CV32

From Aviation Week ARES Blog Patrol Planes of the Caribbean Posted by Joris Janssen Lok at 2/18/2008 3:47 AM After more than three years of interim solutions, maritime air surveillance flights by the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba Coast Guard (NAACG) have reached a situation of stability with the arrival of a second Dash-8 patrol plane operated by Provincial Airlines of Canada. The long-range maritime patrols for the NAACG from Hato Airport, Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, were conducted by Lockheed Martin P-3C Orion aircraft of the Royal Netherlands Navy through 2005. But when the Netherlands Government decided to sell its P-3C fleet (to germany and Portugal), a solution to meet the NAACG surveillance requirements had to be found. Initially, Britain stepped in, providing two BAE Systems Nimrod MR2 patrol aircraft operated by the RAF. Then, the RNLAF took over with a pair of specially-concerted Fokker 60U twin-turboprop transports, retrofitted with a telephonics sea surveillance radar, FLIR and command, control and communications equipment. In the meantime, the Netherlands Government signed a deal with Provincial Airlines of Canada. This company converted two Dash 8 twin-turboprops for the maritime patrol role. The first of these arrived in October and the second is now also operational from Curacao. The aircraft play a key role in counter-drugs operations in the Caribbean, interdicting drugs trafficking routes from Colombia. Another major mission is search and rescue. Thirdly, the aircraft contribute to the overall situational awareness of the NAACG and the Royal Netherlands Navy command center at Curacao, which together with the islands of Aruba and Bonaire are located just miles from the Venezuelan coast. The NAACG also operates around three additional islands that belong to the Netherlands Antilles: Saba, St. Eustace and St. Maarten. These are located east of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The Fokker 60Us that were converted for maritime patrol have already returned to the Netherlands and, together with two standard Fokker 60Us, are presently being offered for sale, with Chile having been mentioned as a potential buyer. [Posted here mainly because Provincial Airlines is a local Newfoundland company and one of the pilots in the program is a personal friend of mine].

From Aviation Week U.S. To Shoot Down Satellite Feb 17, 2008 By David A. Fulghum and Amy Butler The U.S. Navy is specially modifying three advanced SM3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors to shoot down an electronically dead, intelligence-gathering satellite that was launched into space for the National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO). Aviation Week broke the news on AviationWeek.com Feb. 12 that the U.S. was planning the shootdown. Communications with the satellite were lost almost immediately, which means there’s no way of guiding the spacecraft to a predictable crash site as it returns from orbit, says Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The extraordinary decision to shoot it down was the result of analyses that show the satellite’s 40-in.-dia. hydrazine tank—now holding a 1,000-lb. frozen sphere of maneuvering propellant—will survive the descent. It will pose a lethal danger when it strikes the Earth, cracks open, and the frozen slush turns into a toxic gas, says James Jeffrey, White House deputy national security adviser. The effect on human lungs would be similar to ammonia or chlorine gas. A hydrazine tank on the Columbia space shuttle survived its crash in Texas, but it was almost empty when it struck. The NRO satellite’s fuel, by comparison, has the potential to spread over an area as large as two football fields, they say. Odds are that the satellite will reenter the atmosphere and crash into the ocean, which makes up 70% of the Earth’s surface under the satellite’s orbit, the areas between 58.5 deg. N. and S. Lat. But U.S. officials, with the approval of President Bush, decided not to take the chance, since a 2,500-2,800-lb. mass from the satellite is expected to survive descent, Cartwright says. The three Aegis ships involved in the intercept, from a launch site in the northern Pacific, will be “reconfigured on a one-time, reversible basis,” says Jeffrey. Even if the space defense missiles miss or misfire, the threat will be no greater, says NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. However, even if the missile only grazes the errant satellite, it will fall out of orbit faster, analysts contend. If they make a direct hit, the spacecraft is expected to fall into an unpopulated area, Cartwright says. If the SM3 missile hits the satellite as it nears the atmosphere, more than 50% of the debris will reenter within two orbits, about 10-15 hr. Most of the remaining pieces would fall within a month, Cartwright says. It will be critical to hit the satellite before it enters the atmosphere, where its nonaerodynamic shape will cause it to tumble and be almost impossible to engage, he says. If the first SM3 misses, operators will reassess and try again with the backup missiles. It is officially denied that debris from the payload could reveal secret new U.S. national security capabilities if satellite wreckage were recovered by another nation. But some analysts are less certain, given the experimental nature of the intelligence-gathering payload. Pentagon officials and industry analysts are circumspect about the satellite’s mission capabilities. At least two sources with insight into the program say it’s not an imaging radar as some believed. The satellite was launched Dec. 14, 2006, on a Delta II, one of the smaller family of vehicles in the U.S. launcher inventory; key parts of this particular package are not sized for a traditional imaging radar satellite. “It’s not a radar,” says a longtime Pentagon radar expert. The Space Radar, for example—a program that was shifted from the U.S. Air Force to NRO in last year’s budget—was criticized because it would need a heavy booster, which would drive up costs. It’s also thought not to be a product of NRO’s traditional imagery, signals or communications intelligence shops. Instead, it’s a smaller passive system—“not radar, optical or ladar”—that was cobbled together by the organization’s fast-development, advanced science and technology office, the aerospace official says. It also appears to be an offshoot of earlier NRO work on small, cheap, fast-reaction, imaging satellites. The U.S. is admittedly looking hard at how it could rapidly repopulate its intelligence-gathering satellite network if the current constellations are targeted by antisatellite weapons or network and electronic attack. Nonetheless, the issue of the payload’s classification alone was not enough to justify breaking up the satellite with an interceptor missile, Cartwright says. The inoperable satellite is expected to reenter the atmosphere late this month or in early March. Were the U.S. to try to destroy it before it reenters, Washington could easily provoke international outrage. Barely a year ago, China became only the third nation to demonstrate it can destroy a spacecraft in orbit when it shot down one of its own aging weather satellites (AW&ST Jan. 22, 2007, p. 22). China’s antisatellite (Asat) test prompted diplomatic rebukes and caused a furor in space circles because it created a cloud of debris—including some that was propelled into higher orbits—that threaten other satellites. This is the first time that the U.S. has used a tactical missile to attack a spacecraft, Cartwright says. The ability to make the hit just before the target enters the atmosphere, at about 130 naut. mi. altitude, is made possible by “minor modifications to software in the Aegis system and in the missile [when the satellite] will look most like a reentering missile,” he says. Cartwright contends that the U.S. effort differs from the Chinese Asat test because of U.S. notification of foreign governments of the event and interception at low altitude. The Chinese satellite was destroyed at an altitude of 850 km. (460 naut. mi.), which ensures the debris will be in orbit for decades. If by some mischance the hydrazine tank did hit a populated area intact, its rupture on impact, depending on winds and the dynamics of the plume of hydrazine, could kill humans out to a distance of “20-30 yards,” the official says. But any exposure would require medical care. The Aerospace Corp., a federally funded research organization that advises the U.S. government on space, says that reentering objects—including major items such as satellites, platforms and rocket bodies—have dropped 5,400 metric tons of material on the Earth in the last 40 years.

