Pentagon’s African Command: Will It Float?
2
2,007
By Sandra I. Erwin and Grace V. Jean
While Pentagon officials fine-tune plans to create a new military command to oversee Africa, Navy leaders are floating a proposal to base that command’s headquarters on a ship at sea.
Supporters contend that a Navy ship offers extra security and flexibility to move around as crises erupt. The high-tech vessel envisioned for this role also would be uniquely equipped to handle all forms of top-secret communications and command-and-control functions, says Rear Adm. Barry J. McCullough III, director of Navy surface warfare.
For many years, the Navy has wavered on the idea of building a state-of-the-art “joint command-and-control ship,” and the project in recent years lost momentum as the Navy struggled to fund other ships. But the African Command would be a reason to resurrect a joint command-and-control ship, McCullough says. “Everyone knows we are going to stand up AFRICOM … But where are we going to headquarter that command?” An “afloat command” is one option being mulled over, he says. “You have to have something to put the commanders and staff on with the right C4ISR to execute the mission.”
Air Force acquisition officials increasingly are becoming frustrated by a legislative mandate to comply with the Berry Amendment, which requires that all U.S. weapons be certified as containing only domestically produced “specialty metals.” The law was passed in 1941 but only recently has the Defense Department been directed to clamp down and enforce the rule. Most U.S. weapons makers use foreign metals to keep their costs down, so they actively have sought relief from the legislation. During a recent meeting with industry executives, Air Force officials said that compliance with the Berry Amendment, on average, will add five years to the development cycle of major weapon programs and increase their costs by 75 percent.
Movie studio engineers who normally ply their trade for Hollywood have set up shop in Great Lakes, Ill. They are putting the finishing touches on a replica of a Navy warship that is intended to dazzle potential recruits and to assist them in learning the ins and outs of modern naval technology.
The simulated guided-missile destroyer, called the USS Trayer, is being unveiled this month at Great Lakes, home of the Navy’s recruiting command. To make sure the model accurately replicates the real thing, recruiting command officials have asked experienced sailors to evaluate how well it can simulate the sights, sounds and smells of being underway — and under attack. Recruits will experience the simulation starting in June.
By no means should this mock ship be viewed as a “world-class Disney ride,” says retired Vice Adm. Alfred G. Harm, Jr., former head of Naval Education and Training Command. “That’s not the point. The point is … better trained sailors.”
The runaway popularity of intelligence-gathering unmanned aircraft in Iraq may have contributed to the Army’s decision to curtail future buys of new aircraft. The Army had planned to buy four classes of UAVs — one for each echelon of command: platoon, company, battalion and brigade. But this month the Army announced it would drop two of the four: the company and battalion UAVs. While the decision was most likely the result of an Army budget crunch, officials say that the real reason is that the platoon and brigade UAVs are so efficient that they can share all the data seamlessly with company and battalion commanders. “We looked at how to use the network to disseminate the information,” says Col. John Burke, Army director of unmanned systems integration. “The analysis said you didn’t need to have one at every echelon.”
Please email your comments to Editor@ndia.org