As chief of naval operations (CNO), Adm. Mike Mullen occupies one of Washington’s perennial hot seats. He is the Pentagon’s point man for naval shipbuilding — which often generates more controversy than ships — and head of a service changing rapidly to deal with an enemy that is a challenge, despite the overwhelming numbers and technological prowess of U.S. forces.

Mullen wants to resolve the national “crisis” in shipbuilding epitomized by the drop to 280 ships, the smallest U.S. fleet in decades, and a 2006 budget that funded only four ships, a low point equaled only once since 1974. He proposes an increase to about 313 ships and the purchase of an average of 11 ships annually through 2015. The shipbuilding plans sent to Congress have been “chaotic” due to everchanging numbers and need to be stabilized, Mullen said, to put a tighter rein on design changes, control costs and encourage the industry to take prudent risks.

A key to stability is to develop a shared view with Congress, the Pentagon and industry of shipbuilding goals and how best to achieve them. To that end, Mullen will rely on the “terrific relationships with Congress” forged since his appointment as CNO in July. “I have spent an extraordinary amount of time engaging members on this issue. They are receptive; they understand,” he said. The American people must as well, “or we are not going to have the Navy this nation needs.”

A Navy officer for 38 years, Mullen has been vice chief of naval operations, commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, and commander of the NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic. As CNO, he is drawing a “very different image of sea power” that includes more sailors assigned to shore jobs in Iraq, Djibouti and around the globe. It emphasizes engaging directly with individuals whose views of the United States are filtered through the international press.

Shipbuilding

Last August, Mullen told students at the Naval War College his vision of sea power includes “doctors and nurses healing the sick” and mechanics repairing a city’s lost infrastructure. He points to the work of U.S. forces that sped to the scene of the December 2004 tsunami, providing relief to tens of thousands in Indonesia, “a country that as a whole didn’t feel very kindly toward Americans.” After U.S. forces left, a poll indicated that sentiment “had just about reversed. There is not enough military or economic power in the world” to bring about that kind of change that fast.

Mullen wants naval forces to “have a lot of impact in a positive way … and create relationships which hopefully will lead to reason in tense times.”

In an interview in his Pentagon offices, he discussed these and other issues with Editor in Chief Richard C. Barnard. Excerpts follow.

Your idea of sea power includes doctors tending the sick and construction workers mending fences. What is your vision of the Navy of the future?

MULLEN: I’m trying to stimulate discussion about sea power at a higher level. We’ve been a maritime nation for 230 years. The commercial flow [by sea] in and out of the country is huge in terms of impact on our way of life. We’ve always depended on a strong Navy, and we need a strong Navy now.

In the century in which we find ourselves, there is a dramatically different environment in the world, and we can do a lot. We’re out and about. We have mobility, and we don’t go ashore and take up a lot of space. Appreciating countries’ sovereign space is becoming more and more critical.

The Indonesians were certainly sensitive about it.

MULLEN: Absolutely. Many countries are. We can be preventative. We can be deterring. We can be dissuasive, depending on where we are in the world. I would rather see peaceful solutions instead of warfighting solutions from everything we do.

Are you going to return to Indonesia to reinforce the goodwill generated in 2004?

MULLEN: We’re in the process of obtaining approval to do that later this year. The effort is supported by Adm. [Gary] Roughead, who is the Pacific Fleet commander, and Adm. [William] Fallon, the combatant commander there. The three of us are very strong believers. We need to go back and demonstrate it wasn’t just a one-time affair. We are anxious to help.

So an underlying objective of your vision of sea power is to have a chilling effect on those who recruit terrorists or seek support among the local populace?

MULLEN: It’s to disabuse people who know us only from coverage in the international media. We can send a message about who we are as a country and what we represent, and the values we stand for.

That’s what happened in Indonesia and is happening right now in Pakistan.

There is a one-star admiral out there with most of his deployed staff doing the earthquake relief. It’s not just the Navy, it’s all services. It’s joint. It’s interagency. It’s coalition. They’ve had a huge impact on the local people and how they think about Americans.

We have upwards of a thousand Americans in Djibouti being led by a two-star Marine. The Navy is going to take command of this mission in the spring. The global war on terror is being fought out in the country where our people are establishing relationships and improving security. That’s a longterm investment. But we are in a long war, and our entire military has to have these long-term kinds of commitments. The Navy can bring an awful lot to that.

Do you believe the Navy will increase its involvement over the long-term in the Horn of Africa?

MULLEN: I do. There are opportunities to have the kind of impact that we just talked about.

We see a very different Navy emerging; one with a lot more missions ashore, for example. Correct?

MULLEN: We have upwards of 4,000 sailors on the ground in Iraq today, and I think that number’s going to grow. Some of their missions will endure. Others will be temporal. Iraq and Afghanistan are the leading edges of this long war we are in. This is a national effort, and the Marines and the Army are hard pressed right now. I’ve got a lot of talent in the Navy, and I’m anxious to help as much as we can.

That said, we’re a maritime warfighting service. I see the Navy focusing more on the green and brown water and this need we have to pitch in as much as we can, wherever we can.

Here’s a quote from your annual guidance: “Our strength and our future also rely on our diversity.” Are you happy with the diversity in the Navy’s ranks?

