Since 01-13-06
SS News Daily
for 10JAN06
Since 01-13-06
The Daily Internal Information Source for the U.S. Navy Submarine Force
For more news and information about the submarine force, visit our website at http://www.sublant.navy.mil/.
CLICK HERE http://www.sublant.navy.mil/photo.html To view photos from around the submarine force.
CLICK HERE to subscribe to Undersea Enterprise News Daily, your daily source of submarine news and information.
U.S. Navy photographed by Mr. Anthony Madina
Eight Tenets That Guide My Vision for the 21st Century Navy
Admiral Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Proceedings, Jan 06
Work On USS Texas Is Not Expected To Affect Job Cuts
By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 10 Jan 06
EB Workers Turn Former Cold War-era Ballistic Subs Into Covert-capable Cruise Missile Platforms
By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 10 Jan 06
The Associated Press (Seattle Post Intelligencer), 9 Jan 06
Puget Sound Business Journal
By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, 10 Jan 06
President Chen this week renewed a request to approve a multibillion-dollar arms purchase
By Robert Marquand, Christian Science Monitor, January 10, 2006
Ben Mitchell, The Scotsman, 10 January 2006
Naval Submarine League, 6 January 2006
U.S. Navy photographed by Mr. Anthony Madina
Puget Sound, Wash. (Jan. 4, 2006) - The Ohio-class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine USS Alabama (SSBN 731) is being moved "dead-stick" in the sound by a flotilla of tugboats with Mount Rainer in background. Alabama is the last SSBN converting from the C4 Trident missile system to the new D5 Trident missile system. The system upgrade is taking place at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility.
Eight Tenets That Guide My Vision for the 21st Century Navy
Admiral Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Proceedings, Jan 06
Last October I published my Guidance for 2006, in which I laid out a long-term vision for our Navy. I also provided some guiding principles and near-term objectives to help us achieve that vision. What follows here is what you didn't see in that document—the philosophical underpinnings and the rationale with which I wrote it.
I thought it important to share with you, the readers of Proceedings, my general view of the security environment in which we live and the important role I think sea power will inevitably play in shaping that environment.
This is not a discussion necessarily about programs or policies. It"s not even wholly about specific operating concepts, tactics, or fiscal realities. It is an overview, a framework, if you will, with which we can attempt to make sense of the world around us, the challenges we face, and the demands on our time and resources.
My point is this: it is time to elevate the discussion of sea power. For far too long and in far too many ways, it has been about big-ship battles and high-tech weapons systems. Life is just not that simple anymore. The attack on the USS Cole was our tipping point.
We face entirely new challenges, the likes of which we couldn't even have imagined just a few short years ago. How we deal with those challenges will affect not only America's freedom, but also the freedom of millions of others—women and men—all over the world. We will still need traditional warfighting capabilities, of course, but given today's incredibly complex and dynamic threats, not to mention tomorrow's uncertainty, we must be capable of much, much more.
With that as preamble, and remembering we are already in a war, here are the eight central tenets upon which I built my Guidance for 2006:
1. America is and will remain a maritime nation.
More than half of all Americans now live on or near a coast. Fully 95% of our imports and exports from outside North America travels by water and that volume is expected to double by 2020. In 2004 alone, the United States imported a record $1.47 trillion worth of goods and exported nearly $820 billion, also a record.
The American people expect the Navy to help protect that vital trade, not to mention their own safety and freedom of movement. They expect a Navy capable of safeguarding their sources of energy and access to the wealth of the oceans. In short, our nation's prosperity depends on unimpeded maritime commerce just as its security depends on continued maritime dominance.
The Navy, in partnership with joint forces and interagency efforts, continues to deliver that dominance. Whether spearheading Operation Enduring Freedom by providing sovereign deck space from which to launch the war in Afghanistan, continuing to support ground operations in Iraq from the sea, in the air, and on the land as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, patrolling the seas to interdict and deny access to terrorists and those whose designs are inimical to freedom, or shaping the maritime domain through swift humanitarian action in Indonesia or our own Gulf Coast, America's Navy provides unique and enduring operational options for the President and our combatant commanders.
2. We live in a challenging new era.
Our military is confronting a highly dynamic security environment far more complex, uncertain, and threatening than any we have faced before. While this is a time of promise and developing partnerships, it is also an era of irregular and increasingly unrestricted warfare. Our adversaries, unable and unwilling in some cases to match our technological warfighting advantage, will increasingly resort to whatever means are available to wreak havoc and destruction—physically, economically, and psychologically—unhindered and unconstrained by conscience or civilized norms.
