CV32

From Jane's Israel braces for Syrian response By Alon Ben-David 05 October 2007 Israel is preparing for a Syrian response to the 6 September raid in northeast Syria, after both countries confirmed that the attack took place. Israeli intelligence agencies are mostly concerned that the Syrian response will be in the form of a terror attack on an Israeli target around the world. Israeli official delegations worldwide and airlines were ordered to increase precautions, recalling the Syrian attempt to bomb an El-Al flight from London to Tel Aviv in 1986. "I believe that the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad would rather act through proxies, such as terrorist organisation, than test his army in war against Israel," former Israel Defence Force (IDF) Chief of Staff, Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon told Jane's. Indeed, when asked by the British Broadcasting Corporation if he intends to retaliate against Israel, Syria's President Assad said: "Retaliate does not mean missile for missile and bomb for bomb. We have our means to retaliate, maybe politically, maybe in other ways. But we have the right to retaliate."

Should the USN forget or revamp the DDG 1000 design and continue to build more Burkes ?

From Air Force Magazine, October 2007 issue October 2007 , Vol. 90, No. 10 The Navy plans to build many more flattops, and they won’t be “Gary Hart carriers.” Seven New Carriers (Maybe) By Otto Kreisher Today’s Navy leaders are in a bind. With the size of the fleet at 277 warships, and with a stated requirement for 313, the service faces a broad, long-term, and expensive shipbuilding task. Senior officers are struggling to find the money, with no assurance of success. In the midst of all this, however, there is at least one certainty. Navy leadership is staunchly committed to buying many more big-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers—the most powerful, and expensive, warships on Earth. The Navy’s latest shipbuilding plan calls for building seven of these ships over the next 30 years. The top admirals insist that the Navy’s current force of eleven 100,000-ton, 1,100-foot-long floating airfields offers the best means for carrying out a wide array of US Navy missions. Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who served as Chief of Naval Operations before his recent elevation to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this spring that the Navy wants big carriers because they supply “global reach” and “persistent presence.” Opposite, an aviation boatswain’s mate checks the catapult on USS Ronald Reagan. (USN photo by Mass Comm. Spc. 2nd Class Aaron Burden) Still, the high cost of building new carriers raises considerable concerns. Government and independent analysts assert that the Navy, if it sticks to its existing carrier plans, will run out of money to modernize and expand other vital parts of the fleet, such as submarines. They suggest dropping below a steady state of 11 supercarriers, or, in the alternative, switching to smaller and cheaper aviation-capable ships. The Navy’s position paper on its new class of carriers declares: “Nuclear aircraft carriers provide the nation with the capability to quickly bring significant firepower to the theater of operations, remain there for extended periods of time without the need to rely on bases from other nations, control the battlespace, and project power ashore.” That is true, however, only if the warships and their air wings also have access to air refueling and resupply, which, of course, in turn require access to bases on land and, usually, the support of Air Force aircraft. USAF fighters usually can deploy in force to a theater faster than can carriers, and can provide a heavier sustained punch, if they have access to theater bases. And Air Force bombers can, if necessary, conduct strikes from extreme distances—including from US bases. Still, a 2006 RAND study noted, “On numerous occasions over the past 50 years, US military and civilian defense leaders have relied on aircraft carriers and their air assets, not only as key forward-based elements of the nation’s deterrent and warfighting force but also when the US has needed to project military power, engage in hostile operations, provide humanitarian relief, or fulfill a range of other hostile and nonhostile missions.” Afghan Naval Theater Without air bases near Afghanistan, the early part of the Operation Enduring Freedom air war was handled by Navy and Marine Corps strike aircraft aboard carriers, while Air Force bombers pounded the Taliban from bases on Diego Garcia and in the United States. In the major combat phase of the 2003 Iraq War, sea-based fighters slightly outpaced the Air Force in strike sorties, but USAF, thanks to its bombers, delivered much more ordnance. The size of the carrier force has fluctuated widely since World War II, but it stabilized after Vietnam at 15, each with an air wing of about 80 aircraft. Although Navy leaders insisted that 15 was the minimum number needed to meet their obligations, budget constraints, the deteriorating condition of older carriers, and the increasing cost of the new ones forced an initial reduction to 12. With the decommissioning in March of the conventionally powered carrier John F. Kennedy, the force dropped to 11. Among Navy personnel, that number now is considered to be “the minimum.” To get more overseas presence out of fewer ships, the Navy in 2003 scrapped the constant deployment of two carrier strike groups and promulgated its “Fleet Response Plan,” which promised to provide Washington the ability to surge six carrier groups within 30 days and a total of eight within 90 days. That capability was demonstrated partially in June 2004, when seven carrier groups were deployed at once. Maintaining 11 carriers was a key element of the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan, which was adopted in 2005 in an effort to rebuild the fleet to 313 combatants. It would require procurement of a new nuclear carrier every four years, so as to have replacements ready when the oldest carriers are stricken from the active list. Mullen said the shipbuilding cost would average $14.5 billion per year, higher by several billion dollars than is the case today. Critics, within and outside of government, warn that Mullen’s figure is far too optimistic. They say the Navy will need much more than that if it is to buy all of the ships that it says it needs. Above, the Reagan and two destroyers power through the Pacific. (USN photo by Chief Mass Comm. Spc. Spike Call) J. Michael Gilmore, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyst, told the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee July 24 that the plan would generate expenditures of $23 billion a year. Similar warnings have been issued by three prominent naval analysts—Ronald