Fall 2006 cov1

San Antonio:

A New Era

Latest MCM Capabilities

Vol. 31 No. 4

Fall 2006
cov2 Surface Warfare

On the Back:

One Hundred Eighty-Four 

beams of light projected 

from the Pentagon courtyard 

illuminate the night sky to 

commemorate each life lost at 

the Pentagon on the five-year 

anniversary of the Sept. 11 

terrorist attacks on New York, 

the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa. 

(MCC Johnny Bivera/USN)

San Antonio: A New Era

Lastest MCM Capabilities

On the Cover:

YN1(SW) Sheila Anderson 

of PCD Sterrett learns how 

to patch a pipe during the 

lab portion of the General 

Shipboard Damage Control 

Training at Norfolk 

Naval Station. (MC1(SW/

AW)Athena Blain/USN)

Surface Warfare (USPS 104-170)(ISSN 0145-1073) is published quarterly by the Department of the Navy, Director, Surface Warfare (OPNAV N861M), 2511 Jefferson Davis HWY, Suite 4300, 4th Floor, Arlington 

VA 22202. Periodicals postage paid at Arlington, VA, and at additional mailing offices. The Secretary of the Navy has determined this publication is necessary in the transaction of business required by law or the 

Department of the Navy. Funds for printing this publication have been approved by the Navy Publications and Printing Committee. 

Postmaster: Send address changes to Surface Warfare, OPNAV N861M, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000.
Fall 2006

Features

USS Austin ends an era 4

With the decommissioning of USS Austin, the San Antonio

class LPDs assume the watch.

USS Turner disaster propelled many firsts 8

Helicopter platform landing and the use of plasma helped 

save lives onboard Turner.

Multi-Tadil links the Navy and beyond 14

The unique system improves communication for Navy and 

coalition forces.

Aegis BMD: At the forefront 18

Ballistic missile defense systems provide integrated layered 

defense to intercept and defeat ballistic missiles.

MCM Capabilities 24

Mine countermeasure systems will provide stronger mine 

detection for LCS.

LCS 2 revolutionary design 30

As LCS 2 prepares to join the Fleet, her different look will better support her mission.

Safety

Flooding at sea case study 34

A case study that highlights the need for ongoing training to 

survive one of the most dangerous aspects of shipboard life: 

floods.

Buttercup prepares shipboard Sailors 38

General shipboard’s damage control training opens the eyes of 

complacent Sailors.

Departments

 2 Message from Commander

 3 Director’s Corner

40 Book Review

42 Views from the Fleet

44 Ship Shape

45 Captain’s Trivia

 Lt. j.g. Heather Twiggs stationed aboard 

the amphibious transport dock ship USS San 

Antonio (LPD 17) renders a salute to the city 

of New York as the ship passes Ground Zero in 

New York City. San Antonio and her crew are in 

New York to commemorate those who lost their 

lives, five years ago during the Sept. 11, 2001 

terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and 

Shanksville, Pa. (MC3 Anthony Tornetta/USN)

Rear Adm. Barry McCullough, USN

Director, Surface Warfare Division

Military Editor

Lt. Jennifer Rossi, USN

Managing Editor

MC1(SW/AW) Athena Blain, USN

Administration and Distribution

YN2 (SW/AW) Fredrica Johnson, USN

Staff Journalist

MC2 Heather Canterbury, USN

Editorial: 

Address editorial inquiries to:

Surface Warfare Magazine

OPNAV N86IM

2000 Navy Pentagon

Washington, DC 20350-2000

Phone: (703) 604-1911

FAX: (703) 604-1917

DSN Prefix: 664

E-mail: surfwarmag@navy.mil

Layout and Design by: 

Allen Wayne, Ltd.

Phone: (703) 321-7414

Toll Free: 800-695-8880

Web: www.allenwayne.com

Printed By:

Universal Printing Co.

1234 South Kingshighway Blvd.

St. Louis, MO 63110

Fax: 314-771-7987

Phone: 314-771-6900

Subscriptions 

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Chief of Subscriptions

Washington, DC 20402

Phone: (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2250

By mail: P.O. Box 371954 

Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

Master stock number: 

708-050-00000-8 (SW)
One of the key actions for the 

Surface Warfare Enterprise 

since its inception a year 

ago has been to establish an interface 

between the fleet and enterprise 

organizations/processes. I directed 

the formation of class squadron 

(CLASSRON) implementation teams 

on Oct. 1, 2006 which is a significant 

step towards fulfilling that goal and 

consolidating accountability for 

achieving surface force readiness 

more effectively and efficiently. 

CLASSRONs are a functional and 

administrative support organization 

generated from existing waterfront 

and type command (TYCOM) 

organizations and billets that will 

support ISICs (immediate superiors 

in command) and afloat commanding 

officers. CLASSRONs will align the 

Surface Warfare Enterprise (SWE) 

process teams with established 

waterfront support organizations 

to ensure that proven readiness 

and cost control processes are 

applied across a class of ships. The 

CLASSRON implementation teams 

will begin staffing, defining roles, 

and establishing procedures to meet 

the targeted operational capability of 

Spring 2007.

When fully operational, 

CLASSRONs will support the ISIC 

and ship commanding officer for 

manning, training, equipping, and 

maintaining processes of surface 

ships - by class. CLASSRONs will be 

located in Norfolk (DDG, PC, LHA/

LHD/LPD-4), San Diego (CG, LCS, 

LSD/LPD-17), Ingleside (MCM), 

and Mayport (FFG). CLASSRONs 

will be charged with using common 

standards and metrics to assess 

current readiness, analyzing metrics 

across ships of a class, examining 

class trends, determining root 

causes, establishing lessons learned, 

and providing recommendations 

and solutions. They will provide 

a group of dedicated maintenance 

professionals to focus on identifying 

the maintenance requirements and 

cost drivers for each class of ship, 

analyze manpower, determine 

personnel and training issues 

impacting individual ship readiness, 

and be accountable to the TYCOM 

for producing warships ready for 

tasking at the lowest costs. 

The CLASSRON commander 

is the supporting commander to 

the operational ISIC. The SWE 

chief readiness officer (Deputy 

CNSF) provides the link between 

CLASSRONs and the SWE 

process teams and is responsible 

to the Surface Forces Commander 

(CLASSRON Commander Reporting 

Senior) for day to day functions of 

the CLASSRONs.

The standup of CLASSRON 

implementation teams is another 

example of the SWE tackling the 

complex issues facing the future 

surface Navy. With our ship 

maintenance (SHIPMAIN), ship 

training (SHIPTRAIN) and LCS 

oversight board programs, SWE has 

already implemented successful 

changes to the business of running 

the surface Navy. Surface Warfare 

Enterprise and CLASSRON efforts 

continue the transformation of 

the surface Navy into the flexible, 

capable and mission-ready force 

needed to face the challenges 

of tomorrow. 

T.T. Etnyre

Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy

Commander, Naval Surface Forces

Message from Commander, Naval Surface Forces

Surface Warfare
There’s a little bit of freedom in 

every town in America. For some 

towns, Freedom means everything.

The U.S. Navy is building a new 

type of warship, the littoral combat 

ship (LCS), which will operate in the 

distant littoral – or coastal – waters 

of the world where the enemies of 

freedom seek to operate and hide. 

Its name, fittingly, is USS Freedom.

This transformation in global 

naval warfare starts at home, in 

America’s heartland. The first of 

these ships, USS Freedom is being 

built by Lockheed Martin far from 

the oceans, at Marinette Marine in 

Marinette, Wis. 

Serving as ship’s sponsor is 

Birgit Smith, the widow of Army 

Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, who 

died in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and was posthumously awarded 

the Congressional Medal of Honor. 

She broke the ceremonial bottle 

of champagne over the bow to 

“christen” USS Freedom when it was 

launched into the Menominee at 

Marinette on Sept. 23.

The oceans are the freeways of 

the world. Nearly all of the world’s 

intercontinental trade travels by sea, 

and so the global economy depends 

on the security of the sea lanes.

Today’s naval battlefield is in 

the littorals, where we face a broad 

spectrum of increasingly capable 

traditional threats as well as 

asymmetric threats that directly focus 

our adversaries’ strengths against our 

perceived weaknesses. 

“Our enemies are looking for new 

ways to fight us,” said Adm. Mike 

Mullen, our CNO, at the launching 

ceremony. “ One area of the world 

they are increasingly turning to 

is the littoral, or coastal regions. 

We call it the ‘green water, and it 

covers something like 104 million 

square miles of the earth. They find 

these shallow sea lanes ideal for 

committing acts of piracy, smuggling 

oil and slaves, laying mines, 

impeding our access, or trafficking in 

weapons and illegal drugs. They find 

them perfect for moving resources 

around and infiltrating peaceful 

nations. And they are getting better 

at doing so.”

Therefore, the U.S. and its allies 

must dominate the littorals and 

be ready to respond to any crisis, 

anywhere, anytime.

“That’s where the littoral combat 

ship (LCS) comes in, Adm. Mullen 

said. “Drawing less than 15 feet of 

water and moving at speeds of up 

to 45 miles per hour, the LCS will 

extend our reach farther into the 

green water than we’ve ever been 

able to go. With interchangeable 

warfighting packages fitted out 

in just a matter of days, each LCS 

can be tailored to combat almost 

any specific threat—from enemy 

mines to submarines to even pirates. 

More critically, it can operate 

independently or in company with 

other ships, including the U.S. Coast 

Guard and the smaller vessels of 

other nations.”

LCS is a fast, agile combatant 

optimized for warfare in such 

waters. Faster than any combatant 

we’ve recently built, LCS is capable 

of speeds in excess of 40 knots. 

Although the ship itself – called the 

seaframe – is able to defend itself, 

LCS carries its combat power in 

interchangeable mission packages 

with offboard sensors and unmanned 

vehicles to deal with one of three 

focused missions. LCS can be 

configured for mine warfare, antisubmarine warfare or anti-surface 

warfare. The mission packages can 

be switched to accommodate the 

mission of the ship as needed. In 

each mission, it is the off-board 

vehicles––sensors and weapons––that 

will enter the zone of most danger, 

while the LCS stays outside the range 

of her greatest threats.

LCS will have a relatively small 

but highly trained crew of 40 Navy 

men and women for the ship, along 

with additional Sailors to operate 

the mission package and serve as an 

aviation detachment for the aircraft, 

for a total of 75 officers and Sailors.

The name “Freedom” is dedicated 

to the basic ideal upon which our 

nation was born. It also honors 

American communities which bear 

the name Freedom, in California, 

Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, 

New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The Lockheed Martin team is 

building LCS at two shipyards, 

Marinette and at Bollinger Shipyard 

in Lockport, Louisiana. A team 

led by General Dynamics Bath 

Iron Works is building the USS 

Independence (LCS 2) with a different 

design at Austal USA’s shipyard in 

Mobile, Ala.

Barry McCullough

Rear Admiral , U.S. Navy 

Director, Surface Warfare

Freedom launched in Wisconsin;

Transformational Navy Ship is 

built in America’s Heartland.

Fall 2006 
Sept. 27, 2006 marked the end 

of an era. USS Austin (LPD 4) was 

decommissioned after 41 years of 

service. The first of the Austin class 

of amphibious transport dock (LPD) 

ships, Austin’s Sailors and embarked 

Marines gave Department of Defense 

(DoD) and the nation 41 years of 

forward presence and frontline 

operations. USS Austin answered the 

nation’s call all over the world and 

has established an enviable legacy 

for the replacement LPD 17 class, the 

first of which, USS San Antonio (LPD 

17) was commissioned Jan. 14, 2006. 

Although the San Antonio class is 

being built in a different location, the 

I stand relieved! 

:

Sailors from the amphibious transport dock USS Austin (LPD 4) depart the ship for the last time during the decommissioning ceremony at Naval 

Station Norfolk Sept. 27. Austin was decommissioned after more than 41 years of naval service. (MC3 Jason Smith/USN)

Austin

turns over 

the watch to 

San Antonio

By Lt. Cmdr. Dan Evans, USS Austin (LPD 4) 

Executive Officer and Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Oakey 

USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) Executive Officer

 Surface Warfare
same great workers that make our 

country the best in the world built 

it. USS Austin has set expeditionary 

warfare standards high for the LPD 

17 class to follow.

Austin was built in the Brooklyn 

Naval Shipyard and commissioned 

on Feb. 6, 1965. Configured with a 

266-foot flight deck, Austin was able 

to carry and operate a large variety 

of rotary wing aircraft. Coupled with 

the 200-foot well deck, Austin was 

an extremely capable and versatile 

platform. The ship could embark and 

support over 900 combat-equipped 

Marines and SEALs, carried dozens 

of vehicles, thousands of tons of 

ammunition and supplies, and 

nearly a million gallons of diesel 

fuel, aviation fuel, and gasoline. With 

repair shops, medical and dental 

facilities, and a large storage capacity, 

the Austin class LPD could conduct 

operations for 30 days anywhere 

along the world’s oceans without 

resupply - - and had done so for 41 

years. San Antonio class LPD’s are 

being built with the same versatility. 

Austin demonstrated this 

versatility throughout her life. 

She conducted nine Caribbean 

deployments, 12 Mediterranean 

deployments, four North Atlantic 

cruises, two deployments to the 

Horn of Africa, and two to the 

Arabian Gulf. Her final deployment, 

which occurred this year, was a sixmonth cruise to the North Arabian 

Gulf and Horn of Africa in support 

of Operations Iraqi Freedom and 

Enduring Freedom. During the ship’s 

last days, her crew qualified for the 

Iraqi Campaign Medal for the sixty 

plus days spent in Iraqi territorial 

waters conducting an afloat forward 

staging base mission. 

USS Austin’s first operational 

mission after commissioning was the 

withdrawal of the Inter-American 

Peace Force during a severe political 

crisis in the Dominican Republic in 

November 1966. From 1967 to 1971, 

the ship acted as a support platform 

for the recovery for the Apollo IV, 

XII, and XV space missions. She was 

on the scene to offer support and 

assistance during the Yom Kippur 

War in 1973 and the Arab-Israeli War 

in 1974. 

In October 1983, Austin was 

off the coast of Lebanon when 

the tragic truck bombing of the 

Marine barracks occurred. Her 

crewmembers provided valuable 

assistance to the Marines ashore 

by standing security watches 

and aiding in search and rescue 

operations. After Hurricane Hugo 

in September 1989, Austin provided 

invaluable relief to residents in San 

Juan, Roosevelt Roads, Saint Croix, 

and the Island of Culebra. Later in 

April 1991, Austin was off the coast 

of Turkey for Operation Provide 

Comfort, providing aid and support 

for Kurdish refugees driven out of 

Northern Iraq into Turkey. 

By June 1994, Austin was again 

at the scene of action, conducting 

contingency operations off the coast 

of Somalia for Operation Restore 

Rear Adm. Garry 

Hall and Cmdr. Kevin 

Flanagan salute the 

color guard during 

the decommissioning 

ceremony for the 

amphibious transport 

dock USS Austin (LPD 

4) at Naval Station 

Norfolk, Sept. 27. (MCSN 

Octavio Ortiz/USN)

 Family and friends cheer Sailors aboard the amphibious transport dock ship USS Austin (LPD 4) during a 

homecoming celebration at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., May 3, 2006. (MCSN Mandy Mclaurin/USN)

Fall 2006 
Hope. In August 1998, Austin raced 

across the Mediterranean to the 

Aegean Sea to insert over 200 combat 

equipped Marines and SEALs for 

the protection of U.S. citizens in 

Albania. In November 1999, Austin

was designated as the Command and 

Control ship and led the recovery 

operations for Egyptian Air Flight 990 

off the North Atlantic coast of the U.S. 

