Submarine News
General Dynamics bids for Newport News
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer
General Dynamics has offered almost $1.4 billion for Newport News (Va.) Shipbuilding, a longtime rival of its Electric Boat subsidiary in Groton, the companies announced Thursday.
The unsolicited bid of $38.50 per share for all of Newport News’ outstanding stock would represent a better-than 35 percent premium over the share price at closing on Thursday of $28.44, up 63 cents for the day. GD stock closed at $60.06, up $1.94. News of the takeover bid came more than an hour after the markets closed.
The takeover, which has been widely expected since Newport News was spun off as an independent shipyard by Tenneco Inc. in 1996, would bring the largest shipyard in the United States under the GD mantle and give it control of four of the six remaining Navy shipbuilders.
Besides EB, GD owns Bath Iron Works in Maine and the Nassco shipyard in San Diego. The takeover would add Newport News’ $3 billion backlog and $1.8 billion in revenues to GD’s $14.6 billion backlog and annual revenues of $5.5 billion.
"General Dynamics did, in fact, make such an offer, on Feb. 10, 1999," said GD Chairman Nicholas D. Chabraja. "There is a superb strategic fit between Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics, and the proposed merger would benefit the shareholders and employees of both companies, as well as our Navy customer.
"We believe the transaction will receive the required regulatory approvals, because the combination of our companies would not adversely affect competition in the industry."
White-collar workers at EB seemed to support the takeover. Several commented that because of a teaming arrangement EB has with Newport News to build the Virginia-class submarine, the two yards are working so closely that this is the next logical step. The announcement had a mixed reaction from EB union officials, though.
"I think it’s good news for us," said Melvin E. Olsson, president of the Marine Draftsmen Association. Olsson said he hopes it will not mean a transfer of work to Newport News, but instead a flow in the opposite direction.
"I’m kind of hoping it means we get more of the work that has been going there," Olsson said. "I think it represents an opportunity to get some of the design work on aircraft carriers that we wouldn’t otherwise get, and if we can ship portions of submarines down there, then we can ship portions of aircraft carriers down there."
By helping to balance some of the variations each company faces from year to year — often, when EB is hiring, Newport News is laying people off, and vice versa — "may be beneficial for both yards," Olsson said. "If you can’t beat them, buy them."
He added that he cannot imagine GD would close its Groton operations for a number of reasons. "Keeping both of them open would be better for the company politically, and probably profit-wise. There could be some real positives here for Electric Boat."
But William Postler, president of the Boilermakers, one of the blue-collar unions at EB, was not convinced.
"That would be great — then they can ship the work down from Quonset Point (R.I.) to Virginia, and just bypass Groton entirely," Postler said. "That’s what I believe is going to happen."
Postler said the teaming arrangement between EB and Newport News hurts Groton more than the Quonset plant. Under that plan, EB and Newport News will each build half the boat, then take turns doing the final assembly. Since most of the early work is done at Quonset, that means it gets the maximum benefit, but taking half the assembly work away hurts Groton the most, he said.
"I hope it will help our people, but I can’t see it happening," Postler said.
The deal faces one complication: Newport News announced last month it would merge with Avondale Industries of New Orleans. Newport News can only negotiate with another suitor if it can prove that the deal would be better for its shareholders — which will not be difficult given the premium — and that it has a likely chance of clearing legal and regulatory hurdles.
Newport News said a letter it received from GD outlining the bid did not specifically exclude a takeover of Avondale as well. However, bringing Avondale into the mix "would create antitrust problems." Newport News has requested a review of the GD takeover by the U.S. Department of Defense and Department of Justice.
"Our board is fully committed to acting in the best interest of its shareholders," said William P. Fricks, chairman and chief executive officer of Newport News. "Because of recent antitrust scrutiny in the defense sector we believe that the General Dynamics proposal requires a careful assessment of the antitrust risk and reliable assurance that it is unlikely to be a problem."
The Pentagon has hinted strongly that it would support continuing consolidation in the defense industry as a means of achieving greater efficiencies. But Fricks appeared to be taking a cautious approach.
"At this time, General Dynamics has not satisfied the board’s concerns as to the reasonable certainty of closing," Fricks said. "Should the board become satisfied, it would then be prepared to evaluate the terms of the General Dynamics proposal, including the proposed price. Meanwhile, we remain fully committed to the Avondale transaction."
Avondale Chairman Albert L. Bossier Jr. said the merger of Avondale and Newport News would enhance competition in the shipbuilding industry, while a GD-Newport News merger could stifle it.
"We believe that the combination of Avondale and Newport News offers the best value to shareholders, customers and employees of both companies," Bossier said.
EB a battler at 100
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer
It was a fortuitous pairing of men, one a moneyman and the other a masterful promoter. Both had a vision and an inventor ready to launch a radical idea.
A century ago, financier Isaac Rice teamed up with Elihu Frost, a lawyer and promoter, to persuade the U.S. Navy that it needed a new craft, a truly underwater vessel.
With inventor John P. Holland’s proposal in hand, they marketed a submarine boat to the Navy, and in the process these three men revolutionized naval warfare.
That partnership was the start of Electric Boat, which turns 100 today. In the past century, 22 shipyards have built submarines for the Navy, but for a time in the 1990s, the Groton shipyard was the only one still in the business.
And its distinctions are many. It was the first to build a Navy submarine, the first to build a welded-hull submarine, and the first to build a nuclear-powered submarine. EB also was the first builder of a submarine to launch ballistic missiles, from the surface or submerged. At every step, the shipyard overcame those who were convinced that what it tried to do was technically impossible.
After a century of shipbuilding, EB officials concede that they have probably encountered almost every kind of problem confronting their industry. EB has, for instance, weathered several downturns after defense budgets were slashed, and even with the current drawdown after the end of the Cold War, it survives, smaller but still profitable.
And now, as it enters its second century, the critics are still here. Some say the nation no longer needs nuclear submarines with the Cold War at an end; others say the United States isn’t building enough. Some insiders claim that the newest class of submarine, the Virginia boat, has pushed technology too far and could run into schedule and budget problems; others say it is not advanced enough for the threats of the 21st century.
EB has contracts to keep it in business for at least a decade, and a
massive reorganization has prepared it for a new defense environment.
"Celebrating 100 years for EB is something we should enjoy, we ought to savor it and look at the success of the products that have been built and the hard work that has gone into it," says EB President John K. Welch. And while it commemorates its past century of shipbuilding, Welch pledges that his shipyard is clearly focused on the future.
Kenneth G. DelaCruz, who heads the shipyard’s Metal Trades Council, has seen his union membership decline from more than 9,000 in the 1980s to about 2,000 today, but he says that EB has survived where others have not because of one thing: the caliber of its tradespeople.
"If our quality wasn’t there, we would never have survived as long as we have," DelaCruz says. "Marginal work isn’t acceptable on submarines. It can’t be. Everything is tested and re-tested, and when the Navy takes them over, they’re ready to go."
Melvin E. Olsson, the president of the Marine Draftsmen Association, says he is hopeful that as the next century begins, EB will win work in other arenas to augment its dwindling defense contracts.
"We made it through one hundred because the world situation made it necessary to keep developing submarines," Olsson says. "The country can’t stop the evolution of underwater potential, and its uses for defense."
Olsson says that he believes there is a lot of potential for commercial use of the undersea environment. He favors government funding of projects that could harness some of the power potential under the sea. "If they go in that direction, we have a design and engineering force that would be on the cutting edge," he pledges.
