US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Jura The idiot]

the Growler news:
Navy Mulls Expanding Growler’s Future After Blanking EA-18G’s Budget

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

continues to evaluate whether it will need more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

electronic jamming aircraft on the deck of a carrier even though service officials chose to include no new Growlers in its 2016 defense budget request.

The current configuration for an

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

’s air wing includes five Growler aircraft per squadron; however, an ongoing evaluation of the jamming aircraft is leading the service to consider increasing this number to seven or eight per squadron.

The Navy’s 2016 budget request adds no new Growler aircraft to the current acquisition plan, which specifies that the service is funded to procure 153 Growlers — with final delivery taking place in 2017. As of Feb. 1, 114 Growlers have been delivered, said Navy Lt. Robert Myers, a service spokesman.

“As shown, the EA-18 Growler line completes in ’15, as the Growler progresses to full operational capability with stand up of the fifteenth and final squadron in 2017,” Rear Adm. William Lescher, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget, said following the release of the 2016 Navy budget request.

Last year, Congress added 15 Growlers to the budget to keep the production line open an additional year following significant lobbying efforts by Boeing. Many expect congressional supporters of the EA-18G to again add more Growlers to the 2016 budget despite the Navy’s decision not to include them in their budget request.

Defense analysts have pointed to the need for more electronic attack aircraft like the Growler as air defenses advance and stealth aircraft become less effective. Faster computers processors, sensors and radar are allowing air defense systems to locate stealth aircraft and other platforms at increasingly longer distances.

As a result, while some stealth aircraft can jam X-band radar signals, an EA-18G Growler can jam a wider range of frequencies and protect strike and surveillance aircraft operating in a given area, analysts said.

Last summer, the Navy conducted a special assessment of Growler aircraft on the deck of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in which three additional aircraft were added to an EA-18G Growler squadron. This move brought the number of Growlers on the deck of the carrier from five to eight.

“The purpose of the experiment was to empirically measure the operational benefit over a several day period of increased electronic attack support capacity across multiple mission areas, including strike warfare packages and the ability to defend the carrier in an increasingly complex electronic warfare environment,” Myers said.

Called the Airborne Electronic Attack Fleet Battle Experiment, the event took place from late May to early June of last year. Part of the experiment was designed to assess the value of having more Growlers in an anticipated future threat environment, Myers explained.

“Indicators suggest that the addition of EA-18G Growler capacity to our embarked carrier air wings greatly enhances the Navy’s ability to support both the Joint Force commander and the Maritime Component commander in their missions set,” Myers said.

Officials with the Boeing Company, which manufactures the EA-18G Growler aircraft at a facility in St. Louis, Mo., said they will likely need to make a decision mid-year on whether to continue the production line for Growlers, given the need to make plans and preparations, company officials said.

“One look at the deck of any forward Navy aircraft carrier and you see a host of combat proven strike and electronic attack capability. The role of the Growler is unmatched. We will continue to work with the Navy to assess those needs,” said Caroline Hutcheson, Boeing military aircraft spokeswoman.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

We are starting to see how the AMDR will be configured and situated on the Flight II Burkes now.

The “Air and Missile Defense Radar” (AMDR) will be made up of two radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate them. S-band radar iwill provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and communications.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

radar will provide horizon search, precision tracking, more missile communication and terminal illumination . The two radars will also share functionality for radar navigation, periscope detection, and, as stated, as missile guidance and communication.

AMDR is being developed as a scalable system.

The Arleigh Burke Flight III will only be able to carry the the 14-foot version of the radars. But, the US Navy wants a 20+ foot radar to meet future threas, particularly as ballistic missile threats increase and proliferate. This is where a deciated missile defense ship, like the missile defense version of the San Antonio LPD hull form that INgalls shipbuilding comes in.

To help cut costs and meet schedules, the first one dozen AMDR s will have an X-band radar that is based on the existing SPQ-9B radar. LAter, this will be replaced by a new X-band radar that will be more capable against the future threat assessment.

This allows the program to be developed and deployed more quickly, and cheaper, and yet still meet existing threats.