In the 21st century, Austin

conducted two major deployments 

to the Arabian Gulf, conducting 

maritime security operations and 

acting as a maritime interdiction 

operations (MIO) platform. 

Throughout her major deployments 

to the Mediterranean Sea, Indian 

Ocean, Arabian Gulf, Caribbean 

Sea, and Atlantic Ocean, Austin

has traveled as far north as the 

Arctic Circle and as far south as the 

Republic of Seychelles in the 

Indian Ocean. 

Through these operational 

commitments, Austin was also 

the groundbreaking platform for 

several new systems entering the 

Fleet. In November 1968, Austin

began what would be a plethora of 

tests for the launch and recovery of 

marine amphibious tractors (LVTs). 

Following in 1968, Austin conducted 

an evaluation of the new MH-53 Sea 

Stallion helicopters. In one of the 

tests, Austin was actually towed by 

the workhorse aircraft. 

In November 1970, Austin

escorted the first two Navy PGs to 

go on a Mediterranean deployment, 

the USS Surprise (PG 97) and 

USS Defiance (PG 95), making 

groundbreaking advances in various 

fueling and helicopter transferring 

techniques between the support 

ship and the PGs. She was the first 

Atlantic Fleet LPD to embark SH3 helos and participate as an ASW 

platform with a carrier task force 

during two separate live exercises. In 

the early 1980s, the ship conducted 

well deck tests with the prototype 

JEFF boats, precursors to modern day 

landing craft air cushions (LCAC). 

The ship also launched and recovered 

Marine Corps AV-8 Harrier jets. 

Even in her waning days, 

Austin served as a test bed for new 

technologies. In February 2005, her 

well deck was used as test platform 

for recovery and launch of an LCAC 

with an assault breacher vehicle 

(ABV) embarked. After over four 

decades of proud service, Austin has 

truly earned the reputation of being 

“the oldest and the best gator in the 

Fleet,” and was recognized as such 

by earning the 2005 Battle 

Efficiency Award.

There are few ships in our 

inventory that are built with the 

inherent diversity to accomplish 

the variety of missions that the 

LPD can successfully complete. The 

unveiling of the LPD 17 class marks 

a significant transformation in the 

amphibious navy, maintaining and 

expanding upon the numerous 

diverse characteristics of the 

Austin class LPDs. The new class 

adds a technological superiority 

unparalleled on the world’s seas.

As well equipped as Austin was to 

accomplish her mission over the past 

four decades, the San Antonio class 

LPDs will be even better suited to 

accomplish a multitude of missions.

LPD 17 class ships feature 

significant design improvements to 

advance warfighting and quality of 

life for Sailors and Marines and many 

of these changes are readily apparent 

at first glance. San Antonio class 

ships are significantly larger than 

Austin class and designed to support 

the Marine Corps’ 21st century 

mobility triad of MV-22 Osprey, 

LCAC, and expeditionary fighting 

vehicle. San Antonio’s vehicle 

capacity is more than double that of 

Austin’s. Additionally, an observer 

will also note the streamlined topside 

design and advanced enclosed 

mast/sensor systems that reduce 

susceptibility to radar detection 

while supporting state-of-the-art 

sensor and communication systems. 

The San Antonio class also features 

 USS Austin (LPD 4) underway. (usn)

Surface Warfare
improved self defense systems such 

as the rolling airframe missile (RAM), 

Mk 53 Nulka decoy system, and Mk 

46 30mm gun systems. 

As impressive as San Antonio

class ships look topside, even more 

improvements are apparent inside 

the skin of the ship. The command, 

control, computer, communications, 

intelligence, surveillance and 

reconnaissance (C4ISR) suite is 

robust and features ship self defense 

systems (SSDS) Mk 2, several 

satellite communication (SATCOM) 

systems, cooperative engagement 

capability (CEC), and flexible Marine 

and Navy intelligence, logistics, and 

operations management facilities. 

To improve the rapid exchange 

of information, all ship systems, 

combat systems, sensor systems, 

and command-and-control nodes 

are linked by a fiber-optic shipboard 

wide area network (SWAN). In 

addition to exchanging information, 

the SWAN serves as the conduit for 

most electronic exchanges among 

the various systems, supporting 

everything from warfighting 

consoles to helm orders to engine 

operating parameters to remote 

monitoring of unmanned spaces. 

The LPD 17 program 

incorporated several 

“smart ship technologies” and 

optimized-manning features when 

designing the ship. In addition to 

corrosion resistant materials featured 

prominently all over the ship, highsolid paint is used in fuel and ballast 

tanks and well deck overhead, and 

all-electric auxiliary systems lighten 

the maintenance burden of steam 

systems. One result is that these ships 

provide the Fleet with significant 

capability improvements with 15 

percent fewer crew than Austin

class ships. 

The smaller crew and the 

fighting forces they support will 

also find quality improvements for 

themselves, too. The living spaces 

have “sit-up” berths with adjacent 

head and lounge facilities. The 

SWAN hosts not only email and 

internet services, but also a total 

ship’s training system and dedicated 

learning resource center (LRC) and 

electronic classroom to support 

shipboard, Navy, and civilian 

professional education. Marines will 

benefit from berthing facilities equal 

to those provided the Sailors, but 

also equipped with personal weapon 

storage facilities inside each space.

Additionally, passageways are 

wider and the berthing spaces 

positioned to facilitate the rapid 

movement of combat-loaded 

Marines to debark points – a 

major improvement over existing 

expeditionary warships. Finally, 

Marines and SEALs benefit from a 

robust medical facility four times 

larger than the older LPDs, dedicated 

weapons-training facility, mission 

planning space, and equipment 

drying room to better support unique 

needs of modern maritime warriors. 

USS Austin’s Sailors and Marines 

served their nation with distinction. 

As this proud ship decommissioned 

she left a worthy record for the next 

generation of amphibious transport 

dock ships. Whether supporting 

expeditionary or sea based 

operations anywhere in the world, 

USS Austin’s larger successors, the 

San Antonio class, will provide 

significant increases in war fighting 

capability, lifecycle supportability, 

and quality of service that place them 

in a position to do the same for the 

next 40 years. 

 USS San Antonio (LPD 17) makes its way into 

the harbor at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., Jan. 25, 

2006. (MCSA John Suits/USN)

The crew from the amphibious 

transport dock USS Austin (LPD 

4) man the rails during the ships 

decommissioning ceremony at 

Naval Station Norfolk, Va., Sept. 

27. (MCSN Octavio Ortiz/USN)

Fall 2006 
Not all the Navy’s wartime losses 

came from enemy action. Some 

losses came from friendly fire or 

human error, and some others from 

weather, or accidents. 

This is the story of the USS Turner 

(DD 648), which exploded and sank 

in the wintry waters outside New 

York Harbor on Jan. 3, 1944.

Turner was a Gleaves-class 

destroyer, built at Federal 

Shipbuilding & Drydock in Kearney, 

N.J., and commissioned at the New 

York Navy Yard on April 15, 1943.

She was a relatively new ship, but 

she had proven herself screening 

transatlantic troop convoys. She 

trained at Casco Bay, Maine and 

Hampton Roads, Va. She sailed 

to Casablanca, Gibraltar, and 

Guantanamo Bay, to name a few 

ports. Turner got around! She was 

Plasma Saves Sailors’ 

“Combat Veteran” 

Destroyer Suffers 

Deadly Internal 

Explosions, 

Sinks Outside 

Home Port

By Anastasia Kirby Lundquist, Contributor

 Surface Warfare
an advance anti-submarine screen 

for convoy GUS-18 on Oct. 23, 1943, 

when she picked up a contact on her 

“SG” radar. Within 11 minutes, her 

lookouts made visual contact with a 

German submarine on the surface. 

Turner opened fire, scoring a hit on 

the U-boat’s conning tower, followed 

by other hits before the sub began to 

dive. Turner dropped an initial depth 

charge and then another and still 

another before a series of underwater 

explosions were heard signifying 

to the men of the Turner that the 

menacing U-boat had been sunk. The 

Turner looked for proof but time and 

circumstances made it impossible to 

acquire evidence. However, Turner

witnesses were convinced that there 

was one less submarine to threaten 

the convoys. 

By year’s end Turner was 

homeward bound—her escort duties 

with transatlantic convoys completed 

for the time. The deployment had 

been demanding and the crew was 

weary when they dropped anchor 

in Ambrose channel at the entrance 

to New York Harbor in Jan. 3, 1944. 

Those on watch went to work; others 

hit the sack, content that it was just 

a matter of time before the ship 

received clearance to make her way 

into New York.

There was a good feeling among 

the crewmembers that night and the 

next morning when they reported 

for breakfast. The two mess 

compartments were filled: some 

Sailors had finished eating, while 

others were filling their trays and 

waiting for a place to sit down. At 

0616 the ship was hit with a violent 

explosion. Trays and food and 

chairs went flying. Men were tossed 

around like rag dolls.

What had hit the ship? A torpedo? 

An underwater mine? Nothing had 

been expected. Then it was noted 

that the explosions were coming 

from within the ship. Was there a 

problem with her own ammunition? 

Explosion followed explosion. Fires 

were breaking out everywhere—not 

only burning through the framework 

of the ship; they were burning the 

clothes off the bodies of the crewmen. 

One of the men who survived this 

horrible ordeal told his son in later 

years that when the day started he 

was wearing wool pants, a denim 

shirt, a wool sweater and hat. After 

the first explosion, his pants were 

now shorts, the sweater was tattered, 

singed patches. His arms and legs 

were burned and all the hair on his 

head was burned off. This man was 

Seaman 2nd Class Albert L. Cover. 

When the end came for the Turner, 

and he was one of the survivors 

taken aboard the rescue ship, he was 

wearing nothing more than his shoes 

and a leather belt. The rest had been 

burned or blown off his body.

His son, David Cover, who gave 

this account to the USS Turner

Association, said that he had seen 

his father’s medical records listing 

second– and third–degree burns 

over 65 percent of his body. “I knew 

his case was critical because a priest 

performed the last rites on him three 

times during his recovery.”

Another account of the plight of 

the men of the Turner that fateful day 

was told by one of the ship’ cooks, 

Baker 2nd Class John MacDonald. 

MacDonald was climbing up the 

ladder to the mess decks when the 

initial explosion occurred. He could 

neither see nor hear following the 

blast and all his clothes and his 

hair were burned off in the fire that 

followed. “I tried to find my way 

out. The steel inside the ship and 

the hatch I tried to get out of were 

buckled from the explosion. Not 

able to see, I kept feeling around for 

ways to get out and finally felt cold 

air from the snow outside. Next 

thing I knew a snipe (a term for 

the engineers who ran the ship’s 

propulsion plant) put a life jacket 

on me and threw me over the 

side,” MacDonald. “A boat from 

the destroyer escort Inch (DE 146) 

had picked me and a few others up 

and brought us to their ship. I was 

Jan. 3, 1944 - Helicopter Mercy Mission- Lt. Cmdr. 

Frank Erickson, USCG, flying an HNS-1 helicopter, 

made an emergency delivery of 40 units of blood 

plasma from lower Manhattan Island to Sandy Hook 

where the plasma was administered to survivors of an 

explosion on the destroyer USS Turner (DD 648). In 

this, the first helicopter lifesaving operation, Erickson 

took off from Floyd Bennett Field, flew to Battery 

Park on Manhattan Island to pick up the plasma and 

then to Sandy Hook. The flight was made through 

snow squalls and sleet which grounded all other types 

of aircraft. (USCG)

On Feb. 28, 1943 USS Turner (DD-648) was 

launched at Federal Shipbuilding Kearney, N.J. (USN)

Fall 2006 
seriously injured and in the hospital 

for a great amount of time.” 

This information was provided 

to the USS Turner Association in the 

year 2000! It wasn’t a case of some 

people remembering. There are some 

things one can never forget. 

Still another member of that crew 

around in 2000 to recall that awful 

day for the men of the Turner, MM2 

Robert Freear, recalled almost sixty 

years later how he had just filled his 

tray in the main mess and moved 

into the forward mess compartment 

to sit down to eat. This was 

a fortunate move because the 

explosion killed every crewmember 

in the main mess compartment.

After the explosion, MacDonald 

was unconscious for about five or 

ten minutes. When he came to, he 

saw nothing but flames and heavy 

smoke and heard nothing but the 

screams of those who were trapped 

in the wreckage and were burning 

to death. “Breathing now was next 

to impossible, so I crawled with my 

face close to the deck for better air. 

In time I found five men who were 

trying to find their way. Eventually, 

we arrived topside on the fore deck 

and found ourselves in a howling 

blizzard. I will never forget the 

exquisite sensation caused by snow 

coming into contact with (my) 

red-hot skin. 

“Looking aft with one eye open, 

I saw the sight of a destroyer 

completely out of operation. Both 

sides had huge holes blown out. The 

number two 5-inch gun turret had 

disappeared and flames were rushing 

out of the holes in the sides and on 

top of the superstructure. To the 

great credit of the men on the fore 

deck, there was no panic.

“A Coast Guardsman brought 

his boat, approximately 60 ft. in 

length, up to the port side of the fore 

deck and threw lines up to us and 

eventually we all boarded and got 

safely away. Those Coastguardsmen 

spent 20 to 30 minutes alongside 

the ship rescuing us, knowing of the 

imminence of explosion and realizing 

that they had hundreds of gallons of 

gasoline on board. However, they 

stayed alongside until the last man 

was taken off. The Coast Guard 

deserves a great deal of credit for 

this rescue.

“We were about 30 yards from 

the Turner when the second major 

explosion occurred. We watched her 

sink and when some of the depth 

charges were under water, there 

Jan. 3, 1944 USS Turner (DD-648) exploding off Sandy Hook, N.J. 

(Photo courtesy of David Merrill RM1)

Survivors of the explosion stand on the shattered 

bow of the USS Turner (DD-648) after being 

salvaged March 1944. (USN)

10 Surface Warfare
was a tremendous blast. It seemed 

as if acres of water rose 30-40 feet,” 

MacDonald said.

“We were six miles out, the 

most agonizing miles of my life, as 

we were being taken to an Army 

hospital. The searing pain of the 

burned areas of my body was 

incredible. When I passed over my 

threshold of pain and mercifully 

went into shock, I felt nothing and 

saw nothing because my eyes were 

blistered shut.

“The treatment at the Sandy 

Hook Army Hospital (located on 

Fort Hancock) was outstanding. 

The personnel met the emergency 

of many difficult cases (one man 

had 90 percent of his body covered 

with second and third degree burns 

and survived) with expertise and 

cheerfulness. We had a medical 

corpsman at our bedside 24 hours a 

day, checking our blood count and 

body fluids. We required hundreds 

of quarts of blood plasma. There was 

not enough to meet this extensiveand ongoing-need but the Coast 

Guard came to the rescue in a first 

mission of its kind”

A Coast Guard Sikorsky HNS-1 

helicopter, flown by Lt. Cmdr. F.A. 

Erickson, USCG, of the recently 

established helicopter flight school 

at the Coast Guard Aviation Unit, 

Fort Bennett Field in Brooklyn, came 

through the blizzard with cases of 

plasma lashed to the helicopter’s 

pontoons. This mission of mercy and 

heroics was a lifesaving experiment 

and as such a piece of history. It was 

the first-ever use of a helicopter in a 

life-saving role.

