Date of this edition: 12 Sep., '93: General Factsheets from United States Navy's BBS. Updated files posted as they becom available. Articles in this post: LANTFLT PACFLT CINCUSNAVEUR U.S. SECOND FLEET U.S THIRD FLEET U.S. SIXTH FLEET U.S. SEVENTH FLEET REVOLUTION AT SEA (SURFACE WARFARE) NAVAL AIR WARFARE UNDERSEA WARFARE MINE WARFARE AMPHIBIOUS LIFT COMMUNICATIONS NAVAL OCEANOGRAPHY TEST AND EVALUATION NAVY MEDICINE NAVAL SPACE COMMAND MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND HAZARDOUS WASTE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROCUREMENT COMPETITION EMPRESS II MARINE MAMMAL PROGRAM NAVY MUSIC PROGRAM RELIGIOUS MINISTRIES NAVY FACT FILE LANTFLT The U.S. Atlantic Fleet numbers about 307 ships, 2300 aircraft, 226,400 Navy personnel and 50,000 Marines. It provides the forces for the Second Fleet in the Atlantic, the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, and the Middle East Force in the Persian Gulf-Indian Ocean area. The U.S. Atlantic Fleet periodically provides naval forces for joint operations and exercises with Army and Air Force components of the unified U.S. Atlantic Command. U.S. Atlantic Fleet forces join those from other nations in forming NATO's Striking Fleet Atlantic and exercise regularly with other NATO navies. The U.S. Atlantic Fleet area of responsibility encompasses the Atlantic Ocean from the North Pole to the South Pole; the Caribbean Sea and the Waters around Central and South America extending to 92 degrees west longitude in the Pacific; the Norwegian, Greenland and Barents Seas; and waters around Africa extending to the Cape of Good Hope. The mission of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet is to train naval forces and to be prepared to deter and resist aggression in the area of responsibility assigned to the fleet. This mission includes conducting operations to ensure control of the sea and air, providing combat-ready naval forces, maintaining the security of the U.S. Atlantic Command, and supporting the operations of allied and other national commanders. Within the U.S. Atlantic Fleet there is only one numbered fleet -- U.S. Second Fleet -- and there are six type commands: Naval Surface Force; Naval Air Force; Naval Submarine Force; Fleet Marine Force; Training Command and Naval Construction Battalions (Seabees). The Commander U.S. Second Fleet directs the employment of naval forces which have a mission to engage in combat or to provide integral support to a combat operation. Type commanders provide administrative and logistic support and readiness training for their respective units. In addition, three special commands -- Operational Test and Evaluation Force; Commander Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and U.S. Naval Activities Caribbean -- provide support and training for the Fleet. Commander South Atlantic directs forces assigned and conducts an annual training cruise circumnavigating South America. The U.S.Atlantic Fleet continues to provide training, readiness, administrative and logistic support to its ships during extended operation in the Mediterranean or in the Middle East when they are under the operational control of other unified, joint or naval commanders. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (Code NO2P); Norfolk, Virginia 23511-5100; (804) 444-629 NAVY FACT FILE PACFLT The United States is an island nation, depending upon the sea lanes for all, or part, of its critical raw materials, including fuel. Its dependence is analogous to Japan's and Great Britain's. Free access to these vital lifelines is imperative to economic, military and political security in the United States. The USSR is a landlocked nation 13 time zones wide. It is the world's largest oil producer and it mines virtually all of its critical raw resources within its borders. The USSR looks to land routes for its protection and survival, unlike the U.S. which is linked to its supply chain by the seas. Since the 1962 Cuban missile incident, the navy of the USSR has grown to four fleets of new sophisticated vessels, plus maritime detachments and fleet tactical air power. It is now a first-rate defensive and offensive navy. Their Pacific fleet is headquartered in Vladivostok and includes over 700 ships. Based in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet (CINCPACFLT) command encompasses 102,000,000 square miles (52 percent of the earth's ocean area). Its four-star admiral commands approximately 255 ships, 2,000 aircraft, and more than 275,000 sailors and Marines and 55 shore facilities. Operationally, CINCPACFLT reports to Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific, who reports to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who report to the Commander in Chief. CINCPACFLT executes his operational missions primarily through five operational commanders: Operational Commanders Commander Seventh Fleet - operates in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. Commander Third Fleet - operates in the Eastern and Northern Pacific. Commander Task Force Fourteen - conducts submarine operations throughout the entire Pacific theater. Commander Task Force Twelve - conducts theater antisubmarine operations in CINCPACFLT's theater of operations. Commander Maritime Defense Zone, Pacific - conducts defensive coastal operations in the Pacific Fleet. Commander Submarine Force Pacific - based in Pearl Harbor, is responsible for all tactical and ballistic missile submarines in the Pacific Ocean and is considered a type command as well as an operational command. Type Commands Five type commanders are responsible to CINCPACFLT for training and administration of specific types of ships, aircraft and marine forces. Those commands are: Commanding General Fleet Marine Force Pacific based at Camp H. M. Smith in Pearl Harbor is responsible for the 80,000 marines and sailors serving the Fleet Marine Force, Pacific. Commander Naval Air Force U.S. Pacific Fleet is based in San Diego and is responsible for all the fleet's carrier and land-based aircraft. Commander Naval Surface Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in San Diego, is responsible for approximately 170 surface units ranging from amphibious ships to battleships. Commander Naval Logistics Force Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor, is responsible for providing logistics support throughout the CINCPACFLT's area of responsibility<> Commander Naval Training Command U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in San Diego, coordinates all training functions for CINCPACFLT. Regional Coordinators In addition to operational commanders, CINCPACFLT directs eight regional coordinators at Navy commands ashore which support seagoing forces. They are: * Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Republic of the Philippines *U.S. Naval Forces, Japan (Yokosuka) *Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Korea (Seoul) *Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Marianas (Guam *Commander, Naval Forces San Diego *Commander, Naval Forces San Francisco *Commander, Naval Forces Seattle *Commander, Naval Forces Pearl Harbor. CINCPACFLT's four Western Pacific regional coordinators are responsible for maintaining effective liaison with host nation governments, facilitating combined exercises and enhancing mutual force coordination. The remaining four regional coordinators are responsible for Navy activities ashore in their assigned regions. SOURCE: Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet; Public Affairs Office; Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-7000; (808) 471-9779 NAVY FACT FILE CINCUSNAVEUR Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR) operates under two separate chains of command: first, he is an operational commander in charge of all U.S. naval forces in Europe, a component commander of the U.S. Commander in Chief, Europe (USCINCEUR). Second, he is an administrative commander in the Navy Department chain of command directly responsible to the Chief of Naval Operations for management, logistics and communications support of Navy assets in Europe. While CINCUSNAVEUR is not a NATO command, it plays two major roles in NATO plans and operations. First, it is responsible for having fully ready forces available for NATO if the need arises. Second, it is responsible for the logistic support of U.S. Navy ships and aircraft whether they are nationally or NATO assigned. It deals with NATO commands and member governments in planning, operating, and funding NATO facilities used by the U.S. Navy. The geographic area of responsibility of CINCUSNAVEUR stretches from Norway to Capetown and Portugal to Israel. CINCUSNAVEUR's principal subordinate commanders are: Commander, U.S. Sixth Fleet (COMSIXTHFLT): The largest U.S naval force in Europe, the fleet has operated in the Mediterranean since it was established on June 1, 1948. Headed by a vice admiral, the Sixth Fleet normally consists of approximately 30 ships, 100 aircraft and 20,000 Navy men and women and Marines. Commander, Fleet Air Mediterranean (COMFAIRMED): A rear admiral commands a wide range of shore activities throughout the Mediterranean from his headquarters in Naples, Italy. Included are ship and aviation support commands located at Rota, Spain; La Maddalena, Sardinia; Naples, Italy; Sigonella, Sicily; and Souda Bay, Crete. Additionally, COMFAIRMED acts as an operational task force commander under COMSIXTHFLT. In this role, he directs shore-based aircraft in maritime surveillance and defense of the fleet. Commander, U.S. Naval Activities, United Kingdom (COMNAVACTUK): Provides management and area coordination for U.S. naval activities throughout the United Kingdom and northern Europe. Additionally, this command provides administrative support to the staff organization of CINCUSNAVEUR. CINCUSNAVEUR also serves as the U.S. Commander, Eastern Atlantic (USCOMEASTLANT), a wartime command of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. The geographic area of responsibility of USCOMEASTLANT stretches from the mid-Atlantic to the European coast, from the North Pole to south of the Azores, and excludes Iceland and the Azores. In wartime, USCOMEASTLANT is responsible for supporting battle groups in the eastern and northern Atlantic Ocean and Norwegian Sea. CINCUSNAVEUR staff expands its duties to include USCOMEASTLANT, providing logistics, administrative, intelligence and communications support of the Atlantic Fleet forces assigned in this area. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe; London, England NAVY FACT FILE U.S. SECOND FLEET The United States Second Fleet, operating in the Atlantic Ocean and parts of the Pacific, is the largest of the U.S. Navy's four numbered fleets and complements the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and the Third and Seventh Fleets in the Pacific. The commander of the Second Fleet (COMSECONDFLT) also has responsibilities as a Joint commander and as a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Commander within the Atlantic theater of operations. The U.S. Second Fleet traces its origin to the reorganization of the Navy following World War II in December 1945 and the formation of the U.S. Eighth fleet. In January 1947, Eighth Fleet was renamed Second Task Fleet. Three years later, in February 1950, the command was redesignated to its current title, U.S. Second Fleet. COMSECONDFLT is responsible primarily for U.S. naval operations in the Atlantic Ocean from the North Pole to the South Pole and from the shores of the United States to the west coast of Europe. In addition, Second Fleet's area of responsibility extends to both coasts of South America and part of the west coast of Central America. In all, COMSECONDFLT responsibility covers an area of more than 38 million square miles. COMSECONDFLT, as a commander in the Atlantic Fleet chain of command, maintains readiness to control naval operations in assigned ocean areas, defend the U.S. from attack and to support adjacent theater commanders, particularly those in Europe. In peacetime, COMSECONDFLT's major responsibilities are to train the Atlantic battle fleet in warfighting skills, develop and evaluate new naval tactics, and to maintain theater battle group warfighting readiness. These goals are accomplished primarily through a series of exercises in which units train as cohesive groups, both offensively and defensively, in all skill areas of naval warfare. Although the actual composition of the U.S. Second Fleet is constantly changing due to unit maintenance and deployment schedules, at any given time, its composition reflects its role as the major battle fleet of the Atlantic. The force consists of a balanced mix of capabilities including aircraft carriers, surface combatants, submarines, surveillance assets, amphibious forces, marine landing and mobile logistic units. COMSECONDFLT is based in Norfolk, Virginia, and currently uses USS MOUNT WHITNEY (LCC 20) as the fleet flagship. Joint Task Force 120 The Second Fleet commander wears a second hat in the joint chain of command for the U.S. Atlantic Command. As Commander, Joint Task Force 120 (CJTF 120), he would be tasked to execute any number of a wide variety of contingency missions in the Atlantic theater of operations. The joint task force would consist of those elements of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, quick reaction airborne and air assault units of the U.S. Army, aircraft and support personnel of a numbered U.S. Air Force, amphibious forces of the U.S. Marine Corps and, at times, designated units of the U.S. Coast Guard necessary to accomplish the mission assigned. COMSECONDFLT could also be tasked under certain contingencies in the Caribbean theater of operation to control similarly constructed forces as commander, Joint Task Force 140. Striking Fleet Atlantic COMSECONDFLT also has a permanent assignment within NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) chain of command as Commander, Striking Fleet Atlantic (COMSTRIKEFLTLANT). The Striking Fleet's primary mission is to deter aggression by establishing and maintaining maritime superiority in the Atlantic and by providing support to adjacent NATO and national commanders. The Striking Fleet is composed of the Anti-Submarine, Carrier, Amphibious and Marine Strike Forces with forces from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom and the United States. In wartime, this force would likely consist of three to four carrier battle groups, one or two anti-submarine task forces, an amphibious task force and about 22,000 Dutch, British and American marines. The Striking Fleet's potent mix of sea-control and power projection forces gives this force a unique ability to carry out its mission at sea and to directly support Allied Command Europe's land and air campaigns. Frequent NATO exercises are designed to test these capabilities throughout the SACLANT area of responsibility. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office Commander, Second Fleet FPO New York, NY 09501-6000 (804) 444-2422 NAVY FACT FILE U.S THIRD FLEET Third Fleet is one of the four numbered fleets in the U.S. Navy. The Second and Sixth Fleets serve in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, respectively. The Pacific Fleet is composed of the Third and Seventh Fleets. Third Fleet's area of responsibility includes approximately fifty million square miles of mid- and eastern Pacific Ocean areas, including the Bering Sea and a sector of the Arctic. Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, and major oil and trade sea lines of communication are within the area. Third Fleet's area also includes more Soviet Union coastline than any other U.S. numbered fleet and contains the strategically important Soviet naval base at Petropavlovsk, the only Soviet naval base with unrestricted access to the open sea. Mission Third Fleet's mission is one of deterrence, but in the event of general war, it would conduct prompt and sustained combat operations at sea to carry out the U.S. Pacific Fleet strategy in the theater. Such operations would be carried out well forward and early in a conflict, to defend the western sea approaches to the United States, including Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. In peacetime, Third Fleet forces continually exercise every facet of their wartime capabilities. Naval forces trained by the Third Fleet commander normally rotate with the Seventh Fleet commander for duty in the Western Pacific. Operations Third Fleet forces continually train and operate in the Northern and Eastern Pacific. Improving our interoperability with our sister U.S. services, our allies and friends is paramount if we are to counter Soviet navy capabilities. As a result, Third Fleet exercises may include U.S. Air Force units in a maritime support role, or units of allied or other friendly countries. Making exercises as realistic as possible pays large dividends in combat readiness. Third Fleet works closely with the various type, or administrative, commanders that control their respective ship classes until they finish basic type training. That ensures material readiness and manning are satisfactory for operational deployment. To ensure that procedures and tactics are suitable and up-to-date for any situation, Third Fleet manages the tactical development and evaluation program for the entire Pacific Fleet. Third Fleet also schedules ship movements and port visits. One unusual responsibility of Third Fleet is providing logistical support to the National Science Foundation research activities in Antarctica. The U.S. Navy provides all the movement of personnel and cargo for the nation's Antarctic program. Assets Third Fleet organizes its battle ready forces into units uniquely suited to meet each mission it is responsible for. Its Ready Battle Group consists of an aircraft carrier and a tailored mix of surface combatants and submarines, ready to respond to any contingency within ninety-six hours. Third Fleet also maintains aircraft carrier and battleship battle groups and amphibious ready groups. Backing up these primary combat force ships are service force ships, such as the fast replenishment ships, the long range anti-submarine aircraft and attack submarines in support of the surface groups. Each is a self-supporting task group that can very quickly combine with other groups for specific missions. This fact allows for great flexibility in tailoring the right kinds of forces to fight and win against any adversary. Advanced exercises usually require special facilities, such as impact areas for live ammunition firing, instrumented ranges and electronic warfare support. Other ships, aircraft, submarines or high performance drones are used as exercise targets. Third Fleet uses these target facilities: the Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Magu, California, the Mobile Sea Range, Southern California, San Clemente Island, California, the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Hawaii, and Kaula Rock and Kahoolawe Island, also located in Hawaii. History Third Fleet was originally formed during World War II on March 15, 1943 under the command of Admiral William F. Halsey. He opened his shore headquarters in Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, on June 15, 1944. The Third Fleet staff planned and directed many of the decisive naval operations in the Pacific. The Fleet operated in the South and Western Pacific during campaigns in the Solomons, Philippines, Formosa, Okinawa, Ryukyus and the Japanese homeland, with attacks on Tokyo, the naval base at Kure, and the island of Hokkaido. Embarked aboard his flagship USS Missouri (BB-63), Admiral Halsey led the Third Fleet into Tokyo Bay on August 29, 1945, following the cease fire. The formal Japanese surrender took place aboard the Missouri on September 2, 1945. The Third Fleet remained in Japanese waters until late September when the ships sailed for the West Coast of the United States. On October 17, 1945, the Third Fleet was designated a reserve fleet. On February 1, 1973, following a Pacific Fleet reorganization, the Third Fleet was recommissioned as an active fleet, assuming the duties of the former First Fleet based in San Diego, and the Anti-Submarine Warfare Force located on Ford Island. The latter function has since been reassigned within the Pacific Fleet organization. On November 26, 1986, Third Fleet shifted its headquarters from ashore to afloat aboard the flagship USS Coronado (AFG-11), the first time since World War II. The move was made to allow the Third Fleet commander the mobility necessary to command his forces on the scene in the event of war, and to work more closely with his embarked commanders in peacetime training exercises. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; U.S. Third Fleet; FPO San Francisco, CA 96601-6001 NAVY FACT FILE U.S. SIXTH FLEET The United States has maintained a naval force in the Mediterranean since the early nineteenth century. In the unsettled years immediately following World War I, ships of the U.S. Mediterranean Squadron helped to establish peace in the countries of the Balkans and the Middle East. During World War II, U.S. naval forces supported the November 1942 invasion of North Africa, the Sicilian landings of July and August 1943, and the Anzio landings of January 1944. Then, on August 15, 1944, powerful U.S. naval sea and air units participated in the landings in southern France as a sequel to the Allied invasion of Normandy. U.S. naval activities in the Mediterranean were reduced after the war. Liberated ports were rapidly returned to national authority, and some of our warships were redeployed to the Pacific. The small remaining post-war fleet, known as Naval Forces Mediterranean, was commanded by Vice Admiral Bernhard H. Bieri. The title Commander Naval Forces Mediterranean was changed to Commander Sixth Task Fleet in 1948 and became Commander Sixth Fleet in 1950. The Sixth Fleet has played a significant role during periods of tension in the Mediterranean. Naval air and sea forces have responded to more than 20 crises or contingencies since 1970 alone, demonstrating unsurpassed readiness, flexibility and mobility in all mission areas. Most noteworthy have been the evacuation of U.S. citizens and other foreign nationals from Israel and Egypt during the Suez crisis of October 1956, the landing of Sixth Fleet Marines in Lebanon in July 1958, and the fleet's positive presence during the Jordanian crisis of 1970 and the Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Following the 1973 war, the Sixth Fleet participated in an extensive mine clearing operations in and near the Suez Canal. On two occasions in 1973, units of the Sixth Fleet answered a call for assistance from the victims of Tunisian floods, saving hundreds of lives and large amounts of property. Sixth Fleet units evacuated noncombatant personnel from Cyprus in July 1974 and again in June and July 1976, from Beirut, Lebanon. Sixth Fleet units operated at a high tempo throughout the 1980s, responding to a wide range of contingencies and terrorist incidents. The fleet again evacuated U.S. citizens and noncombatant personnel from Beirut in June 1982, and later that year provided Marines and added support for the U.S. contingent to the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon. The Sixth Fleet assisted in minesweeping operations in the Suez Canal again in 1984. Counter-terrorist operations were highlighted by the successful aerial intercept of the hijackers of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in October 1985. Today, the Sixth Fleet is a modern, mobile force of ships and aircraft capable of warfare across the entire spectrum of potential conflict. It is independent of land bases and can operate indefinitely at sea. The fleet generally refuels and replenishes its ships underway. Airpower is the principal strength of the Sixth Fleet. Jet aircraft from the fleet's modern aircraft carriers can reach any corner of the Mediterranean. Supporting the carrier in the overall Sixth Fleet role are cruisers, destroyers, submarines, amphibious ships with an embarked reinforced battalion of U.S. Marines, replenishment ships and maritime patrol aircraft. All together, an average of 30 ships, 100 aircraft and 20,000 men and women make up the Sixth Fleet. When it operates under the direction of NATO during hostilities, the fleet is a major element in the combined naval forces charged with the defense of Southern Europe. The fleet commander then becomes Commander, Naval Striking and Support Forces, Southern Europe and reports to the Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe, based in Naples, Italy. In the U.S. chain of command during peacetime, Commander Sixth Fleet reports directly to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, based in London. