleet would be expanded by buying 55 littoral combat ships - small, relatively inexpensive vessels designed to patrol the waters close to shore. "It's the only way they can increase the size of the fleet," said Norman Polmar, a naval analyst.

Still, the defense review is not expected to cancel a single major weapons program, analysts said.

The F-22A Raptor, the new Air Force fighter jet that once was rumored to be on the chopping block, got a new lease on life.

This year's budget called for ending F-22A production in 2008, after buying a total of 179 planes. The defense review calls for extending production until 2010 with a multi-year contract. That plan could result in 183 planes, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

The stealthy Raptor is now flown at Langley Air Force Base. "The Air Force may have dodged a bullet," said Andrew Krepinevich, a veteran military analyst who helped advise the Pentagon on the defense review.

But with no major programs cut, he said, "A lot of these tough choices are kicked down the road. It's fairly clear we can't afford the modernization programs we're signed up to do."

While the affordability question looms large, a legal question may haunt the recommendation on carriers. Congress approved a provision last year mandating a 12-carrier fleet, blocking Navy plans to mothball the USS John F. Kennedy. It is unclear how the Pentagon could act on its defense review to forfeit a carrier unless the law were changed.

Navy budget: seven more ships, fewer sailors

By Christopher P. Cava, Navy Times, 2 Feb 06

The Navy will ask for $127.3 billion in fiscal 2007, down $1.7 billion from the figure forecast a year ago.

The request includes seven ships, the same FY07 number planned last year. But the list has changed slightly, according to a Navy budget briefing document obtained by Defense News.

As expected, two $3.3 billion DD(X) destroyers will be requested in 2007, rather than one each in 2007 and 2008. The move is in line with the service’s new “two-lead-ships” approach for the DD(X) program, which was approved by the Pentagon late last year. Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics are each expected to receive an order to build a ship, if the request is approved by Congress. Although final figures aren’t yet available, the Navy is expected to ask for the DD(X) procurement funds to be spread between 2007 and 2008.

To compensate, the ninth LPD 17 San Antonio-class amphibious ship has been pushed back from 2007 to 2008.

In addition to the two destroyers, the Navy also will ask for one SSN 774 Virginia-class submarine; two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS); one LHA 6 amphibious assault ship - also known as the LHA(R) program - and one T-AKE dry-cargo ammunition ship.

The Navy also will again ask to decommission the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy in 2007 and reduce the carrier fleet by one to 11 ships, a move backed up by the Pentagon in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Congress denied the service’s request last year to take the ship out of service for cost reasons, but Navy officials appear confident the move will be approved.

The QDR also recommended an increase in the Navy’s procurement of Littoral Combat Ships, and the future year plan now adds one LCS each year from 2009 through 2011, for six ships per year.

The budget document repeats last year’s assertion that the size of the fleet has bottomed out and will begin to rise, from the 281 ships in service today to 285 next year. Fourteen new ships are forecast to enter the fleet in 2007, while a dozen will be decommissioned.

Longer-range plans also show that initial planned procurement of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has dropped slightly. The Navy now plans to order only eight, not 10, F-35s in 2008. Plans for the next three years remain steady, however, with a total of 109 aircraft to be bought through 2011.

The Navy will accelerate the effort to shrink the number of uniformed personnel, sloughing off an additional 4,600 officers and sailors by the end of 2007. Officials, who were previously aiming for a force of 345,300, now want it to number just 340,700 - saving $972 million in 2007 alone.

The Marines are budgeted for 175,000 troops, but Congress already has approved growing that figure to 179,000. The services are allowed to exceed their personnel authorization by 2 percent, and the Marines currently can expand to about 181,000. The service expects to pay for the troop increases through emergency supplemental funding.

The budget also will ask for several new joint capabilities for the Marines and Navy, including the new Marine Corps Special Operations Command, a Riverine Capability and Expeditionary Security Force for the Navy, and a National Maritime Intelligence Integration Center. The new capabilities are to be funded under operation and maintenance accounts.

The briefing document also forecasts savings from the Base Realignment and Closure decisions made last year. Closure costs are expected to peak at around $1 billion in 2009 but drop off shortly thereafter, and the Navy’s predicted savings should exceed costs beginning in 2010.

A defense official said the budget increases the fleet’s force count and allows the Navy to “sustain this high level of readiness that we’ve gotten to in the past couple years.”