Later, those first twelve units could be replaced during scheduled maintenance rotations of those Flight III vessels.

Very interesting stuff. Here's a couple of more pics:

...

related:
New Navy Ship-Radar Completes Target Track Simulation

The Navy and Raytheon have completed simulated target tracking with a new, more-sensitive radar slated to deploy on destroyers by 2023.

Early versions of the Navy’s new Air and Missile Defense Radar, or AMDR, closed what’s called the “track loop” for anti-air warfare and ballistic missile defense simulations, Raytheon officials said.

“You put in simulated radar data – raw radar data. Then you process that data to acquire the target and close the track loop on that. It is sort of the full womb to tomb in the data signal processing world,” Tad Dickenson, director and program manager for AMDR, Raytheon, told Military.com.

Radar works by sending a series of electro-magnetic signals or “pings” which bounce off an object or threat and send back return-signal information identifying the shape, size, speed or distance of the object encountered. More sensitive radar such as AMDR will therefore enable ships to detect smaller objects at greater distances and provide a higher degree of detailed information about objects.

The development of the radar system is hastened by the re-use of software technology from existing Navy dual-band and AN/TPY-2 radar programs, Dickenson added.

“Code is very portable in today’s environment. We’re using common software languages now,” he said.

Software development for AMDR is being done through what Raytheon describes as an “agile” process, meaning it is built incrementally in order to keep pace with rapid technological advances and integrate effectively with existing and future systems, Dickenson explained.

The initial plan is to put AMDR on at least 22 DDG 51

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. However, the technology is designed to be scalable and it is entirely plausible that AMDR or a comparable technology will be engineered onto amphibious assault ships, cruisers, carriers and other platforms as well.

In fact, the Navy released a formal request to industry for information about new and emerging radar technologies for amphibs and carriers early last year.

AMDR is said to be at least 30-times more sensitive than radars currently configured on existing DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Raytheon and Navy officials told Military.com.

The new radar uses a chemical compound semi-conductor technology called Gallium Nitride which can amplify high-power signals at microwave frequencies; it enables better detection of objects at greater distances when compared with existing commonly used materials such as Gallium Arsenide, Raytheon officials explained.

“We utilize Gallium Nitride technology. It is extremely efficient so we are able to make a powerful aperture in a smaller size to fit on a DDG 51 destroyer with reduced weight and reduced power consumption,” Dickenson added. “Gallium Nitride has a much higher break down voltage so it is capable of much higher power densities.”

Among other things, the additional power and sensitivity will allow the ship to detect a much wider range of threats at much greater distances, Capt. Mark Vandroff, program manager DDG 51 Shipbuilding, told Military.com last month in an interview.

“I can see a target that is half the size, twice as far away. What this means is an individual destroyer will be able to engage more ballistic missiles at the same time versus what you have today — and it will be able to engage more advanced threats because it can see them farther away,” Vandroff said. “It can see smaller objects farther away so it will be better at picking out what is a threat versus what is not a threat.”

The AMDR platform, being developed by Raytheon through an October 2013 Engineering and Manufacturing Development, or EMD, deal with the Navy, will enable next-generation Flight III DDG 51s to defend much larger areas compared with the AN/SPY-1D radar on existing destroyers, Vandroff explained.

Raytheon is currently operating under a $400 million cost plus incentive fee contract for EMD, with about $1.2 billion fixed price incentive for initial production of AMDR on 9 ships.

Construction and integration of the first AMDR systems on Flight III DDG 51s is slated to begin by 2016. Vandroff said he expects the new radar to be operational and ready for combat missions on destroyers by 2023.

In total, the Navy plans as many as 22 Flight III DDG 51 destroyers, according to a Navy capabilities development document, Vandroff said. However, the actual number may vary depending upon the development of new technologies and prospects for a new surface combatant in 10 years.

Earlier this month, the Navy and Raytheon successfully completed an AMDR hardware critical design review, a process which helped establish a baseline design for the platform.