From DefenseNews U.S. Navy Orders New Destroyers By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS Construction of the first two DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class advanced destroyers is set to begin after the U.S. Navy awarded its two primary shipbuilders $2.8 billion in contracts Feb. 14. General Dynamics will build the Zumwalt — DDG 1000 — at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, while Northrop Grumman will build the yet-to-be-named DDG 1001 at its Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. The Zumwalt is set to be delivered by Bath in June 2013, while Northrop’s DDG 1001 is to follow in July 2014. Northrop and General Dynamics are cooperating in completing the final, detailed design of the destroyers. Northrop, the original lead contractor for the program, will be responsible for building the DDG 1001 and the superstructure and hangar for the Bath-built DDG 1000. Bath will build the mid-forebody hull section of the DDG 1001. A $3.3 billion price tag is attached to each of the new ships, although the Navy hopes the cost will drop as further ships are ordered. Independent government analysts, however, routinely forecast a much higher cost, with some estimates topping $5 billion and more. The Navy intends to buy a total of seven ships of the class, which the service says it needs to dominate littoral waters and provide long-range and persistent fire support for troops ashore. Each of the new ships was included in the 2007 defense budget, and the Navy is asking for the third ship in the class in the 2009 budget proposal sent to Congress on Feb. 4. The Zumwalt-class ships feature a unique and stealthy tumble-home hull form, electric drive propulsion and new radars. In addition to missile cells, the destroyers also will mount two 155-millimeter (6.1-inch) advanced gun systems, the largest guns designed to be fitted on a new warship since the 1950s. The 600-foot-long destroyers will have a beam of about 81 feet and draw about 28 feet of water. Only 142 sailors will man the highly automated ships. By comparison, the latest Arleigh Burke DDG 51-class destroyer displaces 9,200 tons, is 511 feet long with a beam of 66 feet and has a crew of about 360. The Zumwalt-class ships will be the largest surface combatants built by the U.S. since the nuclear-powered cruiser Long Beach was commissioned in 1961. Only the four 28,300-ton Kirov-class battle cruisers built by the Soviet Union during the Cold War were larger. The Navy has been developing the DDG 1000 design since the mid-1990s, when the class was conceived as the Land Attack Destroyer member of the Surface Combatant 21 family of ships. The program was cast as the DD21 project, then DD(X) and finally DDG 1000. Northrop and General Dynamics each have three major shipyards. Northrop’s primary shipbuilding facilities are Ingalls at Pascagoula; Avondale at New Orleans; and Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va. The company currently builds nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines at Newport News; destroyers, amphibious ships and Coast Guard cutters at Ingalls; and amphibious ships at Avondale. The major General Dynamics shipyards are at Bath; Electric Boat (EB) in Groton, Conn.; and National Steel and Shipbuilding (NASSCO) in San Diego. Bath builds destroyers, EB builds nuclear submarines and NASSCO is engaged in the construction of large auxiliary ships for the Navy and a series of commercial tankers. Two competitors are teamed with smaller shipyards in building prototype Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) for the Navy: Lockheed Martin’s ships at Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wis.; and General Dynamics ships at Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., in partnership with Bath Iron Works.

