The USN's future? [Archive] - Page 2

buglerbilly

11-10-11, 04:15 PM

Lockheed Starts SDD Testing On Canes Bid

Oct 11, 2011

By Michael Fabey

Lockheed Martin recently started informal system development and demonstration testing for the U.S. Navy’s proposed Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (Canes) program, and is on track for formal tests later this month to complete the SDD contract by December, the company says.

Canes is designed to consolidate and enhance five shipboard legacy network programs, providing the common computing environment for command, control, communications, computers and intelligence applications now controlled by several existing systems. The primary goal of the Canes program, the Navy says, is to build a secure shipboard network required for naval and joint operations.

Lockheed Martin is battling with Northrop Grumman to win the program, which could yield contracts worth about $1.7 billion to develop a consolidated communications network to connect more than 190 ships, submarines and maritime operations centers over the next 10 years. Lockheed Martin submitted its proposal last month, with the Navy looking to begin deployments on select ships in early 2012.

“This will accommodate all surface combatants in the Navy,” says Joe Villani, vice president of Canes for Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems & Sensors business in Moorestown, N.J. “The Navy wants to replace the existing system,” Villani says, “but stay within the footprints of those systems.”

His company’s proposal, Villani says, features a modular and scalable system leveraging commercial-off-the-shelf technology that will help the Navy in its quest to upgrade its systems and aging equipment.

The Canes program received Milestone B approval in January, beginning the program’s engineering and manufacturing development phase, and “green-lighting” the production of four limited-fielding units. Those units are for operational and training use, and will not be installed after the operational assessment and Milestone C approval, the Navy says.

The Navy plans to start fleet deployments with Canes next year on two engineering development model installations, followed by limited-deployment installations later in 2012 on force-level ships, shore sites and additional vessels.

The Navy touts Canes as an example of the “better buying power” initiative started recently by the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. The effort directs the services to target affordability and control cost growth, incentivize productivity and innovation in industry, promote real competition, improve tradecraft in services acquisition, and reduce nonproductive processes and bureaucracy.

Photo: DoD

buglerbilly

11-10-11, 04:55 PM

Austal Commences Fabrication of third Joint High Speed Vessel

Artist's impression of the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). (Image: Austal)

10:44 GMT, October 11, 2011 Austal’s US shipyard has celebrated the official start of fabrication for the third Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV 3), one of seven Austal-designed 103 metre US Navy Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) under contract with the US Department of Defense.

“The race is on,” said Austal USA President and Chief Operating Officer, Joe Rella. “The world is about to learn just how much value Austal’s investments in modular ship fabrication offers our Navy and Military Sealift Command customers. We challenge ourselves every day to build each ship faster and more efficiently than the one before.”

By the time the first Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1), was Christened on September 17, 2011, the first of over 40 modules of JHSV 2, had moved from Austal’s Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF) to the final assembly bay, where the ship will take shape.

Austal was selected as prime contractor in November 2008 to design and build the first JHSV, with options for nine additional vessels expected to be exercised between FY09 and FY13 as part of a program potentially worth over US$1.6 billion. Six of those options have already been exercised.

First District Congressman Jo Bonner (R-AL) commemorated the official start of fabrication for JHSV 3.

“Austal and Mobile are becoming synonymous for high speed defence on the water,” said Congressman Bonner.

“By supporting this facility, we are not only bolstering employment here at home, we are investing in security. The facility and workforce here are ramping up and ready to help the Navy and Marine Corps meet the naval challenges of tomorrow. Austal’s shipyard is certainly one of a kind. Their state-of-the-art modular manufacturing process represents a new more efficient direction in Navy shipbuilding, and it’s exciting to see these amazing vessels transition from start to finish, right here, in Mobile, Alabama.”

As the US Department of Defense’s next generation multi-use platform, the 103-metre JHSV will provide rapid intra-theater deployment/transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies. The vessel will support military logistics, sustainment and humanitarian relief operations at speeds of up to 43 knots. The JHSV will transport medium-size operational units with their vehicles, or reconfigure to provide troop transport for an infantry battalion, allowing units to transit long distances while maintaining unit integrity. The vessel also supports helicopter operations and has a slewing vehicle ramp on the starboard quarter which enables use of austere piers and quay walls, common in developing countries. A shallow draft (under 4 metres) will further enhance theater port access.

JHSV 3 is the fourth naval vessel to be constructed at Austal using the new procedures and processes developed in conjunction with Austal’s Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF). The MMF provides Austal with assembly line efficiency, which has resulted in significant cost savings and reduced lead times for both its US Navy programs.

Austal is also currently preparing to launch a second Independence-variant 127-metre Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class vessel for the US Navy, Coronado (LCS 4). USS Independence (LCS 2) is currently being put through trials by her crew. As prime contractor for the next LCS 10-ship contract, awarded by the US Navy at the end of 2010, Austal has also begun work on the first ship of that contract, Jackson (LCS 6), with Montgomery (LCS 8) under contract.

For the LCS and JHSV programs, Austal is the prime contractor and teamed with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics. As the ship systems integrator, General Dynamics is responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship’s electronic systems including the combat system, networks, and seaframe control. General Dynamics’ proven open architecture approach provides affordable capabilities to the fleet quickly and efficiently.

With the 13-year anniversary of its US shipbuilding operations approaching, Austal has grown into one of Southern Alabama’s largest employers with over 2,300 employees on staff hailing from the Mobile area, Mississippi, Florida, and beyond. Under the current workload, Austal expects to employ over 4,000 Americans by the end of 2013, and will be ready to help the US Navy meet any national security contingency ahead.

Further reflecting Austal’s position as an emerging global defence prime contractor, the company was recently awarded a contract for the design, construction and through-life support of eight new patrol boats for the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Austal will build the fleet of Cape Class Patrol Boats at its shipyard in Henderson, Western Australia. Construction of the first vessel is expected to commence in February 2012, with all eight due to be delivered between March 2013 and August 2015. The In-Service Support contract extends for a minimum period of eight years and encompasses a full range of intermediate and depot level maintenance activities.

Austal has also used the capabilities of its Systems division to bid for a maritime communications modernisation program for the Royal Australian Navy’s eight ANZAC Class Frigates.

buglerbilly

15-10-11, 03:37 AM

Navy Delays Carrier, Cuts Cruisers, Amphibs In Draft Budget

By Carlo Munoz

Published: October 14, 2011

Washington: Just as the Navy is planning to take on a larger strategic role in regional hot spots around the world, the service is considering massive fleet reductions -- including a two-year delay on its new aircraft carrier -- as part of its upcoming budget plan.

The Navy may cut nine cruisers and three amphibious ships as part of its soon-to-be released budget blueprint covering the next five fiscal years, sources say.

The Navy plans to deactivate four cruisers from the fleet in fiscal year 2013, with another five cruisers coming out of the fleet the next year, according to a preliminary version of the spending plan. The three amphibious landing ships will be deactivated along with the five cruisers.

The Navy is also considering changing its original strategy of buying one aircraft carrier every five years. It would instead buy one carrier every seven years.

Under the five year plan, the service would have bought its first carrier in fiscal 2013. With the new seven-year plan, that first purchase will take place in fiscal 2015. The Navy is essentially buying time to find a way to pay for those new carriers, according to sources familiar with Navy deliberations. The service's 11-carrier group force would not shrink within the seven-year plan, sources say.

But the carrier fleet could well begin to shrink as a result of the plan. The soonest the carrier fleet would begin shrinking is 2025.

The situation is not that simple. The Navy is also considering retiring the USS George Washington, which would drop the total carrier force down to 10 groups in fiscal 2016. That would save the Navy from having to pay for that ship and its associated fighter wing almost immediately.

Former Navy Chief of Operations Adm. Gary Roughead laid the groundwork for that plan, when he reorganized parts of the carrier fleet in August.

The ship cuts and carrier delays outlined in the draft budget plan are far from final, as the White House and Capitol Hill continue to debate future defense spending levels.

But if these reductions do make it into the Navy's final spending plan, the sea service may find itself at a disadvantage just as it is preparing to take on a larger strategic role in the world.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, the Pentagon is beginning to shift focus from Southwest Asia to the Western Pacific. U.S. military leaders are already looking to the Navy and the Air Force to shoulder the brunt of those future operations. Some on the Hill and inside the Pentagon are already questioning whether the Navy is up to that larger role.

These cuts will not be an easy set of decisions to ram through Capitol Hill. Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has already pledged to increase the shipbuilding budget if he is president, reflecting deepening unease among Republicans over a worrying combination of lowered readiness rates and a slowly shrinking Navy. And the Marines, who would lose those three amphibious ships, are a formidable presence on the Hill. In fact, the Marines recently created a special task force to push for more amphibious ships. They and their friends in mufti are unlikely to sit idly by while the service loses ships.

buglerbilly

16-10-11, 02:40 AM

Subs would serve attack, guided-missile functions

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer

Posted : Saturday Oct 15, 2011 8:51:05 EDT

Lt. Ed Early / Navy
With money tight and resources increasingly stretched thin, the submarine force continues to consider a merger of the attack and guided-missile concepts, an option that would retain the impressive missile-carrying and special operations abilities of the four guided-missile submarines, which include Michigan, shown above.

In only eight years, the Navy will need to begin building a new class of ballistic-missile submarines. Not long after that, in the mid-2020s, a new attack submarine class is scheduled to be developed. And by the back half of the 2020s, the fleet’s four guided-missile submarines will be worn out and need replacement — and with them will go nearly two-thirds of the sub fleet’s cruise-missile tubes.

With money tight and resources increasingly stretched thin, the submarine force continues to consider a merger of the attack and guided-missile concepts, an option that would retain the impressive missile-carrying and special operations abilities of the four SSGNs, only spread out over as many as 20 new attack subs.

According to a briefing from the Navy’s Submarine Warfare Division, or N87, “this design option has been technically studied and is feasible.”

The idea would be to insert a new hull section with large missile tubes into the existing Virginia-class design. The exact number of missile tubes has yet to be agreed on, although most studies indicate four tubes would be optimal. The new section would be about 94 feet long and increase the length of the submarines, which today stretch 377 feet, by about 25 percent.

Two of the tubes, known as Virginia Payload Tubes, are being installed in the bows of Block III Virginia-class submarines, beginning with North Dakota, which is under construction. The bow VPTs are able to carry six Tomahawk cruise missiles apiece and replace 12 single-tube missile launchers of the original design. Although the VPTs are able to carry a larger variety of payloads, including vehicles and other gear, the bow location prevents dry access when the sub is submerged.

The new hull section, known as the Virginia Payload Module, would feature four in-line, 87-inch-diameter missile tubes able to carry a range of payloads, from Tomahawks — seven apiece, for a total of 28 — to other items that could be floated out. The VPM tubes are configured with access hatches and connectors to enable their use by special operations forces.

The concept continues to be studied and refined by the submarine force and its submarine builders, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News.

With the VPM, the resulting total of 40 cruise missiles per stretched submarine would not equal the 154-missile payload of the SSGNs, but, if carried out over 20 submarines representing Blocks 5, 6 and 7, the new submarines would make up much of the missile capacity of the four SSGNs.

The 10 Block 5 submarines that are being considered for the VPM begin with the SSNs to be funded in 2019. Block 6, beginning in 2024, and Block 7, beginning in 2029, would each contain five boats, a limit set by Congress.

N87 estimates the VPM would add $400 million to $500 million to the roughly $2.6 billion cost of each new submarine.

“This may seem like a lot of money,” N87’s briefing said about the increase, “until you consider that you can stretch ten Virginias for the cost of one new SSGN.”

A decision on whether to incorporate the stretch into the Block 5 submarines and delay a new attack submarine until 2034 rests first with Navy leaders.

“It needs to be a decision by the chief of naval operations as to what the [revised] 30-year shipbuilding plan will look like,” said John Padgett, a retired rear admiral who heads the Naval Submarine League.

To complete the change, the Navy would need to make a business and operational case for the redesign. The Pentagon would then need to approve the cost changes, and ultimately Congress would decide whether to go forward.

If the first stretched submarine is to be ordered in 2019, a decision would have to be made several years in advance to allow time for redesign work.

The stretched Virginias represent a solution to one of the four top priorities listed by the submarine force:

• Develop the Ohio-class replacement.

• Add two attack submarines to the 30-year construction plan to meet a shortfall between available submarines and requirements. The submarines would be added in 2018 and 2023, where current plans call for only one boat.

• Delay the Virginia-class follow-on until after completion of the Ohio replacement program.

• Add the VPM to at least 20 Virginias, a move that would delay the need to begin a follow-on design until at least 2034, or after production of the Ohio replacement.

Expanding payloads

The submarine force also is looking to develop new payloads for its submarines.

N87, which is headed by Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, declined numerous requests for an interview for this story, but according to recent briefings, the force is looking for new or improved payloads to:

• Boost intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance abilities with unmanned, underwater vehicles.

• Provide better decoy devices.

• Develop a defensive anti-air warfare weapon.

• Add “long-reach” weapons.

• Beef up anti-surface warfare capabilities and develop a nonlethal anti-surface warfare weapon.

• Create a new strike torpedo.

• Improve “time-critical strike” weapons that can respond within minutes to an unexpected target.

• Improve special operations forces capabilities.

Submarines with these capabilities, coupled with the wide range of weapons already fielded, “provide operational ambiguity that is difficult to counter,” according to the brief.

“Imagine having to defend against every possible SSN capability because you cannot determine through imagery or observation its payload mix or mission.”

buglerbilly

17-10-11, 04:05 AM

Drone pilots to come from similar platforms

By Joshua Stewart - Staff writer

Posted : Sunday Oct 16, 2011 9:06:08 EDT

MC2 Alan Gragg / Navy
Navy officials said when the service rolls out new unmanned aerial vehicles, aviators and others who have already worked with similar aircraft will be first in line to operate them.

When the Navy rolls out new unmanned aerial vehicles, aviators and others who have already worked with similar aircraft will be first in line to operate the cutting-edge weapons, Navy officials said.

For example, pilots, naval flight officers and maintainers from the P-3 Orion community will operate and maintain the MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAV, since both aircraft are designed primarily for maritime intelligence missions. The MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter will draw from the SH-60 Seahawk community, because the platforms are similar.

Training for unmanned systems will most likely begin after an aviator has completed his first or second tour. The Navy also has discussed but has not made a decision about permitting enlisted to fly unmanned aircraft. So far, a senior chief has flown the Fire Scout during two deployments.

“Ideally, we take them from the SH-60 community and add to them a five-week program, mainly simulator-based,” said Capt. Patrick Smith, program manager for Fire Scout.

It’s a similar training pipeline for Fire Scout maintainers, he said.

Most of the Fire Scout community comes from the SH-60s, Smith said, but there is an NFO with an EA-6B Prowler background who will operate the unmanned helicopter during an upcoming deployment on the frigate Simpson. Additionally, a senior chief who received a private pilot’s license and then completed the five-week UAV course flew the Fire Scout while deployed on the frigates McInerney and Halyburton.

It isn’t certain how many new aviation jobs the Fire Scout would create after becoming fully operational. The numbers get convoluted because Fire Scouts and Seahawks will fly together in composite squadrons, with maintainers and operators working with both types of aircraft at any given time. There may be a few new positions because land-based Fire Scouts are expected to operate without Seahawks alongside them, Lynch said.

Smith said he expects a similar training pipeline for other unmanned systems, but the specific requirements of various platforms may create some differences.

A spokesman for Naval Air Training Command said it does not have a UAV curriculum.

Fire Scout operators receive their training under Naval Air Systems Command in military and private facilities near Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The location will change when Fire Scouts are used across the fleet, Smith said.

Evaluating their aircraft

The Naval Test Pilot School is training aviators to evaluate future UAVs. The school recently introduced a two-week course designed to train aviators to evaluate unmanned systems. Additionally, naval flight officers who complete an 11-month curriculum in airborne systems are prepared to critique new UAVs, said Cmdr. A.C. Lynch, commanding officer of the school.

“There’s no manual for what they’re doing,” Lynch said of the trainees who will troubleshoot the new aircraft.

UAV test pilots have to test aircraft autonomy, what to do when datalinks are lost and other scenarios their manned aircraft brethren don’t need to consider.

“It’s not just the vehicle and the payload anymore,” said Pat Svatek, an instructor and manager for the school’s short courses, including the unmanned systems course.

The novelty of the field makes it difficult to determine the exact number of UAV test pilots needed. Lynch said officials know how long a pilot can spend in a cockpit, but they don’t know how long someone can stay in a control room.

As work continues to put UAVs in the fleet, the test pilot school is including more unmanned systems material into rotary-wing and fixed-wing curriculums, Lynch said.

Unicorn

17-10-11, 09:51 AM

I wonder how long that lasts. From what I hear the demand for drone pilots soon outstrips the available aviators and the services usually ends up training non-aviators to fly them.

.

buglerbilly

17-10-11, 11:08 AM

The thought that came to my mind was similar. I believe the first "rush" of pilots will then be overcome by the second tier of possibly qualified pilots BUT not fast jet..........there isn't any reason for a lot of them, probably the majority, to be fast jet qualified seeing as what they fly are mostly prop-driven............

Some of this, the same "argument" has occured in other airforces/navies, smacks of the WW2 arguments about whether NCO's could qualify as fighter pilots...........sort of pompous ass views not backed necessarily by reality.

buglerbilly

17-10-11, 11:51 PM

Wallets Aweigh: Romney’s Navy Surge Could Cost $40 Billion

By Spencer Ackerman October 17, 2011 | 5:54 pm

On the surface, Mitt Romney’s proposal to inflate the Navy is seaworthy. The ex-Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential frontrunner wants to build six more ships every year to meet the increased demands that the U.S. military will likely face in the big, blue Pacific Ocean.

Naval analysts generally like the idea, which they say is needed to fill a whopping hole in the U.S. fleet, come 2030 or so. Just a few problems, the seapower wonks say: Romney has given no indication of what kinds of ships he wants built; he doesn’t explain what they should do; and his proposal might give a deficit-obsessed D.C. sticker shock.

Shipbuilding is a major national-security priority for Romney. In an Oct. 7 speech at the Citadel and his campaign’s big national security white paper, he pledged, “I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.” It’s the most specific, declarative statement on defense Romney’s made in the campaign thus far.

Independent naval analysts don’t know how much Romney’s proposal will cost, since nowhere in the white paper does Romney specify what ships make up his expanded fleet. (The Romney campaign didn’t respond to Danger Room’s requests for clarification on what ships the candidate wants built.) That complicates any analysis, since ships aren’t interchangeable. “Fifteen ships a year sounds good,” says Frank Hoffman, who recently left the policy shop at the Navy Department, “but what kind of ships? For what strategy?”

But judging by the Navy’s current wishlist (mostly, more destroyers and attack submarines) the analysts guesstimated that Romney’s plan would most likely cost about $7 or $8 billion a year, on top of the Navy’s estimated $19.8 billion shipbuilding budget. Since the Defense Department budgets for five years at a time, that would add $35 to $40 billion to the shipbuilding budget at a time of austerity.

Romney’s wrong to suggest President Obama’s to blame for “hollowing” the Navy. Nine ships a year is the average build ever since the end of the Cold War. And for the past two years, Obama’s annual defense budgets have asked for ten.

But the Republican candidate has a point. The Navy’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan envisions a need for 328 ships, up from its last assessment of 313. It’s got 276 now, more than a fifth of which aren’t ready to fight. And over the horizon in the 2020s are the retirement of about 70 Reagan-era ships. A recent Congressional Research Service assessment bluntly stated that the “30-year plan does not include enough ships to fully support all elements of the Navy’s 313-ship goal over the long run,” let alone a fleet of 328 ships.

None of which comes cheap. For years, seapower wonks have blasted the Navy’s shipbuilding plans as unaffordable. The plan that the Navy sent to the Hill this year passed muster — barely. The Congressional Research Service report rated the plan as affordable, but largely through accounting tricks. The Navy plans to buy cheap ships early on, but when it comes time to buy expensive items like the next-gen ballistic missile sub, that’s “a considerably more expensive proposition,” the report warns. Romney would stack additional costs on top of that.

It’s possible Romney could buy those cheaper ships, like the $250 million Joint High Speed Vessel, or the (maybe) $500 million Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) that the Navy considers a big part of its future. The Navy wants 55 LCSs, although it hasn’t figured out if the ship is meant to fight along a shoreline, hunt pirates off the Somali coast, go after submarines — or some combination of all of the above.

But the rationale — however vague — for Romney’s ship surge suggests something more ambitious than those two ships offer. “[T]he United States should maintain and expand its naval presence in the Western Pacific,” Romney’s white paper contends. “We should be assisting partners that require help to enhance their defensive capabilities.”

Going off that framework, Eric Wertheim, author of the U.S. Naval Institute’s encyclopedic Combat Fleets Of The World, thinks the likeliest scenario for Romney will cost an extra $7 billion annually. For that money, “you could have one new Burke-class Destroyer at about $2 billion; one new Virginia-class submarine, also around $2 billion; and one new San Antonio-class amphibious ship about $1.5 billion; plus two Joint High Speed Vessels and one Littoral Combat Ship,” he says.

If the Navy focuses on the cheaper ships, then Romney’s plan probably runs around $3 billion per year. But if the Romney Navy prefers bigger-ticket items — say, a $3 billion America-class large deck amphibious ship, and some more destroyers and subs — then the price tag is more like $13 billion extra.

Wertheim thinks a cost of $3 to $7 billion is most likely. “I think it would most probably be somewhere between the low to medium end scenarios,” he says.

Hoffman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, thinks the Romney proposal would most likely cost between $7 and $8 billion. “One could either trim off the next-generation ballistic missile submarine to preserve capital for the fleet build-up, or cut back on short-legged aviation and national missile defense,” Hoffman tells Danger Room.

There’s an assumption lurking here: The Navy will spend the surge money to replace perceived shortcomings in the fleet. The Navy frets about its destroyers and attack subs dwindling, for instance. By 2024, the Navy projects it’ll have about 68 cruisers and destroyers, well below its desired fleet of 94 cruiser-destroyers; and short 9 attack submarines by 2030. “The projected cruiser-destroyer shortfall is, by some measurements, the largest projected shortfall of any ship category in the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan,” (.PDF) writes Ronald O’Rourke, one of the Congressional Research Service’s Navy specialists.

In contrast, the Navy’s shipbuilding strategy (.PDF) envisions keeping the current number of 11 aircraft carriers. Which, by the way, are budget-busters at $12 billion a pop.

Romney doesn’t explain where he’d get the money. The Defense Department is gearing up for massive cuts as Congress and the Obama administration try to close a cavernous budget deficit. Romney’s white paper pledges that he’ll “find efficiencies throughout the Department of Defense budget that can be reinvested into the force.” But after ex-Defense Secretary Robert Gates spent a year doing that, no budget analyst really thinks there’s much more efficiency to be harvested.

Similarly, Romney doesn’t lay out a plan for what his enlarged Navy would do. But it’s not hard to imagine. The last chief of Naval operations envisioned an expansive role for the U.S. Navy, especially in the western Pacific — increasingly the economic center of the world — after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wind down. So did Gates.

And that’s why several of the Navy wonks surveyed think Romney’s shipbuilding surge is a decent idea. “There’s just not enough ships right now, and as you look to future, it’s gonna get worse,” Wertheim says. It’s just a matter of making real choices about what the fleet should look like and what it should do.

“The Pacific is a big blue place on the map, and while the Middle East looks very sandy on my map, we need not plan to violate their lands if our true objective is to ensure the passage of oil from the Straits of Hormuz and beyond,” adds Hoffman. “So naval resources are at the top of my list and increased shipbuilding is required as we approach the 2020 period.”

Photo: U.S. Navy

buglerbilly

18-10-11, 03:40 PM

Virginia-Class Subs Could Bolster Cruise Missile Fleet, But Where's the Money?

By David Axe

Published: October 18, 2011

The nuclear-powered submarine USS Florida was lying in wait, quietly submerged off the Libyan coast, when the order came from then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to launch its cruise missiles.

It was the evening of March 19. Two days before, the U.N. Security Council had unanimously voted to approve Resolution 1973, authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya aimed at protecting civilians against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi's repressive regime. To clear the way for the no-fly zone, the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy prepared a barrage of more than 100 precision-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles.

With a capacity of 154 Tomahawks, the Florida -- a former ballistic-missile boat converted to non-nuclear missiles in 2006 -- was by far the most powerful Tomahawk shooter off Libya. The night of March 19 she fired no fewer than 90 Tomahawks, with deadly accuracy. "I could see their professionalism and determination in their faces," Chief Fire Control Technician Lee Taylor, from Florida's strike fire control division, said of his sailors. They hunched over their consoles, carefully managing the underwater missile launches over a period of hours.

Later, then Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead was almost cavalier about the Tomahawk barrage. "That went off as we expected it would," he said.

It was the major combat debut for the four-strong fleet of converted Ohio-class missile submarines, or "boomers." Known as "SSGNs" to the Navy, the former Ohios can also carry scores of Special Forces troops and possess their own stealth and high-tech listening devices to spy on enemy forces. "They provided unprecedented intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and terrific firepower, all from the sea," said Vice Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., U.S. Sixth Fleet commander. "They are critical to winning any war against any adversary today and tomorrow."

But the SSGNs are as old as the Ohios they're derived from. Submarines only last as long as their nuclear cores. The cores of the 1980s-vintage Ohios -- 14 ballistic missile versions and the four SSGNs -- will expire starting in 2027.

When that happens the Navy will lose 600 of its roughly 9,000 Tomahawk-capable vertical-launch cells -- and arguably the 600 most flexible ones, at that. Compared to surface vessels and other submarines, the SSGNs are "much better in terms of being a better source of Tomahawks," Owen Cote, Jr., a naval analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told AOL Defense.

Today the Navy and the U.S. submarine industry are scrambling to come up with a plan for replacing the SSGNs and preserving their awesome strike capability.

Skeptics question whether it's possible, given declining defense budgets and the high cost of submarines. "The sub forces are going to fall below the absolute minimum and there's nothing anyone can do about that," Capt. James Hay, a retired Navy submariner, told AOL Defense.

But Connecticut-based Electric Boat, America's main submarine builder, has a plan that company officials say could actually improve the SSGN force by replacing a small number of capacious Ohio-class missile submarines (19,000 tons displacement) with a much larger force of smaller Virginia-class vessels (currently 8,000 tons displacement) capable of being in more places at once.

The key to that plan, and to America's undersea strike capability following the Ohios' retirement, is a single, brilliantly-conceived bit of engineering. It's a piece of equipment that is, ironically, mostly empty space.

It's all about the tubes

The SSGNs have roots in the mid-1990s, when the Pentagon decided that 14 Trident-missile-armed Ohios would be sufficient for the reduced U.S. nuclear force mandated by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II. Instead of decommissioning four redundant boomers, the Navy spent around $1 billion apiece modifying them to fire cruise missiles. Electric Boat performed the work between 2002 and 2010.

Electric Boat tweaked two of the boomers' Trident missile tubes -- each seven feet wide and 40 feet deep -- for use as lock-out chambers for Special Forces swimmers. The shipbuilder modified the other 22 so-called "large-diameter tubes" to accept packs of Tomahawk cruise missiles known as "Multiple All-Up Round Canisters," or MACs.

Today Electric Boat builds Virginia-class attack submarines -- at the moment, the only submarine class in production for the U.S. Navy. Electric Boat vice president John Holmander told AOL Defense that a variant of the Virginia could replace the SSGNs starting in 2026. "The Navy came to us [in 2003] for a conceptual solution for how you could potentially get the Virginia to perform the missions of an SSGN," Holmander said. "What we've done at this point is we've a developed module ... which is 94 feet long and which increases the payload capability of the ship but allows the platform to perform within key performance parameters." The parameters include speed, endurance and acoustic stealth.

The 94-foot hull extension, inserted aft of the Virginia's sail, would increase the vessel's length by more than a quarter and provide space for four large-diameter tubes copied from the Ohios. The Virginia's payload tubes are nearly as wide as the Ohio's, but shallower. The Virginia's MAC holds six Tomahawks instead of seven.

In-production Virginias starting with the 11th vessel -- slated for a 2014 delivery -- already have two large-diameter tubes forward of the sail for 12 Tomahawks, replacing the baseline of 12 small, individual tubes. The four additional large-diameter tubes would boost the Virginia's cruise missile capacity to 36. Though a threefold increase in firepower for the Virginia, that's barely a fifth the weaponry of today's SSGNs.

For that reason, it's all but impossible for the Navy to avoid a reduction in overall Tomahawk capacity once 2027 rolls around. But a fleet of smaller, Virginia-based SSGNs -- while carrying fewer weapons overall -- would enjoy a key advantage over their larger predecessors. They'd be relatively inexpensive (for a nuclear submarine), could be built in large numbers and could be in more than just four places at a time.

"You ... end up with a distributed network of these capabilities that's not concentrated only with four platforms carrying the load," John Biederka, SSGN program manager for Electric Boat, told AOL Defense.

The smaller, more widely distributed SSGN fleet can't happen unless we build more Virginia-class subs than currently planned. Under current projections, production would end after the three "Block V" vessels are finished in 2019. The Block Vs are likely the first Virginias that could include the 94-foot extension, as Electric Boat would need time to tool up for the modification. Therefore only Block Vs would have SSGN-like capabilities.

Holmander said that Block V construction could last up to five years. Based on the current, two-per-year acquisition rate for Virginias, Block V could include 10 ships. The last seven Block Vs, if they become reality, would represent an increase in the Virginia production run from 30 to 37 vessels.
If the stars align, the next-generation SSGN fleet would number at least those 10 vessels, carrying half as many cruise missiles as today's four Ohio-class SSGNs, but they would be cover a much larger area.

That's a tradeoff the Navy seems comfortable with. "The SSGN plays a key role in global undersea war fighting," said Vice Adm. John Richardson, Submarine Forces commander. "The tremendous combat capability the boat brings – land attack missiles, Special Forces, torpedoes -- that's a lot of bets the enemy has to cover down on."

Budget crunch

Of course, the Virginia SSGN plan is contingent on funding. Navy shipbuilding is being squeezed in the vice of rising ship costs, growing pressure for deep cuts in military spending and, most alarmingly, the imminent need to replace the Ohios in their nuclear deterrence role.

After a vigorous internal debate earlier this year, the Navy rejected proposals for a ballistic-missile version of the Virginia -- a vessel that Cote said would have been "terrible acoustically" -- and opted for a brand-new design from Electric Boat. At an estimated $7 billion apiece, the new boomers pose a "huge challenge," Hay said. They could easily consume half the Navy's shipbuilding funds in each of the dozen or so years in which they're built. That, Cote said, "is causing people to gag."

But as the most survivable of the Pentagon's nuclear triad, boomers are non-negotiable. While the Navy and Electric Boat can constrain the design to save some money, any way you slice it the new ballistic-missile boats will be expensive. That shifts the burden to other shipbuilding programs to reduce costs ... or face cuts.

Electric Boat is working hard to keep down the cost of the Virginia class. Indeed, the addition of the two large-diameter tubes starting with vessel number 11 was part of a savings initiative that also included a new, cheaper sonar housing. That initiative, known as "2 for 4 in 12," aimed to reduce the cost of a single Virginia to around $2 billion in 2005 dollars, so that the Navy could afford to buy two of them per year no later than 2012. The initiative was successful, and today the Navy plans to purchase two Virginias annually most years until at least 2022.

But adding four new tubes to the Block V Virginias will increase their cost. Unless Electric Boat can find other efficiencies to offset the price of the hull extension and new missile tubes, the Virginia SSGNs could price themselves out of the shipbuilding plan and leave the Navy with an even bigger Tomahawk gap than currently projected.

"The machine of intellectual property continues to generate ideas to reduce cost further," Holmander said, without specifying exactly what Electric Boat might do to slash the price. He did, however, describe the philosophy that he said underpinned the "2 for 4 in 12" initiative and could help protect the Virginia SSGNs, as well.

"The biggest thing that enabled this to work was the collaboration that exists on our industry-Navy team," Holmander said. "We invented a process on the baseline Virginia called 'design-build,' where we put designers and fabricators in the same room with the Navy during design." That helped temper design ambitions while also ensuring the fabricators understood the Navy's goals. "We've actually taken that relationship to a new level," Holmander said.

At the moment, there are no backup plans if the Virginia SSGNs becomes unaffordable. Cote said the Navy has considered converting two more Ohios into SSGNs in the next few years. While that would mean a big short-term boost in Tomahawk capacity, it wouldn't solve the long-term problem of replacing the Ohios as their reactor cores wear out. If, after 2027, the Navy is to duplicate Florida's firepower feat off of Libya, it's the Block V Virginia or bust.

buglerbilly

18-10-11, 04:40 PM

Experts: Navy Needs More Long-Range Strike

Oct 18, 2011

By Michael Fabey

For the first time since U.S. Navy ships and submarines played cat and mouse with Soviet counterparts, America is finding it much more difficult for its forces to roam the seas at will and project forward presence where and when it wants.

While the most obvious example of the shorter naval operations leash is U.S. wariness of venturing too far into Chinese territorial waters, the restraints are becoming more global. And it is not the vessels that have many defense analysts concerned, but the missiles and related systems that pose the greatest risk for the Navy.

Speaking about anti-access concerns around a month ago — shortly before he stepped down as U.S. chief of naval operations — Adm. Gary Roughead said, “When systems and capabilities can proliferate the way they proliferate today, it’s not all about China.”

For example, he said, if he had been asked to conduct certain operations in Middle Eastern waters 10 years ago, “We would have mustered up all the amphibs without batting an eye.”

But, he noted, an Israeli ship was almost sunk by an anti-ship missile fired by terrorists in that region. Access can no longer be taken for granted.

Long-range strike, he said, is important for the Navy. “You do want that forward presence, you do want to put pressure on.” Such weapons will help U.S. carrier groups and other naval forces defend against coastal missile systems, he said.

“There is great fixation on aircraft carriers,” he said, “with little discussion on fixed land-based systems, whose GPS coordinates will never change. The GPS coordinates of an aircraft carrier at this minute will be different than it will be an hour from now.”

The Chinese certainly became fixated on aircraft carriers in 1996, when the U.S. parked two carrier groups in the Taiwan Straits to protect Taiwan.

“The 1996 crisis embarrassed the PLA (People’s Liberation Army,” says David Shlapak, one of the authors of the Rand Corp. report, “Conﬂict with China, Prospects, Consequences, and Strategies for Deterrence,” released earlier this month.

The central maritime focus for PLA after that moment, Shlapak says, became defending against a threatening carrier group. China has developed a significant shield against carrier groups, combining submarines, sub torpedoes, ballistic missiles and state-of-the art anti-ship missiles.

“The question for the U.S. Navy becomes this: How much risk am I willing to take?” Shlapak says.

The U.S. has to decide now whether it is worth the gamble to move its vessels close to those types of threats or whether it is better to pull back to a safer distance. “The U.S. has not had to deal with something like this since the Cold War,” Shlapak says.

Photo: Northrop Grumman

buglerbilly

18-10-11, 07:05 PM

The Navy’s New Radar Ship Gets its Radars

So, the Navy is one step closer to fielding its newest radar ship the USNS Howard O. Lorenzen.

Raytheon just installed 240-ton X– and S-band phased array radar antennas on the ship, the ship and its huge antennas will replace the 60-year old USNS Observation Island and its 1970s-vintage Cobra Judy ballistic missile tracking radars that are fast becoming obsolete.

The Navy’s little known radar ships are straight out of a Cold War thriller or a sci-fi movie. They’re usually converted cargo ships from the 1940s and 1950s that have massive radar arrays mounted on their decks. These ships and their radars are used to track everything from ballistic missile launches to satellites in space.

(The Observation Island actually started its Navy career as a launch platform to test new missile technology. In 1960, it was the first ship to launch the Polaris ballistic missile.)

The Lorenzen however, is Navy’s the first purpose-built radar ship — they’re officially called Missile Range Instrumentation Ships — and last year the Navy refused to accept her from the builder, VT Halter Marine, after finding numerous defects on board. Since then, the company has been working to fix the problems and get the radars installed so that the ship can go out for a new round of sea trials as soon as possible. Note, the problems had nothing to do with the radars.

The USNS Observation Island showing its Cobra Judy radar.

The USNS Invincible, She and the Observation Island are currently the only Missile Range Instrumentation Ships in service with the Navy.

The USNS Vanguard. Here’s what the old T2 tanker looked like just before being converted to a missile tracking ship.

The USNS Range Sentinel.

The USNS Sword Knot which also served as a radar ship for the Air Force in the 1950s and 1960s.

This behemoth is the Soviet space tracking ship, Kosmonaut Yuri Gagarin. She was, at one time, the world’s largest communications ship. The ship was built in 1971 to detect and receive space communications.

Here’s an old U.S. Army radar ship, the USAS American Mariner.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/10/18/the-navys-new-radar-ship-gets-its-radars/#ixzz1b9pZeT2J
Defense.org

buglerbilly

19-10-11, 01:30 AM

Navy Crackdown: 19th Skipper Relieved of Command

October 18, 2011

Military.com|by Bryant Jordan

In yet another measure of the Navy's crackdown on commanders who don't meet standards, the service relieved its 19th CO from duty for alleged "inappropriate conduct."

Capt. David Geisler, commander of Command Task Force 53 in Bahrain, which provides fuel and supplies to U.S. Navy and coalition ships in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility, became the 19th commander since January to be canned. Geisler was removed by Adm. Mark Fox for "loss of confidence" in his ability to command, officials said in a press statement.

"An investigation into alleged inappropriate conduct continues," the statement said.

The Navy is not providing information on the investigation. Geisler has been reassigned to other unspecified duties at NSA Bahrain until the investigation is finished.

He has been replaced by his deputy, Capt. Jesus Cantu, until a new skipper is assigned.

Geisler took charge of CTF 53 in February. The role also put him in command of logistics for U.S. Naval Forces Central, responsible for coordinating the air and sea delivery of personnel, mail, cargo, fuel, ammunition and provisions to more than 40 U.S. and coalition ships operating in the CentCom AOR.

So far the Navy has fired the most commanders since 2006, when 26 skippers lost command.

Last month the Navy fired Cmdr. Mark Olson, commander of the USS The Sullivans, for failing to follow proper procedures that resulted in his ship firing inert rounds at a civilian fishing vessel instead of a target hulk.

The round did not hit the vessel and no one was injured by the exercise gone awry, but it made Olson the year's record-breaking 18th firing.

The high number appears to be evidence that Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has been following through on a declaration made earlier this year that commanders would be held to the highest standards of professional and personal conduct.

Some have questioned if the Navy is going too far in some instances.

Longtime naval affairs analyst Norman Polmar told Military.com in July – when the Navy had already fired 15 commanders – that it could end up ending careers of strong, capable officers who would continue to serve well with a second chance.

Chester Nimitz is now a U.S. Navy legend, but as a young ensign he ran a destroyer aground. He was found guilty of neglect of duty, reprimanded and relieved of command. But, Polmar said, Nimitz went on to a brilliant Navy career.

More recently former Navy Secretary John Lehman hit the Navy brass in Proceedings, the official journal of the U.S. Naval Institute, on the same issue. He said the Navy's drive for political correctness is creating a generation of naval leaders who will fail as warfighters if and when the time comes.

"Those attributes of naval aviators -- willingness to take intelligent calculated risk, self-confidence, even a certain swagger -- that are invaluable in wartime are the very ones that make them particularly vulnerable in today's zero-tolerance Navy," Lehman wrote. "The political correctness thought police, like Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, are out to get them and are relentless."

© Copyright 2011 Military.com. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

20-10-11, 03:01 AM

Navy sub adm: We need new weapons

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, October 19th, 2011 6:01 pm

Rear Adm. Barry Bruner remembers learning about the Navy submarine force’s workhorse weapons — the Mark 48 advanced capability torpedo and the Tomahawk cruise missile — on his first day aboard almost 30 years ago.

Earlier this fall, when he took over as the Navy Staff’s top planner for undersea warfare, he got another brief on the very same weapons.

It is what it is, Bruner told attendees at the Naval Submarine League’s annual convention outside Washington — both weapons are still the best in the world. But as the submarine force tries to remake itself for a new era of operations, it will need new weapons and tools to keep its edge, he said. The trick, of course, will be funding them.

“We need a ‘missile of the future,’” Bruner said, one that will help Navy submarines outpace the anti-access and area-denial strategies that DoD believes will be the stock in trade of future U.S. enemies. Bruner said he and his staff have looked at some 17 different missiles, at various stages of development or maturity, but still haven’t found one that could complement or replace the Tomahawk.

That goes both for land attack and anti-ship missiles, but there may be a special urgency for a new anti-ship missile. Although everyone involved likes to tiptoe politely when this subject comes up, there may be a need someday for the Navy to attack large numbers of well-defended surface targets … somewhere … in the event of any unpleasantness.

But the service has a checkered history with anti-ship missiles: Submarines and new-model destroyers do not carry its Cold War-era Harpoon, and the anti-ship variant of the Tomahawk that young Ensign Bruner’s first boat once carried is gone from the arsenal. Today, the pendulum is slowly swinging in the other direction. The surface Navy is interested in a potential new anti-ship missile under development by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but it’s a long way off — and for Bruner’s purposes, it might not be of any use to the Silent Service.

Bruner answered a question about DARPA’s missile by acknowledging that he’s been briefed on it, but said he does not have much detail. He did say that, in an ideal world, the Navy Staff directorates for surface, undersea and air warfare — known in the blue world as N86, N87 and N88 respectively — could collaborate and theoretically create something the entire fleet could use. But well before it got there, the brass would have to answer some big questions:

“That’s an area I’m still trying to figure out what I think the right answer is,” he said. “As we had off to the future, the right answer will be dependent on many things. If we can leverage with N86 and N88, save money and get the perect missile that meets all three war-fighting requirements, that is where we’d want togo. Next, you have to ask, though, ‘How much is it going cost, when’s it going to get here, how many can we build…” — and so forth.

The Tomahawk is fine for now, Bruner said, but he asked rhetorically whether it would still be the best strike weapon for the Navy of 2025.

Same goes for torpedoes, Bruner said. The latest-model Mk 48 heavyweight weapons are perfect for today’s submarines, but the Navy needs to begin pushing their basic technology forward as much as possible. He showed a PowerPoint slide that depicted future “modular” Mk 48 variants with different components, including different weapons payloads — or no weapons payloads — different motors and other components.

A future variant of the torpedo might prowl at slow speed waiting on its own for a target, or function as a disposable sensor for its parent submarine: Using the existing wire guidance system that ships now use to steer their fish toward their target, a sub could send out a sensor torpedo to investigate a box of ocean where it didn’t want to stick its own nose in — then, if necessary, quickly prosecute any targets.

This notion, along with standalone unmanned underwater vehicles, will be a big part of tomorrow’s undersea battles, Bruner said.

“This is where we need to go. Right now, this has my full attention. We can get into this pretty quickly but it costs money — but that’s in short demand right now.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/19/navy-sub-adm-we-need-new-weapons/#ixzz1bHcw1OIC
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

20-10-11, 03:19 AM

Navy Network Faces The Budget Ax

By Carlo Munoz

Published: October 19, 2011

Washington: The Navy's new ship network system may go online later than expected, if service officials press ahead with a $102 million cut to the program's budget, the Navy officer leading the effort said today.

The service is considering a $102 million reduction to the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) program, as part of its yet-to-be released five-year budget plan, Program Manager Capt. Didier LeGoff said today.

The CANES system will replace the disparate command, control and communication systems currently on board Navy ships, and put those vessels under a single, uniform network.

If finalized, the cut will likely delay the Navy's plans to outfit the entire surface fleet with the CANES system by 2020, LeGoff told me after his speech at a luncheon sponsored by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.

Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are the two defense firms vying for the lucrative Navy network deal.

However, he did claim the proposed cut would not affect plans to get a version of CANES on board a Navy destroyer by the end of the year, since that work is already funded. The current budget for the CANES program stands at just over $2 billion, LeGoff said.

This isn't the first time the development work on CANES has been delayed, as a result of funding issues.

Work on the CANES program was brought to a halt for nearly five months, as a result of bureaucratic wrangling between the White House and Capitol Hill over defense spending for fiscal 2011, LeGoff said.

Work resumed after the Obama administration and the Hill reached a compromise over FY-11 defense spending levels earlier this year, but the damage was already done, according to LeGoff.

Aside from CANES, the Navy is also considering whether to cut a significant portion of its warships from the fleet. The service's preliminary budget blueprint includes plans to eliminate up to nine cruisers and three amphibious ships from the fleet.

The Navy is also looking at buying one new aircraft carrier every five years, instead of buying one every five, as part of that tentative budget plan.

buglerbilly

20-10-11, 07:42 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Navy to Push Cargo UAS Capabilities

Posted by Graham Warwick at 10/20/2011 11:00 AM CDT

The US Navy is following the Marine Corps and Army in getting interested in unmanned cargo aircraft. A workshop scheduled for Nov 1-2 in Washington will brief industry on the Office of Naval Research's Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility Vehicle (AACUS) innovative naval prototype program, which is planned to begin in fiscal 2012.

Photo: Lockheed Martin

While the Navy is readying Lockheed Martin/Kaman K-Max unmanned helicopters for deployment to Afghanistan to test the concept of resupplying remote forward bases using unmanned aircraft, AACUS will work to develop autonomous technologies that will provide a much more robust and reliable capability for precision cargo delivery and casualty evacuation.

"AACUS will lead the way in developing and implementing VTOL-based obstacle detection and avoidance and autonomous landing site selection, and dynamic execution capabilities for unprepared landing sites, with goal-based supervisory control by any field personnel, with no special training," says the ONR announcement. This is to be done within an open architecture that can be used across different VTOL platforms.

So it is all about the capability and not the platform. The Navy is in the beginning stages of procuring a new ship-based VTOL UAV for IOC in 2019 -- the Medium Range Maritime Unmanned Aerial System (MRMUAS) -- that has ISR support for special forces as its stated mission. But it could evolve to cargo. The Army is participating in the Navy's analysis of alternatives, to see if MRMUAS can meet its Medium-Range Multi-Purpose (MRMP) VTOL UAS requirement -- and has stated clearly that cargo will be a secondary mission.

Industry, meanwhile -- at least in the shape of Sikorsky -- says MRMUAS could turn out to be a pretty big aircraft -- bigger than the Navy's Schweizer 333-based MQ-B Fire Scout and its new, larger Bell 407-based MQ-8C. Maybe as big as the MH-60 Seahawk. Of course that would suit Sikorsky, which is working on optionally manned and autonomous cargo capabilities for the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk, which could easily be ported over to its ship-based sibling.

So could MRMUAS turn out to be an optionally manned MH-60, into which the Navy could port the advanced autonomous capabilities that come out of AACUS?

Photo: US Navy

buglerbilly

21-10-11, 02:58 AM

The Navy’s next boomer

By Philip Ewing Thursday, October 20th, 2011 6:02 pm

The Navy’s top submarine planners are confident they can build a new class of ballistic missile boats on time and on schedule, without swallowing up the service’s entire shipbuilding budget. But to get there, they admit, everything has to go perfectly.

Capt. Dave Bishop, program manager for what the bubblehead community now calls “the Ohio-replacement,” – not “SSBN(X),” – gave the Naval Submarine League a detailed brief on his long-term plans on Thursday outside Washington. Although surface-dwellers still debate whether the Navy should “stretch” its Virginia-class attack submarines to build a new class of boomers, the sub force treats it as a done deal, and Bishop’s work has been quietly progressing underneath the surface.

In fact, for Bishop’s purposes, almost everything is settled: He is planning a class of 12 newly designed, newly built ballistic missile subs equipped with 16 tubes apiece, down from the 24 aboard current Ohio class. The new boomers’ tubes will be able to accommodate the Navy’s existing arsenal of Trident D-5 nuclear world-enders, augmented down the road with a life-extension program. The new subs also would be able to handle a theoretical new missile of tomorrow. (More on that later.)

The detailed design work for the lead ship will begin in 2015; construction would get underway in 2017, with the start of assembly of the missile compartment; then major work on the boat itself would begin in 2019. Figure about seven years for full assembly, then add time for a shakedown availability, test missile shots for both Gold and Blue crews, and the first Ohio-replacement boomer could take its first deterrent patrol in around 2029, Bishop said.

During the construction phase, Bishop said the Navy wants to build the first boat in about 84 months, as compared to the 86 months it took to build the first-in-class fast attack sub USS Virginia.

“That means we need to get everything right,” Bishop said. “We can’t afford to over-expend on anything.”

So he wants to borrow as much as possible from the Virginias and have as much design work finished as possible before the serious work gets underway – sounds like common-sense ideas, but the Navy does not always adhere to them. Specifically, Bishop wants engineers to finish about 60 percent of design work before major construction.

“We have to get that right, now,” he said. “There is no more room to slip funding or schedule and not impact my 2019 start. So we have to stay on target.”

What does it all mean? Same as always: Money. The Navy hasn’t designed a new submarine class in decades, and it hasn’t designed a new ballistic missile submarine since the 1970s. That means a lot of “non-recurring engineering costs” for the original work to design and build the first ship, plus the costs to build the next 11 and operate and sustain them all.

Naval observers worry it could cost so much money the Navy might not have any left over to build the other ships it wants – and will need as its 1980s-vintage cruisers and destroyers begin to leave the fleet in large numbers. The Navy’s top logistics officer, Vice Adm. Bill Burke, acknowledged it’s still a common fear, and also that there are voices inside the Building that want to delay or even cancel a new boomer to afford other ships.

“It’s a bitter pill because none of us want to see the Navy get any smaller,” he said. “There are people telling me, ‘Hey Bill, that’s a great idea.’ There are still people out there who believe we’re going to wreck the shipbuilding plan with the Ohio replacement.”

Burke said he doesn’t agree; he thinks the Navy can prioritize and balance all its programs. Service officials and some congressional allies tried for a time to pay for a new boomer with another part of the federal budget, arguing that the new SSBN was a national strategic asset, not just a Navy toy. But that case does not seem to have won many converts.

Bishop’s numbers tell the story: He anticipates the first ship will cost $4.5 billion to plan and design, then $6.8 billion to build, for a total overall cost of about $11.3 billion. He believes the follow-on boats will cost about $5.6 billion apiece. But Bishop thinks he can use “government improvements” and “shipbuilder improvements” to get that follow-on cost down, to around $4.9 billion per copy.

Add up that roughly $700 million per-ship reduction over all the follow-on submarines, and Bishop’s goal is to reduce the overall cost of the program from about $62 billion to around $54 billion, in fiscal 2010 dollars.

What if he can’t? What if, as in some Navy shipbuilding programs, there are delays and overruns in the class until about the third or fourth hull? What if congressional dysfunction means the Doomsday Device is triggered, or lawmakers allow the U.S. to default on its debt? Well, that’s not allowed to happen. And it’s just best not to think about the state of the surface force in the 2020s.

Bishop was not glum about his prospects – he talked eagerly about the plan to use modular construction to build the new submarines, which he said would save time and money. Robots will do a lot of the welding and assembly of the Ohio replacement’s missile tubes, for example. By comparison, when human welders built the USS Ohio’s missile tubes, the work was so hot and dangerous that they couldn’t stay on the job for more than 30 minutes at a stretch, Bishop said.

All this time, money and effort will be worth it because it will yield the best ballistic-missile sub in the world, Bishop said. The boats will have 159 racks for 155 planned crew members, meaning sailors won’t have to share. And they’ll have a comparatively spacious boat, about the same length as the Ohio — some 560 feet — despite its eight fewer missile tubes, and bigger: Planners want the Ohio replacement to displace some 19,700 tons, according to Bishop’s presentation, as compared with the Ohio’s 18,700-ton submerged displacement.

“It’s becoming a real life submarine,” Bishop said, promising another update at a future sub conference. “Hopefully next time we’ll have a little bit more detail along the way.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/20/the-navys-next-boomer/#ixzz1bNSd1stM
DoDBuzz.com

Weasel

21-10-11, 10:56 PM

Navy Crackdown: 19th Skipper Relieved of Command

October 18, 2011

Military.com|by Bryant Jordan
"...
Longtime naval affairs analyst Norman Polmar told Military.com in July – when the Navy had already fired 15 commanders – that it could end up ending careers of strong, capable officers who would continue to serve well with a second chance.

Chester Nimitz is now a U.S. Navy legend, but as a young ensign he ran a destroyer aground. He was found guilty of neglect of duty, reprimanded and relieved of command. But, Polmar said, Nimitz went on to a brilliant Navy career.

More recently former Navy Secretary John Lehman hit the Navy brass in Proceedings, the official journal of the U.S. Naval Institute, on the same issue. He said the Navy's drive for political correctness is creating a generation of naval leaders who will fail as warfighters if and when the time comes.

"Those attributes of naval aviators -- willingness to take intelligent calculated risk, self-confidence, even a certain swagger -- that are invaluable in wartime are the very ones that make them particularly vulnerable in today's zero-tolerance Navy," Lehman wrote. "The political correctness thought police, like Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, are out to get them and are relentless.

..."

© Copyright 2011 Military.com. All rights reserved.

Bull and utter cods waddle... Welcome to the world of merchant mariner reality, where a skipper can lose his job for a crewman dumping a bucket of oil over the side in Osaka Wan; losing an anchor (aka: hunk of rust on the end of a cable), etc, etc.

It doesn't create weak commanders who are afraid and timid. It has the inverse effect of creating stronger commanders who take exceptional risks and get it right all-the-time.

You create a commander who can take huge stress loads and still perform exceptionally.

It is the weak ones that are culled off

cheers

w

buglerbilly

23-10-11, 11:47 AM

Flight Control Software to Help Pilots Stick Landings Aboard Carrier Decks

For Immediate Release: Oct. 20, 2011

By Grace Jean, Office of Naval Research

ARLINGTON, Va.—Select pilots in early 2012 will commence testing new flight control software, funded in part by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), intended to facilitate aircraft landings on Navy carrier decks with unprecedented accuracy.

“The precision that we can bring to carrier landings in the future will be substantial,” said Michael Deitchman, deputy chief of naval research for naval air warfare and weapons. “The flight control algorithm has the potential to alter the next 50 years of how pilots land on carrier decks.”

Navy and Marine Corps aviators conducting carrier landings today line up with a moving flight deck in a complicated process. They must constantly adjust their speed and manipulate the aircraft’s flight control surfaces—ailerons, rudders and elevators—to maintain the proper glide path and alignment to the flight deck for an arrested landing. Throughout their approach, pilots eye a set of lights—known as the fresnel lens—located on the left side of the ship. It signals whether they are coming in too high or too low.

The new algorithm embedded in the flight control software augments the landing approach. Coupled with an experimental shipboard light system called a Bedford Array and accompanying cockpit heads-up display symbols, the software ties the movement of the pilot’s control stick directly to the aircraft’s flight path. Instead of constantly adjusting the plane’s trajectory indirectly through attitude changes, the pilot maneuvers the aircraft to project a dotted green line in the heads-up display over a target light shining in the landing area.

“It is almost like a video game,” said James “Buddy” Denham, the senior engineer who has been leading the research and development efforts at Naval Air Systems Command. “You’re tracking a shipboard stabilized visual target with a flight path reference, and the airplane knows what it needs to do to stay there.”

ONR funded the project as part of its focus on sea-based aviation, one of five Navy and Marine Corps research areas designated as a National Naval Responsibility.

The software has been incorporated into an F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet flight simulator. Researchers plan to conduct a study with U.S. Navy pilots and U.K. Royal Navy pilots who will fly the simulator to obtain data on workload reduction and touchdown performance. Once the results are tabulated, the engineers plan to integrate the refined algorithm onto an actual aircraft for flight tests and demonstrations.

If the tests are successful, the software could be integrated aboard current and future aircraft to change the way carrier-based aviators have landed aboard ships for more than half a century—controlled crash landings. Increasing the precision of landings will boost pilot safety and reduce training requirements necessary to perfect carrier-landing skills. It could lower aircraft life cycle costs by reducing maintenance and avoiding repairs caused by hard landings.

buglerbilly

28-10-11, 02:26 AM

New Destroyer Zumwalt Shaping Up

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 27 Oct 2011 17:25

A big chunk of what will become the largest destroyer ever built has been moved into the open, shipbuilder General Dynamics Bath Iron Works announced Thursday.

The Zumwalt's wave-piercing hull is starting to take shape. The ship's bow will be at right. (General Dynamics Bath Iron Works)

The 180-foot long, 60-foot high hull section of the Zumwalt (DDG 1000) contains both of the ship's 155mm advanced gun systems and weighs more than 4,000 tons - bigger than a guided-missile frigate. The mid-forebody section itself is made up of several smaller sections.

Shipbuilders moved the hull section 900 feet from its assembly position inside the ship's Ultra Hall construction facility to the largest of the company's three shipbuilding ways, Bath said in a press release. The move was completed Oct. 22.

Other hull sections will be joined with the mid-forebody section to make up the ship, which when complete will be 600 feet long and displace more than 14,500 tons.

The Zumwalt is the first of a class of three ships under construction at Bath. A private keel-laying ceremony for the Zumwalt is scheduled to be held Nov. 17.

buglerbilly

03-11-11, 01:42 PM

US Navy adds classified payload to MQ-8B Fire Scout

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

32 minutes ago

Source:

The US Navy has disclosed that a classified intelligence payload is now flying on the Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout.

Northrop was awarded a $1 million contract earlier this month to integrate a payload called Twister on the MQ-8B - an unmanned helicopter based on the Sikorsky S330 - according to an acquisition notice.

The notice did not identify what specific function the Twister payload performs.

© US Navy

One of the "interested vendors" for Twister identified on the government's website for acquisition notices was US-headquartered FLIR Systems, which makes electro-optical and infrared sensors. FLIR currently supplies the Star Safire III sensor for the Fire Scout.

Northrop declined to provide specifics about Twister, referring all questions to the navy.

But the navy also refused to release details about the new payload's mission capabilities, which it described as classified.

However, the navy did release a general statement, stating that Twister "improves Fire Scout's efficiency by accelerating critical kill-chain elements of find, fix, track and assess".

buglerbilly

07-11-11, 09:57 AM

Senior chief a test case for enlisted pilots

By Joshua Stewart - Staff writer

Posted : Sunday Nov 6, 2011 9:26:39 EST

Joshua Stewart / Staff
Senior Chief Aviation Electronics Technician (AW/SW) Stephen Diets earned a private pilot’s license before operating the MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter.

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — If the Navy starts training scores of enlisted to fly unmanned aircraft, they may want to thank a 37-year-old Texan.

Senior Chief Aviation Electronics Technician (SW/AW) Stephen Diets is the only enlisted flying the MQ-8B Fire Scout, an unmanned helicopter. He’s a test case — part of a push by former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead to determine whether a commission is necessary to succeed in naval aviation’s next chapter.

But Diets isn’t the first enlisted to fly an unmanned aerial vehicle. He and others have piloted the RQ-2A Pioneer, a small unmanned plane used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, which was in the fleet from 1986 to 2007.

As an external pilot, he was responsible for takeoffs and landings; it’s similar to flying a large remote-controlled airplane, he said.

His career began with the H-60 Seahawk, the fleet’s workhorse helicopter. Today, he’s the fleet liaison for the Fire Scout program and advises engineers on improvements and operations. But he’s also taking questions from Navy brass to help them decide whether enlisted should fly UAVs.

Diets won’t have any official say in the decision; he’s merely providing leaders with his perspective, expertise and feedback. He believes that enlisted will not only make good UAV operators, but the country’s fiscal constraints will make enlisted a more frugal choice to fly several types of unmanned systems.

Just another student

Before Diets took the Fire Scout’s controls, he completed a 21-day course at a civilian flight school where he trained on Cessnas and earned a private pilot’s license. After that, he and officer pilots from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 completed a five-week Fire Scout course.

“They didn’t treat me any different, and that was something I asked for from the get-go. I’ll let them know if I’m having trouble with something, but don’t extend my course out,” he said.

He headed to the frigate McInerney in spring 2010, during the last month of the ship’s deployment for counternarcotic operations in Latin America. It was the first time he would operate the Fire Scout at sea, and only one thing was on his mind.

“Don’t screw it up,” he said, laughing.

He flew the aircraft once or twice on that deployment and spent the rest of his time training Seahawk maintainers on repairing the Fire Scout and assuring it was safe for flight. He later deployed with the frigate Halyburton in January for its seven-month deployment in 5th and 6th Fleet, including operations near Libya. That time, he spent more time at the controls.

His work was identical to the work performed by officers — same missions, same procedures. They had a Northrop Grumman instructor on hand to help them with some of the UAV’s operations that they hadn’t fully mastered.

With two Fire Scout deployments under his belt, and countless hours working on the Fire Scout, Diets said enlisted are capable of operating that UAV and others.

“I think we’ve proven that enlisted guys can operate Fire Scout and I would go even further to say [the Unmanned Combat Air System] coming up and [the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft],” he said, respectively referring to a UAV that will take off and land on carriers, and the Navy’s version of the Global Hawk.

Officials at Naval Air Forces and Naval Air Systems Command did not answer a list of questions about their deliberations on allowing enlisted to operate UAVs. However, previous statements about Diets’ performance and the future of unmanned systems indicate that they’re largely supportive of enlisted operators at the controls.

