The U.S. Special Operations Command (SoCom) has canceled near-term plans to buy a fleet of miniature submarines intended to aid Navy SEALs, or commandos, in carrying out covert operations.

“The boat is not ready from a reliability perspective” to enter production, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Eric Olson, SoCom’s deputy commander, told reporters at the Pentagon Nov. 30. “We are canceling investment in hulls two and beyond at this point.”

The Advanced SEAL Delivery System program has been fraught with frustrations since its inception in 1994. The first boat, ASDS 1, was delivered in June 2003 by Northrop Grumman’s Oceanic and Naval Systems division, Annapolis, Md., and has undergone numerous tests from its base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Olson said the inability to solve various technical problems led SoCom to cancel further procurement plans for now. Funds for the second and third boats will be diverted to further development of ASDS 1, he said, adding that there is “no good answer” for when more mini subs might be ordered.

Dale Uhler, SoCom’s chief acquisition executive, noted the command has no intention of holding a new competition that might take the industry lead away from Northrop Grumman.

“We’re going to go with the team we have,” Uhler said. “They know [the boat] better than anyone.”

Next April, the ASDS program was scheduled for its much-delayed “Milestone C” review, a Pentagon hurdle that would have allowed the Navy to buy two more SEAL subs. Olson said an ASDS Reliability Action Panel recommended in mid-November that the review be delayed even further.

The ASDS decision came just weeks after two politicians spoke out strongly on the program.

U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., visited Northrop’s Annapolis facility that makes the ASDS on Nov. 14 and announced she had “succeeded in her fight to fully fund the ASDS at $147.5 million” in 2006. About half that money was for further testing of ASDS 1, while the remainder would have gone to advanced procurement funds for the second sub.

The same day, Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., issued a statement attacking the program, saying, “we throw good money after bad by staying the present course.” Simmons, whose district includes the General Dynamics Electric Boat submarine shipyard in Groton, has repeatedly criticized the ASDS program for being 768 percent above its baseline cost.

“The ASDS program has failed to produce a safe, affordable and operational product after more than a decade of work,” he said Nov. 21 in a letter co-written with Rep. James Langevin, D-R.I., and sent to the leaders of the House Armed Services Committee.

Funding for the ASDS program, including testing and the purchase of two more boats, was to top $1 billion through fiscal 2011. Some of the money now will be plowed into more tests and fixes for ASDS 1, while leftover funds will be returned to Pentagon coffers. Olson declined to provide any figures.

“Specific dollar amounts are to be determined,” he said.

Mikulski said in a press statement that she was “disappointed” by the cancellation.

Simmons also issued a statement, urging the Pentagon “to involve Electric Boat in any variant” of the ASDS program.

The issue of reliability cited by SoCom was challenged by Northrop Grumman. “Since being delivered … ASDS 1 has been operational and performed successfully and reliably for the war fighter,” the company said in a statement released Nov. 30 after Olson’s announcement.

Testing of the sub has included its use on Special Operations missions, sources said. While the SEAL community is reported to be pleased with the general design and configuration of the sub, a series of technical and design problems has plagued the program, and many of the fixes have caused further issues. The problems include vibrations in the propeller shaft, acoustic issues and concerns about the lithium-ion batteries.

The ASDS carries a crew of two plus about five SEALs. The craft is 65 feet long, displaces about 60 tons and can be carried atop submarines or in C-5 and C-17 transport aircraft.

back to top

ASDS Mini-Sub Program Taking On Water

Defense Industry Daily, 6 Dec 05

Northrop Grumman is building the ASDS "Advanced SEAL delivery System" mini-subs, the successors to the previous SDV (SEAL/Swimmer Delivery Vehicle) carried on US Benjamin Franklin Class (SSBN-640) attack submarines.