From Flight International DATE: 15/02/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Pentagon to shoot down crippled spy satellite By Graham Warwick US Navy Aegis cruisers will attempt to shoot down a disabled spy satellite before it reenters the Earth's atmosphere in late February, to avoid the potential danger posed by its hazardous hydrazine rocket fuel. It will be the first time the USA has tried to shoot down a satellite since September 1985, when a US Air Force Boeing F-15 launched an experimental anti-satellite missile that intercepted and destroyed an obsolete spacecraft. The US government strongly criticised a Chinese anti-satellite test in 2007, which used a ground-launched interceptor, arguing the test resulted in a massive cloud of orbital debris that posed a danger to civilian spacecraft. The Department of Defense says the "uncontrollable US experimental satellite" was launched in December 2006 and is expected to reenter the atmposphere between the end of February and early March. Because the 5,000lb (2,250kg) imaging spacecraft lost power after launch, before it could use any of its thruster fuel, the DoD estimates that more than half its mass will survive reentry, including the tank containing 1,000lb of highly toxic hydrazine propellant. "Although the chances of an impact in a populated area are small, the potential consequences would be of enough concern to consider mitigating actions," says the Pentagon. The US Navy has temporarily modified three Aegis cruisers and three Raytheon Standard SM-3 surface-to-air missiles in the hope of getting two shots at the crippled satellite before it reenters. The DoD says it has "high confidence" the engagement will be successful. "We will determine the optimal time, location and geometry for a successful engagement based on a number of factors," says the Pentagon. A seven- to eight-day window for the engagement opens after NASA's Space Shuttle Atlantis returns from space on 20 February. The Navy wants to intercept the missile at a point just above the atmosphere where it will maximise likelihood of bringing the spacecraft down in an unpopulated area. The intent is to rupture the 20in-radius hydrazine tank. From positions in the northern Pacific, the ships will attempt to intercept the satellite at 130nm altitude to reduce the risk of debris in space. If the satellite is hit, the DoD hopes half the debris will reenter in the first two orbits and the rest soon after. The Standard SM-3 is part of the US Navy's Aegis ballistic missile defence system, which has scored 12 intercepts in 14 attempts against missile targets. The missile is equipped with an infrared-guided kinetic warhead. Not details of the modifications have been released.

