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.
“New” as in Nuclear Land Attack Tomahawk
In June 1984, with little fanfare, nuclear land attack Tomahawk missiles (TLAM/N) became operational on board Navy general purpose ships and submarines. This deployment represents a major new Navy contribution both to deterrence and to the attainment of national goals should deterrence fail. The policy implications of nuclear sea-launched cruise missile deployment deserve serious study by naval officers.
The family of sea-launched Tomahawk weapons includes a conventional antiship missile, a conventional land-attack missile, and the TLAM/N. The Tomahawk antiship missile uses either active radar search or a combination of active search and passive detection to seek out and attack high-speed maneuvering ships at operational ranges of approximately 250 nautical miles. Armed with a conventional warhead, the antiship Tomahawk extends the standoff range of surface ships and submarines by a factor of four to five over that currently available with Harpoon. It allows a single ship to engage targets spread over an ocean equal >n size to the combined areas of the states of North and South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
The capabilities of the conventional land-attack Tomahawk are equally striking. It can be employed at ranges of 500700 nautical miles, complementing the carrier-based strike aircraft capability or allowing a limited, measured response as an expression of U. S. will and determination without risking aircraft or pilots. It also allows high leverage strikes against land targets from the majority of attack submarines and surface combatants. When employed in conjunction with carrier aircraft, the conventional land-attack Tomahawk offers a range of options which provide increased conventional attack capability, raising the nuclear threshold.
These two conventional Tomahawk variants give the Navy important new capabilities, but they do not change the fleet’s basic purpose or mission. The TLAM/N does. It offers a major new contribution to deterrence and a unique set of challenges. In the past. Navy nuclear weapons could be easily divided into two groups. Strategic weapons were carried on dedicated fleet ballistic missile
Even though it looks just like its conventional counterparts, the nuclear land attack Tomahawk missile changes the general purpose forces by increasing their deterrence capability.
submarines and had little impact on the rest of the fleet. Tactical weapons for antisubmarine warfare (ASW) or antiair use were widespread. These weapons, however, were inherently defensive for use at sea to defend the fleet. With the exception of nuclear strike bombs on aircraft carriers, the demarcation between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons was easy and complete. Only aircraft carriers failed to fit the neat, simple labels of “strategic” or “tactical.” Nuclear strike bombs on aircraft carriers had—and still have—inherent capabilities for both strategic and tactical warfare. But as the carrier’s strategic role diminished and her general purpose tasks increased, the Navy became divided into a small, submarine-based strategic nuclear component and a far larger general purpose component. The advent of TLAM/N has changed that.
While the Navy considers TLAM/N primarily a theater weapon, it has important strategic capabilities. This strategic aspect was specifically recognized by President Ronald Reagan when he announced the decision to procure the nuclear Tomahawk as part of his 1981 strategic modernization program. Deployment of TLAM/N is significantly different from deployment of a new ASW or antiair warfare (AAW) weapon. Considerations which before could be left to strategic nuclear planners, to a few attack aviators, or to the nuclear-powered fleet ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) force will now impact on fleet operations and on the general purpose Navy. TLAM/N’s deployment calls for new thinking and an understanding of deterrence on the part of naval officers.
Like all U. S. nuclear weapons, TLAM/N’s primary purpose is deterrence, to which it contributes in several ways. Perhaps the most important, as well as the most difficult to understand, is its contribution to the nuclear reserve force, that part of our nuclear forces designed to be withheld to deter a follow-on attack against the United States or its allies. The concept of nuclear forces held in reserve for possible use after a large-scale strategic nuclear exchange is difficult to grasp and foreign to the thinking of many military officers.
The consequences of strategic nuclear use are so severe it may seem redundant to consider a reserve for use after the holocaust. But we do not seek to deter ourselves or other Americans. We seek to deter the Soviets and must, therefore, consider Soviet thinking, not our own. Since the Soviets may believe the struggle will continue after the exchange of strategic weapons, it is important for them to understand that even in this extreme case, they cannot hope to prevail. The assignment of TLAM/N to the nuclear reserve force strengthens deterrence by making this fact clear.
TLAM/N contributes to deterrence in other ways as well. It provides the theater commander with a survivable nuclear capability, enhancing deterrence by denying the Soviets any reasonable hope of preemptively removing U. S. theater forces. TLAM/N, therefore, both reduces the attractiveness of strikes against aircraft carriers in a possible Soviet attempt to preempt U. S. worldwide options and provides an on-scene deterrent in the absence of carriers, whose presence may be required in other areas. In addition, TLAM/N provides a key deterrent to possible Soviet plans to use nuclear antiship missiles launched from Soviet naval aviation “Backfire” and “Badger” aircraft to attack the U. S. Navy. By removing any possible Soviet perception that Soviet Naval Aviation could initiate nuclear war at sea from land-based sanctuaries, TLAM/N makes it clear that nuclear strikes against the fleet could have widespread consequences, increasing our ability to deter such attacks.
While the deployment of TLAM/N provides important new capabilities to attack submarines and surface combatants, it does not change these ships’ essential role. They remain general purpose platforms whose principal mission is to implement the Navy’s maritime strategy. TLAM/N employment planning is designed to ensure the primacy of the general purpose mission. No ship or submarine will be stationed in any given area solely because of its nuclear Tomahawk capability. To preclude any possibility of conflict with general purpose missions, the Tomahawk will not be part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), the nation’s basic nuclear war plan. Finally, no ship will be employed in special ways because it is a Tomahawk platform; despite their new capabilities, ships or attack submarines with Tomahawk nuclear capability will remain general purpose forces whose operations are unchanged from the past. What will change is the need for commanding officers o Tomahawk platforms and staff officers who supervise the operation of such p>at' forms to recognize the major new role the fleet has assumed.
The Navy’s contribution to deterrence has always been immense. The SSBN force forms the most survivable leg of t e strategic triad and is thus a major contri utor to deterrence of nuclear attack. The wide-ranging nature of naval forces along with their inherent mobility and power play a major role in deterring lower leye attacks. With the deployment of m® TLAM/N, the Navy has a new deterrent capability bridging these two areas. The employment of Tomahawk will ensure that the new additions to- nuclear deter rence do not come at the expense of [1] ® Navy’s continued ability to deter a forms of aggression. Instead, TLAM/ will be a significant addition to an alrea y formidable deterrent, providing a Poten force for peace.
Captain Brooks has spent the bulk of his career billets associated with the submarine force. Asho ’ he has served in the offices of the Secretary of ^ fense and Chief of Naval Operations. His wriMS^ have previously been published in Proceedings a ^ the Naval War College Review. Captain Brooks > currently assigned to the staff of the Chief of Na'1 Operations.
The Survivor Benefit Plan
By Lieutenant Colonel Michael B. Cathey, U. S. Marine Corps Reserve, and Major Donald E. Clemmer, U. S. Army
In 1972, Congress enacted the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) to protect the survivors of retired military service members. Under this plan, the government, for a specified cost, provides an annuity in monthly payments to the retiree’s spouse upon the retiree’s death.
Participation in the program has never reached the anticipated goal of 85%. The FY 1983 DoD Statistical Report on the Military Retirement System shows that the SBP participation rate for new retirees is 55% overall—74% for officers and 45% for enlisted personnel. Although counselling programs have improved, prospective retirees still find the various SBP components, costs, options, and benefits confusing. As a result, they have difficulty deciding between SBP and commercially available alternative plans. SBP seems costly, but so do alternatives. In making comparisons between the two, the retiree is confronted with determining the value of premiums, dividends, net surrender values, tax-exemptions, and tax deferrals under conditions of uncertainty about future rates of inflation, his own life expectancy, and his spouse’s life expectancy.
Our goal in this paper is to provide a military retiree with the information to make a reasoned decision in choosing between the SBP program or an alternative plan from the private sector. We will compare the costs and benefits of SBP with those of four representative life insurance plans from several commercial life insurance companies.
The variation in a prospective retiree’s life insurance and estate planning needs makes it virtually impossible to provide an analysis that will be universally applicable. In an effort to simplify the analysis, however, we have chosen the following example for use in comparing the SBP with alternative plans:
- Year of retirement: 1984
- Grade at retirement: lieutenant colonel
- Years of service: 20
- Age of retiree: 43
- Dependents: spouse only, assumed to be female
- Age of spouse: 41 .
- Income tax assumptions: 1983 rates t married and single taxpayers; standar deductions; and no other earnings
The Survivor Benefit Plan: The SB? provides financial protection for a r® tiree’s survivors based on his military r® tirement income. It is available to a members when they become entitled to retirement pay, regardless of physl®. disability. A service member elects his level of participation by selecting “monthly base amount,” which must at least $300 and can be as much as hi* monthly retired pay. Both the cost an amount of the SBP annuity are comput® using this “base amount.”
The SBP annuity is equal to 55% of | base amount selected by the retiree and >s the amount which will be receive monthly by a spouse. The cost of the S coverage is computed on the ’ base amount by the formula: .025 times t e
first $300 plus . 10 times the remainder o the “base” amount. This cost is deducte monthly from the member’s retired pay and is exempt from federal income taxation. Depending on the tax laws in the state of residence, these pay deductions may also be exempt from state income tax. The value of SBP annuities for spouses is exempt from federal estate tax and, in most cases, state inheritance taxes.
SBP provides for the designation of five categories of beneficiaries for the retiree—his spouse only, his spouse and eligible children, his children only, persons with insurable interest, or an exspouse. While the cost of participation differs for each category, the cost of protection for minor children is exceptionally low. In this paper, we will concentrate on spouse-only coverage.
Both the cost and benefits of the SBP are adjusted for inflation. The survivor’s annuity is adjusted for full consumer Price index increases while the cost is adjusted by the actual percentage the retired pay increases. Therefore, as a member's retired pay is increased to adjust for inflation, he will still pay the same percentage of pay to obtain an inflation-adjusted SBP benefit for his spouse in the event he dies.
The SBP annuity is not payable as a lump sum. To make comparisons with alternatives which do provide lump sum benefits, the equivalent lump sum value °f the annual inflation-adjusted, after-tax SBP annuity will be determined. Valuation would be a simple task except for the assumptions that must be made regarding the variables that determine the size of the SBP benefit a spouse would actually receive (see Table 1). These assumptions will not only influence the equivalent lump sum value of the SBP annuity but will also influence the costs used to compare the SBP with an alternate plan.
The SBP is a tax exempt program, and the amount that one pays for participating in the program is excluded from taxable income. If a retiree should elect an alternative plan over SBP, he would be required to pay additional tax as his taxable income would be higher. The amount of additional tax that would be due is based on a rate approximately equal to one’s tax bracket. Thus, the after-tax cost of SBP is equal to the amount which remains after the additional taxes are subtracted from the additional taxable income. It represents the cost ceiling a private plan must meet to be regarded as equivalent to SBP.
