Subs: Cold War tool or future need?

Subs: Cold War tool or future need?

By Shir Haberman

shaberman@seacoastonline.com

PORTSMOUTH - One of the primary justifications for placing Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on the base closure list this year is the reduction in the number of submarines the Navy expects to use in the future.

"In the past, we had 100 attack submarines. Now, it’s in the 50s, and in the future there will be 41," Adm. Vern Clark, chief of Naval operations, told the Base Realignment and Closure Commission earlier this month as one of the reasons for recommending the closure of the local shipyard. "In order to have a Navy of the future, we need to redirect our resources in order to run more efficiently."

The Navy has justified its decision to reduce the number of submarines it operates on the assumption that they are primarily Cold War weapons of little or no value in today’s global war on terrorism.

"Do we need more attack submarines? More nuclear platforms? More stealth bombers? More armored divisions?," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in his May 16 testimony before the closure commission. "I think we need a more mobile, and better trained and equipped force, which is exactly what the DoD has been pushing for."

Evidence of this shift lies in the budget dictates of the Department of Defense. The cut to funding available for refueling the existing Los Angeles-688-class subs, which is the primary work being done at the Portsmouth yard, will lead to the decommissioning of these vessels. Additional cutbacks in the purchases of new subs means fewer subs in the fleet of the future.

There are many, both inside and out of the military however, who believe these assumptions about the usefulness of submarines in Rumsfeld’s new Navy are just plain wrong.

"I think they’re being shortsighted," said New Hampshire 1st District Congressman Jeb Bradley. "What happens if something happens between China and Taiwan? What are we going to send in there?"

The conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Heritage Foundation, agrees.

"A robust fleet of attack submarines is imperative in today’s world," wrote Jack Spencer, the foundation’s senior policy analyst for defense and national security, in a March 30 article. "In wars, especially in distant regions of the world where the United States has vital national interests, forward-deployed attack submarines can mount the first line of defense against advancing enemy forces or provide the initial salvo of a surprise offensive."

In fact, on March 21, 2003, within the first two days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine, the USS Pittsburgh, did just that, firing her missiles at Baghdad. The Pittsburgh is one of the many submarines involved in the latest war with Iraq to be refueled and repaired at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

And the Heritage Foundation chronicled many other conflicts in which submarines played important roles.

"During the first Gulf War, and again in 1997 and 1998, submarines launched cruise missiles at Iraqi targets," Spencer wrote. "(Submarines) launched cruise missiles at Bosnian targets in 1995 and fired 25 percent of the Tomahawk missiles that were used in the Kosovo conflict in 1999."

Subs were also used in limited-strike missions, such as those against suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan in 1998 and suspected chemical weapons facilities in Sudan, the Heritage Foundation analyst said.

Perhaps the most important reason for maintaining a strong submarine fleet is the ability of these vessels to deploy quickly. This is a critical aspect of what Adm. Clark calls "the Fleet Response Plan (FRP)," which he instituted in 2003.

"The goal of FRP is to keep the Navy ready to surge adequate forces at a moment’s notice, without regard to fixed deployment times and intervals," (UnderseaWarfare - The Official Magazine of the U.S. Submarine Force noted in its fall 2004 edition.)

According to Vice Adm. Kirk H. Donald, commander, Naval Submarine Forces, it is a role the vessels under his command are uniquely suited to fill.

"The ongoing global war on terrorism has required rethinking how Naval forces, including submarines, prepare to deploy and are sustained during a protracted war," Donald told UnderseaWarfare. "The role of the submarine continues to expand. We provide a unique capability to surge when and where we are needed, arrive on station early, observe the enemy covertly as long as necessary, deploy special operations forces, unmanned underwater vehicles and unmanned sensors, and conduct strike operations with unmatched speed, responsiveness, accuracy and lethality."

All this capacity is being compromised by the Bush defense budget and the Pentagon, Spencer said.

"Despite warnings in recent years from U.S. Navy officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Science Board that the U.S. needs more submarines, the Pentagon’s budget could lead to fewer," the Heritage Foundation analyst said. "Three Los Angeles-class subs were scheduled to be refueled and overhauled in 2007. However, because the president’s 2006 budget cuts funding for two of these overhauls, those subs will be lost."

And Spencer believes that in the final analysis, it will be cheaper to overhaul the Los Angeles-class vessels than to purchase newer-model submarines.

"The new Virginia-class subs cost over $2 billion each," he said. "By refueling older, but still very capable Los Angeles-class subs, the Navy can get over a decade of use for only $200 million per submarine."

Spencer joins the growing chorus of those who believe the Navy is misguided in its decision to limit the number of submarines in the nation’s arsenal.

"Although other Naval platforms can perform some of the (submarine service’s) functions, none can perform them all," the Heritage Foundation analyst said. "More important, none can perform them undetected."

That is why the foundation is asking Congress to restore funding to refuel two Los Angeles-class submarines in 2007.