President's Message
A Band of Warriors
Washington Report
Snowe: Asking the Fleet To Do More with Less
USCG Sets Record for Cocaine Seizures
Slater Reports to Congress: A World-Class Marine Transportation System
Industrial Base
Russian Navy "Ready to Modernize"
A New Course, An Unprecedented Vision
Leading the Way in Ship Design
The Iron Fist of Our Nation's Resolve
Air War Kosovo
USCG to Go-Fasts: Not So Fast!
Seamanship & Survival Skills For a New Generation of Leaders
Spotlight on Industry

President's Message

As Navy League councils throughout the world prepare to help our U.S. Marine Corps celebrate its 224th birthday, I cannot resist looking back and remembering some of my own past contacts with the Marine Corps during my 34 years of naval service. My personal experiences with the Marine Corps started at the Naval Academy, where several of the outstanding Marines assigned to duty there taught me and other members of my class how to fire both a rifle and a pistol. Thanks to their hard work and dedication I eventually qualified as an expert marksman.

I have never forgotten those fine young Marines serving at the Naval Academy, or the lessons they taught me. Later in my career, with the Navy's construction battalions--better known to the general public as the Seabees--I took great pride in the Seabee tradition of being fighters as well as builders. That tradition started out of necessity in World War II and continued through Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War.

Not surprisingly, the Seabees were, and are, organized into battalions patterned after the Marine Corps' battalions. From the start, the Seabees relied on the Marines to train them in heavy weapons, defensive perimeter security, and numerous other land-warfare skills essential to the Seabees' survival--and to the successful completion of their mission.

There has always been great mutual respect between the Seabees and the Marines. In Vietnam in 1968­1969, the just over 8,000 Seabees in the regiment I commanded devoted virtually all of their efforts to the support of III MAF (the Marine Corps' III Amphibious Force), building air fields, camps, roads, bridges, fortifications, and other infrastructure facilities throughout a large strategic area of South Vietnam ranging from Khe Sanh to An Hoa to Chu Lai.

Later in my career I had support and security responsibility for the presidential retreat at Camp David in the Catoctin Mountains in Maryland, where I once again had the privilege of working with a truly superb Navy-Marine team. On my last active-duty assignment, as commander of Pacific Fleet Seabees, I also worked closely with and for the Marines, and enjoyed the friendship of two legendary FMFPAC (Fleet Marine Force Pacific) commanding generals, Lou Wilson and Jack McLaughlin. No one who knew him was surprised when Lou later was selected to be Marine Corps commandant.

My own respect and admiration for the U.S. Marine Corps is obviously shared by the American people--and by military men and women around the world. For well over two centuries the U.S. Marine Corps has built a tradition of being the "first to fight." From Tun Tavern to Tripoli, from the Halls of Montezuma to the hills of Korea, and from Samar to Saipan, U.S. Marines have fought (and won) their country's battles, and they have more than lived up to the difficult mandate set for them by Congress: to be "the most ready when the nation is least ready."

Throughout our nation's history--today more than ever before--when a president has had to commit American forces to protect U.S. interests overseas, the Navy-Marine team has been first on the scene. U.S. Marines were among the first fully combat-ready forces to arrive in Saudi Arabia for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Navy-Marine ARGs (amphibious ready groups) provided essential support for the air campaign over Kosovo, and U.S. Marines were among the first American forces to enter Kosovo; the Marines also were among the first U.S. forces to aid in the Turkish earthquake relief, and more recently have been assigned to support the U.N. peacekeeping operation in East Timor.

Gen. James L. Jones Jr., who succeeded Gen. Charles C. Krulak earlier this year as Marine commandant, discusses (in the interview in this issue of Sea Power) the "band of warriors ... tied together from top to bottom, from generals to privates" who have been the strength of the Corps throughout its history. "The Marine Corps is better today than it was yesterday," General Jones says with tremendous and entirely justifiable pride, "and it will be even better tomorrow."

That is perhaps the only certainty that all Americans can count on as we enter a new century and a new millennium. It is with both pride and humility, therefore, that I salute the U.S. Marine Corps on behalf of all members of the Navy League and say to today's Marines: We are extremely proud of you and all that you have done for our country--and we will continue to support you in every way that we can.

Semper Fidelis!

A Band of Warriors

Gen. James L. Jones Jr. was promoted to four-star rank on 30 June 1999 and assumed his current post as the Marine Corps' 32nd commandant the following day. His 33-year career has been accented by command assignments with forward-deployed Marines and marked with combat service in Vietnam where--as a platoon and company commander--he earned the Silver Star for heroism. As the commanding officer of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in 1990 and 1991, he led Marines into Turkey and northern Iraq during U.S. humanitarian-relief operations following Operation Desert Storm. While serving as the deputy director for operations at the U.S. European Command in 1993, he was reassigned as chief of staff for Joint Task Force Provide Promise. In that post he played a critical role in directing humanitarian-relief airdrops into Bosnia-Herzegovina, overseeing support to the United Nations Protective Force, and coordinating U.S. participation in U.N. border-monitoring operations in Macedonia. Following promotion to major general in 1994, Jones was assigned as commanding general, 2nd Marine Division. He later served as the director of the Expeditionary Warfare Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, followed by duty as the deputy chief of staff for plans, policies, and operations at Headquarters Marine Corps. Jones served as the military assistant to the secretary of defense for three years before his promotion to general and assignment as Marine Corps commandant. Having spent his formative years in France, he returned to the United States to attend the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, from which he received a bachelor of science degree in 1966. He graduated from the National War College in 1985.

Arthur P. Brill Jr. interviewed Gen. James L. Jones Jr. for this issue of Sea Power.

Sea Power: Although it is early in your term as commandant, what is your evaluation of today's Marine Corps?

JONES: I've visited most of our major commands in the past four months, and this is the best Marine Corps I have seen in almost 33 years of service. I've seen several different Marine Corps in that time, and this is the best. In the mid-1970s we were spending 90 percent of our time on the 10 percent of the people who weren't performing. Today the nonachievers are down to about one percent.

There is nothing broken in today's Corps. If I did nothing in the next four years the organization would flourish. The Marines we have today would make that happen. The Marine Corps is better today than it was yesterday, and it will be even better tomorrow.

In what ways will the Corps be better?

JONES: It is the role of all Marines to improve the Corps. This is progress. Generally, we are making Marines well today, but to ensure that we succeed in future battles we need to focus more on our operating forces. They need more people, for example, and we are going to solve that problem.

We have a quality force today, but I think too many rules and regulations were aimed over the years at the small number of nonachievers. These rules should focus instead on the 99 percent of Marines who are performing. In addition, we need to rejuvenate some of our capabilities such as intelligence, reconnaissance, and artillery. Our training could be coordinated better, and we are looking at some other things.

What was the rationale behind the Commandant's Guidance that you issued on July 1st, the day after you assumed office?

JONES: A passage of command is a good time to reflect, especially as we near the end of the century. I thought long and hard about today's Corps and where we should be headed.

The Guidance is philosophical, not directional in nature. It doesn't tell you to do a darn thing. Instead, it is a reflection of my experience and how I see the Marine Corps. It is an easy read, and I hope our Marines buy into it. The Guidance isn't specific, because it is my nature to be more philosophical.

Can you briefly summarize the key points in your Guidance?

JONES: We have a quality Marine Corps today. I truly believe that when our Marines get up in the morning, they will try to do the right thing. We should trust them to do that, and they should trust us to do the right thing by them. We must learn to say "yes" to them for reasonable requests, and we should tolerate their mistakes if they stumble. There is nothing more important than the operating forces, and they deserve more attention. Marines should place their units before themselves. Finally, our families are important, and they deserve a quality life, along with all Marines.

You mentioned "commanders' intent" in your Guidance. Can you explain that?

JONES: Commanders' intent is a marvelous way to communicate with your subordinates. You issue broad guidance in clear and understandable terms about what you want them to accomplish or what you want them to find out. You don't get too detailed and tell them how to do it. They, in turn, take your guidance and decide how they are going to achieve it. In doing so, it commits them to that responsibility.

It is not my nature to be very specific and give detailed instructions, because I really believe in commanders' intent and how they communicate our orders.

You have formed a strong bond with the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, haven't you?

JONES: While it wasn't an easy choice because we had so many qualified candidates, selecting Sergeant Major Al [Alford] McMichael for the top enlisted job in the Marine Corps was one of the best decisions I have made as commandant. We have a partnership-type relationship, and for the next four years we are going to be a team that will tell the same message. We will fight to keep the social bond that ties the senior leadership of the Corps to the junior elements.

Those young Marines are the future of the Corps, not us. The officer and enlisted ranks must stay tight. That is very important. It is one of the reasons the Marine Corps has been so successful over the years.

Your Marine recruiters are amazing the experts by their success month after month. Can they continue?

JONES: I think so. Our recruiters have a very difficult job, and their success is vital. The key points in the Commandant's Guidance are doable because we have good people. More importantly, the missions and the battles of tomorrow will continue to require quality Marines, so we cannot lower our standards.

Why are your recruiters so successful?

JONES: The entire Corps is focused on it, and our recruiters work very hard. We have a band of warriors out there that is tied together from top to bottom, from generals to privates. They consider their mission to be a combat mission, and they prepare like it is one. They have a campaign plan with the same warrior ethic--and they attack, they win, and they succeed.

The performance of our Marines who deploy plays a role too. When our nation calls, like it did in Kosovo, our Marines get the job done. But in the end, it is those recruiters who have the pressure to perform, and they are doing well.

Do you have any concerns about Marine retention?

JONES: We are currently retaining more than enough quality Marines, both officers and enlisted, across the whole rank and MOS [military occupational specialty] spectrum for us to do the job. This also includes pilots.

However, I am concerned about those Marines who do not complete their initial enlistments each year. Although this is better than the other services, we have to find ways to lower that number. Every Marine we save is one less the recruiters have to enlist.

Are you losing Marines in their first enlistments because of a zero-defect mentality?

JONES: Yes, some of them. I worry that we have become a zero-defect society. We are an imperfect people trying to do the perfect thing. That is a noble goal, but we shouldn't hold people to such extreme standards that can't possibly be met.

If I didn't have compassionate leaders who helped me when I was coming up, I wouldn't be sitting here today. They developed me when I was a young officer, and they tolerated mistakes because they made them themselves. We are going to move away from a zero-defect mentality.

Isn't there a danger of your nonachievers taking advantage of that?

JONES: We have quality Marines. None of them get up in the morning and say to themselves, "how can I make Jim Jones miserable today?" These Marines were taught the Core Values, and they know right from wrong.

There are certain things no commander can tolerate, such as stealing or taking illegal drugs. These are deliberate actions or acts of commission by that individual, and they will have to suffer the consequences. Moving away from the zero-defect mentality doesn't mean you can do something reckless or stupid. It does mean that errors of omission can be forgiven.

When a leader judges somebody, I expect them to make sure that they judge them in the context of the good of the whole, not because that person irritated them or made them look bad. That's not what leadership is about. Leadership is about mentoring, education, and forming a bond. None of that works without good people. I am telling our leaders that we have great people, and we are going to take care of them. We are going to trust them, and we are going to tolerate mistakes.

How do you view the relationship between the Marine Corps and the Navy?

JONES: Wherever you go around the world you find a Navy-Marine team on the tip of the spear. I believe that when a Navy person serves with a Marine unit he or she is a part of us.

I remind my Marines that no Marine Corps will ever succeed without a strong Navy partnership. Having served in the operating forces, I know the strong bond that exists between the Navy and the Marines. The CNO [Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jay L. Johnson] and I want to see that same relationship in Washington, D.C. Things are going fine.

Do you see less squabbling over limited naval resources and funding?

JONES: The CNO and I are "joined at the hip," plus we genuinely like each other. We have reinstituted regular meetings of "The Big Eight" to discuss key issues. [The "Big Eight" consists of Jones, Johnson, their deputies, and the two flag-rank members from each service who administer funds, programs, plans, and operations.]

The Navy-Marine team is the most unique team in warfighting history. We are going to enhance it to allow for the resurfacing of brigades. We also are harmonizing both Operational Maneuver From the Sea [OMFTS]--the Corps' capstone warfighting concept for the 21st century and "Forward ... From the Sea," [the key Navy strategic concept] in ways that work for both services.

Will the Marine Corps add brigade-size units to its menu of deployable assets?

JONES: Actually, we never lost that capability. Brigades were going strong before the Gulf War, and we had it right then. After Desert Storm, the standard Marine expeditionary brigade [MEB] headquarters was rolled into our largest operational organization, the Marine expeditionary force [MEF]. If a brigade-size force was needed, it was called a "MEF Forward," not a brigade. As a result, the term disappeared and the Corps has become MEF- and MEU- [Marine expeditionary unit] centric.

I want the joint world to know that we also have a middle-tier [brigade-size] capability. People understand brigades, not "MEF Forwards." Although it might require merely changing the terminology, we are looking at the best way of reestablishing that middle tier.

Many people think that the value of unit inspections is the time spent by the troops preparing for them. Why do you advocate "no-notice" inspections?

JONES: The operating forces in the Marine Corps should be ready at all times. I believe the best readiness inspections for these units are no-notice types. Too often, units start preparing three months in advance before an inspector-general or commanding-general level inspection. These endless pre-inspections take away from valuable training time. Too many Marines spend their hard-earned money replacing serviceable uniforms and 782 [combat] gear merely because it will look better for the inspectors.

These inspections are a waste of time and money. When I commanded the 2nd Marine Division [at Camp Lejeune, N.C.] we banned announced inspections. We got good results. The important thing in an inspection is to find out if the troops have the required gear, if it is serviceable, and if they know how to use it. From now on, inspector-general and commanding-level inspections will not be announced. The philosophy of our inspection system should be to find out how good units are--not how bad they are.

How are you going to increase the strength of your operating forces in the Corps?

JONES: About eight months ago an internal Force Structure Planning Group [FSPG] came in with some very interesting recommendations. Although we are looking to structure the Corps for the 2010 to 2015 time frame when we start executing OMFTS, the FSPG looked primarily at the near term to 2005. They concluded that our present and future missions require an adjustment to our end strength of up to 7,000 Marines.

There is no doubt that our Marines are busy, that we are short in some MOSs, and that we need more people in our operational units. But before we go to Congress with such a request, we are going to see if we can fix it internally. We want to make sure that we are organized to fight the way we want. We want the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time to do what the nation expects.

We discussed these matters in our General Officer Symposium. By November, we hope to have the FSPG and other key issues resolved internally. Right now, I am planning for those decisions to be made at a session of our senior Marine leadership in late October.

Will the Corps continue to rely on the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab?

JONES: Yes. Experimentation is important, and we hope to do more of it in the future. A study was released recently that suggests that the Marine Corps would be an ideal Department of Defense test bed because of our small size and our Marine Air Ground Task Force makeup.

I agree. Knowing the Corps as I do, we would take on those projects without delay, test and evaluate them thoroughly, and report on them honestly and quickly. It is much better for us to test new concepts, gear, and weapons systems than to inherit them.