“I think Senior Chief Diets demonstrated an ability to do it,” said Paul Achille, deputy program manager for the Fire Scout Program Office in an August interview.

Beyond Diets, it shows that more enlisted can do it, he said.

Rear Adm. William Shannon, the program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, said “very, very capable enlisted sailors” should eventually fly UAVs or he and others in his office have “absolutely failed in our jobs.”

Others, like Lawrence Schuette, director of innovation at the Office of Naval Research, said using enlisted is the only way to make unmanned systems affordable.

Creating a UAV career path

Diets said he thinks a new rating will be required for enlisted UAV operators, and those sailors will be qualified to operate the Fire Scout as well as the broad-area maritime surveillance aircraft and the carrier-launched unmanned combat air system.

A common control system that uses identical toggles for several types of UAVs will help make this possible. He said he feels that operators should be at least a second-tour, senior E-5.

His background with the Pioneer and H-60s made him a good fit to operate the Fire Scout, he said.

He doesn’t recommend that future enlisted UAV operators go through the same training pipeline he completed. For one, his training process was compressed so he could be ready for a fast-approaching deployment. Also, enlisted operators will need supplemental training to make up for the tactical expertise their officer counterparts developed in the cockpit, he said.

Beyond training, sailors need to have certain skills, he said. The biggest is the ability to mentally visualize three-dimensional spaces to create an imaginary map while flying unmanned aircraft.

“Anybody could do it as long as they could mentally separate all of those things out. And motivation. This ain’t easy. That last deployment was the most challenging deployment I’ve done in my 18 years,” he said.

buglerbilly

08-11-11, 01:50 AM

Navy Faces Projected Destroyer Shortfall

Nov 7, 2011

By Michael Fabey

Enhanced ballistic missile defense (BMD) missions will stretch the future U.S. Navy destroyer force beyond its fleet limits as well as put even more pressure on the service’s already stressed funding accounts, according to an Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) analysis and a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

CRS notes the projected necessary U.S. destroyer fleet size has grown by 6% to 94, partly to accommodate growing BMD missions.

The September report cites two leading options to mitigate the shortfall: buying and adding DDG-51 destroyers to the Navy’s shipbuilding plan or extending the lives of Flight I/II DDG-51s to about 45 years, about 10 years beyond their currently planned 35-year service lives. Either plan would have serious financial implications for the Navy.

The Navy has never stinted on funding its destroyer programs, which ranked sixth among the service’s top expenses between 1998 and 2009, with $12.3 billion in contracts and contract modifications, according to an exclusive AWIN analysis of contracting data aggregated by the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting.

The least-expensive option would be to extend the lives of the current destroyers, CRS says.

“This option could be much less expensive on a per-hull basis than adding DDG-51s to the shipbuilding plan,” CRS reports. “The life-extended Flight I/II DDG-51s, however, might be less capable than new DDG-51s added to the shipbuilding plan, making the calculation of the relative cost effectiveness of these two options more complex.”

Further, CRS notes, extending the service lives of Flight I/II DDG-51s could require increasing, perhaps soon, funding levels for the maintenance of these ships, to help ensure they will remain in good enough shape to have their lives extended for another 10 years. The question is: Where will the money come from?

The Navy is already stretched thin for its maintenance funding. The service spent $12.4 billion on non-nuclear ship repair and maintenance between 1998 and 2009, the AWIN analysis shows.

“This additional maintenance funding would be on top of funding that the Navy has already programmed to help ensure that these ships can remain in service to the end of their currently planned 35-year lives,” CRS reports. “The potential need to increase maintenance funding soon could make the question of whether to extend the lives of these ships a potentially near-term issue for policymakers.”

Lawmakers will be forced to decide whether to pay now, or more later.

“If the service lives of Flight I/II DDG-51s are not extended, then preventing the cruiser-destroyer force from dropping below 95% of the required 94-ship level in coming years could require putting 22 additional DDG-51s into the 30-year shipbuilding plan between now and FY2029,” CRS reports.

Navy budget documents suggest a fiscal 2012 DDG-51 price tag of about $2 billion, analysts say.

And there still is some time pressure to buy more destroyers sooner rather than later, CRS says: “Since procurement of Ohio replacement (SSBN[X]) ballistic missile submarines could complicate the Navy’s ability to afford to procure other kinds of Navy ships starting in fiscal 2019, one option would be to add some or most of these 22 DDG-51s to the shipbuilding plan prior to fiscal 2019.”

Photo: US Navy

buglerbilly

09-11-11, 01:28 AM

Navy Arming Fire Scout Drone Helos

What’s the latest U.S. drone to be armed? The Navy’s MQ-8 Fire Scout helicopter. Northrop Grumman has begun helping the Navy arm the little robo-choppers with the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System — basically, laser-guided 70-mm rockets, according to a company announcement.

The newly armed Fire Scouts will give ships — especially smaller ones that can’t house MH-60 Sea Hawks — the ability to hunt down and kill targets from the sky.

“By arming Fire Scout, the Navy will have a system that can locate and prosecute targets of interest,” said George Vardoulakis, Northrop Grumman’s vice president for tactical unmanned systems in a Nov. 8 company announcement. “This capability shortens the kill chain and lessens the need to put our soldiers in harm’s way.”

Northrop’s announcement also points out that the MQ-9’s small size and ability to hover makes it perfect for ISR and now hunter-killer missions in coastal regions. Remember when a Fire Scout went down in Libya a few months ago? You know this thing is going to be used to hunt Somali pirates and terrorists all over the Horn of Africa and southern Arabian Peninsula. Oh, and don’t forget inland missions, too.

The release goes on to say that Northrop will develop and deliver the equipment needed to control the weapons under a $17 million contract awarded to the company on Sept 23. Final delivery is set for March 2013.

The Navy and Northrop were thinking about putting the Griffin rocket on the MQ-8 but for some reason they have selected the smaller 70-mm rockets. Maybe it’s a matter of weight.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/11/08/navy-arming-fire-scout-drone-helos/#ixzz1dARDV6fY
Defense.org

buglerbilly

09-11-11, 11:29 AM

U.S. Navy Extends Afghan Tour of Duty for Northrop Grumman-Built Fire Scout

Unmanned System Proves Invaluable to Ground Troops

SAN DIEGO, Nov. 8, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) Fire Scout unmanned helicopter has improved ground commanders' ability to see potential threats and increase fighting effectiveness in Afghanistan – prompting the U.S. Navy to extend the system's service through most of next year.

A team of U.S. Navy sailors and Northrop Grumman employees began their mission in May to gather 300 hours per month of full-motion video surveillance, and deliver it in real time to ground forces.

"After six months of solid performance, our team has established itself as the go-to asset for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support for northern Afghanistan," said George Vardoulakis, vice president for tactical unmanned system with Northrop Grumman.

Northrop Grumman will operate and maintain the Fire Scout systems through October 2012 under an $18.65 million contract awarded to the company Sept. 28 by Naval Air Systems Command.

"We are providing a level of situational awareness many soldiers in the field have never experienced," said Rick Pagel, Fire Scout's operations lead for Northrop Grumman. "In the first five months we surpassed 1,500 hours with over 400 flights. Since Fire Scout doesn't require a runway, we are conveniently nearby and arrive on station quickly."

Fire Scout features a modular architecture that accommodates a variety of electro-optical, infrared and communications payloads. These payloads provide ground- and ship-based commanders with high levels of situational awareness and precision targeting support.

buglerbilly

09-11-11, 01:53 PM

Austal Celebrates Keel Laying for JHSV2 - the "Choctaw County"

(Source: Austal; issued Nov. 9, 2011)

On November 8, 2011, Austal held a keel-laying ceremony for its second Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), "Choctaw County" (JHSV 2), one of seven Austal-designed 103-metre US Navy Joint High Speed Vessels under contract with the US Department of Defense.

Captain Henry W. Stevens, III (USN), Strategic and Theater Sealift Program Manager, PMS 385, served as the Authenticator at the ceremony, and was assisted by Brandon Mims. Brandon is an “A” Class welder who has been part of the Austal team since June 2007.

The object of a traditional keel-laying ceremony is to mark the first significant milestone in the construction of the ship. However, due to Austal’s modular approach to ship manufacture, the ship is actually over 50 percent complete, with every one of the over 40 modules used to form this 103-metre aluminum catamaran design already being assembled. For Austal, keel-laying marks the beginning of final assembly. Two super modules have been moved from Austal’s Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF) and erected in the final assembly bay in their pre-launch position. The rest will follow over the coming months.

“We have worked through our first-in-class issues and are moving into serial production,” said Joe Rella, Chief Operating Officer and President of Austal USA. “With the fabrication of "Choctaw County", we are over 30 percent more efficient at this point than we were with "USNS Spearhead".” By building pieces of the ship in a separate facility, fabricators can install and test generators, propulsion equipment, electrical, piping and ventilation systems and other critical components in a controlled, efficient manufacturing environment.

Austal was selected as prime contractor in November 2008 to design and build the first JHSV, with options for nine additional vessels expected to be exercised between FY09 and FY13 as part of a program potentially worth over US$1.6 billion.

The JHSV is a relatively new asset in the American arsenal, capable of transporting medium-sized operational units with their vehicles, allowing warfighters to transit long distances while maintaining unit integrity. Each JHSV also supports helicopter operations and has a slewing vehicle ramp on the starboard quarter which enables use of austere piers and quay walls, common in developing countries. A shallow draft (under 4 metres) will further enhance theater port access.

"USNS Spearhead" (JHSV 1) was christened on September 17 and is preparing for builders’ trials in the near future. Congressman Jo Bonner (R-AL) recently joined Austal officials in commemorating the official start of fabrication for JHSV 3 which is scheduled for delivery in 2013. JHSV 3 is the fourth naval vessel to be constructed at Austal using the new procedures and processes developed in conjunction with Austal’s Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF). The MMF provides Austal with assembly line efficiency, which has resulted in significant cost savings and reduced lead times for both of our Navy programs.

Austal USA is also currently preparing to launch a second Independence-variant 127-metre Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class vessel for the US Navy, "Coronado" (LCS 4). "USS Independence" (LCS 2) is currently being put through trials by her crew. As prime contractor for the next LCS 10-ship contract, awarded by the US Navy at the end of 2010, Austal has also begun work on the first ship of that contract, "Jackson" (LCS 6), with "Montgomery" (LCS 8) also under contract.

For the LCS and JHSV programs, Austal is teamed with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics. As the ship systems integrator, General Dynamics is responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship’s electronic systems including the combat system, networks, and seaframe control. General Dynamics’ proven open architecture approach provides affordable capabilities to the fleet quickly and efficiently.

With its 13-year anniversary approaching, Austal has grown into one of southern Alabama’s largest employers with over 2,400 employees on staff hailing from the Mobile area, Mississippi, Florida, and beyond. Under the current workload, Austal expects to employ over 4,000 Americans by the end of 2013, and will be ready to help the US Navy meet any national security contingency ahead.

-ends-

buglerbilly

10-11-11, 01:48 PM

Austal Secures US Navy Vessel Maintenance Work

(Source: Austal; issued November 10, 2011)

Demonstrating its growing presence in the defence and vessel support markets, Austal’s US operation has been awarded a subcontract by BAE Systems to provide structural maintenance services for “Sea Fighter” (FSF-1), a US Navy Research Vessel which is used for advanced technology demonstrations.

The vessel is a 79.9 metre high-speed aluminium catamaran, designed to operate at speeds in excess of 50 knots. It is operated by Great Eastern Group for the Office of Naval Research.

Austal’s Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Bellamy, said the contract was in line with key company strategies to expand its defence and vessel support businesses.

“This contract is further recognition from the defence community that our core skills add value in the in-service support phase. It shows we can successfully grow our international support business, and leverage our defence contracting credentials beyond new ship construction, in line with our strategy,” he said.

Austal currently provides in-service support to defence vessels in Australia, Oman, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States.

“We are very pleased to be teaming with the professionals from Austal. The ability to harness the strengths of both companies in a cooperative effort will be fundamental to securing future opportunities,” said Vic Rhoades, director and general manager of BAE Systems Southeast Shipyards Alabama.

Joe Rella, President and Chief Operating Officer of Austal USA said, “We are excited to work with our neighbours at BAE Systems and bring more business to Mobile, Alabama.”

Austal’s contract value is approximately US$1.5 million dollars, and work is expected to extend into the first quarter of 2012.

Earlier this week Austal’s US operation held a keel-laying ceremony for the second of seven 103 metre Joint High Speed Vessels it is contracted to design and build for the US Navy. It is also preparing to launch its second Independence-variant 127 metre Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), also for the US Navy.

-ends-

buglerbilly

12-11-11, 12:12 AM

ONR Hones Carrier Landings

Nov 11, 2011

By Michael Fabey
Washington

The U.S. Office of Naval Research (ONR) is making sea-based aviation a funding priority and, with unmanned combat and rotorcraft looking to enter the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps fleet alongside planned Joint Strike Fighters, researchers are touting the potential for dramatic effects on the basic nature of naval aircraft design.

The latest effort unveiled is new flight-control software meant to help aircraft “stick” carrier landings more cleanly. It could lead to major aircraft redesigns that would save money, reduce wear and tear on future aircraft and improve overall performance.

“The precision that we can bring to carrier landings in the future will be substantial,” says Michael Deitchman, deputy chief of naval research for naval air warfare and weapons.

A new algorithm embedded in the flight-control software augments the landing approach, the ONR says. Coupled with an experimental shipboard light system called a Bedford Array and accompanying cockpit head-up display (HUD) symbols, the software ties the movement of the pilot’s control stick directly to the aircraft’s flight path. Instead of constantly adjusting the aircraft’s trajectory indirectly through attitude changes, the pilot maneuvers the aircraft to project a dotted green line in the HUD over a target light shining in the landing area.

“The flight-control algorithm has the potential to alter the next 50 years of how pilots land on carrier decks,” Deitchman says.

“It is almost like a video game,” says James “Buddy” Denham, the senior engineer who has been leading research and development efforts at Naval Air Systems Command. “You’re tracking a shipboard stabilized visual target with a flight-path reference, and the airplane knows what it needs to do to stay there.”

Navy and Marine aviators conducting carrier landings today line up with a moving flight deck in a complicated process. Pilots must constantly adjust their speed and manipulate the aircraft’s flight-control surfaces—ailerons, rudders and elevators—to maintain the proper glide path and alignment to the flight deck for an arrested landing. Throughout their approach, pilots eye a set of lights on the left side of the ship to see whether they are coming in too high or low.

While the new technology certainly would improve carrier-landing safety and efficiency, the new software also could have a long-term effect on life-cycle costs and perhaps even aircraft design, Deitchman says. For example, the new software could help reduce the amount of training pilots need to perform landings, leading to major cost savings.

More precise landings will also help make the whole operation more predictive, he says. That, in turn, could help reduce the load on aircraft and perhaps even change certain aircraft requirements. While reducing aircraft weight could cut maintenance, repair and overhaul costs, the larger impact could be on next-generation aircraft. Depending on the effectiveness of the flight-control software and lessons from its use, designers might rethink flight controls and related equipment. “We could start with a clean sheet of paper on aircraft design,” Deitchman says.

The ONR plans to put the technology into a Northrop Grumman X-47B surrogate for “ride-along” in at-sea evaluations this fiscal year. Researchers intend to start flight tests in fiscal 2015.

Photo: Northrop Grumman

buglerbilly

14-11-11, 03:28 AM

Navy, Corps buying decommissioned U.K. Harriers

By Christopher P. Cavas, Vago Muradian and Andrew Chuter - Staff writers

Posted : Sunday Nov 13, 2011 12:13:52 EST

The Navy and Marine Corps have agreed to buy Britain’s entire decommissioned fleet of 74 Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts — a move expected to help the Corps operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.

Rear Adm. Mark Heinrich, chief of the Navy’s Supply Corps, confirmed the two-part deal last week during a conference in New York sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in association with Defense News.

Heinrich negotiated the $50 million purchase of all Harrier spare parts, while Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the Navy’s program executive officer for tactical aircraft, is overseeing discussions to buy the Harrier aircraft and their Rolls-Royce engines, Heinrich said.

A spokesman for the British Ministry of Defence confirmed the Disposal Services Agency was in talks with the Navy for the sale of the Harriers. The deal had yet to be concluded, he said Friday.

Britain retired its joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy Harrier aircraft late last year in one of the most controversial moves of the defense reductions, which also cut the aircraft carriers that operated the jets, other warships, maritime patrol planes and personnel.

Most of the retired Harriers are stored at Royal Air Force Base Cottesmore, England. They have been undergoing minimum fleet maintenance, including anti-deterioration measures, in order to keep them airworthy, Heinrich said.

A spokesman for the Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command declined on Friday to comment on the deal, deferring to the British military.

A British MoD source said Friday that he thought both deals could be signed in the next week or two. The MoD source confirmed that the entire fleet of 74 Harrier aircraft was involved in the sale.

Heinrich noted that payment details were the only outstanding issue on the parts deal discussions, and he said the purchase will give the Corps a relatively economical way to get their hands on key components to keep the Harrier fleet running.

While it is unusual for the U.S. to buy used foreign military aircraft for operation, integration of the British planes into Corps squadrons shouldn’t be a major problem, one expert said.

“I don’t think it will be costly to rip out the Brit systems” and replace them with Marine gear, said Lon Nordeen, author of several books on the Harrier.

Nordeen noted that the British GR 9 and 9As are similar in configuration to the Marines’ AV-8B night attack version, which makes up about a third of U.S. Harriers. The British planes also are night planes dedicated to air-ground attack, he said, and while both types carry Forward Looking Infrared sensors, neither is fitted with a multimode radar such as the APG-65 carried by U.S. AV-8B+ models.

The absence of the big radar, Nordeen said, makes the GR 9A and AV-8Bs “a better-performing plane. Weighing less, it’s more of a hot rod.”

British GR 9s, although upgraded with improved avionics and weapons, are powered by the Rolls-Royce Mark 105 Pegasus engine. GR 9As have the more powerful Mark 107, similar to the Rolls-Royce F402-RR-408s that power Marine AV-8Bs.

British and U.S. Harrier II aircraft had a high degree of commonality from their origin. The planes were developed and built in a joint arrangement between British Aerospace — now BAE Systems — and McDonnell Douglas, now a division of Boeing. While each company built its own wings, all forward sections of the British and American Harrier IIs were built by McDonnell in St. Louis, while British Aerospace built the fuselage sections aft of the cockpit.

“All the planes have to fit together,” Nordeen said.

The Harrier IIs, built between 1980 and 1995, “are still quite serviceable,” he said. “The aircraft are not that far apart. We’re taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It’s like we’re buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it.”

Operationally, Nordeen said, “these are very good platforms. They need upgrades, but on bombing missions they have the ability to incorporate the Litening II targeting pod [used by U.S. aircraft]. They’re good platforms. And we’ve already got trained pilots.”

The Corps is planning on phasing out its Harriers by 2025, when replacement by F-35B Joint Strike Fighters should be complete.

Nordeen, however, said he expects the British Harriers to be used initially to replace two-seat Marine F-18D Hornet fighters now operated in the night attack role.

“The F-18Ds are more worn out than the Harriers,” Nordeen said. “Most of the conversions [of ex-British aircraft] early on will be to replace 18Ds and not Harriers.” He noted the first Marine F-35B squadron already is slated to replace an F-18D unit.

buglerbilly

15-11-11, 10:51 PM

Carrier Bush suffers widespread toilet outages

By Joshua Stewart - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Nov 14, 2011 18:33:35 EST

MC3 Betsy Knapper / Navy
Because of breakdowns in the vacuum system, sailors aboard the carrier George H.W. Bush often struggle to find working toilets.

There'll be an Engineering Officer on board up to his proverbials in, well, shit trying to sort this out..........lack of crappers on an aircraft carrier will be no laughing matter for that many people................

The Navy’s newest aircraft carrier has a messy problem. Since deploying in May, the Norfolk, Va.-based carrier George H.W. Bush has grappled with widespread toilet outages, at times rendering the entire ship without a single working head.

But it’s no laughing matter. Sailors tell of combing the ship for up to an hour to find a place to do their business, if they can find one at all. Others have resorted to urinating in showers or into the industrial sinks in their work stations. Some men are using bottles and emptying the contents over the giant ship’s side, while some women are holding it in for so long that they are developing health problems, according to sources on the ship.

The sailors blame the ship’s vacuum system. But the Navy is blaming sailors for flushing “inappropriate material” down the toilets.

The ship, commissioned in January 2009, is wrapping up a deployment in the Persian Gulf. Three sailors who spoke to Navy Times on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the media said the problem has been persistent at least since Bush began its first deployment in May. Throughout its deployment, there have been at least two times when all 423 commodes in the ship’s 130 heads went offline, the sailors said. More often, they said, all heads either forward or aft of the middle of the ship have gone out of service, or clusters of heads scattered through different departments have been shut down.

Have you experienced this on your ship? Send an email to staff writer Joshua Stewart about how health and morale were affected.

The problems were first reported by Mary Brotherton, a blogger and mother of a Bush sailor.

The issue, according to sailors and the ship’s internal newsletter, is the vacuum system that moves waste through the ship’s pipes. The system breaks down with little warning, making it impossible to flush, they said. This forces toilets and urinals throughout the ship to go offline as crews examine the carrier’s 250 miles of pipe to figure out what’s wrong and restore vacuum pressure. One shipwide breakdown required one department to work a 35-hour stretch with no rest to fix, according to the January edition of the carrier’s newsletter The Avenger.

Complicating the matter, some working heads are secured with a lock, letting only sailors who know the combination inside, the sailors said.

So far there’s no backup plan for when the system goes offline, the sailors said. Sailors report the ship does not have portable toilets. Nor are wag bags — sealable plastic sacks designed to hold human waste — available for use until heads are fixed. Given the circumstances, whenever the heads on the ship break, the 5,000 sailors onboard must either ignore nature’s call or find inventive ways to relieve themselves until they can find a proper bathroom.

The Navy, in a written statement, acknowledged problems with the system since the ship was delivered in May 2009. Sailors have spent more than 10,000 man hours addressing the toilets’ vacuum system on this deployment, averaging roughly 25 calls per week for commode problems. Most problems were fixed within 24 hours, with some requiring just a few minutes of work, said a statement from Naval Air Force Atlantic, adding that the ship had a “94 percent availability of commodes” throughout the deployment.

AIRLANT said most issues occurred when inappropriate materials were flushed down the toilets. Sailors onboard the ship said that everything from feminine hygiene products to clothes have been unclogged from the network of pipes. When used as intended, the system works well and most problems can be fixed in minutes, AIRLANT said.

The statement also acknowledged that the system is different from older systems “in that disruption in one head can impact a broader area. A vacuum outage affects every commode in one half of the ship and is not department- or squadron-specific.”

The contractor that supplied the system, Evac, did not make a representative available as of Monday afternoon after three queries from Navy Times over six days. According to the company’s website, Evac also worked on the amphibious transport dock San Antonio’s toilet system and systems for luxury cruise liners. The Navy statement said the system is also installed aboard Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and other San Antonio-class ships, but it was unclear if those systems were installed by Evac or whether any of those ships have had problems.

Sailors said the head issue is a major problem on the $6.2 billion carrier. While it has provided countless opportunities to make jokes related to bodily functions, they said, it has also hurt morale. Some sailors are limiting their food and fluid intake, risking dehydration. Others have ignored nature’s call for so long that they’ve developed urinary tract infections. The problem has made it tougher for sailors to keep the ship combat-ready, they said.

The Navy statement did not address reports of sickness.

Some are taking extra showers when they need to urinate. Women are finding working men’s heads and putting a sentry at the door. Or they’ll use the industrial sinks in their workspaces. Men are sneaking onto catwalks to surreptitiously relieve themselves without getting busted by a master-at-arms on patrol, searching for sailors using anywhere but a head as a bathroom.

“If you violate a direct order, you go to mast. We had one seaman go thus far,” one chief told Navy Times.

An AIRLANT spokesman confirmed that one sailor received non-judicial punishment for “urinating on a sponson.”

Some men have taken to urinating into bottles and dumping the contents over the side — a potentially messy practice that can soil the side of the ship or the hangar deck, aircraft or fellow sailors, depending on how it catches the wind.

“It’s certainly more risk-free than standing and peeing on the catwalks, but still it’s ridiculous,” a second class petty officer said.

If possible, sailors will use one of the operational heads, but it takes extra work to find one, the second class said. When the urge strikes, you have to get the gouge on the location of a working head — hopefully it won’t be on the far side of the 1,094-foot-long carrier. When you find one that’s working, there’s often a line to get inside. As they wait, sailors do a quick survey of who has reached their physical limit, and sailors who need to go the most get bumped to the front of the queue.

“We all assess who is going to go in their pants first and set the lines according to that,” the second class said.

buglerbilly

16-11-11, 12:26 AM

Deploying amphibs look a lot like the future

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 9:21 am

The amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island slipped its lines on Monday and headed out to sea on its maiden operational deployment. If you wanted a photo for the opening slide of your PowerPoint deck about the future of American power, you couldn’t do much better than this.

First, the ship: The Makin Island is the Navy’s first “hybrid” big-deck gator. Unlike the seven ships in the class that preceded it, Makin Island’s main propulsion comes from diesels and gas turbines driving an all-electric system, not enormous steam boilers. That makes the ship much more efficient, the Navy says, and it’s planning to copy the Makin Island’s plant at least on the next big amphibs, if not other future surface warships.

Second, the mission: Although the Navy already does deployments like the one Makin Island is making — along with the amphibious transport USS New Orleans and the dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor — now Washington actually is paying attention. President Obama is heading to Australia to announce the forward-deployment of American Marines there; the Pentagon is standing up its Air-Sea Battle Office; and people at the highest levels are talking about the Western Pacific.

And although it’s possible to imagine a time when American aircraft carriers don’t automatically sail to the Central Command AOR to support combat in Afghanistan, the Navy and Marine Corps are locked into WestPac deployments forever. The ships will exercise with American allies, show the flag during their port visits, and be on hand just in case anything happens — from a natural disaster to a military crisis.

That last bit — just being on hand — is at the core of what the Navy, Marines and parts of the D.C. foreign strategy smart-set see as the key to maintaining stability in the Western Pacific. American expeditionary power will be the control rod in the reactor, the thinking goes, moderating all the nations in the neighborhood and keeping the seas open and peaceful for the free flow of commerce. If there’s any unpleasantness, the unmistakeable shapes of the Makin Island and its companions will appear on the horizon, within easy reach of their main weapons system — the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

Or here’s how the mission commander put it, per the Navy’s official story:

“Our Navy and Marine Corps team plays a critical role in facilitating international maritime security cooperation,” said Capt. Humberto L. Quintanilla II, PHIBRON 5 commander. “Global maritime security can only be achieved through the unity of international and regional maritime integration, awareness, and response initiatives. “The safety and economic interests of the United States and our allies, and partner nations depend on unimpeded trade across the world’s oceans,” added Quintanilla.

The big questions for the Navy and Washington are how all this new doctrinaire seriousness about WestPac will affect what the service does elsewhere in the world. Will commanders stay committed to the humanitarian and “partnership” deployments they’ve been doing in South America and Africa, for example? Or could the Makin Island’s deployment signal not just that it’ll maintain its Pacific presence, but increase it?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/15/deploying-amphibs-look-a-lot-like-the-future/#ixzz1dp6hF9g0
DoDBuzz.com

Weasel

16-11-11, 04:45 AM

ahhhhh, memories... Picture this:

Engine room at about 2100hrs, working on oily water separator, something makes me look up and across the UMS to see Rashid the Indian engineering cadet near the 3 stage sewage tank. He has a man hole cover open and there is a gray/brown wall exposed inside the man hole. I see him reach down to his tool kit and bring out a heavy gauge screw driver, the kind you use for unscrewing the bus bar off the back of the 10 cm radar. I hit my head on the overhead steam pipe as I leap up and scream an undying scream that falls silent in the noise of the machinery space....

"Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo". It is endless, blood pumping from the scalded burn on my temple as in desperation I throw my flash light at the low life bastard, only to see it bounce off the tank to free wheel end over end into bulkhead beyond, and so I watch in morbid fascination as the dumb ass cluster fuck Indian born of a Pakistani rapist who couldn't brush his teeth without sticking a toothbrush up his ass, because he's had his chops slapped so many times for being a dumb ass mother fucker, reaches back and plunges the screw driver into the gray brown crust of the sewage tank. There is a hesitation and I hope without hope and then the crust shatters and floods the engine room full of shit.

All because some idiot flushed a condom down the vacuum sewage system which turned into a 6 foot long windsock within the tank and clogged the whole system.

(names have been changed to protect the stupid)

cheers

w

Carrier Bush suffers widespread toilet outages

By Joshua Stewart - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Nov 14, 2011 18:33:35 EST

MC3 Betsy Knapper / Navy
Because of breakdowns in the vacuum system, sailors aboard the carrier George H.W. Bush often struggle to find working toilets.

There'll be an Engineering Officer on board up to his proverbials in, well, shit trying to sort this out..........lack of crappers on an aircraft carrier will be no laughing matter for that many people................

The Navy’s newest aircraft carrier has a messy problem. Since deploying in May, the Norfolk, Va.-based carrier George H.W. Bush has grappled with widespread toilet outages, at times rendering the entire ship without a single working head.

But it’s no laughing matter. Sailors tell of combing the ship for up to an hour to find a place to do their business, if they can find one at all. Others have resorted to urinating in showers or into the industrial sinks in their work stations. Some men are using bottles and emptying the contents over the giant ship’s side, while some women are holding it in for so long that they are developing health problems, according to sources on the ship.

The sailors blame the ship’s vacuum system. But the Navy is blaming sailors for flushing “inappropriate material” down the toilets.

The ship, commissioned in January 2009, is wrapping up a deployment in the Persian Gulf. Three sailors who spoke to Navy Times on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the media said the problem has been persistent at least since Bush began its first deployment in May. Throughout its deployment, there have been at least two times when all 423 commodes in the ship’s 130 heads went offline, the sailors said. More often, they said, all heads either forward or aft of the middle of the ship have gone out of service, or clusters of heads scattered through different departments have been shut down.

Have you experienced this on your ship? Send an email to staff writer Joshua Stewart about how health and morale were affected.

The problems were first reported by Mary Brotherton, a blogger and mother of a Bush sailor.

The issue, according to sailors and the ship’s internal newsletter, is the vacuum system that moves waste through the ship’s pipes. The system breaks down with little warning, making it impossible to flush, they said. This forces toilets and urinals throughout the ship to go offline as crews examine the carrier’s 250 miles of pipe to figure out what’s wrong and restore vacuum pressure. One shipwide breakdown required one department to work a 35-hour stretch with no rest to fix, according to the January edition of the carrier’s newsletter The Avenger.

Complicating the matter, some working heads are secured with a lock, letting only sailors who know the combination inside, the sailors said.

So far there’s no backup plan for when the system goes offline, the sailors said. Sailors report the ship does not have portable toilets. Nor are wag bags — sealable plastic sacks designed to hold human waste — available for use until heads are fixed. Given the circumstances, whenever the heads on the ship break, the 5,000 sailors onboard must either ignore nature’s call or find inventive ways to relieve themselves until they can find a proper bathroom.

The Navy, in a written statement, acknowledged problems with the system since the ship was delivered in May 2009. Sailors have spent more than 10,000 man hours addressing the toilets’ vacuum system on this deployment, averaging roughly 25 calls per week for commode problems. Most problems were fixed within 24 hours, with some requiring just a few minutes of work, said a statement from Naval Air Force Atlantic, adding that the ship had a “94 percent availability of commodes” throughout the deployment.

AIRLANT said most issues occurred when inappropriate materials were flushed down the toilets. Sailors onboard the ship said that everything from feminine hygiene products to clothes have been unclogged from the network of pipes. When used as intended, the system works well and most problems can be fixed in minutes, AIRLANT said.

The statement also acknowledged that the system is different from older systems “in that disruption in one head can impact a broader area. A vacuum outage affects every commode in one half of the ship and is not department- or squadron-specific.”

The contractor that supplied the system, Evac, did not make a representative available as of Monday afternoon after three queries from Navy Times over six days. According to the company’s website, Evac also worked on the amphibious transport dock San Antonio’s toilet system and systems for luxury cruise liners. The Navy statement said the system is also installed aboard Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and other San Antonio-class ships, but it was unclear if those systems were installed by Evac or whether any of those ships have had problems.

Sailors said the head issue is a major problem on the $6.2 billion carrier. While it has provided countless opportunities to make jokes related to bodily functions, they said, it has also hurt morale. Some sailors are limiting their food and fluid intake, risking dehydration. Others have ignored nature’s call for so long that they’ve developed urinary tract infections. The problem has made it tougher for sailors to keep the ship combat-ready, they said.

The Navy statement did not address reports of sickness.

Some are taking extra showers when they need to urinate. Women are finding working men’s heads and putting a sentry at the door. Or they’ll use the industrial sinks in their workspaces. Men are sneaking onto catwalks to surreptitiously relieve themselves without getting busted by a master-at-arms on patrol, searching for sailors using anywhere but a head as a bathroom.

“If you violate a direct order, you go to mast. We had one seaman go thus far,” one chief told Navy Times.

An AIRLANT spokesman confirmed that one sailor received non-judicial punishment for “urinating on a sponson.”

Some men have taken to urinating into bottles and dumping the contents over the side — a potentially messy practice that can soil the side of the ship or the hangar deck, aircraft or fellow sailors, depending on how it catches the wind.

“It’s certainly more risk-free than standing and peeing on the catwalks, but still it’s ridiculous,” a second class petty officer said.

If possible, sailors will use one of the operational heads, but it takes extra work to find one, the second class said. When the urge strikes, you have to get the gouge on the location of a working head — hopefully it won’t be on the far side of the 1,094-foot-long carrier. When you find one that’s working, there’s often a line to get inside. As they wait, sailors do a quick survey of who has reached their physical limit, and sailors who need to go the most get bumped to the front of the queue.

“We all assess who is going to go in their pants first and set the lines according to that,” the second class said.

buglerbilly

17-11-11, 12:23 AM

OMB Plan to Slice SSBN-X Fleet Won't Save Dough, DoD Says

By Colin Clark

Published: November 16, 2011

Omaha: The White House plan to cut the size of the Ohio-class replacement submarine fleet just doesn't hold water, according to a senior defense official and several Navy officers.

The Office of Management and Budget wants the SSBN-X purchase to shrink from 12 to 10 boats. To compensate in part for the reduced number of boats, OMB has proposed increasing the number of launch tubes from 16 to 20 to allow the smaller fleet to strike a larger number of widely scattered targets.

Several shipbuilding experts have made clear that it would be very difficult to build a smaller fleet that could stay at sea for longer periods, which would be necessary to meet the Navy requirement to keep five boats on station at all times.

One experienced Navy submariner told me that NAVSEA had combed through the program trying to find ways to save money and keep five boats on station. NAVSEA, this source said, was at a loss to find ways to keep that many nuclear missile subs on station and actually save money. "They went through it with a fine tooth comb, looking for ways to save money. There isn't any to save," this source said.

The problem is pretty simple, the Navy officer told me. If you put in more tubes, that raises the cost. If you engineer the boats to a high enough standard to allow them to stay at sea you spend so much that you obviate whatever savings you might incur from reducing the size of the fleet. The senior defense official confirmed the Navy's work and supported the Navy position.

OMB can always order the Pentagon to reduce the fleet's size, of course. But given how much support there is at high levels of the administration for a robust triad, and given how crucial Strategic Command and many senior OSD official believe the nuclear submarine fleet to be to deterrence, this looks like one budget cutting proposal that is unlikely to happen.

buglerbilly

17-11-11, 09:22 PM

Report: Cost spike for Navy’s next DDGs

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 4:51 pm

The Navy may not realize any savings from copying the existing design of its workhorse destroyer for a new version of the ship, according to a report Wednesday — in fact, the new DDGs may end up costing billions more.

Sam LaGrone of Jane’s Navy International writes that according to the latest projections, the new Flight III versions of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer could cost between $3 and nearly $4 billion apiece, as much as double today’s Flight II version. That’s despite Navy officials’ onetime belief that restarting production of DDG 51s made sense because it would save money as compared with their previous planned run of next-generation Zumwalt-class destroyers.

Why might the new ships cost so much more? Because building a Flight III Burke isn’t the equivalent of just slapping a Lincoln badge onto a Ford, as LaGrone wrote:

The Flight III destroyers will field the result of the Hull and Radar Study: the Air and Missile Defence Radar (AMDR). With a planned aperture of 14 ft, the AMDR will be less sensitive than the 22 ft variant that was planned for CG(X) but more sensitive than the SPY-1D air-search/fire-control radar that equips Flight IIA ships.

The power-hungry AMDR will require a costly new electrical system encompassing a more robust electrical grid, and must be able to integrate follow-on systems, adding risk and uncertainty to the Flight III design.

In particular, ship designers will probably have to upgrade the 440 V grid in the current Arleigh Burkes to a 4,160 V grid to accommodate the 10 MW needed to drive the AMDR. Increasing the voltage in a Flight III grid would allow more power to flow safely and reliably to the ship’s systems, but it would incur additional engineering and design expenditures.

Other wrinkles: General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works shipyard has experience with the 4,160 volt power systems, LaGrone writes, because that’s what’s aboard DDG 1000. But Huntington Ingalls Industries’ yard in Pascagoula, Miss., has only delivered 440 volts, so that learning curve, along with “non-recurring engineering costs,” could increase the price tag for the ships.

Plus, although the story does not mention this, the Navy has said it would like future copies of its DDG 51s to sail with a “hybrid” main propulsion system, perhaps similar to the one we just heard about aboard the USS Makin Island. Future destroyers might use their main and auxiliary gas turbines to generate electricity the ship could direct either to new weapons and sensors, or to push itself through the water. That upgrade, and others, could also drive up the cost.

The silver lining, LaGrone writes, is that most ship classes decrease in cost after the first few copies. That has certainly been true for the DDG 51s, which today roll out of the yards about as painlessly as a naval ship could. That was the whole point, in fact — why not just stick with a design the yards already know well and bolt on a few improvements?

Well — that’s what happened. Even though these projections make it sound as though the Flight III could cost almost twice as much as its predecessor, that may still be a comparative bargain, LaGrone reports:

The navy commenced its Hull and Radar Study in early 2009, when an analysis of alternatives for the CG(X) cruiser called for a 25,000-ton ship that would have cost an estimated — and unaffordable — USD6 billion per hull. CG(X) was cancelled in 2010.

After the almost year-long study, the USN determined that modifying the new Zumwalt-class destroyer — three of which are on order — for the BMD role would not be as cost-effective as a follow-on to the Arleigh Burkes, according to a report published in September by the Congressional Research Service. Elements within the navy’s surface warfare community were resistant to using the Zumwalt’s wave– piercing tumblehome hullform as the basis of the new BMD combatant. The innovative hullform is thought by many to be at its weight limit and have little space for larger radars or future weapon systems such as solid state lasers and electromagnetic rail guns.

That could mean that even at the premiums above the cost of today’s version of the ship, upgraded copies of the Arleigh Burke will remain the Navy’s bread and butter for decades.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/16/report-cost-spike-for-navys-next-ddgs/#ixzz1e03btwHW
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

18-11-11, 01:46 PM

Keel Laid for First DDG 1000 Destroyer

(Source: Naval Air Systems Command; issued November 17, 2011)

BATH, Maine --- The U.S. Navy laid the keel for its first Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG 1000), Nov. 17, at General Dynamics-Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maine.

While keel-laying was once traditionally the formal recognition of the start of the ship's construction, today's advanced modular shipbuilding allows fabrication of the ship to begin months before. However, the keel laying continues to symbolically recognize the joining of the ship's components and the ceremonial beginning of the ship.

"Kee- laying is just the first of many important milestones and events in bringing Zumwalt to life," said Capt. Jim Downey, DDG 1000 program manager, Program Executive Office, Ships. "With the outstanding team we have assembled, I look forward to building on the superb progress we've achieved to date and delivering this extremely capable warship to the Fleet."

The lead ship and class are named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Elmo R. "Bud" Zumwalt Jr., who served as chief of naval operations from 1970-1974. The ship's co-sponsors, Ann Zumwalt, Mouzetta Zumwalt-Weathers, and Lt.Col. James G. Zumwalt symbolically authenticated the keel with a plate displaying the initials of all four children of the ship's namesake, including eldest son, the late-Elmo R. Zumwalt III.

Construction began on DDG 1000 in February 2009, and the Navy and its industry partners have worked to mature the ship's design and ready their industrial facilities to build this advanced surface combatant. Zumwalt is currently more than 60 percent complete and scheduled to deliver in fiscal year 2014. Construction on the second ship of the class, Michael Moonsoor (DDG 1001), began March 2010.

Designed for sustained operations in the littorals and land attack, the multi-mission DDG 1000 will provide independent forward presence and deterrence, support special operations forces, and operate as an integral part of joint and combined expeditionary forces. This warship integrates numerous critical technologies, systems, and principles into a complete warfighting system. These include employment of optimal manning through human systems integration, improved quality of life, low operations and support costs, multi-spectral signature reduction, balanced warfighting design, survivability, and adaptability.

-ends-

buglerbilly

30-11-11, 03:37 AM

US Navy to form VTUAV squadron

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

12 hours ago

The US Navy has confirmed that its first operational vertical take-off unmanned air vehicle (VTUAV) unit will be formed in 2013. Equipped with the Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout, HSM-35 will also operate manned Sikorsky MH-60Rs from NAS North Island in San Diego, California.

The formal activation of VTUAVs marks a first for the navy, which has previously operated the RQ-2 Pioneer and other small fixed-wing UAVs. The service has taken a more cautious approach on UAVs than other US military services, but is increasingly incorporating them into its force structure.

The navy is in the midst of major UAV competitions and purchases, including the Northrop MQ-4C broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) system that will partially replace the Lockheed Martin P-3, and the Boeing/Insitu RQ-21 Integrator for tactical reconnaissance around ships. By the end of the decade, the navy also plans to deploy the unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) fleet, with the Northrop X-47B and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Avenger as likely frontrunners.

Details of the new squadron's formation have not yet been firmed, including the number of Fire Scouts and personnel. Squadron formation is scheduled to begin in mid-2012, according to the navy, with a declaration of operational readiness scheduled for mid-2013. Personnel will be cross-trained on both manned and unmanned platforms, and the navy says that NAS North Island is not yet equipped for VTUAV operations.

© Northrop Grumman

HSM-35 will be an expeditionary squadron, to be detached in small numbers on individual ships and small formations, in contrast to those attached to carrier air wings that travel with an aircraft carrier battle group.

The MQ-8B has previously been deployed for evaluations and testing, including two shipborne deployments on the USS McInerney and USS Halyburton. Three Fire Scouts are currently deployed in northern Afghanistan.

buglerbilly

07-12-11, 02:46 PM

First DDG Modernization Warship Departs on Deployment

(Source: Naval Air Systems Command; issued December 6, 2011)

SAN DIEGO --- The Aegis guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) departed Naval Base San Diego Nov. 29, for an independent seven-month deployment to the 5th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR).

The first ship to complete the DDG modernization (DDGMOD) midlife hull, mechanical, and electrical upgrade, John Paul Jones is a hallmark of both the platform and a successful maintenance program.

The DDGMOD upgrade consisted of extensive changes through every compartment of the ship. Beginning in Spring 2010, the local maintenance community and numerous contractors worked together with the ship's crew to install more than 70 ship alterations, 35 of which had never been done before.

The engineering plant was remodeled around a new machinery control system (MCS), an interoperable computer design that expands the resources available to any given watch stander, reduces manning requirements, improves reliability, and cuts costs. The MCS software is accessible to the engineering watch team at any of the four universal control consoles, each of which are capable of monitoring and controlling every facet of plant operation. With MCS, the engineering officer of the watch has an unparalleled ability to run the plant and respond to emergencies.

On the bridge, surface search radar and electronic navigational charts were brought together as part of the new Integrated Bridge Navigation System. Older displays and helm controls were miniaturized and modernized into touch-screen LCD display with digital readouts. A built-in training system even allows the bridge team to simulate otherwise dangerous or difficult evolutions from the safety of home port. Within months of the install, John Paul Jones demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the upgrade, earning a navigation certification without the use of paper charts.

After initial testing of the new installations, John Paul Jones demonstrated advances in her design, during multiple unit and strike group level exercises.

"I appreciate all of the hard work and dedication of the entire maintenance team, Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, and Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, which went into making DDG MOD a successful reality," said Cmdr. Christopher Cegielski, commanding officer, John Paul Jones.

"But more so, my hat is off to the crew of this warship, enabling her to be in a position to sail on time with all its certifications under a very challenging, compacted cycle."

The ship and its crew are now deploying to put these new capabilities to the test. Upon return, John Paul Jones will undergo the combat systems and weapons portion of DDGMOD, to include the most state-of-the-art advances in radar, sonar, and missile guidance systems to project American presence and fight the battles of the 21st century.

-ends-

buglerbilly

15-12-11, 12:27 AM

Bids Submitted for Aegis Follow-On System

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 14 Dec 2011 17:11

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing have submitted proposals to take over support and development of the Aegis combat system, the companies said Dec. 14.

The Combat System Engineering Agent (CSEA) competition also is intended to provide a follow-on system to Aegis, the U.S. Navy's most capable weapon system and the foundation for its fleet air defense, surface warfare and ballistic missile defense (BMD) missions.

Lockheed has held the Aegis development and support contract since 1995, when it acquired Martin Marietta. The system was first developed by RCA starting in the late 1960s. General Electric then bought the company, which in turn was sold to Martin Marietta and subsequently merged with Lockheed.

Aegis, perhaps the world's most effective naval combat system, has been worth many billions of dollars to Lockheed over the years. All 27 Ticonderoga-class cruisers and at least 70 DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have been built with the system. Spain, Norway, Japan and the Republic of Korea operate Aegis warships, and Australia is building a new class of Aegis destroyers.

A combination of radars, computers and weapons, Aegis was first developed to counter massed attacks by Soviet anti-ship missiles, and has evolved into an effective surface warfare system. Although not designed to target ballistic missiles, the system has been modified with more powerful processors as the basis for the Navy's BMD systems, and is the foundation for the Phased Adaptive Approach effort for the land-based missile defense of Europe.

According to the Missile Defense Agency, 24 Aegis ships - five cruisers and 19 destroyers - have BMD capability. That number is to increase to 32 ships by the end of 2013 as more units are upgraded.

The CSEA effort is intended to provide for the design, development and integration of Aegis weapon system and Aegis combat system future capabilities for existing cruisers and destroyers, and potentially create a new system for DDG 51 Flight III ships beginning in 2016.

Dependent on development, Flight III ships may be fitted with a new combat system or continue with Aegis.

The Navy is expected to award the CSEA contract in the fall of 2012.

A separate competition is underway to develop a new phased-array radar for Aegis. The Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) is to provide new radars to replace existing SPY-1 radars beginning with the U.S. Navy's 2016 Flight III destroyers.

Lockheed, Raytheon and Northrop are working to develop the AMDR, which will be a dual-band system. All three companies are working under Navy contracts to develop an S-band (AMDR-S) radar, with development contracts yet to be issued for the AMDR-X X-band system. The AMDR systems will also include a radar suite controller to integrate the radars.

buglerbilly

17-12-11, 06:32 AM

U.S. Navy may station ships in Singapore, Philippines

By Andrea Shalal-Esa and Eveline Danubrata

WASHINGTON/SINGAPORE | Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:58am EST

WASHINGTON/SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy said it would station several new coastal combat ships in Singapore and perhaps in the Philippines in coming years, moves likely to fuel China's fears of being encircled and pressured in the South China Sea dispute.

Regional defence analysts said the ships were small, but agreed the symbolism of the moves, which come after Washington announced it was increasing its engagement in Asia, would upset Beijing.

Last month the United States and Australia announced plans to deepen the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, with 2,500 U.S. Marines operating out of a de facto base in Darwin in northern Australia.

In coming years, the U.S. Navy will increasingly focus on the strategic "maritime crossroads" of the Asia-Pacific region, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert wrote in the December issue of Proceedings, published by the U.S. Naval Institute.

He said the navy planned to "station several of our newest littoral combat ships at Singapore's naval facility," in addition to the plans announced by President Barack Obama for marines to be based in Darwin from next year.

"This will help the navy sustain its global forward posture with what may be a smaller number of ships and aircraft than today," he wrote.

Littoral combat ships are shallow draft vessels that operate in coastal waters and can counter coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines and small, fast, armed boats.

"If we put this into context, it's a fairly small scale of deployment and the combat ships are relatively small vessels," said Euan Graham, senior fellow in the Maritime Security Programme at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

"Encirclement is a phrase that does come up in Chinese debate about the U.S. strategy. They won't be happy about it, but there's nothing much that they can do to stop it."

Greenert wrote the ships would focus on the South China Sea, conducting operations to counter piracy and trafficking, both of which are endemic in the area.

"Similarly, 2025 may see P-8A Poseidon aircraft or unmanned broad area maritime surveillance aerial vehicles periodically deploy to the Philippines or Thailand to help those nations with maritime domain awareness."

One source briefed on navy plans said there has also been discussion about stationing ships in the Philippines.

BIGGEST THREAT

The disputed ownership of the oil-rich reefs and islands in the South China Sea is one of the biggest security threats in Asia. The sea is claimed wholly or in part by China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.

The shortest route between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, it has some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. More than half the globe's oil tanker traffic passes through it.

Obama told Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at a regional summit in November that the United States wanted to ensure the sea lanes were kept open and peaceful. Wen was described by U.S. officials as being "grouchy" later at the summit, when other Asian countries aligned with Washington.

The Chinese premier said "outside forces" had no excuse to get involved in the complex maritime dispute, a veiled warning to the United States and other countries to keep out of the sensitive issue.

"A modest marine presence in Australia - 2,500 marines is not a large offensive force by any means - and ships in Singapore do not mean it's all about China," Paul Dibb, the head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, told Reuters.

"But having said that, China is being increasingly assertive on the high seas. So while I don't see the U.S. as encircling China, it would be silly to say China wasn't part of it."

CLOSELY WATCHED

These developments on the littoral combat ships (LCS) are being closely watched by Lockheed Martin Corp, Australia's Austal, General Dynamics Corp and other arms makers that are building two models of the new warships for the U.S. Navy, and hope to sell them to other countries in coming years.

"Because we will probably not be able to sustain the financial and diplomatic cost of new main operating bases abroad, the fleet of 2025 will rely more on host-nation ports and other facilities where our ships, aircraft, and crews can refuel, rest, resupply, and repair while deployed," Greenert wrote in the naval magazine.

Ernie Bower, who is with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the emerging strategy for Southeast Asia would be far different from the big U.S. bases established in Japan and South Korea in the past.

"We're exploring a new arrangement with a smaller footprint, that is mission-specific, and culturally and politically more palatable to countries," he said, adding it would be difficult for Washington to drum up much political support for big bases in the region. Forward-stationing versus permanent bases would also save the navy money, he said.

Greenert did not provide a timetable for the LCS stationing in Singapore.

In the Philippines, a U.S. ally that has clashed several times with China over the South China Sea dispute, the moves were welcomed.

"We're together in Asia Pacific and we face common security challenges," said defence spokesman Peter Paul Galvez.

"We see several security challenges where we actually need inter-operability and interplay exercises including disasters, threats of terrorism, freedom of navigation, piracy and human trafficking. We cannot deny that we need their assistance in that aspect."

(Additional reporting by Rob Taylor in Canberra and Manuel Mogato in Manila; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Alan Raybould)

buglerbilly

21-12-11, 02:31 PM

Pax River Welcomes X-47B UCAS

(Source: US Naval Air Systems Command; dated Dec. 19, web-posted Dec. 20, 2011)

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. --– The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System is scheduled to arrive here tomorrow after completing a yearlong test phase at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

Personnel departed Edwards AFB last month with the X-47B loaded on a truck for transport cross-country.

“The transition to Pax River is a highlight for the program,” said Capt. Jaimie Engdahl, Navy UCAS program manager. “We are working toward demonstrating the aircraft’s ability to operate on and around an aircraft carrier.”

The X-47B is a tailless, autonomous, unmanned aircraft that Northrop Grumman is developing and testing for the Navy’s UCAS Demonstration program. X-47B is the first fixed-wing unmanned system designed to operate from a Navy aircraft carrier.

The Navy and Northrop Grumman conducted first flight of the X-47B in February 2011 at Edwards AFB. Since then, the aircraft has undergone a series of flight tests demonstrating its performance under a variety of conditions.

The combined Navy/industry UCAS-D team will conduct shore-based carrier suitability tests at Pax River in 2012. Tests will verify the X-47B's ability to communicate with the aircraft carrier and to operate safely and effectively with the ship's catapult and arresting gear.

Testing at Pax River will be conducted following stringent flight safety procedures and will be conducted within restricted airspace. The first X-47B flight at Pax River is planned for spring 2012. A second X-47B aircraft is also scheduled to arrive early next year.

-ends-

buglerbilly

21-12-11, 11:51 PM

U.S. Destroyer Plans In Doubt

Dec 21, 2011

By Michael Fabey mike_fabey@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON

An exclusive Aviation Week Intelligence Network investigation into the U.S. Navy destroyer fleet and its accompanying combat systems strongly suggests the service will have to upend some $121.8 billion worth of plans for their development, effectively solidifying the grip of incumbent contractors on the work at the very time Navy brass say they’re trying to break such monopolies.

Given rising maintenance costs and the current budget environment, it’s unlikely the Navy will be able to afford newly designed DDG-51s, wholesale new changes to their Aegis systems or the proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar.

The Aviation Week Intelligence Network’s (AWIN) five-part “Come About” series details the Navy’s miscues in building its destroyer fleet and developing an accompanying shipboard combat system. It is the result of a yearlong examination that included scores of interviews with Navy and contractor program officials, defense analysts, subject matter experts, Navy and Pentagon leaders, testing officials and a host of others associated directly or indirectly with the programs. As part of the project, AWIN captured, analyzed and vetted millions of computer records to provide a clearer picture of the funding trends and expectations for these programs.

Even a cursory analysis shows the service could save up to $14.3 billion — according to some government estimates of procurement and life cycle costs — if the service bought DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers in the coming decades instead of newly designed variants of the venerable DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class, although other factors must be taken into account.

Part of the reason for the systems’ potentially high price tag, analysts note, are the starts, stops and sudden shifts in destroyer fleet plans in recent years. Still, such a potential overall cost disparity — revealed for AWIN subscribers in the “Come About” series — is drawing attention and more analysis in some quarters.

Further feeding that need for greater scrutiny are questions surrounding the Navy’s decision in the latter half of the past decade to truncate the Zumwalt fleet to three ships and restart the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke line — concerns that have prompted a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation that is due to deliver a report in January. The DDG-51 restart is needed, the Navy says, to fulfill the service’s ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission obligations, which envision the destroyers equipped with Lockheed Martin’s venerable Aegis Combat System, ready to take down enemy missiles with Raytheon’s Standard Missile-3 interceptor.

Some analysts speculate that the GAO will recommend that the Navy ditch its current plan to buy more Burkes — including redesigned models in years to come — and build more Zumwalts instead because the DDG-1000s will offer greater growth potential for more weapons and lower life cycle costs, which will likely save the Navy more money in the long run.

What is not speculation, though, is that Navy officials have provided contradictory and often misleading public statements about what destroyers they need and why. Neither Burkes nor Zumwalts were designed specifically for BMD, but the Navy brass has contended the DDG-1000s could not accommodate Standard Missiles — a contention that is untrue, according to Navy documents, analysts and industry sources.

Another indisputable fact is that the current fleet of destroyers and their Aegis Combat Systems needed for missile defense are a maintenance mess. It could cost the price of an entire new destroyer or more just to get the vessels and systems shipshape and an additional untold sum of money to keep the Burkes and their radar systems in good working order through the coming decades.

It is this huge repair bill, plus mounting maintenance costs and the budgetary battles being waged on Capitol Hill, that make top naval analysts think it is unlikely the Navy will be able to afford the newly designed Burkes, wholesale new changes to the ships’ Aegis shields or the proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar, the supposed linchpin for future BMD.

buglerbilly

23-12-11, 01:19 AM

U.S. Marines Keeping High-Speed Ferry

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 22 Dec 2011 05:40

A high-speed ferry used by U.S. Marine Corps in Okinawa, Japan, has had its charter renewed and will continue operating for up to another two years, the Pentagon announced Dec. 22.

The WestPac Express pulls away from the pier on March 14 in Naha, Japan, after providing disaster relief to earthquake and tsunami victims. The U.S. Marine Corps has renewed the ferry's charter for up to two more years. (Lance Cpl. Heather Choate / Marine Corps)

The Australian-built WestPac Express has been operating under the control of the III Marine Expeditionary Force since 2001. The ship can carry vehicles and cargo, while up to 970 passengers sit in airplane-style seats. Capable of speeds up to 36 knots, the ship is run by 14 contract mariners working for the Military Sealift Command.

The base period of the new charter is for the ship's operation into August 2012, with three six-month option periods that would extend the service to January 2014. Base value of the fixed-price charter is $8.2 million, but the value of the contract rises to more than $30 million if all the options are exercised.

The contract announcement noted that three offers were received to provide high-speed ferry service to the Marines.

The 331-foot-long aluminum catamaran ferry was built by Austal in western Australia. Ten similar ships are being built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., under the Joint High Speed Vessel program for the U.S. Navy and Army.

In addition to moving military cargo throughout the Far East, the WestPac Express was active in March in providing disaster relief services in northeast Japan after the earthquake and tsunami devastated the region.

buglerbilly

24-12-11, 03:18 PM

Hill Blesses Multiyear Plans For MH-60 Seahawks

By Carlo Munoz

Published: December 23, 2011

WASHINGTON: Defense lawmakers blessed the Navy's plans to begin a new multiyear plan to bolster its fleet of MH-60 combat helicopters, according to legislation passed this week.

Earlier this week, lawmakers approved two new multiyear procurement plans pitched by the Navy as part of the final version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill. The legislation was delivered to the White House this week after the House and Senate signed off on the defense policy package. President Obama has yet to sign the bill into law.

The first new multiyear will let the Navy buy airframes for the final 100 R-models of the combat helicopter, according to the legislation. That effort will be led by the Army in partnership with the Navy. Army leaders will use that same multiyear to procure airframes for its fleet of UH-60 Blackhawks, according to the bill. The second multiyear will be Navy-led and focus on upgrading the avionics systems on board the MH-60. Those avionics will be key in the service's efforts to build a common cockpit for both the R and S models of the aircraft. Procurement of the new helicopters and the avionics systems will be spread over a five year period.

Using multiyears for the MH-60 program could save the Navy millions in procurement costs, since the service will basically be buying these helicopters and equipment in bulk. Traditional acquisition deals are based on costs per unit. The downside is the money set aside by the Navy for MH-60 procurements and upgrades will essentially be frozen for the next five years under the new multiyear deals. That means the Navy cannot take those dollars and use them to pay other bills in the service budget.

Some inside the Pentagon argue the Navy cannot afford to lose flexibility in its coffers since it will need all the flexibility it can get in the face of looming budget cuts. Others claim the Pentagon needs more, not less, multiyear-type deals to ease the coming blow to defense spending. That said, the Navy is also pursuing a new multiyear deal for the V-22 Osprey and possibly the Marine Corps' new Amphibious Combat Vehicle. The Navy is guaranteeing a 10 percent savings in both MH-60 procurement and upgrade costs via the new multiyear plans. We will have to see if the service can stick to that goal.

buglerbilly

29-12-11, 01:47 AM

DDG-1000: Back To The Future

Dec 28, 2011

By Michael Fabey

The DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer brings out the split personality of U.S. Navy brass. Depending on which admiral is speaking on which day, the ship is either a science-project testbed or one of the most technologically advanced and needed destroyers for the fleet.

Analysts disagree about whether the ship is a joke, or potentially the Navy’s most valuable surface warship. And debate about the Zumwalt’s true worth to the fleet is heating up as the ship transitions from a PowerPoint presentation to vessel status.

Testing and development of the new technologies—e.g., hybrid drive, composite deckhouse, new guns—is on track or ahead of schedule. Indeed, the Navy says it is eyeing some of the futuristic work for bridge technologies on its next-generation fleet.

With November’s keel-laying of the first ship—already halfway built—and two contracts awarded in September for the remaining two hulls, there is some rethinking of the Navy’s plan to build only three ships. Part of that will depend on the results of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into the decision to restart the DDG-51 destroyer line—which helped cut the proposed Zumwalt fleet by more than half—to deploy more Aegis-equipped ships for quicker and more affordable ballistic missile defense (BMD).

Due in January, the GAO report is likely to steer the Navy toward buying more Zumwalts and fewer Burke-class ships because the DDG-1000 will likely be cheaper to operate and maintain, as well as a better platform for growth, say analysts such as Norman Polmar, a naval historian.

Others disagree. “They’re floating test- beds,” says Stuart Slade, naval analyst at Forecast International.