“Later we were transferred to 

Brooklyn Naval Hospital where 

we, again, received excellent 

treatment and nursing. In spite of 

complications which most of us 

developed from the blast, we came 

through,” MacDonald said. “No one 

was lost!”

These survivors put the 

recollections of the Turner disaster 

forward as a testimonial to their 

shipmates: those who came through 

and those who did not. Said Freear, 

these thoughts were offered as a 

memorial to those “who were blown 

to bits, slowly burned to death, 

drowned, or suffered severe injuries.”

When the Turner went down in 

the icy waters off Ambrose Light, her 

captain and other brave men went 

down with her. Cmdr. Henry S. 

Wygant, Jr., the ship’s first and only 

commanding officer, and 14 of his 17 

 USS Turner (DD 648) underway. (USN)

RM1 David Merrill, 21, 

of Henrietta, Texas drinks 

coffee at the Sandy Hook, 

N.J., Coast Guard station after 

his rescue from USS Turner 

(DD-648), which exploded 

and sank near the entrance 

to the Lower New York Bay. 

(Photo courtesy of RM1 David 

Merrill USN)

Fall 2006 11
officers and 123 of his men were lost.

This was a terrible tragedy: a great 

loss to the Navy, especially Task 

Force 68. The Navy can always build 

another ship and find a crew to man 

it, but she can never replace 

those lost. 

The Turner’s death toll was 

tragically high. The court of inquiry 

reported a total of 138 missing and 

65 wounded of the 275 enlisted on 

board, according to Robert Cressman 

of the Naval Historical Center. The 

survival rate among the victims 

rescued, however, was outstanding. 

A detailed report regarding victims 

brought to the hospital at Fort 

Hancock was issued by Capt. Saul 

Hochheiser of the Army Medical 

Corps. It was so thorough that 

the Surgeon General of the Army 

referred to it in his statement about 

the Turner disaster.

According to the report, most 

of the victims “needed plasma 

transfusions because severe burns 

and accompanying abrasions, ‘blast’ 

lungs, lacerations and fractures 

had accelerated the production of 

traumatic shock, deadly after-effect of 

loss of liquid from the blood stream.”

The blood from more 

than 320 donors was used 

in saving the lives 

of the thirty-five 

most severely burned 

survivors.

The most satisfying 

part of his report was the 

last paragraph. “Within 

less than a month after 

being admitted to the 

Fort Hancock hospital, 

they were all well enough 

to be transferred to the 

Brooklyn Naval Hospital 

for convalescence or 

return to active service.”

Albert L. Cover’s 

son told of his father’s 

experience on board the 

Turner, he concluded 

his remarks with a very 

touching observation: 

“It is a strange feeling 

knowing that I am 

alive—as are my sisters, as well as a 

brother who died at age 37—because 

some person or persons that I will 

never know saved my father’s life. I 

am just happy to have been able to 

get some information out about the 

people behind the event. I guess 

I am just trying to say ‘thank you’ 

somehow to those unknown people.”

Keeping wounds clean during the healing process is one of the major 

concerns of convalescence in a Navy hospital. These medical officers are 

changing the bandages on a flash-burn case. (USN)

12 Surface Warfare

 Inside SW

 By Lt. Jennifer Rossi, Military Editor

On Friday, Oct. 13, 1775, in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress voted to fit outfit two sailing vessels. Each 

was manned by a crew of 80, armed with 10 carriage guns, as well as swivel guns and sent on a cruise of three 

months to intercept transports carrying munitions and stores to the British army in America. This was the original 

legislation out of which the Continental Navy grew and it also marks the birth of the United States Navy as we 

know it today.

I don’t think those 18th century Sailors would know what to make of the new littoral combat ships. Freedom

was christened on Sept. 23, 2006 and Independence is being built in Mobile, Ala. We have given you info on LCS-1 

and the mission modules and in this issue, we introduce you to LCS-2. 

Just four days after Freedom was christened, the USS Austin was decommissioned. We recap the story of her 

long service to this nation and address her replacement, the San Antonio class LPDs. 

The CLASSRON concept is upon us. I know many of you probably have just as many questions as I do about 

what exactly this means to our fleet and what they can expect. I encourage all of you to send us email with your 

questions. We are going to address the CLASSRONs in our Winter issue so if you want the information from the 

source, let us know and we will get your questions answered. 
Changes of Command

USS Benfold/Dec

Cmdr. William Hesser relieved

Cmdr. Mark Harris

USS Chafee/Oct

Cmdr. Robert Tortora relieved

Cmdr. John Clausen

USS Comstock/Nov

Cmdr. Burt Espe relieved

Cmdr. Paul Shock

USS Crommelin/Dec

Cmdr. Patrick Huete relieved

Cmdr. Mark Manfredi

USS Halyburton/Dec

Cmdr. Everett Pratt relieved

Cmdr. William Byrne

USS Harpers Ferry/Nov

Cmdr. David Bossert relieved

Cmdr. Marlin Anthony

USS Hawes/Oct

Cmdr. Charles Marks relieved

Cmdr. Sean Geaney

USS Higgins/Nov

Cmdr. Jeffrey Menne relieved

Cmdr. Jesse Wilson

USS Hue City/Dec

Capt. Michael Jacobsen relieved

Capt. Peter Grause

MCM Crew Conflict/Oct

Lt. Cmdr. Angel Cruz relieved

Lt. Cmdr. William Switzer

MCM Crew Constant/Nov

Lt. Cmdr. Quinn Skinner relieved

Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Bennett

MCM Crew Implicit/Dec

Lt. Cmdr. Michael Morera relieved

Lt. Cmdr. Joel Pedersen

USS Milius/Nov

Cmdr. Edmund Hernandez 

relieved

Cmdr. David Sheridan

USS Normandy/Oct

Capt. Robert Kerno relieved

Capt. Stephen Hampton

USS Oscar Austin/Dec

Cmdr. Eric Weilenman relieved

Cmdr. Peter DeMane

PC Crew Alpha/Nov

Lt. Cmdr. Theodore Nunamaker 

relieved

Lt. Jennifer Eaton

PC Crew Bravo/Nov

Lt. William Ehret relieved

Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Zook

PC Crew Echo/Dec

Lt. Scott Larson relieved

Lt. Chris Finocchio

PC Crew Juliet/Oct

Lt. Nakia Cooper relieved

Lt. Robert Halfhill

USS Princeton/Oct

Capt. David Melin relieved

Capt. William Ault

USS Shreveport/Nov

Capt. Paul Monger relieved

Capt. David Pine

USS Stethem/Nov

Cmdr. Paul Lyons relieved

Cmdr. Robert Gonzales

USS Taylor/Dec

Cmdr. Kurush Morris relieved

Cmdr. George Davidson

USS Thach/Nov 

Cmdr. Steven Ramussen relieved

Cmdr. Rinda Ranch

USS Tortuga/Dec

Cmdr. Todd Lewis relieved

Cmdr. Michael Talaga

Oct, Nov, Dec

Fall 2006 13

PC Crew Alpha Lt. Cmdr. Theodore Nunamaker

PC Crew Bravo Lt. William Ehret

PC Crew Charlie Lt. William Gantt

PC Crew Delta Lt. James Quaresimo

PC Crew Echo Lt. Scott Larson

PC Crew Foxtrot Lt. Cmdr. David Faught 

PC Crew Golf Lt. Orlando Bowman

PC Crew Hotel Lt. Jeffrey Sturm

PC Crew India Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Williams

PC Crew Juliet Lt. Nakia Cooper

PC Crew Kilo Lt. Cmdr. Brian Diebold

PC Crew Lima Lt. Cmdr. Keith Biando

PC Crew Mike Lt. Michael Brasseur

MHC Crew Bold Lt. Cmdr. Shanti Sethi

MHC Crew Conquest Lt. Cmdr. Robert Smith

MHC Crew Detector Lt. Cmdr. Todd Braynard

MHC Crew Endurance Lt. Cmdr. Andrew Carlson

MHC Crew Excel Lt. Cmdr. Antonio Hull

MHC Crew Force Lt. Cmdr. Ronald Toland

MHC Crew Gallant Lt. Cmdr. Rome Ruiz

MHC Crew Loyalty Lt. Cmdr. James Storm

MCM Crew Bulwark Lt. Cmdr. John Reilley

MCM Crew Conflict Lt. Cmdr. Angel Cruz

MCM Crew Constant Lt. Cmdr. Quinn Skinner

MCM Crew Dominant Lt. Cmdr. Bertram Hodge

MCM Crew Exultant Lt. Cmdr Scott Curtis

MCM Crew Fearless Lt. Cmdr. Michael Sciretta

MCM Crew Impervious Lt. Cmdr. James Lowell

MCM Crew Implicit Lt. Cmdr. Michael Morera

MCM Crew Leader Lt. Cmdr. Michael Hutchens

MCM Crew Persistent Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Miller

MCM Crew Reaper Lt. Cmdr. Paul Young

MCM Crew Swerve Lt. Cmdr. Benjamin Nicholson

USS Guardian (MCM 5) Lt. Cmdr. Steven DeMoss

USS Patriot (MCM 7) Lt. Cmdr. Richard Brawley

All O-3/O-4 Commands
The U.S. Navy’s Capabilities 

and Limitations (C&L) program 

is spearheading a unique 

interoperability improvement 

initiative for blue, green and joint 

force readiness. 

Before Navy, joint and coalition 

muscles can project power or provide 

humanitarian relief, everyone must 

see and interpret the same common 

operating picture (COP) in near real 

time. Optimizing Multi-Tactical Data 

Link Networks (MTNs) is a crucial 

step toward communicating the COP, 

which is an electronically shared, 

common tactical display of all tracks 

of interest in the area of operational 

responsibility. Up until now, 

however, synchronizing joint, multiagency, or multi-national proprietary 

links has been an extreme challenge 

for collaborating forces. 

“In today’s environment, 

time is a huge factor in resolving 

interoperability problems. At any 

given time, you could find yourself 

as a single ship prosecuting the 

pirates of Somalia, doing a combined 

exercise with multiple strike groups 

Capabilities and Limitations Documenting 

Navy, Joint, and 

Coalition Force 

Multi-Tactical 

Data Link Network 

Interoperability

For further information, the C&L resides on SIPRNET at 

http://cnl.phdnswc.navy.smil.mil or http://mugu.navy.

smil.mil, or email questions to cnl@navy.(smil).mil. 

By Lawana Godwin and Deborah Oberlander, Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, Code 200, Chris Trimpey, ManTech Systems 

Engineering Corporation, Contributor

14 Surface Warfare
(SGs) and joint/coalition forces, 

or providing hurricane relief with 

federal agencies. The common 

denominator for all of these is 

providing a tactical or strategic 

picture (the COP) to the bosses. To 

produce that picture, you have to be 

able to quickly troubleshoot through 

or around interoperability problems,” 

said Lt. Tom Longino, Joint Interface 

Control Officer (JICO), Commander 

Strike Forces Training Atlantic.

Pioneered by the Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Port Hueneme 

Division (NSWC PHD), the webbased Naval Sea Systems Command 

(NAVSEA) sponsored C&L program 

fosters readiness because Interface 

Control Officers (ICOs) and JICOs 

can now plan and optimize the 

link architecture so that everyone 

assigned to the operation draws a 

coherent, consistent, and shared air 

picture. Using the C&L reference, 

Navy ICOs and JICOs know in 

advance what capabilities and 

limitations to expect from the 

platforms assigned to the mission. 

“C&L is a single source document 

for understanding data exchange 

relationships between various 

platforms and systems, as well as 

for knowing what is available before 

getting on station,” said Lt. Robert 

Hylton, Joint Mobile Ashore Support 

Terminal (JMAST) Europe Assistant 

Officer In Charge (AOIC). 

ICOs and JICOs are data link 

and network wizards deployed to 

manage complex battlefield networks 

using various kinds of data links. 

They monitor the network, look at 

performance characteristics, and 

make changes to the architecture. 

As such, the comprehensive C&L 

has become the “go-to” place for all 

tactical data link and combat system 

interoperability information. 

Lt. Cmdr. Dan Cheche, 

Commander Carrier Strike Group-10 

JICO, said, “The C&L allows both 

incoming units and units already 

present to view where they may have 

issues, as well as how to capitalize on 

all of the available assets. Without the 

C&L tool, there is a lot of guess work 

and time wasted on arrival to resolve 

the issues.” 

The C&L reference facilitates a 

near real-time information exchange 

between warfighting, technical, 

training, operational, and data link 

manager subject matter experts. 

Nothing is lost in translation, as 

up-to-date information flows on 

how netted platforms use data links 

for forming the air picture, giving 

warfighters the ability to train, plan, 

surge, and fight with up-to-date 

operational descriptions. 

“Simply put, with the hundreds 

of fleet, joint and coalition command 

and control (C2) systems that are in 

service today, the C&L is the closest 

thing the service member has to 

one-stop shopping for tactical data 

link and C2 system information. I 

can easily use the C&L for planning, 

troubleshooting or training,” 

said Longino.

Currently, MTN architectures 

are the mainstay of Navy, joint, 

coalition and North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) force 

structure. The C2 “nervous system” 

hinges on technologies developed 

to throughput data using highly 

specialized message formats adapted 

for particular relationships between 

particular battlespace elements. 

Even if two elements are sharing a 

battlespace, they may not be able to 

communicate on the same network 

because their message formats are 

different. As a result, warfighters, 

tactical data link operators, and 

managers are constantly challenged 

to retain a huge amount of tactical 

data link knowledge relevant to 

each mission.

Lt. Cmdr. Richard Dunaway, 

JMAST Europe OIC, said, “The 

C&L documentation proved very 

beneficial while preparing my strike 

group for both the work-up cycle and 

follow on deployment. We utilized 

the C&L to identify interoperability 

issues early, so we could account for 

differences in our operational tasking, 

 Joint Interface Control Officers used the 

Capabilities and Limitations reference to refine 

complex, multi-tactical data link networks during 

NATO’s largest maritime and expeditionary exercise, 

Destined Glory (Loyal Midas) 2005, in the 

Thyrrenian Sea. (USN) 

 OS2(SW) Trenesa Perkins and OSC(SW) Nick 

Desoto use the information contained within the 

Capabilities and Limitations as a resource to improve 

force level situational awareness in the Combat 

Direction Center aboard USS Abraham Lincoln

(CVN 72). (MCSN Geanine Ortez/USN)

Fall 2006 15
as well as training points for the SG 

ICOs and tactical data coordinators. 

C&L documentation is also a proven 

tool when preparing briefs for 

the strike group commander and 

warfare commanders, so that you 

could front-load them on issues 

that the strike group may encounter 

and the workarounds that have 

been implemented to assist in 

preventing them. I also used the 

C&L documentation when on station 

in the Gulf to refine our daily link 

status message when units would 

transit into the theater or move from 

supporting one link architecture to 

the next.”

The living document elevates 

readiness by explaining what can 

go wrong and how to deal with 

technical issues by providing 

approved workarounds. Information 

is now at hand that identifies where 

gaps in knowledge and data exist, 

enabling educated and timely 

decisions. The scope of interest 

encompasses:

• Individual – How do tactical 

data link systems work? What 

are the C&Ls for my tactical 

data link system? How does my 

combat system interact with the 

tactical data links?