How important will the Marine Corps Reserve be in the future?

JONES: I am a firm believer in the Total-Force concept. I had the pleasure recently to observe a Reserve rifle company from Topson [Maine] training at our Jungle Warfare Training Center on Okinawa. They could not have been more enthusiastic.

Reserves are an important part of our Marine family, and when the bell rings they will continue to join our active units for contingencies around the world. They are important here at home in another sense. I think it is vital that the military stay connected with the American people. Our citizens should understand what we do. Who can do that better than our 42,000 Marine Reserves?

Our Reserves, along with the National Guard, also will play a vital role in Homeland Defense. In the next 10 years our borders will become even more vulnerable to terrorists and to others who will try to do us harm in many ways, including using weapons of mass destruction. In Homeland Defense, our Reserves will be the supported command, and it will be the active forces that will support them.

As we near the end of this century, what in your opinion was the most significant moment in Marine Corps history over the past 100 years?

JONES: I think it was the flag-raising over Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima in 1945. In my view, the capture of that island and the symbol of that flag-raising gave birth to the modern Marine Corps. We are going to recognize that memorable event at our birthday celebration in Washington, D.C., on November 10th.

This final Marine Corps birthday in the 20th century will be a nostalgic one, won't it?

JONES: Absolutely. We inherited a great legacy. This is the time to pause and think about the warriors who went before us. Because of them, we have total freedom and opportunity. We are about to turn the page into a new century, and we are anticipating the future. But we will always remember the past.

Those warriors of 50 years ago spawned an era of prosperity, democracy, and primacy for this nation that is the envy of the world. I am proud that my father and uncle were members of that "greatest generation," as Tom Brokaw calls it. So, on the 224th birthday of our Corps and in the weeks ahead, we should reflect on the past. These warriors are looking at us and asking themselves a very fair question: "Will we measure up? Will we be as good as they were?"

That is a tremendous challenge and responsibility, but I think today's Marines will make them proud. And tomorrow's Marines will be even better.

When did you decide to make the Marine Corps a career?

JONES: It was after my combat tour as a rifle platoon commander in Vietnam in 1968. That experience showed me that I was destined to be a U.S. Marine as long as the institution would have me. I liked the responsibility I got from my seniors, the loyalty I received from my subordinates, and the enjoyment of being with my peers. I committed myself then, and I have had no regrets.

You say you enjoyed being with your peers. Do you think Marines are having as much fun today as you and your fellow Marines had 31 years ago?

JONES: I have seen a change in our culture in the last decade. People are not taking leave because their bosses don't. Marines and their families deserve a balanced and quality existence, and leave is important.

The things that used to bring us together are slipping away too. Our "togetherness" is part of who we are. Marines should enjoy their lives on base and not be forced to leave to have a good time. Instead of having MPs hiding around the corner from a unit picnic, commanders should provide transportation back to the barracks.

This is not about alcohol. Our quality Marines can take care of themselves and each other. MPs have a dangerous job, but I remember when they used to help Marines. We need to get back to that sense of teamwork.

None of us wear this uniform for the paycheck. We do it for the intangibles--the sheer joy of being a Marine and the unique camaraderie when we are together. It would be a shame when we hang up the uniform for good if we couldn't say that it was a fun life.

What can you tell us about possible changes at Marine headquarters [HQMC]?

JONES: For too long we have had the mind-set that HQMC knows better than anybody else from the top down. We don't say "yes" enough when Marines call and ask for legitimate things. We are changing that concept to the extent that it needs to be changed.

I don't want to paint everyone with the same brush. Saying "yes" is our first order of business. If we cannot say "yes," we will provide the Marine with a response as to why and, better still, provide a list of alternatives before saying "no." I want a headquarters and senior leaders who listen before they talk. And we will have that.

HQMC is being re-tooled so that our air, ground, logistics, and command elements--along with our bases and stations--have advocates who watch after their interests. We also will have a "war room" to enable HQMC and our action officers to interact horizontally as well as vertically. We will reach out beyond the Corps and know what's happening in many areas. This will give us better information to focus on the important things so we can fight in the combat arena that is "inside the beltway" [i.e., within the National Capital Region].

You returned a few weeks ago from visiting your Marines in the Western Pacific. What are your overall impressions?

JONES: Our Marines deployed there are in the most dangerous area on earth. It is a very unsettled and troubled area. North Korea is in a desperate situation and is very unpredictable. Iraq is a similar concern. The Navy-Marine team is the dominant force in the theater. It is the force that will make a difference if hostilities ever break out--with Korea, for example--and the die will be cast very quickly.

I am impressed with the enthusiasm, the morale, and the job our Marines are doing over there. I am pleased about the quality of life our Marines and their families enjoy on Okinawa and in Iwakuni [Japan]. I served on Okinawa many times, and they have no complaints.

We have good leadership and quality people over there. Our Marines live in a fishbowl. They are behaving themselves, and they understand the international impact if they do not.

The Futenma air station relocation issue still must be resolved, but that is being looked at. We flew over several possible relocation sites during my recent visit to the region. I met with the governor of Okinawa, and our relations have never been better.

You have a lot on your plate in these early months as commandant. Of all the things you want to do, what is the most important?

JONES: There are three kinds of Marines: those in the operating forces, those who just left, and those who are trying to get back. The operating forces are what the Marine Corps is all about. We are going to pay more attention to them so they can stay ready and be successful. Nothing is more important than readiness so that we can do the job the nation expects of us.

What will the next four years bring?

JONES: This is a great time to be on active duty--it is a time of change, and there will be some exciting things happening in our Corps.

I can't wait to see what's going to happen in the next four years, not because I am the commandant, but because I can watch the talent and the essential goodness of this wonderful military organization. I predict that the legacy of today's Marines will be one of outstanding contribution, and one the country will be proud of.

Is there anything else you would like to say to the readers of Sea Power and the Navy League?

I think it's important for Navy League members to understand what today's Marine Corps is all about, and I appreciate Sea Power's efforts to keep them informed. I intend to keep open lines of communication with you and your readers--they remain valuable members of our Navy-Marine Corps team. 

Washington Report

By GORDON I. PETERSON, Senior Editor

Flanked by ranking members of Congress and senior Department of Defense (DOD) uniformed and civilian officials, President Clinton signed a $289 billion defense-spending bill into law at a Pentagon ceremony on 5 October. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 represents the first step in a sustained increase in defense spending in more than a decade. The bill's provisions for a new and comprehensive pay package and full funding for military readiness and operations accounts enjoyed broad bipartisan political support.

"This bill is an expression of America at its best," Clinton said. "It's about putting the people of our Armed Forces first." Clinton voiced special appreciation to the men and women of the armed forces serving around the world--and to the members of both parties serving on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees who worked to make the bill a reality.

Key personnel-related provisions of the bill include:

• Increasing military pay by 4.8 percent and future raises that will exceed average private-sector raises;
• Increasing the reward for performance with targeted pay raises that will boost the pay of mid-career service members; 
• Increasing the use of special pay and bonuses to retain highly skilled personnel; and 
• Restoring retirement benefits by returning retirement pay to 50 percent of a member's base pay at 20 years of service.

Improved pay and compensation were top funding priorities for all branches of the armed forces as they struggle to meet recruiting and retention goals. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen stated that the FY 2000 spending bill reversed a 13-year decline in defense procurement. "We're renewing our commitment to give our warriors the weapons they need," Cohen said. "We are also renewing our commitment to tomorrow's readiness in terms of modernization."

Senate and House conferees on the Armed Services Committees reached agreement on the FY 2000 defense-spending bill in early August. In the House, all 36 Republican and Democrat committee conferees signed the bill's conference report--only the second time this has happened since 1981.

Warner: "Difficult Challenges"

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that congressional conferees were confronted with difficult challenges affecting U.S. security as they crafted the bill authorizing DOD funding for the year ahead--including a measurable decline in readiness, troublesome recruitment and retention problems, aging equipment, and newly emerging security threats. "Our forces, while performing with great distinction in the recent conflict in Kosovo and in numerous other deployments around the world, are simply overstretched," Warner said. "They are beginning to show the strains that come from overuse."

For selected naval programs, House and Senate conferees authorized:

• $751.5 million for advanced procurement of CVN 77, the transition ship from the Nimitz class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to the next-generation CVN(X) aircraft carrier. Conferees also fully authorized the president's request for aircraft carrier research and development, including $45.3 million for CVN 77 and $195.1 million for CVN(X);
• $2.7 billion for the procurement of three DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers. Conferees also authorized extension of the DDG 51 multiyear procurement contract to cover the final six ships in the class;
• $1.5 billion for procurement of the third and fourth San Antonio-class amphibious ships;
• Procurement of one Wasp-class amphibious assault ship and $375 million for its advanced procurement and construction (the president did not request these funds as the Navy planned to purchase the ship in 2005);
• $748 million for advanced procurement of the third Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine;
• $270 million (matching the president's request) for the next-generation surface combatant, the DD 21 land-attack destroyer. Conferees supported the Navy's program and acquisition strategy. Conferees also included $116.5 million ($15 million more than the president's request) to develop advanced munitions for the DD 21;
• $990.4 million for procurement of 12 MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft (two more aircraft than the president's request);
• $2.9 billion for procurement of 36 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike aircraft and a $15.2 billion multiyear procurement contract for 222 aircraft. Conferees also authorized $319.8 million for F/A-18 series modifications in support of the chief of naval operations' unfunded priorities list; and
• $121.2 million to accelerate development of the AAAV (advanced amphibious assault vehicle) and to advance the initial operational capability date from FY 2006 to FY 2005.

Rep. Floyd D. Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that House and Senate conferees had targeted additional funding--more than $8 billion--for a variety of requirements that were not funded adequately in Clinton's FY 2000 defense-budget request, including quality-of-life, readiness, and modernization initiatives.

Addressing the full House of Representatives on 15 September, Spence noted that, despite the conferees' best efforts, they had not eliminated shortfalls, but simply struggled to manage them. "Absent a long-term, sustained commitment to revitalizing America's armed forces," Spence said, "we will continue to run the inevitable risks that come from asking our troops to do more with less."

Danzig: "Significant Bills"

Faced with projected budget shortfalls in its readiness and operations accounts, Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jay L. Johnson plan to reduce planned shipbuilding to avoid further cuts to personnel and real-property maintenance funding. Addressing a U.S. Naval Institute symposium in Virginia Beach, Va., on 29 September, Danzig acknowledged that the Navy had "some significant bills to pay." He said that he and Johnson had decided it was preferable to pay for them from future procurement funding rather than to accept Navy staff recommendations to make the cuts in personnel programs.

"My reaction--and the CNO's--was the same," Danzig said. "Do we really believe that people are our most important asset? If we do, then we don't want to take these cuts these ways--because in the end, it will be on their [sailors'] backs."

Danzig declined to provide details, but a Pentagon official confirmed for Sea Power that budget pressures have forced the Navy to cut three ships and 42 aircraft from the FY 2001 to 2005 time frame to save $4 billion. Said to be included in the reduction are one DDG 51 guided-missile destroyer in FY 2005, one Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine in FY 2003, and two ADC(X) logistics ships in FY 2001 and 2003. One of the ADC(X) ships reportedly will be added back to the shipbuilding plan in FY 2005.

U.S. Joint Forces Command Established in Norfolk

Asserting that the United States stood at a pivotal point in its history, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen presided at a 7 October ceremony at Virginia's Norfolk Naval Base to redesignate the U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM) the U.S. Joint Forces Command.

In his remarks to senior military officers and guests, Cohen said that the Joint Forces Command's mission would enable the United States to prepare for new challenges to its national security during the 21st century. "It's ... a time of new fears, when at least 25 countries either have, or are in the process of acquiring and developing, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and the means to deliver them," Cohen said.

Since the end of the Cold War, USACOM had expanded its traditional mission of providing a transatlantic link to NATO by placing a stronger emphasis on joint (multiservice) training and operations. The command's redesignation continues that trend. It will be responsible for supplying the other U.S. joint combatant commands with combat-ready forces, to develop joint doctrine and warfighting tactics, and to support U.S. domestic agencies in the event of an attack on U.S. soil. "Our arms, as well as the eyes, must look to the future," Cohen asserted.

The Joint Forces Command's mandate is to accelerate opportunities for the armed forces to gain joint-warfighting training and experience, to leverage lessons learned in combat operations and training, and to recommend changes to joint doctrine that would improve the warfighting capability of the armed forces.

The new command also is assigned the mission of providing military assistance to U.S. civil authorities responsible for dealing with the consequences of incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) within the continental United States, its territories, and possessions. To fulfill that mission a standing Joint Task Force for Civil Support, reporting to the Joint Forces Command, will plan for and integrate the Defense Department's support to the lead federal agency that is assigned "consequence management" during a WMD incident. The new Joint Task Force (JTF) will be commanded by a two-star general officer (to be selected from a reserve component of the armed forces) and be supported by a headquarters staff of 36 personnel. 

Snowe: "Asking the Fleet To Do More With Less"

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Seapower, recently described her outlook on shipbuilding and the Navy's budget for Sea Power.

Sea Power: From your perspective as chair of the Senate's Subcommittee on Seapower, what is the most important aspect of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Conference Report?

SNOWE: The most important seapower aspect of the Conference Report focuses on the achievement of Congress in fully authorizing or increasing the authorizations for the Navy's major air, surface, and undersea-warfare programs. The combined Navy and Marine Corps procurement accounts, for example, receive $19 billion, approximately one billion dollars above the administration's request. And we added $251 million to Navy R&D [research and development] programs for a total of $9.61 billion.

Each of these procurement and research initiatives will speed the evolution of the fleet from an open-ocean battle service to a more flexible combat organization with improved capabilities to strike inland enemy targets and to operate in shallow waters. This transition is essential for the Navy to deter or to prevail in conflicts across the unpredictable spectrum of 21st-century challenges to our national security.

Conferee approval of the president's request for six new-construction ships in FY 2000 poses a real risk that the fleet will fall below 300 ships. How seriously do you view this concern?

SNOWE: I am gravely concerned about the risks associated with a fleet of less than 300 ships. The risks are manifested in high operating tempos that affect ship readiness, retention of our Sailors and Marines, and the regional commanders' ability to provide the forces required to support the National Security Strategy. At the current construction rate of six or seven ships per year, the total fleet size would fall substantially below 300 vessels after 2005. The testimony of acquisition and warfighting requirements officials before the Seapower Subcommittee last spring clearly established the fact that if the Pentagon cannot build a minimum of eight new ships per year over the next two decades, it will face a 53-ship deficit in the 2020s.

In addition, the Subcommittee received a written plan from the CNO's [chief of naval operation's] office anticipating the construction of eight ships per year through 2004 and nine per year starting in 2005. Our Subcommittee will hold future administrations accountable for budgeting the necessary funds to sustain this 300-vessel plan.

The CNO has said that there is mounting evidence to suggest that the Navy's 1997 QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] level of 305 ships is not likely to be sufficient in the future. Do you agree?

