CV32

All well said.

Meanwhile ... From the The Hindu With Russia hiking Gorshkov price, India goes for indigenous carrier New Delhi (IANS): As Russia continues escalating the price for the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov much to the chagrin of the defence establishment here, India is all set for the keel laying of its first indigenous carrier for which Rs.3,260 crore (Rs.32.60 billion/$654 million) has initially been allocated. The keel will be laid at the Cochin Shipyard on Feb 28. [CV32: Emphasis mine] "The present sanction for the construction of the aircraft carrier under Project-71 (as it is technically named) is Rs.3,260 crore (Rs.32.60 billion)," a defence source said. However, this is likely to rise considerably, given the history of India's indigenous defence projects. For instance, Rs.150 million were initially allocated for the Arjun main battle tank that has been almost four decades in the making and which has so far cost Rs.3.5 billion. The carrier, with a 40,000-tonne displacement, will be ready to sail by 2011. It is not only the first military warship to be built at Cochin Shipyard but also the largest military vessel to be constructed at any Indian yard. "The aircraft carrier will be a big boost for the shipbuilding capability of the country. We will become the fourth nation besides the US, Russia and France to have the capability of building a carrier," an Indian Navy official told IANS. Britain also the capability to build carriers but these are now in shambles. "Work on the construction of the aircraft carrier started in 2006. It required nearly 300 people working on the ship designing for 2-3 years. It will be a spin-off for the industry because steel, lagging material, generators and other things are indigenous," the official added. The building of a ship can be divided into seven phases: design, construction planning, work prior to keel laying, ship erection, launching, final outfitting, and sea trials. What makes the carrier special is that it is built with steel produced by state-owned SAIL (Steel Authority of India ltd.) The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) are also involved in the project. India, which plans to operate three aircraft carriers by 2015, is also purchasing the Admiral Gorshkov, which was built in 1987. However, the deal has sparked a lot of controversy as Russia now is demanding a staggering $2.9 billion, which is almost twice as much as was originally agreed on. "India needs the Gorshkov to replace (its sole aircraft carrier) INS Viraat, which is currently undergoing refurbishment. We were expecting a price hike of $300-400 million during the refit in Russia of the Gorshkov but we were stunned when Russia proposed a cost escalation of $1.2 billion in 2007," another senior navy official said. That pushed up the cost from Rs.1.5 billion to $2.7 billion and the Russians are now demanding $2.9 billion.

From Defence Talk Indian Navy Stunned By Latest Russian Demand For Gorschkov Forecast International | Feb 24, 2009 NEW DELHI: The Indian Navy has been stunned by a Russian demand for an additional $700 million payment for the completion of the reconstruction of the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. This brings the total demanded by the Russians to $2.9 billion, more than three times the originally-contracted price and a truly outrageous sum by any international standards. In addition to this latest demand, the Russians have confirmed that the ship will not be completed until 2012, four years later than originally planned. These latest demands come as a savage blow to the Indian delegation that was planning to negotiate over the original Russian demand for an additional $1.2 billion. The delegation was hoping to find some middle ground over this extra demand but the new imposition seems to end any such hopes. India has already paid $500 million as per terms of the initial contract. The Russian delegation has said that regardless of the outcome of this round of negotiations, Sevmarsh wants an immediate payment of $190 million to continue work that's underway. To put these sums and times into context, India could purchase a new carrier from the U.K. or France for $2.9 billion and probably get it delivered as quickly as the Russians are proposing. The sum demanded by the Russians in unconscionably high for a ship that is already twenty years old, had been laid up for a decade and has suffered damage from at least two serious on-board fires. The rapidly escalating cost of rebuilding this ship can also be seen as an admission of the ship's bad condition after this long period of neglect. A logical Indian response to this latest demand would be to tell the Russians that they can keep their hulk and either find a new supplier or accelerate the Indian indigenous aircraft carrier program. While the progress on that program has been slow and the date of completion has now been pushed to 2014-15, directing $2.9 billion of additional funding into that effort could well serve to accelerate progress nicely. Alternatively, there are plenty of shipyards that could build a new carrier for the same sum. What really matters now is whether the Indian Navy will be so scandalized by these latest demands that it will be politically possible for them to walk away from the Gorschkov. Undoubtedly, doing so would be the sensible course of action. After all, there is an old naval adage that is very relevant: "Reconstruction Never Pays." [CV32: A tip for the Russians: Do you not want to sell 126 MiG-35s (or anything else) to India? ]

From Aviation Week President Publicly Reconsiders Marine One Feb 24, 2009 By Bettina H. Chavanne and Michael Bruno The high-profile VH-71 presidential replacement helicopter program came under the highest profile possible Monday when President Barack Obama and his former Republican rival for the White House lamented the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps project while discussing economic crises. “The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me,” Obama noted. The comment sent both the Navy, which runs the program, and manufacturer Lockheed Martin scurrying. “We are committed to the program’s success and are confident we can deliver the required number of helicopters compliant with the specifications that emerge from the ongoing review,” a Lockheed spokesman said after the comments by Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Defense and Wall Street analysts, like the Exane BNP Paribas Capital Goods Team, have noted that they doubt the program would be canceled, re-competed or significantly cut, although they would not be surprised to see if requirements are scaled back and the program stretched (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 19). However, others have proffered that dramatically altering the presidential helo effort, which has suffered a formal Nunn-McCurdy cost-schedule violation, could be a strong example of Obama’s call for sacrifice and thriftiness. Washington pressures are triangulating amidst Capitol Hill, the White House and the Pentagon to cut back or cull weapons spending, with Obama set tonight and Thursday to outline major budget plans for the federal government. [CV32: Is it just me, or does the comment seem more than a little naive?]

