US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Yvrch said:

I guess fatigue might have played a role in this collision.
Five and dime is most common on bridge so handover happened 20 min or so before the collision, perfect time window for such an awful event to happen in a busy crowded water way.We don't know the experience, or lack thereof, of the enlisted sharing the watch with the CO. I guess CIC and sonar guys were off duty at the time.
Sincere condolences at the loss of young sailors.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

now I read Senator Cautions Navy on Maturity of DDG Flight III Before Multiyear Procurement

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Navy wants to buy guided-missile destroyers and attack submarines in bulk but has plans to upgrade the designs of both after the purchase, causing some concern among lawmakers that the design changes could hurt the programs’ stable cost and schedule.

As lawmakers debate giving the service multiyear procurement authority for the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs and the Virginia-class SSNs, they face a delay in moving to the destroyer’s Flight III configuration, along with a potential delay in the submarine’s upcoming insertion of the Virginia Payload Module.

On the destroyer side, the Navy intends to begin a 10-ship multiyear procurement contract in 2018 that would build all ships to the Flight III configuration, centered around the addition of the more powerful AN/SPY-6(v) Air and Missile Defense Radar. The Flight III introduction was supposed to have taken place on the last ship bought in 2016, with the two ships in 2017 also including Flight III.

In a hearing today with the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee, acting Navy acquisition chief Allison Stiller said “we have a handshake agreement with Huntington Ingalls Industries to introduce the Flight III capability on their FY ‘17 ship, the last of this current multiyear,” but the service isn’t as far along with the second DDG builder, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works.

“We recently received a proposal from Bath Iron Works for their ECP (engineering change proposal) and we’re in negotiations with them. We’ve also received a bid from them on their ‘16 ship as a Flight IIA, and we’re also asking them to also give us an ECP to look at that as a Flight III.”

Sen. Angus King (I-ME) asked Stiller during the hearing about the wisdom of allowing the Navy to award contracts for 10 Flight III destroyers before it had successfully built even one or even had assurances from both yards that they were ready to begin working with the new design.

King asked Stiller if the Navy would “consider slowing the multi-year down, maybe six months, in order to start construction on the first Flight III before we buy 10 ships and ask our industrial base to make commitments based on not an unproven design, but a new design, and a substantially changed design—this isn’t minor changes” to insert the AMDR.

Stiller assured him that the Flight III design is about 86-percent complete today and would be 100-percent complete by the time construction started, and she said the move from Flight IIA DDGs to Flight III was about in line with previous capability increases in shipbuilding programs.

“We view that the amount of change in this particular Flight III design, it touched about 45 to 50 percent of the drawings, it’s along the same lines on the Virginia (attack submarines) as well – and, in fact, in the Flight IIA we touched more drawings on Flight IIA than we are on Flight III. But that aside, we were not nearly as complete in the design when we introduced Flight IIA,” and she assured the senator that the Navy had learned its lesson about having more complete designs ahead of starting construction.

Stiller acknowledged King’s concerns about buying 10 ships with a yet-to-be-proven design and said that was why the Navy had wanted to introduce Flight III in 2016, as a way to reduce risk and learn any lessons about building Flight III ships ahead of signing contracts for 10 more. The exchange ended with SASC chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) advocating continued conversations about the risk involved in the current situation.

As for submarines, the Navy is set for a new multiyear contract that would begin in 2019 and planned to introduce the Block V design, which adds a Virginia Payload Module section for additional missile tubes, in the second submarine in 2019. The House Armed Services Committee is pushing for an increased submarine build rate in its Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which began going through subcommittee markups this week, but a HASC staffer told reporters this week that buying more submarines to meet operational needs may delay the introduction of VPM due to capacity at the two shipyards, General Dynamics Electric Boat and HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding.

HASC seapower and projection forces subcommittee ranking member Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) confirmed that the timing may be up in the air if additional submarines are built, telling USNI News today that “it’s possible that in the course of negotiation, if they follow our lead (to build 13 instead of 10 subs) that they may make some tradeoffs or adjustments” to the VPM insertion schedule. Courtney noted that the original Navy plan would have nine of 10 subs within the multiyear contract include VPM, and perhaps a delayed start to VPM could still allow for nine of the then-13 subs to include VPM.