Bush To Ask $439.3 Billion For Defense In Fiscal 2007

By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, February 2, 2006

The Bush administration will ask Congress for $439.3 billion in defense spending for fiscal 2007, or about 4.8 percent more than last year, according to budget documents and Defense Department officials.

The figure, which does not include spending to maintain the nation's nuclear arsenal, includes $84.2 billion for weapons purchases, an increase of 8 percent yet less than half the growth planned in last year's long-range budget.

The proposal is part of the fiscal 2007 budget that President George W. Bush will send to Congress Feb. 6. It will be followed within two weeks by a request for $70 billion in supplemental funding this year for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Joel Kaplan, the No. 2 official at the White House Budget Office and Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

Steven Kosiak, defense budget analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said ``the bottom line'' on military spending is now set by the supplemental funding. ``We are far from the days when you can just look at the regular defense budget and figure out what is really happening,'' he said.

Congress since the Sept. 11 attacks has approved a total of $362 billion in supplemental spending for the war on terrorism, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The requested increase in the Pentagon's regular budget is about the same as last year's. The budget for fiscal 2006, which ends Sept. 30, was $419.3 billion, up 4.8 percent from $400.1 billion in fiscal 2005. Congress approved $50 billion extra in supplemental spending in 2006 and $100 billion extra in 2005.

Shift in Funding

Investors were prepared for a cut in the Pentagon's budget to accommodate the Bush administration's vow to reduce the federal deficit, so this budget is ``good news,'' Byron Callan, senior aerospace defense analyst for Prudential Equity Group LLC in New York, said when told of the Pentagon's request.

The ``news that's not so great'' is the budget's shift in funding from weapons procurement to research because ``that might slow profit-margin growth,'' Callan said. Profit margins are higher on production programs.

Last year the Pentagon put forward a long-range plan that projected a 4 percent decline in research and development funding. Instead, the new budget proposal would increase such spending by 6 percent to $73.2 billion. Funding for new weapons would grow 8 percent to $84.2 billion instead of growing 17 percent to $91.6 billion as planned.

Callan said the funding shift suggests that investors' expectations of expanding company profit margins ``won't play out.'' The drop in funding for new weapons resulted from unanticipated cost growth in existing major weapons programs, he said.

War Spending

The U.S. is spending $90 billion a year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or about $7.5 billion a month, Donald Marron, acting director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated last week.

The $70 billion in supplemental war funding this year would come on top of $50 billion that Congress approved in the fiscal 2006 budget. Of the $362 billion appropriated since Sept. 11, the Pentagon has received about $326 billion, the CRS said. The remainder went to the State Department for reconstruction and relief in war zones as well as its own security operations.

'Showing Restraint'

Kosiak suggested that the supplemental funding helps the Bush administration hold down the spending sought in its regular budget.

``Politically, if you want to show a budget that's showing restraint you show the defense budget getting hit to some extent -- at least modestly,'' he said. ``It's easy to imagine'' the Pentagon taking a reduction of $5 billion to $6 billion dollars in the regular budget request and getting the money restored in ``supplementals because those are `must pass' bills.''

The fiscal year ends Sept. 30. The administration will seek an additional $50 billion in war funding for fiscal 2007 that will serve as a bridge until needs are assessed, Kaplan and Whitman said in a conference call with reporters.

David Baker, a defense analyst with the Stanford Washington Research Group, a nonpartisan policy research organization based in Washington, said the proposed boost in funding for research and development to $73.2 billion from the $66.8 billion projected last year would reflect an increase in spending on classified programs used in the global war on terrorism.

'Long War'

``Research and development is boosted to get some better tools for the `long war,' and a lot of it is in classified programs, such as improvised explosive device countermeasures, non-lethal weapons, unmanned systems, intelligence programs and tools to combat weapons of mass destruction,'' Baker said.

The shift to these programs won't cut the long-term earnings potential of major defense companies because they will get much of this money, he said.

``The companies know that what this is about is developing technology to fight the long war on terrorism,'' Baker said. ``That's where the pot is growing.''

The Pentagon's long-range plan projects this spending on research and development: $73.2 billion for fiscal 2007; $74.3 billion in 2008; $75.1 billion in fiscal 2009; $73.2 billion in 2010; and $70.6 billion in 2011 for a total of $366.4 billion.

That total is $32.2 billion or 9.6 percent higher than the $334.2 billion projected in last year's long-range plan.