SNOWE: I strongly agree with Admiral Johnson [Adm. Jay L. Johnson] that evidence stemming from deployment rates and emerging regional threats should prompt the Navy to consider whether it needs more, not less, than 305 ships. Indeed, I want to explore this very issue in a future hearing of my Subcommittee. Two factors, however, lead me to think that we may need more than this number in the future. First, a fleet of 305 ships would represent the lowest naval force level since the end of World War II. Yet Navy and Marine Corps contingency deployments overseas have swelled to one every five weeks during the 1990s.

During the entire Cold War period, when the service [Navy] had a minimum of 490 and a maximum of 1,100 ships, nonwartime deployments occurred only once every 11 weeks. So we have asked the fleet to do much more with less.

Second, in the age of littoral warfare in shallow, coastal waters, the Navy may have to undertake contingency or wartime missions in several locations at once. Think about some of the key operational sites where the fleet has operated over the last decade--in the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Adriatic, the Straits of Taiwan, the Sea of Japan, and off both the eastern and western coasts of Africa. With an average of 53 percent of all ships and submarines forward-deployed or underway on any given day, we must make sure that Sailors and Marines have the assets to project our power around the globe and to receive the proper retraining and rest between foreign tours.

Could you elaborate on the rationale behind the conferees' direction to the Department of Defense to detail a long-range shipbuilding plan to carry out U.S. national security strategy?

SNOWE: Over the last few years, it became apparent to the Subcommittee that the total fleet size would fall far below 300 ships by the second decade of the next century if the average 1990s procurement rate of six or seven ships per year did not increase to at least eight or nine. At the same time, Seapower Subcommittee witnesses testified this year that intensified contingency operating tempos have strained resources and personnel even under the current level of 324 ships. Not only does the build rate have to increase to eight to nine ships per year, [but] they must also be the correct platforms to replace the capabilities of the aging fleet while incorporating new technologies and warfighting requirements.

Each administration tends to view shipbuilding in six-year increments called the Future-Years Defense Plan. However, because of the upcoming requirements to replace large numbers of ships built 20 to 25 years ago, which are among the many competing DOD acquisition programs, the significant unit cost of ships, and the relatively long lead time of five to seven years to build ships, the conferees agreed that a long-term vision of ship acquisition requirements, budgets, and risks is required. Therefore, the conferees agreed to require the secretary of defense to submit, by February 1, 2000, a long-range shipbuilding plan including requirements, funding, and associated risks through fiscal year 2030.

What priorities and goals have you set for next year?

SNOWE: My highest priority is to help the Navy realize the goal of deploying new precision surveillance and firepower ships over the next 10 to 15 years within a finite budget. This objective requires new techniques to lower the cost of operating a vessel over the course of its service life. I'm hopeful that by next year the Navy can provide Congress with a more specific strategy on how it will use two of the most promising ways to lower operational costs: the configuration of ships to significantly reduce crew size and the consideration of life-cycle costs in all vessel components and subsystems. Certainly, inherent in this mission will be the Navy's effort to sustain a fleet of appropriate size.

USCG Sets Record for Cocaine Seizures

By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

The Coast Guard has announced that its seizures of cocaine shipments this year (through September) have already exceeded its previous record of seizures. As of 30 September, Coast Guard units had interdicted 111,689 pounds (more than 55 tons) of cocaine.

The previous cocaine seizure record, set in 1997, was 103,000 pounds (50.5 tons). In 1998, the Coast Guard confiscated 82,623 pounds of cocaine.

This year also has been marked by two of the three largest Coast Guard cocaine seizures ever, according to Coast Guard officials. Units participating in Operation Border Shield in the eastern Pacific seized the fishing vessel Mazatlan IV (15,515 pounds of cocaine) on 17 June and the fishing vessel Xoloescuintle (21,036 pounds) on 13 August.

The unprecedently successful 1999 interdiction campaign started with a major seizure in January when the Coast Guard confiscated nearly 10,000 pounds of cocaine on the motor vessel Cannes. Two other even larger seizures--the motor vessels Castor and China Breeze with more than 10,000 pounds of cocaine each--followed soon thereafter; the investigation that followed is credited with causing the collapse of a major drug trafficking ring.

Part of the success in 1999 has been credited to Operation New Frontier, a new Caribbean counter-narcotics initiative. Operation New Frontier marked the Coast Guard's first deployment of armed helicopters--MH-90 Enforcers--and rigid-hull inflatable boats working in concert to intercept the "go-fast" boats--small high-speed smuggling vessels carrying narcotics bound for the United States (see page 52). The Coast Guard said that Operation New Frontier, conducted during fiscal year 1999, resulted in the seizure of more than 6,600 pounds of narcotics.

Sea Service Notes

The Navy and Marine Corps have met their congressionally mandated manpower end strength for fiscal year 1999--in part through improved retention and energized recruiting. Both services met their recruiting goals as well. Navy recruiting had fallen short in fiscal year 1998 by some 7,000 personnel.

The aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy will return to duty as an operational carrier in the Atlantic Fleet in October 2000. The ship currently is designated as an "operational reserve" carrier assigned to the Naval Reserve Force and was intended to serve almost exclusively as a training carrier. However, the high operational tempo of the Navy's carriers has precluded retaining the ship in a permanent training role.

Command of both major fleets has changed hands recently. Adm. Thomas B. Fargo has relieved Adm. Archie R. Clemins as commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, headquartered in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Adm. Vernon E. Clark has relieved Adm. J. Paul Reason as commander in chief of the U.S Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va.

The Iowa-class battleship New Jersey has departed Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., and is bound for the former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. The ship, scheduled to arrive under tow in early November, will be stored until its final home in New Jersey--Bayonne or Camden--is determined. In a related development, the Iowa-class battleship Wisconsin has been moved from the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va., to Norfolk Naval Station. The Wisconsin eventually will be berthed at Norfolk's Nauticus National Maritime Museum, possibly in time for the Navy's 225th birthday celebration next October.

The Navy has decided to activate an additional expeditionary electronic attack squadron (VAQ) to meet the demand--emphasized by the war in Kosovo--for EA-6B Prowler electronic jamming aircraft. The new squadron--scheduled for activation in 2003 when enough aircraft and personnel become available--will join 14 other VAQ squadrons based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash.

Strike Fighter Squadron 122 (VFA-122) has received its first F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighter at Naval Air Station Lemoore, Calif. VFA-122--the fleet readiness squadron for the Boeing-built Super Hornet--was activated in October 1998 and will now begin training pilots and flight officers to fly the aircraft. VFA-115, also at Lemoore, is slated to be the first fleet squadron to transition to the Super Hornet.

The last surviving straight-deck aircraft carrier, the Independence-class light aircraft carrier (CVL) Cabot, has been bought by a salvage company intending to scrap the WWII ship--which spent a second career in the Spanish Navy. The most recent effort to preserve the CVL as a museum failed when Sabe Marine Salvage outbid Ecosat, a nonprofit educational group, for possession of the ship, according to the Washington Times.

Slater Reports to Congress: A World-Class Marine Transportation System

By SCOTT C. TRUVER

"As the world's leading maritime and trading nation," Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater writes in his foreword to An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System (DOT, September 1999), "the United States relies on an effective and efficient marine transportation system to further enhance our global leadership." More than 95 percent of all overseas products and materials, by volume, that enter or leave the United States moves through America's ports and waterways--including more than two billion metric tons of domestic commerce. More than 134 million passengers travel on cruise ships and ferries, and 78 million Americans enjoy recreational boating. A commercial fleet of 110,000 boats searches for dwindling fish stocks and marine resources. The success of any protract-ed U.S. overseas military operations is tied to a logistics lifeline of merchant shipping. The Marine Transportation System reaches out to engage broad segments of the U.S. economic, defense, and transportation sectors.

But, as Adm. James M. Loy, Coast Guard Commandant, and Clyde J. Hart Jr., Administrator of the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD), outlined during a May 1999 hearing, America's aging and fragmented Marine Transportation System (MTS) is stressed, and that stress continues to increase steadily: Ports must be prepared to respond to the mounting pressures of growing trade, more noncommercial waterways users, the development of new means to harvest and preserve marine resources, increasingly aggressive criminal activity, and a growing threat of international terrorism. "At the federal level," Loy and Hart concluded, "we must include eliminating the gaps, overlaps, and stovepipes among government agencies. Government and the private sector must continue to work together if we want the very best MTS possible for the future."

Slater's report on the Marine Transportation System documents the results of some 18 months of concerted studies, regional "listening sessions," a national conference, and diverse working groups that brought together all elements of the MTS--commercial, national defense, environmental, and recreational interests--to focus on key issues and imperatives: the need to develop consensus on a vision for the MTS of 2020; interagency coordination at the national, regional, and local levels; and recommendations to improve MTS safety, security, global competitiveness, infrastructure, and environmental protection. The report brings into sharp relief the vision of the future MTS--"the world's most technologically advanced, safe, secure, efficient, effective, accessible, globally competitive, dynamic, and environmentally responsible system for moving goods and people"--but is realistic in its assessment that the "challenge is to find ways to harness the creativity and innovation of the diverse MTS users and service providers."

A short summary of the issues confronting the United States hints at the challenge ahead:

• Dramatically increased demand for services and growth in competing uses;
• Shifting user needs and demands for greater efficiency, safety, speed, security, and environmental protection;
• Growing pressures on infrastructure, including increased needs for dredging, modernizing locks and dams, improving multimodal access and availability, taking advantage of the revolution in information technologies, and ameliorating conflicts among land uses and MTS development;
• Enhancing coordination, leadership, and cooperation among MTS users and stakeholders, linked to clearly defined, coordinated, and consistent federal leadership;
• Funding the needed improvements, which still will be a challenge even in an era of trillion-dollar federal budget surplus projections; and
• Increasing national security needs for the U.S. military's power-projection mission.

But the glass must be seen as at least "half full," particularly given the sometimes dismal history of noncooperation among various MTS "stakeholders," "users," and "partners," since the earliest days of the U.S. Republic. In posing a final question--"Who needs to take the first step?"--the report acknowledges that it has done no more than provide an overall framework and general direction for both public and private interests to follow. Much needs to be done, and success hinges upon making sure that the lame-duck Clinton administration and the Congress--and future administrations and Congresses--apply resources and funding where the greater needs exist--needs that have languished for decades, if not longer, in the face of benign neglect, a lack of consensus, and inadequate federal leadership.

Perhaps a more fitting closing question to Slater's report might have been: "Where's Ike?" Where is the national leader who, like President Dwight D. Eisenhower championing a vision for an interstate highway system more than 40 years ago, can galvanize the nation into action for the 21st century? When the economic and national-security interests of the United States are so clearly tied to the ability to move manufactured equipment, agricultural and petroleum products, and people through U.S. ports effectively and efficiently, there is a growing imperative for current and future U.S. leaders to understand what is at stake and to make MTS improvements a top priority. Informed observers believe Slater's Congressional report makes an important contribution toward this goal.

An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System can be found on MARAD's website.

Dr. Truver is executive director, Center for Security Strategies and Operations, Techmatics Division, Anteon Corporation.

Industrial Base

By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

The Navy's 14th Cyclone-class coastal patrol ship (PC)--launched by Bollinger Shipyards--is the last of its class to be built, but is by no means the least. The Tornado, launched long after her sister ships were delivered to the Navy, features significant structural and electronic upgrades.

The Tornado was christened by her sponsor, Mrs. Linda Bowman, wife of Adm. Frank L. Bowman, director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion, in 25 September ceremonies at the Bollinger shipyard in Lockport, La.

The Tornado's changes to the original Cyclone structural design decrease the ship's radar signature. The hull also was extended nine feet to accommodate a ramp for the launch and recovery of naval special warfare boats. The 360-ton ship is equipped with an integrated bridge command-and-control system, a satellite-navigation system, a forward-looking infrared system, and a surface-search radar with collision-avoidance functions. The Tornado's weapons suite includes one 25mm MK38 chain gun, one 25mm Mk96 gun, two .50-caliber M2 and one M60 7.62mm machine guns, one 40mm Mk19 grenade launcher, and a Stinger surface-to-air missile station.

The Tornado, powered by four Paxman diesel engines that develop a total of 13,400 horsepower, is designed to exceed 35 knots. The ship accommodates a crew of four officers and 24 enlisted personnel, as well as an eight-man SEAL detachment.

"The multimission Cyclone PCs have performed so well that they are now being used on missions that just a few years ago would have been assigned to larger and more expensive vessels," said Scott Therriot, executive vice president for new construction at Bollinger. "They have been involved in enforcing U.N. sanctions, conducting numerous interdictions and boardings, and have been deployed to the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Pacific, and the Middle East."

Bollinger will deliver the Tornado to the Navy in the spring of 2000.

DD 21 Teams Select Gun Configurations

The two industry teams participating in the DD 21 land-attack destroyer competition have agreed on the fundamental configuration of the Advanced Gun System (AGS) that will be installed on the new ships.

The Blue Team--General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Lockheed Martin--and the Gold Team--Litton Ship Systems Ingalls Shipbuilding and Raytheon Systems Company--agreed on the basic gun configuration proposed by United Defense LP. The AGS will be a single-gun trainable mount with a burst- and sustainable-firing rate of 12 rounds per minute. A dual-barrel configuration was rejected based on a combination of cost, technical, and schedule considerations.

The AGS will begin its engineering and manufacturing development phase in fiscal year 2000. Initial proof-of-concept demonstrations are scheduled for fiscal year 2002, and initial production deliveries are slated prior to 1 June 2006.

Defense Industry Notes

Raytheon Systems Company has been awarded a $62.4 million Naval Air Systems Command contract to deliver 34 additional ALR-67(V)3 radar-warning receiver systems for the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter. The ALR-67(V)3 provides advanced techniques to detect hostile radar emitters. Deliveries are scheduled to be conducted between April 2001 and January 2002.

Boeing mechanics have attached the single-piece wing assembly to the fuselage of its X-32B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) concept-demonstration aircraft (CDA). Assembly of the wing took one-third less time than it did for the X-32A conventional-takeoff version of its JSF CDA.

The Raytheon-built T-6A Texan II joint primary training aircraft has received Federal Aviation Administration certification, the company has announced, paving the way for deliveries of two production aircraft this fall to the Air Force, lead service for the Multiservice Operational Test & Evaluation. Four production aircraft and one prototype flew more than 1,400 hours of certification flights, which included tests for engine performance, engine air starts, handling qualities, flutter tests, and avionics and systems. The T-6A was certified as a Part 23 aerobatic aircraft, and also received a production certificate, which allows Raytheon to license the aircraft. In a related development, the Hellenic Air Force has ordered 45 T-6As to replace its T-37 and T-41 pilot training aircraft. The first 25 aircraft will be similar to the U.S. military version; the remaining 20--with options for an additional five--will be in the "New Trainer Aircraft" configuration.