“We now have a lockdown hardware design for all the components that are going to support the radar. We have a design and a plan for the radar itself, for the computers that are going to control it, for the power units that will provide power to it and for the cooling system that will cool it,” Vandroff said.

AMDR is being engineered to integrate with Aegis radar combat systems currently on destroyers and cruisers, Dickenson said.

“We’re working hand in hand with Lockheed Martin in developing the combat systems interface to optimize the interface with Aegis,” he explained.

The AMDR is being engineered to be easily reparable with replaceable parts, fewer circuit boards and cheaper components than previous radars. The AMDR is designed to rely heavily on software innovations, something which reduces the need for different spare parts. The Navy has finished one of four planned software builds for the AMDR system.

However, special technological adaptations will be necessary to ensure the new, larger radar system can be sufficiently cooled and powered up with enough electricity, Vandroff added.

Regarding electricity, the Navy recently awarded a competitive contract to DRS technologies to build power conditioning modules – systems designed to turn the ship’s on-board electrical power into 1000-volt DC power for the AMDR, Vandroff explained.

The first power conditioning modules are slated for land-based testing at a Navy facility in Philadelphia in 2017.

“This is risk reduction so that before I take the system to sea, I have had it thoroughly wrung it out on land,” Vandroff said.

The DDG Flight III’s will also be built with the same Rolls Royce power turbine engineered for the DDG 1000, yet designed with some special fuel-efficiency enhancements.

The AMDR will also need to be equipped with specially configured cooling technology; along these lines, the Navy is developing a new 300-ton AC cooling plant slated to replace the existing 200-ton AC plant, Vandroff explained.

“The prototype refrigeration unit tested last week in York, Pa., was able to produce 350-tons of refrigeration, so it is actually more efficient than we had been banking on,” he added.

The Navy anticipates having a cooling unit prototype within one year. The new cooling plant will need to undergo environmental testing which will assess how the unit is able to tolerate vibration, noise and shocks such as those generated by an underwater explosion.

In the middle of next year, Raytheon and the Navy plan to be finished with a full-phase production representative AMDR array which will be shipped to Pacific Missile Range in Hawaii for additional testing and development.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Came across this report which appears to be very recent "USMC Seabasing POM 2017". Lots of information and beautiful pictures.

 

[strehl]

Came across this report which appears to be very recent "USMC Seabasing POM 2017". Lots of information and beautiful pictures.

This shows some of the impetus behind the concept.

 

[Jura The idiot]

that's interesting:
Admiral Says China Outnumbers U.S. in Attack Submarines

The Chinese navy now operates a greater number of attack submarines than the U.S. Navy and is rapidly expanding the scope of their undersea missions and patrols, U.S. Navy leaders told Congress Wednesday.

“Their submarine force has grown over a tremendous rate. They now have more diesel and nuclear attack submarines than we have so they’ve passed us in total quantity — but in quality they are still not there,” said Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of Naval operations, integration of capabilities and resources.

Speaking before the House Seapower and Projections Forces subcommittee on the Navy budget, Mulloy also said the Chinese have expanded their undersea missions and patrols as well.

“They are producing some fairly amazing submarines. They’ve now had three deployments in the Indian Ocean. They are expanding where their submarines go,” Mulloy told the subcommittee. “We know they are out experimenting and working and operating and certainly want to be in the world of advanced submarines.”

Mulloy also cited Chinese production and testing of submarine launched weapons and said that one SSBN – or ballistic missile submarine capable of launching nuclear weapons – went on a 95-day patrol.

This development inspired many news reports and public commentary about the prospect that nuclear-armed Chinese ballistic missile submarines would have the ability to strike parts of Alaska and Hawaii from various undersea locations in the Pacific Ocean.

The issue of Chinese naval and submarine development was addressed in detail in the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual report to Congress released last year.

The commission said Chinese modernization plans call for a sharp increase in attack submarines and nuclear-armed submarines or SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs are now able to patrol with nuclear-armed JL-2 missiles able to strike targets more than 4,500 nautical miles.