Courtney likened the Virginia-class Block V upgrade to the DDG Flight III upgrade, saying there may be “heartburn” now over the specific plans to introduce the new designs, but ultimately the Navy will end up with much greater capability for the warfighters.

“The Flight III issue is something that I think we’re going to see a lot of back and forth to just how that gets resolved. There’s also some flexibility with the Navy and the yards in terms of how they roll out Flight III” within the multiyear contracts, he said.
“From a long-term standpoint, that’s going to be the best system for the threats that are out there, and I think people are pretty sold on the notion that it really enhances both the safety and effectiveness of the DDGs. It’s like going back to the VPM question, how it gets rolled into an actual final contract and plan is still subject to discussion between Navy and Bath Iron Works and HII, but I think long-term that technology, people understand that’s where the future is.”

While there isn’t much to do to smooth out the DDG Flight III transition – USNI News understands negotiations between the Navy and Bath Iron Works are still ongoing due to concerns about cost and risk-management – avoiding a delay in VPM introduction could be supported through initiatives to help the submarine builders ramp up their workforce and supply bases. Courtney said the Eastern Connecticut Workforce Board has been running a training program for jobs in advanced manufacturing, which so far boasts a 100-percent hire rate for those who completed the program. Department of Labor funding is set to run out this year, and while Courtney said he worries additional federal funds won’t be available – “I think the Trump budget for DoL is way out of whack, it’s close to a 40 percent cut to the job training programs, and that’s an essential piece of not just maritime but also aerospace production that’s out there right now” – he said industry and private donors have shown an interest in supporting the program, along with the state of Connecticut.

“The demand is so strong in the state right now for advanced manufacturing,” he said.
“I’m actually very bullish on the fact that we’re going to continue with the volume of graduates.”

Additionally, Courtney said the funding tables for the 2018 defense bill would include spending on advance procurement and economic order quantities ahead of the 2019 multiyear contract “to help prime the pump for the block buy contract.”

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

These are the 4 primary variants of the AEGIS baseline 9 capability upgrade.

9A: Upgrade for Ticos that does not include BMD capabilities.

9C: Upgrades Burke DDGs with the Lockheed Martin Multi-Mission Signal Processor that will allow the destroyers to switch between BMD and IAMD.

9D: Is a variant of the 9C program for new construction ships, starting with the planned John Finn (DDG-113).

9E: Is the Baseline 9 variant for the Navy’s Aegis Ashore program.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

The CIC is always manned, and the sensors are always watched.

The footing changes with the particular condition...but they never are completely unmanned.

This speaks to a lack of discipline and a lack of observance of their training. and it cost life.

If nothing else, it will be used for years on what not to do, and how a lax crew can get people killed...peace time or not.

I promise you, a bunch of people are going to be sent packing....and they should.

Click to expand...

Investigators Believe USS Fitzgerald Crew Fought Flooding For An Hour Before Distress Call Reached Help

The crew of the guided-missile destroyer that was struck by a merchant ship on Friday off the coast of Japan fought to save the ship for an hour before the first calls went out for help, Japanese investigators now believe.

According to the current operational theory of Japanese investigators, the deadly collision between USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) and the Philippine-flagged merchant ship ACX Crystal knocked out the destroyer’s communications for an hour, while the four-times-larger merchant ship was unaware of what it hit until it doubled back and found the damaged warship, two sources familiar with the ongoing Japanese investigation told USNI News on Wednesday.

Investigators now think Crystal was transiting to Tokyo on autopilot with an inattentive or asleep crew when the merchant vessel struck a glancing blow on the destroyer’s starboard side at about 1:30 AM local time on Friday. When the crew of Crystal realized they had hit something, the ship performed a U-turn in the shipping lane and sped back to the initial site of the collision at 18 knots, discovered Fitzgerald, and radioed a distress call to authorities at about 2:30 AM. U.S. Navy officials initially said the collision occurred at around the time of the distress call at 2:30 AM.

