The first of the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile submarines to be converted so it can launch cruise missiles and carry teams of special operations forces completed its sea trials Dec. 19, the Navy said in a statement released Dec. 21.

The USS Ohio is one of four former SSBN submarines to undergo the SSGN conversion. The ships - the largest submarines ever built for the United States - have traded in their Trident ballistic missiles for Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Twenty-two of the submarine’s 24 missile tubes have been converted to each carry seven Tomahawks, for a total of 154 cruise missiles. The other two tubes have been changed into lock-in/lock-out chambers so that special operators can enter and leave the submarine while it is submerged.

Up to 66 special forces personnel can be carried and supported aboard each submarine.

The Ohio entered Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., in November 2002 to begin the conversion process, which began with a refueling of the submarine’s nuclear reactor.

The Ohio-class submarines were designed in the 1970s to carry the Trident missile, a replacement for older Polaris and Poseidon missiles. The Ohio, which was commissioned in 1981, carried out its last ballistic missile patrol in the summer of 2002.

Three other former Trident submarines, the Michigan, Florida and Georgia, also are being converted to the SSGN role. The Navy plans to complete all the conversions by 2007.

The naval shipyards at Puget Sound and Norfolk, Va., are each carrying out two SSGN conversions under the direction of General Dynamics Electric Boat at Groton, Conn., which built all 18 of the original Trident submarines.

The Navy has no further SSGN conversions planned, and intends to operate a force of 14 Trident submarines in the nuclear deterrence role.

The Navy plans to “redeliver” the Ohio to the fleet early next year.

back to top

COMNAVSUBFOR meets with Norfolk waterfront submariners

By Chief Journalist (SW/AW) Dave Fliesen, Naval Submarine Forces Public Affairs, 22 Dec 05

NORFOLK, Va. (Dec. 15, 2005) -- Vice Adm. Chuck Munns, Commander Naval Submarine Forces, spoke with approximately 200 submarine officers during a waterfront forum at Naval Station Norfolk last week. Munns briefed the group on the status of the Force and encouraged them to foster the special talents and contributions of the submarine community and spread the message to others less familiar with the Silent Service.

“We go to places where others can’t go,” said Munns, “capturing knowledge and delivering products that affect the nation. While ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) is important, it’s not our primary role. We leverage our stealth to prepare the battle space so we don’t have to fight the fight, but if the need arises, we have the knowledge to fight from a position of strength and the capabilities to soundly defeat our adversaries.”

We deployed more than half our force in 2005 with global deployments, independently or with a Carrier or Expeditionary Strike Groups. We were also busy engaging and working with the free world’s submarine force. Operations Active Endeavor, Exercise Sorbet Royal, Pacific Reach, Priz submarine rescue and the Diesel Electric Submarine Initiative are some examples of how we worked in 2005 with our partners from 27 countries operating a total of 224 submarines.

"Regardless of where we're stationed," Munns said, "we go to where the need is." Submarines are the best option for the national command authority and combatant commanders to receive persistent, reliable information to maximize their maritime domain awareness.

Commanding officers are a critical key to successful deployments and missions. Vice Adm. Munns looks for his officers to have imagination, vision, instinctive leadership, and strength to make that happen.

Munns told the 200 submarine officers in the room that there’s no greater responsibility in the world than to be the commanding officer of a submarine. With that responsibility comes great honor and reward, he said.

“The Admiral expects COs to make the best decision based on risk management,” said LT Adam Thomas, Assistant Engineer on USS Montpelier (SSN-765, an audience member. “He reinforced to us the importance of measuring all available information and weighing the consequences to make the best decision.”

For Thomas and others, the opportunity to hear from and to address questions to the Force Commander was appreciated. “He gave a good vision for our future and our current focus,” he said. “We certainly understood that the VIRGINIA class is the way-ahead for the Navy.”

back to top

Students Successful In Bid To Name Sub After N.H.

Sub Will Be First Vessel To Bear New Hampshire Name Since 1908

TheWMURchannel.com, 21 Dec 05

CONCORD, N.H. -- For the first time since 1908, a new naval vessel will roll off the line with the name USS New Hampshire -- thanks to students in Dover.

Students from the Garrison School in Dover proved that small voices can make a big difference after they convinced the Navy to name its next Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine the USS New Hampshire.

The sixth-graders said that they even they were surprised by their success.

"Most just figured we were a bunch of sixth-graders running around school all day," student Cameron Palczynski said.

The effort started with a history lesson about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The last ship to bear the name was a World War I battleship, and the students thought it would be appropriate to have a submarine named after the state.