Not so, say program officials. “This is fully operational worldwide, globally deployable,” says Program Manager Capt. James Downey. “It is not . . . a test ship.”

“The Navy is looking for long-range, 24/7 surface-fire support,” says Bill Marcley, vice president of total ship mission systems and DDG-1000 program manager for Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, a Zumwalt prime. “This is the only platform that can deliver that in all-weather conditions.”

For the U.S. Marine Corps, the vessel will fill the current void in long-range volume support fires. “The DDG-1000 has enormous capacity,” says Gen. James Amos, Marine Corps commandant.

The ship features a 74-mi.-range gun that shoots a guided projectile more than six times the distance with about three times the amount of explosives as the DDG-51’s guns, program officials note. The ship’s 155-mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile completed two live-fire tests this year.

But it is the perceived lack of another kind of firepower—the alleged inability of the ship to handle Standard Missiles (SMs) used for BMD—that concerns Navy leaders. Adm. (ret.) Gary Roughead said as much before he stepped down as chief of naval operations, adding it would be too much of an investment to make the necessary changes to the Zumwalt.

According to defense analysts and industry sources, the Zumwalt’s baseline design has always included an ability to fire Raytheon’s SM-2, though the Navy likely would have to modify the missiles. To fire the SM-3 BMD interceptor, sources say, the Zumwalt’s vertical launch system cell would have to be rewired and some combat system software might be modified, although it’s unclear how costly this would be. Navy officials acknowledge that “the DDG-1000 design could be configured to provide these [missile defense] capabilities,” the Congressional Research Service reports. Further, analysts note, the Zumwalt is designed to accommodate bigger missiles envisioned for the future.

Cost, though, is a factor when it comes to the DDG-1000. The Navy has invested $20 billion in the ships—half for R&D—and program officials say the production price is about $3.1 billion per ship, almost 50% more than a Burke on the restarted line and a third more than later DDG-51s, according to sources.

But Zumwalt lifecycle costs should more than make up any Burke acquisition savings, analysts say, because the ship design cuts shipboard personnel by half and hourly operating costs by a third, according to GAO. The Navy stands to save $18 billion over the life of the initial 32 ships for the advanced destroyers, according to GAO—about $600 million per ship in 2002 dollars.

A 10-ship Zumwalt fleet, according to other government estimates, would save the Navy $4.5 billion, when the tally includes recruiting, training and benefits. A three-ship fleet would save $1.8 billion.

Detractors say the ship may not live up to its potential. The naysayers will be proved wrong, respond Raytheon and Navy program officials, when the Zumwalt is delivered in 2014.

Northrop Grumman Concept

buglerbilly

30-12-11, 12:36 PM

Challenging the Navy’s numbers

Zachary S. Welch/AP - The USS Gerald R. Ford, known in Navy terms as CVN-78, will be the lead ship of six in a new generation of aircraft carriers scheduled to be built during the next 40 years.The USS Abraham Lincoln, known as CVN-72, is one of the previous Nimitz class of carriers.

By Walter Pincus,

Since the Defense Department faces the need to reduce expenditures, here is one suggested new year’s resolution: Make the military services have a mandatory 80 percent confidence level in their estimated costs of a new weapons systems before major funding is approved.

What is a “confidence level?” the average taxpayer might ask. It is something the services have been doing for years but without much publicity. It is the percentage guesstimate by which the military service believes the cost it puts forward for a new, major acquisition will actually hit that figure.

Believe it or not, the services over the past decade have known that their original weapons systems estimates have a 50 percent chance or less of hitting that goal, which is why there are almost always cost overruns.

Here is another proposed resolution for the military: Take a second look at how many new-generation, high-tech ships, planes or vehicles are really needed given the threats to this country.

The Army’s multi-billion-dollar Future Combat System was reduced to several major components; the Air Force’s F-22 was sharply cut and plans are to reduce the original purchase of the F-35. So now is the time to look at the Navy’s new generation of costly nuclear aircraft carriers and their proposed numbers.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, known in Navy terms as CVN-78, will be the lead ship of six in a new generation of nuclear carriers scheduled to be built during the next 40 years under the Navy’s 2012 shipbuilding program. The Ford is about 25 percent completed and is expected to join the fleet in 2015.

The Navy budgeted CVN-78 “to the 40th percentile of possible cost outcomes,” according to former representative Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who should know because he was at one time a vice admiral whose last major post was as deputy chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. Sestak further explained that the 40 percent confidence level meant “there is a 60 percent probability that the final cost of the CVN-78 will exceed the service’s estimate,” something he had written in an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in August.

Sestak, it should be noted, was removed from his policy post in 2005 because he pushed for budget cuts and further ruffled feathers in the Navy by calling for fewer ships, but more about that later.

There have long been complaints about the Navy’s failure to recognize the eventual cost of its ships. The Government Accountability Office pointed out in 2007 and again in 2008 that “the Navy tends to underestimate the costs needed to construct ships, resulting in unrealistic budgets and large cost increases after ship construction has begun.”

In 2008, the Navy projected $3.3 billion in research and development costs and $10.5 billion for procurement of CVN-78. The Congressional Budget Office put the procurement figure at $11.2 billion, while the GAO a year earlier said the “shipbuilder’s initial cost estimate for construction was 22 percent higher than the Navy’s cost target . . . [and] the actual costs to build the ship will likely increase above the Navy’s target.”

They have. The Navy’s projected cost for CVN-78 “grew by 10 percent between the president’s 2008 and 2012 budget requests” and is now $12 billion — the amount CBO estimated two years ago. And cost growth is not over. A GAO report in March said that the 2010 shifting of the Ford-class program from a four-year to a five-year building cycle could increase costs “by 9 to 15 percent.” But while increasing the cost of each ship, the Navy said the change “facilitates a reduced average yearly funding” over a longer period of time.

While a congressman, Sestak introduced legislation requiring disclosure of confidence levels for major defense acquisition programs. He included language that would require cost-estimation oversight if the confidence level was below 80 percent. It did not pass.

If the carrier costs are rising, why hasn’t the Navy recognized that the numbers may need to go down?

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates touched that third rail in May 2010 when he told a Navy audience that although the plan was to use 11 carrier strike groups through 2040, the service should “consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys.” He then asked: “Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities.”

Gates drew back after an outburst occurred not only within the Navy but also on Capitol Hill. But Sestak, who studied ship needs while in the Pentagon, thinks that since the new generation of carriers will have eight times the fighting capacity of the old ones, it is time to reduce the 11 carrier groups down to eight or nine.

The United States will, in fact, be at 10 groups between 2013, when the old carrier USS Enterprise is to be decommissioned, and 2015, when the Ford joins the fleet. Other carriers could be taken out of service early, thus saving the cost of their operation.

Sestak also thinks that homeporting a carrier group in Guam along with the USS George Washington, now homeported in Yokosuka, Japan, would permit the active carrier numbers to go down with the avoidance of trips back and forth across the Pacific.

Other services adapt because of higher procurement costs and the changing international threat. The Navy should be no different.

buglerbilly

03-01-12, 04:57 AM

Navy: Carrier cost overruns may hit $1.1 billion

The Gerald R. Ford is being constructed in Newport News. In this photo, Newport News Shipbuilding is completing an 825-ton superlift on the carrier. At 90 feet long, 120 feet wide and 30 feet deep, the stern section superlift was among the largest of the 162 that comprise the ship. (Courtesy of Huntington Ingalls Industries)

projection

The worst-case assessment for the construction of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford would be about 21 percent over the target. A key factor in the cost spike was the late delivery of material, but the Navy says the ship still will be ready by 2015.

© January 2, 2012

By Tony Capaccio

Bloomberg News

The Navy has estimated a worst-case cost overrun of as much as $1.1 billion for the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, the service's most expensive warship.

The carrier is being built in Newport News by Huntington Ingalls Industries under a cost-plus, incentive-fee contract in which the Navy pays for most of the overruns. Even so, the service's efforts to control expenses may put the company's $579.2 million profit at risk, according to the Navy.

A review of the carrier's rising costs began in August after the Navy's program manager indicated that the "most likely" overrun had risen to $884.7 million, or about 17 percent over the contract's target price of $5.16 billion. That's up from a $650 million overrun estimated in April, according to internal Navy figures made available to Bloomberg News. The worst-case assessment would be about 21 percent over the target.

"Regular reviews of the cost performance indicated cost increases were occurring," Capt. Cate Mueller, a Navy spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Some rising costs are tied to construction inefficiencies, the Navy said. Sean Stackley, the Navy's assistant secretary for acquisition, directed the review "to determine specific causes and what recovery actions could be put in place," Mueller said.

Even as the Navy conducts its internal review, it is trying to assure lawmakers and Pentagon officials that costs of major vessel programs are being controlled. The Pentagon is evaluating strategy, retirement health benefits, weapons programs and military service budgets to find as much as $488 billion in reductions through 2021. The service has already offered to delay by two years the construction of the second Ford-class vessel, the CVN-79 John F. Kennedy.

Stackley's assessment is focusing on "every aspect of the ship's construction including the risks" of delays and cost growth to both contractor- and government-furnished equipment, Mueller said. Among the largest government-furnished equipment is the carrier's nuclear reactor.

The review includes officials from Stackley's office, as well as the Naval Sea Systems Command, the chief of naval operations and the Navy's supervisor of shipbuilding, Mueller said.

Late delivery of Huntington-furnished material has been a key factor in late assembly and inefficient construction, the Navy said. Still, the carrier remains on schedule for its planned September 2015 delivery, the service said.

Huntington Ingalls' goal is to reduce the program's costs, Chief Executive Michael Petters said.

"If there was something else I thought we needed to do, we'd be doing it," Petters said. "If there is something else somebody else thinks we ought to be doing, we'll listen and, if it makes sense, we'll do it."

Mueller said some of Huntington's cost-control efforts are producing "favorable results." For example, the Newport News-based shipbuilder has established specific labor-cost targets for its key manufacturing and construction jobs. Mueller did not say whether those moves have reduced costs yet.

The Navy also has agreed to consider changes to specifications and modify them "where appropriate to lower cost and schedule risk," Mueller said.

Huntington has designated a senior vice president and ship construction superintendent with daily oversight responsibility.

The Navy plans to report a new contract completion cost in its next annual report to Congress.

Mueller declined to discuss the current overrun estimates. The Navy earlier disclosed that the carrier faced the $650 million overrun to complete the contract, $562 million of which the Navy would absorb, with the remaining $88 million absorbed by Huntington.

The completed initial vessel, the first of three in the $40.2 billion program, is projected to cost at least $11.5 billion.

The $11.5 billion comprises $2.9 billion in detailed design and $8.6 billion for construction and government-furnished equipment, such as the nuclear reactor. An additional $3.7 billion is for research that applies to all three vessels in the class, the Navy said.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a June report that cost growth typically occurs when a ship is more than half finished. The Ford design contract is about 42 percent complete.

The Navy's projected cost has risen 10 percent between the fiscal 2008 and 2012 budgets and "further increases appear likely," CBO analyst Eric Labs wrote.

The office estimates that the final price tag will be about $12.9 billion if the increases in the aircraft carrier's cost follow historical patterns.

Any discussion of cost growth should reflect the Gerald Ford's status as a first-of-a-kind ship under development, Petters said.

"A lead ship comes with a whole lot of churn - things that don't go the way it should," he said. "It's like building a prototype."

buglerbilly

03-01-12, 02:06 PM

Sechan Gets $78M Contracts from US Navy

Posted on January 3, 2012 by The Editor

Uploaded by rhosmer23 on May 7, 2009

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) brings revolutionary new capability to naval air and missile defense, not by adding new radars or weapon systems, but by distributing sensor and weapons data from existing systems in a new and significantly different manner. CEC fuses high quality tracking data from participating sensors and distributes it to all other participants in a filtered and combined state, using identical algorithms to create a single, common air defense tactical display ("air picture"). The result is a superior air picture based on all sensor data available that permits significantly earlier detection and more consistent tracking of air contacts. CEC was designed against the air threat (e.g., from cruise missiles), especially in littoral waters. Undergirding CEC is a robust communications system with several orders of magnitude in improvement to bandwidth and electronic countermeasures, as well as the systemic advantages offered by the global positioning system (GPS).

Cooperative Engagement Capability is being developed by Raytheon Systems Co., Command, Control and Communications, Data Systems, [formerly Raytheon E-Systems] St. Petersburg, FL, in conjunction with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. .

U.S. Navy leaders needed an electronics contract manufacturing specialist to build signal data processor-Sierra (SDP-S) systems for the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) programme, which blends radar information from several different Navy systems to create one common air defense tactical display, or “air picture,” which is based on all sensor data available.

Officials of U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington awarded Sechan a $64.2 million contract Monday to manufacture (SDP-S) production units and engineering support services for the CEC program. The prime contractor for CEC is the Raytheon Co. Network Centric Systems segment in St. Petersburg, Fla.

The SDP-S includes the Sierra II cryptographic chip designed by the Harris Corp. RF Communications division in Rochester, N.Y., which helps the CEC meet cryptographic modernisation requirements and use commercial-off-the-shelf components to create an open-systems architecture, Navy officials say. The SDP-S, which is the core of the CEC system, provides the processing power necessary to fuse the radar sensor tracks from several different radar systems on the ground, in the air, and at sea.

CEC distributes sensor and weapons data from existing systems by fusing tracking data from participating sensors and distributing it to all other participants using identical algorithms to create one common radar air defense tactical picture based on all sensor data available.

EC is designed to provide early detection and consistent tracking of air threats such as cruise missiles, manned aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and is based on a high-bandwidth military communications system with electronic countermeasures that blends in the global positioning system (GPS). The SDP-S assemblies are used on CEC shipboard, airborne, and land mobile platforms to provide a composite network picture.

In addition to the $64.2 million contract Sechan is receiving to manufacture (SDP-S) production units, the company also is receiving a $13.8 million Navy contract for 84 SDP-S assemblies.

The current contract includes purchases for the U.S. Navy and partner countries, the first of which is Australia. Sechan will do the work in Lititz, Pa., and should be finished by October 2016.

Source: Military and Aerospace Electronics

buglerbilly

04-01-12, 01:09 AM

Revenge of the Gray Elephant

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 4:58 pm

As we’ve been saying again and again, 2012 is not shaping up to be a very good year for the military-industrial-congressional complex — but still, where there are losers there can also be winners.

One such potential winner, writes Galrahn, is none other than our old friend DDG 1000. The Navy ordered its second and third copies of the Zumwalt class in 2011, locking in the full program. Galrahn, having read Michael Fabey’s report about the ships in AvWeek, suspects they’re going to start to look like a bargain, especially compared to these potentially high costs for new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

Wrote Galrahn:

The only sure prediction for 2012 is that it will be an interesting year for surface warfare discussions. The DDG-1000 is going to be an amazing ship, assuming the software side works out. Will it be a better investment than the DDG-51 restart? The answer is starting to look more and more like YES everyday, primarily because the DDG-51 restart isn’t restarting the DDG-51 you think it is. AVIATION WEEK has been discussing this topic all year, specifically Michael Fabey in his many DDG-1000 vs DDG-51 articles, which in hindsight will be the background material for events soon to unfold in the coming year.

Here is his latest, an important read. I’ll predict it here and now (again) — the GAO is going to look very favorably on the DDG-1000 over the DDG-51 restart. I’m looking forward to observing the SWO community reaction, because I expect to observe a great deal of denial and irrational reactions resulting from the GAOs analysis. I could be wrong about that, but I don’t think so. The ugly side of AEGIS is soon to go public, and AEGIS is not simply a technology in the Navy — it’s something similar to a religion.

Ah yes, “the Aegis Mafia.” Belief system: Scuttle the small ships and let the amphibs rust, because cruisers and destroyers are where it’s at, baby. Bristling with missiles. Most advanced radar and combat system afloat. Ripping up the ocean, “driving it like you stole it,” shooting at targets and catching the cool breezes.

Like the old days of the Air Force’s “fighter mafia,” this corps of surface warfare officers holds powerful sway over the Navy’s institutional decisions. It helped kill the Navy’s onetime concept for an “arsenal ship,” a big, slow, lurking vessel that would’ve trolled the oceans with a huge stock of missiles, but not taken glamorous pirate-fighting or anti-submarine or shore leave missions. And it was probably part of the movement that helped “truncate” DDG 1000, in part because of its “tumblehome” hull form, which makes many old salts nervous, and in part because of its many un-ship-like qualities.

DDG 1000 was supposed to have a sealed, pressurized pilothouse, for example, meaning its crew couldn’t open its windows to look around. Instead a small group of watchstanders would’ve sat at Star Trek-style consoles, watching video displays of the surrounding waters. These included blind spots close to the ship and in places where cameras didn’t overlap. This meant a captain would essentially have to stop his destroyer in the middle of a port and surrender to a team of tugs, given that he and his crew couldn’t see well enough to maneuver or moor it without depressurizing the bridge and abandoning all their expensive TV cameras and topside sensors.

(Why, yes, this is a ship designed to operate close to shore to support Marines with its Advanced Gun Systems. But under standard protocol, the Navy will send enemies a memo before combat telling them they’re not allowed to approach the ship in small boats or attack it from the coastline if they spot it visually.)

All this, plus the onetime fears about DDG 1000’s cost, meant the Navy dialed the program back to only three ships. And as Fabey and others have written, it isn’t clear whether the brass sees those vessels as operational fleet assets, or technology demonstrators, or what — different admirals say different things on different days. The only thing anyone can say for sure is that the shipbuilders of Bath, Maine, are guaranteed work for the next several years.

After all this criticism and smart-aleckry, however, it looks like DDG 1000 could be getting payback. If, as Galrahn predicts, GAO this year concludes Zumwalt is a cost winner over the restarted and Flight III Arleigh Burkes, it could look like a bargain for the first time in its life. And that, in a Congress hungry for “savings” and in which Bath already does well, could at very least improve the chances of its survival, if not the addition of a few other hulls.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/03/revenge-of-the-gray-elephant/#ixzz1iRngcT9t
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

04-01-12, 01:32 AM

Navy Chalks Up Big Win For Fire Scout Program

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 3, 2012

UPDATED WASHINGTON: The Navy chalked up a big financial win for the MQ-8 Fire Scout program last month, setting the stage for a multimillion-dollar deal to buy a slew of new unmanned aircraft in the coming years.

Congressional appropriators set aside $191 million for the Navy to buy 12 new, long-range variants of the helicopter-like drone. The money was included in the defense portion of the $1 trillion omnibus spending legislation passed by the Hill in December. President Obama signed the bill, which will keep the Pentagon and other government agencies running for the rest of fiscal 2012, into law later that month. The Navy and Fire Scout prime contractor Northrop Grumman are hammering out the details on a deal to build the new C model Fire Scouts, according to a company official. That deal could be locked in as soon as March, the first official added.

The new Fire Scouts will be 85 percent common with the legacy B models already in the Navy's fleet, the official said. But the C models will be able to fly further and carry more advanced sensor payloads on a larger, more capable Bell 407 airframe, Mike Fuqua, head of business development for Northrop's tactical unmanned systems, added during an interview today. Extending the aircraft's range and payload capability are the only upgrades program officials plan on building into the new Fire Scouts. For now.

Company officials are looking at including a tactical signals intelligence payload, as well as a cargo carrying capability into the C models, Fuqua said. Northrop engineers could considering arming the new Fire Scouts with BAE Systems' Advanced Precision Kill Weapon system. The system is essentially a Hydra 70 rocket tied to a laser seeker that can take out targets on land and, now, at sea. Plans are already in place to outfit the B models with the weapon system. The new MQ-8C would likely be able to carry the same rocket since the B and C models sport the same weapon control system, according to the official.

Other future capabilities include tying Fire Scouts to other manned aircraft in the Navy fleet. Program officials have already flown joint operations with the Navy's new MH-60R Sea Hawk combat helicopter. Program engineers are also looking at developing a handheld, Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver -- known as ROVER --to let aircrews view live video feeds collected by Fire Scout drones. Ground forces already use ROVERs to view feeds from Air Force Predator and Army Sky Warrior drones. The Army was working on a ROVER system for Fire Scout before service leaders canceled its portion of the program in 2010. That said, the Navy has not expressed any interest in adding these capabilities to the new C models, according to the official.

That deal comes as the Navy tries to move past the MQ-8s checkered testing history that had some inside the Pentagon questioning the aircraft's ability. Last June, the director of the Defense Operational Test and Evaluation office lambasted the drone's performance during sea trials. Reports stated all of the drone's flights during training took off late and more than half of those missions and flights during its operations from a Navy warship were incomplete, largely due to problems with the communications link used to control the air vehicle and to relay its full-motion video. At the time, Northrop officials attributed the failures to faulty communication systems aboard the ship where the tests were staged. Those problems were not a result of systemic flaws in the Fire Scout or its control systems, officials said.

buglerbilly

04-01-12, 01:22 PM

Aurora Delivers First Ship Set of Composite Structures for the BAMS UAS Program

(Source: Aurora Flight Sciences; issued January 3, 2012)

BRIDGEPORT, WV --- Aurora Flight Sciences today announced the delivery of the first complete ship set of composite aerospace structures to Northrop Grumman Corporation for the U.S. Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) program.

Aurora manufactures the aft fuselage, forward nacelle, mid nacelle, aft nacelle, and V-tail assemblies of the MQ-4C BAMS UAS aircraft at its composites manufacturing facility in Bridgeport, West Virginia. These structures are then shipped to Northrop Grumman's manufacturing facility in Palmdale, California for final assembly.

"The delivery of the first ship set of flight hardware is a major step in this important program," said John Langford, Aurora's President and CEO. "We are proud of the role that Aurora plays to deliver affordable, high-quality composite structures to Northrop Grumman for the Navy BAMS UAS program."

The MQ-4C BAMS UAS is the Navy version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk aircraft used by the U.S. Air Force to execute surveillance and reconnaissance tasks. The BAMS aircraft is expected to make its first flight in 2012. The MQ-4C is a long endurance UA that provides Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) information to the maritime forces. When it becomes operational, the BAMS UAS will provide military commanders with a persistent assessment of surface threats covering vast areas of open ocean and littoral regions.

Aurora has been a member of Northrop Grumman's Q-4 Enterprise team since 1995. Aurora's Global Hawk work scope includes all of the aircraft's composite components except the wing and radomes.

Aurora Flight Sciences designs and builds robotic aircraft and other advanced aerospace vehicles for scientific and military applications. Aurora is headquartered in Manassas, VA and operates production plants in Bridgeport, WV and Columbus, MS and a Research and Development Center in Cambridge, MA.

Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

buglerbilly

04-01-12, 01:40 PM

Navy Testing Drone That Tracks Suspicious Vessels

January 04, 2012

Stars and Stripes|by Seth Robson

An explanation of BAMS for 15-year olds..................:speechless

YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan -- The Navy is testing a long-range drone that hovers 70,000 feet above aircraft carriers and allows fleet commanders to track suspicious vessels across vast expanses of sea.

A prototype of the as-yet-unnamed drone, referred to as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system, is in action with the Navy’s 5th Fleet and, according to one naval expert, could help keep tabs on any Iranian threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s army chief, Gen. Ataollah Salehi, on Tuesday warned American aircraft carriers not to return to the Gulf – the latest in a series of provocations responding to new sanctions imposed by the U.S. over Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

Navy officials won’t talk specifics about the missions the unmanned maritime aircraft is taking part in around the region, saying only that the drone flies a 24-hour long mission every three days and is providing more than half of 5th Fleet’s aerial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information.

But the Navy could use the BAMS Demonstrator – an RQ-4 Global Hawk equipped with modified Air Force radar, a high resolution camera and infra-red sensors – to track hundreds of suspicious vessels in the Gulf, according to Jan Van Tol, a retired U.S. Navy captain who is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C.

“This is obviously an important mission, especially in view of current tensions,” he said.

Potential Iranian threats include submarines, torpedoes, missiles, mines and small boats that might be packed with explosives to attempt swarming attacks on U.S. ships. The BAMS and other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets would have plenty of time to spot suspicious vessels because the entrance to the Persian Gulf is about 20 miles wide at its narrowest point, Van Tol said.

The first BAMS aircraft off the production line will make a maiden flight in June, with a target date on entering the service in 2015, according to its manufacturer, Northrop Grumman.

The drone, in combination with new manned P-8A Poseidon jets, will replace the Navy’s aging fleet of 250 P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft, representing a sea change in the service, according to Capt. James Hoke, program manager for the Navy’s Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program Office in Patuxent River, Md.

“It’s the first time we are really going forward with… unmanned replacement for a manned aircraft,” Hoke said.

The P-3, which began service in the 1960s, is one of only a few aircraft that have been operated by the U.S. military for more than 50 years.

The Navy will purchase 117 Poseidons from Boeing, with the first of the modified 737 commercial jets operational from 2013. Twenty of the new long-range maritime surveillance drones will be fielded from 2015 with all of the aircraft operational by 2019, Hoke said.

The new planes will join a patrol and reconnaissance group at Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Fla., Hoke said, with personnel spending part of their time flying drones and part of it piloting the P-8s.

While being piloted from afar, the unmanned aircraft will be assigned to the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, 5th Fleet in the Middle East, and 7th Fleet in the Pacific.

Four of the new drones will be based on the Pacific island of Guam, where the Air Force already flies its unmanned Global Hawk. Four will be at Sigonella, in Sicily, four will be at a secret location in the Middle East, Hoke said. And Walt Kreitler, Northrop’s director of business development for the new drone, said he expects four of the Navy drones to fly out of Beale Air Force Base, Calif. and four to fly out of Jacksonville Naval Air Station.

The Navy’s new drones look like the Global Hawk, but the resemblance is skin deep.

The front edges of the aircraft’s wings have been toughened to withstand bird-strikes while its electronics are designed to withstand power surges from lightning, Kreitler said

The Navy drones have stiffer wings that allow them to dive below 10,000 feet to get a closer look at targets floating on the water. At that altitude there are strong wind gusts that could tear a Global Hawk to pieces. To survive in rough weather the Navy drones will also add de-icing equipment, Hoke said.

The system that will be fielded in 2015 also will include state-of-the-art maritime radar and sensors that can rotate 360 degrees and capture full-motion video, according to Cmdr. Craig Dorrans, who is helping lead the drone project.

“BAMS will have an automatic identification system that picks up transponders on commercial shipping that gives us position, course and flag,” he said, adding that air-to-air radar will help the drone avoid mid-air collisions.

The ability of the drone to pick up ships’ transponders will help commanders focus on vessels that are not sending the signals or which appear to be sending bogus signals, Hoke said.

The Navy’s demand for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information about what’s going on in the world’s oceans is almost unlimited, Kreitler said.

Northrop’s initial contact, to develop and build the first two drones for the Navy, is worth $1.6 billion. The company expects to manufacture 68 aircraft but it is still negotiating the price, Kreitler said.

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 12:37 AM

US Navy solicits bids to test autonomous VTUAV

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

3 hours ago

Source:

The US Navy is soliciting bids for the Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility System (AACUS), an unmanned vertical-takeoff and landing (VTOL) programme designed for autonomous cargo resupply to isolated units.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is executing the programme on behalf of the Marine Corps, which routinely deploys small units in isolated parts of Afghanistan. Standard practice is to resupply such units by road convoys, which are vulnerable to ambush.

The goal of AACUS, according to programme manager Mary Cummings, is to build a sensor and processing package that allows the aircraft to safely select its own route and landing point without input from a human operator.

Current technologies, including the unmanned Lockheed Martin K-Max recently deployed to Afghanistan, are reliant on human operators to assign flight paths and land the helicopter remotely. Such activities require highly trained personnel and sophisticated equipment at both origin and destination.

The unmanned K-Max is "the first baby step towards autonomous helicopters," said Cummings. AACUS, in contrast, will require only the location of the unit to be resupplied, and will choose its own routes and landing sites. .

Despite advances in autonomous technology, the fusion of complementary sensors required to ensure safe operations under suboptimal conditions is lacking. "There hasn't been anyone yet that can do it quickly and potentially environmentally unfriendly terrain, forget hostile terrain," said Cummings.

Bidders must integrate their chosen sensor package on two aircraft with unique flight control systems. Neither the sensors nor platforms nor computing mechanisms are fully described, allowing bidders a wide range of options.

Bids are due by 28 February, and awards will be given to two teams in April. The first flight demonstration is expected in FY2014.

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 01:09 AM

Northrop Pitches New Fire Scout To Marine Corps

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 4, 2012

WASHINGTON: The Navy's newest Fire Scout drone may also become the Marine Corps newest aerial cargo drone if prime contractor Northrop Grumman has its way.

The Marines are currently testing Lockheed Martin's KMAX aerial drone and Boeing's A160 Hummingbird as potential candidates for the unmanned airlift mission. Naval Air Systems Command recently decided to stop development work on the A160 for the Marines, according to recent news reports. The A160 is already in use by Army and Special Operations Command. The KMAX is currently undergoing flight tests in Afghanistan. That stoppage has opened the door for the Fire Scout's entry into the program, Mike Fuqua, head of business development for Northrop's tactical unmanned systems.

Northrop engineers are busy building in a cargo-carrying capability -- along with others -- into its new, long-range version of the Navy's MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned aircraft, Fuqua said. The Navy is expected to issue a formal deal to Northrop to buy 12 new C-model Fire Scouts as soon as March. These new C-models will be able to fly further and carry more advanced intelligence payloads than the older B-models Fire Scouts already in the fleet. Congressional lawmakers have already set aside $191 million for the MQ-8C deal as part of the the $1 trillion omnibus spending legislation passed by the Hill last December.

Getting the Fire Scout to carry cargo externally is a relatively simple job, according to Fuqua. The drone will just use the same extended tow hook system that's used on board the KMAX and A160. The key will be the the C-model's ability to carry cargo internally, Fuqua pointed out. The C-model's larger stowage bays -- initially designed to carry heavier surveillance payloads -- can also carry the same weight in supplies, gear or whatever frontline Marines may need. Work on the Fire Scout's airlift abilities is still in the early stages, according to Fuqua. Navy or Marine Corps have yet to express any interest in adding the Fire Scout into the Marines ongoing evaluations for a new aerial cargo drone.

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 01:29 PM

Navy Names First Three Mobile Landing Platform Ships

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued January 4, 2012)

The Department of the Navy’s three Mobile Landing Platform ships will be named the USNS Montford Point, the USNS John Glenn and the USNS Lewis B. Puller, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today.

“I chose to name the department’s new MLPs Montford Point, John Glenn and Lewis B. Puller as a way to recognize these American pioneers and heroes both collectively and individually,” said Mabus. “The courage shown by these Marines helped forge the Corps into the most formidable expeditionary force in the world.”

The USNS Montford Point honors the approximately 20,000 African American Marine Corps recruits who trained at the North Carolina facility from 1942-1949. Their exceptional service prompted President Truman to sign an executive order in 1948 ending segregation in the U.S. military services. These 20,000 Marines were recently recognized with our nation’s highest civilian honor for distinguished achievement, the Congressional Gold Medal.

The USNS Montford Point will be the first-of-class ship. It is expected to deliver in fiscal 2013 and be operational in fiscal 2015.

The second MLP, the USNS John Glenn, honors Col. John Glenn, a decorated Marine Corps pilot, distinguished astronaut, Congressional Space Medal of Honor recipient and U.S. Senator. During his time with the Marine Corps, Glenn flew 59 combat missions during World War II and a combined 90 missions over the course of two tours in the Korean War.

The final auxiliary support ship, the USNS Lewis B. Puller, is named in honor of Lt. Gen. Lewis “Chesty” Puller, the most decorated Marine in history and the only one to be awarded five Navy Crosses.

The MLP is a flexible platform that will provide capability for large-scale logistics movements such as the transfer of vehicles and equipment from sea to shore. It will significantly reduce dependency on foreign ports and provide support in the absence of any port, making it especially useful during disaster response and for supporting Marines once they are ashore.

The MLP in its basic form possesses a core capability set that supports a vehicle staging area, sideport ramp, large mooring fenders and up to three landing craft air cushioned vessel (LCAC) lanes.

The three ships will be constructed by General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) in San Diego, Calif.

-ends-

buglerbilly

10-01-12, 03:19 AM

Military Sealift Command Reorganizes Operations

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 9 Jan 2012 14:28

The Military Sealift Command (MSC) announced Jan. 9 a reorganization of its operating forces in a move to increase efficiency.

The submarine tenders Emory S. Land (AS 39) and Frank Cable (AS 40), seen together last month in Guam, are now part of MSC's Service Support program. MSC also oversees harbor tugboat operations (MC2 Elizabeth Fray / U.S. Navy)

"We are proactively streamlining," Rear Adm. Mark Buzby, MSC's commander, said in a statement.

MSC operates virtually all the U.S. Navy's support and auxiliary ships, crewing them with civilian mariners working for the government or civilian contract crews. The 110 ships operated by the command provide fleet services, take on special missions and carry and store military equipment.

Under the reorganization, the ships will operate under five mission programs, including a new Service Support program. Continuing in operation are the Combat Logistics Force (CLF), Special Mission, Prepositioning and Sealift programs.

The former Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force (NFAF) is no more, its ships operating now under the CLF or Service Support programs.

Also, MSC's 12 worldwide Ship Support Units, which previously reported to the Military Sealift Fleet Support Command in Norfolk, Va., now report to MSC's operational area commands: MSC Atlantic in Norfolk; MSC Pacific in San Diego; MSC Europe and Africa in Naples, Italy; MSC Central in Bahrain; and MSC Far East in Singapore.

Three of MSC's six civilian Senior Executive Service (SES) officials are being "repositioned," according to a press release. One SES will oversee MSC's government-operated ships, another will be in charge of contract-operated ships, and another will oversee total force manpower management.

The new Service Support program includes 14 government-operated ships, including the submarine tenders Emory S. Land and Frank Cable, command ship Mount Whitney and the cable laying ship Zeus, all formerly operated by the Special Mission program. Ten more ships previously operated by the NFAF operate now under the Service Support program, including the hospital ships Mercy and Comfort - designated T-AH - T-ATF fleet ocean tugs and T-ARS rescue and salvage ships.

The Combat Logistics Force, previously a subset of the NFAF, comprises 32 government-operated fleet underway replenishment ships, including T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships, T-AOE fast combat support ships, T-AO fleet replenishment oilers and T-AE ammunition ships.

The Special Mission program maintains 24 contract-operated ships, including 8 chartered submarine- and special warfare-support ships; 6 T-AGS oceanographic survey ships; 5 T-AGOS ocean surveillance ships; 2 T-AGM missile range instrumentation ships; the navigation test support ship Waters; and the SBX-1 Sea-based X-Band Radar platform with its towing vessel Dove. The program also manages harbor tug contracts on behalf of the Navy's Installations Command.

The prepositioning program maintains 31 large ships positioned worldwide to store military equipment for the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency. Prepositioning ships are a mix of government-owned and chartered ships. The program also includes the high-speed vessels Swift and WestPac Express, the Marine aviation support ships Curtiss and Wright, and the offshore petroleum distribution system ship Vice Adm. K. R. Wheeler.

The 16 ships of the Sealift program are also a mix of government-owned and long-term charter vessels, including large roll on/roll off ships, dry cargo ships, and tankers. The Ready Reserve Force, a group of 48 support ships maintained in various states of readiness, is also part of the Sealift program.

buglerbilly

10-01-12, 09:54 AM

BAMS In Action Over Iranian Coast

Posted on January 10, 2012 by The Editor

Photo: Northrop Grumman

Two years after extensive tests in Middle East, the US Navy’s customised RQ-4 Global Hawk, known as BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance), is now operating with a carrier task force at sea.

Circling above the task force, at 22,500 meters (70,000 feet), BAMS is monitoring sea traffic off the Iranian coast and the Straits of Hormuz. The BAMS aircraft fly a 24 hour sortie every three days. The first production BAMS will be available in six months, and these models will begin entering service in three years.

In 2009, the BAMS test consisted of 60 flights and over 1,000 hours in the air. The flights were over land and sea areas, even though the UAS sensors are designed mainly to perform maritime reconnaissance. U.S. Air Force Global Hawk maintenance personnel assisted the Navy in tending to the Navy RQ-4 while it was on the ground, and for landings and takeoffs. The UAS was operated by navy personnel back in the United States at Patuxent River Naval Air Station. A year earlier, the Navy began training four of its personnel (three P-3 pilots and one civilian) to operate RQ-4s. The four Navy operator trainees were in an accelerated course (four months instead of five) and were available to help fly US Air Force RQ-4s before the navy RQ-4s test model became operational in 2009. The Air Force could use the help, as the RQ-4s have been in the air for 30,000 hours over the last decade. The rate of use is accelerating. The Navy plans to buy 20 BAMS and 117 P-8As to replace 250 P-3Cs. This replacement is supposed to be complete in about a decade. The new surveillance aircraft provide more information over a wider area.

The U.S. Air Force and Navy are buying the B version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAVs, at a cost of over $60 million each. This version is larger (wingspan is 5 meters/15 feet larger, at 42.2 meters/131 feet, and it’s nine percent longer at 15.5 meters/48 feet) than the A model, and can carry more equipment. To support that, there’s a new generator that produces 150 percent more electrical power. The RQ-4 has a range of over 22,000 kilometers and a cruising speed of 650 kilometers an hour.

The first three RQ-4Bs entered service in 2006. The B version is supposed to be a lot more reliable. Early A models tended to fail and crash at the rate of once every thousand flight hours.

Source: Strategy Page

buglerbilly

10-01-12, 02:34 PM

U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Update: Adding Certainty to an Uncertain Future

USS Freedom (LCS 1) departs for her maiden deployment.

Statement from the Office of Asst. Sec. of the Navy, Research, Development and Acquisition

08:05 GMT, January 10, 2012 defpro.com | On the occasion of the Surface Navy Association’s 24th National Symposium, taking place in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 10-12, defpro.com asked the Office of Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN), Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA)*, to provide an overview and status update of current U.S. Navy shipbuilding programmes and the ongoing efforts of sustaining the world’s largest and most capable naval force amid an increasingly difficult budget situation.

The Navy’s statement, which is published below, is part of the defpro.focus on “US Shipbuilding Programmes” at http://goo.gl/qCbqn.
____

Today, we have a 285-ship U.S. Navy, half of which, on average, is underway every day. Nearly 100 of those ships are currently deployed, operating on every ocean around the world. Given that pace of operations, and our force structure requirements in the event of major combat operations, we must build the right ships to support a defense strategy that requires our being smaller and leaner, and yet still agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently introduced the Department’s new strategic guidance to articulate priorities for a 21st century defense that sustains U.S. global leadership. This guidance will shape what we buy for the Joint force for the future. What must not change is our obligation to continue delivering extraordinary capability to the warfighter. That is our mission in support of protecting the nation, and in today’s environment, it is important to protect the taxpayer, as well, by buying that capability at the lowest possible cost.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is strongly committed to investing in shipbuilding and the Dept. of the Navy acquisition team is executing on that commitment. Over the last year, we have awarded contracts to procure 36 ships – including options – with a total contract value of $18.7B. Making up this total are the 20 Littoral Combat Ships that comprise the dual block buy announced in December 2010; two Virginia Class submarines; two Zumwalt destroyers; four DDG 51 ships; three Mobile Landing Platforms; one Amphibious Transport Dock; two Joint High Speed Vessels; and two Oceanographic Research ships.

This is significant because it adds an important degree of certainty to our industrial base in an otherwise uncertain financial future for defense spending. But we cannot simply buy our way to recapitalizing our force structure. We must focus relentlessly on improving affordability in shipbuilding programs, and we must sustain our planned investment in modernizing the current force.

As we address budget constraints, we are lowering the cost of doing business. In defining our requirements, we have placed emphasis on affordability and are accepting the 80 percent solution when the 80 percent solution meets our needs most affordably. We aim to hold requirements stable and guard against requirements creep, using incremental upgrades to add capability. We are stabilizing the rate at which we buy; leveraging competition at the shipbuilder level and across the supply chain; and we are improving the way we contract for systems.

This past year’s procurements in Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and the DDG 51 restart are good examples. For LCS, the dual award acquisition strategy effectively leveraged competition, fixed price contracting and design stability to increase near-term ship procurement and take advantage of hot production lines. While creating the opportunity for future competition, we saved $2.9B through FY2016.

For the MLP, we had an original set of requirements that leaned toward the exquisite and the ship was going to be too costly to build. Working with industry on alternatives in terms of MLP design, the Navy and U.S. Marine Corps arrived at a solution with 80 percent of the capability at half the cost. All three ships are under contract now and the lead MLP keel will be laid in January.

The Navy also is delivering on the plan to provide increased Air and Missile Defense for our future fleet and strengthen our industrial base with the restart of DDG 51 production. We have leveraged competition, incentivized greater productivity and driven down costs. We started with a very mature program with a mature industrial base and are taking advantage of a managed risk approach to fill a needed gap in our requirements by focusing on critical capabilities and bringing those to the program through upgrades. This becomes an affordable approach to filling a mission requirement that the CG(X) initially was targeting.

The DDG 1000 program continues to meet its cost, schedule, and performance goals with the Navy awarding the contract in September for the construction of DDG 1001 and DDG 1002. Both ships are being procured under fixed-price contracts in line with the Navy’s should-cost estimates. The future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) recently celebrated it keel laying ceremony and is more than 60 percent complete.

Meanwhile, mature programs, like the Lewis and Clark Class Auxiliaries (T-AKE) continue to make strides with cost reduction initiatives. The final two T-AKEs are under construction at NASSCO and substantial reductions in labor hours from hull to hull have led to their delivery as much as eight months early. This demand for increased learning and production efficiencies as we enter serial production in a class is crucial in building an affordable fleet.

We aim to attack rising costs early and aggressively. GERALD R. FORD, the lead ship of our first new class of aircraft carrier in nearly 40 years, incorporates the latest technology, including an innovative new flight deck designed to provide greater operational flexibility, reduced manning requirements, and the ability to operate all current and future naval aircraft. When regular reviews of the cost performance of this key program indicated cost increases, we initiated a detailed review to determine specific causes of increases and what recovery actions could be put in place. The end-to-end review team assessed the “to-go” cost and schedule risks on CVN 78 for every aspect of the ship’s construction including the risks in both contractor furnished and government furnished systems. The results of this review will point toward specific performance improvements necessary to this lead ship while informing fundamental changes to planning for CVN 79.

We also look forward to capturing savings in two of our major shipbuilding programs, DDG 51 and Virginia-Class submarines through multiyear procurements in this next Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). This approach to the way we buy our ships is essential to controlling cost in this low rate shipbuilding environment.

It allows industry to level load, to invest in facilities and process improvements, to buy economically from the vendor base, and to capitalize on its base in the pursuit of other work. Perhaps most importantly, it provides assurance in this era of budget uncertainty.

The Navy began construction of two Virginia Class submarines in 2011, marking the first time in 22 years that two submarines of the same class have started construction in the same year. To make this possible, the Navy/industry shipbuilding team executed a Design for Affordability program that yielded significant cost savings. Increasing construction efficiencies accounted for much of this success with the last two submarines being delivered in 65 months, eight months early to their contract delivery date. Improved performance continues to drive production spans down to 60 months for the two Fiscal Year 2012 authorized boats [SSN 788 and SSN 789]. Building two submarines per year is the most economical way to procure these boats and is essential to meeting the long term force structure improvements for our submarine force.

In the Ohio Replacement Program, we have included affordability as a requirement and put Will-Cost and Should-Cost management principles into action early in the program’s lifecycle. Modeling the successful Virginia Class effort, we have established a Design for Affordability (DFA) and Design for Sustainability (DFS) process to achieve the should-cost targets established for average unit construction cost. This process is an engineering driven, aggressive cost reduction effort to identify design and production efficiencies, procurement strategies, and technology development implemented to lower design, acquisition and total ownership costs.

Competition remains a critical factor in affordability – not merely at the prime contractor or shipbuilder level, but through the entire supply chain. These factors all come to bear in the ongoing competition for the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). The Navy, working with industry, has arrived at a set of requirements that most affordably meets the fleet’s needs for increased air and missile defense. We’re able to leverage an extremely healthy competition across our three primary radar houses—Raytheon, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman—in the development of that radar, which is allowing for significant progress on this critical development.

Given the budget decisions we face, we must be absolutely confident that continued investment is merited, not just for AMDR, but across all our programs. Ultimately, all programs compete within the budget process to determine how the Department should best spend its limited resources. Performance counts, for now more than ever budget execution will be a zero sum game. It is our expectation that responsible and reliable industry partners will, across their corporate portfolios, meet or better their cost performance targets. Industry partners who are unable to deliver corporate portfolio performance that is at least neutral, generate additional budget risk, which must be considered when deciding how to pay unexpected bills.

Our Navy-Marine Corps team remains the most capable fighting force in the world, and our current shipbuilding programs provide the means called for by the current Defense Strategy to confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world. Because we cannot recapitalize a force built up in the 1980s and 90s with systems that cost many-fold to replace them, we must continue to attack cost across the board and then focus on keeping these programs on budget and on schedule.
____

* The office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development and Acquisition, is held since July 2008 by the Honorable Sean J. Stackley. As the Navy’s acquisition executive, Mr. Stackley is responsible for the research, development and acquisition of Navy and Marine Corps platforms and warfare systems which includes oversight of more than 100,000 people and an annual budget in excess of $50 billion. More on Mr. Stackley can be found on the website of the U.S. Navy at http://goo.gl/sN7M9.

The website of the Department of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) can be found at https://acquisition.navy.mil/rda.

(Photo: U.S. Navy)

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 01:25 AM

SNA: CNO lays down his priorities

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 7:44 pm

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said Tuesday the Navy’s global focus won’t change much as it begins to feel the squeeze from reduced budget growth, but it will double down on a few key strategies and goals.

Greenert told a packed auditorium at the Surface Navy Association’s trade show outside Washington that the Navy would focus on keeping open the world’s most important and most vulnerable “choke points,” key corridors for commerce, particularly in the Western Pacific and the Middle East.

“We need to be where the maritime crossroads are,” he said. “That’s what keeps the world economy rolling along.”

He showed a diagram with markings on the Strait of Hormuz; the Bab al Mandeb, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden; and the Strait of Malacca, among others. Not all of them were obviously in need of Navy attention, and Greenert said the service must keep that in mind.

“The Panama Canal is going to be widened,” he said. “What does that mean for the Caribbean? I dunno, but we need a place down there to operate, and that is Guantanamo Bay.”

Greenert segued into his concept for “bases” and “places” – U.S. or friendly international ports where American sea and expeditionary power will remain important going forward. A familiar example is Japan, but a new one is Australia, he said, or Rota, Spain, which will host four Aegis destroyers as part of the Euro-BMD mission. And there could be others: Greenert said that the Navy and Marines could someday use other Australian “air heads” or naval bases beyond the one in Darwin where Marines will spend their standard rotations.

Singapore could be another future hub for the Navy, Greenert said. Its government has offered to host some forward-deployed facilities for littoral combat ships, where tomorrow’s LCSes could at least swap mission packages or put in for repairs. That, in turn, would put the U.S. Navy in a very convenient place to ensure the safe transit of trade through the Strait of Malacca.

What Greenert did not discuss was what a new focus on critical straits would mean for the Navy’s goodwill deployments to Africa and South America, which have picked up over the last few years with frigate, hospital ship and other visits. They may fall off as part of the new strategic guidance that calls for a smaller American military presence in Africa and South America, especially if the Navy’s frigates start to leave the fleet in numbers.

Beyond the larger strategy, Greenert also talked about some of his top acquisitions principles for the austerity Navy. He took a soft shot at the F-35C, saying that in anti-access, area-denial environments, “stealth and platforms have a limit,” though he was careful to include a boilerplate endorsement of the program. But he asked rhetorically whether it was better to invest in “payload,” versus “platform,” implying that he wants new longer-range standoff weapons that would agnostic about what kind of fighter delivered them.

He said he wanted “modularity,” and “a common hull” in a theoretical replacement for the Arleigh Burke destroyer class; he’s “excited” about the Unmanned Combat Air Systems down the line; and threw in the standard praise for cyber-warfare.

Specifically, Greenert said he wants the Navy’s long-discussed anti-torpedo torpedo – a hedge against certain navies’ growing submarine fleets – as well as more unmanned underwater vehicles that can hunt for mines and submarines. He also said he will bring a big push about electronic warfare and electronic attack:

“In some areas, our probability of a kill right now is zero,” he said. “If we can get that to only 15 percent, that’s good, coming from zero.”

Greenert’s biggest near-term worry is what he called “wholeness” in the fleet, he said – that no matter how impressive a cruiser might appear as it put to sea for a deployment, its crew actually was ready for any missions it might be asked to take. The Surface Force was, in some ways, a hollow force before that term was ubiquitous, so Navy leaders are constantly stressing their commitment to basic competence, maintenance and training.

Historically, the surface Navy disposed of ships well before the end of their service lives, but today’s leadership sees the budget writing on the wall. So Greenert, like his predecessor, is stressing the need to make sailors as skilled as possible at running and maintaining their ships and gear to squeeze the most possible good from them.

That will especially apply of more drawdowns and budget reductions means the Navy under Greenert continues to shrink, he said.

“No matter the size of our force, particularly if it’s a little smaller, we’ve got to be able to do the job right.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/10/sna-cno-lays-down-his-priorities/#ixzz1j6nGgbQ8
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 01:34 AM

Does US Navy Need More Ships to Counter China?

By Colin Clark

Published: January 10, 2012

WASHINGTON: The complexities of the United States diplomatic and military relationships with the People's Republic of China were on full view today as the U.S. Navy's leader said he does not need a bigger force to manage our presence in the western Pacific.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, told several hundred people that the Navy has roughly 50 ships in the western Pacific on any given day and that is enough. Greenert told the event, organized by the Center for New American Security, that there is no "big naval buildup in the Far East" and the nation's new heightened strategic focus on the Pacific won't affect actual operations.

At the same time, Greenert noted that "this area is vital to the United States. We know that." A map he shared with the audience made that clear. The Navy has 30 ships stationed off the US Atlantic coast; 15 ships on our Pacific coast; 30 ships around the Indian Ocean and 15 ships in the eastern Atlantic.

Pacific Command and its counterparts in the Chinese Navy are trying to create a new set of communication 'protocols,' Greenert said today. These are designed to ensure each side can clearly communicate its intentions in the region and help as a key mediation tool to cope with disputes between China, the U.S. or other countries in the region.

Current gaps in the way the US and PRC communicate provide the "opportunity for miscommunication," Greenert said. The new protocols, based on a specific and mutual understanding of how U.S. and Chinese chains of command operate, can serve as a foundation for standardized communications.

In addition to the new protocols, Greenert said the U.S. is working with China and other countries in the region on "a concept of operations" for human disaster and relief operations. Given the often prickly claims and counterclaims over transit rights and often tiny specks such as make up much of the Spratly Islands, hammering out a standard set of responses to disasters like the great tsunami of 2004, could greatly speed responses at a critical time and improve everyone's understanding of how its allies and competitors operate, lessening the chances for misunderstandings.

However, as Robert Kaplan,co-author of a new CNAS study on China, noted: "If you look at a map of all these conflicting claims, it makes you dizzy."

And, just for some perspective, Greenert told the CNAS audience that what really keeps him up at night is, "what's happening at the Straits of Hormuz." He wouldn't offer any details, but Iran has threatened several times since the New Year began to close the straits and has blustered that U.S. aircraft carriers must not return to the region.

Carlo Munoz contributed to this story.

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 01:36 AM

Navy Warships Brace For Cyber Attacks

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 10, 2012

WASHINGTON: As the Navy prepares to push further into the Western Pacific, service leaders are doing all they can to prepare their warships for potential cyberattacks, the head of the Navy's surface warfare fleet said today.

Cyberwarfare remains the preeminent threat to U.S. naval forces around the world, Vice Adm. Richard Hunt, commander of naval surface forces, said today. The Navy, along with the rest of the Pentagon and U.S. government, are constantly pursuing ways to fortify government networks from cyberattacks. Many of these attacks are alledgedly launched by China or their allies across the globe. Aside from protecting its key networks, Navy leaders are also looking at ways to keep the fleet combat ready in the wake of a cyberattack.

Hunt stressed maintaining the readiness and resiliance of Navy warships, even if critical communication networks are clipped due to a cyberattack. One strategy Hunt and other Navy leaders are exploring is extending how long a ship can sustain itself at sea without resupply. If a cyberattack cripples a ship's navigation and communications systems, it is essentialy on its own. A ship's crew can survive and fight without resupply or support for only a finite amount of time. Since there is no guarantee when that isolated ship will be able to reestablish comms with the rest of the fleet, service leaders want to stretch how long that vessel can fend for itself in contested waters, Hunt explained. "We need to find a way to work around that," he added.

Navy leaders are also looking to implement a more rigorous ship inspection process to "minimize discovery" of sometimes fatal flaws in some of the fleet's older vessels. Spearheaded by Hunt's office, the Navy is "actively moving forward" with those plans, the three-star admiral said. Service leaders are in the midst of putting the final touches on a Navy-wide guidance outlining the aggressive new plan, he added. This plan, if successful, will help the Navy take on the massive role envisioned for the service in the White House's new national security strategy. President Obama personally unveiled the plan last week at the Pentagon.

With a limited number of new ships expected to come into the fleet over the next decade, Navy leaders will need every functional hull in the water to make the administration's plan work. For his part, Hunt is not worried. "If there is a [maritime] chokepoint out there, we are going to be there," he said.

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 03:58 AM

Navy To Review 313-Ship Plan, VCNO Says

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 11, 2012

UPDATED WASHINGTON: The Navy could abandon its long-standing goal for a 313-ship fleet in its new force structure plan to meet the needs of the White House's new national security strategy.

Navy leaders are in the midst of drafting a new force structure assessment, according Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mark Ferguson. That new assessment will bring the Navy in line with the goals laid out in the White House's new national security strategy unveiled last week.

But it will likely change the Navy's long-standing goal of a 313-ship fleet, he said said during today's speech at the Surface Navy Association's annual conference in Arlington. That 313-ship goal was based on the national security priorities set by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. With the change in focus from that QDR to the new plan set by the Obama administration, the Navy "will have to re-look" the feasibility of fielding a 313-ship fleet, according to Ferguson. "I think all of us recognize that under those [2006] assumptions and that financial picture that was a great force structure to do what was needed," he said of the 313-ship goal. "We are going to go back and take a look and see what direction that is [now]."

Ferguson's comments come as the Navy and the rest of the Pentagon begin to shift their focus from Southwest Asia to the Western Pacific. With total ground forces expected to drop over the next decade, the Navy and Air Force will bear the brunt of that new Pacific campaign. The Navy will take on that mission with a "smaller and leaner" force, Ferguson said. That said, service leaders are taking steps to make sure that smaller fleet is as effective as possible.

The Navy's warfighting directorates will get more control over what warships and weapons they buy in the future as part of a overall effort to revamp the service's procurement process. With less ships expected to enter the fleet, Navy leaders want to make sure what they buy will meet their needs now and in the future. This acquisition overhaul is geared to do just that.

The new reorganization proposal is currently being worked by top Navy leaders inside the Pentagon, according to Ferguson. Service directorates for areas including surface warfare, submarines, aviation and expeditionary warfare will now be responsible for key acquisition decisions on which new systems make it into their portfolios, Ferguson said during his speech today at the Surface Navy Association's annual conference. As part of that plan, directorate chiefs will be forced to consider all the factors -- from initial procurement to training and long-term sustainment -- that go into a big-ticket acquisition program. A new three-star position will be created to make sure all those factors are integrated properly into a given weapons program, the four-star admiral noted. Navy leaders hope to have the new acquisition strategy in place by fiscal 2015, he said.

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 04:05 AM

Navy Successfully Links Up MH-60, Fire Scout In Flight Trials

By Carlo Munoz

Published: January 11, 2012

WASHINGTON: The Navy's premiere combat helicopter and unmanned drone can now operate in tandem during future combat operations after successfully completing initial tests late last year.

Officials at Naval Air Systems command were able to link up the Lockheed Martin-built MH-60 Sierra with Northrop Grumman's Fire Scout unmanned drone during a series of operational evaluations held at Naval Air Station Pautuxent River last October, a Lockheed spokeswoman told AOL Defense today. The Fire Scout drone was able to pass intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data and imagery from its onboard sensors to the MH-60 during the flight tests, according to the spokeswoman. That information was then successfully routed to the Navy's Surface Aviation Interoperability Lab in Pax River. The manned-unmanned duo completed four test flights during the evaluation without incident, according to the spokeswoman.

The test data is being fed back into the Navy's ongoing work to draft a concept of operations for this new manned-unmanned capability, the spokeswoman said. It is unclear whether Navy officials plan to test the MH-60 and Fire Scout team on the open seas. If adopted, this new capability could be the first step toward having Fire Scouts controlled by MH-60 aircrews.

Controlling Fire Scouts from Sea Hawks could end up expanding how far the unmanned drones could fly. The distance Fire Scouts can fly is limited by the range of their shipboard command and control system. Fly too far, and the unmanned aircraft loses connectivity with the ship. Stay inside that range and thousands of miles of open ocean are left unguarded. To date, Fire Scout can only be flown from control centers on board surface ships.

But if Fire Scouts can be controlled by Sea Hawks they should be able to fly wherever the helicopters fly without losing connectivity. That means more miles of ocean covered by U.S. forces. The move could also eliminate many of the command and control concerns about the Fire Scout, which is slated to become the first armed unmanned drone in the Navy's arsenal.

buglerbilly

13-01-12, 01:08 AM

SNA: The Navy’s happy warrior

By Philip Ewing Thursday, January 12th, 2012 6:24 pm

Navy Undersecretary Robert Work mocked skeptics of the future fleet on Thursday and expounded boisterously on his belief that, far from a diminution in American seapower, the 21st century will deliver it to new heights.

Work told the Surface Navy Association that all the hand-wringing on Capitol Hill and among think tanks about the number of ships the Navy will wind up with misses the point. The ships will be much more capable than they’ve ever been and the Navy will have new systems and sensors, such as its Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft.

“People say, ‘Is it going to be 313 ships or 310?’” Work said in an anxious voice. Then he declared: “I don’t care! We’ve got BAMS!” He showed a chart with overlapping circles where ships, BAMS, and the Navy’s new P-8 Poseidon aircraft will be able to cover more area when they come online.

“How many ships would you need to maintain this kind of domain awareness? It’s a lot bigger than a 600-ship navy, I can guarantee you that,” Work said. “We span the globe!”

Work sounded like someone who has spent months absorbing and processing critics’ attacks on the Navy, and was eager to present an alternative storyline that everyone was missing the point.

“This is not something where we need to say, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t have 600 ships!’ We don’t need them. This is a better fleet. I would take that fleet over that third-generation fleet of 600 ships” – though he admitted he’d prefer 100 attack submarines.

Work brushed off criticisms of the littoral combat ship: “Yeah, it burns a lot of fuel. We have refuelers,” he said. So the Navy might struggle with the ships’ crewing – he pointed out that critics also worried about sending the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates to sea with 185 sailors.

“We didn’t get that exactly right,” he said. “Why cry about it?”

LCS, new destroyers, amphibious ships and other systems, including the Navy’s planned integrated fire-control system, its SM-6 missile, and the new reach of the P-8, BAMS and E-2D Hawkeye means the future of the U.S. Navy is so bright that Work said he was “psyched.”

“This is a good time to be a [surface warfare officer] – and if you aren’t excited, you don’t have a pulse.”

Naval expert Norman Polmar stood up and asked Work whether they would see a new, next-generation replacement for the Tomahawk cruise missile in their lifetimes. Absolutely, Work said – not only that, the Navy also is moving along in its bid to develop a next-generation anti-ship missile to replace the Harpoon.

Navy officials are at the point in their analysis of alternatives where they’re deciding between one of two ways to go, Work said: “Slow and stealthy or high and fast. We’re just about ready to complete the AoA – in your in my lifetime we’ll see follow-on to Harpoon and be very effective, and out-stick everybody out there.”

Work admitted that he might be accused of “talking nirvana,” and he acknowledged to reporters afterward that part of Washington’s emphasis on Navy fleet numbers was because of the Navy itself. Two consecutive chiefs of naval operations spent years selling 313 as at least the minimum number of warships the Navy must have, but as we saw Wednesday from Senator Susan Collins, even the Navy’s own projections aren’t very optimistic about that.

Work said he thought the Navy should begin trying to tell Congress a broader story about the Navy as “a total integrated battle force,” as opposed to just a simple number of ships, but he and other top Navy leaders this week did not concede the service should change its official requirements.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/12/sna-the-navys-happy-warrior/#ixzz1jIQ5UnR8
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

13-01-12, 01:09 AM

SNA: Analysts paint bleak picture of future Navy

By Philip Ewing Thursday, January 12th, 2012 7:20 pm

A trio of experienced naval analysts laid out a bleak future for the Navy on Thursday based on their projections under current circumstances, and an even bleaker one under the threat of next year’s sequestration.

Congressional Budget Office shipbuilding expert Eric Labs said the Navy could lose between 16 and 24 ships from its 30-year plan if sequestration takes effect, depending on the Navy and CBO’s different assumptions.

