Study calls for cut in submarine fleet

The Boston Globe ^ | May 12, 2004 | Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press

[Willie Green]

WASHINGTON -- The Navy Wednesday said reports that a study is recommending the submarine fleet be cut by a third are very preliminary, and no decisions have been made.

But members of Congress are already vowing to fight any efforts to trim the fleet, and a Connecticut senator Wednesday filed his official objection to the plan with the Navy's operations' chief.

Navy Lt. Amy Gilliland said there are several ongoing studies by the Defense Department and the Navy to assess the fleet strength and determine the Navy's current and future needs. But none are completed, she said.

[CasearianDaoist]

What a shocker. They need more not less. I only hope that they are jerking around the appropriations committee.

[Willie Green]

May 14, 2004
Foster's Daily Democrat Editorial

The shipyard faces a new threat

A second threat has been tossed in the direction of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Already faced with defending the shipyard from complete closure, shipyard supporters now have to contend with the possibility of a reduction in the nation´s submarine fleet and an eventual reduction in force.

A report in Wednesday´s Boston Globe warns of a one-third reduction in the fleet — the purchase of fewer new submarines and the retirement of older Los Angeles-class attack subs.

It´s the retirement of attack subs that threatens the local shipyard or at least its employment level.

The shipyard´s niche in the fleet is overhaul and repair. Once the builder of underwater attack vessels and nuclear missile submarines, the Maine facility now plays a key role in keeping the fleet afloat.

If reports are correct and the fleet is reduced from 55 submarines to as few as 37, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will take a hit of some kind.

The local shipyard and its more than 4,700 employees have won repeated praise for the quality of their work and the record-setting pace in which they perform their assigned duties. Most of those employees live in Strafford and Rockingham counties in New Hampshire, York and Cumberland counties in Maine and the northeast corner of Massachusetts.

According to the report in Wednesday´s Globe, "In the last 50 years, Portsmouth has completed 74 major overhauls on attack and ballistic missile submarines, more than any other U.S. shipyard."

If there is follow through on what Navy officials have described as a classified internal study, it means a cutback in Los Angeles-class subs of one-third. And even if the local shipyard survives the 2005 round of base closings, its workload is likely to be reduced in proportion to the size reduction of the fleet.

The people of the Seacoast and other communities in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts are being driven to despair by the machinations of the Defense Department. Just as they gear up for one threat, they are blindsided with another.

The submarine fleet is vital to the defense of our country. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is vital to the maintenance of the fleet. The shipyard is vital to the economy of southeastern New Hampshire. It is vital to the economy of southwestern Maine.

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is not some forgotten storage depot out in the middle of nowhere. It is an important part of our national defense effort. It´s time the Navy stopped treating it as a target for shelling practice.

The Navy´s efforts to cut costs come at a critical time. Huge sums are being spent on the war in Iraq and we are in an era of warfare with which we are completely unfamiliar. No one — neither the Congress nor the president nor the services — know what kind of whirlwind is building up in a corner of the world of which we know so little.

Is this any time to sharply reduce the submarine fleet? We don´t think so. And neither do U.S. Sens. Judd Gregg and Susan Collins .

Gregg, R-N.H., a respected leader in Congress, said this week, "Submarines are a critical part of naval operations and our country´s overall national security strategy. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has time and again proven itself a leader in the quality, efficiency and innovation of its submarine overhaul efforts. We will continue to work with the Pentagon to promote the merits and defend the interests of the shipyard ... ."

Collins, R-Maine, was similarly vocal in reaction to the implied threat. She said this week she would "question any proposal to cut the country´s submarine fleet so drastically at a time when our military forces are engaged in war and remain stationed all over the world.

Gregg and Collins are setting a good course through rough waters. They and colleagues from the region and elsewhere have to once more overcome the mindset of Washington, D.C. — the thinking that all knowledge has its genesis within the Beltway.

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is not about numbers. It is about national defense and it is about people.