Unlike the SDV, which is flooded and requires SCUBA gear, the 16 Navy SEALs, USMC Special Forces, or Marine Force Recon members in an ASDS can arrive at their mission drier, warmer, and less fatigued http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/asds-minisub-program-taking-on-water/index.php . The ASDS can deliver up to, and can be launched from the converted SSGN Ohio Class Special Ops/Land Strike submarines, and also from Virginia Class (SSN-744) submarines, from the improved Los Angeles Class (SSN-688I) subs Charlotte (SSN 766) and Greeneville (SSN 772), or from the well decks of amphibious assault ships like the LHD Wasp Class or LPD-17 San Antonio Class. The ASDS will fit in a C-17 Globemaster or C-5 Galaxy aircraft for rapid transport to an appropriate launch platform.

Right now, however, it appears to be having enough challenges just trying to fit its deadline and budgetary tolerance limits.

The ASDS combatant submersible provides a one-atmosphere (that is, pressurized to sea level/outside), dry environment for SOF personnel. ASDS has a full communications suite connectivity similar to a Los Angeles class submarine; a deployable periscope provides optical sighting and forward-looking sonar helps with mine detection, navigation, and collision avoidance in the littorals. The boat will be crewed by two pilots: a submariner in command, and a SEAL co-pilot who is responsible for coordination of mission-specific planning and operations with the embarked SOF unit.

ASDS is designed to provide for rapid lock-out/lock-in of SOF and includes an aft compartment full hyperbaric chamber for the treatment of injured personnel. High-endurance batteries will provide onboard power. The submersible displaces 60 long tons with a beam of 6.75-feet, a height of 8.25-feet, and overall length of 65.2 feet. Propulsion is provided by a 62-horsepower electric motor driving a shrouded rear propeller and two forward and two aft thrusters for fine maneuvering.

A detailed design and manufacturing development contract was awarded in FY 1994.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch notes that the mini-subs were originally supposed to cost $80 million each, but numerous teething problems with the first boat have ballooned its cost to $446 million so far. Instead of completing integration and entering service in 2000, testing continued and the first boat was officially delivered in July 2003.

GlobalSecurity adds that the program was initially projected to cost $527 million, but it is now predicted to rise to more than $2 billion - significantly more than the $1.4 billion SSGN Tactical Trident conversion program to which it is related.

Even so, problems with ASDS 1 have included original batteries that did not work as expected, a boat that was noisier than originally planned (hence much more detectable), and excessive vibration created by subsequent measures taken to muffle the sound. New batteries have not been fully tested.

The problems are so great that US Special Operation Command is stopping further tests on the first boat, delaying the next two boats, and re-examining the program as a whole. Funds for the second and third boats will now be diverted to further development of ASDS 1. All this, five years after the class' planned in-service date and a decade after development began.

In an act of some understatement, Vice Adm. Eric Olson noted that "the boat wasn't ready from a reliability point of view."

The Richmond Times-Dispatch also added that the Northrop Grumman subsidiary that has the construction contract had no experience building submarines, and noted ominously that "a subcontractor built the first hull." This was somewhat unfair. Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems is the prime contractor, and Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipyard is the subcontractor for hull construction. Newport News has built over 53 attack subs over the last four decades, and there is no evidence at this point to suggest that Northrop-Grumman's internal apportioning of the work has made a significant difference to the program.

Nevertheless, the problems facing the ASDS program are serious and long-running. Dale Uhler, SoCom's chief acquisition executive, noted the command has no intention of re-competing the ASDS contract with Northrop Grumman. "We're going to go with the team we have."

I'd be inclined to be less tolerant if someone turned in a performance like that for me. Then, too, ASDS is a critical capability for US Special Forces. Especially given increasing threats in the littorals, it's one that could find itself in heavy demand at any time. Experience building nuclear submarines per se isn't always enough, as military mini-subs are a challenging competency all their own and involve a fundamentally different power source. Only a few nations (incl. Russia and Sweden) really have deep expertise to draw on.

With respect, given the record to date, involving potential foreign partners like Kockums AB with deep experience in both mini subs and advanced battery/AIP power systems might at least be an option for SOCOM to consider.