Our computations cover a 35-year period. This amount of time equates to a normal life expectancy of 77 years for a retiree who is now 43 years old.
The second part of the criteria for comparison involves the provision of comparable benefits. Our methodology compares the lump sum cash equivalent value of SBP annuity payments with the benefits obtainable under an alternative plan for an equivalent after-tax cost. There are a number of assumptions and key variables involved.
- Age of spouse: Given a normal life expectancy, the younger the spouse is, the longer she would receive payments under SBP. Our computations assume that the retiree’s spouse is two years younger than the retiree.
- Spouse’s life expectancy: These values are based on values in common use throughout the life insurance industry. Life expectancy values used are given in Table 2.
- Spouse’s taxes: SBP payments to the spouse are taxable as income: however, proceeds from alternative plans are not necessarily taxable since investment opportunities exist which can yield tax-free
Table 1 Non-Disability Retiree Life Expectancies
Years Elapsed | Age Attained | Expectancy Life |
1 | 43 | 77 |
2-10 | 44-52 | 78 |
11-16 | 53-58 | 79' |
17-20 | 59-62 | 80 |
21-24 | 63-66 | 81 |
25-27 | 67-69 | 82 |
28-30 | 70-72 | 83 |
31-32 | 73-74 | 84 |
33-34 | 75-76 | 85 |
35-36 | 77-78 | 86 |
Notes: Life expectancy | values rounded to nearest whole year. |
|
Relationship between attained age and life expectancy simply stated is, | “If retiree’s age is 43, then he can be |
expected to live to age 77.”
Elapsed years represent years since retirement.
Spouse
Years
Elapsed 1age at retirement: 41
Age
Attained
41
42-49
50-55
56-59
60-62
63-65
66-68
69-71
72-73
74-75
Table 2 Spouse Life Expectancies
Spouse age at retirement: 37
Expectancy Life | Years Elapsed | Age Attained | Expectancy Life |
78 | 1- 5 | 37-41 | 78 |
79 | 6-13 | 42-49 | 79 |
80 | 14-19 | 50-55 | 80 |
81 | 20-23 | 56-59 | 81 |
82 | 24-26 | 60-62 | 82 |
83 | 27-29 | 63-65 | 83 |
84 | 30-32 | 66-68 | 84 |
85 | 33-35 | 69-71 | 85 |
86 | 36-37 | 72-73 | 86 |
87 | 38-39 | 74-75 | 87 |
Notes: Life expectancy values rounded to nearest whole year.
Relationship between attained age and life expectancy simply stated is, “If spouse's age is 41, then she can be expected to live to age 78." Elapsed years represent years since retirement.
income. This analysis assumes that income from alternative plans will be tax free. The SBP annuity is taxed using a tax rate based only on the SBP annuity.
- Discount!present value rate: In determining the current value of the SBP annuity, a high discount rate (rate of interest) will yield a lower value than will a low rate. A discount rate of 8% is used in our analysis. This is a conservative rate given the higher interest rates prevalent today, but it is above the inflation rate used. This rate of interest, or a greater rate, has been available from banks and savings and loans for several years.
- Inflation: Inflation will cause a retiree’s income, SBP base amount, SBP cost, and any surviving spouse’s SBP annuity to increase over time because of periodic cost-of-living allowances (COLA). A COLA rate of 6% is used in our computations to determine costs and value of the SBP annuity. This is above current inflation rate of percent but below the average annual COLA rate of 8.4% given retirees between 1973 and 1983.
- Social security offset: Current law requires that SBP payments to a surviving spouse be offset (reduced) by an amount equal to the social security benefit based on the retiree’s military earned wage credits. The offset is applied when the survivor becomes eligible for social security benefits. The social security offset was enacted because the government contributes to the Social Security Fund for active-duty personnel and also pays part of the cost of the SBP annuity. Deduction from the annuity results in lower overall taxes for the spouse since social security payments are not taxable.
A spouse’s SBP annuity, not the social security benefit payment, is reduced when she reaches age 62. The amount of the reduction is the lesser of either the amount of the social security benefit entitlement based on the retiree’s active-duty service after 31 December 1956 (military personnel came under the social security system in 1975) or 40% of the monthly SBP annuity payable. Using the computational procedures specified in Army Regulation 608-9, the offset is 40% for our retiree example since his social security entitlement based on military service is greater than 40% of the SBP annuity. Our computations assume that annual
The military retiree’s suvivors must live with their former provider’s choice between the SBP and a private plan. It is critical to select the best— not necessarily the simplest—plan.
social security benefit increases for inflation are comparable to those for retired pay. Data for the past ten years show this to be true.
Table 3 gives the cash equivalent value of the SBP annuity if the retiree had selected the maximum base amount, and Table 4 shows the value if the minimum base amount were selected. The lump sum cash equivalent value is represented by the “current value” column which, at any point in time, is equal to the value of annual SBP payments that would be paid in the event of the retiree’s death until the end of the spouse’s life expectancy if the spouse was age 41 at time of retirement. The rise in the annuity value over time reflects the time value of money and the increasing size of the annuity because of the COLA. The annuity and its current value decrease at year 22 because of the social security offset.
Alternative Plans: For alternatives, we chose insurance plans available from three major commercial life insurance companies combined with the SBP minimum option (base amount equal to $300). We included the minimum-option SBP in alternative plans because our analysis shows that the minimum-option SBP is unbeatable by private plans.
At year one, the minimum-option SBP annuity is valued at $44,962. The annual after-tax cost is $73. Our data indicate that the annual premium for $45,000 of term insurance for our retiree would be about $85. On the basis of this comparison, term insurance is not satisfactory as a substitute. In future years, the difference in cost will become greater because the value of the minimum-option SBP annuity increases, requiring additiona term insurance to be purchased at an ever-increasing premium rate as the retiree gets older. Other forms of insurance were not considered as their premium rates would be even higher than that for term insurance. Therefore, it would not be prudent for the average prospective retiree to consider an alternative plan t0 the maximum-option SBP which does not incorporate the minimum-option SBP aS a feature.
The life insurance plans used can be regarded as life insurance in combination with an investment account rather than the typical life insurance policy wit which most people are familiar. Com mercial life insurance companies invest the portion of the premium that remain5' after deducting the cost of the insurance policy, overhead, and profit for the com pany. This investment, hopefully, W1 grow at a rate that will greatly increase the cash value of the entire protection plan. The investment feature comes clos est to providing the insured with some hedge against inflation.
There are means of temporarily reduc ing or deferring the costs of some p0'1 cies. Such means are referred to as borrowing against the policy or minimum depositing the contract and would alter the costs of the plan. There are advan tages and disadvantages to borrowing against the policy, and a purchaser shou understand how his policy will be a fected before electing to take such a step-
Plan One: The first alternative com bines the $300 minimum-option SB base and $250,000 of decreasing ter”
Elapsed year | Retiree Annual age pay ($) | Table 3 Maximum SBP Annuity Valuation Annual Tax Annual Annual Tax Annual before rate after Spouse before tax rate after tax tax cost ($) (%) tax cost ($) age annuity ($) (%) annuity ($) | Current lump sum value ($) | ||||
1 | 43 | 19,692 | 1,699 19 | 1,377 | 41 10,831 10 9,739 | 209,180 | |
5 | 47 | 24,861 | 2,145 23 | 1,652 | 45 13,673 12 12,060 | 236,515 | |
10 | 52 | 33,269 | 2,871 28 | 2,070 | 50 18,292 14 15,650 | 267,724 | |
15 | 57 | 44,522 | 3,842 35 | 2,497 | 55 24,487 18 20,142 | 284,254 | |
20 | 62 | 59,580 | 5,141 40 | 3,085 | 60 32,679 22 25,656 | 286,638 | |
25 | 67 | 79,632 | 6,880 44 | 3,853 | 65 26,311 18 21,703 | 291,748 | |
30 | 72 | 106,699 | 9,207 48 | 4,787 | 70 35,211 22 27,578 | 313,510 | |
35 | 77 | 142,787 | 12,321 50 | 6,160 | 75 47,120 27 34,578 | 319,094 | |
|
|
| Table 4 SBP Minimum Option Benefit Valuation (dollars) |
| |||
|
|
| Annual cost |
|
|
| |
|
| Annual |
|
|
| Annual Annual |
|
Elapsed |
| base | before | after |
| before tax after tax | Current |
year |
| amount ($) | tax ($) | tax ($) | annuity ($) annuity ($) | value ($) | |
1 |
| 3,600 | 90 | 73 |
| 1,980 1,980 | 44,962 |
5 |
| 4,454 | 114 | 88 |
| 2,500 2,500 | 51,434 |
10 |
| 6,083 | 152 | 109 |
| 3,345 3,337 | 60,258 |
15 |
| 8,139 | 203 | 132 |
| 4,477 4,346 | 64,756 |
20 |
| 10,893 | 272 | 163 |
| 5,991 5,660 | 69,066 |
25 |
| 14,576 | 364 | 204 |
| 4,810 4,754 | 70,119 |
30 |
| 19,506 | 478 | 253 |
| 6,437 6,187 | 82,986 |
35 |
| 24,626 | 616 | 308 |
| 8,615 8,032 | 84,877 |
|
| Table 5 Alternative Plans One and Two: Costs and Benefits |
| ||||
|
| Plan 1 |
|
| Plan 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Future benefit at | |
Elapsed year | Cost ($) | Future benefit ($) |
| Cost ($) 6% return ($) 12% return ($) | |||
1 |
| 1,398 | 250,000 |
|
| 2,258 100,658 | 105,905 |
5 |
| 2,208 | 250,709 |
|
| 2,258 102,618 | 118,909 |
10 |
| 3,220 | 251,544 |
|
| 2,258 106,901 | 143,714 |
15 |
| 4,233 | 253,609 |
|
| 2,258 113,479 | 180,035 |
20 |
| 5,245 | 257,589 |
|
| 2,258 122,849 | 234,176 |
25 |
| 5,263 | 297,316 |
|
| 2,258 135,127 | 315,289 |
30 |
| 5,263 | 374,943 |
|
| 2,258 150,222 | 434,397 |
35 |
| 5,263 | 476,249 |
|
| 2,258 167,891 | 608,168 |
and whole life insurance. The yearly costs and projected benefits from the insurance portion of this plan available t0 the spouse at any time are given in Table 5.