To be effective in this environment, combatant commanders require tools that are not only instruments of war, but implements for stability, security, and reconstruction in our global neighborhood. Consider, for example, the international response to the devastating tsunami in Indonesia. For our part, in the Navy and Marine Corps, that response consisted of a carrier strike group and an expeditionary strike group—dozens of ships and helicopters and thousands of sailors and Marines, all collected and connected for one purpose: to save lives, provide security, and restore a sense of hope.
We literally built a city at sea for no other purpose than to serve the needs of other people. Aside from the lives we—along with our international partners—helped save, we started changing hearts and minds. We started showing them a side of American power that wasn't perceived as frightening, monolithic, or arrogant. We showed them American power—sea power—at its finest, and at its most noble.
I was struck by the results of a nationwide poll conducted two months later by a leading Indonesian pollster, Lembega Survei Indonesia. The poll found that, as a direct result of our humanitarian assistance—and for the first time ever in a Muslim nation—more people favored U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism than opposed them (40% to 36%). Perhaps more critically, the poll also found that those who opposed U.S. efforts in the war on terror declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% in 2005. According to the group Terror Free Tomorrow, who commissioned the poll, it was a "stunning turnaround of public opinion" and demonstrates that "U.S. actions can make a significant and immediate difference in eroding the support base for global terrorists."
That was, in my view, one of the defining moments of this new century, and shame on us if, even through benign neglect, we allow those same opinions to turn against our best intentions again.
3. The Navy will remain rotational, forward deployed, and surge capable.
The Navy must be postured to win wars and defend the homeland, to empower our friends, and to help emerging partners who are struggling against the elements of instability—presence with a purpose.
Poor and mismanaged economies, the underdeveloped rule of law, systemic corruption, inadequate health systems, ethnic rivalry, and religious hatred all feed frustration, extremism, and terrorism. We must be able to continue to react quickly in times of humanitarian crises and with resolve in times of conflict. We must deter and dissuade potential adversaries in peacetime through persistent forward presence, and respond instantaneously in war by amassing overwhelming and lethal combat power. As we learned in Indonesia, and as we are seeing in the international relief efforts in earthquake-stricken Pakistan today, virtual presence is not the answer. You need to be there to make a difference.
To be effective in the multitude of missions that await us, the Navy must be capable of assuring access—at a time and place of our choosing—throughout the maritime domain. It is not enough that our sailors have the capacity to react instantly to actionable intelligence. They must develop a true understanding of the complex world in which they operate and the cultures with which they interact.
4. The level of international maritime cooperation will increase.
Not so very long ago, maritime security generally began and ended with national borders at the limits of our territorial waters. Nobody spoke of the threats from transnational networks, environmental attack, human trafficking, and failed states. Threats were well defined, and I would go so far as to say that maritime security was relatively simple. Those days are gone.
The cold truth is that these are just a few of today's challenges, shared by all maritime nations, that now flow almost seamlessly from the sea—over, around, and through our borders. The global maritime commons, as it is called, can now provide a venue through which both security and threats to that security pass freely and easily. Piracy, for example, can no longer be viewed as someone else's problem. It is a global threat to security because of its deepening ties to international criminal networks, smuggling of hazardous cargoes, and disruption of vital commerce.
Sea power, and the way international navies collectively wield it in the 21st century, must adapt. It will still require lethal warfighting capabilities, of course, but it must possess much, much more. Most significant, it will require global cooperation, interoperability, and an understanding of the nature of the threats we face. As Vice Admiral John Morgan and Rear Admiral Charles Martoglio put it in "The 1,000-Ship Navy" in the November issue of Proceedings, "Policing the maritime commons will require substantially more capability than the United States or any individual nation can deliver. It will take a combination of national, international, and private-industry cooperation to provide the platforms, people, and protocols necessary to secure the seas against the transnational threat."
As we build on existing alliances and cooperative efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Regional Maritime Security Initiative, we find that every nation has a stake in global security and stability, and a distinct, unique capability, as well as a great desire, to contribute. Our goal is to extend the peace through an inter-connected community of maritime nations-a proverbial world navy of 1,000 ships—comprised of all freedom-loving nations, standing watch over the seas.
