This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 HANOI 000713 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR PM, EAP/BCLTV, EAP/RSP 
 
DOD FOR DASD JJENNINGS AND OSD/ISA LSTERN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: MARR PREL KPOW VM
SUBJECT:  SALVAGE TALKS IN HCMC - NO U.S. SHIP, BUT PROGRESS 
NONETHELESS 
 
REF: HANOI 700 
 
¶1.  Summary.  In expert-level U.S.-Vietnam talks regarding 
options for underwater recovery of Vietnam War-era MIAs, the 
GVN agreed "in principle" to U.S. technical suggestions, but 
stressed that underwater search and recovery operations 
would continue to be carried out on Vietnamese vessels only. 
The U.S. presented detailed plans for survey and recovery 
and multiple courses of action covering various 
contingencies.  The Vietnamese side offered access to 
Vietnamese ships and equipment and suggested alternatives to 
allow recovery efforts to go forward without falling afoul 
of Vietnamese concerns about U.S. military operations in 
Vietnamese waters.  End summary. 
 
Working group meeting 3-5 March 2004 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶2.  A working group composed of GVN and U.S. DOD officials 
met March 3-5 to discuss options for the future conduct of 
underwater operations for recovery of U.S. Vietnam War-era 
MIA personnel.  The teams were composed of the following 
personnel: 
 
U.S. delegation: 
Mr. Mel Richmond, DPMO, policy advisor; 
LTC Phuong Pierson, DPMO; 
MAJ Tuan Ton, PACOM; 
Mr. Joel Patterson, JPAC; 
Mr. Rich Wills, JPAC; 
Mr. Richard Hites, JPAC; 
CDR Steve Kennedy, PACFLT; 
CDR Babette Bush, MDSU 1; 
Master Chief Bill Crider, MDSU 1; 
Mr. Gary Flanagan, Detachment 2, JPAC; 
Mr. Tom Cuff, Navy Oceanographic Office; 
MAJ Robb Etnyre, DAO Hanoi; 
Mr. Marc Forino, political officer, U.S. Consulate HCMC. 
 
Vietnamese delegation: 
Mr. Pham Van Que, Director, VNOSMP; 
Sr. Col Vuong Xuan Mau, MOD Deputy, VNOSMP; 
Mr. Pham Dung, Deputy, Ministry of Public Security, VNOSMP; 
Mr. Doan Van Ban, Specialist; 
Sr. Captain Nguyen Van Tuyen, SRV Navy Deputy Chief of 
Staff; 
Captain Vu Ngoc Tuyen, 125th Brigade Commander; 
Captain Ngo Van Dong, SRV Navy International Affairs 
Officer; 
Captain Tran Nam Long, SRV Navy political officer; 
Captain Han Tri Binh, 125th Brigade technical director; 
Captain Hiep, Titan ship captain. 
 
¶3.  Mr. Richmond reviewed U.S. policy on the full accounting 
of U.S. personnel missing in action in Vietnam, then began 
the discussion of the USG desire to conduct underwater 
recovery operations.  The working group reviewed ideas to 
identify mutually acceptable courses of action to locate and 
recover identifiable remains of Americans offshore. 
Richmond stated the U.S. policy goal was to "efficiently and 
accurately locate off-shore loss sites and recover 
identifiable remains while ensuring the safety of team 
personnel, American and Vietnamese alike." 
 