Weapons Procurement

The new fiscal 2007-2011 plan for procurement includes: $84.2 billion in fiscal 2007; $99.7 billion in fiscal 2008; $108.9 billion in fiscal 2009; $111.7 billion in fiscal 2010; and, $117.7 billion in 2011.

Total projected spending in this plan is $522.2 billion or $6 billion less than the $528.2 billion plan announced in February 2005.

The figure for weapons procurement has frequently shifted. The Pentagon in January 2004 estimated the 2007 number would be $90.6 billion. Officials in January 2003 estimated the fiscal 2007 number would be $94.7 billion -- almost $10 billion more than what's being requested in this new plan.

According to budget documents, the fiscal 2007 procurement plan includes:

· $3.5 billion for 42 Boeing F/A-18 E/F and G-model fighters;

· $2.5 billion for two DD(X) Navy destroyers under development by Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. These are two of seven ships in the budget. The Navy will request $8.2 billion overall for the seven vessels;

· $2.4 billion for one Virginia-class attack submarine produced jointly by General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. The Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review recommends increasing the purchase to two a year in 2012 for an eventual total of 30.

· $2.2 billion for 16 Bell Helicopter Textron-Boeing Co. V-22 Osprey aircraft;

· $2.2 billion for a down-payment on 60 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22A aircraft that would be bought from 2008 through 2010.

· $1.1 billion to buy 13 additional Lockheed C-130J transports;

· $1.3 billion to buy the first five Lockheed Joint Strike Fighters;

· $784 million for advanced procurement of the Northrop Grumman CVN-21 aircraft carrier and $520 million for two Littoral Combat Vessels under development by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics.

The Quadrennial Defense Review of forces and strategy, which will be released along with the budget, calls for buying a total of 56 Littoral Combat ships as part of a 313-vessel Navy.

With reporting by William Roberts and Roger Runningen in Washington.

Toledo Sailor earns degree

By JO1(SW) Ira J. Elinson, The Dolphin, February 2, 2006

Most know the Navy supports Sailors who pursue higher education. White it's mandatory for chiefs to possess at least an associate's degree for advancement to senior chief, one Sailor recently took that a couple of steps further, by earning a master's degree while serving aboard USS Toledo (SSN 769). In fact, during his tour that started in 2001, Sonar Technician (Submarines) 1st Class (SS) David Plouffe earned two undergraduate degrees prior to the master's program and became the first Sailor to earn a graduate degree through the University of Oklahoma and Navy Campus entirely through the Programs for Afloat College Education (PACE).

"I don't know how he did it," said CMDCM(SS) Scotty Fusco, Toledo's chief of the boat. "His work never suffered, and he's up to speed on his 'quals.' He's qualified chief of the watch and duty chief petty officer. He's always been ship, shipmate, self. All of his Sailors are qualified watchstanders, with none of them ever on the delinquent list. "

A veteran of 12 submarine deployments, Plouffe admits it took him a while to 'get in gear,' but he was actually preparing for it without realizing it all along. A history buff, Plouffe spent most of his down time reading.

"I was never into playing video games or just 'hanging out' when off duty," said Plouffe. "It was only when I decided to work on getting a degree did I realize I had 220 credits available to through my Navy education and qualifications, allowing me to get my first degree by taking just one class."

His avocation for reading allowed him to complete his second degree in record time by taking advantage of the free College-Level Examination Program (CLEP). By taking CLEP tests, Plouffe was able to earn 30 college credits, equal to approximately one year of college, without ever setting foot in a classroom. The Navy College office on SUBASE offers them at 7:00 a.m., so as not to affect the workday.

"CLEP tests are the easiest and cheapest way for Sailors to earn college credit," said Plouffe. And Bob Walker, the Navy College PACE coordinator and test control officer on SUBASE, "bends over backwards to get Sailors what they need, when they need it. I've been all over, and this is by far the best Navy College office I've worked with," said Plouffe.

Armed with a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in history, he enrolled in the University of Oklahoma's graduate program.

Plouffe may have had just one advantage - he became the boat's PACE coordinator. As such, he works hard to get his shipmates 'onboard' with education. There are more than 20 Sailors enrolled in PACE this semester taking more than 80 classes while deployed, according to Betty Kirkpatrick of Navy College. "His dedication was one of the contributing factors USS Toledo was selected as a test platform for the generation PACE program."

In that pilot program, instead of using laptop computers and CD-ROMS, some Toledo Sailors use personal digital assistants (PDAs), which take up less room than a laptop. According to Plouffe, the ultimate objective is to have Sailors complete their coursework on the PDA and e-mail it directly to the program director, rather than wait until they return from deployment.