[LurkedLongEnough]

Not my opinion, but submarines are called the "traditional weapon of a second-rate naval power", according to an article published by Dr. Thomas M. Kane in the Army War College in Carlisle in the periodical Parameters, Winter 2003-04.

Sorry, commenting on such things is a hobby of mine.

[spetznaz]

I am curious what he said was the weapon for a first-rate power. Do you know? Thanks.

[GOP_1900AD]

I wonder if they could be turned into submarine container carriers to expedite material from Shanghai?!

[fhayek]

Just a guess, but I would say aircraft carrier

[ken5050]

Shees!....everyone knows the answer to that.."Swift boats"

[Conservative Infidel]

Some paper ran with this earlier in the week. Slowly, the "mainstream media" has been regurgitating it several times per day since. Here is the *real* story:

Officials Reject Possibility Of Major Sub Cuts


By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer, Navy/Defense/Electric Boat
Published on 5/13/2004

A Navy study that proposes an attack submarine force as small as 37 ships, almost one-third fewer than the current 53, is based on “outlandish” assumptions that make the cuts unrealistic, according to submariners who have seen the report.

The report posits shifting some submarine duties to ships that have not even been designed yet, suggests a shifting of submarine homeports that would be prohibitively expensive, and relies on overly optimistic war planning estimates, Navy sources say.

The submariners and members of the Connecticut congressional delegation said they are sure that two higher-level studies that are due some time this summer, one by the Department of Defense and the other by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, will support a larger undersea fleet.

But the release of the classified internal Navy report angered lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., who has demanded a personal briefing from the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Vern Clark.

“I find it unacceptable that Navy officials would ... comment on the details of a classified report without first providing the report to Congress,” Dodd said in a letter to Clark that was sent Wednesday.

Dodd noted that a 1999 study by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called for a peacetime submarine force of at least 55 submarines by 2015 and 62 by 2025.

“It seems to me that the need for more submarines has only increased as the United States wages its war on terrorism,” Dodd wrote. “A reduction in the size of the attack submarine force could directly lessen our ability to defend America's vital interests.”

U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, noted that the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide and maintain a Navy.

“We in Congress take this responsibility very seriously,” Simmons said. “And rest assured we will not stand idly by while unnamed bean-counters in the Pentagon propose cost-saving measures. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I will fight to ensure that submarines continue to be an integral part of our nation's security.”

Fred Downey, an aide to U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., cautioned that the 37-boat force is based on the premature release of selected parts of the Navy study.

“This is only one of several assessments of future submarine requirements, and the official assessments won't be completed for some time,” Downey said. “When they are, we're confident that the final result will represent the critical contributions that submarines make to our national security.”

A Navy spokeswoman said the study is “all very preliminary.”

“The Navy continually assesses force structure to ensure we are best tailored to meet joint mission requirements,” said Lt. Amy Gilliland. “Several studies are currently underway to comprehensively assess our force structure as we work toward the 2006 budget submission.”

•••The classified Navy report, in the works for several months and still incomplete, suggests the fleet could be reduced to 37 by not refueling some Los Angeles-class submarines and not building as many Virginia-class submarines.

But critics said its findings should be considered in light of the fact that it was done by a group that is worried more about budget issues than military requirements. Rear Adm. Joseph A. Sestak Jr., director of the Navy's assessment division, a Naval Academy graduate and surface warfare officer who holds a master's degree in public administration and a Ph.D. in political economy and government from Harvard, supervised the study.

“It's the kind of analysis where you give the group the conclusion and tell them to go justify it,” said one retired submarine captain. “There were a couple of studies that looked at the need, that looked at the force level needed to meet the requirements, and those were the ones that came up with the 65- to 75-ish sort of numbers.”

Submariners who have seen the study said one of its assumptions is that an important submarine mission known as ISR, for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, could be handled by the Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS, which is currently in preliminary design. But the sources said ISR is only effective when the opponent is unaware of the presence of the ship. If an LCS is parked off the shore with its listening antennas pointed toward an important area, all suspicious activity will cease.