JPAC presentation on underwater losses 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  JPAC representatives reviewed the current situation and 
past activities related to underwater losses and operations. 
According to JPAC, the United States suffered 444 losses 
underwater as a result of the war in Vietnam.  Of these 
losses, 382 are classified "non recoverable", with 62 cases 
having the potential for recovery.  Of these 62 cases the 
USG has preliminary location data on 7 cases. To date, there 
have been 7 joint underwater activities (aka "Joint Field 
Activities" or JFA) in the SRV, as follows: 
 
- 33rd JFA (1995):  investigation 
- 35th JFA (1995):  investigation 
- 49th JFA (1998):  investigation 
- 55th JFA (1999):  recovery 
- 66th JFA (2001):  investigation 
- 69th JFA (2002):  recovery 
- 70th JFA (2002):  combined investigation and recovery 
 
JPAC briefed the working group in detail on past 
investigation and recovery operations, including lessons 
learned from each activity.  JPAC stated that strategies, 
methods, teams, equipment, and vessels must be tailored to 
best fit each particular case, and each separate phase of 
activity required by a particular case.  Investigations are 
much more complicated in water than on land, JPAC noted. 
More complex tools are often required, specifically, 
navigation, positioning, and the recording of large amounts 
of electronic data.  Areas considered to possibly contain 
sites are often quite large.  An additional, intermediate 
step between search and recovery is often necessary, the 
JPAC team stated. 
 
¶5.  According to JPAC, it is best if search, survey, and 
recovery operations are conducted in order.  However, the 
search and survey phases can be combined, and a survey phase 
that transitions into a recovery phase can also be 
effective.  What often leads to difficulty, JPAC noted, is 
the transition between finding a site, and beginning 
recovery, without fully surveying it.  A survey phase is 
frequently more important on underwater sites than on land 
sites.  Typically, search and survey are both considered 
part of the investigative process, JPAC stated. 
 
¶6.  JPAC emphasized that for joint underwater operations in 
the near future, search (defined as looking for possible 
sites in specific areas defined by analysis) and survey 
(investigating and evaluating possible sites located during 
a search) operations must be emphasized over recovery 
operations.  It would be necessary to develop better 
information on more sites in order to have some flexibility 
of choice in selecting sites for recovery, JPAC said.  The 
flexibility is important because sites vary in terms of the 
weather, the logistical challenges of working them, and the 
resources available to dedicate to them at a specific time. 
Currently, JPAC has this flexibility on land because they 
have multiple land sites to choose from when planning an 
action.  Presently, this is not the case with underwater 
sites, they noted. 
 
¶7.  JPAC also noted that excluding areas from further search 
- demonstrating that an area was searched and found to be 
empty - was an important result of search and survey efforts 
that yielded negative results. 
 
¶8.  Search areas must be selected using a combination of 
witness information, historical SRV military records, and 
U.S. historical loss information, JPAC added.  JPAC 
acknowledged the essential role of the VNOSMP's unilateral 
investigations in identifying Vietnamese witnesses, which 
had resulted in the location of underwater sites.  These 
witnesses were often the best sources of information, JPAC 
stated. 
 
¶9.  JPAC concluded their presentation by again suggesting 
that any underwater operation include a three phase 
operation to ensure mission accomplishment and scientific 
process integrity:  Phase I - area search; Phase II - site 
survey; Phase III - site recovery.  The following planning 
factors were also presented: 
- Due to the unique nature of each site, courses of action 
will require refinement. 
- Some sites' proximity to local fisheries may make search 
and survey difficult due to potential risks to 
divers/equipment. 
- Search area size will be defined based on each unique site 
in order to maximize effort. 
- Operations 45-60 days in length would optimize search 
efforts and assets. 
- The search and survey phases of operations could be 
combined to facilitate designation of reliable recovery 
sites at the time of discovery. 
 
JPAC Search and Survey Proposals 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  JPAC proposed three search and survey courses of action 
(COA). 
 
COA 1.  Utilize a T-AGS 60, USNS survey vessel to perform 
detailed search and survey with multi-beam depth sounders, 
sidescan sonar, and magnetometers.  Analyze data onsite for 
diver same/next day investigation. 
 
Advantages: 
-  SRV obtains high resolution hydrographic data sets 
-  unique opportunity for onboard SRV hydrographers 
-  onboard survey launches, sensor suite, & onboard 
processing 
-  onboard recompression chamber 
-  onboard accommodations for all personnel (including 
Vietnamese) 
-  pre-survey port visit provides opportunity to coordinate 
& familiarize SRV hydrographers with ship's capabilities. 
 