5. New opportunities and security challenges require new skills.
Our sailors must be empowered to operate and fight in a vast array of environments that range from failing states and ungoverned spaces to the most technologically advanced nations, virtual worlds, and cyberspace. They will be expected to understand and foster cooperation in cultures far different from our own. They will be ambassadors, educators, health care providers, mentors, and friends to a diverse cross-section of the global community. They must, therefore, be equipped with the tools and skills to meet these challenges and to develop as leaders.
They must also be supported by the right information at the right time—expanding maritime domain awareness throughout the global commons and the world's shallow waterways. In a world of growing global connectivity, the volume of information we are able to collect matters less than our ability to identify and understand what is important. Sailors must learn to recognize what matters, to comprehend the implications of the information they gather, and then act on it instantly, with the right capabilities.
To better serve them and, in turn, make them as effective as possible, we must: improve diversity; encourage and reward continuing education and training; institutionalize executive development; assign our best and brightest to critical joint, interagency, and foreign exchange tours; increase access to foreign language and cultural awareness training; respond rapidly to significant changes in leading indicators for recruiting and retention; and better recognize the important role families play in our readiness and quality of life. It is this commitment to our own that will best demonstrate our resolve and determination in a new era.
6. Calculating the size of the force demands balance between capabilities, capacity, and fiscal reality.
Perhaps no other challenge is as daunting right now for the Navy as that of defining future force structure, and then building to it. The calculus of force sizing includes the varied and sometimes competing requirements of homeland defense; the Global War on Terror; major combat operations; theater security cooperation; humanitarian assistance; peacekeeping operations and showing the flag—all within the constraints of fiscal responsibility, industrial capacity, and national infrastructure.
Tomorrow's Fleet will reap the benefits of a strong research-and-development program for shipbuilding and will be supported by a stable industrial base, robust enough to withstand natural disaster or catastrophic attack. We must align the industrial base for long-term force development through multi-year funding, advanced procurement, and incentives for cost savings. Sea Enterprise, our Navy's continuing effort to recapitalize, must remain an enabler to build ships more efficiently, cost effectively, and quickly.
7. The future Fleet will be larger and more capable.
It will have the capacity to overmatch any adversary. It will assure access and sustainability of the joint force in blue, green, and brown waters and include globally distributed and networked air, surface, and undersea capabilities, in partnership with the Marine Corps. The Fleet will also work more closely with the Coast Guard, as envisioned in the President's National Strategy for Maritime Security and the National Fleet Policy.
It will rely on joint seabasing that will provide for sustained air and ground anti-access operations in access-restricted environments. It will leverage both manned and unmanned technologies. And it will build on the foundation of FORCEnet, the operational model and architectural framework for future naval warfare that will integrate sailors, sensors, networks, command and control, platforms, and weapons into a networked, distributed combat force.
8. Sea Power 21 will remain the framework for our Navy's ongoing transformation.
I worked hard under my predecessor, Admiral Vern Clark, as one of Sea Power 21's principal architects. I believe in it and intend to use it.
Our Sea Strike capability will continue to be centered on carrier and expeditionary strike groups, with sufficient lift, sustainability, and tactical aviation assets to meet irregular and conventional joint warfighting requirements. Sea Basing will be facilitated by expeditionary warfare ships and connectors, heavy lift and transport aircraft, maritime prepositioning forces, and by the combat logistics force. Sea Shield capabilities, which are designed to extend naval defensive firepower far beyond the task force, will be enabled by advanced antisubmarine warfare and theater ballistic-missile defense technologies, and by a submarine fleet with a technological edge over all adversaries in warfighting, intelligence-gathering, detectability, and survivability. Further, the Fleet Response Plan and basing options will provide an adjustable rheostat to meet foreseeable forward-presence requirements.
Conclusion: The U.S. Navy in a New Era
It is impossible to foresee, or to fully comprehend, all the challenges of the future. We have entered an era of uncertainty. But by building a balanced force that is resilient and adaptable, with the depth of capabilities required to meet the demands of a multi-mission, multi-task environment, we can mitigate this uncertainty. We must assess the risks and successfully manage them.
The Navy cannot meet the threats of tomorrow by simply maintaining today's readiness and requirements. Our adversaries will not rest, our global neighbors will not wait. Neither will we. Building on Sea Power 21, we must continue to transform, recapitalize, and modernize for the future without jeopardizing our current readiness and the strides we have made—-and continue to make—in personnel and manpower management.
