A month ago, the nuclear submarine USS Ohio, formerly a highly survivable Trident ballistic missile thermonuclear deterrent platform (SSBN), triumphantly completed the initial sea trials of her conversion to an “SSGN” configuration: a super-stealthy and long-endurance undersea vessel designed for forward presence and deployment of up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, large unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs), and as many as 100 Navy SEALs or other commandos with their equipment and mini transport vehicles. That's right, the 24 seven-foot-inner-diameter vertical launch missile tubes from Ohio's prior successful career as a “boomer” have all been repurposed.

As the first of four such conversions now in progress at various shipyards around the U.S. (the others subs are Michigan, Florida, and Georgia), Ohio's available payload weight and space -- for counter-insurgency campaigns and conventional major combat (as well as non-nuclear deterrence) -- are unprecedented in America's Silent Service history. And the SSGN's stealth as a big-time Tomahawk shooter is very important. Experience has shown that U.S. Navy surface units operating in confined littoral waters can be shadowed by “civilian” fishing boats or tramp steamers, which report cruise missile launch times and base courses to the enemy homeland via radio. The key element of surprise in the precision airborne strike is thereby lost. An SSGN, in contrast, can sneak to an area well clear of overly-curious opposition eyes before opening fire. The importance of this tactical/strategic advantage cannot be overstated.

The SSBN-to-SSGN conversion concept, as a funded Navy program, goes back several years. Much has been written about it in the open literature. I'd like to suggest three additional possible payload uses for some of the ex-SSBN missile tubes, which I have not seen mentioned elsewhere, to show how extremely flexible and adaptable these new warships truly are.

First, some background. The Ohio-class subs, of which a total of 18 were built (and are still in commission), were intended to “hide with pride,” never detected but always vigilant in case the unthinkable happened and they were ordered to launch their long-range ballistic missiles tipped with multiple hydrogen bombs. As a result, their torpedo rooms were made relatively small, with four tubes like the Los Angeles-class but room for only some 12 of the standard ADCAP Mark 48 torpedoes or Mark 30 torpedo-sized decoys. This made sense when the ship's mission, in an anti-submarine context, was purely defensive. But if an Ohio had launched all her Trident C-4 or D-5 missiles, she could then switch to the offensive, acting as an ersatz fast-attack SSN, hunting and engaging hostile SSNs and SSBNs.

The problem nowadays is that torpedoes do remain a primary offensive and defensive weapon of all submarines, but the modern standard (Seawolf-class, Virginia-class, Royal Navy Astute-class) is a torpedo room with a torpedo carrying capacity three or four times that of any Ohio. Even the Cold War-era Los Angeles design allows space for about twice as many “fish” as do the Trident SSBNs. This weapon capacity matters in any prolonged operation, whether it be deterrence, or anti-shipping, or sub-versus-sub. (Just as two for-instances, note that Al Qaeda alone controls about 20 merchant ships worldwide, and already hundreds of modern diesel subs serve in the navies of countries antagonistic to America.)

On the other hand, the new SSGNs have such a large capacity for Tomahawk cruise missiles because each former Trident tube has been fitted with a sleeve that can hold seven Tomahawks. But a Mark 48 is almost identical in size to a Tomahawk: within a few millimeters of 21 inches in diameter and 21 feet long. By now you probably see where I'm going with this. It might become possible for an SSGN to carry in some of her big missile tubes an additional seven torpedoes each -- launched straight up before they level off for the underwater attack on chosen targets. The use of torpedo guidance wires in this context would certainly be tricky. If the engineering and tactical issues could be resolved, then the ultra-quiet SSGNs would be capable of a very high-intensity anti-shipping and ASW mission, without the need to return often to a tender or friendly port for re-ammunitioning.

The need for eventual re-ammunitioning leads straight to another suggestion: The U.S. Navy has only two submarine tenders still in commmission (USS Emory S. Land and USS Frank Cable), plus two others laid up in reserve, yet the 21st century submarine force has duties that cover the globe. And sad experience has shown that friendly ports near a conflict zone may suddenly become closed to American warships just when those ports are most needed, as international tensions heighten and putative allies realign.

Yet for any submarine to stay maximially effective during a crisis, it needs to spend as much time as possible on active patrol -- and as little time as possible transiting to and from a distant facility where it can replenish unharassed by foreign government objections or by threats of terrorist assault.

One possible answer to help solve this problem would be to install a loading crane inside one of an SSGN's vertical tubes. That would permit the vessel to replenish opportunistically, at a random unimproved forward location. All that would be required would be any stable structure (a pier or moored cargo ship, or even an oil rig) against which to tie up after surfacing and raising the crane, to transfer weapons and cargo. Sub tenders have two types of crane: 5-ton capacity and 30-ton capacity. Since individual cruise missiles and torpedoes weigh under two tons apiece, the smaller type of crane would suffice to reload weapons one by one into empty slots in the vertical tube sleeves. The fresh weapons could even be brought to a clandestine rendezvous in the back of a robust truck disguised to look decrepit. The SSGN breaks stealth for only so long as the replenishment evolution actually requires. Beginning with surprise, and protected by other U.S. Armed Forces' in-theater assets, the SSGN could pop up almost anywhere that's held in American or friendly hands during combat, provided only that the water is deep enough to accomodate her draft.