For two years, the students devoted a little time every few weeks to their project.

"They learned to write letters, learned about government and how to get things done," parent Mike Palczynski said. "They loved it."

"It took a long time," teacher Susan Schalpak said. "There was a lot of brain-storming, lots of letters and calling people to see if anyone was listening."

Naval officials said that they were impressed by the determination of the students.

"Please don't lose this zeal because as you get older, people tend to say they can't make a difference," said Capt. Jonathan Iverson, commander of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

A detailed model of the nuclear submarine will greet visitors at the State House for the next year. When it hits the water in 2010, the USS New Hampshire will be 377 feet long with a crew of 134.

back to top

$869M for USA's FY06 Trident D-5 Nuclear SLBM Production and Support

Defense Industry Daily, 21 Dec 05

Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA received an $869 million cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-award-fee contract from the US Navy to provide funding for fiscal 2006 Trident II (D5) Missile Production and Deployed System Support. The Trident D-5 is a very accurate submarine-launched nuclear missile, and can be found on the US Navy's Ohio Class SSBNs and the Royal Navy's Vanguard Class SSBNs. It is the most survivable, capable, and important facet of these nations' nuclear deterrent forces.

So, where is all this money going? Didn't America already buy the required missiles back in the 1980s-1990s, when it deployed the submarines?

GlobalSecurity.org notes many of these efforts trace back to the Trident II D-5 life extension (LE) program, which is required now that the service life of their Ohio Class SSBN submarines is being extended. This has a number of spinouts and effects.

New Guidance & Electronics. In addition, the guidance system and missile electronics must be replaced due to aging and obsolescence issues. The Mk6 LE guidance system that DID covered recently is a replacement for the aging Mk6 guidance systems, which used 1980s technology that isn't in production any more. Nor is it really a good idea to try integrating 2005 technologies with 1980s technologies and designs. The Next Generation Guidance (NGG) program aims to develop the Mk6 LE as a modern replacement that can achieve the same or better performance as the guidance systems that are breaking down. This requires the development of precision instruments, sensors, and radiation hardened architectures, in order to adapt the underlying commercial technologies for use in a must-not-malfunction nuclear weapons system. Similar efforts are underway for the missile's electronics generally.

More Missiles. A missile inventory shortfall would occur starting in approximately FY 2014 when the oldest Ohio Class submarine would have originally been decommissioned. Avoiding that problem requires an additional 115 Trident II D-5 missiles, revising the total D-5 procurement objective from 425 to 540, as the 30-year service life procurement objective of 425 missiles does not support the additional flight tests required. Production is therefore expected to continue at a rate of 5-12 missiles per year. This ties into the need for...

Ongoing Availability of Key Components. The US Navy is currently executing a low rate production continuity procurement strategy for critical components of Trident II D-5 missiles - like the rocket motor sets. These critical components are being procured at their minimum rate to sustain component quality and maintain the supplier base. The production continuity procurement strategy has been extensively reviewed and approved by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Congress and has been in execution for nearly 15 years.

This information adds a great deal of perspective to the recent Trident II D-5 contracts that DID has covered on November 18, 2005 ($215.6 million for gyro navigators, guidance support and improvement, weapons control system support and repair, and special technical investigations), and December 15, 2005 ($101.1 million to further develop the MK6 LE).

Work on this FY 2006 Trident II D-5 production & sustainment contract will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA (39%); Magna, UT (12%); Kings Bay, GA (11%); Cocoa Beach, FL (12%); Bangor, WA (8%); Gainesville, VA (3%); Kings Port, TN (1%), Rockville, MD (1%), Lancaster, PA (2%); and other locations (11%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009. This contract was not competitively procured by the US Navy's Strategic Systems Programs in Arlington, VA (N00030-05-C-0100, Mod. No. PZ0001).

back to top

N.C. Legislator Condemns Sonar Training Range Sought by Navy

The Associated Press, 22 Dec 05

RALEIGH — A sonar training range the Navy wants to build off the North Carolina coast “will have a disastrous impact on North Carolina,” state Senate Leader Marc Basnight wrote Wednesday in a letter to the state’s congressional delegation.

Also Wednesday, the Navy – faced with numerous requests for an extension – agreed to push back the deadline for public comments on a draft report that predicts little environmental impact from the range.

The plan has drawn opposition from North Carolina officials and environmental groups. Members of the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture complained that a briefing Monday by Navy representatives didn’t clear up their concerns.

The proposed 660-square-mile range, 47 miles off shore from Camp Lejeune, would be used for training ships and aircraft in the use of sonar, a technology that detects objects under the sea by bouncing sound off them.