Meanwhile, when Crystal’s port bow hit Fitzgerald, the warship was performing a normal transit off the coast of Japan, USNI News understands. Above the waterline, the flared bow of Crystal caved in several spaces in the superstructure, including the stateroom of commanding officer Cmdr. Bryce Benson. The impact not only ripped a hole in the steel superstructure in the stateroom but also shifted the contents and shape of the steel so Benson was “squeezed out the hull and was outside the skin of the ship,” a sailor familiar with the damage to the ship told USNI News. “He’s lucky to be alive.”
Fitzgerald sailors had to bend back the door of the stateroom to pluck Benson from the side of the ship and bring him inside. He and two other sailors were later evacuated from the ship via a Japanese helicopter to a Navy hospital at Yokosuka.

Pictures of Benson’s stateroom from the door show the steel bent back to reveal open air, and a photo of the ship’s exterior pier-side shows almost the entire stateroom was crushed.

Meanwhile, below decks, the glancing blow of Crystal’s bulbous bow had ripped a 10-feet-by-10-feet to 14-feet-by-14-feet hole below the waterline of the ship, flooding a machinery space the berthing area that was home to about half of the crew, the sailor said.

Over the weekend, U.S. 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin confirmed the spaces that were affected by the collision.
“Three compartments were severely damaged,” Aucoin said at the Saturday press conference.
“One machinery room and two berthing areas — berthing areas for 116 of the crew.”

The seven sailors who died aboard were sealed in the berthing area behind a watertight door as the ship’s company fought to keep the ship afloat, according to a description of events the Navy told the family of Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
It’s yet unclear if the ship’s watch had time to sound the collision alarm or call general quarters before Crystal hit the destroyer.

In addition to the damage to the spaces, the collision knocked out Fitzgerald’s communications for the better part of an hour. At about the same time the crew was able to reactivate their backup Iridium satellite communications to radio for help, Crystal arrived on the scene and called in its own distress call, the sailor told USNI News.
U.S. Navy investigators are being tight-lipped about details of the investigation, even inside the service. However, information USNI News learned from the Japan Coast Guard investigation indicates Fitzgerald was operating normally when the collision occurred, raising questions more questions regarding why Benson wasn’t on the bridge when a contact was so close to the destroyer.

On Monday, U.S 7th Fleet began a flag officer-led Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) investigation to determine the facts of the collision, as well as a separate U.S. Navy safety investigation. The U.S. Coast Guard will take lead in a maritime casualty investigation.

As for the ship, five days after collision active damage control efforts are ongoing to prevent further damage to the hull. The force of Crystal’s impact combined with the flood not only dented but twisted the ship’s hull. Crews are continuing to pump water in and out of the ship to keep Fitzgerald stable.
Naval Sea Systems Command is now assessing if the ship can be repaired in Japan or would have to be transported to the U.S. for repairs.

While investigation and repairs are ongoing, the ship’s crew has been given time away from the ship in an attempt to recover from the collision. The burden of ships’ watches is being shared by other crews on the Yokosuka waterfront, Navy officials told USNI News on Wednesday.
Both Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Steve Giordano both visited Yokosuka to speak with Fitzgerald sailors and their families.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

These Afghan army uniforms cost American taxpayers $28 million 'in the name of fashion'
By:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

June 21, 2017 (Photo Credit: Cpl. Alejandro Pena/Marine Corps)

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is under fire for spending nearly $28 million procuring camouflage uniforms for the Afghan army, gear suited for environments so rare they account for just 2 percent of Afghanistan's countryside, according to a new watchdog report.

The Defense Department organization overseeing efforts to train and equip Afghan forces supervised selection and design of the new proprietary woodland camouflage pattern without proper testing and assessment, according to the report published Wednesday by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

Woodland Battle Dress Uniform worn by Afghan commandos (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Dustin Payne)
Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Dustin Payne

For years, Afghan conventional forces and elite commandos have fielded the U.S. Army’s woodland pattern utility uniforms. In 2007, the Afghan Defense Ministry embarked on a quest to design new uniforms to counter efforts by the Taliban and militants battling government forces to counterfeit the clothing.

The new uniform was designed in similar fashion to the current uniform worn by the U.S. Army, called the Army Combat Uniform, but at a much higher cost, the inspector general determined.