And how about a return to the days of submarines with deck guns? A new type of main gun is being developed for the next-generation DD(X) destroyer. This 155-millimeter Advanced Gun System (AGS) has a high rate of fire of rocket-assisted GPS-guided munitions that begin their trajectory going nearly straight up, but then arc into a more typical artillery near-paraboloid path. The AGS itself had a low radar cross-section, and its shells have a maximum range of 100 nautical miles. Conceivably, the AGS and accompanying ammo magazine might be adapted into a version that fits within one of an SSGN's payload tubes. This would allow the SSGN to return the favor of protecting other friendly assets, projecting additional multivalent firepower onshore, at sea, or into the air -- and protecting herself during excursions to the surface.

These purely paper notions (which admittedly could be very expensive to implement in practice, and would cause some incremental tactical risks) appear to add whole new dimensions to the envelope of peacekeeping and warfighting uses of the new SSGNs. Both the availability and the flexibility of the basic vessels would be greatly enhanced. Such thinking argues strongly that the four additional Ohio-class SSBNs being considered for retirement be converted to SSGNs, and not scrapped. That would double the size of this potent and formidable element of the U.S. Navy's Submarine Force, genuine capital ships of the post-Cold War world.

back to top

U.S. May Arm Subs With Conventional Warheads For Quicker Strike

By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, January 17, 2006

The Pentagon wants to spend up to $500 million through 2011 to replace nuclear warheads with conventional warheads on some submarine-launched ballistic missiles, according to budget documents.

The purpose is to allow quicker preemptive attacks on deeply buried enemy command centers or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. submarines carry ballistic missiles that fly at supersonic speeds, faster than those launched from land- based silos or airplanes.

``This weapon would give the U.S. global, conventional preemption -- a first-strike capability -- in 30 minutes, to attack North Korean or Iranian WMD or leadership facilities,'' said William Arkin, a former Army intelligence analyst and independent defense consultant and author.

The fiscal 2007-2011 defense budget plan calls for building as many as 96 conventional warheads for installation on 24 of the Navy's roughly 336 nuclear D5 Trident missiles, according to a 33-page Dec. 20 memo signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Each missile carries up to four warheads.

The U.S. would have to work out notification procedures with its allies as well as China and Russia to prevent a nuclear misunderstanding, said Stan Norris, a senior analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the author of an annual compilation of U.S. nuclear forces.

``While there are advantages, especially in being able to hit a target within 20-30 minutes, there are important questions that will need answers,'' he said.

For example, ``how would Russian early warning radars differentiate between conventional missile attacks aimed at say al-Qaeda caves on the Afghan-Pakistan border and those aimed at Russian missile silos?'' Norris said. ``Is it possible that the U.S. would notify Russia or China of an impending attack to avoid the possibility of Russian or Chinese misinterpretation?''

Arkin agreed. ``Before we start shooting ballistic missiles at countries we had better work to resolve the question of false warnings and accidental nuclear war, particularly if North Korea were ever a target,'' he said.

The U.S. presently can launch non-nuclear strikes using B-2 bombers based in Missouri or Tomahawk cruise missiles off submarines and surface vessels. Neither weapon travels as fast as a sub-launched ballistic missile.

This new strategy ``places the ballistic missile submarine on the front line of U.S. offensive capabilities,'' Arkin said. ``Trident missiles will be able to place a conventional warhead on target in only 12 minutes, far quicker than any other long- range weapon.''

Any strikes would be coordinated by a new joint-service unit that the U.S. Strategic Command set up in November at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

The Pentagon commitment suggests contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. has made progress in improving the accuracy of the D5 missile, said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. Cold War nuclear missiles were built less for precision than for widespread destruction.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems since 1995 has spent its own research money to improve the accuracy of a conventional Trident missile. Test flights in 2002 and 2005 demonstrated ``the feasibility of achieving near-tactical GPS accuracy with conventional warheads on the D5,'' spokesman Thomas Greer said in an e-mail statement.

The 2005 test showed that a conventional warhead bearing on a target could slow down and maneuver to receive last-minute Global Positioning System satellite coordinates, ``providing capabilities that would be needed for the delivery of some types of conventional warheads to their targets,'' Greer said.

About 2,500 Lockheed Martin employees work on the Trident D5 missile program in California, Georgia, Florida and Washington State.

``The warhead could possibly provide Trident missiles with the accuracy to strike within 10 meters of their intended, stationary targets,'' the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a Sept. 7 report.

A Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. official in July laid out these finding to the Pentagon Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities and said it could start producing the warheads by 2010 if it received money this year, CRS said.

