This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
When Marine Corps AV-8 Harriers began landing on U. S. ships in 1972, their pilots found that the platforms lacked adequate shipboard visual landing aids to handle their needs—particularly at night. The vectored-thrust Harrier was a new type of design and the first fixed- wing aircraft to operate from amphibious ships. Consequently, these ships needed a new optical landing system, providing a visual glide path to guide approaching aircraft home safely.
The Harrier, which flies like a conventional fixed-wing aircraft—but also can hover and take off vertically—uses a single large vectored-thrust turbofan engine, giving four-poster lift by means of two cold jets in the front and two hot jets in the rear. Puffer jets, using engine bleed air in the front and rear of the aircraft and in the wing tips, facilitate fine control. The aircraft follows two basic approach patterns to the ship, the daytime visual meteorological condition (VMC) and the nighttime instrument meteorological condition (IMC) patterns. Both approach patterns terminate with a stem approach and a 3° glide slope.
The visual landing aid is primarily used for demanding night IMC approaches, but it is also used for day VMC approaches. The most critical phase of the approach comes at hover stop, when the incoming Harrier drops its nozzles from 40° (approximately 150 knots indicated air speed) to 80°. This is the point when the Harrier transitions from wing- borne to thrust-borne flight. During this change, the aircraft accelerates vertically or “balloons,” taking it high on glide slope. To reacquire the correct glide slope, a relatively high rate of descent in
V/STOL Harriers have supported amphibious warfare dependably since the early 1970s. Recently, the Navy reciprocated, developing a dependable system to recover safely the AV-8B (right)—and all fixed and rotary wing aircraft—under difficult conditions at sea.
close is required. In tests conducted with AV-8As using early optical landing systems that provided little warning, this often led to aircraft going too low on glide slope and resulted in unsatisfactorily high pilot workloads. In the final phases of the approach, the inadequate lighting package on the first test ship made it difficult to judge closure rate to the ship. As the pilot crossed over the ramp, the forward nozzles would cause the Harrier to pitch up and with the lit’1' ited down-look angle, the pilot would lose sight of the ship. To circumvent this
etfcct, the Harrier would set up a hover Pn Port side of the ship, transition to over over the deck, and then descend. Solutions to visual landing aid defi- Clencies on amphibious ships were developed sporadically over the years. Early Jests conducted on helicopter assault .. ‘ D) ships indicated a need for better Jghts, a line-up aid, a glide slope indica- >on device, and an aid to position the aircraft over its landing spot. As a result of ese tests, ships added the following features:
£ Better overhead floods 1,000-watt aft facing flood (moonbean) Deck surface floods Increased center-line intensity Red drop line lights for line-up and u°zzle rotation
T-bar lights to mark the end of the deck t0r launches.
These devices helped provide needed me-up and closure rate information.
AV ° provide gl'de slope information to V‘8 pilots, ships added a helicopter landing system (the Stabilized Glide lope Indicator [SGSI]) along with wave° * lights. These items became part of ( *PS standard lighting packages, but ey did not provide enough visual cues 0r safe night Harrier landings. In the ensuing years, items tested and rejected included an SGSI positioned on its side °r placement (fore-aft) above deck; a °rizon reference bar on top of primary *ght control; and a “meatball-”type dis- P ay termed Mini-OLS (optical landing ystern), which showed promise but acked sufficient range and sensitivity to Provide required glide slope information.
is display was similar to the Fresnel yns Optical Landing System (FLOLS) ^sed on aircraft carriers. It has a yellow . °f light (a meatball) between two j.0r*z°ntal rows of green lights. In opera- i°n, the approaching pilot tries to center r ® yellow light between the green datum j6 erence bars. As the pilot goes higher or °Wer on glide slope, the meatball ap- Peara above or below the datum arms in Pr°portion to the pilot’s displacement r°m glide slope.
u through 1980-81, the Navy stepped P its development of various lighting jnc visual landing system modifications conjunction with the Navy vertical akeoff and landing (NaVTOLand) program. The end result of these efforts, s0vvever, lacked glide slope trend or clo- re rate about glide slope information.
I his deficiency was significant enough to '.'Pit flight certification to day VMC and 'gnt contingency operations.
NaVTOLand was an aggressive pro- grarn that studied the entire concept of ePloying AV-8s on board amphibious
ships. For the landing phase of the project, Naval Air Systems Command (NavAir), Naval Air Test Center (NATC) Patuxent River, the Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC), and NASA Ames combined forces to study problems and develop solutions. NavAir coordinated and directed the project; the NATC evaluated and tested the concepts; the NAEC designed, installed, and aided in equipment testing; and NASA Ames performed simulator studies of approaches and landings. As a result of simulator and flight testing, the Navy selected a British- designed optical landing system designated Horizontal Approach Path Indi- cator/Close-In Approach Indicator (HAPI/CAI) and installed it on board the USS Tarawa (LHA-1).
The HAPI/CAI system is similar to the shore-based Visual Approach Slope Indicator. It consists of two HAPI indicators, located 300 feet apart in the port catwalk and a CAI indicator, located on the island structure 30 feet above the flight deck. The HAPI indicators have a 30° horizontal coverage and, vertically, have a red below-glide-slope indication and a white above-glide-slope indication. The CAI light is similar, except that it includes an upper and lower flashing region. The systems are set up to provide two glide slope corridors. During an approach, the pilot stays in the corridors indicated by the two HAPIs and after hover stop, transitions to the corridor indicated by the forward HAPI and the CAL The pilot follows this path to the ship.
Initial day tests of the system on the Tarawa looked good, but night testing was suspended after just one landing because of extremely poor ship lighting, which hindered the pilot’s depth perception and made the ship’s large island structure virtually invisible. Lights were added while at sea to illuminate the island structure, and preliminary night testing continued, showing that the system had promise.
Under a tight testing schedule, NAEC engineers worked with NATC engineers and test pilots to correct the discrepancies discovered during the initial tests. A completely new lighting system was subsequently installed by the Naval Air Rework Facility North Island Voyage Repair Team, under the direction of NAEC. This package included:
► Sodium vapor lights to illuminate the deck, island, and wake, thereby enhancing the pilots’ depth perception without causing glare or hot spots
► A modified CAI light (Mod CAI [MCAI]) that uses variable-pulse upper and lower flashing sections to provide pilots with better trend information
► The Hover Position Indicator, to show the aircraft’s position above its touchdown spot and its fore-aft position on the deck. Adapted from a British design, the vertical string of multicolor lights was nicknamed the “Christmas tree.”
► Additional lights to outline the landing area, increase center-line and drop-line definition
► Additional tram lines (two parallel painted center lines) for short takeoff launches (See Figure 1.)
During the original tests of the Mini- OLS on board the USS Guam (LPH-9), the Navy also tested the Marine Remote Area Landing System (MRALS). The MRALS is a field portable scanning beam microwave landing system with distance measurement equipment. To adapt the MRALS for shipboard use, NAEC redesigned an SGSI platform, increasing load capacity and adding a yaw axis. This program was coordinated by Naval Oceans Systems Command.