Uniforms used by ANA conventional forces with Spec4ce Forest Uniform pattern. (Defense Department photo by Pfc. David Devich)
Photo Credit: Defense Department photo by Pfc. David Devich

According to the report, the HyperStealth’s Spec4ce Forest camouflage pattern was chosen by the then-Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak — because he liked what he saw while browsing a website.

“This is just simply stupid on its face. We wasted $28 million of taxpayers’ money in the name of fashion, because the defense minister thought that that pattern was pretty. So if he thought pink or chartreuse was it, would we have done that?” said John Sopko, the inspector general, in an interview with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Picking uniform patterns for specific environments requires formal testing and evaluation, a process that can be a “an extremely fussy and demanding experimental design problem,” said Dr. Timothy O’Neill, creator of the camouflage pattern which served as the basis for the Army Combat Uniform. “Desert designs don’t work well in woodland areas and woodland patterns perform poorly in the desert.”


The U.S. government already had the rights to multiple camouflage pattern schemes that could have been provided to the Afghan army at no cost.

Furthermore, the “DOD was unable to provide documentation demonstrating that the Spec4ce Forest specification was essential to the U.S. government’s requirement, or documentation justifying and approving the Spec4ce Forest requirement in the ANA uniform specification,” the report reads.

Propriety uniforms cost significantly more to produce because vendors seeking to supply the Afghan military with its uniform needs are required to “purchase pre-patterned material, or obtain the rights to use the proprietary pattern from HyperStealth or an authorized licensee, according to the report.

The new uniforms now cost 40 percent to 43 percent more at about $45 to $80 per set.

Sopko has recommended conducting a cost-benefit analysis and consider changing the Afghan camouflage uniforms, which could save taxpayers $70 million over the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

1. Although Spec4ce Afghan Forest is labeled as a forest pattern it's actually intended more for night operations.
2. the major driver of the choice is actually in the story.

   "the Afghan Defense Ministry embarked on a quest to design new uniforms to counter efforts by the Taliban and militants battling government forces to counterfeit the clothing"

   Click to expand...

   The US Government owned patterns are well known and have the downside of being widely copied mentioned in the report are 3 color desert,Woodland, 6 color desert ( chocolate chip cookie), ERDL,Urban Track, ERDL, Night Grid, Snow BDU, 3 color Snow, 3 color Urban,and Desert Brush. All have copies around the world this creates a problem as the Taliban love to infiltrate and only need a good knockoff to get close and They Suck. The Army Trailed all those patterns after the ACU was proven not to work and they went with a commercial product, Multicam from a Commercial vendor Crye Precision.
3. Father more The US and other partner nations wanted to identify Afghan forces at a glance So a pattern not in use by any partner nations of the Taliban was chosen. Traditional M81 woodland has been used and is used by both sides. and Multicam is almost NATO standard these days.
4. There are other patterns in use by the Afghan national forces. The Afghan Police adopted a Desert pattern called Spec4ce Afghan Sierra from the same maker and other Afghan units like the Afghan partner units use Ghostex Kilo-1 again same maker.
5. "Dr. Timothy O’Neill, creator of the camouflage pattern which served as the basis for the Army Combat Uniform" The Army combat uniform pattern was not trialed in the field before issue either and that pattern failed miserably. but I don't blame Dr. O'Neill, In fact his work is heavily referenced by the Maker of the Afghan national army uniforms, Hyperstealth.
6. Additionally not mentioned is that the US spent millions to trail patterns to replace the ACU and none of that data is mentioned in the article. Or that those trials results have never officially been released or implemented instead the US Army adopted a unlicenced variant of Multicam. although no Trials were done by the US or Afghanistan the maker Hyperstealth actually tests their patterns with photo simulations extensively and makes a major effort to back there work with science.
7. Finally The uniform was always going to cost more. The US made DOD supplied uniforms had to be Berry compliant meaning US textiles as opposed to Cheaper fabrics, like the Chinese made sets now being used by the Iraqis. A full set of US issue uniform will easily be twice the price of a Imported one due to the needs of material and manufacture set forth by the Berry amendment.