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; Commander Sixth Fleet; FPO New York 09501 NAVY FACT FILE U.S. SEVENTH FLEET MISSION *Promote friendly relations between the United States and free nations of the area. *In peacetime, maintain stability and peace in the Seventh Fleet area of responsibility by being an effective deterrent force. *Be ready to react effectively to contingencies. If deterrence fails, transition quickly to a warfighting posture, fight effectively and win. AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY * 52-million square miles, from the Cape of Good Hope in the west to a line extending from the Kuril Island chain in the north to the Cook Island group in the South Pacific and down to the Antarctic. FLEET COMPOSITION *70-80 ships *2-3 aircraft carriers *3-4 cruisers *18-20 destroyers/frigates *7 submarines *1 amphibious command/flagship *5-8 amphibious ships *1 fleet repair ship *1 Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) composed of 1,800 men, plus their air assets, which may include Harrier jets and helos *13 mobile logistics support ships *3 ocean-going tugs/salvage vessels *16 Near Term Prepositioned Force ships (NTPF) *Approximately 440 aircraft *250 aboard aircraft carriers *150 USMC aircraft *27 ASW patrol aircraft *10 utility/support aircraft *Aircraft include the following types: F-4, F-14, F/A-18, A-4, A-6, A-7, AV-8, P-3, KA-6, EA-3, EA-6, E-2C,C-130, C-2, S-3, SH-2, SH-3, SH-60B, CH-46, CH-53 PERSONNEL *Approximately 60,000 Navy and Marine Corps personnel *USN - 38,000 *USMC - 22,000 *Navy/Marine Corps dependents in Seventh Fleet number approximately 12,000 COMMAND Seventh Fleet is commanded by a vice admiral (three star) embarked in USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19), a forward deployed ship operating from Yokosuka, Japan. The Fleet's operational and administrative commander is a four-star admiral: Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. DISTANCES A ship steaming at 20 knots would require more than 21 days to travel from San Diego to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. It is more than 10,500 nautical miles from San Diego to Diego Garcia via Subic Bay. By comparison, it is but 4,343 nautical miles from Norfolk, Virginia to Naples, Italy. San Diego - Subic Bay, RP......6,604 nautical miles Subic Bay - Diego Garcia.......3,632 nautical miles Diego Garcia - Persian Gulf....2,777 nautical miles Diego Garcia - Singapore.......2,297 nautical miles SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; Commander, Seventh Fleet; FPO San Francisco 96601 NAVY FACT FILE REVOLUTION AT SEA (SURFACE WARFARE) The Navy's "Revolution at Sea" represents a major philosophical change in the way the surface warships are designed and operated. While the term "revolution" conjures images of radically different, futuristic hull forms and exotic weapons systems, the actual "Revolution at Sea" is a logical progression from ships, systems and methods of operations used today to the ships, systems and methods of operations that will be necessary to counter threats across the spectrum of the maritime strategy through the middle of the 21st century. The road map for the "Revolution at Sea" is evolving from a combination of several separate studies that are defining operational characteristics and requirements in an attempt to chart a blueprint for future Navy surface ships. The Ships Operational Characteristics Study (SOCS) and the Surface Combatant Force Requirements Study (SCFRS) have been completed. Revolution at Sea 2020 builds on SOCS and SCFRS and is due to be completed by October 1989. SHIP OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS STUDY The first of the "Revolution at Sea" studies to be completed was the Ship Operational Characteristics Study (SOCS). SOCS was convened in February 1987 by the Assistant Chief of Naval Operations (Surface Warfare). The study, which was completed and approved by the Chief of Naval Operations in April 1988, was to recommend the required characteristics of the surface combatant ship of the year 2010 as determined by Fleet and Headquarters Unrestricted Line (URL) operators. SOCS details the ideal operational characteristics that must be embodied in the design of the 21st century surface combatant to enable it to perform its missions against the forecast threat. The required operational characteristics were developed from analysis of U.S. national objectives, naval missions, the geopolitical environment, and the threat expected in the early 21st century. SOCS also addresses shortfalls in earlier warship design identified by representatives of the operating forces. SOCS is, among other things, a Fleet study. Essentially, the study group asked operational commanders to design a ship, given a clean sheet of paper, listing those characteristics considered most vital to accomplishing the mission. The 21st century combatant will be capable of both independent and Battle Force operations. The ability to operate independently requires a stout self-defense capability in every mission area, AAW, ASUW/STRIKE and ASW and an offensive capability in at least one major mission area. To operate effectively with and contribute to a Battle Force requires speed consistent with that of an aircraft carrier and combat logistics ships and system compatibility with the other ships and aircraft in the force. SOCS did not undertake to define the 21st century surface combatant's hull form. The study concentrated on identifying required operational characteristics that would be suitable with any of the hull forms familiar to the Navy. The operational characteristics recommended in the study for surface combatants will also be applicable to other 21st century ships such as ships of the amphibious, combat logistics and mine forces. The principal objective of SOCS was to gain the maximum warfighting capability from every 21st century surface combatant. There are numerous means of improving a combatant's warfighting capability including increasing the weapons carrying capacity, increasing endurance, improving survivability and thus the ships ability to "fight hurt" and many others. Each recommendation in SOCS is intended to maximize warfighting capability and put more ordnance on target. SOCS developed a list of 12 imperative characteristics which were prioritized alpha-numerically in four sets of three. This prioritization is based on the knowledge that funding constraints preclude the immediate incorporation of all 12 imperatives. The 12 Imperative Operational Characteristics for the 21st century combatant are: * Cooperative engagement in all mission areas: Integrated machinery systems Survivability and the ability to "fight hurt" Embedded readiness assessment, mission planning and training Condition based maintenance Torpedo self defense Collocation of ship control (bridge) and Combat Information Center Access control and security Alternative use of volume Smooth topsides New information management Organic Aviation and other off-board vehicles DEFINITIONS: Cooperative Engagement: A multi-mission, integrated and coordinated combat data and action system at the Battle Force level. Cooperative Engagement characteristics are clustered into three general areas: Intership Data Exchange, External Weapon Control, and Automation and Integration. Intership Data Exchange: A secure (difficult to intercept) data-link for detection, classification (identification) and targeting that is available to all ships in the Battle Force. External Weapon Control: Each ship is capable of controlling weapons fired from every other ship. This enables a damaged ship's weapons to be used if the ship itself cannot provide targeting data. It also permits a ship which has expended its weapons due to high volume of attack, to use the weapons from another ship that is not in an equally high density threat area. Automation and Integration: Ship control throughout the Battle Force via data-link between shipboard computers. This will correlate and combine information from a ships own sensors with information received from the sensors of other ships via data link, thus significantly increasing the battle space. It will correlate environmental information in the area and in a potential target area and provide that information to shipboard weapon systems and to other ships via data link. It will coordinate the use of decoys throughout the Battle Force to prevent one ship from decoying an incoming enemy weapon into another friendly ship. Automation and integration will also provide the capability to maneuver the ship automatically based on the shipboard computer's optimum course and speed to avoid incoming enemy weapons and to unmask batteries for launch of defensive#offensive weapons or decoys. Precise Navigation System: A system such as NAVSTAR/Global Positioning System, is imperative to Cooperative Engagement since each unit must be able to locate itself exactly on the face of the earth in relation to ships in the battle force and other contacts. Integrated Machinery: The incorporation of a propulsion system that also provides the necessary power for operation of ships weapons, sensors and hotel services. An integrated system takes advantage of great amounts of propulsion power which are untapped in conventional systems where propulsion power is physically separate from ship service power. Integrated Electric Drive provides this necessary flexibility of operation. Survivability and the Ability to "Fight Hurt": SOCS treated damage control and survivability as a single issue because the 21st century combatant should integrate both in to an effective total system. Survivability and damage control involve all steps from avoiding detection, avoiding being targeted and avoiding getting hit, to minimizing damage if hit, damage control and restoration after being hit, and "fighting hurt", the ability to continue to fight after being hit. Signature management plays a significant role in a ship's ability to avoid detection and targeting. A reduced radar cross section (RCS) (return a target provides on an enemy's radar), infrared signature (radiated heat), acoustic signature (sound a ship makes in the water), and electro-magnetic signature (frequencies, pulse rates, etc. of a given ship's specific radars and radios) are all facets of a ship's overall signature. Signature management is often referred to as STEALTH. Defensive systems such as Close In Weapon System and decoys play a significant role in preventing a ship from being hit after an enemy weapon has been fired. Automated damage control systems will provide rapid response to battle damage through the use of internal sensors and computer which monitor and compare temperature levels, water levels, smoke, etc. Similarly, designed survivability provides redundancy of systems and power, armor, optimum internal arrangement all with the intent of minimizing the effects of battle damage. Embedded Readiness Assessment, Mission Planning and Training: The Commanding Officer of a 21st century combatant must be able to perform mission and battle planning, conduct realistic combat training for ship's teams at all levels and asses in real time the readiness of the ship's systems and crew. Essentially, a Commanding Officer, using advanced internal and external sensors linked to an advanced computer processor, will have the capability to examine the capability of his ship and crew to fight at any given instant. The system also provides him the capability of artificially changing sensor input as a means of training his crew in how to fight the ship. Finally, the computer system provides the capability to plan mission and battle actions based on sensor input, ship/crew capabilities and operational requirements. Condition Based Maintenance: Again, using advanced sensors linked to a computer processor, the ship will tell its operators when maintenance is required. This capability will reduce costly and unnecessary time-based maintenance (which relies on the probability of failure based on experience.) Condition based maintenance relies on sensor indication of impending failure, permitting maximum safe utilization of equipment and maintenance only as needed, thus reducing parts expenditure and constant periodic man-hours required to time-based maintenance. Torpedo Self Defense: An active capability to detect, track and destroy an incoming torpedo much as present AAW systems can detect, track and destroy an incoming cruise missile. Collocation of Ship Control and Combat Information Center: Reduces unnecessary volume. Since modern combat operations rely largely on long range sensor information rather than visual information (as in times past) the need for a separate ship control area (bridge) and Combat Information Center (CIC) is diminished. Since warfighting capability is the primary purpose of the ship, it is logical to combine all warfighting areas into a single area, thus sensor and weapon information (CIC), ship control operations (bridge) and damage control central functions could all be combined into one location. For those times when visual information is required, entering port, restricted maneuvering, replenishment alongside, a small (size of a 747 cockpit) bridge can be located topside. Additionally portable remote controllers can be provided so that a conning officer could control the ship from selected locations around the ship when it is necessary to see the ship's sides. Access Control and Security: Provides for a positive, difficult to circumvent means of identification of crew members; a single,easily controlled, easily monitored access to the ship and means to bar unauthorized persons from gaining access. Access control emphasizes security over ceremony in moving the location of the quarterdeck away from the point of access to the ship. Security includes use of high intensity lighting above and below the waterline, trained and qualified security force personnel equipped with armament appropriate for use inside the ship and with personal protective equipment. Internal sensors would be provided to monitor the condition of water and stores. Finally, shipboard data bases would be protected to prevent unauthorized access to personnel files and classified information. Alternative Use of Volume: This concept is as old as the Navy. A gun deck on sailing ships became a berthing area for the crew as easily as men hanging their hammocks. In the modern sense Alternative Use of Volume recognizes the fact that a ship is home to its crew. Thus in peace time areas such as crew lounges, large berthing area and "luxury" stores are important to morale. In wartime, there would be limited opportunity for such items and areas, thus the space they normally occupy could be designed for rapid conversion to an additional magazine or fuel storage space with the associated increase in warfighting capability. Smooth Topsides: Provide reduced radar cross section (RCS), better topside safety, facilitate cold and heavy weather operations, reduce electro-magnetic interference and decrease maintenance. This will require general redesign of ships including use of conformal array radars instead of mast mounted antennae, reduction of exhaust stacks, removal of side mounted life boats in favor of stern launched boats (similar to modern amphibious ships) and removal of bulky alongside replenishment fittings to the delivery ship. New Information Management: Often referred to as the "paperless ship." SOCS noted paper (in the form of logs, message traffic, manuals, training books, etc.) and the requisite storage containers add as much as 36 tons to modern surface combatants. Most of the information contained could as easily be placed on magnetic or laser disc with the associated reduction in weight and volume. The "saved" weight and volume could then be applied to additional weapons or fuel with the associated improvement in warfighting capability. Organic Aviation and Offboard Vehicles: The requirement for embarked aviation assets (either helicopter or fixed wing) and offboard vehicles (either tethered or untethered) is a response to the expanding battle space of the 21st century. The range between participants in future engagements, the minimum response time to engage future incoming weapons and the sophistication of the battle in general will require vehicles capable of leaving the base ship to extend both offensive and defensive capabilities. Additionally, modular construction of vehicle stowage will improve fleetwide flexibility. Modules themselves must conform to the requirement for smooth topsides as well. Additional Characteristics: During the course of the study, SOCS examined many additional characteristics which, while not adding to a ship's warfighting capability, will improve operational capability. These characteristics include work reduction items, internal communications and IFF improvements, additional, less vital security improvements and navigational aids. All are contained in the Ship Operational Characteristics Study. SURFACE COMBATANT FORCE REQUIREMENT STUDY The Surface Combatant Force Requirement Study (SCFRS) was commissioned in November 1986 to determine the force structure for surface combatants in the year 2010. This force structure is one that will both meet the threat postulated for the year 2010 and also fulfill the projected missions required of the surface combatant force. The study developed four major findings: Capability is the Key: The study determined that capable, multi-mission ships will be required to meet the threat of the year 2010. 224 Battle Force Capable ships: A force structure of 224 surface combatants with a certain level of capability is the minimum force structure goal. This force is broken down into 120 combatants to fulfill the Battle Force (BFC) mission and 104 to provide Protection of Shipping (POS) as in a convoy. Steady State Construction 5-6 per year: To reach this goal a steady state building rate of five to six surface combatants per year is required in order to have capable surface combatants to fulfill our battle group role in the year 2010. This stable building plan will not only allow us to reach our force objective, of which we are well short now, but also eliminate the block obsolescence problems we have in the combatant Navy. Implement Flexible Transition: The historical method of procuring surface ships will not work. It will be too expensive. A new concept called Flexible Transition will be used to reach this force structure objective. Flexible Transition is a creative concept that draws on lessons learned from other programs. It is both an achievable plan and the most affordable. When SCFRS was conducted the following basic guidelines were applied: The key to developing any force structure for the year 2010 is what the threat will be. This study is based on the approved threat for the year 2010 as promulgated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The United States capabilities used were only those that could be reasonably in place by the year 2010. The scenarios used were compatible with the maritime component of the National Security Strategy. Historical fiscal realities and affordability were considered. A campaign analysis of four scenarios involving surface combatant forces, was the basis for the study's findings. The scenarios were not based on actual war plans, rather they were designed to stress Battle Force Capability. A three carrier force and Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) strike in the North Atlantic was a scenario intended to depict an operation of a short duration with surface forces performing in a multi-mission battle force environment. A four carrier force and Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) strike in the Northern Pacific scenario similar to the three carrier scenario. This scenario differed by depicting operations of extended duration which were intended to test resupply through underway replenishment. A Surface Action Group (SAG) strike in Southeast#Southwest Asia scenario, depicted operations of surface combatants only, without the support of an aircraft carrier's embarked airwing. A Protection of Shipping scenario, depicted surface combatants protecting a convoy crossing the Atlantic to resupply Europe. The process used to determine the force structure required was designed to ensure that the entire picture was looked at. For each case examined, the Chief of Naval Operations' approved 1981 force levels and composition was used as a baseline. Each warfare area was examined as part of the total force structure. In other words, weapons expended during the Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) phase were not available during an enemy air attack and vice versa. Likewise if a ship was lost due to missile or torpedo attack, then it was not available for follow-on action. The total range of systems and threat capability was examined through looking at a range of options or parameters. This ensures that the study did not make the enemy "10 feet tall" or over/under estimate the capability of U.S. Navy systems. In fact there were over 3.5 million possible combinations. In summary, the study examined tradeoffs in capabilities, service life and force levels to determine the optimum force level required. SCFRS was based on the broad surface combatant missions, the primary divisions of Battle Force Capability (BFC) and Protection of Shipping (POS): Battle Force Capability: defines ships capable of power projection in a carrier battle force and as units of a Surface Action Group without the support of the carrier. Protection of Shipping: defines ships intended to protect traditional convoys, underway replenishment groups and amphibious assault groups. The 1981 Minimum Surface Combatant Force Level Objectives, mentioned earlier, called for a combined surface force of 238 warships to counter the threat expected in 1995. The study dealt with single mission combatants or combatants with a strong primary mission capability and a limited secondary mission capability. Under the 1981 study, 137 cruisers and destroyers and 101 frigates were required to meet the 1995 threat. It should be noted that the Navy actually only reached 208 of the required 238 surface combatants. This 1981 study was used as a baseline and point of departure for SCFRS. Initially SCRFS examined how the forces recommended in the 1981 study would perform against the postulated threat for 2010. The results showed that a force level of more than 416 of the 1981 ships would be required to meet the 2010 threat. While the addition of 15 DDG-51's offered significant enhancement, the major factor involved is that the Navy's present frigates, even if upgraded, simply will not be able to counter the advanced submarine threat in 2010. SCFRS determined we cannot achieve an effective force level from our present force structure. Once the determination had been made, SCFRS departed from the current mix of forces and postulated the effects of force wide improvement in capability. The Battle Force Capable (BFC) ship was developed using the improved systems built on the DDG-51 family of technologies. Essentially, a BFC would require the following minimum capabilities to counter the 2010 threat: Phased Array Radar: AEGIS or AEGIS follow-on system Vertical Launching System: with AAW, ASW, ASUW and long range strike missile capability Advanced Surface to Air missile Improved Sonar System Two Embarked LAMPS MK III Helicopters: or an equivalent SCFRS then considered the capabilities needed by a Protection of Shipping (POS) ship in order to carry out its mission against the threat of 2010. The POS ship will require the following minimum capabilities: Improved AAW system Improved Sonar System Two LAMPS MK III Helicopters A Shipboard ASW Stand-off Weapon Using a force comprised of ships with these capabilities, a force of 224 multi-mission, highly capable warships: 120 BFC and 104 POS, would be required to meet the threat in 2010. Though this force objective has lower ship numbers than the 1981 force objective of 238 ships, it is much more capable. These 224 ships are more affordable, much more capable and better able to pace the 2010 threat than the ships required using today's mix. SCFRS next considered an affordable means of reaching the force structure goal of 224 ships. To reach 224 using the traditional means of construction and ship retirement (based on a 30 year ship service life) the Navy would have to build ships at a rate of eight per year. Based on historical surface combatant funding levels, this would be unaffordable. Therefore, SCFRS recommended a two-part revolutionary concept called Flexible Transition as the optimum means of reaching the goal of 224 multi-mission capable surface combatants. The basics of Flexible Transition require: A steady state construction rate of five to six Battle Force Combatants per year commencing in 1990. Thus the Navy will reach the BFC goal by the year 2010 and the total force structure goal by 2025. And, secondly, the transition of older BFC's to the POS role at the half-way point in their service lives. Flexible Transition matches a ship's capabilities to the expected threat, enabling the ship to more fully meet its assigned mission across a greater part of its service life. Flexible Transition also has the added benefit of extending a ship's service life from the present 30 years to 40 years. The process is able to accomplish this extension because as the threat advances and technology improves, older ships are assigned missions where their capabilities are in symmetry with the expected threat. The concept of Flexible Transition is based on the ability of a surface combatant to meet its assigned mission. When built, a ship's ability to fulfill its assigned mission is at a maximum. As time passes and the ship grows older, a ship reaches a point where its capabilities against the ever increasing high-tech threat, are asymmetrical enough to pose unacceptable risk. Instead of sending the ships through a difficult and extremely expensive modernization (one and a half to two times the cost of building in systems) to keep pace with the threat, SCFRS recommends reassigning the ship to a less demanding mission at the half-way point in a BFC's service life to the Protection of Shipping mission. This process of Flexible Transition will begin in about the year 2000 with the SPRUANCE (DD 963) class ships becoming the first BFC-like ships to transition to the POS role. There are numerous benefits from the Flexible Transition including steady state construction and standardization. Steady State Construction: solidifies the industrial base by insuring shipbuilders that there will be follow-on ships. Steady state construction techniques in the CG-47, DD-963 and FFG-7 classes have proven the cost savings attainable with this construction method. Additionally, steady state construction reduces individual ships costs by building ships in construction "flights" or groups with the same technological capability. Construction in flights also precludes the possibility of "block obsolescence" when an entire class of ships (all built at nearly the same time) becomes obsolescence, thus removing an entire "block" of surface combatants from the force. The DDG-2 and DDG-37 classes are an example. Forward Fitting by Flights: allows technological advances to be incorporated into a group of ships when the technology reaches the operational stage. Thus all ships will have the same basic systems and capabilities. As technological improvements are ready for incorporation in operating forces, a decision is made and modifications are made by starting a new flight which incorporates the new technology. This saves dollars because ships no longer require extensive modernization (instead their mission will shift) and ship operational availability will increase because ships will no longer be laid up in overhaul for extended periods to receive the extensive modernization packages. Standardization: Building a single class of warships will standardize training, because all personnel will be trained on the same basic kind of ship. This will eliminate the need for many schools teaching an individual about a specific ship. Personnel will be able to transfer from ship to ship with minimum additional training. Standardization will improve parts support. Supply systems will no longer have to maintain individual parts for dozens of classes of surface combatants. A single class of ships will require the same basic parts throughout the class. In short, Flexible Transition changes the way the Navy's surface forces do business by taking advantages of lessons learned in the aviation and submarine communities; using economies of scale, block upgrades and common training. It is the most achievable method to build the 224 ship force structure required to meet the threat. In August 1988, recognizing that capability is the key to meeting the threat, the Chief of Naval Operations signed out a memorandum directing the following with regard to SCFRS: The Surface Combatant Force Level Goal of 224 was approved A Procurement rate of five to six DDG-51's per year to reach the BFC level by 2010 was approved. And, CNO directed the development of a Flexible Transition Implementation plan. INTEGRATED ELECTRIC DRIVE Introduction: In September 1988 the Chief of Naval Operations announced that "Integrated Electric Drive, with all its associated cluster of technologies, will be the method of propulsion for the next class of Surface Battle Force Combatants." Integrated Electric Drive (IED) in the broad sense, can be taken to mean electric propulsion and propulsion derived ship service power (PDSS). In other words, the basic electric needs of the ship for weapons systems, sensors and "hotel" services are provided by the propulsion engines. Specifically, IED and its associated cluster of technologies are Electric Drive, PDSS, Advanced Electrical Distribution System, Intercooled Recuperated (ICR) Gas Turbine engines, Advanced Monitoring and Control System and Low Observability Loiter Power System. The Navy's objective is to develop the advanced machinery system for the future non-nuclear surface combatant for introduction into the fleet in the year 2010. This system is being developed to have superior affordability and warfighting characteristics including support for high energy weapons and sensors. The program goals for this development effort are to reduce machinery power systems, decrease machinery specific weight (horsepower to weight) by 25% over current systems, decrease fuel consumption by 45%, reduce acquisition cost of these systems by 12% and reduce surface ship signatures. Reaching these goals would permit Navy ships to be reduced in size by eight to 10% or to increase in combat systems weight by 45%. History: Electric Propulsion is not a new idea that suddenly burst on the Naval Ship horizon. Electric drive has been used in the past to power large warships and continues to be used today to power smaller surface craft. Early battleships and the WWII carriers Lexington and Saratoga were both powered by turbo-electric drive. Early efforts in electric drive used direct current (DC) and provided low power levels. At that time, electric drive was selected because available reduction gears were unable to cope with the demands for power placed on them. As gear technology improved before and during WWII, the geared turbine steam systems became more efficient and were adopted. In the early to mid 1970s gas turbine technology in the form of marinized aircraft engines (for example the General Electric LM-2500) began to replace the conventional boiler steam generation system in surface combatants. Modern gas turbine engines remain coupled to a reduction gear and the conventional propeller shaft. Today the submarine Glenard P. Lipscomb and Tullibee and fleet tugs, diving and salvage ships, icebreakers, etc., are electrically driven. Additionally, the passenger liner Queen Elizabeth II was recently converted from geared turbine steam drive to diesel electric drive. Present "off the shelf" technology electric drive systems are unsuitable for modern combatant ships because of the large size of the components. As IED technologies improve and systems become smaller, the reduced size will make them and improvement over steam. It is of interest that the gas turbine (jet engine) was invented in the late 1930s but not used to power ships until the 1970s. Discussion: Integrated Electric Drive includes those system components that provide electrical power transmission and speed reduction between the propulsion prime movers and the propeller. In addition, the equipment to provide generation of ship service power from the propulsion prime movers is included, thus "Integrating" the