From Defense Aerospace DoD To Engage Decaying Satellite (Source: US Department of Defense; issued Feb. 14, 2008) An uncontrollable U.S. experimental satellite which was launched in December 2006 is expected to reenter Earth’s atmosphere between the end of February and early March. Because the satellite was never operational, analysis indicate that approximately 2,500 pounds (1134 kgs) of satellite mass will survive reentry, including 1,000 pounds (453 kgs) of propellant fuel (hydrazine), a hazardous material. Although the chances of an impact in a populated area are small, the potential consequences would be of enough concern to consider mitigating actions. Therefore, the President has decided to take action to mitigate the risk to human lives by engaging the non-functioning satellite. Because our missile defense system is not designed to engage satellites, extraordinary measures have been taken to temporarily modify three sea-based tactical missiles and three ships to carry out the engagement. Based on modeling and analysis, our officials have high confidence that the engagement will be successful. As for when this engagement will occur, we will determine the optimal time, location, and geometry for a successful engagement based on a number of factors. As the satellite’s path continues to decay, there will be a window of opportunity between late February and early March to conduct this engagement. The decision to engage the satellite has to be made before a precise prediction of impact location is available. Contact with hydrazine is hazardous. Direct contact with skin or eyes, ingestion or inhalations from hydrazine released from the tank upon impact could result in immediate danger. If this operation is successful, the hydrazine will then no longer pose a risk to humans. The U.S. government has been and continues to track and monitor this satellite. Various government agencies are planning for the reentry of the satellite. In the event the engagement is not successful, all appropriate elements of the U.S. Government are working together to explore options to mitigate the danger to humans and to ensure that all parties are properly prepared to respond. In the unlikely event satellite pieces land in a populated area, people are strongly advised to avoid the impact area until trained hazardous materials (HAZMAT) teams are able to properly dispose of any remaining hydrazine. (ends) Navy to Shoot Down Malfunctioning Satellite (Source: US Navy; issued Feb. 14, 2008) WASHINGTON --- The Navy will shoot down a malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite sometime after Feb. 20, government officials said during a Pentagon news conference Feb. 14. Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor, said President George W. Bush decided to bring down the satellite because of the likelihood that the satellite could release hydrazine, a toxic chemical used as a maneuvering fuel. "The likelihood of the satellite falling in a populated area is small, and the extent and duration of toxic hydrazine in the atmosphere would be limited," Jeffrey said. "Nevertheless, if the satellite did fall in a populated area, there was the possibility of death or injury to human beings beyond that associated with the fall of satellites and other space debris." The window for shooting down the satellite opens in the next three or four days and remains open for as many as seven or eight days, said Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said the study group looked carefully at increased risks to the shuttle and International Space Station and decided they are negligible. "We are very comfortable that this is a decision made carefully, objectively and safely," Griffin said. Still, the Navy will not fire until after the shuttle Atlantis mission ends Feb. 20. In late January, the U.S. government notified other nations that the satellite was unresponsive and would make an uncontrolled re-entry in late February or early March. The Navy has modified three SM-3 missiles aboard Aegis ships to strike the satellite, Cartwright said. The Navy wants to intercept the satellite at a point just above the atmosphere so there would be a high likelihood of bringing it down in an unpopulated area. An intercept also would rupture the hydrazine tank. The vice chairman would not say exactly where the ships would fire from, only saying it will be from the northern hemisphere and the Pacific Ocean. Intercepting the satellite at about 130 nautical miles altitude will reduce the risk of debris in space. Once the satellite is hit, officials hope 50 percent of the debris will come to Earth in the first two orbits and the rest shortly thereafter, Cartwright said. The satellite belongs to the National Reconnaissance Office and was launched Dec. 14, 2006. It weighs roughly 5,000 pounds, and computer models show that roughly 2,800 pounds would survive re-entry. "What is different here is the hydrazine," Cartwright said. "In this case, we have some historical background that we can work against for the tank that contains the hydrazine. We had a similar one on Columbia that survived re-entry. We have a pretty reasonable understanding that, if the tank is left intact, it would survive the re-entry." The tank is circular with a radius of 20 inches. It holds about 1,000 pounds of the fuel. While details of the satellite are classified -- DoD officials will not release who built it or how much it costs -- that had no bearing on the decision to shoot it down, Cartwright said. The temperatures from re-entry would burn up any classified system on the satellite, he said. Hydrazine is similar to chlorine or ammonia in that it affects lung tissue. People inhaling it would feel a burning sensation. "If you stay close to it and inhale a lot of it, it could be deadly," Cartwright said. If the military did not shoot down the satellite, the hydrazine would disperse over an area roughly the size of two football fields, the general said. Those who breathed it would need medical attention. "As we reviewed the data, if we fire at the satellite, the worst that could happen is that we miss," Cartwright said. "Then we have a known situation, which is where we are today." Grazing the satellite would probably still bring it down quicker and more predictably, he said. "If we hit the hydrazine tank, then we've improved the potential to mitigate that threat," he said. "The regret factor of not acting clearly outweighed the regret factor of acting."

Background info on the satellite in question: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/e-305.htm http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/nrol-21.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_193

From Air Force Times Debate over more F-22s must be settled by fall By Erik Holmes - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Feb 14, 2008 7:12:03 EST The Pentagon and Congress must decide by October whether the Air Force will buy more F-22s in future years in order to avoid a costly gap in production, the F-22 program’s top officer said Wednesday. “For us to have a non-break in production ... we need to know that we can purchase aircraft [in 2009] as the appropriation comes out at the beginning of the … fiscal year,” said Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Riemer, the F-22 program executive officer, speaking at a defense technology conference in Washington. The 2009 fiscal year begins Oct. 1. If the Air Force waits longer to order the titanium needed to build the aircraft, Riemer said, the metal will not be available in time to avoid a pause in production. And Riemer said some parts suppliers will begin shutting down their production lines in November, which would require the Air Force to pay more money to reopen those lines. The fiscal 2009 budget request submitted to Congress Feb. 4 includes funding to pay for 20 F-22s the Air Force had already committed to buying. But it does not include funding to pay for long-lead time items — such as titanium — for more aircraft to be purchased in future years, nor does it include money to begin shutting down the production line. “My big issue this year is what do we do?” Riemer said. “Do we shut down or do we build more?” Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne requested late last year that $497 million in 2009 slated to shut down the F-22 line instead be used to pay for long lead-time items for more airplanes. Despite early indications the Defense Department would go along with that idea, the department ultimately rejected it, according to Air Force budget officials. That money has instead been diverted to pay for repairs for grounded F-15s. That leaves program officials with no firm direction on what to do in 2009. Defense Department officials will reportedly try to keep the production line open until the next administration takes office by using the fiscal 2009 war supplemental to buy four additional F-22s. But Riemer said such a move will not solve the problem. “Keeping the line open with four additional aircraft in the [war] supplemental will not ... prevent a break in production,” he said. “We need aircraft in the [2009] budget to sustain production beyond the current lot.” Until lawmakers and military planners make a decision, Riemer said, he is developing plans for both scenarios — either buying long-lead items for more aircraft or spending the money to shut the line down. Either scenario is expected to cost in the neighborhood of $500 million.