O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service; Norman Polmar, a private naval systems analyst and author; and Robert O. Work, a retired Marine Corps officer and now an analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. O’Rourke, Polmar, and Work all have presented alternative shipbuilding plans that would support a steady state force of only seven or eight carriers. These plans are said to be more “affordable,” which, in reality, means little more than “cheaper.” Work, in an effort to justify going to a smaller carrier force, pointed out that each of today’s naval air wings, equipped with precision munitions in large numbers, could effectively hit six times as many targets as it could about two decades ago. The analysts also disputed the accuracy of the Navy’s projected cost for the next generation of nuclear carriers. The first of the line, not expected to enter service until 2015, will be named after the late President Gerald R. Ford. Polmar, in two recent articles in Proceedings, the journal of the US Naval Institute, said Ford would require research and development of $12 billion followed by $12 billion in construction costs. Excluded from those figures are the cost of aircraft themselves. Polmar argued that the Navy should stop building its enormous nuclear carriers and build more of the 45,000-ton big-deck amphibious assault ships, which he said would cost about $2 billion and could carry a squadron of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the F-35. Lehman’s Taunt Some in and out of the Navy refer to this ship concept as a “Gary Hart carrier,” an epithet popularized in the early 1980s by Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman and referring to then Sen. Gary W. Hart’s call for small carriers using jump-jet aviation. It is clear that the Navy doesn’t like the idea any more than it did in the Lehman years. Navy officials consistently have rejected the idea of smaller flattops, arguing that supercarriers provide a stronger and more sustained combat punch at longer range, and are more survivable than the smaller ships. Moreover, the Navy thinks the critics are inflating their cost estimates. Rear Adm. David Architzel, the program executive officer for carriers, wrote in the August issue of Proceedings that building Ford would cost $8 billion over several years, and the research, which will benefit all the future carriers, would cost only $5.6 billion. That is a total of under $14 billion, not the $24 billion lofted by Polmar. Though the Navy rejects the ideas of most critics, it has accepted some recommendations in the RAND study, which said that future carriers, to meet emerging missions, “will need to be more modular, deploy on shorter notice, and be prepared to handle more casualties than they can today.” Aircraft jam a carrier deck earlier this year during a munitions offload. (USN photo by Mass Comm. Spc. 3rd Class Gary Prill) The Navy also wants to contain the cost of these new carriers. According to the Navy’s fact sheet, the new Ford-class of warships “preserves the core capabilities of the carrier strike group but with more flexibility to adapt to changing missions, and with reduced manning and maintenance to lower total ownership costs.” Capt. Michael Schwartz, Ford’s program manager, has repeatedly emphasized its flexibility, improved operational capabilities, and reduced cost. “The new carrier is being built with flexible, adaptable command and control spaces,” Schwartz said, to support a wider range of missions. “In carriers today, it’s all bolted down equipment, fixed infrastructure. For a ship that’s going to have a 50-year service life, it’s difficult for us to know what types of missions a carrier’s going to be involved in.” The new carriers also are being designed to meet the Fleet Response Plan’s requirement for greater availability by going at least 12 months longer between major maintenance periods. Another key feature, say Navy officials, will be greater combat performance. A 1999 test determined that the maximum number of strike sorties a carrier could launch was 220 to 230 in 24 hours, and about 120 in a 12-hour operating cycle. That exercise identified “the key bottlenecks,” which were mainly the ability to move aircraft around the flight deck, carry out maintenance tasks, and refuel and rearm them for the next mission, Schwartz explained. The new carrier is being designed to reduce those bottlenecks so it can conduct sustained operations of 160 sorties in a 12-hour cycle and surge operations of 270 sorties in 24 hours. Achievement of that goal, which is not assured, will require each carrier to have more flight deck space for moving and storing aircraft, more “pit stop” fueling points, more accessible maintenance and supply facilities, and a greatly streamlined system of moving, preparing, and loading weapons. They also will have launching and recovery systems that need fewer operators and less maintenance and are able to handle a wider range of airplanes. According to Schwartz, the improved design “not only gives you the ability to launch more aircraft sorties, which is a great tactical advantage, but also allows you to do it more efficiently, with a lot fewer people than today.” That in itself will reduce carrier expenditures, he added. Current carriers operate with more than 5,500 personnel in the ship’s crew and air wing crew. The goal is to operate Ford with 1,200 fewer personnel. When local land bases are in short supply, airpower’s initial punch is often provided by carrier-based aviation and USAF’s long-range bombers, such as this B-52, shown taking off from a forward operating location during Operation Iraqi Freedom. (USAF photo by SSgt. Jocelyn Rich) In a significant turn, the new carriers will also be expected to support a large unmanned combat air system (UCAS)—a stealthy drone that the Navy hopes will be able to conduct long-range, extended endurance strike and reconnaissance missions in high-threat environments. If development is successful, the UCAS could be available shortly after Ford enters the fleet in eight years. Despite the domestic critics, the Navy is clearly betting the farm on supercarriers—both today and tomorrow. Navy leaders aren’t alone in their devotion to the big decks; Britain, France, India, Russia, and China also are moving to acquire large, air-capable warships. The aircraft carrier has been the Navy’s premier weapon since it eclipsed the battleship during World War II, and the end of this dominance is nowhere in sight. Yet to be seen, however, is whether the Navy can create the carrier force it wants without wrecking its chances of building the larger, newer, and well-balanced fleet that it needs. Otto Kreisher is a Washington, D.C.–based military affairs reporter and a regular contributor to Air Force Magazine. His most recent article, “Versatile, Ready, and Rated,” appeared in the August issue.