With our partners in industry, the acquisition community, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, other governmental and non-governmental agencies, and with the continuing support of the Congress, the Navy will build a force that is properly sized, balanced, and priced for tomorrow.
As Admiral John B. Nathman makes clear in the article that follows, Shaping the Future, American sea power in the 21st century is the projection of power—and more. It extends beyond the sea. It is joint and interagency. It requires awareness and understanding. It enables access and cooperation. It provides for presence and interaction. It is driven by compassion and collective security. And it is decisive and lethal. It is and must be wielded by American sailors as a force both for war and for peace.
I think Admiral Raymond Spruance had it just about right when he defined sea power as "pushing our front lines as far forward as possible." A naval force floating off the continental shelf with no impact on shore is not decisive. We must go forward to the very reaches of the sea, operating effectively in every part of the littoral and beyond. That is the debate I am eager to have, and that is the level to which I want the discussion raised.
Work On USS Texas Is Not Expected To Affect Job Cuts
By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 10 Jan 06
The state's congressional delegation said Monday that the Navy has awarded an $85 million contract to Electric Boat for post-construction work on the USS Texas, the second of the new Virginia class of submarines being built by EB and Northrop Grumman Newport News.
The contract is a significant win for the Groton shipyard, which is facing large-scale job reductions this year. The Navy could have awarded the work, called a post-shakedown availability, or PSA, to the Newport News yard in Virginia.
“I have long touted the superior work done at Electric Boat,” said U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District. “The Navy is beginning to see the value associated with bringing more maintenance work to EB.”
U.S. Sens. Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph I. Lieberman, both Connecticut Democrats, hailed the news of additional work for EB, which could lose as many as 2,400 workers this year through retirements, attrition and layoffs because of a lack of design, maintenance and repair work.
“While we celebrate today's good news,” said Dodd, “I remain gravely concerned about impending layoffs at Electric Boat and how it will affect our nation's ability to maintain a first-rate fleet.”
Lieberman also voiced concern about the job reductions at EB.
“In the face of potential job cuts at Electric Boat, we cannot underestimate the impact that could have on our ability to maintain an adequate sub fleet,” the senator said.
EB is owned by the Falls Church, Va.-based General Dynamics and employs about 8,500 people in Groton and about 2,000 at its Quonset Point, R.I., shipyard as well as a small number of employees at satellite locations.
Shipyard officials hailed the news.
“This is certainly welcome business,” said Robert A. Hamilton, EB's spokesman. “It has a lot of importance to us right now.”
EB officials said they don't expect the $85 million in new work would stave off job reductions this year because work on the Texas nuclear-attack submarine won't begin until January 2007 and will run through November of that year. EB officials were still digesting details Monday and weren't able to determine the immediate effect the work would have on their 2007 work force projections.
The Texas, which has joined the Navy's fleet and has been undergoing various sea trials, requires certain upgrades and modifications as well as a special hull treatment. EB is able to accommodate the hull work with its large dry-dock facilities. The Virginia yard doesn't have a dry dock that could accommodate the hull treatment, according to the congressional delegation.
In addition, Dodd, Lieberman and Simmons said the Navy could save up to $30 million by awarding the work to EB because it has the dry dock and the experienced work force to handle the specialized task.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell joined the delegation in voicing support for the EB contract, saying it “underscores the value of this company and the talent of its workers in the Connecticut economy.”
During this summer's successful fight to reverse a Pentagon recommendation that the Naval Submarine Base in Groton be closed, Rell said the submarine base and Groton shipyard are vital linchpins in both the regional and state economies, accounting for more than 30,000 jobs and pumping more than $3 billion annually into the overall economy.
The delegation said the submarine is scheduled to be homeported at the Groton sub base. Awarding the post-shakedown work to the Groton shipyard just down river from the base would allow the crew to remain with their families during the work period.
Simmons, Dodd and Lieberman have been working behind the scenes to boost funding for the nation's submarine force. Currently, EB builds the equivalent of a half-sub a year as part of its construction teaming arrangement with the Virginia shipyard. The state's congressional delegation, along with its counterpart in Rhode Island, is building support in Congress for funding the equivalent of two submarines a year rather than the current rate of one sub annually.
Simmons, Dodd and Lieberman also have been urging Navy officials for more maintenance and repair-type work that would help EB weather the dearth of new-submarine construction. EB announced in December that Navy officials had indicated future sub maintenance and repair work would be funneled to government-owned shipyards, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine.