Tony had a good point (on IRC), just ask the Chinese to do it.

From Aviation Week U.S. Considering Shooting Down Satellite Feb 12, 2008 By David A. Fulghum U.S. officials are studying the possibility of shooting down the errant Lockheed Martin intelligence satellite that was launched into space for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The concern is that the spacecraft carries a full tank of hydrazine - a toxic propellant - that would have been used to reposition the satellite in orbit. Government analysts say the odds are that the tank will crack open during re-entry or than it will land in the ocean, which makes up 70% of the area where the breaking up satellite might land. There also is concern in some quarters that debris could reveal U.S. national security secrets if recovered by other nations. It is expected to re-enter the atmosphere late this month or in early March. Analysts at the Missile Defense Agency and NRO have put hundreds of hours into analysis and have studied closely the accuracy of surveillance capabilities of U.S. radars in Japan, Alaska and possibly elsewhere to give more targeting options to those assessing the danger of the satellite falling to Earth. A senior official with insight into the planning says that a rumor that the satellite carried a small, nuclear generator is "absolutely and totally incorrect." However, government agencies including MDA and NRO "are studying options that include" hitting the satellite with a weapon so that it breaks up in space - and ruptures the hydrazine tank -- before beginning its descent. If the hydrazine tank did hit a populated area intact, and depending on winds and the dynamics of "plumeology," the impact could affect humans - perhaps kill some - out to a distance of "20-30 yards," the official says. Aerospace Corp., a California-based research organization that regularly advises the Defense Department, has assembled some basic data about falling satellites and what can be done about them. "For an orbiting object, shooting it down actually breaks the object into many pieces, some of which could be hazardous to other satellites," says the Aerospace Corp. "Many of the fragments will survive re-entry, but be spread over a much larger area. The pros and cons for a specific case would need to be examined." Re-entering objects, including major items such as satellites, platforms and rocket bodies have dropped 5,400 metric tons of material on the Earth in the past 40 years, the research group says. However, "if a satellite or rocket body has propulsive capability, it can use rocket motor burns to target the re-entry into a desired area. The technique was recently used by NASA to ensure debris from the 14,000 kg. Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory landed in the ocean," it says. As to the threat, "One person was brushed on the shoulder by a piece of debris in 1997. She was not injured. Large, hazardous fragments can survive, but in most cases, debris from re-entered objects is never found or reported," Aerospace said.