propulsion and ship service power systems. Today's challenge is to develop systems which can manage large amounts of variable frequency electrical power aboard ships at sea. Present plans for near-term installation of Integrated Electric Drive in Navy surface vessels (and specifically combatants) call for use of a state-of-the-art Alternating Current (AC) system. This system will incorporate direct liquid cooling of conductors in high power electric generators, motors and high power, solid-state switching devices. This is NOT super conductivity, but merely uses a liquid (such as oil or highly purified water) to cool the stator inside the generator/motor. This cooling permits smaller generators and motors because it reduces the heat generated by high currents. Uncooled systems require large components to dissipate the heat their operation generates. In order to develop this near term system, the direct liquid cooling will be applied to conventional "off the shelf" electrical machinery to achieve high power density and high efficiency in the shipboard electric drive system - in other words, the same power in a small, more compact package. As the system is envisioned, it will combine an ICR gas turbine engine with a synchronous AC generator, 45,000 RPM AC motor and speed reducer (reduction gear). Intercooled Recuperated (ICR) gas turbines provide higher density, preheated air to the combustion chamber by using first an intercooler and subsequently a recuperator. In the recuperation process, hot exhaust gases exchange their thermal energy with precombustion air. This process cools the exhaust gases, thus reducing a ship's infrared signature and improving overall signature management (stealth) characteristics. Super conductivity is another advanced technology that will greatly influence electric drive. Super conductivity occurs when the electrical resistance in a given substance is reduced to zero. Electrons (electric current) flow freely and great power can be generated. Super conductivity is impractical for large scale shipboard use at present because of the low temperatures and exotic "laboratory" materials required. To date, super conductivity research has shown materials become super conductive at or near absolute zero (the temperature of liquid helium, -450F.) Research into super conductive materials has raised that temperature slightly. The Navy's research aims at reaching the relatively "hot" temperature of liquid nitrogen (approx. -321F). Navy 02-N2 plants are capable of manufacturing large quantities of liquid nitrogen making it an ideal cooling medium. The second major factor involves super conducting materials. Presently these materials are expensive to manufacture and have been produced mostly in small laboratory amounts. Still, the Navy understands the value of super conductivity and is designing its IED systems to easily incorporate the technology when it when it becomes practical on a large scale. WHAT IED DOES FOR THE NAVY: Integrated Electric Drive for the first time makes a ship a total weapons system, with all parts directed toward the warfighting mission. In an IED powered warship, the prime mover provide the power both to move the ship and to provide necessary electrical power for combat systems and hotel services. Electric Drive allows a ship's Captain to be in total control. The power produced to propel his ship at speeds exceeding 30 knots can be diverted to operate weapons systems. Compartment space once used to house ship service turbo generators can be reconfigured to hold extra weapons, fuel or stores. Present day technology for Integrated Electric Drive does not offer greater efficiency than the reduction gear system it replaces. It does offer much greater flexibility in hull design and component placement in conventional hulls. It offers a reduction in cost through greater automation, thus reducing the number of personnel needed to operate it. Integrated Electric Drive is quieter in its operation than reduction gears, thus reducing a ship's acoustic fingerprint. Integrated Electric Drive also breaks the "Tyranny of the Shaft", the stringent requirement for precise shaft alignment and placement of machinery to support it. IED connects the generator to the propulsion motor with an electric cable. The flexible cable can run throughout the ship with additional cables for system redundancy, an option that is not available with a propeller shaft. Location of the electric motor (and propeller) is more flexible also, including attachment in a pod outside the hull. IED also makes tractor drive an option. Propellers face forward to pull instead of push the ship through the water. Tractor drive increases efficiency and reduces the ship's acoustic signature because the propeller bites into water that is undisturbed, unlike present day propellers which meet turbulent water, stirred up by its flow around struts, the propeller shaft and the propeller hub. Integrated Electric Drive can use any modern prime mover to power its generator but ICR as turbine technology is the most promising modern prime mover for use in the BFC of 2010. Modular design and location aboard ship which affords easy access will make IED components easy to maintain and repair. Technicians aboard ship will perform basic repairs, PMS and component change-out. Modular components will permit change-out and replacement while the damaged or inoperative unit is forwarded to a depot for more extensive repairs. As research brings advances in technology, ultra-modern weapon systems become a distinct possibility. Exotic weapons such as lasers, charged particle beam and rail-guns (kinetic energy weapons) require such large amounts of power that they are impractical for use on present day warships; however, an electrically driven warship with the capability to use redirected propulsion power, will have the huge amount of power required to support them. Integrated Electric Drive can be expected to reduce, overall displacement weight of a ship, crew size and machinery volume resulting in a baseline ship cost reduction of between five and 10 percent. SUMMARY: Integrated Electric Drive uses a prime mover to power an electrical generator which provides power for both propulsion and shipboard electrical requirements. This integration contributes to weight reduction and reduces the volume required for propulsion machinery and permits alternative use of that space for additional weapons storage (increased potential for ordnance on target) or additional fuel (increased range or longer station times and, ultimately, increased potential for ordnance on target.) Use of ICR gas turbine engines also contributes to increased fuel efficiency. Exotic weapon systems previously relegated to science fiction novels become a distinct possibility given the large electrical power potential of IED ships, once again, improving the ship's capability to place ordnance on target. IED also permits use of diverse hull forms. Ship designers need not be constrained to classic mono-hulled vessels because of need for propeller shaft and relative ease of access. The reduction in weight and personnel coupled with increased capability to place ordnance on target make Integrated Electric Drive the logical "next step" in ship propulsion and herald a "Revolution at Sea" in hull, mechanical and electrical to match that which has taken place in combat systems. REVOLUTION AT SEA THE FUTURE The Revolution at Sea process continues. At present an ongoing study entitled Revolution at Sea: 2020 is looking ahead 30 years to consider the requirements of a surface combatant built in 2020. The study takes the basics of SOCS and SCFRS and builds on them, examining requirements mandated by the most stressing scenarios inherent in potential future conflict, Third World scenario conflict and peacetime presence missions. The approach of the Revolution at Sea: 2020 study is to define the threat 30 years in the future considering emerging technologies, the advances being made and the potential they represent. (The study examines historic Ship Construction-Navy (SCN) funding to determine where funding is best used and how to most affordably design and build the highly advanced combatants of the future.) The study will develop a proposed blueprint showing what needs to be done in various major technology areas, schedules, order of magnitude costs and a recommended investment strategy. NAVY FACT FILE NAVAL AIR WARFARE The future of Naval Air Warfare has been mapped out and evolved out of the 600-ship Navy centered on 14 deployable carrier battle groups and a streamlined, multi-purpose "new generation" of less specialized aircraft and force structures to take Naval Air into the 21st Century. Emphasis will be on a new "four for eight" concept linked strongly to joint service air platform development and interoperability, seen as the means of cutting price tags on new aircraft acquisition, planned phase-in of mission aircraft and related systems to replace an aging air fleet and restructuring of carrier air wings to provide greater operational punch and mission flexibility. A dominant theme is the need to reduce the number of types of aircraft and increase the commonality in both aircraft and weapons systems. Plans call for fewer types of planes capable of performing a broader array of missions instead of a larger number of planes, which are more highly specialized. The end results: reduced training, elimination of complex logistics and maintenance headaches. The "four for eight" plan, an outgrowth of Project February, over time would introduce four new multi-purpose aircraft capable of doing jobs presently delegated to eight. The new planes would fit the major mission areas, which include: strike/anti-surface warfare; anti-air warfare; antisubmarine warfare; command and control communications; fleet air reconnaissance/ intelligence; electronic warfare; combat search and rescue; and airborne assault. These planes are: *New: Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA, A-12); Old: A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II *New: Advanced Strike Fighter (AFS); Old: F/A-18 Hornet, F-14 Tomcat *New: Advanced Support Platform (ASP); Old E-2 Hawkeye, EA-6B Prowler, S-3 Viking, electronic warfare versions of A-3 Skywarrior and Viking *New: SH-60 Seahawk; Old: SH-3 Sea King *New: Advanced Tactical Battle Management (ATBM), expected to be an ASP derivative In other developments, a Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA), the P-7, would replace the P-3 Orion as the primary land-based ASW patrol craft. In the air assault capacity, a mix of CH-53s amd CH-60s will replace the CH-46 Sea Knight for the Marine Corps. Expanded or renewed emphasis will be placed on a wide range of naval aviation concerns, including: *Elevation of information management to a frontline role and design of electronic warfare systems to ensure that access to the information is preserved. *Active employment of stealth technology to permit aircraft to probe deeply into the most fiercely defended environment, hit targets and return to base safely for follow-up missions. *Amphibious assault operations of the future will require a stand-off capability, enabling launch from further off-shore. This gives force commanders enhanced flexibility to determine when and where to launch an attack, while giving landing forces and aircrews greater speed and survivability. SOURCE: Department of the Navy (OP-50); Washington, D.C. 20350 NAVY FACT FILE UNDERSEA WARFARE The U.S. Navy's submarine program is based upon two key threads which run consistently throughout current overall naval strategy: *to deter attack on the United States, our allies and friends, and to prevent coercion under threat of attack. *if deterrence fails, to deny the enemy his war aims through full forward-pressure posture. The Soviet Union poses the single greatest threat to maintenance of U.S. maritime superiority. The Soviets are intent on building a first rate highly capable submarine force and a competent anti-submarine force. The U.S. submarine force must continue to ride the leading edge of technology to maintain an advantage over the Soviet Union's numerically larger maritime forces. The Soviets have been working for more than 20 years to develop an anti-submarine warfare capability with which to counter the U.S. submarine force. Neither current intelligence nor our own development work in the areas of acoustic and non-acoustic submarine detection indicate any dramatic advance or imminent breakthrough that would put our submarines at significant risk. The sea is opaque and the extraordinary capabilities of stealth, endurance and survivability built into U.S. submarines enable them to function as a major deterrent to war, or become a significant factor in victory should deterrence fail. U.S. Navy Attack Submarine Force Mission The multi-mission nuclear powered attack submarine (SSN) will play a critical role in the Navy's full forward pressure strategy. The Navy must have complete control of undersea areas in which surface forces are operating, and has established a goal of approximately 100 SSNs based on a need to deploy them both simultaneously and sequentially to accomplish the following missions: *penetrate deeply into hostile seas to conduct sustained independent operation against enemy submarines and surface forces and, with the introduction of cruise missiles, to attack land targets *protect sea lines of communication *conduct special missions Attack submarines must be effective in all ocean areas of the world including restricted waters, under the ice, in the tropics and in both deep and shallow oceans. They also must be capable of changing assignments rapidly with logistical support and be able to reposition quickly. As of May 1989, the U.S. nuclear attack submarine force consisted of: *41 Los Angeles (688) Class *37 Sturgeon (637) Class *11 Permit (594) Class *3 Pre-594 Class *1 Narwhal (671) Class *1 Glenard P. Lipscomb (685) Class<> *2 former SSBNs converted to SSNs *96 total SSNs The Los Angeles class submarine was designed in the late 1960s. In the face of the expanding Soviet threat, the Navy is placing high priority on improving the SSN warfighting capability. Improvements to the Los Angeles class submarine include: *Los Angeles class submarines (beginning with SSN 719) have been modified to include 12 vertical launch tubes which increases tactical cruise missile capacity without reducing the number of other weapons carried. *The AN/BSY-1 Combat System, which incorporates new sensor and computer processing capabilities and were installed beginning with SSN 751. Although extensive improvements are being made to the Los Angeles class submarines, still more improvements will be needed to counter Soviet submarine developments. Improvements in sound quieting, better sensors, added firepower, higher tactical speed and increased operating envelope are required to address the Soviet submarine threat of the 21st century, and cannot be incorporated into the existing hull envelope of the Los Angeles class submarine. A new design attack submarine is being developed to meet the future threat and prevail in every phase of undersea warfare. This class has been designated the SSN-21 to signify it is being designed to meet the anticipated Soviet submarine threat and high technological demands of the 21st Century. Background *Driven by dramatic improvement in the Soviet fleet *Exhaustive examination over 1982-1984 period *Conceptual design work by top submarine technical knowledge in Navy Department *Maximum benefit from on-going R&D programs in Navy Laboratories *Participation by industry through open contracts *Performance *Military characteristics established which give benefits of technology and dramatic performance improvements over the 688, i.e., speed, operability, sound quieting, sensor improvements, firepower, mission employment and survivability *Have pushed R&D programs to the maximum *Built in growth margin *Quietest, fastest, most heavily armed *Designed to fight in hostile environment and survive *Has acoustic advantage to maintain standoff Flexibility *Multiple mission capability *Can carry weapons entering fleet today and beyond *Uses same crew manning as 688 class *Will replace multiple mission 637 class as they retire *Can carry Tomahawk land attack missile The main weapons deployed in attack submarines are the heavyweight torpedo and the cruise missile. Both have follow-on variants in development. The Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo makes up the majority of submarine weapons complement. There are two programs in place to improve the MK 48 torpedo in the near and mid-term: Near Term: The program to improve the reliability of the MK 48 is complete. In-service MK 48s have been modified during the upgrade to provide and interim capability against the deep, fast submarine threat. Mid-Term: The Advanced Capability program (ADCAP) represents a major performance upgrade over the MK 48 torpedo. ADCAP has demonstrated improved performance in the following areas: *Shallow water performance *Performance in high seas *Performance in strong thermal gradients *Deep diving capabilities *Speed capabilities Changes in the guidance and control system of ADCAP will improve its effectiveness against threats with reduced sonar target strength and targets which present a low doppler profile. The anti-surface warfare (ASUW) exploder has been improved over that of the Mark 48. ADCAP will outperform the Mark 48 in high background noise/high reverberation environments. The submarine launched anti-submarine standoff weapon, Sea Lance, replaces SUBROC and is in its full scale engineering development phase. Sea Lance will carry a newly developed Mark 50 Advanced Light Weight Torpedo (ALWT) payload and the development program includes an option for follow-on, nuclear bomb payload variant. Sea Lance incorporates a digital guidance system similar to the inertial guidance system used in ADCAP. Sea Lance is capable of deep launch from a submarine torpedo tube with one of the two warhead options. The missile then is buoyed to the surface in a water-tight container where the solid propellent rocket motor ignites and delivers the weapon the target area at supersonic speed. At a point above the suspected target area, the warhead detaches form the rocket and parachutes to the water. Upon contact with water, the torpedo warhead assumes its search and attack pattern. The deployment of Sea Lance will complement the capabilities of the ADCAP torpedo by providing a stand-off option whereby an enemy submarine can be incapacitated from a distance well beyond the maximum engagement range of the ADCAP torpedo. In addition, Sea Lance will provide expanded engagement opportunities against high speed transiting and evading submarines. Attack submarines are capable of carrying Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles in its many variants. *Harpoon missiles, which complement the Mark 48 torpedo in an ASUW role, have performed extremely well. *The Tomahawk anti-ship variant (TASM) has been introduced into attack submarines. *The nuclear capable, land attack Tomahawk was introduced into the fleet in mid-1984. The conventionally armed, land attack Tomahawk (unitary warhead) was introduced into the fleet in March 1986. The conventionally armed land attack Tomahawk (submunition dispenser) was also been introduced into the fleet in December 1988. SOURCE: Department of the Navy (OP-02PA); Washington, DC 20350-2000; (202) 697-8704 @Z_HEADER = NAVY FACT FILE @FIRSTPAR = U.S. naval forces perform several key functions in support of U.S. national defense strategy. Operating in concert with land-based air forces and with the maritime forces of our allies, U.S. naval forces preserve access to vital ocean areas and protect the sea lanes necessary to reinforce U.S. and allied forces overseas. Naval forces also support an active forward defense of key regions on the Eurasian littoral that are integral to our defense system. Primary among these are the nations on NATO's northern and southern flanks, allied nations in the Pacific region, and friendly countries exposed to potential Soviet aggression in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions. The Secretary of Defense, discussing defense programs for the period FY-88 through FY-92, outlined several program goals in support of these functions. Programed priorities for naval forces included four broad objectives: @BULLET = To reach and sustain a properly-composed 600 ship fleet; @BULLET = To promote the competitive strategies initiative through our modernization programs and enhancements in our operational doctrine; @BULLET = To sustain the high levels of readiness achieved over the past six years; @BULLET = To increase wartime sustainability through extended stocks of munitions; @BULLET = Additionally, over the next five years, to continue modernizing the ballistic missile force by adding Trident submarines and developing the Trident II missile. These priorities have had a significant impact on Navy programs, in particular those that comprise the Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Program. The following are excerpts taken from the Secretary of Defense's Report to Congress on FY-88 through FY-92 Defense Programs. They present the status of planned ASW forces for that period. The preeminent role given to attack submarines in the Soviet fleet requires that we pay special attention to developing effective counters. The large size of the Soviet force has always been a problem for our anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Conceptually, our basic strategy for combating the Soviet submarine threat remains unaltered. We still see a need for a layered offensive strategy that seeks to engage Soviet submarines in forward areas and barriers, before they approach our forces. For such operations, we rely primarily on attack submarines and anti-submarine warfare patrol aircraft supported by long-range surveillance systems. Even under the most favorable circumstances, however, some submarines would escape our forward sweeps. They would have to contend with the layered screen surrounding our naval task forces. Those screens consist of surface combatants equipped with advanced sonars and anti-submarine torpedoes and rockets, torpedo-armed anti-submarine helicopters, and carrier based ASW patrol aircraft, as well as attack submarines operating in the associated support role. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = ASW Surveillance Systems The ability to locate enemy submarines within broad ocean areas is essential to countering the large Soviet submarine force. Fixed undersea surveillance systems play a key role in this respect. The FY-88 through FY-92 program funds two new systems designed to maintain our advantage in submarine surveillance. @Z_HEADER = NAVY FACT FILE @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Surveillance Towed Array Sensor Surveillance Towed Array Sensor (SURTASS) T-AGOS ships, towing the new mobile long-range surveillance system, joined the fleet in late 1984. These ships supplement fixed surveillance systems by extending coverage to ocean areas not presently monitored and by providing a backup system if the fixed systems are incapacitated. Funding for a high sea state variant of the monohull SURTASS ship, referred to as a Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) T-AGOS, has been authorized. Four ships of this type will be built. In addition, a new T-AGOS SWATH ship has been designed which will employ a second acoustic system. This will provide enhanced sensor capability against new Soviet submarines. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Attack Submarines Nuclear powered attack submarines remain a key element of the ASW offense-in-depth strategy and are an integral part of the forward strategy. Early in a wartime scenario, undersea forces must be capable of moving into far-forward positions, including waters where Soviet naval forces would operate. To carry out this mission, attack submarines must retain an overall qualitative superiority over Soviet forces. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Improvements With the deployment of Tomahawk cruise missiles, attack submarines will play an expanded role in anti-ship warfare missions as well as projecting power ashore. These missions, combined with the missions of localized ASW support of naval forces, barrier patrol, and forward area operations, establish the basis for our force goal of 100 multi-mission nuclear powered attack submarines. To keep pace with improvements in the Soviet submarine force, several programs to modify and improve the SSN-688 design have been initiated. New SSN-688s are being provided additional firepower through the development of long-range standoff weapons and quieting improvements to the SSN-688 submarine. New SSN-688s also are being modified to operate under the ice, essential for conducting forward patrols in northern waters. Vertical launch capabilities for Tomahawk cruise missiles have been added to increase the overall fire power of SSN-688s. Further improvements to the Los Angeles class are being made in the area of sensor and computer processing capabilities. The AN/BSY-1 fire control system incorporates the latest in computer technology, thereby improving reliability and ensuring that the technological edge in detection and targeting is maintained. To meet the Soviet submarine threat of the 21st Century, development of a new attack submarine incorporating the latest advances in technology has begun. A key design objective is to make improvements in sound-quieting. This new submarine will carry more weapons than previous classes, have improved sensor systems, and be able to operate under the ice more effectively. These improvements, which cannot be accommodated within the existing SSN-688 design, are necessary if we are to maintain our qualitative advantage over Soviet submarines and the ability to operate in forward areas. The new design SSN will also provide the necessary flexibility to react to the inevitable changes that will occur in naval warfare over the next 40 years. Now in the design stage, the new submarine is scheduled for initial production in FY-89. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Maritime Patrol Aircraft P-3 maritime patrol aircraft, when provided information from broad area surveillance systems on the general location of Soviet submarines, offer the @Z_HEADER = NAVY FACT FILE best area anti-submarine capability. Fleet exercises have demonstrated the utility of the P-3 as a long-range ASW force in support of carrier battle groups and other naval task forces. Several characteristics of the P-3 system contribute to these capabilities: @BULLET = The aircraft's long range and high endurance enable it to cover large ocean areas. @BULLET = Its large numbers of sonobuoys and advanced data processing systems help pinpoint the location of enemy submarines. @BULLET = Its large payload of ASW torpedoes provides the capability to translate submarine detection into kills. The FY-89 through FY-92 program continues production of the latest model in the P-3 series, the P-3C Update III and IV, which are more effective than previous models. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Sea-Based Aircraft Defense of naval task forces and convoys also is provided by sea-based ASW aircraft, considered a vital part of the layers surrounding these forces. Long-range protection is provided by the carrier's S-3 aircraft. Close-in protection is provided by the carrier's SH-3 helicopters. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = S-3 Weapon System Improvement The S-3B (formerly called Weapon System Improvement Program (WSIP) is a block modification upgrade to increase mission effectiveness against current and projected threats. It incorporates the Navy Standard Advanced Signal Processor; increased the sonobuoy receiver and the sonobuoy reference system capabilities; an improved analog tape recorder; a submarine communications down-link capability; Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) and Electronic Support Measures (ESM) improvements; the addition of Harpoon; and a defensive chaff, flare and jammer dispensing capability. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Inner-Zone Helicopter Aircraft carrier inner zone helicopters equipped with an active dipping sonar provide a carrier ASW screen as well as reactive pouncer capability. The SH-3H helicopters currently in service are reaching the end of their design life. The SH-60F has been selected to provide inner zone ASW protection into the 21st Century. SH-60F fleet deliveries commence in FY-89 and will continue to 14 fully operational, as well as two reserve squadrons. