LETTERS

Sea Power, Aug 2005

Transponder Tracking For Cargo Ships

I just received the July 2005 issue featuring "Tracking Cargo Ships." I wonder why we can't insist that any ship wanting access to any U.S. port (or cooperating country) be equipped with a transponder continuously transmitting an identification signal specific to that vessel? The transponder [would] be manufactured and programmed in the U.S. and sealed with built-in self-destruct if opened or removed from the vessel assigned.

Any vessel not transmitting from a recognized transponder would be considered a threat and, if within 100 miles of any U.S. port (or cooperating country or countries that represent national security concerns), subject to inspection or attack, depending upon the response when hailed.

This would provide real-time tracking and, together with other intelligence sources, focus resources on identified potential threats. This would also allow focusing on those ships that elected not to install the transponders as higher than normal areas of concern.

I would think this would be cheaper than trying to monitor all ships under the current methods. We should also share this real-time tracking with cooperating countries.

James M. Grosser

Received via e-mail

Make Use of Existing Tracking Technologies

The question you posed, "Where are the 121,000 merchant vessels?" ("Editor's Note," July issue) reminded me of a paper I wrote in 1969 about using merchant vessels as weapons against our carriers. Your 121,000 number is only those vessels over 300 tons. 1 would offer to you that less than a 100-ton ship can hit and blow up an aircraft carrier to make it useless for months.

However, technology and events since 9/11 are in our favor. First, there are container and cargo tracking devices being installed. Most vessels are equipped with GPS (the Global Positioning System). Many vessels are tracked by [their] owners already. Under existing international agreements, all can be ordered to have GPS locator tracking devices installed.

Finally, the technology to track all the cargoes, containers and ships already exists and is in use. The technology is called Mitopia [a system designed by Mito Systems Inc. of Santa Monica, Calif., to provide an integrated infrastructure for weaving together the "threads" of intelligence data from disparate sources].

In the same issue of Seapower was an article by David Munns, "121,000 Tracks," where he wrote about using old and new technologies that are very expensive to track ships and containers.

By using the Mitopia system with other existing systems, including the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology retailers are demanding of manufacturers, the job just got much simpler and can be implemented in stages as RFID expands.

The bottom line is we do not need new expensive programs and technologies. Almost all the pieces are already available. All we have to do is use them.

Richard McPherson

USN (Ret.)

Laguna Nigud, Calif.

Naval Reserve Name Change Is a Disservice

A recent top-down, stovepipe initiative ram-rodded the name change "Naval Reserve" to "Navy Reserve." This despite the fact that the old name has been doing well for nearly 100 years.

Naval Reservists are in the Navy only when under orders and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This name change will do nothing to improve readiness of our citizen sailor Naval Reservists who have a long history of recall/enlistment to meet wartime and contingency needs.

Why change the name of a longstanding force that was authorized by Congress in 1915 and is deeply ingrained in American society? Naval Reservists have proven their performance to the regular Navy many times, often outperforming their regular Navy counterparts.

Congress has funded personnel, equipment and material to support the part-time "citizen sailor." The name change will allow the regular Navy to more easily misappropriate equipment/material specifically bought for the Naval Reserve out of Congressionally mandated funds with specific language for Naval Reserve use; or with Guard and Reserve funds.

Changing the name from Naval Reserve is a disservice to Naval Reservists, past and present. Moreover, it will serve no useful purpose and create an enormous amount of unnecessary paperwork.

Is this name change possibly the beginning of the decimation of the Naval Reserve? With the planned disestablishment of Naval Reserve hardware units and a severe reduction of Naval Reserve strength, an elimination of the Naval Reserve appears to be the only logical result of this ill-timed initiative.

Doyle Quisenberry

USN (Ret.)

Virginia Beach, Va.

Send letters to:

Seapower Magazine

2300 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201-3308

E-mail: seapowermail@navyleague.org

Letters may be edited for space. Letters must include the author's name, home city and state.