• SG – What are the C&Ls of 

all my SG units and what 

are interoperability issues 

for all SGs?

• Theater – What are link 

architecture concerns and how 

do they impact operational 

requirements?

• Joint/Coalition – How does 

my SG work with Joint or 

Coalition forces?

“The C&L makes MTN easier and 

more efficient. I have seen Sailors 

take a look at their own ship in the 

C&L and, to their amazement, they 

find out information they did not 

know. The ability to look at all the 

interoperability issues each ship, 

aircraft, or ground unit has makes the 

planning of a multi-link architecture 

more efficient. Before the C&L was 

available, we would just plug and 

play and work through all the issues. 

Now we have the knowledge ahead 

of time, when we need it,” said 

Operations Specialist Second Class 

Heath Renfrow, Navy ICO course 

supervisor, FCTCLANT Dam Neck.

The C&L concept consolidated 

the technical knowledge from all 

the subject matter experts that 

previously had been closely held 

by individual system experts. The 

C&L contains technical descriptions 

of combat systems and tactical data 

links, library of tactical data link 

characteristics, up-to-date theater 

information, and information and 

guidance about systemic data link 

issues faced by operating forces. 

Information is shared worldwide 

via Secure Internet Protocol Router 

Network (SIPRNET). The C&L 

can also be distributed to the 

warfighter using the self-replicating 

Collaboration-At-Sea (CAS) network. 

NSWC PHD pushes the latest C&L 

information to network operation 

centers from where it is deployed 

units can “pull” it to their local web 

servers. CAS enables warfighters 

to have the latest C&L information 

regardless of operational constraints 

or limited SIPRNET bandwidth. 

From CAS, the C&L can be 

promulgated to Combined Enterprise 

Regional Information Exchange 

System (CENTRIXS). CENTRIXS is 

used to exchange information with 

Coalition partners.

Over time, the C&L document has 

evolved from a large collection of 

documents about units and systems 

into a user-friendly database of 

characteristics and capabilities. With 

the emergence of XML (extensible 

markup language), the common 

pages are now held as reusable 

“snippets” of information. In 1999, 

12 strike groups C&L documents 

were maintained on a periodic basis. 

Today, 23 carrier and expeditionary 

strike groups plus 2-4 Joint/

Coalition exercise C&L 

documents are continuously 

updated. 

“As we move away from 

Navy-only operations and 

into joint/coalition operations, 

a more robust C&L would 

greatly benefit all services, 

especially with regard to 

reliability of the coalition 

forces. Many tools are being 

developed for the JICO to 

use in both planning and 

execution and they all rely on 

the current C&L. This is the

 The NAVSEA 

Capabilities and 

Limitations project 

helps OSC (SW) Tom 

Leonard, senior 

Operations Specialist, 

aboard the guided 

missile cruiser USS 

Shiloh (CG 72), 

analyze tactical data 

link interoperability 

issues and how they 

impact the Area Air 

Defense Commander’s 

mission controlling the 

air battle. (PH2 Bob 

Houlihan/USN)

16 Surface Warfare
 model all of us should use,” 

said Cheche.

The dynamic informational 

asset incorporates the latest joint 

references (Joint Multi-Tactical 

Digital Information Link Operating 

Procedures, Joint Tactical Air 

Operations (JTAO) Procedural 

Handbook, etc.) in one place. The 

C&L provides theater-specific 

information for all major areas 

of responsibility and contains 

interoperability information on over 

400 Navy, Marine Corps, joint, and 

coalition forces utilizing tactical 

digital data links (Link 1, 4, 11, 16), 

including Cooperative Engagement 

Capability (CEC).

“During Strong Resolve 2002, the 

C&L was not as broad as it is today, 

and I was unable to get the best 

information possible on some of our 

allies from any other source. Today’s 

C&L eliminates this issue because it 

covers such a vast area of information 

that planning for any exercise or 

mission has become much easier,” 

said Renfrow. 

The C&L project forged 

agreements with numerous 

organizations to share, approve, 

and disseminate the information in 

language written for warfighters, 

not engineers. It has taken years 

to build and nurture collaborative 

relationships with the joint 

services. Working with U.S. Navy 

International Program Office, the 

C&L has collected and shared 

information with the following 

coalition partners: Australia, Canada, 

Chile, France, Germany, Great 

Britain, Greece, Italy, Japan, South 

Korea, Spain, and Turkey.

“There needs to be a continued 

push to support information sharing 

between coalition, NATO and 

Partnership for Peace Nations. The 

United States will not go alone; 

therefore, we need to understand the 

dynamics and the granularity of the 

information being passed and shared 

through our various tactical data link 

systems,” said Hylton. 

Various joint and coalition 

exercises have provided venues to 

collect information for dozens of Air 

Force, Army, Marine, and coalition 

platforms. NSWC PHD developed 

C&L documents for Rim of the 

Pacific (RIMPAC), 7th Fleet Annual 

Exercise (Annualex), Combined Joint 

Task Force Exercise (CJTFEX), Joint 

Red Flag/Roving Sands, and Joint 

Combat Identification Evaluation 

Team (JCIET), to name a few. 

All interoperability information 

collected by NSWC PHD is available 

to any U.S. warfighter at all times. 

The level of C&L team support per 

exercise varies to some degree. Some 

exercises have on-site familiarization 

sessions in addition to distribution of 

exercise CD-ROMs and posting of the 

C&L on the C&L SIPRNET website. 

Exercise sponsors typically drive the 

level of C&L support given during a 

specific exercise event.

Before the C&L was created, unit 

and force level data link information 

needed in the planning process was 

not easily accessible and more often 

not available. This was especially 

true for coalition operations. To help 

remedy this, Strike Force NATO 

sponsored development of the 

Destined Glory (Loyal Midas) (DG LM05) C&L project to document NATO’s 

largest maritime and expeditionary 

exercise in the Mediterranean Sea. 

The DG LM-05 exercise included 

information about tactical units from 

France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, 

Turkey, Great Britain, and the U.S. 

The exercise included operational 

and planning tools instrumental for 

conducting complex tactical data 

link operations. 

The DG LM-05 C&L helped liaison 

officers from France, Germany, 

Italy and The Netherlands integrate 

into the Commander Naval Forces 

Europe-Commander 6th Fleet Tactical 

Mobile Unit Europe JICO cell team. 

This marked the first time that a JICO 

cell was deployed to support NATO. 

Even though these individuals came 

from different cultures with different 

protocols, or operational and training 

approaches, the JICO cell increased 

multiple-tactical data link awareness 

and enhanced the value of training 

provided for all members. 

Making sense of the disparate 

pieces of information available to 

MTN planners and operators is 

no easy task. The MTN network 

is complex and becoming more so 

each day as technology continues 

to advance. To meet the demands of 

the warfighter, the C&L continues to 

evolve, driven by both the resource 

sponsor’s requirements and the 

ultimate user of the C&L (the joint 

warfighter). NAVSEA PHD accepts 

inputs to make interoperability 

information better and more 

accessible to tactical data link 

planners, operators, and trainers.

“The C&L is a tremendous source 

saver that should be required for 

any unit participating in any link 

architecture. If you’re not using the 

C&L, then you’re behind the power 

curve,” said Dunaway.

 The web-based Capabilities and Limitations is 

a single source document for understanding and 

synchronizing complex data link operations between 

Navy, Joint and Coalition forces operating worldwide. 

The flagship for the Italian Navy, ITS Garibaldi

C-551, sails with the flagship for the Spanish Navy, 

SPS Principe de Asturias R-11, during Destined 

Glory (Loyal Midas) 2005. (USN) 

Fall 2006 17
18 Surface Warfare

 Aegis Ballistic Missile 

 Deploying an Engagement Capability
Fall 2006 19

I

n August 1998, North Korea shocked the world 

by launching the Taepo Dong I missile which flew 

over Japan with no advanced warning. The launch 

of this multi-stage missile proved that North 

Korea was close to deploying a fully-functional 

intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Newspaper reports 

estimated the range at about 2,000 km., threatening all of Japan 

and U.S. personnel as far away as Okinawa. In December 1998, 

North Korea warned the U.S. that it was prepared to launch a longer range missile, the Taepo 

Dong II. Diplomatic pressure was strong enough to stave off the test. 

During his 2003 Congressional testimony, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet stated that North Korea 

 Defense: At Sea, On Patrol

By John Antonelli, 

Aegis BMD

has an untested ballistic missile 

capable of hitting the U.S. West Coast.

In mid-June 2006, North Korea 

began preparations for a ballistic 

missile launch. Newspapers reported 

that two Aegis destroyers were 

patrolling the Sea of Japan to provide 

early warning of a ballistic missile 

launch. On July 4, 2006, North 

Korea launched six ballistic missiles, 

including a long range Taepo Dong II 

missile. All of the missiles landed in 

the Sea of Japan.

These world events accentuate 

the fact that ballistic missiles are 

a present threat to our forward 

deployed forces and allies, as well 

as our homeland. There is an urgent 

need to rapidly deploy a ballistic 

missile defense capability. Senior 

military leaders have voiced this 

need in their testimony to Congress. 

For example, Gen. Burwell Bell, 

Commander United Nations 

Command; Commander Republic 

of Korea-United States Combined 

Forces Command; and Commander 

United States Forces Korea testified 

this year that “the regional missile 

threat requires a robust theater 

missile defense system to protect 

critical Combined Forces Command 

capabilities and personnel ... 

Continued production of PAC-3 

(Patriot Advanced Capability-3) 

missiles in the near-term, followed 

by continued development of the 

Theater [Terminal] High Altitude Air 

Defense (THAAD), Airborne Laser, 

and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 

(BMD) will provide the layered 

missile defense capability we require 

in the future.” The threat to American 

and allied lives is real!

Taepo Dong I missile (BBC)
20 Surface Warfare

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

The Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) has been established to 

integrate all missile defense programs 

and technologies into one Ballistic 

Missile Defense System (BMDS). 

This system will provide integrated 

layered defense to intercept and 

defeat ballistic missiles of all 

ranges and in all phases of flight. 

To provide the sea-based portion 

of the initial BMDS, the MDA, 

working closely with the Naval Sea 

Systems Command and other Navy 

organizations, has brought the Aegis 

BMD Block 2004 capability into 

service. The Aegis BMD element of 

the BMDS consists of the modified 

Aegis Weapon System (AWS) armed 

with the Standard Missile-3 (SM3) and modifications to support 

integration with the BMDS.

Aegis BMD Block 2004 contributes 

two major warfighting capabilities 

to the BMDS. The first capability is 

the Long Range Surveillance & Track 

(LRS&T) capability which searches, 

detects and tracks ballistic missiles 

of all ranges - including ICBMs, 

and transmits the track data to the 

BMDS. This tracking data cues other 

BMDS sensors, as well as supports 

weapons and sensor tasking for the 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

(GMD) interceptors to engage 

inbound ICBMs to the U.S. Deployed 

in September 2004, LRS&T is the first 

operational Aegis BMD capability.

To date, 13 Aegis destroyers have 

been upgraded with the LRS&T 

capability. A total of 15 Aegis destroyers 

will receive the LRS&T capability by 

the end of calendar year 2008.

During the recent North Korean 

crisis, USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 

54) and USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62), 

equipped with the LRS&T capability, 

were patrolling the Sea of Japan to 

provide early warning to the BMDS 

of a possible ICBM launch, thereby 

increasing situational awareness. 

These forward deployed ships 

are capable of early detection and 

tracking of ballistic missiles and 

transmitting track data to the BMDS, 

extending the battlespace. Earlier 

detections enable earlier GMD fire 

control solutions, winning back 

critical reaction time. Earlier fire 

control solutions enable engagements 

at longer ranges and the opportunity 

to re-engage. Due to their mobility, 

Aegis BMD ships can quickly 

maneuver to different locations for 

surveillance operations. The Aegis 

BMD LRS&T capability significantly 

complements the BMDS.

Deploying An 

Engagement Capability

The second warfighting capability 

which Aegis BMD Block 2004 

contributes to the BMDS provides the 

planning, detection, control 

and engagement capabilities 

to defeat short and medium 

range, unitary and separating 

SRMB - Short Range Ballistic Missile

MRBM - Medium Range

IRMB - Intermediate Range

Source: Arms Control Association; Federation of American Scientists; Carnegie Endowment 

for International Peace; Center of Nonproliferation Studies; Monterey Institute

Long Range 

Surveillance & Track

Aegis 

Destroyer

SPY-1 

Radar
Fall 2006 21

ballistic missiles in the midcourse 

phase of flight with the SM-3 Block 

IA missiles. These functions are 

integrated within a weapon system 

configuration that includes the 

LRS&T capability. Presently, an Aegis 

cruiser is engaged in a series of firing 

missions to validate the operational 

capabilities of Aegis BMD against a 

progressively more complex set of 

targets and scenarios. To date, Aegis 

BMD has achieved seven successful 

midcourse intercepts in eight firings. 

With a sense of urgency, Aegis BMD 

is progressing towards deploying 

the combined LRS&T and ballistic 

missile engagement capability 

by the end of 2006 to assist the 

combatant commanders (COCOMs) 

in combating regional ballistic 

missile threats.

Operational Realism

The MDA, Aegis BMD and 

the Navy have made a serious 

commitment to “test as we fight”, 

setting a standard for the BMDS. 

Operational realism has been 

progressively inserted into every 

at-sea test. Since the first launch of 

the SM-3 missile, all firing missions 

have been conducted in operational 

Aegis Cruisers. Commander 

Operational Test and Evaluation 

Force (COMOPTEVFOR), the 

Navy’s independent operational test 

agent, has participated in the test 

preparation and execution, providing 

observation reports at the conclusion 

of each firing mission. As the Block 

2004 Flight Test Missions progressed 

in technical complexity, more 

operational objectives were inserted 

as Aegis BMD and BMDS capabilities 

became available. Aegis BMD 

destroyers were quickly included in 

the firing scenarios to test the LRS&T 

cueing capability. As the BMDS 

data and voice communications 

architecture evolved, so did 

the shipboard communications 

requirements. MDA has made a great 

effort to design threat representative 

targets to fly threat representative 

trajectories in real-world scenarios. 

Aegis BMD has included such targets 

and trajectories in each 

firing mission.

To add more realism, no notice 

target launches were conducted. 

Firing missions were designed as 

operational scenarios and shipboard 

personnel did not have access to 

the target launch count down or 

mission specifics. The crews of 

participating ships in each firing 

mission only received operational 

intelligence “tippers” that hostile 

forces were making preparations for 

launching a ballistic missile against 

a friendly nation before the target 

was launched. When shipboard 

planning tools matured and were 

installed, tactical control of the 

firing mission was assigned to the 

operational fleet. The Combatant 

Commander’s staff and shipboard 

personnel followed operational 

doctrine and exercised BMD Concept 

of Operations (CONOPS) in the 

performance of mission execution. 

Lessons learned were diligently 

compiled and evaluated, for many 

months of planning culminate in only 

a few minutes of engagement time 

on the test range. Lessons learned 

from firing missions have lead to 

improvements in system design and 

performance, tactics, doctrine and 

operational configuration, thereby 

helping to accelerate Aegis BMD 

deployment. 

Flight Test Maritime-10 (FTM-10)

FTM-10 was the first of a series 

of flight missions, FTM-10 through 

FTM-14, to be conducted as 

Operational Testing by Commander 

Operational Test and Evaluation 

Force (COMOPTEVFOR). This series 

of flight missions will support the 

decision to transition Aegis BMD 

Block 2004 to the Navy.

