CV32

A new Chinese submarine is on trials, perhaps?

From Defense Aerospace Navy Names Littoral Combat Ship USS Fort Worth (Source: US Navy; issued March 6, 2009) WASHINGTON --- Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced March 6 that the newest littoral combat ship (LCS) will be named USS Fort Worth. The announcement continues the practice of naming the agile LCS vessels after American midsized cities, small towns and communities. For more than 150 years, the patriotic citizens of Fort Worth have supported the Navy and all of our men and women in uniform. Home to ranger outposts, training facilities, aviation depots, and defense manufacturing, Fort Worth has answered the call whenever our nation needed it. Designated LCS-3, the future USS Fort Worth is designed to defeat littoral threats and provide access and dominance in coastal waters for missions such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare. There are two different LCS hull forms -a semiplaning monohull and an aluminum trimaran- designed and built by two industry teams, respectively led by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. These seaframes will be outfitted with reconfigurable payloads, called mission packages, which can be changed out quickly. Mission packages are supported by special detachments that will deploy manned and unmanned vehicles and sensors. USS Fort Worth will be 378 feet in length, have a waterline beam of 57 feet, displace approximately 3,000 tons, and will make speed in excess of 40 knots.

Answer (short version): They're concrete containers for spent nuclear fuel assemblies taken from Soviet nuclear powered submarines. Answer (long version): The photo depicts an open storage area at Andreeva (Andreyeva) Bay, on the Kola Peninsula. It is a part of the Zapadnaya Litsa naval base for the Russian Navy's Northern Fleet. Also known as Installation 928-III, it is apparently the largest storage facility in the Northern Fleet for radioactive waste. The concrete containers (TK-11 and TK-18?) in the photo are used to store spent nuclear fuel assemblies from the very first refueling operations carried out on Soviet first and second generation nuclear powered submarines. They were placed there in 1962. In 1991, about 20 of the 52 containers stored there were emptied and their contents transported to Mayak (a reprocessing facility in the southern Urals). The remaining 32 containers are believed to hold between 200-220 fuel assemblies. The containers had already been exposed to the elements for over 30 years by the time the photo was taken (probably in November 1993), causing corrosion and cracking of the containers, allowing water into the container (so that they cannot be reprocessed in the usual manner) and radioactively contaminating the surrounding area. As far as I know, the containers are still there, at least as recently as 2007.

Hehe, I think I'll let it stew over the weekend while I'm away. Who knows, someone may have an epiphany. If no one has figured it out by then, I'll post the answer.

I don't think the HCDB (and its sister databases, the HCDA, HCUS and HCWW) will be straying from the effort to maintain commonality with Harpoon4 rules. I should point out that the SARH air-to-air missiles still do require an illuminating radar from the launch platform (or group) and they have significantly lower PK (typically no better than 55%) than the ARH missiles like AMRAAM.

