DOCSLIB.ORG

Calendar No. 155

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Calendar No. 155 Calendar No. 155 107TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 1st Session SENATE 107–62 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 1416] ON AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR MILI- TARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILI- TARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH MINORITY VIEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE SEPTEMBER 12, 2001.—Ordered to be printed VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062 Calendar No. 155 107TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 1st Session SENATE 107–62 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 1416] ON AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR MILI- TARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILI- TARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH MINORITY VIEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE SEPTEMBER 12, 2001.—Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75–056 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (107th Congress, 1st Session) CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN WARNER, Virginia ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia STROM THURMOND, South Carolina JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona MAX CLELAND, Georgia BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PAT ROBERTS, Kansas BILL NELSON, Florida WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama MARK DAYTON, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JIM BUNNING, Kentucky DAVID S. LYLES, Staff Director LES BROWNLEE, Republican Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062 C O N T E N T S Page Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 1 Committee overview and recommendations .......................................................... 2 Fiscal year 2002 budget request ..................................................................... 3 Committee review and recommendations ....................................................... 4 Improving the compensation and quality of life of U.S. forces and their families .......................................................................................................... 4 Increasing military pay ............................................................................. 5 Increasing the basic allowance for housing ............................................. 5 Expanding education benefits for military families ............................... 5 Improving military facilities and family housing ................................... 5 Improving defense health care ................................................................. 6 Sustaining the readiness of U.S. forces .......................................................... 6 Improving the readiness of aviation forces ............................................. 6 Training improvements ............................................................................. 6 Improving the readiness of naval forces .................................................. 6 Improving the readiness of the bomber force .......................................... 7 Reductions in strategic nuclear forces ..................................................... 7 Improving the readiness of space launch facilities ................................. 8 Improving the readiness of the Guard and Reserve ............................... 8 Transforming U.S. forces ................................................................................. 8 Modernization ............................................................................................ 8 Developing revolutionary military capabilities ....................................... 9 Sustaining Army transformation ............................................................. 9 Transforming naval forces ........................................................................ 10 Unmanned vehicle initiatives ................................................................... 10 Improving the capability of U.S. forces to meet nontraditional threats ...... 11 Combating terrorism initiative ................................................................ 11 Combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ...................... 13 Other initiatives to meet nontraditional threats .................................... 13 Ballistic missile defense ............................................................................ 13 Improving the efficiency of DOD programs and operations .......................... 15 Base realignment and closure .................................................................. 16 Service contracts ........................................................................................ 16 Acquisition reform ..................................................................................... 17 Making better use of modernization funding .......................................... 17 Financial management systems ............................................................... 17 Explanation of funding summary ........................................................................... 18 Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 27 Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 27 Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 27 Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 27 Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec. 106) .......... 27 Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 28 Army Aircraft ............................................................................................ 48 UH–60 Black Hawk ........................................................................... 48 TH–67 training helicopter ................................................................. 48 AH–64 Apache modifications ............................................................ 48 CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program) ........... 48 CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program) (ad- vanced procurement) ...................................................................... 49 Longbow .............................................................................................. 49 Avionics support equipment .............................................................. 49 Army Missiles ............................................................................................ 49 STINGER system summary .............................................................. 49 (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062 IV Page Title I—Procurement—Continued Subtitle B—Army Programs—Continued Army Missiles—Continued Line of sight anti-tank system summary ......................................... 50 Multiple launch rocket system .......................................................... 50 Army tactical missile system—system summary ............................ 50 AVENGER modifications ................................................................... 50 Tube-launched, optically tracked, wire command-link guided, im- proved target acquisition system modifications ........................... 51 Multiple launch rocket system modifications .................................. 51 Army Ammunition ..................................................................................... 51 Remote area denial artillery munition ............................................. 51 Artillery ammunition ......................................................................... 51 Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system ....................................... 52 Other Army Procurement ......................................................................... 52 Heavy expanded mobile tactical truck extended service program . 52 Super high frequency terminals ........................................................ 52 Secure enroute communications package ......................................... 52 Army data distribution system (data radio) .................................... 53 Area common user system modifications program .......................... 53 Tactical unmanned
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ohio FBM.Pdf
    1 The U.S. Navy has 18 of the most deadly and feared weapons ever created. 2 Let’s look at some facts about America’s last line of Defense…the “Boomers”. 3 Meet the Ohio-class submarine. In naval terms, it makes up the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines (FBMs). 4 Aside from USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730), all of the Ohio-class subs are named after a state. 5 These 18 weapons are also known as “Trident” subs because they’re a part of America’s “Nuclear Triad”. 6 The Nuclear Triad is our Military’s 3-prong nuclear weapons delivery arsenal which covers Land, Air and Sea. 7 Air: Strategic Bombers (the B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit-pictured above) 8 Land: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs such as the Minuteman III-pictured above) 9 Why do we have a 3-branches of nuclear capabilities? 10 It reduces the chances that another country’s first-strike attack could destroy all of our nuclear delivery system. 11 This means that, in a worst case scenario (nuclear war)… 12 …America has the ability to launch a second attack. 13 What weapon can lurk anywhere in 2/3rds of the Earth? 14 You got it man, our Ohio-class subs. 15 To be specific, the Earth’s surface is made up of 71 percent ocean water (97% of total water on the planet). 16 Aside from the ocean our subs can also enter fresh water such as our Great Lakes (which already has US Navy’s USS Kentucky SSBN-737 and other smaller Los Angeles-class Attack Submarines).