Interesting, if only because I enjoy a "what if" ... From Antiwar.com September 25, 2007 What World War III May Look Like Philip Giraldi Neoconservatives are great observers of war and warriors, though they are sometimes not in complete agreement about the numbering of the conflicts that they send other people's sons and daughters to fight. Norman Podhoretz, the patriarch of the neocons, believes that the Cold War was World War III and that the U.S. is now fighting World War IV against "Islamofascism." He intends to expand World War IV by slating Iran as the next domino to fall to America's military might. Podhoretz undoubtedly sees the current global conflict as something that is good and necessary, both containable and winnable, but as his judgment on Iraq was fallible, his prediction of Iran's rapid destruction is also unreliable. It might be useful to imagine just how war with Iran could play out if the Iranians don't roll over and surrender at the first whiff of grapeshot. It might start with a minor incident, possibly involving an American Marine patrol operating out of the new base at Badrah near the Iranian border. The Marines are surrounded by superior Iranian forces claiming that the Americans have strayed inside Iranian territory. The Marines refuse to surrender their weapons and instead open fire. The Iranians respond. Helicopter gunships are called in to support the Marines, and artillery fire is directed against Iranian military targets close to the border. President Bush calls the incident an act of war and, in an emotional speech to the nation, orders U.S. forces to attack. A hastily called meeting of the UN Security Council results in a 17-1 vote urging the United States to exercise restraint, with only Washington voting "no." In the UN General Assembly, only the U.S., Israel, Micronesia, and Costa Rica support the military action. The U.S. is effectively alone. In the first few days, overwhelming American air and naval superiority destroy Iran's principal air, naval, and army bases. Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities are particularly targeted and are obliterated, as are the known Iranian nuclear research and development sites. Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons destroy communications centers and command and control facilities. There are nevertheless large numbers of civilian casualties and widespread radioactive contamination as many of the targeted sites are in or near cities. Infrastructure is also hit, particularly bridges, roads, and power generation stations close to known nuclear research centers and military sites. The U.S. media, which had supported the administration's plans to engage Iran, rallies around the flag, praising the surgical attacks designed to cripple Tehran's nuclear weapons program. Congress supports the bombing, with leaders from both parties praising the president and commenting that Iran had it coming. The Pentagon and White House call the attacks a complete success, but Iran strikes back. With five years to prepare, Iran has successfully hidden and hardened many of its military and nuclear facilities, a large percentage of which are undamaged. The aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower operating in the Persian Gulf is hit by a Chinese Silkworm cruise missile and grounds itself in shallow water to avoid sinking. Three other support vessels are also hit and severely damaged when they are attacked by small craft manned by suicide bombers. Pro-Iranian riots break out in Beirut, where the government is forced to call in soldiers to shoot at the crowds. In the south of Lebanon, Hezbollah fires salvoes of rockets into Israel. Israel responds by bombing Lebanon and Syria, which it blames for the attacks. Iranian Shahab-3 missiles also strike Israel, killing a number of civilians. The Israeli Defense Forces are mobilized, and troops are sent to the northern border. Syria and Lebanon also mobilize their forces. Rioters in Baghdad attack US. .troops and the American embassy and are driven back only after the soldiers open fire and call in helicopter gunships. Snipers attack American soldiers all over Iraq. Shi'ites sympathetic to Iran sabotage Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields. The Saudi fields suffer some damage, and hundreds of alleged saboteurs are shot dead by Saudi security forces. An oil tanker out of Kuwait is hit by a Silkworm close to the Straits of Hormuz and runs aground. Another hits a mine planted by Iran. Insurers in London refuse to cover any tankers transiting the Persian Gulf. Oil shipments from the region, one quarter of the world supply, stop completely, and oil goes up to $200 a barrel. Wall Street suffers its biggest loss in 20 years, with the Dow Jones index plummeting by more than 800 points. The U.S. offers Iran a cease-fire, which Tehran rejects. Two days later, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is assassinated under orders from Tehran. Fearing that he will be next, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf flees to Dubai. Order breaks down in both countries. The Pakistani army declares a state of emergency. Several leaders in the Pakistani tribal areas that are sheltering Osama bin Laden declare themselves independent. Fighting increases in Iraq with U.S. soldiers being targeted by both leading Shi'ite militias. U.S. troops evacuate Baghdad, fighting their way out with heavy casualties. There are reports of Iranian soldiers and militiamen massing at the border. Rioters in Basra succeed in cutting the main roads leading to Kuwait that supply U.S. forces. The U.S. scrambles to contain the damage, pressuring the Pakistani army to put down the riots and secure the country's nuclear arsenal, while at the same time trying to restore order in Kabul through the multinational force. Several NATO allies balk at using their soldiers in what they see as a burgeoning civil war, and the U.S. suffers heavy losses in street fighting before withdrawing to its bases. Taliban-backed militias take over much of Kabul and Kandahar. Afghanistan's Mazar-i-Sharif, which is largely Shi'ite, declares itself part of Iran. Waves of Iranian soldiers and militiamen cross the border into Iraq, where they are welcomed by the Iraqi militias. U.S. troops are under siege countrywide and are forced to withdraw into their bases where they can be supplied by air. The Iraqi government resigns and is replaced by a group of Shi'ite clerics. The government in Lebanon falls and is replaced by a coalition headed by Hezbollah. A salvo of Iranian Silkworm missiles sets the Saudi Arabian eastern oil fields ablaze. Saudi Arabia sends an urgent message to Tehran declaring that it is "neutral" in the fighting and will not assist the U.S. in any way. Kuwait sends the same message, as does Egypt. Kuwait refuses to allow the U.S. to use its men and supplies at Camp Doha against Iran. In Bahrain, rampaging Shi'ite crowds depose Sheik Khalifa al-Khalifa and set up an Islamic Republic which immediately demands that the U.S. Fifth Fleet dismantle its headquarters and go home. The Dow Jones index loses another 1,000 points. The U.S. attempts to get China and Russia to mediate with Iran to end the fighting, but they refuse to do Washington any favors, noting that they had opposed the attack in the first place. Suicide bombers attack London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. The attacks are poorly planned and inflict only a few casualties, but panic sets in and the public demands that the respective governments do something. The U.S. tells the Iranian government that unless resistance ceases, nuclear weapons will be used on select targets. India and Pakistan are alarmed by the U.S. threat and put their own nuclear forces on high alert, as does Israel. Russia and China also increase their readiness levels to respond to the crisis. Iran refuses to concede defeat, and the Iranian people rally around the government. The U.S. public clamors for action. Oil prices continue to surge, and even the long term viability of petroleum supplies is in question as the Straits of Hormuz continue to be closed. Another U.S. ship is sunk by suicide attackers in the Persian Gulf. U.S. troops are under fire nearly everywhere in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Anti-American rioting takes place in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Dhaka. The U.S. consulate general in Karachi, Pakistan, is overrun and sacked. Forty Americans are killed, along with hundreds of Pakistanis. The Pakistani army announces that it can no longer protect Americans. There are frequent terrorism scares in a number of American cities, which are under red alert security lockdown, though there are no new attacks. As a preventive measure, Muslim leaders and some antiwar activists are arrested and detained at military prisons, including Guantanamo. Israel continues to be bombarded from inside Lebanon and Syria. Its air attacks on targets in both countries inflict major damage on civilians but are unsuccessful in stopping the rockets. Rioting rocks the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas flees to Cairo. India threatens to attack Pakistan if there is any question about the security of Islamabad's nuclear arsenal. The United States uses a neutron-type bomb against the main Iranian nuclear research center at Natanz, which it had already bombed conventionally and destroyed. It vows to bomb again if Iran continues to resist. Iran is defiant and fires another wave of Silkworms at U.S. ships, sinking one. Suicide bombers hit U.S. targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistani militants take over parliament, aided by radical elements in the army and the intelligence service. India launches a preemptive strike against the main Pakistani nuclear centers at Wah and Multan, where the country's arsenal is believed to be concentrated. Pakistan has hidden some of its nukes elsewhere, however, and is able to strike back by bombing New Delhi. World War III has begun.