Results of shipboard testing found the lighting package to be adequate for night landing with the exception of the HAPI/ MCAI, which lacked glide slope trend information. Again, the Mini-OLS showed promise, but its display was too small. The MRALS feasibility model performed well and the Navy decided to develop it into a production shipboard system. However, deployment testing showed that the final package could not supply adequate trend information (that is, rate of change with respect to glide slope) to pilots, which, therefore, limited Harrier operations to day VMC and night contingency operations.
Using fleet and NATC pilot comment resulting from testing on board the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) and the Tarawa, NAEC proposed developing a large FLOLS-type presentation (meatball against datum arm) to provide more precise trend information. After studying where to place the display and how to stabilize it on board the LHA, engineers found that a narrow display 12 inches wide could be installed and stabilized against ship motion by adjusting the internal optical elements. A feasibility model was fabricated in five- foot sections and tested in five-, ten-, and 15-foot presentations at NATC. Refinements made the display more sensitive in the center, so the meatball “appears” 286 feet behind the face of the indicator. The end two cells of the total 20 in the two boxes were modified to have twice the vertical coverage of the other cells and increased in brightness.
This new optical landing system, designated CAI Mod-2, uses a long-life quartz halogen projection lamp, a high- efficiency yellow dichroic (interference)
filter, a fiber optic circle-to-line converter, and a quality glass achromat lens for high optical efficiency. The front section of the display box is sealed in dry nitrogen and packed with desiccant to prevent condensation from forming on the optical surfaces. In addition, a gasket heater warms the front high-impact cover glass to prevent condensation. (See Figure 2.)
Each display box is stabilized internally against the ship’s pitch, roll, and heave motions. Heave is corrected for in the roll axis. Stabilization is accomplished by differentially moving the light tables, containing the lamp, filter, and fiber assembly, in the rear of the box. • There are two stepper motors, one on each side of the box. When they move together, they correct for pitch; and when they move in opposition (differentially), they correct for roll. The stabilization is microprocessor-controlled, using low- cost, high-accuracy step motors and the ship’s gyroscope as the stabilization source. Internal algorithms perform the necessary coordinate transforms and control equations.
Tests at the NATC found the two-box display to have optimum glide slope sensitivity with good glide slope position to 1.5 nautical miles. The rate of departure from glide slope (trend) could be determined from .8 nautical miles to hover. In their report on land-based testing, NATC test pilots commented:
“The rate of ball movement was sufficient to provide useable vertical closure rate information about the glide slope, but not excessive to cause overcontrol of the aircraft’s vertical velocity.”
The one-box display did not provide adequate trend information beyond .5 nautical miles. The three-box display provided excellent long-range glide slope and trend information, but caused “unacceptably high pilot workload during deceleration to hover.”
After successful flight testing at NATC, the CAI Mod-2 system was installed in August 1986 on board the US Belleau Wood (LHA-3) by NARF North Island’s Voyage Repair Team. (See Figures 3 and 4.) NATC flight tested the shipboard system and approved it to fleet use. Then, after flight workups by VMA-331 pilots, the system deployed with the Belleau Wood. With the nig operations restriction removed, Marin Corps Harriers commenced certification for night operations for the first time. T Belleau Wood and VMA-331 pilots re ported during the cruise that the CA Mod-2 was an excellent landing aid tha enabled them to operate safely at nigh ■ In order to meet AV-8 deploying11 schedules, the Commandant of the Ma fine Corps ordered updated feasibility models of CAI Mod-2 installed on boaru each deploying ship. The second system- installed on board the USS Nassd (LHA-4) in March 1987, performs flawlessly throughout the deploymen ■
According to a May 1988 message from jhe Nassau:
The CAI Mod-2 was envisioned as an aPProach system for [the] AV-8B. How- ®Ver, it is the single greatest advancement 0r the safe recovery of all aircraft, fixed w‘ng or rotary wing, in a night/IFR [instrument flight rules] environment on °ard LHA-, LHD-, LPD-class ships.” The CAI Mod-2 feasibility model de-
Minding the Store
Captain P. T. Deutermann, U. S. Navy sign is now being converted to a militarized production system for use on board all LHAs, LHDs, and LPHs. Moreover, because of the system’s demonstrated enhanced operational performance, its basic concept is also being designed into a replacement system for the aircraft carrier FLOLS system.
In the interim, the CAI Mod-2 feasibility model system, with some refinements, will give Harriers a safe night amphibious operating capability.
Mr. Bray has been a designer of visual landing systems for 20 years at the Naval Air Engineering Center. He holds a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a master’s of engineering science degree from Pennsylvania State University, a professional engineering license, and is currently a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the Society of Automotive Engineers.
A collision at sea can ruin your entire day.” as the saying goes. It can often ru'n more than just the day for the ship’s c°mmanding officer. Collisions and foundings usually lead to the detach- rnent of the CO for cause, terminating what had been a fruitful and promising Professional career. What measures can a take personally to avoid collisions and groundings, and thereby the profes- i’1°nal calamity that attends the at-sea ca- *amity?
An officer assuming sea command, Particularly for the first time, comes to . new job after spending several weeks !p l^c prospective commanding officer TO) pipeline. Whatever else he may ave learned in the pipeline, one message ■ nould be clear: he is the proud owner of [jverything that happens in or to his ship.
ne Navy does repose special trust and c°nfidence in the CO and grants all necessary authority to him, while exacting unlimited professional accountability. If ”e principle of total accountability is v>ewed as a motivator to prevent calami- les- then the principle of commensurate authority should be seen as the means by hich the CO can act to personally preVent potential collisions and groundings.
The system expects vigilance to pre- Ver,t major disasters. But the pipeline urnkes it equally clear that the CO should Use his subordinate chain of command to p^ure that everything goes right. The TO will be told repeatedly that he cannot run the whole ship by himself. Colli- S|°ns and groundings, however, are spe- e,al cases that require the CO to display an equally special and personal degree of Preventive care.
Unlike other disasters that befall ships, a collision or a grounding affects the "°le ship, not just a particular department or a few of the people on board.
hile a fire in an engine room is always a er,°us problem, the damage can nor- ?a"y be confined to the engine room. P'ps have sunk, however, after a collision, and ships have been written off as total wrecks after a grounding. It is a difference in potential—the collision or grounding incident has the potential to produce a total loss. Collisions and groundings share some other common elements. First, they normally occur when the ship is in motion, actively doing something. Second, the CO often has a personal role in the incident, whether by acts of commission or omission. Unfortunately, COs often become personally involved only in the final moments of a developing incident, and sometimes their untimely intervention has contributed to the ensuing disaster. Third, these incidents almost always have a two-part history: the chain of events that leads immediately to the incident, and an interlocking series of things not done over much longer periods that set up the ship for the incident.