From ARES Another North Korea Alert Drill for GMD? Posted by Michael Bruno at 2/24/2009 4:38 AM CST There doesn't seem to be any official word from U.S. defense officials online yet, but if North Korea is preparing for another missile launch, then the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System of ballistic interceptors based in Alaska and California probably is on alert. The New York Times is reporting that North Korea said today it was preparing to send a satellite into orbit in what U.S. and South Korean officials believe will be a provocative test of a long-range missile capable of reaching parts of North America. CNN is reporting it too. A statement from Pyongyang, via the official Korea Central News Agency online, also said today that "preparations for launching experimental communications satellite Kwangmyongsong-2 by means of delivery rocket Unha-2 are now making brisk headway at Tonghae Satellite Launching Ground in Hwadae County, North Hamgyong Province." The statement said North Korea "envisages launching practical satellites for communications, prospecting of natural resources and weather forecast, etc. essential for the economic development of the country in a few years to come and putting their operation on a normal footing at the first phase of the state long-term plan for space development." The move comes as U.S. and South Korean officials warned the enigmatic North in recent days not to do so. "We have made it clear that we consider it both provocative and unhelpful," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. "And we will continue to seek ways to discourage them from launching a missile for any purpose." U.S. officials declared themselves pleasantly surprised with GMD when they placed it on an extended, 40-day alert in mid-2006 ahead of North Korea's infamous July 4 ballistic missile tests. The alert provided an effective shakedown of the system and allowed the team to work out bugs that could not have been discovered any other way, GMD prime Boeing and Missile Defense Agency officials said through 2007. North Korea test launched a number of missiles that day including a long-range Taepodong-2 that might have been capable of reaching some non-continental U.S. states and territories. All splashed down harmlessly in the Sea of Japan, and in fact may have fizzled quickly. As Aviation Week reported in mid-2007, those launches, as well as ballistic missile demonstrations by Iran, have driven U.S. officials to make plans for simultaneously operating and testing their defenses, which include radars in the U.S., Europe and Pacific region, space-based detectors and interceptors at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg AFB, Calif. BBC has an excellent wrap-up of North Korea missile mania too.

Don't need to test it. A SAM that cannot otherwise shoot at you at Vlow, can shoot at you at Low and then follow you down and attack you at Vlow. The only part I can't recall right now is whether we introduced a reduction in the pH.

Yes, that's true. If I recall correctly, we introduced that behavior somewhere along the way, maybe with a reduced hit percentage but I can't recall exactly. (I'm trying to keep in mind that VitP is playing with an old version of Harpoon Classic). I guess the point I was making is that there will be always ways and tricks to defeat the computer AI. Zooming to high altitude and afterburner was one way of defeating air-to-air missiles, for example. We got rid of that one too. I am sure a few still persist.

Hehe, "Vertical Little Bighorn Attack"? Okay. Its a flaw in computer Harpoon, been around from the beginning, just like similar flaws in probably every other computer/simulation that ever existed. I suppose it will stay there, in some version or another, until a true "AI" comes along. (But of course we run the risk of Skynet. ) Air launched anti-ship attacks don't happen like this in real life, because (1) the strikers lack the endurance to hang around and play "chicken" with the target; (2) most anti-ship attacks are successful because they surprise the target; (3) strikers are usually vulnerable to intercept by defensive counter-air (i.e. enemy fighters), and hanging around, advertising their presence tends to attract their attention; and (4) the brass frowns on pilots playing risky games with their multi-million dollar aircraft and their schedules. These and myriad other real life factors are only accounted for in the most rudimentary way by Harpoon (and, I must add, most other games/simulations). Just the nature of the beast.

From DefenseNews Taiwan Finalizes Long Awaited P-3 Deal By wendell minnick Published: 23 Feb 07:25 EST (12:25 GMT) TAIPEI – Taiwan, the U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin have finally settled issues over price and offset options, and are expected to soon sign a contract for 12 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft for $1.3 billion, said sources in Taiwan. The signing will mark the end of two decades of struggle by Taiwan to replace its decrepit Northrop Grumman S-2T anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft. In April 2001, former U.S. President George W. Bush authorized the sale of a major arms package to Taiwan that included 12 P-3s, eight diesel submarines and four Kidd-class destroyers. Much of the arms package was held up by years of bickering in Taiwan's legislature that alienated Washington. The delay is also expected to have increased the price per aircraft - originally $66 million in 2001 - but an exact breakdown on figures was unavailable. Lockheed Martin did not comment on final contract negotiations. Taiwan's air force procured 37 S-2Ts in 1978 and transferred the remaining 26 to the navy's 1st Aviation Group in 1998 to outfit two squadrons, the 133rd and 134th. Today, sources in Taiwan have said there are only three functioning S-2T aircraft with ASW capabilities. One operational S-2T was spotted during a Taiwan naval exercise in 2008 in the Pacific. Since 2000, besides the P-3C, the Lockheed S-3 Viking and Alenia C-27J Spartan were discussed as replacement options. Before 2000, with the pullout of European defense contractors from Taiwan because of pressure from China, the military considered the Fokker Maritime Enforcer and the Dassault Atlantique Europatrol aircraft. The U.S. had also discussed refurbished Lockheed P-2 Neptune aircraft, but Taiwan rejected the offer. Part of the P-3 delay was early Taiwan military opposition to procuring refurbished aircraft. Despite the fact P-3 production had been discontinued, Taiwan military officials insisted on reopening the line, a costly option that delayed procurement for several years. A late bid in 2006 by L-3 Communications also delayed procurement as Taiwan debated the option. L-3 hired former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to lobby Taiwan for an open bidding. L-3 finally canceled its bidding efforts. The P-3s will be pulled from the U.S. Air Force's bone yard, the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group, in Arizona, for refurbishment. China has greatly expanded its conventional submarine fleet over the past twenty years. It now has roughly 55 diesel attack submarines, including Kilo-class, aging Romeo-class, Ming-class and Song-class submarines.