If anything, Labs said, he was understating the potential consequences, because the shipbuilding projections assumed programs running perfectly and did not factor in the effects of increased unit costs after quantity reductions.

By 2025, that could leave the Navy with a fleet of 260 ships and decreasing, down from 285 today and well short of its onetime goal of at least 313 – although as Undersecretary Bob Work said in his early presentation, you shouldn’t get too hung up on numbers.

And even if sequestration doesn’t happen, as we heard from Maine Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday, the Navy’s own projections for the future put it well short of its own goals for “large surface combatants,” i.e. cruisers and destroyers.

Work said during his presentation that the surface fleet would wind up with about 72 destroyers and 15 cruisers – that’s seven fewer than today’s force of 22 cruisers — then backtracked, said he “didn’t want to talk about numbers,” and asked to “rewind the tape.” He may inadvertently have let that detail slip before the actual DoD budget documents go to Congress in early February.

Labs, citing the Navy’s most recent official numbers, said that whatever the exact breakdown between cruisers and destroyers, the fleet would be 24 ships short of its own floor of 94 by the late 2020s. Its options for dealing with this are, at very least, tricky.

The Navy could add 24 more ships to its long-term plan, but “With this fiscal reality, that’s probably not going to happen,” Labs said. Or it could try a combination of adding fewer new ships and trying to stretch some of its existing ones to serve for 30, 35, 40 or even 45 years, but that would also be tough.

Navy officials will talk your ear off about how super-committed they are to getting serious about maintenance, improving sailor training, and generally squeezing the most life possible out of today’s fleet. It has taken on the religious quality of serious fads and trends (“transformation!”) in the defense world. But the fleet’s actual track record is decidedly mixed.

Labs said that the average life of the last 13 types of cruisers and destroyers retired by the Navy was 26 years. Three types reached the end of their service lives; four were retired for budgetary reasons and because they’d been outpaced by other ships; and six types – including the full Spruance class – were retired “strictly for budgetary reasons,” Labs said.

His colleague Ron O’Rourke, a veteran analyst with the Congressional Research Service, gave another glum assessment: Not only does the Navy have many significant problems in its near and medium future, he said, it has apparently given up trying to solve or even think about them.

For example, O’Rourke said he was mystified that the Navy apparently has no official plan to deal with its cruiser-destroyer gap. “This is the biggest shortfall for a major category of ship I have seen in my 28 years as naval analyst – this is huge,” he said. Alluding to Work’s presentation, O’Rourke said “This is bigger than what the network is going to make up – you can have the rest in place but this won’t compensate for that.”

O’Rourke — who stressed, as Labs did, that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of his congressional agency – suggested the Navy needed to act quickly to figure out what to do about the cruiser-destroyer gap. By the time the shortfall begins to put a real strain on the force, it would be too late to begin building ships or making decisions to alleviate it.

“The only thing more remarkable to me than this shortfall is the amount of attention it receives in Navy presentations – it is completely absent from the Navy’s discussions,” O’Rourke said.

Also absent from the Navy’s official public consciousness these days is its onetime stress on “integrated electric drive” – the ship technology that the Navy used to sell to everyone as a game changer for tomorrow’s ships.

If warships of tomorrow are to field bigger, more powerful new radars, or even electric weapons such as lasers or rail guns, they’ll need more power and more cooling than today’s ships produce. The Navy once thought that required it to develop ships that could direct energy from their main engines to shipboard equipment, the way Captain Kirk could order the fictional Starship Enterprise to move power from its warp engines to its deflector shields.

Commercial and Military Sealift Command ships today have electric drives, but no U.S. warships, and O’Rourke observed that the Navy’s aspirations for a serious integrated electric drive seem to have died with its cancelled cruiser CG(X). But the threats of the future, including advanced anti-ship missiles, haven’t gone away, O’Rourke said.

So where, he asked, is the Navy’s “road map” for the shipboard power that tomorrow’s destroyers would need to support the advanced weapons of the future? O’Rourke described how Navy planners have told him that when or if those weapons actually ever materialize, the fleet can back-fit them to the ships available at the time, but O’Rourke was skeptical.

None of the warships under construction or on the drawing board today could support an electric weapon more powerful than about 100 kilowatts, he said – not enough juice to get the job done.

And, of course, O’Rourke mentioned the littoral combat ship. The Surface Force has got to do a better job selling itself to Congress and opinion-makers in Washington, he warned, because a lot of people view LCS has low-hanging fruit for spending hawks. It needs a “vision” or a “statement” to show people how everything fits together, as Work described.

Today, however, “The LCS is becoming a standard item around town among people coming up with proposals to cut the defense budgets,” O’Rourke said. He showed a list of think tanks “across the political spectrum,” as he put it, that have called for reductions or cancellations to LCS, including the Heritage Foundation, the Center for a New American Security and the National Security Network.

Author and shipbuilding expert Norman Polmar, for his part, seconded their skepticism. Continued shortcomings and problems with the ships will mean the Navy gives up on it sooner rather than later, he argued.

“We say we’re going to build 55 LCSes. Well, I’ll bet anyone here a whole dollar bill we’re not going to build 55.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/12/sna-analysts-paint-bleak-picture-of-future-navy/#ixzz1jIQdNFAo
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 04:25 AM

U.S. Navy Pushes Huntington to Cut Costs

Jan 13, 2012

By Andrea Shalal-Esa/Reuters
Washington

The USN also needs to reconsider the THREE generational leaps it blindly tries time after time.............LCS, the ships themselves, also have price problems that won't be resolved until ship 6 to 8 onwards (probably) never mind the cost impact of the VERY late mission modules remians unresolved. The LPD's wouldn't have half the problems they have if they'd used aluminium rather than try for composites.............no prior experience with compo's and people are surprised with costs being high! :doh :doh :doh

The U.S. Navy said Jan. 12 it is working closely with Huntington Ingalls Industries to continue to drive down costs on the CVN 78 aircraft carrier and LPD amphibious ships the company has under construction.

Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley said the company was over the government’s target price for a number of LPD ships under construction, and had hit the cost ceiling established in a fixed price contract for LPD-22, the second ship delivered at the Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss.

Stackley said subsequent ships in the LPD class were also over target, but showing some improvement. He did not elaborate on how much the cost overruns were.

“Each ship is a little bit better. There’s steady progress, but they’re not where they need to be,” he told reporters after a speech at the Surface Navy Association annual conference.

Pentagon acquisition officials have focused heavily on reining in cost overruns on major weapons programs as they brace for a downturn in spending after a decade of sharp growth. Cost overruns are particularly large in the shipbuilding sector, given that it costs billions of dollars to build one warship, but the Navy has adopted new strategies, including block buys and multiyear procurements to stabilize costs.

[As Aviation Week reported Jan. 11, in a keynote speech at the conference Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, calmly reprimanded shipbuilders for schedule delays and asked repair contractors to help the service meet its needs.]

Huntington Ingalls Chief Executive Mike Petters said the company had already taken charges for the cost overruns on the LPD ships 22 through 25, but said the company was doing better with LPD 26, which is in the early stages of production.

He said Huntington Ingalls, which was spun off from Northrop Grumman last year, was focused heavily on improving its execution and driving additional cost out of its shipbuilding programs as it continued efforts to shut down its Avondale shipyard.

“We tell anybody who will listen that we still have risk on those programs,” Petters told Reuters in an interview. “Until those ships are gone, and until we get Avondale wound down and closed, we sleep with one eye open on all those programs.”

Petters said he remained confident that the company’s margins would continue to improve and should reach 9 percent by 2015, with progress accelerating after work on the underperforming ship contracts was completed. The company posted an operating margin of 6.9% in the third quarter, compared with 4.6% a year ago.

Stackley acknowledged that building a new class of aircraft carrier was complex, and that task was made harder by the Navy’s decision to transition to a new carrier in one ship, rather than over the course of three, as initially planned.

He said the Navy was working closely with Huntington Ingalls to drive cost out of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) aircraft carrier, but was trying to “hammer home” the need for additional efforts.

He said the company had a good management team in place, but needed to make further changes to lower the cost of the carrier.

He said the Navy had added funds to the fiscal 2013 budget and five-year spending plan to cover expected cost increases on the CVN 78 carrier. He gave no details, since the budget will not be formally released until February, but said the Navy had not budgeted for the worst case, estimate by some to be a cost overrun of $1 billion cost on the $12 billion program.

He declined to comment directly on whether work on the next carrier would be delayed, something Huntington Ingalls says would drive up the cost of that ship.

Huntington Ingalls last week responded to reports that the carrier would likely be $884 million over budget by saying it was continuing to see improvements in its performance on the aircraft carrier.

Petters said both the company and the Navy knew at the outset that building a first-in-class ship as complex as an aircraft carrier involved risk, and they had agreed on a formula for sharing that risk.

If industry had to shoulder the risk of new development programs completely on its own, he said, the cost of new warships and other weapons would skyrocket because defense companies would raise prices to cover the added risk.

“There’s an argument to be made that the method that we’re using to build the Ford is saving the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said, adding that company executives were “very aggressive in going out and continue to try to save money.”

He said it was critical to maintain continuity on ship programs, and said Huntington Ingalls was urging the Navy to proceed with awarding a contract for the next Ford-class carrier in 2013, rather than delaying it as some have suggested.

“The more you push this thing out, the higher the price goes,” Petters said. “The most efficient way to build it is to contract on time.”

© 2011 Thomson Reuters.

U.S. Navy LPD-17

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 04:39 AM

U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Given Budget Priority

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 13 Jan 2012 18:48

The general state of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding programs is good, two senior service officials claimed, and construction programs apparently will not be slashed to meet an expected Pentagon-wide $263 billion reduction in spending.

"We've placed a priority on shipbuilding," Sean Stackley, the Navy's top acquisition official, told reporters Jan. 12. "You can see a lot of alignment between the defense strategy and what the Navy does."

The Obama administration's fiscal 2013 budget request, scheduled to be sent Feb. 6 to Congress, will show "various impacts," Stackley said, "but we've been careful to hold to the core capabilities we need in our shipbuilding program. It's not just platforms, it's the capability we need in terms of weapon systems to be able to meet the defense strategy."

Speaking at the Surface Navy Association's symposium in Washington, Stackley commented on the progress of the Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), a program to develop a primary sensor to go with the Aegis weapon system. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are competing under-development contracts for the radar, which will be installed on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers beginning with those bought in 2016.

A downselect on the AMDR is expected to take place later this year.

"The AMDR program is going great. And I'm not blowing smoke," Stackley adamantly declared.

"I spent a very concerted couple-week period this past fall, because I've got to see for myself. So I went up to Raytheon, I went to Lockheed Martin, I went to Northrop Grumman.

"I spent a day at each going through not just the data, but looking at the hardware, sitting down and talking with the engineers individually. Getting as much information as I could to corroborate what I'm seeing inside the Navy.

"That program is going very well."

He noted that the AMDR effort is building on existing technology.

"The maturity of the technology is far beyond where folks in the building believed it could be. And the costs that we are seeing are much better than we had estimated just a couple of years ago," he said.

"And the performance - we're at the upper end of the estimated performance range. I'm bullish on AMDR."

With the AMDR installed, the new destroyers will become Flight III of the Arleigh Burke class, supplanting current Flight IIA ships.

Stackley reminded a lunch audience that the Navy would seek a multiyear procurement (MYP) in the new budget for destroyers from 2013 through 2017. Congressional MYP authorization, however, is normally based on design maturity and consistency.

Navy Undersecretary Bob Work, speaking with reporters at the symposium, explained that, for a brief time, the service plans to order both Flight IIAs and IIIs.

"There's an overlap date between the IIAs and the Flight IIIs," he said, with another block buy planned separately for the AMDR ships.

Details will arrive on Jan. 26, when DoD officials preview the 2013 budget request.

7 Cruisers To Be Cut?

Earlier, Work, speaking to a symposium audience, laid out the capabilities of the fleet being built through 2022 - and might have inadvertently let slip one of the secret numbers about future ship cuts.

"We're going to wind up with 72 Burkes, and 15 - uh excuse me, I'm not going to tell you any numbers. Rewind the tape," he said, to sympathetic laughter from the professional audience.

The Burke number would reflect the total number of Flight I, II and IIA ships, but the Navy currently operates 22 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers. Speculation has been rampant that some of the cruisers, which range in age from 25 years old to 17, might be decommissioned in line with budget reductions. No officials have commented for the record, but most guesses range between six and nine ships.

Work may have let slip that seven Ticos will be put down early.

But he also exuberantly extolled the virtues of the forces the Navy will have in the future.

"Everyone focuses in on: it's going to be 313 ships, 310," he said. "What the hell do we care? I have BAMS," the Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft based on the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft.

"Those numbers don't care," Work said. "How many ships would it take to provide the same maritime domain awareness as those BAMS? It's a lot bigger than a [Reagan-era] 600-ship Navy, I guarantee you that."

With the new fleet, "we span the globe. We can concentrate because we can get there in a hurry on 35 knots on the JHSV [Joint High Speed Vessel], 40-plus knots on the LCS [Littoral Combat Ship]. Yeah, it burns a lot of fuel," he said, referring to the LCS. "Yeah, we have refuelers. We get there quickly. We can configure for what we need. We have enormous payload capacity in our big boys.

"This is a different fleet. This is a more powerful fleet. I will take this fleet over a 600-ship Navy … in a heartbeat," Work said, his voice booming.

"One thing I would regret, quite frankly, is I would rather have 100 SSNs [nuclear-propelled attack submarines]. But in almost every other case, I'll take this," he said."

"And if you aren't excited" about the new fleet, he concluded, "you don't have a pulse."

buglerbilly

15-01-12, 02:55 AM

US Navy wants more cost-cutting from Huntington Ingalls

January 14, 2012

RECORDER REPORT

The US Navy on Thursday said it is working closely with Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc to continue to drive down costs on the CVN 78 aircraft carrier and LPD amphibious ships the company has under construction.

Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley said the company was over the government's target price for a number of LPD ships under construction, and had hit the cost ceiling established in a fixed price contract for LPD-22, the second ship delivered at the Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

Stackley said subsequent ships in the LPD class were also over target, but showing some improvement.

Stackely did not elaborate on how much the cost overruns were.

"Each ship is a little bit better.

There's steady progress, but they're not where they need to be," he told reporters after a speech at the Surface Navy Association annual conference.

Pentagon acquisition officials have focused heavily on reining in cost overruns on major weapons programs as they brace for a downturn in spending after a decade of sharp growth.

Cost overruns are particularly large in the shipbuilding sector, given that it costs billions of dollars to build one warship, but the Navy has adopted new strategies, including block buys and multiyear procurements to stabilise costs.

Huntington Ingalls Chief Executive Mike Petters said the company had already taken charges for the cost overruns on the LPD ships 22 through 25, but said the company was doing better with LPD 26, which is in the early stages of production.

He said Huntington Ingalls, which was spun off from Northrop Grumman Corp last year, was focused heavily on improving its execution and driving additional cost out of its shipbuilding programs as it continued efforts to shut down its Avondale shipyard.

"We tell anybody who will listen that we still have risk on those programs," Petters told Reuters in an interview.

"Until those ships are gone, and until we get Avondale wound down and closed, we sleep with one eye open on all those programmes." Petters said he remained confident that the company's margins would continue to improve and should reach 9 percent by 2015, with progress accelerating after work on the underperforming ship contracts was completed.

The company posted an operating margin of 6.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with 4.6 percent a year ago.

Stackley acknowledged that building a new class of aircraft carrier was complex, and that task was made harder by the Navy's decision to transition to a new carrier in one ship, rather than over the course of three, as initially planned.

He said the Navy was working closely with Huntington Ingalls to drive cost out of the USS Gerald R.

Ford (CVN 78) aircraft carrier, but was trying to "hammer home" the need for additional efforts.

He said the company had a good management team in place, but needed to make further changes to lower the cost of the carrier.

He said the Navy had added funds to the fiscal 2013 budget and five-year spending plan to cover expected cost increases on the CVN 78 carrier.

He gave no details, since the budget will not be formally released until February, but said the Navy had not budgeted for the worst case, estimate by some to be a cost overrun of $1 billion cost on the $12 billion program.

He declined to comment directly on whether work on the next carrier would be delayed, something Huntington Ingalls says would drive up the cost of that ship.

Huntington Ingalls last week responded to reports that the carrier would likely be $884 million over budget by saying it was continuing to see improvements in its performance on the aircraft carrier.

Petters said both the company and the Navy knew at the outset that building a first-in-class ship as complex as an aircraft carrier involved risk, and they had agreed on a formula for sharing that risk.

If industry had to shoulder the risk of new development programs completely on its own, he said, the cost of new warships and other weapons would skyrocket because defence companies would raise prices to cover the added risk.

"There's an argument to be made that the method that we're using to build the Ford is saving the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars," he said, adding that company executives were "very aggressive in going out and continue to try to save money." He said it was critical to maintain continuity on ship programs, and said Huntington Ingalls was urging the Navy to proceed with awarding a contract for the next Ford-class carrier in 2013, rather than delaying it as some have suggested.

"The more you push this thing out, the higher the price goes," Petters said.

"The most efficient way to build it is to contract on time."

Copyright Reuters, 2012

buglerbilly

18-01-12, 02:01 PM

US Navy confident in E-2D progress

18 January 2012 - 10:50 by Beth Stevenson in London, UK

Military and industry experts developing the US Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye AEW aircraft have described the programme as 'healthy' as it performs to schedule and integrates modern technology.

With the aircraft set to have achieved IOC by 2014, manufacturer Northrop Grumman has delivered a total of seven aircraft to date, with two of these having been last year.

'We've increased the time that the decision-makers have to make decisions,' Peter Shepard, operations analyst/programme director, US Navy told the AEW and Battle Management conference in London on 17 January.

The platform is set to provide battle management C2 and '360 degree situational awareness to counter 360 degree threats', and Shepard believes that all realistic possibilities are covered.

'The reason we believe we can do that is because the programme is healthy.'

He described how the ‘kill chain’ time has decreased in recent years as capabilities have increased, and 'we want to be able to shorten that kill chain more so [with the E-2D]'.

Northrop Grumman is on contract for 75 aircraft, with 31 of these to be delivered by 2019, and operational evaluation will commence in 'the first quarter of 2012'.

The E-2D will take over from the E-2C as the US Navy's primary AEW aircraft programme of record as part of its plan to have a reliable asset of this type beyond 2050.

The rotating UHF ESA (ADS-18) has been developed by Northrop and L-3, and James Mulhall, director of AEW and BMC2 business development at the former, said the US Navy had the opportunity to reassess their UHF and chose not to.

The E-2D had to maintain all the functionality of the E-2C. However both representatives insisted that it is in no way the same aircraft, and takes the capability to a completely different level. 'The E2 platform has historically been a test bed for the US Navy,' Shepard commented.

The platform will be able to carry a crew of five, and four of the five crew can be weapon operators in the new configuration, which also contains a new glass cockpit designed for this 'tactical fourth operator'

buglerbilly

18-01-12, 03:09 PM

US Navy Rushing the MQ-47B

Posted on January 18, 2012 by The Editor

The US Navy has done the maths and realised that it needs unmanned combat aircraft (UCAS, or Unmanned Combat Air System) on their carriers as soon as possible.

The current plan is to get these aircraft into service six years from now. But there is an effort to get the unmanned carrier aircraft into service sooner than that. The maths problem that triggered all this is the realisation that American carriers had to get with 800 kilometers of their target before launching bomber aircraft. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with range greater than 800 kilometers. The Navy already has a solution in development; the X-47B UCAS has a range of 2,500 kilometers

Last year the U.S. Navy leadership also ordered naval aviation commanders to examine the possibility of reducing orders for the new F-35B and F-35C manned aircraft, and use that money to buy the new X-47B, and similar robotic combat aircraft. The Navy currently plans to buy 680 F-35B and F-35C aircraft, for (on average) $100 million each. A UCAS (Unmanned Combat Aerial System) costs less than half that, and provides most of the same capabilities, plus much longer range.

For most of the last decade, the Navy has been hustling to ready a UCAS for carrier operations and combat use. Within four years, the Navy expects to have the X-47B demonstrating the ability to regularly operate from a carrier, and perform combat (including reconnaissance and surveillance) operations. The new efforts aim to have UCAS aircraft perform ground attack missions as well, something the Predators have been doing for over a decade. The larger Reaper UAS was designed to expand this combat capability, and is being built as quickly as possible to replace F-16s and other bombers in the combat zone.

The 20 ton X-47B weighs a little less than the 24 ton F-18A, and has two internal bays holding two tons of smart bombs. Once it can operate off a carrier, the X-47B will be used for a lot of bombing. Sort of a super-Reaper. The Navy has been impressed with the success of the Predator and Reaper. But the Reaper weighs only 4.7 tons. The much larger X-47B uses a F100-PW-220 engine, which is currently used in the F-16 and F-15.

It was only two years ago that the U.S. Navy rolled out the X-47B, its first combat UAS(now known as a UCAS). This was part of a six year long, $636 million contract to build and test two X-47B aircraft. With internal fuel, it can go 2,700 kilometers and return to its carrier. This greatly expands the reconnaissance capability of a carrier.

Seven years ago, the smaller X-47A UCAS made its first flight. Development of this aircraft began in 2001. The Air Force was also developing the X-45 UCAS, which also had a naval version (the X-46). The X-45 programme began in 1999, and the eight ton (max takeoff weight, with two ton payload) aircraft was ready for operational tests in 2006. The X-46 has a different wing layout, and a range of 1,100 kilometers, carrying a payload of two tons. The X-47A also has a two ton payload and a range of 1,600 kilometers. Unlike the X-45, which is built to be stored for long periods, the X-47A was built for sustained use aboard a carrier. All of these aircraft are very stealthy and can operate completely on their own (including landing and takeoff, under software control). The UCASs were originally meant for dangerous missions, like destroying enemy air defenses, and reconnaissance where enemy air defenses were strong. The air force, however, cancelled its X-45, but is now considering other UCAS options.

The Air Force and Navy have always differed about the widespread use of UAS in combat. When the Air Force agreed to work with the Navy on UCASs a decade ago, they idea was that the Air Force ones would largely remain in storage, to provide a rapid “surge” capability in wartime. The Navy, however, wanted to use theirs to replace manned aircraft on carriers. The reason was simple; carrier ops are dangerous, and carrier qualified pilots are more difficult and expensive to train, and retain in the service. The Navy still has these problems, and senior admirals are pretty much in agreement that UCASs are the future of carrier aviation. The sooner these UCASs prove they can safely and effectively operate from carriers, the better. The X-47B (or planned, slightly larger, X-47C) is not the definitive carrier UCAS, but the Navy hopes it is good enough to show that unmanned aircraft can do the job. Normally, “X” class aircraft are just used as technology demonstrators. But the X-47 programme has been going on for so long, and has incorporated so much from UAS already serving in combat, that the X-47B may end up eventually running recon and bombing missions as the MQ-47B.

The DARPA project is, in effect, the Department of Defense leadership backing the Navy plans, and spurring the air force to catch up. At the moment, the Air Force has a hard time building enough MQ-9s, which are used as a ground support aircraft, in addition to reconnaissance and surveillance. But, as the Navy is demonstrating, you can build UCAS that can carry more weapons, stay in the air longer, and hustle to where they are needed faster. DARPA will try to demonstrate this, but it will be up to the air force and Navy (and maybe even the Army), to make it happen.

Source: Strategy Page

ADMk2

18-01-12, 03:27 PM

US Navy Rushing the MQ-47B
The current plan is to get these aircraft into service six years from now. But there is an effort to get the unmanned carrier aircraft into service sooner than that. The maths problem that triggered all this is the realisation that American carriers had to get with 800 kilometers of their target before launching bomber aircraft. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with range greater than 800 kilometers. The Navy already has a solution in development; the X-47B UCAS has a range of 2,500 kilometers

2500k un-refuelled range? Hmm, impressive for the UCAS. I am confused about the 800k ranged bombers though. Does the USN have bombers? What are their designations? Are they limited to 1600k ranges if they are bombers?
.

It was only two years ago that the U.S. Navy rolled out the X-47B, its first combat UAS(now known as a UCAS). This was part of a six year long, $636 million contract to build and test two X-47B aircraft. With internal fuel, it can go 2,700 kilometers and return to its carrier. This greatly expands the reconnaissance capability of a carrier.

Wait, what? I thought it was only 2500k's? Where did 2700k's come from? And now they are saying it can takeoff, fly 2700k's and then return to the ship it launched from, presumably slightly under 2700k's depending on which way the ship is sailing... That equals an unrefuelled range of 5400k's doesn't it? If it's 5400k's, why mention 2500k's or 2700k's?

Am I the only one confused here?

(PS, I hate strategy page and the knob that writes these sorts of stupid, vapid articles).

buglerbilly

18-01-12, 03:43 PM

(PS, I hate strategy page and the knob that writes these sorts of stupid, vapid articles).

Nah, get outta here, I would never have guessed...............:rofl

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 12:58 AM

Navy Will Select NGJ Contractor In 2013

Jan 18, 2012

By David Fulghum
NAS Patuxent River, Md.

Sensing continued financial pressure even in the well-protected electronic-warfare domain, the U.S. Navy is slicing through red tape to streamline acquisition of its prized Next Generation Jammer (NGJ).

Savings from a decision to select a single contractor earlier than planned are being estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. With help from the offices of the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics and the chief of naval operations, the Navy wangled approval to pick a single contractor—instead of two—for the technology development phase of the program that is slated to begin in 2013. The downselect had been planned for the engineering and manufacturing development phase in 2015. The NGJ program is in a technology maturation phase that ends in April.

“The changes we had approved for NGJ will make it more affordable and help us get an early start on some of the integration,” says Navy Capt. John Green, chief of the airborne electronic attack (AEA) and EA-6B Prowler program office. “It’s huge to be able to avoid completely that kind of cost. With this decision, we are a fully funded program to develop the NGJ system and integrate it on to the EA-18G Growler.”

Streamlining aside, contractors worry about some aspects of the project. They do not think the NGJ will be added to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on time, or perhaps at all, because there have been so many delays in getting through the JSF program basics, according to a vice president in one of the competing companies. “There is a concept for making [the F-35] an electronic attack platform, but they can’t even think about those sorts of things yet,” the official says. That means NGJ production might stretch out considerably, unless the system is adapted to other designs, most likely unmanned platforms with both stealthy and non-stealthy designs, which could be a boon to industry, contractors agree.

“If there are going to be opportunities for conventional [non-stealth] aircraft applications, NGJ is going to present a franchise opportunity for the winner,” the industry official says. “It will provide financial backing for [development of further] increased capability.”

Meanwhile, operational use of the Growler is gaining some definition.

“There’s a discussion of stand-in jamming at closer ranges versus a modified escort [jamming] mission that would require a higher-power, standoff capability,” says a second industry executive, also involved in the competition. “The Navy’s primary motivation is that the Growlers provide the escort for the F/A-18E/Fs Super Hornets so that they can get close enough [to targets] to operate. But they can’t do that without electronic attack support. I wouldn’t be surprised if NGJ migrated to unmanned aircraft to keep aircrews safe.”

Another concern for some is BAE Systems’ place as the incumbent electronic warfare (EW) house.

“We have the F-22 with passive EW, JSF with passive capability initially, but with self-protection built into it, and the latest Saudi Arabian F-15s [with] the digital EW system,” the second official says. All were awarded to BAE, so, “You would expect that BAE has a leg up in any competition that would call for inserting a digital EW capability,” he says.

Others dismiss the notion, pointing out that BAE’s approach on the JSF is quite different than that being considered for the NGJ. Four teams—BAE Systems, ITT/Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon—are vying for the NGJ contract.

An industry day is scheduled for the week of Jan. 24 to answer questions about the new strategy, and Navy officials hope the early selection of a single contractor will trigger a flurry of subcontracting and new teaming arrangements among the former competitors.

“Leadership from my level up would like to see a lot of teaming,” Green says. “Teaming reduces our risk, so we’re encouraging industry to team. Going to one vendor sooner encourages them to think that way. It’s an additional forcing function that I think will lead industry to the conclusion that the Defense Department has already come to.”

A sense of urgency has been added to the NGJ acquisition process as the result of lessons learned during last year’s simultaneous electronic-attack operations in three theaters: Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Navy’s current AEA capability is dependent on the aging, out-of-production ALQ-99 jammer pods carried first by the EA-6B Prowler and now by the Growler.

“When we first jumped into [Operation] Odyssey Dawn [over Libya], we were still supporting aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq—three fronts,” Green says. “To spread those dwindling assets out was really a challenge to support, but it was also tough for the war*fighter. They had to move assets around or do without in some areas. We just don’t have enough ALQ-99 jammer pods and [electronic attack] aircraft, particularly in some key mission areas, to do everything we needed to do. If ever there was a reason for the Next Generation Jammer, it was validated by the lessons learned from trying to support three fronts.”

The decision to pick a single contractor was approved by Defense Department and Navy officials in late December and will be announced late this month at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division’s 42nd annual EW symposium.

“We worked very closely with the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition and the chief of naval operations’s staff to look at developmental risks and determine what could we do,” Green says. “This new approach will save us hundreds of millions [of dollars] . . . for a couple of reasons. During [technology development], we’re going to be prototyping and testing those systems. That’s also when we do the preliminary design review and make sure all the technologies are mature enough to press into actual full-scale development of the system.

“This is a major change from our original acquisition strategy,” Green notes. “The Defense Department made a significant investment in [technology maturation] and burned down enough technology risk so that we are confident we can select a single team now to build NGJ. The request for proposals is being drafted and we’re planning to release it in May.”

The NGJ is being designed to provide improved airborne electronic-attack capabilities against a wide variety of radio-frequency targets. Also, the technology is to provide greater electronic agility and precision, both spectrally and spatially. Roughly, the goal is better interoperability with other systems—such as the U.S. Marine Corps Intrepid Tiger II communications attack system and the U.S. Air Force’s miniature air-launched decoy jammer—and an increased capability to deny, degrade and deceive enemy radar and other electronic systems.

Other improvements will be tied to major increases in effective radiated power. They include more powerful jamming as well as much greater standoff ranges from which to engage air defense radars, communications and data links.

Photo: US Navy

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 02:10 AM

The Carrier-Launched Predator C

You see a ton of animated pics of a UAV that looks just like Northrop’s X-47B carrier-launched stealth drone operating off of U.S. carriers of the 21st Century but this pic from General Atomics serves as a reminder that Northrop isn’t the only company vying to build the sea service’s first combat ready, carrier-launched attack drone.

This image from GA’s booth at the Surface Navy Association’s annual convention last week just outside Washington shows one of the company’s Predator C Avenger drones (or should I say Sea Avenger) getting ready to be launched from the USS Gerald R Ford’s bow by a GA-built electromagnetic catapult.

The Sea Avenger is one of four programs in the mix to build the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) drone. Other entries are Northrop, whose X-47B is gearing up to fly from an aircraft carrier, Lockheed Martin, who makes the Air Force’s RQ-170 and Boeing who makes the stealthy Phantom Ray drone.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1jrkx9f4m
Defense.org

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 07:15 AM

Navy document plans future of carrier air wings

By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer, Navy Times

Posted : Wednesday Jan 18, 2012 21:14:09 EST

The Navy’s carrier air wings of tomorrow will look very different from today’s, according to a new document produced by the sea services.

By 2032, the Navy’s fleet of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets fighters and new EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets will have begun to be replaced by new types, a new document called Naval Aviation Vision 2012 reads.

The Navy will consider manned, unmanned and optionally manned aircraft to replace the long serving Rhino, as the F/A-18E/F is known to carrier deck crews. The Super Hornet will begin to reach the end of its service life around 2025 and must be replaced. The document says a competitive fly-off will be held at some point in the future.

The Super Hornet-derived EA-18G will also start being replaced by a new aircraft, but the document offers no further details.

Additionally, a new Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) is to be integrated onto the carrier deck around 2018 — possibly with four to six planes embarked. The aircraft could make use of technologies developed by the X-47B program. The Navy document calls for “balanced survivability” so that the unmanned strike plane will be effective in “specified tactical situations.”

The F-35C will serve alongside these prospective aircraft.

But the Navy isn’t going to stop with replacing just its fixed-wing assets, the document calls for the wholesale replacement of its helicopter fleet.

The MH-60 helicopter fleet will be supplanted by a new rotary-wing aircraft. The Fire Scout unmanned helicopter will also be replaced as will the MH-53E Sea Dragon counter-mine and heavy lift helicopter. In the case of the MH-53E, a replacement aircraft needs to be operational by 2026, the document says.

The Marines will get a Cargo Resupply Unmanned Aerial System (CRUAS) by 2032 and the service’s entire fleet of tactical remotely operated drones will be replaced. The Navy will continue to fly the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance version of the Global Hawk unmanned plane in 2032.

The training aircraft fleet will look similar to today’s, the document says. The T-6 and T-45C will soldier on, as will the TH-57 training helicopter. But the T-44 and TC-12B multi-engine turboprop trainers will be replaced with a new aircraft. The Marines’ C-20 and Navy’s C-26D and UC-12 fleets will also be replaced. As well, a new plane will take the place of the C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery plane starting in 2026.

Nor has the Navy forgotten about its fleet of F-5 and F-16 aggressor aircraft. A replacement aggressor aircraft is envisioned for 2025 according to the document.

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 01:00 PM

Keel Laid for Navy's First Mobile Landing Platform

(Source: US Naval Sea Systems Command; issued Jan. 19, 2012)

SAN DIEGO, Calif. --- General Dynamics NASSCO held a keel-laying ceremony for the U.S. Navy's first mobile landing platform (MLP), Jan. 19, in San Diego, Calif.

Keel-laying recognizes the first joining together of a ship's components. While modern shipbuilding processes allow fabrication of individual modules to begin months earlier, keel laying represents the formal beginning of a ship.

"The keel laying is a major milestone for the Montford Point and the MLP class," said Capt. Henry Stevens, strategic sealift program manager, Program Executive Office, Ships. "The MLP program is benefiting from the Navy/NASSCO team's high level of design and production-planning maturity."

The keel was authenticated by Pat Mills, wife of Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Richard P. Mills, deputy commandant of Combat Development and Integration. In a time-honored Navy tradition, Mills welded her initials into the keel plate, symbolically verifying that the keel of USNS Montford Point had been truly and fairly laid. Lt. Gen. Mills also spoke at the ceremony.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus chose the name Montford Point to honor the approximately 20,000 African American Marine Corps recruits who trained at the North Carolina facility from 1942-1949. Their exceptional service prompted then-President Harry S. Truman to sign an executive order in 1948 ending segregation in the U.S. military services. "The courage shown by these Marines helped forge the Corps into the most formidable expeditionary force in the world," said Mabus.

Beginning construction in June 2011, MLP 1 will be a flexible, modular platform providing capability for large-scale logistics movements such as the transfer of vehicles and equipment from sea to shore. Each ship of the MLP class will possess a core capability mission set that supports a vehicle staging area, sideport ramp, large mooring fenders and up to three landing craft air cushioned vessel lanes. These ships will significantly reduce dependency on foreign ports and provide support in the absence of any port, making it especially useful during disaster response and for supporting Marines once they are ashore.

Montford Point is expected to deliver in fiscal year 2013 and be operational in fiscal year 2015. (ends)

NASSCO Marks Keel Laying of First Mobile Landing Platform Ship

(Source: General Dynamics NASSCO; issued January 19, 2012)

SAN DIEGO --- Today General Dynamics NASSCO hosted a keel laying ceremony for the first Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship at the company's shipyard in San Diego. Mrs. Pat Mills was the honoree for the ceremony. She is the wife of U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Richard P. Mills, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration.

Mrs. Mills validated the keel laying by welding her initials into the ship's structure. The steel plate with her initials will be permanently affixed to the ship's keel, remaining with the vessel throughout its time in service.

Delivery of the first MLP ship is scheduled for May 2013. The 765-foot long ship will be used as staging areas for the Navy and Marines. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus recently announced that this first MLP ship will be named Montford Point, for the North Carolina facility where 20,000 African American Marines were trained over seven years, starting in 1942.

"In today's challenging fiscal environment, shipbuilders must continue to provide our Navy customer with competitive pricing and fair value," said Fred Harris, president of General Dynamics NASSCO. "With the Mobile Landing Platform, NASSCO is meeting that challenge once again. The Navy and Marines will be getting a ship with significant capability at approximately one-third the cost of the Navy's original plan."

One initiative that NASSCO employed with this ship was to incorporate a "design-build" approach into all phases of design and planning development. The "design-build" approach included the assignment of the company's most experienced shipbuilders within functional engineering and detail design teams. These teams played an important role in developing build strategy initiatives that are improving the ship's readiness for construction, making MLP among the most producible designs in NASSCO's history.

Once delivered to the fleet, MLP ships will join the three Maritime Prepositioning Force squadrons that are strategically located around the world to enable rapid response in a crisis. MLP vessels will change the way the Maritime Prepositioning Force operates, providing a "pier at sea," that will become the core of the Navy/Marine Corps sea basing concept. This capability will allow prepositioning ships to offload equipment and supplies to the MLP for transshipment to shore by other vessels.

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 01:11 PM

Admiral Details Challenges, Opportunities of Pacific Fleet

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued January 19, 2012)

WASHINGTON --– As America’s focus shifts to the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. Pacific Fleet is well-placed to protect national interests and connect with regional nations, Pacific Fleet’s commander, Adm. Patrick Walsh, said.

Adm. Cecil Haney will replace Walsh as the commander of the world’s largest fleet tomorrow during a ceremony at Pearl Harbor.

President Barack Obama’s military strategy announced earlier this month says that America’s focus will shift more toward the Asia-Pacific region in keeping with the U.S. position as a leading Pacific nation.

The Navy’s Pacific Fleet is a guarantor of peace and stability in the region, and it is well-positioned to take on the added focus, Walsh said during a recent interview with American Forces Press Service.

The fleet will continue to build military-to-military relations with Pacific nations, the admiral said. It will seek to strengthen ties with rising powers such as China and India while maintaining long-established relations with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia. It will continue to work bilaterally, trilaterally or multinationally with all in the region, he said.

The region is huge and diverse, but one thing that the nations agree on is the role America plays in security and stability there. Few national leaders anywhere in the region want America to become isolationist, Walsh said.

“In terms of our role as a Pacific power, often I hear about the Chinese coastline being 9,000 miles long; ours is 45,000,” he added.

China is the dragon in the room. The nation now has the second-largest economy in the world – growing at about 8 percent annually – and is investing in its military force.

The U.S. Pacific Fleet is engaging with Chinese counterparts in many areas. “We work with many countries in the region to take an inclusive approach to identify key exercises that would contribute to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief at sea,” Walsh said. The idea is to find common ground, and then build on them.

U.S. Pacific Fleet leaders have met with Chinese counterparts in many regional forums from Singapore to Japan to Hawaii. Walsh has met with his Chinese counterpart and said he believes there is a momentum to closing the gaps that separate the U.S. and Chinese militaries.

The South China Sea and the Spratly Islands are a potential flashpoint with China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Taiwan all claiming sovereignty.

“It’s very important for us to understand how the Chinese characterize the South China Sea,” Walsh said. “We have very different interpretations of what we think they want. That leads to confusion and friction. That’s something I’ve addressed with my counterpart and something we must work toward resolving.”

The nations must talk or else local events at sea will play out in the international arena and spark tensions between countries. “Having China participate in the norms and behaviors and activities that all the other nations are participating in, I think is really important,” the admiral said.

The Chinese need to remain involved in talks “because the danger is that they could retreat into a very narrow interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not in international waters and the high seas,” Walsh said.

“There are established norms and behaviors at sea that have brought us the security, the stability, the prosperity in the Asia Pacific since the World War II era,” he added. “We can’t set that aside for an interpretation that the South China Sea falls under the category of internal Chinese law. That just won’t work.”

The United States recognizes the historical disputes in the area and believes “the most constructive role that we can play is to facilitate the peaceful resolution of disputes,” he said.

Competition for resources, including possible oil and gas deposit on the Spratly Islands, will increase tensions in the region, Walsh said.

“Moving forward, the question is how do we resolve the tension that exists now with the demand for greater resources?” he said. “Having a credible force that is sustainable forward is critically important to working with partners in the region to resolve disputes and to resolve conflict.”

India is another rising international economic power and the Pacific Fleet has a robust military-to-military relationship with the second-most populous nation in the world.

India and other Asian nations have recognized that the U.S. model for security and stability operations at sea has contributed, enhanced and underwritten prosperity in the region, Walsh said.

The Pacific Fleet works with nations to develop the ability to patrol and develop their maritime capabilities. “Our interests are inherited from our geography,” he said. “The idea that we have a Navy that looks after our interests and the interests of our friends and partners in the region is consistent and logical.”

There are countries in the region that see positive aspects to American influence and seek partnerships. “It’s an open and more inclusive approach that continues to generate interest on the part of other countries,” he said.

Walsh was commissioned out of the Naval Academy in 1977. An aviator, he served on the Blue Angels. The Navy today is far different than the one he entered as an ensign.

“We’ve come a long way, and we’ve got a lot to be proud of,” he said. “It’s best represented in the amount of interest in joining the service and staying in. The quality of personnel we have has continued to improve over time. It’s a model we need to take full stock of.”

America’s role in the Pacific is unique even according to statesmen in the region. Walsh told about a recent conversation he had with Singapore’s senior minister, Lee Kwan Yew. They were talking about translators and the senior minister asked Walsh if he brought his own interpreters when he visited Southeast Asia or if he hired them in country.

“I told him we have our own,” the admiral said. “The sons and daughters of those who immigrated to the United States are not only translators, but they are coming back now in command.”

Lee Kwan Yew’s observation about that fact was penetrating, Walsh said. “He said that America has done something that no other country in the region can do: we’ve learned how to recognize and embrace diversity,” the admiral said.

“What that means now is we have commanders who fled Vietnam in 1975 who are now back in command of Arleigh Burke destroyers going back to Vietnam, Cambodia, South Korea or India, the commander said.

Lee “said you couldn’t do that in Asia. You could not expect to immigrate to China, for example, and then expect to land on your feet, attend a military academy and then get command of a Chinese naval vessel,” he continued. “It’s only in the United States that you’ve learned to unlock the potential of all that diversity and all it means.”

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 01:20 PM

USS Simpson and Fire Scout Set Sail for Africa

(Source US Naval Air Systems Command; issued Jan. 19, 2012)

A Fire Scout unmanned helicopter photographed on the deck of the frigate USS Simpson earlier this month as it prepared for its third operational deployment at sea. (US Navy photo)

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. --– The MQ-8B Fire Scout, the Navy’s only unmanned aircraft to operate on land and at sea departed Jan.17 from Mayport, Fla., aboard USS Simpson (FFG 56) for a six-month deployment to western Africa.

Personnel from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 60 Detachment 4 and Northrop Grumman took Fire Scout on its third at-sea deployment aboard a guided missile frigate. Typically deployed as a compliment to the manned H-60 helicopter, this is the Fire Scout’s first solo mission.

"Fire Scout offers similar capabilities currently provided by the H-60," said Capt. Patrick Smith, Fire Scout program manager. "It gives the ship and the detachment greater flexibility in meeting operational needs and frees manned aircraft to support other high-demand missions."

For the next six-months, two Fire Scout air vehicles will support exercises off the west coast of Africa as part of the Africa Partnership Station (APS). The international initiative was developed by U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa to improve maritime safety and security in the region as part of U.S. Africa Command's Security Cooperation program.

"I am happy our team will help build partnership capacity of our allies, and increase the level of cooperation between them to improve maritime safety and security," Smith said.

Fire Scout greatly extends and improves the fleet's ability to perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, Smith said. During its most recent sea-based deployment aboard USS Halyburton (FFG 40), Fire Scout gathered hundreds of hours of real-time intelligence for ship commanders as they supported counter-piracy operations and missions in Libya.

"We have pushed Fire Scout to its operational limits for altitude, range and endurance," Smith added. "The Simpson deployment gives us an opportunity to explore different operational vignettes and continue to expand Fire Scout's limits."

The Simpson deployment coincides with Fire Scout's ongoing operations in Afghanistan. Fire Scout has exceeded 2,000 hours of real-time intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support to U.S. and allied troops in northern Afghanistan.

-ends-

buglerbilly

21-01-12, 12:29 AM

Robo-Copter Will Keep Tabs on Navy’s Biofuel Plants

By Spencer Ackerman and Noah Shachtman Email Author January 20, 2012 | 1:00 pm

Photo: Leptron

Even 35,000 acres is going to be a pimple on the ass of the fuel requirements of the USN...................Try 3.5 Million acres before you get near..............

The Navy is hoping to one day run a huge chunk of its fleet on biofuels. So the Navy’s advanced researchers — and their partners at the U.S. Department of Agriculture — are turning to a tiny robotic helicopter to help them figure out which crop they might be able to convert into their fuel of the future.

The experiment is taking place over 35,000 acres of Maui soil, on the fields of Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar, the state’s largest commercial sugar plantation. That’s the site of a $10 million, five-year gamble to test which of plantation’s crops might work as grow-your-jetfuel. The drone helicopter will track every temperature fluctuation and sprouting bud emerging into the Hawaiian sun.

But it’s hardly certain that any of the plants will actually wind up in the engines of destroyers or F/A-18s. Yes, the Navy is betting big on alt-energy — the goal is to cut its fossil fuel usage in half by 2020. And yes, the Navy just made its biggest-ever purchase of biofuels: 450,000 gallons for $12 million, enough to power an entire aircraft carrier strike group during a demonstration voyage this summer. But half of that order went to a division of Tyson Foods, which coverts fats and waste greases into biofuels. The other half went to Solazyme, which uses algae as a means of fermenting everything from plant matter to municipal waste into fuel. In other words, neither of them is really grow-your-own.

Nevertheless, the Office of Naval Research and the Agriculture Department are wondering whether Maui’s mix of plants, tropical sun, and nutrient-rich soil can produce a bumper crop of clean, renewable energy. Enter the Leptron corporation’s tiny drone helicopter, the Avenger. It’s about to be the Navy’s robotic horticulturist in Hawaii.

The Department of Agriculture recently bought an Avenger — not to be confused with the next-generation Predator drone — so its thermal imaging cameras can gather “small plot specific data,” particularly about crop temperature. The department wants a drone instead of a manned helicopter so it can keep the Avenger hovering over the patch of farmland and taking pictures longer than a human being could handle. The idea is that the Avenger’s persistent stare will alert researchers to any problems with the crops — including jatropha, sweet sorghum, and sugar cane — before the entire experiment is jeopardized. The team figures that Hawaii is an ideal venue for the experiement: it’s a high-fertility environment that’s already home to the Pacific Fleet. “A perfect storm of opportunity,” is how the Navy’s top energy official described Hawaii in 2010.

In a way, Hawaii is a microcosm of the energy situation the Navy’s in. For an archipelago in the middle of the Pacific, importing fuel means energy prices are sky high; but because of all its sunlight, warmth and high rainfalls, its ability to grow more crops per acre than most of the mainland U.S. raises the prospect of growing an energy solution. Hawaii also has one of the first biodiesel plants in the U.S., Pacific Biodiesel, which is much touted by the Department of Agriculture and the Navy and whose fuel powers the Navy’s tour boats for the Pearl Harbor memorial.

If the Hawaii experiment — or, frankly, any of the Navy’s biofuel experiments — go gangbusters, it won’t just be sailors who benefit. Along with the Agriculture and Energy departments, the Navy will pump over half a billion dollars into the biofuels industry, with the hope of eventually driving down costs of renewable, green fuel that doesn’t come from volatile global hotspots.

Still, the sugar-derived biofuel is only an experiment, not necessarily a harbinger of the Navy definitely planting fuel in the future. Industrial agriculture can actually require lots of money and, ironically, fossil fuels to produce. It’s entirely possible that recycling greases or other waste-products will turn out to be cheaper and greener.

But the first lookout for whether grow-your-own fuel is even viable will be the diminutive, svelte Avenger, whose main rotor is merely six feet in diameter. In addition to optional remote-control or programmable autonomous flight options, it comes with a pair of video goggles, which Leptron calls a “Personal Media Viewer,” to give a person below a drone’s eye view. Watching the grass grow was never this captivating.

buglerbilly

22-01-12, 07:11 AM

January 21, 2012 9:50 PM

U.S. to keep 11 aircraft carriers

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, left,, listens to the commander of Strike Group Twelve, Rear Adm. Walter E. Carter Jr., on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise dduring a visit Jan. 21, 2012, off the southeastern coast of the United States. (Pool,AP Photo/Alex Wong)

(AP) ABOARD THE USS ENTERPRISE - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told sailors aboard the country's oldest aircraft carrier that the U.S. is committed to maintaining a fleet of 11 of the formidable warships despite budget pressures, in part to project sea power against Iran.

Panetta also told the crowd of 1,700 gathered in the hangar bay of the USS Enterprise that the ship is heading to the Persian Gulf region and will steam through the Strait of Hormuz in a direct message to Tehran.

Iran has warned it will block the Strait, a major transit point for global oil supplies, and bluntly told the U.S. not to send carriers into the Gulf. The U.S. has said it would continue to deploy ships there.

"That's what this carrier is all about," said Panetta. "That's the reason we maintain a presence in the Middle East ... We want them to know that we are fully prepared to deal with any contingency and it's better for them to try to deal with us through diplomacy."

There was speculation that budget pressures would force the Pentagon to scale back the number of carriers, perhaps to 10, and Panetta's predecessor, Robert Gates, questioned maintaining 11 ships.

But Congress has expressed strong support for the current U.S. carrier fleet and has passed a law requiring the Defense Department to maintain 11 of the ships.

After his speech, Panetta told reporters traveling with him that the department will be looking for cuts in other areas. He added, "Our view is that the carriers, because of their presence, because of the power they represent, are a very important part of our ability to maintain power projection both in the Pacific and in the Middle East."

Keeping 11 of the warships, he said, "is a long-term commitment that the president wants to put in place."

Panetta's remarks came amid the roar of fighter jets taking off and landing on the flight deck above, as the Enterprise conducted training operations about 100 nautical miles off the coast of Georgia.

Known as the Big E, the warship and the other six ships in the carrier strike group will deploy to the Middle East in March. Its presence there will allow the U.S. to maintain two carrier strike groups in the Gulf region, where they can support battle operations in Afghanistan, anti-piracy efforts and other missions in the area.

"The Big E is going to be an important symbol of that power in that part of the world," said Panetta, whose tour of the ship included stops on the bridge and the flight deck, as fighter jets catapulted off the ship.

This is Panetta's first visit to a carrier during operations at sea. He was to spend the night on the ship.

The decision to maintain 11 carrier groups, Panetta said, is part of the Defense Department's five-year budget plan that will include $260 billion in savings. Overall, the Pentagon must come up with $487 billion over the next 10 years.

The USS Enterprise, which is based in Norfolk, Va., was built 50 years ago as the first nuclear-powered carrier, and is now the oldest active duty ship in America's Naval fleet. The ship's upcoming deployment will be its 22nd and final tour, after which it is scheduled to be deactivated.

It is being replaced by the USS Gerald R. Ford, which is the first in a new class of technologically advanced carriers. There will be about a 33-month gap before the Ford is commissioned, but Congress has granted a waiver allowing the Navy to drop to 10 carriers for that period of time.

The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group includes the carrier itself, Carrier Air Wing 1, Destroyer Squadron 2, guided-missile cruiser USS Vicksburg, guided-missile destroyers USS Porter, USS James E. Williams and USS Nitze. Together they carry more than 5,000 personnel, with about 4,500 of them on the USS Enterprise. The ship's personnel include fewer than 400 women.

The air wing includes more than 50 aircraft, ranging from fighter jets and helicopters to electronic warfare aircraft.

The USS Enterprise has had a long and storied career. In October 1962, it helped set up a blockade around Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. The Big E, as the ship is called, also was dispatched to the North Arabian Sea after the Sept. 11 attacks, unleashing more than 800,000 pounds of ordnance during the early days of the Afghanistan war.

The White House is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which President Barack Obama will submit to Congress next month.

A sweeping defense strategy Obama unveiled earlier is intended to guide the budget cutting decisions. The eight-page document contained no details about how broad concepts for reshaping the military — such as focusing more on Asia and less on Europe — will translate into troop or weapons cuts.

The Army and Marine Corps are already planning substantial troop cuts and Panetta said last week that he will slash the number of Army brigades stationed in Europe from four to two.

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 02:29 AM

Report adds still more gloom to Navy ship outlook

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 6:37 pm

The Navy faces a range of steep technical and funding challenges in trying to reach what once was billed as an easier, less expensive goal for upgrading its destroyer fleet, Congress’ watchdog agency reported Tuesday.

The fleet’s restarted Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are going to be more expensive than their predecessors, concluded the Government Accountability Office, as will the Flight III follow-on — which also could be much tougher to design and build. Tomorrow’s planned Air and Missile Defense Radar will push the 1980s-era Burke hull past its limits, GAO warns, and the Navy may have to make a lot of sacrifices to shoehorn it on there.

Service officials are debating between a new radar with 12-foot arrays or one with 14-foot arrays. Both concepts require more power and cooling than today’s DDG 51s can generate, meaning they’d need to cram more support equipment aboard, and they also will add significant amounts of new weight. The new radars and their supporting systems mean designers must increase the ships’ “design density” — in other words, their complexity — which could cause a lot of problems, GAO concludes. The Navy might have to remove weapons or other equipment to free up weight, giving tomorrow’s DDGs less of a punch, “effectively reducing the multi-mission functionality of the class.”

Just building them could be tough, the report said:

Not only can density complicate design of the ship as equipment needs to be rearranged to fit in new items, but Navy data also show that construction of dense vessels tends to be more costly than construction of vessels with more open space. For example, submarine designs are more complicated to arrange and the vessels are more complicated and costly to build than many surface ships. DDG 1000 was designed in part to have reduced density, which could help lower construction costs. According to a 2005 independent study of U.S. naval shipbuilding, any incremental increase in the complexity of an already complex vessel results in a disproportionate increase in work for the shipbuilder, and concluded that cost, technical and schedule risk, and the probability of cost and schedule overrun all increase with vessel density and complexity. Therefore, further adding to the density of DDG 51 to incorporate AMDR is likely to result in higher construction costs and longer construction schedules than on Flight IIA ships.

The submarine force got really frustrated with its highly complex three-hull Seawolf class, and one of the reasons it loves its Virginia-class boats is they’re much simpler to build and maintain. As you read, the surface force also learned this lesson on DDG 1000, but with that ship also truncated at three copies, it doesn’t help tomorrow’s shipbuilders or sailors.

Big Navy does not get a very flattering depiction in GAO’s latest report. When investigators worried that Flight III would exceed the DDG 51 hull’s service life allowance — the amount of load its hull can safely bear over the ship’s design life — Navy officials said, aaah, that’s not that big of a deal. GAO then ginned up a table describing cases in which over-loaded hulls have caused the surface force problems before:

Adding Aegis to the Spruance-class destroyer hull to create the Ticonderoga-class cruisers has led to cracking and buckling in the ships’ superstructures — a well-known deformation in the fleet. The ships in the fleet today need “structural modernization” to get them to serve for the Navy’s goal of 35 years apiece. As for the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, low growth margin meant the ships were maxed out of potential upgrades, and 21 of 49 “have been retired early after an average lifespan of only 17 years.”

All right, Big Navy said, but look, we might go with a smaller 12-foot radar array, which would help with the hull load situation. OK, said GAO, but by your own metrics, that would provide less capability than “marginally adequate” for the scenarios you’ve envisioned in tomorrow’s battle space. What’s the deal? Oh, don’t worry about that, Big Navy responds:

[T]he Navy now envisions multiple ships that they can operate in concert with different ground and space-based sensor assets to provide cueing for AMDR when targets are in the battlespace … However, this program (envisioned as a constellation of missile tracking satellites) is currently in the conceptual phase, and the independent Radar/Hull Study red team stated that the development timeline for this system is too long to consider being able to leverage this system for Flight III.

Yes — it’s the old “system of systems” concept — oh, sorry, “family of systems,” as we say now. How… transformational. GAO goes on:

Senior Navy officials told us that the concept of sensor netting is not yet well defined, and that additional analysis is required to determine what sensor capabilities currently exist or will be developed in the future, as well as how sensor netting might be conceptualized for Flight III. Sensor netting requires not only deployment of the appropriate sensors and for these sensors to work alone, but they also need to be able to share usable data in real-time with Aegis in the precise manner required to support BMD engagements. Though sharing data among multiple sensors can provide greater capabilities than just using individual stand– alone sensors, officials told us that every sensor system has varying limitations on its accuracy, and as more sensors are networked together and sharing data, these accuracy limitations can compound. Further, though there have been recent successes in sharing data during BMD testing, DOD weapons testers responsible for overseeing BMD testing told us that there have also been issues with sending data between sensors. Although sensor technology will undoubtedly evolve in the future, how sensor netting will be leveraged by Flight III and integrated with Navy tactics to augment Aegis and the radar capability of Flight III is unknown.

Keep in mind that the original concept here was that the Navy would take a stable, proven design — its workhorse DDG 51 — and just bolt on some wham-o-dyne new accessories to get improved new copies at an affordable price. Now the Navy apparently has two choices: A middling upgrade that relies on an as-yet uninvented new form of battle space sensor fusion, and a better system that its ships might not be able to handle.

Still reading? Thanks for sticking with it — here’s the point: All this technical risk and uncertainty in the centerpiece of the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plans does not help the odds it will close the projected shortfall in its number of large surface combatants, as we heard about at the Surface Navy Association show. The Navy does not plan to buy a new-model destroyer, given the placeholder name “Flight IV,” until 2032. Until then, this DDG 51 plan is it for large warships. If it doesn’t pay off or starts to slip, tomorrow’s fleet could wind up short that many more combatants.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/24/report-adds-still-more-gloom-to-navy-ship-outlook/#ixzz1kQuPMgkw
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 03:13 AM

Navy progresses in demonstrating unmanned refueling capability

As part of an Autonomous Aerial Refueling test for the Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) program, a Calspan Learjet surrogate is shown in a screen grab from the tanker operator station aboard an Omega K-707 tanker aircraft during the initial flight, Dec.20. During recent AAR flights, the Learjet successfully completed multiple air-refueling test points autonomously while commanded by a ground operator. (U.S. Navy illustration)

Jan 23, 2012

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - The Navy is testing a system that promises to significantly increase the endurance and range of carrier-based unmanned aircraft.

As part of the Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) program, the Navy and industry partner Northrop Grumman have been developing Autonomous Aerial Refueling (AAR) technologies to refuel unmanned aircraft in flight. The team completed a series of flight tests Jan.21 in St. Augustine, Fla., as the latest step toward demonstrating unmanned AAR capability.

“The AAR segment of the program is intended to demonstrate a system that will enable the X-47B UCAS-D to safely approach and maneuver around tanker aircraft, performing both Navy and Air Force style refueling techniques,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, Navy UCAS program manager.

The Navy has been working closely with the Air Force Research Lab for the past decade to develop technologies and operating concepts for AAR, Engdahl said. Both services share a common goal of enabling tankers to autonomously refuel manned and unmanned aircraft in the future, he added.

The UCAS-D team began this test phase in November when a team from Northrop Grumman installed X-47B hardware and software on a Calspan Learjet surrogate aircraft. The initial ground and taxi tests culminated in the first AAR test flight Dec. 20.

The team then conducted a series of flights using the surrogate aircraft, equipped with X-47B software and hardware, and an Omega K-707 Tanker. The Learjet successfully completed multiple air-refueling test points autonomously while commanded by a ground operator.

The AAR segment of the UCAS-D program is designed to assess the initial functionality of the X-47B AAR systems and navigation performance, as well as to test the government tanker refueling interface systems. The AAR program is using similar command and control, and navigation processes being demonstrated by the UCAS team aboard the aircraft carrier.

“The next big step for the program is to demonstrate this capability with the unmanned X-47B and actually plug the aircraft autonomously,” Engdahl said. “The AAR team did an exceptional job executing flight test in St. Augustine. The team’s' ability to successfully complete these test maneuvers so early in the program is a significant learning event and reduces risk for the future."

The team plans to conduct two more surrogate test periods before demonstrating refueling techniques on the X-47B in 2014. Data from the tests will be used to assess system performance, demonstrate viability of the AAR concept and develop operational procedures to support further development of future unmanned systems.

"By adding an autonomous aerial refueling capability to unmanned aircraft, we can significantly increase their range, persistence and overall flexibility," added Engdahl, who said he is very impressed with the system’s performance. “This is a game-changer for naval aviation and is critical for our success with unmanned long range aircraft in the future.”

PEO(U&W) Public Affairs
(301) 757-9703

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 12:22 PM

Washington|1/23/2012 @ 1:44PM

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier?

Image via Wikipedia

On January 3, President Obama and his defense team unveiled a new global military posture focused on the Western Pacific. Although the president was circumspect in explaining why the Pentagon is pivoting to the Pacific, it’s pretty clear the main concern is China’s rising influence in East Asia — the industrial heartland of the new global economy. A document released at the January 3 event stressed that America must maintain its economic and military access to the region.