The CO's Personal Role in Preventing Collisions and Groundings: A CO is expected to take measures to ensure that his command is organized properly and that his suboordinates execute the ship’s routines according to regulations. But his personal responsibility in preventing major disasters translates into an ability to “mind the store.” His eventual success in minding the store will hinge on three key aspects: awareness, presence, and action.
Awareness means that the CO continuously thinks about whether or not the ship’s current operations are increasing or decreasing her vulnerability to a grounding or collision. A ship conducting an open-ocean independent transit outside of the commercial sea lanes is not likely to have a collision. A ship operating as a member of an ASW screen around a maneuvering aircraft carrier is much more vulnerable. A ship stationed in the main body of an ASW screen is somewhere in the middle of the vulnerability scale, but when the screen maneuvers, the ship’s vulnerability level rises.
Similarly, a ship operating 1,000 miles from any land or shoals is not in danger of running aground; a ship piloting into a harbor is in danger. A ship conducting a transit from San Diego to the Indian Ocean cycles through areas of vulnerability that range from the dicey to the utterly safe. Because the problem of navigational vulnerability is more ambiguous than the problem of collision vulnerability, it is the more dangerous. When other ships are near, collision is possible. But if watch team members do not really know the ship’s true position, they may feel safe when the ship is possibly in great danger.
These concepts may indeed be common sense and common knowledge, but the point is that the CO must personally keep himself aware of his ship’s vulnerability to groundings and collisions. The CO is the only one on board the ship in a position to evaluate the whole ship’s vulnerability, based on his own professional experience, knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the on-deck watch section, equipment status, the way nearby ships have been operating, and the mission in terms of his command and the ship s immediate operational environment.
Awareness is a continuous process and it consists of objective and subjective components. Through generations of seagoing experience, the Navy has built an organizational structure to provide objective assessment of personnel competence, equipment operability, and team effectiveness. The CO must ensure that he uses those objective measures continuously to keep his own assessment current and accurate.
The subjective component, although more subtle, is just as important. When the CO gets a “gut feeling” that something isn’t right, he must learn to attend to it. The gut feeling is a manifestation of his subconscious mind and his professional instincts at work. The conscious
iuld
Awareness, presence, and timely action are a CO’s best hedges against groundings and collisions, as when the Frank E. Evans (DD-754) tangled with the Australian carrier Melbourne in 1969.
mind integrates and evaluates what the senses tell it. The subconscious mind does that and a bit more: it factors in the whole of the CO’s professional experience, which includes many things not in current, active memory. A CO dozing in his sea cabin late at night who suddenly finds himself wide awake and doesn’t know why had better get to the bridge. It may have been just a bad dream or too much coffee, but it might also be his instincts reacting to approaching danger.
Awareness leads the CO to the process of frequently stepping back mentally from an evolution, to look at the whole evolution and not just, for example, the summary plot of the situation. A good rule of thumb is that the more intense the action, the more often this distancing has to be done to avoid disaster. This is peculiarly the CO’s job. The tactical action officer (TAO) can and should become totally enmeshed in a tactical action: fierce concentration, rapid actions, and crisp management of systems and people are the hallmarks of a good TAO. But the Navy puts a great big captain’s chair in the combat direction center (CDC) for a reason. It is to remind him that he should get into that chair periodically, if only figuratively, and look at the whole evolution. Everyone else owns a piece of the action. The captain owns the entire action. Moreover, the hotter things get, the more often he ought to go into the overview mode.
Presence is the second aspect. Simply stated, when the CO’s awareness leads to a sense of increasing vulnerability, he needs to be present. Where he goes to be present is a function of ship design and command and control doctrine. It is sometimes difficult to decide when the CO’s presence is needed on the bridge or in the CDC. The rest of the command can help with this decision. The CO, through his standing orders, should lay out situational criteria by which it is mandatory that he be summoned to the appropriate control station. He can talk through any gray areas in training sessions with his control officers. The captain has to impart his sense of concern while not injuring their sense of being trusted. How he does this is a function of his own command style, but the greater the degree of understanding, the less the chance that something will develop that brings him to the bridge too late to do anything but witness a crash.
Presence can benefit the command as well as the CO. Any ship’s bridge will be a more professionally run control station when the CO is sitting in that big chair. The noise level in CDC will probably diminish abruptly the moment the CO walks in and sits in that big chair. People tend to concentrate better on what they are supposed to be doing if the captain is right there. If the CO does nothing else, he reduces the ship’s vulnerability by raising the standards of performance at the control station, merely by presence. But the biggest advantage of presence is that it puts the CO in a position to take action. All the foregoing is for nought if the CO cannot or does not take effective action to prevent a mishap.
As mentioned, investigations typically reveal short-term and long-term causes for collisions and groundings. There is a parallel to the two-tiered nature of causative factors in the principle of action taken by the CO. For example: A ship’s captain is in his chair on the bridge, and the ship is piloting her way into home- port. The captain can hear the refrain of the navigation team: “At time 42, based on a good fix, the ship is on track; depth of water is 30 feet beneath the keel; agrees with the charted depth. Combat [CDC] concurs.” These are the sounds of a situation under control. Good fix, on track, agrees with the chart, combat concurs are all terms of confidence. But suppose the next fix is a “fair” fix, and the one after that is a “no fix,” followed by another “fair” fix. These are the sounds of trouble.
The navigator is by now trying desperately to get a decent fix. The bearing takers’ ears are burning, having been fanged by the senior quartermaster. Combat is no longer being mentioned, probably because combat no longer concurs. The whole navigation team is embarrassed, but the navigator, unless he is very experienced, will do everything in his power to avoid looking up at the captain and saying the dreaded words, “The navigator is in doubt.”
This is the time for the captain to take action: stop the ship, drop the anchor, stop proceeding into danger, stop moving. It is discomfiting, embarrassing, unusual, an annoyance to the forecastle crew, and perhaps a problem for other traffic in the fairway, but it is the essence of the captain’s duty to be aware of the situation, to see that the danger is rising- and to take prompt and effective action before the ship runs aground. It is traditional for the captain to be on the bridge during sea detail piloting situations. He is not there because he has to perform sea detail duties, as everyone else on the bridge does. He is there to be aware or danger, and to act on that awareness when danger threatens his ship.
The foregoing is an example of immediate action, but recall that the causative factors often develop along two tracks. The navigation team in this scenario could not get a good fix. The reason could have been a radar failure or a change in visibility, but it could also have resulted from a lack of training. The captain has to train himself to heighten his awareness of impending danger and 10 take action immediately when warranted- He also must train himself to intervene early when awareness over time reveals structural problems in his command. The captain can endure two or three hairy sea details without feeling that he ought 1° have stopped the ship in the channel to recover from a navigation failure. But the mere fact that he experienced two or three hairy sea details ought to tell him that he needs to act now to strengthen his team-
The aviation safety community has long used the ‘ ‘chain of events’ ’ analogy^ that is, investigations can almost always discern a chain of events, had any one o
which been removed, the accident wo'
n°t have happened. The ship CO ought to realize that he has two opportunities to Prevent collisions and groundings. One is the awareness, presence, and action m°del; the other being a willingness to ahack structural weaknesses in the command early. The second is easier, but it involves the whole chain of command, rhe first has the advantage of being
something the CO can do by himself.