Footnotes:

¹ Water conducts heat about 100 times more efficiently than air. Unless you've done some SCUBA diving, it's hard to explain just how cold one gets after prolonged exposure, and how much this takes out of you. I'll try with an example, however: the average person can walk around in 75F/23C degree weather wearing shorts, without discomfort, more or less indefinitely. The average person will be shivering continuously after about 30-45 minutes immersed in 75F/23C degree water. Indeed, people in BUDS (SEAL training) have opined that the extended wet/cold factor is what washes out more aspiring SEALs than anything else. A wetsuit can extend one's viable time immersed in water, but does not cancel the cooling effect nor the drain on the body's energy levels.

back to top

Admiral Offers Limited Reassurance On Planned Sardinia Base Closing

Sandra Jontz, Stars And Stripes, 06 DEC 05

The news around Thanksgiving of the impending closure of a U.S. Navy base in Sardinia, Italy, took many by surprise — including the Navy two-star admiral who oversees all U.S. naval facilities in Europe.

So on Friday, Rear Adm. Noel Preston held two impromptu town hall meetings at La Maddalena to quell fears of servicemembers, families, U.S. civilians and local national employees about rumors of a pre-Christmas closure.

He answered a majority of questions by saying, “We just don’t know yet.”

“The biggest question was about the time line,” Preston said in a phone interview late Friday after the meetings. “They wanted to know if this happens, when is it going to happen? … I had to tell them we just don’t know the time line.”

On Nov. 23, Pentagon officials announced the planned closing of La Maddalena, which has assets that support nuclear submarines traveling from U.S. bases to the Italian island of Sardinia. U.S. and Italian government leaders agreed on a complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces and assets from La Maddalena but gave no time line.

The base is home to about 2,500 U.S. servicemembers and families assigned to the Naval Support Activity, Submarine Squadron 22, and the submarine tender USS Emory S. Land, the only U.S. ship based there. Roughly 150 local nationals hold jobs at the base.

Preston was caught off guard by both the announcement and the timing of its release, which came after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino.

“It caught me by surprise,” Preston said.

Closing La Maddalena is part of the Navy’s ongoing transformation of forces in Europe. Navy and Defense leaders determined the base, set up in 1972 to aid in the chasing of Soviet submarines during the Cold War, no longer is needed, Preston said. The decision to close was not because of swelling public protests, he said.

As with the recent closing of naval facilities in England and the downsizing of the naval base in Gaeta, Italy, the Navy will not be “coldheartedly efficient” when it comes to moving its forces, Preston said. For example, families might not be moved immediately if they have a child in school, and leaders will work hard at finding replacement jobs for local nationals, he said.

Preston’s visit satisfied at least two sailors who attended the town hall meetings that the Navy will look out for them, they said in phone interviews Monday.

“We learned they are still working on a time line … and we are to conduct business as normal,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Jim Boothe, the base’s sole telephone technician. “I’m OK with that.”

Master Chief Petty Officer Jonathan Rowcliffe, the senior enlisted adviser of base security, said Preston’s candor lent credibility at the meeting, and though many left with few concrete answers, sailors weren’t riled.

back to top

Analysts Say Navy Ship Plan Faces Uncertainties

By Dale Eisman, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, December 6, 2005

WASHINGTON - A new proposal to revive Navy shipbuilding and add more than 30 vessels to today’s fleet of about 280 depends on the service’s ability to control construction costs and keep other expenses - including the war on terror - from eating into shipbuilding budgets, independent analysts said Monday.

“It’s based on everything breaking right,” said Robert Work, a retired Marine Corps colonel and defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The Navy typically is too optimistic in forecasting its budgets and too conservative in estimating ship costs, he suggested.

Though Navy leaders remained publicly silent on their proposal, the service apparently began briefing key lawmakers last week on a long-range shipbuilding program conceived by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who took over in July as chief of naval operations.

Mullen is reported to envision a fleet of 313 ships by 202 0. To get it, he wants the service to spend an average of $13.4 billion annually on ship construction beginning in 2007. The service invested $10.4 billion on new ships during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 but asked for just $8.7 billion in 2006.

Two months into the new fiscal year, the 2006 overall defense spending plan remains stalled in Congress.