In addition, the Chinese are currently working on a new, modernized SSBN platform as well as a long-range missile, the JL-3, the commission said.

The commission also specifically addresses areas of Chinese-Russian military developmental cooperation, saying the two countries are working on a joint deal to build new attack submarines.

“China is pursuing joint-design and production of four to six Russian advanced diesel-electric attack submarines containing Russia’s latest submarine sonar, propulsion, and quieting technology. The deal would improve the PLA Navy’s capabilities and assist China’s development of quiet submarines, thus complicating future U.S. efforts to track and counter PLA submarines,” the commission wrote.

China is also reportedly pursuing a new class of nuclear submarines, called the Type 095 SSGN, which could bring the country its first-ever submarine-launched, land-attack cruise missile.

While the commission said the exact amount of Chinese military spending is difficult to identify, China’s projected defense spending for 2014 is cited at $131 billion, approximately 12.2 percent greater than 2013. This figure is about the sixth of what the U.S. spends annually.

The Chinese defense budget has increased by double digits since 1989, the commission states resulting in annual defense spending doubling since 2008, according to the report.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, cited the increase in submarine and surface navy patrols tripling since 2007 as an area of concern.

“What they are doing with patrols is just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just the number of the ships, but within five to eight years they will have about 82 submarines in the Asia Pacific area and we will have about 32 to 34,” he said last summer.

Although Mulloy made the point to lawmakers that the U.S. currently enjoys a technological advantage over China when it comes to submarines and undersea technologies, there is nevertheless much concern about this issue for the future.

Along these lines, a recent study says emerging submarine detection technologies, computer processing power and platforms such as underwater drones could quickly erode the U.S. military’s global undersea dominance and ability to operate in high-threat areas such as locations near enemy coastlines.

The U.S. military relies upon submarines and undersea technological superiority for critical underwater intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions, which place assets near the surface fleet or coastline of a potential adversary.

In coming years, the technological margin of difference separating the U.S from potential rivals is expected to get much smaller, requiring the U.S. the re-think the role of manned submarines and prioritize innovation in the realm of undersea warfare, according to a January report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments titled “The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare.”

“America’s superiority in undersea warfare results from decades of research and development, operations, and training. It is, however, far from assured. U.S. submarines are the world’s quietest, but new detection techniques are emerging that don’t rely on the noise a submarine makes, and may make traditional manned submarine operations far more risky in the future. America’s competitors are likely pursuing these technologies even while expanding their own undersea forces,” the report states.

Navy officials told Military.com the service was doing all that it could to retain its undersea technological advantage.

The U.S. has enjoyed an undersea technological advantage because it has quieter submarines that are more difficult to detect — combined with advanced sonar technology designed to find enemy submarines, the report’s author recently told Military.com

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

more on submarines:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It’s a problem the US Navy wants to have, but it’s still a problem. If the service gets enough money both to build its top priority, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

nuclear missile submarine, and to keep producing its vaunted

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, then so much new work will be hitting the shipyards so rapidly that they’ll be hard-pressed to ramp up production fast enough.

There are

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the country that can build nuclear-powered submarines, Virginia’s

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and New England’s

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which along with their network of specialized suppliers have recently ramped up to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. But the Navy wants to start buying a bigger, more powerful, and correspondingly harder-to-build version of the Virginia no later than 2019. Then in 2021, the Navy will officially start its first Ohio replacement. That’s not just another sub: “An Ohio is about twice a Virginia in terms of the workload,” Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

told reporters yesterday.

“It’s a fairly steep growth [in production] compared to what it’s been in the past 10 to 20 years, absolutely, ” Stackley said when I pressed him on the point.

Is it a potential bottleneck in production?

“I’m not using the term bottleneck,”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

said. “We’re ramping up to two Virginias a year. We’ve got the plans to continue to ramp up with the introduction of VPM (the Virginia Payload Module, which adds more missile launchers to the Virginia design) and Ohio Replacement. So we have to manage that….because it’s skilled labor we’re going to need, it’s investments in facility upgrades at both of our builders.”