There is an old expression about the sea that neatly describes the ship captain’s situation: “The Sea lies in wait for the merely unwary; it stalks the careless.” If COs can train themselves to be aware, to be present, and to take action, the Navy would probably have to endure fewer collisions and groundings.
Captain Deutermann, a frequent contributor to Proceedings, has served in the destroyers Morton (DD- 948), Hull (DD-945), and Charles F. Adams (DDG- 2), as well as the cruiser Jouett (CG-29). He has commanded a fast patrol craft in Vietnam, the guided-missile destroyer Tattnall (DDG-19), and Destroyer Squadron 25. He is a politico-military subspecialist and a joint specialty officer. He is currently Chief of the Maritime/United Nations Negotiations Division in the International Negotiations Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, DC.
Future Weapon: Directed Energy
% Commander Michael K. Johannsen, U. S. Navy
(A .. - |
|
|
|
| ♦ |
1 " |
| fee 1 |
m M. |
|
Future wars or conflicts will belong to missile—a prediction that seems almost certain unless we develop an adequate defense against long-range, very high-speed missiles, undetectable until they are almost on target, and capable of htgh G-force maneuvers in their terminal homing phase. Recent long-range planning reflects efforts to shepherd more 'visely the nation’s increasingly scarce defense resources in an era of fiscal constraint.
Several efforts have been conducted by distinguished individuals from various sectors of the academic, industrial, research, and business communities (for
Ooo
example, President Reagan’s Commission on Integrated Long Term Strategy, the Navy Studies Board, the Defense Science Board, and the Chief of Naval Operation’s Executive Panel). Their findings have similarly identified directed energy weapons as a necessary requirement for the Navy’s future survival and intrinsic in future development and acquisition.
Directed-energy Weapons—A Historical Perspective: Although our initial developmental efforts at directing high- powered lasers might seem clumsy and appear to have minimal operational usefulness thus far, the same argument could have been made about the V2 rocket, aircraft, or other weapons of war in their infancies. Antiship missile development, for instance, has been sporadic in the short term, but steady in the macro sense: advancements in propulsion, materials, electronics, and explosives have teamed up to produce modem missiles capable of flying several times the speed of sound and sustaining high G-forces in turns. The prognosis for the future is for even greater speed and acceleration. The availability of these new missiles to Third World countries will increase as manufacturing advances bring the unit costs within range of these nations’ limited defense budgets.
In terms of employment, new materials and the development of low-observable technologies are moving the detection point closer to the target, ensuring that tomorrow’s battlefield will be a very busy place. Kinetic antiship missile defense weapons, such as gun projectiles and missiles, likely will be unable to equal the expected speed required to intercept a large volume of fast, stealthy, smart missiles generating high angular accelerations in the execution of terminal maneuvers. Most experts agree that, because of reaction time, a three-to-one advantage is required to defeat a missile with another missile. If this is true, the implication is that you cannot defend against a missile with another missile. Consequently, instead of building faster missiles to play one-upmanship to each new missile threat, it may be prudent and fiscally less demanding to press on with developing weapons unaffected by gravitational forces, capable of single-shot kills, high slew rates, and rapid reload.
Another attractive, but not often con-
In the future, ordnance on target may take the form of lasers (here, the MIRACL decimated the second stage of a Titan I booster missile body), charged particle beams, or high-powered microwaves.
deuterium fluoride laser. Each of these has its advantages and disadvantages’ The free-electron laser will operate around one micron and be “tunable” to a certain extent. However, the concept has not yet been demonstrated and miniaturization to a degree that would make it operationally usable for maritime apphc®' tion is a long way off. The Air Force s
oxygen iodine laser will operate at microns. This wavelength, however,
On 23 February, the Navy’s MIRACL/Sea Lite Beam Director high-energy laser system acquired, tracked, and destroyed a supersonic Vandal missile, flying in a cruise missile profde over White Sands.
High energy lasers are now a real option for tactical warfare missions.
sidered, benefit associated with a renewable weapon is that it lacks the logistics tail (that is, manufacturing, transportation, storage, repair, and updating costs) inherent in expendable ordnance. The logistics involved in maintaining vast amounts of ordnance at forward supply storage areas is significant. Looking at the development costs of directed energy and concluding that the country cannot afford this “gee-whiz” program frequently overlooks the high logistics cost of kinetic projectiles. As nationalistic fervor becomes increasingly confused with political logic concerning overseas base rights, the logistics of forward basing is going to become more rather than less of a problem.
Choosing The Future Weapon of Choice—Lasers: Lasers offer the only near-term technology for directed energy. The beam is not affected by gravity and reaches the target almost instantaneously. In addition, the laser and its close-in beam director operate in the optical wavelengths and are thus unaffected by the intense electronic warfare environment that is projected for future battles at sea.
The mid-infrared advanced chemical laser (MIRACL) (megawatt class) coupled with the Sea Lite Beam Director, has demonstrated the ability to down a supersonic Vandal missile at ranges sufficient for antiair warfare application. This success, however, does not mean that a shipboard weapon is just around the corner. It merely demonstrates that a moving metal target can be destroyed with light. The real engineering problem remains how to integrate this complex system into a warship and then direct its energy from a rolling, vibrating platform.
There are some disadvantages to the laser worth noting. The beam at all frequencies (some more than others) is subject to “atmospheric blooming” (that is, the interaction of the beam with the atmosphere caused by the heating and subsequent mixing of the air molecules with the beam). This effect is lessened at high angular tracking rates, since the beam passes through "new air” almost continuously. The worst case for atmospheric blooming is a “down the throat” shot, where the bearing rate of the target is constant. This phenomenon must be solved prior to any successful application of the technology. One promising approach (at least in the laboratory) applies adaptive optics to increase the “focus” of the beam. More simply: a calibration pulse is fired at the target; the reflected light is collected and the wave-front is analyzed for distortion caused by atmospherics; and a “rubber mirror” is shaped by actuators so that the next pulse, although misshapen when it leaves the mirror, will arrive at the target as a near perfectly focused beam.
Another disadvantage is that atmospheric moisture tends to cause the beam to be absorbed and thus lose range. This phenomenon is dependent upon the water particle size and the frequency of the laser. Through experimentation, the Navy program for directed energy has determined that approximately one micron is perhaps the optimum wavelength to minimize both of these effects. In addition, this particular wavelength can be generated by an electrically driven laser and would lend itself to the all electric- drive ship that the Chief of Naval Operations recently announced will be developed as the next surface combatant class. The availability of high-peak electrical output from the ship’s propulsion plant has opened up new possibilities for power exploitation.