Mullen’s proposal picked up a key early endorsement on Monday as U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., said the Navy leader “can count on me to be one of his strongest supporters.” Warner heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees defense spending.

Other members from shipbuilding states probably will give the proposal a similarly warm reception, analysts said.

But it’s far from certain that Mullen can protect the shipbuilding budget from raids by Pentagon planners when the military runs into unexpected war expenses or is stuck with the bills for its responses to disasters such as H urricane Katrina and last December’s Asian tsunami, they added.

Also contributing to uncertainty about the proposal are steady increases in military pay and benefits, particularly health care costs for service members and retirees. And while senior defense officials apparently have been briefed on the Navy proposal, the Pe ntagon is two months away from completing a Congressionally ordered “Quadrennial Review” that will include its suggestions for force levels in all the military branches.

Work said Mullen’s proposal appears reasonable in the short term, as the service develops the initial ships in its DDX destroyer program and its new aircraft carrier design, CVN-21.

Yet, beginning about 2011 or 2012, there is “significant fiscal risk” in the proposal, as Mullen expects to go to a construction rate of two submarines and at least two major surface ships per year, Work said.

“This looks like it will work only if pretty much everything goes as planned,” agreed Ronald O’Rourke, who tracks Navy programs at the Congressional Research Service.

Work and O’Rourke noted that Mullen’s proposal does not include at least one big ticket item that typically is part of shipbuilding budgets: the $2.5 billion cost of refueling each of the Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

It also apparently does not include the cost of the “mission modules” - special equipment - to be installed on each of the 55 “ littoral combat ships” Mullen wants to buy.

A brainchild of Mullen’s predecessor, now-retired Adm. Vern Clark, the relatively small, fast and highly maneuverable littoral combat ship is being designed for close-to-shore missions such as mine-hunting and anti-submarine warfare.

The interchangeable mission modules, to be installed and removed depending on each ship’s assignment, are expected to cost $150 million each.

The analysts said other potential trouble spots for the plan include:

· CVN-21. The proposal anticipates that the cost of the new series of carriers can be held to $8.8 billion per ship after the first ship in the line. That ship will cost more than $13 billion, including funds for research on its new systems and the development of a new design .

· DDX. The proposal apparently assumes that the Navy can trim $200 million from the cost of each of the first two DDX ships, reducing the price to $3.1 billion per ship. Even at the current Navy estimate of $3.3 billion per ship, there are signs the two initial DDXs may be under-priced. A “cost analysis improvement group” inside the Pentagon has concluded that the first ship in the series could cost more than $4 billion. The cuts apparently will require the removal of some weapons or other systems from the ships, though industry officials have insisted that a stable, long-term Navy budget will allow them to streamline work schedules and significantly reduce costs without cutting into warfighting power.

· The Virginia-class submarine. Mullen’s proposal assumes that the Navy can reduce the price of each Virginia-class sub by about $500 million, to a total of $2 billion.

“The cost estimates on which this plan is based are so unrealistic it’s hard to understand,” said a Congressional analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The plan depends on cutting ship costs in an era in which those costs have been growing, generally faster than the Navy had foreseen, he added.

back to top

U.S. Ship Plan To Cost 20% More

Price Control Will Be Key To Funding 313-Vessel Fleet

By Christopher P. Cavas, Defense News, 5 Dec 05

The U.S. Navy’s plan to boost its shrinking fleet to 313 ships would require nearly one-fifth more money each year for shipbuilding and a strenuous effort to hold down costs.

One defense analyst said the plan would require the Navy to spend an average of $13.4 billion on new ships starting in 2007, a big jump from the $11 billion level of recent years.

“The Navy is betting on a major, sustained shift of funds to shipbuilding,” said the analyst, who warned that the increase would be enough “only if [the Navy] hits their target prices” for individual ships.

The plan, which has the approval of Adm. Mike Mullen, chief of naval operations (CNO), is to be submitted to the Pentagon’s top leadership.

Navy officials said the 313-ship number is not an inflexible figure to adhere to year in and year out, but rather is a “steady-state” requirement around which numbers will rise and fall as ships enter or leave service. The plan sees a high of 333 ships in 2019 - 53 hulls more than today’s 280 - before falling to 312 ships in 2030, with 318 in service in 2035.