From DefenseNews UAE to Buy Boeing C-17, Lockheed C-130J Airlifters By andrew chuter Published: 23 Feb 07:38 EST (12:38 GMT) The United Arab Emirates has confirmed it is to purchase Boeing C-17 and Lockheed Martin C-130J airlifters. Sheik Mohammed is congratulated by executives from Lockheed Martin after signing an agreement for C-130J airlifters at IDEX 2009 in the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Center in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on Feb. 23. (SHEILA VEMMER / STAFF) The confirmation came not with an official announcement, but with a simple ceremony involving the removal of shrouds covering models of the two aircraft in the presence of Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince and deputy supreme commander. Nothing was said officially, but the smiles on the faces of the Boeing and Lockheed executives crowding behind the models on the stand of the state-owned investment house Mubadala told the story well enough. An official announcement is expected within 24 hours detailing the purchase. However, yesterday Defense News quoted industry sources saying that Lockheed would be supplying 12 C-130J and Boeing would be building a handful of their giant C-17 airlifters. It is thought there are options for further C-130Js in the yet-to-be signed agreement. The agreements are the second success for the Boeing/Lockheed combination in the region in the last few months. Last year, Qatar signed a deal covering four C-130Js and a clutch of C-17s. The number of Boeing aircraft has never been officially confirmed but is said by analysts to be two aircraft.

From ARES Deficit Reduction Plans: the President and the Raptor Posted by Michael Bruno at 2/23/2009 9:59 AM CST Bloomberg is reporting that President Barack Obama's budget cuts rely heavily on reductions in military spending, and several other news organization said the same over the weekend. Maybe you've heard already, but if not then it's worth noting that Obama this week will be talking about cutting the "exploding" U.S. deficit in half by the end of his in 2013 (his word). According to administration officials, who previewed info to many reporters on back-ground conditions last week, the plan will rely in part on the drawdown in combat forces in Iraq and defense outsourcing. Meanwhile, an administration decision is expected soon on the F-22 Raptor's future. To most people not involved in national security or its industrial base, these issues will not seem immediately tied. But they are, I think. I suggest that the Raptor's decision - the more immediate of the two as it will take a while to draw down in Iraq - will set the tone for what exactly this President means when he talks about reining in defense spending as we know it. Iraq - assuming nothing changes there, and that's a big if - is essentially a fait accompli laid down by his predecessor, President Bush. The Raptor, however, Obama owns, and his decision there will "show his cards" on other looming decisions of the kind, like shipbuilding, ground equipment, etc. Obama started the formal campaign Saturday with his weekly public address. It will be followed by an economic summit today and an address to Congress tomorrow night. The climax is the unveiling of a 10-year budget outline Thursday. if you want to re-check what the president already thinks about defense spending, go here. This could be the most important week yet since the election for the aerospace and defense industry.

Finally located those panoramic shots of USS Freedom: http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/FREEDOM_PANO/

From BBC News Page last updated at 19:03 GMT, Friday, 20 February 2009 Tamil Tiger planes raid Colombo Two planes belonging to Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels have attacked the capital Colombo, damaging a government building, officials say. Both planes were downed, one of them hitting inland revenue offices, killing one person and injuring at least 40 others, officials said. The other plane was shot down near the city's airport, which has been closed. The raid comes as the army has driven the Tigers into a shrinking zone of jungle in the north of Sri Lanka. A pro-rebel website, TamilNet, said the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), had carried out the attack. Correspondents say the attack amounts to a major embarrassment for Sri Lanka's government, which had claimed to have destroyed all the rebels' hidden runways and put its small air force out of action. 'Massive explosion' The city was put on full alert at about 2130 (1600 GMT) as electricity was cut and searchlights and tracer fire from anti-aircraft guns cut through the night sky. Briton Barry Walker told the BBC that he was in a central Colombo hotel when the blackout hit. "We were sitting by the swimming pool when we heard firing of heavy anti-aircraft guns. Heavy shell fire. This lasted 20-25 minutes... then there was a massive explosion," he said. Another witness told the BBC he saw a low-flying aircraft and then heard a huge explosion by the city's fort, where many government offices are located. The air force headquarters, which is in the same area, may have been the target, correspondents say. Air force jets scrambled The ministry of defence said a tax office of the inland revenue department was in flames after one of the planes went down into the building. The other plane was shot down next to the international airport, just outside Colombo, and the body of its pilot had been found, defence spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella said. Witnesses at the airport told Associated Press news agency that anti-aircraft guns had been firing followed by an explosion. Military spokesman Brig Udaya Nanayakkara said the alert began when a suspected Tamil Tiger aircraft was spotted north-east of Colombo and the capital's air defences were activated. Air force jets were scrambled to engage the planes. The attack comes as a major Sri Lankan army offensive has inflicted a series of defeats on the Tamil Tiger forces, pushing the rebels into a narrow area of jungle in the north of Sri Lanka. The Tigers have used light planes in the past to attack Colombo. In October 2008, suspected Tamil Tiger rebels carried out air strikes on oil tanks near the capital, Colombo, and in north-western Sri Lanka. Colombo was also targeted in another raid in March 2007. About 70,000 people have died in the last 25 years as the Tigers have been fighting for a separate homeland in the north and east of the country.