A number of different approaches designed to create a sufficiently powerful beam to cause physical damage to a target are now under way. The Army, on behalf of the Strategic Defense Initiative Office, is pursuing the development of the free- electron laser; the Air Force is pursuing the excimer and oxygen iodine laser technology. The Navy MIRACL laser is a 1.3 will
not propagate well in a maritime environ' ment, since water vapor absorption occurs at 1.3 microns. The acceptability band around one micron is very narrow-
The chemical laser, developed by h'1’ Navy as a research and development too for use at the White Sands Missile Range- was selected as the technology of choice for shipboard antiship missile defense use because it represents a highly efficient- self-contained system with an output at a wavelength that is treated benignly by the maritime environment. It must be remembered, however, that the system was built for maximum accessibility for maintenance and with little regard for mim11' turization, since it is an operation:' prototype. Thus, 1930s steam-pipe technology is the observable standard.
How near term is the miniaturization and weaponization of the laser? A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) feasibility study conducted for the Navy concluded that the current MIRACL laser and its associated beam director could h into the space occupied by a single 5-ii« 54-cal gun mount. Moreover, MIT foun that the chemicals used to produce the beam and the associated by-products were no more caustic than current prod" ucts in use on board ship (such as liqul oxygen). Like most research and devel- °pment, the answer to weaponizing and increasing the system’s power output’ epends on whether or not someone Wants the capability enough to pay for it. Unlike artificial intelligence or some °ther technologies, the only potential User of directed energy weapons appears f° the Department of Defense. The '^Plication is that there will be no free r'de for the DoD from the commercial sector.
Charged-particle Beams: Most experts j^ree that the charged-particle beam may e one day the ultimate weapon for point efense. Unlike the laser, it is unaffected y atmospherics even though its fire con- r°l may be susceptible. In addition, the neam does not have to “dwell” on the target to destroy it.
It is, in every sense of the word, a 'ghtning bolt of energy. The charged- Particle beam propagates by “punching” a hole into the atmosphere through which he next pulse of energy can travel with- ®ut being attenuated. In this manner, the earn leap-frogs over itself until reaching he target. Contrary to previous theories,
11 >s now believed that the beam’s maxi- attim effective range will be approximately ten kilometers. If true, this would >mit its point-defense applications. To ate, the stability of the lead pulse has een demonstrated to a distance of 20 meters in open air. Second and subsequent pulse experiments are planned for the near term but have not yet been demonstrated. The technical community seems to view charged particle beam technology as 10-15 years behind high- powered lasers. It may be prudent, however, to invest in the technology now because it is likely that the defensive suite of future warships will require an allweather weapon that, like the laser, is unaffected by gravitational influence on the projectile.
High-powered Microwaves: The final technology to make up the directed energy trilogy is high-powered microwaves (HPMs), which could be used to emasculate an opponent’s offensive and defensive electronics. One argument, however, suggests that the construction of a Faraday cage around a ship’s electronics could defeat the HPM. It must be remembered, though, that most electronics were built to interface with the atmosphere through some sort of antenna (radar, communications, etc.). While total enclosure may render the HPM ineffectual, it also removes the equipment in question from service, thus accomplishing a primary objective: deny the enemy the use of his equipment.
There are two challenges facing this technology today. The first is to build
HPM sources with enough energy to be able to project lethal fluency at useful ranges, while at the same time, building the source small enough to fit in a delivery vehicle. The second is to explore the lethality envelope of HPMs. For various reasons, the effects of HPMs on equipment do not always seem to behave in a linear fashion (that is, the more energy on the target, the greater the probability of a “soft-kill”).
In November 1988, the Fourth Annual Navy Long-range Planning Conference met in Annapolis, Maryland. The power projection working group was tasked to project future requirements for power projection based on the CNO’s Long Range Assessment, Navy 21, Quo Vadis" and the Commission on Integrated Longterm Strategy. The concept of a long- range stand-off weapon with an area suppression warhead (possibly an HPM) seemed to demonstrate great tactical potential. This type of weapon could serve as an area roll-back weapon, in that it could help suppress first-wave assaults.
Commander Johannsen serves on the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel staff as OP-OOK5, assistant for force enhancement. Previously, he served as director of resources, Naval Aviation Logistics Center, Patuxent River, Maryland; and as an A-7E pilot. He is a graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School.
Getting Through the Fellowship Door
Commander Bruce Linder, U. S. Navy, and Major Neil Fox, U. S. Marine Corps
Over the years, both the Chief of Naval Perations (CNO) and the Commandant 0 the Marine Corps have emphasized r<jPeatedly that the continuing education the officer corps is an important ser- 1Ce priority—a “strategic requirement 0r the Navy” was how one CNO described it. Indeed, most officers would gree that opportunities for continuing areer education should be pursued aggressively because they represent a c ance to break personal cycles of tedium >th an invigorating journey in search of neW horizons.
Shortly after an officer’s first career ssignment in the fleet, the primary em- Pnasis on education has always been fo- Used on the pursuit of a master’s-level egree and on intermediate-level profes- lonal schooling. This formal period of utly is usually concentrated in a disci- P lr>e that supports Navy or Marine Corps equipments, is appropriately funded by e service, and may require attendance *either the Naval Postgraduate School in °nterey or a civilian university.
h
Beyond that point in an officer’s career pattern, though, exist other opportunities for an officer to deepen his educational concentration or broaden his areas of expertise. A mid-career officer (nominally lieutenant commander to captain), can pursue independent, part-time, or night studies; post-master’s or doctorate- level studies funded by the service; international studies at a variety of foreign war colleges; professional education at service colleges (many offering important joint service prerequisite educational opportunities); or fellowships.
Of these professional and intellectual routes an officer can follow, the path involving a service-recognized fellowship for continuing study has been the most difficult to describe. Not only has the door leading to this path been hard to find, but once found it has been even harder to budge.
In contrast to the well-defined application procedures for an officer at a war college or in master’s degree studies, the opportunity to apply for a fellowship changes as service priorities and the prospect of positions at host institutions shift. The heavy fellowship door has been particularly daunting to personnel managers, detailers, and monitors who rarely can obtain the critical mass of information necessary, in this changing environment, to advise their constituents adequately. Thus the potential fellowship applicant faces a myriad of challenges: information he has been relying on rapidly goes out of date, application procedures change, and even the service sponsor or primary contact may suddenly vanish (leaving behind that insidious phone that rings without ever being answered).
Beyond this fellowship door, though, lies a colorful roll call of opportunities— an important, multidimensional resource that can be used both by the service to strengthen the intellectual capacity and academic breadth of its officer corps and by mid-career officers to broaden their educations.
Fellowships, as currently structured, actually serve three different purposes.
Federal Executive Fellowship (FEF) Program
Where: Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, D.C.
Harvard Center for International Affairs,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Harvard National Security Fellows Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts
The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
The Atlantic Council of the United States, Washington, D.C.