COA 2.  Use a Vietnamese vessel for U.S. Fleet survey team 
and divers to perform a detailed search and survey with 
remote sidescan sonars, and magnetometers.  Analyze data 
onsite for diver same / next day investigation. 
Advantages: 
-  remote sensor suite (sidescan sonars & magnetometers) 
-  SRV obtains high resolution hydrographic data sets of 
sites. 
Issues: 
-  no onboard recompression chamber 
-  no onboard accommodations, requiring additional transit 
time for all personnel 
-  unable to survey a large area for future use by SRV 
hydrographers. 
 
COA 3.  Contract several small Vietnamese boats for U.S. 
Fleet survey team and divers to perform a limited search and 
survey of only a few sites with remote sidescan sonars, and 
magnetometers.  Analyze data onsite for diver same / next 
day investigation. 
Advantages: 
-  remote sensor suite (sidescan sonars & magnetometers) 
-  small footprint of equipment / boats required 
Issues: 
-  no onboard recompression chamber 
-  no onboard accommodations requiring additional transit 
time 
-  greatly limits size of areas that can be searched 
-  quality of hydrographic survey data of little use to SRV. 
 
Proposed Recovery Operations COAs 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  JPAC proposed three recovery COAs. 
 
COA 1.  Utilize a U.S. Navy salvage ship (ARS vessel) to 
conduct a recovery of previously designated sites, including 
heavy sediment removal and wreckage lifting. 
 
Advantages: 
-  modern, deep-sea diving system (190ft on air/300ft on 
mixed gas) 
-  heavy sediment removal / lifting capacity (40 tons) 
-  onboard recompression chamber 
-  onboard accommodations for U.S. / Vietnamese personnel 
-  pre-recovery port visit provides opportunity for closer 
coordination. 
 
COA 2.  Utilize a Vietnamese salvage vessel to conduct 
recovery operations at previously designated sites, 
including heavy sediment removal and possible wreckage 
lifting. 
Advantages: 
-  may provide heavy sediment removal / heavy lift 
-  may provide onboard recompression chamber 
Issues: 
-  no onboard accommodations, requiring additional transit 
time for personnel 
-  may limit lifting capability. 
 
COA 3.  Utilize a U.S. ARS vessel and a Vietnamese salvage 
vessel to conduct side-by-side recovery operations of 
previously designated sites, including heavy sediment 
removal and wreckage lifting. 
Advantages: 
-  modern, deep-sea diving system (190ft on air/300ft on 
mixed gas) 
-  heavy sediment removal/lifting capacity (40 tons) 
-  onboard recompression chamber 
-  onboard accommodations for U.S./ Vietnamese personnel 
-  SRV port visit/tour opportunity 
-  unique opportunity for both teams to conduct recovery 
operations. 
Issues: 
-  requires SRV approval for U.S. vessel 
-  will require increased planning and cooperation. 
 
¶12.  The Defense POW/MIA Office (DPMO) senior policy advisor 
concluded the USG presentations during the working group by 
stating that the preferred future course of action in 
underwater recovery was to employ U.S. and Vietnamese 
recovery vessels jointly (side-by-side) to locate and 
excavate underwater loss sites.  He proposed both sides 
share information and techniques for conducting underwater 
recovery operations, and invited six Vietnamese experts to 
visit Hawaii in the April - May 2004 timeframe to tour U.S. 
facilities and recovery vessels at the invitation of Admiral 
Fargo, Commander, Pacific Command. 
 
