1 :: 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: 5 :: 6 :: more photos

	A U.S. Sailor from the guided missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) leads his boarding team aboard the Australian Navy ship HMAS Success (AOR 304) in search of contraband. The HMAS Success was acting as a merchant vessel during a visit, board, search, and seizure exercise. Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence photo by Royal Australian Navy ABPH Brenton Freind
	A Canadian Navy boarding team poses for a photo aboard the Canadian Navy support ship HMCS Protecteur (AOR 509). Canadian Department of National Defence photo by Canadian Air Force Cpl. Joseph Morin
	A U.S. Navy F/A-18C Hornet launches from the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) on an exercise mission. Photo by PH3 Mark J. Rebilas, USN
	A Republic of Korea helicopter lands on the nuclear aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) during RIMPAC. Photo by PHAN Ron Reeves, USN
	Canadian Navy coastal defence vessel HMCS Brandon (MCDV 710) heads out to sea to participate in RIMPAC 2004. Photo by PH1 David A. Levy, USN

Anti-Submarine Warfare
Huddled behind an array of computer screens, sailors operated the U.S. Navy’s Submarine Pacific White Cell, monitoring not only the roughly 40 ships and 100 aircraft participating in the exercise, but also the activity of seven multinational and bilateral submarines. “The White Cell provided primary oversight for all submarine employment in RIMPAC 2004, resolving submarine employment issues between the specific naval communities — surface and air,” said U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Lawrence Lintz.

Four diesel-powered submarines — one each from Australia, Chile, Japan, ROK — and three nuclear-powered U.S. submarines operated close to surface ships from their nations. The White Cell orchestrated safe operations for the seven submarines by separating them geographically via different grids in the battle space, or by sharing “mutual water” with one submarine operating deeper than the other.

The White Cell sends and receives thousands of messages while tracking all responsible parties above, on, and below the sea. “The biggest thing in any exercise is communication — it’s paramount,” said Lt. Cmdr. Lintz. “The better we can communicate . . . speeds up the process of working in the real world.”

Coalition submarine liaison officers in the White Cell coordinated efforts between Australian, Chilean, ROK, Japanese, and U.S. forces. “We’re a team,” said Cmdr. Felipe Parga, the Chilean Navy Submarine Advisor. “One must never forget we train [for interoperability] in the real world. That’s what we’re building — the ability to work together in a real-world scenario if we need to.”

Aboard the Chilean submarine SS Simpson (SS 21) was U.S. Navy Cmdr. Angus McColl, who served as the U.S. liaison officer. “I worked with the Chileans in 2001 on the SS Thomson and really enjoyed it,” said Cmdr. McColl, referring to his three weeks aboard the Chilean Navy submarine. “Working on the Simpson gives me a chance to work on a diesel submarine, which is not an opportunity readily available in the U.S. Navy. I find it fascinating to see how [the Chilean Navy] conducts submarine warfare,” he said. “The crew is very professional and dedicated. There are incredible professionals in the Chilean Navy, and we benefit from that exchange.”

“ We train as we fight,” said Australian Navy Lt. Cmdr. Dave Tietzel. This involved synchronizing attacks on various country Orange assets, including sea, air, and land attacks at targets on several islands, as well as on and below the Pacific Ocean. He added that the simulated undersea battles against the quiet, slow, and hard-to-find diesel submarines are vital, since many nations do not have nuclear submarine technology. Coalition submarines successfully eliminated the danger from country Orange submarines.

Live-Fire Exercises
Off the Hawaiian coast, ROK, Canadian, and U.S. ships conducted live-fire exercises. ROK guided missile destroyers ROKS Chungmugong Yi Sunshin (DDG 975) and ROKS Euljimundok (DDG 972) worked with the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) in a scenario involving an unmanned, remote-controlled target drone (BMQ-74E). The drone flew a hostile-attack pattern simulating an enemy missile attack on the USS Stennis, which launched missiles that successfully engaged the target.

“ The BMQ-74E flew by once for a tracking exercise,” said U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Shawn Dominguez. “On the second pass, we engaged the target by firing two telemetry missiles.” The missiles return a reading of how close to the drone they pass without hitting and destroying the reusable drone. If the drone enters the missile’s blast radius, it is a hit.

U.S. Navy Operations Specialist First Class (OS1) Surface Warfare (SW) Westly Plount worked closely with the ship’s target acquisition systems operator to track and engage the target. According to OS1(SW) Plount, all initial reports indicated that if it had been an actual-live missile, the warhead would have destroyed the target. “We were tracking the contact when at about 40 miles (64 kilometers) out, the drone dove to 50 feet (15 meters) above the water and began an intercept course with the ship,” he said. “When the order was given to shoot it down, we launched two missiles.”

OS1(SW) Plount noted that combined exercises are vital in today’s global arena. “We don’t fight wars alone anymore. It’s important for us to work with our allies, coalition partners, and friends to learn each other’s capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses,” he said. “The more we operate with them in practice, the better we will all be in the event of an actual crisis.”

During the live-fire exercises, HMCS Regina (FFH 334) recorded successful torpedo engagements, and HMCS Algonquin (DDG 283) successfully engaged a drone with a Standard Missile.- From his flagship, HMCS Algonquin, Commodore Girouard was responsible for all aspects of the seagoing response to the conflict, including maritime interdiction operations, keeping international sea-lanes open, and protecting the coalition force aircraft carrier, troop carrier, and supply ships from attack.

<< back      next >>