From Navy Times CNO: Russian bomber incident ‘not provocative’ By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Feb 12, 2008 17:33:44 EST The Navy’s top officer said he did not find the recent flyover of a U.S carrier by two Russian bombers “provocative,” adding that the bombers were simply “stretching their wings.” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told reporters at the Pentagon that such flyovers — first revealed by The Associated Press on Monday — were common in the past. “This was something that was really quite common in the days of the Soviet navy,” Roughead said on Tuesday. The AP reported that two Tupolev Tu-95MS Bear long-range bombers approached the carrier Nimitz off the coast of Japan over the weekend, and a single Bear twice flew over the carrier at the low altitude of 2,000 feet. The Nimitz launched two F/A-18 Hornets to escort the Russian aircraft when they were about 500 miles away from the ship. Roughead said he thought the incident was an example of a Russian navy trying to re-emerge on the global scene. He cited the recent example of Russian ships exercising in the Mediterranean Sea as proof of this attempt to return to prominence on the seas. “I do not consider [the incident] to be provocative,” Roughead said. There has been no communication about the incident between the two navies, he added. “My sense is that they are stretching their wings, so to speak,” Roughead said. “We had a ship out there, they flew out and we intercepted it — I know I’m not playing this up very much but that’s the way I see it.” “They came out to look, we joined up and flew with them until they went home,” he added. In turn, Roughead also addressed other matters in Tuesday’s 40-minute press conference, the first such event he has hosted since becoming CNO in late September. Addressing the recent decision to deploy the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group, which consists of amphibious ships, surface warships and a submarine, without its usual complement of Marines and equipment, Roughead said deploying without the Marines adds flexibility to the ships’ movement. “The decision was made for the Marines to deploy not using amphibious shipping, and we had worked up that group of ships, the Nassau ESG, and consistent with our strategy using those ships to go forward to be able to conduct operations with other navies, other militaries, not just in the Central Command area of operations but to have the flexibility for those ships to do some work perhaps in the Mediterranean or as far as the Pacific area of operations,” he said. The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, set to deploy to Afghanistan, trained with the Nassau ESG last year in anticipation of a February deployment. The Marines will now fly overseas, while their equipment is being carried by the Military Sealift Command cargo ship Algol. At the time of the announcement, one Navy official said it was “faster, easier and cheaper to fly the Marines and ship their equipment.” Roughead declined to say whether cost was involved in the decision to deploy minus the Marines. “There are a lot of factors that go into why we make certain deployment decisions,” he said. “I don’t want to get into whether or not it’s cheaper, there are just a lot factors involved.” On the subject of the Navy’s 313-ship fleet plan, Roughead told reporters he remains committed to the number 313 as a “floor,” or the minimum number of ships the service needs by 2020. He added that he has a team within the Navy working to figure out what the “ceiling,” or maximum number, might be. The Navy must pursue common hull forms to reduce shipbuilding costs, Roughead said. However, he defended the troubled Littoral Combat Ship program and said that the suggestion by some members of Congress, and others, that the Navy should buy the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter instead of LCS is not the solution to meeting the Navy’s near-shore capability gap. “LCS is the best ship to fill that gap — it has the speed, the shallow draft that expands and it’s been designed to have rapidly changeable mission modules,” Roughead said. The NSC does not have the “war-fighting” capabilities LCS has, he said.

Perhaps something like this suits your fancy ... Concept for US Navy LHA-R

A really great collection of photos of the Kuznetsov passing through the Strait of Gibraltar can be found here.

From Defense Aerospace Italy Awards Order for Four FREMM Frigates (Source: compiled by defense-aerospace.com; posted Feb. 1, 2008) PARIS --- The Italian Ministry of Defense has signed a contract for the second batch of the FREMM multi-mission frigate program it is developing jointly with France. No value has been provided for this contract, which covers four additional ships. The contract was awarded to OCCAR, the European Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, which is acting as the program’s joint executive, Italian Defense Undersecretary Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri told reporters during a Jan. 31 media event in La Spezia. This contract brings the total number of FREMM frigates ordered by Italy to six, the first two ships having been ordered in 2006. “This program has substantial economic and employment benefits not only for the Riva Trigoso and Muggiano naval shipyards, but also for subcontractors such as Oto Melara, Selex and Elsag, and will provide work until 2016,” Forcieri is quoted as saying in Italian press reports. “We feared that the government crisis might block the contract’s signature…The FREMM program is fundamental for Riva Trigoso, where it will guarantee work-load for about ten years,” according to Sergio Ghio, trade union representative for Riva Trigoso which, like the Muggiano yard, belongs to the Fincantieri group. The announcement comes as Fincantieri is preparing to cut metal for the first two frigates. An event marking this milestone was scheduled for Feb. 8. Each ship will provide about two years of work to the shipyards. The four latest ships have been entirely funded in the 2007 budget, two by a special fund managed by the Ministry for Economic Development and two by the Ministry of Defence. Deliveries of the first two ships to the Italian Navy are scheduled for 2011 and 2012. The prime contractor for the FREMM program is a joint venture company between France’s Armaris (itself a joint venture between Thales and DCNS) and Italy’s Orizzonte Sistemi Navali S.p.A., jointly owned by Fincantieri and Finmeccanica.

From Defense Aerospace Boeing Awarded Contract for Next-Generation Harpoon Block III Missile (Source: Boeing Co.; issued Jan. 31, 2008) ST. LOUIS --- The Boeing Company has been awarded a $73.7 million U.S. Navy contract to design and develop the Harpoon Block III missile, a next-generation weapon system that will enhance naval surface warfare capabilities. The system design and development (SDD) contract will result in a kit upgrade program for existing Navy weapons that will return 800 enhanced surface- and air-launch Harpoon missiles and 50 ship-launch systems to the service's inventory. "The start of SDD is a big milestone for the Harpoon program and is the first major development for the U.S. Navy on Harpoon for many years," said Jim Young, Jr., Boeing Harpoon Block III program manager. "Harpoon Block III will provide the warfighter with a capable, near-term solution to over-the-horizon, surface warfare threats." Equipped with a new data-link system, Harpoon Block III will offer warfighters more control after the weapon is released, resulting in improved accuracy for littoral and open-ocean warfare. The Block III upgrade also positions the missile for future spiral developments, including extended range and vertical launch capabilities. Harpoon Block III adds in-flight target updates, positive terminal control and connectivity with future network architectures to a proven missile that already provides autonomous, all-weather, over-the-horizon capability. The surface-launch version of Harpoon Block III will achieve initial operational capability (IOC) in early 2011 with IOC of the air-launch version scheduled for later that year. The next major program milestones will be the Systems Requirements and Preliminary Design Reviews, both scheduled for 2008. A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32.1 billion business with 72,000 employees worldwide.