The Foreign Service Institute, Washington, D.C.
The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California
The Council for Foreign Relations, New York,
New York
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution & Peace, Stanford, California
The American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.
International Institute of Strategic Studies, London, England
Length: Academic year commencing in September Program Coordination: CNO (OP-81)
Naval Military Personnel Command (NMPC) References: OPNAVINST 1301.9A OPNAVNOTE 1560
White Flouse Fellowships
Where: Executive Office of the President & various Executive Branch agencies, primarily in Washington, D.C.
Length: Academic year commencing in September Program Coordination: White House Fellowship Commission NMPC-440
References: White House Fellowship Application & Guide OPNAVINST 7000.16A OPNAVNOTE 1560 MCO 1500.8E
Navy Executive Training Program (ETP) Where: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts Approximately 24 other universities nationwide Length: 4-11 weeks at various times throughout the year Program Coordination: CNO (OP-114)
References: OPNAVINST 1520.33
They provide direct value, short-term as well as long-term, to the service itself; offer an unmatched educational opportunity for the individual officer; and provide an operationally experienced, professional officer the chance to interact with institution scholars, who may be stuck in their ivory towers.
Navy Fellowship Opportunities
In place since 1971, the Federal Executive Fellowship (FEF) Program is the most wide ranging of the Navy fellowship opportunities. The particular focus of this program is on improving the participant’s understanding of the formulation and conduct of national security policy and on training the individual for Navy senior-level decision making. Strategic planning, political-military affairs, and Navy program planning are Navy subspecialties that the FEF program supports.
Each participating institution awards one fellowship on a competitive basis; the FEF selection board convenes annually to review the applications. Selection prerequisites differ among the host institutions, but generally include sustained and exceptional operational experience; experience in a strategic planning, political- military affairs, or program planning billet or in a supporting educational field; and, in some cases, prior education at the master’s level.
Studies and activities during the fellowship year vary widely from one institution to another. Some favor formal classroom studies and seminars while others actively integrate the Navy fellow with the activities of the senior resident scholars and other staff fellows. Opportunities to meet high-level government, corporate, and international policymakers abound and many fellows incorporate worldwide travel to important seminars into their curriculum.
The prestigious White House Fellowship program has, since its inception in 1964, provided an educational opportunity for “exceptionally promising people from all sectors of national life—the professions, business, government, the arts, and the academic world”—to gain firsthand experience in the processes of government. Of the approximately 350 White House Fellows since 1964, 70 have been active-duty military officers with five serving during the most recent fellowship year.
Although there are no formal age or educational requirements (except that one must be a U. S. citizen and be applying during the early and formative years of one’s career), competition for the 11-18 fellowships given each year is spirited. The initial application form elicits information on an applicant’s educational background (including advanced degrees and class rank), work experience, voluntary community activities (both civic and, in many cases, in military organizations), plus the requirement for several letters of recommendation. After the initial screening, the 100 or so most promising applicants from across the nation are invited for a series of personal interviews that ultimately result in award of the fellowships.
White House fellows can expect to work with a specific senior member ot government, usually in an area different from the fellow’s previous work experience. Recently Navy and Marine Corps fellows have been assigned to NASA, the Domestic Policy Council, and the Department of Energy. In addition to the work experience, fellowships also include an in-depth educational prograin that includes meetings with top-level government and private sector official5 nationwide.
The Navy Executive Training Program consists of a series of different managerial courses at some of the nation’s premier centers of executive and administrative training. Each program features h5 own personality and course objectives but, in general, all focus on equipping senior officers with advanced managerial and decision-making skills. Each class is composed of a wide range of government, military, business, and sometimes foreign students. Faculty members of the host university teach the courses, which include lectures, seminars, and case studies.
A naval officer applicant must possess a master’s degree or proven subspecialty• be at least a senior commander, and be an articulate Navy spokesman with clear potential for continued promotion. Navy materiel professionals and health-care
From the Navy to the White House—and Back
By Lieutenant Commander Patrick M. Walsh, U. S. Navy
'• • • and how will this help your naval career?” “Well it certainly won't help me to become a better P'lot,” 1 replied to the interviewer, who smiled politely.
Thoughts raced through my mind while I prepared a Wore serious response: “It took years to get my wings.
m comfortable! Do I really want to leave the people and life-style that I enjoy, and risk my own flying career> to work in the federal government for a year?” This was only one of a series of interviews for the 33 of us who were national finalists in competition for the White House Fellowship Program. Nine hundred had aPplied for the opportunity to work for a year, one-on- 0ne, with key national leaders. We knew that the odds against acceptance were about 80 to 1. The person pos- lng this question was about the 50th who had inter- jnewed me. In evaluating us, those interviewers looked J°r the potential to hold a Cabinet-level office. We had footsteps to follow: alumni include former National Security Adviser Colin Powell; the mayor of San Anto- W°» Texas, Henry G. Cisneros; Navy admirals Leon c-dney and Charles Larson; and many others.
This interviewer, the dean of a law school in the Washington, D.C., area, had reviewed hundreds of rec- °mmendations, background investigations, references, ar>d applications for this presidential appointment and national honor. She had scrutinized every detail of my aPPlication and knew that I was a naval aviator who had
n°t been away from flying for 11 years. The question tlat she had asked was simple yet fundamental, and very 1,1 Uch to the point. It is the same question that those of Us who are interested in broadening ourselves and our careers must someday answer—sooner or later.
I want to preface my remarks with perceptions of my career as I would like it to be, not predictions.” She nodded with a grin, understanding my concern about not aPpearing presumptuous.
“I have been very fortunate to have enjoyed the people and the experiences of naval aviation for several years. As my future unfolds, though, I would like to be able to contribute to more senior positions of leadership in the Navy. I would like my skills as a naval officer challenged in addition to my abilities as a pilot. In my field, that means attaining positions of command within the Navy—command of a squadron, of an air wing, or of a ship are all within the realm of possibility. Being placed in command of a unit of the armed forces, I think, is the greatest single honor and responsibility an individual can receive from our country.
“A commander provides a spectrum of services for an entire slice of society,” I paused. I wanted her to think a moment about what I had said. Most civilians have a vague understanding of life at sea and the difficulties associated with raising a family at home at the same time.
“The crew reflects the cosmopolitan culture we live in. They bring to the ship all the talents and, unfortunately, some of the same problems that one would expect to see in a large community. A commander, responsible for all aspects of sea life, is expected to address all the needs of this diverse group of people. As a leader, he is responsible for the discipline, education, and health of his crew. But first and foremost, he must ensure the ship has the requisite warfare skills to carry
Remember these faces of the 1988-89 class of White House fellows (including the author, far right). They were selected for their potential to attain Cabinet- level posts, in due course.
out the orders of the National Command Authorities.