The long-range budget plan calls for spending $127 million in fiscal 2007 and $225 million in fiscal 2008 to develop and buy a warhead with a capability to penetrate ``hard and deeply buried targets,'' according to England's memo, which also spells out other major budget decisions.

Kristensen said the Pentagon's new strategy will enable the Navy to meet the Strategic Command's goal ``of having both nuclear and conventional strategic strike options available to the president.''

``U.S. Strategic Command is examining ways for delivering prompt, precise strike globally,'' the command said in a Jan. 9 statement e-mailed to Bloomberg News.

``A requirement for a specific weapon system has not been identified but leveraging existing systems has the potential to quickly deliver capability to the warfighter,'' the statement said.

``Increased precision may allow targets currently held at risk with nuclear weapons to be targeted with conventional weapons, providing options other than nuclear weapons for prompt global strike,'' it said.

back to top

Upgrades Planned For U.S. Nuclear Stockpile

Agency leader expects significant warhead redesigns

By James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Congress passed a landmark budget measure last year for the first upgrade of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile since the Cold War, insisting there would be limited modifications to make the warheads safer and more reliable.

But in his first interview since the measure was adopted, the head of the agency that manages the arsenal described the program as a potentially far more extensive redesign of the weapons.

Linton Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the new effort -- called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program -- would involve a redesign of virtually all components of the warheads, as well as the resuscitation of the complex for manufacturing them at a potential cost of many billions of dollars.

In an interview last week with The Chronicle, Brooks said the new warheads would likely be heavier and slightly larger than the ones they will replace. He added that, even as the production complex gears up for a program likely to last two to three decades or more, there would inevitably be large cutbacks at the weapons design labs.

The end result will not be slight tinkering with existing warheads, as some members of Congress envisioned the program, but the creation and production of new generations of the weapons.

"I don't want to mislead you," Brooks said. "I will personally be very surprised if we can get the advantages we want without redesigning the physics package."

The physics package refers to the components of the warhead that create the nuclear reaction -- as opposed to the conventional elements involved in the arming and detonation of the weapon -- in particular the spherical plutonium core, or pit.

The warheads, Brooks said, "will require new pits. ... We are going to need to melt them down and recast them."

A number of members of Congress closely involved in appropriating funds for the program had said last year they considered it a major victory because it restrained the more ambitious goals of the Bush administration. The White House had been seeking the development of entirely new types of warheads with new capabilities, such as destroying deeply buried bunkers or caches of weapons of mass destruction.

Many in Congress, in particular the chairman of the committee that appropriates funds for the nuclear complex, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, argued that such new weapons were unneeded and overly aggressive at a time when Washington is struggling to halt countries like North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear arsenals.

"This is not a sneaky way to get a whole new powerful warhead type of thing in the future," Hobson said in an earlier interview with The Chronicle. "We're not trying to do separate missions than those the warheads were designed for today."

Congress instead passed the limited upgrades of the program, appropriating $25 million for the initial design work. Congress said the program would focus largely on the nonnuclear parts of the warheads, such as replacing copper wires with optical fibers, and upgrading to more modern electronic components, with little change to the physics package.

"This is about tinkering at the margins of the existing weapons systems, nothing more," Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Appropriations Committee's energy and water subcommittee, said shortly after the $25 million appropriation was passed.

But Brooks said there is already a design competition under way between the two labs, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, managed by the University of the California, involving the need for entirely new pits, as well as a new facility to manufacture them.

Even with such redesigning, though, Brooks said he did expect to adhere to a key condition set by Congress, that the new warheads will not require underground testing, which was banned in 1992.

Some critics have insisted that the military would never deploy an untested design for something as critical as a nuclear weapon, which would be used only in the face of the gravest threats. But Brooks said the program would hew so closely to proven designs from the Cold War -- the United States has produced about 90 warhead designs and manufactured more than 50,000 warheads -- and involve so many modifications to ensure its reliability, that no new detonations would be needed.

"If you redesign it the way we're going to, it creates a lesser chance" that new tests will be called for, he said, because the warhead will be "overdesigned" for safety and reliability. Most observers agree that any resumption of new U.S. testing would likely set off a chain reaction of other nuclear-armed countries resuming tests.

The debate over the new warhead program is fundamental to United States security, but Brooks conceded it is based on vast uncertainties.

The Cold War nuclear stockpile -- the United States still has more than 10,000 warheads -- was designed to be launched in a split second as an overwhelming response to any first strike from the Soviet Union. But with the breakup of the Soviet Union and no credible nuclear foes, the giant stockpile is a profoundly destructive force without an obvious mission.

The military has not articulated a revised nuclear mission. The Bush administration has said the greatest threats to the United States now come from terrorist groups or rogue nations, but it also says that the old nuclear arsenal is not suitable for attacking these foes.

Instead, the White House says it needs the warheads as part of a "capability-based" force; in other words, it must have the capability to defeat any new foes, even if it does not know what capabilities are needed at this time, or what the missions are.