This story oughta be good for some more rants and opinions. From Navy Times Bath begins work on final Burke destroyer The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Oct 3, 2007 11:31:39 EDT BATH, Maine — Bath Iron Works has quietly begun construction on what’ll be the last of the Arleigh Burke destroyers that went into service in the early 1990s. Shipbuilders began cutting steel last month at BIW’s Brunswick facility for DDG-112, the 62nd and final ship of the Arleigh Burke class. The Navy has yet to name the ship, which will take 4½ years to build. Vice Adm. John Morgan, the first commanding officer of the original USS Arleigh Burke, came to BIW for the ceremony marking the start of construction. A banner created for the event read, “We Saved the Best for Last.” There have been worries among shipbuilders about a potential workload gap as the Arleigh Burke program wraps up and construction of the next-generation DDG-1000 ramps up. Construction on the first DDG-1000 is currently set to begin next summer. To address BIW’s concerns, the Navy has tweaked the schedule to give Bath Iron Works a faster startup on construction of the DDG-1000. But there are still unanswered questions. The Navy has committed to building only seven DDG-1000 destroyers, and it’s unclear how construction would be allocated between Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Both shipyards are scheduled to build one ship apiece before the Navy decides how to allocate the rest based on performance. The Arleigh Burke has been the Navy’s mainstay destroyer since the first one built at BIW was delivered in 1991. The $1.2 billion destroyers, which have a crew of 300 sailors, are built to withstand chemical attacks while simultaneously waging battle with enemy airplanes, warships and submarines. The DDG-1000s will have smaller crews even though they’ll be much larger than the 510-foot Arleigh Burkes. They’ll have a stealthier design and bigger guns, and a much bigger price tag at more than $3 billion apiece for the first two.

I understand the various versions of the RIM-162 ESSM are primarily differentiated for the types of launchers with which they are associated, i.e. RIM-162A - Aegis/Mk 41 VLS RIM-162B - non-Aegis/Mk 41 VLS (no S band uplink) RIM-162C - Mk 48 VLS RIM-162D - Mk 29 box launcher but are there any differences in performance or capability between these versions ?