Raytheon Systems Company has been awarded a $25.8 million contract to remanufacture up to 20 Tomahawk cruise missiles for the U.K. Royal Navy. The remanufacture effort involves upgrading Tomahawk antiship missiles to the Block III land-attack configuration.

National Steel & Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) has been awarded a Navy contract for a study for the first phase of the Navy's Auxiliary Dry Cargo Carrier T-ADC(X) program. The T-ADC(X) is intended to replace the Navy's aging fast combat-support ships and ammunition ships. NASSCO, which recently had completed delivery to the Navy of the last of four Supply-class fast combat-support ships, is one of four shipbuilders competing for the contract to build the T-ADC(X).

Avidyne Corporation and Anzus Inc. have been selected to provide a replacement for the Multifunction Control and Display Unit (MFCDU) used on the Navy's E-2C Hawkeye radar early warning aircraft. Company officials said that the new display controller will "provide substantially more functionality and three times the reliability of the old MFCDU."

AIL Systems has been awarded a 25.6 million Naval Air Systems Command contract to provide 50 UEU (universal exciter upgrade) units for the Navy's EA-6B electronic attack aircraft. The UEU generates the jamming modulations for the aircraft's tactical jamming pods.

Kaman Aerospace Corporation has been awarded a $4.2 million contract by the U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Lab to design, fabricate, and install a remote piloting package on the Kaman-built K-Max helicopter. Kaman also will flight-test the unmanned K-Max during the summer of 2000 to evaluate the capability of the vehicle to deliver logistic loads to precise locations on the battlefield.

The Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested the sale of 64 Mk44 guided-missile round packs, with Mk116 Block I Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAMs), as well as canisters, spare and repair parts, and support and test equipment. The RAMs will be installed on the ROK Navy's KDX-II destroyers. Raytheon Systems Company would be the prime contractor for approximately $33 million. In a related development, Samsung Industries in the Republic of Korea has ordered two LM2500 aeroderivative gas turbine engines from GE Aircraft Engines for the KDX-II class.

The Navy and Raytheon Systems Company have completed in-depth testing of the Block 1B surface-mode upgrade of the Phalanx close-in weapon system (CIWS). The gun was tested against a variety of high-speed maneuvering missile threats. Raytheon officials said that the CIWS exceeded requirements for engagement ranges and destruction of targets in both day and night operations.

American Classic Voyages (AMCV) has announced that Atlantic Marine Inc. has cut steel for the first of AMCV's new fleet of 226-passenger U.S.-flag coastal-cruise ships. AMCV has contracted for two ships for $460 million, with an option for a third ship. The 300-foot diesel-powered ships are slated to cruise the U.S. East Coast as Delta Queen Coastal Cruises. 

Russian Navy "Ready to Modernize"

Antony Preston, a London-based naval analyst and broadcaster, is cofounder of the international newsletter NAVINT.

Vice Adm. Viktor Patrushev, chief of operations on the General Staff of the Russian Navy, has been quoted in an Itar-TASS report as saying that the Russian Navy is ready for modernization and rearmament, provided that sufficient funds are available. "We are ready to replace the old ships, submarines, aviation [assets], and weapons with new ones," he said. "All the necessary preparations have been completed. The new-generation submarines Severodvinsk and Yuri Dolgorukii are already being built, but more resources need to be allocated to complete the projects."

Patrushev said that the Navy is ready to serve Russia with its state-of-the-art surface ships and submarines, as well as with its modern armaments, "provided the government revises the military budget for the Navy." He was replying to a question about the steps being taken by the Russian naval command in the face of what was described as a large-scale modernization and shipbuilding program launched by the U.S. Navy.

It is fair to suggest that the leadership of the U.S. Navy probably would not agree that any such "large-scale" program is underway--or is likely for the foreseeable future. The USN's shipbuilding budget has been cut significantly in recent years, as have that service's other hardware accounts. Increases are projected for the so-called "outyears" of the Pentagon's long-term budget plan. But even if the outyears are fully funded, which seems unlikely, the shipbuilding rate still would not reach the minimum level needed to maintain the U.S. Navy's active fleet at even the much reduced numbers approved by the Clinton administration.

On the other hand, the USN's current leaders, uniformed and civilian, undoubtedly would agree with another Patrushev statement--namely, that "It is not wise to allocate the same resources for the Air Force, the land forces, and the Navy. The building of a warship takes much more time and money to complete than the manufacture of a tank or an aircraft."

Patrushev said the matter is of great importance because Russia derives many benefits from the presence of its naval vessels on the high seas. Russia's influence in international affairs is based, he suggested, not only on its geographic expanse but also on the strength of its navy. Russia must reinforce its political statements with real actions, he said. He went on to say that the Russian Navy is already prepared to send its ships to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, "but it needs resources and it needs bases ... [to maintain a] permanent presence" in those areas. He noted that Russia now has only two naval bases overseas--Camh Ranh in Vietnam and Tartus in Syria. Patrushev also said that, despite several years of underfunding--and the resultant shortages of food and fuel--Russian seamen are always ready to depart for their assigned areas of operation and accomplish the tasks set before them. "This readiness is not something on paper only. During the Yugoslav crisis, Russian warships were ready to sail to the Mediterranean, but no order came," he said.

Raytheon Helps Run RNZN Helicopter Trials

Raytheon Systems Company (RSC) Australia has completed the first-of-class trials (FOCT) and delivered final reports on the Kaman Seasprite SH-2F helicopters bought by the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN). An FOCT determines the takeoff and landing limitations of aircraft operating from a ship's flight deck.

The trials were conducted to integrate the newly acquired Seasprites with HMNZS Canterbury and HMNZS Te Kaha, the first two of the RNZN's Anzac-type frigates. The four reconditioned SH-2F Seasprites are an interim procurement to tide the RNZN over until the first of five SH-2G(NZ)s is delivered by Kaman Aerospace next year.

Boeing Sells RAN Business To Raytheon Systems Australia

Boeing Australia Ltd. plans to sell its Naval Systems Division in Sydney to Raytheon Systems Company Australia by the end of this year, according to officials of the two parent companies, who said they have reached agreement "in principle" on the sale and have established a joint team to examine various issues relating to the sale and transfer of the division.

Rear Adm. Peter Briggs, head of the RAN's recently established Submarine Capability Team (SMCT) and the service's most senior submariner, stated that the RAN had not been involved in brokering the deal. "This is a purely commercial agreement between the two companies," he said--but he added that the RAN has indicated to both parties that it is "comfortable" with the agreement.

Colombia's Narco Submarines

Details have emerged of the clandestine cocaine- and heroin-carrying miniature submarines captured by the Armada Republica de Colombia (ARC) two years ago. The Colombian press has christened them "narco submarines," and five have been captured since 1997.

One appears to be a semisubmersible, crewed by only five people. It carries a commercial radar for navigation, but photographs show no sign of a periscope. The fins of its small sail are used to assist submersion and navigation while running submerged.

The use of semisubmersibles for drug trafficking is reminiscent of the use of similar low-visibility craft to insert North Korean special forces into South Korea. The ARC has at least one swimmer-delivery vehicle of its own for clandestine activities against the drug cartels.

Newest RN SSNs Report Impressive Progress

Work on the design of the Royal Navy's next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), the Astute class, is well advanced. The prime contractor's Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and the first major Life-cycle Review (LR), now completed, are major milestones in the $3.2 billion program. Moreover, construction of significant equipment items--including the gearbox and elements of the nuclear plant for the lead boat--already has begun.

The project manager for the Astute class says that the successful PDR and LR have given a major boost to the building team's confidence. Both reviews were held by the prime contractors, Marconi Astute-Class Limited (MACL). The contract includes incentives, for both MACL and the Defence Ministry, to pursue cost reductions.

With a submerged displacement of 7,000 tons the Astute-class boats will be considerably bigger than those of the current Trafalgar class (5,200 tons). Although previous Royal Navy SSN designs were kept as small as possible as a way of controlling costs, the extensive use of modularity in the Astute design drives the ship's size upwards. However, the increase in size makes fabrication and outfitting simpler and therefore cheaper. Changes in some machinery compartments, the provision of more weapon launch tubes, and a greater reload capacity also have contributed to the growth in size.

The armament of the future SSNs will be six launch tubes and 40 or more weapons, including a mix of Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes, UGM-84C Sub Harpoon antiship missiles, and Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. There has been no public report of vertical-launch tubes for the Tomahawks, but it seems likely that encapsulated tube-launched weapons will no longer be available by the time the first SSN of the Astute class is ready for fleet operations.

Naval Nuclear Angle To Indo-Pakistan Dispute

The recent dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and Jammu saw very little overt naval activity, but if the crisis had escalated to all-out war there would have been a clear risk of a nuclear exchange between the two rivals. Both of their navies have nuclear capabilities--a fact that is often ignored in the West.

The Indian Navy carried out a "tactical realignment" in the Arabian Sea early in June, and Adm. Sushil Kumar, the Chief of the Naval Staff, said publicly that the Navy is "well-equipped to survive any nuclear exchange." His statement apparently was in response to Pakistan's announcement that it intends to arm its ships with nuclear weapons.

Both sides have recently shown their willingness to test nuclear devices, so there is little doubt about their capabilities. A claim that the new Pakistan Navy submarines of the Khalid class carry encapsulated SM-39 Exocet missiles reconfigured with tactical nuclear warheads can be dismissed as extremely unlikely, but some details of the Indian naval nuclear program are known.

India is developing the Dhanush submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), based on the liquid-fueled Prithvi 1, in service with the Army, and the Prithvi 2, destined for the Air Force. India tested a 12KT Pu-239 fission device last year, apparently the "weaponized" version of the original device tested in 1974, and also tested a 0.2KT device, prompting speculation that the Indian Navy's Sea Harrier STOVL (short takeoff/vertical landing) strike aircraft are armed with free-fall nuclear bombs. It also suggests that a nuclear depth charge is feasible.

For their part, the Pakistanis are unlikely to have the technological capability to produce a miniaturized nuclear warhead for their SM-39 Exocets, but they may very well have bombs for their F-16 airplanes.

Rollout of German Navy's Super Lynx Helicopter

The Deutsche Marine's first new-built Mk 88A Super Lynx light helicopter has been rolled out by Westland at its Yeovil factory in Somerset, United Kingdom. GKN Westland is working under a separate contract with Eurocopter Deutschland to upgrade the existing 17 Mk 88 Lynxes to the Super Lynx standard.

The new equipment in the Mk 88A includes Marconi's Seaspray 3000 radar and Multirole Turret (MRT), Rolls-Royce Gem 42 engines, and Matra BAe Sea Skua light antiship missiles.

The upgraded helicopters will operate from the Bremen-class (Type 122) and Brandenburg-class (Type 123) frigates, and eventually from the Sachsen-class (Type 124) air-defense frigates.

A New Course, An Unprecedented Vision

By RICHARD R. LAZISKY

Richard Lazisky, a retired Marine officer, is manager of expeditionary programs in the Techmatics Division of Anteon Corporation.

As America looks to the 21st century, the Navy-Marine Corps team finds itself in the midst of a transformation process shaped by a new strategic backdrop, one that promises to be dynamic, uncertain, and lethal. The Navy took the first steps in addressing this challenge by introducing its landmark white papers, "... From the Sea" in 1992 and "Forward ... From the Sea" in 1994. Those documents, which present a common vision for the future, redefined the Navy's strategic focus and emphasized the importance of using forward-deployed forces to influence events in the littoral regions of the world.

In 1996 the Marine Corps developed a new approach to amphibious operations with its "keystone" OMFTS (Operational Maneuver From the Sea) concept and the supporting implementation concept, STOM (Ship-to-Objective Maneuver). These warfighting concepts, described as a "marriage between maneuver warfare and naval warfare," clearly chart a new course for the Navy-Marine Corps team by putting an unprecedented emphasis on sea-based operations in the littorals. This new vision is driving an ongoing process of technological innovation that is rapidly modernizing the Navy as it enters the 21st century.

The Navy-Marine Corps team will test and refine the new operational concepts and develop key enabling capabilities needed to meet two critical lift requirements: to deliver naval forces to an area of operations, and then move embarked forces directly to their inland objectives. To meet the second requirement, the Navy and Marine Corps are developing new platforms collectively known as the "mobility triad"--the LCAC (landing craft, air cushion), the AAAV (advanced amphibious assault vehicle), and the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. This triad will provide U.S. landing forces with unprecedented mobility and maneuverability, capabilities that will be essential for the conduct of future expeditionary operations.

Defining the Future

On 5 January 1999, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jay L. Johnson and then-Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Charles C. Krulak testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the importance of modernizing today's platforms as the first step in meeting tomorrow's challenges. Johnson stated that more than half the Navy's ships are "on any given day" deployed at sea conducting operations and ensuring peace and stability throughout the world. "The visibility of the Navy's power and its obvious ability to respond quickly from the sea to any contingency--without the requirement to obtain host-nation approval--make the Navy indispensable against the backdrop of the uncertainties and challenges of the 21st century," Johnson said. He went on to emphasize that "taking care of our Sailors is my number one near-term priority; my longer-term priority is building enough ships to modernize and recapitalize the Navy our country needs."

Krulak stated that the nation faces a particularly critical time in the immediate post-Cold War years--an era in which global terrorism and world crises have become increasingly prevalent. He went on to say that "this trend suggests not just crises between nations and within nations, but also a greater degree of general instability--a time of chaos and asymmetric threats.

"We can, and must, meet the challenges of today," Krulak said, "while concurrently building the defense capabilities our nation will require in the future. ... Our bases and stations are the 'carriers' from which we launch our forward-deployed forces. They must be kept afloat."

Reshaping Amphibious Warfare

To meet tomorrow's challenges the two services initiated a concept-based approach to requirements that will maintain and build upon the capabilities of existing platforms to further enhance the effectiveness of forward-deployed naval forces. The still-emerging OMFTS and STOM concepts promise significant operational advantages through the integration of advanced technology and the application of new principles and practices such as using the sea as maneuver space and sea-basing the command-and-control, logistics, and fire-support functions of deployed forces.

Maj. Gen. Dennis T. Krupp, director of the Expeditionary Warfare Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, focused--in his 24 March 1999 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Seapower--on "the newest of our amphibious ships," the LPD 17 or San Antonio class of landing platform docks. "This class of ships," he said, "is pivotal in our force level transition from the amphibious fleet of the 1980s to that of the 21st century. When LPD 28 enters the fleet in 2009, the amphibious fleet will consist of 36 ships, or 12 three-ship ARGs [Amphibious Ready Groups], each containing one LHA or LHD [amphibious assault ship], one LPD 17, and one LSD 41/49 [dock landing ship]. By 2009, these 36 modern, highly capable amphibious ships will replace ... 63 less capable amphibious ships of just 10 years ago."

The Navy of the future will undoubtedly be smaller but more lethal than the Navy of the Cold War era. Amphibious operations will no longer be visible to the enemy as an ominous force of ships massed five to eight miles off the coast. The OMFTS force of 2010 and beyond will operate OTH (over the horizon) from sea bases stationed 50 nautical miles (nm) or more offshore and with an operating range of 200 nautical miles. The new "Super Set" ARG also will be more efficient in terms of both lift and flexibility, and will be fully capable of multimission use as a geographically separated "split-ARG."