The inventor and his submarine
John Holland was born Feb. 24, 1842, in Loscannor, County Clare, Ireland, and grew up within view of the North Atlantic. By 17, he already had plans for a submersible boat. He emigrated to this country when he was 30, and among his earliest backers were the Fenians, a political group that wanted Ireland to overthrow British rule.
In 1878, Holland launched a 14-foot iron craft he and a friend tested by sitting on the bottom of the Passaic River in New Jersey for 24 hours. Unsatisfied with the ballast system and diving planes, he later built the "Fenian Ram," 30 feet long and 6 feet in diameter, at a cost of some $13,000. In 1895, his Holland Torpedo Boat Co. won $150,000 in Navy funding to build "Plunger," a 140-foot, 420-ton submarine that ran on compressed air but was almost uncontrollable on the surface.
But in 1896, at Crescent Shipyard in Elizabethport, N.J., he laid the keel for the "Holland," 54 feet in length and 75 tons of boat powered by a 50 horsepower gasoline engine with a 60-cell storage battery for submerged operations.
After the submarine sank at the dock, Holland worried that some of its electrical systems might be damaged. He asked his supplier, Electro-Dynamic Co. of Philadelphia, to help with repairs, and they sent him Frank T. Cable, who made the repairs, then suggested changes such as improved rudders and a two-man control station that improved the boat.
In early 1898, Teddy Roosevelt, then the assistant secretary of the Navy, wrote to Navy secretary John D. Long: "I think the Holland submarine boat should be purchased. Evidently she has in her great possibilities for harbor defense. Sometimes she doesn’t work perfectly, but often she does, and I don’t think that in the present emergency (the Spanish-American War) we can afford to let her slip."
The Navy, though, wanted more tests. And so Cable, seeking money to keep the efforts going, contacted Rice, president of the Electric Storage Battery Co. of Philadelphia, who was an expert on patents and marketing. Rice rode the Holland on July 4, 1898, and not only began putting his own money into the venture but convinced others, such as the promoter and lawyer Frost and the wealthy Rothschilds.
On Feb. 7, 1899, Rice incorporated Electric Boat, which also absorbed the Holland Torpedo Boat Co., Electro-Dynamic, and the Electric Launch Co. of Bayonne, N.J. The following month, the Holland submarine went through some Navy trials, and Rice offered to sell it for $175,000, but the offer was spurned. During the next year, the boat was subjected to a series of trials, and Frost and Rice brought it to Washington, D.C., to show it off.
In April 1900, the Navy accepted delivery at a cost of $150,000, with a contract for additional boats at a cost of $170,000 each, which meant that EB was officially in the business of building U.S. Navy submarines.
Those early years were difficult, and EB derived much of its income from foreign sales. Holland, upset that the newfound submarine maker seemed more intent on marketing than on improving the design, left the company in 1904, and spent the last 10 years of his life working on aircraft.
During this period, the company formed the New London Ship and Engine Co. in Groton, to manufacture diesel engines for its submarines. But there weren’t many submarine orders to fill. One New York banker on the fledgling company’s board of directors resigned in 1913, lamenting in a note to Rice that "this company can’t pull through."
Ironically, that banker, Henry R. Carse, came back in 1915, as wartime contracts began to pile up, and replaced Rice as president. He would serve 27 years at EB’s top post.
Ultimately, EB would build 88 submarines for the U.S. Navy under contracts signed in World War I, and overhaul another 30. Italy ordered eight more, Britain 20, and Russia 12. It built 550 "submarine chasers" for Great Britain, and more for the Italians and French. Its Submarine Boat Corp. constructed 188 Liberty Ships for cargo transport.
End of war slows down sales
But the end of the war brought another period of slow sales, and an attempt to build and operate its own transports failed. From 1924 to 1928, EB built four submarines for Peru — in fact, the Groton shipyard was opened initially to complete that contract, bringing production to Connecticut for the first time — but with no other work in sight it began accepting contracts for towboats, ferries, fishing trawlers and even yachts. It built printing presses, and machines to fold paper, skin fish, make textiles and stamp out bobby pins.
For a 13-year period starting in 1918 the company did not win a single U.S. government contract. Then the Navy came to EB with a special request: Would it consider building a welded submarine hull, a project turned down by a Navy shipyard as impossible.
EB agreed and laid the keel for the Cuttlefish in 1931.
The first hull was about 40 percent welded and 60 percent riveted. The Navy was so pleased with the work it ordered two more in 1933, and by 1936 the company started to pay stock dividends again for the first time in years. From 1936 to 1939, it built three a year.
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt visited Groton in August 1940, he predicted the rate of construction would soon reach one a month. But with the attack on Pearl Harbor the following year, EB was soon building far more: 16 submarines in 1942; 25 in 1943; and 23 in 1944.
"Keep’m sliding" was a motto posted around the shipyard.
In all, EB built 74 submarines during the second World War and managed the construction of 28 more at its Manitowac Shipbuilding on Lake Michigan. The company’s 1945 annual report said its boats and the men on them won 777 major military awards, including two medals of honor, 10 presidential unit citations, eight Navy unit commendations, 97 Navy Crosses and 16 Legions of Merit. The shipyard won a Navy "E" Pennant with four stars in honor of the quality of its work.
As in World War I, the company also supplied other maritime needs, building more than 400 torpedo patrol boats for the U.S. and British navies. A model of one of the most famous of that class, the PT 109, sits on a shelf in Welch’s office. EB also built six large marine caissons for invasions, more than 7,000 electric motors, more than 100 gun turrets, and thousands of other components.
But the end of the war brought another business collapse. EB saw 34 submarine contracts canceled in 1944, two more in 1946, and its income fall by two-thirds. The company began building electric bowling pin setters and Armorlite truck bodies, as well as fishing boats and steel highway bridges. It also began acquiring other defense companies, the first step toward creating the conglomerate that would eventually become General Dynamics, which is the shipyard’s corporate parent based in Falls Church, Va.
The biggest development for EB came in January 1950, when then-Capt. Hyman G. Rickover called general manager O. Pomeroy Robinson Jr. from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which 20 years earlier had rejected the idea of welded hulls. Portsmouth said it could not build a nuclear-powered ship, Rickover said. Would EB be willing to take on the task.
"Why sure, sure … but what the hell do we have to do?" Robinson is said to have responded.
"I don’t know myself, but we’ll figure it out," Rickover shot back. On Aug. 21, 1951, EB secured a contract to build the Nautilus. On Jan. 21, 1954, the ship slid into the Thames River after being christened by Mamie Eisenhower. On Jan. 17, 1955, the Nautilus left the pier, radioing back: "Under way on nuclear power."
Commander recalls nuclear power
Capt. Edward L. "Ned" Beach, who watched the Nautilus take shape and commanded the third nuclear submarine, the Triton, recalls his around-the-world cruise — 43,000 miles submerged, except for one brief surfacing to offload a sailor with kidney stones. His boat could cruise at better than 20 knots until the food ran out.
"Compare that with what a diesel submarine could do — and I grew up with diesels, I fought on them in the war, I knew them inside and out, but there was just no comparison," Beach recalls. "The diesel submarine could cruise at two knots for two days. You could possibly travel 100 miles without surfacing. That’s when we knew we were in a whole new ballgame."
Another milestone came in 1962 when EB launched the Lafayette class, 425 feet in length and 7,000 tons, capable of firing a missile that could fly an impressive 2,500 miles. Guaranteeing a devastating return punch no matter how hard an enemy might strike, it established the concept of strategic deterrence.