From Defense Aerospace Air Warfare Destroyers – The Foundation Laid (Source: Australian Minister for Defence; issued Oct. 4, 2007) I am pleased to announce the signing of the final contracts to build three Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs) for the Royal Australian Navy. At a total cost of approximately A$8 billion, this is the largest naval shipbuilding project ever undertaken in Australia. The signing follows two years of hard work by the AWD team in the design selection phase of the project that resulted in the Australian Government choosing the Spanish Navantia F-100 warship as the platform for Australia’s next generation Hobart-class AWDs. The first of these Air Warfare Destroyers will be delivered in late 2014, followed by the second and third ships in early-2016 and mid-2017 respectively. The project will provide enormous opportunities for Australia’s shipbuilding, electronics and engineering industries, creating 1,500 shipbuilding jobs in South Australia. Another 1,500 jobs will be created throughout Australia. The Aegis-equipped F100 as our next generation Air Warfare Destroyer will provide the Navy with one of the world’s most capable warships. The Australianised F100 will be capable across the full spectrum of joint maritime operations, from area air defence and escort duties, right through to peacetime national tasking and diplomatic missions. Since entering service with the Spanish Navy, F100s, among their many other tasks, have worked alongside the United States Navy (USN) as the first foreign Aegis equipped ship to be fully integrated into a USN Carrier Strike Group. The principal contract signed today was the three-way Alliance Based Target Incentive Agreement between the Defence Materiel Organisation, ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd and Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd. This contract does not include the Commonwealth contract for the Aegis Combat System, which is a separate agreement between the Australian and United States Governments. The other contract signed today was the Platform System Design contract between the Commonwealth and Navantia S.A. Australian Industry will play a pivotal role in the success of the AWD project by providing specialised skills and equipment to the AWD Alliance. Australian Industry is expected to deliver products and services for around 55 per cent of the AWD Program over the next 15 years. This will be followed by high value through life support contracts into the middle of the century. Teams from the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance will be touring Australia in late October-early November to promote project opportunities to Australian industry. The Australia-wide tour will see two teams from the Alliance visiting Canberra and Cairns (22 October), Newcastle and Wollongong (23 October), Sydney and Launceston (24 October), Brisbane (25 October), Melbourne (26 October), Adelaide (30 October) and Perth (2 November). More details will be announced shortly on the AWD Alliance website at www.ausawd.com. Companies interested in becoming involved in the AWD Program can register on the AWD Alliance Supplier Registration Portal also on the AWD Alliance website. (ends) Air Warfare Destroyer Build Phase Commences (Source: Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance; issued Oct. 4, 2007) The Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance is pleased to announce another milestone in the development of the AWD Program. The AWD Alliance (the Defence Materiel Organisation, ASC and Raytheon Australia) have now signed the Build Phase contract which commits the Alliance Participants to work together as an integrated team to deliver the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) next generation HOBART Class AWDs. The AWDs will provide air defence for accompanying ships, land forces and infrastructure in proximate coastal areas and for self-protection against attacking missiles and aircraft. Chief Executive Officer of the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance Mr John Gallacher hailed the significant milestone as further evidence that the Alliance is on track and delivering its value proposition to the Commonwealth. “While DMO, ASC and Raytheon Australia have been working together for two years now, this signing ceremony signals the beginning of a period of high intensity for the Alliance,” Mr Gallacher said. “The Build Phase will require the engagement of hundreds of Australian suppliers and the success of the Alliance will depend on our people working as one team to meet the challenges of one of the most sophisticated engineering projects underway in the global defence industry.” Chairman of ASC, Mr John Prescott, praised the AWD Alliance team for their dedication towards reaching this important program milestone. “The commitment of all Alliance participants to arrive at this historical point in the AWD Program cannot be understated. As ASC now turns to the exciting challenge of building Australia’s next generation warship, we do so with the comfort and knowledge that this dedicated Alliance team will be at the helm.” Ron Fisher, Managing Director of Raytheon Australia acknowledged the achievement, "Today's milestone is about our commitment to deliver NoDoubt Mission Assurance to the RAN through Raytheon's expertise as Australia's leading Mission Systems Integrator. We've prepared well in the earlier phases and today marks the moment when the Alliance begins building Australia's most advanced ships" he said. AWD Program Manager, Mr Warren King, joined his Alliance colleagues in underlining the significance of this milestone. “This is the first time Defence has used an Alliance contracting strategy for a major defence project and signals the beginning of a new era in defence and industry engagement”, he said. “The DMO looks forward to working as one team alongside ASC and Raytheon Australia in delivering this next generation capability to tomorrow’s Navy.” Today’s signing ceremony also celebrated the beginning of the DMO’s partnership with the HOBART Class Platform System Designer, Navantia. Navantia is one of the most advanced shipbuilders in Europe and has centuries of experience designing and building warships for the Spanish Armada and a number of international customers. While Navantia will be a subcontractor to the Commonwealth, the Design Team will be seamlessly integrated into the Alliance working environment to achieve common Alliance goals. The Alliance looks forward to the opportunity to work closely with Navantia throughout the life of the AWD Program. The AWD Program ensures the timely and efficient delivery of an affordable, effective, flexible and sustainable AWD capability for the security of Australia. The Program uses an alliance-based contracting strategy for the design and build phase. Under this alliance, the Commonwealth, ASC and Raytheon Australia, work as an integrated team to achieve project objectives. The AWD Alliance Team includes personnel from the DMO, ASC and Raytheon Australia – supported by Navantia as the Platform System Designer and a range of sub-contractors. AWD Alliance Industry Engagement Roadshow The AWD Alliance is pleased to announce it will be conducting a National Industry Engagement Roadshow in late October – early November. The Roadshow seeks to inform industry about the opportunities available to suppliers wishing to participate in the largest Defence acquisition ever undertaken in Australia. (ends) AWD Contract Heralds New Era (Source: ASC Pty. Ltd.; issued Oct. 4, 2007) Twenty years after signing a contract to build Australia’s fleet of Collins Class submarines, ASC Pty Ltd has today secured the agreement to construct Australia’s air warfare destroyers (AWDs). Heralding a new era for the company, ASC signed the Alliance Based Target Incentive Agreement (ABTIA) in ASC’s AWD shipyard in Osborne, South Australia, along with the other AWD Alliance members, including Defence Materiel Organisation and Raytheon Australia. The ABTIA commits the Alliance members to work as an integrated team to deliver the Royal Australian Navy’s next generation warships. ASC Managing Director Greg Tunny said the significance of this milestone – representing the start of construction activities - could be likened to signing the Submarine Build contract twenty years earlier. “While ASC has been involved in the Air Warfare Destroyer Program for two years now, today we signed the agreement that will ultimately see Australia’s air warfare destroyers built,” he said. “This is tremendously exciting news for the company; both for our employees and for ASC’s future. We now set upon the challenging task of constructing Australia’s air warfare destroyer capability.” To support the shipbuilding effort, ASC’s workforce will double by an additional 1,000 people, with spin-off opportunities set to benefit local industry. The Build Phase that ASC has now entered involves design planning, engineering and development, and commencement of air warfare destroyer construction activity. “The commitment of all Alliance participants to arrive at this historical point in the AWD Program cannot be understated,” said Greg Tunny. “As ASC now turns to the exciting challenging of building Australia’s next generation warship, we do so with the comfort and knowledge that this dedicated Alliance team will be at the helm.”(ends) Air Warfare Destroyer Build Begins With Contract Signature (Source: Raytheon Australia; issued Oct. 4, 2007) CANBERRA, Australia --- Representatives of the AWD Alliance (the Commonwealth of Australia, Raytheon Australia and ASC) have signed Australia's Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) Phase III contract signalling the start of building. The AWD Alliance is committed to working together as an integrated team to deliver the Royal Australian Navy's next generation Hobart Class AWDs. The AWDs will provide air defence for accompanying ships, land forces and infrastructure in proximate coastal areas and for selfprotection against attacking missiles and aircraft. Ron Fisher, Managing Director of Raytheon Australia was positive about the achievement, "Today’s milestone is about our commitment to deliver NoDoubt Mission Assurance to the RAN through Raytheon’s expertise as a Mission Systems Integrator. We’ve prepared well in the earlier phases and today marks the moment when the Alliance begins building Australia’s most advanced ships” he said. As the AWD Mission Systems Integrator, Raytheon Australia will ‘Australianise’ the combat system around the Aegis core. The contract, worth A$1.4billion (US$1.2billion) to Raytheon, covers the design, development and procurement of the Australianised Combat System. Dan Smith, President of Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems and member of the AWD Principals' Council affirmed the importance of the program to Raytheon. "Our strong pedigree as a Mission Systems Integrator provides our Australian team with Reachback™ – the ability to draw on the company's collective wealth of experience and expertise for the program's success. Raytheon is proud to be a partner with this team in what will be the most advanced shipbuilding project in Australia's history," he said. Raytheon Australia was selected for the AWD Alliance in April 2005 and will continue to partner with Australian industry over the life of the project. With facilities located across the country, Raytheon Australia is a highly capable prime contractor with an engineering and technical workforce of some 1300 backed by world-class management and quality systems. This local presence is bolstered by strong relationships with small and medium sized enterprises and access to the global resources of Raytheon Company. Raytheon Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Raytheon Company. Raytheon Company, with 2006 sales of $20.3 billion, is a technology leader specialising in defence, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 73,000 people worldwide.