MULLEN: I don’t know that happy is the right term. The Navy has been a diverse organization over my entire career. We’ve improved dramatically over the four decades that I’ve been on active duty.

We’ve still got room to go.

My concern is that we have to be on the right trajectory, particularly in the leadership corps — chiefs and officers — so that we will match the diversity in our country. To the degree that we do not make that match, we are at risk in terms of our future. It’s important. A wonderfully diverse Navy has enormous strengths. If we are not diverse, it will be a significant weakness.

In the officer corps, particularly at the flag level, our numbers are not what they should be.

We’re a hierarchy. We’re not an organization that laterally brings people in at the 25-year point and says “go to work.” We must make sure we get this right at the foundation so we’re not having this same conversation 25 years from now. As CNO, I want to take big steps each year to ensure we have the right momentum to be the diverse, relevant Navy in the future.

Have you asked the Bureau of Personnel for an assessment?

MULLEN: Yes. Part of taking steps is to take a fix — where am I right now? We have an advisory group to do this. That’s ongoing and the information is coming to me in the near future.

Have minority sailors talked to you about diversity in the Navy?

MULLEN: Yes. I’ve been on the road and I’ve talked with thousands of sailors, both officers and enlisted, and I’ve gotten questions on this. What do you really mean? When you talk about taking risks, what areas are you looking at?

You want the Navy to take some steps on diversity. What steps?

MULLEN: I talk to our leaders about accountable mentorship. My expectation is that they, as leaders, spend time creating a mentorship program for minorities in their commands. I want them to be accountable for the outcome, along with the individual who is being mentored. They also need to reach deep, not just go one level down. For example, “I’m a 0-7; let’s do the captains.”

Regarding shipbuilding, you say you want to lay the groundwork for a stable industrial base. What’s your definition of stability?

MULLEN: I approach it from where we are right now, which is unstable. That instability is driven by a lack of a consistent plan, the lack of a controlled requirements process, and the need to improve the strategic relationships between the Hill, the Navy and the industry. I would never say that I’m going to put [a shipbuilding plan] out and for five years nothing is going to change. I want to avoid dramatic changes or major shifts.

I am anxious to stabilize the parts of that construct, so we can start to control costs.

Controlling requirements means we will spend less money. Having a stabilized plan will allow industry to control costs better and, I believe, boost confidence that they can take some risks where they haven’t in the past. Stability is very important; it’s critical to underpin the future. I’ve got to have a very rigorous oversight of costs, cost growth and requirements growth, and I’ve put organizations in place to do that.

But are you putting one foot in the political tar pits on this issue? You’ve set the goal at 313 ships, but yours is only one voice in Washington that influences the size and shape of the fleet.

MULLEN: There are always risks associated with being in charge. I firmly believe this is the right approach; 313 ships is about the right number. I’m willing to take that risk.

The Military Sealift Command has, in recent years, taken on additional ships for the Navy. The command ships have mixed crews of civilian mariners and sailors, for example. And now you are assessing the feasibility of having civilian mariners run warships. How far are you going to take this?

MULLEN: I don’t know. That’s part of the study. The concept has been proven in a number of areas. Ten years ago, there were warfighting concerns when we talked about putting merchant mariners on Navy ships. Would they steam them in harm’s way? That was absolutely unfounded. The merchant mariners proved that in Desert Storm and they’ve proven it constantly since then.

The goal of studying this would be to determine what is reasonable. There are fundamental warfighting requirements that only someone in uniform can and should do.

The goal here is to run the fleet more efficiently?

MULLEN: True. [Civilian mariners] have performed at a magnificent level and shown us they can do it with equal effectiveness and in some ways much more efficiently. With merchant mariners you typically get more experienced people. You don’t have to renew them as often. It doesn’t take as many and doesn’t cost you as much.

Tell us about the shift of warships to the Pacific. You’re going to do more of it?

MULLEN: This administration had a strategic vector in that direction in 2000. The nations on the Pacific Rim are economic engines, and economic stability is tied to the security of the region. The Navy can play a big role. There are uncertainties out there that we are not able to predict, and I routinely talk about the tyranny of distance. The Pacific is a big ocean, and it’s obvious to me we need to move forces in that direction.

In what number?

MULLEN: The QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] report mentions six operational aircraft carriers. We had six until the [USS Carl] Vinson moved into its three-year overhaul. When Vinson returns, we’ll have six out there again. The report calls for 60 percent of the submarine force [52 subs]. Historically, we’ve had our submarines split 50/50.

So it’s a 10 percent swing. Internally, I am reviewing the surface forces to determine if the same needs are there. I believe they are, but I need to have it analytically shown to me.

So you may move more surface forces to the Pacific?

MULLEN: Correct. No decisions yet.

Several organizations in the Navy are creating “enterprise” efforts to cut costs. There is the Surface Warfare Enterprise, for example. And there is something a little different called Single Provider, under which the entire Navy would adopt the business model created by naval aviation. Do you support that?

MULLEN: I support the concept, but I have to see how we would execute it. I’ve taken a couple of briefings on it. They’re due to come back to me.

Clearly, there is too much duplication in too many areas. We pay too much for overhead. What I would like is for all the parts of our Navy [such as Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command] that are involved in providing services and capabilities to be efficient and effective and as lean as we can be.

Is the Single Provider proposal akin to putting all of the systems commands under one head?