The two shipyards face a triple crunch, Stackley and the Navy’s top financial official,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, told the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower:

• First, they’re currently buying
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  to counter
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  , which is building subs “at a tremendous rate,” Mulloy said.
• Second, they’re “
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  ” of the Ohio Replacement, Stackley said, even though the first sub won’t be bought until 2021, so it’s ready in time to replace the
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  . Ballistic missile submarines carry most of the nation’s nuclear deterrent and their replacement is the Navy’s top priority.
• Third, they’re designing the Virginia Payload Module, which lengthens the existing Virginia design to accommodate more cruise missiles. The deadline here is the 2026-2028 retirements of all four SSGN guided missile submarines, which collectively carry 616 missiles.

On the upside, having many subs with a modest number of missiles, instead of four subs with 154 each, provides more flexibility and better fits the Navy’s new “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

” doctrine, Stackley noted. On the downside, quantity has a quality all its own. At 28 missiles per Virginia Payload Module, and one VPM sub planned per year, replacing the lost capacity of the SSGNs will take exactly 22 years.

So Stackley has subordinates studying whether it’s possible to start VPM production earlier than the current planned date of 2019, he told the subcommittee. That’s a new aspect he’s added to a broader ongoing study of how the shipbuilding industrial base can handle the ramp-up.

“I would ask you to give us a couple of months to complete our review,” Stackley told the subcommittee, “and we’ll be ready to come back and give more specifics in the March-April timeframe.”

“Mr. Secretary, we don’t have a couple of months,” replied

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Virginia Republican Randy Forbes. (There’s a big push in Congress to get the year’s bills done on time for a change,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). “We just want to help you try to close those gaps, so anything you could get for us in a quicker timeframe at least for this year might be helpful,” Forbes said gently. “I know you can only do what you can do.”

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(the article goes on with Ospreys, amphibious ships issues)

 

[Jeff Head]

that's interesting:
Admiral Says China Outnumbers U.S. in Attack Submarines

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yea, if you include the Mings.

But, if you look at the Songs, Kilos, and Yuan diesel electric subs, and then add the 091 and 093 SSNs...it is not a greater number at all.

All of the US attack subs are nuclear attack subs...and all of the US nuclear subs are more advanced than the 091s and 093s. The Flight III Los Angeles are a generation more advanced. The Sea Wolfs and Virginias are two and three generations more advanced.

 

[Brumby]

Just released from the Heritage organisation on the US Military Index. It is a very substantial 330 page document. Interesting stuff for the military nerds.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

more on submarines:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(the article goes on with Ospreys, amphibious ships issues)

I recently came across a study which provided a perspective to me how incredibly complex and time consuming it is to build a SSN. It takes on average 8 million hours to build one. In contrast, it takes only 50,000 hours to build a Boeing 777. This should give you a sense of perspective.

I am just wondering but never seen proposed is that the existing 4 SSGN's are converted Ohio's which carries significant payload of Tomahawks and which the service is finding incredibly difficult to fill the gap in a timely manner with the Virginia's. Why don't the service consider building an additional 4 Ohio (X) from the planned 12 to provide the necessary payload like the present SSGN? Jeff, what do you think?

 

[Jeff Head]

Why don't the service consider building an additional 4 Ohio (X) from the planned 12 to provide the necessary payload like the present SSGN? Jeff, what do you think?

I have worked with Electric Boat in the past from contracting entity specially for the NSSN which became the Virginia. I have also been aboard the USS Ohio during the conversion, and then afterwards.

That was a significantly complex project because it involved huge updates to the system to modernize it and allow for the SLCMs, etc.

I believe that the four vessel Ohio conversion was an excellent task...but it in itself placed a HUGE amount of the SLCM capability on only four platforms. That is a vulnerability from a threat perspective and from a simple logistics perspective because any time one of those vessels goes into any type of maintenance/overhaul for any length of time, you lose 1/4 of your capacity.

I believe the Navy wants to, and is wise to, spread those capabilities out over 15 vessels as opposed to only four. So I would recommend against such a plan to build four more SSGNs of that magnitude.