The 1960s were an era of experimentation. By the close of the decade, EB had delivered 30 submarines, but nine of them had been prototypes, many of them pushing the technology of the time to its limit. The 1970s and ’80s brought two more stable programs, the Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine — EB won most of those contracts — and a larger, more powerful Trident-class ballistic missile boat, with EB as the sole producer.
In the Navy and Congress, many credit the submarines built at EB as one of the leading reasons for the end of the Cold War. But the victory has meant some tough times as EB faces its second 100 years, with a backlog that has dwindled from a high of 16 or 17 boats to just two submarines today.
Its work force, once this region’s largest, has plummeted from more than 25,000 to about 9,000.
Still, Welch today seems encouraged that the innovation that has brought EB through its first 100 years will see it through a second century, particularly now that the parent company it spun off 47 years ago is adding other shipyards to its growing portfolio, which will bring opportunities to collaborate on the design of destroyers, amphibious ships and aircraft carriers.
"There are so many exciting possibilities that are being put under the GD Marine umbrella," the shipyard’s chief executive says.
"I don’t know if it will still have its primary concentration on submarines in another 100 years … But you know, there’s still so much we don’t know about the ocean, and submarines (and) submersibles can help us get the answers."
GD asked to build diesel subs for Taiwan
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer
Groton — General Dynamics, the parent company of Electric Boat, has been asked if it would build as many as 10 diesel-electric submarines for the Taiwanese Navy, although no deal has been struck, sources said.
The German shipbuilding company HDW has approached General Dynamics about building the submarines under an export license, which is allowed under State Department rules passed in 1994, when Ingalls Shipbuilding was seeking approval to build diesel boats for the Egyptian Navy.
"There is no license, there is no contract," said General Dynamics spokeswoman Norine Lyons. "There has been some discussion with a German company, but at the very, very preliminary basis. It’s been very informal."
She declined to say whether the company has approached the Navy about the prospects, or whether the company is interested in pursuing the contract.
"All sorts of discussions go on about all sorts of things all the time," Lyons said.
Meanwhile, two of the six big Navy shipbuilders, Newport News (Va.) Shipbuilding and Avondale Industries of New Orleans announced a merger Tuesday that would create the largest shipyard in the United States, with revenues of $2.6 billion a year and almost 24,000 employees.
General Dynamics will have at least two connections to the new shipyard: EB is building the Navy’s next-generation Virginia-class submarine in a teaming arrangement with Newport News; and General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works is building the next-generation amphibious ship, the LPD-17, under a teaming arrangement with Avondale.
Lyons said she does not expect the merger will have an effect on the teaming arrangements.
Newport News says its $470 million deal with Avondale — Avondale shareholders would get about 1.2 shares of stock in Newport News for every share they have — would add immediately to its earnings. The combined company would be called Newport News Avondale Industries.
EB has long been pushed to produce diesel submarines for export, but even if its parent company pursues the talks with HDW, production would likely not take place in Groton — although it could mean job offers for hundreds of laid-off workers if they are willing to move.
The Navy would not want to see export diesel submarines being produced in the same yard where its advanced nuclear submarines are taking shape, because of the possibility of "technology transfer," the fear that some advanced construction techniques, or even systems, could find their way onto potentially unfriendly boats.
Getting into the diesel submarine market could also boost General Dynamics’ potential military contracts significantly, because a number of small countries are seeking to acquire submarines because their stealth would protect them from the increasingly sophisticated anti-ship missiles and other weapons that are available in the world’s arms markets.
Germany is a major exporter of submarines, and its boats now sail in the navies of a more than a dozen countries, including several in South America, southeast Asia and the Mediterranean. It has also signed co-production agreements with several countries, selling them the expertise to build them.
Any military aid money from the United States can only be spent on equipment produced here, which has prompted considerable pressure from some allied countries to have a U.S. shipyard producing diesel submarines.
The Navy fought Ingalls’ bid to build diesel submarines for Egypt under a Foreign Military Sales program, because of widespread concern that diesels are becoming more and more capable of challenging even nuclear submarines. In addition to advanced quieting, countries that operate the boats now have easy access to advances sensors, weapons, and other improvements.
Taiwan has said it wants the German submarines for patrolling its coast at short range. There have been published reports in Taiwan that the U.S. government has agreed to allow U.S. companies to participate in the program. Taiwan has also received U.S. help in jet fighter and armored tank programs.
The submarines would be equipped with sonar and defensive weapons systems jointly developed by Europe and the United States, while submarine parts would be supplied by General Electric Co., the reports said, and after the subs have been commissioned, the U.S. would provide training, technology and support.
The local reports said Taiwan’s state-run China Shipbuilding Corp., in cooperation with Taiwan’s Chungshan Institute of Technology, will build six to 10 of the submarines for military service starting in 2005.Taiwan’s navy currently has four submarines, two of which are too outdated for operations and are used only as training vessels.
Taiwan has long been in the market for diesel submarines to counter the People’s Republic of China’s growing naval might. China operates nuclear and diesel submarines, but to date the United States has not endorsed Taiwan’s proposal because of fears it could upset the delicate political balance between the mainland and what China considers a renegade state.
Saudi Arabia is also considered a likely customer for U.S.-built diesel submarines, to counter the three Kilo-class submarines Iran has purchased from Russia.
Even as news that Germany is seeking a U.S. partner for its diesel submarine construction program caused ripples in the shipbuilding community, Newport News and Avondale stunned many in the industry with announcement of their merger.
"The combination … brings together two highly skilled and tremendously capable shipbuilding companies," said Newport News Chairman William P. Fricks. "Newport News Avondale Industries will be the only shipbuilder in the U.S. with operations on the East, West and Gulf coasts."
The deal would bring five of the six Navy shipbuilders under the control of two companies: Newport News; and General Dynamics, which in addition to EB and Bath also owns Nassco, a west-coast builder of auxiliary ships. The sole holdout would be Ingalls, which is owned by Litton Industries.
N.KOREA CLAIMS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPY BOAT
North Korea said on Saturday it had nothing to do with a vessel
sunk by South Korean forces on Friday as Seoul demanded an
apology for the incursion. Pyongyang said the incident had been
fabricated by the South to escalate tensions on the Korean
Peninsula. A body recovered on Friday from the sunken vessel was
identified by South Korea as that of a North Korean agent.
SouthKorea said it had chased and sunk a semi-submersible North
Korean spy boat in afirefight off the southern coast. Possible
death by suicide.
USS Miami takes part in strikes
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer Groton
The submarine USS Miami, homeported in Groton, was one of eight Navy ships that fired more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Iraq during strikes Wednesday night and Thursday morning, Navy and defense sources said Thursday.
The attack sub, which is capable of firing cruise missiles, fired off eight missiles, sources said. Other ships staging the attack were a guided-missile cruiser and six destroyers.
Officially, the Department of Defense was not identifying any of the ships. Lt. Cmdr. Bob Ross, a spokesman for Submarine Group Two at the Groton base, said he could not comment on the Iraqi situation.
At U.S. Central Command at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., Maj. Joe LaMarca confirmed that the Miami was in the Gulf.
"I can't go into the specifics of what came off of which ship no one in the DOD is confirming where any of the T-LAMs (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles) came from," LaMarca said. "But it would be accurate to say that the Miami is in the area and it is participating in the operation."
"Everybody has performed in a very professional, outstanding manner," he continued. "We expect to continue operations, and the Navy, and specifically the Miami, are a big part of that."