Plan Two: The second alternative plan, also shown in Table 5, offers lower total costs through the life of the plan than the first alternative. The life insurance associated with the alternative is a $100,000 variable whole life policy. Ordinarily, the investment portion of the premium attributable to the reserve is included in the company’s general investment fund. This alternative is unique in that these lunds are invested instead as directed by the retiree among the choices offered by the company. The premium is fixed at $2,258 per year. Two values for the future value of the insurance benefits using 6% and 12% rates of return for the invested premiums are provided.
Plan Three: The third alternative consists of $200,000 of term insurance and the minimum SBP option. Costs and benefits are shown in Table 6. The difference between the cost for this alternative and the full SBP participation cost during the early years is invested. The value of this investment is shown separately. Yearly savings on the investment are taxable. The term insurance is renewable, and the retiree remains insurable as long as the premiums are paid even though premiums increase at an even higher rate as one gets older. It is possible to compensate to a degree for the higher premiums later on by reducing the amount of term insurance carried; however, the cost savings invested earlier would have to be" large enough to compensate for the decrease in the face value of the insurance and to ab-
Table 7 Alternative Plan 4: Insurance Costs and Benefits
Insurance Investment Rate of Return
Elapsed year | Annual cost ($) | Cash value' at 9.5% ($) | Cash value at 11.25% ($) | Death benefit2 |
i | 1,300 | 804 | 821 | 200,000 |
5 | 1,560 | 5,293 | 5,596 | 220,000 |
10 | 1,950 | 13,434 | 14,981 | 260,000 |
15 | 2,350 | 24,337 | 29,111 | 315.000 |
20 | 2,900 | 36,708 | 48,617 | 325,000 |
25 | 3,600 | 49,305 | 76,180 | 345,000 |
30 | 4,400 | 52,322 | 111,208 | 360,000 |
35 | 5,800 | 16,771 | 150,644 | 370,000 |
‘Cash value represents the value of the policy reserve; the amount of insurance is the death benefit minus this amount. 2Death benefit is the maximum payable upon dea |
of insured.
| Annual costs | Table 6 | Alternative Plan 3: Costs and Benefits Future benefit |
| ||
Elapsed year | Term ($) | Min. SBP ($) | Term ($) | Min. SBP ($) | Invested difference* ($) | Total ($) |
i | 348 | 90 | 200,000 | 44,962 | 920 | 245,882 |
5 | 490 | 114 | 200,000 | 51,434 | 5,879 | 257,313 |
10 | 587 | 152 | 200,000 | 60,258 | 15,984 | 276,152 |
15 | 785 | 203 | 200,000 | 64,756 | 32,108 | 296,864 |
20 | 1,390 | 272 | 200,000 | 69,066 | 56,31 | 325,376 |
25 | 2,380 | 364 | 200,000 | 70,119 | 90,864 | 360,983 |
30 | 4,242 | 487 | 200,000 | 82,986 | 138,050 | 421,036 |
35 | 9,767 | 653 | 200,000 | 84,877 | 194,409 | 479,286 |
*This column represents the difference between the maximum-option SBP and the costs shown for plan three at an 8% after-tax return. As shown, it reflects the withdraw-)1 |
of costs for plan three in excess of the maximum SBP costs. This begins to occur at year 31.
sorb any higher premiums remaining.
Plan Four: This alternative combines the minimum SBP option with a universal life insurance policy for which the amount of coverage is adjusted throughout the retiree’s life. Costs and benefits are shown in Table 7. This alternative is similar to plan three except that yearly earnings on the invested excess premiums are sheltered from taxation. This alternative assumes that the retiree would remain insurable so as to be able to increase the amount of coverage as needed.
Commercial life insurance has other features which should also be considered. First, death benefits can be taken in a lump sum to be invested or to cover unforeseen emergencies. Second, proceeds of life insurance are income tax free; however, they may be subject to estate tax. Third, life insurance proceeds are more liquid than SBP and can be invested so as to provide tax-free income. Finally, life insurance proceeds can be passed to persons other than the spouse or minor dependent children.
Evaluation of Alternatives: Using our example, an alternative plan must provide equal or greater benefits for equal or lower costs to be considered equivalent with the maximum SBP option, or SBP. The graph in Figure 1 gives cost comparisons of the alternative plans versus SBP. The costs graph shows the annual cash outlays for each alternative versus the after-tax costs required to provide the maximum-option SBP. Comparisons of the benefits associated with the alternative plans and SBP are presented in Figure 2. The total benefit for each alternative is the life insurance benefit, valued at the total amount of death protection provided at that point in time, plus the current value of the annuity for the minimum option SBP.
Plan One Versus Maximum SBP Option: The costs for obtaining alternative plan one in the first year are competitive with SBP; however, in following years, the annual costs of plan one significantly exceed those of SBP until about year 35. The maximum difference in costs be
tween the two plans is $2,512, whic occurs at year 22. ,
Figure 2 shows that the first year * benefits of plan one are superior to those of SBP, exceeding them by almost $86,000. In fact, the benefits associate with plan one exceed those of SBP Past year 35. Flowever, if the retiree Pur' chased term insurance with the difference in costs, he would surpass the extra bene fit provided by plan one. This leads us to conclude that plan one is unsatisfactory because of higher costs.
Plan Two Versus Maximum SBP: ' costs of plan two are relatively level; th only real fluctuations are caused by cost of-living increases applied to the mint mum-option SBP portion of this plan- The costs of plan two exceed those 0 SBP in the early years, but by about yea^ 15, COLA increases have caused SB^ costs to exceed those of the alternative- The excess costs of plan two during years one through 15 are fully recouped by year 35 through lower premiums. Therefore- plan two costs can be regarded as equal to
or less than those of the maximum SBP option.
A comparison of benefits reveals that in early years SBP offers almost $60,000 more in benefits. Plan two could possibly catch up in later years, depending on the success of the plan’s investment portion. If the retiree is willing to risk being insured at a lower amount for about 15 years and if he is confident of earning a 12% return, then plan two is attractive. If the rate of return is only 6%, which is unlikely, but possible, the benefit would not exceed SBP until beyond year 35 (age 76); therefore, this plan would provide substantially lower benefits than SBP. Plan two is regarded as unsatisfactory because of the risk incurred by the retiree during the benefit shortfall period of the early years.
Plan Three Versus Maximum SBP: Plan three is attractive. Costs are equal to those of SBP for our time horizon, and the benefits are greater than the after-tax SBP annuity. Therefore, plan three is regarded as an acceptable alternative. If an after-tax investment yield of greater than 8% is realized on the cost savings, this alternative becomes even more attractive. After year 35, the term insurance premium increases exponentially.
Plan Four Versus Maximum SBP: Plan four is also attractive. Costs are essentially equal to those of SBP for our time horizon, and the benefits are greater than the after-tax SBP annuity. In fact, the benefit equals the value of the before-tax SBP annuity. Cost and benefit values are not exactly equal as data presented to the insurance company were rounded for computational ease. At a lower investment rate, say 9.5%, the cash value does not increase substantially and begins to erode after year 30. At this rate, the amount of insurance eventually would have to be decreased or higher costs incurred to maintain protection equivalent to SBP.
Older Retirees Versus Younger Retirees: One would expect that older retirees would not fare as well as younger retirees do with private plans, primarily because the older retiree would pay a higher insurance premium because of the age factor. There are other factors, too, such as higher taxes because of a higher retired pay base (assuming that years of service is greater). In evaluating the age factor, we advanced the retiree’s age, his spouse’s age, and his years of service by five years. The same tax table was used; however, our 48-year-old retiree has a higher tax rate because his retired pay is higher. Other variables were not changed.
Using our methodology, the value of the SBP annuity for the 48-year-old retiree’s spouse is less than that for the 43- year-old retiree’s spouse at corresponding ages or years since retirement. This is the result of a combination of factors, including the annual COLA increase assumption. The SBP annuity values are shown in Table 8.
We used plan three to compare private plan results. As can be seen from comparing values in Table 9 with those in Table 6, the 48-year-old retiree does not fare as well under this alternative plan as
the 43-year-old retiree does. Using our criteria of equal or lower costs for equal or greater benefits, this plan is an acceptable alternative for our 48-year-old retiree. Erosion begins to occur to the invested difference because of higher insurance premiums after year 30.
Two factors allow commercial insurance plans to compete as effectively as
they do. The first is that higher interest and investment rates have become available within the past few years. Equally significant are the new investment type commercial life insurance policies that have come into being in the past decade.
The second factor involves the increasing SBP costs new retirees must pay as compared to earlier retirees for equivalent protection. This occurs because protection at the minimum level for new retirees is not indexed for inflation. For example, a person retiring several years ago would pay $7.50 per month for the first $300 of his elected base amount. If subsequent COLA raises increased this minimum base amount to $400, the retiree would pay $10.50 per month. A new retiree
Table 8 SBP Annuity Value for 48-Year-Old Retiree
Minimum Option Maximum Option*
Elapsed year | Retiree age | Spouse age | Aftertax cost ($) | Lump sum value ($) | Aftertax cost ($) | Lump sum value ($) |
i | 48 | 46 | 69 | 40,235 | 1,308 | 194,443 |
5 | 52 | 50 | 80 | 45,078 | 1,526 | 216,899 |
10 | 57 | 55 | 99 | 49,709 | 1,866 | 228,052 |
15 | 62 | 60 | 122 | 51,228 | 2,305 | 230,031 |
20 | 67 | 65 | 152 | 53,876 | 2,879 | 241,750 |
25 | 72 | 70 | 179 | 60,568 | 3,578 | 265,924 |
30 | 77 | 75 | 230 | 65,111 | 4,603 | 279,268 |
35 | 82 | 80 | 326 | ** | 6,160 | ** |
♦Values shown are based on the maximum base amount for which our 43-year-old retiree would be eligible. The maximum base amount for the 48-year-old retiree is greater as his retired pay is greater.
♦♦Beyond range of life expectancy values in Table 2.
Table 9 Alternative Plan Three For 48-Year-Old Retiree: Costs and Benefits
Elapsed year | Annual costs |
| Future benefit | —_ | ||
Term ($) | Min. SBP ($) | Term ($) | Minimum SBP ($) | Invested difference2 ($) | Total | |
i | 519 | 90 | 200,000 | 40,235 | 720 | 240,955 |
5 | 587 | 114 | 200,000 | 45,078 | 4,557 | 249,635 |
10 | 785 | 152 | 200,000 | 49,709 | 12,201 | 261,910 |
15 | 1,390 | 203 | 200,000 | 51,228 | 23,083 | 274,311 |
20 | 2,380 | 272 | 200,000 | 53,876 | 37,083 | 290,959 |
25 | 4,242 | 364 | 200,000 | 60,568 | 52,792 | 313,360 |
30 | 9,767 | 487 | 200,000 | 65,111 | 61,285 | 326,396 |
35 | 21.3601 | 653 | 200,000 | 66,009 | 27,982 | 293,991 |
nsumaieu cost. . . n _*s
2This column represents the difference between the maximum option SBP and the costs shown above for alternative 3 at an 8 percent after tax return. As shown it re the withdrawal of costs for alternative three in excess of the maximum SBP costs. This begins to occur at year 23.