The Mobility Triad

When an ARG reaches the objective area, its landing force will use the sea as maneuvering space to gain an operational advantage. Using its technologically advanced mobility triad, the ARG will rapidly deliver tailored forces from its ships directly to objectives ashore, easily bypassing topographic or defensive barriers. This modernized surface-maneuver force will generate a high operational tempo to unhinge an enemy's defensive operations. With the mobility triad, amphibious forces will be able, for the first time in the history of naval warfare, to maneuver ashore in a single seamless stroke, allowing both the ships and landing forces sufficient sea space for maneuver, surprise, and self-protection.

The LCAC

The LCAC, which was introduced in 1986, is the workhorse of the amphibious fleet and the oldest member of the triad. This multipurpose craft represents a dramatic innovation in modern amphibious warfare technology. Capable of transporting 75-ton payloads, including the heaviest assault equipment--such as the M1A1 tank and the M198 155mm towed howitzer--it also will be the sole lift source for the Corps' future seven-ton truck. Riding on a cushion of air four feet above the surface, the LCAC can land on 70 percent of the world's coastlines, making it well-suited for conducting noncombat evacuation and humanitarian operations in extremely remote areas inaccessible to displacement-hull craft such as the LCU (utility landing craft).

The LCAC's high over-water speed of more than 40 knots and 200-nm range (300 nm at 35 knots) facilitates OTH joint assaults that also will include aircraft such as the CH-46 helicopter or, in the future, the MV-22. The vessel's "cargo-on-cushion" capability allows the LCAC to proceed inland and discharge its payload well away from the surf zone and established enemy beach defenses. The typical ARG will carry eight or nine LCACs, whose high speed and heavy-payload capacity enhance landing operations by shortening the intervals made between trips, allowing more equipment to reach shore within a shorter time frame.

An LCAC program official said that the Navy's near-term goal is "to preserve and modernize the vehicle's current capabilities." The Navy requires and maintains an active inventory of 74 LCACs with 10 additional LCACs kept in reduced operating status as a war reserve. Beginning this year, the official said, the 74 LCACs now operational will go through a SLEP (service life extension program) that will extend the craft's 20-year life span to 30 years, enabling the Navy to maintain the current inventory until a next-generation LCAC can be developed and delivered to the fleet.

LCAC program officials said that the SLEP would be accomplished in two phases. Phase I, to be completed by 2010, will upgrade the craft's C4N (command, control, communications, computers, and navigation) electronics suite. The C4N recapitalization will change the architecture to an open 1553-bus structure and replace obsolete electronics systems. The C4N upgrade will give the LCACs and their crews a precision navigation capability, in-creased situational awareness/safety, improved reliability, a reduced cost of ownership, and extended supportability. A modest corrosion abatement effort also is included in this phase of the program.

Phase II, which will be performed at the factory when each craft reaches 15 years of age, includes buoyancy box replacement, the C4N upgrade (if not already accomplished), compartmentation modifications, and design im-provements to the fuel and skirt systems. These modifications will improve the craft's range, potentially enhance LCAC operations in higher sea states, and also reduce total ownership costs.

The AAAV

The Marine Corps is developing the AAAV to replace its older and less capable AAV7A1 amphibious assault vehicle, which cannot adequately support OMFTS. By 2012, the AAAV will be the service's primary platform for the over-water transport of Marine surface assault forces. The AAAV will be able to retract its tracks and suspension system as it extends a bow plane and rear transom flap to provide a smooth surface underneath the vehicle, allowing it to plane on top of the water. A 2,700-horsepower diesel engine with dual 23-inch-diameter water jets will power the AAAV at a sustained high-water speed of 25 knots in sea state 3 conditions. The vehicle's dramatically improved mobility will enable the Navy-Marine Corps team to seamlessly link maneuver from the sea to objectives ashore.

Lt. Col. Ron Yowell, the AAAV director of operations, test, and evaluation, said that the Marine Corps plans to replace its current fleet of 1,322 AAV7s with a modernized fleet of 1,013 AAAVs, which are scheduled to reach IOC (initial operational capability) in 2006. However, Yowell said, "an IOC in 2005 is within reach."

In the meantime, to ensure that the current AAV7 can continue to operate safely and effectively, the AAV7 fleet will be upgraded with various RAM (reliability, availability, and maintainability) improvements to return the vehicles to "like-new" condition. The RAM program will provide the AAVs with new engines and will replace the vehicles' suspension units by adapting nondevelopmental (i.e., already in use) items from the Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The RAM modification program will restore the AAVs to their original performance specifications and maintain their combat availability until they are fully replaced by the AAAVs around 2012.

Yowell said that future ARGs will typically carry a total of 14 AAAVs: a reinforced platoon of 12 vehicles to transport an infantry company; one command-and-control AAAV variant for the commander of the Battalion Landing Team and his staff; and one "chase" AAAV to provide security and support for the command vehicle. Yowell highlighted the AAAV's warfighting capability by citing six critical combat qualities, all driven by current and future threats:

High Water Speed. The AAAV's high water speed will transform the littoral sea space from an obstacle to be crossed into maneuver space to be exploited. This capability is essential to implementing the OMFTS concept.

Land Mobility. A land speed of 45 mph and the advanced suspension unit offer mobility at least equal to that of the M1A1 Main Battle Tank.

Survivability. In addition to the improved armor protection provided by its composite/ceramic modular armor, the AAAV incorporates an overpressure air filtration system to protect the crew and embarked troops in NBC (nuclear, biological, and/or chemical) environments. (Other vehicle-survivability features are addressed in a classified program.)

Firepower. A fully stabilized 30mm automatic cannon and coaxial machine gun are packaged with a laser range finder, a full-solution fire control system, and a second-generation FLIR (forward-looking infrared) system. Fire delivered by the AAAV will be more lethal and more accurate than that of the AAV, and can be delivered while on the move--over water or across terrain--day or night, even in hazy or smoke-obscured conditions. A two-man weapon station gives the AAAV a dedicated gunner. (The AAAV weapon station has already been adopted by the Navy for installation on the San Antonio-class LPD, and is being considered for use on other platforms.)

Command and Control. Every vehicle will have a satellite communications capability, moving map displays, and tactical situational awareness displayed graphically in near real time. The displays will be available to the crew as well as to the embarked infantry commander.

Reliability. Onboard diagnostics and prognostics systems, coupled with modular design, reduce the chance of suffering mission-critical failures.

The AAAV represents a revolutionary leap forward for the Navy-Marine Corps team and significantly improves its ability to conduct ship-to-objective maneuvers. The AAAV satisfies OMFTS operational requirements, providing capabilities that will make the vehicle an important battlefield asset well into the 21st century.

The MV-22 Osprey

The tiltrotor MV-22B Osprey is designed to serve as the medium-lift replacement for the Marine Corps' aging CH-46E Sea Knight and CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopters. The MV-22B is the world's only transport aircraft capable of taking off and landing vertically and converting in-flight to fly at speeds comparable to those of conventional turboprop aircraft. The MV-22B design incorporates advanced technologies in composite materials, survivability, airfoil design, fly-by-wire controls, digital avionics, and manufacturing.

On 8 September 1999, the Defense Department showcased the first production tiltrotor Osprey with a flight demonstration at the Pentagon. Department officials said the event marked the "advent of a brave new world" that will revolutionize military aviation. Lt. Gen. Frederick McCorkle, the Marine Corps' deputy chief of staff for aviation, said that the demonstration flight "was a great day for our Corps. ... Perhaps more for the 'Infantry Marine,' as I truly believe this aircraft will not only increase combat power ... but will also save many lives." Pentagon officials said that the Osprey's tiltrotor technology could be applied to several different missions, including, notably, the "rapid movement of Marines and their materiel, special operations forces, and combat search-and-rescue personnel."

The Osprey's flexibility, speed, and improved survivability greatly increase the combat power of the ARG and provide other operational advantages that satisfy the mobility needs of expeditionary forces. The MV-22B can transport 24 combat-equipped troops or a 10,000-pound external load. It has a service ceiling of 25,000 feet, a cruising airspeed of 270 knots, and a strategic self-deployment capability of 2,100 nautical miles with a single aerial refueling. The combined speed, range, and payload improvements nearly triple the depth of the naval "area of influence" currently provided by the older CH-46E and CH-53D fleets.

The MV-22B program is currently in the EMD (engineering and manufacturing development) phase. Four EMD aircraft currently support continued developmental tests and operational assessments. Sea trials commenced in January 1999, and an Operational Evaluation is scheduled for late this year. The first LRIP (low-rate initial production) MV-22B was delivered to the Marine Corps on 27 May 1999. The Corps plans to procure a total of 360 MV-22s, with an IOC scheduled for FY 2001.

A special operations variant, the CV-22B, also is under development. The major changes incorporated in the CV-22 version are: (1) a SIRFC (Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures) unit that includes an active jammer and a MATT (Multimission Active Tactical Terminal); and (2) ballistic protection for critical areas of the aircraft. Other changes will provide a terrain-following/avoidance radar, an additional 900 gallons of fuel, rope ladders, a survivor-locator system, chaff and flare dispensers, and additional radios and computers.

In June 1999, an EMD MV-22B was delivered to Bell Helicopter Textron to be converted into a CV-22B development aircraft, the first flight of which is planned for early summer of 2000; the scheduled IOC for the CV-22B is fiscal year 2000. The long-term Department of Defense procurement goal is to provide the U.S. Special Operations Command with 50 CV-22Bs--to be procured by the U.S Air Force. An additional buy of 48 HV-22 Ospreys is being considered by the Navy.

Flexible Capabilities

The OMFTS concept was developed by the Marine Corps to meet the challenges of the 21st century and capitalize on the promise of emerging technology. The Navy and Marine Corps are working together, officials said, to pursue "a bold new course" that, when all components of the mobilitity triad are fully operational, will give the ARGs the capability they need to take decisive action as an independent force, a component of a joint force, or a partner in combined operations.

The Marine Corps will in most future operational scenarios be a fully integrated component of a dispersed naval force. That force will be lighter, more mobile, faster, harder to detect, and better able than its predecessors to leverage long-range precision fires for increased lethality. The force of 2010, moreover, will be part of a networked battle fleet with total asset visibility and OTH network-centric communications systems that fully integrate the capabilities of all platforms, provide greater situational awareness throughout the battlespace, and reduce its vulnerability to threat forces and weapons.

The new amphibious shipping al-ready on the way will provide greater stowage space for vehicles and the cargo capacity of forward-deployed assets, adding significantly to the ARG's geographic coverage capabilities. The enhanced maneuverability and range of the sea-based mobility triad also will reduce the logistics footprint of the landing force and provide a fast and highly mobile lift capability, giving the ARG true operational-maneuver potential. In short, today's naval forces are being modernized, program officials summarize, "so that they can continue to influence, directly and decisively, events ashore from the sea--anywhere in the world."

Leading the Way in Ship Design

By WILLIAM H. LUEBKE

Capt. William H. Luebke, USN, is the LPD 17 program manager.

From its inception, the LPD 17 amphibious transport dock program has been breaking new ground in naval ship design, acquisition, and construction techniques--aided by innovative Department of Defense (DOD) and Navy acquisition-reform initiatives. By incorporating lessons learned from commercial shipbuilding, using best-business practices, and focusing on the need of the Navy and Marine Corps for a flexible, mission-capable platform capable of operating in demanding littoral environments, the LPD 17 will provide a dramatic leap forward in U.S. amphibious-warfare capability when the 12-ship class joins the fleet in the early years of the 21st century.

Larger and more capable than the LPD 4 Austin class, its immediate predecessor, the LPD 17 also is required to have many of the capabilities of the other three classes of ships that it is replacing--LKA 113-class amphibious cargo ships, LSD 36-class dock landing ships, and LST 1179-class tank landing ships. If these four ship classes were not replaced, the Navy-Marine Corps team would not meet DOD's Defense Planning Guidance requirement for lift capability. The LPD 17 class, when coupled with the capabilities of the remaining ships of the LHA and LHD amphibious assault ships and LSD 41 Whidbey Island-class vessels, will fill the gaps in amphibious lift to meet the lift requirement for the Navy's 21st-century amphibious force.

In addition to lift requirements for Marine expeditionary brigades, LPD 17 also is being designed within an Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE) for technological adaptability over its full 40-year service life. There will be significantly lowered costs of ownership through reduced manning, use of modular systems, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, and a high level of systems integration. The design for this 25,000-ton, twin-shaft, diesel-powered ship incorporates state-of-the-art self-defense capabilities, C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) systems, and reduced-signature technologies that will make it the most survivable amphibious ship ever put to sea. Navy-industry teamwork, integrated in a collocated setting at Avondale Industries' facilities in Louisiana, is making this happen.

The 12-ship San Antonio class will feature the most modern habitability improvements in the Navy's fleet--with improved quality-of-life features for prolonged forward deployment of embarked troops and accommodations for the expanding role of women. It is an ongoing challenge to move successfully through the realm of tightly constrained fiscal resources, reduced manning, industry consolidation, ac-quisition reform, and novel business practices, but the experience will yield great benefit to warfighter and taxpayer alike by providing effective and affordable ships for the nation's defense.

An Evolving 21st-Century Design

The San Antonio-class ship, de-signed for the Navy's 21st-century operational environment, will deploy as a key element in Amphibious Ready Groups. Able to land and support Marine landing forces by surface or airborne means, the San Antonio class will play a critical enabling role in maintaining U.S. forward presence and protecting U.S. national-security interests.

Navy-industry LPD 17 team members are proud of the evolving design of the class. Participants include the Avondale Alliance, a dynamic industry team composed of Litton Avondale Industries as prime contractor; Bath Iron Works, a division of General Dynamics; Raytheon Systems Corporation; and Intergraph Corporation. "Team 17," the Navy-Avondale Alliance partnership, is at the forefront of the Navy's efforts in seeking innovative ways of developing and integrating systems. The LPD 17 program continues to yield invaluable insight and lessons learned for development of both the next-generation aircraft carrier (CVNX) and the DD 21 land-attack destroyer programs.

The San Antonio will be a revolutionary ship. The class will be distinguished by advanced design and technology features--including its masts, self-defense systems, Shipboard Wide-Area Network, sit-up berths, and the all-encompassing accommodations for mixed-gender crews at sea.

One of the most prominent and certainly most visible departures in design will be seen in the ship's two large octagonal-trapezoidal fiberglass composite-mast structures. These Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor (AEM/S) masts will combine advanced shaping, materials, structures, and manufacturing technologies to provide the ship with superior warfighting capabilities through the integration of sensor technology and reductions in electromagnetic emissions and radar cross sections. The AEM/S masts, the largest composite structures ever installed on U.S. Navy steel ships, represent a revolutionary advancement in topside engineering. The structures are designed and will be manufactured to permit the ship's electromagnetic transmissions to pass through with very low loss in power while deflecting an adversary's transmissions.