Adding to the difficulties of defining the new policy is the fact that, as Brook reaffirmed, the existing stockpile is still in perfect working order, even though some warheads are 30 years old.

Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States adopted an expensive program known as stockpile stewardship, and experts estimate some $60 billion has been spent studying, maintaining and refurbishing existing weapons.

Brooks called the stewardship program "extraordinarily successful" and said he has complete confidence in U.S. warheads.

"I don't want to suggest and I hope nothing I've said in the past suggests that I think it is somehow obsolete," Brooks said of the maintenance program. "It's entirely possible that we could go on for some considerable length of time just the way we are."

In fact, experts close to Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos have said scientists are finding that plutonium -- a key variable in assessing the life span of the warheads -- may actually grow more stable and reliable over time, and that a study due later this year will project an extended life span for plutonium bomb components, of perhaps 100 years.

Asked why billions of dollars had to be spent on new warheads and a new production complex when the old ones are working well, Brooks said the reason is the accumulation of question marks.

"I know this sounds evasive, and it really isn't, it's just a reflection on the inherent limitations on human knowledge," Brooks said. "I don't know everything I need to know about plutonium aging."

He said the new generation of warheads would avoid such uncertainties by being heavier, with perhaps more than the minimum amount of plutonium.

Brooks said, in effect, that the central enemy now for U.S. nuclear forces is uncertainty, and that the solution is to redesign the arsenal, in the process constructing new manufacturing facilities to replace the plants shut down after the Cold War. The cost is likely to be tens of billions of dollars.

An Energy Department task force last summer provided a blueprint for the new manufacturing complex. It called for major downsizing of Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos' nuclear weapons work, but for the expenditure of billions to construct a massive new pit production plant.

Brooks said he embraced the blueprint in concept. The only constraint, he said, was cost.

"My guess is we will try to meet many of the objectives of the report, but I think that most of us believe that spending several billion dollars above what is planned is unlikely to be forthcoming," Brooks said. "We're trying to figure out how to strike the right balance."

back to top

Plan For 313-Vessel Fleet Raises Questions

Some Ship Classes Lacking

By Dave Ahearn, Defense Today, 18 Jan 06

The 313-vessel armada envisioned by the Navy in a report may not reach that goal, according to an examination of a document that was obtained by Defense Today.

This plan, authored by Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations, has drawn cheers from some Navy leaders, from shipbuilding industry brass, and from many analysts elated that this document forthrightly and strongly says the Navy should be increasing the size of its current 281 ships and submarines fleet.

That stands in contrast to another plan outlined last year that could have seen the size of the fleet shrinking further. It already has tumbled from a high of almost 600 vessels in the 1980s to less than half that today.

Clearly, the Mullen plan envisions a stronger naval force, and the Navy under Mullen and Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter is unlikely to request funding for a meager yearly four ships and submarines in future budgets.

That was the number of vessels for which the Navy sought funding in the current fiscal year 2006, ending Sept. 30, half the number of craft requested in fiscal 2005.

But the 313-vessels plan raises questions: not only is there the abiding unknown as to whether Congress will be disposed to fund a growing strong Navy fleet, but also the draft copy of the 313-craft "Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2007" might not reach some of its goals, unless Congress steps in to bolster the objectives, an informed source notes.

The source spoke on condition of anonymity.

For example, the report foresees 18 next generation CG(X) cruisers capable of shooting down intercontinental ballistic missiles fired at the United States from, say, North Korea. But the plan says 19 of the ships are needed.

Beginning with one cruiser in fiscal 2011, the program would skip a year, then build one each in 2013 and 2014, and in 2016, 2017 and 2023. Two cruisers per year would be procured annually in 2015, and in fiscal 2018 through 2022. Likely General Dynamics Corp. unit Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Corp. unit Ship Systems would build them.

Before and after the cruiser program, with some overlap, the Navy would buy two future DD(X) destroyers combined in fiscal 2007 (President Bush next month will unveil his budget plan for that year) and in fiscal 2008.

Then there would be one destroyer yearly in 2009 through 2013.

Moving well into the future, the Navy would begin building DDG(X) destroyers in fiscal 2023 to replace the current fleet of the old Arleigh Burke Class destroyers that will begin retiring then.

DDG(X) Destroyers

But here again, the number of new vessels may fall short of warfighting needs. The report notes that the DDG(X) replacement ships "will be procured at a rate slower than the DDG 51 retirements and result in DDG inventory falling below the required level after FY 2028," the report cautions. The report has construction beginning a few years later on the DDG(X) than earlier proposed, but starting construction any earlier would mean building at least three destroyers/cruisers per year.

In other words, as positive an improvement as the new report procurement plan may be over the 260 to 325 vessels plan advanced last year by Adm. Vern Clark, then chief of naval operations, and then-Secretary of the Navy Gordon England, the new plan will achieve its goal of 313 vessels only with willing support from Congress.