Table 10 Cash Equivalency Comparison of SBP Annuities1
Age at retirement | Life expectancy |
| After tax value |
| Before tax maximum |
At year 1 | Maximum4 | At age 80 | |||
412 | normal1 | $209,180 | $328,000 | $319,094 | $517,839 |
41 | to age 87 | $229,000 | $347,473 | $319,094 | $553,697 |
41 | to age 92 | $236,839 | $480,058 | $479,076 | $740,971 |
37 | to age 92 | $242,393 | $577,385 | $555,100 | $935,460 |
'COLA rate = .06 and interest/discount rate = .08. 2The first line values are the same as presented in Table 5. 3Normal values as specified in Table 4. Other rows assume the spouse will live to the age shown. 4Maximum values occur when spouse is 74, 69, 76 (elapsed year 36), and 76 (elapsed year 40) respectively. |
|
|
would pay substantially more—$17.50 —on a base amount of $400. The fifth Quadrennial Review on Military Compensation (QRMC) advises that corrective action is under way. Cost adjustments are not expected to be retroactive but will insure that, after enactment of legislation, future retirees will all pay the same amount for an equivalent amount of protection.
Risk Assessment: Risk is the amount of potential undervaluation of the SBP annuity the retiree accepts because assumptions must be made concerning the uncertainty of the future. Assumptions used in the valuation process may not actually hold in a real life situation. In addressing risk, one could ask, “What is the significance of a $20,000 valuation error? It represents only 6% of the maximum value shown in Table 3.” The significance of this shortfall is that it could be equivalent to not paying a widow an SBP payment during her last two years of life. Depending on how long a widow actually lives, the shortfall could be even greater. A glance at Table 10 shows the risk value can be even greater, e.g., in the event a spouse lives longer than 87 years. For example, the annuity for a spouse who is age 41 at retirement and has a life expectancy of age 92 has a maximum after-tax lump sum value of $480,000.
The effects of some assumptions may not be readily apparent to the reader. For example, the table values used in compu-
If You’ve Got It,
By Thomas P. Faulconer
Considerable interest is being evinced by knowledgeable officers, experienced engineers, and pilots about the beneficial characteristics of “seaplanes” or flying boats as the solution to our military needs as a world power.
Since the early days of aviation, sea- based aircraft have progressed hand in hand with land-based craft in speed competition, altitude, range, endurance, and other criteria of airborne vehicles. The proven stamina, flexibility, cargo-carrying ability, and other combat applications of the flying boat are again being proclaimed in articles appearing in the Proceedings and other industry journals.
The fleet air ultra naval transport (FLAUNT) flying boat can deploy a Harrier squadron of six aircraft to a 3,000- mile distant station in five hours, contrasted with the four days and four hours required for a 30-knot ship to cover the
tations for our analysis remained constant. Would Congress revise tax rates should inflation for the next 35 years average 6% annually? A lowering of the rate would increase the annuity value, but would also increase the after-tax cost. Another factor would be the time of year of the deaths of the retiree and spouse. This could result in a valuation error of as much as two years. Our calculations assume that the retiree dies at the beginning of a year and that the spouse dies at the end of a year. Finally, whose life expectancy values should be used? Our values for the spouse are different than those used by the QRMC and result in a 2% lower lump sum value for the spouse’s annuity in year one.
A prospective retiree is uncertain about how long he or his spouse will live, what his health will be, how the economy will perform, or what future interest rates will be. If an alternative plan is chosen, the retiree must accept some risk about the outcome of events.
SBP contains the lowest amount of risk because it is indexed to inflation and because assumptions do not have to be made, especially those regarding the life expectancies of the retiree and his spouse, tax rates, and investment rates. Based on our study, we believe that SBP provides the maximum protection at the least cost for each dollar spent. We regard this conclusion to be completely irrefutable when only the minimum SBP option is considered.
FLAUNT It
same distance. At her speed and altitude, FLAUNT will be much less vulnerable to enemy attack under way and will have a short response time to evasive action when on station, being able to put 600 miles per hour between herself and the enemy. Sea Harriers armed with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles could provide excellent defense, reacting to enemy attack foreseen by the FLAUNT airborne early warning system.
The Harrier carrier mission is best described by John F. Farley, Manager, Dunsfold Plant, British Aerospace Aircraft Group and pioneer Harrier test pilot.
Farley’s opinion is, “The hull volume of FLAUNT is sufficient for a viable military force, a squadron of six Harriers. ” At a gross weight of 1,708,000 pounds, FLAUNT could provide 266,855 pounds of fuel and 81,200 pounds of offensive armament for a total of eight 800-mile
SBP is an excellent buy for protection of a surviving spouse. After all, the spouse will bear the consequences of a wrong decision. Costs are important as long as one lives. On the day of death, costs are irrelevant—the adequacy of a retiree’s provision for his spouse then becomes the only important issue. Before making a decision on whether or not to participate in the SBP, a prospective retiree should study the plan carefully.
Lieutenant Colonel Cathey, a 1967 graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy, holds a master's degree in business administration from the University of West Florida. He has served as a forward observer and tactical air observer in Vietnam and as a flight instructor for OV-10, and A-6s. He is currently the Special Assistant for Marine Corps Reserve to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Reserve Affairs) and is also pursuing a Doctor of Business Administration degree at the George Washington University.
Major Clemmer was graduated from Jacksonville State University in 1965 and received his master’s degree in Industrial Management from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has served in numerous Automatic Data Processing (ADP)-related assignments and in the Studies and Programs Office. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. U.' S. Army. He is currently an ADP Management Officer in the Worldwide Military Command and Control System ADP Technical Support Directorate, Joint Data Systems Support Center, Defense Communications Agency. He is also enrolled in the Doctoral Study Program in the School of Government and Business Administration at the George Washington University.
range squadron missions, or 48 unit Harrier missions, in addition to the fuel required for the get-home leg of the FLAUNT carrier, after a 3,000-mile initial flight. He said that the British “are looking for a means of rapid deployment of Harrier squadrons combined with a stable platform for launch and recovery (carrier style) and an operations and maintenance base for squadrons of six Harrier aircraft.”
Farley also made the following statement about FLAUNT:
The^l50 ft. run and a ski-jump angle of 12 —15 is more than enough for take-off. Plane handling, landings, etc. will be similar to ordinary aircraft carrier procedures. Harrier operations at sea have shown that flight operations can be carried out with deck motions of ±5° roll and ±2° pitch.”
Dr. John Fozard, designer of the Harrier, says, “Quite breathtaking in its scope and implications—it could prove quite practicable.”
The FLAUNT retractable spar buoy stabilization (RSBS) system was proven to have considerably less roll or pitch even in very heavy sea states.
With the highly mobile FLAUNT, Harrier missions could be carried out well forward by deploying the whole squadron on board FLAUNT, reducing the need for airborne refuelling.
A complement of 20 men assigned to squadron operations, maintenance, and armament will be included, as well as repair and maintenance shops, normal spares, and supplies.
With the changes in global threats, the need for rapid deployment and strong countermeasures grows every month. The flying boat now appears to be the most practical, cost-effective system to meet these pressing requirements for a worldwide navy.
Large-scale, long-range logistics to combat “brushfire” incursions and terrorism demand immediate response. The
Falklands Conflict demonstrated this need, yet three weeks was the best a modem navy could achieve. Compare this fact with the potential reaction time of less than 36 hours to arrival at the scene with a very effective, viable force, by means of the FLAUNT system which would provide not only the logistical vehicle but also the operations base.
The flying boat proposed in this professional note, because of its size, speed, payload, and unique stability on the sea surface, along with the capacity for beach loading and off-loading, self protection and offensive power, combines the ultimate capabilities for its many missions, unrivaled by any other type of craft and would require no fixed forward base.
FLAUNT can land in heavy seas on her ski, taxi to exact mooring coordinates, and sit for days or weeks impervious to gales or sea conditions. Upon completion of her mission, or under threat of attack, she can retract the stabilizer system and take off to relocate at 600 knots.
As in ships of the line, the quarters, galley, wardroom, captain’s cabin, a large electronics suite, and special facilities for her many and varied missions would be provided.
When the RSBS system is not needed, it can easily be stowed ashore, adding another 126,000 pounds for cargo, armament, or fuel to be carried in the wing tanks provided.
The advantage of speeds in the hundreds of knots can never be accomplished by surface vessels, while, as size increases along with waterline length, flying boats of 500 to 850 long tons become capable of operation in bad weather and heavy seas without weight penalties in hull structure.
There is probably only one legitimate provable argument against the use of flying boats in any type of combat mission normally accomplished by surface craft, and that is their vulnerability to severe weather when at rest. All ships are limited by bad weather, but the conventional flying boat is particularly affected because of the heavy loads imposed upon its flotation hull and widely separated stabilizing floats mounted under the wing or sponsons extending from the hull. The
Table 1 Loading Schedule and Estimated Range for Various Missions, Which Include ASW, Long Duration Sea-Sitter, Quiet Stable Platform
Mission
Normal
Extended
Rapid
Mine
Bomber
Evacuation
Harrier
Carrier
Item Weight | Range 6,300 | Range 11,000 | Range 4,300 | Range 6,800 | Range 8,800 | Range 3,300 | Range 6,000 |
Weight Empty | 767,462 | 767,462 | 767,462 | 767,462 | 767,462 | 767,462 | 767,462 |
Crew | 5,580 | 5,580 | 5,580 | 5,580 | 5,580 | 5,580 | 5,580 |
Fuel-Wing | — | 300,000 | — | — | — | — | — |
Fuel-RSBS* | 498,855 | 498,855 | 434,958 | 498,855 | 498,855 | 328,958 | 498,855 |
Fuel-Bilge | 122,103 | 140,128 | — | 186,103 | 380,103 | — | 230,103 |
Cargo-Aft | 157,026 | __ | 50,000 | — | — | — | 120,000** |
Cargo-Forward | 157,000 | — | 50,000 | — | — | — | 81,200*** |
Miscellaneous | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Troops | — | — | 400,000 | - | — | — | -- |
Mines | — | — | — | 250,000 | — | — | --- |
Bombs | — | — | — |
| 50,000 | — ' | — |
Casualties | — | — | — | — | — | 600,000 | — |
Crew-Special | — | — | — | 6,000 | 6,000 | 6,000 | 4,800 |
Gross Weight | 1,708,000 | 1,708,000 | 1,708,000 | 1,708,000 | 1,708,000 | 1,708,000 | 1,708,000 |
‘Retractable Spar Buoy Stabilizer “Harrier Aircraft, empty “‘Missiles and armament, Harriers |
loads imposed on these structures by large waves can be most destructive.