From Aviation Week Global Opposition Movement Challenges JSF Mar 4, 2009 By Bill Sweetman The first major military aircraft project of the Internet-era, the Joint Strike Fighter, faces a new opposition: a global, networked movement comprising independent and think-tank analysts, retired air force leaders and industry professionals and politicians concerned with the JSF’s financial and operational risks. All of them have immediate access to worldwide news, official reports and program briefings to an extent that was inconceivable when the F-22 was at the same stage of development a decade ago. There are a few main themes that run through many JSF critiques—some of which are complicated by classified information—but the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin have responded to many of them. •Risk: Critics assert that the JSF program represents a huge gamble. Alternative fighters—such as the F-22 and F/A-18—are due to go out of production soon. The JSF has yet to fly 100 sorties out of a 5,000-mission flight-test program. It is 30 months late, over budget and (depending on variant) 2,300-4,800 lb. above the empty weight goals set in 2002. Response: JSF leaders say the problems are behind them and the program has stayed largely on track since the redesign of 2004-05. Modeling, simulation and ground tests reduce the uncertainties of flight-testing, and the flight-test program has the resources—including more than 30 dedicated aircraft—to complete the program by mid-2014. •Cost: Independent analysts note that the real acquisition costs of JSF—a key factor in averting an F-22-like “death spiral” of declining numbers and increasing unit costs—are much higher than the less than $60 million quoted in many briefings (and by the Norwegian and Dutch governments). U.S. government numbers point to unit procurement costs in the $100-million range for the F-35A, in early years of high-rate production. Response: Program officials say the cost will remain stable, relative to the figures reported to customers, as long as decision-makers continue to support the program as planned and do not cut back on production. What seem to be unrealistically low numbers are legitimate “flyaway” costs, rather than full acquisition costs, and most real increases over the original cost goals are the result of historic factors. There are ongoing efforts to put together a fixed-price, multiyear, multinational binding contract for non-U.S. customers. •Capability: The “fifth-generation” tag applied to the JSF, critics and competitors assert, does not mean total superiority. The JSF cannot carry as many air-to-air missiles as a Eurofighter Typhoon or Sukhoi Su-35 and does not match their speed and agility. The weapons load is restricted in size and diversity unless the aircraft operates in non-stealth mode—in which case it lacks now-standard defenses, such as a towed decoy. Response: The JSF will operate in “stealth mode” in high-risk situations, giving it an advantage in air combat. The JSF pilot, with unique situational awareness, will have the option of declining close-quarters maneuvering combat while tracking and engaging adversaries from any direction. In surface-attack missions, accurate and lethal weapons and the JSF’s all-weather precision targeting system mean that fewer large munitions are needed. •Stealth: While the JSF’s radar cross-section characteristics are fixed by shape and construction, radar processing and networking are advancing according to Moore’s law, and new systems (like VHF radars) designed to detect stealth targets are under development. They may be even more effective against export-standard JSFs if those aircraft do not have the same stealth technology as U.S.-operated aircraft. Response: The JSF program declines to confirm or deny the existence of an “export stealth” configuration. “Anti-stealth” radars are unproven beyond the laboratory and test stage, and program officials are confident the JSF’s stealth technology will be good enough to “break the kill chain”—that is, prevent the defenses from consistently detecting, tracking and engaging the aircraft—for the life of the system. •Sovereignty: A combination of security (protecting stealth-related materials and the radar cross-section characteristics of the aircraft, embedded in the mission planning system) and a tightly controlled, automated logistics system will render overseas operators dependent on the U.S. Because the only stealth-compatible data link on the aircraft is the Harris Multifunction Advanced Data Link, too, the aircraft won’t be able to talk to export customers’ other systems while in emission-controlled mode. Response: Partners are happy enough with the level of sovereignty and national control provided, and the complex issue of connectivity with non-stealth assets is starting to be addressed. •Future airpower challenges: Supporters of the F-22, the Next Generation Bomber, the U.S. Navy Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle and other platforms worry that the size of the JSF program will crowd out other projects that may be critically needed in future conflicts. Many defense analysts envisage a future of Afghanistan-type counterinsurgency missions, deterrence against China, or both—but a stealthy, 600-mi.-range fighter is not central for either. Response: Affordable and stealthy, the JSF will still be a mainstay of future air forces and help promote coalitions. Funding of other programs is a budgetary issue for each customer. •Stovl: The value of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B, which will cost much more to buy and support than the F-35A but has inferior payload and range, is questionable. Stovl, as pioneered by the Harrier, made it possible to fly from short, unimproved air strips and small and multipurpose ships, but the much bigger JSF, with a hotter exhaust, will not be well-suited to those environments. Response: USMC Commandant Gen. James Conway asserts that the F-35B will be able to operate from unimproved, hot-and-high airfields unsuited for conventional aircraft. The U.K., however, has deliberately maintained the option to switch to the F-35C in the design of its new carriers.

I've already hinted that someone's answer was in the ballpark, but I can give another hint or even the answer if everyone is ready to know it. You decide.

The code only requires that you keep your aircraft's radar active (turned on). In real life, of course, most SARH guided AAMs not only require that the radar stay active, but that it remains pointed at the target being illuminated, and there are further limitations as to how many missiles can be guided at a time.

A hearty +1 to all of that.