Watched Hamburger Hill again this evening, and I thought the poem at the end was worth sharing/reminding... SAVE THEM A PLACE by Major Michael David O'Donnell If you are able, save them a place inside of you and save one backward glance when you are leaving Be not ashamed to say you loved them though you may or may not have always Take what they have left and what they have taught you with their dying and keep it with your own. And in that time when men decide and feel safe To call the war insane take one moment to embrace those gentle heroes you left behind. Major Michael David O'Donnell Written 1 January 1970 MIA 24 March 1970 Dak To, Vietnam

That is good to know. Happy hunting !

Look in the Downloads section here at HarpGamer. Operation Island Wind is one of Akula's scenarios, and can be found here. (Note the person who submits (uploads) a file to the Downloads section is not necessarily the author. The author is listed separately).

I'm with you on this, Dale. LCS is an easy target, so people like to jump on the bandwagon of denigrating it. You have to keep in mind the role and purpose of the LCS. I'm not saying it will be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not ready to join the angry, torch bearing mob just yet. Yeah, this is where I think the LCS concept (maybe not the particular design, but the concept .. it remains to be seen) of modularity could prove its worth. Should the USN have invested in an existing modular warship design ? Perhaps.

I can't disagree with this. Stealth is not an unbeatable technology. Blind faith in the stealth "edge" is setting oneself up for a rude awakening. There was a time when we thought tanks were the unbeatable weapons of the battlefield too. Another area where E-Ring thinkers are giddy over the latest "buzz word". Agreed. I think Fire Scout or some other similar VTOL UAV program is worth investment. Whoa, lemme guess .. not a fan of the Super Bug, huh ? So your opinion of a mixed air wing of F/A-18E/F and JSF would be ... ?