The primary test objective of 

FTM-10 was the lethal intercept of 

a separating medium range ballistic 

missile target (MRT). The MRT’s 

warhead or reentry vehicle (RV) 

separates from its booster rocket and 

Aegis BMD successfully engages only 

the RV. Test participants included 

USS Shiloh (CG 67), USS Lake Erie

LRS&T 

Warfighting Benefits

•Provides Greater Situational 

Awareness

–Forward Deployed, 

Enables Early Warning 

to BMDS of Ballistic 

Missile Launch

•Increases Battlespace

–Transmits Track Cues to 

Other BMDS Sensors/ 

Systems

–Receives Cues to 

Acquire and Track

•Restores Reaction Time

–Allows Earlier Fire 

Control Solutions

•Enables Longer Range 

Engagements

–Opportunity for 

Multiple Engagements

AEGIS SHIPS CAN

QUICKLY MANEUVER 

FOR SURVEILLANCE 

OPERATIONS

SM-3 launch from USS Lake Erie (CG 70). (USN)
22 Surface Warfare

(CG 70), USS Milius (DDG 69), USS 

Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) and the 

Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force 

ship JDS Kirishima (DDG 174).

This assembly of warships was 

the largest number to participate in 

a flight mission. COMOPTEVFOR, 

Aegis BMD and the Combatant 

Commander’s staff leveraged this 

flight mission to plan and conduct 

multiple ship coordination in the 

tracking and engagement of the 

ballistic missile target. Commander 

Third Fleet directed ship operations 

using tactical BMD surface action 

group (SAG) concept of 

operations (CONOPS). 

These BMD CONOPS 

were exercised with 

an international 

partner, the Japanese 

Aegis Destroyer JDS 

Kirishima, the first 

allied ship to participate 

in an MDA flight 

mission. Commanding 

Officer, USS Lake Erie

was assigned officer in 

tactical command (OTC) 

of the BMD SAG. Threat 

warnings and execution 

orders were transmitted 

by the OTC. All ships 

exercised intelligence 

overlays, rules of 

engagement, tactical communications 

and 

data links.

FTM-10 used an operational 

scenario. The event commenced 

when the ships received operational 

intelligence, “tippers”, that hostile 

forces were making preparations 

to launch a ballistic missile against 

a friendly nation. The crew of 

USS Shiloh used this intelligence 

information with the Aegis BMD 

mission planner to determine an 

optimum ship patrol area and 

recommended search sectors for 

the SPY-1 radar. The launch of the 

MRT was not revealed to any of the 

participants. 

The BMDS transportable 

surveillance x-based (TPS-X) radar 

was also used in this event. The 

TPS-X and Aegis ships’ radars 

searched for and detected the MRT 

as it broke each radar’s horizon. To 

characterize the accuracy and latency 

of MRT track data transmitted from 

a BMDS sensor to an Aegis BMD 

ship, the TPS-X radar acquired the 

target and reported track data to the 

BMDS command and control, battle 

management and communications 

(C2BMC) element. Upon receipt 

of the track data, C2BMC sent a 

radar cue to USS Milius which 

was received and processed. Upon 

detection of the target, USS Milius

transmitted track data to the BMDS, 

computed a fire control solution, and 

conducted a simulated engagement 

of the ballistic missile target, as 

well as a simulated strike operation 

against the launch site.

Equipped with the Aegis BMD 

LRS&T capability, USS Paul 

Hamilton tracked the target, 

collecting engineering data to assess 

the LRS&T performance against a 

separating target. JDS Kirishima also 

tracked the ballistic missile target.

Aboard USS Shiloh, the Aegis 

BMD weapon system acquired the 

target, initiated track and transmitted 

the track data to the BMDS. The 

weapon system computed a fire 

control solution for intercepting 

the target. Shortly after the MRT 

was declared engagement quality, 

Shiloh’s crew launched the SM-3 

Block IA missile. The SPY-1 radar 

acquired and tracked the SM-3 

missile throughout its flight. This was 

the first ballistic missile engagement 

opportunity for this ship and crew. 

The target flew a 

ballistic trajectory. After 

MRT rocket motor 

burnout, the reentry 

vehicle (RV) or target 

warhead was ejected 

resulting in a cloud of 

separation debris (inset 

A). Shiloh’s SPY-1 radar 

tracked this cluster of 

objects. The weapon 

system performed track 

correlation between the 

SPY-1 radar and the 

kinetic warhead’s (KW) 

IR (infra-red) seeker, 

identifying the RV as the 

guidance object from the 

other tracked objects. The 

weapon system uplinked 

guidance commands to intercept the 

RV.

After ejection of the KW (inset 

A) from the missile, the KW’s Solid 

Divert and Attitude Control System 

(SDACS) fired in sustain mode to 

maintain the necessary heading for 

the IR seeker to acquire and track the 

RV (inset B). Upon acquiring the RV, 

the KW performed divert maneuvers 

to approach the RV. Additional 

refinement of the intercept 

calculation were made by the KW 

and final intercept divert maneuvers 

were made. A direct hit! The KW 

collided with the RV, destroying 

it with the shear force of impact 

For FTM-10, OS2(SW) Mindy Stence performs the duties of the 

tactical information coordinator as OS2(SW) Emanual Stevenson of 

USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) looks on. (USN)
Fall 2006 23

(inset C). 

The RV was 

intercepted 

outside 

the earth’s 

atmosphere, 

more than 100 

miles above 

the Pacific 

Ocean.

Numerous 

ground, 

sea and air 

based sensors 

observed 

and recorded 

various 

measurements 

of the 

intercept. 

The intercept 

debris 

patterns, as 

obtained by 

radar and 

IR sensors, 

showed 

significant target destruction. In 

fact, the energy from the impact has 

been calculated to be in excess of 

125 megajoules, which is equivalent 

to the force released when a ten ton 

truck traveling at 600 miles per hour 

hits a wall!

Aboard USS Lake Erie, the SPY-1 

radar, augmented by the prototype 

Aegis BMD signal processor (BSP), 

tracked the target among numerous 

closely spaced objects before and 

after intercept, displaying real-time 

identification features. FTM-10 was 

the first time that a SPY-1 radar 

track beam was steered by outputs 

from the BSP tracker during an 

engagement. Engineering data 

collected from this firing mission will 

assist to improve the performance

of SPY-1 radar with BSP in 

future events.

FTM-10 met all test objectives. This 

firing mission successfully validated 

the Aegis BMD Block 2004 Weapon 

System and SM-3 Block IA missile 

capability to engage a separating, 

medium range ballistic missile. 

Future flight missions are planned to 

further demonstrate the Aegis BMD 

operational configuration, multiple, 

simultaneous anti-air warfare and 

BMD engagements and launch on 

remote track data.

Deployment

A total of 18 ships will receive 

the Aegis BMD Block 2004 upgrade. 

In 2006, installation of the Block 

2004 full deployment certified BMD 

capability will commence in three 

Aegis cruisers and three Aegis BMD 

LRS&T destroyers. All 15 Aegis BMD 

LRS&T destroyers are planned to 

be upgraded with the engagement 

capability no later than 2009.

Summary

The Aegis BMD engagement 

capability supports forcible entry 

and protects forward deployed 

forces, population areas, debarkation 

ports, amphibious objective areas, 

expeditionary forces and coastal 

airfields from the ballistic missile 

threat. Stationed close to a launch 

site, these Aegis ships increase the 

engagement battlespace with the 

ascent phase intercept capability. For 

Homeland Defense, the near U.S. 

deployed engagement capability 

would protect U.S. coastal cities 

against an off-shore ballistic missile 

launch.

The phrase “hitting a bullet, 

with a bullet” has been used to 

exemplify the complex, engineering 

challenge of intercepting a ballistic 

missile. Aegis BMD can hit a bullet 

with a bullet in space, repeatedly 

and reliably, against unitary and 

separating ballistic missile targets.

Today, more than ever before, 

the U.S. urgently requires missile 

defense. Evidenced by recent 

world events, not only are forward 

deployed forces presently at risk 

from ballistic missile attacks, but also 

the U.S. homeland is within range of 

these threats that contribute to grow 

in number, range and complexity. 

The MDA and Aegis BMD are 

aggressively moving out to deploy 

an engagement capability against 

short and medium range, unitary and 

separating ballistic missiles to add to 

the combatant commanders’ arsenal 

SM- in times of crises. 3 launch from USS Shiloh

during FTM-10. (USN)

A

B

C

Engagement 

Warfighting Benefits

•Defeats Ballistic Missile Threat

–Short and Medium Range

–Unitary and Separating

•Increases Engagement 

Battlespace

–Ascent Phase Intercept

–Increases Defended Area

•Enables Multiple Engagements

Layered Defense

–Midcourse Engagements 

(Aegis BMD)

–Terminal Engagements 

(Patriot)

•Provides Capability to 

Conduct Forcible Entry
Mine Countermeasures 

By Program Executive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare

24 Surface Warfare
 Systems

Promise Capabilities for a New Era in

Littoral Warfare

Fall 2006 25
26 Surface Warfare

As the U.S. Navy produces a new 

generation of mine countermeasures 

systems that will change the 

character of expeditionary warfare, 

important technologies and 

revolutionary capabilities in many 

other mission areas are being 

delivered, according to service 

officials.

“While our primary focus is on 

executing our programs to acquire 

mine systems that will shorten the 

mine countermeasures timeline, 

we cannot overlook the potential 

benefits that these new technologies 

and systems will offer across the 

spectrum of operations,” said mine 

warfare program manager Gary 

Humes.

For example, the AN/AES-1 

airborne laser mine detection system 

(ALMDS) makes use of versatile 

light detection and ranging (LIDAR) 

technology. LIDAR makes use of 

pulsed Laser energy to gather data 

by measuring the properties of laser 

light rebounding from an object. The 

ALMDS pod, attached to an MH-60S 

helicopter, directs blue-green laser 

light down through the surface of 

the sea to image shallow moored and 

near-surface mines.

LIDAR may be used to measure 

distance, speed and chemical 

composition of targets. Applying 

LIDAR to mine countermeasures 

operations already is a significant 

step toward reducing the risk and 

timeline associated with mine 

warfare operations. Blue-green 

LIDAR also may be used for 

oceanographic survey, disaster 

recovery and even homeland 

defense.

During the last three years, 

the Navy and industry have 

demonstrated LIDAR imaging of 

sunken boats and other objects, as 

well as 3-dimensional bathymetry of 

harbor bottoms. In the aftermath of 

natural disasters, such as Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, LIDAR technology 

may be useful in locating and 

recovering damaged vessels and 

assets such as petroleum platforms. 

Additionally, LIDAR could be 

employed to maintain ports and 

harbors by depicting silting and other 

hazards in shipping channels.

Additionally, another new MCM 

system, the rapid airborne mine 

clearance system (RAMICS), will 

work in conjunction with ALMDS’s 

LIDAR technology to target and 

kill floating or near-surface mines. 

RAMICS—which makes use of the 

same Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm 

cannon used by the Navy’s LPD-17 

amphibious ship and the Marine 

Corps’ expeditionary fighting 

vehicle—fires flat-nosed, super 

cavitating rounds that strike a target 

with high velocity. 

 ANBLQ-11 long term mine reconnaissance systems a 21-inch UUV (USN)
Fall 2006 27

Assured Access

ALMDS and RAMICS are part of 

a family of airborne organic mine 

countermeasures systems—including 

the AN/AQS-20A sonar mine 

detecting set; the airborne mine 

neutralization system (AMNS); and 

the organic airborne and surface 

influence sweep (OASIS)—that will 

be produced and packaged together 

for deployment aboard the littoral 

combat ship and other platforms. 

Each system brings unique capability 

to search for, detect, or neutralize 

mines. 

The Navy’s vision for its mine 

countermeasures forces is to “field a 

common set of unmanned, modular 

MCM systems employable from a 

variety of platforms or shore sites 

that can quickly counter the spectrum 

of mines to support assured access,” 

according to Rear Adm. Deborah A. 

Loewer, commander, mine warfare 

command. Three principle goals of 

the vision are to accelerate the MCM 

timelines, to remove the sailor and 

marine from the minefield, and to 

reduce risk.

Achieving the goals of the 

vision requires a transformation 

from a “platform-centric force to a 

capability-centric force,” Loewer 

noted. In the past, operational 

planning has been centered on 

matching platforms and systems 

against an assessment of threats. The 

new generation of organic MCM 

systems is engineered to deliver 

capabilities necessary to achieve 

diverse operational effects.

According to the Defense 

Department’s Office of Force 

Transformation, the new paradigm—

against which the Navy, Marine 

Corps, Army and Air Force are 

remodeling their forces—is about 

developing and deploying force 

capabilities packages, dynamically 

configured to meet mission 

requirements. The new keywords 

are modular, reconfigurable and 

interoperable. The result, DoD 

believes, will be armed forces that 

deliver effective capability across the 

full range of military operations.

Modular, reconfigurable and 

interoperable technologies promise 

significant improvements for today’s 

dedicated MCM force, as well as for 

the fleet’s strike groups.

“As the operational commander 

for the US Navy’s MCM forces, 

I have made it a high priority to 

introduce new technologies into the 

fleet as rapidly as possible so that we 

may properly assess performance 

in key areas of the world,” Loewer 

said. “Early assessment of these 

 Organic mine countermeasure system. (USN)
28 Surface Warfare

new technologies is key to meeting 

the Chief of Naval Operations 2006 

strategic priority for building a 

fleet for the future that is balanced, 

rotational, forward-deployed and 

surge-capable; and is of the proper 

size and mix of capabilities to 

assure allies and friends, deter our 

adversaries and defeat our enemies 

in the uncertain security environment 

that awaits us.”

Additionally, as modular mission 

capabilities become the norm for 

MCM, sailors will be able to leverage 

these technologies to improve other 

mission capabilities, according to 

Navy officials.

For example, data collected 

by detection, identification and 

classification sensors will contribute 

to a battle group’s situational 

awareness, as well as to the maritime 

domain awareness of the joint force. 

Enhancing the knowledge of joint 

and coalition forces plays favorably 

with the Defense Department’s 

strategies for force transformation. 

DoD is interested in developing a socalled common operational picture—

a shared database of knowledge 

about a given area of operations, 

including environmental conditions, 

military and civil infrastructure 

and activity, and the dispositions of 

friendly and enemy forces.

The shared database may enhance 

commanders’ abilities to make 

rapid, informed decisions inside the 

timelines of an adversary’s decisionmaking processes. New MCM 

systems—applying technologies 

more broadly for intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) 

in the littoral—will contribute to 

the database and build operational 

speed in a cluttered and complex 

environment.

Autonomous Systems

Another area in which the 

technologies acquired for MCM 

operations may have wider 

applications is in the development 

and procurement of unmanned 

systems. The Navy is building 

families of unmanned vehicles that 

will one day take on the lion’s share 

of MCM and other operations. For 

example, multi-mission Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) will be 

capable of carrying a wide variety of 

sensors and other payloads.

Advances in sensor technologies, 

such as synthetic aperture sonar, will 

increase a UUV’s MCM detection 

ranges and imaging quality, also 

improving undersea mapping and 

reconnaissance. Computer algorithms 

governing vehicle behaviors 

are evolving to provide greater 

vehicle autonomy—for distributed, 

networked, cooperative performance.