From Flight Global DATE: 03/03/09 SOURCE: Flight International US Air Force cancels SAM-jamming EB-52 for second time By Stephen Trimble The US Air Force's decision to terminate the EB-52 stand-off jammer concept for a second time deals a new blow to the US electronic warfare community. Maj Scott Fisher, an electronic warfare modernisation requirements officer for Air Combat Command, confirms that funding for the revived EB-52 core component jammer (CCJ) effort has been removed this year from long-term spending plans. The idea of equipping a subset of the Boeing B-52 bomber fleet with high-power, wing-tip jamming pods has been pursued for almost a decade. A 2002 study by the USAF identified the need for a "systems of systems" airborne electronic attack architecture, with the EB-52 as the centrepiece. The concept also included the Boeing EA-18G Growler as an escort jammer, and Raytheon's miniature air-launched decoy-jammer (MALD-J) as a stand-in radar suppressor. However, then-USAF chief of staff Gen Michael Moseley cancelled a $1 billion acquisition for the stand-off component in 2005. Moseley said the programme's cost had ballooned to $7 billion, although some industry and government officials estimated the real cost to be $3-4 billion. Facing Congressional pressure, the USAF revived the concept in 2007. That prompted Boeing and airborne jamming specialist Northrop Grumman to form a competitive alliance, with BAE Systems their most likely rival for a contract. Less than two years later, the USAF has again changed direction, and is now willing to accept more risk in the stand-off jamming mission, Fisher says. At the same time, the service will contribute more resources to support the stand-off jamming mission. "Just because you don't have one piece doesn't mean the whole mission falls apart," Fisher says. Another effort to mitigate the loss of the EB-52 is to upgrade the Lockheed Martin EC-130ECH Compass Call fleet, which has traditionally focused on communications warfare. The 14-aircraft fleet is being upgraded starting this year with a radar jamming system, although its capabilities and frequency range are undisclosed. Fisher also says that multiple CCJ technology maturity contracts have been awarded by the US Air Force Research Laboratory. Those contracts, which fund development of critical power and cooling technologies, such as gallium nitride-based processors, will be concluded at the end of this year. Based on their results, the USAF may decide to fund follow-on development work for a stand-off or other jamming systems in the fiscal year 2012 budget, Fisher says.

I'm using the VMWare Player to run WinXP. Overall, its working well.

Rene is correct. I saw this in 2009.014 last nite. It is not happening consistently, though. I could choose some targets from the map, others I could not.

From RIA Novosti Russia to build nuclear-powered 60,000-ton aircraft carrier 19:02 | 27/ 02/ 2009 MOSCOW, February 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's new-generation aircraft carrier will be nuclear powered and have a displacement of up to 60,000 metric tons, a United Shipbuilding Corporation executive said on Friday. Vice Adm. Anatoly Shlemov, the company's head of defense contracts, said the new carrier was still at the drawing board stage, but its blueprint and basic specifications have already been defined. He said the carrier will serve as a seaborne platform for new-generation fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, in particular, a fifth-generation fighter that will replace the Su-33 multirole fighter aircraft currently in service, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). "It will be a fifth-generation aircraft with classic horizontal take-off and landing capability," the admiral said. Shlemov said, unlike in the past, the new aircraft carrier would not be armed with cruise missiles, which were not part of its "job description." He said that at least three such carriers were to be built, for the Northern and Pacific Fleets. The executive offered no timeline on the project, saying it was not as yet clear which shipyard would get the contract. The new carrier has an estimated price tag of $4 billion. So far the Russian Navy only has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov Project 1143.5, built in 1985, with a displacement of 55,000 metric tons, a crew of 1,500, and capability to carry more than 50 aircraft. [CV32: Anyone here want to invest in that project? ]

From ARES RAAF Goes for Growlers Posted by Robert Wall at 2/27/2009 1:32 AM CST The Royal Australian Air Force could be the first non-U.S. military service to operate EA-18 Growler electronic attack aircraft under a deal announced in Australia today. The deal is also noteworthy for the fact that it indicates the U.S. is willing to share some of its most advanced technology with close allies -- neither the EA-6B nor EF-111 jammers were exported. The EA-18G deal comes not long after the Pentagon agreed to let the U.K. buy RC-135 Rivet Joints, the highly sensitive signals intelligence system. Australia is not buying new Growlers; instead it would modify 12 of the F/A-18E/Fs the country previously committed to buying under a A$6.6 billion program. “Wiring twelve of the Super Hornets as Growlers will give us the opportunity to provide taxpayers with better value for money,” defense minister Joel Fitzgibbon says. A final decision on buying Growlers, including the jamming kit, is expected around 2012. The electronic attack modification “will also provide the Super Hornets with counter-terrorism capability through the ability to shut down the ground-based communications and bomb triggering devices of terrorists,” Fitzgibbon notes. At this point, the government is making a A$35 million downpayment so half of the 24 F/A-18E/Fs on order could be turned into Growlers. Making the wiring and other internal modifications now, while the fighters are in build, is cheaper than a retrofit program, the Australian government says. A further A$300 million would be needed to complete the Growler effort.

Nobody is correct, but somebody is close.

No correct answers thus far.