“This is a plan built around what we believe are the minimum fleet requirements, given the current budgeting system and the build rates we can accomplish,” a Navy official said. “These [numbers] will be continually adjusted as we go through the future, based upon war-fighting requirements that may arise, or budgetary realities.”

The plan keeps the number of aircraft carriers at 11 and eliminates today’s guided-missile frigates. A large chunk of the fleet will be the 55 Littoral Combat Ships, new low-cost, frigate-sized vessels intended to fight close to shore.

It also sets the requirement for nuclear attack submarines at 48, only four boats less than today’s 52. Many in the undersea warfare community have feared that the attack fleet could shrink to 30 or fewer subs, which would be the case if new construction orders can’t rise above one hull per year.

Adm. Vern Clark, whom Mullen relieved in July as CNO, testified last summer that he envisioned a fleet of 41 subs. But Mullen has repeatedly indicated he would support a higher number.

Getting to 48 boats would require a change in the Navy’s current procurement plan, which buys one ship per year through fiscal 2011. “Anything above about 45,” said one congressional naval source, “you have to start building two right away and some years with three per year.”

Reining In DD(X) Costs

Paying for the new fleet will mean a major effort to convince Congress and voters that warships are a good investment - a particularly hard sell at a time when the defense budget is likely to decrease, the Army is expanding, and the government is struggling to finance the war in Iraq, rebuilding efforts from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and tax cuts.

It also will mean holding down costs, and that includes getting the price of each SSN-774 Virginia-class attack submarine down to $2 billion from about $2.5 billion today, and putting a ceiling of $8.8 billion on the second CVN 21 aircraft carrier.

The service already is working on reducing the cost of one of its most expensive warships, the advanced and controversial DD(X) destroyer. A months-long effort to find cost-saving design and production changes has trimmed some $200 million from the price tag for the first DD(X), which would bring it down from the official estimate of $3.3 billion to less than $3.1 billion.

That would be a major reversal for the program, which has steadily grown in cost since its inception more than a decade ago. Several budget analysts testified before Congress last summer that the price for the first ship could break the $4 billion mark. The Pentagon’s own Cost Analysis Improvement Group also agreed with the higher estimates.

The Navy already has altered the program’s acquisition strategy, which would have divided DD(X) orders between Northrop Grumman Ship Systems’ Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard and General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine.

On Nov. 23, Pentagon acquisition chief Ken Krieg approved the service’s proposal to build “simultaneous lead ships” at each shipyard, analyze the cost-effectiveness of each operation, and then decide on a purchasing strategy for the rest of the class. One option: award all the remaining destroyers to only one shipyard, a move intended to eliminate paying overhead costs for more than one shipbuilder.

Former Navy acquisition chief John Young, who left office a month ago to take another Pentagon position, set a goal earlier this year of between $1.8 billion and $2 billion for later ships in the class. Few observers believe the Navy can reach those numbers, the lowest of which is barely above the $1.7 billion price tag for Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers now under construction. The Navy predicts that the fifth ship will still cost about $2.5 billion.

The service is trying to avoid design changes that would “impact the war-fighting capability,” the Navy official said.

One alteration - the elimination of a secondary magazine to store 300 155mm rounds for the ship’s Advanced Gun System - will do just that. The official said this was an acceptable tradeoff.

“With the accuracy of the rounds now, you need fewer rounds to destroy the target,” he said.

Other changes include “deckhouse optimization and how you position equipment in the pilothouse,” he said, along with “design process changes” that would eliminate some costly engineering drawings, standardization of parts, along with possible changes in the propulsion system.

Although the streamlining effort has lowered the cost, it is unlikely such an effort could ever get to the $1.7 billion level contained in the House 2006 defense authorization bill.

“If somebody tells us we have to go to $1.7 billion or $1.8 billion, you don’t have a DD(X),” the Navy official said.