MULLEN: We did have that at one point in time, and there are those who say it was very effective and we lost a lot when that went away. That’s one of the questions that needs to be answered in this review. But there’s no predetermined outcome in my head to say this is the answer.

back to top

PACFLT Discusses Rising Role in Pacific

By Cpl. Esther Greene, the Navy News Service

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Adm. Gary Roughead, commander, Pacific Fleet (PACFLT), addresed the Navy’s evolving role in the Pacific region and how Sailors and Marines assigned to that area of operation play an important role during an interview in Washington Feb. 14.

Roughead took time out from addressing the Asia Society during a luncheon in Washington, where he was guest speaker, to talk about where he sees PACFLT going in the future.

"The future of the Pacific is one that is dynamic, it's changing, there's a lot of activity that's going on out there," said Roughead. "The role that they (Sailors and Marines) play in warfighting readiness and posturing ourselves for future challenges is going to be key to the future of our Navy."

“They are the ambassadors that visit and interact with so many of the countries in the Asia Pacific region," he continued. "They're the young men and women of our country that those nations form an opinion about. Whether they're operating at sea, or whether they're in port on liberty or in port doing humanitarian assistance or disaster relief, they are the face of America. They're the face of our Navy. And every day, every minute, the role they play is terribly important."

Highlighting his office's and the Chief of Naval Operations’ top priorities, Roughead addressed what he considers to be the warfighting challenges that Pacific Fleet has faced in the past and will continue to face as the Navy's fleet continues to change.

“The challenges that I see at the high end are anti-submarine warfare. There are about 140 diesel submarines that operate in the Pacific. We, as a Navy, are good at anti-submarine warfare. We can always get better, and that's what we're doing because we have to be able to dominate that growing submarine capability,” Roughead said.

“Ballistic missile defense is another area. It's emerging, and the Navy is in the forefront of ballistic missile defense. Not only in the ships that we operate, but some of the testing that we've done... So I think that's another growing area."

Roughead talked about how the Navy needs to work with Asia to ensure maritime security and the ability to facilitate international relationships by keeping the waters clear and safe for trade.

"The ability to also work in what I call the maritime domain, to know what's moving on the maritime domain, to be able to exchange information with our partners and be able to act on that information as you have what I refer to as the trans-national criminal elements," he said. "Whether it's piracy, human trafficking, drug trafficking, or terrorism... those are areas that we can continue to work on, that we can work on with our friends and partners and become much much better in."

According to Roughead other top priorities include: force posture - what assets the Navy should have and where; regional engagement - interaction with allied forces to safely secure the large Pacific area; and the "futures" - along with anti-submarine warfare, and ballistic missile defense. These issues include unconventional warfare, high-speed vessels and joint-basing.

Roughead said that, above all, his mission was to take care of the Sailors and Marines.

“The advice that I would give to the Sailors and Marines that are deployed in the Asia Pacific region is, one: To know your job, to do it well, to appreciate the opportunities that are out there for you to grow personally and professionally. To remember that everything we do, whether it's on the water or ashore, professionally, personally, on-duty, off-duty, everything we do is important,” Roughhead said.

back to top

Test of an AIM-9X Missile shows potential for solution in Littoral Joint Battlespace

DCMilitary.com, 17 Feb 06

TEWKSBURY, Mass.--A Raytheon-led team successfully launched an AIM-9X from a stationary, vertical platform last November. The missile successfully locked on after launch and hit its target in a test of its potential launch from a submarine. The test was conducted for the Naval Sea Systems Command at the U.S. Army's McGregor Test Range in New Mexico Nov. 19, 2005.

A successful test firing matures the technology that will provide the Navy with a new capability when the Joint Battlespace is near the coast at a fraction of the cost of developing a new weapon system. The new system is an existing launch capability married to a proven weapon fired from a submarine at periscope depth.

"This is very exciting," said Dan Smith, president of Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems. "In partnering with the Navy and Northrop Grumman, our team has been able to take an already proven off-the-shelf weapon, make software modifications, use existing launch technology, and give the combatant commander another option in the coastal Joint Battlespace.

"The implications of this first phase test are far-reaching. It provides the Navy with a low-cost solution with a high-impact capability in its approach to littoral warfare without having to go through a costly and lengthy R&D process."

Mark Russell, vice president of Raytheon IDS engineering, said that the recent test launch also represents a significant step toward enabling the submarine force to strike targets with surprise from shallower coastal waters. Now, in addition to MK-48 torpedo and the Tomahawk cruise missile, submarine forces will have the option of another weapon system making them a more versatile player in the integrated battlespace.

"Successfully demonstrating the AIM-9X lock-on-after-launch mode from a vertical orientation launch is a major step toward providing our submariners with an unprecedented offensive and defensive capability," said Brock McCaman, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems Air-to-Air Product Line. "It's another example of the tactical flexibility of this proven weapon system."

"This test is the first step toward an AIM-9X missile being launched vertically from a submarine," said John Cochran, the Raytheon IDS program manager. "Ultimately, the missile will be encased in a launch capsule. When the capsule broaches the surface, the missile will launch and then acquire and engage its target."

For this test, the missile was launched from a stationary, vertically-oriented U.S. Army XM-85 Chaparral launcher. The AIM-9X missile successfully acquired and destroyed a slow moving helicopter drone target with a direct hit. AIM-9X missiles are normally launched from fighter aircraft.