UUVs will operate from the 

Navy’s nuclear powered fast attack 

submarines, and guided missile 

submarines, extending the host 

platform’s influence in MCM and 

ISR operations. According to the 

U.S. Navy’s 2004-2005 UUV master 

plan, additional uses for UUVs are 

foreseen in undersea warfare—

holding at risk enemy surface vessels 

and submarines—special operations, 

and force protection.

Other types of vehicles, such 

as unmanned surface vessels 

(USVs), soon will emerge for use 

in mine warfare (MIW)—which 

includes mine countermeasures—

antisubmarine warfare (ASW) and 

surface warfare (SUW) operations.

Autonomous vehicles will broaden 

the fleet’s web of sensing, offensive 

and defensive capabilities. The 

Navy’s newest surface combatant, 

littoral combat ship (LCS), and the 

associated LCS Mission Modules 

program, are being designed to 

incorporate a variety of UUVs and 

USVs.

An example of an autonomous 

vehicle developed for MCM that may 

be applicable to other missions, is 

the AN/WLD-1 remote minehunting 

system (RMS). RMS is a diesel 

powered semi-submersible vehicle 

towing an AN/AQS-20A sonar mine 

detecting set, which is capable of 

detecting, classifying and localizing 

volume, tethered, close-tethered and 

bottom mines. RMS is part of the 

LCS MIW mission package and may 

also operate from some specifically 

configured DDG 51-class Flight IIA 

destroyers.

However, “the RMS semisubmersible vehicle may be used to 

tow other sensors,” noted Humes. 

“Recently, the Navy has tested 

the RMS vehicle —referred to as 

the RMV—with another type of 

sensor called the Remote Towed 

Active Source (RTAS), which we are 

evaluating as part of the Sea Talon 

Advanced Concept Technology 

Demonstration.”

Sea Talon demonstrated an 

integrated undersea detection and 

surveillance network against a 

variety of littoral threats. The RTASequipped RMV concept was tested 

last year at Seneca Lake, N.Y., in 

simulated ASW operations and is 

now under consideration for further 

development.

Future Capabilities

From above the surface in the 

littoral battle space, unmanned 

platforms—such as the Naval Air 

Systems Command’s RQ-8 Firescout 

vertical take-off unmanned air 

vehicle (VTUAV)—also will carry 

sensors designed for MCM that have 

promise in other mission areas. The 

Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance 

and Analysis (COBRA) program, 

another product from the Mine 

Warfare Program Office, provides 

tactical reconnaissance for forces 

moving ashore through a contested 

surf zone or beach zone.

The COBRA multi-spectral 

camera will detect minefields and 

other obstacles. An integrated laser 

rangefinder will provide data for 
Fall 2006 29

follow-on clearance of the obstacles, 

such as by the joint direct attack 

munition assault breaching systems 

(JABS). JABS makes use of 2,000-

pound GPS-guided bombs, delivered 

by Air Force bomber aircraft, to clear 

assault lanes for landing forces.

The COBRA multi-spectral sensor 

package may also be used to defeat 

camouflaged targets, such as antiaircraft artillery and missile batteries. 

Specialized filters may allow the 

COBRA optics to complement 

LIDAR technology in creating a 

more complete picture of ground 

features and items of interest hidden 

or obscured by foliage, according to 

officials with the Navy and industry.

As the Navy continues to 

experiment with new technologies 

under the rubric of the Sea Trial 

program, naval laboratories and the 

Office of Naval Research will explore 

new ways of exploiting technologies 

developed for MCM.

The Navy’s Future Naval 

Capabilities plan —which charts a 

course for harnessing science and 

technology against specific war 

fighting requirements—highlights the 

way forward for MCM development. 

The first priority is to build organic 

MCM for the fleet, including the 

capabilities to avoid, clear and 

neutralize mines and obstacles in the 

littoral.

Individual MCM systems may 

evolve to contribute more broadly to 

ISR and tactical mission planning.

For example, the “thinking” 

parts of the new generation of 

MCM systems, elements such as 

the MIW environmental decision 

aids library (MEDAL), and MCM 

mission planning systems make 

use of computer aided detection 

and classification software to build 

upon an operator’s intelligence 

and help to enable faster and 

more accurate decisions in MCM 

operations. MCM tactical decision 

aids may also provide data —such 

as environmental and operational 

information —to enhance joint allsource intelligence databases. These 

databases (including knowledge 

of an adversary’s civil and military 

infrastructure; environmental 

conditions; tactical disposition and 

capabilities) are the foundation upon 

which the joint force may shape a 

battle space before, during and after 

conflict.

The DoD Mine Warfare Plan, 

which outlines the strategic 

requirements underlying the 

acquisition of MCM systems, and 

the packaging of those systems 

for war fighting operations, 

reinforces the view that the MCM 

acquisition program will have broad 

consequences. The DoD’s plan 

identifies littoral remote sensing, of 

the type contributed by the elements 

of the Navy’s MIW mission packages, 

as an important enabling capability 

for the joint force. MCM sensors and 

data processing systems will help 

characterize global littoral areas, 

particularly high commercial traffic 

areas such as the Straits of Hormuz 

and Malacca, and provide national 

and operational command authorities 

better tools with which to achieve 

their regional objectives.

 Remote mine-hunting vehicle with remote towed active source for ASW. (USN)

With the Navy’s emphasis on physical 

fitness in the Fleet, our staff 

at Surface Warfare Magazine 

is teaming up with the 

Portage Sports Medicine 

Institute to help answer any 

health and fitness questions 

you may have. 

The new column is called 

“Fit for Duty” and we 

encourage your questions on 

health, nutrition, weight loss, 

or overall wellness. Email 

us at surfwarmag@navy.mil 

with your ideas and you 

may see the answers to your 

questions in our upcoming 

issues.
F

rom its sleek trimaran 

hull to the world-market 

combat systems suite, USS 

Independence (LCS 2) will be a very 

different warship when it joins 

the fleet. LCS 2 will join the fleet 

soon because of the rapid process 

employed by the Navy to empower 

industry to solve the problem 

of creating a fast, modular and 

reconfigurable combatant to deal 

with asymmetric threats in 

the littoral.

The Navy is introducing two 

totally different LCS designs. USS 

Freedom (LCS 1), is a mono-hull 

design from Lockheed Martin (see 

Surface Warfare Fall 2005). General 

Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works, leading 

the other team, is building LCS 2 at 

Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. 

The trimaran is a novel warship 

design. With the exception of the 

British research ship Triton, no naval 

service has built a trimaran before. 

The design is not unproven, however, 

as Austal built the trimaran auto 

ferry for Fred Olsen Express in the 

Canary Islands. The Benchijigua 

Express is currently in service, and 

the U.S. Navy is collecting speed, 

power, stress and other data from 

the ferry. Below the waterline, The 

Benchijigua Express hull design is 

very similar to Independence. LCS is 

militarized, however, built to higher 

standards, with more watertight 

compartments, and a robust damage 

control capability. 

The trimaran design offers several 

distinct advantages. The center hull 

has less wetted surface below the 

water line than that of a conventional 

monohull, and thus less resistance. 

The outer hull is referred to as an 

“ama,” the Polynesian term for 

outrigger. The amas barely pierce 

the water. They offer stability but 

virtually no resistance. The trimaran 

also offers a broad beam, which 

means a lot of volume below the 

main deck and large helicopter deck 

topside. A DDG 51 class ship has a 

60-foot beam, while LCS 2 is 100 feet 

wide. Yet LCS 2 has less than a third 

of the displacement of a DDG 51. 

The LCS 2 has greater freeboard than 

a DDG (guided-missile destroyer), 

so the flight deck is 35 feet above the 

water compared to 14 feet on a DDG, 

a big advantage in conducting flight 

operations. Unlike a DDG, LCS 2 

can conduct flight operations in Sea 

State 5. The trimaran can launch and 

recover two H-60 helicopters at the 

same time, or operate the Fire Scout 

vertical take-off unmanned aerial 

vehicle (VTUAV).

Like LCS 1, Independence will 

have a core crew of 40 officers and 

Sailors, augmented by up to 35 

additional personnel for the mission 

detachment and air detachment for 

manned and unmanned aircraft.

The Navy’s requirement for LCS 

is that it be fast. Independence has 

two LM 2500 gas turbines (the same 

turbines as found on the Aegis 

destroyers and cruisers) and two 

MTU 20V8000 M70 diesel engines. 

Each engine drives one of four LIPS 

LJ150E or LJ160E waterjets, allowing 

Independence to reach speeds up to 

40 knots.

Open to something new

The General Dynamics (GD) 

design philosophy has embraced an 

open architecture model, and that 

also means an open business model 

according to Jim Baskerville, vice 

president for the GD LCS program.

By using accepted industry 

standards, with published interfaces 

and data models, virtually any 

system can be inserted into the 

LCS backbone. “This leverages the 

architecture to open up competition 

and drive down prices,” says 

Baskerville.

The interface is “published,” so 

any company can see how to make 

their innovative ideas a part of 

the ship. There are no proprietary 

interfaces, so virtually any system 

can run on LCS. 

Baskerville emphasizes that GD is 

using proven products as opposed 

to spending money to develop 

new systems.

The trimaran design offers 

significant volume for mission 

systems says Baskerville. Aft fin 

Tactics

is Fast Trimaran

New Navy Warship

By Edward Lundquist, N86 Public Affairs

30 Surface Warfare
stabilizers provide additional 

stability. The mission packages are 

being developed separately and will 

be furnished by the Navy. 

Tactics

An artist concept of USS Independence (LCS 2). 

(Courtesy of General Dynamics)

Fall 2006 31

Taking LCS 2 for a test drive

I take the joystick controls of Independence in the LCS 2 bridge 

simulator at General Dynamics’ Pittsfield, Mass., facility. The bridge and 

CIC (Combat Information Center) are joined together as one large space, 

called the Integrated Command Center (ICC), on LCS 2.

I look out the large windows to see that we were operating off the 

California coast in the vicinity of Point Sur. We are in company with 

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), as well as an Aegis cruiser and 

another Independence-class LCS. Although this facility isn’t a full-motion 

simulator, the large video images in the “windows” of the bridge create a 

realistic sensation of being at sea. I sit in a comfortable chair. Dan Hogan, 

senior program manager for maritime digital systems, familiarizes me 

with the controls and displays as we roll in the heavy swells. 

There are three seats in the middle of the ICC. The officer of the deck 

(OOD) occupies the starboard side or right-hand seat. The readiness 

control officer (RCO) sits on the left. The engineering spaces are 

unmanned, so the RCO controls all propulsion and machinery, monitors 

the electrical distribution and can respond to any casualties, as well 

as drive the ship. Behind them is a third seat for the Tactical Action 

Coordinator, who manages communications and serves as an “extra pair 

of eyes,” according to Jim Chalfonte, lead software engineer for General 

Dynamics Advanced Information Systems at Pittsfield. “The CO’s 

(Commanding Officer’s) chair is on the starboard side along side of the 

ship control console, near the windows.”

I keep glancing at the carrier nearby. I ask Dan what the sea state was. 

Hogan defers to Dominick Desiderio, one of the GD engineers who has 

built so much realism into the simulation. 

“Sea State 5,” says Desiderio. 

“Let’s kick it up,” Hogan says, and now I find myself trying to 

maneuver in sea state 8.

It takes some practice to know where and when to look at the displays. 

The middle display shows a maneuvering board with course and 

speed vectors, while the display in front of me is a nautical chart with 

a superimposed radar picture. The ship is moving fast, so you have to 

glance at the instruments and keep an eye ahead.

I decide to get away from the carrier’s port quarter, and begin a highspeed turn to port. I line up for 

an approach on the flat top’s 

starboard side. Desiderio places 

several other ships in my way to 

make my problem a little more 

challenging, including a few 

missile shots at what I thought 

were friendly units. Desiderio 

eases up on the sea state. My 

approach is good, but the 

proximity alarm goes off when 

my bullnose gets too close, and 

so I back down and come back 

with a more oblique approach.

 Chief Warrant Officer 

Ron Banks and Senior 

Chief Adam Philips interact 

with Littoral Combat 

Ship bridge simulator at 

the General Dynamics 

System Integration Lab in 

Pittsfield, Mass. (USN)
A straddle lift carrier is employed 

to carry mission modules on board 

through a side door. A twin boom 

extensible crane with a cradle can be 

used to launch and recover manned 

and unmanned surface craft like a 

rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB). 

The ship’s core systems include 

external sensors, decoys, and a 

57mm gun. 

 The LCS computing 

infrastructure, called the “Total Ship 

Computing Environment,” is the 

backbone of the ship, says Carlo 

Zaffanella, LCS program director 

at General Dynamics Advanced 

Information Systems (GDAIS) in 

Pittsfield, Mass. Starting with 

a blank sheet of paper, GD has 

been able to build a state-of-theart IT infrastructure for LCS that 

is very modern, powerful, and at 

the same time low-cost. “On that 

infrastructure we place a set of 

software applications that talk to a 

wide array of hardware components. 

Some of these stay on the ship, and 

some come on and off depending on 

the mission.”

“For the Sailors on this ship, it will 

be like using any computer system 

they’ve ever used,” he says. “Every 

console will be the same, and every 

console will be capable of doing any 

function on the ship.”

GDAIS is responsible for the core 

mission system integration. The 

computers, interfaces, displays and 

controls are completely independent 

of the guns, radars, missiles, or 

their software and algorithms. GD 

is employing portions – but not 

all - of the TACTICOS integrated 

combat management system (ICMS), 

imported by Northrop Grumman 

from Thales. It’s a team effort. 

BAE Systems of California, Md., is 

doing communications. L-3 Marine 

of Leesburg, Va., is integrating 

propulsion and engineering controls. 

Northrop Grumman, Baltimore, Md., 

is delivering the ICMS. General 

Dynamics Canada of Ottawa, 

Ontario, is responsible for sensors 

and GD Armament and Technical 

Products is furnishing the weapons 

and effectors suite.

Requirements for connectivity 

are the same as with any other 

combatant. Engineering, navigation, 

command and control and combat 

systems are all brought together in a 

single physically and electronically 

integrated system so that best 

potential exists for a small number 

of Sailors to make a large number 

of effective decisions. As part of a 

netted and distributed force, if an 

LCS offboard system is sending back 

an image of an underwater target, 

everyone else in the fleet has that 

information as well.

General Dynamics’ System 

Integration Laboratory at Pittsfield, 

Mass., allows 

engineers to 

test different 

components. 

The lab’s Design 

Integration Facility 

provides the total 

ship computing 

environment, and 

can be connected to other simulations 

such as those at the Navy Surface 

Warfare Center at Panama City 

where the mission modules are being 

developed, integrated and certified.

Dan Hogan works at the Design 

Integration Facility in Pittsfield, 

where GD is bringing together and 

testing the ICMS. “We’re doing 

experimentation, but it’s not demo 

code. What we run is the real code.”

LCS 2 features the Integrated 

Command Center. This spacious 

compartment can be partitioned 

with a sliding panel if required 

(such as when a pilot is aboard for 

sea detail who is not cleared for the 

classified material present in CIC), 

but the proximity makes it easier 

for the commanding officer to move 

between the two. With a crew of 

40 for the seaframe, the roles of 

Tactics

 General Dynamics’ 

Bath Iron Works is building 

LCS 2 at Austal USA in 

Mobile, Ala. (Courtesy of 

General Dynamics)

32 Surface Warfare
individual crewmembers will be 

expanded, Hogan says. 