EB Workers Turn Former Cold War-era Ballistic Subs Into Covert-capable Cruise Missile Platforms
By Anthony Cronin, New London Day, 10 Jan 06
Electric Boat announced Monday that it has converted the first Trident ballistic missile submarine into a “multi-mission” vessel capable of carrying up to 154 cruise missiles and supporting extended-length special forces operations.
EB workers stationed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., completed work on the USS Ohio, the first Trident ballistic submarine to be reconfigured for covert tactical strikes and special missions.
John Casey, EB's president, hailed the Ohio's completion, adding the entire conversion of the USS Ohio -- from design to final sea-testing -- was done three years after the Navy agreed to the program.
“That's a remarkable achievement,” Casey said.
The $1.4 billion ballistic-sub conversion program calls for EB to convert four SSBN Trident submarines into SSGN guided-missile vessels, with completion of the fourth submarine expected next year. The conversion program was awarded to the Groton-based submarine builder in 2002.
The Ohio has begun sea trials from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. EB employees there also are working on the conversion of the USS Michigan, while EB employees at the Norfolk (Va.) Naval Shipyard are working on converting the USS Florida and the USS Georgia, the third and fourth submarines in the four-boat class of SSGNs.
The Ohio's conversion was done during its midlife refueling process and now allows the submarine to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as up to 66 special operation forces, such as Navy SEAL commandos. The giant ship also is capable of carrying two dry-dock shelters or two Advanced SEAL Delivery System mini-subs. Both support special warfare missions.
So far, however, only one SEAL mini-sub has been built by Northrop Grumman amid safety and budget concerns.
Casey said the conversion of the former Tridents to guided-missile and special operations vessels is a tribute to the collective efforts of EB workers as well as Puget Sound shipyard workers and the Navy's strategic systems and sea systems command programs.
“Their contributions have provided the Navy with a powerful warship that embodies unparalleled capabilities,” he said.
Casey said the successful completion of the Ohio allows EB and the Navy to integrate new technologies into submarines in the future. These new converted subs will serve as test platforms to develop and test new weapons systems, sensors as well as other “operational concepts,” according to EB officials.
Casey said the conversion process on the other three Trident subs is progressing smoothly. He said the USS Florida, the second of the conversions, is on track to follow the Ohio's trials by three months.
“This will enable us to provide the U.S. Navy with a second (converted sub) over a shorter-than-normal time frame,” Casey said.
The Associated Press (Seattle Post Intelligencer), 9 Jan 06
BREMERTON, Wash. -- The first of four conversions to allow older Trident submarines to carry 154 conventionally armed cruise missiles instead of 24 nuclear missiles has been completed, the contractor announced Monday.
The USS Ohio is ready to be transferred to a training center at St. Marys, Ga., where sailors will learn how to launch Tomahawk missiles from the converted subs.
The $1.4 billion conversion contract with Groton, Conn.-based General Dynamics Electric Boat was signed in 2002 and is expected to be completed by September 2007, said company spokesman Robert A. Hamilton.
The Ohio was converted at the Puget Sound Navy Shipyard in Bremerton, and so will the USS Michigan, scheduled to be completed in December. The USS Florida, a few months behind the Ohio, will be completed by April at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia, Hamilton said. The USS Georgia conversion is slated for completion in September 2007, also at Norfolk.
Eventually, the Ohio and Michigan will be based at the Trident submarine base at Bangor, on Washington's Hood Canal, while the Florida and Georgia will be based at Kings Bay, Ga., the East Coast base for Trident subs.
John Casey, president of Electric Boat, called completion of the first submarine conversion - from design to sea trial - a "remarkable achievement." Hamilton said in the past it would have taken three years just to complete the design phase of the conversion. He said his company plans to continue at the same pace until the last conversion is completed.
Each converted sub will carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles - more than double the number of cruise missiles carried by standard Navy attack submarines - and up to 66 special operations forces. The boats, which are more than 20 years old, also are being modernized.
Puget Sound Business Journal
Conversion of the USS Ohio Trident submarine to a guided-missile and special warfare platform has been completed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton.
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. of Seattle (NYSE: TOD) had a small, $5.3 million subcontractor role in the project and was part of a $1.4 billion contract awarded to Electric Boat Corp. of Groton, Conn. to convert four Trident subs. The USS Ohio and the USS Michigan will be converted in Bremerton and two others will be converted at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia.
