FROM THE PRESIDENT
This issue of THE SUBMARINE REVIEW provides my first opportunity to express to the League membership how pleased and proud I am to have been selected to seiVe as your President Not very long ago, during the ceremony in which I relieved as COMSUBLANT, I concluded my two-sentence acceptance speech with the ancient, but very appropriate words, Surely, my cup runneth over. Today, by comparison, we are talking major flooding.
As a result of the dedicated efforts of the visionaries who initially organized the League and nurtured it from infancy through adolescence, we are heirs to a smoothly functioning machine, well recognized as the unofficial, but very professional voice of the submarine community. The office staff is superb. The new headquarters building is a thing of beauty, worthy of a visit whenever you are in the area. Membership is slowly, but surely increasing. Our chapter system is expanding. The REVIEW is widely acclaimed. Our annual Symposium has quicldy become a tradition. And the Submarine Technology Symposium, co-sponsored by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, has become the premier event of its type. The Submarine League is on a roll! The timing of this coming of age could not be better.
I have long been concerned that we have not been totally effective in our efforts to educate the general public about submarines and submarine warfare. As a reminder, the first objective of the Naval Submarine League is, “To stimulate and promote an awareness by all elements of American Society of the needs for a strong Submarine Force”, clearly a license to go forth and advertise. Unfortunately, we tend to huddle comfortably in familiar groups of true believers and lecture to ourselves about inherent stealth, firepower, sustainability, cost effectiveness, mobility, and so forth, all in perfect resonance. It is imperative that we now preach that gospel to the uninitiated; enthusiastically and often. We have a good story to tell, and there is in the general public a great interest in submarines. It is not our bag to lobby directly, but a “bottom up” groundswell of support for submarine programs wouldn’t hurt. We are open to suggestions on how best to deliver the message.
This issue of THE REVIEW is devoted principally to the proceedings of our recent annual Symposium. As you will see from the articles, we had an all-star lineup of speakers. That program, combined with the great social events, guaranteed another smash success. Save your pennies, and join us next June for an unforgettable experience.
This entire issue of the REVIEW is devoted to bringing to the members of the League a printed version of the proceedings of the Eighth Annual NSL Symposium held last June. This is done to give those unable to attend a chance to share in the outstanding presentations and also to provide the attendees with a more complete and lasting reference than their own notes. This Symposium was held at a time of great uncertainty, and consequent concern by all for the maintenance of order in this new world, particularly in face of declining defense fundings. The statements of those concerns by the various speakers represent authoritative views of the various issues to be addressed by the submarine community over the immediate future. Accordingly, members may wish to draw upon these presentations in their dealings with the public.
We were fortunate to have the Secretary of the Navy provide an overall setting of both the present and the future, and give us his informed opinion of where the United States, the Navy, and the Submarine Force fit in that picture. SecNav’s Executive Branch view was ably complemented by Congressman Sisisky’s perspective from the Hill.
Dr. Herzfeld, the new Director of Defense Research and Engineering, identified as one of our main issues the need for efl’ective and imaginative R&D in the search for the best technologies with which to design, produce and outfit the successor to the SSN-21. Admiral Bruce DeMars, in a more immediate vein, called out the generation of support for the production or the SSN-Zl attack submarine as the most pressing issue facing the Force. Admiral DeMars also intraduced the subject of the Industrial Base as being of concern in a future of reduced ship production levels.
RADM Bill Habermeyer concentrated on the SSN-21 issue by emphasizing the need for that ship’s increased multimission ftexJblllty in order to meet the spectrum of both predictable and now-unforeseen taskings for future submarine involvement The Soviet threat was well treated by Captain Bill Manthorpe, the Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, as be specifically addressed the matter of quality versus quantity in the smaller, but more modem Soviet submarine force and commented on the possible difference between our own perception or Soviet Intentions and an objective assessment or their capabilities. Similarly, John Benedict of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory presented his studies of the proliferating submarine threat developing in the Third World. To round out the trio of discussions about subjects that deserve considerably more attention in the days to come, Norman Friedman offered a ttdetacbed” view of the world in which our submarines will have to perform.
Changes in the strategic submarine world were covered by RADM Bill Owens, and he highlighted the importance to the Soviets or their strategic rorces as their main claim to influence. RADM Owens also examined the changing relationships between the air, land, and sea components of the U.S. strategil TRIAD and emphasized the new capabilities in our TRIDENT submarines.
There are two pieces in this issue that did not originate at the Symposium but they are included here to give added emphasis to one current issue, the SSN-21, and one potential, Naval Arms Control. Both are extracted from speeches; one by the CNO in the Soviet Union, and the other by COMSUBLANT in which he states the operator’s side of the new submarine story.
This Annual Symposium Issue addresses many of the major problems facing us today and I hope you will have the time to read and digest these thoughts and opinions. To continue to bring these discussions by policy makers and other experts forward between the yearly general membership meetings (and hopefully to generate some meaningful debate within the membership), TilE SUBMARINE REVIEW will invite those best qualified to comment on the issues which we feel are important and need deliberate exposition. This is not a change in editorial policy, but rather a timely restatement of our aims. We expect, of course, that the greater part of the REVIEW will continue to be the same type of articles, discussions, letters, news reprints, and book reviews that have been so successful before, much of which comes from our membership.
THE SUBMARINE REVIEW
THE SUBMARINE REVIEW is a quarterly publication of the Naval Submarine League. It is a forum for discussion of submarine matters. Not only are the ideas of its members to be reflected in the REVIEW, but those of others as well, who are interested in submarines and submarining.
Articles for this publication will be accepted on any subject closely related to submarine matters. Their length should be a maximum of about 2500 words. The content of articles is of first importance in their selection for the REVIEW. Editing of articles for clarity may be necessary, since important ideas should be readily understood by the readers of the REVIEW.
A stipend of up to $200.00 will be paid for each major article published. Annually. three articles are selected for special recognition and an honorarium of up to $400.00 will be awarded to the authors. Articles accepted for publication in the REVIEW become the property of the Naval Submarine League.
The views expressed by the authors are their own and are not to be construed to be those of the Naval Submarine League. In those instances where the NSL has taken and published an official position or view, specific reference to that fact will accompany the article.
Articles should be submitted to the Editor, SUBMARINE REVIEW, P.O. Box 1146, Annandale, VA 22003.