The Miami was the winner this year of its squadron's Battle "E" award, given to the boat judged to be tops in combat preparedness.
The last time a Groton-based submarine fired a weapon in an armed conflict was the USS Pittsburgh during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The Miami, which Electric Boat delivered to the Navy in June 1990, had not even finished its one-year shakedown cruise at that time. The sub has a crew of about 130.
The reaction among local Gulf War veterans to the Iraqi missile attack seemed to be summed up by Adam DuPont of Griswold, who was an Air Force sergeant and a mechanic on an F-15 fighter in 1991: "It's about time.
"It's long overdue we've been nice enough, long enough," DuPont said. "Hopefully, we\rquote ll do it right this time and be done with it. We won\rquote t have to go through all this again. But the problem is, there's no real right way to do this other than occupy the country, and there would be no support for that."
DuPont said he thinks President Clinton adopted the right strategy by launching the strike less than a day after ordering United Nations weapons inspectors out of the country.
"If he (Iraqi President Saddam Husein) pulls anything again, you hit him with Tomahawks and air strikes again. Immediately, no questions asked," DuPont said. "I think after a while he'd cooperate. I know I would if someone was dropping bombs in my backyard."
James Weaver of Montville, who was a Navy senior chief petty officer and radioman assigned to a special project in the Gulf War with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, agreed. But like many people he questioned the timing.
"If we were going to do something, we should have done it a long time ago," Weaver said. "We certainly had the justification a long time ago. Why do it now?"
But he said debate about the politics of the situation should not detract from the mission.
"They're members of the military following orders that were given by their commander-in -chief," Weaver said. "As long as they're doing the job they were sent over there to do, they deserve our support, no matter what our personal feelings."
The Miami was one of two Atlantic fleet submarines that were in position to support the U.S. strike on Iraq that began Wednesday. It was on a scheduled deployment with the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier battle group. The submarine is commanded by Cmdr. Jim Ransom, a native of southeastern Connecticut.
The other submarine in the Enterprise battle group is the USS Hampton, which was in the Mediterranean, and reportedly none of the missiles fired so far have come from there. The Hampton is homeported in Norfolk, Va.
Sources at the Groton base said security was also heightened in the days leading up to the attack out of concern that there might be terrorist reprisals. The base had already been at a heightened-threat condition since the attack on suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan and the Sudan four months ago.
Ross, the Group Two spokesman, said he could not discuss security arrangements, but added, "we been at a higher state of security for some time, and we are still at that higher state of security."
The Miami has had a busy schedule recently, with two major North Atlantic deployments in 1997 that kept the crew away during the holiday season last year. It will not be home in time for the holidays this year, either. The unusually demanding schedule last year resulted from the Miami having to cover for another submarine on short notice last year.
Both Miami and Hampton are equipped with a vertical launch system that allows them, within seconds, to fire 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles, each with a 1,000-pound high explosive warhead capable of reaching targets with pinpoint accuracy up to 1,000 miles away. The submarines can also launch Tomahawks from their torpedo tubes, putting more than 30 missiles on target before slipping back beneath the waves.
The USS San Juan, also homeported in Groton, had been in the Mediterranean last month but returned home this week.
Two other submarines, the USS Columbus out of Pearl Harbor and the USS Pasadena out of San Diego, are attached to the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier battle group in the western Pacific. That battle group, which left Singapore this week and was heading for the Persian Gulf, expected to arrive by Saturday.
From The Day
Clinton to propose more submarine construction in budget
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer
Groton — Navy and congressional sources say President Clinton has decided to add a $1.5 billion submarine to the Navy’s five-year budget, a move that would provide a significant boost to the Electric Boat shipyard by helping to stabilize its employment situation over the next several years.
The sources said that Clinton’s budget, scheduled to be released Feb. 1, will fund one Virginia-class submarine each in the fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003. The previous budget contained no funding for the boat in the year 2003. Submarines have already been approved for the 1998 and 1999 fiscal years.
Clinton’s move to add the additional Virginia-class boat is part of his overall defense buildup that will add $12 billion to the defense budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, and $100 million over the next five years.
EB will build the new Virginia class, the successor to the Seawolf class, in a teaming arrangement with its former competitor, Newport News (Va.) Shipbuilding. EB has said that a steady stream of submarines will lead to lower costs, compared with a funding plan that doesn’t include submarines in each of the next few fiscal years.
EB officials say that it will be more difficult to maintain a core of shipyard workers if the Navy does not order one submarine a year after the turn of the century.
"If the reports are accurate, that’s a very encouraging piece of news," said EB spokesman Neil D. Ruenzel. "We strongly advocate a submarine to fill the fiscal year ’03 gap because that will provide us with a steadier rate of production and allow us to balance the workload in the years ahead. Long term, it will also save the taxpayers a lot of money."
Although EB has not calculated the total savings, Ruenzel said it would trim millions of dollars off the price of the ship, which is estimated to be just over $1.5 billion.
EB President John K. Welch has stressed the need to plug that gap in the fiscal year 2003 in recent speeches to legislators and business groups, and the state’s congressional delegations have also been working on the issue.
Stock in EB’s parent company, General Dynamics, closed Monday at $58.19, up $2.13 for the day.
Although final details of the president’s budget are still being worked out, the sources said the proposed submarine contract in fiscal year 2003 is in no danger of falling out as the review progresses because it has wide support at the White House and in Congress.
U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., was among a group of senators from Connecticut, Rhode Island and Virginia who signed letters to Navy Secretary Richard Danzig and Adm. Jay Johnson, the Navy’s top officer, warning that the current construction schedule risks "a future force level crisis," with the number of submarines shrinking to as few as 30, compared to a minimum of 50 that defense officials say are needed to meet national security requirements.
U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., is a member of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee and has been pushing for an increase in the submarine program.
EB, which built all the Trident ballistic submarines, said that the Trident’s steady, one-per-year production rate drove almost half the staff hours out of the construction process because the yard workers became experienced in the construction techniques.
The Tridents came in ahead of schedule and under budget. The submarine program is often cited by the Pentagon as a model acquisition program.
A dozen members from six states in the House, including U.S. Rep. Sam Gejdenson, D-2nd District, signed their own letter to the senior service chiefs also seeking another submarine in the five-year spending plan.
"This approach to submarine acquisition can cut costs substantially, reduce the ‘bow wave’ (a term for the requirement that the Navy build numerous submarines in the future to cover gaps in the schedule now), stabilize the industrial base and result in savings that can be used to fund the (fiscal year) 2003 submarine," the letter read.
In addition to submarines, Dodd, Gejdenson and others contend the Navy must step up spending on shipbuilding in general or the service could drop from a force planned at 600 ships at the end of the Cold War to about 200 ships, based on today’s construction rate.
Clinton last month announced that his budget would contain a large funding increase for defense, to bring an end to a drawdown that has been going on for 10 years — which many in Congress and in the Armed Forces believe has already been too steep.
Much of the money is expected to be dedicated to so-called "quality of life" initiatives, such as pay raises and improving the services’ retirement program.
The Pentagon also has said some of the additional proposed funding would help achieve its procurement goal of $60 billion per year by fiscal year 2001. Current procurement is around $45 billion.
Local execs buy up company shares
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer
Executives at Pfizer Inc. and General Dynamics Corp. showed plenty of faith in their corporate futures by buying more than 600,000 shares of stock in their respective companies in the last quarter of 1998, federal regulatory filings show.