Two Ships in 2007

Under the Navy’s new plan, the service intends to ask for two DD(X) destroyers in the 2007 budget, which will go to Congress in early February. The plan essentially moves the previously planned 2008 ship up a year, and still includes one ship in each budget for 2009 through 2013, for a total of seven DD(X) destroyers.

The budget plan also shows the first CG(X) missile-defense cruiser in the 2011 budget, with one each in 2013 and 2014 and two ships in 2015. The first CG(X) would be delivered in 2017, and a total of 19 are planned to be in service by 2030.

Young had said the CG(X) would be based on the DD(X) hull, but some sources have said that might not be the case. Design work on the project was scheduled to begin in earnest this fall.

Although the Navy has secured Pentagon approval for its dual-lead ship DD(X) plan, sources said there might be a gap of eight to 12 months or more between actual construction of the ships, a strategy that would allow for early lessons learned from the first ship to be applied to the second. That might also create problems with fairly evaluating the two shipbuilders, since the second builder could take advantage of the improvements, sources said.

Staggering the construction also could ease supplier issues for some of the ship’s unique systems.

Officially, the Navy would not discuss the new force level plan.

“It is premature for the Navy to discuss future ship force levels before the Quadrennial Defense Review is submitted to Congress in February,” said Lt. John Gay, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.

back to top

Simmons Backs Plan To Expand Navy Fleet

By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 6 Dec 05

U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, voiced strong support Monday for the chief of naval operations' plan to expand the Navy fleet and again called for a two-submarines-a-year construction rate.

“We need to recapitalize this Navy,” Simmons said, “and I agree with (Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen) 100 percent and look forward to supporting him in increasing the shipbuilding budget.”

Word of Mullen's proposed long-term shipbuilding plans began to leak out of Washington, D.C., late last week, and The New York Times reported Monday that Mullen is advocating a $13 billion annual fleet program, up about $3 billion from the current shipbuilding budget.

Simmons said he is finding growing support among fellow members of Congress for the construction of two submarines annually, rather than the current low production rate of roughly one submarine a year.

Mullen, the Navy's top officer, has been working on his top-to-bottom review of the service as part of a comprehensive four-year defense review. The Navy is considering boosting its fleet to 313 ships by 2020, up from its current fleet of 282 ships and vessels. The official release of the quadrennial defense review isn't expected until early spring, although Washington insiders are already hinting at the various prospects for the armed services, including boosting the Navy's fleet by more than 30 vessels.

That Navy scenario includes a small reduction in the submarine fleet, from the current roster of 50 nuclear attack submarines to 48, although some Navy officials and others have advocated a fleet of 55 submarines to meet increasing global requirements and increasing requests for global terrorism duty by the Silent Service.

Simmons cautioned that hard numbers are still speculative, but said he and the state's congressional delegation, along with their counterparts in Rhode Island, are stepping up efforts to boost yearly production to two submarines.

Currently, the Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, the nation's only submarine yard, and Northrop Grumman's Newport News ship works in Virginia, are producing the equivalent of one submarine a year.

Both yards have formed a partnership to produce the Virginia-class attack submarine, which carries a price tag of roughly $2.4 billion. Mullen has hinted at support for a boost in the Virginia-class submarine, but he also has said the price tag on the sleek boat needs to be narrowed to the $2 billion-a-copy range.

The current production rate for the Groton yard is worrying the congressional delegation, which has said it is concerned about future job losses if submarine production doesn't increase. In addition, it worries about the loss of the valuable, and specialized, skills required to build the complex submarines. EB employs about 7,500 people in Groton as well as 2,500 in Quonset Point, R.I.

EB officials will meet this morning at the Groton yard with legislative leaders and business officials for their annual briefing on upcoming production schedules and work force requirements for the submarine builder.

“I believe that if we don't get the second Virginia class sub into the queue, we're going to be in serious trouble,” Simmons said. The congressman said he understands that Navy budget planners are facing conflicting demands as well as a tightening spigot on the nation's defense spending. There's defense and congressional support for the new DD(X) destroyers as well as the littoral ships that are needed for close-to-shore operations as well as the CVN-21 class of aircraft carriers.