"This non-traditional launch of the AIM-9X provides the submarine force with an important element toward having the capability to strike enemy patrol aircraft, helicopters, and high speed patrol boats," said Eldon Vita, the Missile Subsystem program manager for Raytheon Missile Systems. "It provides combatant commanders with another option in support of interdiction, special operations, battlespace preparation, forced entry, anti-access, and area denial."

The test is part of a multi-year risk retirement program that may lead to full scale development. In addition to testing upgraded missile guidance and target acquisition software, the firing demonstrated the potential for underwater vertical launch from a capsule and the missile's ability to quickly reach stable flight when starting from a stationary platform.

Based in Tewksbury, Mass., Integrated Defense Systems is Raytheon's leader in Joint Battlespace Integration. With a strong international and domestic customer base, including the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. armed forces, Integrated Defense Systems provides a wide spectrum of integrated air and missile defense and naval and maritime warfighting solutions.

back to top

$31.8M in Combat Control Systems and Upgrades for 7 Virginia Class Subs

Defense Industry Daily, 17 Feb 06

Raytheon Co. in Portsmouth, RI received a $31.8 million firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-6207). As the prime systems integrator for the Virginia Class submarines' combat control suite (CCS), Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems will procure, produce, test and integrate all combat control hardware and software, including tactical software and logistics support, delivering the advanced communication, navigation and weapon launch capabilities for the next five Virginia Class submarines (#6-10). Under the contract, Raytheon will also provide combat control system modernization and upgrades for the first two submarines of the Virginia class, the USS Virginia [SSN 774] and USS Texas [SSN 775].

The Virginia class submarine combat control subsystem (CCS) is made up of a number of elements.

The CCS is in fact a subset of the Command and Control Systems Module (CCSM), which was developed by a team led by Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems-Undersea Systems (NE&SS-US) of Manassas, VA. It integrates all of the vessel's systems including sensors, countermeasures, navigation, weapon control, and is based on open system architecture with Q-70 Colour Common Display Consoles. The Open Systems Architecture makes upgrades a lot simpler, a benefit that is being tested in this contract.

Weapon control is provided by Raytheon with a derivative of the CCS Mk 2 combat system, the AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System, which is also being fitted to the Australian Collins Class submarines. It consists of centralized data management systems for weapon control, interface and weapon launch capabilities. Raytheon's Weapon Interface Panel provides special purpose hardware to support generation and control of weapon data, control signals and weapon power for pre-launch, launch, and post-launch control of four horizontal tube-fired weapons (often torpedos or Harpoon anti-ship missiles)and 12 vertical tube fired weapons (usually BGM-109 Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles).

Work will be performed in Raytheon's Maritime Mission Center in Portsmouth, RI (84%); plus Bedford, MA (13%); and Manassas, VA (3%), and is expected to be complete by August 2010. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. issued the contract.

back to top

USS Philadelphia at yard for tune-up

By Emily Aronson, Portsmouth Herald, 16 Feb 06

PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD - The USS Philadelphia will call the Seacoast its home for the next nine months.

The Los Angeles Class fast attack submarine arrived at the shipyard Wednesday for various maintenance work and system certifications, according to a statement released by the shipyard.

The certifications will extend the life of the ship for an additional three to four years before it is inactivated, the statement said.

Spokeswoman Deborah White said the Philadelphia is the fifth Navy vessel currently being repaired at the shipyard. Other ships are the USS Jacksonville, USS Pittsburgh, USS Salt Lake City and Submarine NR-1.

"The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard team is ready to execute this workload and is committed to delivering (the work) with the highest quality, on time or ahead of schedule and on budget," White said.

The 6,900-ton vessel was the first Los Angeles Class submarine to be built by General Dynamic Electric Boat in Groton, Conn. Since it was commissioned in 1977, the submarine has been deployed all over the world.

In 1991, the Philadelphia was stationed in the Mediterranean Sea for the Operation Desert Storm. For its performance there, it received a Southwest Asia Service Medal for outstanding operations.

The submarine’s commanding officer is Cmdr. Jeffrey T. Jablon, a native of Frostburg, Md.

He leads 127 officers and crew members. White said she is still working on finding a loca* host town" for the submarine’s crew.

The crew has earned a number of awards over the years, including Meritorious Unit Commendation, Golden Anchor Award and Engineering Excellence.

back to top

Today Is Declared ‘USS Greeneville Day’

The Greeneville Sun, 16 Feb 06

Today is officially “USS Greeneville Day” in Greeneville and Greene County, by proclamation of the mayors of the city and county.