Insider trading documents that must be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission show that 13 top Pfizer executives purchased 123,900 shares at a cost of almost $3.3 million and sold 83,168 shares for $8.4 million. That gave them a collective profit of $5.1 million, even though they retained almost one-third of the shares.
At General Dynamics, parent of the Electric Boat shipyard, nine top executives poured money into the company’s stock, investing $17.9 million in 480,828 shares, then selling 111,170 shares for almost $6 million to help finance the purchase, putting almost $12 million of their own money into the new holdings.
Nine General Dynamics executives in the year-end documents held a combined 1,003,118 shares in the company, worth $57 million at recent prices. John K. Welch, president of Electric Boat, held 21,736 shares directly, worth $1.2 million, and another 9,656 shares indirectly, worth another $550,000.
Thirteen Pfizer executives held 1,627,66 shares directly or indirectly, worth $203 million. More than one-third of that — 541,663 shares worth more than $67 million — is held by company chairman William C. Steere Jr.
George M. Milne, who heads Pfizer Central Research in Groton, holds more than 121,000 shares worth some $15.2 million at recent prices. New York-based Pfizer has its world research headquarters in Groton as well as an extensive manufacturing operation there.
Both companies will not comment on trading by their executives. General Dynamics and Pfizer remain well regarded by Wall Street analysts, despite the fact their stock prices have skyrocketed in recent years.
Nine of the 10 analysts who follow General Dynamics stock were rating it as "hold" and one recommended it as a "moderate buy" even though it has fallen slightly to the high $50s, from a 52-week high of $62. The company has positioned itself strongly to be a major contender as the defense budget rebounds following post-Cold War cuts.
Pfizer is rated a "strong buy" by 12 analysts, a "moderate buy" by six and a "hold" by 12, despite its rapid price increase and the fact that it’s price-to-earning ratio is in excess of 70. The ratio is obtained by dividing a company’s stock price by its annual earnings per share.
While a ratio of 70 is considered high for most stocks — General Dynamics’ price-to-earning ratio is about 20 — it is not considered too high for a pharmaceutical company such as Pfizer. Most analysts expect Pfizer’s well-funded research program will continue to make the company a hot prospect.
The increase in the price of both stocks has been good for the portfolios of the top executives at both companies.
Most of the stock by the executives was purchased at a lower-than-market price because of stock options granted to those executives, but for some of the shares, at least, the executives did not receive a deep discount. Options are granted to senior executives as an incentive for better management. The options allow them to buy stock at a price set by the board of directors; if the stock price is higher than the option price by the time it can be redeemed, the executive benefits.
Both companies saw their prices escalate last year: General Dynamics stock was up 50 percent over the year, while Pfizer was up more than 80 percent. That increase meant the stock held by all shareholders went up in value by almost $70 billion, spread over 1.3 billion shares of stock, while GD stockholders shared in an increase worth almost $2.2 billion, spread over 127 million shares.
Submarine ‘U-Hauls’ considered by Navy
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer
Arlington, Va. — When the Navy’s Future Studies Group was looking for ways to significantly increase the volume of weapons, sensors or other equipment that a submarine could carry to a trouble spot, they quickly realized there was no way to do it given the constraints of undersea craft. But group members asked Electric Boat in Groton and Newport News (Va.) Shipbuilding, What if they carried it outside the submarine?
"Both of the shipyards said large, towed modules — U-Haul trailers, if you will — are feasible," said John Schuster, chairman of the study group and head of the science and technology branch of the Navy’s Submarine Warfare Division. "It makes sense. It looks like we can do this."
The yards said the boat could still drive at about 10 knots, but it would make sense to bring the module as close as possible to where it would be deployed so that it would not have to be towed across the Atlantic, for instance. Schuster said there are some engineering problems to overcome, but that if the modules become reality, there are no limits on what could be brought near an enemy coast under the stealth of a submarine.
If land attack was a requirement, for instance, the module might contain a dozen or more cruise missiles that could pop to the surface and launch months later, when the battle group commander sends a signal.
The submarine "U-Haul" was one of dozens of ideas suggested during a briefing Thursday at the Crystal City Hilton by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. The research agency and the Navy are conducting a study of submarine payload possibilities. More than 250 industry, academic and government experts in submarine technology signed up for the daylong event.
"Payload," said Rear Adm. Charles B. Young, the Navy’s director of submarine technology, "is defined as way beyond things that go ‘boom.’ It can include specialized sensors, or commando teams or anything else that furthers the cause of national security."
Among some of the other systems suggested were: robotic vehicles that could be deployed offshore and infiltrate an enemy’s sewer systems, gathering intelligence from right under their feet; "micro-ballistic missiles" powered by microscopically constructed rocket engines that could deliver one-pound payloads to sites thousands of miles away; 60- or 70-ton submarines (the Navy’s newest nuclear submarine is more than 9,000 tons, by comparison) that could sail into harbors or up rivers undetected.
DARPA will provide up to $5 million to at least two design teams that will come up with at least two concepts each, hopefully more. Final proposals are due in 60 days. Each team must include representatives from a nuclear submarine shipyard, which guarantees EB and Newport News will play a role, as well as a weapons system expert, such as Lockheed Martin, which had 16 representatives at Thursday’s meeting.
Aside from that, most of the defense industry representatives seemed surprised at the near total lack of restrictions. In fact, the teams will develop their own schedule and will determine what form the teams will take, although they are being discouraged from falling into a typical prime contractor-subcontractor relationship, which DARPA fears would stifle discussion by subcontractors.
Capt. John Polcari, the DARPA program manager for the project, said the idea is to get as many experts as possible together to develop ideas that will extend the utility of submarines for war, or other missions, in the 21st century.
But DARPA, which normally involves itself with exotic, futuristic weapons systems that might be years from production, is much more interested in a practical outcome from the study.
"What we’re looking for is not just a statement of what we can carry, but why we might want to carry it," Polcari said. "We’re looking for smart ideas. It’s your job to go figure out what makes sense. Show us the major advances in operational impact."
Presenters said submarines are uniquely suited to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War world, when the threats are more diffuse and technology is causing a proliferation of such weapons as anti-ship cruise missiles, mines and diesel submarines, all of them presenting a danger to surface craft. "If you can see it, you can kill it," is becoming a phrase widely used in maritime circles.
One key issue to be addressed is how submarines deploy their payload. Several of the speakers said that the only way for a submarine to get something out into the water is through four or eight torpedo tubes, "which is a major constraining feature," said Paris Genalis, deputy director for naval warfare in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense.
"We need to open up the interface between the submarine and the water, because without that we can’t do missions that are different from today," Genalis said. "There’s got to be a way to do this more effectively."
Among the design changes being considered, he said, are external stowage of weapons or developing a sort of bomb bay on the bottom of the submarine — similar to the stowage bay on a space shuttle — that could be opened to eject any size payload.
Genalis said the Defense Science Board last summer studied whether nuclear submarines should just become mother ships to smaller vehicles that engage the enemy.
Rear Adm. Thomas Elliott, deputy director of the Submarine Warfare Division, said some of the futuristic advances are being installed on submarines. The Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion program — COTS stands for Commercial, Off The Shelf equipment — has expanded the sensor capabilities on submarines by more than 10 times. Each processor in the new system has more computing power than the entire submarine fleet previously possessed, and each boat will get six of them within the next three to four years.
"We didn’t change the sensors very much. We just started processing the energy they were giving us better," Elliott said. Despite the military budget cuts of the last several years, "If something is a truly revolutionary concept, we’ll find a way to fund it, and that’s what we did here."
