THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 3, 1995 TAG: 9509030029
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ERIC SCHMITT, THE NEW YORK TIMES
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long : 105 lines
After 50 years as the global symbol of America's military might, the aircraft carrier may soon be shoved off center stage by a new warship that would be able to rain 500 missiles within a matter of minutes on targets hundreds of miles away, without risking pilots' lives.
Prospects for that ship, which is still on the drawing board but could be in the fleet within five years, raise questions about how many new carriers the Navy will need. A carrier costs $4.5 billion to build and $440 million a year to operate. The new ship, essentially a floating missile barge, might cost only $500 million and just tens of millions a year to run.
The new ship would fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, long-range artillery shells or rocket barrages against ammunition dumps, command posts and artillery, for instance, the same targets that warplanes flying off the Norfolk-based carrier Theodore Roosevelt were bombing in Bosnia recently.
The nation's existing armada of warships, submarines and carrier-based fighter-bombers was built to fight the Soviet Union. The Navy of the future, however, will have to deal with a broader range of potential threats, from Iranian cruise missiles blocking access to Persian Gulf oilfields to a surprise attack on Seoul by North Korea to another showdown with Saddam Hussein.
Given declining military budgets, Americans' aversion to casualties among pilots and other combat forces, fast-improving anti-aircraft missiles and a new Navy doctrine that foresees fighting more wars near shore than out at sea, the Navy's top admiral, Jeremy M. Boorda, wants an inexpensive, versatile vessel bristling with firepower.
``I want it cheap and with lots of missiles,'' Boorda, the chief of Naval operations, said in an interview. ``This is certainly a modern equivalent to the battleship.''
Unlike the big-gun behemoths that slugged it out with Japanese warships in World War II or belched Volkswagen-sized shells during the Korean War, the Navy's newest dreadnought would lurk safely off a hostile shore, partly submerged to avoid detection, and rain 500 or more precision-guided missiles on enemy tanks, advancing troops or other targets. It could prove particularly valuable in the early stages of a crisis, before ground troops were in place.
It would travel with other ships and submarines for protection, and target information would be provided by other vessels, reconnaissance aircraft, pilotless drones or ground spotters.
The 825-foot arsenal ship, as its Navy designers call it, might require fewer than 20 people to operate, compared with the 5,000 aboard a 1,040-foot carrier. It would be equipped with the latest automated damage-control and firefighting systems, Boorda said. Borrowing from commercial supertanker designs, it would have two sets of double hulls, allowing it to take a hit from a missile or a torpedo and keep on sailing.
Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Defense Budget Project, a research organization in Washington, said: ``The arsenal ship is the same challenge to aircraft carriers as the first carrier was in the 1920s to battleships. It's not going to make the carrier extinct overnight, but it will make it a less important part of the battle fleet.''
Army and Marine commanders applaud the idea of an arsenal ship, because it would support ground troops. But the idea has plenty of skeptics inside and outside the military.
``It looks like the Navy is searching for a mission,'' said one Air Force colonel, a planning specialist. ``They've put all their eggs in one basket and created one really lucrative target for an enemy.''
Norman Polmar, a naval expert and author in Alexandria, Va., said: ``It's an interesting idea, but when will you ever want to fire 500 Tomahawk missiles? There's no analysis to support that number of missiles.''
Boorda's plan has touched off a struggle within the Navy itself. Some naval aviators feel threatened because the arsenal ship could grab some of their missions and glory.
``If they aren't a little nervous, they are fools,'' said one officer involved in the planning.
Further, the new ship would be assuming a mission that submarine commanders believe Trident missile subs would otherwise be able to perform. They have pitched a counterproposal featuring submarines to Boorda, but they are not optimistic.
``This is going to be Boorda's legacy to the Navy, at least in his mind,'' one submarine officer said.
Boorda, the first enlisted sailor ever to rise to the Navy's top uniformed post, dismisses such talk and says an arsenal ship would be only one in a family of new ships. And he denies that it will replace the carrier or piloted missions anytime soon.
``I don't think so,'' he said. ``Certainly not given the technology I envision in the next 20 to 30 years.''
While Boorda says he has made no final decision to build the arsenal ship, other senior Navy officials say that serious planning could start later this year and that the fleet, which has 12 carriers, could receive the first of as many as six of the new vessels within five years.
Navy officials are hoping to build the new ship using commercial business practices, cutting through military red tape and holding down costs. By keeping the concept and the design decidedly simple, Boorda aims to keep the arsenal ship affordable.
``This ship is not a command-and-control center, and it's not making big decisions,'' Boorda said. ``It's simply the artillery battery. It matches our strategy pretty darn well.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
Frank O'Connell/N.Y. Times News Service
SOURCE: U.S. Navy
[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]
by CNB