For America, access to the area around China is mainly about sea power. The U.S. can use satellites and long-range aircraft to overcome the tyranny of distance, but it has relatively few bases in the region and virtually no ground-force presence outside South Korea and Okinawa. Since bases near China would probably be targeted early in any future war, U.S. military presence depends mainly on warships at sea.

That raises the question of how vulnerable U.S. aircraft carriers might be to attack by the Chinese air force and navy. The United States has built its maritime force structure around a handful of giant supercarriers, which have been deployed repeatedly to deter Chinese military action against Taiwan. But with China’s double-digit economic growth fueling a rapid buildup of long-range weapons, many experts have begun to doubt the wisdom of deploying U.S. carriers anywhere near the Middle Kingdom in wartime.

Obviously, there are many reasons why China would want to avoid a war, especially one involving use of nuclear weapons. But accidents happen, and the credibility of U.S. security guarantees to regional allies hinge on how effective naval forces might be in a future conflict. Since all the geographical advantages lie with China, it is crucial to know whether the six or seven carriers that America could deploy quickly to the Western Pacific would survive a Chinese onslaught. If they are vulnerable, the war might be over very soon.

The first thing to understand about U.S. aircraft carriers is that they are very big and very well defended. They displace 100,000 tons of water, making them the biggest warships ever constructed, and their four-acre decks hold dozens of multi-role fighters superior to anything operated by China’s air force or navy. They typically are escorted by cruisers or destroyers carrying the Aegis combat system — the world’s most sophisticated air defense system — and nuclear-powered attack submarines. Since the carriers themselves are nuclear-powered, they are always moving and unconstrained by logistical needs.

However, it is precisely because the carriers are so big and capable that they constitute such “lucrative” targets. Loss of a single carrier would reduce U.S. naval air power by nearly ten percent, and might entail thousands of U.S. casualties (over 5,000 personnel are typically on board). It’s a lot easier to see a metal vessel that is twenty stories high and three football fields long in the middle of an ocean than it is to find a ground force hiding in the Ardennes. And if one actually were destroyed, the psychological impact would be profound: the United States hasn’t lost a carrier since the Hornet was sunk by Japanese dive bombers in 1942.

Carriers are much easier to disable than sink, since they have thousands of watertight compartments and a typical bomb or torpedo lacks the punch to send such a big ship to the bottom. But it is the complete loss of a carrier that would devastate military capability and morale, so that’s where the question of vulnerability is most critical. With China gradually pushing its maritime defensive perimeter out into the Pacific and deploying everything from nuclear-powered attack subs to anti-ship ballistic missiles, isn’t it just a matter of time before U.S. carriers have to retreat to a distance where their planes can no longer reach China?

The answer to that question, it appears, is “no,” for at least four reasons. First, whatever weapons China may be buying, it lacks the sensors and command system to track and promptly target a carrier. Second, U.S. forces have multiple options for actively and passively impeding the effectiveness of any attack, including targeting forces ashore. Third, if a carrier actually were hit by anything less powerful than a nuclear weapon, it could absorb the damage and continue operating in some diminished capacity; it almost certainly would not be sunk. Finally, the U.S. Navy is taking numerous steps to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of its aircraft carriers, enabling them to cope with whatever new capabilities the Chinese field.

With regard to tracking and targeting a carrier, it is important to understand what a big place the Western Pacific is. The hotly contested South China Sea measures over a million square miles, and it constitutes only a small portion of the waters adjacent to Chinese territory. While it might be possible for Chinese satellites, aircraft, warships or land-based radars to detect a carrier there, it is quite another thing to continuously track and precisely target the constantly moving vessel. Satellites close enough to distinguish the carrier will quickly disappear over the horizon, planes will run out of fuel or be scared off by the carrier’s fighters, and other approaches produce similarly spotty results. China will need to invest billions of dollars over a period of many years before it has the assured capacity to find and track U.S. carriers.

But as congressional naval expert Ronald O’Rourke pointed out in an April, 2011 study, detection and tracking are just the initial steps in a complex “kill chain” that Chinese forces must execute in order to actually strike the carrier. Information must be conveyed, command decisions must be made, weapons must be launched, and flight paths must be traversed. Meanwhile, the carrier is moving, moving, moving — probably in an evasive pattern that cannot be predicted in advance. So Chinese weapons may end up arriving many miles from where the carrier has moved to; or they may end up not arriving at all, because to get anywhere near the ship, they must penetrate the densest point defenses in the history of warfare.

These defenses begin with overhead surveillance and interception by the Aegis combat system on escort vessels, by the carrier’s constantly patrolling fighters that have their own highly sensitive radar plane called the Hawkeye, and by a variety of other weapons scattered across the fleet. The weapon systems are netted together so that a Standard anti-aircraft missile launched by one U.S. warship can be guided by the radar on another warship. The overhead defenses are complemented by a similarly dense array of undersea defenses that include nuclear-powered attack subs, ship-towed sonar arrays, and antisubmarine helicopters. Collectively, these defenses will intercept the vast majority of Chinese aerial and undersea weapons, most of which are not stealthy by U.S. standards.

In addition to such active measures, the U.S. Navy has a variety of passive measures for blunting any attack. For instance, China operates satellites that, like their U.S. counterparts, can track surface vessels by monitoring their electronic emissions. Items like radars and communications antennas generate numerous signals that are helpful in finding and identifying particular warships. However, the Navy has numerous techniques for concealing or complicating these transmissions so that they cease to be useful beacons in any attack. That facet of defense is known as electronic warfare, and the U.S. Navy has long been the global leader in exploiting the electromagnetic spectrum for both offensive and defensive advantage.

However, no defense is perfect, so if China launches a large barrage of missiles against a precisely targeted carrier, some may get through. One Chinese weapon that has sparked much discussion in professional journals recently is a new anti-ship ballistic missile with a maneuvering warhead; the warhead’s combination of unpredictable movement and high speed would be tough to intercept. It is not clear how accurate such a warhead would be after maneuvering to avoid defenders, but if it actually hit a supercarrier it would definitely impair flight operations. Whether its kinetic punch is powerful enough to actually sink a carrier is classified, but the fact the Navy hasn’t funded development of systems to test possible defenses against it suggests that the threat is not urgent.

Other new Chinese weapons like wake-homing torpedoes and sea-skimming cruise missiles cause considerably less destruction, and probably would not be able to sink the massive carriers. The warships are equipped with heavy side armor, and their internal layout of numerous bulkheads and watertight compartments would tend to keep damage localized. Crews are trained continuously in firefighting and other emergency skills relevant to limiting the effects of attacks.

Navy leaders tend to dismiss the most alarming reports about China’s growing anti-access capabilities, pointing out that the country trails the United States in almost every measure of naval power. For example, China’s 60 attack subs seldom venture far from port, and tend to be noisier — easier to detect — than those operated by the U.S. In any event, the Navy is not sitting still waiting to see how the China challenge evolves. It is funding numerous programs to stay ahead of the threat, including the first all-new class of aircraft carriers in 40 years, more capable aircraft to be deployed on the carriers, major upgrades in Aegis missile-defense capabilities, and increased production of the very stealthy Virginia-class attack sub.

Such investments will give carrier captains additional options for protecting their warships in the future. For instance, the carrier version of the F-35 joint strike fighter will be able to fly 200-300 nautical miles farther with a bomb load than the plane it replaces, and in a straighter line because it is stealthy; that means the carriers can operate at much greater distances from Chinese shores while still accomplishing missions. The latest version of the carrier-based Hawkeye radar plane will provide improved sensitivity against threats like cruise missiles, and a new electronic jamming aircraft called the Growler will degrade the effectiveness of enemy radars and communications. The Navy has literally dozens of such programs under way, complemented by a training system that far exceeds the rigor achieved in competing maritime forces.

None of this means that U.S. aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific are invulnerable. As China’s military buildup proceeds, the U.S. Navy will have to continually adjust its operating concepts and deployment plans to keep up with the threat. But large-deck aircraft carriers are likely to remain a potent contributor to U.S. power in the region, and they will be joined in the future by Marine amphibious assault vessels sporting their own improved aviation capabilities courtesy of the F-35 program. If military commanders avoid taking unnecessary risks, U.S. aircraft carriers should retain their relevance to the balance of power in the Western Pacific through mid-century.

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 01:53 PM

Arleigh Burke Destroyers: Additional Analysis and Oversight Required to Support the Navy’s Future Surface Combatant Plans

(Source: US Government Accountability Office; issued Jan. 24, 2012)

The Navy relied on its 2009 Radar/Hull Study as the basis to select DDG 51 over DDG 1000 to carry the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) as its preferred future surface combatant—a decision that may result in a procurement of up to 43 destroyers and cost up to $80 billion over the next several decades. The Radar/Hull Study may not provide a sufficient analytical basis for a decision of this magnitude.

Specifically, the Radar/Hull Study:

• focuses on the capability of the radars it evaluated, but does not fully evaluate the capabilities of different shipboard combat systems and ship options under consideration,

• does not include a thorough trade-off analysis that would compare the relative costs and benefits of different solutions under consideration or provide robust insight into all cost alternatives, and

• assumes a significantly reduced threat environment from other Navy analyses, which allowed radar performance to seem more effective than it may actually be against more sophisticated threats.

The Navy’s planned production schedules of the restart DDG 51 ships are comparable with past performance and officials told us that hull and mechanical systems changes are modest, but these ships will cost more than previous DDG 51s. A major upgrade to the ship’s combat system software also brings several challenges that could affect the restart ships, due in part to a key component of this upgrade that has already faced delays.

Further delays could postpone delivery to the shipyard for the first restart ship, and could also jeopardize the Navy’s plan to install and test the upgrade on an older DDG 51 prior to installation on the restart ships. This first installation would serve to mitigate risk, and if it does not occur on time the Navy will be identifying, analyzing, and resolving any combat system problems on the first restart ship.

Further, the Navy does not plan to fully test new capabilities until after certifying the upgrade as combat-ready, and has not planned for realistic operational testing necessary to fully demonstrate its integrated cruise and ballistic missile defense performance.

The Navy faces significant technical risks with its new Flight III DDG 51 ships, and the current level of oversight may not be sufficient given these risks. The Navy is pursuing a reasonable risk mitigation approach to AMDR development, but it will be technically challenging.

According to Navy analysis, selecting the DDG 51 hullform to carry AMDR requires significant redesign and reduces the ability of these ships to accommodate future systems. This decision also limits the radar size to one that will be at best marginally effective and incapable of meeting the Navy’s desired capabilities.

The Navy may have underestimated the cost of Flight III, and its plan to include the lead ship in a multiyear procurement contract given the limited knowledge about the configuration and the design of the ship creates potential cost risk.

Finally, the current level of oversight may not be commensurate with a program of this size, cost, and risk and could result in less information being available to decision makers.

Click here for the full report (69 pages in PDF format) on the GAO website.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587883.pdf

-ends-

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 02:07 PM

PMA-213 Celebrates New GPS-Based Landing System Progress

(Source: US Naval Air Systems Command; issued Jan 23, 2012)

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. --- The latest in a series of Engineering Development Models (EDM) of a technology that promises to revolutionize how the DoD safely lands its aircraft was unveiled by the Naval Air Traffic Management Systems Program Office (PMA-213) during a dedication ceremony here Jan. 11.

“We now have real, testable hardware after several years of conceptual modeling and design,” Capt. Darrell Lack, PMA-213 program manager, told the group gathered to celebrate the latest advancement of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS).

“We will retire aging, radar-based, precision-approach and landing systems that are experiencing increasing obsolescence issues and evolve into a GPS-based precision-approach and landing system,” Lack said. “This system will provide secure performance at sea, on land and in expeditionary environments with increased operational availability and interoperability.”

PMA-213 received the second JPALS EDM in October and plans to install it on all CVN, LHD and LHA class ships as part of “Increment 1A.” The system offers critical enabling technology for the CVN-78 ship class, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and Navy unmanned air systems, while allowing retirement of costly, radar-based systems, Lack said. JPALS-compliant aircraft will be compatible with the civil aviation, GPS-based infrastructure when fielded.

EDM-2 is the initial production representative unit of the AN/USN-3(V)1 JPALS, consisting of four shipboard-suitable equipment racks and multiple GPS and UHF data-link antennas. A team, including the JPALS prime contractor Raytheon Network Centric Systems and NAWCAD Research and Engineering personnel will integrate the unit into the System Integration Lab at the Landing Systems Test Facility for further development.

With Navy, Air Force and Army participation, JPALS will provide a family of interoperable systems for civil and multinational, manned and unmanned aircraft. A JPALS increment 1A Test Readiness Review is scheduled for April and a Milestone C review to enter production is planned in fiscal 2013.

-ends-

buglerbilly

26-01-12, 01:43 AM

Navy To Drop 3 Ships in 2013; May Keep 313-Ship Goal

By Colin Clark

Published: January 25, 2012

WASHINGTON: The Navy plans to cut a total of 16 ships from its five-year budget, reducing the number of ships funded in fiscal 2013 by three, from 13 down to 10.

Most of these ships are expected to be the Joint High Speed Vessel, built for both the Navy and the Army, and other support ships. Several well informed analysts told me they do not expect the Navy to cut warships or submarines if it can possibly avoid that.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made clear over the weekend that the U.S. will maintain a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. Cutting a carrier group had been one of the options most hotly discussed over the let six months. But the administration's new Pacific tilt makes cuts to warships of any kind highly unlikely.

"It would be almost impossible to cut the number of submarines or major surface combatants because it would be seen as contradicting the administration's new Pacific strategy," Loren Thompson, noted defense consultant and author.

Here are the numbers: The 30-year shipbuilding plan put forward with the 2012 budget projected the following numbers:

2013 -- 13 ships
2014 -- 11 ships
2015 -- 12 ships
2016 -- 9 ships
2017 -- 12 ships

That works out to a total of 57 ships of all types.

The Navy's shipbuilding portion of the new defense budget plan, which Panetta will outline tomorrow afternoon, looks like this:

2013 -- 10 ships
2014 -- 7 ships
2015 -- 8 ships
2016 -- 9 ships
2017 -- 7 ships

The total would be 41 ships.

Cutting any more deeply, or cutting more than a symbolic warship or two, would likely encounter strong opposition from Congress, and, Thompson noted, "would also greatly impair the industrial base which the administration says it is committed to protecting."

One of the warships identified as a possible casualty by two analysts was the Littoral Combat Ship, of which the Navy plans to buy 10 each from Lockheed Martin and Austal. However, a veteran shipbuilding advocate said any cuts to LCS would be very difficult to make. Since the Navy's contract covers all 10 ships from each maker, the Navy would find it difficult to make any cuts without breaking the contract, said Joe Carnevale, defense advisor to the Shipbuilders Council of America.

Also, Carnevale said a study he did of cuts to shipbuilding in the last drawdown following the fall of the Berlin Wall found that most cuts were made to ocean-going tugs, supply ships and similar craft.

Another Navy analyst put the calculus this way: "The question becomes do they delay the oiler program? I don't think they are going to cut the submarines. We know the carriers aren't going away. So, given you are probably cutting JHSV. Maybe some destroyers or subs are cut in '17, but I think that would be it."

This analyst ran through the numbers on the shipbuilding plan and said there was a high probability the Navy could still achieve its much-doubted fleet of 313 ships. It just wouldn't be for as long a period as previously planned. That may ease the fears of Navy supporters on Capitol Hill.

buglerbilly

26-01-12, 02:08 AM

BAMS UAS program advances with launch of first radar flight

The U.S. Navy completed the first flight of the Multi-Function Active Sensor (MFAS) radar system, the primary sensor on the MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS), on Dec. 16 on a Northrop Grumman surrogate Gulfstream aircraft at a California test site. The MQ-4C BAMS program is on track to deliver initial operating capability to the fleet by fiscal 2015. (Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman)

Jan 25, 2012

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — Marking significant advancement in its maritime surveillance program, the U.S. Navy recently began test flights on a radar system destined for an unmanned aircraft.

The Navy completed the first flight of the Multi-Function Active Sensor (MFAS) radar system, the primary sensor on the MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System.

The Dec. 16 two-hour inaugural flight was conducted on a Northrop Grumman surrogate Gulfstream aircraft at a California test site. This was the first in a series of MFAS test flights scheduled through October as the program matures. Thirty test-bed aircraft flights for early MFAS trials are planned. The tests will focus on maturing the performance of maritime surface surveillance modes of the radar

“The MFAS radar system’s ability to detect, classify and track multiple targets simultaneously will make it a highly capable sensor for the Fleet,” said Patrick Ellis, BAMS UAS mission systems lead. “The information we will be able to capture using this radar system was something we could only imagine not too long ago. Seeing the system in action provides additional proof that this asset will be invaluable to our warfighters.”

The MFAS is a full 360-degree Actively Electronically Scanned Array radar system designed to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) coverage. It accomplishes this at long ranges in both open ocean and regions close to shore.

“This milestone is a significant step forward for the program,” Ellis said. “The road leading to MFAS first flight included challenges, but seeing this physical proof in our preparation for the upcoming test and evaluation phase of the program brings a new boost of energy and excitement to the team.”
Initial MFAS radar testing took place in early 2011 to verify operation of the signal transmission path and to complete health and safety checks.

The MQ-4C BAMS program is on track to deliver initial operating capability to the fleet by fiscal 2015, including a scheduled first flight this year. BAMS will operate as an adjunct to the P-8A Poseidon and is a key piece of the overall replacement strategy for the P-3C Orion.

PEO(U&W) Public Affairs
(301) 757-9703

buglerbilly

28-01-12, 02:15 AM

New Floating Base Ships Coming for U.S. Navy

Jan. 27, 2012 - 07:51PM

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

The U.S. amphibious ship USS Ponce is to be converted as a base for minesweeping helicopters, patrol boats and special forces based in the Persian Gulf. (U.S. Navy)

Decades after the idea was broached for a floating, mobile base to support operating forces in the Persian Gulf, the concept has suddenly shifted into high gear, and a sense of urgency is driving both new U.S. ship construction and conversion of an existing vessel.

A new Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) is mentioned almost in passing within the Pentagon budget briefing document made public Jan. 26. Development funding will be provided, the document said, for a new AFSB “that can be dedicated to support missions in areas where ground-based access is not available, such as countermine operations.”

Elsewhere, under “industrial base skills,” the documents noted that, “for example, adding the afloat forward staging base addresses urgent operational shortfalls and will help sustain the shipbuilding industry in the near-term and mitigate the impact of reducing ship procurement in the” budget.

What is all this verbiage code for?

“This fulfills a long-standing requirement from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), going back to the Tanker Wars of the late 1980s,” said Capt. Chris Sims, a spokesman for U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

Sims was referring specifically to a recent decision to modify the amphibious transport dock ship Ponce — which had been scheduled to be decommissioned March 30 — into an interim AFSB able to support minesweeping MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters.

The ship will be operated jointly by active-duty Navy officers and sailors, and by government civilian mariners employed by Military Sealift Command (MSC) — a hybrid crew similar to those used on the Navy’s two submarine tenders and the command ship Mount Whitney.

Beyond the conversion, though, the Navy now plans to build at least one, and possibly two, AFSBs.

U.S. Navy officials would not publicly confirm the new construction, but sources confirmed the service plans to modify the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) design to take on the AFSB role.

Three MLPs have been funded for construction at the General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding (NASSCO) shipyard in San Diego. The ships are large, 765-foot-long vessels able to float off small landing craft, tugs or barges.

For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role.

But the AFSB will also be able to carry Marines, support patrol and special operations craft, and fuel and arm other helicopters.

The ship is expected to be requested in 2014.

Sources also said the Navy might be considering modifying the third MLP to the AFSB mission. Construction of that ship, funded in the 2012 defense bill, is being negotiated between NASSCO and the Navy.

Conversion of the Ponce, meanwhile, is proceeding with alacrity. MSC issued requests for proposal (RFPs) on Jan. 24 to upgrade and refit the ship. Bids are to be submitted by Feb. 3, with work to begin in mid-month. The RFPs state that sea trials are to be carried out in mid-April.

The work includes upgrading the ship’s navigation systems, bringing habitability up to MSC standards and general refurbishment. No flight modifications are planned at this time, said MSC spokesman Tim Boulay.

Fleet Forces Command also has begun solicitations for 50 Navy personnel to help man the ship in its special mission role.

The Ponce had returned to Norfolk from its final cruise Dec. 2, and crewmembers had already begun the inactivation process when the order came down to keep the ship running.

Use of the ship, Sims said, was “seen as an opportunity to fulfill that longstanding CENTCOM request.”

buglerbilly

28-01-12, 02:36 AM

Pentagon Confused by Its Own ‘Subs vs. Terrorists’ Plan

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author January 27, 2012 | 5:06 pm

Photo: U.S. Navy

The Pentagon has a dream that it won’t give up: blasting any target on the planet with a submarine’s missile. Nothing seems to stop it, not even years of protest that the project could accidentally spark a nuclear war. But now, the Pentagon swears, it’s figured out how to launch the missiles without triggering any inadvertent Armageddon, and is pushing the concept in its new budget.

One problem: No one at the Pentagon can seem to agree on what the latest iteration of this so-called “Conventional Prompt Global Strike” concept really is.

Here’s the basic problem with the plan. A ballistic missile fired with a conventional warhead flies in the same trajectory as a ballistic missile fired with a nuclear warhead. Seeing any such missile in the air could prompt a panic in Moscow, Beijing or another nuclear-armed capitol. So while Washington thinks it’s striking a terrorist training camp or an enemy weapons silo, it might prompt someone else to let loose the world’s most dangerous weapons.

But now the Pentagon’s budget, unveiled Thursday, returns to the much-derided concept, calling for a “design of a conventional prompt strike option for submarines.” Unveiling the decision, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta beamed, “the Navy will invest in a design that will allow new Virginia class submarines to be modified to carry more cruise missiles and develop an undersea conventional prompt strike option.”

That seemed to suggest that Panetta expected the sub strikes to use cruise missiles instead of ballistic missiles. That would probably take care of the problem of nuclear confusion, since cruise and ballistic missiles fly across the sky differently. But it might not be a truly prompt or global strike option, since cruise missiles don’t have the range or speed that ballistic missiles do. Plus, it would take time to get a sub into position to fire.

But Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, muddled the issue by suggesting the Pentagon actually had a different, tested, technological fix in mind. Asked during Thursday’s budget briefing how to avoid confusing the Russians and the Chinese with Conventional Prompt Global Strike, Dempsey said that “technology” had changed “the trajectory that would be required to deliver” a conventionally-armed ballistic missile. So had “the speed with which these systems can move. And therefore, you can lower the trajectory, and therefore avoid the confusion you’re talking about in terms of it being mistaken for an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] with a nuclear warhead.”

That’s a dubious proposition. While there are design alternatives in the works, none of them are anywhere close to weapons-ready. These are still very much research experiments. No sub will get one for years and years, if ever.

Most of the experiments center around a new type of warhead for the ballistic missile: a hypersonic glider. Unlike a old-school warhead — which pretty much goes into space on top of the missile, and then comes crashing straight down to its target — a glider drops into the atmosphere and then flies parallel to the Earth. If a standard warhead has an upside-down-U-shaped trajectory, the hypersonic glider’s looks like a backwards-L. That’s called “boost-glide” in missile jargon.

Or at least that’s the theory. The tech, despite Dempsey’s assurances, isn’t there yet in practice. A Darpa initiative to create a Mach-20 glider was kind of a #fail. (Like, actually. Darpa live-tweeted its disappointing test this August.)

The Army, using a different design — one that looked more like a typical missile, not the slice of deadly deep dish pizza that Darpa developed — succeeded. But its Mach-8 glider faced an easier test than Darpa’s did. In November, the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon boosted off from Hawaii and descended on its target in the Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific, 2,400 miles away. That’s about 60 percent as far as the Darpa glider was trying to go, and at 40 percent of the speed. Still, it’s something to score on conventional prompt global strike’s ledger.

Only it may not be something the subs can capitalize on. The missile tubes on U.S. subs are too small to launch the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, let alone Darpa’s Mach-20 glider. The agency did have plans for a hypersonic glider that could fit inside a sub’s launch tube. But that “ArcLight” program was officially canceled before it could, you should excuse the expression, get off of the ground.

Nevertheless, it seems that some in the Pentagon are, in fact, talking about putting the gliders on subs. “The conventional prompt strike concept from a submarine could be an intermediate range boost glide capability,” says Lt. Col. Melinda Morgan, a Pentagon spokeswoman. Panetta, Morgan says, didn’t mean that the subs will use cruise missiles for Conventional Prompt Global Strike; the extra cruise missiles will be used for other missions.

Perhaps the Pentagon is looking to revive ArcLight. Perhaps the Pentagon is hinging its hopes for a sub-based long range strike on a technology family that’s passed one (relatively) easy test. Or perhaps Morgan and Dempsey are wrong and the idea really is to go with Panetta’s cruise missiles.

But the moment, confusion reigns. And confusion has characterized the project almost since the Obama administration resurrected it from the Bush administration’s failed plans. Last year, Air Force generals and civilians repeatedly contradicted each other on whether gliders, ballistic missiles or some combination of the two would be the centerpiece of the global-strike project.

And there’s another, deeper problem. Nuclear-armed nations like Russia might not care if a missile — ballistic, cruise or hypersonic — carries a conventional warhead. After all, the point of the strike capability is to let the U.S. hit anywhere on earth in mere hours or less.

“The Russians don’t care — they’re worried about it even if it’s conventional,” explains Tom Collina of the Arms Control Association. “They think it’s a strategic conventional capability,and it’s a complete mismatch in the discussion.”

Even if the Pentagon figures out what kind of sub-launched strike it’s really talking about, there’s no technological fix for that.

buglerbilly

28-01-12, 12:47 PM

It must be a small news day day today...........this is the third US newspaper that has an article on this.............

Navy wants commando ‘mothership’ in Middle East

AP - The United States amphibious assault ship USS Ponce sails through the Suez Canal in March 2011. If retrofitted as “the mothership,” the vessel could accommodate smaller high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEALs

By Craig Whitlock, Saturday, January 28, 6:57 AM

The Pentagon is rushing to send a large floating base for commando teams to the Middle East as tensions rise with Iran, al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somali pirates, among other threats.

In response to requests from U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, the Navy is converting an aging warship it had planned to decommission into a makeshift staging base for the commandos. Unofficially dubbed a “mothership,” the floating base could accommodate smaller high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEALs, procurement documents show.

Special Operations forces are a key part of the Obama administration’s strategy to make the military leaner and more agile as the Pentagon confronts at least $487 billion in spending cuts over the next decade.

Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command, declined to elaborate on the floating base’s purpose or to say where, exactly, it will be deployed in the Middle East. Other Navy officials acknowledged that they were moving with unusual haste to complete the conversion and send the mothership to the region by early summer.

Navy documents indicate that it could be headed to the Persian Gulf, where Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route for much of the world’s oil supply. A market survey proposal from the Military Sealift Command, dated Dec. 22 and posted online, states that the floating base needed to be delivered to the Persian Gulf.

Other contract documents do not specify a location but say the mothership would be used to “support mine countermeasure” missions. Defense officials have said that if Iran did attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, it would rely on mines to obstruct the waterway.

With a large naval base in Bahrain, and one or two aircraft carrier groups usually assigned to the region, the Navy has a substantial presence in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. Adding the mothership would do relatively little to bolster U.S. maritime power overall, but it could play an instrumental role in secretive commando missions offshore.

The deployment of the floating base could also mark a return to maritime missions for SEAL teams, which for the past decade have spent most of their time on land in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Other details of the project became public Tuesday when the Military Sealift Command posted a bid request to retrofit the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport docking ship, on a rush-order basis.

Until December, the Navy had planned to retire the Ponce and decommission it in March after 41 years of service. Among other missions, it was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea last year in support of NATO’s air war over Libya.

Instead, the ship will be modified into what the military terms an Afloat Forward Staging Base. Kafka said it would be used to support mine-clearance ships, smaller patrol ships and aircraft.

The documents posted by the Military Sealift Command in December, however, specify that the mothership will be rebuilt so that it can also serve as a docking station for several small high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEAL teams.

Among the vessels listed are Mark 5 Zodiacs, inflatable boats that can carry up to 15 passengers and can roll up into bags, and seven-meter-long Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats, which can carry an entire SEAL squad.

[It can also carry more than a couple of Combat Boat 90's..........]

SEAL teams also deploy from regular warships, but most vessels in the Navy’s fleet must patrol or move around on a regular basis. A mothership can stay in one spot for weeks or months, effectively serving as a floating base for commandos as they monitor coastal areas or prepare for amphibious operations.

The U.S. Special Operations Command has sought a transportable floating base for several years, saying that a mothership would expand the range of commando squads operating from small speedboats, particularly in remote coastal areas.

Defense officials said the Ponce will serve as a stopgap measure until the Navy can build a new Afloat Forward Staging Base from scratch. In budget documents released Thursday, the Pentagon said it would fund that project starting next year.

The floating base also could be suited to the coast of Somalia, a failed state that is home to an al-Qaeda affiliate and gangs of pirates. A mothership there would give SEALs or other commandos more flexibility in missions such as Wednesday’s rescue of a pair of American and Danish hostages who had been held for months by Somali pirates.

The term “mothership” is also commonly used to describe a vessel used by Somali pirates. After hijacking a large container or cargo vessel, pirate crews often turn it into a floating base to extend the range of their skiffs or speedboats far into the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Persian Gulf.

U.S. military officials declined to say what prompted them to give the Ponce a sudden new lease on life. But contract and bidding documents underscore the urgency of the project.

One no-bid contract for engineering work states that the military was waiving normal procurement rules because any delay presented a “national security risk.” Other contract bids are due Feb. 3. The Navy wants the conversion work to begin 10 days later on the Ponce, which is docked in Virginia Beach.

buglerbilly

31-01-12, 11:54 AM

US Navy’s Next Generation Jammer for Unmanned Airframes

Posted on January 31, 2012 by The Editor

The airframes expected to carry the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) are conventional-signature unmanned aircraft systems and will be followed by stealthy unmanned designs.

NGJ is one of the U.S. Navy’s prized new programmes. To maintain its fiscal and technological attractiveness, acquisition officials are revealing some interesting revisions of the service’s airborne electronic attack (AEA) concept to ensure that NGJ will be flexible enough to be used by large numbers of different platforms.

A new logo for the office swaps the electronic surveillance “Old Crow” for a patch that features the EA-6B Prowler, EA-18G Growler and an unmanned aircraft that looks suspiciously like the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (Uclass) aircraft.

“That should speak volumes to you,” says Navy Capt. John Green, chief of the AEA and EA-6B Prowler programme office. “We believe that the Prowler is the [electronic warfare] past; the Growler is EW now, and the future of EW will be unmanned vehicles.”

The aerospace industry is reaching similar conclusions. Senior officials see systems-of-systems evolving with decoys and nonkinetic weapons being released by larger platforms.

Service planners say they must have an AEA system that can be “transportable” from platform to platform in order to support an advanced electronic attack capability.

“There is the potential to combine radar, electronic warfare and other capabilities for use in smaller aircraft,” says Green. “It could very well be a UAV because the Growler has a limited lifespan.”

Aerospace officials also anticipate the need for small, stealthy platforms with powerful electronic payloads.

“As platforms become smaller in the attempt to get stealthier, I see EW systems evolving into the other systems on the aircraft, because you can’t afford the weight and processing for each of the separate technologies,” Kula says.

Meanwhile the NGJ programme will be growing as it works through a series of developmental blocks involving the fielding of separate pods sequentially that operate in mid-, low- and high-frequency bands.

Advanced, long-range, air defense radars with active, electronically scanned arrays (AESAs) with double or triple the range to detect aircraft and missiles “are the kinds of technologies that really scream out and require us to take this NGJ step,” Green says. “It is the proliferation of solid-state equipment, advanced control mechanisms, sophisticated waveforms, enhanced electronic agility and electronic, counter-counter measures on the radars themselves that really push us to make these kinds of investments before the electronic attack technologies of today become obsolete.”

Most of these problems have physics at their root. Flying into heavily defended areas requires smaller, stealthier platforms. That, in turn, drives the need for electronics and power in a small, light, powerful package. While researchers have made significant advances in improving effective radiated power output, it is not yet enough. One benefit of adapting AESA radar technology to AEA, for example, is that it permits the design of small packages to focus power into tailored waveforms.

“What’s driving the current NGJ programme is the level of maturity needed to meet the initial operational dates the Navy wants,” says Nick Uros, Raytheon vice president for NGJ. “I think you can extrapolate from that they want to stick with tried and proven AESAs that are open and scalable.” This would indicate that the introduction of conformal or embedded arrays is still well into the future.

Higher up the power scale, using AESA-generated electronic beams as directed energy will likely be the dividing line between manned and unmanned AEA platforms.

“I don’t see us using the NGJ system in a directed-energy form, if for no other reason than the long standoff distances we have to operate from,” Green says. “For that mission area, you are more likely to see us put that mission onto an unmanned platform. The risk you run with putting a man well inside the kill range for an advanced surface-to-air missile is not acceptable.”

The Navy is actively exploring NGJ technology transfer to its UAV programs. That is at the heart of a decision by the chief of naval operations to move NGJ and other EW systems under a combined intelligence and command-and-control directorate to speed the fusion of EW and unmanned craft.

The Navy and Marine Corps are looking at putting NGJ on both stealthy and nonstealthy platforms. The capability is definitely going on regular-signature UAVs (such as Shadow), and researchers are studying a mission set for stealth designs (such as Uclass).

In an era of dwindling resources, the Pentagon is looking hard at the nonkinetic effects produced by electronic attack.

“It can be an economical way to either put off full-scale warfare or enhance it,” Green says. “I’m sure that creating kinetic effects by nonkinetic means is being looked at—anything to deny, degrade and deceive in the electromagnetic spectrum. You are going to see technologies shared between EW and [directed energy] are similar, but you are going to see them led by different teams because the concepts of operations are very different.”

Source: Aviation Week

buglerbilly

01-02-12, 01:05 PM

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Team to Provide SEWIP Electronic Attack Capability for U.S. Navy Anti-Ship Missile Defense

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 31, 2012 – Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] and Raytheon Company [NYSE: RTN] are teaming to compete for a U.S. Navy contract that will upgrade the fleet’s capability to electronically attack anti-ship missiles.

Through its Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 3 upgrade, the Navy seeks to cost effectively enhance the electronic attack (EA) capability of its AN/SLQ-32 V(3) and V(4) electronic warfare (EW) systems to counter threat technology advances. All U.S. aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and other warships use the AN/SLQ-32 EW system.

SEWIP Block 3 is the latest upgrade in an evolutionary succession the Navy is pursuing for its EW system. Each upgrade incrementally adds new defensive technologies and functional capabilities. The Lockheed Martin-Raytheon team intends to offer a SEWIP Block 3 solution derived from more than 80 years of combined, proven experience in developing systems to defend the fleet. A formal Navy request for proposals is anticipated later this year.

Under a $167 million contract awarded by the Navy in November 2009, Lockheed Martin is developing SEWIP Block 2, which includes passive detection capabilities for advanced threats and establishes a framework to easily integrate future upgrades. The Navy approved the Block 2 solution during a Critical Design Review in February 2011, and two engineering development models are undergoing integration and testing at Lockheed Martin’s new EW systems test facility in Syracuse, N.Y.

“Technology is rapidly advancing around the world and we understand the threats our Navy faces are not simplified by today’s fiscal challenges,” said Carl Bannar, vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Integrated Warfare and Surveillance Systems business. “By teaming with Raytheon, the original developer of the legacy AN/SLQ-32 program, we will provide the Navy with a solution for SEWIP Block 3 that addresses today’s and tomorrow’s evolving threats.”

Developed by Raytheon in the 1970s, the original AN/SLQ-32 systems employed passive radar technology for early warning, identification and tracking of enemy threats. Subsequent upgrades provided an additional active capability for simultaneous jamming of multiple threats.

"Lockheed Martin's experience on the current SEWIP Block 2 system combined with Raytheon's expertise in shipboard EW will give U.S. Navy fleet commanders a critical advantage on the seas,” said Mark Kula, vice president, Tactical Airborne Systems, for Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. “The Lockheed Martin-Raytheon partnership provides the low-cost, high-reliability solution the Navy needs to meet current and future sea-surface threat environment.”

buglerbilly

03-02-12, 11:50 PM

US Navy to launch E-2D's operational test and evaluation

By: Craig Hoyle London

8 hours ago

Source:

The US Navy is poised to launch the initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) process for its new Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye surveillance aircraft, with the airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system type expected to achieve initial operating capability status in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Four E-2Ds have been transferred to the navy's Air Test and Evaluation Squadron One (VX-1), with IOT&E work to commence in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, the service said. Activities will be performed at various locations in the USA, with the process due to conclude in the fourth quarter of FY2012.

© US Navy

"The key objectives for IOT&E are to determine the aircraft's operational suitability and effectiveness in the required mission, evaluate the platform's readiness for fleet introduction, and to assist in the determination of a full rate production decision, based on current programme system design and development requirements," the navy said.

The E-2D is equipped with a Northrop APY-9 surveillance radar, which introduces an increased detection range over the sensors installed in legacy versions of Hawkeye, and an improved capability against small targets such as cruise missiles.

© Northrop Grumman

Northrop has so far delivered seven E-2Ds, including two development aircraft, with these having accumulated a combined 3,600 development and flight test hours by 23 January. The company expects to receive a contract early this year for a fourth production lot of six aircraft, and late last month was awarded a $31.8 million deal to cover logistics support costs linked to the programme's low-rate initial production phase.

The US Navy's stated programme of record for the E-2D totals an eventual 75 aircraft. Northrop has, meanwhile, forecast international sales of 25-30 new-generation E-2Ds to existing Hawkeye customers and more to new users, James Mulhall, the company's business development director for AEW and multi-mission command and control aircraft, told IQPC's AEW and Battle Management conference in London last month.

Current international operators of the E-2 include Egypt, France, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan, as recorded by Flightglobal's MiliCAS database.

buglerbilly

04-02-12, 11:47 AM

U.S. Navy still sees savings on its version of Northrop drone

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON | Fri Feb 3, 2012 1:22am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy still hopes to find cost savings on its version of Northrop Grumman Corp's unmanned Global Hawk spy plane, despite concerns that the Pentagon's decision to scrap the Air Force model will eliminate promised economies of scale.

Neither the Navy nor the Air Force are providing many details until the Pentagon's fiscal 2013 budget is released on February 13, but the Navy says both military services will continue to look for synergies on the unmanned aircraft programs.

U.S. Navy spokeswoman Captain Cate Mueller declined comment on whether cancellation of the Air Force's Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft would raise the per-plane cost of the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program.

But she said the Navy and Air Force still jointly planned to base the BAMS and Global Hawk planes at overseas locations to eliminate redundant efforts and boost operational flexibility. Those plans would be reviewed when final budget decisions on the Global Hawk program were officially released, she said.

"Additional synergy initiatives continue to be reviewed by a joint Navy/Air Force Synergies Working Group, which will generate cost savings for both programs," she added.

Current plans call for the Navy to buy a total of 70 BAMS planes, including two test aircraft.

The Air Force had been slated to buy a total of 31 Global Hawk Block 30s, which fly at 60,000 feet and can stay aloft for 24 hours, in addition to 13 earlier versions and 11 next-generation Block 40s. The new plan calls for 10 fewer Block 30 aircraft, with the rest of those models to be put in storage.

The Air Force had planned to buy a total of 31 Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft for a total of about $2 billion. Fourteen have been delivered and have been used to gather intelligence over Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and for surveillance after natural disasters in Japan and Haiti.

The U.S. Congress has the final say and some lawmakers have already questioned the decision, especially given the U.S. military's shifting focus to the Asia-Pacific region, where the Global Hawk's long reach would be a big asset.

Analysts also wonder about the impact of the decision on the economies of scale that were promised when the Navy chose the Northrop drone to replace its P-3 spy plane.

Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, said the Air Force had made a budget-driven decision "but nobody thought through the consequences for the joint force."

Analyst Byron Callan at Capital Alpha Partners said he expected some "howling" from lawmakers but predicted the Pentagon would prevail in the end, with any cost increases on the associated programs staying in the single-digit range.

DECISION "THOROUGHLY ANALYZED"

Cheryl Irwin, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, said the cancellation decision -- and any consequences for other related programs -- had been "thoroughly analyzed." She declined further comment until after the fiscal 2013 budget is released.

Northrop Chief Executive Wes Bush told analysts on Wednesday the company was disappointed by the decision and was taking its concerns directly to the Pentagon.

"We will be working with the Pentagon to discuss alternatives that will ensure more cost-effective transition into production for the other programs that are based on Global Hawk," Bush said on a conference call. He declined to elaborate.

Industry experts say the Air Force could face hundreds of millions of dollars in termination fees for cancelling the program, which the Pentagon already restructured last June.

At the time, Ashton Carter, the Pentagon's acquisition chief, said the planes were needed for national security and blamed cost increases on unfunded requirements, additional needs for spares and support equipment, and an unrealistic schedule.

Carter, now deputy defense secretary, told reporters last week the Block 30 version had been axed because it had "become too expensive in a resource-constrained environment."

The company is trying to avoid a break in production at its Palmdale, California facility, where some 2,700 employees work on the overall program. It was not immediately clear how many workers would be affected by the program cancellation.

The last four Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft are in testing or final stages of production at the plant and there are no Block 40 planes in production anymore.

The Navy's fiscal 2012 budget called for three planes to be ordered in fiscal 2013, and four each year in 2014-16. That means the factory could be idle for some time between orders.

The Air Force has retired the first generation Block 10 airplanes, but still flies some Global Hawk Block 20 models.

The planes alone sell for about $30 million each, or around $65 million, including sensors and ground stations.

(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa)

buglerbilly

06-02-12, 09:02 PM

Navy Equips Unmanned Boats with Non-Lethal Weapons for Fleet Experiment

(Source: US Navy; issued Feb. 3, 2012)

A Sea Fox remote-controlled five-meter Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat prepares to intrude on an area patrolled by a unmanned surface vessel during the Trident Warrior 2012 exercise. (US Navy photo)

NORFOLK --- U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFF) directed a follow-on fleet experiment this week off the shoreline of Fort Eustis to explore capabilities for unmanned surface vessels (USVs) to deploy non-lethal weapons during maritime security and force protection operations.

"Equipping unmanned surface vessels with non-lethal weapons will further expand the capabilities of our Naval forces to confront an increasingly complex set of threats," Rear Adm. Scott Craig, USFF Deputy Chief of Staff for Fleet Policy, Capabilities Requirements, Concepts, and Experimentation said. "Results from this experiment will be relevant not only to the U.S. Navy, but also to other Services, coalition partners and allies."

Operating in autonomous and semi-autonomous modes, the small militarized boats are equipped to employ a directional acoustic hailer, eye dazzling laser and flash-bang munitions; each non-lethal weapon was carefully-orchestrated to respond to a set of threatening behaviors from intruder vessels.

During Trident Warrior 2011, held in July, the USVs' ability to autonomously react to vessels traveling in protected waterways were previously tested and validated.

Cmdr. Mike Frantz, USFF's Director for Fleet Experimentation, explained the importance of experimenting with real assets in an operational environment.

"The Fleet Experimentation program allows the Navy to partner with commercial and government organizations to address and obtain solutions where critical maritime capability gaps exist," said Frantz. "We each have a different piece of the solution and while laboratory experiments form the foundation of the technology development, the ability to experiment with that technology, at sea, in realistic scenarios, is crucial if you want the end result to be relevant to the Fleet Commander's need."

More than 100 successful runs were completed over the course of the week. Experiment control collected geo-positional data from the boats, surveys from fleet users and observer logs from subject matter experts. The results are expected to drive recommendations to Navy decision makers.

"No one is firing at us here in Virginia, nor are they trying to detonate any explosives near our ships, but these types of malicious scenarios drive our requirement to be prepared for the next time they do," Frantz said. "Getting this defensive capability into the hands of warfighters to counter that aggression will be a game-changer for our forces when they are operating in dangerous waterways."

Participants for this event include USFF, the Navy acquisition community, several components of Naval Sea Systems Command, commercial industries and academia. The Fleet Experimentation plan continues in June with the start of the annual Trident Warrior experimentation series. This year's Trident Warrior is multi-phased and will be integrated with several large joint and multinational exercises in the West Coast operating areas.

-ends-

buglerbilly

08-02-12, 08:57 AM

Reservists deploy to operate Fire Scout drone

By Joshua Stewart - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Feb 6, 2012 10:44:25 EST

Kelly Schindler / Navy
An MQ-8B Fire Scout rotary-wing unmanned aerial vehicle successfully completes a test flight Sept. 30 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. In a first for the aircraft, reserve officers will pilot Fire Scout during its upcoming deployment aboard the frigate Simpson.

Reservists are at the controls of the MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter for the aircraft’s deployment to Western Africa.

As part of an effort to determine manning for the drone, reserve officers will fly Fire Scout and enlisted reservists will maintain it on the planned six-month deployment on the frigate Simpson, which left Naval Station Mayport, Fla., on Jan. 17.

In another first, the two Fire Scouts are the only aircraft on the ship — there are no manned helos. This lets the squadron focus on the Fire Scout, said Capt. Patrick Smith, Fire Scout program manager, and frees up a Seahawk helicopter for other duties.

On its first two deployments, Fire Scout was flown by active-duty officers and maintained by active enlisted members. For its third, it will be flown by officers from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 60 Detachment 4, a reserve squadron that includes full-time support sailors, selected reservists and three active-duty members.

A “mixed bag” of reservists, active-duty sailors and contractors is being considered for when the drone is fully operational, Smith said.

Senior enlisted sailors have flown the Fire Scout on previous deployments, but they will not operate it on this one, Smith said.

HSL-60 started preparing for the Simpson deployment in early August. Squadron members, who have an H-60 Seahawk background, received training on operating and maintaining the drone. Most of the training occurred at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla., and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., but operators also spent a few days at Florida’s Cape Canaveral learning to fly Fire Scout over land — a first for this type of deployment, said Cmdr. William Howey, HSL-60’s commanding officer.

Senior officers are considering the role fleet replacement squadrons will play in cross-training pilots for Fire Scout. The goal is to have all helicopter pilots support Fire Scout detachments without creating any roadblocks for reaching rotary-wing career milestones, said Capt. Doug Tenhoopen, commander of Helicopter Maritime Strike Wing Atlantic.

Series of tests

Besides evaluating manning, the Simpson deployment is designed to test a litany of improvements, upgrades and procedures that were developed since Fire Scout deployed on frigate Halyburton. That cruise, which ended in August, included anti-piracy operations and action over Libya.

The first half of that deployment was plagued with technical glitches that hurt operations, including a finicky datalink that required officers to develop workarounds and often delayed or canceled sorties. Since then, communication between the aircraft and control stations has improved and the platform has become much more reliable, Navy officials said.

With the Simpson deployment, the program office is testing new software, a more stable datalink, a laser range finder, integration with the ship and the aircraft’s overall reliability, Smith said.

Operationally, the office will test how Fire Scout responds to external cues; how it makes contact with unknown surface vessels; its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities in the littorals; and its ability to handle unplanned missions, Tenhoopen said.

The Halyburton deployment proved the drone’s value in supporting special operations; it’s also expected to help ease the “unquenchable thirst for ISR,” Tenhoopen said.

Fire Scouts’ ISR capabilities were touted in defense budget documents released Jan. 26. In “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices,” officials explained that “because we will continue to be engaged in counter terrorism operations around the globe, we protected [from cuts] key components of the force that are adept in executing this mission,” including sea-based systems such as Fire Scout, calling the UAVs “important ISR assets where ground basing is not available.”

Simpson will participate in three exercises during its six-month deployment, including one in the Mediterranean and two near West Africa. In addition to European allies, it will work with forces from Senegal, Sierra Leone and Gambia, Tenhoopen said.

The program office is evaluating the next step in the Fire Scout testing process, including what ships it will deploy on. Fire Scout was designed to complement the littoral combat ship, but the goal is to eventually put it on every aircraft-capable ship. The drone is expected to be on both LCS variants for tests early this summer, Smith said.

Additionally, the office is working to arm the drone with the Advance Precision Kill Weapon System, a capability requested by 5th Fleet and U.S. Central Command. Smith said the drones aboard Simpson will not be armed during the deployment.

buglerbilly

08-02-12, 09:07 AM

Navy Fleet Will Not Grow for 5 Years: CNO

By Otto Kreisher

Published: February 7, 2012

ABOARD THE USS WASP: Putting the best face on a potentially grim future, the Navy's top officer is telling his sailors that the active fleet will be about the same size in five years as it is now, despite recently announced plans to retire a bunch of ships early and to not build as many new ones as planned.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, told sailors and Marines here that the number of ships in the fleet in 2017 "will be about the same, 285, but it won't be going up as high as we wanted."

The Navy has planned for at least 313 ships in the battle fleet for years, and has counted on rapid procurement of the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and serial production of the Arleigh Burke destroyers and Virginia-class attack submarines to help reach that number.

But in his preview of the fiscal year 2013 budget, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Navy will retire seven Ticonderoga-classcruisers and two amphibious ships earlier than planned, would remove two LCS and eight Joint High Speed Vessels from the five-year defense budget plan and delay other ship construction starts.

Asked during a brief meeting with reporters how he expected to sustain the current 285-ship fleet with those changes, Greenert acknowledged the obvious that ships retired early are gone, but said ships removed from future construction plans are not an immediate loss.

"We have a lot of ships in the ship construction plan and they will be delivered over time. So the fleet will look about the same in 2017 in actual numbers as today," he said.

But the Navy's latest 30-year shipbuilding plan, released before the new budget numbers, predicted the fleet would be at 301 ships by 2017.

Greenert, who visited Wasp during the Bold Alligator amphibious exercise off the coast of North Carolina, also was asked about how the Navy and Marine Corps could carry out their renewed emphasis in amphibious operations when the "Gator" fleet will be dropping below the 33 ships considered the minimum requirement.

Looking beyond the current five-year plan, Greenert said he and Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, "will look at innovative ways to deploy Marines." He mentioned using the LCS, the new Mobile Landing Platforms and possibly other ship types.

The Marines have been seeking an LCS mission package that would support a small Marine force for some missions, but the Navy has been reluctant to go beyond the currently planned anti-mine, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare packages, which have been delayed repeatedly during development.

Greenert spent most of his time on Wasp talking with enlisted sailors and Marines and did not meet with four Republican congressmen who also visited the flag ship during Bold Alligator, the biggest and most complex amphibious exercise since before the 9-11 terrorists attacks.

The delegation was led by House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon and included Rob Wittman and Scott Rigell, both HASC members from Virginia, and Jack Kingston, a GOP member of the House Appropriations Defense panel.

The pro-defense lawmakers touted the value of a strong Navy – a large part of which is based at Norfolk, in or near Wittman's and Rigell's districts -- and the value of Navy-Marine amphibious capabilities, which would use those Norfolk-based ships. Expect congressional resistance to the Navy's smaller force structure. How much is difficult to predict, given the upcoming elections and the nation's fiscal dilemma.

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 04:45 AM

Navy Discloses $811 Million Overrun on Gerald Ford Carrier

By Tony Capaccio - Feb 14, 2012 1:10 AM GMT+0800

The cost of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford has increased by $811 million, or about 16 percent, over its $5.16 billion target price, the Navy said.

The overrun, up from the $650 million acknowledged in April, was disclosed today in a Navy document highlighting the service’s share of the Defense Department’s fiscal 2013 plan. The Navy documents indicate the service estimates a worst-case overrun of as much as $1.1 billion.

“To address fact-of-life cost increases as well as the government’s share of the ship construction variance to date, the Department added $811 million to the Gerald R. Ford budget,” through 2017, according to the document.

The carrier is being built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII) under a “cost-plus, incentive-fee” contract in which the Navy pays for most of the overruns. Even so, the service’s efforts to control costs are putting the company’s $579.2 million profit at risk, according to the Navy.

The Navy said last month that Huntington Ingalls of Newport News, Virginia, is being docked millions of dollars in profit because of the cost overrun. It didn’t disclose the overrun amount or Huntington’s share.

The company didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail today seeking comment.

Huntington Ingalls is continuing “to see improvements in our performance” on the carrier, Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for the company, said in an e-mail last month.

‘Unique Challenges’

“Although this is a first-in-class ship with the unique challenges that come with that, we anticipate we will further increase efficiencies and continue to retire risk associated in the four years that remain until delivery,” Brenton said.

The Navy said it has begun periodically withholding some of the shipbuilder’s $579 million profit that is set out in the contract as the service adds money to cover the increasing costs on its design and construction contract.

The completed initial vessel, the first of three in the $40.2 billion program, is projected to cost at least $11.5 billion.

The $11.5 billion includes $2.9 billion in detailed design and $8.6 billion for construction and government-furnished equipment, such as its nuclear reactor. An additional $3.7 billion is for research that applies to all three vessels in the class, the Navy said.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a June report that cost growth typically occurs when a ship is more than half- finished. The Ford design contract is about 42 percent complete.

Huntington, which had 2010 sales of $6.7 billion, became a separate company in March when Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) spun off its shipbuilding unit.

The Navy budget released today indicates it plans to provide $608 million in fiscal 2013 for CVN-79, the second carrier, to initiate the design and construction contract similar to Huntington’s contract for the Ford.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

Milne Bay

15-02-12, 05:02 AM

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 11:41 AM

US Navy cancels medium-range UAS contest

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

19 hours ago

Source:

The US Navy has cancelled its medium-range maritime unmanned air system (MRMUAS) programme, which was to produce a vertical-lift UAS to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance services for up to 8h.

The contest was hotly anticipated by established companies including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, as well as newcomers such as AVX.

The programme, which drew co-operation and participation from the US Army, had been the subject of intense speculation prior to the decision.

"The MRMUAS program was terminated, because as we looked at what we have to provide to ground forces and naval needs, the [Northrop MQ-8 Fire Scout], as it moves from the B to the C model, was felt that was enough in terms of what we need there," the navy said. The service plans to buy 28 of the new type.

The MQ-8B, based on the Schweizer 333 helicopter, has previously been criticised for its relatively poor performance. The MQ-8C ports virtually the same operating software to a Bell 407 platform (below), allowing for significantly longer range and endurance, as well as greater lifting capacity.

© Northrop Grumman

The MQ-8B has deployed once on an operational cruise, where an aircraft was shot down over Libya last year. The type is currently deployed on the USS Simpson - which the navy said is heading for West Africa - and to Afghanistan, where the Fire Scout provides intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance services.

Amongst other programme tweaks, the unmanned, carrier-launched surveillance and strike programme - a nascent effort to provide a carrier-launched unmanned combat aircraft - has been delayed. Initial entry into service will slip by two years, to fiscal year 2020.

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 01:33 PM

Navy Whacks 'Gator Navy'; Caps Amphib Fleet At 30 Ships

By Carlo Munoz

Published: February 14, 2012

THE PENTAGON: If there was one big takeaway from the Defense Department's fiscal 2013 budget rollout yesterday, it was this: being forced to do more with less means having to take some risks. And the Navy has decided to is risk its future amphibious capabilities to cope with the fiscal realities inside the Pentagon.

Navy leaders opted to cap its fleet of amphibious warships at 30 as part of the $13.7 billion set aside for new ships in the service's fiscal '13 budget blueprint. That figure is over $1.6 billion less than what the sea service spent on shipbuilding in fiscal '12. The shrinking shipbuilding account falls in line with the across-the-board cuts built into the Navy's overall $155.9 billion request for fiscal '13. In terms of actual hulls cut, the Navy slashed 16 ships from its fiscal '13 proposal, Rear Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy assistant secretary for budget, told reporters here.

The majority of those cuts consisted of the Joint High Speed Vessel along with a number of support ships, he said. Over the long-term, the Navy plans to hit a total force of 285 ships by 2017, going up to 300 by 2020. But those figures fall short of the service's long-standing goal of a 313-ship fleet. Part of that drop will include a much smaller amphibious force.

"We need 32, 33 ships, but our goal is 30 right now. That's what we're going to have. . . you're asking where am I taking risk? This is one area," Mulloy said. "You can't [cut] $58 billion and not take some risk," he added, noting the Navy's $58 billion cost-cutting goal set by the White House earlier this year. Marine Corps and Navy leaders have wrangled over what the right level of amphib ships should be to help the Corps return to the sea. The amphibious fleet, or "Gator Navy" as its known inside the service, is key to the Marine Corps' overarching strategy to bring their forces back to the shoreline. To do that, the Navy and Marines' have said they need 38 amphibious ships. But budget pressures forced the services to drop that number down to 33 ships. That number was a tough pill to swallow for the Corps, but they took their medicine. Even then, top Marine Corps leaders were already eyeing drastic measures to compensate for dropping below the 38-ship mark. But yesterday's plan to cap the fleet at 30 ships will give the Marines what they need, when they need it, Mulloy said.

The 30 amphibs will be enough to fill the 10 amphibious readiness groups and "we'll be able to maintain the presence to move the [Marine Expeditionary Units] we have," Mulloy said. Even though the fleet is capped, the sea service will focus on maintaining its large-deck amphibs -- like the Gator Navy's mini-carriers like the USS Wasp and USS Kearsarge -- Mulloy said. That said, the Navy is planning on buying one more Tarawa-class large-deck amphib in fiscal '17, according to Mulloy. "We maintain the large-deck amphib at the end of the [five-year defense plan] really for a Marine Corps need and a Navy need," Mulloy said. "Those ships are tremendously valued to the Navy, around whether it's at other bases or other events going on around the world."

On the other hand, the one-star admiral made clear where service priorities lie. "The real driver here was: What do we have to have? We are still buying [destroyers]. We are still buying submarines. We're still buying the other combatants we need here."

buglerbilly

16-02-12, 12:26 PM

Walter Pincus - Fine Print

Congress must think 10 years down the line when it comes to nuclear carriers

Mark Wilson/GETTY IMAGES - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks during a House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. The committee is hearing testimony on the Defense Departments budget request for fiscal year 2013.

By Walter Pincus, Thursday, February 16, 9:32 AM

Congress is looking at today’s threats, debating the reductions found in President Obama’s defense budget requests for next year, and probably not thinking about the world in 2022. That’s when the impact of some of its decisions will be felt.

I am thinking specifically about Navy shipbuilding and the nation’s nuclear carrier fleet. Carriers are interesting because they take 10 years to build, another two to three years in shakedown cruises before they become operational — and then they last up to 50 years.

What will the threats be over that period of time? How many of these $12 billion fighting machines does the United States need? Does the carrier fleet get sized for peacetime or for war? Does their mere presence in an area deter war? Are the president and Congress taking a long-enough view in making their decisions?

At Monday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said of the proposed fiscal 2013 budget: “We’ve maintained the 11 carriers in the Navy in order to ensure that we have sufficient forward presence. There’s nothing like a carrier to be able to allow for quick deployment. . . . And that’ll give us a great capacity to be able to show our force structure in the Pacific.”

But as Navy experts say, you need that number just to keep one in the Indian Ocean, another in the Western Pacific, and enough in reserve for contingencies, such as today’s need to keep two available for South Asia/Middle East use. The general standard for carriers is seven months on station and 25 months at home port or dry dock.

The nuclear ones also must have their power generators refueled. For example, the new budget contains $1.6 billion to refuel the reactor of the USS Abraham Lincoln, which just days ago passed through the Strait of Hormuz after weeks in the Persian Gulf aiding in the Afghan war. Refueling beginning in the next 12 months will keep the Lincoln out of action for a year.

The new fiscal 2013 budget contains no money for CVN78, the USS Gerald R. Ford, although the Navy has identified the need for another $881 million for cost overruns in what has become a $12.3 billion ship. Its funding began in 2001, and money to pay off the overruns has been pushed into the fiscal 2014 and 2015 budgets.

The first of a new class of nuclear-powered carriers, the Ford is projected to save money in the long run by having a new reactor power plant that requires 50 percent fewer people to run it while generating far more electricity than the previous class of nuclear carriers. Overall, including the flight crews, the Ford will have some 3,800 personnel. That’s almost 1,200 less than the current carriers.

Of course, the Ford has had its problems. It became a test bed for new equipment and construction techniques. Along with the new power-generating nuclear reactor, the Ford will have a new electromagnetic catapult-launching system and a new phased-array radar to replace five radars on the earlier carriers.

The catapult-launching system had to be built and then tested on land, since there was no ship deck built that could handle it. Those tests are ongoing at a site in Lakehurst, N.J., while parts of the finished system have begun to be installed in the Ford, which is being built at the Huntington Ingalls shipyard at Newport News, Va.

The electromagnetic system, which has taken a decade to develop, will permit controlled acceleration and stoppage when launching aircraft.

The Ford — more than 50 percent complete, with some 4,000 employees working on it — is being put together much like a Lego set. Modules are put together elsewhere then brought to the ship. There will be some 500 of them, each one thoroughly tested after being connected to existing wiring and other systems.

A December report by the Defense Department’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation office raised a number of issues that still need fixing, including software related to the ship’s self-defense capability and its new phased-array radar. Another issue was completing a “manning construct,” a detailed examination of the crew size needed to operate the carrier. Since the Ford is to be able to increase the number of sorties launched per day to some 160, about 30 percent more than current carriers, the manning structure is considered crucial.