The composite-mast structures will provide a significant reduction in total ownership cost of the ships through reduced maintenance and creation of an affordable migration path for potential sensor upgrades such as the Multi-Function Radar and Volume Search Radar.

The LPD 17 will have its own "information superhighway" by means of the Shipboard Wide-Area Network (SWAN). The SWAN, the network infrastructure for integrating the LPD 17's electronic- and ship-control systems, will be a digital central nervous system for the ship. Team 17 is well aware of the innumerable ways in which networks are changing society--including how the Navy and industry design, build, and operate ships. For this reason, the SWAN is an integral part of the LPD 17 design. Made of a fiber-optic cable plant, copper cabling, and wireless sensors, the SWAN will provide for both real-time and nonreal-time data communication. Sailors and Marines will benefit from such intranetwork services as e-mail, access to training materials, technical data-bases, and ship monitoring systems; they also will have access to the Internet and worldwide web.

Customer-Based Design

Improved quality of life for the 360 Sailors and more than 700 Marines who will embark in LPD 17 was an important element in the ship's design from the start. The recent adoption of the Navy's new sit-up berth--a three-tiered bunk-bed system--will provide 40 percent more storage space for Sailors and Marines and still provide enough headroom to sit in an upright position. The crew and embarked troops will enjoy a more comfortable innerspring mattress that is significantly longer. Better lighting also will make these berthing units ideal places for reading, writing, or just some much-needed relaxation. The sit-up berth is expected to exert a positive impact on morale, readiness, and retention.

LPD 17's computer-aided design (CAD) also has benefited from fleet and Marine Corps input to an extent never before achieved during a warship acquisition program. An example of this trend is the ship's new refrigeration system. When concerns arose about the amount of time and training needed to service older-design refrigeration units due to overcrowded conditions and burdensome maintenance requirements, Team 17 responded. The San Antonio-class design was modified following the receipt of numerous valuable suggestions from U.S. Atlantic and Pacific Fleet Sailors. Instead of relying on four 1.5-ton refrigeration units, two 4.6-ton twin-screw units will be installed to provide greater efficiency and operating margins. An estimated $50 million in savings also will be achieved as the result of the new system's reduced manning and training requirements over the life cycle of the entire class.

Mixed-gender crews aboard U.S. Navy ships have been a reality for many years, but ship designs have not kept pace. The San Antonio class is designed to meet the needs of both men and women for more personal space, for dedicated educational and professional training facilities, and for enhanced physical-fitness facilities. Smaller berthing spaces for unit integrity will be identical for both male and female Sailors and Marines. LPD 17 will have, far and away, the best habitability improvements without sacrificing a combatant's design features.

An Integrated Design Team

As leaders in naval architecture and marine-engineering technology, Litton Avondale and its corporate partners will soon begin construction of the lead ship of the class. Beginning in 1997, the implementation of Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) unified the Avondale Alliance and the Navy into a more effective ship design and integration organization. The LPD 17 program has benefited greatly from the principles of IPPD through the use of cross-functional teams.

To make the most of an IPPD-structured program, nearly all members of Team 17 have been collocated on the grounds of Litton Avondale's shipyard in New Orleans for nearly two years. For the first time during a shipbuilding program, the Navy and the contractor work side by side at a single location. Instead of having different contractors coordinating their efforts while the ship is under construction, a true team is working to design and integrate the ship's many systems at the same site. The beauty of a collocated Team 17 is having all team partners working under one roof. This environment has streamlined communication and enhanced decision-making. In an atmosphere of open information exchange, Navy-industry counterparts, coworkers, and key contacts are no further away than an adjoining office space.

In an effort to improve configuration management and reduce the cost of information development and re-use, all LPD 17 data is being developed and maintained in electronic form in an Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE). This collaborative data environment enables the various design specialties on the LPD 17 team to develop, integrate, and access data in real time. Team 17 has implemented IPDE to facilitate data integration, reduce redundancy, and ensure greater accuracy. The LPD 17 database includes 3-D geometry, nongraphic-attribute information, two-dimensional drawings for production, technical manuals, training materials to support the ship class, and program execution information such as plans, schedules, and procedures. This IPDE effort significantly improves Team 17's ability to manage its information now and to reduce costs over the full life of the class.

Reductions to the Navy's total ownership costs (TOC) are a key driver in design decisions associated with the ship's projected 40-year service life. Team 17's plan to reduce the TOC of operating and maintaining the ship class calls for investments now in improved systems or technologies to reduce operating and support costs. For example, key shipboard piping systems carrying saltwater will be made of titanium--more expensive up-front, but more durable over the next 40 years. In addition to identifying the best systems and maintenance strategies to reduce TOC, Team 17 also is working to reduce crew size dramatically--a major expense for any ship. Manning levels are now 20 percent below preliminary projections (from 450 to 360), and further reductions are being explored in areas that will not degrade the ship's warfighting and organic-maintenance capabilities.

Design for Ownership

LPD 17 will be as user-friendly as possible for the warfighters of naval expeditionary forces. The early and sustained involvement of fleet Sailors and Marines in providing ideas and recommendations through Team 17's Design for Ownership (DFO) process is key to accomplishing this. To date, the LPD 17 program has hosted more than 50 DFO workshops and conferences--with combined participation of more than 1,000 Sailors and Marines. During these sessions, after an initial briefing using flat drawings, the design team leader guides these "virtual crews" through an electronic 3-D model of the ship's planned spaces. Navy and Marine operators, maintainers, and trainers provide direct and immediate feedback to Team 17's engineers on the design of the ship's structures and systems--before a single piece of steel is cut.

Using computerized design tools, virtual crewmembers can view ship compartments from above, ask to have bulkheads or piping removed for a better view, or actually "walk through" the space. Virtual crewmembers "sit" at a console and check for adequate reach, visibility, and other ergonomic factors. The design team also can project a scale-sized Sailor or Marine and position him or her in a space, checking for physical clearance. If there is a question from the virtual crew, the designer can provide actual clearance measurements in real time.

Using this interactive-computerized process, everything from fire extinguishers to berthing compartments can be displayed and reviewed to capture recommendations. Following each session, ideas are documented and then evaluated in relation to structural constraints or mission requirements. Those recommendations that are appropriate and feasible are then incorporated into the design--leading to a more combat-ready, "warrior-friendly" ship class when the design is finalized.

Capable and Survivable

At more than 680 feet in length, the LPD 17 class will be substantially larger than its Austin-class predecessor. LPD 17 will be able to carry roughly the same amount of cargo and ammunition, but it will have more than double the storage space for Marine vehicles--a stable, mission-flexible platform.

LPD 17's increased beam will accommodate a large flight deck capable of supporting all Marine rotary-wing aircraft and still permit transit through the Panama Canal. Four transport or four attack helicopters can be temporarily deployed aboard the ship. The San Antonio also will have the size and support facilities necessary for MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft operations.

The design incorporates a well deck aft that can be ballasted down for the launch or recovery of both traditional and air-cushion landing craft carrying cargo, personnel, and Marine vehicles, including tanks. The well deck also will serve as a launch platform for the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV). The San Antonio will be the first ship specifically designed to support the Marine Corps' primary platform for the overwater transport of surface-assault forces in the 21st century.

All LPD 17-class ships will have robust survivability features and the latest computer technology. In addition to the Rolling Airframe Missile to counter air threats, the AAAV 30mm Close-in Gun System will be installed for close-in surface self-defense. Radar cross-section reduction techniques, such as the AEM/S mast and an enclosed small boat bay, also will give San Antonio-class ships a new look and make them much more difficult to locate and target by enemy radar.

The Road Ahead

Since the Navy awarded the contract for the lead ship in December 1996, the LPD 17 program has cut a wide swath through many of the exciting but challenging aspects of acquisition reform. Reopening the design to achieve numerous quality-of-life improvements, a substantial reduction in crew size, and scores of Total Ownership Cost decreases did not occur without some impact to the planned delivery schedules for early ships of the class, however.

The Navy's objectives were achieved while simultaneously developing and learning to use new 3-D CAD design tools, employing the IPDD environment for the first time, and marshaling scarce engineering and design talent within the shipbuilding industry. Because of the importance of the LPD 17 program to the way that Navy ships will be procured in the future, an LPD 17 Executive Committee was established one year ago to report the status of the program regularly to H. Lee Buchanan III, the assistant secretary of the Navy (research, development, and acquisition).

Based on a program-wide review conducted between August and October 1999, it is expected that LPD 17's original delivery date will be extended by approximately 10 months. Shorter extensions will be invoked for LPD 18 and LPD 20, ships which will be constructed at Litton Avondale. No construction delays are forecast for ships in the class funded subsequent to fiscal year 2000. The cost implications of the schedule extensions are currently under evaluation.

In the coming months, the LPD 17 team will work closely with the Navy's resource sponsor, the director for expeditionary warfare, to adjust post-delivery activities for these ships. This will minimize, with manageable risk, the time required for them to enter active service. Looking at the 12-ship class as a whole and its planned 40-year service life, the overall impact of these early schedule adjustments is far offset by across-the-board improvements in platform performance--performance which would not have been achieved were it not for the dedicated, day-by-day efforts of the Navy-Marine Corps-industry team.

Lessons Learned

The LPD 17 program, under the auspices of DOD and Navy acquisition- reform initiatives, is a proving ground for several new business practices. Foremost has been adoption of IPPD-based practices. They have mandated a significant cultural change for both Navy and industry team members.

The physical process of collocating government and industry team members is a fairly straightforward proposition. But the broader intent for collocation will only be achieved if team members have been empowered, trained, and provided with a well-defined and consistent set of objectives. Nurturing and maintaining an IPPD environment requires ongoing top-level management attention and support--they are crucial to achieving success.

Team 17 also has learned from experience that major corporate and government organizations must work together closely from the start--as must those "stakeholders" (the operators, maintainers, and trainers) that cannot be physically collocated. As with any organizational change of this magnitude, putting together an effective team takes time and attention--but results to date indicate the investment is well worth the effort.

The LPD 17 program demonstrates an unparalleled level of teamwork and customer focus in the design process. This approach will continue into production, delivery, and life-cycle support phases of the program. Because of this focus and the Navy's long-term commitment to acquisition reform, the San Antonio and her sister ships are well on their way to becoming more efficient, effective, survivable, and combat-capable 21st-century successors to the current generation of amphibious warships. 

The Iron Fist of Our Nation's Resolve

C. Mark Brinkley is a staff writer for Marine Corps Times in Washington, D.C.
When the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia surprised NATO leaders in early June with its acceptance of the alliance's demand for the complete with-drawal of its military forces from Kosovo, forward-deployed U.S. Marines were ready. Marine aviation squadrons had flown critical combat and combat-support missions throughout the entire 78-day air war--operating from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, from ships of the USS Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), and from multiple airfields in the region.

Less visible to the general public, however, was the role U.S. Marines played ashore during NATO's first combat operations. And, with a new and challenging peacekeeping mission at hand, the Corps' stirring motto "First to Fight" assumed a new dimension when Marines of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) were among the first NATO peacekeepers to enter the American sector of Kosovo. Their mission: to enforce NATO's cease-fire conditions and broker a tenuous peace. Months of training and preparation paid off exactly as planned.

A Helping Hand

Sent to relieve the 24th MEU in the Adriatic Sea at the end of April, the 26th MEU (special operations capable) had barely settled into its routine before word came that ground units would be going ashore--not to Kosovo, where Serb military and paramilitary forces were waging their ruthless ethnic war--but to Albania. On 30 April, lead elements of the 26th MEU headed ashore to Fier, Albania, to provide external security for a 20,000-person refugee camp being built by civilian contractors. While the MEU's AV-8B Harrier jets continued almost daily air strikes against the Serbs, its ground forces kept a close watch over the massive tent city--named Camp Hope.

The ground forces, mostly members of the MEU's Battalion Landing Team, manned checkpoints around the camp, stopping travelers as they came near to ensure the safety of the residents who began pouring into the facility. Sleeping in their own small tents on a bumpy, dirt field prone to becoming muddy when the spring rains fell, the Marines occasionally relinquished their posts to other members of their team from the Kearsarge ARG who waited at sea for their chance to put their training and skills to use.

"One of the things that really helped us was the Albanian [operation]," Col. Kenneth J. Glueck, commanding officer of the 26th MEU, later told Marine Commandant Gen. James L. Jones Jr. during a 15 July briefing on board the Kearsarge as the last members of the peacekeeping force returned to their ships. The experience of standing guard, interacting with the civilian populace, and building bunkers in Albania paid dividends during the MEU's follow-on mission in Kosovo.

The Marines embraced the new assignment enthusiastically--if not for ethical or personal reasons, then simply to provide a break from life within the confines of the amphibious assault ships. Several members of the MEU had expressed concerns that their infantry skills would begin to erode and readiness would drop if they continued to pass up training and cancel planned exercises. Duty at the refugee camp provided few tactical-training opportunities.

But after two more successful security operations at similar camps and nearly a month on the ground in Albania--two months into their six-month deployment--the Marines were sent back to their ships following Yugoslavia's capitulation during the first week in June. Within eight hours, the troops and equipment were loaded and prepared for the two-day trip to the coast of Greece, where they expected to be the first American peacekeepers to enter the Kosovo province following NATO's cease-fire.

Keeping the Peace in Kosovo

On 10 June, the Marines received the call and began to offload troops and equipment ashore. It took the MEU only 11 hours to offload more than 1,300 personnel and nearly 200 vehicles across the beach, and the following day nearly 1,700 Marines were on the ground and prepared to join the 50,000-member multinational force entering Kosovo.

For the next week, shrugging off early diplomatic holdups imposed by the Greek government, the MEU continued to build its presence at a forward-support base in Macedonia and prepared to move across the border into a new base camp. Selecting Gnjilane, Kosovo, as the center of gravity for the American sector, Glueck said the MEU's goal was to "seize the initiative and control the operational tempo" from the beginning. The MEU had a large task in front of it, Glueck said, because Marines would serve as the only effective police force within the American sector of the province.

Immediately, the Marines established static checkpoints, began foot and mobile-presence patrols, and started providing badly needed humanitarian assistance to the frightened residents of the area--who often welcomed the Marines to their villages with an openness and enthusiasm not seen in Europe since the end of World War II. The force also began the job of enforcing the military-technical agreement between the Serbs and NATO--overseeing the withdrawal of Serb forces, policing the streets, and disarming civilians and Kosovo Liberation Army rebels who had fought the Serbs just days before.

Glueck said one of the MEU's first defining moments came just days after the Marines began their operations, when 116 rebel troops were disarmed on 16 June. The move "demonstrated the ability and commitment to enforce peace implementations," Glueck said, and "demonstrated even-handedness to protect both factions," be they Serb or ethnic Albanian.

Three days later, U.S. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark paid a visit to the Marines at their base camp near Gnjilane to offer support for their ongoing efforts. "Now that you're here, a lot of people are glad," Cohen told the Marines. "They know you are going to be tough but fair."