From CNN February 20th, 2009 Rebels jets attack Sri Lankan capital Posted: 02:10 PM ET COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (CNN) — Two Tamil rebel aircraft swooped into this capital city Friday, with one dropping a bomb that killed at least two people and wounded 47 just before it crashed, officials said. Officials said the casualties occurred in and around the head office building of the Department of Revenue. The wreckage of the plane was found on top of the building. It was not clear if the aircraft was shot down or if the pilot had intended a suicide attack. The building is two blocks away from the Air Force headquarters, which officials believe the attacker meant to strike, according to Defense spokesman and Cabinet Minister Keheliya Rambukwella. An Air Force spokesman, Wing Commander Janaka Nanayakkara, said the second rebel aircraft was shot down near the Colombo International Airport. Military officials believe the second aircraft had been headed toward the nation’s main air force base, which adjoins the international airport. [CV32: I guess it ain't over after all. Surprise! I doubt they were "jets", btw, as I think the LTTE operates some 5 Zlin 143 light aircraft. Launching an air attack on the capital with those aircraft shows these guys are as bold as brass. Or just plain nuts. Either way, dangerous.]

I can appreciate what you're saying, Warhorse, but at the same time, its been nearly 20 years since the Cold War ended. The last "sorta conventional" war that NATO fought was during Operation Allied Force in Serbia/Kosovo in 1999. More importantly, though, its not as if NATO hasn't been involved in Afghanistan until now. Its been involved in the operation in one way or another since the get-go in October 2001. I'm reminded of what the "official" line was then: ""[it is a] new kind of struggle that we have to win. These terrorists are not 10 ft tall. They are not insuperable. They are not unvanquishable. But we are. And we certainly will win." -NATO Secretary General George Robertson. Valiant words that sounded like a pretty strong commitment. The problem is that the follow-up just hasn't been nearly as impressive. And don't get me wrong. I know Afghanistan is no beach picnic. We just saw the 20th anniversary of the Russians having departed the place, a few days ago, and they can tell a few stories of just how nasty. But if NATO is committed to the operation, then it really needs to be committed, and not just pay lip service to the job that needs to be done.

From Navy Times Navy celebrates 1,000th Trident sub patrol The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Feb 19, 2009 7:55:47 EST KINGS BAY NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE, Ga. — A coastal Georgia military base is celebrating a milestone for the Navy’s fleet of nuclear-armed submarines — the 1,000th patrol since the first Trident missile sub launched in 1981. Navy Secretary Donald Winter is scheduled to mark the occasion Thursday with other dignitaries at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base near St. Marys. Kings Bay is the East Coast port for the Navy’s Trident submarines. The fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines was launched during the Cold War as a deterrent to nuclear war. The subs lurk undetected beneath the ocean during 11-week patrols, capable of launching ballistic missiles at targets within 4,000 miles. The 560-foot submarines carry more than half of the U.S. military’s strategic nuclear warheads. [CV32: Rumor has it that the motto for USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740) will be changed to something along the lines of "In hope of everlasting peace ... and that we never get rammed from behind by a Sous-marin Nucléaire Lanceur d'Engins". ]

From Navy Times Damaged ship goes into drydock The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Feb 19, 2009 7:58:38 EST HONOLULU — The Navy’s damaged USS Port Royal has gone back into drydock at Pearl Harbor for repairs. The guided missile cruiser ran aground off Honolulu International Airport on Feb. 5. It took four tries over as many days to refloat the $1 billion warship. The vessel’s sonar housing, propellers and to other structures were damaged. Repairs are expected take months and cost millions of dollars. The Port Royal underwent $18 million in repairs while in drydock for regular maintenance from October to January. The cause of the grounding is under investigation. In the meantime, the Port Royal’s commander, Capt. John Carroll, has been reassigned. [CV32: The new command is likely the rather small, wooden hulled vessel Akula mentioned earlier. ]

From Navy Times NATO planning new anti-piracy mission The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Feb 19, 2009 11:38:49 EST KRAKOW, Poland — NATO is planning to deploy a new naval flotilla in the coming months to combat piracy off Somalia, a spokesman for the alliance said Thursday. “Based on discussions, you can expect to see another NATO naval operation off the lawless coastline of Somalia next spring in the general effort to combat piracy,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai told reporters at a meeting of defense ministers. In November, NATO sent four warships to the waters off the Somali coast and the Gulf of Aden to stem a surge of pirate attacks against merchant shipping in one of the world’s busiest sea lanes. They were replaced in December by a European Union task force, which will remain in place until the end of 2009. A number of other countries, including China, Russia and India, also have contributed warships to the international effort to combat piracy. Still, pirate attacks have continued, and NATO has been considering sending a follow-on force to reinforce it. The U.N. Security Council has authorized countries to enter Somalia’s territorial waters, with advance notice, and use “all necessary means” to stop piracy and armed robbery at sea. The pirates are well-funded, well-organized and have easy access to heavy weapons in a country that has been in tatters for nearly two decades. Pirates travel in open skiffs with outboard engines, working with larger ships that tow them far out to sea. They use satellite navigational and communications equipment and have an intimate knowledge of local waters, clambering aboard commercial vessels with ladders and grappling hooks. To date, pirates have raked in tens of millions in ransom and attacked and seized dozens of vessels carrying everything from palm oil and chemicals to luxury yachts. High-profile seizures include an oil tanker and a Ukrainian ship laden with tanks, both recently released. Their focus has been the Gulf of Aden, between Somalia and Yemen, where 20,000 merchant ships a year pass on the way in and out of the Suez Canal, the quickest route from Asia to Europe and the Americas.