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • The Acquisition of Weapons Systems
    THE ACQUISITION OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT OF THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION PART 1 DECEMBER 29, 30, AND 31, 1969 Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee 0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41-698 WASHINGTON: 1970 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price S1.25 JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE [Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.] WRIGHT PATMAN, Texas, Chairman WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SENATE RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama HALE BOGGS, Louisiana J. W. FULBRIGHT, Arkansas HENRYS. REUSS, Wisconsin HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, New Jersey JACOB K. JAVITS, New York W. E. BROCK 3D, Tennessee JACK MILLER, Iowa BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois JoHlN R. STARKi, Exrecutive Director JAZMES W. KNOWLES, Director of Research ECONOMISTS LOUGHLIN P. MCHUGa JOHN R. KARLIK RICHARD F. KAUFMAN COURTENAY M. SLATER Minority: DOUGLAS C. FRECHTLING GEORGE D. KRumRHAAR SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin, Chairman SENATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama WRIGHT PATMAN, Texas STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS, Michigan LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio (IIJ CONTENTS WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1969 Proxmire, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Marinha Do Brasil Escola De Guerra Naval Programa De
    MARINHA DO BRASIL ESCOLA DE GUERRA NAVAL PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ESTUDOS MARÍTIMOS THIAGO JANEIRO SARRO O USO DO SUBMARINO NUCLEAR PELA MARINHA DO BRASIL: MISSÕES E TAREFAS Rio de Janeiro 2016 THIAGO JANEIRO SARRO O USO DO SUBMARINO NUCLEAR PELA MARINHA DO BRASIL: MISSÕES E TAREFAS Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Estudos Marítimos da Escola de Guerra Naval, como requisito parcial para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Estudos Marítimos. Área de concentração: Segurança, Defesa e Estratégia Marítima. ORIENTADOR: Francisco Eduardo Alves de Almeida Rio de Janeiro 2016 FOLHA DE APROVAÇÃO THIAGO JANEIRO SARRO O USO DO SUBMARINO NUCLEAR PELA MARINHA DO BRASIL: MISSÕES E TAREFAS Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Estudos Marítimos da Escola de Guerra Naval, como requisito parcial para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Estudos Marítimos. Área de concentração: Segurança, Defesa e Estratégia Marítima. Aprovada em: ________________________________________________________________ Prof. Dr. CMG (Ref.) Francisco Eduardo Alves de Almeida - PPGEM/EGN – Orientador Doutor pela: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ CPF: 374.037.537-04 ________________________________________________________________ Prof. Dr. Vagner Camilo Alves – INEST/UFF Doutor pelo: Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro – IUPERJ CPF: 024.494.017-76 ________________________________________________________________ Profa. Dra. Sabrina Evangelista Medeiros - PPGEM/EGN Doutora pelo: Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro - IUPERJ CPF:.071.017.517-50 DEDICATÓRIA Dedico esta dissertação aos meus pais, Carlos Alberto Sarro e Maria do Rosário Janeiro Sarro, à minha família, à minha namorada Vanessa V. de Sousa, aos meus amigos e aos meus mestres. E para isso favoreçam as armas, as quais não são tão contrárias da paz como parecem, elas defendem a paz como os cães defendem as ovelhas, mesmo que pareçam contrários a elas.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2020S Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021
    The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Cover image shows a US Air Force B-1B Lancer. US Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Peter Reft. © 2021 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. All rights reserved. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author(s). Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 Addressing the Tri-Service Spending Spike ...................................................................... 3 Why Does It Matter? ..................................................................................................... 4 What Factors Are Making the Modernization Spending Crunch Worse? ............................... 6 What Does Addressing the Modernization Crunch Mean for the US Military in the 2020s? .............................................................................................................. 15 What Went Wrong: Identifying the Causes of the 2020s Modernization Crunch ................... 16 The Shape and Size of the Tri-Service Modernization