The proclamations declare:

“Whereas, the USS Greeneville (SSN 772) is a U.S. Navy fast-attack nuclear submarine, carrying the name of the community of Greeneville, Tennessee, as the ship and its crew defend freedom around the world; and “Whereas, the commissioning of the USS Greeneville took place on February 16, 1996, at Norfolk, Va.; and

“Whereas, this community in the past was home to a subsidiary of Newport News Shipbuilding, where many enjoyed productive employment for a number of years; and

“Whereas, this community, though relatively small, was able, through an effort that crossed political boundaries and involved not only elected officials, business and industrial leaders, but Navy veterans and even school children, to meet requirements for having a nuclear submarine carry its name; and

“Whereas, this community has opened up the doors of its homes to hundreds of sailors of the USS Greeneville, during their visits each time in Greeneville; and

“Whereas, the crew of the USS Greeneville, though it has experienced its share of difficulties and even tragedy, continues to strive for excellence that reflects very well not only on themselves but on this community, making us proud of their efforts and accomplishments; and

“Whereas, the USS Greeneville continues to serve out its motto being ‘Volunteers Defending Frontiers’ and protecting this nation while advancing the cause of freedom around the world;

“Now, therefore, I Darrell M. Bryan, mayor of the Town of Greeneville, Tennessee, do hereby proclaim February 16, 2006 to be ‘USS Greeneville Day’ in Greeneville, Tennessee.

In an almost identical proclamation, Greene County Mayor Roger Jones also proclaimed “USS Greeneville Day” in Greene County.

Sub’s First Captain

The first captain of the USS Greeneville and the submarine’s first “Chief of the Boat” have kept up contact with this community since long before the commissioning.

That relationship continues.

In a letter to Dale Long, president of USS Greeneville Inc., the submarine’s local support group, the submarine’s first commanding officer, Capt. Duane Hatch, who oversaw its construction, wrote: “As USS Greeneville approaches her 10th anniversary of commissioning, I am pleased to let you know that the ship and her crew are doing well. From the reports that I receive, USS Greeneville is excelling in all areas of her operations.

“During the past 10 years, USS Greeneville has enjoyed strong support from you and her namesake city. The crew is very lucky to have Greeneville, Tennessee, as her sponsor city.

Your support through both good and tough times has made a difference with the sailors of Greeneville.

“Just knowing you are behind them helps them through their long deployments, and gives them added pride in the job they do. “Thanks for your support, and God Bless.”

First Chief Of Boat

Stan Simmerman, who was the USS Greeneville’s first “chief of the boat,” is now retired from the Navy.

The chief of the boat is the ranking enlisted man on the ship, a key member of the crew who knows how to do virtually every job aboard, and is expert in all of its systems.

In an e-mail to Long, Simmerman wrote, “I find it hard to believe that 10 years have passed since commissioning day. Reflecting back on Feb. 16th, 1996, it seems that day set the tone for USS Greeneville and her crew. “The wind howled, the snow and ice came, commissioning tents were destroyed, and months of planning were interrupted, requiring all hands to ‘adapt, improvise, and overcome.’

“The commissioning site was shifted from the waterfront to an aircraft hanger bay where the ceremony proceeded without a hitch.”

Simmerman continued, “In these past 10 years USS Greeneville has continued to adapt, improvise, and overcome. She has faced many challenges and will face many more.

“I can think of only two constants in the life of this fine submarine; she is manned by great young Americans, and she has the love and support of Greeneville, Tennessee.

“I truly believe that support is a key element to the success of any submarine. Although many of the crew members will never see their host city, they know that you are there supporting them, and that is what is important.”

back to top

USS Greeneville Marks 10th Year Of Service

By Tom Yancey, The Greeneville Sun, 16 Feb 06

Ten years ago today, on a snowy, blustery day, the USS Greeneville (SSN 772) was officially commissioned at a ceremony in Norfolk, Va.

The USS Greeneville, which is named for this city, is one of this nation’s 53 fast-attack submarines and is the next to last of the Los Angeles class of submarines constructed.

To celebrate the sub’s 10th anniversary, today has been proclaimed “USS Greeneville Day” in Greeneville and Greene County. (Please see proclamation in accompanying article.) Greeneville Mayor Darrell Bryan commented, “We’re proud of our partnership with the USS Greeneville, and also appreciate what they do to serve our country.”

The mayor said the submarine’s association with the city “has been real, real positive for the town of Greeneville, and hopefully our association is good for the submarine also.”

County Mayor Roger Jones said, “It’s an honor for our community to have a nuclear submarine named for us, and we need to fully support it all the time it’s commissioned.” He added, ”It’s unreal for a community our size to have any U.S. Navy vessel named after it.”

Sub’s Commander Comments

In an e-mail provided to The Greeneville Sun, Cmdr. Lorin Selby, the sub’s commanding officer, said, “The commissioning of a warship in the U.S. Navy is one of the key milestones in a ship’s life. The commissioning is the date that the Navy formally accepts a new ship from the shipbuilder and places the ship into the active fleet. In many ways, it is like a birthday for the ship.”

Cmdr. Selby noted that while the ship was built and commissioned on the East Coast, “it is now homeported in beautiful Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.”

Cmdr. Selby added, Our ship and those like her have many vitl missions which we are carrying out around the world, every minute of every day and every day of the year. Our submarines are operating in the far reaches of the world’s oceans, always at the ready and actively engaged in the war on terrorism.”

He added, “Today’s modern nuclear submarines are probably the most complex pieces of machinery that mankind has ever built and operated. But despite this complexity and incredible technology, the ship is nothing without a well-trained and disciplined crew.

“The submarines of the U.S. Navy are operated by the most capable submariners in the world. The sailors onboard USS Greeneville are doing a tremendous job of keeping the ship in phenomenal shape and keeping her ready to deploy on a moment’s notice to support our nation’s national security objectives.”