The range would include hundreds of underwater microphones anchored on the ocean floor. They would record ship movements and allow exercises to be reconstructed for study.

The Navy says sonar is the best defense against a new generation of quiet submarines that can threaten coastal waters. It expects the new range to cause only mild disturbance to some whales and to have hardly any effect on fish or sea turtles.

But opponents fear the impact of the sound waves on marine life, saying they sometimes kill whales and dolphins. Environmentalists sued the Navy in October, claiming the stranding and deaths of at least 37 whales last January near Oregon Inlet on the Outer Banks occurred after a midfrequency sonar exercise.

Basnight, D-Dare, said commission members “were left bewildered” by the information presented Monday.

“It seems no definitive answers to their questions and concerns could be given,” he wrote. “Repeatedly, the Navy staff used the term ‘minimal impact’ without giving a concrete definition. It seemed the Navy did not know the potential impacts of this facility.”

Basnight requested an extension of the public comment period, saying more time is needed “for the results of the Oregon Inlet atrocity to be evaluated.”

The Navy announced almost simultaneously that it would extend the comment deadline to Jan. 30 from Dec. 28.

back to top

Navy Extends Public Comment Period on Sonar Training Range

The Associated Press, 21 Dec 05

The Navy will extend the public comment period on the Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) until January 30th, 2006, providing a total 90-day comment period.

The Navy received several requests for extending the public comment period during the public hearings and in subsequent written comments.

The total 3-month comment period is a substantial increase over the 45 days required under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the Navy said.

Earlier this week, a governmental panel didn't seem to buy the U.S. Navy's reassurances that a sonar training range off the North Carolina coastline won't hurt fishing.

A Navy representative went to the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture to discuss the safety of the range, which it wants to build 47 miles off shore from Camp Lejeune.

The proposed 660-square-mile range would be used for training ships and aircraft in the use of sonar, which detects objects under the sea by bouncing sound off them. The range would include hundreds of underwater microphones anchored on the ocean floor to record ship movements and allow exercises to be reconstructed for study.

The Navy has final say on the project, but the commission wanted a briefing.

Opponents say the sound waves sometimes kill whales and dolphins. Environmentalists sued the Navy in October, blaming sonar exercises for the stranding and deaths of at least 37 whales last January on the Outer Banks.

back to top

E-8’s Can Become Ships’ Command Senior Chiefs

Surface Community Creating Senior Enlisted Advisor Jobs

By Mark D. Faram, Navy Times, 26 Dec 05

Surface warfare senior chiefs will not get the chance to try their hands as shipboard command senior enlisted advisors.

The Naval Enlisted Classification long used to designate senior chiefs as “chiefs of the boat” in the submarine community soon will be used to assign command senior chiefs to mine countermeasures ships in the next year.

Future plans will se senior chiefs serving as the senior enlisted sailors onboard the new Littoral Combat Ship.

“We have been assigning senior chief petty officers to submarines as chiefs of the boat for some time,” said Mast Chief Petty Office of the Navy (SS/AW) Terry Scott, who worked to develop the program.

“It only made sense to look where else in the Navy we could offer command-level leadership opportunities earlier in a sailor’s career, and we intend to continue to look for those operational billets in the fleet where expending this idea make sense.”

Scott said development of the program began in January 2004 and by fall of that year the service was ready to try the concept as a pilot program on board three mine countermeasure ships.

“We had three positions to fill and received 97 job applications for those jobs,” Scott said. Although those sailors have only been in the job for eight months, the initial feedback was so positive that the decision was made to make the pilot program into Navy policy.

Scott said being selected as a command senior chief isn’t a guarantee of selection for the command mast chief program, but it is a good start. “This type of tour will serve them well, whether they stay in rate after hey make master chief or apply for the command master chief program.”

What it does do, Scott said, is provide another route for senior chiefs to see if they’ve got what it takes to be a CMC, while retaining the option to stay in their current rating after the tour.

Scott said the first board will be held sometime in February. The deadline for package submission is Feb. 1.

Thought he final number of billets they’ll select for hasn’t been finalized. Scott said the number for the first board will be “between 8 and 12.” A there are 14 MCMs in the Navy’s inventory, including five in the Naval Reserve Force.

“Most of those selected will go to mine countermeasures ships based in Ingleside, Texas, although this board will also pick the command senior chief for LCS 2’s gold crew as well, he said.

“Because this is a new platform, the senior enlisted sailors in the first LCS 1 blue and gold crews and LCS 2 blue crew will be command master chiefs, though they will become command senior chief billets after that,” Scott said.