I'm of the mindset that once a 'raid' is initially detected, all sensors (including the Mark 1 eyeball) are already 'primed' and cued to evaluate that threat. We all know that a single incoming Harpoon is pretty rare, and attackers (especially an attacker trying to kill a Sovremenny) is going to shoot en masse in the hopes of overwhelming the defenses. So, crew and sensors are actively looking for and expecting more missiles. From the sounds of this raid, they're all coming from a single direction? I think once you detect the first one, detection of follow-on missiles is quite likely.

Don't forget the CADS-N-1/Kashtan has its own radar (Hot Flash) - actually two, one search & track and one missile guidance - as well as an electro-optical system with both TV/optical and IR channels. Targets are designated by the ship's prime air search radar and then the CIWS system is then cued. Also, don't forget those nasty little SA-N-11 missiles!

If they can, its not something that is talked about much in open sources afaik. As you know, the SM-2 is semi-active radar guided, so the missile is provided in-flight targeting data by the ship through an RF link until the target enters the seeker field-of-view. The Block IIIA/B and later missiles have Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) that allows other ships to provide target tracking data to the ships that are launching the missiles. This permits control of the missile to be transferred to another ship either during the midcourse phase or during the transition into the terminal phase, in what is known as a "Forward Pass" engagement. Now, keep in mind that the Hawkeye 2000 (and later) also has CEC, and will cue SM-2/SM-3 against distant airborne targets, so theoretically, I suppose, there's no reason why it couldn't do the same against surface targets.

From today's news ... HG Current Events

From Defense Aerospace Pentagon Contract Announcement (Source; US Department of Defense; issued Jan. 30, 2008) McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $73,707,908 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-08-C-0021) for the system development and demonstration of the Harpoon Block III Missile Program. Work will be performed in St. Charles, Mo. (92.12 percent); Lititz, Penn. (1.93 percent); Cedar Rapids, Iowa (.84 percent); Chatsworth, Calif. (.76 percent); Galena, Kan. (.49 percent); Lowell, Mass. (.42 percent); and various locations across the United States (3.44 percent), and work is expected to be completed in Aug. 2011. Contract funds in the amount of $5,046,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. ** More on Harpoon Block III from the funding request docs: "The Harpoon Block III Weapons System is intended to upgrade and expand the capabilities of the Navy’s only anti-ship, all weather missile to improve its precision in a congested, littoral environment. Modification of the RGM-84D Harpoon 1C baseline missile will provide for Global Positioning System (GPS) accuracy, target selectivity in a littoral environment, and in-flight target position update solutions as well as positive terminal control. Specific improvements provide for significant target discrimination as well as minimized target-to-shore separation capability, Battle Hit Indications (BHI), connectivity with future network architecture, and Land Blanking capability. Harpoon Block III will provide for a concept of operations which will support existing ISR Platform target detection; target & weapon position update (ie. UAV, Helo, Fixed wing), and ISR Platform to Weapon Correlation Mapping. This development effort will lead to a procurement of 400 Harpoon Block III upgrade kits, beginning in FY 2009, that will retrofit existing Harpoon USN missile inventory."

hmm...would that require getting well within the defensive SAM envelope...will have to look at that. Guess that means employing some more offensive jamming. Very few navies have long range area defense SAMs for their ships. In most instances, it's gonna be point defense or local area defense. In the same ballpark as the present JDAM, I suppose. However, adding a set of wings (eg. Diamond Back) to JDAM could increase range as much as 300-400 percent. I don't know.

Correct.

Moving target capable JDAM or some variant thereof. See Maritime Strike using the F-22 Raptor (Oh my, he's quoting Carlo Kopp .. yeah, so ? Ssometimes he has useful things to say. ) I expect everyone will agree that we're no longer likely to be seeing mass missile exchanges between large blue water fleets, but rather small, focused engagements against individual ships or small groups of ships.