Todd's work on the USS Ohio consisted of fabrication of components and accomplishment of associated steel outfitting, project management and quality assurance functions, Todd Shipyards said.
By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, 10 Jan 06
ARLINGTON, Va. - About 1,300 sailors will see a change in the extra money they take home each month to perform critical skills, a Navy official said Monday.
About 26,000 sailors are eligible for extra pay to perform high-demand jobs under the Navy’s Special Duty Assignment Pay program, said Senior Chief Scott A. Rossiter in an e-mail.
Some of the sailors getting more money already have jobs that the Navy has deemed in high demand, while others are eligible for the money if they qualify for such jobs.
Rossiter said the Navy offers six levels of special duty pay per month: SD-1-$75; SD-2-$150; SD-3-$225; SD-4-$300; SD-5-$375; S-6-$450.
“The
pay is used to attract sailors to the Navy’s most demanding jobs to sustain
adequate manning levels,” said Rossiter, of the Navy Personnel Command Enlisted
Community Manager Branch.
According to Navy administrative announcement 004/06, sailors in the following jobs will receive an extra $75 per month: explosive ordnance technicians, Strategic Weapons Development Group SEAL operators; Landing Craft, Air Cushion personnel; and submarine assistant navigators.
The announcement says 1st and 2nd Class Divers would take home an extra $150 per month.
Under the changes, the following sailors are now eligible: submarine squadron assistant navigators, underwater construction team master divers, mobile utilities equipment technicians, and private quarters culinary specialists, officer in charge.
The Navy has also decided to reduce the extra pay for saturation divers, Rossiter said.
“Saturation Divers pay was reduced from SD-4-$300 to SD-3-$225,” he said. “They
will continue to receive the higher level until 1 April ’06.”
President Chen this week renewed a request to approve a multibillion-dollar arms purchase
By Robert Marquand, Christian Science Monitor, January 10, 2006
TAIPEI, TAIWAN - In a bid to rally Taiwan's flagging independence forces, President Chen Shui-bian's New Year's resolution seems to be provoking mainland China with a push announced this week to buy US arms, including eight submarines and a dozen sub-hunting aircraft.
For five years, as China has created a high-tech attack force designed to overwhelm Taiwan, the island's politicians have batted around a US-approved package of sophisticated military equipment worth between $10 and $19 billion.
Yet little has actually been procured. The arms deal, dreamed of by Taiwanese generals, has been a political tar-baby that has never passed the legislature. Taiwan's inability to move on the arms deal has prompted criticism in Washington, even among Taiwan's devout friends, who complain the island appears unwilling to defend itself and is banking instead on US military power.
At the same time, an increasing number of US defense experts, including Pacific commander Adm. William Fallon, are asking whether a package of sophisticated arms is what best serves the tiny island of 23 million. In fact, new Chinese military advances may mean it is more practical and effective for Taiwan, say, to shore up basic defenses - use lots of cement and make better bunkers - rather than only buy fancy weapons.
Instead of spending huge sums on a diesel-electric sub that would take at least a decade to deploy, for example, they point to other measures that could be taken, including hardening airfields, buying antiaircraft missiles, and protecting electronic systems needed in a fight. Instead of procuring expensive and vulnerable warships, Taiwan could buy mines that would deny the Chinese Army an easy landing on island beaches.
Such steps that force China to reconsider how quickly it can seize the island, in an attack, some experts argue.
"[Taiwan] may buy a huge load of stuff that may not be operational until it is too late," says James Mulvenon, of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis in Washington, D.C. "Taiwan needs to spend on things that will cause China to recalculate whether they can achieve a first-strike success."
"It may be politically satisfying to purchase big ticket glamour items. But it may not be practical," says Denny Roy of the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies. "If you buy expensive ships, but don't have quick runway repair, you may regret it. Is it wise to procure a big bucket of golden eggs that you can't defend? Mines may not be sexy, but they may be an efficient use of funds."
In the past year, mainland China has made unprecedented inroads into Taiwan's political culture, with emotional spring visits by Taiwanese opposition leaders Lien Chan and James Soong to Beijing, and new talk of tourism, trade, shared ethnicity, and peace across the strait.
As a result, President Chen's Democratic People's Party, a bastion of pro-Taiwan sentiment, has witnessed a dramatic, sudden reversal of popularity - most recently in humiliating local elections last month.