From BBC News Danton wreck found in deep water By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News A French battleship sunk in 1917 by a German submarine has been discovered in remarkable condition on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. The Danton, with many of its gun turrets still intact, is sitting upright in over 1,000m of water. It was found by the Fugro geosciences company during a survey for a gas pipeline between Algeria and Italy. The Danton, which sank with 296 sailors still onboard, lies 35km southwest of the island of Sardinia. Naval historians record that the Danton's Captain Delage stood on the bridge with his officers and made no attempt to leave the ship as it went down. The French government is now keen to see that the site is protected. "Its condition is extraordinary," said Rob Hawkins, project director with Fugro GeoConsulting Limited. "After it was hit by the torpedoes, the Danton clearly turned turtle and rotated several times. You can see where it dropped some infrastructure on the way down and then impacted on the seabed. "You can see where it slid along the seabed before coming to a rest," he told BBC News. A comparison with the original plans for the battleship - in particular, the position of its 240mm guns - confirms the wreck's identity. The final resting place is a few kilometres from where people have traditionally thought the ship met its end. "The French Admiralty did argue with us for a while that it should have been several nautical miles away, but we reminded them that modern GPS methods are more accurate than the sextants they used in those days," said Mr Hawkins. Details of the discovery were released on Thursday at a press conference at the Museum of Science and Technology in Milan. The pipeline is being built by the Galsi (Gasdotto Algeria Sardegna Italia) consortium and will be the deepest underwater conduit for gas ever constructed when it becomes operational in 2012. Finding a safe route for it was extremely challenging, said Mr Hawkins. About 20% of the course lies on the abyssal plain in water depths of about 2,850m. There are also steep descents from the continental shelf. Fugro deployed its Autonomous Underwater Vehicle to gather bathymetric (depth) and geophysical data. It also used Remotely Operated Vehicles to make more detailed surveys of particular locations, such as where sediment conditions were uncertain or the route crossed known submarine telecommunications cables. The discovery of the Danton, named after the French revolutionary Georges Danton, means the 66cm-diameter pipe has to take a slight detour to avoid the war grave. The ship was less than 10 years old at the time of its loss, but already outclassed by the newer HMS Dreadnought design being introduced by the British. The 19,000-tonne, 150m-long vessel was carrying over 1,000 men when it was attacked by Germany's U-64 submarine at 1317 on 18 March, 1917. Patrol boats and a destroyer managed to save most of those onboard. The Danton was travelling between Toulon and Corfu, where it was due to meet up with other vessels in the French fleet. Many of those making the trip were actually crewmembers for the other ships at Corfu.

From Army Times Gates not hopeful for new NATO troops By Anne Gearan - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Feb 19, 2009 7:19:41 EST Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday the change in U.S. administrations offers fresh traction for his argument that NATO allies must shoulder more of the load in Afghanistan, and an opportunity to repair ties with Russia. The stalemated Afghan war is the dominant theme as Gates, the only holdover from the Republican administration of George W. Bush, makes his first overseas trip since President Barack Obama took office last month. Gates will see fellow NATO defense ministers in Poland, where he will ask sometimes reluctant European governments to send additional troops to Afghanistan at least for short stints ahead of national elections this summer. On Tuesday, Obama pledged 17,000 new U.S. forces for Afghanistan over the coming months to address what he called a deteriorating situation. “It is a new administration and the administration is prepared, as the president’s decision made clear yesterday ... to make additional commitments to Afghanistan,” Gates told reporters traveling with him. “But there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well.” The era of good feeling that Obama carries globally could also smooth the way to a better partnership with Russia on Afghanistan and other issues, Gates suggested, although he said Moscow is “trying to have it both ways” by undermining U.S. efforts to hang onto a strategic air base that resupplies troops in Afghanistan. Russia remains opposed to U.S. plans to station missiles and radar near its borders in Europe, but both nations have made overtures to ease the tension since Obama’s inauguration. “I am hopeful that with a new start that maybe there are some opportunities with the Russians that we can pursue,” Gates said. Although Obama replaced a president widely disliked in Europe, Gates suggested that the new president wouldn’t make a serious run at an issue that vexed his predecessor: How to get NATO to commit larger numbers of combat forces and send them where they are most needed in Afghanistan. Gates has largely given up hope that NATO countries, many with strong anti-war constituencies at home, will ever be willing to greatly expand the current NATO force in Afghanistan. “I think the likelihood of getting the allies to commit significant numbers of additional troops is not very great,” he said. Gates is focusing instead on asking NATO allies for emergency help this spring and summer to counter militants and improve security for the election. After that, Gates said, NATO allies can expand nonmilitary participation for the long term. As examples he suggested more police training and work to improve the Afghan government and fight drugs. “I hope that it may be easier for our allies to do that than significant troop increases, especially for the longer term,” Gates said.

Hoo-rah.

Far be it from me to denigrate the capabilities of a good diesel-electric/AIP sub, and while it has the stealth thing down pat, I would think it lacks two things that the proponents of DDG-1000 are looking for: (1) Firepower. A sub, especially a relatively small conventional sub, can carry only a handful of weapons. (2) Persistence. A function of firepower in many respects, a sub can't hang around and take shots at new and emerging targets.