The Ford is expected to be in the water by the summer of 2013. At that time what is called a pre-commissioning unit will be put together and a prospective commanding officer assigned. Their job in part will be to put together the crew, which will grow until shortly before the ship construction is completed and the ship is delivered for commissioning. That is now expected in 2015, though it could slip. After the Navy takes over there will be further testing with the Navy crew and fixes made before a real shakedown cruise takes place.

Meanwhile, the process for the next carrier, CVN79, the USS John F. Kennedy, has been underway since 2007. Some $2 billion has already been spent on the Kennedy’s design and research and development. The fiscal 2013 budget has $781 million for it, $173.5 million for more research and development and $608.2 million in procurement funds. The Kennedy has already slipped, and prospects are it will not be received by the Navy until 2019 — and thus not operational until perhaps 2022.

Navy shipbuilding, as you can see, is a complex and costly process. Panetta told the Senate committee Monday and the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that we have 285 Navy ships today and will have the same number five years from now. The new goal is getting to 300 by the end of 2022. I doubt it, but more important, why will we need 300 ships in 2022 if the ones we keep building are so much more effective than the ones we had in the past?

buglerbilly

16-02-12, 12:30 PM

Obama’s Asia strategy gives Navy key role, fewer ships

By Craig Whitlock, Thursday, February 16, 9:45 AM

As the Obama administration reorients its military strategy toward Asia and the vital maritime trade routes in the Pacific, the bulk of the responsibility will fall on the Navy, which was largely sidelined during the land wars of the last decade.

But the Navy will have to perform its mission in Asia with fewer ships in coming years than it had anticipated. Under President Obama’s proposed defense budget, the Navy will retire nine ships early and cut or delay the purchases of 16 others over the next five years.

The Navy had long planned to increase the size of its 285-ship fleet to 313 vessels by 2020, but under Obama’s budget it will fall far short. Under the new plan, the fleet will remain at 285 ships over the next five years.

The Navy is hoping to expand to a 300-ship fleet by 2019, but that’s only if the service doesn’t get hit with additional spending cuts, an optimistic scenario.

The changes have prompted criticism from Congress, where some lawmakers have pressed Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Navy officials on how they can carry out Obama’s new strategy for Asia with fewer ships and other resources than they had been counting on.

“Cuts to our naval capabilities such as these, without a plan to compensate for them, only put our goals in the Pacific region at greater risk,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the vice chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at a Feb. 9 confirmation hearing for Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, whom Obama has nominated to take over the U.S. Pacific Command.

Navy leaders play down the cuts and say they will be able to carry out the president’s strategy with the same number of ships they have now. They noted that the Navy will maintain all 11 of its aircraft carrier groups — the crown jewels of the fleet.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said most of the ships that will be retired early are old cruisers that either lacked ballistic missile capabilities or that needed expensive repairs. Most of the ships that will be built later than previously planned, he added, are smaller support vessels.

“We’re losing some ships that are not as capable as the new ships coming in,” Mabus said in an interview Wednesday in his Pentagon office, a day before he is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill about the Navy’s proposed budget. “We’ve got enough to meet the war plans with what we’ve got under contract.”

Mabus said the Navy was altering deployment plans and embracing some creative manpower arrangements that will enable the service to keep ships at sea longer, especially in Asia.

For example, the Navy is planning to base four new Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore, Mabus said. The warships are the most modern in the Navy’s fleet and can be outfitted for a variety of missions, from combating piracy to tracking submarines and carrying out special operations missions. They’re designed to operate in coastal waters and travel at a top speed of more than 40 knots.

Navy officials said they expected all four ships to deploy to Singapore, amid some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, by 2016. Defense officials said they are still finalizing details with the government of Singapore, whose approval is needed.

By basing the ships in Singapore, the Navy would eliminate the need for lengthy trans-Pacific crossings on each deployment. In another change that will allow for longer missions at sea, three crews will be assigned to every two ships on a rotating basis, flying back and forth from the United States.

“It enables us to have a far more persistent presence all across the western Pacific,” Mabus said. Such an approach, he said, reduces the need to send extra ships to Asia if a crisis erupts.

“If something happens, we’re not escalating the situation sending ships in, because we’re already there,” Mabus said. “We can respond very quickly and we can respond in a way that doesn’t heighten tensions.”

The Navy has about 50 ships deployed to the western Pacific region — about half of its total number of ships that are at sea on any given day around the world. Approximately one-third are in the Middle East, with most of the remainder in Europe.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said there are no plans to change those numbers in Asia, even with the Obama administration’s renewed emphasis on that region.

“My first assessment is we’re in good shape in the Navy where we stand in the western Pacific,” Greenert said last month at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank with close ties to the Obama administration. “This is about the right proportion I see for the near term.”

At the same time, the Navy will adjust its presence in the region by spending more time in Southeast Asia, where China has alarmed several countries by aggressively staking claims to disputed territory in the energy-rich South China Sea.

Besides adding four ships in Singapore, the Pentagon will soon station a rotating force of Marines at an Australian base in Darwin. The Obama administration is also talking with the Philippines about expanding the U.S. military presence there, including the possibility of operating ships from the former Subic Bay naval base.

buglerbilly

21-02-12, 04:39 AM

Carrier disposal proves a challenge for Navy

Navy News

Carrier disposal proves a challenge for Navy

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer

Posted : Sunday Feb 19, 2012 9:55:15 EST

The flight decks that once thundered and boomed with jet aircraft are silent. The passageways and compartments where thousands of sailors worked, ate and slept are empty. The once meticulously swept and kept decks are worn and torn, some covered in bird droppings.

The names of the Navy’s seven decommissioned non-nuclear aircraft carriers conjure up well-earned reputations as Cold War bulwarks. And while at least some are the objects of preservation efforts, chances are slim more than one will survive as a museum ship. The rest are taking up valuable pier space, and the only thing the Navy wants now is to get rid of them.

But that could prove a real challenge, if history is any guide. Breaking up the carriers presents unique industrial and security issues, and estimates of the cost to scrap them ranges from nearly nothing — according to the Navy — to as much as a half-billion dollars per ship.

DECOMMISSIONED CARRIERS

Carriers awaiting disposal

Shown are the carriers’ current locations and the planned disposal option for each.

• Forrestal (AVT 59, ex-CV 59), stricken Sept. 11, 1993. In Philadelphia. Scrap.

• Saratoga (CV 60), stricken Aug. 20, 1994. In Newport, R.I. Scrap (changed from donation hold).

• Ranger (CV 61), stricken March 8, 1994. In Bremerton, Wash. Donation hold.

• Independence (CV 62), stricken March 8, 2004. In Bremerton. Scrap.

• Kitty Hawk (CV 63), decommissioned May 12, 2009, and placed in Mobilization Category B, or “mothballs,” for preservation and possible future use. In Bremerton. Unstated disposal option.

• Constellation (CV 64), stricken Dec. 2, 2003. In Bremerton. Scrap.

• John F. Kennedy (CV 67), stricken Oct. 16, 2009. In Philadelphia. Donation hold.

Source: Naval Sea Systems Command.

Previous disposals

• Coral Sea (CV 43) was scrapped in the 1990s in Baltimore. The scrap job took more than seven years and was declared finished Sept. 8, 2000. Coral Sea remains the largest warship ever scrapped.

• America (CV 66) was sunk by explosives May 14, 2005, as a fleet training and design study exercise. No photos of the ship sinking have ever been made public, save for one image of the swirl of water from the ship’s descent into the ocean.

Source: Staff research.

The cost will depend on the price of scrap steel; the worst-case scenario for the Navy would be $2 billion to $3 billion to make all the ships go away. But with scrap steel trading at almost historically high levels, the government’s disposal costs could be far less.

One carrier, Saratoga, already has been offered for scrap. Bids for the work closed in August, and a contract award announcement was initially expected in a month or two. But the Navy has yet to make a decision, although Chris Johnson, a Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman, said Feb. 9 the award would be made “soon.”

In the meantime, the Navy on Jan. 27 announced that three more ships would soon be offered to bidders. Forrestal, Independence and Constellation are “supercarriers” of the same 1950s/1960s vintage and size as Saratoga, and each contains about 59,000 tons of scrap metal.

Saratoga would be the first supercarrier to be scrapped. Two other ships, Ranger and John F. Kennedy, are on donation hold, a status meaning the Navy will hold off on getting rid of the flattops while preservation groups strive to raise funds and strike a deal for a location to display the ships.

Only one old carrier, Kitty Hawk, is on standby in case it needs to be used again.

The cost to maintain and keep secure each ship is about $100,000 a year, NAVSEA said.

Figuring the cost

The service also is gearing up to dispose of the nuclear-powered carrier Enterprise, a 50-year-old ship similar in most ways to conventional carriers, save for its nuclear reactors. Enterprise is to begin its decommissioning process in 2013 after one more deployment.

Navy and government analysts estimate it will cost $1.1 billion to $1.7 billion to dispose of Enterprise and its eight reactors, spread over 10 years; as reported in May by the Congressional Budget Office, the Navy estimated that the reactors accounted for about $730 million of a $1.1 billion price tag.

But until a contract is awarded to dispose of Saratoga, the cost to ditch the non-nuclear ships remains unclear. This may be the best time in years to get rid of the ships.

“The supply of scrap steel now is tight,” Bryan Berry, a veteran reporter with MetalPrices.com, said Feb. 9. “These are the second-highest prices in history.”

Prices peaked during the summer of 2008, he said, when scrap steel traded at more than $800 per gross ton.

“That was ridiculous,” Berry said. “It was a bubble, and fell after only a few months.”

But prices have crept steadily back up to about $400 per ton for many scrap metals.

“Heavy metal scrap — obsolete metal, often from demolition jobs — right now is selling in Chicago for about $417 per gross ton [PGT] delivered to a steel mill,” he noted. “In the 1980s, it was below $100.”

No. 1 busheling steel — clean scrap steel in pieces less than a foot long — is trading for about $482 PGT, he said, with shredded scrap going for about $440 PGT.

The service already has taken advantage of the high scrap prices, if only on a few ships.

“The Navy’s cost of ship dismantling in 2010 and 2011 was just pennies per ship,” NAVSEA’s Johnson said. Although specific prices weren’t provided, he added that the recent contract awards were for less than 10 cents each.

Scrappers ready to go

At least two scrap companies have acknowledged bidding on the Saratoga job. Both are based in Brownsville, Texas, where about half the ship-breaking operations in the U.S. are concentrated.

Scrapping an aircraft carrier is a “big, big job,” said Richard Jaross, president of Esco Marine. “There’s tremendous oversight and costs. It’s not the same as other ships.”

Jaross has been in the ship-scrapping business for decades, and broke up the World War II Essex-class carrier Bon Homme Richard in 1992 at Long Beach, Calif. That ship, he said, contained about 20,000 tons of steel. Jaross noted the industry is vastly different after the turmoil of the 1990s, brought on in large part by the problems with the Coral Sea.

Strict regulations were slapped on the Navy and the industry in the late 1990s after Coral Sea, a 50,000-ton 1940s aircraft carrier, was scrapped in Baltimore. One generation earlier than the supercarriers that began with the Forrestal, Coral Sea remains the largest warship ever scrapped — and it wasn’t easy.

The carrier’s disposal stretched over seven years, bankrupted the original scrapper — who was sent to jail for environmental violations — exposed problems with the ship-scrapping industry, prompted several congressional hearings and led to federal regulations prohibiting the disposal of U.S. government ships to foreign countries.

A lasting effect of the fiasco — the Coral Sea was the last Navy ship sold for scrap. Since then, the Navy has had to pay to dispose of all its old vessels.

“It’s a totally different industry now,” Jaross said. “We’ve transformed into a very disciplined business, with strict safety and environmental programs.”

Those changes “didn’t come overnight,” he noted. “It took a lot of rules and time to convince people how to deal with it.”

Bob Berry, head of International Shipbreaking in Brownsville, handled the largest Navy ship-breaking job in recent years, the 1970s-era amphibious assault ship Saipan. Work on that 24,000-ton ship was completed in February 2011. He was more sanguine about the prospect of scrapping Saratoga.

“Is it a bigger job? That’s just not so,” Berry said. “All of the same challenges in the Saratoga are no different than what we dealt with on the Saipan.”

Berry is looking for work for his yard, having just finished scrapping the Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser Vincennes in November. Getting the carrier, he said, would “probably create close to 400 jobs.”

Both Jaross and Berry expressed strong interest in bidding on the next three carriers to be offered, and were perplexed by the delay in awarding a contract for Saratoga.

“They move so slow, it’s very secret, it’s not transparent,” Jaross said of the Navy. “I don’t know what the reason is behind it, I really don’t.”

“I haven’t got a clue,” Berry said.

The Navy Inactive Ships Program Office declined numerous requests for an interview about the ship disposal situation, its plans to dispose of the carrier fleet, or how the Navy changed its mind in recent years about a decision to sink most of the ships as artificial reefs. The office based its refusal on the fact that a contract award had yet to be made.

“This is the first carrier scrapping procurement and as such contains unique terms, conditions and requirements,” Johnson wrote in a Feb. 2 email. “The procurement process has been longer than expected, but announcement of the apparent successful offer or is expected shortly.”

buglerbilly

27-02-12, 10:31 AM

Lockheed Martin’s MUOS successfully launched

27 February 2012 - 9:26 by the Shephard News Team

Lockheed Martin’s Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellite was successfully launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on 24 February 2012. The MUOS, the first to be built, will provide the US Navy with 'significantly improved assured communications'.

The MUOS constellation will replace the legacy Ultra High Frequency Follow-On (UFO) system and provide mobile warfighters with simultaneous voice, video and data communications. MUOS satellites feature a wideband code division multiple access payload that incorporates advanced technology to provide a 16-fold increase in transmission throughput over the current UFO satellite system. A single MUOS satellite will provide four times the capacity of the entire legacy UFO constellation of 10 satellites. The satellites also include a hosted legacy UHF payload that will be fully compatible with the current UFO system and legacy terminals.

According to Lockheed Martin, the first MUOS satellite and associated ground system will provide initial on-orbit capability this year with the four-satellite global constellation achieving full operational capability in 2015, extending UHF narrowband communications availability well past 2025.

buglerbilly

27-02-12, 10:35 AM

Bonhomme Richard Arrives in 7th Fleet for Hull Swap, Forward Deployment

By Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kurt Riggs

In this file photo, USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) passes beneath the Coronado Bridge Feb. 14 as the ship departs San Diego. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Janell Alvarez)

PACIFIC OCEAN - USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) entered the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations Feb. 26, to join the forward deployed naval forces (FDNF) in Sasebo, Japan, and in preparation for a hull swap with USS Essex (LHD 2) later this spring.

The hull swap is part of the U.S. Navy's long-range plan to maintain a highly capable forward deployed amphibious ready group in U.S. Pacific Command's area of responsibility. Bonhomme Richard completed a mid-life modernization and maintenance availability last fall making it one of the most up to date, well suited LHD's in the Navy to replace USS Essex.

"Since September 2010, our motivated crew and the best maintenance team on the San Diego waterfront have been working toward this day," said Commanding Officer, Capt. Chuck Litchfield. "Hundreds of thousands of man hours and over $140M were put into making Bonhomme Richard the most capable big deck amphibious assault ship in the Pacific Fleet. Our crew has superbly performed every certification in the basic training cycle, operationally demonstrating Bonhomme Richard's readiness to perform the demanding mission in FDNF."

During the modernization period, the ship upgraded several systems including communications, a new computer network on board, and a fuel oil compensation system to assist with stability during rough seas. It also upgraded its flight deck to accommodate MV-22 Ospreys and the new Joint Strike Fighter.

Bonhomme Richard is a helicopter landing dock amphibious assault ship, capable of performing landing operations via helicopter, landing craft and other amphibious vehicles. The ship's primary mission is to embark a mobile expeditionary unit of approximately 2,000 United States Marines, employing air-cushioned landing craft, commonly known as hovercrafts, a squadron of Harrier II AV-8B short take-off vertical landing jets, and various other aircraft and amphibious vehicles.

Bonhomme Richard will operate with the Essex Amphibious Ready Group, reporting to Commander, Task Force 76, Rear Adm. J. Scott Jones headquartered in Okinawa, Japan, prior to its hull swap.

buglerbilly

27-02-12, 01:11 PM

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued February 24, 2012)

Austal USA, Mobile, Ala., is being awarded a $321,725,461 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-2217) for the exercise of construction options for Joint High Speed Vessels 8 and 9.

The JHSV will provide high speed, shallow draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies, and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army.

Work will be performed in Mobile, Ala. (48 percent); Pittsfield, Mass. (9 percent); Franklin, Mass. (3 percent); Philadelphia, Pa. (3 percent); Atlanta, Ga. (2 percent); Chicago, Ill. (2 percent); Gulfport, Miss. (2 percent); Slidell, La. (1 percent); Iron Mountain, Mich. (1 percent); Houston, Texas (1 percent); Dallas, Texas (1 percent); Chesapeake, Va. (1 percent); Milwaukee, Wis. (1 percent); Brookfield, Wis. (1 percent); various sites throughout the United States (5 percent); and various sites outside of the United States (19 percent).

Work is expected to be completed by April 2016. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. (ends)

Austal Awarded Construction Contract for JHSV 8 and 9

(Source: Austal; issued February 27, 2012

The U.S. Navy has exercised contract options funding the construction of the eighth and ninth Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), as part of a ten-ship program potentially worth over US$1.6 billion. The construction contract for these vessels is valued at approximately US$321.7 million.

Austal USA’s President and Chief Operating Officer Joe Rella commented “The Navy's growing confidence in Austal and the JHSV program becomes more evident with each new contract award. Austal will continue to reward our customer with improved efficiency evidenced in our continued on-time delivery of high-quality, affordable ships.”

As prime contractor, Austal was awarded the construction contract for the first 103-meter JHSV in November 2008, with options for nine additional vessels between FY09 and FY13. The Austal JHSV team includes platform systems engineering agent General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems who is responsible for the design, integration and test of the ship’s mission systems, including internal and external communications, electronic navigation, and aviation and armament systems.

Austal received authorization from the Navy to start construction on the first vessel of the contract, USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1), in December 2009 after completing the rigorous design in a 12-month period. USNS Spearhead is scheduled for builder’s sea trials in early March. Choctaw County (JHSV 2) is taking shape in Austal’s final assembly bay and modules for JHSV 3 are being constructed in the Module Manufacturing Facility; official keel laying is scheduled for April 12.

Austal USA employs over 2,600 highly qualified shipbuilders, engineers and support staff and is steadily growing towards 4,000 employees. Austal also recently christened a second Independence-variant 127-meter Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) for the U.S. Navy, Coronado (LCS 4), which is preparing for builder’s trials. As prime contractor, Austal received a U.S. Navy contract for construction of up to an additional 10 Littoral Combat Ships, including Jackson (LCS 6) and Montgomery (LCS 8), to be appropriated in the following five years, with a total value in excess of $3.5 billion. Once commissioned, these 10 ships will join the Austal-built USS Independence (LCS 2) which was commissioned in January 2010.

-ends-

Trackmaster

28-02-12, 02:09 AM

A Question...is that the tail of a fixed wing aircraft on the Bonhomme Richard. Between the two tail-rotors and the island. Perhaps transporting museum aircraft?

buglerbilly

28-02-12, 04:31 AM

Yes it was used to transport a museum aircraft,a Vigilante if memory serves me right..............I'll post another angle that shows it far more clearly tonight............

[Nah, its not a Vigilante.........still a 60's plane tho...........]

buglerbilly

28-02-12, 04:42 AM

Here's a side-on shot.............

buglerbilly

28-02-12, 09:55 PM

Video: Navy Fires Off Its New, Weaponized Railgun

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author February 28, 2012 | 3:46 pm

Uploaded by usnavyresearch on Feb 27, 2012
A test shot fires from the Office of Naval Research-funded Electromagnetic Railgun prototype launcher located at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. The test shots begin a month-long series of full-energy tests to evaluate the technology. This prototype, developed by BAE, is the first of two industry-built launchers that will bring the Department of the Navy a step closer to producing a new-generation, long-range, weapon for surface ships.

The Navy has spent seven years testing out the components of a way futuristic weapon: a shipboard cannon that blasts bullets over vast distances at hypersonic speeds using bursts of electricity. But so far, that weapon, known as the Electromagnetic Railgun, has been more of a lab experiment than an honest-to-God weapon. It didn’t even have basic gun-like features, like a barrel. Now, however, the Navy is unveiling the first actual railgun guns, which it’ll test for another five years, in the hope of winning over legislators who consider it a waste of time, money and electricity.

Previous versions of the railgun have been laboratory test models, stored in a hangar at Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center in southern Virginia. They look like shipping containers or schoolbuses put up on blocks, hooked up like Frankenstein’s monster to giant generators that pump dozens of megajoules of energy necessary to fire the bullet. All that has cost nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. And you couldn’t fit any of it onto a ship, and it wouldn’t actually be a real weapon if you did.

At least not until January 30, when BAE Systems sent its first actual gun-shaped railgun to Dahlgren. Competitor General Atomics will send its own design there in April. Both designs have 12 meter barrels. “Now that looks like a real gun,” said Roger Ellis, the railgun chief for the Office of Naval Research, which has inaugurated the next phase of tests to determine the gun’s practicality — something many in Congress doubt.

The Navy released video of the first tests, viewable above, on Tuesday. The dramatic mini-inferno in the wake of the slug fired from the railgun is the result of “1 million amps flowing through” the gun, said test chief Tom Boucher, the hypersonic speed of the shot, and the actual aluminum of the bullet — “reactive in the atmosphere” — burning off.

It’s the next step in a process — an expensive one — the Navy hopes will lead to a whole new era of self defense for ships, and way, way long-range strikes from on deck by the early 2020s. The Navy’s current 5-inch deck guns top out at 13 kilometer ranges. By 2017, the Navy wants the railgun prototypes to fire several shots per minute without soaking up a ship’s juice.

A slow-mo shot of a bullet fired by the new gun-shaped Electromagnetic Railgun. Photo: U.S. Navy

The idea behind the Electromagnetic Railgun is to fire a bullet at hypersonic speeds using dozens of megajoules of electricity. The Navy wants it to guard the surface ships of the 2020s, unsubtly boasting to adversaries that messing with the ships will lead to bullets shooting across hundreds of miles of ocean in mere minutes. The Office of Naval Research says it will give sailors “a dramatically increased multimission capability,” like fire support for land strikes over long, long distances beyond the reach of enemy defenses, and defense against “cruise and ballistic missiles” that target ships. No wonder the railgun’s official motto is “Velocitas Eradico” — “Speed Kills.”

Lab tests have pleased the Navy, if not Congress. In December 2010, the Office of Naval Research fired a shot with 33 megajoules of energy, a world record, sending a 23-pound bullet 5500 feet in a single second. The Senate Armed Services Committee still found the science too impractical, and recommended killing the railgun, until a Navy congressional counterstrike revived the program.

Now that the Navy has an actual prototype railgun to shoot, the plan is to hook it up to sensors and cameras to test its performance at 20 and 33 megajoules’ worth of energy. Its goal is produce accurate shots from 50 to 100 nautical mile distances, which the Navy wants by 2017.

Even railgun advocates concede there are a host of other challenges the hypersonic weapon will have to overcome. Its barrel will have to withstand repeated fires without wearing out. (The Navy wants to up firing rates to 10 per minute.) It’s got to fire smart bullets without frying the guidance systems during a blast. (The Navy says both BAE and General Dynamics are starting to design “a next-generation thermally managed launcher.”) And it’s got to be affordable. (The Navy has spent $240 million on the railgun so far, and it expects to spend about as much through 2017 on tests — before buying a single one of the things.)

Another big problem: the current generation of Destroyers can’t produce the power to fire the railgun without diverting juice from the propulsion systems. One of the goals of the railguns over the next five years is to create workarounds, so the guns will be relevant to their intended ships. Those include “an intermediate energy store using energy-dense batteries, similar to [those on] hybrid cars,” Ellis told reporters on a Tuesday conference call. “That enables us to put the railgun on ships that don’t have larger power supplies.”

Which should underscore how the Navy really, really loves its railgun — enough to go to the mat with Congress about it and win. That’s not going to relent now that it actually has a real cannon to shoot.

buglerbilly

01-03-12, 11:36 AM

Three unmanned aircraft earn chance to bid for $874 million US Navy programme

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

11 hours ago

Source:

AAI, Boeing and a Computer Sciences Corp (CSC)/Saab team were selected by the US Navy today to compete for task orders for services provided by unmanned air systems (UAS) worth up to $874 million.

While the navy did not reveal the selected aircraft, AAI offered the latest version of the Aerosonde, Boeing and subsidiary Insitu offered the RQ-21A Integrator, and the CSC/Saab team proposed Skeldar unmanned helicopter.

The services included in the selection include the full spectrum of training, support, installation and operation.

The navy plans to operate the aircraft from ships, while the marines intend to launch the unmanned air vehicles mainly from land bases.

"AAI and Insitu are eligible to compete for both sea-based and land-based task orders. CSC is only eligible to compete for land-based task orders," the navy said.

SAAB's SKELDAR 200

RQ-21A Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (Stuas)

©AAI/Textron

The three bidders will replace the Boeing/Insitu Scan Eagle as the main UAV provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance services to the navy and maines.

The ISR Services bidders will then be replaced after Fiscal 2017 as the RQ-21 Integrator enters the fleet in numbers under the small tactical unmanned air systems (STUAS) programme.

Neither Navy nor corporate representatives were immediately available for comment.

buglerbilly

01-03-12, 10:11 PM

SEALs Seek Ship

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | March 1, 2012

The Navy might hire a civilian ship based at Pearl Harbor to ferry SEAL Delivery Vehicles like this one for unspecified missions
The Navy’s Military Sealift Command is sniffing around the nation’s shipping industry to see if there’s someone who might be able to help the service’s SEALs get around.

Lots of this is secret, of course, but the Pentagon is pretty open in what it wants for its special operators. The vessel – with an open deck space of at least 95-by-48 feet, it’s going to be a pretty big boat – will be used “as host/support ship for Naval Special Warfare/Special Operation Forces (NSW/SOF).” Naval Special Warfare is home to the SEALs and their support elements.

The vessel, capable of sailing at least 3,000 miles from its expected home port at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, must be capable of sailing for 15 days at 12 knots. “The vessel shall provide hyperbaric chamber services for emergencies and routine decompression operations, replenishment/minor maintenance support, personnel support, and transportation of the NSW submersible by towing and/or carrying on the ship deck,” says the MSC’s recently-published announcement. In other words, sounds like a lot of diving will be going on.

SEALs can deploy via their underwater “delivery vehicles” off of U.S. warships, submarines and helicopters, suggesting this vessel might be used for training purposes. But that isn’t stated in what the MSC stresses is a “request for information only” (meaning the government ultimately may not lease such a vessel). A Navy officer didn’t respond to questions about the request.

Some of the requirements seem pretty tame:

– At least 300-sq. ft administrative/conference space sufficient to handle up to 15 people. Space shall have tables and seating to accommodate the above number, with power outlets providing standard 120 VAC power for computers and presentation equipment.

– Vessel must support berthing for 25 government personnel no greater than four per stateroom, eight per head. Curtained-off bunks are acceptable.

– The vessel will be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, whether at sea or in port.

– The Contractor shall provide three (3) galley-prepared meals and hotel services for 25 embarked Government personnel. Food provided to the Government shall have the most reasonably attainable degree of variety, quality, quantity, and nutritional value.

– The Contractor shall provide a 24-hour laundry facility for 25 Government assigned personnel.

But then there are the extras…

First of all, that nearly 110-by-50-foot open deck must be strong enough to support:

– One recompression chamber (recompression chamber consists of two units: (1) Life Support Skid, 8′x8′x10′, weighing 14,000 lbs. (GFE), (2) Fly Away Recompression Chamber, 8′x8′x20′, weighing 17,500 lbs.).

– Mission-specific support vans (three (3) 8’x8’x20’ Milvans, weighing up to 24,000 lbs. each).

– Six (6) Combat Rubber Raiding Craft (CRRCs) (Zodiac boats, models F470 and G4702.(15.5 ft x 6.25 ft x 2.5 ft, 265 lbs ).

– Two (2) 24-ft. Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIBs) (24’x11’, 9,000 lbs. each).

– Two (2) SEAL delivery vehicles (SDVs) weighing approximately 6,000 lbs. each (approximately 8,000 lbs. each with water entrained; dimensions approximately 20 ft. x 5 ft. x 5 ft.)

SDVs generally are small underwater craft used to transport a half-dozen SEALs clandestinely from their mother ship (or submarine or helicopter) to whatever it is they’re interested in. If the government decides it needs such a vessel, “the period of performance will commence 01 October 2012, and consist of a one-year firm period with three one-year options and one 11-month option ending August 2017.” (Not sure why there’s an 11-month “year” tacked to the end.)

Part of the ship’s crew would be armed. “The Contractor shall ensure that five crew members who will bear arms as part of their physical security duties have successfully completed a small arms familiarization course,” the solicitation says. “The Contractor’s course shall be taught to the same content and standards as the U.S. Navy’s Small Arms Qualifications (Ashore/Afloat) Instructor Course.”

The captain of the ship will be required to hold a “secret” clearance. The rest of the crew must be U.S. citizens “with valid U.S. passports for the full length of their assignment” who have cleared terrorist watch lists and EPIC drug checks.

The vessel “must be able to support underwater telephone operations…accomplished by a retractable tube that shall be installed in a suitable location that offers maximum separation from shipboard noise.”

Despite these exacting requirements, there’s one thing the hired civilian crew won’t have to worry about: “The Government,” the solicitation notes, “will secure diplomatic clearances and operational area clearances when and where required.”

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/03/01/seals-seek-ship/#more-68090#ixzz1nuDEfnEH

buglerbilly

02-03-12, 10:26 AM

Congress Wants A Bigger Navy — Unlike the Navy

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author March 1, 2012 | 5:27 pm

The strike group of the U.S.S. Enterprise gets in formation. Photo: U.S. Navy

The Navy is supposed to get way busier in Asia over the next five years, according to the Obama administration’s new defense strategy. That’s got the moneymen in the House of Representatives thinking the Navy needs more ships to meet the greater burden — something the Navy’s leadership vehemently rejected at a bizarre congressional hearing on Thursday.

The plan put forward by Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s top officer, will plateau the fleet at 285 ships for the next five years — a period when the Navy, Marines and Air Force are supposed to focus heavily on the Pacific as the Afghanistan war winds down.

That “apparent contradiction,” in the words of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, dominated the hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on Thursday afternoon. “How are we going to accomplish what need to accomplish in the Asia-Pacific with so few ships?” asked Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen. “How do you have one ship in two places at the same time? That’s always tough,” observed Rep. Ander Crenshaw. “I remember when we had a 600 [-ship] Navy,” reminisced Jo Bonner.

Greenert and the Navy secretary, Ray Mabus, said size didn’t matter that much — and fought back against the implication that they needed more cash. (While that may seem weird, to say otherwise would get them crosswise with the White House, and also suggest that they’re irresponsible strategists.) While conceding that 2014 will be a “tough year,” because of scheduled ship retirements, Greenert said the solution is in “being forward” — by which he means basing more of his ships out of the United States.

For instance: By this time next year, Greenert disclosed, the U.S.S. Freedom, the first of 55 Littoral Combat Ships the Navy will buy, will arrive in Singapore, the start of a plan to permanently station two of the speedy, modular — not to mention blind and flimsy — ships near the South China Sea. They’ll each stay there for 16 months at a stretch, which frees up other ships in the fleet that would otherwise be rotating in and out of the port. Same goes for Europe, where the Navy will permanently station four Aegis cruisers in Spain as part of a missile-defense plan with NATO.

And even while the Navy plateaus its total numbers, it’ll move more ships into high-priority regions like the Pacific or the Persian Gulf. The Navy sends “50 ships to the Western Pacific; in five years, that number will be 55,” Greenert said. “In the Arabian Gulf, it’s 30; that’s going to go to 32.”

Even though the new defense budget is 2.5 percent smaller than its predecessor, the Navy made out pretty well in it. Aircraft carriers and air wings were untouched, as was R&D for future way-out weapons. Drones like the robo-helicopter Fire Scout and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance spy system, a modified Global Hawk, got a plus-up, even though the Scout only completes half its missions. The Navy will cut seven cruisers over the next five years, and will buy one fewer Virginia-class sub, and delay replacing the Ohio-class sub for two years. The Air Force wishes it got off that easy.

But the panel, which is known for giving the Pentagon more money than the military actually requests, didn’t sound convinced. “Numbers do matter here,” said Frelinghuysen. “I don’t think we can wait five years.” His party’s presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney, clearly agrees: one of Romney’s major defense positions is to boost shipbuilding substantially. Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole worried about Chinese and Russian maritime advances stressing the Navy during the plateau years.

Mabus wasn’t phased. “Given where we are and where they are, I am very comfortable we will be able to meet any sort of challenge,” the secretary said. But it’s the panel that controls the Navy’s cash. And, ironically for a supposed era of austerity, it may end up giving the Navy more cash than the sailors want.

buglerbilly

02-03-12, 10:35 AM

LPD San Antonio Gets Battle ‘E’ Award

Mar. 1, 2012 - 07:30PM

By WILLIAM H. MCMICHAEL

The amphibious transport dock San Antonio gets underway Jan. 30 for Exercise Bold Alligator. The amphib received a Battle Efficiency award. (MC2 Rafael Martie / Navy)

It’s starting to look as if the problem-plagued amphibious transport dock San Antonio is on the right track.

On Thursday evening, Naval Surface Force Atlantic announced that the ship, delivered prematurely and tormented by years of mechanical malfunctions and mishaps, has been awarded the Battle Efficiency award, or Battle “E” — a coveted honor given annually to units that demonstrate the highest standards of performance and efficiency.

“Everyone who believes that San Antonio is still broken and on the sidelines will now realize that we are not,” said the ship’s commanding officer, Cmdr. Neil Koprowski, quoted in a SURFLANT press release. “We won the Battle ‘E.’ We are back and ready to take on all missions.”

The award was presented by Capt. Peter Pagano, commander of Amphibious Squadron 4, during a Thursday morning all-hands call aboard the ship.

“It’s all of you that are making this ship succeed,” Pagano was quoted as telling San Antonio’s crew. “It’s the officers, chiefs and sailors on this ship, down to the most junior seaman. … You all should be very proud to be San Antonio sailors.”

The award caps a remarkable turnaround for the ship. Construction flaws and training issues have limited San Antonio to one deployment since its 2005 delivery to the Navy. The unending problems finally drove Fleet Forces Command chief Adm. John Harvey to order a command investigation into the ship’s issues. The result: He took the ship out of the deployment rotation for 18 months of repairs, missing a 10½-month cruise as part of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group. Its slot was taken by a sister ship, the Mesa Verde.

In June, San Antonio passed a two-phase set of post-shipyard rigorous sea trials — then, cruelly, subsequent at-sea training was halted one more time due to leaking gaskets and leak-off boxes. The repairs were considered minor, however, and in early August, the ship began the first phase of pre-deployment training.

The award recognizes San Antonio, SURFLANT said, for superior performance over the past year during training exercises and various command inspections — in particular, for “displaying excellence in maritime warfare capabilities, engineering/survivability, command and control, and the type commander’s Safety Award.”

SURFLANT also cited San Antonio’s “consistent day-to-day demonstration of excellence and superior achievement during all certifications and qualifications conducted following departure from the shipyard last year.”

Being recognized as a superior performer carries with it expectations of continued excellence. That means the pressure’s on to pass a famously tough periodic review that’s just around the corner: a Board of Inspection and Survey assessment, better known as an INSURV, scheduled to begin April 23.

buglerbilly

06-03-12, 09:51 PM

First USN P-8A Poseidon delivered

06 March 2012 - 18:06 by the Shephard News Team

Boeing has announced that the first production P-8A Poseidon aircraft has been delivered to the US Navy in Seattle. The P-8A is the first of 13 anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft Boeing will deliver as part of a low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract awarded in 2011. The delivery took place on 4 March 2012.

According to Boeing, following delivery in Seattle, Navy pilots flew the first production P-8A, LRIP1-1, to Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla., where it will be used for aircrew training.

The Poseidon team is using a first-in-industry in-line production process that draws on Boeing’s Next-Generation 737 production system. All P-8A-unique aircraft modifications are made in sequence during fabrication and assembly.

Along with production aircraft, the P-8A team also has built and is testing six flight-test and two ground-test aircraft. The flight-test aircraft are based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., and have completed more than 1,500 flight hours. A derivative of the Next-Generation 737-800, the Poseidon is built by a Boeing-led industry team that includes CFM International, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Spirit AeroSystems, BAE Systems and GE Aviation.

The Navy plans to purchase 117 Boeing 737-based P-8A aircraft to replace its P-3 fleet. Initial operational capability is planned for 2013.

JKM Mk2

06-03-12, 10:09 PM

When is Australia due to order these?

JKM

buglerbilly

07-03-12, 09:10 PM

The Australian Minister for Defence announced on 20 July 2007 that the P-8A MMA had been selected as the preferred aircraft to replace the Royal Australian Air Force's fleet of AP-3C Orions in conjunction with a yet-to-be-selected unmanned aerial vehicle. The last RAAF AP-3C is scheduled to be retired in 2018, after nearly 30 years of service.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be signed that will help Australia to gain access to classified data and help to input specific requirements.

In March 2009, Australia's Chief of Air Force stated that subject to anticipated government approval, the RAAF will begin to add the P-8A to their fleet in 2016. Australia and Canada may each pay up to $300 million in order to have first-tier participation in the MMA project.

Milne Bay

07-03-12, 09:45 PM

I imagine that if the P-8A is to be fielded in 2016 then there ought to be some ink on a contract by now.
It's not like there are no orders for this aircraft and we simply pick them up from a dawdling assembly line.
If we don't get them ordered, they will very likely be late -....again, and again and again.
Can anyone say Caribou replacement.

buglerbilly

08-03-12, 09:34 PM

Yeah its close altho there could be as much as 12-18 months still available it all depends on how agreeable the USN would be to making Production Slots available.........in the current climate, they might be more so..........

buglerbilly

08-03-12, 09:38 PM

NRL Designs Robot for Shipboard Firefighting

07:53 GMT, March 8, 2012 WASHINGTON | In both war and peacetime scenarios, fire in the shipboard environment is serious and frequently results in excessive damage and high repair costs because the fire is not detected or controlled adequately. To help further improve future shipboard firefighting capability scientists at the Naval Research Laboratory have formed an interdisciplinary team to develop a humanoid robot that could fight fires on the next generation of combatants. A humanoid-type robot was chosen because it was deemed best suited to operate within the confines of an environment that was deigned for human mobility and offered opportunity for other potential warfighting applications within the Navy and Marine Corps.

The firefighting robot, called the Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot (SAFFiR), is being designed to move autonomously throughout the ship, interact with people, and fight fires, handling many of the dangerous firefighting tasks that are normally performed by humans. The humanoid robot should be able to maneuver well in the narrow passages and ladderways that are unique to a ship and challenging for most older, simpler robots to navigate.

The robot is designed with enhanced multi-modal sensor technology for advanced navigation and a sensor suite that includes a camera, gas sensor, and stereo IR camera to enable it to see through smoke. Its upper body will be capable of manipulating fire suppressors and throwing propelled extinguishing agent technology (PEAT) grenades. It is battery powered that holds enough energy for 30 minutes of firefighting. Like a sure-footed sailor, the robot will also be capable of walking in all directions, balancing in sea conditions, and traversing obstacles.

Another key element of the SAFFiR development is to allow damage control personnel and the robot to work cohesively as a team. Algorithms are being developed to allow autonomous mobility and decision making by the robot as a team member. To enable natural interaction with a human team leader, the robot will have multimodal interfaces that will enable the robot to track the focus of attention of the human team leader, as well as to allow the robot to understand and respond to gestures, such as pointing and hand signals. Where appropriate, natural language may also be incorporated, as well as other modes of communication and supervision.

Researchers from Virginia Tech and University of Pennsylvania are also working with NRL on the project. They plan to test the firefighting robot in a realistic firefighting environment onboard the ex-USS Shadwell in late September 2013.

The Navy Technology Center for Safety & Survivability, located at NRL in Washington, DC, carries out research aimed to solve current and future Navy problems regarding combustion, fire extinguishment, fire modeling and scaling, damage control, and atmosphere hazards. The Center has unique fire research facilities that include pressurable chambers up to a 10,000 cubic foot capacity at the Centers test site at NRL's Chesapeake Bay Detachment in Calvert County, Maryland. The Center also has custody of the world's unique fire test ship, ex-USS Shadwell (LSD-15) located in Mobile Alabama, where full-scale fire and damage control tests are conducted using the reality conformations of active duty sailors. Using the ex-USS Shadwell, NRL scientists are able to enhance their technology base for introducing advanced damage control concepts to the fleet. The ship provides a unique opportunity to realistically experience a true damage control environment, to create a partnership between the technical and fleet communities, and to take advantage of new insights gleaned during full-scale experimentation.

The Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence (NCARAI) has been involved in both basic and applied research in artificial intelligence, human factors, and human-centered computing since its inception in 1981. NCARAI, part of the Information Technology Division within NRL, is engaged in research and development efforts designed to address the application of artificial intelligence technology and techniques to critical Navy and national problems. The NCARAI is developing the algorithms that allow the firefighting robot to work naturally with human firefighters, as well as high-level reasoning capabilities.

The Laboratory for Autonomous Systems Research will provide specialized facilities to support highly innovative, multidisciplinary research in autonomous systems, including intelligent autonomy, sensor systems, power and energy systems, human-system interaction, networking and communications, and platforms. The Laboratory will capitalize on the broad multidisciplinary character of NRL, bringing together scientists and engineers with disparate training and backgrounds to attack common goals in autonomous systems at the intersection of their respective fields. The Laboratory will provide unique facilities and simulated environments (littoral, desert, tropical) and instrumented reconfigurable high bay spaces to support integration of science and technology components into research prototype systems. The objective of the Laboratory is to enable Navy and DoD scientific leadership in this complex, emerging area and to identify opportunities for advances in future defense technology.

Virginia Tech
The Navy's firefighting robot will be a follow-on version to the existing Virginia Tech CHARLI-L1 robot, above.

buglerbilly

10-03-12, 08:14 AM

USS Simpson and HSL-60 Use Fire Scout UAV

By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Felicito Rustique, Navy Public Affairs Support Element-East Detachment Europe

110930-N-JQ696-408 PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (Sept. 30, 2011) An MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) successfully completes the first unmanned biofuel flight at Webster Field. The aircraft flew with a combination of JP-5 aviation fuel and plant-based non-food source camellia. Fire Scout is the seventh and final aircraft to demonstrate the versatility of biofuel through its use in all facets of naval aviation. (U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler/Released)

USS SIMPSON, Gulf of Guinea (NNS) -- Guided-missile frigate USS Simpson (FFG 56) has the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), MQ-8B Fire Scout embarked for solo missions, a U.S. Navy first during a full deployment, March 7.

The Fire Scout is the Navy's only unmanned aircraft to operate on land and at sea. The Fire Scout is a vertical take-off and landing UAV capable of carrying out surveillance, tracking and targeting missions. Typically deployed as a compliment to the manned H-60 helicopter, this is the Fire Scout's first solo mission.

Lt. Cmdr. Darren Capo is the officer-in-charge of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light Six Zero (HSL-60), the "Jaguars", the detachment embarked on Simpson that maintains and flies the Fire Scout.

"There are benefits to flying from inside a ship," said Capo, who's previously flown the SH-60B Sea Hawk helicopter, about taking on his latest assignment.

Flying the Fire Scout has been a completely new experience, especially physically.

"When you're done, your ears don't ring from noise and vibration and you're not soaked in sweat like you are after flying a long helicopter mission," said Capo.

Two people operate the Fire Scout during flight, an air vehicle operator (AVO) and a mission payload operator (MPO). Both the AVO and MPO sit at control stations next to each other in the same room.

"Nothing can beat the sensation of flying a helicopter, but flying the Fire Scout is really cool knowing that you're on the cutting edge of technology," said Capo.

The AVO is responsible for the overall current mission, navigation and system safety of the Fire Scout's airframe. The MPO is responsible for operating the Fire Scout's built-in surveillance camera and communicating with the AVO to get the best shots needed during a mission.

"It's much like a video game with a trackball, keyboard and two monitors to handle all the open windows," Capo said about operating the Fire Scout as an AVO. "It's very interesting if you're willing to learn new ways of flying."

Capo also said the future of air warfare will include a large contribution from UAVs.

"The Fire Scout is a truly remarkable piece of equipment that will make its mark on naval aviation for years to come," said Capo. "The capabilities and freedom from risk of human life are significant benefits to employing the Fire Scout."

HSL-60 embarked on Simpson with two Fire Scouts and a crew of 15 maintainers; three aircrew act as MPOs and four pilots act as AVOs.

"So far it's been good working with the Fire Scout's system," said Aviation Machinist's Mate 2nd Class Jonathan Moody, one of HSL-60's maintainers working with the Fire Scout. "I'm glad to be involved with something that's part of the Navy's future and a growing portion of intelligence gathering."

"I see the Fire Scout as a risk mitigator," said Moody, who volunteered from his parent command in San Diego to embark with HSL-60 specifically to have a chance to work with the Fire Scout. "It gives you all that you can get from a manned aircraft, but with no exposure to danger for the air crew."

Moody often works with a laptop right next to the Fire Scout before and after launch and recoveries. He said such interfacing makes his job of running aircraft diagnostics much easier.

"Having a computer to assist with aircraft diagnostics is more maintenance-friendly than without," said Moody. "It allows you to find problems quickly and easily because all pertinent information is displayed on the monitor right in front of you, at a moment's notice."

Moody, like Capo, said he recognizes the larger role UAVs will play in the Navy's future, but he believes UAVs will not completely replace manned aircraft.

"UAVs should be an addition to the Navy and work alongside manned aircraft," said Moody, "but we still need manned aircraft for operations like Search and Rescue at sea."

The Fire Scout was first deployed in 2009 aboard guided-missile frigate, USS McInerney (FFG 8), in 2009. Since then it has exceeded 2,000 hours of real-time intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to support U.S. and allied troops in northern Afghanistan.

Simpson, homeported out of Mayport, Fla. is currently conducting theater security cooperation and maritime security operations in the Naval Forces Africa area of responsibility.

For more information, visit www.navy.mil, www.facebook.com/usnavy, or www.twitter.com/usnavy.

For more news from Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, visit www.navy.mil/local/naveur/.

buglerbilly

14-03-12, 05:25 AM

US Navy to formalise unmanned carrier strike plans

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC 11 hours ago

Source:

The US Navy is set to approve the unmanned carrier launched surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft as a formal acquisition programme later this year, but has yet to decide the scope of what the type's limited operational capability - set for 2020 - will constitute.

"The contract award date will be in the approved strategy in support of a 2012 Milestone A decision," says navy UCLASS programme manager Charlie Nava in a written statement to Flightglobal. This status would signify that a new procurement programme has been formally approved.

The USN will issue a request for proposals (RfP) only after the service and the US Department of Defense have fully examined the data gathered from a previously issued request of information and broad agency announcement studies. The information collected is already proving to be useful, Nava says.

"The date is still [to] be determined," he says of a potential RfP. "The overarching acquisition strategy for UCLASS is being vetted through the Department of [the] Navy and Office of the Secretary of Defense."

On 24 February, the navy announced it would seek further broad agency studies, having awarded four such studies last June. According to the navy, these will help to develop new operating concepts, system architectures, requirements documents and examine new "potential material solutions" to meet its operational needs.

In previous years, the USN emphasised getting the unmanned reconnaissance and strike aircraft into service as soon as possible, with an initial operational capability date set for 2018. However, with the roll-out of President Barack Obama's fiscal year [FY] 2013 budget request, the service says "limited operational capability" will be pushed back to FY2020.

The delay was not unexpected, says analyst Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute in Virginia. "That wasn't surprising, really," he says. The navy still has not clearly articulated what the aircraft's role will be and the technology is still very immature, Goure adds.

The navy says it needs a carrier-based unmanned air system to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and precision strike capabilities.

[I]© Northrop Grumman

Much of the technology needed for the UCLASS is being developed and tested under the auspices of the navy's X-47B unmanned combat air system demonstration (UCAS-D) effort being performed by Northrop Grumman. The service hopes that the UCLASS will be an operational follow-on to the X-47B.

"The ongoing UCAS-D programme is an essential early step that will demonstrate the suitability of unmanned air systems operating in the [carrier] environment, but contains no operational mission systems," Nava says. "UCLASS will be the navy's first carrier-based operational unmanned air system capable of integrating with manned platforms as part of the Carrier Air Wing."

Technology from the X-47B, including government-owned hardware, software and aircraft-ship interfaces, will also be harvested for the UCLASS effort, Nava says.

According to the solicitation for additional broad agency announcement studies last month, an operational system would consist of an air segment, which includes the air vehicle, ISR hardware and remote vehicle control system. But the UCLASS would also include a control system and connectivity segment that would be able to link to other US military assets and a carrier segment for shipboard interfaces, shipboard facilities and aircraft launch/recovery apparatus.

While it might be possible to bring the aircraft into "limited" service by 2020, it is not clear what the navy means by limited operational capability, Goure says.

The navy does not disagree, having yet to fully flesh out what it hopes to accomplish.

"Based upon the ongoing analysis, the navy has recently identified 2020 as the operational assessment timeframe," Nava says. Right now, it is using the terms "operational assessment" and "limited operational capability" interchangeably, he adds.

The challenge will be to build an aircraft that can not only operate routinely from the deck of a carrier at sea, but also conduct some sort of useful mission once it is in the air, Goure says.

Given the state of the technology and current budgetary climate, entering into an operational assessment phase by 2020 might be a more reasonable objective, Goure says.

"An operational assessment is much more limited than an initial operating capability," he says. "That would make more sense."

Industry officials say the navy's plans are too nebulous for them to comment in any meaningful way.

The USN has asked for just over $122 million in the FY2013 budget proposal to fund the UCLASS programme.

If there are no further defence cuts, the navy might have a chance of funding the programme to fruition, Goure says. But if US defence outlays are seriously curtailed because of the so-called budget sequestration measure in Congress, he believes the UCLASS programme is all but doomed.

buglerbilly

14-03-12, 10:55 PM

HASC chair: Don’t mothball the cruisers, upgrade them

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, March 14th, 2012 2:38 pm

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon said Wednesday he wants the Navy to keep the seven cruisers it has proposed decommissioning because the fleet needs the ships to reach their full lives.

He told an audience at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library out in California that he would try to help save the ships that Secretary Panetta and other top leaders — though not Navy leaders — have basically characterized as worn out.

“We will try to hold back cuts to the Navy’s cruiser force,” he said, “finding the money for our cruisers to undergo proper upgrades, instead of mothballing ships needed to sustain the shift to Asia, before those ships reach the end of their lifespan.”

The surface Navy loves the cruiser and destroyer modernization it has begun with the early ships in the two classes, which gives crews nicer accommodations and brings the ships’ weapons, sensors and electronics up to the latest standards. But the yard work costs money and it sidelines warships for months that, as we keep hearing, are in high demand from combatant commanders.

McKeon did not detail what the Navy should give up to keep its cruisers, or go into many specifics on much else in his Reagan Library speech. The remarks weren’t really for the usual Washington eggheads — by donning the mantle of Reagan, McKeon seemed to be aiming his call for support at a wider audience of conservatives outside the defense family.

“To put it plainly, we need your help,” he said. “We need your help restoring the concept of the Reagan military. Just the name invokes the concept of strength and certitude. I need you to be advocates for the principles that President Reagan advocated. I need you to stand with our troops. I need you to reject government intrusion in our lives, and refocus this great Republic back to Constitutional obligations like providing for the common defense. These cuts can be stopped, averted, held off. But it requires you to be involved. To be vocal. To be strong. How can we call ourselves Reagan Republicans if we sit quietly by during the most systematic and catastrophic cuts to an institution that Reagan helped build?”

The Reagan Challenge! It’s the ultimate gauntlet for conservatives — the final trump card. The question is, will it work? Can defense advocates drum up a popular groundswell to pressure Congress to deal with sequestration and the other thorny questions in the defense world, or is this subject just too wonky?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/14/hasc-chair-dont-mothball-the-cruisers-upgrade-them/#ixzz1p8AEP3cJ
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

17-03-12, 01:05 AM

How to Kill China’s ‘Carrier-Killer’ Missile: Jam, Spoof and Shoot

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author March 16, 2012 | 3:44 pm

Chinese DF-21 missiles. Photo: Office of Naval Intelligence

China has developed a missile that would turn an aircraft carrier into a two-billion-dollar hulk of twisted metal, flame, and dead sailors. Publicly, the U.S. Navy downplays its importance. Privately, the sailors are working out several different options to kill it before it kills them.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s top officer, explained to reporters during a Friday breakfast meeting that the Navy has ways of exploiting some of the DF-21D missile’s formidable technical capabilities, even before opening fire and praying.

DF-21D missile’s formidable technical capabilities, even before opening fire and praying.

As Greenert sees it, there’s a menu of options. Some involve convincing the DF-21D that the carrier is in a different place. Others involve masking the electronic emissions of the carrier. Still others are more traditional — like blasting the missile out of the salty air.

“You want to spoof them, preclude detection, jam them, shoot them down if possible, get them to termination, confuse it,” Greenert said. “The concept is end-to-end, and the capabilities therein [are] what we’re pursuing”

First up: the missile’s guidance systems. This is where Greenert wants the Navy’s investment in jamming and electronic warfare generally to pay off.

“If whatever is launched has a seeker, can you jam it?” Greenert mused. “Yes, no, maybe so? What would it take to jam it?” For now, that’s a job for the flying, jamming Growlers which messed with Moammar Gadhafi’s anti-aircraft systems in Libya last year. Later on, the Navy will have a next-generation jammer, also built onto some of its jets, which it wants to use to infect enemy systems with malware. Alternatively or in supplement, the strike group would go radio silent, to stop the missile from homing in on its electronic emissions.

Then comes the “more popular” part, Greenert said: shooting the missile down. The Aegis missile-defense cruisers included in an aircraft carrier strike group would be tasked with that over the next decade. Afterward, the Navy wants to use giant shipboard lasers to burn through incoming missiles. But it’s by no means clear the Navy really can clear all the technological obstacles to oceanic laser warfare by its mid-2020s deadline.

And shooting down this new missile isn’t a guaranteed proposition. “When do you have to engage it? On the way up? Mid-course? Terminal?” Greenert said.

His answer: all of the above. “We call it links of a chain,” Greenert said. “We want to break as many links as possible.” Navy weapons have to be ready to disable the DF-21D — either through jamming it or shooting it — during “all” phases of its trajectory.

There’s also something that Greenert didn’t mention: he has time on his side.

The Navy conceded in December 2010 that the DF-21D had reached “initial operating capability.” But its intelligence chief quickly added that blowing up a carrier is still past China’s means. Hitting a moving object is difficult. Testing the thing at sea is too. Then China needs to integrate the missile into its general surface warfare plans. And after all that come the countermeasures Greenert outlined. Solving all that takes time.

And while China works on that, the Navy will continue its own development. If Greenert is freaked out by a weapon that can punch through one of the most potent symbols of American power, he’s doing a good job of hiding it in public.

buglerbilly

19-03-12, 09:59 PM

Ingalls Shipbuilding's Sixth Amphibious Transport Dock, San Diego (LPD 22), Sails Away to Join the U.S. Navy Fleet

(Source: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.; issued March 16, 2012)

PASCAGOULA, Miss. --- Huntington Ingalls Industries announced today that the company's sixth amphibious transport dock, San Diego (LPD 22), sailed away from Ingalls Shipbuilding facilities last night en route to her commissioning site in San Diego.

"We're watching this ship leave today with a lot of pride," said Doug Lounsberry, Ingalls' vice president and program manager, LPD 17 program. "This represents a turning point in LPD construction. Our shipbuilders have done an outstanding job of fine-tuning the construction process, and we look forward to continuing this success on future LPDs. We understand the importance of each and every amphibious ship we build to the overall mission of our U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps customers, and rest assured, the LPDs will provide them exactly what is necessary to accomplish their operations."

San Diego was delivered to the Navy in December following acceptance sea trials. Ingalls' test and trials team thoroughly tested the ship's main propulsion, steering, communications suite and deck missions systems.

"This ship had an outstanding post-delivery availability period, and I believe LPD 22 will be entering the U.S. Navy fleet as the best LPD yet," Lounsberry said. "We received great accolades from our Navy customer, including a quote calling the ship a 'model of success' in the LPD 17 program."

LPD 22 is scheduled to be commissioned on May 19 in San Diego. It is the fourth ship named in honor of the military town and home of the largest Navy base in the Pacific.

San Antonio-class ships are 684 feet long and 105 feet wide and displace approximately 25,000 tons. Their principal mission is to deploy the combat and support elements of Marine Expeditionary Units and Brigades. The ships can carry up to 800 troops and have the capability of transporting and debarking landing craft air cushion (LCAC) or conventional landing crafts, augmented by helicopters or vertical take-off and landing aircraft such as the MV-22. These ships will support amphibious assault, special operations or expeditionary warfare missions through the first half of the 21st century.

San Antonio-class ships are a key element of the Navy's ability to project power ashore. Collectively they functionally replace more than 41 ships (the LPD 4, LSD 36, LKA 113 and LST 1179 classes of amphibious ships), providing the Navy and Marine Corps with modern, sea-based platforms that are networked, survivable and built to operate with 21st century platforms, such as the MV-22 Osprey.

Ingalls has now built and delivered the first six ships in the class, and there are four more under construction.

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) designs, builds and maintains nuclear and non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard and provides after-market services for military ships around the globe. Employing nearly 38,000 in Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana and California, its primary business divisions are Newport News Shipbuilding and Ingalls Shipbuilding.

-ends-

buglerbilly

19-03-12, 10:01 PM

Future USS Michael Murphy Completes 'Super Trial'

(Source: U.S Navy; issued March 15, 2012)

BATH, Maine --- The future USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112), and the final ship of the original 62-ship procurement of the DDG 51 class shipbuilding program, successfully completed a combined builder's and acceptance "super trial" March 9, after spending four days underway in the Atlantic Ocean.

Because of the maturity of the class, the Navy holds only one round of trials on each ship prior to delivery, instead of separate builder's and acceptance trials. This "super trial" requires less time, fuel and manpower than the typical method.

During the trial, Bath Iron Works and the U.S. Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) tested the ship's weapons, communications, and propulsion systems as well as conducting several other inspections including habitability, water purification and food preparation.

"DDG 112's strong performance in these combined trial has a very special significance," said Capt. Mark Vandroff, DDG 51-class program manager for the Navy's Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. "The success of these trials after 62 ships underscores the value of the DDG 51 class and its continued importance to the 21st century surface fleet."

The DDG 51 class ship is a multi-mission guided missile destroyer designed to operate in multi threat air, surface and subsurface threat environments. The class provides outstanding combat capability and survivability characteristics while minimizing procurement and lifetime support costs due to the program's maturity. The DDG 51 program continues to reinforce affordability and efficiency in its shipbuilding program, with a commitment to deliver ships at the highest possible quality allowing seamless transition to the fleet.

The new destroyer honors the late Lt. Michael P. Murphy, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions as leader of a Navy SEAL team in Afghanistan. Lt. Murphy was the first person to be awarded the medal for actions in Afghanistan and the first member of the Navy to receive the award since the Vietnam War.

These trials are the last significant production milestone before delivery of the ship to the Navy this spring. A commissioning ceremony will be held in New York City in October.

As one of the Defense Department's largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all destroyers, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships, and special warfare craft. Currently, the majority of shipbuilding programs managed by PEO Ships are benefiting from serial production efficiencies, which are critical to delivering ships on cost and schedule.

-ends-

buglerbilly

22-03-12, 05:16 AM

Fire Scout team takes steps to arm unmanned helicopter

The Fire Scout team and NAVAIR's structures rotary-wing division personnel inspect the MQ-8B Fire Scout's new hardware design March 7 at Webster Field Annex in Patuxent River, Md. The team is working briskly to support an urgent Navy request to weaponize the unmanned helicopter. (Photo by Kelly Schindler)

Mar 21, 2012

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- A team at nearby Webster Field Annex is working briskly to support an urgent Navy request to weaponize the MQ-8B Fire Scout, marking the first time the Navy will arm an unmanned aircraft.

The Fire Scout team and NAVAIR’s structures rotary-wing division personnel conducted the first of a series of tests March 7 on the newly installed hardware, which will gauge how the system will operate in the shipboard environment.

“This is the very first weaponization program on this aircraft,” said Jeremy Moore, Fire Scout weapons system integration lead. Part of the Rapid Deployment Capability (RDC) acquisition process, “it was identified by the fleet as an urgent need for joint forces, so we are pressing forward as hard as we can to get it out there.”

The Navy plans to arm the MQ-8B Fire Scout with a laser-guided rocket, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), in just 18 months. Typically, this type of development would take two to three years at a minimum, Moore said. Arming the Fire Scout with a guided rocket will enable the fleet to engage hostile threats with the Fire Scout independent of air support from carrier or shore-based aircraft. This capability will keep the warfighter out of harm’s way, Moore said.