“The White House Fellowship Program would offer an opportunity to work with the problems that confront society. Part of the learning experience would be an appreciation of the complex problems we face as a nation; the fellowship would force a naval officer to put issues that are narrow and emotionally charged in his own service into the larger context of how those concerns affect the Defense Department, State Department, national policy, and the budget. Rarely does one have an opportunity to participate in the enactment of ideas, to see how the government functions, to develop an understanding of how to make a positive contribution not only for the service but for the country as well. The White House Fellowship is a program of substance; it would provide a channel for my idealism and energy to learn about the pragmatic rules for change within our society. As a naval officer, I have a vested parochial interest in the Navy and want to see how 1 can best learn to serve its future needs.”
“So the Navy supports your desire to be a part of this program?” she inquired.
“When you speak collectively of the Navy, the leadership and personnel bureau, then, yes, they do support this program wholeheartedly. But I will concede that there are some who think that my country and career would be better served if I would just stay at sea.”
“Are they correct?” she asked.
“Your question implies a simple yes or no answer.
But it underlies an even greater debate that continues within my organization today: should active-duty line officers participate in continuing education programs?
“We argue this issue constantly on philosophical tangents that are inconsequential. Continuing education is a fact of life. We cannot limit ourselves as line or staff officers. The best people I have worked for were naval officers who were diverse, well-read individuals, replete with technical skills that were honed by operational experience. These leaders of tremendous breadth and depth took a balanced approach to their own lives and invested in their own education. Some went to school, some taught, some worked in other branches of the armed forces, but by bringing back to the service the benefit of their new perspective, all became more valuable to the Navy. Continuing education nurtures and strengthens the organization from within. In that sense, I see the benefits of the fellowship program as an opportunity to contribute to the Navy.”
“It sounds like quite a challenge,” she smiled and stood to escort me out the door so another anxious finalist could enter the room.
“You wanna join?” 1 quipped.
“Naw,” she complained. “My husband wouldn’t let me.”
Almost a year after my appointment by President Ronald Reagan, I am enjoying a remarkable year of work and education. Our class has 14 people selected from all walks of life: businessmen, lawyers, an entrepreneur, a doctor, a farmer, and four other service members (two Air Force, one Army, and one Marine). All of us fulfill roles as special assistants to the Cabinet member or agency director we serve. I work in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with its staff of 525 employees who formulate and oversee the $1.2 trillion federal budget. Others in my class are assigned to the
Departments of Treasury, State, Agriculture, Defense, and Justice; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Environmental Protection Agency; the U. S. Trade Rep' resentative; NASA; and the Agency for International Development. We do not necessarily work in an area in which we have experience; my job is a good example ot this. But all are involved in project development, analysis, and action. Fellows also participate in an education program that consists of weekly presentations by leaders from government and the private sector. In addition, an international trip allows the class to meet with groups from other nations. Simply put, the year is a glorious opportunity to excel.
If there is a hard part to this program, it is in forcing yourself to expand your horizons. It can be quite a painful chore. In my case, I questioned what, if any, contribution a pilot could make to OMB. Initially, I had to learn the language of economists and lawyers—which made Latin seem fun by comparison. I had to become conversant with entitlement programs, offsetting receipts’ negative outlays, and budget authority. In the meantime, there have been intimidating and embarrassing moments as the “new guy,” stumbling over Beltway jargon in front of people who have been in Washington all their lives. But most importantly, I have learned how little I know about my own government or the process of governing.
If you are planning to compete in this program, your greatest asset is the experience you have had in the fleet- You have held positions with subordinates who risk their lives under your leadership. You understand group dynamics and organizational behavior because you have lived with your decisions in cramped and difficult situations. You know what it means to be a “quick study in order to survive and succeed under pressure. The basic elements of coping with a stressful environment apply t0 working in the White House Fellowship Program.
The people in Washington do not merely react to what we have done in the fleet; they also influence and determine the size of the Navy and the quality of life our sailors enjoy. It is our job as naval officers to learn about the process of government and then make our country’s leadership more informed. Education, like We’ is a continuum. You stop growing when you stop learning. With the proper considerations to your operational career, you can make a tremendous investment in yourself and a strong contribution to the Navy by bringing home the diverse and broadening experience from programs such as the White House Fellowship.
Editor’s Note: The application for your fellowship year is available from 14 September through 15 December. For more information, contact the President's Commission on White House Fellowships at 712 Jackson Place N.W., Washington, D.C., 20503, or call (202) 3954522. Also, remember to inform your chain-of-command of your intent to apply and call NMPC 440 (202) 6943321 for questions about the application process, timing< and the impact of this program on an individual career-
Commander Walsh is currently working in the Office of Management t Budget as pan of the White House Fellowship Program for which he « selected. He also has served in Attack Squadron 192; on board the US America (CV-66), where he was selected Commander Light Attack Pacific Junior Officer of the Year; and in the Blue Angels.
International Relations & Diplomacy Postmasters Program
Where: Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced & International Studies, Washington, D.C.
Stanford University, Stanford, California Length: Academic year beginning in the fall Program Coordination: CNO (OP-602)
CNO (OP-114)
NMPC-440
References: OPNAVINST 1520.34
Secretary of the Navy Fellowships in Oceanography
Where: At various accredited universities and institutions in the United States
Length: Not to exceed three academic years Program Coordination: CNO (OP-096)
NMPC-440
References: OPNAVINST 1520.32
National Defense University Senior Fellows Program
Where: National Defense University, Washington, D.C. Length: Academic year beginning in late summer Program Coordination: NMPC-440
HQMC (Code TDE)
Naval War College Fellows Program Where: Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island Length: Nominally an academic year Program Coordination: Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College
Congressional Fellowships Where: U. S. Congress, Washington, D.C.
Length: Part-year and full-year sessions Program Coordination: Department of Navy Office of Civilian Personnel Management (Code 23) Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Civilian Personnel Section (MPC-35)
U. S. Office of Personnel Management (Office of Training & Development), Washington, D.C.
The American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
References: NCPCINST 12410.3 MC Bulletin 12410 Annual availability announcements Harvard/Tufts Master's Program Where: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts Length: Academic year beginning in September Program Coordination: CNO (OP-06)
NMPC-440 HQMC (Code TDE)
References: OPNAVNOTE 1520 MCO 1510.3
Commandant's Fellowship Program (CFP) Where*: The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, D.C.
Harvard National Security Fellows Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mershon Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Council on Foreign Relations, New York,
New York
MIT Center for International Studies,
Washington, D.C.
Master's Program at Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
•List of current participating CFP programs. Programs can periodically change. Marine Corps officers also participate in fellowships that include the White House Fellowship Program; Congressional Fellowships; and fellowship opportunities at the National Defense University, the Naval War College, and the Foreign Service Institute.