“You affect some actions if it's an overt observation, said retired Capt. James H. Patton Jr., president of Submarine Tactics and Technology in North Stonington. “We never saw the Pakistanis drilling a hole in the ground to test their nuclear weapons a few years ago because they knew when the satellites were overhead.”

Patton and others noted that the LCS is not even a paper ship yet — two design teams are working on preliminary concepts. The Virginia-class submarine that was designed at EB and is under construction there now, is ideally suited to ISR, they said.

“You could make the argument that submarines have never done what they were designed to do, because the mission is always changing,” Patton said. “If you really want a platform that is going to be able to respond to threats a decade from now, you're talking about a submarine.”

Another assumption in the report, sources said, is that by homeporting nine to 12 submarines in Guam, which is closer to the Pacific operating areas, the Navy could devote to missions all the time submarines currently spend in transit from Hawaii or San Diego.

But submarine sources said the Navy has only two submarines there now, with a third scheduled to join them this year, and that is about the capacity of the submarine base there. It would cost billions of dollars to construct piers, housing, submarine maintenance shops and other requirements for a larger submarine presence, the sources said.

The study also seriously underestimates the number of submarines that are needed for routine business in the Pacific Fleet operating area, and the number of submarines that might be needed in wartime, Navy sources say.

Between the growing naval presence of China and the trouble in North Korea and other hot spots in the region, Adm. Walter F. Doran, commander of the Pacific Fleet, has said he needs at least 37 submarines in the Pacific alone to meet his warfighting requirements, one source said.

•••

Though some think the study's recommendations will never be implemented, it is still causing some anxiety locally.

John C. Markowicz, chairman of the Subase Realignment Coalition, which is working to save the Naval Submarine Base in Groton from being eliminated in a round of base closures next year, has said even the specter of a markedly smaller undersea fleet is unnerving.

“The possibility that there will be a rapid decline in the size of the force because 688s will be decommissioned faster than the Virginia class are commissioned is a major concern,” Markowicz said.

“You could be talking 15 to 20 fast attack submarines in the Atlantic 10 years from now, and that suggests one submarine homeport,” Markowicz said. “We would like to argue that that should be Groton. But I'm sure arguments will be made that Norfolk is a candidate, and you could even suggest a split between Norfolk and King's Bay.”

Markowicz said the region still has a strong argument in the fact that the Naval Submarine School is located here, and there are some synergies with Electric Boat. But the Navy was ordered by the base-closure panel in 1993 to close its nuclear power school in Orlando and move it to Groton; in 1995, the panel overturned that decision and sent the school to Charleston, S.C.

“If the nuclear power school was here I would be a lot less nervous about the future of the sub base,” Markowicz said.

In addition, if the Navy is going to build just one submarine a year, it makes sense to build them at Electric Boat, and do aircraft carriers at Newport News (Va.), Markowicz says. Shipbuilding. EB and Newport News share construction of submarines now.

“But Senator John Warner is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he's not from Groton,” Markowicz said. Warner is a Republican from Virginia whose constituents work at Newport News.

•••

William Murray, a research analyst at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and a retired submarine officer, said the study that concluded a force of 37 could be achieved is probably just reflecting budgetary pressures.

There have also been discussions recently about cutting the planned large-deck amphibious assault ship fleet by one-third, and the aircraft carrier force by an undisclosed amount, he noted.

“It seems to me that a smaller Navy is just about inevitable given the fiscal realities, and given the pressures on the budget it's not going to be easy to reverse,” Murray said. “What it means is we redefine the job of submarines so it can be done by fewer submarines.”

He said the Navy is likely to look to new platforms, such as surface, subsurface and aerial drones, to do some of the things that submarines have done in the past. And, he said, some submarine missions might have to be shared.