Moving to the future CVN 21 aircraft carrier, the first ship in this class is due for funding and a start of construction in fiscal 2008, with an additional flattop in each fourth year thereafter.

But some members of Congress have grumbled about the cost of the CVN 21 first ship, which will price out around $14 billion, including $6 billion of development costs. Later copies of the carrier likely will go for $8 billion for a very advanced design, and perhaps 1,000 to 1,200 fewer crew members for an immense monetary savings over the life of the floating airfield, versus the Burkes.

Also, while Congress called for 12 carriers in the fleet, the report foresees only 11 of the huge ships.

Some military analysts caution that costs of the 313-vessel fleet in some areas may be more than Congress likely will appropriate. (Please see Defense Today, Thursday, Jan. 12, 2006, page 1.)

Another point in the report is that it calls for a long-awaited move to begin building two Virginia Class submarines annually, beginning in 2012. But Congress thus far has rejected Navy proposals to move to a two-annually pace. General Dynamics unit Electric Boat builds half of each sub, and Northrop Grumman Newport News shipbuilding provides the other half. Then the halves are joined, either in Connecticut or Virginia.

The next-generation attack sub, SSN 774I, would begin construction with one in 2020, and advance to two yearly in fiscal 2021.

But even that pace of two boats yearly would leave the Navy with an eventual 40 subs, short of the currently-desired 48 craft and far less than the prior goal of 55 boats, the informed source noted.

"In the far term the [old subs] will retire at a rate that precludes replacement on a one-for-one basis," the report notes. "Consequently, the [undersea] force will fall below the required SSN inventory during the period after FY 2018."

As well, the report notes that "the Navy has no plans to replace the retiring Ohio Class SSGNs, which reach the end of their service life beginning in FY 2026." SSGNs are subs converted from carrying Cold War ballistic missiles to subs carrying cruise missiles and special forces, suited for the war on terrorism.

The fleet of LPD 17 amphibious craft would number nine instead of 10 ships, the source noted.

Costs of ships may tend to decline as a shipbuilder gains experience in constructing successive copies of the ships. But inflation can work in the opposite direction, and tend to push up costs of ships.

For example, a Virginia Class submarine costing $2.4 billion in fiscal 2007 (including $1 billion of government-supplied items) will rise to $3.75 billion each in fiscal 2011, according to projections in the report.

The Navy for years has been battling with the two shipbuilding companies, arguing for cost cuts and efficiencies to bring down prices. Congress, as well, allows rising costs on some platforms, such as the Virginia Class subs, mandating cost caps in a fiscal 2006 Department of Defense measure that rise steadily over several years.

back to top

USS Columbus CO selected for Asian American Engineer Award

By JO1 Mary Popejoy, Northwest Navigator Staff Writer

The staff and crew of USS Columbus (SSN 762) have the distinct pleasure of being stationed on a vessel where the Commanding Officer (CO), Cmdr. Charles Marquez has been selected for the Asian American Engineer Award.

The mission of the Asian American Engineer of the Year (AAEOY) Awards is to promote Chinese American Engineers/Scientists and their fellow Asian Americans with the appropriate recognition and awareness necessary to enhance their professional and leadership opportunities within the corporate America, academia, the United States mainstream, and globalization.

Marquez is a U.S. citizen from Philippine decent. He was born in Manila, Philippines in 1965. He joined the Navy in 1987 after graduating from Rutgers College of Engineering with a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Sciences in Engineering. Following commissioning via Officer Candidate School in Newport, RI, he completed initial nuclear power and submarine training.

Throughout is naval career, he has been responsible for the safe operation of several of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion plants and has contributed significantly to the training of countless nuclear power operators. He has led each ship on which he served through countless hours of corrective and preventative maintenance. Each evolution and repair was well planned and executed, ensuring those submarines were in top material condition and able to carry out our nation’s military security strategy.

Marquez was selected for this prestigious award because of his current responsibilities as CO of USS Columbus and his previous assignments that involved both monitoring and evaluations of several aspects of the nuclear propulsion program.

"I feel honored to represent the submarine force and Navy nuclear power community and feel privileged to be among the other elite recipients," said Marquez.

Capt. Scott Bawden, commodore, Submarine Squadron 17, nominated Marquez for his ability to do well in all aspects of his job.

"Cmdr. Marquez’ influence in our Navy’s submarine force has directly benefited the level of training and operational ability for countless nuclear operators. His dedication directly contributes to our nation’s security. Time and again he has gone into harms way to benefit the citizens of the United States," said Bawden.

According to Marquez, he hopes more nuclear trained submarine officers will be recognized in this way for their contributions to the submarine community.

"I feel it's important for these type of organizations to recognize the contributions of our military members and hope that this association with our engineering civilian counterparts will draw a closer bond between us and encourage more future interactions. Both communities have a lot to benefit from each other," he said.

back to top

Senior DoD Official Provides Insights Into Forthcoming QDR

By Michael Sirak, Defense Daily, January 18, 2006

The Department of Defense’s (DoD) forthcoming top-to-bottom strategy review will support the creation of a more robust set of intelligence-gathering systems and a broader mix of non-kinetic and advanced conventional weapons for strategic missions, one of the document’s principal authors stated yesterday.