A solution to the problem which limits year-round deployment of flying boats in all oceans, lakes, and rivers is proposed by the incorporation of spar buoy stability in the boat. The principle of spar buoy stability has been investigated and proven over the past 18 years by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Marine Physical Laboratory of the University of California. sponsored by the Office of Naval Research. More than 100 sorties in many oceans and weather conditions have demonstrated the practicability of the Floating Instrument Platform (FLIP).1
During tests in the Gulf of Alaska, where FLIP was on station for 45 days, gale force winds and seas were practically continuous and offered ample opportunity to evaluate FLIP’S capabilities. Maximum vertical oscillation was^mea- sured at less than 3.5 feet. Seas of 35 feet were encountered during this period. Angles of roll and pitch were less than 1°. In cross seas, roll to 5° maximum may be observed. A single point mooring, or anchor, has been used in 3,000 fathoms, and multiple point precision positioning anchorage capability has been perfected. One recent example resulted in FLIP maintaining position in 2,500 fathoms for a period of 35 days, and the mooring line components except for bottom tackle were recovered and reused.2
The marriage of this successful conqueror of rough seas and bad weather and the proven flying boat has tremendous possibilities.
For the following roles and applications, FLAUNT shows capabilities well beyond the range of surface, submerged, or land-based platforms such as ships, submarines, or conventional aircraft.
► Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW): Peacetime with rapid transition to wartime; passive, quiet monitoring of nuclear
powered fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs); attack and destruction of SSBNs with surface-to-surface missiles, and attack and destruction of submarine- launched ballistic missiles with air-to-air missiles
► Fleet Air Defense (FAD): Sea-stationed combat air patrol (CAP) with weeks of loiter possible
- U. S. Continental Limits (CONUS) Defense: Sea-stationed CAP-rapid moving, weeks of loiter time
- Cruise missile launcher or mobile intercontinental ballistic missile launcher
The “seaplane frigate” would be equipped with a mix of ASW, an airborne surveillance system (ASS), and power projection weapons.3 It could carry several antiair missiles while its major armament would include five ASW torpedoes, one ASW tactical nuclear weapon, and approximately ten Tomahawks. With four Phoenix and two Sidewinder missiles added for self-defense, the total weapons payload would be about 47,000 pounds, making it as deadly a ship as a destroyer or cruiser.
Without repeating the great costs involved in landing fields, attention must be given to the plentiful bodies of water, lakes, rivers, seas, and oceans. In most continents, such flying boat landing surfaces far outnumber all airfields of any size. In 1940, C. A. Van Dusen, Vice
President of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, manufacturer of the PBYs, expressed many facts even truer today:
“Water types (flying boats) may be flown overland throughout practically all parts of the world with greater safety than large land planes. There are few large landing fields as compared with suitable water areas. Flying boats used for scouting with the fleet have demonstrated their ability to keep the fleet informed of all vessels on and under the water well ahead of the fleet. Flying boats can rest on the surface when not in the air and thus extend their time on station greatly, whereas the landplane must return to base after relatively short sorties to refuel. Flying boats are generally believed to be slower than comparable land planes, but only because flying boats usually fly at lower ‘cruise control’ speeds in order to accomplish very long range flights. Even in 1940 Dick Archbold flew his PBY, ‘GUBA,’ from Dakar to St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands, approximately 3,300 miles with enough fuel remaining to fly an additional 1,800 miles, or a total actual range of 5,100 miles!”4
The mechanical, structural, and hydraulic systems would include a telescoping RSBS buoyant spar platform to support a large flying boat at an elevation
^Supplying a Landing Craft
system should be lowered fully, tube number four blown to the specified net buoyancy, and locked in place. The ski valves should then be opened and the ski flooded. Minor changes in position may be made by the use of one or two main engines or by towing at slow speed. It precise stationkeeping is required, the anchor should be in place.
Preparation for takeoff requires unlocking the system and maintaining hydraulic pressure in the pistons to control the rate of retraction while blowing the water ballast from tube number four. The system always has positive buoyancy, so it must be pushed down into place and controlled when retracting. When the system is up and locked, the ski should be extended to takeoff position if desired at
FLAUNT Harrier Carrier
JOE FERRARA
above the crests of large waves.
The result of this combination is a boat of high speed (600 knots), tremendous range and cargo capacity, sea-sitting capability comparable to most ships in bad weather and high seas, combined with adaptability to efficient minelaying, bombing, ASW mother ship, and casualty evacuation.
Current events in world affairs and the dispersion of our forces to Near East, Far East, Central American, and other hot spots emphasize the need for an appropriate high-speed, long-range vehicle which can be deployed overnight, with ample equipment and personnel, to any point on earth. All the better if it can arrive on station within hours instead of days or weeks and be free of requirements for airstrips or other facilities. It took the British forces several weeks to reach the Falkland Islands, and resupply was slow because the nearest friendly airfield was about 4,000 miles away at Ascension Island.5
The debate over the next generation of VP aircraft must not omit from consideration the flying boat, a platform which has proven itself in combat in three major wars. Many veteran boats of World War II are still active as civilian transports and firefighters.
The criteria for the stable sea sitter, FLAUNT, include takeoff and landing capability in rough seas, full sea sitter functions, long range, speed comparable to land-based transport aircraft, capacity for substantial payload for resupply, refueling, support of submarines and medium-sized ships, smaller aircraft, and ample reserves of fuel, spares, and food for extended deployment. Exceptionally
Elevator
Hangar Decks 1, 2, 3.
long range may be realized by employment of the hull and wing tanks, doubling the fuel available at some cost in reduced military load. Self-protection in all modes, electronic countermeasures, cannon, missiles, detection, and firing systems must be included.
This concept truly flaunts its superior features which are possible because of its unique seakeeping ability.
The RSBS system, dry, includes 89,950 pounds in the main tubes, seals, and operational bearings, 21,500 pounds in the steel hydraulic piston assembly, and 2,100 pounds for the ski. The aircraft’s 49,910 pounds of electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic systems will provide the necessary power. Fuel transfer will be handled by the 21,700-pound fuel system, while cargo in the number one RSBS tube will be handled by the forward, aft, and bomb-cargo cars under the wing, for which there is a 34,925-pound allowance. Weight and balance control is programmed into the boat’s computers and will be under command of the boat’s engineering officer.
With the boat in normal configuration, ready for takeoff, the ski flood valves should be closed and the RSBS number one tube lowered 15 feet to extend the ski to takeoff position. After takeoff, the ski should be retracted.
If the mission calls for sea-sitting, the main fuel supply must be in the number one tube tank, with operational fuel in the bilge tanks, and 151,000 pounds of miscellaneous cargo must be in the tube. To prepare for landing, the ski on the number one tube should be extended 15 feet, locked, and left in place. Upon landing at the deployment coordinates, the RSBS time of takeoff.
The center of mass/center of buoyancy relationship in the FLAUNT RSBS system is about 25% greater than in the Scripps FLIP of 700 long tons displacement; therefore, the spar buoy stability should be somewhat stiffer and positive, resulting in less motion at sea. In heavy winds, FLAUNT will “weathervane’ to head into the wind, reducing the exposed area and the wind-heeling moment.
Logistics for our mobile forces traditionally are dependent on well-established air heads such as Rota, Spain (Sixth Fleet), Cubi Point, PhilipP>nes (Seventh Fleet), and Diego Garcia (Task Force 70). Since each of these places is highly vulnerable in time of war, we must be able to operate in these areas and others, regardless of loss and with great flexibility, hence the FLAUNT stable flying boat.
FLAUNT can sit at sea indefinitely or can take off to continue a mission or to initiate a new sortie. The RSBS stabilizing gear is retractable and provides tankage for 498,900 pounds of fuel and
- pounds of miscellaneous cargo- The RSBS unit’s primary function is, in the first extended position, to provide a ski for takeoff and landing, similar to those proven on other flying boats. At rest in sea-sitting condition, the RSB5 system is fully extended, including a “hard” section of the buoyant tank which raises the main hull 20 feet above the sea surface and provides the flotation necessary to establish the center of buoy- ancy/center of mass relationship necessary for the true spar buoy stability regime. Picture a flying boat of 762 long tons, with the displacement of a fleet minesweeper, but having a new usable cargo space of more than 500,000 cubic feet because of the fact that its engines are in pods suspended from the wing ana because fuel tankage is half in the wing
and half in the bilge.
Imagine a cargo plane that can deliver to a beach through its bow doors and cargo ramp, or can sit absolutely stable at anchor to transfer cargo to lighters or other craft by means of its bow and midships cargo booms and cranes, or by use of bomb and minelaying cars running out the lower wing surface on integral tracks which are also used for bomb or minelaying purposes. Picture a full-sized minelayer that can be effective at 5,000 miles from home within just hours of departure and can return home.
Visualize an assault transport that can deliver 2,000 troops with full pack and
- pounds of supplies, vehicles, and munitions to a destination 4,000 miles away in ten hours. Place FLAUNT in a covert mission involving a planned intermediate loiter of, say, a week, then proceed at 600 knots to any ocean, lake, or river, regardless of weather during the sea-sitting mode, then to takeoff on a prescribed mission of several thousand miles.
FLAUNT can be as well armed for self protection as any surface ship. State-of- the-art electronics, including electronic countermeasures, missile guidance systems, a complete electronics suite and combat information center along with cannon, air-to-air, and air-to-surface missiles will be included. She can also fly out of harm’s way.
As a sea sitter, FLAUNT provides a quiet stable platform for a number of direct and remote tech assembly systems (TASS) and ASW systems. The on-station time would be many times that of land- or carrier-based aircraft. A flying boat can search areas much larger than either a submarine or surface ship because she can take off and rapidly relocate ASW sensors to keep up with the carrier battle group. By loitering on the surface during deployment of ASW remote controlled devices, a flying boat could probably accomplish a week’s ASW mission at a third of the cost for deploying a similar number of land-based P-3 ASW aircraft and one-eighth of the cost of an ASW mission conducted by surface vessels.7
With its unique sea-sitting, fuel-conserving capabilities combined with rapid mobility, FLAUNT could provide new extensions for ASW operations. Normally, FLAUNT can complete a long- range mission, including weeks of loiter, and return to base. However, FLAUNT can refuel FLAUNT plus submarines and other boats. Similarly, FLAUNT can resupply ships, submarines, other aircraft, and beachheads.