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = SURFACE SHIP ASW SYSTEMS @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Sensors The long range detection capabilities of tactical towed-array sonar (TACTAS) will substantially enhance the ASW capability of surface combatants, providing an essential counter to the continuing increases in the range of weapons carried by Soviet submarines. The SQR-18A towed-array sonar system is deployed aboard all 46 of our FF-1052 class frigates, including those in the Naval Reserve Force. The SQQ-89, a more advanced ASW system, is now in the fleet, following a highly-successful development period. The system is being installed in DD-963, DDG-993, and DDG-51 destroyers, CG-47 cruisers, and FFG-7 frigates. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) 1984 was the year that marked the introduction into the fleet of the Navy's SH-60B LAMPS MK III @Z_HEADER = NAVY FACT FILE anti-submarine helicopter, also known as Seahawk, a derivative of the Army's H-60 Blackhawk helicopter. The Seahawk incorporates advanced electronics, allowing modern surface combatants to exploit the opportunity for long-range ASW engagements offered by the detection capabilities of towed-array sonars. Engagements at extended ranges are essential if our forces are to destroy enemy submarines before they come close enough to launch salvos of long range anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. Current plans call for deploying LAMPS MK III helicopters aboard some 100 surface combatants: DD-963 and DDG-993 destroyers, CG-47 cruisers, and active FFG-7 frigates. An earlier ASW helicopter, the LAMPS MK I Seasprite, will continue to be deployed aboard reserve FFG-7S and older frigates, which will not be upgraded to support the LAMPS MK III system. An existing shortage of LAMPS MK I helicopters will be eliminated by the early 1990s through the conversion of surface combatants from the LAMPS MK I to the LAMPS MK III configuration and the continued delivery of new and refurbished Seasprite helicopters. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = ASW Weapons Our improved ASW weapons incorporate qualitative improvements to defeat the new Soviet submarines that are faster and quieter, can dive deeper, and have greater resistance to hull penetration. To that end, our heavy and lightweight torpedoes and our long-range ASW rockets continue to be improved. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = MK-48 Torpedoes The MK-48 heavyweight torpedo is the primary submarine weapon for use against surface ships and submarines. The production of the Navy's MK-48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability) heavy weight torpedo has begun. This will provide greater weapon effectiveness against new Soviet submarines now entering service. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Lightweight Torpedo The inventory of MK-46 lightweight ASW torpedoes has been upgraded to improve performance in difficult environments. These weapons can be launched from surface ships, fixed wing aircraft, or anti-submarine helicopters, and they also are carried as payload in long-range anti-submarine rockets (ASROC) and Captor mines. For the early 1990s, the MK-50 torpedo, formerly known as the Advanced Lightweight Torpedo (ALWT) is being developed. An entirely new torpedo, the MK-50 is significantly more capable than the MK-46 in terms of speed, diving depth, accuracy, and destructiveness. The program is making impressive progress. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Long-Range ASW Weapons Development of a new long-range ASW weapons that will be able to attack enemy submarines outside effective torpedo range is continuing. Sea Lance is slated to replace the aging Submarine Rocket (SUBROC) deployed with attack submarines and will also be installed in all vertical launch system (VLS) surface combatants. The above programs continue to enhance existing ASW foundations and strengthen maritime defense capabilities. Our continued progress will allow us to maintain the competitive edge with the full range of capabilities needed to counter the growing threat from Soviet naval forces. @Z_HEADER = NAVY FACT FILE @HEAD LEVEL 2 = @HEAD LEVEL 2 = SUMMARY The application of new technologies and the improvement of existing methods of construction have made the job of defending against hostile submarines more difficult. While today's margin of superiority of Allied anti-submarine warfare capability is undisputed, advances in submarine construction technologies and techniques by the Soviets and Warsaw Pact countries are starting to narrow the gap. While the numbers of their submarines are expected to decrease over the next several years as they retire older, less capable submarines, qualitatively, their combined fleets will become much more of a significant challenge to the Allies. In addressing this threat, the Chief of Naval Operations has stated that maintaining our ASW edge against all possible submarine threats is the Navy's number one warfighting priority. Additionally, a Directorate for ASW Development on the staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Engineering and Systems was recently established by the Secretary of the Navy. The flag officer assigned to this important post will serve as the Navy's focal point for the development of ASW related technologies and for exploratory and advanced development of ASW systems which will ensure the U.S. Navy's ability to carry out its full ASW mission. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Gains Made by the Soviets The Soviet Akula class attack submarine approaches the sophistication of the best deployed Western Alliance designs. In open publications Soviet Navy officials have written of developing attack submarines that will dive to 6,600 feet, attain submerged speeds of 100 knots and fire three hundred knot torpedoes. Research and development leading toward these Soviet goals are in place. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Third World Threats Technological advances in all aspects of diesel-electric submarines, principally of Western European manufacture, present a serious threat to the Naval forces of the NATO Alliance. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Countering the New Threats Significant research is ongoing, using the best technology in advanced acoustic processing, improved ocean surveillance, active sonar systems, "smart" anti-submarine weapons and other areas, to sustain our ASW lead. ASW Research and Development is $2.3 billion for FY89; approximately 25% of the total Navy R&D budget. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = THE ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE CHALLENGE @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Critical Systems Needed The Seawolf nuclear attack submarine (SSN 21), with AN/BSY-2 advanced combat system, will be an important part of our ASW force structure into the next century. Its advanced combat systems and weapons will enable the SSN 21 to prevail in a host of combat scenarios, from the vast expanses of the Pacific to the close quarters beneath the Polar ice cap. The Long Range Air ASW Capability Aircraft (LRAACA) is the next generation airborne ASW platform. Its dramatically improved capabilities make it a vital element of the Fleet's ASW edge. @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Other Critical Systems * Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) which consists of fixed Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) and the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) ships. @Z_HEADER = NAVY FACT FILE * Improved AN/SQQ-89 Surface Ship ASW Combat System * Improved BQQ-5 sonar * Sea Lance ASW Stand-off Weapon * Improved land-based P-3 Orion aircraft * Updated sea-based ASW aircraft including: S-3A Viking, SH-60B Seahawk, SH-3H Sea King and SH-2F Seasprite @HEAD LEVEL 2 = @HEAD LEVEL 2 = Conclusion Effective ASW demands that all the elements to neutralize the threat work together with single-minded focus. The Seawolf, the LRAACA, the enhanced ASW capabilities of the surface fleet, SH-60F helicopters with dipping sonars, various "smart" ASW weapons, advanced underwater acoustic devices and a vigorous, on-going R&D program in all these areas, will combine to counter the ever-growing submarine threat. SOURCE: Navy Talking Point: The Anti-Submarine Warfare Challenge (Spring 1989); Department of the Navy (OP-71), Washington, D.C. 20350-2000, (202) 697-0181 NAVY FACT FILE MINE WARFARE Mine warfare is defined as a strategic and tactical use of sea mines and the employment of countermeasures against the sea mines of adversaries. Mine Warfare includes all available offensive and defensive measures for laying sea mines and for protection against enemy mines. Mine warfare operations support the broad task of establishing and maintaining control of essential sea areas. It is divided into two distinct categories: mining and mine countermeasures (MCM). Mine Countermeasures As mining-associated tactics employed by potential adversaries become more sophisticated, so must our mine countermeasures capabilities. The Navy has the responsibility to organize, train, and equip forces to conduct MCM operations and to develop and formulate appropriate doctrines for the conduct of this function. U.S. MCM operations are required to reduce the effectiveness of, or defeat, enemy mining attacks by submarine, aircraft, or surface ships. Both offensive and defensive operations against enemy minelaying platforms and their supporting facilities could be employed as necessary to reduce the mining threat. MCM training is continually being conducted to maintain the highest state of readiness to counter an enemy mining attack. MCM equipment inventory is maintained in a high state of readiness at designated locations and ongoing development programs are being pursued to improve the capability of airborne and surface MCM forces to counter the modern mine threat. Surface Mine Countermeasures Current U.S. Navy mine countermeasures ships include the ocean minesweeper (MSO) and minesweeper boats (MSB). The first new mine countermeasures ship to be built since the 1950s, USS Avenger (MCM-l), was commissioned in 1987, and is the lead ship in a class currently expected to total 14 ships. USS Avenger is a state-of-the-art mine countermeasures ship that has the capability to hunt mines and neutralize, and is capable of mechanical and influence sweeping. Also currently under construction is the MHC-51 (Osprey) class coastal minehunter, designed to clear U.S. harbors and coastal waters of all types of mines. The Osprey-class MHC will compliment both the MCM-l class ship and MH-53E helicopter in our total mine countermeasures force. Airborne Mine Countermeasures (AMCM) The Navy's current AMCM capabilities are comprised of two classes of helicopters, the RH-53D and the new MH-53E Sea Dragon. The Sea Dragon has significantly enhanced electronic and mechanical AMCM equipment, and the improvements over the RH-53D enhance the aircraft's capability to perform by greatly adding to its range and navigation capability. Mining and Mines The Navy has a primary responsibility to develop and test mines and delivery techniques and to organize, train, and equip forces to conduct minelaying operations using surface, subsurface, and aerial techniques. The Air Force has a collateral function to train forces for the conduct of aerial minelaying operations. Mining Policy The U.S. must prepare minefield plans for all geographic locations where a mining requirement exists. These plans must consider the availability and quantity by type of mine stocks that will possess the greatest threat for a given time. Minelaying forces must be maintained in a state of readiness to conduct immediate mining operations when directed. Augmenting forces are assigned as required, and are available to conduct additional mining after initial offensive actions and other factors are evaluated. Mining readiness is continually emphasized. Training is conducted to ensure that selected aerial and submarine forces remain in a state of mine readiness. Naval air forces and mine assembly personnel are capable of rapid deployment to operate from overseas bases and carriers. Tactics for minelaying in a hostile environment are under constant development, and prepositioned mine stocks are held in a high state of readiness to support approved mining plans. Research and development continues for new mines and components, including such features as improved capabilities against submarine and surface targets, better resistance against minesweeping and hunting, more flexibility, easier and less expensive maintenance, simpler and faster preparation for laying, and improvement of mine detection and control systems with increased sophistication. Mining No platform in the U.S. Navy has been designed with mine delivery as its primary warfare task, however mines can in fact be delivered by aircraft, submarines, and, to a limited extent, surface ships. The P-3 Orion aircraft is an accurate delivery system; and any aircraft that can deliver bombs, such as the S-3 Viking, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, or F/A 18 Hornet, can lay mines. Many attack submarines can also deliver mines. Mines Mines are classified according to their delivery method, the position they assume in the water, their method of actuation, and their use. When classified by delivery method, they are referred to as aircraft-laid mines, submarine-laid mines, or surface-laid mines. When classified according to the position they assume in the water, they are either bottom mines, moored mines, or drifting mines. When classified by their method of actuation, they are divided into three types: contact, influence, and controlled. And when classified by use, they are referred to as service mines, exercise and training (ET) mines, and fleet service mine test (FSMT) mines. Service mines are the mines available in the U.S. Navy stockpile for operational use. Operational mines currently in inventory include the MK 50 series mine, the Destructor (DST) mine, the Captor series, the Quickstrike series, and the Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM). The Mine Mk 50 series includes the MK 52, a l,OOO-pound aircraft-laid bottom mine. The MK 52 is an influence mine specifically designed to actuate on submarine signatures, although it is also equally effective against most surface ship signatures. The MK 55 is almost identical to the MK 52, with difference being its weight (2,000 pounds) and its larger explosive charge. The Mine MK 56 is a 2,000-pound aircraft-laid moored mine, and is designed specifically for effectiveness against high-speed and deep-operating submarines. The MK 57 is similar to the MK 56 in its mission, however, it is a submarine laid moored mine. Destructor Mines are actually general purpose low-drag bombs converted to mines. They can be deployed by air, either at sea as bottom mines or on land as land mines. With the MK 75 Modification Kit installed, a MK 82 bomb (500 pounds) becomes a MK 36 DST, a MK 83 bomb (1,000 pounds) becomes a MK 40 DST, and a MK 84 bomb (2,000 pounds) becomes a MK 41 DST. Featuring a fast response-to-readiness capability, Quickstrike mines (MK 62, 63, 64 and 65) are a new generation of weapons closely related to the Destructor family of mines. They are aircraft-laid bottom mines used against submarine and surface targets. They utilize the same principal as the DST series, converting general purpose bombs to mines. The SLMM (submarine launched mobile mine), or Mine MK 67, is a multiple-influence bottom mine with a capability that permits it to be covertly propelled to a predetermined planting location after being launched from a submarine. Its purpose is to restrict ship and submarine traffic, and it is ideally suited for planting in areas not normally accessible for planting other mines. The Captor Mine (Mine MK 60) is a sophisticated antisubmarine warfare weapon system which is designed to detect and classify submarines and release a modified Torpedo MK 46 to acquire and attack its target. A deep water moored mine, with an influence-type-detection system and an aircraft, submarine, and surface craft launch capability, the weapon lies dormant until a target is detected, at which time a torpedo swims out of its capsule to attack and destroy its target. Conclusion Our allies are also forging ahead in mine warfare and are greatly improving their capabilities in this important area, particularly in mine countermeasures. In recent years, mine warfare has become a major contributor to our U.S. and NATO defense posture as well as an increasingly effective deterrent to war at sea. SOURCE: Department of the Navy (OP-744); Washington, D.C. 20350; (202) 694-7334 NAVY FACT FILE AMPHIBIOUS LIFT The Navy's amphibious shipbuilding program is based upon a key requirement established by an extensive appraisal signed on May 25, 1983, entitled "The Department of the Navy Long Term Amphibious Lift Requirement and Optimum Ship Mix Study." The study objective was to lift the assault echelons (AEs) of a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) and Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB). This objective dictated an increase in amphibious lift of roughly twenty-five percent over the current lift capacity. Three new classes of ships - the LHD 1, the LSD 41, an LSD 41 Cargo Variant - and a new type of landing craft - the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) - support that effort. This force modernization is linked to a new operational concept for amphibious assaults. Consistent with our efforts to extend the combat range of naval forces, the new concept calls for launching assaults from over the horizon (OTH). Here, the opportunity for surprise increases and the vulnerability of our ships decreases. Future Outlook Unfortunately, recent fiscal pressures have forced delays in the amphibious ship building program. Sustaining capability past the year 2000 will require continued support for the current amphibious ship building program, and perhaps even new ship classes to replace those which face block obsolescence between the years 2000 and 2007. The Amphibious Shipbuilding Program The LHD l class will provide the largest share of the increased lift. The LHD is an improved follow-on to the five ship Tarawa-class LHAs, sharing the basic hull and engineering plant. LHD 5 is expected to exchange its boiler plant for gas turbine propulsion. The LHD l has an enhanced well deck, enabling it to carry three LCACs (vice one LCAC in the LHAs). The flight deck and elevator scheme is also improved, which allows the ship to carry two more helicopters than its predecessor, the LHA. The lead ship of the LHD 1 class, USS Wasp, was constructed at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss., and was commissioned June 24, 1989 in Norfolk, Virginia. The second LHD was awarded in September 1986 in a competitive bid, also to Ingalls, as a single ship with options, which were awarded in 1988 and 1989. The fifth ship is scheduled for authorization in 1991. LHDs beyond number five will go toward replacing the aging LPHs which will reach the end of their service lives from the mid 1990s on. WASP Class Program Schedule USS Wasp (LHD 1); delivered FY 89 Essex (LHD 2); projected delivery FY 92 Kearsage (LHD 3); projected delivery FY 93 Boxer (LHD 4); projected delivery FY94 TBD (LHD); projected delivery FY 97 Whidbey Island Class LSD 41 The LSD 41 is a modified version of the LSD 36 class with design efforts directed to support emerging amphibious warfare concepts. The ship will transport and launch loaded amphibious craft and vehicles with their crews and embarked personnel in amphibious assault operations. Limited docking and repair service will be provided for both conventional and air cushion craft. The LSD 41 class ship program will replace the eight aging LSD 28 class ships which will reach the end of their service lives during the period 1984-1990. A force level of eight LSD 41s will provide an adequate rotational base for our peacetime forward deployed amphibious forces. Whidbey Island Class Program Delivery USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41); commissioned February 1985 USS Germantown (LSD 42); commissioned February 1986 USS Ft. McHenry (LSD 43); commissioned August 1987 USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44); commissioned April 1989 Comstock (LSD 45); projected delivery FY 89 Tortuga (LSD 46); projected delivery FY 90 Rushmore (LSD 47); projected delivery FY 90 Ashland (LSD 48); projected delivery FY 91 Harpers Ferry (LSD 49); projected delivery FY 93 LSD 41 CHARACTERISTICS Overall Length: 609 feet Beam: 84 feet Draft: 19 feet 5 inches Displacement:15,702 tons Propulsion: 4 Diesel (twin screw - 33,000 SHP) Complement: 413 ship's company; 504 troops (64 assault craft unit personnel; 338 troops plus 102 surge troops) Landing Craft: 3 - LCU; 21 - LCM 6; 10 - LCM 8; 4 LCAC Vehicle Square: 12,800 feet 2 Cargo Cube: 5,000 feet 3 Helo Spots: 1 (plus 1 convert) Weapons: 2 CIWS - 20mm Phalanx; 2 MK88 - 25mm 1 SSRBOC 1 AN/SLQ-32(V)1 LSD 41 Cargo Variant Class Background When the Department of the Navy lift study was completed in May 1983, the authors realized the most critical shortfall not addressed up to that time was in cargo lift capability. Thus the follow-on to the LSD 41 class was born. At first it was to be a new class of ship; however, as the process of design approval continued, the Navy realized that considerable time and money could be saved by modifying the LSD 41 class, for the LSD 49 and beyond. In the forward half of the LSD 41 well deck, in the area allocated for two LCAC, Naval Sea Systems Command designed a covered ramp with cargo space beneath. Other changes were necessary in various parts of the ship to compensate for the added weight, but essentially, the changes amount only to a broad modification of the baseline ship. The class is now called LSD 41 Cargo Variant class (or LSD 41(CV). To achieve the current objectives, there must be six LSD 41(CV) ships in addition to the mix of LHDs, LSD 41s, and other amphibious ships. Beyond that, we expect to keep building the LSD 41(CV)s to sustain the lift capability as older ships retire. Current estimates hold that 12 LSD 41(CV)s may eventually be delivered. The primary difference of this class from the baseline LSD 41 is in cargo and number of LCAC spots. The first LSD 41(CV) was awarded in FY 88. Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) The key ingredient to the new operational concept for amphibious operations is the ability to launch the amphibious assault from extended ranges against nearly any beachhead. Although the helicopter has provided such a capability for years, it is limited in carrying capacity. Landing craft have always been the workhorses used to transport the outsized and heavy loads (such as tanks). But landing craft are very dependent on proper beach gradients and surf conditions in order to accomplish their mission. Furthermore, they are slow, 12 knots maximum. The LCAC changes all that. These craft ride on a cushion of air and are therefore immune to the vagaries of beach gradient and most surf conditions. And they are fast - more than 35 knots fully loaded with an M-60 tank. With the LCAC and the helicopter, amphibious assaults can be launched from over the horizon and rapidly build up combat power ashore. The first 16 craft have been delivered with a total of more than 90 planned. Support facilities are located at Camp Pendleton, Calif., and Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Virginia. LCAC CHARACTERISTICS Length (on cushion): 87 feet 11 inches Beam (on cushion): 47 ft Design Payload: 120,000 lbs Propulsion: 2 - AVCO TF-40B Gas Turbines Lift: 2 - AVCO TF-40B Gas Turbines Speed: 35 plus knots SOURCE: Department of the Navy News Desk; Washington, DC 20350-1200 (202) 697-5342 NAVY FACT FILE COMMUNICATIONS The Naval Communication System Headquarters was established on 1 July 1959 to carry out the management responsibilities of the Assistant Chief of Naval Operations (Communications)/Director Naval Communications in operating and maintaining the Naval Communication System. On 1 June 1973, the Chief of Naval Operations redesignated the command as the Naval Telecommunications Command. Mission and Functions The Naval Telecommunications Command's primary mission is to exercise configuration control over the Naval Telecommunications System and operate and maintain the Navy's portion of the Defense Communications System. The commander serves as the administrative manager of the naval telecommunications system and commands its major ashore elements. The Naval Telecommunications Command also: acts as the Navy manager for assigned Department of Defense common-user switched and transmission systems; plans and coordinates system improvements to meet requirements of the Naval Telecommunications Command; implements Navy policy in the technical execution of defense, joint, and Allied telecommunications plans; coordinates the connections required to support the command, control, communications and administrative requirements of the Department of the Navy; operates and maintains individual specialized telecommunications systems as assigned; acts as the Navy contracting authority for telephone equipment and service; and serves as the Reserve Technical Sponsor and Reserve Program Coordinator for naval telecommunications, monitoring and managing the training, status, and mobilization readiness of assigned Naval Reserve personnel. Organization and Operations The Naval Telecommunications Command has divided the globe into four communications areas. These areas correspond with the geographic areas of responsibility of the four numbered fleet commanders. In each communications area, a naval communications Area Master Station provides operational control of communications assets within its area and acts as a major interface between the shore-based communications systems and afloat forces. Over 70 communication stations, units, and telecommunications detachments and centers worldwide provide the tactical assets needed to support the Navy. Nearly all teletype and data transmissions from Navy operating forces are received by one or more Naval Telecommunications Command activities for onward relay and delivery. Each of the four master stations (and the communication station at Stockton, California) are equipped with Navy Communications Processing and Routing Systems. These large-capacity computers provide a direct interface for afloat units. They route messages automatically and distribute them to afloat forces via the fleet broadcast and other dedicated shore/ship media. In locations with a high density of shore commands, the serving telecommunications activity operates a Local Digital Message Exchange. Like the processing and routing systems, the message exchange automates the message address, processing, and routing functions, but it does not provide a direct interface with afloat units. Naval telecommunications centers provide message service to ships and afloat commands in port that allows for the completion of essential training and maintenance on shipboard communications equipment. The Naval Telecommunications Command also provides specialized communications support. As the Navy communications satellite access manager, Naval Telecommunications Command and its master stations schedule or coordinate all satellite network assignments on Navy satellite systems. To retain proficiency in high frequency communications, fleet exercises are scheduled which require ashore and afloat units to shift all ship-to-shore and broadcast transmissions from satellite to high frequency systems. Ten Navy anti-submarine support communications centers transmit vital mission, weather, and flight information to maritime patrol aircraft as well as provide support for air-to-ground voice and teletype communications. Special communications divisions, at selected naval communication stations, maintain continuous guard on two high-interest circuits used by submarines in "in extremis" situations. Submarine operating authorities ashore exercise operational control of attack submarines and certain fleet ballistic missile submarines via multichannel and single-channel broadcasts transmitted by Naval Telecommunications Command activities. The Naval Telecommunications Command maintains and provides the nucleus crews for six (eventually ten) ashore mobile contingency communications vans at selected sites worldwide. These vans are available for deployment during crises or exercises as directed by the fleet commanders-in-chief. The vans contain high frequency and satellite communications systems to provide minimum essential communications