“We think there is a paucity of options that we have developed to date and we feel compelled to leave the next president a much greater set of options,” said Ryan Henry, principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy, when discussing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). He spoke at a QDR symposium at the Australian Embassy in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.

Bolstering intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and investing in advanced conventional weapons and non-kinetic systems to augment nuclear options in strategic scenarios are consistent with the QDR’s emphasis on creating adaptable sets of capabilities that U.S. combatant commanders can call upon based on the situation, said Henry. The goal is to give the commanders much more flexibility than is possible today to respond rapidly to a wide array of future threats, either with U.S. forces acting alone, or as part of a U.S. government-wide response or an international coalition, he said.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is finalizing the review and will deliver it to the Congress on Feb. 6, Henry said. “We are still in the process of the senior leaders putting their touch on it,” he said.

Henry said the QDR has two major themes. First, OSD wants to transform the U.S. military from being postured to counter the armed forces of a major adversary to one that is more flexible and adaptable to meet “the fundamental challenges at the beginning of the 21st century”. Such challenges include quelling insurgencies, such as those faced in Iraq, combating global terrorist networks and hastening their demise, countering states and non-state actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, defending the American homeland, and responding to humanitarian disasters, he said.

The second theme, Henry said, is to evolve the Department of Defense into an enterprise that can support such an agile and adaptable fighting force.

ISR capabilities are seen as lacking today to deal with the emerging threats when compared to the overwhelming capabilities that the U.S. military has to attack targets once they are found, said Henry. Accordingly, he said, the QDR will call for redressing this imbalance.

“There will be a movement and a change in the investment portfolio so that we are able to identify this adversary that is not the same as large, massed armies in the field and requires a significant capability [to find],” he said.

Despite the changes that the QDR will usher in, the U.S. military will continue to face uncertainty in the future, said Henry.

“We realize that there is a high probability that our forces will be engaged in the next 10 years somewhere in the world where they are not today,” he said. “We cannot tell you when that will be, where that will be or what it would be.”

Yet the most unexpected scenarios could have the largest impact, he said.

“The biggest victory to date in the global war on terrorism was our response to the earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia and then the earthquake in Pakistan,” he said. “It did more to counter the ideological support for terrorism than probably any other events.

“There is no way we could have predicted that we could do that. So we have to have a capability set that will span all reasonable futures.”

Along with the QDR, the Pentagon will deliver the DoD’s Fiscal Year ’07 spending request on Feb. 6 as well as an independent assessment conducted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the DoD’s ability to execute the goals of the QDR given the DoD’s strategy and resources, said Henry.

While the preliminary findings of the QDR did influence the FY ’07 budget, Henry said the QDR’s true impact will not be seen until the Pentagon publishes next year its spending plan for Fiscal Years ’08 to ’13.

Accordingly, he warned against trying to gauge the implications of the QDR by looking solely at the FY ’07 spending request. “Too many people are going to run around and see specific decisions made for a very short period of time in the ’07 budget and from that think that they can discern what the QDR is about,” he said. “From my own point of view and I believe [from the point of view of] every senior leader that participated in the process of the past year, that would be wrong way to determine what this QDR is about.”

Further, he said wholesale changes to the DoD’s organization will not occur overnight. Instead the approach will be piecemeal, with the thrust on modifying those areas in the near term that would have the most impact. For more difficult changes, OSD intends to identify some pilot projects and conduct experimentation, he said.

Henry also said OSD wants to extend the advantages that U.S. military currently enjoys in the air and above and in the water to two additional realms: space and cyberspace.

back to top

Computer Hacker Did Not Find Military Secrets

By Times Staff and Wire Reports, Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2006

The college student arrested in Spain for allegedly hacking into computers at the submarine base in San Diego did not get access to important military information, officials said Tuesday. The break-in occurred in May; the arrest came this week.

The suspect got into three computers that handle only unclassified information about dry-docking activities, said Lt. Cmdr. Ron Steiner. "No classified or sensitive material was compromised," Steiner said.

The breach was found within hours of occurring and the computers were removed, he said.

back to top

Navy Spikes Citation for Protester's Trespass

By Elaine Helm, Kitsap Sun, 18 Jan 06

Bangor -- One of 17 protesters arrested Sunday during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day demonstration received a rare citation for trespassing on federal property.

Tom Krebsbach, 55, of the northern Seattle suburb of Brier, said he received a citation after walking across the blue line that marks the boundary of federal property outside the main gate of Bangor submarine base. The citation warns that he could face up to six months in jail or a $5,000 fine if convicted.

The ticket was later rescinded because the Navy only issues warnings to first-time offenders, said Lt. Cmdr. John Daniels, a spokesman for Navy Region Northwest. But as of Tuesday evening, Krebsbach said he hadn’t been notified of that change.