From DefenseNews Posted 10/02/07 17:15 Israel, Breaking Silence, Confirms Strike in Syria By REUTERS, JERUSALEM Israel broke nearly a month of official silence and confirmed Oct. 2 it carried out an air strike deep inside Syrian territory on Sept 6. The incident stoked tensions between the long-time foes after months of speculation they could restart peace talks. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made clear in a television interview broadcast on Monday that he had not ruled out a military response to the Israeli raid. Israel had until now refused to confirm or deny that any air strike had taken place, though the incident was publicly confirmed by Syrian officials. Israeli officials confirmed an air strike inside Syria on Sept 6, but military censors continued to censor other details, including what was targeted and which forces took part in the operation. Some U.S. officials have linked the raid to suspicions of secret nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea. Damascus and North Korea have denied any nuclear ties. Other reports suggested the raid may have targeted Iranian arms bound for the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla movement. Syria has accused Israel of making excuses for war by spreading what it described as false reports that the air raid targeted a site linked to weapons of mass destruction. In an interview with the BBC, Assad said the Israeli air raid showed Israel’s “visceral antipathy towards peace.” He said Syria reserved the right to respond to the attack, identifying the target as an unused military building. “Retaliate doesn’t mean missile for missile and bomb for bomb. We have our means to retaliate, maybe politically, maybe in other ways. But we have the right to retaliate,” he said. Diplomats in Damascus say at least four Israeli warplanes crossed deep into Syria during last month’s operation. Syria and Israel are formally at war. Peace talks between them collapsed in 2000 over the scope of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, a plateau which the Jewish state captured from Syria in 1967.

All good questions, Pete. There will be no "return to big deck naval aviation" for the RN without the appropriate investment. It might go without saying that the RN will only be able to partake in wartime (or OOTW) operations that necessarily involve Coalition efforts.

From Navy Times CV costs could halve U.K. fleet, papers say By Philip Ewing - Staff writer Posted : Monday Oct 1, 2007 12:45:34 EDT The expense of adding two new planned aircraft carriers may cost the Royal Navy almost half of the other ships in its fleet, British newspapers reported Sunday. Citing an internal communique leaked from within the U.K. Ministry of Defence, The Times newspaper of London reported that spending on the two new 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth-class flattops might force the admiralty to decommission five other warships by April 2008, and further cut British warships in the coming decades. London’s The Telegraph newspaper reported that drawdowns and budget cuts could put the Royal Navy on course to field about 50 warships by 2027 — from its current fleet of about 103. According to the Telegraph’s “worst-case scenario,” the Royal Navy would have no minesweepers or patrol ships, cut two amphibious landing ships, and halve its complement of auxiliary and research ships. The only ship class left at present strength would be the navy’s eight destroyers. If, as envisioned, the navy decommissions five ships by April, the U.K. will only have enough of a fleet to carry out “one small-scale operation,” said the MoD document, until around 2014, when the Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to commission. The Royal Navy’s return to big-deck naval aviation — for about the last 30 years, it has sailed smaller Invincible-class carriers with ski-jump bows — is premised on Britain acquiring a fleet of new F-35 Lighting II fighters to replace its current short takeoff/vertical landing-capable Sea Harriers. The U.K. has so few Harriers now that about 80 percent of the time its carriers deploy, they carry no air wings or many fewer aircraft than they could.

From Flight International DATE: 01/10/07 SOURCE: Flight International Bomb test flameout nearly crashes F-22 By Stephen Trimble A key new weapon for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor has started a new series of tests despite a recent in-flight crash scare. The Boeing GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) began separation tests on the F-22 in early September after more than a year of sometimes difficult work to integrate the weapon in the weapons bay and carry out airborne captive carry tests, Maj Jack Fischer, a USAF test pilot, told the Society of Experimental Test Pilots' annual convention. Flight tests so far have produced a few in-flight problems, including one particular event that "could have been very bad", Fischer said. In that incident, an F-22 suffered a brief, dual-engine flameout while performing a negative-g, 360 degree roll with eight SDBs loaded in the weapons bay. The flameout occurred because the aircraft entered the manoeuvre with an incorrect trim setting. Although the engines restarted before the pilot was even aware of the problem, the momentary power loss dropped the telemetry signals to the control room on the ground. The control staff lost contact "with the aircraft pointed down toward the water at a very low altitude", said Capt Harris Hall, a programme official. "For a time, we thought the aircraft was lost." However, the engines were restarted almost immediately and the pilot remained in control of the aircraft, he said. The pilot landed at Edwards AFB, California, without incident. The dual-engine flameout was not discovered until flight engineers reviewed performance data from the flight. Integrating the 250lb (113kg)-class SDB is key to making the F-22 a more effective air-to-ground weapons platform, displacing two 2,000lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions with eight, "extreme stand-off" guided bombs in the internal weapons bay, Fischer said.

More rants ! More rants !

AAA test scenario for EC2003 IOPG. Aircraft flying at Vhigh altitude can successfully evade AAA Bty with an engagement ceiling of High altitude (i.e. cannot engage higher than High). Aircraft flying at High altitude can successfully evade AAA Bty with an engagement ceiling of Medium altitude (i.e. cannot engage higher than Medium) Aircraft flying at Vlow altitude can successfully evade AAA Bty with an engagement floor of Low altitude (i.e. cannot engage below Low). AAA_test.zip

Good call, Craig.