    [Show full text]
  • Bharat Dynamics Ltd
    INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY RESEARCH Bharat Dynamics Ltd A large order pipeline just does not cut it 12 March 2018 INDIA | DEFENCE | IPO Note Bharat Dynamics (BDL) is a government‐owned company, engaged in the manufacturing of AVOID missiles and torpedoes. In FY17, its revenues/EBITDA/PAT was Rs 46.3/8.3/6.6bn, translating into 17.9% EBITDA and 14.4% PAT margins. BDL has an order book of Rs 105bn COMPANY DATA as of January 2018, implying a book‐to‐bill of 2.2x FY17 revenues. ISSUE OPENS 13th March 2018 ISSUE CLOSES 15th March 2018 About Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) PRE‐ ISSUE EQUITY SHARES 183.3mn Incorporated in 1970, BDL is a government‐owned company with 'Miniratna (Category‐1)' PRICE BAND Rs 413 – 428 22.5mn status. It is engaged in the manufacturing of Surface to Air missiles (SAMs), Anti‐Tank Guided NO OF SHARES OFFERED ISSUE SIZE Rs 9.2‐9.5bn missiles (ATGMs), underwater weapons (Torpedoes), launchers, countermeasures and test MKT CAP Rs 78.4bn equipment. Currently, it is the sole manufacturer and supplier for SAMs, ATGMs and torpedoes to the Indian armed forces. IPO rationale: Offer for sale by government The IPO is an offer for sale by the government to raise Rs 9.5bn and dilution of shareholding STANDALONE FINANCIALS by 12.3%. At the IPO price band of Rs 413‐428, the stock trades at 12x FY17 PE on an Y/E Mar, Rs bn FY17 FY18E FY19E FY20E Net Sales 46.30 44.94 43.49 28.17 adjusted equity base. EBIDTA 8.29 8.23 8.55 4.65 Net Profit 6.65 6.22 6.56 4.93 Key positives EPS, Rs.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines
    Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 2A: United States - Submarines. The other parts are: Part 1: Introduction Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 4: Europe & Canada Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications.
    [Show full text]
  • The Promise of Directed-Energy Weapons
    CHANGING THE GAME: THE PROMISE OF DIRECTED-ENERGY WEAPONS BY MARK GUNZINGER With Chris Dougherty 2012 Changing The Game: The Promise of Directed-Energy Weapons About the Center for Strategic And Budgetary Assessments The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonpar- tisan policy research institute established to pro- mote innovative thinking and debate about nation- al security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy and resource allocation. CSBA provides timely, impartial and insightful analyses to senior decision makers in the executive and legislative branches, as well as to the media and the broader national security community. CSBA en- courages thoughtful participation in the develop- ment of national security strategy and policy, and in the allocation of scarce human and capital resources. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments CSBA’s analysis and outreach focus on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. na- tional security. Meeting these challenges will require transforming the national security establishment, and we are devoted to helping achieve this end. Changing The Game: The Promise of Directed-Energy Weapons ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. He is the principal author or co-au- thor of multiple Defense Planning Guidance direc- tives, key strategic planning documents that shape DoD force planning. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot with over three thousand flight hours, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Vice Admiral Henry C. Mustin Furthered the Family Reputation for Service to Country
    Introduction Born into an illustrious naval family, Vice Admiral Henry C. Mustin furthered the family reputation for service to country. His grandfather, the first Henry C., is considered by many as the father of naval aviation, having established an air station at Pensacola, being the first to be catapulted off a ship, and being the first American aviator ever to take on live fire. His father, Lloyd, would have a notable career of his own as a "blackshoe," retiring as a Vice Admiral. As will be seen in the narrative, Mustin's father served as one of several life-long mentors. A detailed discussion of this family is contained in the final transcript. Graduating the Naval Academy in 1955, Mustin received orders to a Pacific Fleet destroyer followed by a tour as C.O. on a Mayport-based mine hunter and quickly honed his seamanship skills that prepared him to for a remarkable and varied career in the Navy during the Cold War. There are several areas of note in this oral history. First and foremost, Mustin was a naval warrior who helped bring on line new weapon systems and developed tactics and training methods for their employment. As a Lieutenant, he assisted creating early AAW doctrine; as a Vice Admiral he developed components of the Maritime Strategy. He had a hand in training evolutions such as Damage Control Olympics, NavTag, Surface Training Week, and pierside workups. During the Vietnam War, Mustin had a Pug Henry "Winds of War" experience, witnessing the conflict from Saigon, the Mekong Delta, as an aide to CinCPac, and as C.O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hunt for Red October