Bill McCartney, Fire Scout’s Air Vehicle flight test lead, said the weaponization of any aircraft is an intricate process, particularly it in this case since it is the first time the Navy will arm an unmanned aircraft.

“We had a very tight timeline to conduct trade studies and complete design reviews,” McCartney said. “Now, we are starting to execute tests, and there is little time in the schedule for repeats.”

The team planned this test event to get an early look at the new hardware design installed on the aircraft, allowing them to identify any issues before beginning ground and flight tests later this year. Ground and flight tests will be conducted by Naval Air Warfare Center’s Aircraft Division and Weapons Division personnel at Webster Field and China Lake, Calif., with support from NAVAIR, Naval Sea Systems Command and industry partners.

“This is the first stepping stone,” Moore said. “We are trying to build in the capability to add on additional weapons in the future.”

PEO(U&W) Public Affairs
(301) 757-9703

buglerbilly

23-03-12, 08:47 AM

Navy: The cruisers must go, that others may stay

By Philip Ewing Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 12:17 pm

The Navy’s proposal to decommission seven Aegis cruisers was “an extremely difficult choice for us to make,” but it must be done to protect what the Navy calls the “wholeness” of the rest of its fleet, top commanders told Congress Thursday.

Navy logistics and readiness boss Vice Adm. Bill Burke told a House Armed Services Committee panel that the surface force is banking on the money and sailors it would save from the ships going away — along with its now-fully funded request for ship maintenance — to help continue to dig the fleet out of its longstanding readiness problems.

“The cruiser retirements were an extremely difficult choice for us to make, but our goal was to balance readiness, procurment and the personnel priorities within our budget controls to still meet global force management and avoid a hollow force,” Burke said.

The Navy can free up about $4 billion by not keeping the ships, he said, even though they have 10 or even 15 years of life left — and the Navy’s recent top goal has been squeezing the most good from everything in today’s fleet. The ships need comprehensive upgrades and they’re suffering from the infamous cracks in their aluminum superstructures, so Burke said the brass had to swallow hard and let them go.

He’s not kidding: Although Secretary Panetta and other DoD-level officials have pooh-poohed the “older, less-capable” cruisers, these ships have long commanded a special status in the surface force. When certain kinds of Navy officers at desks in the Pentagon close their eyes for a moment of pause, they picture themselves on the bridge of a cruiser as the ship turns at high speed on a sunny afternoon off Southern California.

Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes, who chaired Thursday’s hearing, wants that daydream to remain a reality for six of the seven ships slated to go away. (We’ll get to the seventh in a moment.) He said his committee staff has calculated that it would cost about $592 million in FY 13 and $859 million in FY 14 to upgrade the six ships and keep them around for the rest of their service lives. Compare that against more than $2 billion for a single new destroyer and it seems like a no-brainer, he argued.

Maybe, Burke said, but he said Forbes’ estimates didn’t cover the cost of operating the ships, or fielding helicopters with them, and said the bottom line was this: With seven fewer cruisers and fully funded maintenance budgets, the surface Navy could finally slay the readiness and maintenance demons that have been plaguing it for the past decade. He and Naval Sea Systems Command boss Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy said the fleet is turning the corner on its readiness problem, and deviating from the latest plans could throw a monkey wrench into that effort.

“It was a terribly difficult choice,” Burke said. “We didn’t want to make it. But in order to maintain readiness of all the forces we chose to decrement our Navy by a couple [of cruisers] … If we didn’t do this, if we kept too many, we’d be under-maintaining all of them and we’d end up down the road having a bigger problem than we have today.”

As for the seventh ship, Thursday’s hearing made clear that the poor cruiser USS Port Royal is a goner no matter what. Forbes’ estimates deliberately excluded the cost to upgrade it, and none of the Navy witnesses seemed to even consider keeping it around past its scheduled mothball date next year. The Port Royal ran hard aground off Honolulu in 2009 and its repairs cost the Navy tens of millions of dollars, but by all accounts, the ship has never been the same. As it sat stuck on the coral reef, the tide rocked and shook the cruiser and all of its onboard equipment, damaging it more than might have initially been apparent. The Port Royal eventually returned to service, but the Navy’s mothball decision and Thursday’s hearing apparently confirmed the brass wants to just cut its losses.

The sad twist for the surface Navy — taking Burke and McCoy at their word that it’s turning the corner — is that even a smaller, better-maintained fleet still falls far short of the oft-discussed “demand signal” from the combatant commanders. Under questioning from Forbes, Burke said that it would take a fleet of 500 ships to meet the “demand” from the various military areas of operation around the world. If everything goes the Navy’s way, it hopes to build a fleet of 300 ships by 2019.

So it’s the old standoff: Will Congress ultimately force service officials to keep ships they don’t want, having absorbed — in this case — the Navy’s years of arguments that “quantity is a capability all its own?” As we saw this week, lawmakers have asked the Pentagon not to implement any of its planned changes until the Hill gives its go-ahead, so there may be still more talk of keeping these once-prized warships the Navy says must go.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/22/navy-the-cruisers-must-go-that-others-may-stay/#ixzz1pvLOVCv5
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

27-03-12, 12:41 PM

Weight Threshold Determines Who Flies US Navy UAS

Posted on March 27, 2012 by The Editor

Navy
Unmanned aerial vehicles that exceed 55 pounds, such as the MQ-8B Fire Scout helicopter, will be maintained, and possibly operated, by enlisted members of the aviation community.

The US Navy has set a weight-based threshold for who will operate unmanned aircraft, with UAS weighing more than 55 pounds (25 Kilos) being operated as adjuncts to manned systems, while operators of lighter aircraft will come from other corners of the service.

Additionally, it’s expected that officers will fly the larger, more complex UAS, while enlisted sailors will operate the smaller ones that fly at low altitudes and close to the aircraft’s control center, Joe Gradisher, spokesman for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, said in a statement.

It means that practically every unmanned aircraft the Navy is developing or operating will be in the hands of sailors who have years of aviation experience. Furthermore, the most advanced aircraft will primarily be operated by pilots and naval flight officers. The weight limit leaves the 40-pound (18 Kilo) ScanEagle as the only UAS now in the fleet that will be manned by those outside of aviation.

“This approach will leverage community knowledge and provide better synergies between manned and unmanned capabilities,” Gradisher said. The Navy has not yet decided whether enlisted people will join officers in flying UAS, but Rear Admiral William Shannon, programme executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, said he expects that “very, very, very capable enlisted sailors” will operate drones. “If we, someday in the future, have systems that have to be operated by specially trained operators, we have absolutely failed in our jobs,” he said at a conference in April.

Exactly who from manned aviation will be responsible for each unmanned system — and at what point in their careers they will switch to UAS — has not yet been determined. Also, the 55-pound weight limit may change, Gradisher said. “Specific crew composition is still being studied for all unmanned aircraft systems,” he said.

Navy officials have said they anticipate aviators from manned communities leaving their primary aircraft after their first or second tours to receive training on an unmanned system before entering operations.

But enlisted members also will fill “unmanned aircraft vehicle operator,” or AVO, billets, Gradisher said. The use of officers and enlisted sailors to fill certain AVO billets depends on mission requirements and complexity, the operating environment and constraints from the community, he said.

Plans have generally called for enlisted members in the manned aviation community to work on unmanned systems similar to the manned aircraft in which they specialize. For example, the MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter is expected to be operated and maintained by the MH-60 community. The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system operators will come from the P-3 Orion and P-8 Poseidon communities because BAMS also will perform maritime patrol, surveillance and intelligence missions.

Source: Navy Times

Original article:

Weight of UAV may determine who controls it

By Joshua Stewart - Staff Writer

Posted : Sunday Mar 25, 2012 9:45:48 EDT

If you’re interested in working with unmanned aerial vehicles, you may get some career guidance from a bathroom scale.

The Navy has set a weight-based threshold for who will operate unmanned aircraft, with UAVs weighing more than 55 pounds being operated as adjuncts to manned systems, while operators of lighter aircraft will come from other corners of the service.

Additionally, it’s expected that officers will fly the larger, more complex UAVs, while enlisted sailors will operate the smaller ones that fly at low altitudes and close to the aircraft’s control center, Joe Gradisher, spokesman for the deputy chief of naval operations for information dominance, said in a statement.

It means that practically every unmanned aircraft the Navy is developing or operating will be in the hands of sailors who have years of aviation experience.

Furthermore, the most advanced aircraft will primarily be operated by pilots and naval flight officers.

The weight limit leaves the 40-pound ScanEagle as the only UAV now in the fleet that will be manned by those outside of aviation.

“This approach will leverage community knowledge and provide better synergies between manned and unmanned capabilities,” Gradisher said.

The Navy has not yet decided whether enlisted people will join officers in flying UAVs, but Rear Adm. William Shannon, program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, said he expects that “very, very, very capable enlisted sailors” will operate drones.

“If we, someday in the future, have systems that have to be operated by specially trained operators, we have absolutely failed in our jobs,” he said at a conference in April.

Drone-crew details still in flux

Exactly who from manned aviation will be responsible for each unmanned system — and at what point in their careers they will switch to UAVs — has not yet been determined. Also, the 55-pound weight limit may change, Gradisher said.

“Specific crew composition is still being studied for all unmanned air systems,” he said.

Navy officials have said they anticipate aviators from manned communities leaving their primary aircraft after their first or second tours to receive training on an unmanned system before entering operations.

But enlisted members also will fill “unmanned aircraft vehicle operator,” or AVO, billets, Gradisher said. The use of officers and enlisted sailors to fill certain AVO billets depends on mission requirements and complexity, the operating environment and constraints from the community, he said.

Plans have generally called for enlisted members in the manned aviation community to work on unmanned systems similar to the manned aircraft in which they specialize. For example, the MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter is expected to be operated and maintained by the MH-60 community. The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system operators will come from the P-3 Orion and P-8 Poseidon communities because BAMS also will perform maritime patrol, surveillance and intelligence missions.

buglerbilly

27-03-12, 09:54 PM

U.S. Carrier Construction Cost-Control Actions Detailed

Mar. 27, 2012 - 12:43PM

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15. In a letter to Sen. John McCain, Mabus said the Navy is conducting "a line-by-line review" of possible cost-cutting measures for new aircraft carriers. (MCC Sam Shavers / Navy)

Although a plan to control cost growth on its new aircraft carriers is already in place, the U.S. Navy is continuing to conduct “a line-by-line review … to identify further opportunity to reduce cost and to mitigate risk,” the service told a key congressional critic.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., charged earlier this month that the Navy was not effectively managing cost increases on the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), the first ships in a new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers built in Virginia at Newport News Shipbuilding.

McCain, in a March 21 letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, said he was “underwhelmed” by Mabus’ accounting of the program during a March 15 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“Not only have your actions to date failed to control cost growth in this $40 billion program,” McCain wrote, “it appears that you do not now have a plan to prevent future increases.”

But in a letter sent March 26 to McCain, Mabus provided a list of actions already taken to avoid further cost hikes on the carriers. Mabus repeated assertions that cost growth already experienced on the Ford “cannot be reversed,” but he noted that problems with the supply chain were also a major factor, particularly during the ship’s advance procurement period from 2002 to 2008.

“It is essential to improve upon material delivery to the shipyard,” Mabus wrote, adding it is “equally important” to correct those issues for the Kennedy.

Mabus also reiterated that cost was a major issue on the carrier program before he took office in 2009.

“I have shared in the past my concern when I took office and learned the magnitude of new technologies and design change being brought to the Ford,” he wrote.

Those new technologies included newly designed nuclear reactors, propulsion and power systems; aircraft launch and recovery systems; and a host of detailed technical improvements.

“Today we are confronting the cost impacts of these decisions made more than a decade ago,” Mabus wrote to McCain.

The Ford, projected in 2007 to cost about $11 billion, now is expected to run more than $13 billion, a cost growth of 18 percent.

The Kennedy, expected in 2007 cost $8.6 billion, now projects to about $10.3 billion, a growth of about 20 percent.

Neither ship is close to the 25 percent marker that would trigger a Nunn-McCurdy breach, requiring the program to be revalidated.

A congressional analyst speaking on condition of anonymity after reading the letter to McCain thought the Navy was taking a number of appropriate moves to control the carrier program.

“They recognize the cost growth, but they’re cleaning up some one else’s mess,” the analyst said. “From a management perspective, I can’t think of anything they’re not doing.”

buglerbilly

29-03-12, 07:09 AM

Fleet Size Hovers Around 300 Ships in New U.S. Navy Plan

Mar. 28, 2012 - 07:15PM

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Increased production of new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers is a key feature of the U.S. Navy's new 30-year shipbuilding plan. Flight IIA versions of the ships are to serve for 40 years. (MC3 Benjamin Crossley / U.S. Navy)

The U.S. Navy’s new 30-year shipbuilding plan for 2013 shows few unexpected changes, projecting a slightly smaller average fleet size and slightly reduced shipbuilding rate.

The plan, sent this week to Congress, projects an average fleet size through 2042 of 298 ships, a drop of seven ships from last year’s 306-ship standard. The force is projected to rise from today’s 282-ship level to 300 ships by 2019.

Ten fewer ships are scheduled to be bought over the three-decade time span, reducing last year’s 276-ship 30-year total to 268, a drop from 9.2 ships per year to 8.9.

Many of the force reductions already have been announced, particularly new orders to decommission seven Aegis cruisers more than a decade before previously scheduled, a slowing in the rate of ballistic missile defense destroyer conversions and cancellation of plans to buy more than 10 small and cheap Joint High Speed Vessels. The amphibious fleet also is being reduced by about two ships.

Other changes already announced were shifts in the aircraft carrier and littoral combat ship construction rates, and a decision to push back new ballistic missile submarine construction by two years.

The new plan covers the years 2013 to 2042, while last year’s documents covered 2012 to 2041.

The 30-year plan is broken roughly into three major sections. Near term reflects the coming decade, defined by the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) of 2013-2017 and a second FYDP from 2018 to 2022.

The mid-term planning period covers 2023 to 2032, while far-term planning begins in 2033.

For the near term, the service projects an annual shipbuilding budget of $15.1 billion in 2012 constant dollars, a baseline used throughout the plan.

The rate of spending rises to $19.5 billion a year in the mid-term, due largely to the SSBN(X) Ohio Replacement Program, the effort to replace existing Trident ballistic missile submarines.

Average yearly expenditures fall to $15.9 billion per year for the far-term period.

Over the entire 30-year plan, the annual ship construction budget is projected at $16.8 billion per year, including Navy and National Defense Sealift Fund ships.

For the most part, the annual shipbuilding rate drops across the plan, but a number of ships are simply delayed, or shifted to the right, rather than eliminated. Construction rates tend to pick up in the 2020s, then again fall below last year’s projections in the 2030s.

Destroyer construction shows a jump, and from 2023 on out two or three ships a year are procured. Last year’s plan showed one or two ships a year, with three ships only in 2036.

Construction of attack submarines jumps to three in 2020, falling to one per year in 2026, whereas last year the plan showed one per year for every year beginning in 2023.

Force level projections reflect the Navy’s decision to stretch the build time of new aircraft carriers from five to seven years, avoiding situations where the force, set by law at 11 ships, would temporarily rise to 12 flattops. Now, the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), funded in 2013, will be delivered in 2022 rather than 2020, and the yet-to-be-named CVN 80, funded in 2018, will deliver in 2027.

Overall, the carrier force drops to 10 ships beginning in 2040, where last year’s plan showed 11 into that decade.

The attack submarine force, projected last year to reach a low of 39 boats in 2030, now bottoms out at 43 subs in 2028. The level begins to rise again in 2032 and reaches 50 hulls in 2037. Last year’s plan projected only 45 submarines in service for most of the late 2030s.

The number of SSBN ballistic missile submarines drops from 14 boats to 13 boats in 2027. But whereas last year’s plan never fell below 12 ships for any given year, the new plan shows a force of 11 ships in 2029 and 10 in 2032, holding there until the number starts to rise in the early 2040s.

The plan for SSGN guided-missile submarines remains the same. Two ships are decommissioned in 2026, and the last two are gone by 2028. The Navy plans to replace the ships with a stretched version of SSN 774 Virginia-class attack submarines.

The number of large surface combatants — cruisers and destroyers — drops in the near term but surpasses earlier projections starting in the late 2020s. The force drops in 2014 to 78 ships, down from last year’s 85. The revised numbers remain from two to 10 ships below the old numbers until 2027, when the new plan begins to show more ships in service than under the old plan. The growth in the number of destroyers in service is sustained through the remainder of the plan, with an increase of as many as 11 ships a year.

The small surface combatant category, including littoral combat ships (LCS), frigates and minesweepers, now shows an all-LCS force in 2029, six years sooner than previously forecast.

The annual amphibious ship force level is one or two ships below last year’s, returning to parity in the 2030s.

The plan provides few, if any, new details on construction plans in the current FYDP, as those are included in the Navy’s 2013 budget request submitted in February.

But the second FYDP, for the years 2018 to 2022, includes the most ambitious, complex and expensive new start of the plan, the SSBN(X) submarine. The Navy plans for 12 new ships to replace 14 existing submarines, with detail design to begin in 2017 and the lead ship to be funded in 2021 — a change already announced and two years later than last year’s schedule. The price tag for the first SSBNX is projected at $11.7 billion, including $4.5 billion in non-recurring engineering costs and $7.2 billion for the ship’s construction.

The second FYDP also will feature the start of the LSD(X) dock landing ship replacement program. The new ships will be delivered sooner than when the older LSDs are to be retired, a move the Navy says is “ahead of need,” but necessary to preserve the shipbuilding industrial base and reduce the risk associated with the decision to operate an amphibious force of only 30 ships, rather than 32 in the current fleet or the 38-ship force the Marines say they need.

At the lower end of the scale, the first two of five planned T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship replacements and the first two of four planned T-ARS(X) salvage ship replacements also are to be purchased in the second FYDP.

Other details listed in the new plan include:

• Up to 33 Flight III DDG-51-class destroyers will be bought featuring the new Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), a replacement for the Aegis system’s SPY-1 series of phased-array sensors. Twenty of the ships will come in during the mid-term planning period, the last in 2030. Procurement of an “affordable follow-on, multi-mission” destroyer is to begin in 2031.

• Both versions of the littoral combat ship (LCS) will continue to be purchased through 2026, completing the initial, 55-ship inventory. The first follow-on LCS(X) replacement is to be bought beginning in 2030.

• Procurement of a Virginia-class replacement submarine design, tentatively designated SSN 774(X), is aiming for a 2033 start.

• Construction of Flight I LHA(R) amphibious assault ship replacements is to continue, with one ship being built every four years starting in 2024.

• The LSD(X) dock landing ship replacement program remains at a total of 10 ships, the last coming in 2032.

• Plans remain to build two replacement submarine tenders, with one each in 2023 and 2025.

• The two long-serving LCC command ships, in service since 1970 and 1971, will be replaced with new construction starting in 2032.

buglerbilly

29-03-12, 10:04 PM

Shrinkage: Navy Won’t Build as Many Ships as It Planned

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author March 29, 2012 | 11:13 am

A shipyard worker in San Diego reattaches a funnel drain to the U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard, 2011. Photo: U.S. Navy

President Obama wants the U.S. Navy to patrol the vast Pacific Ocean and build itself up in the Middle East. Which is a nice dream. But the Navy is conceding it won’t build many ships to make it a reality — especially over the next five years. The Navy’s acknowledged as much — tensely, defensively, and always with a retort — for months. But now it’s officially revised its long-term shipbuilding plan downward and provided details about what’s effectively a five-year shipyard freeze.

According to the new shipbuilding plan (.pdf), released Wednesday by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the Navy won’t build any new ballistic missile submarines until 2021. It won’t build any big-deck amphibious assault ships, key for the Navy and the Marines to fight as a team, until 2017, when it will build… one more. After next year, the Navy won’t fund the construction of ships above replacement levels until 2018. All told, the Navy’s downgrading the total number of ships in 30 years it wants to maybe 300, a drop of at least 13 ships. And all this will occur as the Navy surges in the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific.

“It makes little sense to be shrinking our Navy just months after the announcement of a strategy that would shift emphasis to Asia, the Pacific, and the Mideast — areas where a strong naval presence is an imperative,” Rep. Todd Akin, the chairman of the House subcommittee on seapower, said at a Thursday hearing. The likely presidential nominee of Akin’s political party, Mitt Romney, is proposing a big (and expensive) increase in shipbuilding. On Navy issues, U.S. voters will face a clear choice.

The last time the Navy set its long-term goals, in 2006, its plan for the mid-2030s was to create a fleet of 313 ships. That was the target number the Navy set for meeting the anticipated threats of the future. But since January, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of Naval operations, has talked instead about getting to “approximately 300″ ships over that time frame. Aboard the U.S.S. Wasp that month for a huge Navy war game, Greenert told reporters that the Navy would hold steady at 285 ships until 2018 — with a bit of a dip in the next two years — only to start enlarging the fleet again afterward.

The reason is financial. The military has to cut at least $487 billion from its ledgers over the next decade as a matter of law. Navy ships are big ticket items. And since the military budgets for five years at a time, punting the Navy’s shipbuilding surge another five years is, effectively, an accounting trick — and one that makes the current defense budget look small enough to be legal.

But that doesn’t satisfy members of the congressional committees that oversee defense. (Yes, even though many of those legislators voted for the budget constraints in the first place. Don’t try to apply logic or consistency with Congress; you’ll get a headache and nothing will change.) The moneymen on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense were incredulous that the Navy’s leadership came to them earlier this month to ask for a slightly smaller fleet that has to do more around the world.

Greenert and his civilian counterpart, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, have a response at the ready. The current Navy strategic plan envisions stationing more ships permanently outside U.S. ports, reducing the strain on the rest of the fleet for rotational deployments. Over the next few years, four Aegis cruisers will call Spain their home. Singapore will host two of the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships.

That’s too clever, says seapower blogger Raymond Pritchett, who’s facepalming over the Navy’s new shipbuilding plan. His problem is that he’s seen this movie before: the Navy promises that someday it’s going to ramp up its ships, only to scale back its expensive plans as the date for the ramp-up approaches. Meanwhile, the Navy takes on more and more global responsibility — and struggles to keep up with technological advances in propulsion and design, which drives up the costs of shipbuilding and fuels a repeat of the whole sorry cycle.

“The Navy is now officially doing the same thing again and again with their shipbuilding plans in the 21st century and expecting everyone to believe the result will be different this time,” Pritchett blogs. “The new plan — same as the old plan — is to meet a specific number of ships determined by requirement (313 or approximately 300) by loading all of the construction of the ships needed to meet that number in the budget years beyond the [Five Year Defense Plan]. If the new ‘approximately 300-ship’ shipbuilding plan is doing exactly what failed in the old 313-ship shipbuilding plan, then how can the Navy claim to have a plan — or for that matter — how can the Navy claim to have a valid ship requirement that needs a plan if the Navy doesn’t have a legitimate plan intended to meet that requirement?”

Pritchett might actually be understating things. If Congress doesn’t come up with a way to balance defense cuts and entitlement cuts by January, then according to the very law it passed in August, the defense budget will have to lose another $600 billion-plus over ten years. There is no evidence Congress will do so. The Navy’s “approximately 300″ ship fleet might be more “approximate” than the Navy brass is letting on.

In fact, buried in the new plan is a warning about precisely that. “If the [Navy Department] is unable to sustain average annual shipbuilding budgets of $19.5 [billion] over the course of the mid-term planning period,” the plan states, “plans to recapitalize the Nation’s secure second-strike nuclear deterrent [i.e., subs] and the Navy’s conventional battle force will have to be dramatically changed, and the overall size of the battle force will drop below the levels needed to meet all naval presence and warfighting requirements.”

buglerbilly

31-03-12, 02:07 AM

Navy: We’re 4 Years Away From Laser Guns on Ships

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author March 30, 2012 | 4:30 pm

Video here: http://bcove.me/ks5uudi7

The dream of sailors, nerds and sailor-nerds everywhere is on the verge of coming true, senior Navy technologists swear. Within four years, they claim they’ll have a working prototype of a laser cannon, ready to place aboard a ship. And they’re just months away from inviting defense contractors to bid on a contract to build it for them.

“Subsonic cruise missiles, aircraft, fast-moving boats, unmanned aerial vehicles” — Mike Deitchman, who oversees future weapons development for the Office of Naval Research, promises Danger Room that the Navy laser cannons just over the horizon will target them all.

Or they will be, if ONR’s plans work out as promised — not exactly a strong suit of proposed laser weapons over the decades. (Note the decided lack of blast at your side.) First step in reaching this raygun reality: Finish up the paperwork. “The contract will probably have options go through four years, but depending on which laser source the vendors pick, we may be able to demo something after two years,” says Roger McGiness, who works on laser tech for Deitchman. “Our hope afterwards is to move to acquisition.”

Translated from the bureaucrat: After the Office of Naval Research can prove the prototype works, it’ll recommend the Navy start buying the laser guns. That process will begin in “30 to 60 days,” adds Deitchman, when his directorate invites industry representatives for an informal idea session. Deitchman and McGiness plan on putting a contract out for the prototype “by the end of the year.”

If this sounds like a rapid pace of development for the ultimate in science fiction weaponry, there are two major explanations why the Navy thinks the future makes a pew-pew-pew noise. The first is technological. The second is bureaucratic.

From a technological perspective, the Navy thinks maritime laser weapons finally represent a proven, mature technology. The key point came last April, when the Navy put a test laser firing a (relatively weak) 15-kilowatt beam aboard a decommissioned destroyer. Never before had a laser cannon at sea disabled an enemy vessel. But the Martime Laser Demonstrator cut through choppy California waters, an overcast sky and salty sea air to burn through the outboard engine of a moving motorboat a mile away. You can see video of the successful demonstration above.

The bureaucratic reason has to do with a decision inside the Office of Naval Research to focus its laser efforts with laser-like precision. For over a decade, it’s dreamed of creating a massive, scalable laser weapon, called the Free Electron Laser, that can generate up to a megawatt’s worth of blast power. Currently, the laser blasts 14 kilowatts of light — think 140 lamps, all shining in the same direction and at the same wavelength. A hundred kilowatts is considered militarily useful; a megawatt beam would burn through 20 feet of steel in a single second.

The Free Electron Laser has its critics, including a Senate committee. And it was sucking up all the oxygen inside the Navy’s laser efforts. So, as InsideDefense.com first reported, ONR decided, effectively, to break them up into the laser equivalent of weight classes. Generating a 100-kilowatt beam is now the province of “solid state lasers,” lasers that focus light through a solid gain medium, like a crystal or a optical fibers. The Free Electron Laser, which uses magnets to generate its beam, will stay focused on getting up to a megawatt.

That, the Navy’s scientists contend, will get an actual, working laser cannon onto a ship faster. Yes, a 100-kilowatt laser isn’t as powerful as the longed-for megawatt gun. And yes, a solid-state laser can’t operate on multiple wavelengths, while a Free Electron Laser can, making the mega-laser more useful when the sea air is full of crud and pollution. But the Office of Naval Research says that lots of active, near-term threats to ships will be vulnerable to the 100-kilowatt, solid state laser.

“It’s easier to shrink down a solid-state laser [to get on a ship], and there’s a maturity here, vice the Free Electron Laser,” says Deitchman. “The solid-state laser will still deal with many asymmetric threats, but not the most hardened, most challenging threats. It’s near-to-mid term. The Free Electron Laser is still long-term.”

There’s another advantage to developing a less-powerful laser first. The Navy’s surface ships don’t yet have the power generation necessary for spooling up a megawatt-class laser — or at least not if they don’t want to potentially be dead in the water. That’s one of the reasons the Senate Armed Services Committee is skeptical of the Free Electron Laser. It’s not clear that the ships can cope with diverting 100 kilowatts of power, either, but the Office of Naval Research thinks they can, and the laser geeks are “working closely” with the Naval Sea Systems Command to make sure the scientists are writing checks that the ship’s generators can cash.

But perhaps even more important is the fact that the Navy brass is on board with a concerted push for a new generation of shipboard weapons. “This was a decision by the Office of Naval Research,” Deitchman says, “that was approved and supported by senior Navy leadership.” The Navy may be set on a smaller fleet, but apparently it wants that fleet making pew-pew-pew noises.

buglerbilly

31-03-12, 09:19 AM

March 29th, 2012

06:50 PM ET

Navy ships out radar system ahead of North Korea launch

By Barbara Starr

The U.S. military is sending its most advanced radar system to the Pacific region ahead of North Korea's expected launch of a long-range missile in mid-April, according to a senior U.S. Navy official.

The Sea-Based X-Band Radar sits atop a floating platform and has the ability to search and track targets. In addition, the system can communicate with potential U.S. interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, that could shoot down a target missile. But the North Koreans have said they plan to launch their missile in a southerly direction, which would mean it is highly doubtful the intercept capability would be needed or used.

The U.S. military will not officially say the radar is being deployed for the North Korean launch, but one senior U.S. official called the SBX-1 deployment "precautionary." Both officials declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the information.

The Navy official acknowledged that the SBX-1 set sail from Pearl Harbor on March 23. The platform can operate hundreds of miles from the target area it is scanning, so it is not expected to sail close to North Korea.

Military officials have said they are worried the North Korean missile might be so unreliable that debris could fall on a number of Asian countries rather than into the ocean as the North Koreans have said.

SBX-1 is at best an odd-looking military asset. The platform is 240 feet wide, 390 feet long and 280 feet high from the keel to the top of the radar dome that sits on top of the platform. It is staffed with a crew of 86 military and civilian personnel. In 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered it to sea in advance of a North Korean missile launch at that time.

buglerbilly

03-04-12, 12:46 PM

Walter Pincus - Fine Print

Shipbuilding seminar on the Hill

By Walter Pincus, Tuesday, April 3, 8:41 AM

A two-hour seminar on the complex, multibillion-dollar U.S. Navy shipbuilding program took place on Capitol Hill recently.

It illustrated the issues that Pentagon officials face when dealing with current financial and political pressures while guessing what the military threats will be 20 and 30 years into the future.

The seminar professors were Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, and Vice Adm. Terry Blake, a deputy chief of naval operations with a fancy title who is really the service’s chief budget officer.

The students were lawmakers on the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower and projection forces.

Subject of that day: President Obama’s $13.5 billion fiscal 2013 shipbuilding budget. The students had many questions, and Stackley and Blake offered frank, clear answers.

First, Stackley provided background that showed the amazing number of ships being built and future plans. The Navy today is “a battle force of 282 ships, nearly half of which on any given day are underway performing missions around the globe,” he said.

Over the past year “two destroyers, a submarine [and] a dry-cargo ammunition ship have joined the fleet.”

He added that the amphibious assault ship USS San Diego will be commissioned this spring, along with six other ships.

He also noted that “keels have been laid” for the lead ship of the DDG-1000-class destroyer ($3 billion); plus the next littoral combat ship ($48.7 million); another Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine ($2 billion); and the next cargo ship.

Since December 2010, contracts have been awarded to procure 38 ships. That number grows to 40 shortly with the award of the next-generation large-deck amphibious assault ship, as well as the final ship of the earlier-version amphibious assault ship.

The fiscal 2013 budget seeks 10 additional ships. But that actually represents a reduction of $1.5 billion and one ship from this year because of cuts required by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Since Navy ships take years to build, reductions next year affect future shipbuilding, starting with fiscal 2014.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), chairman of the subcommittee, asked about a planned Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine that was being pushed from the 2014 fiscal budget to the fiscal 2018 budget. That move broke a pattern of buying two a year with target prices of $2 billion each. It saves $200 million or more per submarine and stabilizes the shipyards building them.

“Is there some way, perhaps, that we could try to move that up so we stay on that two-year build cycle?” Akin asked.

Stackley explained that other priorities within the fiscal 2014 budget made it impossible to fund another Virginia submarine and another destroyer that year. Don’t be surprised if Congress comes up with funds for the slipped submarine.

Akin asked: If there were more shipbuilding money available, would “the first thing you get [be] an extra submarine?”

Stackley’s reply: “Yes, sir.”

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), whose district includes Newport News, home of the shipyard building the new aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, noted that of the 91 ships to be built over the next 10 years, 31 are to be smaller Littoral Combat Ship Class (LCS) vessels.

Wittman said: “I understand the budget restraints that we’re in right now. . . . [But] is this [emphasis on LCS vessels] in the best interest of national security?”

Stackley explained that LCS vessels fill “war fighting gaps” around the world, where their effectiveness in relatively shallow seas gives them capabilities for surface warfare.

He then pointed out that destroyers are now performing operations and responding to events “that an LCS in theater would be quite suited for.”

Stackley noted, “We have a high-end, roughly 300-man crew on a $1.5 billion warship [a destroyer] responding to an issue that we’d really prefer a $500 million ship with a 75-man embarked crew [an LCS] taking care of.”

Rep. Rick Larson (D-Wash.) asked whether the decision to delay procurement for two years of the new Ohio-class strategic submarine was made in conjunction with U.S. Strategic Command, which runs the nation’s nuclear intercontinential ballistic missile operations.

Stackley said the command “was fully involved in the decision,” which slipped the first new submarine from fiscal 2019 to 2021.

He explained that in the 2030s there would be “a temporary reduction to 10 available SSBNs,” or strategic submarines, rather than the planned 12 for the second half of this decade.

Of course, who knows what the requirement for nuclear warheads will be in 20 years.

Stackley had earlier said the procurement delay for the new Ohio-class submarine still left money for research and development.

“We’ve got to take advantage of the additional time to work on [the submarine’s] technology development, design maturity, retiring risk, so when the time comes [that] we award that boat, we are staring at a much more mature, more complete design so we can execute on schedule.”

That remark reflects problems he has dealt with on complex weapons systems. They are systems such as the new carrier, which has nearly a $1 billion overrun because the Navy tried to include many advanced elements that still are under development or not fully tested.

Stackley and Blake took legislators to school, but who knows how good what kind of students they’ll be on the challenges of the multi-dimensional, multibillion-dollar process of shipbuilding.

buglerbilly

06-04-12, 01:47 AM

Lockheed Martin awarded new contract to modernize USN MH-60 fleet

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

2 hours ago

Source:

The US Navy has granted Lockheed Martin a $1.05 billion contract to "definitize" a previous award to install common cockpits and mission avionics for the service's Sikorsky MH-60R and MH-60S helicopter fleets.

"This contract represents the Navy's commitment to build and field the most technologically advanced maritime helicopter fleet in the world," says Rear Adm Paul Grosklags, vice commander of the US Naval Air Systems Command.

According to Lockheed, the multi-year contract includes 162 cockpits, integrated missions systems and sensors for the MH-60R variant, which is the version tasked with anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare missions.

But there are also 62 digital cockpits for the MH-60S helicopters, which are used for ship-to-ship cargo resupply, search and rescue, and close-in defence of navy vessels.

Dan Spoor, Lockheed's vice president in charge of the MH-60 avionics programme, says that the multiyear contract saves the USN more than 10% a year in costs.

buglerbilly

06-04-12, 10:37 AM

Huntington Risks Losing $194 Million on Navy Carrier Cost

By Tony Capaccio - Apr 6, 2012 12:37 AM GMT+0800

Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII) stands to loss as much as $194.3 million, more than 40 percent of its potential fee, under the Navy’s latest estimate of overruns for the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier.

Construction of the Ford, the Navy’s most expensive warship, is likely to exceed by $884 million the shipbuilder’s target contract cost of about $5.2 billion for detailed design and construction, according to Navy officials and the service’s Selected Acquisition Report, obtained after it was delivered to Congress on March 29.

Construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy’s most expensive warship, is likely to exceed by $884 million the shipbuilder’s target contract cost of about $5.2 billion for detailed design and construction, according to Navy officials and the service’s Selected Acquisition Report. Photo: Huntington Ingalls

The Ford is intended to be the first in a $40 billion, three-ship class of carriers. Its rising costs have brought questions from Republican Senator John McCain about the Navy program and the shipbuilder’s performance. McCain of Arizona, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has asked the Government Accountability Office for a review.

Huntington’s performance on costs “has stabilized but has a long way to go to turn it around,” Sean Stackley, the Navy’s assistant secretary for acquisition, said in an interview. The company and Navy aren’t in agreement on what the carrier’s final construction cost will be, he said.

Under the carrier contract, the Navy would pick up $689.7 million of the overrun that is now projected as “most likely,” with the remaining $194.3 million subtracted from potential maximum construction fees of $467 million for Huntington Ingalls of Newport News, Virginia. The carrier is about 40 percent complete.

Complex Work Ahead

Huntington Ingalls shares fell 1.3 percent to $39.79 in New York trading at 12:31 p.m.

“Reduced fees, especially with so much ahead on this ship, is not a positive for the stock,” Heidi Wood, a Morgan Stanley defense and aerospace analyst in New York said today in an e- mailed statement. Further cost increases on the carrier are likely given the “highly complex integration work yet to be done,” said Wood, who rates Huntington Ingalls as neutral and doesn’t own shares.

The company would earn 50 cents of every dollar it shaves from the $884 million projection, according to Stackley. If costs rise still further, “they are at a point in the contract where they share 50/50,” he said.

Company’s Comment

“We continue to see improvements in our performance on the carrier,” Huntington Ingalls spokeswoman Beci Brenton said in an e-mailed statement

“Although this is a ‘first-in-class’ ship with the unique challenges, we anticipate we will increase efficiencies and continue to retire risk in the three years that remain until delivery,” Brenton said.

The Ford’s total projected cost has increased 18 percent in four years to $12.3 billion from $10.4 billion, according to Navy budget figures cited by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. That includes systems that won’t be provided by Huntington Ingalls, such as the nuclear reactor to power the ship, a dual-band radar from Raytheon Co. (RTN) and an electromagnetic aircraft-launching system from General Atomics of San Diego.

“There will be some meaningful profit implications for Huntington as such a vast increase implies both parties are due for some pain,” said Wood, who called Stackley “very disciplined” in overseeing costs.

Cost Controls

The Navy already has taken action against the shipbuilder. Last year it didn’t let the company bill $75 million in fees because of the overrun projections, and that money has been forfeited, Stackley said.

Other cost-control initiatives include designating a Huntington senior vice president and a superintendent to oversee costs, specifying labor-cost targets and intensely reviewing specifications for the vessel, according to the Navy.

The latest overrun estimate stems from “material cost growth, labor inefficiencies” and increases in one-time engineering costs, according to the Navy document.

The labor “inefficiencies are the result of ‘first of class’ challenges,” including production issues such as the use of thin-plate steel and weld distortion, the Navy wrote.

Labor Costs

Huntington Ingalls “has had 10 consecutive months of improvements in meeting cost targets,” Rear Admiral Tom Moore, the Navy’s program executive officer for carriers, said in an interview. “If they continue the trend they are on, I’m comfortable we will come in under the ’most likely’ $884 million estimate.” Still, he said the company won’t meet the original targets.

On labor, the company also is moving closer to the goal of 40 million man-hours on the next carrier, the CVN-79, from an earlier estimate of 53 million, Moore said. “I need to drive them down further.” A man-hour is the work one person does in an hour.

The company would receive the minimum fee allowed, about $196 million, if its performance deteriorates and the construction exceeds a worst-case overrun of $1.1 billion by completion in mid-2015, according to Stackley, who called that an unlikely outcome.

The minimum covers “a couple percent of profit,” he said.

The Navy disclosed in February that it was adding $811 million to the Ford’s budget through 2017 to cover increases, including $273 million directly tied to the construction overrun.

Huntington Ingalls was spun off by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) in March 2011.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

06-04-12, 03:22 PM

Drones Will Seek Pirates at Sea

April 06, 2012
UPI

The U.S. Navy says it will begin tests of airborne pilotless drones equipped with sensors that could distinguish small pirate boats at sea from other vessels.

Airborne tests of the Multi-Mode Sensor Seeker will take place this summer, the Office of Naval Research reported Thursday.

Placed on a robotic helicopter called Fire Scout and carrying advanced automatic target recognition software, the sensor will allow the helicopter to autonomously identify small boats on the water, reducing the workload of sailors operating it from control stations aboard Navy ships, researchers said.

"Sailors who control robotic systems can become overloaded with data, often sifting through hours of streaming video searching for a single ship," said Ken Heeke, program officer in ONR's Naval Air Warfare and Weapons Department.

"The automatic target recognition software gives Fire Scout the ability to distinguish target boats in congested coastal waters using LADAR, and it sends that information to human operators, who can then analyze those vessels in a 3-D picture."

The target software compares the 3-D imagery to vessel templates or schematics stored in the system's memory, researchers said.

"The 3-D data gives you a leg up on target identification," said Dean Cook, a researcher at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division said. "Infrared and visible cameras produce 2-D pictures, and objects in them can be difficult to automatically identify."

© Copyright 2012 UPI. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

07-04-12, 01:48 AM

Next Gen U.S. Destroyers Already Questioned

Apr 6, 2012

By Michael Fabey
Washington

Questions over cost and risk are already threatening the U.S. Navy’s Flight III version of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyer fleet while the program is still in the service’s developmental womb.

Military analysts for a host of government watchdog agencies such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have questioned the Navy’s Flight III plans for some time, but it is the GAO review released earlier this year that highlights newly emerging cost and schedule risks.

One big worry is the Flight III ship design’s ability to handle the proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)— the cornerstone for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) strategy for the nation and the Navy—given the Burke hull’s lack of room for additional equipment.

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget request includes no slowing in funding for the DDG-51 or AMDR programs. Navy and industry officials say the Burke will be able to support AMDR and BMD needs—but GAO’s findings dispute that contention.

Also, as the GAO notes in its January report, Navy officials acknowledge the Burke may have to be stripped of other combat capabilities to accommodate the new missions.

There is a lot riding on Flight III development—from international BMD missions to tens of billions of dollars of U.S. investment in nearly two dozen of the advanced Burkes. The Navy estimates Flight III research, development and procurement costs to range from $58.5 billion to $64.1 billion in constant 2012 dollars.

But, as GAO notes, that figure has already grown. “The Navy estimated in its 2011 long-range shipbuilding plan to Congress that these same 22 ships would cost approximately $50.5 billion in constant 2012 dollars.

“Depending on the extent of changes to [the] hullform, the Navy may need at least $4.2 billion to $11.4 billion more to procure DDG-51 Flight III ships.”

Some of those changes could prove extensive. One Navy assessment team’s technical study found that the introduction of AMDR on DDG-51 leads to “significant” risks in the ship’s design and a reduced future capacity, according to GAO. And it could result in design and construction delays and cost growth on the lead ship.

AMDR has its own risk and cost issues, according to congressional and other analysts. The Navy estimates that AMDR will cost $2.2 billion for R&D activities and $13.2 billion to procure—at most—24 radars.

The Navy has already begun buying more Flight IIA Burkes—and started AMDR development to prepare for the future enhanced-BMD missions the service plans to do. Altogether, the proposed acquisition programs for the ships, radars and combat systems could be worth $121.8 billion or more, according to a DTI analysis of government data. Add in the missiles the government plans to buy and that total could rise to as much as $127.3 billion. The destroyers, cruisers and other surface combatants could make up about a third of the Navy’s total fleet.

The reality is, however, that the Navy may be low-balling those DDG-51 cost estimates.

According to the Navy’s analysis, GAO says, selecting the DDG-51 hullform to carry AMDR requires significant redesign and reduces the ability of these ships to accommodate future systems. This decision also limits the radar size to one that will be, at best, marginally effective and incapable of delivering the capabilities that the Navy would like to have.

Further, GAO says, the Navy may have underestimated the cost of Flight III. The agency questions the Navy’s analysis to support its Flight III programmatic decisions thus far and whether the cost and schedule baseline are achievable, pointing out, “Flight III requirements are not yet known.”

But the Burke design is already affecting the AMDR. While the Navy would like a radar larger than 14 feet to defend against some of the expected threats, the ship will be unable to handle a bigger array, GAO says.

“The shipyards and the Navy have determined that 14-ft. radar arrays are the largest that can be accommodated within the confines of the existing DDG‑51 configuration,” GAO reports. “Adding a radar larger than 14 feet to DDG-51 is unlikely without major structural changes to the ship.”

One of the biggest concerns is that the Burke is already packed tight with equipment and crew to perform current missions. “DDG-51 is already the densest surface combatant class,” GAO reports. Indeed, Navy officials have known how cramped the ship is for more than five years. The DDG-51 design is about 50% more dense and complex than for modern international destroyers, GAO adds, citing a 2005 Pentagon-sponsored shipbuilding study. And denser ships are harder and more costly to build. Some deckhouse redesign will be necessary to add the additional radar arrays for AMDR, GAO notes.

Moreover, GAO says, “the addition of AMDR and the supporting power and cooling equipment will significantly impact the design of Flight III.”

Navy officials say a hybrid electric drive is being researched for Flight III, and the service has awarded a number of contracts to study concepts. But that just means more design changes, the GAO points out. “Adding hybrid electric drive would require additional design changes to accommodate the new motors and supporting equipment.”

Those are not the only changes likely to be needed.

“The addition of equipment to Flight III adds weight to the ship, and adding the large, heavy AMDR arrays to the deckhouse will also change the ship’s center of gravity,” GAO says.

The ship is already heavy. “According to Navy data, delivery weight of DDG‑51s has gotten considerably heavier over the course of building the class, with current -51s weighing approximately 700-900 long tons (a measure of ship displacement) more than the first DDG-51s,” GAO notes.

GAO further reports that Navy officials say the only way to preserve the ship’s center of gravity would be to use aluminum or composites for the deckhouse, but it does not look like the Navy is ready to make that change.

Instead, the service may take a different course. “The Navy also told us that removing combat capability from DDG-51 may be required in an effort to manage weight after adding AMDR, effectively reducing the multimission functionality of the class,” GAO says.

One way to design a larger ship would be to put a “plug,” a vessel insert, in the ship to lengthen it. But GAO says, “Navy officials have stated that adding a plug to DDG-51 is not currently a viable option due to the complexity, and that a new ship design is preferable to a ‘plugged’ DDG-51.”

One possible Flight III requirement that could require a longer hull would be the ability to support the Navy’s long-term shipboard laser programs, especially fiber solid-state lasers (SSLs) well above 100 kw in power, as well as free electron lasers (FELs), notes the CRS.

Not surprisingly, there already is growing concern that the Flight IIIs may be short on firepower (as noted by CRS) and congressional researchers say Congress could decide to lengthen the hull to include 32 additional Vertical Launch System (VLS) missile cells in the forward part of the ship, which could further increase the ship’s cost.

While the Navy does not plan to buy any Flight IIIs until fiscal 2016, CRS notes, budgets starting in fiscal 2011 “will increasingly commit the Navy to this path” despite other alternatives.

CRS adds that “the question of whether to develop Flight III DDG-51 or pursue an alternative path, such as developing a new-design destroyer, could have substantial and long-lasting effects on the Navy.”

The Navy has already gone far down the Burke path, revamping the old destroyer line, letting out new contracts for Flight IIAs and starting research for the Flight IIIs. The service’s fiscal 2013 request also includes about $3.5 billion for two DDG‑51s and advance procurement/economic order quantity funding as part of the fiscal 2013-17 multiyear procurement contract.

While the Flight IIA is a known, proven design, congressional analysts wonder and worry what the cost will be —in funding and capability—to design, build and deploy an AMDR-equipped Flight III.

“Above all else, the ship has to be affordable,” cautions Brad Hicks, vice president of business development for Lockheed Martin Mission Systems & Sensors’ Integrated Warfare Systems & Sensors business. Lockheed is one of the companies vying for the AMDR contract.

It can be too easy to get caught up in the glamor of technology, says Michael Petters, CEO of Huntington Ingalls Industries, one of the Burke’s shipbuilders. Worrying too much about radar development, he says, could keep ships from being built.

Congressional analysts and researchers say the Navy needs to do a lot more homework before committing to the Burke Flight IIIs.

Photo: US Navy

buglerbilly

09-04-12, 10:56 PM

Navy Hopes Increased Funding Keeps Ships in Shape Longer

April 09, 2012

Stars and Stripes|by Erik Slavin

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan -- Like some of the senior sailors who walk its deckplates, the USS Blue Ridge did a little weightlifting recently to stave off the physical decline that sometimes comes with getting older.

Machines stacked tons of varying weights aboard each side of the 7th Fleet command ship at a Yokosuka drydock, while a survey team collected data that could help the ship remain on active duty well after its current crewmembers call it a day.

The Blue Ridge is now scheduled to keep sailing through 2039, 70 years after it launched from Philadelphia and decades beyond its original retirement date.

It is an unprecedented lifespan for a ship of its caliber in the modern Navy.

It is also doable, Navy officials say, with the proper maintenance -- something top admirals have conceded that the service did a subpar job of ensuring for decades.

Navy officials say the qualitative problems plaguing ship maintenance have been addressed, but analysts are split over whether the funding that maintenance is receiving is enough to keep the service dominant in hot spots like the Pacific waters, where territorial squabbles and China’s growing military might have U.S. allies in the region concerned.

During the last two years, 24 percent of the 59 ships reviewed by the Navy Board of Inspection and Survey were given marks of either “degraded” or “unsatisfactory.” The Navy did not respond to numerous requests for the data cited in the Navy review.

Those deficiencies are the product of a long record of risky maintenance policy, said Peter Daly, a retired vice admiral who left the service in 2011 as deputy commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Daly, now CEO of the U.S. Naval Institute, said surface ship maintenance has been underfunded for at least 20 years.

“People saw readiness funding as a competitor for buying new ships,” Daly said.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the Navy had removed so much money and so many workers from repair facilities and ships that their maintenance data was incomplete, leading service officials to believe that ships were better off than they were, which led to further maintenance budget cuts.

The systematic flaws were identified by 2008, Daly said. The Navy commissioned a panel led by retired Vice Adm. Phillip Balisle to study the budgetary and manning problems, which were detailed in a 2010 report.

Daly, echoing Navy leaders who testified before Congress last year, said that more sea billets and better inspections provided in the past few years have fixed the maintenance process. In the short term, that means inspections are likely to find more unfit ships.

Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, head of Naval Sea Systems Command, told Congress in July that numbers on ship readiness “may turn a little harsher” before the reforms take hold.

“We are not good to go,” McCoy said.

Even with better methods in place, the budget picture remains murky.

The 2013 budget sent to Congress by the president would increase ship maintenance spending by 12 percent, to about $5.1 billion, excluding ship depot funding. The bump means that 43 ships are scheduled to undergo some type of maintenance period in 2013, up from 23 in 2012, but far fewer than the 86 serviced in 2011.

The budget proposal is still too low to fix the Navy’s maintenance woes, said Mackenzie Eaglen, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington, D.C.

“The Navy’s been stressed past the breaking point for the past four years,” said Eaglen, a staff member on the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel. Poor fleet readiness statistics “aren’t going to change much because the budget needle didn’t move enough.”

The 2013 budget was crafted before the president’s Jan. 5 strategic guidance outlining the Pentagon’s new emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region.

“Subsequent budgets could be expected to show relatively greater future investments in capabilities needed in the Asia-Pacific region,” said Jan van Tol, a retired captain who commanded the USS Essex in Japan and is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Increased movements and operations in Asia would also require maintenance budget increases. That could ultimately benefit the Blue Ridge, which Navy engineers acknowledge needs a lot of work to keep sailing, even if operations stay at their current level.

A 2011 Navy plan would place the Blue Ridge in nine- to 12-week maintenance periods annually through 2026, at an average cost of $6.9 million each year.

Before much of that work begins, the engineers need to know whether the ship is imbalanced, which is why they stacked all of those weights on the ship’s deck. An imbalance can leave a ship listing dangerously in rough seas.

“The ship has been around [40-plus] years now,” said Lt. Jerry Belmonte, the ship’s damage control assistant. “A lot of additions and equipment have possibly offset the center of gravity of the ship. For us to get an expanded lifespan, we need to know where the new center of gravity is.”

The Blue Ridge’s hull is in good shape, according to engineering surveys. If the ship receives periodic system upgrades and proper inspections continue, the ship should be able to sail through 2039, Daly said.

However, some doubt remains as to whether the money to maintain the Blue Ridge and other long-in-the-tooth ships will be there in the future, as lawmakers continue attempts to curtail federal spending.

“The thing that keeps me up at night is whether [Congress] will come back to defense again and break the military capability that we need for the nation,” Daly said.

Even if the Blue Ridge gets the money that engineers anticipate it will need, it may need more if the Navy pushes it too hard, as it has been doing to multiple ships in the fleet.

In July, McCoy warned that the Navy’s operations tempo, where ships average about 40 percent of their time on deployment, was unsustainable.

The Blue Ridge spent 28 percent of 2011 engaged in operations and 40 percent of the year at sea or otherwise away from its homeport, according to Navy figures.

Van Tol mainly attributes the higher overall tempo to commitments in Central Command, which includes the Middle East and Horn of Africa.

However, van Tol said that operational demands on the 7th Fleet could increase if China returns to the pattern of belligerent behavior it displayed in 2010, which included incidents at sea with U.S. ships and disputes over territory with U.S. allies.

“There is certainly a current tension between increased commitments globally and the need to do recurrent maintenance,” van Tol said. “As material problems accumulate or are allowed to get worse, the cost of fixing them increases, so it’s a classic case of, ‘Pay me now, or pay me later.’

“That’s the constant trade-off Navy leadership is faced with,” van Tol said.

buglerbilly

12-04-12, 05:31 AM

France tests U.S. Navy’s supersonic sea skimming target

As part of a foreign military sales case, the U.S. Navy's GQM-163A Coyote Supersonic Sea Skimming Target is launched from a French air defense destroyer during a live fire presentation in France April 4. (Photo courtesy of French DGA)

Apr 11, 2012

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printNAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – As part of a foreign military sales case, the U.S. Navy worked together with French military to execute France’s first aerial target live fire event using a GQM-163A Coyote Supersonic Sea Skimming Target (SSST) April 4.

France’s military procurement agency Delegation Generale Pour L'Armement (DGA) worked with representatives from the Navy Aerial Target and Decoy Systems program office (PMA-208) and Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) of Chandler, Ariz., to provide the GQM-163A SSST for a live presentation on a military test range off the coast of France.

The foreign military sales case, which began in 2006, included procurement of one GQM-163A SSST, lease of support equipment and range integration. DGA, NAVAIR and OSC stood up the SSST launch capability on the Mediterranean island of Levant in 2011, one of only three GQM-163A launch sites worldwide.

“Such a complex test would not have been possible without the expertise and will of a whole and diverse team, made of people from NAVAIR, Point Mugu, Orbital, the U.S. Embassy in Paris, the French Navy, the French Missile test center, the French Embassy in Washington and many others,” said Col. Mathieu Fossat, assistant Defense Cooperation attaché for French naval and air systems.

During this highly technical test, a first for Europe, the target was used to simulate an anti-ship cruise missile threat whose speed and evasive maneuvers compress the amount of time a defense system has to react. Shortly after the target launched, a French air defense destroyer, Forbin, intercepted the Coyote target with an Aster 30 surface-to-air missile.

Clay Myers, PMA-208 FMS lead who witnessed last week’s launch, said he and the team received very positive feedback from French representatives on site. The target was in the “green zone” for the duration of the flight, meaning it was where it was expected to be, he added.

“We are pleased the SSST presentation was useful to DGA’s evaluation effort and look forward to working with them in the future, said Capt. Dan McNamara, PMA-208 program manager. “The entire team of French and U.S. professionals who worked for the past five years to achieve this success should be congratulated.”

PEO(U&W) Public Affairs
(301) 757-9703

buglerbilly

14-04-12, 12:16 AM

Lockheed: Aegis getting even better, but limits in sight

By Philip Ewing Friday, April 13th, 2012 2:43 pm

Lockheed Martin’s newest edition of Aegis will be the best it’s ever been, a top company official said Friday, but there’s only so much more that software and other upgrades can do with the existing radars aboard U.S. Navy and international warships.

Jeff Bantle, the company’s vice president for naval combat and missile defense, told reporters that Aegis Baseline 9 will bring new levels of game-changery to cruisers and destroyers: It will be able to do air defense and ballistic missile defense simultaneously; use remote sensor data from tomorrow’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft; give greater detail when tracking targets; and be simpler and easier for crews to maintain.

“I tell everybody: It’s really not your mother’s Aegis,” Bantle said.

Aegis has already demonstrated its ability to launch on remote in a missile defense test, he said — last year, a Navy ship launched an interceptor against a ballistic missile target with no sensor data of its own. Engineers hope to take advantage of that capability in air warfare as well. As part of the Navy’s plan for integrated fire control, a D-model Hawkeye could spot a threat and order a launch hundreds of miles beyond an Aegis ship’s own sensors, greatly increasing the range of safety for a carrier strike group.

Just like Leica lenses, Baseline 9 will be both backward– and forward-compatible, he said — the Navy can install it on its early model cruisers and destroyers and also put it to sea aboard its new run of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, starting with the very first ship, the USS William S. Sims.

Baseline 9 will sail first aboard the cruiser USS Chancellorsville, which is getting its upgrade now, and then later aboard the destroyer USS John Paul Jones.

Bantle said the latest version of Aegis will be much simpler than the earlier mods, which packed otherwise brand-new ships with a Radio Shack hodgepodge of vacuum tubes, amplifiers and ENIAC-level computing equipment. That complexity — along with Big Navy rollbacks of training and manning — has meant that Aegis has become a maintenance challenge for the surface force. As such, Capability 9 includes a “readiness and supportability maintenance system,” Bantle said, which will help crews diagnose faults, deal with repairs and generally have an easier job running their systems.

So — another rejuvenation for the world’s greatest seagoing combat system. Built to defend carrier groups from Soviet missile attacks in World War III, now Aegis can launch on remote and shoot down intermediate-range ballistic missiles. But there’s only so much the SPY-1 radars on the cruisers and destroyers can do, which is why the Navy wants it future generations of ships to carry new ones.

“We’re now getting to the limits of how much energy that antenna can put out,” Bantle said of the SPY sets. Hence the Air and Missile Defense Radar, for which Bantle said he expects a request for proposals “real soon.”

That, however, is a whole different story.

buglerbilly

16-04-12, 10:13 PM

A Shipshape Fleet: An Interview with U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy

NAVSEA Commander Talks About What It Takes To Build, Maintain Navy’s Ships

Apr. 16, 2012 - 08:58AM
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

U.S. Navy Electronics Technician 1st Class Cheyenne N. Shasky points out combat systems equipment to Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. McCoy visited the ship March 20 to see the progress of Theodore Roosevelt’s overhaul. (MC2 Christopher Church / U.S. Navy)

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) oversees the construction and maintenance of the ships of the U.S. Navy, from nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers to minesweepers and patrol boats. Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy is in his fourth year as commander of the organization and has been asked to stay on an extra year.

Q. What are your top funding issues?

A. We’re trying to figure out the right mix of people, ships, programs, readiness, logistics, maintenance to respond to taskings by combatant commanders that continue to keep us at a very high operating tempo. We’re coming off 11 years of war, and more and more of our readiness accounts were bolstered by supplemental funding. In fiscal 2013, 20 percent of our maintenance funding for ships is in overseas contingency funding. And if that money is not provided by the Congress, then the majority of our surface ships are not going to get maintained in 2013.

Q. But with elimination of the overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget, that’s supposed to slide into the regular budget.

A. Except somebody needs to agree that our top line goes up by that number. It’s easy to say “put that in your base,” and the base not get changed. Part of our challenge is how we take all that’s been in the OCO, fold it in the base and still live within the top-line constraints.

Q. Since the budget was submitted in February, the movement of four minesweepers and more coastal patrol boats to the 5th Fleet in Bahrain has been announced, along with a new Afloat Forward Staging Base ship. How will you pay for that maintenance?

A. Right now we’re working through that piece. There are some reprograms that’ll have to happen. We’re going through everything from maintenance, where the crews are going to live, what the pier services look like, host-nation support, who’s going to do the maintenance. None of that is hard or a showstopper, but there are some budget transfers we’re going to do to make that possible.

Q. The minesweepers and PCs are not big ships, but they’re not new, either.

A. In the last three weeks, I walked three ships — the carrier Theodore Roosevelt at Newport News, the PCs Tempest and Thunderbolt in Norfolk repair yards. And in the next five days, I will walk three more ships — the third one will be another PC at Norfolk. I’m spending a significant amount of my time on PCs. Essentially they’re at the end of their service life. We’re doing a whole strengthening modification. They’ve been ridden very tough, and we’ve got a significant amount of fundamental steel that has to be replaced. We’re doing that now before we send them forward.

It’s a similar thing with mine-sweepers. I’ve probably had three or four meetings on basic reliability issues for them. In a typical week, I am now spending a lot of time on PCs and minesweepers.

I’ve probably had three or four emails with myself, [Pacific Fleet commander] Adm. Cecil Haney and [Chief of Naval Operations] Adm. Jonathan Greenert on minesweeps in the last three weeks — making sure we’re all in sync, that NAVSEA is addressing the concerns about some of the things on board.

This is a direct reflection of Adm. Greenert’s focus on operating forward, and this organization is responding to that.