Selby said the citizens of Greeneville and Greene County “should be justifiably proud of the sailors that are serving our country on USS Greeneville and other warships of the U.S. Navy.”

Cmdr. Selby concluded, “As we celebrate 10 years of service, I wanted to pause to thank you, the people of our namesake city, for the tremendous support you have shown the ship over the years.

“When I visited Greeneville last fall with two of my sailors, we were awed and humbled by the tremendous interest and support that each of you showed for your ship. We are proud to be named after your town, and we intend to keep close ties with you into the future.”

Dale Long Comments

Dale Long, president of USS Greeneville Inc., the local support group for the submarine and its crew, said the group provided a cake and other refreshments for the submarine’s crew to enjoy today in a “birthday party” to be held in the crew’s mess, which is called “The Davy Crockett Cafe.”

Long explained, “We as a community have continued to be supportive of ‘our boat,’ even though it’s homeported in Hawaii instead of Virginia or somewhere closer.”

Several members of USS Greeneville Inc., and other Greene Countians, have visited Pearl Harbor, toured the submarine, and in general received VIP treatment, he said.

Long and his wife, Linda Kay, traveled to Pearl Harbor in the aftermath of the 2001 Ehime Maru sinking, to show the organization’s ongoing support for the Greeneville and its crews, and the community’s sympathy for the grieving families of the nine Japanese crew and students whose lives were lost as a result of a collision with the USS Greeneville during a rapid surfacing exercise.

“Our support has grown through the good and bad,” Long said.

He noted that when Cmdr. Selby, along with Master Chief Hospitalman Brett Thompson, the “chief of the boat,” and Chief Petty Officer Ed Miller, the ship’s 2004 “Sailor of the Year,” visited Greeneville last summer, they were received by the community just as enthusiastically as any delegation from the submarine he could remember.

“In the past 10 years, we’ve been through several captains. Each has done all that he could to maintain the ties to the community, and each has extended every courtesy at every encounter,” Long said.

Because nuclear submarines are expected to have a useful working life of about 30 years, “we of USS Greeneville Inc. look forward to the next approximately 20 years of that relationship,” Long said.

“To all those who serve and have served on the USS Greeneville, this community salutes you,” Long said, adding, “We’re proud of you, and you’re always welcome in your second home in Greeneville and Greene County.”

back to top

COG Backs Bolstering Sub Base

Firing-Range Proposal Endorsed Unanimously

By Paul Choiniere, New London Day, 16 Feb 06

Norwich — The Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments endorsed the concept Wednesday of using $100 million in state funding over 10 years to transform the region into a defense and homeland security center of excellence.

Local elected officials also unanimously endorsed a resolution calling for the state to help fund construction of a firing range at the Naval Submarine Base in Groton that could also be used by local police departments.

Such moves would demonstrate the state’s commitment to the base, boost its military and homeland security value and ward off future attempts to close the submarine base, said COG Chairman Keith J. Robbins after the votes. The proposals demonstrate the kind of state-local-federal synergy that the Pentagon looks for in determining the value of its military bases, he said.

Typically such resolutions are first reviewed by the council’s executive committee before a council vote, but Robbins said no time should be wasted in demonstrating that supporting the base should remain a high priority for the region and for the state.

The concept of using state resources to enhance the military and homeland security value of the region was first proposed earlier this week by the Defense and Homeland Security Subcommittee, part of the Governor’s Commission for the Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut. Gov. M. Jodi Rell formed the commission after the region successfully fought off a Pentagon proposal in 2005 to close the submarine base, which employs about 11,000 people.

The governor’s commission is charged with both trying to diversify the region’s economy, so that is it not overly dependent on the defense industry, and working to reduce the chances that the Groton base will again be targeted for closure.

The action items unanimously endorsed by COG include:

· Supporting the relocation of non-military facilities, such as the commissary, exchange and other retail outlets from the base to nearby locations to provide more space on base for facilities with military value.

· Upgrade utilities serving the base to meet future demand.

· Support public-private partnerships that enhance the quality of life of military personnel and their families.

· Promote modern, state-of-the art submarine maintenance and repair capacity at the base and at submarine manufacturer Electric Boat.

· Consolidate regional homeland security facilities in southeastern Connecticut and work to preserve the presence of the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center in New London.

Funding in the amount of $10 million a year for 10 years should be made available to implement the concepts, according to the proposed action plan. The resolutions endorsed by the COG are expected to be presented to the executive committee of the governor’s diversification commission when it meets at 3 p.m. today.

John Markowicz, co-chairman of the Defense and Homeland Security Subcommittee, said that while the proposals are largely conceptual, they do provide a framework for demonstrating that Connecticut, like other states, is willing to support its military base. Markowicz was a key figure in the successful fight to save the base.

More concrete is the proposal to build a firing range at the base. Capt. Sean Sullivan, commanding officer at the base, told the council the facility would cost about $9.3 million. Robbins said some of the $10 million approved by the legislature in May 2005 to support the fight to save the base could be earmarked for a firing range. The money has not been spent.

To use that money, however, would appear to require a change in the legislation. The original legislation said the bond money could be used “to help small and mid-sized manufacturers meet the changing needs of their defense customers by adopting new technologies and techniques.”