No new billets on the MCMs were created in establishing the program. Instead, an E-8 billet onboard each ship for a preventive maintenance coordinate is being modified, meaning the command senior chief will also be responsible for material maintenance management duties, as well.

Any senior chief in the Navy is eligible to apply of the program, even those who are only frocked to the position. Because MCMs aren’t outfitted to accommodate women, female candidates will only be considered for the LCS assignment.

NavAdmin message 319/05 released Dec 13, says applicants should use the same procedures as those applying to be command master chief to prepare and submit their packages,. Those details are spelled out in OpNav Instruction 1306.2D.

Once selected, those sailors will attend the Senior Enlisted Academy and the command Master chief/Chief of the Board courses, both in Newport, R.I., before moving on to their ships. Scott said the transfers could happen as early as next summer, although some assignments may not happen for a year.

“Each transfer will be handled on an individual basis, taking into account the rotation dates of everyone involved and the needs of the ship,” he said.

back to top

Official Sees China As 'Considerable Threat'

Washington Times, December 22, 2005

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso told a press conference early today that China is beginning to pose a considerable threat, referring to its military buildup.

China is "a neighbor equipped with nuclear bombs and has expanded its military outlays for 12 years in a row," Mr. Aso said. "It is beginning to be a considerable threat."

The remarks appeared to signal a new approach in the way Tokyo looks at its giant neighbor.

Japan normally emphasizes accommodation, not criticism, in its comments on China.

Mr. Aso's remarks come against a rapidly changing international posture that Japan appears to be projecting to the world.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi appears determined to pay repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, which is devoted to Japanese military heroes, including those deemed by the international community as World War II war criminals.

This has drawn strong protests from China, as well as South Korea.

A robust campaign also is being waged by Japan's leadership to amend the constitution, which contains a no-war clause intended to prevent the revival of Japanese militarism.

Meanwhile, China's State Council -- its super-Cabinet -- today issued a white paper reiterating that the country intends to develop peacefully by relying on itself while not hurting other countries.

The State Council Information Office's 30-page white paper, titled "China's Peaceful Development Road," follows criticism from abroad that the country's military expansion poses a security threat, that its energy consumption could drain world resources and that its economic power could strain job markets overseas.

Having been a victim of foreign aggression for 100 years after the 1840-42 Opium War, China wants to prosper without further warfare, according to the white paper.

"China is now taking the road of peaceful development and will continue to do so when it gets stronger in the future," the paper said.

Beijing has taken "practical steps to establish fraternal relations" with other countries, such as signing border treaties with 12 neighbors, joining regional cooperation efforts such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and helping arrange the six-nation talks on scrapping North Korea's nuclear programs.

China's future hinges on using domestic resources for development, the paper adds, noting that it feeds 22 percent of the world's population with 10 percent of its land.

The paper says that since the 1990s, China has found 90 percent of its energy domestically.

"China is not only a big energy-consuming country, but also a big energy-producing one," according to the paper.

Staff reporter Gus Constantine contributed to this article.

back to top

Questions for the Debate on the Future of the UK Strategic Deterrent

By Lee Willett, RUSI.org, 21 Dec 05

The UK national strategic deterrent capability is, today, underwritten by four Vanguard-class Sub-Surface Ballistic Nuclear (SSBN) submarines carrying Trident D-5 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs). In October this year, the lead boat in the class, HMS Vanguard, came out of re-fit to fire an unarmed D-5 missile successfully as the final stage in her Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO). Vanguard’s DASO was a routine procedure to confirm her readiness for return to operational status, and to reaffirm the credibility of the current deterrent system.

Yet the demonstration underlined the UK’s commitment to strategic deterrence. Moreover, with the Vanguard boats due to begin withdrawing from service at the end of the next decade and given likely lead times on development and production of a new programme, the firing occurred at a time of growing speculation in the media that the Government was poised to make a decision to continue with the strategic nuclear deterrent - indeed, that the decision had already been made. The Government has said that an open and continual debate on the issue will be held in Parliament.

The Secretary of State for Defence, John Reid, stated recently that ‘in the course of the next four years this decision will take place’, although he has argued that ‘it is too early to say what formal procedures might be used to underpin future decision-making by the Government in this area’. The Government’s position remains a difficult one: if it stays out of the debate it is accused of being secretive and unhelpful; if it enters into the debate it risks accusations of leading the debate in a particular direction.

What is required is a balanced, informed debate. The purpose of this article is to synthesize the current status of the debate, set out the key questions that need to be addressed and to provide an ordered framework within which the debate should take place.

back to top