to on-scene commanders in isolated areas. In addition to the above activities, the Naval Telecomunications Command has six major field activities--each with a distinct support function. The Naval Telecommunications Automation Support Center provides, operates, and maintains a telecommunications automation support center at which naval telecommunications system software and components are maintained and supported. The Naval Telecommunications Systems Integration Center provides, operates, and maintains a naval telecommunications certification facility at which all naval automated telecommunications systems ashore and afloat may be tested, integrated, operated, and certified. The center also maintains software for assigned fleet systems. The Naval Electromagnetic Spectrum Center exercises the Department of the Navy management and assignment authority for joint national and international electromagnetic spectrum management matters. The Navy Commercial Communications Office manages Navy-leased, dedicated, and common-user systems including the Automatic Voice Network Automatic Digital Network Defense Switched Network, and Automatic Secure Voice Communications. It also develops policy standards and management oversight for base administrative telecommunications systems for ashore Navy/Marine Corps activities, gives technical support to major claimants, manages telecommunications equipment and services, and provides a focal point for Host Nation Connection Approval. The Office of Navy Telecommunications Contracting is responsible for the award and administration of contracts for base telecommunication systems and services for the Navy. The Chief Navy-Marine Corps Military Affiliate Radio Systems (MARS) serves as the Commander's personal representative in carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of the Navy as they pertain to the Military Affiliate Radio System and amateur radio affairs within the Department of the Navy. Communication Improvements for the Future Planning for streamlining and modernizing an aging Naval Telecommunications System is based on clearly defined fleet operational requirements and tasking from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Shipbuilding and Logistics), the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Defense Communications Agency. The planning methodology is driven by an evolving technical architecture which encompasses the functional elements of the Naval Telecommunications System. The architecture involves all shore telecommunications sites, including sites which are not under Naval Telecommunications Command management, and stresses effective, efficient fleet communications that are able to operate with joint service and Allied systems. The first priority for the future is maintaining present capabilities while modernizing the Naval Telecommunications System. The ideal target architecture is envisioned to be an open-ended structure with the capacity for expansion of network interconnects and transmission speed to accommodate communications technology advances well into the 21st century. New Initiatives Planning efforts to obtain an efficient Naval Telecommunications System, motivated by Secretary of the Navy Action '88 initiatives for productivity improvements, concentrate on several high-payback projects. These include: A full review of the various circuits supported by the Naval Telecommunications System to maintain fleet support with less but more capable equipment while eliminating, where prudent, redundant capabilities; introduction of remote control receiver/transmitter technology; replacement of manual patch-and-test facilities with automated technical control centers capable of automatic system reconfiguration; identification of highly reliable receivers for the low, medium, and high frequency spectrum; identification of a highly reliable, yet cost efficient, replacement for obsolete teleprinters installed at shore facilities; a database to facilitate worldwide communications system assessment and reconfiguration to support immediate operational requirements; and application of advanced antenna array engineering to provide worldwide coverage with fewer foreign facilities. Education and Awareness Rapidly changing telecommunications technology requires constant assessment of ongoing education and training programs. The Naval Telecommunications Command's primary function in this area is to monitor the training pipeline as a technical advisor to ensure military personnel can maintain and operate current and planned communications equipment. New systems planning requires up to five years to assess initial training needs, monitor curriculum development, determine school quotas, and convene the first class. The Naval Telecommunications Command supports career development and upward mobility by evaluating advanced training at the postgraduate level for officers and at "C" schools for enlisted personnel. The command also directly administers its own two-year program for civilian communication specialist interns. These activities ensure that qualified personnel are on the job at communications facilities throughout the world. Notes The Naval Telecommunications System. This system is a complex of equipment and subsystems that provides a telecommunications transmission network for the operation, command, control and administration of the Navy. It is composed of portions of the Defense Communications System and naval telecommunications resources ashore established for fleet surface, air, and subsurface support. User and terminal devices are not naval telecommunications system equipment, per se, except where these terminals are a part of the automated control of information flow through the network; for example, Naval Communications Processing and Routing System. SOURCE: Naval Telecommunications Command; 4401 Massachusetts Ave, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20394-5290 NAVY FACT FILE NAVAL OCEANOGRAPHY Naval oceanography consists of several principal efforts: the operational oceanography program (oceanography; meteorology; mapping, charting and geodesy; astrometry; and precise time and time interval) under the sponsorship of the Chief of Naval Operations and direction of the Oceanographer of the Navy (OP-096); the ocean science program under the sponsorship and direction of the Chief of Naval Research; and other related activities such as ocean engineering, deep ocean technology, deep submergence operations, salvage, diving, diving biomedicine, and environmental satellites under various sponsors. The prime mission of the operational oceanography program is to gain better understanding of the Navy's operational environment and to apply that knowledge to the development of improved warfare systems and operations. Specifically, its mission is to collect, interpret and forecast global oceanographic data and information for safety at sea, strategic warfare, tactical warfare, and weapons systems design, development and deployment. This includes the collection and dissemination of stellar positional data, maintenance of an inertial reference frame, and the monitoring of all timed systems in the Department of Defense. At the same time, the national program for better use of the sea benefits from Navy-developed ocean science and technology, as do the civilian space science, astronomy, and precise time user communities. Day-to-day activities of operational oceanography, including oceanography; mapping, charting and geodesy; and meteorology, are carried out by the Naval Oceanography Command headquartered at the Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. Astrometry, precise time and time interval are directed by the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. The very key to our operational oceanography is an at-sea collection program with 12 survey ships, three specially equipped aircraft, astronomical observations in six different locations worldwide, and 19 remote data acquisition systems. There are also some 70 Navy shore activities worldwide providing oceanography support to the operating forces. The five disciplines of the operational oceanography program call on all of the physical sciences for investigating the nature of the oceans and atmosphere. Oceanography investigates the nature and behavior of the water volume of the oceans. In this area, underwater acoustics receives the greatest attention because of its relationship to the effectiveness of many weapon systems and sensors used to locate and track enemy submarines and conceal our own. Since sound in the sea is affected by many factors, ocean surveys are necessary to collect data on the ocean floor, temperature, salinity, living organisms, and surface conditions. Oceanographic observations are collected by ships, buoys, submarines, satellites and aircraft for global analysis by the Naval Oceanographic Office. Regional and tactical scale data are processed in regional oceanographic centers by computers and combined with historical records of air-sea conditions in a specific time and place, in support of submarine, antisubmarine, and undersea-surveillance operations. Forecast information focuses on sound velocity profiles, ocean layer depths, and surf conditions. In addition, sea-ice observations and predictions are reported at regular intervals. Oceanographic surveys are conducted from six ships, two specially equipped aircraft, buoys and sensors. Meteorology provides reporting and prediction of the air temperature, pressure and humidity, clouds, precipitation, visibility, winds, sea state, and other atmospheric conditions in support of Navy operations. Accurate prediction of atmospheric conditions is essential for guiding Navy ships and aircraft and for the operation of Navy weapon systems. The Fleet Numerical Oceanography Center in Monterey, California, serves as the major processing center for oceanic and atmospheric predictions. The numerical data are sent worldwide to oceanography centers where predictions are tailored to area requirements. Mapping, charting, and geodesy (MC&G) surveys measure water depth, establish precise geodetic position, measure variations in the Earth's magnetic field, determine gravity anomalies, and define the shape and texture of the sea floor. Surveys presently employ three U.S. deep ocean survey ships collecting data in support of fleet programs, two U.S. coastal survey ships (becoming four in FY91) along with a cooperative hydrographic effort with foreign allies to update charting of coasts and harbors, and one specially configured P-3 aircraft for collecting magnetic data. Charting of the oceans is imperative for safe and efficient navigation of ships and submarines transiting world oceans and is key to anti-submarine warfare skill. MC&G efforts involve the use of nautical and land based data to support the latest weapons systems as well as investigating new technology to support collection and processing of geographic and geodetic data. Astrometry is the branch of astronomy which defines the precise positions and motion of celestial objects. Fundamental positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and selected stars are determined since knowledge of their positions is essential in establishing an accurate celestial coordinate system, the fundamental inertial system for the determination for the position of fixed and movable objects on the surface of the Earth and in space. The stellar inertial reference system is the ultimate system against which all navigation, positioning, and guidance systems, both on the ground and in space, are calibrated. Precise time and time interval provide the precise measurement of time required for accurate navigation, communications, and guidance systems. The U.S. Naval Observatory operates the Master Clock, an atomic clock including cesium beam frequency standards, hydrogen masers, and mercury stored ion devices, to keep time for the Navy and for the nation. Time is provided worldwide to an accuracy of a few nanoseconds (billionths of a second) to satisfy the requirements of worldwide communications, navigation, and the employment of various weapons systems. The highly advanced weapons systems of the modern U.S. Navy are very sensitive to changing conditions in the air-sea environment of naval operations. Knowledge of how the physical environment will influence weapons sytems' performance permits the fleet commanders and operators to anticipate those effects and select the optimum sensors, weapons, and mode of operation. Accurate oceanic and atmospheric prediction provides vital information for that selection process. Just as importantly, knowledge of the operational environment gained by efforts of the Oceanography Program is fundamental to the development of new naval weapons systems. In combination, the products and services of the Naval Oceanography Program enhance the Navy's operational capabilities by providing the means to get the most out of weapons systems' performance. Plans for the new technology and equipment include an improved satellite receiver (SMQ-ll), the Tactical Environmental Support System (TESS), two large scale (Class VII) computers, a Navy Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) system, an optical interferometer and a vigorous oceanographic fleet modernization program. The new high resolution satellite receiver, SMQ-ll, will be installed on 44 major combatants and at 25 shore locations. The new onboard tactical environmental support system, TESS-2, collects data from various sources to provide environmental support to the Fleet. In 1991 TESS-3, a new version of TESS that incorporates more powerful computers and expanded data sources, will be introduced. The Navy is procuring in FY89 a world-leading large scale (Class VII) computer for the Naval Oceanographic Office at the Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. It will support operational oceanography and research and development of ocean modeling capabilities. Procurement of a second one is planned for FY92 to run state-of-the art operational oceanic and atmospheric global prediction models at the Fleet Numerical Oceanography Center in Monterey, California. An all-Navy Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) radio telescope system is being established in West Virginia, Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii to measure Earth rotation parameters needed for satellite systems. An optical interferometer, under construction, is expected to improve tenfold the accuracy of star positions needed for guidance, positioning and autonomous operations. Two replacement deep ocean survey ships are completing construction and will be delivered in FY89 and FY90. AGOR-23, a general purpose oceanographic research vessel to be operated by the University of Washington is under construction and due to be delivered in late FY90. Two coastal hydrographic survey ships commenced construction in November 1988 and will be delivered in FY91. SOURCE: Department of the Navy (OP-096); Washington, DC 20390; (202) 653-1295 NAVY FACT FILE TEST AND EVALUATION Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR), located in Norfolk, Virginia, is the Navy's independent agency charged with responsibility for Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E). COMOPTEVFOR evaluates systems to determine operational effectiveness and operational suitability, to reduce acquisition risks, provide better equipment to the fleet, develop baseline tactics to maximize system combat capabilities, and minimize system limitations. COMOPTEVFOR traces its origin to the final months of World War II when the need arose for an effective means to combat Japanese Kamikaze attacks. In 1945, the Composite Task Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet was formed to develop tactics and evaluate equipment to counter the Kamikazes. When World War II ended, the Composite Task Force was consolidated with other fleet units doing developmental work and, in 1947, was redesignated the Operational Development Force (OPDEVFOR). In the summer of 1949, the command moved ashore to headquarters at the Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. During the ensuing years, changes were made to the tasks assigned to the force, expanding the mission to include responsibility for the conduct of operational testing and evaluation. In 1952, the Tactical Development Group was formed and became part of OPDEVFOR. Later, a subordinate element of the force was established at San Diego, California, to address operational tactics development, test and evaluation within the Pacific Fleet. As the result of this shift in mission and to reflect more accurately its increased responsibilities, the command was renamed the Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR) in 1959. Shortly thereafter, the headquarters for the force was then moved into the buildings occupied today, which are near to but separate from the Headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet. From inception until the early 1970's, the Force Commander was a subordinate of the Commander in Chief of the Atlantic Fleet. In 1971, OPTEVFOR was designated the Navy's sole independent agency for operational test and evaluation, reporting directly to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). This change was in response to Congressional and Secretary of Defense initiatives aimed at improving the defense material acquisition process and as a result of passage of Public Law 92-156, Sect 506, on November 17, 1971. The force retained its former responsibilities and added the new ones of making early, independent assessments of operational effectiveness and operational suitability during the research and development (R&D) process. Mission As defined by OPNAVINST 3960.10 (series), the mission of COMOPTEVFOR is to independently test and evaluate the Navy's weapon systems, weapons, ships, aircraft, and equipment in the anticipated operational environment and against the anticipated threat; to develop and validate tactics for employing these systems as required; and, when directed by the CNO, to assist the developing agency (DA) in the accomplishment of necessary developmental test and evaluation. At the heart of this process is the operational evaluation, or OPEVAL. Prior to OPEVAL, a new weapons system should have thoroughly proven its capability to meet the technical specifications through the DT&E, culminating in TECHEVAL. It is then COMOPTEVFOR's responsibility to structure and then conduct the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) culminating in OPEVAL (at minimum cost in dollars and time, commensurate with risk reduction) that will prove the weapons system's capability in a realistic operational environment, when maintained and operated by fleet personnel, subjected to routine wear-and-tear, and employed in typical combat conditions against a simulated enemy who fights back. The purpose of OPEVAL is to allow an accurate evaluation of the true operational effectiveness (how well the system performs its assigned mission) and operational suitability (how well the system interfaces with, and is supportable by, the fleet) of the weapons system in actual fleet use and combat employment. While TECHEVAL deals principally with instrumented tests and statistically valid data, OPEVAL should deal with operational realism and the uncertainties of combat. In technical testing, it is generally possible to state the purpose of any test with certainty. In operational testing, the principal value derived is often unplanned, resulting, not from the basic purpose of the test, but from realistic aspects that were injected simply because they are likely to exist in actual fleet/combat employment. Thus, operational testing is more an art than a science, and reasonable opportunity should be provided in test planning for the unexpected to occur (as it often does in combat). The results of OPEVAL are provided to higher authority in support of production decisions along with COMOPTEVFOR's recommendation regarding fleet introduction of the new system. Following full fleet introduction, OPTEVFOR conducts Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) to validate the operational effectiveness and suitability of production systems and to test fixes or enhancements that have already been incorporated. FOT&E may include operational assessment of the system in new operational environments, in different platform applications, against new threats,or integrated operations with other weapon systems. O rganization The staff of COMOPTEVFOR is organized along operational warfare lines so that systems bearing on a given area of naval warfare are tested and evaluated by persons who are familiar with that area and other, related systems. Thus, evaluation of equipment and systems is carried out by personnel with recent operational experience in the type of equipment or warfare specialty over which their divisions have cognizance. Operational testing at OPTEVFOR is conducted and managed by the Operational Test Director (OTD); normally a fleet- experienced junior officer (lieutenant commander or below) whose unique fleet perspective is the most valuable commodity he brings to the job. Current headquarters organization includes the following: Comptroller; Administrative Division; Operations and Plans Division; Underseas Warfare Division; Air Warfare Division; Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance Systems; and Surface Warfare Division. The Force is composed of a Headquarters located in Norfolk, Virginia; the Deputy OPTEVFOR Pacific and his staff located at San Diego, Calif.; a detachment in Sunnyvale, Calif.; and three aircraft squadrons: Air Test and Evaluation Squadron One (VX-l) at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md., responsible for testing air anti-submarine warfare and special mission systems; Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Four (VX-4) at Naval Air Station, Point Mugu, CA, responsible for testing fixed wing fighter (VF) systems; and Air Test and EvaluationSquadron Five (VX-5) at the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Calif., responsible for the testing fixed wing attack (VA) systems. Additionally, by an agreement between the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-l) based at Quantico, Virginia pursues projects for COMOPTEVFOR relating to Marine Corps aircraft and weapons. Approximately 250 personnel are assigned to the Headquarters, 65 at DEPCOMOPTEVFORPAC and 11 at OPTEVFORDET Sunnyvale. The three VX squadrons are manned by approximately 1100 personnel. Assigned personnel serve as OTDs, Operational Test Coordinators, Technical Editors, Analysts, and other Operational Test support personnel. The Operational Test Directors conduct tests with fleet personnel and collect, analyze and evaluate operational test data, and prepare written reports which are provided directly to the CNO and Secretary of the Navy. SOURCE: Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force; Norfolk, Virginia 23511-6388 NAVY FACT FILE NAVY MEDICINE Founded in 1842, the Navy's Medical Department is comprised of over 43,00 uniformed caregivers. There are approximately 4,000 Physician and 3,000 Nursed, more then 2,700 Medical Service Corps officer--healthcare administrators and allied scientists such as optometrists, psychologists, dieticians and others, more than 1,600 Dentists, 27,000 Corpsman, and 3,500 Dental Technicians. Nearly one-fourth of these healthcare providers are assigned to afloat units (ships, squadrons or afloat staffs) and to deployable units of the Marine Corps. The mission of these dedicated, highly skilled professionals is much the same as it was nearly 150 years ago -- to be operationally ready to meet wartime medical requirements and to provide quality care to active duty military, their families, and retirees. A Medical Corps vice admiral is the senior medical authority for the Navy and serves on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations as OP-093. As the Navy's Surgeon General, and Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED), he is in charge of both setting and implementing medical policy for the Navy and Marine Corps. The current Surgeon General of the Navy is VADM Donald F. Hagen, who assumed the helm of Navy medicine on June 28, 1991. Fact File 2-2-2 Although the primary beneficiaries of Navy health care are the nearly 600,000 Navy and Marine Corps personnel on active duty, Navy medicine also provides health care to their dependents -- whose numbers exceed the active duty population. Additionally, th# Navy has a moral obligation -- and the law requires it -- to provide Navy retirees and their dependents or survivors with appropriate health care. Beneficiaries of the other uniformed services also are eligible to receive health care from Navy medical and dental treatment facilities. As a result, Navy medicine treats more than 2.1 million people each year' Those beneficiaries who do not have access to a military medical facility are taken care of through CHAMPUS -- the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. This program provides non-active duty Navy beneficiaries with medical benefits when receiving health care from the civilian medical community. Nearly one-half ($1'3 billion) of Navy medicine's FY91 operating and maintenance budget of $2.7 billion goee toward CHAMPUS. The Remainder fo the budget goes largely toward supporting the Navy:s 33 hospitals, including five family practice and four graduate medical education hospitlas; four branch hospitals; 211 medical clinics (including branch clinics and annexes); 141 dental clinics (branches and annexes); and five drug screening -more- Fact File 3-3-3 laboratories. To ensure the very best health care is being provided to Navy and Marine Corps benficiaries, Navy medical facilities are required to meet specific quality assurance standards as established by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The JCAHO, an independent commission established in 1979, surveys and accredits approximately 5,000 of the mores than 6,000 hospitals in the United States, assessing each hospital's compliance with nationally recognized standards of health care. Each of the Navy's 33 hospitals requiring inspection is accreduted by the JCAHO. Even more significantly, results from these inspections show that Navy hospitals not only passed, but did so with grades that exceed the rest of the Department of Defense as well as the civilian community. Based on a maximum of 100, Navy hospitals averaged 86.7, compared to 84 for other military facilities and 77 for civilian hospitals. BUMED not only provides health care to the beneficiary population, it also oversees medical research through the Naval Medical Research and Development Command in Bethesda, Md. This command has responsibility for the Naval Medical research Center, the Naval Dental Research Institute, three U.S. Naval Medical Research Units (including one detachment), the Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, and the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. -more- Fact File 4-4-4 Also under the asgis of BUMED are the Naval Aerospace Medical Institute, the Naval Undersea Medical Institute, the Navy Ophthalmic Support and Training Activity, the Naval Medical Data Services Center, the Naval Medical Logistics Command, the Navy Environmental Health Center, and the Navy Health Sciences Education and Training Command. The Navy Environmental Health Center is the Navy's equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control. It is responsible for tracking infectious diseases, for preventive medicine measures, and for environmental and occupational health. Two Navy Disease Vector Ecology and Control Centers and four Environmental and Preventive Medicine Units help NEHC accomplish its mission. The Navy Health Sciences Education and Training Command (HSETC) operates two Naval Schools of Health 8ciences and two Hospital Corps Schools. HSETC trains medical personnel and oversees outservics and inservice training programs. The Navy medical community had the opportunity to flex its own operational readiness capability during Operation-Desert Shield/Storm. During th# conflict, the Navy sent to the Middle East the most sophisticated medical equipment ever deployed for contingency support, treating more than 56,000 patients on five major medical platforms. More than 12,000 Navy health professionals were deployed to support our fighting forces. -more- Fact File 5-5-5 USNS MERCY (T-AH 19) and USNS Comfort (T-AH 20), Navy medicine's two hospital ships, each possessing a l,OOO-bed capability, deployed to the Persian Gulf within five days of being activated. And nearly 6,000 Navy medical personnel were ashore with Marine forces to provide preventive medicine support as well