Q. You have dealt with significant first-of-class design and construction issues on several new ship types, including San Antonio-class LPD 17 amphibious ships and the littoral combat ships (LCS). In recent years, you also dealt with the need to rebuild N

A. We still have LCS to get out there and get deployed. [The aircraft carrier] Gerald R. Ford is a first of class, clearly. DDG 1000 destroyer, ship-to-shore connector, joint high speed vessel, all new classes.

But by and large, we’re still dealing with significant technical issues in terms of fleet introduction. Nothing insurmountable, but we need engineers. We’re still in that care and feeding of a lot of new ships.

We’ve plussed-up SupShip [the Supervisor of Shipbuilding] by about 20 percent. We were too low. Not only didn’t we have the right numbers but we didn’t have the right focus. Now we’ve got a common set of metrics with the shipbuilder and the Supervisor of Shipbuilding. They’re reacting now to low trip-wires, they’re comparing their data. The data generally match, which is good — independent looks by SupShip, independent looks by the shipbuilder.

On the LPD 17 class, I think we’ve come through those issues. We put LPD 22 through an additional trial prior to delivery, essentially to make sure the propulsion plant had much more of an endurance run. After that, we did some diesel tear-downs on both the main propulsion diesels and the main diesel generators and looked at bearings and things like that. It got the best [inspection] we’ve ever had on an LPD 17-class ship.

So, knock on wood, with all our processes and checks, I’m confident that those nagging issues from new construction are behind us.

Q. Dealing with LPD 17 took a major effort.

A. I’ve been in this job going on four years. Two months into this job, I had the worst breakfast of my life, with photographs laid out across my desk of lube oil pipes that separated on the first deployment of San Antonio.

That started the journey as we pulled that thread that lead to pipe issues on the [amphibious assault ship] Makin Island, the other LPDs, some of the destroyers down at [Ingalls Shipbuilding]. It led to the whole quality focus and really getting us and the shipbuilder on a common set of metrics — and then getting my government team and the supervisor’s team intently focused on compliance oversight.

I did three independent, large audits for about a week at a time, over about a two-year period. And every time we found a problem, went back seven or eight months later, made sure it was corrected, that all the trends were in the right direction. We’re going back again this fall on an audit to make sure we’re still on an upward trend on the entire yard, Avondale and Pascagoula, everything they do. I also audit my supervisors’ oversight of the contractor. We’ve put them through kind of a get-well program, and we’re seeing the results of that product and it’s very good.

Now, talking about people: I had about 250 engineers in 2005-2006. Now, we’ve got about 500 engineers just in our base engineering group today. And if you look at our warfare centers, we’ve plussed them up on the order of about 7 percent. So it’s an 18,000-member organization that went up about 7 percent in our technical capability. We took advantage of the support for growing the acquisition workforce.

Q. One problem with hiring new engineers is that of finding qualified U.S. citizens in the engineering schools. How have you dealt with that?

A. We established a program at the University of Michigan with a consortium of about 15 schools where we have scholarships for folks to come into the naval architecture pipeline. And we give them unclassified but real Navy projects to go work on. There are not a lot of U.S. citizens in this country taking naval architecture. So we’re trying to build a cadre of folks to come do this work.

We have a very strong relationship with historically black colleges and universities. Just about a hundred percent of their graduates are U.S. citizens. And we fund 46 NAVSEA scholars at historically black colleges and universities and bring them into our business. Compared to some of the bigger-name schools, they’re a great place to get U.S. citizens to do this business.

I think we’re OK now. We’ve looked at this several times in bottom-up reviews. And there is a limit to what the budget will bear.

Q. A major upcoming project is design work on the Flight III destroyer, incorporating the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). Will increased power requirements mean much redesign from the existing Arleigh Burke Flight IIA?

A. Hybrid drive has great potential to not only propel the ship with the gas turbines secured, but also to feed back into the ship’s propulsion plant and provide 2.5 to 3 megawatts for radar power, directed-energy power, things like that. But we’re still trying to understand the electrical loads. We’re not through all of that.

My sense is in the end, it will look a lot like a DDG 51, fundamental hull.

Q. What changes are you making to how you do ship maintenance?

A. It’s probably the thing I’ve spent most of my time on.

I came to this job from being the chief engineer. I started asking if we were really serious about getting our surface ships to their expected service life. It’s a pretty darn long time — 35 years for a DDG 51, 40 years for a Flight IIA. In the past, we kept our combatants in service for about 25 years.

So what’s the plan? We were not doing it like we do submarines and aircraft carriers, where we have rigor, technical discipline behind class maintenance plans.

It’s taken several years to get the programming right, but we have it right now. In fiscal 2013 we have in the budget full funding for maintenance. I don’t know the last time we’ve done that.

Now when we bring a ship into dry dock, we’re doing 5,000 and 6,000 ultrasonic tests on hull thickness and structural member thickness, and inspecting all the tanks. We’re seeing the effect of deferred maintenance in the past, and we’re dealing with it.

But we have a plan in place now where I can look the chief of naval operations in the eye and say, “We know how to get our ships to the end of service life. Here’s the plan, here’s the cost for it, here’s what we have to fight for every year.”

And we’re regrowing the regional maintenance centers. I’ve got approval to take them up by about 1,100 people, military and civilian.

Q. An issue to deal with in the regional centers is that of local practices and a resistance to central authority.

A. You’re like my straight man. I put an energetic officer, Rear Adm. Dave Gale, in charge of Navy regional maintenance centers. Dave is now off on common training, common processes across all these centers. We had gotten into kind of a localized way of doing business, and it was costing us. Dave is now into training modules for quality assurance specialists and engineers, how they function on the waterfront. What’s mandatory work? When do we do it? How do we keep track of it? We’re bringing those together and trying to run it now as a national organization.

buglerbilly

17-04-12, 11:51 AM

The Navy Kicks off the Search for Its Next Fighter

Speaking of F/A-XX, the Navy’s planned 6th generation fighter that will replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, below you’ll find the Navy’s brand new Request for Information on the aircraft. By Brand new, I mean it just dropped on Friday.

Whatever jet is selected will hopefully replace the Super Hornets around 2030, said Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis this afternoon at the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference in National Harbor, Md. Before the Navy can settle on the final capabilities such a plane will have, it needs to know what types of technology the defense industry can bring to the table for a brand new fighter that will be fielded in less than two decades, said Gaddis. The new jet must be able to survive in anti-access environment, have next-gen sensors and maybe even the ability to ‘buddy’ refuel other fighters and perform airborne early warning (AEW) duties, according to Gaddis.

Here’s what the actual RfI says the service wants in the new jet:

The intent of this research is to solicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN based aircraft to provide multi-role capability in an A2AD operational environment. Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS). Also consider the ability of your concept to provide other capabilities currently provided by strike fighter aircraft, such as organic air-to-air refueling (AAR), Tactical Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA), and airborne electronic attack (AEA). The trade space refinement activity will characterize a broad tradespace, to include unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft. System attributes and system capabilities will be considered in the context of cost and affordability. Concepts that are derived from legacy aircraft, “clean sheet” new design aircraft, as well as innovative technology concepts specifically tailored for the operational context are all relevant. Please provide a separate white paper for each technology concept or family of related and complementary technology concepts; multiple white papers may be provided.

In any case, the Navy’s going to be studying the available technologies to build the Super Hornet replacement — that may well still be manned — for years since it will have such a big impact on the makeup of the 21st Century carrier air wing, according to Gaddis.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/the-navy-kicks-off-the-search-for-its-next-fighter/#ixzz1sIGvX3Mf
Defense.org

buglerbilly

17-04-12, 11:56 AM

Concept Plane Eye Candy: Boeing’s F/A-XX

While we’re on the topics of new Boeing jets, let’s take a look at the latest evolution of Boeing’s concept for a 6th-generation manned, carrier-launched strike fighter dubbed F/A-XX.

We saw the first drawings of the concept jet in 2010 during the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference in National Harbor, Md. This year’s conference saw the Chicago-based company unveil a model of the plane.

Click through the jump for more pics (forgive the quality, I took them with an iPhone).

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/concept-plane-eye-candy-boeings-fa-xx/#ixzz1sIHd6qE0
Defense.org

buglerbilly

17-04-12, 10:55 PM

Navy Eyes Apache Helo's Guns for Use at Sea

April 17, 2012

Military.com|by Matthew Cox

The Navy is looking at arming its patrol boats and helicopters with the same withering firepower carried aboard the Army’s AH-64 Apache gunship helicopters.

ATK Armament Systems has modified its venerable M230 30mm chain gun to give naval forces a more potent alternative to the .50 caliber machine gun.

For years, the Navy has admired the Apache’s powerful, nose-mounted 30mm cannon, but the Navy’s strict safety guidelines make the M230’s electrically-primed firing system unsafe for use aboard surface vessels.

As a potential solution, the Navy awarded ATK a contract roughly two years ago to develop a version of the M230 with a more traditional, percussion-primed system.

The new M230LF is still an electrically powered chain gun, capable of firing the potent 30mm ammunition at a rate of 200 rounds per minute.

“Everybody loves that high-explosive, dual-purpose round,” Lisa Brown, business development director for ATK’s Guns Segment, said April 16 at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space trade show. “The .50 caliber round probably shoots father, but the size bullet on the lightweight 30mm is much larger. … It would be perfect for a light patrol boat.”

The M230LF, which could also be mounted aboard the Navy’s Sea Hawk helicopters, features an improved recoil system and a 60-inch barrel for increased accuracy, according to Eric Rogers, a retired Marine Corps gunner who does business development for ATK’s Integrated Weapon Systems branch. The Apache’s 30mm cannon sports a 45-inch barrel.

The M230LF also has a linked-ammunition feeding system, similar to most machine guns. The Apache’s M230 has a link-less system that’s much more complex, Brown said.

“Ammunition has to be uploaded while the bird is on the ground into a link-less magazine which is attached to the gun,” she said. “A link-less system is also very bulky and typically heavy.”

In addition to its new naval application, the M230LF can be used in ground combat applications, ATK officials maintain.

“A lot of people want that same gun on Humvees and also at force-protection” positions on the perimeter at forward operating bases, Brown said.

The Kuwaiti military has fielded a version of the new M230LF, and there has been “a lot of international interest” in the system, she said, adding that the gun will likely “be fielded sooner offshore” to other friendly countries.

While it’s still early in the program, ATK officials are working with Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Systems Command develop the M230LF for military use, Brown said.

ATK will spend the next nine months test-firing the new chain gun at various temperature extremes and other conditions, but a formal testing timeline is difficult to predict in the current atmosphere of shrinking defense spending, Brown said.

© Copyright 2012 Military.com. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

17-04-12, 10:57 PM

The Navy’s Newest Drone Chopper

Yup, the Navy is moving ahead with its plan to replace it’s relatively small MQ-8B Fire Scout drone helicopters with an unmanned version of the Bell 407 chopper, dubbed the MQ-8C Fire Scout (sometimes FireX, that will carry increased cargo and more than double the robot chopper’s endurance.

“We’ve been asked to carry more packages on-board the aircraft, we’ve been asked for more endurance especially in high-hot environments, and so because of that we got an urgent requirement to upgrade the aircraft to give us greater endurance,” said Rear Adm. William Shannon III, program executive officer for the Navy’s unmanned aircraft and strike weapons programs during the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space Conference in National Harbor, Md. “As a result of that we are in the process of signing a contract with Northrop Grumman that would ostensibly swap out the airframe [for the Bell 407]; 95-percent of the software remains the same from [the original Fire Scout]; all the links, all the comms systems, all the avionics remain the same. Essentially, what we’ll do is swap out the air vehicle, the airframe, with a Bell 407, and we’ll go from about six-hours of endurance to about 14-hours of endurance. For those of you that are familiar with vertical lift and helicopters, that’s pretty remarkable. About a six-to-seven hundred pound payload and 14 hours of endurance.”

The MQ-8C will replace the smaller MQ-8B as a robot helicopter supporting special operations forces with everything from ISR overwatch and cargo resupply to close air support with rockets and missiles by 2015, according to Shannon.

Click here to read about the recent crashes involving the smaller Fire Scout.

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/10/navy-grounds-firescout-drone-choppers/

The Bell 407 is basically an upgraded version of the civilian chopper that the Army’s OH-58 Kiowa Warrior attack scout helo is based on. I’ve got to wonder, how long will it be before we see other, previously-manned weapon systems like say M1 Abrams tanks become unmanned and sent downrange?

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1sKybf6CB
Defense.org

buglerbilly

17-04-12, 10:59 PM

Navy to Speed Up Carrier-Launched Combat Drone Program

That’s right, the Navy has been told by Pentagon brass to hurry up and figure out a way to get a stealthy, combat drone flying off aircraft carriers by the end of the decade service officials said today.

Two years ago the Navy announced that it planned on fielding a stealthy, fighter-size drone that could perform long-range reconnaissance and strike missions while operating from aircraft carriers, a project known as Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS). The service put out an RfI for the program and numerous defense contractors have begun preparing designs.

So, how does the sea service speed up the process?

It begins by figuring out exactly what it needs the new drones to be able to do and nothing more, a process known as “tightening the requirements.” This makes it easier for contractors to pitch the simplest possible design which should help reduce costs and delays. In addition to whittling down its requirements for the plane, the Navy has been told to streamline its actual acquisition process for the jet. We’ll see how it does that.

“We’ve had a statement of need from the Navy that was validated by the joint staff for UCLASS about three weeks ago … and we expect to get a memo that tells us to essentially streamline the acquisition on that program and move more quickly,” said Rear Adm. William Shannon III, program executive officer for the Navy’s unmanned aircraft and strike weapons programs during the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space Conference in National Harbor, Md. “We have the [analysis of alternatives] almost done on UCLASS and we’re looking at that and we’e looking at essentially making sure that we have managed the appetite on the requirements side and streamlined the acquisition process so that we can get it out to the fleet in a timely fashion.”

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1sKzBCMhf
Defense.org

buglerbilly

18-04-12, 11:26 AM

US Navy issues F/A-XX RFI

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

12 hours ago

Source:

The US Navy has issued a Request for Information (RfI) for a new fighter to replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s.

"The intent of this research is to solicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] based aircraft to provide air supremacy with a multi-role strike capability in an anti-access/area denied (A2AD) operational environment," the RfI reads. "Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS)."

But in addition persistent capability inside an enemy air defence system, the USN also wants the prospective aircraft to provide other capabilities found in existing strike fighters. These include organic air-to-air refueling, tactical reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition (RSTA), and airborne electronic attack (AEA).

However, the USN is not limiting itself to manned aircraft or to an entirely new jet.

"The trade space refinement activity will characterize a broad trade space, to include unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft," the document reads. "System attributes and system capabilities will be considered in the context of cost and affordability. Concepts that are derived from legacy aircraft, 'clean sheet' new design aircraft, as well as innovative technology concepts specifically tailored for the operational context are all relevant."

At a minimum, the aircraft should be able to operate from Nimitz and Ford-class carriers and should be a "complementary CVW [carrier air wing] asset to the F-35C and an unmanned persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) vehicle with precision strike capability."

The RfI sets a target initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2030 and will consider a prospective jet's capabilities, in addition to technical risks and total cost of ownership. "If a spiral approach to incorporation of systems and/or technology to achieve full operational capability is employed, provide the timeline to achieve full capability," the document reads.

But there is no programme just yet. "All we're looking for is information," says Rear Admiral Donald Gaddis, the Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR) programme executive officer for tactical aviation. "This particular AoA [analysis of alternatives] is going to be a long one," he adds.

Nonetheless, the earliest Super Hornets will be reaching the end of their 9000-hour life spans by the 2030s. Those aircraft will have to be replaced, but their successor will be defined as much by what industry believes as possible as the USN's own projected needs, Gaddis says. But he is willing to say that those requirements will call for far greater kinematic performance and increased range.

The industrial base, however, is of serious concern, Gaddis says. Boeing, he says, may not be around as a fighter design entity as the F/A-XX programme is assembled and the technology--to include advanced airframes and engines--to build the jet is matured. "I think that's going to be something [Office of the Secretary of Defense] is going to have to think about," he says.

That is also something the US Air Force will have to contend with on its nascent F-X programme to replace the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

It is also conceivable that the Department of Defense might compel the USAF and USN to do a joint AoA, Gaddis says. "But I think the attributes of a carrier aircraft and an air force programme maybe different," he says. "But there is always that potential."

In addition to the F/A-XX, Gaddis says that the USN's Northrop Grumman-built C-2 Greyhound carrier cargo-delivery aircraft will have to be replaced. The service is conducting an analysis of alternatives to figure out what it needs to do. Gaddis says any such programme would have to wait until the "next decade," but there will be a "full and open competition."

Meanwhile, NAVAIR's programme manager for the Bell-Boeing V-22, Marine Col Greg Masiello is pitching the tilt-rotor as the best, most natural, replacement for the aged C-2s. The V-22 has recently been certified to operate from the decks of USN carriers and would give the navy enormous flexibility, he says.

Additionally, the USN should also be issuing a final request for proposal for the next generation jammer programme to equip the EA-18G fleet in June, Gaddis says. The emphasis will be on getting a "mid-band" capability out to fleet by 2020, but there will also be a strong focus on affordability.

buglerbilly

18-04-12, 11:32 AM

Northrop Grumman will roll-out the first US Navy MQ-4C in June

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

10 hours ago

Source:

Northrop Grumman will roll-out the first US Navy MQ-4C in June, company and USN officials say.

The first USN test aircraft is about to enter ground testing, says Captain Jim Hoke, Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR) programme manager for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) unmanned maritime surveillance jet. "Our goal is to have the first flight in early fall," he says-his slides say that date is expected in September. But before then, Northrop Grumman is planning on formally rolling-out the aircraft on 14 June.

The BAMS is expected to become operational in December 2015 with a four-aircraft orbit. The USN hopes to have a five orbit fleet, Hoke says. It will take 68 aircraft to sustain that force over the programme's life due to potential attrition and depot maintenance. But no aircraft will be needed for training, he says, since crews can train purely in a simulator.

In the future, the BAMS will be used as communications relay and it will also takeover part of the Lockheed Martin EP-3 Aries intelligence gathering aircraft's mission, Hoke says. While he says he cannot talk about specifics, the BAMS will likely absorb a portion of the signals intelligence part of that mission.

Captain Aaron Rondeau, programme manager for the new Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft says that future Neptune crews could take partial control of the BAMS aircraft during a mission. That capability would be part of an Increment 3 upgrade for the P-8, Rondeau says.

buglerbilly

18-04-12, 01:51 PM

General Dynamics NASSCO Begins Construction of the Future USNS John Glenn

(Source: General Dynamics NASSCO; issued April 17, 2012)

SAN DIEGO --- General Dynamics NASSCO today began construction of the future USNS John Glenn, the second ship of the U.S. Navy's Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) program. The 765-foot long ship is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in the first quarter of 2014. When in service, the ship will be used as an offshore staging area for Navy and U.S. Marine Corps personnel and equipment.

NASSCO has construction contracts to build a total of three Mobile Landing Platform ships. The first ship of the class, the future USNS Montford Point, is currently 48 percent complete at the San Diego shipyard.

Once delivered to the fleet, MLP ships will join the Maritime Prepositioning Force squadrons that are strategically located around the world to enable rapid response in a crisis. These ships will provide a "pier at sea" that will become the core of the Navy/Marine Corps sea basing concept.

This capability will allow prepositioning ships to offload equipment and supplies to the MLP for trans-shipment to shore by other vessels.

-ends-

buglerbilly

23-04-12, 12:44 PM

Study Highlights Importance Of Directed-Energy Weapons

By Richard Mullins richard_mullins@aviationweek.com

Source: AWIN First

April 20 , 2012

It’s time for the U.S. to start funding and fielding directed-energy weapons such as high-energy lasers and high-power microwave, a new study argues, and not just because they are cheaper than one-shot kinetic weapons.

The cost per shot for interceptor missiles is not only expensive—at least $9 million each—it puts U.S. forces on the bad side of what is called the “cost-imposition curve,” says Mark Gunzinger, author of “Changing the Game: The Promise of Directed-Energy Weapons,” the latest report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis.

Presenting the report April 19, Gunzinger described scenarios where an enemy could keep launching cheap missiles at U.S. forces. Without directed-energy (DE) weapons to counter them, U.S. commanders could be forced to answer each with an expensive SM-3 or SM-6. In cost-imposition terms, an enemy need only spend a little to make the U.S. spend a lot.

Besides overcoming serious operational disadvantages, DE weapons offer many advantages. A DE-equipped cruise missile or UAV could fly over two dozen targets and fire on all of them. And the UAV could fly back, get a battery recharge and return to the attack. And a DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyer could power and support a high-energy solid-state laser, Gunzinger says.

Overall, DE weapons offer the U.S. military the opportunity to “buy back its freedom of action and shift the cost-imposition calculus in its favor,” he says.

There are challenges to bringing DE weapons to field, but the technology is essentially mature, according to the report. Meager funding and institutional resistance are the biggest obstacles.

“We can’t pour enough concrete in the Pacific [area] to harden our bases,” Gunzinger says, or buy enough kinetics to meet the threats posed by precision-guided missiles and state and non-state actors with guided rockets, artillery, missiles and mortars.

There are advantages in the defensive use of DE weapons for logistics, Gunzinger says. A tanker so-equipped could penetrate further into the conflict arena, which in turn would give tactical fighters more range.

Directed-energy weapons are complementary, the study emphasizes. They will not replace kinetic weapons. Even when you can toast a rocket’s sensors or fry a communications link or maybe melt a mortar round, there are still going to be times when commanders will need kinetic weapons to blow some things to pieces.

Gunzinger advocates an advance on the technology behind the Large Airborne Infrared Countermeasures system, improving it to defend against guided weapons with multimode seekers. This kind of defense is vital for a large, slow target, he says, like a C-17 on approach.

The cancelation of the Airborne Laser program was due largely to trying to make too big a first technology step, report co-author Chris Dougherty says—like trying to conquer Mount Everest before proving you could climb a small hill.

During their research, Gunzinger and Dougherty talked with program managers, almost all of whom have seen their science and technology budget lines dry up. They would ask each one how much they need to effectively keep the research going. The answers were consistent—some small number like $20 million—and surprising: the managers were talking five years, Dougherty said, not a single year.

buglerbilly

25-04-12, 10:43 PM

U.S. Seapower Markup Sets Submarine Minimum

Apr. 25, 2012 - 01:15PM

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

A minimum of 12 U.S. ballistic missile submarines must remain in service for the foreseeable future, a key congressional committee said, despite U.S. Navy plans to drop below that number beginning in 2029.

The provision is included in the markup of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, which was released April 25.

Although 14 Ohio-class “boomers” are now in service, the fleet is scheduled to begin shrinking in 2027 as the oldest units are retired. Current Navy plans show the force dropping to 11 ships in 2029 and reaching 10 ships in 2032, where the level holds for a decade before starting to rise again as new replacement submarine come on line.

The markup — the first legislative process in assembling a defense authorization bill to send to the full House of Representatives — also approves a Navy request for a new multiyear procurement (MYP) authority for Virginia SSN 774-class attack submarines. The subcommittee granted MYP authority for 10 submarines beginning in 2014, and allows for incremental funding of the ships.

Other Navy-related provisions in the markup include:

• Authorization of an MYP for up to 10 Arleigh Burke DDG 51-class destroyers and allowance of $3 billion for two ships in the 2013 program, the first year of the MYP.

• Granting an extension of the incremental funding of the future aircraft carriers CVN 79 and CVN 80 from a five-year period to a six-year period.

• Limiting spending on the refueling and complex overhaul of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to $1.6 billion in 2013, the first year of a two-year incremental funding profile.

The markup also requires additional risk-reduction technology development for the follow-on aircraft of the Unmanned Carrier-launched Surveillance and Strike system — currently in technology development as the X-47B aircraft — and requires a “competitive acquisition environment” for the program. The markup notes the change in terminology from a “future unmanned carrier-based strike system” to “unmanned carrier-launched surveillance and strike system,” indicating an increased emphasis on the surveillance role.

It also repeals a provision in the 2008 defense authorization law that required all new classes of combatant strike vessels to be nuclear-powered, a pet project of former Seapower subcommittee chairman Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who was defeated in the last elections.

The markup also directs the Navy to report on the issue of ship superstructure cracking, with an emphasis on the choice of superstructure material for the DDG 51 Flight III-class ships, the first of which is scheduled to be ordered in 2016. The subcommittee wants information “comparing the estimated construction costs for a deckhouse made of each of the three materials, or even a possible hybrid of two or all three, and then compares the estimated lifecycle costs for the designed life of the ship.”

The markup makes no mention for producing any other information other than cost factors.

The full committee will hold its formal markup sessions on April 26.

buglerbilly

27-04-12, 03:19 PM

Austal Begins Final Assembly of JHSV 3

Christening ceremony for USNS Spearhead, the first Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV 1). (Photo: Austal)

JHSV 3 one of five Navy Vessels Under Construction at Austal USA

13:56 GMT, April 26, 2012 The third Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) is taking shape on the waterfront in Mobile, Alabama. The first of 43 modules for JHSV 3 have been successfully transported from the Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF) and erected in the final assembly bay on the waterfront.

The most recent module transported, at just under 90 per cent complete, is 20.4 metres long with a maximum width of 8.3 metres and is 9.4 metres high from keel to main deck. The module weighed just under 46 tonnes at time of erection.

JHSV 3 is one of five Navy vessels currently under construction at Austal’s Mobile, Alabama shipyard. Construction on JHSV 3 began in October 2011 and this module is one of the first that will be erected for the JHSV 3 Keel Laying Ceremony scheduled for May 3, 2012.

Austal was selected as prime contractor in November 2008 to design and build the first JHSV, with options for nine additional vessels expected to be exercised between FY09 and FY13 as part of a program potentially worth over US$1.6 billion. Austal has received construction contracts from the Navy for nine of the ten vessels.

For further information on the JHSV, please go to http://goo.gl/VbNzG.

buglerbilly

27-04-12, 03:23 PM

The Newest Thing in Navy Warships

Concept for the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class destroyers. (Photo: Bath Iron Works)

Good golly Miss Daisy who'd ha thunk it........:rofl

08:25 GMT, April 27, 2012 This is not your father’s Navy warship. Well it’s not my father’s either – since he’s never owned one – but you get my point. Check out the new digs on the Navy‘s wave of the future. Isn’t she a beauty? I’d like to introduce you to (the rendered conception of) the DDG 1002 Zumwalt Class Warship. It’s the latest thing in intimidating, high tech maritime awesomeness.

Or it will be, once construction is completed.

The Zumwalt, taking shape at Bath Iron Works, is the biggest destroyer ever built for the U.S. Navy. DDG 1000 is the first of a new class of warships in the US Navy’s revolutionary vision for 21st Century surface combatant designs. What does that mean?

So glad you asked…

The ship is designed as a multi-mission destroyer able to provide independent forward presence and deterrence. It’s also designed to operate as an integral part of a joint or multi-national naval task force. The primary mission emphasis is on land attack, maritime dominance and joint interoperability. This will enable the DDG 1000 to control the littoral battlespace and deliver more ordnance on target over a broader range of military objectives than any surface combatant ever put to sea.

Basically, it’s a multi-purpose, water-treading, techno-ship capable of handling multiple situations with equal levels of stealth, firepower and let’s face it, finesse. No other ship balances power and class on the high seas quite like this baby.

The Zumwalt’s new technology will allow the warship to deter and defeat aggression and to maintain operations in areas where an enemy seeks to deny access, both on the open ocean and in operations closer to shore, the Navy says. The warship is looking to get some pretty sweet features, too. We’re talking a wave-piercing hull, electric drive propulsion, and advanced sonar.

Oh, and let’s not forget the rocket-propelled warheads that can shoot as far as 100 miles.

This thing is longer and heavier than its predecessors, by the way, but only needs half the crew size. Why? Well a lot of this ship will rely on automated systems.

This warship integrates numerous critical technologies, systems, and principles into a complete warfighting system. These include employment of optimal manning through human systems integration, improved quality of life, low operations and support costs, multi-spectral signature reduction, balanced warfighting design, survivability, and adaptability.

Talk about swift, silent and deadly.

“DDG 1000 is a vessel that fits within our Defense Strategic Guidance. With its stealth, incredibly capable sonar system, strike capability, and lower manning requirements – this is our future,” said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations. The Zumwalt-class ships are being built with modern, modular shipbuilding methods, allowing for construction of much larger units with greater degrees of outfitting achieved prior to ship assembly.

So when does this behemoth hit the international waves?

DDG 1002 is expected to deliver to the Navy in fiscal year 2018. It might be a few years away, but we’re already seeing a trend toward technology-driven visions for the future of the military. What’s next? Bullet proof armor suits? Robots integrated into the ranks? Illogical-but-still-awesome jet packs become standard GI issue?

Okay, maybe not the last one, but I believe that the future of the force is going to utilize the best and brightest in technology and people.

I gotta say, with this warship on the future maritime playing field, Battleship is never going to be the same.

Information for this article provided by the Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communications

----
Jessica L. Tozer
Armed With Science

(Jessica L. Tozer is a blogger for DoDLive and Armed With Science. She is an Army veteran an avid science fiction fan, both of which contribute to her enthusiasm for technology in the military.)

buglerbilly

01-05-12, 05:25 AM

Testing complete, new missile defense technology to be loaded on Navy ships

By Matthew M. Burke
Stars and Stripes

Published: April 29, 2012

SASEBO NAVAL BASE, Japan — The U.S. Navy has finished testing the next generation of its Aegis ballistic missile defense system and given the green light to put it on at least nine cruisers and destroyers by 2015, officials said.

The Aegis BMD system is a collection of sensors, computers, weapon launchers and weapons with the ability to track a missile or rocket via satellite and shoot it down.

The second-generation system, built by Lockheed Martin, provides advanced missiles and improved target identification capabilities, as well as computer and software upgrades, officials said.

The Yokosuka-based USS Shiloh, a Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser, was the first ship to receive the new $50 million system after the initial testing phase.

“This will improve the capability of the Aegis BMD fleet to counter missile threats, regardless of theater,” the U.S. Navy 7th Fleet spokesman, Lt. Anthony Falvo, wrote in an email to Stars and Stripes. With the advanced missile, the system is more capable of targeting and intercepting a ballistic missile threat than preceding systems, Falvo said.

Evaluations and tests on the system were formally completed March 29 but weren’t announced until April 18, five days after North Korea attempted to launch a rocket into space. The rocket — which the U.S. believes was designed to test the North’s long-range missile capabilities — blew up minutes after liftoff.

U.S. Navy officials declined to comment on how this new system might change the game in regard to combatting future North Korean threats.

Between the U.S. and Japanese navies, there are 27 Aegis-armed ships that are operationally deployable, four of which have been provided to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, Lockheed Martin officials said in a news release.

Design of the new system began in 2004, according to Samantha Un, a spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin.

The USS Lake Erie received the system in an engineering form three years ago and has “been to sea” six times to track 16 ballistic missiles of varying complexities with varied success, Un said. In March 2011, the Lake Erie successfully intercepted a cruise missile using the new system, but failed to intercept a medium-range separating ballistic missile in September.

Despite its failed test, Un said, the new system worked with the SM-3 Block IB missile and thus performed well enough to continue development.

The new system is slated to be installed on two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers this year, Falvo said.

burkem@pstripes.osd.mil

JKM Mk2

01-05-12, 12:28 PM

Just as an observation that photo at the top of the page of Northrop-Grumman's first MQ-4C has an Australian Roundel if I'm not mistaken!

JKM

buglerbilly

03-05-12, 10:59 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Platforms and Upgrades Will Change Electronic Warfare

Posted byDavid A. Fulghum9:16 AM on May 03, 2012

The U.S. Navy's F/A-XX strike fighter, the EA-18G Growler, an unmanned combat aircraft (currently exemplified by two X-47B test platforms) and a nascent arsenal of specialized air-launched standoff weapons are all part of a new emphasis on exploiting the electro-magnetic spectrum.

Airborne electronic warfare is growing quickly in part because its definition has been expanded to include electronic and cyber attack.

The discipline now encompasses electronic attack (which includes jamming and spoofing), electronic protection against jamming and cyber attack and offensive cyber capabilities to attack enemy networks. In addition, the Navy has just issued a request for information (RFI) for the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) that will greatly improve the electronic attack capability of the Growler.

Navy officials are reluctant to talk about possible F/A-XX capabilities but aerospace industry officials contend that some capabilities will be similar to the F-22. The new strike-fighter design will likely fly faster, higher and farther into the threat ring than other Navy aircraft. That will produce an increase in its radar and infrared detection horizons and allow it to pinpoint targets for weapons launched from non-stealthy designs at lower altitudes and farther from the target. Another capability is expected to be the ability to slew sensors in unmanned strike and reconnaissance aircraft for realtime strike of popup targets.

“We’ll get the final request for proposals out sometime in June,” says Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, program executive officer for tactical aircraft at Naval Air Systems Command. “Our emphasis is getting NGJ out there by 2020. Everybody is excited about it.”

Another RFI that has just hit the street is for the F/A-XX, a replacement for the Super Hornet. The new aircraft is scheduled for operations in 2030-35.

“We’re looking at replacing the Super Hornet when it reaches 9,000 flight hr.,” Gaddis says. About 150 Super Hornets will be modified for a 10,000 flight hour life, says Capt. Frank Morley, program manager for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G.

“Attributes of the [F/A-XX] aircraft – speed, range, payload, growth – will be shaped by what else is going on. There is a lot of analytical work on manned and unmanned follow-on platforms, advanced networks and where we are headed with airsea battle.”

The desire to cut defense spending by adopting common programs also could become a factor in the Pentagon’s acquisition plans for new strike fighters. It could be that Congress and others may push for a joint F-X and F/A-XX competition.

“There’s always a chance,” Gaddis says. “I think that the Defense Secretary will want us to do a joint AOA. But the attributes of a carrier aircraft and an Air Force program may be different. We have to be ready for that.”

Yet another worry is that gaps will appear in the number of aircraft available for service if there is a long lag time between the end of Super Hornet production and the availability of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

“On the supersonic tactical aviation side, F-35 doesn’t [start replacing Super Hornets] until 2019. Does that leave a gap for when aircraft are actually available to the squadrons?”

As a result of the unknowns in future acquisition plans and budgets, the Navy believes it is necessary to continue investing in the Super Hornet flight plan. Upgrades are added and funded in increments.

buglerbilly

03-05-12, 11:02 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Electronic Blast Slated for Unmanned Attack Aircraft

Posted byDavid A. Fulghum9:48 AM on May 03, 2012

Most aircraft slated to go onto aircraft carries have to go through an electronic magnetic interference test that bathes the design in about 200 volts per meter.

But the test platform for the Navy’s unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (Uclass) aircraft program, will have to endure 10 times the electronic stress.

An X-47B test aircraft is being prepared for its move into the anechoic chamber at NAS Patuxent River, Md. It must be able to survive and operate in an environment of a stunning 2,000 volts per meter.

Undoubtedly that means the Navy wants a design for its unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft program that would be able to fire a permanently installed, rechargeable, anti-electronics weapon. Such a high-power microwave device could be used at close range against enemy systems – such as sophisticated, long-range air defenses – without damaging the UCLASS system’s own electronics.

“We will spend the better part of this spring doing electromagnetic compatibility testing,” says Capt. Jaime Engdahl who represents the unmanned combat air system demonstration (UCAS-D) program. “Does [the future unmanned carrier-launched surveillance and strike system (UCLASS) aircraft] have to be the [X-47B size]?” he says. “It was developed under the JUCAS program and was sized for an internal weapons bay to carry 4,500 lb. of weapons and some electronic warfare weapons.”

Congress is already weighing in on the Navy’s future unmanned strike options. A draft defines authorization bill keeps four major contractors – General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing – alive in the hunt for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike System (UCLASS) until 2016, stipulating that the program remain in the critical design review phase until that time.

Right now the Navy’s unmanned strike aircraft program is proceeding with two Northrop Grumman X-47B test aircraft. One (AV-1) is at NAS Patuxent River, Md. being readied for electro-magnetic interference (EMI) testing before beginning an autonomous aircraft carrier landing program. It is to demonstrate the very first carrier-based catapults and arrested landings in 2014.

The other (AV-2) is at Edwards AFB, Calif. in a flight test program and will eventually be used to autonomously find and rendezvous with two tankers, Engdahl says who provided an update on the unmanned combat air system demonstration program. That will be followed by an approach, a plug-in and the receipt of 3,000 lb. of fuel. One tanker will have a Navy probe and drogue refueling system. The other will have an Air Force type boom refueling system.

buglerbilly

04-05-12, 05:09 AM

Senior official raises F/A-XX doubts while retired USMC Generals question USN’s F-35 commitment

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC 4 hours ago

Source:

A senior US Department of Defense official is questioning how the US Navy will fund a next-generation replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Meanwhile, retired US Marine Corps flag-officers say that the USN's nascent F/A-XX effort demonstrates the service's lack of commitment to the carrier-variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The US Navy has issued a request for information (RFI) for a new F/A-XX fighter that would start to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030s--effectively starting the search for that aircraft's successor. The USN says that the F-35C will replace the earlier Boeing F/A-18A to D-model jets, but not the larger Super Hornet.

But how the USN hopes to pay for a new tactical fighter programme given the US' fiscal situation is an open question.

"There is no expectation of additional funds for this effort. It is also in direct competition with the next generation bomber for the USAF [US Air Force] and follow-on UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] platforms," a senior DoD official says. "Looking at CV[aircraft carrier] life plans and E/F life plans, points to a 2025 full-on RDT&E [Research, Development, Test & Evaluation] effort in order to meet a 2030 initial LRIP [low rate initial production]."

That, the official says, is "very optimistic."

©Boeing

A bigger problem is that the USN is working on the F/A-XX effort by itself. Not even the US Marine Corps, with which the USN's tactical fighter force is integrated, has had any input into the F/A-XX.

"They once again seem to want to go it alone," the official says, "Big mistake."

But the DoD has ordered the services to fund research and development efforts where ever possible in order to preserve the US industrial base for the future.

"Considering the guidance to fund science, technology and general RDT&E accounts, I expect DoN [Department of the Navy] will get support for this at some level," the official says.

Retired USMC Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former principal deputy director of the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), says that there are lots of reasons to be sceptical about the USN's ability to fund the F/A-XX.

"It's not going to happen," Gardner says. "There's not going to be any money there."

Gardner says that the USN will probably not have any money for the programme in the fiscal year 2014 budget. Nor is it likely that the USN will ever come up with the $20 billion to $30 billion in research and development dollars to fund an F/A-XX development programme.

Gardner estimates the total cost of a new F/A-XX programme to be more than $40 billion and yield a maximum of 150 aircraft. The unit cost, he estimates, could be as much as $125 million per jet.

The USN simply does not have the money to pay for F/A-XX. With the USN's ship-building budgets squeezed, Gardner says that naval aviation accounts will likely end up being raided to help pay for submarines and surface ships.

The only place the money can come from is from within the F-35 programme, Gardner says. "There is a community over there that says 'let's just skip the F-35C, let's just keep buying F/A-18s and we'll go and develop this other airplane,'" he says.

"That's very dangerous for the carrier because it makes the carrier irrelevant. They are not going to have first-day capability. I'm absolutely convinced that if you do not have stealth by the year 2022 to 2025 you will be irrelevant."

Lt Gen George Trautman, a former USMC deputy commandant for aviation, concurs.

"It sort of validates the naval aviators' overall lack of commitment to the F-35," he says. "It shows how much they're in bed with Boeing to include a whole host of retired navy aviators who work for Boeing. And it shows, frankly, their lack of commitment to unmanned systems."

Gardner concurs that the USN's relationship with Boeing is playing a role in the service's push towards a new tactical fighter programme.

"I think it's Boeing. There is a huge Boeing lobby in the navy," Gardner says. "That has a lot to do with it."

The senior DoD official, however, does not believe that the USN is trying to abandon the F-35C or that the F/A-XX threatens the overall JSF programme.

"I don't think it will suck up JSF money," he says. "It would have to come from S&T [science and technology] investments."

The USN, for its part, strongly defends its support for the F-35C.

"The RFI to which you refer does not affect in any way the Navy's continued strong support for our F-35 program of record," the USN says. "The AoA [analysis of alternatives] will study manned, unmanned, and optionally manned alternatives to fill capability requirements associated with a predicted 2030 threat and service life expiration of the Super Hornet airframes."

The service notes that the RFI specifically calls for an F/A-XX aircraft that is complementary to the F-35C. The USN adds that it takes about 20 years to develop a new aircraft.

©Lockheed Martin

Gardner says that the USN needs to be careful when embarking on a programme like the F/A-XX. Given the likely cost of developing a new sixth-generation fighter, the service won't be able to buy the 450 to 500 jets it would need to replace the Super Hornet on a one-for-one basis.

"At best this would be some kind of exotic silver-bullet, one squadron per carrier, capability," Gardner says. "I think they ought to be focusing their intellectual as well as their financial resources on making the F-35C the airplane they want it to be."

There are options to increase the F-35C's range, persistence and stealth, Gardner says.

The F-35C would give the USN the volume it needs to recapitalize its tactical fighter force and keep it relevant against future threats, says Gardner-himself a former naval aviator. It would also allow the navy to recapitalize its tactical aviation fleet before the bill comes due to pay for a new USN ballistic missile submarine in the 2020s.

"There is no clear need for the [F/A-XX] aircraft", Gardner says. "To be worthwhile it has to be sixth-gen, which no one even knows what that means," he says.

Trautman says that the USN could argue that an F/A-XX is a hedge against a potential failure of the F-35C to deliver or that emerging threats justify the effort.

The F-35, however, Gardner says, is superior to any potential threat for the foreseeable future.

Trautman says that the USN might become more amenable to operating the F-35C once the first fleet aviators have a chance fly the jet. "What I predict will happen is that when the F-35C starts flying, they're going to fall in love with it," he says. "They're going to realize that it's so much better than the Super Hornet that they'll they're going to want more of them."

buglerbilly

07-05-12, 02:23 PM

Austal Sets Keel of US Navy's JHSV 3

Keel-laying ceremony for the third Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). (Photo: Austal)

Three Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) currently under construction

15:36 GMT, May 4, 2012 On May 3, 2012, Austal held a keel-laying ceremony for the third Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), one of nine Austal-designed 103-metre US Navy Joint High Speed Vessels under contract with the US Navy. Austal invited Representative Jo Bonner to authenticate the keel. He was assisted by Jeff Cellon who is an “A” Class welder that has been part of the Austal team since May of 2010.

A traditional keel-laying ceremony marks the first significant milestone in the construction of the ship. Due to Austal’s modular approach to ship manufacture, 32 of the 43 modules used to form this 103-metre aluminum catamaran design are already being assembled. For Austal, keel-laying marks the beginning of final assembly. Five modules have been moved from Austal’s Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF) and erected in the final assembly bay in their pre-launch position. The rest will follow over the coming months.

“Fifty-three years ago, when there were 860 ships in the fleet, a relatively small combatant, the USS Eversole, was at the right place at the right time, rescuing 14 fishermen from contested dangerous waters,” said Joe Rella, President and Chief Operating Officer of Austal USA. “The JHSV, as the future utilitarian workhorse of the support fleet, can serve a similar role, and help the US Navy be where it needs to be to prevent crises and to support the nation’s other national security priorities.”

Austal was selected as prime contractor in November 2008 to design and build the first JHSV, with options for nine additional vessels expected to be exercised between FY09 and FY13 as part of a program potentially worth over US$1.6 billion. Eight of the nine options have been exercised providing Austal with nine total JHSV construction contracts awarded to date.

The JHSV is a relatively new asset that will be an important Navy connector. In peacetime, JHSVs will be operating forward supporting Navy Expeditionary Combat Command and riverine forces, theater cooperating missions, Seabees, Marine Corps and Army transportation. Each JHSV also supports helicopter operations and has a slewing vehicle ramp on the starboard quarter which enables use of austere piers and quay walls, common in developing countries. A shallow draft (under 4 metres) will further enhance theater port access.

USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1) was christened on September 17, 2011, and successfully completed builders’ trials in April in preparation for upcoming acceptance trials. Austal held a keel-laying ceremony for Choctaw County (JHSV 2) in November 2011. This ship is about 77 per cent complete and scheduled for launch later this year.

Austal is also currently preparing a second US Navy Independence-variant 127-metre Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class vessel, Coronado (LCS 4), for builder’s sea trials. USS Independence (LCS 2) has transitioned to her home port of San Diego. As prime contractor for the next LCS 10-ship contract, awarded by the US Navy at the end of 2010, Austal has also begun work on the first ship of that contract, Jackson (LCS 6), with Montgomery (LCS 8), Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) and Omaha (LCS 12) also under contract.

For the LCS and JHSV programs, Austal, as prime contractor, is teamed with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics. As the ship systems integrator, General Dynamics is responsible for the design, integration and testing of the ship’s electronic systems including the combat system, networks, and seaframe control. General Dynamics’ proven open architecture approach allows for affordable and efficient capability growth as technologies develop.

Austal has grown into one of southern Alabama’s largest employers with over 2,800 employees on staff hailing from the Mobile Area, Mississippi, Florida, and beyond. Under the current workload, Austal expects to employ over 4,000 Americans by the end of 2013, and will be ready to help the US Navy meet any national security contingency ahead.

buglerbilly

07-05-12, 02:25 PM

CSG-1, Royal Australian Defense Forces Team Up

06:54 GMT, May 7, 2012 USS CARL VINSON, At Sea | USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) welcomed six Royal Australian Defense Force (RADF) officers aboard, April 29 - May 2, giving them an opportunity to observe a U.S. aircraft carrier in action as the ship continues its deployment in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations.

Royal Australian Navy (RAN) officers Lt. Cmdr. Michael Jagger, Lt. Daniel Boettger, Lt. Stephen Blume, Lt. Liam Walters; and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Lts. John Micuvand Chad Myles, have since participated in various simulated battle scenario exercises alongside Vinson and embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 17 Sailors.

Blume and Walters are both fighter controllers in the RAN, equivalent to a U.S. Navy air intercept controller (AIC). They participated in flight operations by assisting Vinson's AICs in the ship's Combat Direction Center, controlling live aircraft and communicating tactical maneuvers for air defense.

"When they go back to their ships, they are going to take some of the duties some of our cruisers [conduct] now for future joint exercises - [which is to] assist our aircraft carrier in communicating with our fighters where unidentified aircraft [are located]," explained Strike Group Air Intercept Control Supervisor Chief Operations Specialist Greg Glaeser, assigned to CVW-17. "Our fighters then find, identify and evaluate that unknown air contact to later determine what actions to take."

Glaeser said the Australians' transition to working Vinson's flight operations was seamless.

"They are very knowledgeable. They definitely know their job," Glaeser said. "Some pilots who participated in the flying events mentioned they performed an outstanding job."

Blume said this experience has increased his professional knowledge on a broader scale.

"This is the greatest thing that could have happened to me this year so far," Blume said. "It was something new for me."

Walter explained since the RAN does not currently operate aircraft carriers, the opportunity to participate in flight operations while out to sea is a rare one.

"We gain experience by working with the U.S. Navy, swapping techniques and just learning from each other," Walters said. "What better way to build relationships within our navies than to train together? We fight wars together, why not train together?"

Micu and Myles are air combat officers in the RAAF who conduct airborne early warning missions. They run the mission equipment and use radars to communicate with pilots.

Myles explained although they do not perform their job while out to sea, the knowledge they acquired from Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 125 will help them assist the RAN from their position on the shore.

"We do a lot of work with our navy and the U.S. Navy, as well. I work in an airborne commanding control platform," Myles said. "We are used to working with agencies from other countries."

Meanwhile, Jagger and Boettger, both meteorology operations officers, primarily worked in the Meteorology Room training Vinson Sailors to understand the region's weather dynamics, specifically dynamics surrounding Vinson's southern transit toward Australia. Jagger noted a numerical model is necessary in order to make weather predictions in the region due to a lack of real-time observation systems.

"There are slight differences between all these programs, and you can take different approaches to solving the weather. Our model is just for our (Australian) region. We successfully tweaked it over the years to give the best performance in terms of weather prediction," he said. "We are providing high-resolution models of what's happening in terms of wind, swell data, long-range forecasting, and then the U.S. Navy can compare it to their models back home and have the option to scale it."

U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Mike Svatek, assigned to Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 1 as a staff meteorology and oceanography (METOC) officer, worked closely with Jagger and Boettger. He explained their assistance and training in providing weather forecasting and oceanographic data not only helped out Sailors onboard, it also built closer partnerships within both the naval services.

"If there were real-world operations where partnership was required, the RADF are already tuned into our battle rhythm," Svatek said. "They understand what is expected, such as chain-of-command reporting, [and] briefing schedules. Therefore, they can coordinate their information-sharing with us and us with them. This understanding highlights the value of timely and accurate information sharing to the decision-making process and, ultimately, to mission accomplishment."

"We never pass up an opportunity to work with the United States Navy," Jagger added. "This experience allowed us to understand how you guys work, operations-wise, and vice versa."

----
Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Rosa A. Arzola, USS Carl Vinson Public Affairs / NNS

buglerbilly

09-05-12, 12:47 PM

Navy Wants Ultra-Violet Cloaking Device for Jet Fighters

By David Axe Email Author May 9, 2012 | 6:30 am

Navy fighters release IR flares. Photo: Navy

The U.S. military is already investing tens of billions of dollars to make its jet fighters less visible to radars and infrared sensors. Now the Pentagon wants the defense industry to come up with a system that can cloak fighters from another telltale type of radiation: ultra-violet energy from the sun.

The Navy’s latest solicitation to research proposals asks for a “UV obscurant device” that can be “dispersed from an aircraft.” The system should be compatible with the Navy’s existing counter-measures dispensers, which are currently tailored for releasing infrared flares and radar-foiling chaff to help warplanes dodge enemy missiles.

A UV cloak would complement the Navy’s other stealth initiatives. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the product of history’s most expensive weapons program, is designed to scatter and absorb radar waves while also sinking its engine heat into its fuel load in order to make the plane less visible to infrared sensors. The Navy plans to purchase hundreds of carrier-compatible F-35s at more than $100 million a pop.

But the F-35′s design apparently does not protect against ultra-violet sensors — that we know of. The Navy’s older Hornet fighters are probably equally vulnerable. The UV cloak seems to be a response to a particular type of “dual-band” missile seeker that zeroes in on infrared radiation at first, then switches to a UV sensor in the final moments before striking the target. The UV sensor works by looking for non-reflective shadows against the bright UV glare of the sky — like silhouettes against a lightboard.

An obscurant could blot out a plane’s UV silhouette in a shapelesss mass of ultra-violet shadow. “One concept might include a device that very rapidly generates an extended, dense cloud of material that absorbs in the UV region,” the Navy solicitation reads. The solicitation also lists “quantum dots” (tiny radiation-emitting crystals) and man-made “metamaterials” as obscurant options.

The obscurant would probably work on helicopters, too.

The solicitation does not specify a delivery timeframe or a cost cap. But if other forms of sensor-evasion are any indication, UV stealth won’t be quick, easy or cheap to develop.

buglerbilly

14-05-12, 10:15 PM

F/A-XX And Growler Will Drive Next-Gen EW

By David Fulghum

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

May 14 , 2012

David Fulghum/Washington

A shrinking defense industry may be jeopardizing key elements of the U.S. Navy's electronic warfare (EW) plans. Of most concern is the dearth of companies that are still capable of building strike aircraft—manned or unmanned.

By 2030, service leaders worry that there may be no competition for new designs. Boeing, for example, has already bought the last long-lead items for its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet line.

The F/A-XX strike fighter, which is to replace the Super Hornet, the EA-18G Growler, an unmanned combat aircraft (currently exemplified by two X-47B test platforms) and a nascent arsenal of specialized air-launched standoff weapons are all part of the Navy's new emphasis on exploiting the electromagnetic spectrum through airborne electronic exploitation.

The discipline of airborne EW now encompasses electronic attack (which includes jamming and spoofing), electronic protection against jamming and cyberattack, and offensive cybercapabilities to attack enemy networks.

The Navy just issued a request for information (RFI) for the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) that will greatly improve the Growler's electronic attack capability.

While the Navy is reluctant to talk about the F/A-XX, aerospace industry officials contend that some of its features will be similar to the F-22's. The new strike-fighter design will likely fly faster, higher and farther into the threat ring than other Navy aircraft. That will produce an increase in its radar and infrared detection horizons and allow it to pinpoint targets for weapons launched from nonstealthy designs at lower altitudes and farther from the target.

Another feature of the new fighter is expected to be its ability to remotely slew sensors in unmanned strike and reconnaissance aircraft for real-time attack of pop-up targets.

“We'll get the final request for proposals out in June,” says Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, program executive officer for tactical aircraft at Naval Air Systems Command. “Our emphasis is getting NGJ out there by 2020. Everybody is excited about it.”

An RFI for the F/A-XX also has just hit the street. The new aircraft is scheduled for operations in 2030-35.

“We're looking at replacing the Super Hornet when it reaches 9,000 flight hours,” says Gaddis says. About 150 Super Hornets will be modified for a 10,000-flight-hour life, says Capt. Frank Morley, program manager for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G.

“Attributes of the [F/A-XX] aircraft— speed, range, payload, growth—will be shaped by what else is going on. There is a lot of analytical work on manned and unmanned follow-on platforms, advanced networks and where we are headed with [the] AirSea Battle [concept].”

As a result, Navy officials are preparing for a long analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the F/A-XX with lots of excursions to determine the makeup of the future carrier air wing and the capabilities of a next-generation carrier battle group.

“We need it to have advanced sensors, be more transitional and provide access into the anti-access, area-denial environment,” says Gaddis says. “We're asking industry what this aircraft might have in terms of tanking, airborne electronic attack, ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and suppression of enemy air defenses.

“The resource team will be looking to increase kinematics, range, payload, bring-back weight, survivability growth and airframe [options],” he says. “But the biggest thing is to define the trade-space box and capabilities we want.”

While cost will be a major consideration, Navy planners also wonder how many of the major aerospace competitors will be left by 2020-30 to compete for a new program.

“If you want to know what I worry about, it's the industrial base as it relates to F/A-XX,” says Gaddis. “The true engineering and development cost [for F/A-XX] won't be [available] until next decade. Boeing's not going to be around next decade in terms of fighter design. The fighter industry and where it is going is something that [the Pentagon] will have to take a hard look at. I think the Air Force is going to have the same issue with its F-X program. [Defense officials] want competition, but where are they going to get it?”

The desire to cut military spending by adopting common programs also could become a factor in the Pentagon's acquisition plans for new strike fighters. It could be that Congress and others may push for a joint F-X and F/A-XX competition.

“There's always a chance,” Gaddis says. “I think that the defense secretary will want us to do a joint AOA. But the attributes of a carrier aircraft and an Air Force program may be different. We have to be ready for that.”

Another worry is that gaps will appear in the number of aircraft available for service if there is a long lag between the end of Super Hornet production and the availability of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

“On the supersonic tactical aviation side, F-35 doesn't [start replacing Super Hornets] until 2019. Does that leave a gap for when aircraft are actually available to the squadrons?” As a result of the unknowns in acquisition plans and budgets, the Navy believes it is necessary to continue investing in the Super Hornet flight plan. Upgrades are added and funded in increments.

“There are a lot of capabilities there that offset the gaps in warfighting capabilities,” Gaddis says. “I also think there is a need to keep investing in the JSF. They have the Block 3 and 4 programs, and our analysis is showing that the F-35 is going to need continued R&D investment [because] there aren't enough new [aircraft program] starts to ignore upgrades to existing programs.”

“Super Hornet is a balanced approach to survivability and lethality,” says Morley. “It carries practically every weapon in the inventory. We also do that through reduced-signature and integrated defensive countermeasures. We don't want to be seen except for deception [purposes].

“The active, electronically scanned array radar is a powerful sensor,” he adds. “We've only scratched the surface of where that system can go. It does a lot of radar functions automatically so the pilot can concentrate on other efforts—[including] everything that has to do with exploiting the network, whether it be electronic attack, electronic protection or any of those other classified facets.”

The Navy also is continuing to improve the advanced targeting forward-looking infrared (ATFlir) so that aircrews can track individuals and detect what they are doing from a tactically survivable altitude.

Moreover, infrared search and track (IRST) will allow Super Hornet aircrews to work outside of the radio-frequency bands. The Distributed Targeting System is being readied for operational testing; it allows the generation of high-quality weapons coordinates onboard the aircraft at long ranges.

As for the vulnerability of AESA radars to cyberattack, Morley says: “Any system does have vulnerabilities in both defense and attack. We're adding techniques and we continue to build them better.”

Signature will also be improved on the Super Hornet with an enclosed weapon pod and conformal fuel tanks for an additional 3,500 lb. of fuel. Despite adding an internal IRST, the aircraft retains its cannon. Navy officials say one of the highest priorities is for anti-electronics weapons.

buglerbilly

14-05-12, 10:39 PM

US Navy conducts cross-platform ASW demonstration

14 May 2012 - 14:46 by the Shephard News Team

Telephonics has announced today that the US Navy has conducted an exercise to demonstrate several anti-surface warfare (ASW) concepts of operation using an MH-60S Sierra helicopter in conjunction with a Fire Scout Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The company made the announcement 14 May, 2012.

The exercise included the use of Telephonics’ multi-mode, maritime surveillance radar on the MH-60S. The company said that the demonstration took place at the Chesapeake, MD Test Range, and it highlighted the ability of the radar to ‘rapidly perform wide-area surveillance and to automatically detect and track surface contacts over wide areas’.

The radar is designed to provide helicopter crew with a surface surveillance picture, so that targets of interest can be classified using the high resolution inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) imagery from the radar and to direct the Fire Scout to specific contacts of interest for identification with its on-board electro-optic/infra-red (EO/IR) sensor.

Telephonics explained that these EO/IR images were also linked back to the Sierra via an L-3 Communication Systems West VORTEX data link providing them with valuable tactical situational awareness. Additionally, the MH-60S linked both radar
information (Tracks, ISAR, and SAR (synthetic aperture radar) imagery) and EO/IR full motion video, again via the VORTEX data link, to the Patuxent River Surface/Aviation Interoperability Laboratory (SAIL).

For the demonstration, the Fire Scout was provided by the navy, and Lockheed Martin coordinated the industry team to install equipment on board the MH-60S, including the Telephonics radar and the L-3 VORTEX data link installed on both the MH-60 Sierra and MQ-8B Fire Scout. All data coming from Fire Scout was transmitted and received via the L-3 data link.

buglerbilly

16-05-12, 05:07 AM

X-47B gears up for summer milestones

The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D) performs taxi test in spring 2012 to validate the overall reliability of the system in preparation for its initial flight at Patuxent River, Md., this summer. (U.S. Navy photo)
May 15, 2012

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printNAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – In recent months, Pax River personnel may have noticed a new, uniquely shaped tailless aircraft on the runway, the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D).

“This summer will be full of activity as the team braces for X-47B’s first flight here and arrival of the second X-47B air vehicle from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.,” said Matt Funk, UCAS-D lead test engineer. “In the coming months, you can expect to see the X-47B flying over the base and surrounding area along the Chesapeake Bay.”

The X-47B is the first unmanned vehicle designed to take off and land on an aircraft carrier. As part of the program’s demonstration, the X-47B will perform arrested landings and catapult launches at Pax to validate its ability to conduct precision approaches to the carrier. The base is one of only a few sites in the world where the Navy can run performance tests on aircraft-carrier catapult operations at a land-based facility with flight test and engineering support resources not available on a ship.

"Testing at Pax River is a critical component of this demonstration program as we break new ground with the development of a carrier-based unmanned air system,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, Navy UCAS program manager. “The integrated test team (ITT), under leadership of AIR-5.0 [Test and Evaluation] and VX-23 [Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23], are critical members of the Navy UCAS program team that will make this program a success.”

Since the arrival of the first X-47B in late 2011, the UCAS-D ITT has been preparing the aircraft for its initial flight at Pax River. Recently, the X-47B performed taxi testing to validate the overall reliability of the system. The team also conducted tests to determine the aircraft's ability to catch an arresting wire on an aircraft carrier.

Like manned aircraft, the air vehicle is scheduled to begin six weeks of electronic vulnerability testing at the Naval Electromagnetic Radio Facility (NERF). This test verifies there are no electrical disturbance, signal, or emission issues that cause an undesired response or malfunction of a subsystem or component.

After completing standard ground tests and system check-outs, the program anticipates several major milestones here beginning with first flight.

“We are all excited to have a new groundbreaking aircraft here as part of our test program, but as always the Navy puts safety first,” Engdahl said.

Funk added that while shape and design of the X-47B are unique and eye-catching, it is critical that spectators follow base policy and keep a safe distance from the flight line during all X-47B taxi and flight operations.

Engdahl is optimistic about the program’s planned flight test program, including F/A-18 and King Air surrogate aircraft and X-47B testing this fall.

“The program is progressing well in preparation for shore-based catapult launch testing and arrested landings, leading ultimately to our final carrier demonstration in 2013,” Engdahl said.

PEO(U&W) Public Affairs
(301) 757-9703