“You have to ask: What type of ISR needs to be done, and where?” Murray said. “I would think there are some capabilities that LCS might have that could lighten the load on submarines.”

But he said the debate should recognize that submarines are still a truly stealthy platform, and deadly as a result.

“If you need to sink a ship, you need a submarine — there's nothing else that will do the job as well,” Murray said. “So a certain level of investment is warranted. The question is, how much?”

r.hamilton@theday.com

[rmlew]

Is someone on crack over there?
Subs are the most effective anti-Sub units. We need them to protect our surface fleet and to project forces.
North Korea, Iran, and China all have submarines.
Since we only keep 1/3 of our subs deployed at a time, we only have 18 SSN's ready at any time. 4 to 8 are protecting our carriers. An equal number would be needed to protect our MEU's and transports if we were to invade or resupply a beliguered ally (Taiwan?).
Given a two front war, we could run out of subs quickly, even if two-thirds of our fleet were dployed.

[LurkedLongEnough]

Besides knowledge, training and motivation of military personnel and leadership --- aviation and the ability to conduct electronic warfare, including the use of intelligent, integrated info systems.

[KillTime]

An Army Doc dissin the Navys subs? Shocking! ;)

[LurkedLongEnough]

No argument. I saw the bumpersticker today: "There are only two kinds of ships: submarines and targets". hehe Everyone has their favorites.

Supposedly, China has plenty of submarines, but they are hopelessly outdated, except for two stealth Kilos from Russia. China has limited amphibious attack capability compared with their well-trained and equipped neighbors.

[spetznaz]

If (when?) war between Taiwan and China breaks out, and the US steps in militarily to defend Taiwan, then (and I am serious) just Freepmail me and I will pay for your vacation to any place within the US (as long as you stay within limits).

In essence, I totally doubt that the US will ever project strength directly protecting Taiwan (along the terms of what we did to Kuwait when Iraq attacked; or along the whole Vietnam scenario). If we go to war with China i think it will be exactly on our terms, not to protect an ally like Taiwan.

Aside: I think to protect Japan we would go to great lengths, but something tells me Taiwan will have to do with very little assistance, most of it being condemnation for Chinese actions.

[Last Dakotan]

If we go to war with China i think it will be exactly on our terms,

When have we ever gone to war on "exactly our terms"?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Navy ping

[spetznaz]

Maybe I phrased that incorrectly. To put it succinctly, and bluntly, I doubt Taiwan is important enough for the congress (or for that matter the general voting population) to authorize direct military intervention. Our administration rebuked Chen earlier this year and late last year for alluding towards independence, and obviously there is no way a person like Kerry would authorize a war against China for Taiwan. Consequently, the most Taiwan can expect from either side is help in terms of equipment.

Although, looking at the Taiwanese military training, they can do a lot with that. And once (if?) they get the Aegis capability they shall have even greater efficacy. However, should anything go wrong, they better not be hoping for direct military assistance.

The greatest thing preventing Chinese attack right now are the twin facts that the Chinese are not ready (things are not yet optimal for them economically, in terms of war scenarios, and militarily), and obviously the Taiwanese Strait. Thus the most they can do about their, scoff scoff, 'renegade province' is just sabre shaking (with Taipei mirroring them). However should something change, I would love to see the congressman or woman with the integrity to stand up for Taiwan in front of his constituents. Bush has the integrity, but few congresspeople would support military action that would not touch the minds or hearts of most Americans.

I hope that encapsulates it.

[Last Dakotan]

All good points.
The American public will not accept boatloads of US KIA over Taiwan.
The US - Taiwan relationship is extremely one-sided as manifested in the large trade surplus they enjoy.

[rmlew]

Perhaps you forgot about the Korean war?
We are willing to expend blood to defned allies.
Of course, dettering such a war is far better. Hence we cannot slash our sub fleet.
Why is Taiwan different from Japan? Is it not a democratic ally? Furthermore, the best way to defend japan is to stop China cold at Taiwan.