as basic medical support and combat casualty care. The Navy had close to 100 ships in the area and each one carried Navy medical personnel. Additionally, three 500-bed combat zone fleet hospitals were set up in the operational theater, two in Saudi Arabia and one in Bahrain. More Reservists were called up from the medical community than any other Navy specialty. Altogether, nearly 10,500 medical reservists received recall orders and the Navy had plans for calling 6,000 more when the war ended. With decreases in both military size and defense spending, the challenges facing the Navy medical community are greater than ever. "Our purpose in the ensuing years," said Navy Surgeon General Hagen, "is to continue to instill total quality into our entire system. An environment of continual quality improvement is what we are striving for in Navy medicine." -BUMED- Department of the Navy: Naval Medical command: Public Affairs Office: Washington, DC 20372-5120: (202) 653-1315 NAVY FACT FILE NAVAL SPACE COMMAND The Naval Space Command was established in 1983 at Dahlgren, Va., to operate naval space systems. It consolidates the Department of the Navy's existing activities and organizations that operate and maintain naval space systems for the fleet and other agencies as directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in order to strengthen operational control and provide a central focal point for naval space matters. The command determines operational requirements and tracks technology on behalf of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Mission The Naval Space Command's primary mission is to provide space systems support to naval forces worldwide, and to help prepare the naval services for a larger space involvement, extending well into the next century. Within its charter, the command will identify fleet and fleet Marine force requirements for space systems. The Naval Space Command also forms the naval service component of the U.S. Space Command, headquartered at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colo. As such, the Naval Space Command is charged to provide, equip, train, and maintain forces designated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Space Command. The commander-in-chief exercises operational command of these forces as well as those provided by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army. Space systems have become an integral part of naval structure and the Department of the Navy is the principal tactical user of satellites for space surveillance, environmental monitoring, communications, and navigation. Navy and Marine Corps primary warfare areas depend upon space today for optimum mission effectiveness. The level of dependence upon space is growing, as is the number of space systems. Major advances in space capabilities are inevitable and will change the nature of naval warfare. In this respect, Navy research and development have been major contributors to space science and technology, the use of satellites and research tools, and the introduction of major systems in navigation, surveillance, and communications. By establishing the Naval Space Command, the Department of the Navy has better coordination in determining current use of space capabilities and resources. The command also supports the coordinated mission and hardware development for future space activities. Organization The Naval Space Command is an echelon 2 command and is composed of a headquarters staff and three field activities: the Navy Astronautics Group at Point Mugu, Calif., the Fleet Surveillance Support Command at Chesapeake, Va., and the Naval Space Surveillance Center co-located with the headquarters in Dahlgren. The fleet support function of the Navy's Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP) office also resides at the Naval Space Command. The Naval Space Command headquarters helps formulate operational goals and plans of the Department of the Navy's space program in relation to projected U.S. fleet and fleet Marine force needs and the Soviet threat. The headquarters staff is organized into five functional divisions: management control, intelligence, operations, plans, and facilities and information systems. The Navy Astronautics Group is responsible for control and operation of the Navy Navigation Satellite System, known as TRANSIT. Normally, four TRANSIT satellites are in orbit to provide the necessary frequency of precise navigation fixes to the ships and submarines. The command's four tracking and control search stations and computational facility support TRANSIT operations from lift-off at the Vandenburg Air Force Base launch pad to the satellite's mission completion. The Navy Astronautics Group provides navigation updates and satellite telemetry, tracking, and control to maintain TRANSIT navigation accuracies. The TRANSIT system was initiated in 1962 to support the Navy's fleet ballistic missile submarines. Today, all U.S. Navy and U.S. flag ships, as well as foreign commercial and military vessels, routinely navigate using TRANSIT data. The Fleet Surveillance Support Command was established in a developmental status in July 1986. The command's mission is to operate and maintain Navy Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar (ROTHR) systems. ROTHR is a high-frequency radar under development to provide wide-area oceanic surface and air surveillance data to support the fleet. Fleet commanders-in-chief will assume operational control of Navy ROTHR systems following development testing and deployment. The Naval Space Surveillance Center (NAVSPASUR) is charged with the "space watch." Begun in 1961, the system can detect, identify, and track launched space vehicles out to an effective range of 15,000 nautical miles. NAVSPASUR uses the data gathered to compile reports for the fleet and other authorized users. The command also maintains a catalog of all earth-orbiting satellites. In addition, NAVSPASUR reports events of interest to the U.S. Space Command as part of the nation's Space Detection and Tracking System, and since 1984 as the Alternate Space Surveillance Center for the U.S. Space Command. To assure that additional qualified personnel will be available at the Naval Space Command should war occur, a Naval Reserve unit was established at the Dahlgren headquarters in 1984. Space Systems Operations The Naval Space Command headquarters manages naval use of a number of existing satellites and assists in the development of future space systems to meet the projected needs of the fleet. Current satellite programs managed by NAVSPACECOM include the following: * The Fleet Satellite Communications System, known as FLTSATCOM, is owned by the Department of Defense and provides primary UHF communications to naval forces deployed worldwide. The FLTSATCOM system, which has been operational since 1978, features four satellites in geostationary orbits over the U.S. and Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. FLTSATCOM spacecraft also serve as the host vehicle for the strategic Air Force Satellite Communications System. Extremely-high-frequency (EHF) communications packages deployed on board later FLTSATCOM platforms will permit EHF terminal testing and limited operational capability at EHF prior to the scheduled launch of the Military Strategic Tactical and Relay satellite communications system, known as MILSTAR. * LEASAT is a new Navy-leased UHF satellite communications system that supplements FLTSATCOM. It was first deployed from the space shuttle Discovery in August 1984 and became operational in October 1984. Four LEASAT satellites are intended for geostationary orbits over the U.S. and the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. * The NAVSTAR Global Positioning System is a satellite system currently being deployed that will eventually replace TRANSIT and will upgrade the naval service capability to navigate on, under, and above the ocean's surface. The Navy has been involved in the joint-service program from its inception and is developing time standards for the satellites as well as participating in platform terminal development. * Additionally, the Naval Space Command headquarters coordinates Navy use of and requirements for the Defense Satellite Communications System, a super-high-frequency system that services U.S. and allied forces. Planning for the Future One of the major roles of the Naval Space Command is to plan the Department of the Navy's future in space. NAVSPACECOM conducts long-range planning in support of the Chief of Naval Operation and Marine Corps Headquarters, and seeks to coordinate a number of diverse planning efforts. The ultimate goal is to produce an effective space program for the naval services to ensure that responsive space systems are developed and deployed as soon as technologically and economically feasible. Since it takes anywhere from 12 to 19 years to plan, budget, qualify, and deploy a new space system, this planning effort is absolutely essential if the Navy and Marine Corps are to keep pace with the threat and emerging technology. A major long-range planning function of the Naval Space Command is to produce the Naval Space Master Plan, which provides the guidance, direction, and strategy for developing naval space capabilities. The master plan is revised annually in order to keep the plan as up-to-date as possible. Education and Awareness To assure that U.S. naval forces are fully aware of the present and future contribution of space systems to naval operations and to guarantee qualified and trained personnel to fill the ever-expanding space specialty mission areas, the Naval Space Command develops and supports space-related educational efforts. The Naval Postgraduate School's space systems engineering and space systems operations courses are strongly supported by the Naval Space Command with advice and consultation about the Navy's current and future technical and educational requirements. NAVSPACECOM has a "Naval Space Short Course," flexible enough in structure to be applicable to both fleet and Marine Corps staffs and ship's company, and a TENCAP course aimed at battle group staffs. NAVSPACECOM also sponsors a Space Research Chair in the Aerospace Engineering Department of the U.S. Naval Academy to develop an early interest in the expanding naval space arena. Space Critical to Maritime Mission Since the launching of Sputnik in 1957, both the threat to U.S. national interests and the potential benefits from space systems have increased significantly, and will continue to do so at an accelerated pace. The Navy is particularly affected because of the unique problems and requirements of operating in an open-ocean environment. Alternatives supporting naval missions are either nonexistent or, often, less capable than space systems. The very survivability and battle utility of naval forces are totally linked to the Navy's full and resourceful use of space. Because space critically affects the Navy's ability to carry out its maritime mission, it has actively assisted in formulating national and Department of Defense space policies, and has worked closely with the Air Force and NASA in areas of mutual interest -- particularly the services' ongoing effort to evaluate how to effectively integrate space systems into the operational control of the commanders-in-chief. The Department of the Navy recognizes the use of space as an integral part of warfare and that space systems are integral to the present and future naval structure. SOURCE: Naval Space Command; Dahlgren, Virginia; 22448-5170; (703) 663-7841 NAVY FACT FILE MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND The fundamental military strategy of the United States is to deter war through a strong forward defense. Implicit in this concept is a conviction that any armed conflict would occur some distance from our shores. Hence, our strategy depends heavily on strategic mobility to provide capability for the projection of power and sea control. Our military posture is intended to convince potential enemies that we can, and will, react strongly and swiftly to aggression anywhere in the world. The Military Sealift Command is a basic element of this national strategy. Successful deployment and sustainability of military combat power is dependent on transportation -- primarily on sealift. More than 95 percent of the equipment and supplies needed to sustain a war effort must be carried by ship. The pivotal importance of sealift in the successful conduct of any war effort has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last 50 years -- from the worldwide U.S. convoy and supply operations essential to Allied victory in World War II -- to the 8,000-mile sealift that ensured British success in the 1982 Falklands campaign. Military sealift must therefore be considered a strategic resource; without adequate sealift our forward strategy is flawed. Mission and Forces The primary mission of the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) is to provide sealift for strategic mobility in support of national security objectives. This mission, known as Strategic Sealift, demands the capacity to deploy and sustain military forces whenever and wherever needed, as rapidly and for as long as operational requirements dictate. This mission is accomplished through three component forces: @ The Strategic Sealift Force @ The Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force @ The Special Mission Support Force MSC fulfills its mission in peacetime through the employment of Strategic Sealift forces drawn from two principal sources: U.S. government-owned ships, and ships chartered from the U.S. Merchant Marine. In time of war or national emergency, the vast majority of required additional shipping must be chartered or requisitioned from the privately-owned U.S. flag fleet. These merchant ships will augment government owned ships maintained in inactive or reduced operational status for use in war. Another major MSC mission is management of the MSC Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force (NFAF), which is comprosed of dedicated assets that provide direct support to Navy fleet operations worldwide. Examples are oilers, stores ships, and ocean surveillance ships. A third mission is the operation of the MSC Special Mission Support force. It is made up dedicated sealift assets that gather scientific and technical data or provide specialized support. Examples are oceanographic research, hydrographic survey, missile telemetry, cable ships and missile resupply ships. U.S. Merchant Marine The U.S. merchant fleet has long been considered a primary source of ships to meet national defense requirements. However, a confluence of factors in the late 1970s and 1980s has necessitated reevaluation of that fleet's adequacy. Declining demand, efficiency and economy have induced change in the maritime industry, which in turn, has led to a greater containerization of cargo, changing ship designs and ever-larger ships. However, some of these commercial advancements result in military disadvantages. For example, the large size of some ships prevents their access to a number of vital ports. Some military cargo simply does not fit in standard containers. Additionally, shoreside container cranes may not always be available during hostilities. Smaller breakbulk ships, although well suited to military operations, are no longer commercially viable and are therefore fast becoming vestiges of the past. Strategic Sealift At the same time that the U.S. Merchant Marine has been declining and changing in complexion, the Navy's general purpose force, previously drawn thin by expanding worldwide commitments and a ship retirement rate that exceeded replacement, has been increased by an aggressive shipbuilding program. The combatant ships that have joined, or are now joining, the fleet allow the Navy to establish and maintain its strength in areas of national interest and to project naval power within those areas with greater conviction. The Navy's current Strategic Sealift programs go hand in hand with this revitalization of the combatant fleet. As we expand our ability to project power in support of a forward deterrent posture, we also need to develop and nurture a corresponding ability to deploy and sustain U.S. forces overseas. It is essential that this balance be maintained. Therefore, the Navy has undertaken several vital new programs which enhance Strategic Sealift assets under its direct control and improve the military usefulness of today's merchant ships. Three years ago, the Secretary of the Navy formally incorporated Strategic Sealift as one of the Navy's four major functions, joining Strategic Deterrence, Sea Control and Power Projection. Administrative and operational changes subsequently instituted within the Navy insure sealift programs are considered on a balanced basis with other Navy programs. This serves to fully integrate all of MSC's resources into the operational structure of the Navy's major fleets and their subordinate numbered fleets worldwide. As a consequence, the entire operation of forces assigned to the U.S. Navy, both combatant and sealift, come under one strategic, tactical and operational purview. This important policy change dramatically influences Navy planning and strategy. Forces and Responsibilities The primary responsibilities of the Military Sealift Command encompasses three major functions, all carried out by civilian crewed ships controlled by MSC. These functions are Strategic Sealift, Naval Fleet Auxiliary operations, and Special Mission Support. In carrying out these responsibilities, MSC uses government-owned ships, scheduled commercial liners, and chartered commercial ships. As of October 4, 1988, the MSC force numbered 123 ships consisting of a nucleus force of 66 government-owned and bareboat chartered ships and a commercial fleet of 57 ships. This force included 10 dry cargo ships, 22 tankers, 22 Special Mission Support ships, 41 Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force ships, 23 Afloat Prepositioning ships, and 5 miscellaneous support ships. This fleet is further augmented by 101 Ready Reserve Force ships. Strategic Sealift requires afloat prepositioning and sea movement of supplies and material, petroleum, oil and lubricants, and personnel in response to Department of Defense strategic mobility and logistic support requirements. Strategic Sealift is performed by the dry cargo ships, point-to-point tankers, and passenger ships when required, Ready Reserve Force ships, Fast Sealift ships, and Maritime Prepositioning ships. Direct support of fleet units at sea worldwide allows Navy combatant ships to remain on station for extended periods in performance of their power projection and sea control missions. Ships of the MSC's Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force are considered an integral part of the Navy's total Mobile Logisitics Support Force. Special needs of DOD sponsors in support of research, cable laying and repair, missile tracking, and surveillance efforts are performed by MSC's Special Mission Support ships. MSC peacetime operations include moving DOD and other government cargo, maintaining afloat prepositioning forces on station, participating in strategic mobility exercises, providing direct support to the Navy combatant fleet, and special mission support. All of these operations contribute directly to fleet readiness and MSC's Strategic Sealift mission and facilitate a smooth transition to wartime operations. In time of war, the Strategic Sealift segment will expand significantly, using ships drawn from the Navy's Ready Reserve Force and ships chartered or requisitioned from the U.S. Flag Merchant Fleet or the Effective U.S. Controlled Fleet. In addition, the Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force will be augmented by an additional 30 to 40 merchant ships, to provide direct fleet logistic support to afloat Mobile Logistics Support Force units or to forward supply bases. SOURCE: Department of the Navy; Military Sealift Command; Washington, DC 20398-5100; (202) 433-0495 NAVY FACT FILE HAZARDOUS WASTE Prior to the early 1980s, there was a general concept that any thing buried in the ground would magically decompose -- after all, we all knew that household wastes were purified by the soil. Little thought was given to the fact that the complex organic chemicals created after the 1940s were not amenable to quick decomposition anywhere, and certainly not in soil. Only in later years did the nation come to realize many of these chemicals in concentrations of parts per billion or even less were carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to humans. In fact, it has been only in the last 15 years or so that technology was adequate to measure these materials in low concentrations. Against this background, it is important to note that 50 percent of the population of the United States drinks ground water, i.e., water from wells or springs. These factors have led to today's principal environmental concerns -- hazardous wastes dumped in the past, and those handled and disposed of today. Two laws cover these areas: The Comprehensive Environmental Restoration Compensation and Liabilities Act (CERCLA), often called the "Superfund Law," covers past disposal actions; and the "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act" (RCRA) covers hazardous wastes generated today. The Navy is subject to both of these laws. Navy Cleanup Program for Abandoned Hazardous Wastes Sites Navy hazardous wastes are, for the most part, generated at Navy industrial complexes in metropolitian coastal cities. Hazardous wastes were often disposed of by contractors in commercial dumps which served the entire civilian industrial community. It is Navy policy to cooperate fully with state and federal agency cleanups of these dumps and pay a "fair share" of cleanup costs. Some hazardous wastes were discharged to Navy lands, which were subsequently sold, or otherwise transferred from Navy possession. The Department of Defense has assigned the Army responsibility for evaluation and cleanup of these "previously owned" sites for all of the components. The Navy "Installation Restoration (IR) Program" deals with the third portion of Navy past hazardous waste generation--that portion that was disposed of on Navy land that is still owned by the Navy. Navy Installation Restoration Program The Navy IR program follows the Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and regulations. It involves three phases: Phase 1, called the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI), identifies sites at an installation where hazardous wastes have been spilled or disposed of in the past; Phase 2, is a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study to quantify the sites through soil and water testing, evaluate the human health and environmental impacts and recommend alternatives for remedial action. Finally, ther is Phase 3, the remedial design/remedial action, involves estimating, designing and constructing any required remedial actions. It should be noted that if a site requires immediate removal action, or it would be otherwise advantageous to take immediate action, remedial action will be started at any time. The Environmental Protection Agency identifies sites throughout the country which are potentially the worst. The National Priorities List (NPL) includes 13 Navy/Marine Corps installations out of 1100 sites on the list. These installations receive high priority and are required to follow specific deadlines written in the law. Program Management Basically, the Navy IR program is a service provided to the activity commander by the Navy environmental organization. This service is provided both to Navy and Marine Corps installations. Management at the Secretary of the Navy level is vested in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Shipbuilding and Logistics). Navy operational management is in the Navy Environmental Protection, Safety and Occupational Health Division CNO (OP-45) under the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics) (OP-04). Program execution is by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) through their Naval Engineering and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA) at Port Hueneme, California. The status of each phase is as follows as of 1 October 1988. Phase 1. NEESA accomplished all Phase 1 studies. Typically a PA/SI costs approximately $60,000. 219 PAs have been initiated. 177 are completed. Of the 177 completed PAs, 129 SIs have been accomplished. The completed PA/SIs showed further study is warranted at 67 activities for a total of 750 specific hazardous waste sites. Phase 2. These RI/FS studies are intensely site specific. All are by contracts prepared and let by the regional NAVFACENGCOM EFDs. RI/FSs have been initiated at 56 activities for a total of 635 hazardous waste sites; RI/FS have been completed at two activities for 19 sites. Phase 3. Remedial measures including removals and remedial actions are accomplished through normal Naval contracting procedures utilizing funds in the Defense Environmental Restoration Account. Remedial measures have been initiated for 58 sites and completed for 24 sites. Coordination with Local, State, Federal Regulatory Agencies and the Public The Installation Restoration community relations effort promotes proactive two-way communications between members of the public, and the Navy. Community relations activities provide the opportunity for interested persons to comment on, and provide input to, decisions about response actions. These activities ensure that the local public is provided with accurate and timely information about response plans and progress and that their concerns about planned actions are heard by the Navy. A site-specific and well-planned community relations effort is an integral part of every IR response. Each installation undergoing response activity is also required to establish a Technical Review Committee (TRC), made up of a representive of the Navy, EPA, the State environmental agency and members of the public. The purpose of the TRC is to define as best as possible the problem being faced and lay before regulators and the public the alternatives the Navy or Marine Corps will be considering to remedy the problem. Control of Hazardous Wastes Generated Today The nationwide program to control the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes involves "cradle to grave" monitoring of the waste by the generator. The system involves creation of a manifest by the waste generator; the manifest accompanies the waste, until it reaches its final destination at a "permitted" disposal or treatment facility. Upon receipt of the waste the permittee returns a copy of the manifest to the generator signifying receipt of the waste. If the generator does not receive the return copy within a prescribed time, the generator must report to the regulatory agencies. The permitting process for treatment, storage and disposal facilities is rigorous and involves requirements for operation, maintenance and theconstruction of the <>facilities including operator training and contingency (spill, fire) plans. The Navy is subject to all requirements of the national & state programs. Most Navy activities that generate or handle hazardous wastes are inspected by EPA and/or state regulatory agencies annually. The inspections are extremely detailed. Navy Hazardous Waste Minimization Program The Navy generates a total of about 100,000 tons of hazardous waste annually at over 150 Navy activities. Handling and disposal costs are increasing dramatically as commercial treatment/disposal facilities close rather than make the investment to meet permitting requirements. There is an inherent environmental and health risk associated with every gallon of hazardous waste that is generated. The obvious answer to control costs and reduce risks is to reduce (minimize) Navy generation of haszardous waste. The Navy hazardous waste minimization program was begun in October 1985. It requires a 50% reduction (weight) in hazardous waste generation by 1992 through tight control of hazardous materials; substitution of non-hazardous materials in procedures and processing; careful consideration of hazardous waste minimization in weapons and support system acquistion; and recyling or reuse of the hazardous waste directly for a lesser use or for the original use after upgrading. The overall reduction will be achieved by assigning reduction goals to each activity based on the specific processes that generate the hazardous waste and the availability of technology to reduce such generation. SOURCE: Department of the Navy (OP-45)Washington, D.C. 20350-2000 NAVY FACT FILE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Since the Civil War, when armored steam-propelled