What I have done is present the calculation (finally), using a particular set of assumptions (rules), stating the assumptions as clearly as possible. If a different set of assumptions is appropriate, then it should also be fairly clear how the calculation would be modified. I have tried to avoid suggesting an attack that takes advantage of game idiosyncracies. Yes, that was the intent of the original question. I assume you mean 40 per Aegis ship?

From Flight Global DATE: 26/02/09 SOURCE: Flight International Blade and cockpit technologies promise long-life VH-3D By John Croft A new set of composite rotorblades available for Sikorsky S-61 heavy twins could boost performance and add decades of life to the type's VH-3D presidential fleet derivative - for as little as $1.25 million per aircraft. That upgrade option focuses attention on a brewing political battle that could doom the Lockheed Martin VH-71 programme, which is intended to replace the VH-3D with a modified AgustaWestland AW101. The VH-71 started life in 2005 as a $6 billion US Navy contract, but has seen its cost to date soar to $11 billion owing to modifications demanded after the navy realised its requirements greatly exceeded the aircraft's design limits. At a White House fiscal responsibility summit this week Senator John McCain chided President Barack Obama about the VH-71: "Your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One [the modified Boeing 747s acquired by the US Air Force in 1990 for about $400 million each]. "I don't think there's any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas have cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money." Obama replied that he has spoken with defence secretary Robert Gates about a "thorough review of the helicopter situation", and also mocked the apparent need to replace the Sikorsky VH-3D and VH-60 fleet with a new presidential helicopter: "The helicopter I have seems perfectly adequate to me. Of course, I've never had a helicopter before. Maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it." Whether building political momentum will bring an axe down on the VH-71 remains to be seen, but the project has crossed the 50% cost overrun limit which, under the Nunn-McCurdy law, automatically requires the military to consider terminating a contract. And, Obama has remarked: "I think [the VH-71] is an example of the procurement process gone amuck. And we're going to have to fix it." Meanwhile, Sikorsky by May plans to have certificated for the VH-3D the new composite main rotor blades, developed by Carson Helicopters and approved by the US Federal Aviation Administration in 2004. A five-blade upgrade, which also involves strengthening the helicopter's tail pylon and transmission mounts, will cost just $1.25 million per aircraft and boost lift capacity by 910kg (2,000lb), speed by 15kt (28km/h) for the same power level and double service life to 20,000h. Other upgrades being packaged by Sikorsky as the S-61 Triton include a Carson composite tail rotor that the company says will increase payload by 180kg by reducing by 50shp (35kW) the amount of power needed by the tail. A new glass cockpit featuring Sagem displays has just been certificated and engine manufacturer GE is investigating an upgrade to the VH-3D's CT-58 engines that will boost total power by 370shp to 1,870shp.

This is what I was trying to explain to VitP earlier about what was "technically correct". Sorry for the confusion, but keep in mind that there are Harpoon versions here other than HCE where "real life" is more closely represented and I'd like the analysis to be at least somewhat useful to everyone. Thanks.

Haha, tsk tsk, Warhorse.

Not necessarily directly related, but of similar concern ... From RIA Novosti Russian Navy officials suspected of trying to smuggle arms to China 20:45 | 25/ 02/ 2009 MOSCOW, February 25 (RIA Novosti) - A group of Russian Navy officials are suspected of attempting to smuggle 30 anti-submarine missiles and 200 airplane bombs worth a total of $18 million to Tajikistan for sale to China. Russia's chief military prosecutor, Sergei Fridinsky, said a criminal case had been opened and an investigation was ongoing, adding that the smugglers included a number of businessmen. A Navy spokesman confirmed the statement, adding that the consignment had been listed in a customs declaration as "de-commissioned, recycled ammunition." Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo said the smuggling operation was prevented by "the Navy, in conjunction with the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Security Service (FSB)." According to some media reports, high-ranking Navy officials, including vice admirals and rear admirals, may have been involved in the scheme.

Hehe, indeed. Though reportedly Kitty Hawk isn't in great shape either.

Simple question, what is depicted in this photo?

One always wonders about the backchannel politics but I think in this case China probably doesn't have the influence it would like, even if it were vehemently opposed to India gaining a "new" carrier. The Chinese are building a lot of their own stuff these days, and it seems like everything Russia sold to them has been used as a template for reverse engineering.

Is it technically correct? No. The SM-2 is semi-active radar guided in the terminal phase. It still needs the SPG-62 director aboard the ship to point its radar beam at the target in the final moments of the engagement. If the target is not in the director's LOS, there can be no terminal guidance and therefore no successful intercept.