Length: Academic year beginning in September Program Coordination: HQMC (Code MMOA & Code TDE) References: MCO 1510.13
Harvard Management Seminars Where: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Length: 1-11 weeks at various times throughout the year Program Coordination: HQMC (Code TDE)
Professionals are given a high priority owing the selection process and fill the Piajority of available positions each year. ^,x positions are available annually for any qualified officers, however, at the Harvard Advanced Management Program U1 weeks for captains and above), the **117 Program for Senior Executives (nine ^ecks, commanders and above), and the Harvard Program for Senior Officers in National Security Affairs (eight weeks, captains and above). Selections for all Programs are made annually by a formal HTP selection board.
The International Relations and Diplomacy Post-master’s Program is designed to further the foreign affairs experience of Participants and to enhance the Navy’s efficiency in executing its role in national Policy development. As many as three naval officers may participate annually. Participants must be accepted into and take a full academic load at any of the participating universities during the year’s study. Course work is generally at the discretion of the individual but must support foreign policy, strategic planning, or decision-making objectives.
The program is open to active-duty lieutenant commanders and commanders who possess a master’s degree in a political-military subspecialty. Selection is made annually by a formal administrative screening board.
The Oceanography Fellowship enables selected naval officers to pursue doctoral studies focused on the Navy’s interests in oceanography, meteorology, and hydrography. As many as five fellowships are granted annually, at least one of which will be to a naval officer of the unrestricted (URL) and one to an officer of the restricted line (RL) (particularly those with the oceanography designator 1800).
Eligibility is open to those active-duty lieutenants and lieutenant commanders (URL and RL) who have already attained or who are working toward master’s degrees in oceanography areas. To be eligible, applicants must arrange their own acceptance at an appropriate accredited institution, as specified by the oceanographer of the Navy.
Each year positions are available for two naval officers and one Marine Corps officer to attend the National Defense University (NDU) as senior fellows. This program is a departure from the normal senior college curriculum at NDU in that participants take the normal core curriculum but focus additional research and electives to meet specific educational and research objectives. The result is a formally published paper or book by the NDU Press. This research generally concentrates on a specific area of concern for the service and the results of the research are subject to appropriately rigorous academic review prior to publication. Course and research requirements normally require the fellow to begin his duties several weeks before the regular NDU term and to extend his work for a brief period beyond graduation.
Eligibility includes the normal requirements for attendance at a senior service college and a formal interview and approval of a research proposal. Eligible Navy and Marine Corps officers must first be selected by their appropriate service college selection boards, and individual eligibility is centered on commanders and captains in the Navy or colonels in the Marine Corps.
The Naval War College offers fellowships for two selected Navy or Marine Corps officers annually to engage in significant independent research in naval strategy, tactics, weapon system use, or broad operational topics. Participants are selected from current Naval War College students who desire to extend their normal year-long senior course and from applicants outside of the college who possess the time available between assignments to devote to research. Participants in this advanced research program work with an assigned faculty adviser and produce a publishable product at the end of their tenure.
Each prospective applicant must submit a prospectus of his intended area of research as well as a biographical curriculum vitae to the Naval War College for consideration. Selections are made by the Naval War College Center for Naval Warfare Studies.
A limited number of fellowships are available annually for civilian and midcareer military members of the Department of the Navy to be assigned to offices of members of Congress and to congressional committees. These fellowships include the Congressional Fellowship Program sponsored by the American Political Science Association and the Legis Fellows Program sponsored by the U. S. Office of Personnel Management.
Designed to educate the selectee in the legislative process and congressional decision-making, these fellowships range in length from five months to one year. Selection is competitive both within the service and through the fellowship sponsoring organization. Availability of individual fellowships for military officers may be subject to service funding constraints.
Although not considered strictly a Navy or Marine Corps fellowship program (since it leads to a master’s degree), the Harvard/Tufts Master’s Program does share many of the educational and eligibility aspects of fellowship programs. Four Navy officers and one Marine Corps officer are selected, annually, to attend these programs. Two Navy officers attend courses at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government while two Navy officers and one Marine Corps officer are directed to the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts. These programs are designed for the mid-career professional and involve a wide selection of course work, seminars, and student interaction with university faculty members. Successful graduates are awarded a master’s in public administration from Harvard or a master’s in international relations from Tufts.
Selection criteria center at the senior lieutenant or lieutenant commander level in the Navy or the level of Marine Corps major. The Navy concentrates its selections among individuals with multitour experience on staffs and/or in policymaking positions but without prior Navy- funded master’s-level education. In addition, Tufts requires the student to have a general proficiency level in a modem foreign language.
Selections are made by a formal administrative screening board that meets once a year. Officer graduates can expect follow-on tours in political-military subspecialty positions on major staffs.
Marine Corps Fellowship Opportunities
Established in March 1986, the Commandant’s Fellowship Program (CFP) affords Marine officers opportunities to conduct in-depth studies of national security issues through their association with individuals and agencies actively involved in influencing the formulation and execution of U. S. foreign and domestic policies.
Institutions interested in sponsoring a Marine Corps officer in a fellowship position solicit the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who decides annually the extent of formal Marine participation. Needs of the Marine Corps, fiscal constraints, and the availability of quality fellowship positions all play a part in the Commandant’s decision.
While the Commandant’s Fellowship Program is formalized, the annual selection process remains less well-defined. Currently the Marine Corps is revising its selection process in order to coordinate the formal board with top-level school selection. Based upon institutional requirements, Marine Corps. assignment officers, after comprehensive screening, normally submit six nominations (from air, ground, and combat systems support) to fill those fellowships identified by the Commandant. The nominations are, in turn, submitted for his selection via the Director of Personnel Management, the Deputy Chief of Staff for manpower, the Chief of Staff, and the Assistant Commandant.
Qualifications normally considered for selection include intermediate-level school graduate or equivalent, sustained successful operational and staff performance, and a demonstrated excellence m oral and written communication. Operational experience should reflect exceptional troop-oriented leadership qualities. Follow-on assignments send Marine Corps officers to staff billets requiring knowledge of the development of national security policy or military strategy-
With the exception of the fellowship opportunities at the Council for Foreign Relations and the Foreign Service Institute, which are available only to colonels or above, the Marine fellowship program is open to all field-grade officers, major through colonel. The primary conduit into this process by the individual officer is by letter or administrative action form directly to the assignment officers.
To date, Marine Corps involvement has been highly successful and feedback from the institutions and participating officers clearly shows that a mutually beneficial exchange occurs.
The Marine Corps participates in a series of national security and managerial seminars held each year at Harvard University. These seminars (similar to the Navy’s executive training seminars at Harvard and MIT) include the executive management development and training program, the senior executive in national and international security seminar, the national security research program, the senior officials in national security affairs seminar, the senior executive fellows program, and the senior managers in gov' emment seminar. .
The number of Marine Corps participants varies from year to year, depending on perceived needs of the Marine Corps and the availability of qualified officers- The program is open to colonels °r above, and HQMC (Code TDE) coordinates the selections.
Commander Linder and Major Fox recently served as the Navy and Marine Fellows at the Brookings Inst’ tution in Washington, D.C.