For months the council of governments has been discussing the potential joint development of a firing range with the submarine base. In addition to the Navy, potential users could be local and state police departments, homeland security personnel and the Coast Guard.

back to top

EU Shoots For China's Arms Business

By Federico Bordonaro, Asian Times, 17 FEB 06

Beijing recently called on the European Union to lift a 17-year arms embargo imposed after the bloody Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. As a result, the issue is again in the spotlight, highlighting what China needs from Europe in its rise as a global power.

Further, one has to ask exactly who in Europe would benefit most from lifting the increasingly controversial ban.

Before taking a closer look at the industrial and commercial side of the matter, however, the nature and scope of the weapon sales ban should be clarified. While the overwhelming majority of recent analyses focus on the political and strategic aspects at issue - concentrating particularly on the risks of a fresh trans-Atlantic feud - some juridical aspects of the embargo certainly deserve more attention.

There is no precise and univocal interpretation of the ban. What is more, since 1989 some European states have carefully avoided expressing one of their own. However, according to most interpretations, the prohibition covers only "major weapons platforms", ie aircraft or naval vessels, as well as "lethal weapons" such as machine-guns and missiles.

Weapons subsystems, or militarily relevant dual-use products such as advanced machine tools, are not covered.

The consequence is that some militarily significant items have been sold by Europeans to the Chinese military during the embargo - legally. Evan S Medeiros and Seth G Jones wrote in The Hill last year ("Heading off European arms to China", March 2), "The engines for China's new Song-class diesel submarine and its newest 054-class frigates are reportedly German and French, respectively. In the late 1990s, the United Kingdom sold China sets of naval aviation radars and France sold Crotale shipto- air missiles and launchers."

Although an EU "code of conduct" was introduced as late as 1998, its regulatory capabilities are weak, since it is not legally binding, nor does it have a comprehensive scope. This is why Washington hopes to persuade its EU allies to revise the code - and to agree to a list of sensitive items that Western corporations must not sell Beijing if they want to avoid US economic retaliation.

EU and US intelligence agencies reported last year that China's "true" military effort amounts to about US$78 billion a year, and that even with the embargo in place, EU countries are already responsible for 2.8% of China's military purchases.

What is more important, though, is that such EU sales include quite sophisticated engine technology for fighter aircraft as well as propulsion engines for the Chinese navy.

China's needs

Beijing's goal is to improve its military might dramatically in four fields: the missile sector, military aircraft, shipbuilding, and information tech/defense electronics.

A combination of industrial domestic capabilities and selective imports is crucial to China's military buildup. In the 1980s and until the late 1990s, niche capabilities were filled with high-tech acquisitions from Soviet, and then Russian and Ukrainian defense industries and labs. Russia and Israel provided both weapons and projects in the last decade. The EU military-industrial complex, however, quickly became China's preferred strategic partner at the dawn of the 21st century.

It is too often overlooked that Beijing has made significant progress in building up its own militaryindustrial complex in the last decade, and particularly since 2000 China's strategy for improving its defenseindustry capabilities is based upon three "pillars": first, selective modernization in C4ISR (command, control, communication, computers and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), aerospace strength, missile technology, strike accuracy, areadenial and anti-jamming systems; second, better civil-military integration, focused on improving civil production by national defense manufacturers to enable China's financial solvency in relation to its enormous effort; and third, targeted weapon acquisition from foreign countries ("A New Direction for China's Defense Industry", RAND Corporation, 2005).

As usual, political and geostrategic aims dictate industrial-military efforts. Since China is concentrating on obtaining strategic dominance in the China Seas, and particularly against Taiwan, its main tactic is to become (or appear) strong enough to compel Taiwan to accept unification, while discouraging the US from trying to prevent it.

Thus China's efforts have been primarily directed at strengthening its missile sector, in which considerable progress has been made since 2000.

Short-range ballistic missiles such as DF-11 and DF- 15 are some of its newest top domestic products. For the moment, Beijing appears still in need of more modern, effective land-attack cruise missiles, cutting-edge anti-ship cruise missiles, long-range surface-to-air missiles and anti-radiation missiles.

Nevertheless, the recent advance in its domestic missile sector suggests that Beijing's dependence upon foreign industries for such products could come to an end within a few years.

Regarding warships, although the Chinese navy still lacks long-range amphibious vessels comparable to those of the world's greatest naval powers, Beijing's shipbuilding sector now produces "a wide range of sophisticated naval platforms, using modern design methods, production techniques and management practices", according to the RAND report cited above.

As for the military aviation sector, China's progress in building fourth-generation fighters (J-10) has been made possible by foreign aid, and weaknesses exist when it comes to mastering serial production of complex aviation platforms. Also, heavy bombers and military transport aircraft are still insufficiently developed.

Likewise, Beijing needs to improve decisively its access to surveillance and communications satellites with global coverage. In this respect, China's participation in the Galileo Positioning System is believed likely to help close the gap - notwithstanding Galileo's official civilian-only use (see Galileo: Why the US is unhappy with China, Asia Times Online, February 8).

Europe's potential suppliers

Many signs indicate that more than a few EU political and industrial players would be pleased by the end of the embargo. It is well known that France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy count among the most important sellers in the international weapons market.