A multi-regiment Backfire raid, combined with an Oscar SLCM strike, against a US Navy carrier battle group, was tackled in the Global Thunder MBX some years back. I was only a player, and not the umpire, but it was a mammoth undertaking.

From Aviation Week's ARES Blog Much Ink Flows Over Sub Collision Posted by Christina Mackenzie at 2/18/2009 12:40 PM CST Much ink is flowing concerning the collision on the night of Feb. 3 between French and British submarines, each of which was carrying 16 ballistic missiles, with commentators stressing that the incident underlines the need for the three NATO nations with submarines of this type – Britain, France and the United States – to seek new accords on the secrecy that made the collision possible. But these nations are likely to be very reluctant to share information on the whereabouts of thier subs, according to Lee Willett of the Royal United Services Institute in London who is quoted by AFP. “These are the strategic crown jewels of the nation. The whole purpose of a sea-based nuclear deterrent is to hide somewhere far out of sight. They are the ultimate tools of national survival in the event of war. Therefore, it’s the very last thing you would share with anybody.” Commentators all agree that Britain's HMS Vanguard and France's Le Triomphant, both about the same size and age, more than just brushed past each other because neither knew the other was there. “The Triomphant makes no more noise than a shrimp,” commented France's Defense Miniser Hervé Morin, while a senior French naval officer commented that the Triomphant generation of subs is 1,000 times quieter than the previous generation and cannot be heard above the ambient sound of the sea. The Triomphant's fibreglass sonar dome was shattered in the collision while the Vanguard returned to its home base in Scotland with “very visible dents and scrapes,” according to British press reports. Both British and French navies say the vessels were moving at “very low speed”, at just four-and-a-half miles an hour, with active sonars off and passive ones on, when they collided, probably somewhere in the Bay of Biscay. Arrangements between France and Britain for closer cooperation between their navies and a possible carving up of deployment zones for their nuclear-armed submarines patrols were formalised in September 2000 in the UK-French Bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement which called for port visits by the subs and regular exchanges on nuclear policy. But experts say the agreement probably did not include revealing the precise location of the subs. Hans Kristensen is quoted by Time Magazine as saying that “the fact that the collision occurred at all indicates that the two allies need to talk more.” And indeed, Morin said on February 17 that “one of the solutions is to talk with the British about patrol zones.” And the situation is unlikely to change even when France rejoins NATO's military command structure at the NATO summit in April. NATO operates a traffic-control system that alerts allied nations to the deployment zones of friendly submarines, specifically to avoid such collisions. But NATO's nuclear-armed submarines do not adhere to this system. “France uses the same procedure with regard to its submarine fleet as all other allies,” according to a NATO statement. Which means France, Britain and the United States – and logically absolutely nobody else either – ever know where each other's nuclear-deterrent subs are. And although one might wonder how two relatively small vessels could bump into each other in the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean, most navies use the same quiet, deep areas of the Ocean to hide in.