Serious consideration should be given to the procurement of a fleet of FLAUNT flying boats to place us in an unquestionable position of superiority in mobile striking forces and promising a means of sustained support or invasion operations at any location, as well as to eliminate the tremendous logistics, engineering, and manpower requirements of the development and maintenance of foreign airbases.
The country that moved in a single decade from a collier converted to flight deck use to modem aircraft carriers ought to be able to move to an aircraft at least three times the size of a 747 that should be capable of sweeping all before it.
‘E. D. Bronson and L.W. Glosten, "Floating Instrument Platform—FLIP,” Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Marine Physical Laboratories. 15 November 1973, ONR Code 466, SIO ref. 73-30. -Philip Rudnick, “Motion of Large Spar Buoy in Sea Waves,” Journal of Ship Research, December 1967 pp. 257-267.
3R. Artigiani and G. P. Harper, "The Flying Frigate, Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1983 dd 55-59. ’
4C■ A. Van Dusen, “Seaplanes for National Defense,” Consolidator, December 1940, pp P-13 ’Neville Trotter, "The Falklands and the Long Haul, Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1983, p. 108.
6R. B. Laning, “Elevation of the U. S. Fleet,” Naval Institute Proceedings, August 1981, pp. 33-37. William Welling, “Renaissance for the Seaplane,” Naval Institute Proceedings, April 1981. p. 69.
Mr. Faulconer received a bachelor of science degree in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 1940. He was an engineering and corporate executive for Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, 1935-48. He was a lieutenant in the Coast Guard Reserve, 1942-45. Mr. Faulconer has written several books, including Introduction to Aircraft Design (McGraw-Hill, 1944). He has been involved in continuous design activities from 1930 to the present and is currently consulting on marine and aircraft systems for stability.
Offense Versus Defense
By Captain S. D. Landersman, U. S. Navy (Retired)
Joe Theismann takes the ball from center and drops back to pass. His offensive linemen form a pocket to defend him. Dallas defensive linemen attack, attempting to get to the Redskin quarterback. The pocket collapses, and Theismann is forced to scramble to protect himself until he can locate a receiver and get off his pass. The pass receivers have either been knocked down or are closely guarded. The tight end breaks free. Theismann passes just as he is hit. His pass receiver is jarred as the ball reaches him causing him to juggle the ball and lose it— incomplete pass. The Redskin offensive team failed to give its quarterback sufficient protection. The Dallas defensive team attacked the Redskin quarterback and his pass receivers.
In the Navy, the aircraft carrier is the quarterback of the battle group. A battle group can be employed in defensive or offensive missions, but in all cases the aircraft carrier must be protected. She carries the leader of the group and has the capability to project power with her aircraft against enemy ships, aircraft, submarines, or targets ashore. Defending the carrier is a protective role of surface-to- air missile ships as well as the carrier’s fighter, electronic warfare, and early warning aircraft. The Aegis ship is one of the protectors of the carrier, perhaps the most important of the defenders, as she picks off enemy missiles as well as aircraft which have penetrated the outer defenses. Just as any quarterback relies on his teammates for protection, the carrier is protected by the Aegis ship. What is the value of this protection? Ask the quarterback, or watch a game in which one team protects its quarterback and the other team does not. The team which defends the passer has a successful offense. The team which fails to protect the quarterback loses.
In the past few years, the U. S. Navy has developed a syndrome which approaches paranoia concerning systems, training, and the planning for or conducting of combat operations which might be labeled as “defense” rather than “offense.” The feeling is that defensive operations are to be avoided as they are lesser in status, represent weakness, and are conducted only by inferior naval forces and inadequate commanders at sea. Those naval officers who demean defensive tactics seek to be identified with offensive operations, which appear to be higher in status, represent strength, and are conducted by superior forces rnd competent aggressive commanders. The shortsightedness of this view becomes apparent to students of Sun Tzu, Napoleon Bonaparte, Karl von Clausewitz, Baron Henri Jomini, and Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Basic understanding of warfare should
and
identification of potential assassins
be sufficient to show that defense is at least as important as offense, requires as much intelligence, and demands the same dedication and aggressiveness as do offensive operations. The two are so interdependent and closely related that it is
The aircraft carrier is the Joe Theis- mann of the battle group, and, like the Redskins’ quarterback, the carrier needs defending if the Navy is to conduct a successful offensive drive.
difficult as well as unnecessary to separate actions into categories of offense and defense.
Clausewitz wrote, “A defensive campaign can be fought with offensive battles, and in a defensive battle, we can employ our divisions offensively.” Also, he told us that defense is permeated with pronounced elements of the offensive, and offense is perpetually combined with defense. Clausewitz recognized the necessity of defense as part of offense.
Although most Americans might not understand Clausewitz, most understand our great national war game of football. American football is a game similar in some ways to war. Each of two opposing disciplined uniformed units uses its combined strength, cunning, and skill to gain an objective in the enemy’s territory. We often refer to the quarterback as a “field general,” and a series of pass plays as an “aerial attack” with “bullet” passes and “the bomb.” A lineman is called a “submarine,” and a series of running plays is referred to as a “ground attack.”
On any weekend in the fall, we watch the offensive players of our favorite football team attempt to score a touchdown against our opponent’s defensive team. When our quarterback, the field general of our offensive team, retreats to pass, at least six of his ten offensive teammates defend him by blocking the other team’s defensive players from reaching him. Those defensive players on the other team are attacking our quarterback.
In football, most of the players on the offensive team defend, and most of the players on the defensive team attack. Offensive tactics are part of the defensive campaign. Defense is part of offensive tactics. Clausewitz would have understood football.
Just as in football, the unpopular real war includes a close interrelationship and melding of defense as a part of offense and offense as a.part of defense.
North Vietnam attacks South Vietnam, which is an offensive action. The United States responds with defensive support to South Vietnam which includes carrier aircraft conducting offensive attacks on North Vietnam. North Vietnam defends itself from these air attacks by attacking the ships and aircraft of the U. S. battle force in the Gulf of Tonkin. U. S. carrier air strikes are directed against the air and naval bases of North Vietnam. The U. S. fleet defends itself by offensive actions against an enemy who is trying to carry out offensive strikes against that fleet so as to defend his country and enable that enemy to conduct offensive actions against his neighbor. Each side claims that offensive actions are necessary for defense, and a successful defense will enable that side to carry out offensive operations necessary for defense.
In a typical war game at the Naval War College, a U. S. battle force, which includes four aircraft carriers and a formation of combatant ships proceeds across the Norwegian Sea to conduct offensive strikes against Soviet bases on the Kola Peninsula. This offensive action by the U. S. battle force is necessary to assist
NATO forces fighting to defend northern Norway against an offensive attack by the Soviets, who initiated the hostilities. The Soviets respond to this offensive threat to their homeland by sending aircraft to attack the U. S. battle force. U. S. antiair resources are employed in offensive actions to attack the Soviet aircraft as they close the battle force. The Soviet aircralt are defending their land against the threat of carrier aircraft strikes. Carrier aircraft defend their battle force by attacking the Soviet aircraft. Both sides are using an offensive tactical action for defensive purposes.
The evening television news shows us the President en route to a meeting, and we see that he is surrounded by secret service agents. It is their job to protect the President. The agents we see are obviously in a defensive role but there are other agents, unseen by the television camera, on rooftops, in windows, in nearby and distant positions to intercept an attacker. There are still other agents who have penetrated organizations identified as dangerous to the President. This the undercover operation may have been going on for months or years. It is a form of offensive action by the defenders, a necessary part of their protective role.
Clausewitz wrote about the importance of an aggressive and offensive defense and the importance of defending while on the offensive. Mahan discussed in detail the value of attacking an enemy to provide for defense.
Defending a battle force, convoy, °r amphibious group is a necessary employment of naval forces. It can and should be as aggressive as an offensive operation. Defense may include offensive actions against the enemy’s bases, ships, submarines, and aircraft as they depart their base areas along their transit routes anu before they reach their weapons’ range from our force. It may also include defensive measures to deceive and destroy the enemy in the vicinity of our force, as well as the destruction or deception of his weapons.
Aggressive initiative is the key. m war, just as in football, offense and defense are interwoven and inseparable- The terms are not mutually exclusive. Action instead of reaction is more imp°r- tant than labeling a procedure as offense or defense.
Captain Landersman has commanded a frigate. ^ stroyer, destroyer squadron, and tactical tramint group. He was a member of the Strategic Stu Group at the Naval War College. He is canen J employed by the Johns Hopkins University Appl>c Physics Laboratory.
r
The Second Career
By Colonel William L. Hauser, U. S. Army (Retired)
If you ask the honoree at a military retirement ceremony what he plans to do next, it is not unusual to be told, “I don’t know. I suppose I’ll find something.” That is the ultimate in faithfulness, for it shows that the officer is so dedicated to his profession through his very last day of service, that he has ignored his personal future. That is more than faithfulness; it is self-sacrificial, unnecessary, and wrong.
It is not my wish to induce any officer to leave military service. I count every day of my 25 years of duty a worthwhile experience and a precious memory. But there comes a time in every officer’s life when he must consider leaving the military to seek a second career. The impetus is different for each: for one, a realization that he has gone as high as he is likely to go; another, a wish to round out his productive years with new and different challenges; for another, a desire, after years of materially undercompensated public service, to give his family a richer lifestyle. Whatever the reason, when the officer has made the decision, he owes it to his family and himself to do it right.
The first question the officer should ask himself is whether he wants a career in business, rather than in, say, civil service, social work, or education. Buy a copy of the Sunday New York Times. Look at the employment ads at the rear of the “Week in Review” section then at the ads at the rear of the “Business” section. If you are more at home with the former, a business career is probably not for you, but if the jobs the latter ads describe interest you, then making your second career in business may be your thing.
Business is very different from the military, however. Knowing what the differences are will make your transition much smoother and your new life more quickly a pleasant and productive one.
First, there is little opportunity for lateral entry into the middle and upper levels of business professions. Entry into a corporation itself, yes, but not into the professions within the corporation: marketing, sales, financial control, production, engineering, etc. You must show, from your service experiences, credentials in one of those professions.
Second, there is no “promotion,” as such, in the business corporation. Rather, a person is selected to move from his current position to fill a vacancy in another position. If the new position carries
higher pay and perquisites, then we say the person has been “promoted.”
This is very different from the military system of promoting the best of a group of officers and then finding them positions commensurate with their new rank. Is the business system “equitable”? Of course not. Being “at the right place at the right time” is important. There is a “free enterprise system” in the making of a business career.