Between March and September last year, Europeans gave some of the most explicit proof of their present disunion. While Washington repeatedly warned against lifting the embargo, France took the opposite route, last summer calling the ban "obsolete". The British government appeared internally divided over the issue. In March, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott declared that the EU should end the arms embargo on China, apparently contradicting previous signals from the government, before British lawmakers warned against lifting the embargo. In the end, the embargo wasn't lifted in 2005, but China regularly puts pressure on EU member states, as Beijing perfectly understands that influential EU milieus strive to get strategic autonomy from the US.

The powerful EU defense corporations would certainly benefit from the embargo's elimination. Although Beijing seems confident of developing enhanced domestic industrial capabilities in a timely manner, leading EU defense companies could indeed provide China with key technologies - even though the Europeans, in line with the usual great-power practice, would be prepared to sell only their previous-generation products.

The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co - EADS, the EU defense heavyweight – has clearly adopted a long-term partnership perspective and wants to play an active part in Chinese aeronautic and space-sector growth and development. And here too, as in the case of the Galileo satellite navigation system, some analysts are worried that the technology transfer involved in an EADS civilian deal with Beijing could have serious strategic implications.

Other EU-based defense giants, such as France's Thales and Italy's Finmeccanica and Alenia Marconi, would obviously increase their commercial activities with China. Thales has had offices in China for 20 years. And in 2004, the Italian government had authorized military exports to China for more than 127 million euros ($151 million).

However, it is possible that in case of a ban lift, EU member-states and defense firms would refrain from selling weapons or platforms directly to China. The real issue is - and would remain - the export of subsystems and related equipment, missile technology, stealth systems, command and control capabilities, naval platforms and military aircraft.

For European governments and defense companies, the United States is a crucial political, strategic and economic ally. Massively increasing European arms and dual-use technology sales to China may appear to be a huge business opportunity for many EU players, but the political, security and economic consequences of such a move could prove discouraging.

back to top

Wang says Chen will delay PAC-3 plan

By Shih Hsiu-chuan, Taipei Times, 17 Feb 06

Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng said that President Chen Shui-bian has temporarily given up on the idea of buying PAC-3 anti-missile batteries and submarines from the US, according to the latest issue of Chinese-language weekly, the Journalist.

In an interview with the magazine, Wang talked about the long-stalled budget for procuring three major weapons systems from the US -- including 12 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, three PAC-3 Patriot anti-missile batteries and eight diesel-electric submarines.

Wang was quoted as saying that the president has accepted his advice and given up on buying the missiles for three years starting from March 20, 2004, the date of the referendum that was held to decide whether to purchase the PAC-3s.

The referendum failed after less than 50 percent of the electorate voted.

"Whether we buy the PAC-3s is related to the referendum result. I mentioned this to the president and he more or less accepted my suggestion," Wang told the magazine.

The Journalist also reported that Wang has suggested his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will not include the submarines in its version of the weapons bill, which is scheduled to come out near the end of this month.

Wang was quoted as saying that there are three reasons that KMT opposed buying the submarines -- "First, we don't even know the country of their manufacture. Second, we think the price is twice as expensive as the normal going rate for subs. And third, the delivery time is too long, about 15 years."

Wang, however, issued a press release late yesterday denying part of the report, saying that he had never said that the KMT is opposed to buying the submarines.

"I was not saying that we don't want the submarines. Rather, I was saying that for the moment, we have to deal with the P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and PAC-3 Patriot anti-missile batteries," said the statement.

The decision to buy the submarines is still pending as the party is waiting for the US to lower the price and to hear the reaction of other parties to that price, Wang said.

The Presidential Office yesterday neither confirmed nor dismissed Wang's comments.

Director of the Presidential Office's Department of Public Affairs, Chen Wen-tsung, said he "personally does not understand the matter."

Additional reporting by Ko Shu-ling

back to top

Elusive Chinese Submarine Cave Spotted

By FAS Strategic Security Project Blog - Washington,DC,USA

A long-rumored but never before seen Chinese underground submarine base is shown for the first time in a new article written by analysts from the Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council. The article, published in Imaging Notes, shows newly acquired satellite images of the submarine base, three air bases, and China's nuclear weapons lab at Mianyang.

A front page article in Washington Times was headlined "Commercial photos show Chinese nuke buildup," but both the cave and submarines have existed for nearly three decades. Only now, thanks to commercial satellites, can the public see them.

The Imaging Notes article is a snapshot from a larger FAS/NRDC report on US-Chinese nuclear relations scheduled for publication later this spring.

back to top

French submarine deal at a `bargain price`: India

Garavu Guharat News (GG2.NET)

INDIA was buying Scorpene submarines from three French companies at a `bargain price` of Rs130bn (£1.6bn) without the involvement of any intermediaries, Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in Kolkata on Wednesday.

"There are actually three French companies, one of them is in the public sector, from which we are buying the submarines and not two," Mukherjee said when asked about reports of two French companies identified for the deal.

He said the deal was not overpriced as reported in a section of the media since the submarines were being acquired at a cost of Rs130bn (£1.6bn).

"Rather, we bargained with the companies and are getting the submarines at Rs30bn (£390m)) lesser than the price initially quoted by them," he said.

Mukherjee later said the government was also not aware of the involvement of any intermediaries in the deal. To another question on the implications of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Minister said, "There is a lot of talk on how to separate military establishments from scientific bodies. People have different views. But we have not taken a final call yet."

Mukherjee said the government was talking to the scientific community before finalising its stand on the issue.

back to top