From Defense Aerospace Link to the full report here (PDF document) Highlights here ... The US Navy: Charting a Course for Tomorrow’s Fleet (Executive summary) (Source: The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; issued Feb. 17, 2009) This paper assesses the adequacy and affordability of current US Navy plans in light of current trends in naval warfare, expected future budget environments, and, most importantly, the likely operational demands associated with three enduring, long-term strategic challenges. These challenges are: defeating both the Sunni Salifi-Takfiri and Shia Khomeinist brands of violent Islamist radicalism; hedging against potential challenges posed by authoritarian capitalist states such as China and Russia; and preparing for a world in which there are more nuclear-armed regional powers. After conducting this assessment, the report lays out recommended changes to the current Navy plans in order to envision a future fleet that is both more capable and more affordable. These recommended changes are shaped by the observation that the US Navy finds itself alone at the top of the global naval hierarchy with a comfortable margin of superiority. Given that the size of the Navy’s battle force stands at 280 ships — less than half the size of the ultimate Cold War fleet — this may be surprising to some. However, while the US battle force is smaller than it has been in over seven decades, so too are the rest of the world’s navies. Furthermore, the Navy is transitioning from a fleet of ships to what officials describe as FORCEnet: a system of collaborative battle networks that would share data from across the force to form common operational pictures and use internet protocol-based systems to enable interactive combat planning, targeting, and execution. This transition means that the Navy is now defined less by the numbers of ships in its Total Ship Battle Force, and more by the combined capabilities found in its Total Force Battle Network (TFBN). Moreover, the Navy’s TFBN is itself part of both a larger National Fleet, defined by the combined capabilities of the US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Coast Guard, and Military Sealift Command, as well as a larger Joint Total Force Battle Network. Once the additional support drawn from these two entities is factored in, the US Navy’s 280-ship fleet likely enjoys no less than a thirteen-navy standard in aggregate fleet combat power. However, since 1990, comparing the US Navy against foreign navies is no longer an adequate way to judge US naval power. Instead, the Navy, along with the entire joint force, must prepare to fight two regional adversaries in overlapping timelines. Under this new two-war standard, in addition to conducting traditional naval fire and maneuver, the evolving TFBN would need to complete many additional tasks, such as: -- screening the arrival of joint forces, -- supporting joint operations ashore with air and missile attacks, and -- defending the joint force and allies from the same. In addition to preparing for two overlapping wars, the Navy also sizes its forces so that they can maintain persistent forward presence during peacetime. More than a decade’s worth of Navy analysis suggests that a two-war-plus-presence TFBN standard requires between 300 and 346 active ships, with a current objective target of 313. This means that the current 280-ship active fleet is now just 33 ships short of the Navy’s stated requirement. CURRENT NAVY PLANS The Navy plans to meet this 313-ship TFBN goal with an aggressive thirty-year shipbuilding and force modernization plan. However, these plans suffer from two deficiencies. First, the resulting fleet lacks certain capabilities required to meet the operational demands of the three aforementioned strategic challenges. Specifically, it lacks the range to face increasingly lethal, land-based, maritime reconnaissance-strike complexes, or nuclear-armed regional adversaries. Moreover, it does not adequately take into account the changing nature of undersea warfare, or the potential prospect of a major maritime competition with China. Second, even if the Navy’s desired TFBN could match up perfectly against future operational requirements, the signs are that the Navy’s plans are far too ambitious given likely future resource allocations. Between FY 2003 and FY 2008, the Navy spent an average of $11 .1 billion a year for new-ship construction (in constant FY 2009 dollars). In comparison, the average annual cost for new-ship construction projected by the Navy and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is $20.4 and $22.4 billion, respectively. Moreover, these costs do not include the substantial resources necessary to build the twelve replacements for the current strategic ballistic missile submarine force. It seems clear, then, that the Navy needs to scale back its current plans; they are simply too ambitious for expected future budgets. AN ALTERNATE PLAN Based on the analysis of future tasks and missions for the TFBN, as well as expected future budgets, this paper makes several recommended changes to the Navy’s current plans. These recommendations are shaped by the following assessments: -- The United States need not worry about losing global maritime superiority any time soon. Even with “only” 280 warships, the Navy’s current Total Force Battle Network it still the most powerful naval force in the world by a wide margin. When considering the combined capabilities of the 583-ship National Fleet, as well as the support the Navy’s TFBN receives from the broader Joint Total Force Battle Network, the margin of US naval superiority is even wider. -- The future TFBN should continue to be a two war-plus force, but with a more specific orientation. It must first be large and capable enough to support overlapping joint fights against a large, continental-sized adversary with advanced maritime recon-strike and undersea combat networks, and a mid-sized, nuclear-armed, regional adversary. The future TFBN should also be able to support operations against radical Islamist terrorists and the evolving Joint Global Counterterrorist/ Counterproliferation Network, as well as maintain persistent forward presence requirements for both combat-credible forces and proactive maritime security and partnership-building operations. -- Meeting the foregoing warfighting requirements is less about increasing ship numbers, and more about getting the right mix of TFBN capabilities and capacities. Moreover, while creating favorable security conditions and supporting the Joint Global Counterterrorist/Counterproliferation Network may require new thinking about naval forward presence, it will not require a major expansion of ships. The idea is to build partnership maritime capacity in the world’s littorals, not to flood the world’s littorals with US ships. -- To support persistent global maritime security operations as well as the Joint Global Counterterrorist/Counterproliferation Network, the Navy will need to establish a minimum of seven Global Fleet Stations in the following regions: Caribbean and East Coast of South America, West Coast of Africa, East Coast of Africa, Southwest/South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Western Pacific/Oceania. -- Fighting against advanced multidimensional maritime recon-strike networks and against regional nuclear-armed adversaries will require the future aircraft carrier and surface combatant fleets to operate and fight from greater ranges than they do today. -- Future multidimensional maritime recon-strike networks will likely include increasingly sophisticated undersea combat networks. As a result, the tactical submarine fleet must develop a whole new generation of undersea weapons and capabilities including smaller multipurpose submarines (both manned and unmanned), vehicles and weapons. -- Seabasing is not about replacing land bases. In the context of a two-war standard, seabasing is about exploiting command of the seas to enable the rapid transoceanic expeditionary maneuver of ready-to-fight combat units and the rapid movement of personnel, goods, and services, thereby providing an interdependent joint force with a high degree of global freedom of action and initial operational independence from forward land bases. -- The idea of an integrated and interoperable National Fleet — incorporating the combined capabilities of