What this means to the officer seeking entry into a corporation is that he must specify the type position to which he aspires. To state on a resume that he seeks “a position which will utilize my extensive managerial experience and leadership ability” is a sure invitation to the circular file. The corporation is not just interested in what he can do; they want to know what he can do for them.
There are those who will say that to describe a specific position on a resume is like trying to “hit a bullet with a bullet.” It is better, they maintain, to fire a “shotgun” in hopes that one of the pellets may intersect a target.
Anyone who argues that way does not know how resumes are handled by companies. Rather than flying by, resumes land on desks and lay there awhile. Then, even if the employment office lacks a listing which matches the resume, that office will often pass it to some of the company’s divisions to see if they are interested. It is also not unusual for a suitable position to open up in the future. If the resume is a good one, it will be remembered and retrieved from the file. A good resume could even be passed to another company as well, since corporate recruiters’ have their own mutual assistance network.
The third major difference is a conceptual one, between “development” and “accomplishment.” Military officers tend to emphasize on resumes their developmental history: multiplicity and variety of assignments, early promotions, selection for schools, and awards and decorations. But, remember that the business corporation wants to know what you can do for them. The best evidence you can offer is what you have accomplished for your current employer. An assignment is not an accomplishment; nor is it a promotion, a school, or an award. The crucial question is not what you contributed to your own development, but what you contributed to the mission of your organization.
There are three possible ways you can communicate with a prospective employer: in person, on the telephone, or in writing. Now, prospective employers, particularly those in large corporations, are besieged with job-seekers. To expect them to interview an uninvited jobseeker, in person or on the telephone, is unrealistic. But a good resume can get a response. It is not unknown for a business executive who is sent a resume by the corporate employment office (“ . . .for your possible interest. . .”) to say to his secretary, “This guy sounds like somebody we could use in this organization. We don’t have an opening of the sort he’s looking for just now, but let’s get him in for an interview anyway.” If you send out enough good resumes to enough corporations, sooner or later this will happen to you. But the resume must be good.
Now, how do you work up a good resume for yourself?
Think of your resume as a telephone conversation. The conversation with, a prospective employer you will not get because his secretary will not put you through. But if she did, here is how it might go:
Question: “I understand you’re looking for a job. What kind of job?” Answer: (You have to state succinctly the sort and level of position you are seeking. This is the crucial item of the resume, which the remainder supports. It is also the toughest, because you are deciding the first step of the rest of your life. That will take much research into what sorts of jobs there are in business firms and into your own background, aptitudes, and interests.)
Question: “What makes you think you can do that sort of job?”
Answer: (You need to summarize what skills you will bring to the position you have just described. Be sure to put yourself in the mind of the prospective employer. He is not interested, at least not initially, in your ability to acquire skills; he wants to know what existing skills you will bring to the job right away.)
Question: “What have you done in the past that substantiates those skills?” Answer: (You need to do more than just listing and describing positions; you also must show your accomplishments in those positions, quantified as much as possible. Business people are not impressed by a multiplicity and variety of assignments. They view that as unprofessional. You would do well, going back
It’s too late to contemplate the future after the retirement ceremony. An officer should not be so faithful to his naval career that he has not already explored all of his options for a second career.
ten or at the most 15 years, to consolidate position descriptions and accomplishments into three- or four-year blocks.)
Question: “What is your educational background?”
Answer: (Emphasize those aspects which support the business skills you have claimed.)
Question: “Tell me something about yourself.”
Answer: (State those attributes, associations, and interests which are relevant to your employability. For example, your marital/parental status affects your mobility, while professional associations and civic activities indicate your sense of commitment. Even your avocations have some relevance, because they make you an interesting person, someone with whom a prospective employer might like to work. But some items are so irrelevant as to call your judgment into question— your height and weight, say, or your military medals. It is good to save some things for interviews.)
No, it is not easy, but there are places to go for help. First, there are a number of books on job-hunting. The best known is Richard Bolles’s What Color Is Your Parachute? (Ten Speed Press, 1982); also quite good are Carl Boll’s Executive Jobs Unlimited (Macmillan, 1980) and Tom Jackson and Davidyne Mayleas’s The Hidden Job Market (Time Books, 1981). The one I like best is Richard Payne’s plain-spoken How To Get a Better Job Quicker (Taplinger, 1979). Second, some university business schools offer courses in “career transition” or “career reassessment.” I would not take a course attended principally by military officers as you will lose the important benefit of comparing notes with business peers.
Third, there are “Forty-Plus” clubs in most major cities, where unemployed and retired business executives help one another in their job searches. If you are interested in the New York metropolitan area, the West Point Society of New York, which is made up largely of business executives, has a “career advisory service” offered to retiring military officers at a nominal fee. Finally, I would not recommend any of the so-called career- advisory firms or resume-writing experts which you see advertised in the newspapers. They are generally too expensive for doing work that is best done by you.
There are some good career advisory firms of a special sort, but unfortunately they are not available to individual officers. These “outplacement” firms normally do not accept individual clients, because the relationship is almost always unsatisfactory. That is, when the jobseeker himself is the client, he tends to regard the firm as his “job-finder, rather than recognizing that the responsibility for finding a job is his alone. However, when a corporation is the client, the individual has the assigned duty of finding himself a new job; he and the outplacement firm are partners in the effort, and both answerable to the corporate client.
Ideally, the Department of Defense ought to use such outplacement for its retiring officers; if not for all, then at least for those in positions requiring continuity for effectiveness. The results would be beneficial not only for those officers, but also for national security. For example, suppose every retirement- eligible officer were required to contract each time he accepted such an assignment, not to retire until completion of some minimum time, say three or four years. In return for this limitation on his freedom of action, the officer would be guaranteed outplacement when he retired. The contract would be self-enforcing: if the officer broke it, he would not get the outplacement but would retire “on his own” as is the case today.
Assuming the officer honored the contract, what would he receive?
First, a trained counsellor would interview him to get essential facts out on the table and to establish rapport in what is likely to be a fairly intensive relationship lasting several months. Then the officer would be given a series of multiple- choice tests, designed by industrial psychologists to determine his vocational interests and his management type °r “style.” While these tests are being analyzed by the counsellor, the officer would be engaged in an essential “homework project, reviewing his entire life fr°n1 childhood through his recent career. From that review, done in a way suggested by the counsellor, the officer would determine a pattern of accomplishments and of skills which produced the outcome. The officer and the counsellor would now be ready to plan a campaign
to get “the right job.”
Meeting perhaps twice a week at first, later only every couple of weeks, the officer and counsellor would work up a good resume. They would also devise cover letters for responding to ads, for writing to suitable companies, and for sending to “network” contacts. When some of these letters result in invitations for interviews, the officer would go confidently, having been given training in interview techniques.
What would such a program cost the government? Assume that 1,000 officers were to be outplaced each year. Paying the outplacement firm 12.5% of “regular military compensation” (pay and allowances plus tax advantage, assumed average grade 0-6) would cost
- x 0.125 x $60,000 = $7.5 million. Even adding several months’ “continuation pay” (full pay instead of retired Pay) would bring the total scarcely to $10 million. This may sound like big money, but if it resulted in those officers’ extending their terminal assignments an average of one year, the savings in permanent- change-of-station costs alone would exceed $10 million. The additional savings created by improved continuity and efficiency, in such positions as weapon system project managers and installation commanders, would quickly show a “profit” of many millions. The program would more than pay for itself.
The Department of Defense is not currently interested in such a program. But I believe interest will be generated in the near future, for two reasons. First, there is rising pressure on Capitol Hill to reform the military retirement system. If the defense establishment can show that it is taking steps to reduce the frequency and cost of losing key people prematurely, they may be able to stave off an overhaul by Congress. Second, and even more fundamental, the current generation of senior corporate executives, many of whom saw service in World War II and Korea, is passing from the scene. They will be replaced by business leaders lacking such experience, who tend to view military officers either as “Washington bureaucrats” lacking in business-transferable skills or as “temporary consultants” to be used for their contacts and then discarded. This less receptive climate will intensify the pressure on officers to retire “early enough to start a real second career. The time for action by the Department of Defense is short.
In the meantime, what should the individual officer do? For the sake of the country, he ought to stay in the service as long as he can make a meaningful contribution. For the sake of himself, when the time comes to retire, he ought to go forward purposefully into a new and"fulfilling career. There is an appropriate passage from Alfred Tennyson’s “Ulysses”: “Some work of noble note may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;
The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
Tis not too late to seek a newer world.”
Colonel Hauser retired from the Army in 1979 after 25 years of service. He is director of manpower planning for Pfizer Inc., a large pharmaceutical and multi-product international corporation.
Is “SQ 3” Unconstitutional?
By Carlyle H. Whipple
The Coast Guard cutter gives the international code signal “SQ 3” (“You should stop or heave to; I am going to board you”). Congress has authorized customs officers and Coast Guard officers to stop, board, and inspect the papers of any vessel and to use all necessary force to compel compliance. The Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence of criminal activity gleaned from an unreasonable search and/or seizure cannot be used at a trial against persons whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated.
Is the suspicionless stopping, boarding, and document inspection which may be initiated by the “SQ 3” signal reasonable? If the answer is yes, the action is constitutional; if the answer is no, it is unconstitutional. The U. S. Supreme Court was called upon to answer this question in its decision of 17 June 1983 ■n U. S. v. Villamonte-Marquez.1
Near noon on 6 March 1980, customs officers were patrolling the Calcasieu River Ship Canal, some 18 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, when they sighted the Henry Morgan II, a 40-foot sailboat, anchored on the side of the channel. The waterway connects the Gulf of Mexico with Lake Charles, Louisiana, which is a designated customs port of entry. All vessels moving between Lake Charles and the open sea of the Gulf of Mexico must traverse through the canal.
Shortly after sighting the sailboat, the officers also observed a large freighter moving up the canal creating a substantial wake as she passed the Henry Morgan II causing the sailboat to rock violently from side to side. The customs patrol boat then approached the sailboat and passed behind her stem, on which the boat’s name was displayed along with the home port of Basilea. When the officers asked the man on deck if the sailboat and crew were all right, he shrugged his shoulders in an unresponsive manner.
The customs officer, having no reason to suspect any illegal activities, then boarded the Henry Morgan II for a documentation check pursuant to 19 U. S. C. §1581(a) (1976) which states:
“[A]ny officer of the customs may at any time go aboard any vessel ... at any place in the United States . . . and examine the manifest and other documents and papers . . . and to this end may hail and stop such vessel . . . and use all necessary force to compel compliance.”