Close to retirement, Plouffe wants to continue passing on his love of learning by becoming a teacher. He's already a Rhode Island-certified substitute teacher.

He took the first step towards his education late in his career, and despite of the credits he already had, he had to scramble.

"I have to thank my wife, Lynne," said Plouffe. "She works full time and raised our three daughters while I either deployed or spent late hours studying. It would have been a lot easier if I had gotten started earlier, and that's what I tell my shipmates, 'work on your education early. It will open all kinds of doors for you.'"

Steady as she goes

Consistency keeps submariner family's life on an even keel

by Samantha L. Quigley, American Forces Press Service, February 2, 2006

WASHINGTON - Catherine McCarthy, a Navy submariner's wife, has a solution for keeping life normal for her three children despite challenges a military family faces.

Nothing about everyday life changes, she said, whether her husband, Petty Officer 1st Class Matt McCarthy, is at sea or home. The nuclear electrician's mate has been in the Navy for 11 years.

"'Steady' - that's my key word," McCarthy said. "What works for us is to stay solid and stay on the same steady path. When he comes home our philosophy has always been that he fits back into the family."

McCarthy's husband is assigned to Naval Station Norfolk, Va., where he is an instructor in the engineering department at the Submarine Learning Facility.

His sea rotations were barely noticed when the couple's oldest daughter, Rachael, was a toddler, McCarthy said. As she approached 4, she began sobbing when they left her father at the pier.

Now 8, Rachael tends to act out when her father leaves, McCarthy said.

"For the first two weeks ... she'll push boundaries," she said, explaining that Rachael's behavior evens out after that. "(I) don't give allowances for bad behavior. (The kids) need the structure, and they need to know that everything is still the same and my life is not falling apart."

McCarthy's son, Andrew, 5, has never taken his father's departures too hard, she said, and the youngest, daughter Elizabeth, just turned 3.

A former Sailor herself, McCarthy and her husband have been married for nearly 10 years. As a stay-at-home mom, she stays busy volunteering with Girl Scouts and swim teams and at her kids' school, she said. McCarthy also works with CinCHouse, an online resource for military wives, servicemembers' girlfriends and women in uniform to share advice and support.

In the past, she has been an ombudsman, a liaison between her husband's command and its families.

Not only does her routine help her cope with her husband's sea/shore duty rotations, she said it's also the best advice she can offer new military spouses. Participating in community activities focuses energy on something other than how long a servicemember has been gone. Simply meeting people can open up a world of resources, she said.

"Get involved and stay busy," McCarthy said. "That's (what has) helped me tremendously. You have fun and your life continues. You're still a living, breathing person. Life should not stop because your husband deploys."

OC Coast Could Be New Navy Warfare Training Site

Shawn J. Soper, Maryland Coast Dispatch, 03FEB06

OCEAN CITY – A proposed plan for the U.S. Navy to develop and underwater warfare training range off the Delmarva coast, including some of the fertile fishing canyons off the coast of Ocean City, last week had some anglers, already concerned about pending federal regulation changes on billfish, worried about the prospect of another deterrent right in their backyard.

The U.S. Navy is planning to implement a proposed undersea warfare training range somewhere off the East Coast and a vast area roughly from Cape May, N.J. to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay has been identified as the Navy’s second favored alternative. Under the proposed plan, the Navy would develop a 500-square-nautical-mile area of the ocean off the East Coast of the U.S. to be used for undersea warfare training for submarines, surface vessels and even aircraft.

The Navy claims they need the vast underwater warfare range as a training ground for its Atlantic Fleet, which would use the practice range throughout the year and conduct war games in the area several times a year. The Navy has identified three favored sites for the vast offshore training range, with the second alternative being a 500-square-mile off the coast of Delmarva.

The area centered approximately 50 nautical miles east of the Delmarva peninsula is also referred to as the Virginia Capes, or VACAPES, by the Navy. It would take in an area roughly from Cape May, N.J. to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and would encompass much of the offshore fishing grounds utilized by recreational and commercial fishermen throughout the prescribed area.

The Navy’s favored alternative at this time is a similarly sized area roughly off the coast of the Outer Banks in North Carolina. The third option described by the Navy is a vast area off the north coast of Florida not far from military installations in and around Jacksonville.