“But I think there are a growing number of members of Congress who understand that in the past we've made shipbuilding decisions based on the budget, not based on threats, and that's backward,” Simmons said. “We need to make them based on the threat, not the budget,” he said.

back to top

Letter to the Editor: Day Needs To Apologize For Midshipmen Photo

By David H. Stryker, New London Day, Published December 6, 2005

As the president of the Connecticut Chapter of the U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association, I normally try to stay out of the limelight. But your recent printing of sleeping midshipmen awaiting a major policy speech of the commandeer in chief of all our Armed Forces was appalling. It was a cheap shot at the Navy, the Naval Academy and our alumni, and it implied lack of interest by the midshipmen in what the president of the United States had to say. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

I have visited the academy twice in the past year, have dined with them in the mess hall and have interacted with them in several venues. They get it and you do not. They are as gung-ho as you can imagine. I am tired or your biased reporting of the war in Iraq, this administration and our military.

To your readers who seek the news you never seem to print, I recommend the Washington Times Weekly and Internet site, newsmax.com. The Day has an obligation to tell the whole story.

How about an equally large photo on the front page of the sad faces of the Army team as cadets sang their alma mater after the Army-Navy game Saturday?

And how about an apology to the Naval Academy, its alumni and our troops in Iraq? I suggest Navy readers stop their subscriptions for a month in protest. Please, tell the whole story.

back to top

Pannell relieves Carpenter as Commanding Officer, USS Charlotte (SSN 766)

By COMNAVSUBFOR Public Affairs, 06 DEC 05

NORFOLK, Va. – Commander Bobby J. Pannell will relieve Commander Dennis E. Carpenter as Commanding Officer of the nuclear-powered fast attack submarine USS Charlotte (SSN 766) in a ceremony at Devry Hall, Naval Station Norfolk, on Wednesday, December 7, 2005.

Captain Michael A. Zieser, Commander Submarine Squadron ONE, will be the guest speaker at the change of command ceremony.

Cmdr. Pannell, a native of Missouri, joined the Navy in 1982. After completing the enlisted nuclear pipeline, he was selected to the Nuclear Enlisted Commissioning Program. He attended the University of Texas, graduating in 1987 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics, and commissioned in 1988.

After completing the nuclear and submarine training pipelines, Pannell reported aboard the ballistic missile submarine USS James Madison (SSBN 627), where he completed four strategic deterrent patrols. His other sea duty assignments include Engineering Officer, USS Louisville (SSN 724), and Executive Officer, USS Olympia (SSN 717).

Pannell attended the Navy Post Graduate School in 1994, where he earned a Masters of Science degree in Operations Research. He was previously assigned as Deputy Current Operations Officer and Submarine Operations Officer on the staff of Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Cmdr. Carpenter joined the Navy’s Nuclear Power Officer Candidate Program while attending the University of South Florida in 1983. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and was commissioned in 1984.

He first reported to USS Philadelphia (SSN 690), where he completed a Mediterranean Sea deployment and a North Atlantic deployment. In April 1988, he reported to USS West Virginia (SSBN 736) as part of the initial increment new construction crew, serving aboard through commissioning and initial operations. His other sea duty assignments include Engineering Officer, USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705), and Executive Officer USS Georgia (SSBN 729)(Gold).

Carpenter reported as Charlotte’s Commanding Officer in April 2003. During his tenure as commanding officer, Charlotte completed two Western Pacific deployments, two Eastern Pacific deployments, including numerous operational testing of the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), and was awarded a Navy Unit Commendation.

Carpenter’s next duty assignment is as Deputy Commander for Training, Submarine Squadron THREE.

USS Charlotte arrived in Norfolk on November 28 from its homeport in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The submarine made a temporary change of homeport in order to undergo a major Depot Modernization Period (DMP) at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Va.

Commissioned in 1994, USS Charlotte lives up to its motto as the “Silent Stinger.” An improved Los Angeles class submarine, Charlotte is 360 feet long, displaces 6,900 tons of water, and can travel in excess of 25 knots. Charlotte’s armaments include Tomahawk cruise missiles and MK-48 advanced capability torpedoes.