"I certainly received a citation, and I was told I would have to appear before a federal magistrate," Krebsbach said.

Krebsbach, a member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, said he was surprised to get a ticket instead of a warning when apprehended by base security - even though he knew his actions would have consequences.

"It wasn’t just me jumping over the line unexpectedly," he said. "If we go to court, that’s fine with me. I want to make an issue of it."

Krebsbach wanted to bring attention to the Trident ballistic missile program, he said.

"These weapons are very dangerous and we need to eliminate them from the face of the Earth," he said. "People need to become aware of them."

The arrest of protesters affiliated with the Poulsbo group at Bangor has become routine for Kitsap County sheriff’s deputies and protesters alike. But arrests for trespassing on federal property during protests are rare, according to the Navy.

Ground Zero regularly organizes demonstrations to mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Mother’s Day and the anniversary of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

A Navy policy implemented in early 2003 prohibits demonstrators from coming within 120 yards of the Bangor base’s main gate, where a blue line is painted across the pavement.

Usually, protesters from Ground Zero and other groups stay outside the blue line on the sides of Highway 308 holding signs or passing out fliers. Only when they break the law - usually by blocking traffic - are they arrested.

Those arrested by deputies or Washington State Patrol troopers rarely face charges. When they do, local juries historically have proven sympathetic to their expressions of civil disobedience.

Protesters who cross the blue line onto federal property, however, may face federal charges and impersonal bench trials.

Four Olympia residents were charged with one count each of failure to disperse, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, after a Ground Zero protest in August 2005.

The four - Bryce Brown, 31, Shannon Bushnell, 29, Patricia Imani, 43, and Alice Zillah, 32 - are scheduled to appear for a pre-trial hearing at 10:30 a.m. Friday in Kitsap County District Court.

They were among 19 protesters arrested for blocking rush-hour traffic to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kitsap County prosecutors elected to charge just those four because they live close together and because the court couldn’t handle 19 defendants at once, deputy prosecutor Jeffrey Jahns said in December.

Ground Zero member Brian Watson of Bremerton said he doesn’t believe the quartet will be convicted. Watson, who was among protesters acquitted of similar charges in 1999, said prosecutors’ decision to pursue charges served as motivation for Ground Zero’s activities.

"The prosecution of the four has awakened people to take action," Watson said. "Either way, whether they prosecute or not, we’ll be back."

Ground Zero protesters come from throughout the Puget Sound area. None of the 17 people arrested Sunday live in Kitsap County - in addition to Krebsbach, five live in Seattle, six in Olympia, two in Tacoma, one in Carnation and one in Pe Ell.

Watson said Ground Zero members supported Krebsbach’s decision to cross the blue line as a "perfectly acceptable way to express our grievances."

"Rosa Parks broke a law, too," Watson said. "Martin Luther King broke laws. ? Sometimes there are things that compel citizens to break laws to draw attention to something more important."

back to top

Officials Look To Put Africa Under One Watchful Eye

Continent now split between two commands

Gordon Lubold, Army Times, 23 JAN 06

As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld considers how to reorganize the military to address global threats in coming years, defense officials are exploring the possibility of putting Africa, long split between the U.S. European Command and U.S. Central Command, under one unified command.

Such a move has been discussed for years, but as U.S. operations evolve in the Horn of Africa, officials say the time has arrived to do something.

Theresa Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, said the area of responsibility for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, could be expanded to include all of Africa. The move could take advantage of the fact that the command structure is already in place in Djibouti, and there would be no need to create additional staffs.

“It seems to give us an opportunity,” Whelan said from her Pentagon office. “It opens a door for us potentially to look at … and work in Africa in a new and different way, and I think we ought to examine it.”

Whelan, respected in and outside the Pentagon for her experience of more than a dozen years working African issues, said the joint task force in the Horn of Africa has evolved many times since it was created and, given the situation on the ground in the region, it may be time for it to evolve some more.

Africa, an operational backwater for the U.S. since the botched operation in Somalia in 1993, is becoming increasingly relevant in the war on terrorism, officials say. Experts say that terrorist groups, squeezed out of places like Iraq and Afghanistan are moving to areas in North and West Africa and elsewhere. Many nations cannot effectively govern themselves, leaving a welcome mat for terrorist groups.

The Pentagon has begun to pay more attention to the region, sending small units of special operations forces and Marines to conduct training and other missions. But the department’s efforts are hamstrung somewhat by the fact that two commands have responsibility for Africa.

European Command, based in Stuttgart, Germany, is responsible for more than 90 countries, 42 of them in Africa.

Central Command, based at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., is responsible for Iraq, Iran and other Persian Gulf states, along with a piece of Africa that includes Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Djibouti, where the task force is based. Central Command, which is focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, may not be able to devote more manpower or resources to Africa.