That same day, Marine officers said the MEU responded to gunfire near a checkpoint in southern Gnjilane, where they found a man who had been attacked by snipers but declined medical attention. No sooner had the Marines returned to the checkpoint than another burst of gunfire rang out, and the group was off again. One Kosovar died during the incident, and the MEU's Special Reaction Team eventually confiscated several weapons and detained the suspected sniper in a nearby house.

Those first few days proved rough for the Marines, who fought heavy rains that left their campsites blanketed in thick mud. Hot meals would not arrive for several days, nor would shower facilities. But Cohen was correct in his assessment of how the public would be treated, and the Marines would continue to respond to multiple incidents without showing favoritism to either side. Nearly 500 rifles, 90 pistols, and 800 other weapons were confiscated from both sides in the following weeks--a stark reminder of the challenge and risk of enforcing the uneasy peace. Marines also continued their humanitarian-assistance missions, allowing the Kosovo residents to begin rebuilding their lives while supplying some 15,000 meals and 1,000 hygiene kits to those most in need. The ground forces also would provide medical and dental care for more than 300 patients in the days to come, while detaining less than 100 residents--the majority Albanian.

Marines continued to pave the way for the U.S. Army forces slated to relieve them of their duties in Kosovo. Reestablishing core civil functions throughout the American sector became increasingly important. A milestone in that effort came on 23 June, Glueck said, when a letter of agreement allowing a hospital to reopen was signed. "This set the precedence for restoring other civil functions," Glueck said. Eventually, a school also would be reopened--small but important steps in the region's recovery from the horror of the preceding weeks.

Despite their success at collecting weapons, the Marines still came under sporadic sniper fire. On 24 June, Marine officials announced that a checkpoint near Zegra, Kosovo, came under attack. The gunmen were killed. The Marines continued to be the only organized group operating within the American sector, however, and would continue to shoulder the burden of responding to everyday emergencies. In one instance on 24 June, Marines were called to extinguish a house fire in Korminjane, Kosovo, where they carried buckets of water, shoveled dirt, and used a garden hose in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the blaze. The troops were able to suppress the fire long enough for the residents to remove a handful of their most treasured personal belongings.

Two days later, as morale began to rise with the installation of showers and the arrival of better weather, the Marines again were attacked. Another gunman was killed. Two more days passed before a young Albanian boy nearly died on 28 June while being rushed by the Marines to emergency medical care after the youth stepped on a land mine.

"If we would have stayed any longer, we probably would have had to have at least a company of MPs [military police]," said Glueck, who came to Kosovo with only six school-trained MPs. "We had to fill that void." Filling it was tough, considering that the Marines were never permitted to use riot-control agents or nonlethal weapons to help curb the violence they encountered. "Rules of engagement are something that you have to start working on from the beginning," Glueck said. "We were very stringent with it, and we enforced it to the letter."

Jones to 26th MEU: "Well Done"

The weather worsened on 1 July, again turning the Marines' Kosovo base camp into a swamp, but the weather finally began to clear within several days. The Fourth of July observance came in makeshift fashion for the 26th MEU. With virtually no opportunity to celebrate Independence Day, the Leathernecks did have grilled hamburgers and hot dogs to eat while maintaining their presence throughout the American sector on patrols and at checkpoints.

Elements of the Army's 1st Division began to arrive on 6 July to begin the turnover of forces. After a month on the ground in Kosovo, the 26th MEU prepared to return to its ships. By 11 July, the Marines were back in Macedonia--washing the mud off their equipment and vehicles and preparing to redeploy to the ARG through Greece, where the new Marine Corps commandant would arrive to greet them and extend his thanks for a job well done. "You should feel good inside about what you have done and what you have been a part of," Jones told the 26th MEU during his 15 July visit to Thessaloniki, Greece. "It isn't always about putting rounds downrange. Credible force is absolutely important," he said. "What you have been able to do is to be the iron fist of our nation's resolve."

The MEU's respite from the rigors of the past three months was temporary, however. Just one month after its withdrawal from Kosovo--during some well-deserved liberty and a chance to perform much-needed maintenance to vehicles and equipment--the 26th MEU was tasked to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of the devastating earthquake in Turkey. Three days after their new deployment order, the Marines arrived off the coast of the disaster area--adding a new and impressive chapter to their historic Balkan mission.

In today's uncertain and violent world, an important lesson was demonstrated once again by the 26th MEU and the forward-deployed Navy-Marine Corps team--ready on arrival to answer the nation's call. 

Air War Kosovo

By L. EDGAR PRINA, Editor Emeritus

After every major armed conflict, the winners (and, sometimes, the losers) undertake a post-action review to identify "lessons learned" and to determine what went right, what went wrong, and why. So it is with the air war the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) powers conducted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its hated president, Slobodan Milosevic, from 24 March to 10 June 1999. The Pentagon is hard at work on its review as are the British, French, Germans, and Italians on theirs.

No one expects the allies to reach unanimous across-the-board conclusions as to the successful conduct of the war. A number of military leaders, diplomats, and media pundits, however, have already voiced their opinions, and there is not even agreement on the key factor that led to Milosevic's decision to give in to NATO demands that he withdraw his military, paramilitary, and police forces from Kosovo and permit the peaceful return of the more than one million Albanian Kosovars he had driven out of their homes and country with his infamous "ethnic cleansing" campaign.

Degrade and Damage the Military

The mission of NATO's Operation Allied Force was succinctly stated by Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen: "Our military objective is to degrade and damage the military and security structure that President Milosevic has used to depopulate and destroy the Albanian majority in Kosovo."

While this policy of degradation did damage the Serbs' army and air force, heavy bombing attacks on Yugoslavia's communications, electrical power grids, oil supplies, bridges, and other infrastructure elements also certainly affected the war's outcome and have limited Milosevic's ability to wage war in the near future.

Not surprisingly, the top NATO air commander, U.S. Lt. Gen. Michael C. Short, believes it was the destruction of major targets in Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital, and other major cities outside Kosovo that led to Milosevic's capitulation. The tough-talking Short suggested that if his bombers had been allowed "to go downtown" and hit Belgrade in a major raid early in the campaign the war would have been over in a matter of days rather than the more than two-and-a-half months it did take.

Gen. Wesley K. Clark, NATO's su-preme commander, had a different read. He told reporters that the conflict ended only when Milosevic realized that he faced an imminent ground invasion. "I think he had ample evidence to conclude that, had he not conceded when he did, that the next step would have been the long-awaited and much-talked-about NATO ground effort," he said.

Britain's Lt. Gen. Sir Michael Jackson, the initial NATO commander in Kosovo, had yet a third opinion as to the key to victory--an opinion shared by some military and diplomatic observers. "The event of June 3 [when the Russians backed the West's position and urged Milosevic to surrender] was the single event that appeared to me to have the greatest significance in ending the war," he told the London Sunday Telegraph. Jackson said he was surprised by the lack of damage in Kosovo encountered by his peacekeeping troops. "The infrastructure was, frankly, not damaged at all; it's all in one bit," he asserted. "Perhaps about 30 percent of the houses overall have real damage, but in Pristina there is no damage to speak of at all. I had thought there would be no harvest this year, but I fly a lot, and the fields are busy."

Lost Opportunities

NATO's opening strategy was to plan for two to three days of bombing Serb targets in Kosovo and then await Milosevic's surrender. No official has explained how the alliance arrived at such a miscalculation, but as a leaked briefing prepared for Adm. James O. Ellis, commander of Joint Task Force Noble Anvil during Operation Allied Force, noted in a post-action analysis: "We called this one absolutely wrong. This affected much of what followed, including the hasty activation of the joint task force, its staff, facilities, command and control, logistics and execution, lack of a coherent campaign plan, and the race to find suitable targets." Because the operation plan focused on brief single-dimension combat, deception, diversion, and feint opportunities were lost, Ellis's staff concluded.

Gen. John Jumper, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, told reporters that, at the time the war was launched, NATO's leaders were confident Milosevic would sue for peace after "a few demonstration sorties, a few bombs on the ground." Once it became clear that there would be no quick victory, the target list for allied air was increased. But the struggles for permission from the 19 NATO member nations to strike them became more and more burdensome for Clark, who was being pressured by Short to go after strategic targets in Yugoslavia as a higher priority than trying to kill Serb tanks and troops in Kosovo.

Clark obviously felt that he had to do what he could to stop Serb atrocities in Kosovo but despite the effort, the looting, the raping, and kill-ing continued. More than one million Albanian Kosovars were sent streaming across borders of neighboring states, mainly to Albania and Macedonia. Most of the atrocities came after NATO launched its air war. NATO was not prepared to handle such a humanitarian disaster for far too long.

Probably no military professional would dispute the view that the political environment affected every aspect of NATO planning and execution and led to "incremental war" instead of more decisive operations earlier in the conflict. Excessive concerns for collateral damage, for example, created sanctuaries and tactical opportunities for the Serbs--which they successfully exploited.

The Best of a Series Of Bad Options

There is general agreement among observers that President Clinton's decision to rule out, from the outset, the commitment of U.S. ground troops for an invasion of Kosovo was a huge relief to Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic cleansing. NATO was willing to take the first step in commencing an air war, but was unprepared initially to take--or seriously consider--the last step that might be necessary to achieve its war aims. This was a serious strategic shortcoming.

Cohen and Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also opposed use of ground forces, although they and the White House apparently were easing their opposition in the weeks before Milosevic suddenly agreed to accept NATO's demands. Cohen and Shelton told Pentagon reporters on 10 June that NATO's strategy was constrained by the need for political consensus. "Under the circumstances," Cohen said, "this was the best of a series of bad options."

Clark, who finished first in his class at West Point and was a Rhodes scholar, advocated that the Pentagon and the allies to prepare in earnest for an invasion if the air war continued to drag on. He did persuade Cohen to send him 24 of the 48 Apache attack helicopters he requested. They were never used in combat, however, and two of them crashed on training flights, killing two pilots. These gunships are primarily battlefield weapons used to accompany and support ground forces.

Although Clinton and the Pentagon spokesmen deny it, there is a general feeling that the decision to relieve Clark from his post as Supreme Commander, Allied Forces, Europe (SAC-EUR) three months early (next April) was his overt pressure for an invasion the Clinton administration did not want. Pentagon spokesmen said the relief was necessary because Gen. Joseph W. Ralston--vice chairman of the JCS and Clark's designated successor--would be forced to retire, under military rules, if his reassignment were not advanced by two months.

The fact that the decision was leaked to the press within hours of the notification to Clark himself raised suspicions that its aim was to preempt any chance the general and his supporters could mount pressure for a reversal.

Nor did Clark endear himself with the Pentagon's senior leaders when he ordered Lt. Gen. Jackson to intercept Russian troops rushing to seize Kosovo's Pristina Airport in mid-June, only to have the latter refuse to do so. According to Newsweek magazine, Jackson told Clark, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." That was a real stretch, but the Pentagon nevertheless backed Jackson. In any event, Cohen publicly praised Clark's direction of the war and, during a surprise presentation in the Pentagon during a 24 September commander in chiefs' conference, awarded Clark the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. Cohen lauded Clark's "singular role in ensuring the accomplishment of the largest military and humanitarian operation in Europe since World War II."

Gradual Escalation: Past as Prologue?

While Clark and his subordinate commanders chafed under what they felt was micromanagement when it came to allowable targets and the incremental pace of the air war, the lesson to be learned here is that with the development of increasingly accurate and long-range "through-the-weather" aerial weapons, political leaders will be more inclined to follow suit during future military operations. Take it from Ralston--who said the political reality is that gradual escalation, as in Kosovo, will be the name of the game in the future.

In spite of what might indicate the success of a gradualism strategy, the U.S. Air Force no doubt will continue to maintain that the massive application of air power will be more efficient and effective than gradual escalation. "I share this view," Ralston said, "Yet when the political and tactical constraints imposed on air use are extensive and pervasive--and that trend seems more rather than less likely--then gradualism may be perceived as the only option."

Short said he was "not so naïve as to believe that politicians are ever going to turn soldiers loose to do the job they think ought to be done. I think we were constrained in this particular conflict to an extraordinary degree and were prevented from conducting an air campaign as professional airmen would have wanted to conduct it," he told Air Force Magazine.

Even before the Kosovo operation, the United States and its principal NATO allies agreed that the latter must modernize their armed forces. Kosovo underscored the point. As it is now, the Europeans are heavily dependent upon the United States for such things as electronic-intelligence gathering, airlift of troops and equipment, all-weather precision-guided munitions, secure communications equipment, aerial refueling, and unmanned aerial-reconnaissance vehicles.

NATO defense ministers met in Toronto late in September and agreed that the Europeans had to spend more money to help close the military technology gap with the United States. Whether this will require an overall increase in their defense budgets or a rearrangement of expenditures under current budgets remains to be seen.

Germany, for example, has been planning substantial reductions in its defense budget over the next few years. Additional pressure on German--and French--defense budgets could result from moves in both countries to drop conscription in favor of all-volunteer forces--a much more expensive way to maintain professional armed forces. France has already decided to adopt the volunteer-force option within the next two years, while Germany has announced it was studying plans for following suit.

It therefore still remains to be seen whether the Europeans really learned the lesson that was validated by Kosovo. U.S. officials are exhibiting impatience on this score. "NATO countries spend roughly 60 percent of what the U.S. does, and they get about 10 percent of the capability," Cohen said. "That has to change."

Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre, the No. 2 Pentagon official, told news reporters last summer that "it's very clear from this air operation [Kosovo] that our allies have not invested in what it takes to fight a modern war the way we do it ... with a great deal of precision, minus collateral damage--intense operations, so you can quickly get it over with; and it is very clear that our allies have a far way to go." He added that the Europeans have to have "stronger" military budgets and need to "rationalize" their defense industries.

Navy-Marine Role Critical

The Navy-Marine Corps team played a critical role in the success of Operation Allied Force, although recognition of this may have been late in coming. Adm. Jay L. Johnson, chief of naval operations, told Sea Power that a great deal of effort was needed to prosecute the war successfully. "We had 19 democracies all working together to make that operation happen," Johnson said. "U.S. and NATO alliance airpower worked together with great precision and great care. The U.S. Navy was a fundamental part of that effort."

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James L. Jones Jr. also had high praise for Marine air and ground units participating in NATO's first combat operation and in subsequent peacekeeping and humanitarian-assistance missions. "Marine Corps forces assigned to Operation Allied Force performed their mission as America has come to expect--professionally and competently," he told Sea Power. "In keeping with our expeditionary mission, Marines were on station at the start of operations on normal rotation as part of Landing Force Sixth Fleet. Others were able to deploy rapidly and arrive for operations."

In a three-part series wrapping up Kosovo, Dan Priest of the Washington Post noted that the Air Force had assigned a half-dozen planes to fly as "security guards" for each pair of attacking fighters and bombers, thereby complicating the script for each night's raid and preventing quick changes in missions. "So Clark often turned to the Navy, whose role in the war was much greater than previously acknowledged," Priest wrote. "According to a post-war military assessment, naval missiles and planes were responsible for nearly half the damage done to Yugoslavia's electric-power system, army headquarters, and police buildings."