the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Military Sealift Command, and the strategic sealift fleet — is a powerful one that should be realized to the greatest possible degree. -- As a result of its great margin of maritime superiority, the United States can patiently and carefully assess the direction of the long-term global naval competition before making any dramatic changes to its force structure or organization. In the meantime, to strengthen its long-term competitiveness, the US Navy must invest in robust research and development while sustaining the country’s naval design and industrial base. It must also work to reduce both costs for individual ships and projected expenditures for building and sustaining the fleet. -- The four best ways to reduce shipbuilding costs and conserve resources are: exploit ship and aircraft designs now in production to the fullest extent possible in order to benefit from learning curve efficiencies; reduce the total number of different ship types to accrue savings in training, maintenance, and logistics; reduce crew sizes, which are the largest driver of a ship’s life-cycle costs; and aggressively pursue improved networking capabilities. -- Given expected future defense budgets, the levels of resources needed to support the Navy’s current plan are unrealistic. A more plausible total yearly shipbuilding target might be in the vicinity of $20 billion — a 25 percent reduction over the Navy’s plan. Given the uncertainty over future defense budgets, assuming the Navy will receive even $20 billion a year for shipbuilding may be too optimistic. Based on these assessments, the Navy should consider making the following changes to their current plans. Unless indicated, all costs are expressed in FY 2009 constant dollars. 1. Strategic Deterrent Fleet After completing the ongoing mid-life refueling cycle for the first twelve of fourteen Ohio-class SSBNs, immediately reduce the strategic deterrent fleet to its final TFBN target of twelve boats. Commence work on the SSBN(X) design immediately. 2. Large Undersea Combat Systems -- Begin a concerted research and development program for small manned undersea vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles and other unmanned underwater systems, as well as a new generation of littoral ASW weapons. -- Increase the build rate for Virginia-class SSNs to two per year no later than FY 2011, while continuing to upgrade the class in successive flights. -- Convert the last two Ohio-class SSBNs to SSGNs at their regularly scheduled midlife overhauls. -- Develop new types of smaller, manned multipurpose, underwater vehicles designed for parasite operations from both SSGNs and SSNs. 3. Large Tactical Aviation Seabases -- Slow the production rate of nuclear-powered carriers (CVNs) from one every four years to one every five years. -- Consider accelerating both the current unmanned combat air system (UCAS) demonstration program and the planned operational debut of the Navy’s UCAS. 4. Large Battle Network Combatants -- Halt production of the DDG-1000 after three ships, restart the Arleigh Burke-class DDG production line in FY 2010, and delay the start of the CG(X), now planned for FY 2011 , until at least FY 2015. -- Commence and complete the planned mid-life modernizations for fifteen of the twenty-two Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and all sixty-two of the authorized Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Retire the first seven Ticonderoga-class cruisers early. -- Immediately begin designing a new modular large battle network combatant (LBNC) which would have a conventionally-powered, integrated electric propulsion and power system similar to the system designed for the DDG-1000, but with more advanced electric motors. 5. Small Battle Network Combatants -- Ramp up production to a maximum of four new Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) per year and sustain that rate even after reaching the 55-ship TFBN target. Naval Special Warfare/Naval Expeditionary Combat Command Ships and Craft -- Build six Joint Multi-Mission Submersibles as rapidly as possible. Develop an even smaller manned multipurpose underwater vehicle (MMUV), designed to fit vertically inside an SSGN or SSN payload tube. -- Stand up a dedicated special warfare helicopter squadron with MH-60S helicopters, modified as necessary to support the clandestine, low-level insertion of SEAL Teams and other special operations personnel. -- For each of the seven aforementioned Global Fleet Stations, build/convert and assign one station command ship (a retired amphibious landing ship manned and crewed by the Military Sealift Command); a Naval Reserve Force Maritime Security Frigate (based on the Legend-class National Security Cutter); one Joint High Speed Vessel; one riverine squadron of thirteen boats; and four Coastal Patrol Ships. 6. Naval Maneuver and Maneuver Support (Prepositioning) Ships -- Size the TFBN naval maneuver and maneuver support fleet to support a naval maneuver operation with two Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs), reinforced by three additional brigades delivered by a combination of maritime prepositioning force (MPF) ships (vehicles and supplies) and airlift (personnel). -- Cancel the Future MPF squadron as now configured. Build only three Mobile Landing Platforms, and assign one to each legacy MPF squadron. -- Build “escort carriers” (CVEs) designed to carry Marine Corps F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft. -- Build an eleventh LPD-17 in FY 2010, and then build eleven LSD replacements based on the LPD-17 hull at a rate of one per year between FY 2011 and FY 2021. -- Take the seven Whidbey Island and Harpers Ferry-class LSDs in best condition, transfer them to the Military Sealift Command, give them a modest mid-life upgrade, and use them as the command ships for the aforementioned Global Fleet Stations. Retire the remaining five ships. 7. Joint Sealift Ships -- Replace the eight Fast Sealift Ships now in service with a new class of High Speed Shallow Draft ships. 8. Combat Logistics Force and Support Ships -- The Navy should transfer the twelfth T-AKE ship from the now-defunct MPF(F) to the Combat Logistics Force (CLF) while also consolidating future CLF shipbuilding on this hull form. The Navy should begin to replace its oilers from FY 2011 until FY 2025 at the rate of one per year with a hull based on the T-AKE. In FY 2027, the Navy would then shift over to a new T-AOE(X) station ship, based on the T-AKE hull, at an average rate of one per year. By the mid-2030s, the CLF fleet would thus consist of 31 ships, all based on a common hull, providing a significant savings in training and maintenance costs. The Navy should also purchase an additional five JHSVs for general fleet support. A LARGER, MORE CAPABLE AND MORE AFFORDABLE TFB N Compared to today’s fleet, the 2028 TFBN would be more capable across the full naval warfighting spectrum. At the lower end of the spectrum, the TFBN would have substantially more capacity for day-to-day engagement with smaller navies and for counterterrorism and maritime security missions. At the higher end, the TFBN’s undersea combat fleet would be more capable of taking on undersea combat networks, and its surface fleet would be far more able to fight from range against maritime A2/AD networks and nuclear-armed regional powers. Meanwhile, the TFBN would be in the midst of a fleet-wide transition and consolidation of ship types, with significant payoffs for training, maintenance, and logistics. These ships would also have a high degree of interoperability and mission flexibility that would result in a TFBN that is more adaptable and versatile. Over the next thirty years, this plan would see the new construction of 328 major warships and submarines, not counting any ships built or leased for the sealift fleet. Using the more conservative Congressional Budget Office estimates as a basis for comparison, the average yearly total shipbuilding costs for this plan would be $21.8 billion, including $19.9 billion in new-ship construction. These figures include the costs for the SSBN(X), as well as those for small boats, craft, and manned underwater vehicles. Nevertheless, the plan would still call for a significant increase in shipbuilding resources — about 74 percent more than the $12.6 billion per year spent on shipbuilding between FY 2003 and FY 2008. (ends)