David Whelan, second in command at DARPA, said recent war simulations have shown that access to large amounts of information can shorten wars, so the ability to put thousands of small sensors into a country to track weapons movements and preparations could make the difference between a quick or protracted conflict.
Among the projects DARPA is working on now, which could be delivered by submarine, are radio-frequency tags about the size of a cigarette pack that could transmit information to surveillance aircraft, or to a satellite system known as Discover II, which will be sent up soon.
Another successful program is the miniature air-launched decoy program, which could confuse enemy radar into thinking a decoy is an F-16 fighter jet or a B-2 bomber, drawing fire away from the real thing.
The decoys cost less than $30,000 each, but even more attractive is the delivery vehicle, which could be produced at about $23,000 each in blocks of 2,000 or more and which could deliver any payload of up to 25 pounds, said Whelan. If a way can be found to deploy it from a submarine, it would be the perfect delivery vehicle for remote sensors or other equipment.
EB News
Electric Boat Corp., a General Dynamics Co., Groton, Conn., is receiving $9,353,578 to exercise an option under previously awarded contract N00024-95-C-2107 for design and development studies and engineering, technical and logistics services to assist in characterizing and assessing development technologies. These services include testing, integration, installation and removal services. The studies and services are for the Advanced Submarine Research and Development Program Office, PMS 92R. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn., and is expected to be completed in December 2000. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Arlington, Va., is the contracting activity.
NSSN Named Virginia
The Navy's lead ship of the New Attack Submarine class will be formally named during a ceremony held in the LBJ Room of the U.S. Capitol at 9 a.m. Friday, October 2nd.
Secretary of the Navy John Dalton announced September 10th his decision to name the lead ship the USS Virginia (SSN 774).
The Navy's next-generation attack submarine, the Virginia class, will provide the U.S. Navy with the capabilities required to maintain the nation's undersea supremacy well into the 21st century. Virginia will have improved stealthiness, sophisticated surveillance capabilities and special warfare enhancements which will enable it to meet the Navy's multimission requirements.
Virginia will be able to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert long-term surveillance of land areas, littoral waters or other sea forces. Other missions Virginia will conduct include anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, special forces delivery and support, and mine delivery and minefield mapping. With enhanced communications connectivity, Virginia also will provide important battle group and joint task force support, with full integration into carrier battle group operations.
The Virginia class attack submarines surpass the performance of any current or projected threat submarine, ensuring United States undersea dominance well into the next century.
The LBJ Room is located in room S-211 of the Capitol building. Media are invited to cove this event and should enter the Capitol through the north entrance. For more information, contact Cmdr. Frank Thorp or Lt.j.g. Steve Mavica at (703) 697-5342.
Secretary of the Navy John Dalton announced today his decision to name the lead ship of the New Attack Submarine class the USS Virginia (SSN 774).
"I can think of no other state that so embodies the maritime heritage of this great Nation than the Commonwealth of Virginia," said Secretary Dalton. "I am also most grateful to the Virginia delegation for their strong support of the Navy Department. The submarines of the Virginia class will silently roam the world's oceans for decades to come, carrying the spirit of America and Virginia with them wherever they go."
The Navy's next-generation attack submarine, the Virginia class, will provide the U.S. Navy with the capabilities it requires to maintain the nation's undersea supremacy well into the 21st century. Virginia will have improved stealthiness, sophisticated surveillance capabilities and Special Warfare enhancements which will enable it to meet the Navy's multimission requirements.
Sen. John Warner commented: "For the past several years, the Senate Armed Services Committee has taken the lead in Congress to obtain the authorization for this new class of submarine, whose mission will be to deter aggression and preserve freedom. Generations of Virginians, beginning in the early 1600s, have likewise been in the forefront for the cause of freedom. So our state with pride and humility accepts the Navy's decision to have these ships bear the name Virginia."
"I'm pleased that the U.S. Navy has honored the Commonwealth by bestowing the name Virginia on the New Attack Submarine class," Sen. Chuck Robb said. "As the sixth ship of the U.S. Navy to carry the name Virginia, this new submarine continues the tradition, started by the original USS Virginia in 1777, of recognizing Virginia's indispensable role in defending our nation's freedom."
Virginia will be able to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert long-term surveillance of land areas, littoral waters or other sea forces. Other missions Virginia will conduct include anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, special forces delivery and support, and mine delivery and minefield mapping. With enhanced communications connectivity, Virginia also will provide important battle group and joint task force support, with full integration into carrier battle group operations.
The Virginia class of attack submarines surpasses the performance of any current projected threat submarine, ensuring U.S. undersea dominance well into the next century.
In addition to today's announcement, there will be a formal naming ceremony at a location and time to be determined on the U.S. Capitol grounds on Wednesday, September 23rd. Media are invited to cover this event. For more information, contact Cmdr. Frank Thorp or Lt.j.g. Kim Marks at (703) 697-5342.
Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton announced his decision today to name the second submarine of the Virginia-class for the state of Texas.
"USS Texas (SSN 775) will serve with distinction in our submarine force and will carry on the great maritime traditions of its predecessors," said Dalton. "Texans have always been innovators, patriots and leaders, and the crew of Texas will showcase those traits, as well as our core values of honor, courage and commitment, well into the 21st century."
| This will be the fourth ship to bear the name Texas, and will be built at Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. in Newport News, Va., joining the fleet in 2005. |
Virginia-class submarines will be able to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert long-term surveillance of land areas, littoral waters or other naval forces. Other missions include anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, special forces delivery and support, and mine delivery and minefield mapping. With enhanced communications connectivity, these submarines will also provide important battle group and joint force support, with full integration into carrier battle group operations.
The Virginia-class of attack submarines surpasses the performance of any current or projected threat submarine, ensuring U.S. undersea dominance well into the next century.
Articles from the DoD page.
Naval submarine to bear state's name
Secretary of the Navy John Dalton will name a U.S. Navy submarine for the state of Texas, a Pentagon source told the San Antonio Express-News on Thursday.
Dalton confirmed that one of his final acts as secretary of the Navy will be to name the second submarine in the Virginia class of subs for his home state.
"Texans have always been innovators, patriots and leaders, and the crew of USS Texas will showcase those traits, as well as our core values of honor, courage and commitment well into the 21st century," Dalton said.
Former San Antonian Dalton, 56, is a Naval Academy graduate and was sworn into office in 1993. He is the last of President Clinton's original national security team and officially steps down Monday.
A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, said: "It's an appropriate and fitting tribute to the state of Texas, which has long enjoyed a special and close relationship with our armed forces."
Rodriguez is a member of the House National Security Committee which oversees military affairs.
U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said: "It is a wonderful honor for our state and very appropriate that the new Virginia class submarine will be named for the state of Texas. Like Texas, itself, the Virginia class sub will always be on the front line in the defense of our country."
Hutchison added, "John Dalton deserves our thanks and appreciation for this honor and for his outstanding service as secretary of the Navy.
"The Navy will miss him."
The fourth ship to bear the name Texas, it will join the Navy fleet in 2005.
The Virginia class of attack submarines surpasses the performance of any current or projected threat submarine.
Virginia class submarines will be able to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert long-term surveillance of land areas, lateral waters or other naval forces.
Other missions include anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, special forces delivery and support, mine delivery and minefield mapping.
With enhanced communications abilities, these submarines also will provide important battle group and joint force support, according to the Pentagon.
The USS Texas will be built at Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. in Newport News, Va.