The officer was handed what appeared to be a request to change the registration of the ship from Swiss to French registry, written in French and dated 6 February 1980. It was subsequently discovered that the home port designation of Basilea was Latin for Basel, Switzerland. The vessel was, however, of French registry.
While examining the document, the boarding officer smelled what he thought to be burning marijuana. Looking through an open hatch, he observed burlap-wrapped bails that proved to be marijuana. All persons in the vessel were arrested and given their Miranda warnings. A subsequent search revealed some 5,800 pounds of marijuana on board the Henry Morgan II stored in almost every conceivable place, including the forward, mid, and aft cabins, and under the seats in the cockpit.
The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the suspicionless boarding of the Henry Morgan II for the sole purpose of checking her documents
of any law, of the United States,
constituted an unreasonable search which would result in the violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The constitutionality of 19 U. S. C. §1581(a) had not been previously considered by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the suspicionless boarding of a vessel on federal jurisdictional waters for the purpose of checking her documentation and documents was reasonable and, therefore, consistent with the provision of the Fourth Amendment.
The court’s decision pointed out that, in 1790, the first Congress enacted a comprehensive statute “to provide more effectually for the collection of the duties imposed by law on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels.” The pertinent part of the 4 August 1790 Act, ch. 35, 1 Stat. 145, provides as follows:
“That it shall be lawful for all creditors, naval officers, surveyors, inspectors, and the officers of the revenue cutters hereinafter mentioned, to go on board ships or vessels in any part of the United States, or within four leagues of the coast thereof, if bound to the United States, whether in or out of their respective districts, for the purposes of demanding the manifests aforesaid, and of examining and searching the said ships or vessels.”
The 1790 statute is the lineal ancestor of 19 U. S. C. § 1581(a) which the government relied upon when boarding the Henry Morgan II.
The court stated that, while “no Act of Congress can authorize the violation of the Constitution, the fact that the Customs statute was enacted by the same Congress that promulgated the constitutional amendments that ultimately became the Bill of Rights (including the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting unreasonable search or seizures) gives the statute an impressive historical pedigree.”
The decision pointed out that in the area of the Fourth Amendment law, the question of the “reasonableness” of the type of governmental intrusion has to be analyzed. “Thus, the permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interest against its promotion of legitimate governmental interest.” Therefore, what may be considered either reasonable or unreasonable for border searches of motor vehicles is distinguishable from what is reasonable with respect to vessels located in waters offering ready access to or on the open sea.
The court noted that restricted waterways which funnel into rivers and canals are more analogous to roads, making the use of a “road-block” approach to the stopping and boarding of vessels on such restricted waterways more similar to the border searches of motor vehicles. However, it found that “such is not the case in waters providing ready access to the seaward border, beyond which is only the open sea.” The result is a different constitutional reasonableness standard applicable to restricted waterways from those applicable to the open seas. Since vessels having access to the open sea do not need to come into a harbor, their captains could carry on their activities by anchoring in some obscure location on the shoreline if they wanted to avoid the authorities at port, or by transferring cargo to another vessel. Waterborne traffic can be far more elusive than motor vehicles, which are constricted to fixed, established roadways. Therefore, the standard of what is reasonable for vessels with access to or on the high seas is substantially different from what is reasonable for inspection of landbound motor vehicles.
A second consideration raised by the court for the statute’s reasonableness is the distinction between the registration procedure for waterborne vessels as contrasted to automobiles. By merely observing an automobile’s license plate, a police officer can determine whether that vehicle is currently in compliance with the requirements of state law. There are no comparable “license plates” or “stickers” issued by the United States or by the various states for vessels. The required exterior markings on documented vessels (the name and hailing port), as well as the numerals displayed by undocumented U. S. boats, “are marked on the vessel at the instance of the owner.” Further, in cases like the Henry Morgan II where the vessel is of foreign registry, the vessel carries only the marking required by her home port. The panoply of statutes and regulations governing maritime documentation are likewise more extensive and more complex than the typical state requirements for motor vehicle licensing.
The Supreme Court concluded that the documentation laws serve the public interest in many obvious ways and are the linchpin for regulation of participation in certain trades, such as fishing, salvaging, towing, and dredging, as well as areas in which trade is sanctioned, and for enforcement of various environmental laws. These laws play a vital role in the collection of customs and tonnage duties and allow for regulation of imports and exports. “Requests to check certificates of inspection play an obvious role in ensuring safety on American waterways.
In weighing the reasonableness of the intrusion of documentation checks upon the Fourth Amendment, the court noted that:
“While the need to make document checks is great, the resultant intrusion on Fourth Amendment interest is quite limited. While it does intrude on one s ability to make ‘free passage without interruption,’ it involves only a brief detention where officials come on board, visit public areas of the vessel, and inspect documents. Neither the vessel nor it’s occupants are searched, and visual inspection of the vessel is limited to what can be seen without a search.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the suspicionless boarding of the Henry Morgan II pursuant to 19 U. S. C. § 1581(a) was reasonable and, therefore, non-violative of the prohibitions of the Fourt Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures for several reasons- The same Congress which created the Fourth Amendment enacted an antecedent statute substantially similar to the statute in question, giving the current statute an impressive historical pedigree- Random stops of waterborne traffic wit ready access to the high seas is significantly different than vehicular traffic stoppage on highways. The prescribe outward markings used by states for vessel registration and the documentation o vessels by the United States are different than for the outward markings of motor vehicles and are more variable and complex than state automobile registration laws. Governmental interest in assuring compliance with the documentation requirements is substantial. All of these factors override the minimal intrusion which may be created by a document2' tion stopping, boarding, and inspection- A companion statute to 19 U. S. C. §1581(a) used by the Coast Guard f°r documentation checks is 14 U. S. L §89(a) (1976). This statute states, where applicable:
“The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examination, inspections, searches, seizure, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppres sion of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes. (Coast Guard) officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subjec to the jurisdiction, or to the operation
dress inquiries to those on board, ex
amine the ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance.”
The constitutionality of 14 U. S. C. §89(a) to the extent that it permits the stopping, boarding, and inspection of documentation and the documented vessel’s main beam numbers has been approved by each of the Circuit Courts of Appeal called upon to consider the question. The First, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have all concurred in its constitutionality for these purposes. U. S. flag vessels may be boarded by the Coast Guard pursuant to 14 U. S. C. §89(a) on the high seas beyond the 12-mile limit or on any federal jurisdictional waters.2 The statute permits the boarding of stateless vessels (those apparently not registered to any nationality) on both the high seas and American territorial waters.3 This also includes foreign vessels within the 12- mile coastal limit of the United States or on the high seas (U. S. v. Williams).*
The only restriction placed on documentation and safety inspection boardings by the Coast Guard under the statute has been imposed by the Ninth Circuit in U. S. v. Piner.5 The applicability of Piner is restricted to the Ninth Circuit which is the West Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and their intervening waters. In the Piner case, the court found that the boarding of a recreational vessel under sail during the hours of darkness for the purpose of a safety and documentation check was an unreasonable intrusion and, therefore, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court noted that an identical boarding during daylight hours would have been constitutional. The only fact making the boarding unconstitutional in Piner was that it took place at night.
The Supreme Court has not yet heard a case brought under 14 U. S. C. §89(a). Although the issue of the constitutionality of the statute was presented to the court in U. S. v. Odneal, it declined to hear the case. The terminology of 14 U. S. C. §89(a) and 19 U. S. C. §1581(a) to the extent that each permit the stopping, boarding, and documentation inspection of vessels is virtually identical. Coast Guard officers can also serve in the capacity of customs officials. The legislative history and antecedent statutes of 14 U. S. C. §89(a) and 19 U. S. C. § 1581(a) are virtually identical. The significance of the U. S. v. Williams decision is that all 20 members of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in full court found that both of the statutes authorized reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment permitting the stopping, boarding, and document inspection of vessels of American registry on any water subject to federal jurisdiction, including the high seas; vessels which were stateless on the high seas, and foreign-registered vessels within the 12-mile coastal limit of the United States as well as on the high seas.
Because of the parallel historical evolution of 14 U. S. C. §89(a) and 19 U. S. C. §1581 (a) and their almost identical wording, the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in U. S. v. Villamonte- Marquez finding 19 U. S. C. § 1581 (a) constitutional is equally applicable to the constitutionality of 14 U. S. C. §89(a).
The Supreme Court decision, however, may not totally lay to rest the nighttime restriction of Piner within the Ninth Circuit. This is because the U. S. v. Vil- lamonte-Marquez decision of the Supreme Court on its facts was applicable to a midday rather than to a nighttime boarding. Since the Ninth Circuit is the only Circuit Court restricting the application of 14 U. S. C. §89(a) to daytime operations and the Supreme Court did not differentiate as to the time of day when the boarding occurred, it should be predictable that the Supreme Court would not differentiate between a nighttime stopping and boarding and a daytime stopping and boarding; the decision of Piner would founder if presented to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision of 17 June 1983 in U. S. v. Villamonte-Mar- quez has both a primary and a secondary effect. The primary effect is to hold that a suspicionless stopping, boarding, and document inspection of vessels pursuant to 19 U. S. C. § 1581(a) is a reasonable and justifiable intrusion into the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The legal result of finding the stopping, boarding, and document checking reasonable intrusions into the Fourth Amendment is the determination of the constitutionality of 19 U. S. C. § 1581 (a) which authorizes these actions.
The secondary effect of the court’s decision is the oblique finding that 14 U. S. C. §89(a) authorizing Coast Guard officers to stop, board, and inspect a vessel’s documents is constitutional. Everything said by the court about 19 U. S. C. §1581(a) for customs officers and their governmental roles is equally true of 14 U. S. C. §89(a) for Coast Guard officers and their governmental functions. Both statutes serve the same purposes for document inspection. Their language is virtually identical. Their legislative histories coincide. One intrudes no more upon the Fourth Amendment than does the other. They are inextricable. The Supreme Court’s holding 19 U. S. C. §1581(a) to be constitutional is a determination that 14 U. S. C. §89(a) is coequally constitutional. The “SQ 3” signal is compatible with the constitution.
‘Case No. 81-1350.
2U. S. v. Warren (1978, CA5 Fla.), 578 F.2d 1058. 3U. S. v. Cortes (1979, CA5 Fla.), 588 F.2d 106. 4V■ S v. Williams (1980, CAS), 617 F.2d 1063. 5U. S. v. Piner (1979, CA9 Cal.), 608 F.2d 358.
Mr. Whipple received a bachelor of arts degree from Grinnel College in 1960 and a law degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1963. He was a U. S. Coast Guard Auxiliary legal officer, 9th District, Western Region. He is cunently a member of the law firm of Whipple & Southwell in Wisconsin.