It sure did. It was the The BGM-109B TASM (Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile), the first conventionally armed version of the Tomahawk. It replaced the guidance unit of the TLAM with the guidance unit and the J band DSQ-28 active radar seeker (in modified form) from the RGM-84 Harpoon. The seeker was frequency agile, apparently able to to selectively choose high value targets and reportedly possessing some home on-jam capability. It was also capable of conducting a series of "expanding box" search patterns, allowing the missile to fly in a serpentine fashion to fully search the uncertainty zone. There was also a passive ESM system called PI/DF (Passive Identification/Direction Finding), designed to direct TASM against larger warship targets, supposedly through detection of their large air search radars. Selectable terminal maneuvers after target lock-on included short pop-ups from the sea skimming flight profile to try and get a better fix on the target position, and/or course changes to attack from an unexpected direction. In the terminal phase, TASM could attack at sea skimming level or from above after a final pop-up maneuver (like Harpoon). It also replaced the W-80 nuclear warhead with a 455 kg WDU-25/B blast/frag high explosive warhead. The big warhead, though, cut range to about 250 nm. The objective was to provide a really long range (250 nm) anti-ship missile, but the whole concept had problems: * a TASM flying out to max range would take nearly 30 minutes to get there, and during this time, a decently fast warship target might travel as far as 15 or 20 miles * the guidance system had no IFF capability, raising ROE issues * there were some reported difficulties with target resolution and ECCM performance Some potential solutions were explored, such as using helicopters to provide over the horizon targeting data, or even handing off to a targeting platform like the P-3 Orion, but these just really limited the flexibility of the weapon. About the time the nuclear TLAMs went ashore in 1991, and after the collapse of the USSR, the TASMs were withdrawn. Some 200 Block I TASMs were remanufactured into Block III TLAMs at a cost of about a million bucks each. (It was a bit more than just an upgrade, as with the TLAM-N conversions, because everything from the wings forward was modified). The TASM mission profile went something like this: (1) TASM is launched and its solid rocket booster takes it into ballistic trajectory until the booster burns out shortly thereafter. (2) Switching to turbojet, TASM descends to low altitude cruise trajectory of approx 15 m. (3) Just before reaching the target zone, TASM climbs to search altitude of approx 100 m. (4) At search altitude, TASM activates its active radar seeker and/or passive receivers and acquires the target. (5) After target acquisition, TASM descends back to low altitude. (6) TASM executes evasive maneuvers. (7) In terminal phase, TASM re-acquires the target. (8) TASM executes terminal maneuver and impacts with the target.

The Prowlers will provide some degree of EW self-protection when combined in a group with other aircraft, but keep in mind we're talking about a simple reduction in enemy hit probability percentage. It's not a sure thing, and probably not worth flying a very valuable Prowler into harm's way (as you've discovered the hard way). You're better off using them in the standoff offensive jamming role if you can afford it. Also, you're losing them at Vlow altitude because of the lack of a terrain following/terrain avoidance flag. (I expect you know that).

From Aviation Week Boeing Plans Sixth Generation Fighter With Block 3 Super Hornet Jan 30, 2008 David A. Fulghum/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Boeing is touting an even newer version of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that, paired with an advanced sixth-generation fighter in the works at the company, would give customers what Boeing deems a better package of capabilities than Lockheed Martin's combination of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The idea is that customers could buy 4.5 generation Super Hornets (perhaps 4.75 generation with the planned extra forward stealth and extra range of Block 3 aircraft) and then switch to a new, sixth generation faster than if they bought the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter. To be available circa 2024, the sixth generation aircraft would feature a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles and stealth against a much wider spectrum of radars. "The [Navy] C-version of the F-35 doesn't buy you a lot that the Super Hornet doesn't provide," says Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "Our strategy is to create a compelling reason for the services to go to the next [sixth] generation platform. How do you bridge F/A-18E/F to get us there? We want to convince customers to stay with [super Hornet] a few years longer -- by adding advanced capabilities and lowering price -- so that they can get to the sixth generation faster. If you go to JSF first, it's going to be a long time." Another part of Boeing's argument is that the "Navy is comfortable with the Super Hornet against the highest [enemy] threat through 2024, with the [improved] capabilities we have in the flight plan," Gower says. "The ability to counter the threat gets you to about the point that [boeing's] sixth generation is available." It's part of Boeing's counterattack on Lockheed Martin's claim that the decreasing price of the F-22, which is now at $140 million each, will make it so attractive that Australia may reconsider its buy -- already being paid for -- of 24 two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets. Until Australia's recent change in government, a number of U.S. officials said the government was considering a second lot of 24 Super Hornets and a six-plane squadron of EA-18G Growlers. Boeing makes the argument that a sliding in-service date for the JSF is worrying both the Australians and the U.S. military. "The U.S. Air Force and Navy are now talking a lot more about where they need to go with sixth generation to get beyond JSF," Gower says. "It could be unmanned, but I think you will see a combination of missions -- some manned, some unmanned." For Boeing, the real discriminators are going to be extended range (1,000-1,500 miles), a small radar signature against low-frequency radars, expanded awareness through connections with the network, and the ability to carry a number of bombs internally.