An average of ten attack submarines are deployed globally at any given time, performing a variety of mission in support of national security and the global war on terrorism. With stealth, endurance and agility, fast-attack submarines are multi-mission capable – able to deploy and support special forces operations, disrupt and destroy an adversary’s military and economic operations at sea, provide early strike from close proximity, and ensure undersea superiority.

For more information on USS Charlotte, visit the Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet website at www.csp.navy.mil.

back to top

Right whales get help

Boaters being put on notice of seasonal visit

By Jack Morse, The Brunswick News, Dec. 5, 2005

There are a few signs that right whales are moving into the area, like cooler weather and water temperatures. Then, too, there are the actual signs.

"Help Protect North Atlantic Right Whales," they say, and, "They are usually seen here between December and March."

The signs, which have been provided by funding from a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant, are being placed by state wildlife agencies in marinas and at public boat ramps along the coasts of Georgia, Florida and South Carolina.

They mention identifying characteristics for the endangered right whales – such as a notched tail and white markings on the head – and provide other information, such as who to contact if an injured or dead whale is spotted.

Leigh Youngner, a wildlife technician for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division, said the signs are designed to increase public awareness about calving grounds, among other things.

"We'd really just like people to know that they're out there," she said.

Right whales use the waters off the shores of the Southeastern United States for calving before moving north toward New England. Since there are only about 300 right whales left, Youngner said it is imperative that steps be taken to protect them.

Last March, a right whale was struck by a recreational vessel off the Georgia coast, nearly severing its fluke. The injuries are believed to have been life-threatening.

Youngner said there has been an increase in harassment of right whales over the years by recreational boaters.

The signs seek to discourage such activity by reminding boaters of a law that says they must remain at least 500 yards away from whales.

back to top

Russia Offers Small Subs to Middle East

Middle East News Line, 06 Dec 05

ABU DHABI [MENL] -- Russia has launched the marketing of midget submarines in the Middle East.

But Russia 's state-owned defense industry faces competition from indigenous model midget subs, including those developed by Iran and the United Arab Emirates. The market for such submarines was expected to grow significantly by 2010.

Russia's Malakhit Marine Engineering Bureau has targeted the Middle East as a major market for small and midget submarines. Executives said the Middle East, including the Gulf, would become a leading market as Gulf waters are too shallow for conventional size underwater vessels.

Malakhit has presented its Piranha midget submarine to several GCC and Middle East countries. The Piranha has been examined by the UAE, but the emirates decided to develop its own underwater vessels.

back to top

MSP fined after Trident protest

BBC News, 5 Dec 05

Socialist MSP Rosie Kane was among a group of 10 anti-nuclear demonstrators fined for blocking part of Edinburgh's Royal Mile in a 15-hour protest.

The demonstrators used a 25ft mock submarine to make their point outside the Scottish Parliament on 10 March.

After a three-day trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, they were found guilty of obstructing traffic and the police.

The individuals, representing Trident Ploughshares Movement, were each fined £300 by the court on Monday.

At the start of the court hearing, the Crown withdrew an allegation that the demonstration had placed road users in danger.

'Democratic deficit'

Fiscal Malcolm Stewart said the demonstrators claimed they had tried all legal, democratic moves, but said they claimed there was a "democratic deficit" in Scotland and that they could do nothing else but stage the protest.

Mr. Stewart said that when asked to move the submarine in the evening and warned that they would be charged, the protesters refused to help and linked arms inside the submarine, which had to be cut apart by police.

The demonstrators all represented themselves and said they had a legal right under international law to protest and had a reasonable excuse.

They claimed the event had been peaceful, friendly and good-natured.

Protesters' reasons

Ms. Kane said no-one knew when, where or how Trident missiles might be used.

"We have a duty to let the rest of the world be aware of what we are aware and so they can also make representations to their elected representatives," she said.

Sheriff Noel McPartlin said he took into account the protesters' reasons for acting as they did and conducting themselves in a civilised manner.

He allowed them all three months to pay, although some of them indicated they would not pay the fines.

back to top