warships first were combat-tested, the Navy always has integrated modern technology into the national force structure. For example, in 1955, with the words "underway on nuclear power," USS Nautilus proved to a watchful world that we were a leader in nuclear propulsion and could effectively use technology in our modern submarine force, constantly applying new concepts so as to stay qualitatively well ahead of Soviet counterparts. This recurrent theme continues. Today's Navy is heavily involved in using the latest American technology across the naval warfare spectrum. No sea is a safe harbor or protected lake. A survivable Navy in the modern world must possess the latest surveillance techniques, information processing capabilities, and platforms that can effectively deliver nuclear weapons in the incredible environments realistically projected in this decade. Therefore, it is fundamental to the nation's defensive capability that the technology gap between the U.S. and the Soviet Union remains as wide as possible. Objective The U.S. chose not to compete with the Soviet Union's quantity of military weapons and forces for various reasons. Instead, the U.S. and its allies have sought to offset Soviet quantitative advantage through the exploitation of superior technology in weaponry. Recognizing that it is not possible to protect a technological lead forever, U.S. policy makers have concluded that it is both possible and necessary to protect such lead times, defined as those years it takes the Soviets to catch up to our level of capability. The program, as it affects our Technology Transfer Control Program, and utimately our security, is how to slow legal and illegal Soviet acquisition of the Western technologies which enable the Soviets to narrow the technology gap. Background and Current Status The Secretary of the Navy has established the Office of Technology Transfer and Security Assistance (NAVOTTSA) to centralize the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of the Department of the Navy's management of technology transfer, disclosure, security assistance and international programs. NAVOTTSA is an Echelon Two shore activity reporting to the Under Secretary of the Navy, having relationships with the Chief of Naval Operations, the OPNAV staff, appropriate technical and program offices, and the fleet commanders-in-chiefs to support the Department of Defense (DOD) Technology Transfer (T2) Control Program. The Technology Transfer Control Program is the management mechanism by which DOD discharges its responsibility for participation in the regulation of military-related exports of goods, services, technology under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act and the Arms Export Control Act. When the current DOD program was initiated in 1981, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy was given responsibility to coordinate DOD policy on technology transfer. He is supported in this role by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, who is responsible for management of overall DOD technical efforts. Together, and with cooperation from other DOD components, these under secretaries have shaped a program which has coalesced policy and operational and technical personnel throughout DOD into an effective team for providing to the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, and DOD, recommendations on the transfer of technology. In the process, major efforts have been directed toward improving interagency and international cooperation, engaging experts from industry and academia as well as DOD to assist in identifying militarily critical technologies and in recommending certain export control procedures, and appropriately informing U.S. industry and the public on the impact of technology transfer on the East-West military balance. Extremely helpful in all of these undertakings have been DOD International Technology Transfer (IT2) Panel and Subpanels. The IT2 Panel is the mechanism through which DOD and its service members resolve internal differences of opinion over policy and technical recommendations on technology transfer. In 1983, the DOD Technology Security Center was established. Efforts to improve automation and generally streamline case processing have also moved forward to help meet the goal of reducing export license processing time as much as possible. Many other domestic and international activities also were productive during 1983 and 1984. Progress continues in improving cooperative international, multilateral controls on exports to the Eastern Bloc through the strengthening and modernizing of the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM). Unfortunately, COCOM reforms have been slow in coming and allied nations still are holding back on committing sufficient resources for COCOM to do the job efficiently. In addition, we are actively pursuing bilateral control arrangements with non-COCOM nations. COCOM participants include Japan plus the NATO countries minus Iceland. COCOM controls exports from member countries to most communist controlled countries including Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Future Outlook We certainly are not endangered by the transfer of technological concepts. In fact, free exchange of scientific ideas also is one of our hallmarks of world leadership. Technological concepts can be transferred in the nation's best interests, forging new diplomatic ties, helping needy nations and peoples. On the other hand, our goal should be to protect applied militarily-critical technology. Our concern is that as soon as we develop, test and field new high technology systems aboard our ships and aircraft, the Soviets easily and cheaply acquire this technology for their own use. In fact, new Soviet systems appear shortly after initial employment in our fleet. We must then develop, test and field a new technology. The Soviet Union and its surrogates are embarked upon the most impressive, systematic, calculated effort the world has ever known -- using both legal and illegal means -- to raid the free world's technological base. This effort has provided them with big dividends, in some critical instances shrinking our once eight-to-ten-year technology lead to a mere two to three years. As a result, we're talking about the virtual elimination of the "comfort zone" once enjoyed between the time of our development and their use. Technology transfer is too often thought of as a clandestine sale or transfer of specific goods or equipments, like a computer or a new missile system or, again in terms of stolen secret defense documents, like the famous U.S. photo-satellite handbook sold by an American traitor only a few years ago. But the large body of transfer is subtle, harder to detect and to deter. In fact, technology transfer largely occurs in our open literature published by well-meaning members of competitive companies who are too quick to publicize their technology achievements that often are derived from nuggets of military critical technology. An unrelenting, well-orchestrated and financed Soviet effort is quick to collect scraps of information from these unwitting salesmen until all essential elements of the latest U.S. military capability are in Soviet hands. Before this initiative to control transfer of critical technology runs its course, it will entail new legislation and policy direction at the national level. But laws and regulations are inadequate in themselves. What is required is a grass-roots effort with combined support of American industry, academia and government. While there is no need for national paranoia, a clarion call is urgently needed for our free society to protect what should be, at least for a time, held as our own. There must be an educational program within industry itself to first understand and accept that a significant problem exists, and to find a solution responsibly. SOURCE: Department of the Navy (OP-O6T); Washington, DC 20350; (202) 697-8339 NAVY FACT FILE PROCUREMENT COMPETITION The Navy remains committed to fostering effective competitive strategies that provide quality products, within the required time frames, and at a fair and reasonable price. Competition, where it makes sense, has proven itself to be the single most effective strategy for the acquisition of Navy supplies and services. The competitive marketplace can satisfy many of the Navy's requirements and, at the same time, conserve scarce resources. The Benefits of Competition Competition is a fundamental part of American business enterprise, and is now being applied effectively in Navy programs. @ Competition results in efficiently produced, reasonably priced goods and services. @ Competition yields savings beyond our expectations -- moving from a sole source, bureaucratic process to an environment formed by inspirational challenge. @ Competition has brought incredible vigor to defense procurement. Significant improvements have already occurred. @ Competition has made it easier and faster to compete than to restrict to a given source. @ Competition between the public and private sector for ship repair has been joined by public-private competition in aircraft maintenance. This fresh approach is revitalizing the Navy industrial sector -- we have to be efficient to win. @ Competition drives improvements in the manufacturing process and the quality of the product delivered to the fleet. Commitment to Competition as Navy Business Strategy The Navy commitment to competition as our basic business strategy has never been stronger. Continued support from top level management has driven the Navy's competition initiative to greater levels of achievement. The recognition of the basic benefits of competition and the prudent application of this universally accepted business practice has enabled the Navy to obtain greater return for the taxpayers' dollars. In a time of increased fleet operating tempo and demand for high degrees of readiness, competition has helped the Navy meet its worldwide commitments. Through continued reliance on this cost saving mechanism, the Navy will be better able to cope with the austere financial environment that looms on the horizon. Spare Parts Competition Project BOSS (Buy Our Spares Smart) was established in August 1983 by the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, to address the spares acquisition problems uncovered by Navy and Department of Defense audits. The mission of Project BOSS is to identify and institutionalize changes necessary to ensure the purchase of high-quality parts at fair and reasonable prices. The attainment of three interdependent goals is necessary to obtain required spares and support items at the best value for our dollars: @ Break out parts and equipment from prime contractors @ Significantly increase the use of competitive procurement @ Ensure only fair and reasonable prices are paid Competition Advocacy Program Project BOSS has contributed significantly to the competition advocacy program. The following examples illustrate how Project BOSS has provided positive results: @ A comparison of the current price awarded for the same items bought the previous year revealed that the Navy has achieved a 10.4 percent decrease in aviation spare parts. @ The Price Fighter Detachment performed over 13,000 value analyses for documented and verified cost avoidance on over $71 million in ensuing procurement; recommended that 435 spare parts be competed resulting in documented, verified cost avoidance of over $14 million. Fiscal Year 1989 and Beyond We will continue to build on successful initiatives in areas such as competition planning, increased availability of technical data, market research, education and training, communication, and resources for investment in competition. We also need to seize the opportunity to let the competition initiative take us into new areas of emphasis and payoff. During the last several years, the Navy has placed great emphasis on increasing the level of competition being achieved in its acquisition program. As previously noted, we have been successful. At the same time, the Navy has recognized the competition initiative as having great potential as the cornerstone for other improvements. We believe that there is great opportunity for further payoff from the competition initiative and it is in pursuit of these that we intend to take the program into the future. Particular emphasis will be placed on: @ Use of competition to enhance quality. While conventional wisdom may suggest that a "low bidder" mentality can erode quality, there is persuasive evidence that a properly directed competition program can enhance quality. @ Use of competition to spur innovation in acquisition. We have seen the pay-off possible when competition is used to "deregulate" our environment in areas like cost or pricing data; we need to find other similar pay-offs. @ Use of competition at the subcontractor level. We are pursuing a program to insure that the benefits of competition are being obtained at the subcontractor level through sensible subcontract management programs at our prime contractors. Summary The Navy's Competition Program encompasses a wide and diverse array of component elements. The program affects the entire acquisition process; Competition Advocates oversee the individual elements and ensure program success. Success could not be expected unless all members of the acquisition team work towards the goals of cost savings and better quality through competition SOURCE: Office of the Competition Advocate General of the Navy; Washington, DC 20350; (202) 692-3432/5367 NAVY FACT FILE EMPRESS II The U.S. Navy must be capable of sustained warfighting in many environments. One environment includes the threat of electronic equipment failures caused by an Electromagnetic Pulse or EMP. EMP is an electrical phenomenon somewhat like lightening, but traveling much faster, wide spread in coverage and more powerful in overall disruptive effects on unprotected modern electronic equipment. In most cases EMP will burn out unprotected sensitive electronics, or at the very least, it will cause upset of the equipment resulting in loss of crucial data. If used as a weapon, EMP is a non-nuclear-by-product of a high altitude nuclear reaction outside the Earth's atmosphere, only harmful to electrical and electronic equipment. Background In the early 1970's the U.S. Navy began development of design and testing procedures aimed at ensuring the capability of combatant ships to withstand EMP effects. While initial attempts at simulating EMP lacked capability in logistic terms, information obtained from those tests set the precedent for the development in 1982 of a test platform project, known as the Electromagnetic Pulse Radiation Environment Simulator for Ships (EMPRESS). In 1984, the EMPRESS II program began. In conjunction with design development and construction of the facility, an environmental assessment and draft environmental impact statement were prepared to meet the requirements and spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The design of the facility is a barge mounted antenna with a power generator used to create the EMP pulse transmitted by the antenna. The concept of EMPRESS II is to generate an extremely brief, intense Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) by rapidly discharging stored electrical energy into the antenna at the rate of about 10 billionths of a second. The EMP waveform will then propagate away from the antenna, decreasing in intensity with increasing distance. When the pulse comes in contact with the ship, the response of the ship's electronics will be recorded and analyzed. This data will provide information to designers enabling them to improve EMP protection for the electronics that demonstrated a vulnerability. Safety In accordance with logistical and environmental policy, studies were initiated to determine the most suitable operating location for EMPRESS II and to provide for commencement of the environmental assessment. Although eighteen sites were studied, five were ultimately selected for the final study, assessment and development of the draft environmental impact statement. One site is at sea in international waters in the Virginia Capes Operating Area; the other was a site in the Chesapeake Bay. The at-sea area was to be used for summer operations, while the protected waters of the Chesapeake Bay were intended for winter operations. As a result of Congressional action in 1987, the Navy is forbidden to use the site in the Bay. This leaves only the at sea operating area available. To ensure environmental regulations are upheld, the Navy has sponsored extensive research to ensure that the EMPRESS II is safe for the environment, its denizens and the public. Since 1984 when the EMPRESS II project began, the Navy established and has maintained a commitment to public safety and environmental awareness. Evidence in studies performed by the University of Maryland, The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and others verify the safety of the EMPRESS II. This is well documented in the environmental documents which have been produced for the project: A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), two volumes of a supplemental DEIS, and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Navy is committed to protecting the environment and the public, and has ensured that all legitimate concerns with regard to the EMPRESS II have been, and will continue to be addressed. The Navy is confident that the project poses no risk to the environment, marine biota, or the public. As a result of the Navy's commitment to safety precautions, before testing begins the Navy will issue a notice to mariners and a notice to airmen delineating the location and hours of testing. A two mile exclusion area will be established around the EMPRESS II barge to preclude any interference with the testing and to ensure unprotected electronics equipment is not subjected to the transmitted energy. Likewise, outside of the two mile exclusion area, there is no effect on public utilities and electronics. Status The EMPRESS II was towed to the Virginia Capes Operating area in July 1989 for Data Acquisition and Processing System (DAAPS) testing. Pulsing will next occur in the Summer of 1990 as part of Final Acceptance Testing. Actual ship tests of a hardened ship, as part of the Ship Acceptance Testing will begin in 1990; with approximately five ships per year being tested in 1991-1995, and 5-10 per year in 1995-2015. Cost The research, development, design, and construction cost is approximately $40 million. Estimated annual operating cost is approximately $2.2 million. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; Naval Sea Systems Command (OOD); Washington, DC 20360; (202) 692-6920 NAVY FACT FILE MARINE MAMMAL PROGRAM The Navy's Marine Mammal Program had its origin in the acquisition, in 1960, of a Pacific white-sided dolphin for hydrodynamic studies. Scientists of the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) at China Lake and Pasadena, California, had heard accounts of the hydrodynamic efficiency of porpoises. Since NOTS was in the business of (among other things) designing and developing torpedoes, it seemed reasonable to determine whether porpoises did in fact have special characteristics that might be applied to the design of the underwater missiles. Work with the white-sided dolphin indicated that she possessed no unusual physiological or hydrodynamic capabilities, but it was suspected that the conditions in the long testing tank in which she swam might have affected her performance. The NOTS scientists and engineers wanted to continue their investigation of porpoises, and looked about for an appropriate site at which to establish a small research facility. They found such a site at Point Mugu, California, where the Pacific Missile Range and Naval Missile Center were located. By coincidence, a group in the Life Sciences Department of the Naval Missile Center was also proposing to undertake studies of marine life, including porpoises. Mugu Lagoon, the last such body of protected water on the Southern California coast, was seen as a great asset for such work. As a result of these mutual interests, and with encouragement from the Office of Naval Research, a modest facility for research and exploratory development gradually evolved on a sand spit between the lagoon and the ocean at Point Mugu. The program got under way in 1963. Primary interest was in marine mammals the study of their specially developed senses and systems (such as sonar and deep diving physiology) and also how porpoises and sea lions could be worked untethered in the open sea with great reliability. In 1965, a Navy porpoise named Tuffy participated in the Sea Lab 11 project off La Jolla, California, carrying tools and messages between the surface and aquanauts operating out of the habitat 200 feet below. In 1967, the Point Mugu Facility and its personnel, both of NOTS and the Naval Missile Center, were placed under a newly-formed organization which was to become the Naval Undersea Center (NUC), with headquarters in San Diego. Following the formation of the Center, a NUC laboratory was established in Hawaii at the Marine Corps Air Station on Kaneohe Bay. Some of the personnel and animals at Point Mugu transferred to the Hawaii laboratory, and later the rest of the Point Mugu operation moved to San Diego to a new facility at the tip of Point Loma. In a subsequent reorganization, NUC and the Naval Electronics Center, also on Point Loma, were combined to form the Naval Ocean Systems Center. Here the research and development program begun at Point Mugu has continued. This has included further studies of the capabilities of marine mammals, development of improved techniques for diagnosis and treatment of health problem; neurophysiological studies, using non-invasive techniques, to gain a better understanding of how the large dolphin brain functions; development of instrumentation for determining, by brain wave activity, the hearing range of a cetacean; investigation of how dolphins produce the sounds they make; and project effort directed toward development of a sonar based on the dolphin echolocation system. Marine mammal work at the Hawaii Laboratory has been concerned with behavior studies; the establishment of a dolphin breeding colony, and with associated work on their reproductive physiology; further research on the dolphin echolocation system; and investigation of the potential of marine mammals for performing useful tasks more efficiently, safely and cost effectively than is possible using human divers or deep submersibles. One project, called QUICK FIND, demonstrated that sea lions could be trained to locate and attach recovery hardware to inert instrumented missiles or other items of test ordnance that are fired into the ocean for later recovery. Eliminating the need for human divers, who are handicapped by brief working times on the bottom, poor visibility and currents, and the requirement for medical personnel, a recompression chamber, and other surface support, the QUICK FIND system consists of a small rubber boat, a sea lion, and two or three handlers. When the boat arrives at the recovery site, the sea lion is sent over the side. It then hops back on the boat and indicates that it has heard the acoustic beacon in the object lying on the sea floor by pressing its nose against a rubber pad. The sea lion then returns to the water and accepts a nose cup on which an attachment device is mounted. A strong line tied to this device is payed out from the boat as the sea lion swims down to the missile, orients on it for proper placement of the attachment device and moves forward. The sea lion then backs out of the nose cup and returns to the boat for a well-deserved reward of fish. The QUICK FIND system, which has a recovery capability to a depth of at least 500 feet, became operational in 1975 and has been in service use since that time. In a similar project, called DEEP OPS, a pilot whale and two killer whales demonstrated their ability to recover objects from greater depths. The recovery device which the whales attached to the target object, a dummy torpedo containing an acoustic beacon, incorporated a hydrazine gas generator which was activated upon attachment of the device to the torpedo. The generated gas filled a large lift bag which was activated upon attachment of the device to the torpedo. The generated gas filled a large lift bag which raised the torpedo to the surface. Using this device, the pilot whale successfully recovered the torpedo from a depth of 1654 feet. Although much was learned form the DEEP OPS project, work with killer and pilot whales, the largest of the dolphins, has not been continued. The capabilities of belugas, or white whales, have been investigated at the San Diego facility, at San Clemente Island, and at torpedo test ranges in Seattle and Canada. Although belugas are inshore and estuarine animals which enter rivers for calving and feeding, they were found capable of diving to at least 2100 feet. In tests to determine their ability to recover inert experimental torpedoes which have ended up at the bottom of a test range, the belugas attached the recovery device to a dummy torpedo at 1300 feet, the maximum depth available. Under a new bionics (the study of animal systems as models for man-made analogs) program, research on dolphin hydrodynamics has been resumed, with the same goal the original work had: to determine if the dolphin does indeed possess a highly evolved drag-reducing system. The capabilities for undertaking this work are now greatly improved and include instrumentation for measurements that previously could not be made. Among the possible drag-reducing mechanisms being studied are skin compliance, biopolymers, and boundary layer heating, which may or may not work synergistically. Another bionics project is concerned with determining, by sophisticated psychophysical experiments, how the dolphin processes the echoes of its sonar clicks to make difficult detections and extremely fine discriminations. This information will be modeled and built as an "expert system" to aid human sonar operators in identifying targets from clutter. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; Naval Ocean Systems Center; San Diego, CA 92152-5000; (619) 553-2717 NAVY FACT FILE NAVY MUSIC PROGRAM Navy musicians are full-time professional musicians requiring proficient musical skills before being accepted into the music program. There are 17 Navy Bands located throughout the continental United States and overseas, with each band containing various groups which could include: Ceremonial Band, Stage Band, Rock Band, Reception Combo, Concert Band, Country Band, and Woodwind/ Brass quintet. Engagements are broken down into three basic areas: Ceremonies, which includes changes of command, retirements, ship commissionings, etc.; Fleet Morale, encompassing command parties, Navy Day celebrations, on-base performances, etc.; and Recruiting/Public Affairs, involving parades, school concerts, community celebrations, patriotic events, etc In addition to performances and events, the Navy Music Program offers three levels of musical training. Consisting of 26 weeks, the Basic Course teaches skills needed to equip musicians to function as instrumentalists in Navy Bands; the Intermediate Course, encompassing 26 weeks, provides supplemental training needed to function as a small group leader and middle managers within the Navy Music program; and the Enlisted Bandleader Course, 48 weeks in length, provides advanced training to enable personnel to function as enlisted bandleaders and senior enlisted personnel within the Navy Music program. The United States Navy Band The United States Navy Band is the Navy's premier musical representative in Washington, D.C. Recognized as "The World's Finest," the band is staffed by some of the nation's best musicians, many of whom are graduates of outstanding universities and schools of music. The band is directed by Commander Philip H. Field, U.S. Navy, the eighth officer to hold this position. Under Commander Field's leadership, the U.S. Navy Band inspires and entertains by performing all styles of music - from ceremonial "ruffles and flourishes" to classical, jazz, and country favorites. The organization continues a proud tradition of professionalism and service long associated with the United States Navy. Profile Officially formed on March 4, 1925 by an Act of Congress, President Coolidge later signed into law the 1925 bill stating "hereafter the band now stationed at the Navy Yard, known as the Navy Yard Band, shall be designated as the United States Navy Band." Since its official designation in 1925, the U.S. Navy Band has developed into a diverse and professional organization now comprised of 169 enlisted musicians and three officers. Based at the historic Washington (D.C.) Navy Yard, the organization features a large concert-ceremonial unit and three distinct specialty groups - the Sea Chanters chorus; Commodores jazz ensemble; and Country Current country-bluegrass group. The band also features a number of ensembles and chamber music groups. Since 1925, the band has performed summer concerts at the U.S. Capitol and has participated in 15 Presidential Inaugurals. The band also performs at memorial services in Arlington National Cemetery and presents honors at White House and Pentagon ceremonies for arriving dignitaries. Likewise, the band appears in the weekly Navy Summer Ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. In addition, the Navy Band presents numerous public concerts in the Washington metropolitan area, and tours annually throughout the country. U.S. Naval Academy Band The United States Naval Academy Band is the Navy's oldest and finest continuing musical organization. Now in its 136th year of supporting the Brigade of Midshipmen, the band's reputation as a musical representative of the Navy has never been greater. When the Naval Academy was founded in 1845, the "band" consisted of a fifer and a drummer. On 22 November 1852, the Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography issued an order which authorized for the Naval Academy "a band of music to consist of one master of the band at $18 per month, six musicians at $12 per month and five at $10 per month." Since that time, in the early 1970's, during a general reorganization of the Navy's music program, the band was reduced in size to its present complement of 65 members. In 1972, the band added its first female member and today women comprise nearly 15 percent of the band's membership. Today's Naval Academy Band is a far cry from the 13 men who reported to Annapolis 125 years ago. In addition to providing musical support for the Brigade of Midshipmen, it has taken on an additional program of support to Navy recruiting and in representing the Navy in patriotic performances throughout the East. SOURCE: Department of the Navy, Music Branch (NMPC-654); Washington, D.C. 20370; (202) 694-4630/31 NAVY FACT FILE RELIGIOUS MINISTRIES From its inception, the naval service has recognized its responsibility to provide for religious ministries to meet the rights and needs of its personnel. The second article of Navy Regulations, adopted November 28, 1775, stated that "the commanders of ships of the thirteen United Colonies are to take care that divine services be performed..." In continuation of this obligation, the Secretary of the Navy has directed commanders and commanding officers to provide for the free exercise of religion by all personnel of the naval service, their dependents, and other authorized persons. To this end chaplains are appointed to provide ministry and facilitate the free exercise of religion through the Command Religious Program. The first chaplain known to have served in the Navy was the Reverend Benjamin Balch, a Congregational minister. On October 28, 1778, Balch reported aboard the frigate Boston under the command of Samuel Tucker. After the capture of the Boston by the British in 1780 at Charleston, South Carolina, Balch was transferred to the Alliance. Since that time, chaplains have served naval personnel in peace and war. The Chaplain Corps consists of 1,157 active duty men and women and 611 Reserve chaplains drawn from some 80 of the 207 faith groups recognized by the Department of Defense. Chaplains provide ministry throughout the sea services. Approximately three fourths of chaplain billets support naval units, 24 percent of the chaplains serve with the Marine Corps, 22 chaplains are assigned to the Coast Guard, and two chaplains provide services to cadets of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York. Fifty five percent of activities that have chaplains attached have only a single chaplain. An additional 15 percent have only two chaplains. These percentages increase dramatically when only sea (82 percent) or overseas (74 percent) are considered. Chaplains serve in a wide variety of locations and environments, ranging from Naval Communications Station, Harold E. Holt, Australia, to Naval Air Station, Keflavik, Iceland. Three chaplains serve each of the carriers, while a single chaplain circuit rides to meet the religious needs of destroyer and amphibious squadrons. Women chaplains, too, take their turn at sea duty aboard combat logistics force ships, tenders, and certain Fleet Marine Force commands. Chaplains with the Marine Corps serve at every level from Headquarters to battalion and air group. Chaplains are a part of the healing team in all Naval Hospitals, meet the needs of recruits as they undergo basic training, strongly support Family Service Center initiatives and serve worshipping congregations at most installations. The Chief of Chaplains reports to the Chief of Naval Operations as a Director of a Principal Staff Office, with additional duty to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Personnel. * As Chief of Chaplains, he represents the Department of the Navy to the faith groups of America. * As Director of Religious Ministries, he administers the Chaplain Corps and provides programs to address the religious needs of sea service personnel. * As Senior Chaplain of the Navy, he advises the Secretary, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and Senior Merchant Marine officials on matters of policy affecting religious expression, ethics, and morale of the sea services. Applicants for the Chaplain Corps are drawn from three programs: Direct Accessions; Recall from the Inactive Reserves; and Superceding Appointments from the Chaplain Candidate Program Officer (CCPO) program. Entry into the Corps by lateral transfer is prohibited by the Naval Personnel Manual. Applicants for the Chaplain Candidate Program must have completed 120 hours of undergraduate study, be matriculated in a recognized seminary or graduate school of theology, and receive approval from a recognized faith group. Chaplain candidates attend an orientation course followed by 35 days of supervised on-the-job training. To be accessed as a chaplain, an applicant must have completed 120 hours of undergraduate study, 90 graduate hours of theology or a related subject in a recognized institution, and his/her professional qualifications must be endorsed by a recognized faith group. Some religious faith groups require two or more years of professional experience before an applicant is released for active duty. Before assignment to duty, chaplains attend the Chaplain Basic Course at the Chaplains School, Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island. The 35 day program provides an orientation to ministry in the Navy/Marine Corps environment. During subsequent tours, a chaplain may be assigned to postgraduate school to obtain skills to address a particular identified ministry need; to the Chaplains School Advance Course for professional and managerial training prior to assignment to more senior supervisory responsibilities; or to the Armed Forces Staff College or Naval War College enroute to a joint duty assignment. Workshops in the Dynamics of Black Worship, as well as Asian-American and Hispanic cultures assist chaplains in meeting specialized worship and counseling needs. The Chaplain Resource Board is the programmatic research and development agency of the Chaplain Corps. It is tasked be the Chief of Chaplains to identify or develop materials to met a broad spectrum of sea service concerns. The Chaplain Resource Board's small organization and exceptionally experienced chaplains and Religious Program Specialists permit a rapid, cost effective response. Over the last several years, the Board has provided the Navy with materials to address young adult suicide, Navy Core Values, Single Parent Support, and Human Dignity in the Workplace. It also has prepared materials to facilitate ministry to a wide spectrum of faith groups (Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant); and initiated a Navywide religious audiovisual library. Chaplains Religious Enrichment and Development Operation (CREDO) is a high impact organization which strives to make good sailors and Marines better. Through weekend retreat experiences, and other programs, CREDOs located in Norfolk, San Diego, Great Lakes, Naples and Okinawa, provide spiritual support that enables young people to gain in maturity, learn coping skills, and develop an understanding of their own inner resources. The success of the program is measured by the large number of commands who make use of its services on a regular basis. The Navy cooperates with the Army and Air Force through the Department of Defense Armed Forces Chaplains Board to address areas of mutual interest, including ministry within Unified and Specified Commands. Six joint billets are rotated among the services. Chaplains are ably assisted by the Religious Program Specialist (RP) rating. Formed in 1979, it met a long-felt need for a professional cadre of personnel to provide programmatic and administrative support for the Command Religious program. The rating now consists of 1,144 men and women, and in its brief history has proven invaluable. Religious Program Specialists serve throughout the world, at sea, ashore, and overseas, freeing chaplains to provide ministry. A combatant rating, its members provide protection for the chaplain in the field with Marines. At sea they share watchstanding and damage control duties with their shipmates. Navy Chaplains and Religious Program Specialists are an integral part of the command. They share the command's life and experience. When the unit sails in harm's way, they share the danger. Chaplain Joseph T. O'Callahan received the Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism when his ship, the USS Franklin was stricken off the coast of Kobe, Japan, March 19, 1945. Chaplain Vincent R. Capadonno received the Medal of Honor posthumously for unselfishly sacrificing his life for his Marines on September 4, 1967, in Vietnam. Five chaplains have been awarded the Navy Cross, and many others have received the Silver or Bronze Star. Chaplains shared in the sorrow and provided comfort in the tragedy of the Beruit bombing, the USS Stark incident and the explosion aboard the USS Iowa. SOURCE: Department of the Navy; Chief of Chaplains Office (OP-972); Washington, D.C. 20350; (202) 694-4438 NAVY TALKING POINTS NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE Good order and discipline are the direct responsibility of every Navy and Marine Corps command. As the primary criminal investigative and counterintelligence agency for the Department of the Navy, the mission of the Naval Investigative Service is to support all commands in the discharge of the responsibility. The NIS is a centrally directed, largely civilian, worldwide organization providing such support, both ashore and afloat, consistent with Department of the Navy policy and with full regard for the constitutional rights of individuals. Although the organization is more than a century old, it wasn't until 1966 that it adopted the name NIS. Since then it has expanded as the need for professional experience in the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal activity against department of the Navy personnel and property has increased. The NIS is a part of the Navy Security and Investigative Command (NSIC), which has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. NSIC is commanded by a rear admiral who reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. Criminal Investigation Crime is an unfortunate fact of life in many segments of society; the Navy is no exception. Unlawful acts by or against Department of the Navy personnel (including civilian employees and contractors) that result in property damage, financial loss or serious personal injury carry the additional threat of impairing the Navy's ability to effectively carry out its mission. Criminal detection and investigation, therefore, are important NIS responsibilities. People of course, are the Navy's most valuable asset: there are 1.3 million Sailors, Marines and Civilians working for the Department of the Navy today. For that reason, a part of the Special Agent's workload focuses on the investigation into such violent crimes as arson, homicide, rape and robbery. Narcotics trafficking, larceny and the destruction or theft of government property are major concerns as well. At shore installations overseas and around the United States, NIS Special Agents are active in anti-drug operations. Overseas they join with local authorities in cooperative drug "sweeps" prior to U.S. Navy ship visits to foreign ports, and in major U.S. cities, they work with local police to gather evidence against drug dealers looking for military customers. So-called white-collar crime such as fraud and embezzlement is no stranger to the Navy or Marine Corps. In recent years major commands, based on evidence painstakingly gathered by NIS Special Agents over long periods of time, successfully prosecuted cases involving millions of dollars in fraud against the government. Foreign Counterintelligence In an age of rapidly advancing technology the protection of classified naval information from unauthorized disclosure is vital to national security, as is the safeguarding of naval material from damage or destruction. The role of the naval Investigative Service in this regard is a dual one: to assist the Navy and Marine Corps in protecting its assets, and to apprehend those who would allow them to be compromised. Counterintelligence, therefore, is the business of protecting naval information from espionage, naval personnel against subversion, and also Navy installations and equipment from sabotage. The NIS Special Agent is authorized, for the purpose, to use various measures against organizations hostile to the interest of the United States. (In the U.S. NIS counterintelligence activities are coordinated with the Central Intelligence Agency). NIS Special Agents also educate the naval community through lectures and seminars on the methods used by hostile agencies to obtain classified material from Navy and Marine Corps men and women. Overseas they prepare foreign port briefs and overviews of countries to be visited by naval units. They also produce "threat assessments" resulting from advance visits to areas where critical naval activities will take place. And NIS Special Agents keep track of attempts by hostile agencies to obtain classified information from Navy and Marine Corps personnel. Special Agent Training Prospective agents come to NIS from a wide variety of backgrounds: law enforcement, law, engineering, the military and from other sectors of public and private business an industry. All are college graduates and each is required to complete a rigorous 11-week basic agent course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia. The agent-trainee receives instruction in three primary types of subjects at FLETC: law enforcement, practical exercises, and physical specialties and firearms. Classroom instruction covers such matters as investigative techniques, criminal law and procedure, and the rules of evidence. Practical exercises cover surveillance techniques, fingerprinting, raids and apprehensions, courtroom testimony and demeanor, and crime scene examinations. Physical specialties include conditioning and instruction in unarmed self-defense, while firearms training includes the proficient use of weapons and survival under various tactical conditions. In addition, agents receive specialized training from the NIS Training Department in the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their job of protecting national interests and the Navy community. NIS instructors are experienced Special Agents drawn from offices all over the world. Instructors are selected based upon demonstrated expertise in diverse areas such as narcotics operations in foreign ports, protective service details for senior U.S. officials and foreign dignitaries, interrogation techniques, the use of polygraphs and forensic hypnosis, anti-terrorism and hostage negotiations, port security and major procurement fraud investigations. Agents in training will also learn about Navy and Marine Corps customs and traditions, and the military justice system from career Navy and Marine Corps personnel, and from experienced trial lawyers, some of whom are NIS Special Agents. In the course of their careers, NIS Special Agents will periodically receive advanced training in a number of specialized areas. Specialty Training includes undercover operations, white collar crime, computer fraud, technical surveillance countermeasures, photography, forensics, counterespionage, counterintelligence and the polygraph. Fleet Support Activities In port and at sea, a Navy ship of any size represents an enormous capital investment on the part of the taxpayers of the United States, as do the supplies, equipment and material required for its operation. Protecting that investment from theft and damage is the primary duty of NIS offices in Norfolk, Va; San Diego, Calif; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Naples, Italy; Yokosuka, Japan; Charleston, S.C.; Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines; and many other locations throughout the world. NIS Special Agents working out of these offices-including those serving full-time aboard all aircraft carriers and some other ships assigned to the fleets-work with appropriate ship and shore commands. Their aim is to neutralize crime and provide the full range of NIS investigative services for more than 600 Navy ships. The Special Agent Afloat Unique among all federal law enforcement agencies is the NIS Special Agent Aloat. Qualified NIS Special Agents serve aboard all aircraft carriers, generally for a one-year tour of duty, and occasionally aboard other major combatants as needed. As one of only a handful of civilians aboard an aircraft carrier, the NIS Special Agent is responsible for all major criminal investigations and counterintelligence matters on the carrier and on all other ships of the accompanying battle group as well. The agent's special role and high visibility in this environment make working effectively with the officers and crew an absolute requirement. "Special Agent Afloat" is a professionally demanding, highly responsible and career-enhancing assignment. The agent spends the same long periods at sea as his military shipmates and visits the same ports of call in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Pacific, and in the Far East. Accordingly, agents selected for afloat duty are recognized with added incentives including increased financial entitlements and preferential future duty assignments. The Naval Investigative Service Worldwide Headquartered in Washington, D.C. area, the Naval Investigative Service operates from more than 170 locations worldwide. Ten regional offices, six in the United States and four overseas, coordinate the activities of smaller resident agencies (NISRA'S) and units (NISRU'S) around the globe. Over a 20-year period the NIS Special Agent will normally receive at least six permanent duty assignments. Since 30 percent of the agent force is stationed overseas at any given time, the NIS career path usually includes one or more foreign tours. Overseas duty is generally for three years, during which time the Special Agent lives within the civilian economy or aboard military installations. Protective Services Assassination, kidnapping, hostage taking -- these are the hazards faced by American military personnel at some overseas bases and diplomatic posts, and sometimes by foreign visitors to the United States. NIS Special Agents are frequently called upon to help prevent such acts by providing Protective Service Details (PSDs). Overseas, they work closely with security and police forces of the host countries. In the United States, they often work with the Secret Service and with other law enforcement agencies. In addition to high-ranking Navy and foreign dignitaries, NIS Special Agents in recent years have been involved in providing protection for the Pope, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of England. The PSD is a two-phase operation. The first consists of a comprehensive threat assessment to identify potential threats to the person being protected or "principal". The second is 24-hour protection of the principal by specially trained teams of NIS Special Agents. Assignment to Protective Services requires extensive training in the use of firearms, anti-terrorism tactics and teamwork. For the NIS Special Agent, such training begins with classroom briefings and enactment of realistic scenarios at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLITCH) at Glynco, Georgia. Selected NIS Special Agents later receive additional specialized training in the NIS Special Protective Anti-terrorism Seminar (SPATS) and attend seminars conducted by the U.S. Secret Service. Narcotics Suppression Operations Routine deployments often take United States Navy ships to ports where narcotics are easily obtained. Drug trafficking is illegal but difficult to enforce in some countries; in others existing laws are either lenient or merely ignored. Unfortunately, temptation and opportunity are too powerful a combination for some individuals to resist. There are also those who, on a visit to a foreign country, will buy narcotics knowing that their use is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that possession of narcotics aboard a U.S. Navy ship is a court-martial offense that carries stiff penalties. By getting to the source and interdicting the supply of marijuana, hashish, cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates...even opium...to U.S. servicemen in these ports, the NIS acts to protect rather than to punish, Navy and Marine Corps personnel, who might otherwise purchase such substances. In the Far East, on the Indian Sub-continent, in Africa and in other areas of the world this is the responsibility of team of NIS Special Agents. Operating out of a U.S. Navy base in the Philippines, the NIS Narcotics Suppression Team coordinates its activities with scheduled fleet visits to Hong Kong, Singapore and other cities in Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Kenya. Their mission is to precede a ship visit and, working undercover with the cooperation of local police, make contact with, and obtain the arrest of local drug traffickers. The object is to dry up the drug supply before it becomes a Navy or Marine Corps problem. Due to the collective efforts of various Navy commands and local law enforcement officials, the Narcotics Suppression Operations have been consistently successful. Port Security Major Navy ports in the United States are usually also centers of international commerce, visited by the ships of many nations. Some of these nations have more than a passing interest in U.S. port facilities and in the comings and goings of Navy civilian vessels. Merchant shipping from some communist bloc countries are prohibited from entering U.S. ports, while others are closely controlled. Some are often equipped with sophisticated eavesdropping devices capable of gathering a wealth of information merely by entering or by anchoring near a harbor and observing the activity therein. To help the Navy take steps against the collection of such information, teams of NIS personnel periodically go into ports to see what the spying or eavesdropping merchant crew might be able to learn about such matters as fleet readiness, shipbuilding activity, current weaponry and personnel movement. The information is turned over to appropriate Navy commands so that they can protect their own sensitive operations as well as recommend corrective action to civilian contractors in the area. NIS Special Agents are also charged with briefing and debriefing American military and civilian officials who visit communist-bloc countries. Technical Services Through training and experience, the NIS Special Agent is a versatile crime technician. He or she has a working knowledge of a variety of weapons and electronic devices, some are trained in the use of the polygraph and most are proficient in crime-scene techniques that include obtaining fingerprints, molding footwear casts, photographic documentation, and on-site identification of narcotics. Backing up these capabilities is an infrastructure of people- evidence technicians, electronics experts and forensic chemists-and laboratories dedicated to solving scientific problems that cannot be dealt with in the field. From this infrastructure comes technical resources in the form of specialized equipment, laboratory support for casework and continuous research and development. NIS laboratories in recent years have refined techniques for processing voiceprints from taped recordings of bomb threats, extortion demands and the conversation of hijackers and kidnappers. A special kit developed by NIS is maintained at all naval hospitals to assist medical examiners and physicians in gathering evidence for investigation of sexual assault. Chemists working at regional drug identification labs in Norfolk, San Diego and Pearl Harbor provide accurate information to Special Agents practically overnight. Liaison With Other Agencies Effective law enforcement, especially on an international scale, requires the cooperation of many agencies and organizations. For this reason the NIS Special Agent works closely not only with the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies, but also with state and local police forces in the United States and abroad. For the Naval Investigative Service, a positive working relationship with other law enforcement agencies is more than good protocol; it is an absolute necessity. Law Enforcement, Physical Security In January 1983, the Naval Investigative Service became the program and policy manager for law enforcement and physical security in the Department of the Navy. As a result, the Law Enforcement and Physical Security Directorate was established. It is now a major security element, encompassing a variety of programs, including: general law enforcement policy, security guard training, approval of security equipment and the Navy's crime prevention program. In addition, the Law Enforcement and Physical Security Directorate manages the Navy's Master-at-Arms rating, the Navy Security Police, the Naval Security Force and the Military Working Dog Program. It also maintains two Law Enforcement and Physical Security Assistance (LEPS) Teams and two Mobile Training Teams. LEPS Teams assist naval commands in identifying their level of compliance with law enforcement and physical securityrequirements. Mobile training teams provide law enforcement and physical security training and awareness briefings, in addition to other special training, to Department of the Navy personnel and their dependents. Worldwide Communications The NIS Operations Control Center at NSIC Headquarters, is the focal point of a communications network that serves as a source of investigative information for Special Agents and their support systems on land and at sea anywhere in the world. Manned 24 hours a day, the Center affords instant communication between all 170-plus NIS offices as well as access to law enforcement agencies throughout the Free World. The Center's on-line computers enable Agents, using terminals in NIS field offices and vehicles, to enter and obtain data from the FBI's National Crime Information Center and from other law enforcement agencies around the globe. NIS participation in the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System gives the Special Agent a direct pipeline to every police department in the United States and many other countries. Agents Service as an NIS Special Agent is more than a career. It's a commitment. Candidates are carefully screened and only the best are selected, because they must meet exacting standards of alertness, intelligence and temperament. Beyond these qualities, they must exhibit a willingness to undergo rigorous training, travel frequently and devote long hours to assignments that may take them anywhere in the world. The career is unusual and demanding, but there are many satisfactions. The NIS stresses advancement on the basis of individual ability and performance. NIS Special Agents earn premium pay for their long and irregular hours. They are classified in the GS-1811 series (criminal investigator) and once they attain the age of 50 and complete 20 years service, they are entitled to full retirement benefits. SOURCE: Public Affairs Office; Naval Security and Investigative Command; Washington, D.C. 20388-5000