A major contribution to the war effort was made by Navy and Marine EA-6B Prowler electronic-jamming and HARM missile-shooting aircraft. The U.S. Air Force would not fly without them--nor would any other NATO aircraft--on combat strikes. They were a big reason why only two planes and no pilots were lost--despite a total of more than 38,000 sorties by 900 aircraft.

Capt. (rear admiral-select) Joseph Sestak called the Prowler one of the nation's most valuable "low-demand, high-density" military units in an interview with Inside the Navy. The conclusion: The very heavy and successful employment of this aircraft dictates an increase in the Prowler force and an acceleration in the research and development effort for its successor, the F/A-18G aircraft.

The Theodore Roosevelt carrier battle group provided an updated lesson for Pentagon planners in the value of forward presence with its mobility and the firepower of its embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) Eight. Some 3,100 sorties, including 1,700 strike missions, were flown off its deck. When the Theodore Roosevelt finished dropping the last of its 800 tons of ordnance on Kosovo it rapidly headed for the Persian Gulf where its aircraft dropped another 300 tons of bombs on targets in Iraq in the continuing air war with that country.

Capt. Dale Lyle, CVW-8 commander, noted that it was one of only a few times in which a carrier air wing has flown combat missions in two different military campaigns during the same deployment. This "validated how important it is to have naval air forces," he said. As Rear Adm. John B. Nathman, director of air warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, told Sea Power, the Navy dropped very few unguided weapons or low-drag general purpose bombs during Operation Allied Force. And it may not in any future conflict.

Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig has stressed the need to procure precision, all-weather Global Positioning System-guided munitions "in light of post-Kosovo weapons requirements." He also has called for more investment in UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)--pilotless aircraft equipped with sophisticated video and electronic-surveillance hardware that greatly increases the amount of tactical intelligence obtained in the battle area.

Danzig put his finger on a development the significance of which has largely escaped the radar screens of many politicians and pundits: that the long arm of sea-based power--cruise missiles and aircraft--can reach far inland to influence events in land-locked countries as well as those bordering the oceans. He recalled the cruise-missile raid against suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and said: "Stop and reflect on what this means. It was the first time in history that naval forces were called upon to deal with a land-locked country.

"Kosovo has no seaports," he told Sea Power. "The initial instrument of attack in that theater was the Navy battle group and, in the end, Marines off the ARG [amphibious ready group] were brought to bear as the first on scene. The accomplishments of 1999 underscore that we are dealing with a different kind of world--one in which naval power reaches much further than its traditional domain as an instrument everywhere in the world."

Implications for the Future

While the Pentagon's formal post-action report had not been publicly released as of mid-October, Cohen has reached some conclusions.

"The United States learned of shortfalls in its forces during Kosovo, and we are working to correct them," he said at a news conference. "For example, we are buying more C-17 transport planes and additional ships for carrying heavy equipment. We are developing new precision-guided munitions and increasing supplies of others that are already in our inventory."

The defense secretary also said that the Pentagon was looking at "the increased use of commercial-off-the-shelf technology to improve our ability to detect chemical and biological attacks." He did not explain, nor was he asked, why he mentioned this in connection with the war against Milosevic.

"We won in Kosovo because NATO countries were politically united, well-commanded by General Clark, and equipped with precision all-weather weapons," he said.

What are the implications of Kosovo beyond the need for the modernization of the European armed forces and the procurements mentioned by Cohen above? Some observers wonder whether this unusual conflict, with no NATO casualties and no major collateral damage, might tempt the United States to engage in more military actions abroad. Although President Clinton has said that the United States does not intend to act as the world's policeman, he has also set down a "doctrine" that, in effect, calls for military intervention to protect peoples that are being brutalized by their own governments.

Could East Timor, where pro-Indonesia militiamen have been killing and terrorizing the natives because they voted for independence in a recent referendum, be next? Several hundred U.S. military personnel, as well as the amphibious assault ship the USS Belleau Wood, have already been committed to assist the United Nations-sponsored, Australian-led peacemaking effort there.

Spurred by the ruthless eradication of civilian populaces, international intervention in Kosovo and East Timor represent a clear break from the time when nations were held to have the right--the sovereignty--to control events within their own borders. Meanwhile, instructors in military ethics at U.S. war colleges and academies also ponder another implication of NATO's air war over Kosovo. They ask whether it is ethical to insist on the lowest absolute risk for one's own warriors--bombing at three-miles altitude to avoid being shot down, as in Kosovo--while further jeopardizing the lives of civilians on the ground?

Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, USMC (Ret.), put it this way: "What really troubles me is that those who take an oath to defend others were held out of harm's way while the very people they were to defend were in many ways viewed as 'expendable.' What does this say for the Western warrior ethic for the future?" 

USCG to Go-Fasts: Not So Fast!

By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

New Coast Guard aircraft, tactics, and rules of engagement have led to a series of successful intercepts of drug-running "go-fast" boats, marking what White House and Department of Transportation (DOT) officials say is a major turning point in the U.S. war against illegal drugs.

The Coast Guard has unveiled a new armed helicopter, the MH-90 Enforcer, and has flown it to intercept the 70-knot go-fast boats that have been easily eluding Coast Guard cutters since drug runners introduced the boats into service in 1995.

The Coast Guard also has an-nounced a change in its rules of engagement, which now allow Coast Guard aircraft to engage drug-running vessels with armed force, an option previously available only to Coast Guard cutters and boarding parties. Armed Coast Guard aircraft have not been used in law-enforcement roles since the 1920s, when they were deployed against the "rum-runners" of the Prohibition era.

The MH-90 was introduced to the public by DOT Secretary Rodney E. Slater at a press conference held in Washington, D.C.; Barry McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and Coast Guard Commandant Adm. James M. Loy also participated in the press conference.

Small Arms and Sting Balls

An all-weather, short-range, single-rotor shipboard helicopter, the MH-90, is a militarized version of the MD 900 helicopter built by MD Helicopters Corporation. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney 206(D) turboshaft engine and designed with a NOTAR (no-tail-rotor) configuration, it can cruise at 120 knots for 2.5 hours. The 6,500-pound helicopter is equipped with weather radar, a Mk III forward-looking infrared system (with video-recording capability), night-vision devices, an external sling capable of lifting 1,500 pounds, and a rescue hoist capable of lifting 600 pounds. The crew consists of two pilots and one crewman. The crewman's principal duties include: (a) firing an M240G 7.62mm machine gun (swivel-mounted at the portside cabin door) and/or a hand-held laser-sighted .50-caliber rifle; and (b) operating hand-held video and photographic equipment. MD Helicopters provides logistic support for the Enforcers.

The go-fast boats--30 to 45 feet in length and capable of ranging up to 1,300 miles--are faster than the so-called "cigarette" boats and represent a dramatic escalation in the cat-and-mouse drug-interdiction war. U.S. officials calculated that go-fast boats--which made an estimated 400 transits last year--were used to smuggle 61 percent of the illegal drugs entering the United States in 1997 and 85 percent in 1998. Use of the go-fast boats gave the smugglers an 85 percent success rate, the officials said.

During operations in August and September, the MH-90s--which operate from medium- or high-endurance cutters working in concert with 38-foot 57-knot RHIBs (rigid-hull inflatable boats)--intercepted go-fast boats on four occasions. On some missions, the M240G machine gun was used to fire warning shots across the bow, after which the .50-caliber rifle was used to disable the boat's engines. The crew also deployed "sting balls"--small grenades that dispense rubber pellets.

The MH-90 also is able to drop a net designed to disable the boat's propellers. The MH-90's armament is intended to be nonlethal--to disable the boats and/or otherwise dissuade the go-fast crews from completing their runs.

Loy credited the Coast Guard's bold tactics--introduced in Operation New Frontier--with intercepting 53 tons of drugs, including a record amount of cocaine, since October 1998. The August and September operations resulted in the seizure of more than 6,000 pounds of cocaine and marijuana.

The Coast Guard currently operates two leased MH-90s, and plans to expand its MH-90 fleet to six or eight aircraft. The two leased Enforcers are operated by Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron 10 (HITRON-10), based at the Coast Guard Aviation Training Center in Mobile, Ala.--but scheduled to relocate to Jacksonville, Fla., during fiscal year 2000. HITRON-10 represents a Coast Guard organizational anomaly; since the end of World War II (when Coast Guard Patrol Bombing Squadron 6 conducted antisubmarine patrols from Iceland), Coast Guard aviation assets have been assigned to air stations, not to squadrons.

McCaffrey was enthusiastic about the Coast Guard's new armed helicopters. "We congratulate the Coast Guard for using a successful systems approach to field helicopters, nonlethal technology, and command-and-control equipment to meet the threat," he said. Speaking of the go-fast boats, he added, "We will make them disappear."

"Thanks to the brave and dedicated men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard, we are seeing a decline in drug use," said Slater. "Their vigilance and tireless commitment is making a difference to the American people." 

Seamanship & Survival Skills For a New Generation of Leaders

By JEAN B. REYNOLDS, Editorial Assistant

More than 5,000 NSCC (Naval Sea Cadet Corps) and NLCC (Navy League Cadet Corps) Cadets participated in 1999 summer training programs aboard U.S. Navy ships and U.S. Coast Guard cutters at various naval/military air stations throughout the United States and at numerous other land-based training sites of all of the nation's armed services.

"The 1999 summer training program was among the most productive ever in terms of numbers--and quite possibly the richest both in terms of the quality of training provided and the varied spectrum of training choices available to Cadets," said NSCC National Chairman Bruce B. Smith (the Navy League's national vice president for youth programs). "In addition to recruit training--carried out this year at 13 regional training sites--and both basic and advanced courses in seamanship, port operations, leadership, music, medicine, master at arms duties, aviation, and other naval/military skills and specialties, Cadets had the opportunity to participate in SEAL training, attend advanced submarine seminars at naval submarine bases in Bangor [Wash.] and Groton [Conn.], hone their construction skills with the Seabees, or train alongside the Young Marines in the mountain-survival courses offered at the Marine Corps' Mountain Survival School in Bridgeport, California."

Navy League National President John R. Fisher expressed his appreciation to the estimated 500 NSCC adult volunteers "who gave so much of their time and talent to ensure the success of the 1999 summer training program"--which, he emphasized, "was truly a joint-service effort, with the Army, Coast Guard, and Air Force making numerous training sites and instructors available, particularly in areas where Navy and Marine Corps facilities are few or nonexistent."

Fisher also emphasized the importance of the NSCC and NLCC not only to the armed services, but also to the home communities of the Cadets and to the nation. "These outstanding Cadet programs are in my opinion the best citizenship programs available to young Americans anywhere in the country," he said. "They pay great dividends to the armed services in many ways, but their greatest value is to the nation. The bright, dedicated, hard-working young men and women who go through the Sea Cadet and League Cadet training programs are better citizens for the rest of their lives, and history shows that many of them will assume significant positions of leadership and responsibility in their adult lives."

Spotlight on Industry

By GORDON I. PETERSON, Senior Editor

Interview with Arthur J. Veitch, Senior Vice President

Sea Power: You recently took the helm of the Combat Systems Group at General Dynamics after serving as the president of the Land Systems subsidiary for a number of years. Could you briefly describe the scope of defense programs now under your direction?

Veitch: General Dynamics Combat Systems is a full-spectrum producer of some of the world's most recognized and respected land combat vehicles, amphibious vehicles, and armament and munitions systems. The group has the leading market position in modernizing existing combat vehicles and in designing vehicles for the future and building them today. Combat Systems consists of two business units and has nearly 4,200 employees in 12 U.S. states and four overseas countries.

Some of Land Systems' key programs include: the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), the world's most advanced amphibious combat system; the Mk46, a fully stabilized weapon station selected for the LPD 17 ship class; the Marine Corps' new electric-drive Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Targeting Vehicle [RST-V], transportable onboard the V-22 Osprey; and the M1A2 SEP Abrams, the world's finest main battle tank.

Significant armament systems programs include the Hydra-70 Rocket, used on more than 20 types of aircraft worldwide; Gatling gun systems for nearly every U.S. combat aircraft; reactive armor tiles, ammunition-handling systems, and munitions production and demilitarization.

The AAAV appears to be moving forward on schedule and within budget; what is your assessment of the program?

The AAAV program is progressing very well. It is the U.S. Marine Corps' number one ground priority. General Dynamics is committed to continuing our partnership with the Marine Corps that has led to its success.

The success of this program is directly related to the effectiveness of the Acquisition Reform Initiatives practiced by the AAAV team in Woodbridge, Virginia--such as the use of integrated product teams, and modeling and simulation. Being collocated with the Marines and key members of our supplier team provides tremendous advantages in communications, understanding, and decision-making. We have revolutionized the way weapons are built.

The AAAV will give Marines unprecedented mobility when used in combination with the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and LCAC [Landing Craft, Air Cushion]. What are some of its more important characteristics?

The AAAV is the most advanced amphibious combat system in the world. It will skim the ocean surface at 25 knots and transition to its land mode for ground travel at 45 miles per hour--all the while protecting 17 combat-loaded Marines and its crew of three from a variety of threat weapons.

Its outstanding water mobility is the most visible characteristic and provides the ability to capitalize on the ship-to-objective maneuver tactics that are an important part of Operational Maneuver from the Sea. AAAV also greatly advances land mobility, survivability, and lethality of the amphibious forces--which give the AAAV the flexibility to operate over a broad spectrum of missions.

What factors contributed to the Navy's decision to adopt the AAAV's Mk46 gun system for its LPD 17 class of amphibious ships?

A version of the AAAV Mk46 30mm weapon station was selected by the Navy as the antisurface warfare self-defense weapon for LPD 17 because it is much more effective than the manually aimed, unstable gun originally envisioned, and because it offers significant cost and weight reductions. Navy studies showed ownership costs are reduced $250 million, and there is a 20 metric-ton weight savings compared to the system it replaces.

The Marine Corps derives these benefits because of the common ammunition, spare parts, and training that the LPD 17-class ships and the AAAV will share. Mk 46 also has great potential for other shipboard and ground vehicle applications.

What will be some of your early goals and priorities for the Combat Systems Group as you lead it into the 21st century?

I want to expand our leadership position as the world's preferred supplier of land and amphibious combat vehicles, munitions, armament systems products, and design, integration, and support services.

We will intensify our focus on understanding and rapidly satisfying the needs of our worldwide customers with the affordable, high-quality, technically superior products they seek. I want to be able to better anticipate market opportunities and capture the new technology that will help us grow our business.

I also feel it is very important that we continue to strengthen our relationship with all of our customers, employees, unions, suppliers, local communities, and government representatives and officials. I hope to challenge each member of the Combat Systems team to reach beyond their comfort zone in search of novel and unique approaches to doing our daily business to make us a more successful organization.