Thursday, Nov 12, 1998
Nuclear Subs Provide Electricity in Siberia
MOSCOW, Nov. 12, 1998 -- (Agence France Presse) Three Russian nuclear submarines stationed in Siberia's extreme east, on Wednesday began providing electricity to a nearby town, an expert said.
The electricity arrives via cable in the town of Viliuchinsk, specialist in the field Elena Nazarova told AFP.
The three submarines form part of Russia's Pacific fleet.
The idea of the war machines providing peacetime electricity has been discussed for many years, but this is the first example of the idea in action.
Kamchatka, and other nearby areas, face bleak winters with long power outages rendering life very difficult for the local populace.
C.S.S. Hunley, 2nd Sub Movie of 1999
U-571 and C.S.S. Hunley are both scheduled to come out in 1999, below is all the info I know on the movie C.S.S. Hunley, scroll down to see info on U-571.
2 U.S. Submarines Collide Off Long Island
March 19, 1998
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two U.S. Navy submarines collided Thursday morning while on training maneuvers in the Atlantic Ocean, a senior Navy official told CNN.
The ballistic missile submarine USS Kentucky was sailing on the ocean's surface off the coast of Long Island, New York, when it was struck by the attack submarine USS San Juan. The San Juan was submerged at the time, the official said.
The accident occurred at about 9:30 a.m. There were no injuries reported as a result of the clash, which the official described as "a minor bump"
Russia To Launch Satellite From Nuclear Submarine
MOSCOW, July 1
Russia is planning to launch a satellite from a submerged nuclear submarine later this month for the first time, the Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.
A spokesman for Russia's Northern Fleet said the exact launch date for later in July had not yet been set, but said the Russian Navy would send up a German Tubsat-N scientific satellite.
It would be the first satellite launch from a submerged sub, although a previous experiment in 1993 launched a probe from a Russian nuclear-powered submarine on the surface, he said.
The Defense Ministry's official Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper said the satellite would be inserted into an SS-N-23 missile, taking the place of a nuclear warhead.
"There are many of these carrier rockets in storage and they have a high degree of reliability," the newspaper wrote. "The ability to launch commercial satellites regardless of weather from these atomic underwater launch pads has strong prospects and is most economically profitable for foreign partners."
A "Delfin" class submarine will make the launch from the Barents Sea, Krasnaya Zvezda said, adding the probe is to help scientists study bears and deer in the northern hemisphere.
India's Nuclear Submarine
BOMBAY, India - With Russian help, India plans to build its first nuclear-powered submarine by 2004 and eventually fit it with missiles carrying nuclear warheads, an Indian researcher said Friday. Jane's says a fleet of five submarines are planned and will eventually carry nuclear weapons.
North Korean Sub Captured In South Korean Waters
A North Korean submarine was caught, earlier this week, in a fishing net. Two members of the subs crew were seen trying to untangle the periscope from the net. They towed the sub to shore quickly incase the crew attempted suicide and blow up the sub. This was the second time a North Korean midget submarine had been caught in South Korean waters in two years. Last year some of the crew were captured, committed suicide, or shot by South Korean soldiers; 1 of the crew members did escape back to North Korea. The South Korean government wants to know why the North Korean sub was in their waters. It probably was there for a surveillance mission.
USS Jimmy Carter SSN-23
The Navy named its newest and most fearsome submarine the USS Jimmy Carter on Monday, honoring a former submariner who became the 39th president of the United States. And with a grin, the honoree said: "If I had a choice between a submarine and an airport, I would choose a submarine." Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport was recently named for the nation's 40th president, the man who upset Carter's bid for re-election.
After the ceremony, Carter said he found no contradiction between lending his name to a nuclear-powered warship and his post-White House career as an international peacemaker.
The 353-foot Jimmy Carter, also to be known as the SNN 23, is under construction by the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. It is scheduled to join the fleet in 2001.
New Submarine Movie: U-571
U-571 (1999)- German WW2 sub movie.
Plot: Michael Douglas leads a search to recover an Enigma machine, which the Third Reich used to encrypt/decrypt its communications, from a German U-boat (U-571) during World War II.
Set construction to start June '98. Shooting to run from September till November at Mediterranean Film Studios, Kalkara, Malta, and Dock No. 2 at Malta Drydocks.
Produced by: Universal [us]
Filming will begin in August in Malta.
Directed by Jonathan Mostow
Cast (in alphabetical order)
Michael Douglas
Written by Sam Montgomery, Jonathan Mostow
Produced by Dino De Laurentiis(King Kong Re-make), Joel D
Actor Harvey Keitel dives into submariners’ world
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer
Groton — Doing research for his new movie, a World War II submarine adventure film, actor Harvey Keitel went right to the source Monday at the Submarine Veterans Club.
More than 50 submariners, including some who earned their dolphins even before the war, offered Keitel anecdotes and advice for the production. Keitel said the movie will be based loosely on an actual incident involving a German U-boat, the U-571. He will play the chief of the boat on a U.S. submarine.
Joseph A. Hanzel of Groton, who served on S-34 during the war, told Keitel that if he really wanted to see what it was like, watch the German film "Das Boot," because U.S. filmmakers so far have never been able to get it right.
Hanzel described one 90-minute depth charge attack where, even though the boat’s engines were pushing toward the surface, it continued to sink under the barrage. At 250 feet the old submarine was visibly caving in, and valves everywhere were leaking.
Even when they weren’t under attack, the conditions were pretty rough, Hanzel said. With one toilet for all 50 enlisted men, and a single basin — no shower — things got pretty foul.
"The joke was, anyone who took a bath more than once a month was just too lazy to scratch," Hanzel said. "We went to sea in a Model T."
Today, after a breakfast with the Command Master Chiefs at the Naval Submarine Base, Keitel will really get into his role — by training in the damage control trainer at the Submarine School, where a series of disasters are simulated and the trainees get soaking wet.
"It’ll be good to experience that," Keitel said, although he admitted that his own military experience, three years in the Marine infantry, hardly prepared him for this.
On an earlier trip, Keitel visited the USS Providence, which returned last fall from a trip to the Persian Gulf, and the Nautilus, which, he observed, has the same hull number as the German boat in the film.
Keitel said he is impressed with the camaraderie exhibited by submariners, as well as their sense of humor, which they can drop in an instant and quickly turn professional when the situation warrants.
Keitel also has a long-standing reputation for professionalism. His 1968 debut, "Who’s That Knocking On My Door," was also the first film of director Martin Scorsese. He’s well known in recent years for films such as "The Piano," "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Bad Lieutenant."
The next one, "U-571," begins filming interior scenes this month in Rome. Then the crew will move on to Malta, where a reproduction of a German U-boat has been built for the movie.