A Central Command official confirmed that discussions are taking place on the task force in the Horn of Africa and what it should look like in the future. The official could not confirm if its area of responsibility would be expanded but said officials believe its role may be changing.

Most agree that the U.S. approach to Africa is not a purely military one, and that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development should play significant, if not larger, roles in whatever form the command takes, the official said.

“It should push to be more representative of the other elements of national power besides the military,” said the official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the conversations. “The military should be just one component.”

Outside experts agree that the time has come for the U.S. to act in Africa with a single voice.

Robert Work, a retired Marine officer who now is an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said creating a unified command for Africa makes sense. A year ago, Work said he thought creating an “Africa Command” would be plausible. Now, as competing resources leave little room for new staffs and command elements, he favors using the existing staff in the Horn of Africa to focus on the entire continent.

Either way, he said, “I believe Africa is going to be very, very important.”

Whelan said fighting an effective war on terrorism in Africa means reducing the number of self-created “seams” or barriers among various U.S. government entities that can hamper the effectiveness of an operation.

“I think there is a general realization among everyone who works Africa that if we are going to be effective in the global war on terrorism and preventing Africa from becoming a haven or a recruiting grounds [for terrorists], then we have got to minimize the seams as much as possible,” she said. “We have to eliminate these artificial seams we create to be effective.”

back to top

Russia To Buy British Robot Rescue Sub

Defense News, 17 Jan 06

Russia said Jan. 17 it was buying a British robot submarine of the type that last year helped rescue seven of its sailors stranded on the seabed.

“We are going to order this year a British Scorpio craft to carry out crew rescue missions and also various civilian missions,” Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, according to Russian news agencies.

Moscow will base the transportable version, which can be carried by cargo aircraft, at St. Petersburg in northwest Russia.

The usefulness of the Scorpio - and the failings of the Russian military - were highlighted last August when seven Russian sailors in the AS-28 “Priz” mini-submarine were trapped 625 feet under water in the Pacific Ocean for more than 75 hours.

They were finally brought to the surface after a remote-controlled British Scorpio-45 vessel flown from Scotland cut through the cables and nets ensnaring the Russian submarine.

The incident, following the loss of the Kursk submarine and its 118 crew in the Barents Sea in August 2000, highlighted the Russian military’s lack of transparency and resources.

back to top

Haifa Police searching for metal thieves find submarine part, park statues

By Yuval Azoulay and Jack Khoury, Haaretz, 18 Jan 06

A lengthy undercover investigation culminated Tuesday in a nationwide sting operation against metal thieves. Several hundred police officers took part in the multiple raids, along with investigators from the economic crimes division, the Israel Defense Forces and representatives of the water, telephone and electric companies, which have been hit hard recently by metal thieves who damage their property and steal utility parts.

The raids turned up electric cables, satellite dishes, numerous signposts, lane dividers and rail tracks, as well as a staggering array of military equipment, including parts of a submarine, a drone engine, a seat from an armored personnel carrier, shells, radios, binoculars and cutlery from IDF kitchens.

In raids on two metal compounds near Nazareth, police detained four suspects for questioning. Another two suspects were arrested in raids on two compounds around southern Acre.

In the Haifa region, police turned up the usual slew of metals, sculptures from public gardens and, in Kiryat Ata, a Davidka mortar cannon apparently from a monument on the Golan Heights.

In the south, nearly 300 policemen and officers raided scrap sites at Moshav Sdeh Uziya, near Ashdod. At one of the sites, a father and son assaulted the policemen, injuring one Kiryat Malakhi detective.

Representatives from the income tax and customs authorities confiscated stashes of fictitious receipts for several million shekels' worth of metal trade. Several suspects were taken for questioning by the economic crimes division and others were taken to Kiryat Malakhi police. In addition to 13 suspects arrested for questioning, another seven moshav residents were detained on suspicion of involvement in fencing stolen metal and possession of possibly stolen material. Several trucks, cars and a bulldozer used by the suspects were confiscated by the tax authorities.

Most of the metal confiscated in the nationwide operation was taken to warehouses and utilities companies.

Some of the metal pieces - primarily private property such as sculptures and monuments - were transferred to police stations. The public is invited to come identify its stolen property.

back to top

SA Navy submarine arm resurfaces

Cape Argus, January 18, 2006

The South African Navy combat support ship SAS Drakensberg left Cape Town yesterday to escort a new submarine home from Germany.

Navy spokesman Commander Brian Stockton said in a statement that the submarine, S101, was being prepared in Kiel for the maiden voyage.

It was expected to leave on February 13 and would stop over in Spain for three days before the long haul to Cape Town. The estimated arrival date was March 22.

SA Navy chief vice-admiral Refiloe Mudimu said the submarine was "a major force multiplier" and a vital asset to the fleet. Its arrival would signal the revitalisation of the navy's submarine service, which was terminated with the withdrawal of the last of the Daphne class submarines in November 2003.

The S101 is a Type 209 submarine used by 13 navies worldwide.

back to top