GD has built a full-scale mockup 

of the ICC at Pittsfield (see sidebar). 

The multifunction workstations are 

built by L-3 Communications. “Any 

application we have running can 

come up on any workstation,” 

Hogan says. 

The consoles are simple, with 

COTS displays, touch-screen 

monitors, keyboards, joysticks and 

trackballs. “The user logs in and his 

or her primary application comes 

up,” Hogan says. “Depending on 

their permissions, they may have 

access to other displays, but they 

may be ‘read only.’”

For use in the laboratory 

environment, the LCS consoles are 

using a Logitech 

WingMan Strike Force 3D Joystick, 

sold commercially for video games. 

However, on the actual ship, these 

joysticks will be replaced with 

ruggedized units that can withstand 

the military environment.

For the SeaRAM anti-ship 

missile defense system control 

application, for example, the user 

can see weapons status; configure 

the weapon; and use the “firing 

panel” to launch a weapon using 

the programmable fast-function 

touch-screen keypad, says software 

engineer Jim Chalfonte. 

“We’re continuously evaluating 

new capabilities to determine what 

works best,” says Hogan. “From a 

technology standpoint, we’re giving 

the Navy different options.”

Users can tilt the screens to meet 

their individual needs, or dim the 

screen or use night color pallet 

combinations that conserve night 

vision in darkened spaces. Each 

workstation has a USB (Universal 

Serial Bus) interface that connects to 

a separate non-tactical network.

LCS 2 will have five multi-function 

consoles for the core mission systems 

(CMS) and seven multi-function 

consoles for the mission packages. 

New ship built in 

new shipyard

Austal USA is building 

Independence at its Mobile, Ala. 

Shipyard. The superstructure, called 

the bridge control module (BCM), 

is being built at a separate test, 

integration & evaluation site (TIES) 

up the Chickasaw River. The BCM 

will be outfitted with all insulation, 

equipment and wiring installed and 

tested before being barged down to 

Mobile where it will be mated with 

the rest of the ship. This parallel path 

for construction and testing saves 

money and means less testing will 

have to be conducted after launch, 

Baskerville says.

The Austal Group is known for 

its aluminum vessels – notably highspeed ferries - made in Western 

Australia. 

Bill Pfister, vice president of 

marketing and administration 

for Austal USA warns against 

comparisons between steel and 

aluminum ships. “Aluminum is just 

a third the weight of steel.”

Portions of LCS 2 are assembled 

upside down inside the building 

shed, and then inverted and put into 

place with remote controlled cranes. 

The aluminum hull will have an antifouling paint underwater, but the 

exposed portions of the ship will not 

be painted. “Once it gets oxidized it 

develops a haze gray patina,” 

Pfister says. 

Tactics

 An artist concept of USS Independence (LCS 2) 

head on. (Courtesy of General Dynamics)

 General Dynamics 

employees test out 

software applications in 

the System Integration 

Lab in Pittsfield, Mass. 

The System Integration 

Lab was developed to 

assist in evaluating and 

assuring the effectiveness 

of the operator interfaces 

that will be required for 

programs such as the 

Littoral Combat Ship. 

(Courtesy of General 

Dynamics) 

Fall 2006 33
What do you do when you are 

in the middle of the ocean and your 

ship suffers a flooding casualty? 

Water is usually your friend by 

providing your ship with the 

necessary buoyant force to keep you 

afloat; but in this case, it has become 

your enemy by creating unwanted 

weight on your ship. A flooding 

casualty will affect your ship’s 

stability, damage equipment, and 

endanger the safety of 

your shipmates. 

Every Sailor should be able to 

react quickly and efficiently to 

combat any damage control casualty 

while out at sea. The NTMPS/

FLTMPS (Navy/Fleet Training 

Management and Planning System) 

database that your ship’s training 

officer maintains lists all required 

damage control schools. However, 

when damage occurs, the controlled 

environment quickly disappears and 

Sailors will respond as well as they 

have been trained. 

“(Rapid ringing of the bell), 

ding, ding, ding, flooding, flooding, 

flooding. Flooding reported in 

compartment 6-180-0-L, NR2 Main 

Machinery Room. Away the flying 

squad. Provide from Repair 5. 

(Repeat)”

SAFETY

Flooding Drills:

By DCCS David Arreola and DCCS James DeWitt, Instructors, SWOS Learning Site San Diego

Are you doing them right?

34 Surface Warfare
That is the standard phraseology 

for a flooding casualty. Per the 

SURFORTRAMAN (Surface 

Force Training Manual, 

COMNAVSURFORINST 3502.1), 

every Damage Control Repair Station 

(DCRS), every Inport Emergency 

Team (IET) and At Sea Fire Party 

is required to engage, demonstrate 

tactics and successfully combat a 

flooding scenario once per quarter. 

The rapid response team is now 

in motion. They are taking initial 

actions such as isolating the affected 

space by setting the flooding 

boundaries, locating the source of 

the flooding and trying to stop the 

flooding from progressing 

any further.

Meanwhile, the rest of your At 

Sea Fire Party (Flying Squad) is 

getting manned and ready at the 

repair locker. The scene leader will 

be getting out his check list (there 

are many different checklists from 

which to chose: Damage Control 

Action Management (DCAMS) 

software, Repair Party Manual (RPM, 

COMNAVSURFORINST 3541.1), 

Damage Control Fire Protection 

(DCFP) website (www.dcfp.navy.

mil), or locally generated and tailored 

to your ship). 

The team leader is ensuring his 

team is getting the correct equipment 

and proper personal protective 

equipment (PPE) to combat the 

casualty. The electrician will be 

inventorying his kit as he waits for 

the word to isolate power to the 

affected space. Your locker plotters 

will begin to plot out the casualty 

as the message blanks start to pour 

in from the scene leader. The use 

of rapid plotting, as per the NSTM 

079 VOL 2 (Naval Ships Technical 

Manual Damage Control, Practical 

Damage Control), ensures the DC 

plates are not cluttered up; it also 

helps to lower the noise in the locker 

and in damage control central (DCC). 

If you are not using the rapid 

plotting method you are in violation 

of the NSTM 079, but also, you are 

exerting more effort than required 

to maintain an 

effective track of 

events. Rapid 

plotting is the 

standard all 

ships should 

be using. The 

damage control 

assistant (DCA) 

will be ordering 

flooding 

boundaries from 

damage control 

central; he will 

also refer to the 

Flooding Effects 

Diagram to determine 

how the flooding will affect the 

ship’s stability. 

The keys to a successful flooding 

drill or to successfully combat a 

flooding casualty are: effective 

communications, setting proper 

boundaries, use of proper equipment, 

follow the Repair Party Manual 

(RPM), crew knowledge, team work 

and lastly, crew motivation.

A report comes from the aft engine 

room, “flooding boundaries are set.” 

What makes up a proper flooding 

boundary? A flooding boundary 

must be a watertight closure such as 

doors, hatches, scuttles or complete 

transverse bulkheads. To set your 

boundaries, you must ensure you 

have covered all six sides of the 

casualty (overhead, deck, port, 

starboard, forward and aft of the 

space). The electrician will isolate the 

power in the affected space using the 

isolation cards (aka kill cards). Kill 

cards are tailored to your ship and 

are generated by the combined efforts 

of the ship’s personnel. 

Your first bit of “good news” 

comes into the locker when the 

investigators report no apparent 

damage in the surrounding spaces. 

This means your flooding boundaries 

were properly set, and appear to 

be holding, thereby eliminating the 

potentially catastrophic outcome 

resulting from progressive flooding. 

The scene reports the flooding is 

contained and the water level is at 

four feet. The scene leader requests 

permission to use the installed 

eductors in the space for dewatering. 

From this point, things progress 

smoothly. The rapid response 

team has returned to the locker, the 

flooding boundaries are holding and 

the investigators have roamed the 

surrounding areas several times and 

have not found any further damage. 

The compartment gets dewatered 

quickly and efficiently and that will 

complete our flooding drill scenario. 

SAFETY

 The Repair Locker 

Leader instructs a Sailor 

on how to plot flooding 

boundaries during a 

general quarters (GQ) 

drill aboard the submarine 

tender USS Emory S. 

Land (AS 39). Emory 

S. Land deployed to 

the Gulf of Guinea to 

initiate a series of security 

cooperation activities that 

will promote regional 

stability, counter terrorism 

and advance U.S. interests 

in that region. (MC2 

Jonathan Kulp/USN)

Fall 2006 35
We just completed what it seems 

to be another successful day of 

training. But how successful was our 

flooding drill? Now is the time to 

take a hard look and self-assess our 

training. Remember, we fight how 

we train; this is the third time we 

used the aft engine room for the same 

casualty and the team now knows 

exactly what to expect. Let’s take a 

look at a couple of key elements of 

fighting this casualty: 

COMMUNICATIONS: Did you 

use your ship’s communications 

effectively? What did your Damage 

Control Training Team (DCTT) use 

to communicate with each other 

without disclosing elements of the 

drill? Communications can be the 

achilles heel of any drill. If your 

communications are good, nine 

out of ten times you will have a 

successful drill/casualty. Some of 

the things you can do to ensure you 

are successful are: 1. Have the DCTT 

ensure your team is practicing correct 

Navy terminology. Repeat backs 

from all controlling stations are vital 

to ensure the correct personnel are 

receiving accurate information. 2. 

The DCA needs to make sure he/she 

is keeping the entire ship informed 

of the casualty by using the 1MC. 

3. Check all message blanks. Make 

sure they are complete and that the 

Repair Locker Leader is collecting 

them. 4. Remember to utilize the 

check list that you have. Although 

experienced pilots have logged many 

hours of flight, none rely solely on 

memory during takeoff and landing, 

and neither should repair party 

personnel. And of course, once the 

communications are perfect, start the 

loss of communications drill 

and challenge your repair teams 

even more.

ISOLATION: Did we simulate or 

actually perform electrical isolation? 

You have to remember that when 

you simulate isolation, sometimes 

the crew doesn’t get the full effect of 

the training. If you never electrically 

isolate the entire space you will never 

know what to expect during a real 

casualty. You also don’t want to find 

out that the isolation you had listed 

doesn’t fully isolate the space, or 

worse, that it also isolates a different 

space or vital equipment that you 

didn’t want isolated. The final 

decision lies with the commanding 

officer as to what should be isolated 

during drills. Isolating a space to the 

fullest extent possible will certainly 

enhance the Sailor’s training and 

will better prepare them for an actual 

casualty. Simulations should happen 

only when vital equipment will be 

affected. Vital equipment is defined 

as equipment that is essential to the 

ships current mission. You might be 

asking yourself why make it harder 

on my team? You are not making 

it harder; you are preparing your 

team for an actual casualty. You 

should secure the power to as many 

compartments as you possibly can 

and mechanically isolate as often as 

you can. Fight as you train and train 

as you fight.

TEAMWORK: How well does 

your team function together? When 

was the last time this team attended 

the wet trainer (General Damage 

Control Training, CIN/Course 

identification number: K-495-0045)? 

How long has the team been working 

together? What is the extent of their 

experience? As a DCTT member you 

should be able to answer all these 

questions. The longer the team is 

together the better they will be. Every 

sailor should be fully qualified and 

efficiently performing his/her duties 

SAFETY

 Members of Repair Locker Four of the USS 

Tarawa (LHA-1) scramble to patch a hole in a pipe 

designed to simulate flooding conditions during the 

Damage Control Olympics. (MC2 Tony Spiker/USN)

 Sailors assigned to the guided missile frigate USS 

Reuben James (FFG 57), work together to control 

flooding during the Damage Control Olympics as part 

of Surface Line Week at Pearl Harbor (MC2 Ryan 

McGinley/USN)

36 Surface Warfare
for his/her assigned position at the 

repair locker. They should also be 

working on that PQS that will qualify 

them to fill that next higher position. 

For example if Seaman Jones has 

been a part of the plugging team 

for a year, maybe it’s time to move 

him/her around and put them with 

the pipe patching team. This will 

accomplish a couple of things: First 

it will help SN Jones from getting 

complacent in their role as a member 

of the team and it ensures that if one 

of your key personnel is injured or 

on watch, somebody else can fleet 

up and not just fill the job but will 

be able to do the job. This also helps 

your crew knowledge. When was 

the last time the crew took a basic 

DC test? Finally, PQS is a huge part 

of the repair locker training. If your 

people are not qualified, then you 

are setting them up for failure. The 

more knowledge your locker has, the 

stronger and the better prepared it 

will be when the time comes to use 

it to fight a casualty. (See DC Top 10 

Best Practices, Summer 2006 issue)

MOTIVATION: During a drill 

you want your DCTT to be highly 

motivated and excited about doing 

their jobs. Your repair locker teams/ 

flying squad will follow their lead. 

During an actual casualty adrenaline 

will be the motivator. Make sure 

your DCTT doesn’t get complacent. 

Make sure they are walking with the 

investigators during the entire drill/

evolution. Whoever is in the affected 

space must make the drill as realistic 

as possible. All your simulations 

need to be correct and your team 

must use the correct patch for the 

system. For instance don’t use an 

Emergency Water Activated Repair 

Patch (EWARP) on a potable water 

pipe; use a soft patch or jubilee patch. 

Your team always wants to succeed. 

Make sure you check patching kits 

prior to the drill and ensure all parts 

are there and make certain they are 

working properly. Don’t set them up 

for failure. 

These were just some of the factors 

you and your DCTT have to look at 

when you are grading your teams. 

Since the Afloat Training Group 

(ATG) will be using the TORIS/

TFOM (Training and Operational 

Readiness Information Services/ 

Training Figure of Merit) Software 

MOB-D (Mobility- Damage Control) 

cards, ensure DCTT is reviewing 

these cards for shortfalls in the 

training they are providing the crew. 

If something didn’t go as planned, 

you need to look at the drill a little 

closer. Identify the problems and 

brief the team right after securing 

from the drill. They should have all 

their actions fresh in their minds and 

can easily figure out how effective 

those actions were. Gather your team, 

set up a different time, in a different 

space and run it again. Even if the 

drill went well, controlling personnel 

from each location should get 

together and review the DC Plot and 

message blanks. Even 10 minutes 

of debrief between the DCA, repair 

locker leader, and plotters will 

enhance effective communications 

in future drills, or more importantly 

during actual damage.

Flooding at sea is a reality, it can 

happen anytime. Proper damage 

control practices and realistic training 

will help you to control this kind 

of damage. Our duty is to train our 

shipmates correctly and maintain our 

ship’s survivability. “Water will not 

slow us down Captain; we will be 

able to continue with our mission.”

SAFETY

 DC1 Derrick Harney assists his students in 

repairing a broken pipeline during the hands on patch 

training portion of the Damage Control Wet Trainer. 

The one-day class provides training in basic damage 

control to students in various programs as well as to 

personnel from fleet and reserve units. (MC2 Denise 

Ordonez/USN)

Fall 2006 37
Silence permeates the air. Smoke 

denser than fog fills every crevice 

of the room, and an eerie isolation 

strikes me. Watching from my safe 

corner, I wondered if this is how the 

crew members and passengers of the 

RMS Titanic felt on April 14, 1912 

before their world literally crashed 

around them. Did the crewmembers 

aboard USS Arizona (BB 39) have 

the same surreal feeling as their 

compartments rapidly filled with sea 

water on that fateful morning in 1941 

after the Japanese bombs landed, 

seconds before realization hit and 

they jumped into action?