The three favored options, including the alternative that would locate the undersea warfare training range not far from Ocean City and Assateague, were chosen because the fit the Navy’s criteria for the site. After first determining the undersea warfare training range was needed, the Navy researched several sites and identified the three mentioned as being the most favorable for a variety of reasons.

One of the criteria is that the chosen site be at least 500 square-nautical-miles, which each of the sites identified meets. The second major factor in determining the location of the warfare range is water depth. To be most effective, the training range needs to be established in areas with water depth ranging from about 120 on the shallow side to as much as 900 feet.

If developed, the range would be equipped with a vast network of undersea cables and sensor nodes connected to a single trunk line running to an established site on land. The Delmarva location meets the requirement the range should be located in close proximity to existing military installations with relative ease-of-access for vessels, aircraft and human resource utilizing the training grounds.

While no one disputes the Navy’s need for the undersea warfare training ground, none of the areas on the Navy’s short list of potential sites seems thrilled at the prospect of having a major naval training range in their own backyard. During Maryland Saltwater Sportfishing Association (MSSA) meeting last week, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fisheries spokesman Martin Gary told assembled local anglers the proposed range off the coast of Delmarva could infringe on canyons off the coast of Ocean City.

“What they’re proposing is an anti-submarine warfare training ground off the coast of Maryland and Virginia,” he said. “As it’s drawn now, it would take in part of the Poor Man’s Canyon on down to the Washington Canyon.”

Gary explained the training range would include a network of 500 miles of fiber-optic cable with sensor nodes on it to allow the Navy to practice detecting submarine activity. He said it remains uncertain just what effect the plan would have on the area’s fishing grounds. “How much impact would there be on the areas you guys love to fish?” said Gary. “It’s a pretty sensitive area in terms of offshore fishing.”

MSSA member and “Morning Star” charter captain Monty Hawkins said he had studied the proposed plan and that the potential impact on fishing depended on whether or not the Navy could conduct its operations without closing the prescribed area to anglers. “If they close the area every time they have an operation, than that’s a big problem,” he said. “If the area remains open for trolling while the exercises are going on, then it shouldn’t be any problem.”

Navy officials explained in a recent public hearing the testing and training is needed to allow the fleet to keep up with the technology of modern, ultra-quiet, diesel-powered submarines. According to Captain Bill Toti, who is officer-in-charge of the Navy’s Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Command, the growing threat of ultra-quiet submarines makes the Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) an essential training tool for submariners.

U.S. Navy officials met with state DNR officials in Annapolis to outline the proposal. The Navy is in the process of conducting public comment hearings in and around the various sites targeted for the potential training range.

In addition to potentially impacting fishing off the coast of the resort, many have raised concern the high-frequency sonar warfare range could adversely impact fish and mammals in the target area. It has been documented that marine mammals such as whales and dolphin have been found dead or dying during high frequency sonar blasts and even the Navy has acknowledged sonar’s role in the mass stranding of marine mammals in areas subjected to intensive tests.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has weighed in on the Navy’s plan to develop an undersea warfare testing range off the East Coast and has predicted similar outcomes. “The Navy says it needs to train with sonar, but whales and other marine life shouldn’t have to die for practice,” said Joe Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC’s Marine Mammal Protection Project.

Sonar Range Debated

Patricia Smith-Heupe, Jacksonville Daily News (NC), 03FEB06

KILL DEVIL HILLS — Charlie the Tuna is just as important as Flipper, Navy representatives told state fisheries officials Thursday.

An environmental analysis of impacts on marine life from a proposed anti-submarine training range in waters off Camp Lejeune focused on whales and dolphins because the available scientific studies indicate impacts of fish are not great, Capt. Kelly Baragar, head of the training department for the U.S. Navy Fleet Forces Command, told the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission.

“There hasn’t been a lot of money spent on the fish piece because most of the impacts are minimal,” Baragar said.

Baragar spoke before the state panel in response to commission member David Hilton, who noted the disparity between the Navy’s efforts to research sonar effects on marine mammals and effects on pelagic fish species. Pelagic species, such as tuna, dolphin and barracuda, are found offshore.

“My point is that there’s a hole in the data and maybe with a little bit of allocation to this issue maybe that hole could be filled,” Hilton said.

Baragar said there are data gaps when it comes to studies of how fish react to mid-frequency sonar use. And, he said he was not disagreeing that more research could be done.

The Navy does plan to monitor impacts from the proposed facility on all marine life, said David Noble, an environmental expert with Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Commission member Barbara Garrity-Blake asked what would happen if, after the range was built, there was found to be an increase in marine mammal strandings or fish kills.