SRV presentation: 
----------------- 
 
¶13.  After discussing the USG information on past underwater 
recoveries in Vietnam, methodology on how to properly 
conduct underwater operations, and proposed courses of 
action for future operations in this area, the Vietnamese 
made their presentation.  First, the Vietnamese Navy team 
presented the detailed characteristics of three of their 
ships, which could be made available for future underwater 
operations:  Titan, HQ957, and HQ958.  Two of these ships, 
Titan, and HQ957 were made available for the entire working 
group to precisely assess the vessels' capabilities, 
equipment, and personnel, and to identify areas for 
necessary equipment augmentation to successfully conduct 
underwater recoveries.  (Note: USG officials had previously 
toured both these vessels in detail in 2003. End Note.)  The 
initial assessment was that both Titan and HQ957 were 
capable of basic salvage operations but search and survey 
operations could be more difficult.  Separate reports, 
prepared by salvage and dive experts from Mobile Dive and 
Salvage Unit 1 (MDSU), PACFLT, on the capabilities of these 
two vessels to support search, survey, and recovery 
operations will follow septel. 
 
¶14.  Following the detailed presentation on the SRV vessels, 
VNOSMP Director Que presented the GVN position with regard 
to the future conduct of underwater search, survey and 
recovery operations.  Que declared the meeting "informative 
and helpful" and said it would assist the GVN in 
understanding USG future planning for operations in this 
area.  Que added the review of past lessons learned and 
equipment and installation requirements were "very good for 
GVN officers to understand for future operations."  Que said 
he agreed "in principle" with the ideas the U.S. side 
presented, specifically, the three phases of operations. 
Que agreed to receive supplemental equipment and resources 
from the U.S. and noted the SRV Navy was ready to work on 
training and procedural details to increase their capacity 
and make future underwater operations more successful.  Que 
noted that the U.S. request to expand the maximum time 
window for specific underwater activities to 45-60 days 
would be possible on a case-by-case basis. 
 
¶15.  Regarding using a U.S.-flagged vessel for underwater 
operations, Que stated that both sides should "pay attention 
to security limitations and operations in security 
corridors".  Que stated the GVN agreed to use a SRV vessel 
that is compatible with the types of operations to be 
conducted and which is also compatible with the necessary 
U.S. equipment.  He added he understood the desire of U.S. 
families of MIAs to use a U.S.-flagged vessel.  However, as 
mentioned in a previous meeting between Deputy Prime Minster 
Nguyen Tan Dung and U.S.  Congressman Mac Collins (reftel), 
the GVN could only use a SRV vessel in these recovery 
efforts.  Que noted that DPM Dung agreed to use U.S. 
equipment on a SRV vessel.  Mr. Que also promised SRV would 
provide better weather data for future operations along with 
providing an appropriate SRV vessel for each underwater 
operation. 
 
¶16.  Noting past USG concerns about SRV vessels' mooring 
capabilities and decompression facilities, Que state that 
the GVN "would find a way to work through these problems, 
and find a way to work a multi-point mooring".  He stated it 
was possible that past SRV preparations were "not adequate 
in this area," but he was confident the SRV Navy could 
achieve success in future operations.  Additionally, Que 
pledged the SRV Navy would provide a decompression chamber 
on shore or on a SRV vessel as necessary to support future 
underwater operations.  Que asked if the U.S. could make 
"more specific" requests in the future with regard to 
equipment and underwater recovery operations.  Que also 
invited CDR Bush from PACFLT, a dive and salvage expert 
attending the working group, to return this summer to again 
tour and assess both the Titan and HQ957 while underway at 
sea.  Que offered the final suggestion that if the U.S. was 
set on a U.S ship for use in recovery operations, the USG 
might consider providing a ship to the SRV for this sole 
purpose. 
 
¶17.  Comment: The GVN's willingness to cooperate in 
underwater recoveries was clear from the tone of the 
discussions.  The GVN appears willing to make all necessary 
resources available, and allow U.S. equipment to be used to 
support joint underwater recoveries.  The use of a U.S.- 
flagged ship either in search, survey, or recovery continues 
to be unacceptable to the GVN.  The next step in the process 
is for six members of the GVN to visit USPACOM in Hawaii to 
tour (April - May 2004) U.S. facilities and survey/salvage 
vessels. 
BURGHARDT