Luckily for me, I am just wading 

in waist-deep pool water, water that 

has been heated to a comfortable 

80 degrees Fahrenheit on a warm 

September day. I’m also in a room 

simulating a ship’s berthing area 

that is completely landlocked, so 

there is no menace of rushing seas 

threatening to pull me under while I 

wield my camera.

The hatch overhead opens; light 

cuts a weak swath through the fog 

and two students at the Center 

for Naval Engineering’s General 

Shipboard Damage Control Training 

brave the water. They are playing 

the role of investigators during the 

training most know as the “USS 

Buttercup,” on Norfolk Naval 

Station, Norfolk, Va.

Soon, footsteps clatter down the 

ladderwell, instructions shout out 

and class members rush to and fro 

plugging holes, patching water mains 

and shoring collapsing bulkheads 

and overheads. This scenario is 

the culmination of a day’s worth of 

classroom training and labs for the 

class of 37.

Every week between 40-80 active 

duty Sailors and Coast Guardsmen 

travel through the World War IIera ship replica for damage control 

training at the senior training facility 

for the Navy.

For most of us who have been 

on sea duty, flooding is a general 

quarters drill. We gripe and 

complain about pulling out those 

heavy, bulky pipe-patching and 

shoring kits, but the dangerous 

reality gets lost in the daily humdrum life at sea. Flooding is a 

remote threat, that is, until it actually 

happens. 

Instructors here are actively 

fighting the battle against that type 

of complacency. 

They fill the 

200-square-foot 

space with 150 

pounds-persquare-inch of 

water, up to six 

and a half feet of 

water. That’s two feet of water in less 

than 10 minutes. “I couldn’t believe 

how realistic it was,” said OS2 Shawn 

Scott of USS Anzio (CG 68). “I was 

really shocked by the amount of 

water,” he said.

 “When disaster strikes, your 

knowledge puts out the fires and 

fights back the floods,” begins 

DC1(SW/MTS) Steven Borders, a 

two-year instructor at Buttercup. 

That knowledge is not only knowing 

what to do in case of flooding, but 

actually going through a real-life 

scenario, where adrenaline is running 

high and the scene is chaotic.

“I thought the classroom time was 

boring until we got into the water,” 

said Coast Guardsman OS3 Garold 

Mobley of USCGC Diligence (WMEC 

616). Once in the scenario, all the 

classroom time clicked, he said. “It 

was educating and intense, especially 

when the water started rising. It was 

really difficult handling the shores in 

the water,” he said.

“General quarters drills onboard 

a ship don’t really bring it into 

perspective,” agrees OS1(SW) Tiffany 

Ponzo of PCD Mesa Verde (LPD 19), 

who was assigned to a pipe-patching 

team. “But I really enjoyed it, and I 

know I learned a lot,” she said.

 That was the whole objective for 

the instructors.

“I came to teach here to share 

my knowledge with the Fleet,” said 

Borders. “I want to show people that 

this stuff works; people take damage 

control for granted and this course is 

a wake up call.”

He’s seen that wake up call 

actually rouse people to the dangers 

of flooding aboard ship. “Once the 

SAFETY

USS Buttercup By MC1(SW/AW) 

Athena Blain, 

Managing Editor

fight back flooding

trains Sailors to

38 Surface Warfare

 A Sailor learns the 

proper way to shore at 

the Center for Naval 

Engineering’s General 

Shipboard Damage Control 

Training. (MC1 Athena 

Blain /USN)
students see what can happen, 

their attitudes change 

180 degrees.”

“I find this job really 

rewarding,” said MM1(SW/AW) 

Joshua Simminger, another 

instructor at the Buttercup. Once 

a class finishes a course, they 

understand it better and they are 

taking it back to their ships, he 

said. 

“I definitely learned how to get 

the job done under pressure,” said 

Mobley. 

“By passing on my knowledge 

to junior and senior Sailors, I 

feel like I am doing something 

beneficial for the Fleet,” agrees 

Borders.

With that valuable knowledge 

still fresh in their minds, the 

classmates work together 

efficiently and proficiently in a 

dank, dark room, plugging holes 

and banding together until the 

inevitable abandon ship command 

rings out. A quick egress and each 

smiling student cheerfully await 

their shipmates to be pulled from 

the “sinking ship.” 

“I’d heard stories about this 

training,” said Ponzo, “but there’s 

nothing like going 

through it.”

Going through it, though, 

meant that life returned to 

normal for my classmates and 

me, unlike those who suffered 

the tragedies of the Titanic and 

Arizona or other catastrophic ship 

sinkings. We hopped in our cars, 

had dinner with our friends and 

family, and prepared for another 

day at work. But hopefully, 

with the memory of our one-day 

training at the Buttercup, we’re 

a little more prepared and a little 

more vigilant while we go about 

our duties, just in case.

SAFETY

Fall 2006 39

 Class members 

conduct an egress at 

the end of the lab 

training. (MC1 Athena 

Blain/USN)

 Class members in 

the General Shipboard 

Damage Control repair 

a leaking pipe. (MC1 

Athena Blain /USN)

 A class member of 

the General Shipboard 

Damage Control enters 

the simulated flooded 

berthing area. (MC1 

Athena Blain/USN)
Book Review

Sailors on Navy ships must always 

be mindful of the fact that a worstcase scenario can happen to you and 

your ship. 

No Higher Honor, written by 

journalist Brad Peniston, is the story 

about the guided-missile frigate USS 

Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58), which 

struck a mine on April 14, 1988 in 

the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq 

war. Her crew not only saved their 

ship and exited the minefield without 

further damage, but the ship was 

eventually repaired and returned to 

duty. The Samuel B. Roberts serves 

in the U.S. Fleet today. 

Peniston, a writer familiar with 

naval matters, interviewed the 

skipper, the wardroom, Chief’s mess, 

and crew to share with us what really 

happened, with his own observations 

and in their own words. 

“As darkness was falling, the ship 

was sinking, it was on fire, it had 

lost electrical power, it was dead 

in the water, alone in a minefield, 

forty miles off the coast of a hostile 

Iran, and the ship was surrounded 

by sharks and sea snakes,” Peniston 

writes. “It’s hard to imagine it 

This could happen to you

Saving a ship is serious business

“As darkness was falling, the ship was sinking, it was on fire, it had lost electrical power, it was dead in the water, 

alone in a minefield, forty miles off the coast of a hostile Iran, and the ship was surrounded by sharks and sea snakes. 

It’s hard to imagine it getting much worse.”

- Brad Peniston

40 Surface Warfare
Book Review

getting much worse.”

The story of this incident begins 

long before the frigate entered the 

Persian Gulf. It begins when the ship 

is built and the crew is formed 

and trained.

Peniston introduces us to the 

“Sammy B.” crew as they come 

together in the shipyard at Bath, 

Maine. We learn about the respect 

and reverence the crew gains for their 

namesake, a coxswain killed while 

rescuing Marines at Guadalcanal; 

and for the two ships subsequently 

named Samuel B. Roberts, DE 413 

and DD 823. We get to know the 

crew as they get to know their ship. 

When it is time for Samuel B. Roberts

to make her first deployment, she 

sails to the dangerous Persian 

Gulf where the Iran-Iraq War 

was escalating and the U.S. was 

vigorously protecting American 

shipping. Both Iran and Iraq had 

been attacking oil tankers, including 

those under neutral flags, to harm the 

trade of their enemy. 

A good ship is a proud ship, 

Peniston told me in an interview. 

Cmdr. Paul Rinn established the 

command climate when he arrived 

at Bath Iron Works where the frigate 

was being built. “He gathered the 

very first crewmembers to report 

aboard when the ship was being 

built, and he told them ‘we’re going 

to be the best ship in the Navy,’ and 

‘the best ship that ever was.’ He 

wanted them to be proud of their 

ship, and themselves. He wanted his 

crewmembers to look back on their 

years on the Samuel B. Roberts as the 

best years of their lives,” Peniston 

says. “He told his officers and chief 

petty officers to look after their 

people with that in mind.”

Rinn was especially mindful 

of the heritage of the Sailors who 

served aboard one of the earlier 

ships named Samuel B. Roberts, the 

destroyer escort that fought at the 

Battle of Samar. That ship took on 

an overwhelming force of Japanese 

cruisers for two hours before being 

sunk. Lt. Cmdr. Robert Copeland, 

who commanded DE 413, later wrote 

that “no higher honor could be 

conceived than to command such a 

group of men.” Rinn had a plaque 

mounted at the quarterdeck, listing 

the names of every one of the DE 413 

crewmembers that took part in that 

battle, to instill pride in the crew of 

FFG 58, and the frigate adopted the 

motto “No higher honor.”

When the ship deployed to the 

Persian Gulf, Rinn and his crew were 

acutely aware of the risk. Iran and 

Iraq were at war and any ship in 

the Gulf found itself in the middle. 

Hundreds of merchant ships had 

been hit by both sides. USS Stark

(FFG 31) was surprised by an Iraqi 

Exocet missile a year earlier, nearly 

sinking the frigate and eventually 

killing 37 crew. An American 

tanker, MV Bridgeton struck a mine. 

The Gulf was a dangerous place. 

Vigilance was warranted. 

When the lookout on the Sammy 

B. spotted a mine ahead of the 

frigate, the crew was alert. But 

nevertheless it was unexpected 

when the ship hit a mine, ripping a 

huge hole in her hull and shattering 

the main propulsion equipment. 

Peniston provides us with an 

eyewitness account of what was 

happening to the ship and what 

the crew was doing about it. These 

crewmembers put their knowledge, 

experience, training and pride into 

action. The ship slowly exited the 

mined area while the crew put out 

the fires and controlled the flooding. 

Willpower was certainly a factor, but 

no amount of willpower can save a 

crippled ship if the ship is not sound 

to begin with and the crew doesn’t 

know what to do under adverse 

conditions.

No Higher Honor underscores 

the danger posed by mines. This is 

not the first story of a ship severely 

damaged by a mine they didn’t know 

was there, nor would it be the last. 

The crews of USS Princeton (CG 

59) and USS Tripoli (LPH 10) found 

that out in February 1991. Mines 

are inexpensive, easily attainable by 

third world nations, and can cripple 

the proudest warships from the most 

potent navies. But that is a story for 

another book. 

“This is a story of what a good 

crew – well trained and well led – can 

accomplish,” author Peniston says. 

Any Sailor who goes to sea on 

a naval ship must remember that: 

the unexpected and undesired can 

happen to you. 

Says Rinn, “if you are not ready 

when it happens, it’s already 

too late.”

(Photos, audio and video clips, 

and excerpts are posted at

http://www.nohigherhonor.com.)

Fall 2006 41

 No Higher Honor – Saving the USS 

Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf

By Bradley Peniston

2006, Naval Institute Press, 

Annapolis, MD

ISBN 1-59114-661-5

List Price: USD $29.95

Reviewed By Edward Lundquist, 

N86 Public Affairs
 Chiefs and chief 

selectees from the San 

Diego area stand in 

formation for Chief Petty 

Officers (CPO) Day aboard 

the San Diego Aircraft 

Carrier Museum, Ex-USS 

Midway, while they sing 

anchors away. CPO Day 

consisted of guest speaker, 

marching in Balboa Park, 

and community service 

projects through out the 

San Diego area. (MCSN 

Michael Barton/USN)

42 Surface Warfare
We encourage your mailed submission 

of photographs for publication in this 

recurring section of the magazine. 

Submissions may be sent as prints, 

transparencies, or electronic files (.jpg 

or .tiff format at a minimum size of 5x7 

inches at 266 dpi – 300 dpi preferred).

Address your submissions to:

Surface Warfare Magazine

“Views from the Fleet”

OPNAV N861M

2000 Navy Pentagon

Washington, DC 20350-2000

You can also email us at:

surfwarmag@navy.mil.

 More than 1,200 service members, civic leaders, and 

civilians gathered together to create a human flag during 

the 9/11 Hampton Roads Remembers ceremony at 

Mount Trashmore Park. (MCSN Christopher Hall/USN)

 FC3 Andrew Seymour from Jacksonville, Ala., 

successfully climbs the hook-and-pull assembly 

on USS Cowpens (CG 63) as part of Visit, Board, 

Search and Seizure (VBSS) team drills. The VBSS 

team rehearses using the assembly before a practice 

boarding on USNS Tippecanoe (T-AO 199). The Navy 

uses VBSS teams for three general missions: maritime 

interdiction operations in support of the Global War 

on Terrorism, counter drug operations and, for the 

support of homeland defense. (Lt. Jeffery Jenkins/USN)

 Members of Expeditionary 

Strike Group Five’s medical team, 

attached to USS Boxer (LHD 4), 

transport a simulated casualty 

during a mass casualty drill aboard 

the ship, which is off the coast of 

Southern California participating 

in a joint task force exercise to 

prepare for an upcoming Western 

Pacific deployment. (MC1 S. H. 

Vanderwerff/USN) 

 Identical twin brothers Chief 

Machinist Mate Daniel A. Duran 

and Chief Sonar Technician Dominic 

A. Duran pin on each other’s 

anchors at the Island Club on 

Naval Air Station North Island. The 

twins joined the Navy on the same 

day and made chief together. The 

pinning ceremony marked the 

culmination of a six-week training 

period for the Duran brothers and 

their 38 fellow new chiefs. (MCSA 

Jonathan Husman/USN)

Fall 2006 43
How expert are you at identifying surface combatants from 

foreign navies? Can you tell whether a ship on the horizon is an 

ally or an enemy? It’s time to test your ship identification skills. 

How about all of you manning the “big eyes” take a look at the 

ship pictured below and let us know what type of vessel it is, its 

name and what nation operates it.

Send your entry to surfwarmag@navy.mil with Ship Shape in 

the subject line. Be sure to include your rate, name, ship or unit 

of assignment, and current mailing address. The first individual 

to provide the correct information will receive recognition in 

the next issue of Surface Warfare.

The winner of this issue is OS2(SW/AW) Lakwandalyn King 

stationed aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65). King was the first to 

correctly identify the ship as the Chilean Navy ship CS Blanco

Encalade (FF 15).

 This ship made a visit to the San Diego Harbor.

 CS Blanco Encalade (FF 15).

44 Surface Warfare
Congratulations to this issue’s Salty Dog 

ATCS(AW) Paul Tuck, stationed aboard 

USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74). 

Senior Chief Tuck was the first person 

to correctly identify all five answers 

on firefighting training.

Here are the answers:

1. The X40J circuit is commonly referred to 

as the salt and pepper line.

2. The names of the alarms that can override 

the microphone control of the 1MC are: collision, 

chemical attack, general and flight crash.

3. The Emergency Escape Breathing Device is designed 

to give you 15 minutes of air.

4. The battle phase of damage control starts when the ship 

receives actual damage.

5. The most available heat-removing agent for shipboard 

use is sea water.

This issue’s challenges are presented below.

The first person to correctly answer all five questions will receive recognition in the next issue. 

Good luck!

Basic Military Requirements

1. What is the best source for determining direction under survival conditions?

2. What is the document that is located in every compartment that lists every damage control 

fitting in that compartment?

3. Who is responsible for maintaining properly trained DCPO’s, repair parties, 

and repair locker personnel?

4. What type of communication system is normally the primary damage 

control communications method?

5. The Navy uses a maximum of how many types of life preservers?

Send your replies to SURFWARMAG@navy.mil with 

“CAPTAIN’S TRIVIA” in the subject line.

Fall 2006 3
4 Surface Warfare