“What’s the plan if it turns out to have a pretty noticeable effect on the marine life,” Garrity-Blake asked.

The Navy would then look at scheduling training around the migratory seasons to avoid problems, Noble replied.

Jene Nissen, sonar policy head at Navy Fleet Forces Command, added that mid-frequency sonar is already in use off the coast and has been used at other training ranges for 40 to 50 years.

“We don’t expect to have that type of impact,” Nissen said.

The Navy wants to build a new Undersea Warfare Training Range in waters off the East Coast and has identified a 500-square-nautical-mile site off Camp Lejeune as its preferred location.

The range would be equipped with a system of sensor devices connected by cables in an area beginning about 47 nautical miles offshore, just south of the area known as Big Rock. The range would be connected to facilities at Camp Lejeune via a buried trunk cable.

Up to three vessels and two aircraft would train on the site at one time for approximately 161 exercises typically lasting for up to six hours per year.

“The best we could possibly do is two events a day,” said Cmdr. Mike Jensen, undersea warfare training manager for the Navy Fleet Forces Command.

The minimum number of days the range would be in use would be 80, Jensen said. Use of the range would generally not exceed 135 days, he said.

Commission member Charlie Adams asked if the Navy had compared the number of recreational, charter boat and commercial fishermen that use the proposed range area to other alternative spots for the sonar range off Virginia or Florida.

“That’s well known to be one of the best places in the world to catch highly pelagic fish,” Adams said.

Baragar said the decision of where the Navy wants to put the range was not based solely on environmental issues.

“This is the one that we prefer because we save money; it’s closer and you have to look at that in the balance,” Baragar said.

Gorbachev Proposes Soviet Sub Crew For Nobel Peace Prize

Interfax, 1 Feb 06

Moscow, 1 February: Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has proposed nominating the crew of the Soviet nuclear submarine K-19 for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The sailors contained a nuclear accident aboard the vessel on 4 July 1961.

Gorbachev has forwarded a request to this effect to the Nobel Committee, the press service of the Gorbachev Foundation has said.

As a result of a leakage of coolant from the primary contour of submarine's reactor, uncontrolled overheating of its active zone began.

The disaster occurred in the Norwegian Sea near the Norwegian Jan Mayen island, where a NATO base was located.

Gorbachev says in the letter that standard measures to normalize the situation did not help. Upon consulting the mechanics and other specialists, submarine commander Nikolay Zateyev gave his subordinates an immediate task "to assemble a pipeline, which was not envisaged by the submarine project, to feed drinking water from a reservoir for the cooling of the reactor".

"After two hours of work stretching human ability to the limit, as recorded in the ship log, the temperature in the reactor fell to the level that could be measured by the control equipment," Gorbachev wrote.

As the level of radiation in the reactor compartment was extremely high, eight members of the crew died of radiation sickness in the following days and weeks.

"Through the courage of the heroic sailors, a reactor explosion and a consequent environmental catastrophe in the ocean were averted. The nuclear contamination resulting from a blast aboard the K-19 would have exceeded that caused by the Chernobyl disaster many times over," Gorbachev wrote to the Nobel Committee.

Gorbachev noted that the emergency situation on board the K-19 had happened during the Cold War period, when US and Soviet nuclear submarines were on permanent alert in the Ocean, and almost coincided with the Caribbean crisis.

"An explosion on board the K-19 could have been taken for a military provocation or even an attempt to launch a nuclear strike on the North American coast. An immediate response by the United States and NATO could have triggered off a Third World War," Gorbachev wrote.

All information about the incident was kept secret in the USSR until 1990, Gorbachev went on to say. "Even those who replaced Zateyev's crew on the K-19 knew nothing about it and none of the sailors were honoured by the state. Moreover, those who died in cruel agony were secretly buried in special lead coffins without notification of the families," the former Soviet leader wrote to the Nobel Committee.

Fifty-six out of the K-19's 139-strong crew on the day of the disaster are still alive. Submarine commander Nikolay Zateyev died in 1998.

"All those who were on board the K-19 that morning and did their job deserve to be regarded by mankind as people who did their utmost to save peace on earth. Awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to the crew of the K-19 submarine would come as a fitting tribute to their exploit, the importance of which only grows with the passage of time," Gorbachev wrote.

Apart from this, "such an act would become a worthy symbol marking the irreversible end of the Cold War", he said.