Hence, a New Year's speech by the president, including calls for a new constitution, appears to be a feisty attempt by Chen, whose pro- independence stance is hated by Beijing, to fight on.
"Recent reports on the military power of the People's Republic of China, published by the United States and Japan, make it clear that China's military development evidently exceeds the reasonable scope of its defense needs," Chen argued in a Jan. 1 speech. "In the face of such imminent and obvious threat, Taiwan must not rest its faith on chance or harbor any illusions.... We shall seriously contemplate how our self-defense capabilities can be strengthened and how to effectively respond to the gradual tipping of military power across the strait in favor of China."
Many analysts see Chen's comment as scoring political points against the promainland Kuomintang Party, rather than a real attempt to create a better defense.
"Chen is a lot less serious about procuring the arms to defend Taiwan than he is about using this process to embarrass the KMT," argues Mr. Mulvenon. "We've made no progress on the submarine issue for three years. it is dead as a doornail. The only place it is discussed is Taiwan politics."
Chen's government has pushed so hard for the arms package that a simpler approach may be hard to contemplate. "We have heard about the new plan, but we think the current package is fine," says Joseph Wu, of the mainland affairs council, speaking of the defensive strategy noted by Admiral Fallon.
Reaction to new US suggestions is even less well received among opposition parties. Some KMT strategists now doubt China will ever attack Taiwan. If it does, they say, there may be little Taiwan can do. US analysts worry that Taiwan could be maneuvered into a position that turns US opinion abruptly against it, making it vulnerable to China and delaying defense reform.
Taiwan's defenses won't improve "as long as the president, much of the military, and the [parliament] regard one another with intense suspicion," says Michael Swaine of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Taiwan's defense modernization is hampered by its dependency on "the vagaries of US support and assistance" and a Taiwanese "public left largely uninformed about the potentially lethal nature of the threat posed by the Chinese military," Mr. Swaine adds.
Another reason the Pentagon now balks at advanced weapons to Taiwan: Worry that they would slip into the hands of China's Army.
Ben Mitchell, The Scotsman, 10 January 2006
A SUBMARINE captain berated his subordinates with such rage that his face became "gorged" with blood and his tirades made a lieutenant ill and reduced him to tears, a court martial heard yesterday.
The case, being heard at Portsmouth Naval Base, relates to Capt Robert Tarrant's period of command of the nuclear-powered Trafalgar-class submarine HMS Talent, based at Devonport.
Judge
advocate Jack Bayliss ruled that a substantial part of the case is to be heard
in secret because the evidence is likely to include information relevant to
national security.
Commander Alison Towler, prosecuting, said Capt Tarrant's behaviour towards his subordinates could not be excused by the stress of being involved in top-secret missions.
Cmdr Towler said that Capt Tarrant would embark on a "ritual" of shouting and abuse, sometimes personal, which was disproportionate to the complaint and would often leave the crew member in tears and afraid of him.
She said: "The prosecution accepts a commanding officer has the right to admonish his subordinates and an operation may require forcible and immediate action which leaves no room for tact.
"However, the prosecution says Captain Tarrant's conduct was unwarranted and far beyond robust leadership and management."
Cmdr Towler said Capt Tarrant's conduct towards his crew would remain civil and appropriate while in dock, but within days of being at sea or on operation he would become increasingly abusive.
The first of five charges, which all date back to between February 1998 and July 1999, involves Lieutenant Ryan Ramsey, who claims the constant "tirades" made him physically sick when he had to begin his shift and led to his becoming withdrawn and losing weight.
Cmdr Towler said that Lt Ramsey claims Capt Tarrant would shout at him for up to 20 minutes with his face only 5cm away from his own.
She added: "Lt Ramsey felt scared of Captain Tarrant. His verbal abuse left him in tears. Lt Ramsey noticed his [Capt Tarrant's] face would gorge with blood during these shouting episodes.
"He considered himself to be abused, harassed and bullied by Captain Tarrant."
The second charge relates to Capt Tarrant's conduct towards Chief Petty Officer Cosxwain (Submarines) Neil Maitland, who claims he would be the subject of shouting and intimidating criticism for no reason.
Captain Tarrant, 44, denies four charges of ill-treating officers under his command through repeated, unjustified, verbal abuse, and a fifth charge against a rating.
The hearing continues.
Naval Submarine League, 6 January 2006