Jura said:

do some Burkes still have AEGIS Baseline 5 (five)? thanks!

it appears to be the case, but the link leads me to some cloud which I prefer not to visit

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

Navy Begins Investigation Into USS Fitzgerald Collision

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

How Could the Fitzgerald Collision Happen?
This isn't like a car crash—it's a whole different game at sea.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Release Date: 6/22/2017

From Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- On Tuesday MCPON (Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy) and I visited Japan where we attended the outbound dignified transfer of our seven fallen shipmates and spent time with [USS] Fitzgerald Sailors and families.

The outpouring of support by the Yokosuka and broader community has been stunning. Everything from toothpaste and uniforms to financial assistance has been offered and we are very grateful to all who are helping this team get back to fighting trim.

We also met with supporting teams that were critical to the effort - the Yokosuka Port Operations, tug crews, divers and workers who were absolutely essential to recovering the ship. An amazingly selfless team of American and Japanese workers who made such a difference.

Very important was the chance to visit the leaders from the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and Japanese Coast Guard. I personally thanked them for their assistance. Our partnership with the Japanese is very strong and growing stronger. They were deeply sorry for the losses suffered.

Our immediate focus is to do all we can to properly recognize our fallen shipmates, take care of the Fitz family and begin to put the ship back together.

There are multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations underway to determine the facts of the collision. Our goal is to learn all we can to prevent future accidents from occurring. This process will unfold as quickly as possible, but it's important to get this right. We need to protect the integrity of those proceedings. Speculation, rumors, hearsay or second guessing won't be helpful. Let the investigations run their courses.

Again, thanks to all for the thoughts and prayers and offers of support. It is good to see the Navy Team come together to help Fitz and others move forward.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Spin on this is thick as a milkshake.

1. Although Spec4ce Afghan Forest is labeled as a forest pattern it's actually intended more for night operations.
2. the major driver of the choice is actually in the story. The US Government owned patterns are well known and have the downside of being widely copied mentioned in the report are 3 color desert,Woodland, 6 color desert ( chocolate chip cookie), ERDL,Urban Track, ERDL, Night Grid, Snow BDU, 3 color Snow, 3 color Urban,and Desert Brush. All have copies around the world this creates a problem as the Taliban love to infiltrate and only need a good knockoff to get close and They Suck. The Army Trailed all those patterns after the ACU was proven not to work and they went with a commercial product, Multicam from a Commercial vendor Crye Precision.
3. Father more The US and other partner nations wanted to identify Afghan forces at a glance So a pattern not in use by any partner nations of the Taliban was chosen. Traditional M81 woodland has been used and is used by both sides. and Multicam is almost NATO standard these days.
4. There are other patterns in use by the Afghan national forces. The Afghan Police adopted a Desert pattern called Spec4ce Afghan Sierra from the same maker and other Afghan units like the Afghan partner units use Ghostex Kilo-1 again same maker.
5. "Dr. Timothy O’Neill, creator of the camouflage pattern which served as the basis for the Army Combat Uniform" The Army combat uniform pattern was not trialed in the field before issue either and that pattern failed miserably. but I don't blame Dr. O'Neill, In fact his work is heavily referenced by the Maker of the Afghan national army uniforms, Hyperstealth.
6. Additionally not mentioned is that the US spent millions to trail patterns to replace the ACU and none of that data is mentioned in the article. Or that those trials results have never officially been released or implemented instead the US Army adopted a unlicenced variant of Multicam. although no Trials were done by the US or Afghanistan the maker Hyperstealth actually tests their patterns with photo simulations extensively and makes a major effort to back there work with science.
7. Finally The uniform was always going to cost more. The US made DOD supplied uniforms had to be Berry compliant meaning US textiles as opposed to Cheaper fabrics, like the Chinese made sets now being used by the Iraqis. A full set of US issue uniform will easily be twice the price of a Imported one due to the needs of material and manufacture set forth by the Berry amendment.

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

I really like the Chief of Naval Operations statement posted below. Anything else you read or speculate including my own statement is just a whole bunch of nuthin'.(speculation). We all are entitled to our own opinions.

Let us all wait and see what comes out of this investigation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...