Remarks as delivered by The Honorable John H. Dalton Secretary of the Navy Congressional Breakfast SeminarWashington, DC28 March 1995 SUB PROGRAMS--AN EXPOSURE TO THE FACTS Thank you, Jackie [Davis]. Once again you've done a greatjob in putting together this series of breakfast seminars on Service issues. I appreciate this opportunity to talk about our submarine programs...a topic whose parts have been frequently debated, butwhose total impact is often obscured. I believe that once the facts are made clear, PresidentClinton's proposal for full funding for SSN 23, the third SEAWOLF submarine, will be seen for what it is: a common sense solutionto American defense requirements. After I've finished my comments, I will be happy to addressany specific questions or comments you may have. I also notethat Rear Admiral Denny Jones, Director of the Submarine ForcesDivision in OPNAV has joined us today and is available fortechnical questions concerning our programs. When I spoke at this breakfast series last year, I made thepoint that highly capable nuclear attack submarines had a majorrole to play in deterring and responding to regional crises andother threats to our national security. Our attack submarinesare the prerequisite to our ability to carry out the strategic vision we call "Forward...From the Sea." I think most people now accept that fact. The claim that nuclear submarines are "relics of the ColdWar" could not be further from the truth. Instead--because oftheir versatility--I would call them the "heralds of the militarytechnical revolution" that many strategists are now talkingabout. And I am not the only one who thinks that way. "A nuclear submarine fleet is the future of the armedforces." That's an interesting quote; but its not my quote, noris it a quote by another American. Rather its a statement madein 1993 by General Grachev, the Russian Minister of Defense. When he made that statement, General Grachev was trying toexplain why the Russian government--with the Russian Army indisastrous condition...as we have seen, unable to subdue the partisan forces of Chechnya--continues to pour vast amounts ofmoney into producing newly-designed nuclear submarines. The reason is not--I hope and pray--that General Grachevexpects a renewal of the Cold War. The reasons...there are atleast two...are as valid for the United States as they are fromthe Russian perspective...and for nations that view themselves asregional powers. First, the nuclear submarine is the original and ultimatestealth weapons system--one that can be adapted for an unlimitedrange of missions. Submarines provide the most cost-effectivemeans of controlling the seas, the most certain means ofproviding nuclear deterrence, and the least-detectable means ofgathering strategic intelligence. Additionally, submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missilesare a significant part of our power projection capabilities. Submarines equipped to land SEALs or other special operationsunits are perhaps the most covert insertion means of our SpecialOperations capability. They are also, by the way, the mosteffective means of defeating a potential enemy's own submarineforce. I don't think there is any weapons system that combinesstealth with such versatility. In other words, submarines represent a blue chip stock thatprovides a hedge against an uncertain future. This is part of the logic that compels 44 nations to operatesubmarines--and while most of these subs are diesel-electric, itis apparent that those navies who possess the training andinfrastructure to operate nuclear submarines are very eager to doso. Submarines do what a similarly large investment in other forces can not do--change an entire defense equation. That isspecifically what the SSBN did in the early 1960s. That is whatseveral regional powers, such as Iran, appear to be attempting. The Russians recognize this and want to retain such a hedge. The second reason that, I think, motivates General Grachevis the possibility that once nuclear submarine construction inRussia is halted or shut down, it would be very, very difficultto assemble the knowledge or resources to start it up again. Submarine construction requires an enormous investment inresources, trained personnel, research and development and time.To build and maintain a capable force is not cheap; but not tomaintain it and try to start up again is vastly more expensive. Because the Russian government accepts General Grachev'slogic, they continue their efforts at improving the quieting andcapabilities of their submarines. Earlier in this decade, at the same time the Soviet Union was imploding, the Russian Navy closedthe gap on our long-standing technology advantage and put to seaa submarine class--the improved AKULA--that is, under manyconditions, quieter than our best submarines, the improved 688class. The Russians are developing even quieter subs and intendto continue building them at the rate of one per year. We havedeveloped a quieter sub, the SEAWOLF, but we are currently onlybuilding two and the first will not go to sea until 1996. The United States does not face the same internal conditionsas Russia--but our defense requirements are actually more complex. And--since our submarines are built by the privatesector--the investment we have in nuclear submarine constructionis even more precarious. The facts are:o As a maritime nation, we need to retain the lead in nuclearsubmarines. Our lead is under severe challenge.o To preserve our nuclear submarine-building capability, weneed to build submarines. There is no other incentive forprivate industry to retain its capability to stay in this business.o Submarine construction requires more than just shipyards--there are a large number of contractors, but most are the solesource for a specific vital component.o The last submarine authorized was the SSN 22 in 1991. The New Attack Submarine, a smaller, more affordable submarinetailored to littoral missions but retaining SEAWOLF-levelquieting will be requested in 1998.o This seven year gap has put the entire industry in jeopardy. While one of our nuclear-capable shipyards, Newport News, cansurvive on aircraft carrier construction, the other, ElectricBoat--the yard that is building SEAWOLF--is exclusively optimizedfor submarines. o As capable as Newport News may be, it is simply not prudentto rely on only one shipyard for nuclear construction. A naturaldisaster in the region could completely wipe out our nationalcapability. We need two nuclear capable shipyards. We also musthave the surge capacity to build subs at a more rapid pace if weshould have to. o Planning for our defense requirements and in light ofRussian developments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have specifiedthat by the year 2012, 10 to 12 of our submarines should haveSEAWOLF-level quieting.o Without Electric Boat in the picture, we would be unable tostart the New Attack Submarine in 1998...we would not have theforce required by 2012...and we would continue to fall behind inquieting capabilities. o So, for operational requirements as well as the prudenthedge of preserving the industrial base, our near term decisionhas been to request construction of SSN-23, the third and finalSEAWOLF, at Electric Boat. Then we will utilize the skills andknowledge gained to produce the New Attack Submarine.o Other options have been suggested, but none can ensure thefollowing three objectives: -- that we regain our lead in quieting in the near termand achieve a 10-12 SEAWOLF-level force by 2012. -- that we begin construction on New Attack Submarine by1998. -- that the overall submarine construction industrial baseis maintained at minimum operational level without substantialdisplacement costs.o The final fact is that building SSN-23 is more cost-effective than any other option. -- Thus far, we have already invested over $900 million inconstruction of its components. -- We can complete construction for less than what itwould cost to build another improved 688-class--and the 688I doesnot have the necessary level of quieting. -- If we do not build SSN-23, we could face a cost penaltyof over $700 million to finish the first two SEAWOLFs and beginthe New Attack Submarine. -- The bottom line is that--without going forward withSSN-23--we could end up spending at least $1.6 billion withnothing to show for those dollars spent. All otherconsiderations aside, that's not smart business sense...and itwould be an injustice to the taxpayers. As Secretary of the Navy, I have developed a program thatemphasizes three things: readiness, right-sizing and recapitalization. SSN-23 is consistent with these objectives andfulfills all three objectives. First, it enables us to match the Russians in developing a quieter submarine force at numbers determined by the JCS to benecessary for our future readiness. Second, it preserves our nuclear ship construction industrial base at the right size. In the 1960s--at the heightof the Cold War--the Navy was building nuclear ships at sevendifferent shipyards, both private and naval. Now there are onlytwo. We've already right-sized to the appropriate level ofnational capabilities. Third, it provides the bridge for recapitalizing oursubmarine force with both the quieting and the littoral-warfarecapabilities needed for the post-Cold War world. Finally, it is the most cost-effective option to preservethe value of our previous investment. Nuclear submarines are, and will remain the heralds of the military-technical revolution. Over the past decades, they havealready created a revolution in military planning. It is prudentto retain our capabilities in this area. Our submarinemodernization program, with SSN-23 as the bridge and New AttackSubmarine as the objective is optimally designed to do just that. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to lay out the factsthat drive the specifics of our submarine programs. I'll opennow to your questions.
| Sub Central: Pics | Documents | News | News_Archives | Chart Of World Subs | Diesel Subs | Did You Know This!? | Sub Games | Seawolf_Class | NSSN | EB & NNS | US Attack Subs | US Missile Subs | Video Vault | Virtual Sub | Japanese Subs | Guestbook | Chat | Links | USS Jimmy Carter Home Page | USS Connecticut | Index | E-Mail |