In Memoriam
PATRICIA LEE LEWIS
Our beloved Patricia Lee Lewis, matriarch of the Naval Submarine League since its inception, died of cancer on October 14 at her home in Alexandria, VA. Because of her unselfish devotion and loyalty to the League, Pat was honored as our Submarine Hero during our Eleventh Annual Symposium in June 1993. The “citation” for the occasion is printed herewith:
Pat Lewis is much more than merely a charter member of the Naval Submarine League. Our first office was established in Pat’s basement. Office “equipment” consisted of several shoe boxes (our files) and one refurbished typewriter. Pat’s title was Office Manager. Her first task was to teach herself typing. In just a few months, she had mastered book keeping and typing, and was taking night courses on computers and word processing. Our quarterly magazine, The Submarine Review, became Pat’s “baby”. She has typed and formatted every issue of the Review and contributed immeasurably to its organization and success.
Pat’s pleasant telephone voice became the hallmark of the League’s headquarters, reflecting her concern for each member and every inquiry. She took the time to converse patiently with every caller, resolving problems before they became crises. The League became the envy of all other sea service associations. Pat Lewis was in charge.
Historians write of the influence of a single individual on the outcome of an event. The success ofthe League is the legacy of one Pat Lewis to the now and future Submarine Force.
Well done, Pat! We all Jove you.
We were all greatly enriched for having the honor to know and love Pat Lewis and are grieved by her passing. Our sympathy goes out to her daughteis Linda LaCoursiere, Donna Robinson, Terry Ginda, six grandchildren and her sister Sally Lash. Pat was the widow of Rear Admiral James R. Lewis, a submarine officer who died ofa heart attack in 1982.
EDITOR’S COMMENTS
If there can be such a thing as a theme to one edition in a regularly recurrent magazine series, the one for this issue of The Submarine Review is that ‘Submarines can do a lot of things-and we have to get that point across to everyone else’.
The Honorable John Dalton, the submarine-qualified new Secretary of the Navy, leads off this edition, and that theme, with the remarks he presented at the christening of USS TOLEDO (SSN 769). He spoke of a sense of renewal and cautioned that … we chart the waters of a new, but uncertain world.” League President Bud Kauderer reports on the results of Secretary Asp in’s Bottom Up Review of our defense needs and capabilities. In justifying the decision to continue the industrial base, that Review highlighted the range of flexibility of submarines for new world activities. VADM Hank Chiles’ presentation is an excellent summary of the kind of problems to be faced in today’s world and where submarines stand in the effort to help with the solution to those problems.
Two special sections follow-up on that theme. A Counter Point section offers some contrast with published views on the Trident and Centurion programs and RADM AI Konetzni ‘s comments on the objectives of submarine design are also reprinted. In addition, two pieces by active duty officers give a view from the deck plates of submarine multi-mission flexibility. They are both story-telling lessons and, together with RADM Bill Houley’s piece in the current Naval Institute Proceedings, they give a strong sense of what can be done by submarines currently and in the near and mid-term future .
Three articles are included here that were presented at the Submarine Technology Symposium in May because they speak directly to the issue of submarine utility in the missions currently of most concern. The January issue of The Submarine Review will carry two other pieces from the May 1993 symposium that focus on specific missions in more detail.
In a more general vein, Ambassador Linton Brooks’ talk to the League’s Annual Symposium in June is presented as the best rundown available on the strategic force situation between the U.S. and the states of the former Soviet Union. There is also an article by a Commander in the Royal Australian Navy, who is the Operational Requirements Manager in that Navy’s Submarine Project Office, with the reasoning for a new submarine force in that part of the world.
The subject of speed in submarines, or in anything else for that matter, is always of interest and we have two articles on the subject that each offer a new perspective. From France, we have an article about the French Navy’s approach to speed requirements and the consequent cost in ship size by the officer who was technically responsible for the design and construction of several classes of submarines. In Bud Gruner’s article about the German Type XXVI boat he gives an interesting view of the convoy question now that their speed can be matched by submerged submarines.
For lighter reading, the Submarine bibliography in this issue is all about fiction with a listing of submarine novels. A new type of feature is presented in this issue with a conducted interview of RADM Hank McKinney just before he was relieved as ComSub-Pac. RADM McKinney was good enough to speak quite candidly and personally and there are insights in his answers that will be of interest to all . The interviewer is Richard Lawson, who used to be a reporter for Inside the Navy and interviewed ADM Carl Trost for that paper.
And then, for all those submarine sailors who are always ready to talk about how bad the weather was back whenever, there is the log of SAILFISH on her tenth patrol when R.E. M. Ward won the Navy Cross for sinking an aircraft carrier in the middle of a typhoon .
Jim Hay
FROM THE PRESIDENT
The recent end of summer ’93 was most notable for the release of the much heralded and great) y anticipated Bottom Up Review, the Administration’s plan for reducing the U.S. defense structure to levels appropriate for the post-Cold War world. In announcing the blueprint, Defense Secretary Aspin said, “We’ll have a force based on tomorrow’s requirements-a lean, mobile, high-tech force ready to protect Americans against the real dangers they face in this new era”. By design, a relatively larger role has been given to the Navy, a tip of the hat to the forward presence and mobility of naval forces and the Marines.
The review set limits on, inter alia, active Army divisions, Air Force fighter wings and bombers, Marine Corps end strength, aircraft carriers, tactical aircraft and surface ships, and on the number of SSBNs (18) and SSNs (45-55). More importantly, fulfilling President Clinton’s promise to protect the fragile U.S. defense industrial base, the plan proposed building a third Seawolf Class SSN at General Dynamics/Electric Boat, and approved the development and building of the new attack submarine (NAS). A dual capability to build nuclear powered ships would be main-tained; CVNs will be built at Newport News Shipbuilding. The plan must be approved by Congress.
Happily, there is some evidence that a year of sermons by a variety of preachers on the importance of preserving the nuclear industrial base has made some converts. In an editorial on 5 September, 1993, The Washington Post, yes, The Washington ~stated, “The administration proposes to buy a costly Seawolf attack submarine the Navy doesn’t need just to maintain a submarine-building capacity. But that’s hardly the first time in history the government has kept alive a defense production line for other than reasons of military necessity …There isn’t exactly a large civilian market for submarines. Who will be able to build one X years from now if the operation is shut down? The administration is being selective about this … The go-ahead on the Seawolf is a good decision”. Hallelujah!
Meanwhile, through the long hot summer, the ponderous acquisition mill has been grinding ever so fine on the NAS. The cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) has been completed. The next hurdle is Milestone One, a review by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) for a blessing to press on . In this next phase, the decision makers must resolve a dilemma, i.e., where to draw the line on capability vs. cost. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that unless the NAS is acquired in numbers greater than one per year, the force level will default rather quickly in the next century to 30, or less. On the other hand, as Tevya said, we don’t want our grandchildren to wonder why we willed them a fleet of submersible FFG-7s .
Clearly, a tough call, but perhaps we are presented with an opportunity for some visionary thinking. Modular hull sections, tailored to specific mission payloads, installed during construction like an option package on an automobile, should be efficient to build and would provide operational flexibility for the future force. We might even venture into external weapons and vehicle storage. Above all, NAS should have an advanced, state-of-the·art, integrated combat control system, with open architecture and the processing capacity that will enable full participation in the joint world of the future. Fresh, new, and bold approaches to cost control and performance enhancement are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Planning for the May 1994 Submarine Technology Symposium at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in well underway. For our annual June Symposium in Alexandria, an impressive slate of speakers has been invited. Please plan to join us.
Bud Kauderer