    Tom Clancy The Hunt For Red October Acknowledgements For technical information and advice I am especially indebted to Michael Shelton, former naval aviator; Larry Bond, whose naval wargame, “Harpoon,” was adopted for the training of NROTC cadets; Drs. Gerry Sterner and Craig Jeschke; and Lieutenant Commander Gregory Young, USN. For Ralph Chatham, A sub driver who spoke the truth, And for all the men who wear dolphins THE FIRST DAY FRIDAY, 3 DECEMBER The Red October Captain First Rank Marko Ramius of the Soviet Navy was dressed for the Arctic conditions normal to the Northern Fleet submarine base at Polyarnyy. Five layers of wool and oilskin enclosed him. A dirty harbor tug pushed his submarine's bow around to the north, facing down the channel. The dock that had held his Red October for two interminable months was now a water-filled concrete box, one of the many specially built to shelter strategic missile submarines from the harsh elements. On its edge a collection of sailors and dockyard workers watched his ship sail in stolid Russian fashion, without a wave or a cheer. "Engines ahead slow, Kamarov," he ordered. The tug slid out of the way, and Ramius glanced aft to see the water stirring from the force of the twin bronze propellers. The tug's commander waved. Ramius returned the gesture. The tug had done a simple job, but done it quickly and well. The Red October, a Typhoon-class sub, moved under her own power towards the main ship channel of the Kola Fjord. "There's Purga, Captain." Gregoriy Kamarov pointed to the icebreaker that would escort them to sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Cold War Defense Contracting Consolidation: Survival Strategies
    Post-Cold War Defense Contracting Consolidation: Survival Strategies P OST- C O L D W AR D E F E N S E C ONTRACTING C ONSOLIDATION L EADERSHIP AND SURVIV AL STRATEGIES U S E D B Y T O D A Y ’ S LARGEST DEFENSE CONT RACTORS Master of International Business Thesis Submitted by LAURENCE NGUYEN SPRING 2011 © 2011 LAURENCE NGUYEN http://fletcher.tufts.edu Post-Cold War Defense Contracting Consolidation: Survival Strategies The thorny relationship between the military industrial complex and American society has been a topic of contention for the last fifty years. From the Cold War to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the defense contracting industry has had to reinvent itself to adapt to different cycles of war(i). With the homeland attacks of 9/11 and the paradigm shift in the approach to and execution of war, defense contractors have consistently had to meet new procurement demands. Given the current state of the US economy and fiscal pressures faced by the Obama government, defense contractors will also have to address shareholder expectations by being prepared for an era of multilateral budgetary compressions. The US defense budget for 2010 was $693.4 billion, and the 2011 Budget for the Department of Defense only provides a 3.4 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level1. On the global level, the post-1990s industry consolidation has left a highly regulated playing field, vastly dominated by American industrialists. Today, four of the top five largest ranking defense contracting companies in the world are headquartered in the US2 and hold a total of market capitalization exceeding $125 billion3.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial Tributes: Volume 21
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24773 SHARE Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 DETAILS 406 pages | 6 x 9 | HARDBACK ISBN 978-0-309-45928-0 | DOI 10.17226/24773 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK National Academy of Engineering FIND RELATED TITLES Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 Memorial Tributes NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Memorial Tributes Volume 21 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON, DC 2017 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-45928-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-45928-1 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24773 Additional copies of this publication are available from: The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 360 Washington, DC 20001 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 www.nap.edu Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences.
    [Show full text]