Yup. And I further wonder if Soviet airfields might have been less sensitive to the UXO threat (real or perceived) than their NATO counterparts ? I think maybe Jan was interpreting my earlier post as an opinion that Soviet equipment in general was sub-standard, but as discussed with him on IRC, thats not my opinion at all. Overall, the rate of failure among cluster bomb submunitions seems to have been fairly high, regardless of origin of manufacture, and there's no reason to expect that Soviet submunitions would have performed any better. And, given the apparently high rate of UXO in Soviet/Russian battlefields like Afghanistan and Chechnya, it might (repeat might) have been worse. If anyone has numbers on Soviet submunition failure rates, I'd like to hear about it.

From DefenseNews Posted 09/27/07 14:15 Israel again scrambles warplanes over ‘false alert’ By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, JERUSALEM Israeli fighter pilots scrambled warplanes on Sept. 27 for the third time in a week after concern was raised about activity over Syrian airspace, a military official said. The alarm was raised after assault helicopters were spotted on Israeli radar before eventually landing. ”This was a routine measure,” the official said. “The planes returned to base after it was determined the flight did not have aggressive intentions.” Last Saturday, an alert was sparked after a blip from an aircraft over Syria disappeared from radar screens, public radio said. The Israeli army declined to comment. A day earlier, radar spotted a potential enemy flying from Syria only to discover it to be a flock of migratory birds. Tensions have soared on Israel’s border with Syria since Damascus said its air defenses fired on Israeli warplanes that dropped munitions deep inside its territory in the early hours of September 6. The Israeli government has maintained a total blackout on the operation, but army radio said military commanders preferred not to take any risk. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, from the center-left Labour party, told Israeli public radio Thursday: “I have a feeling that tensions are easing between the two sides, because neither side wants war.” Israel and Syria are technically at war. The last round of peace talks collapsed in 2000, largely over the fate of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed in 1981.

From DefenseNews Posted 09/27/07 13:47 USAF To Fly With Mavericks for First Time in Years By GAYLE S. PUTRICH WASHINGTON — An old missile could get new life with the U.S. Air Force, Raytheon executives said this week at the annual Air Force Association conference. To meet what the Pentagon says is an urgent close air support need, the Air Force is considering using a laser-guided version of the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile. Developed in the late 1960s and early 70s for use in Southeast Asia and still being produced, the Maverick has come to be viewed as an “older, outdated” weapon after years without upgrades, said Dorsey Price, Raytheon’s director of business development for strike weapons. “We basically lost the recipe because the government didn’t put money into it,” Price said. The Air Force has about 8,000 old Mavericks in deep storage. Raytheon has been buying them back, refitting them so non-U.S. aircraft can carry them, and selling them abroad. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy and Marines have been using the new laser-guided AGM-65E. After tests, Air Force officials decided to give the old missile a new whirl, Price said. Raytheon has granted the Air Force $50 million in what amounts to “store credit” for the remilled Mavericks — more than enough to cover upgrades to all of the service’s old Mavericks, Price said. Service officials are waiting for Pentagon permission, he said. In the meantime, the air service can “borrow” AGM-65Es from the Navy, which has been using the updated weapon on its Hornets, said Harry Schulte, vice president for Raytheon’s Strike product line. The Air Force is expected to use the AGM-65E on the A-10 for close air support in urban environments. Because the laser detector for the Maverick is supplied by the same vendors that build the lasers used in Paveway missiles, which are in use by the Air Force, they are already air-qualified so paperwork on the Maverick upgrade was minimized, Price said. Air Force officials could not respond by press time.

From Time V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2007 By MARK THOMPSON It's hard to imagine an American weapons program so fraught with problems that Dick Cheney would try repeatedly to cancel it — hard, that is, until you get to know the Osprey. As Defense Secretary under George H.W. Bush, Cheney tried four times to kill the Marine Corps's ungainly tilt-rotor aircraft. Four times he failed. Cheney found the arguments for the combat troop carrier unpersuasive and its problems irredeemable. "Given the risk we face from a military standpoint, given the areas where we think the priorities ought to be, the V‑22 is not at the top of the list," he told a Senate committee in 1989. "It came out at the bottom of the list, and for that reason, I decided to terminate it." But the Osprey proved impossible to kill, thanks to lawmakers who rescued it from Cheney's ax time and again because of the home-district money that came with it — and to the irresistible notion that American engineers had found a way to improve on another great aviation breakthrough, the helicopter. Now the aircraft that flies like an airplane but takes off and lands like a chopper is about to make its combat debut in Iraq. It has been a long, strange trip: the V‑22 has been 25 years in development, more than twice as long as the Apollo program that put men on the moon. V‑22 crashes have claimed the lives of 30 men — 10 times the lunar program's toll — all before the plane has seen combat. The Pentagon has put $20 billion into the Osprey and expects to spend an additional $35 billion before the program is finished. In exchange, the Marines, Navy and Air Force will get 458 aircraft, averaging $119 million per copy. The saga of the V-22 — the battles over its future on Capitol Hill, a performance record that is spotty at best, a long determined quest by the Marines to get what they wanted — demonstrates how Washington works (or, rather, doesn't). It exposes the compromises that are made when narrow interests collide with common sense. It is a tale that shows how the system fails at its most significant task, by placing in jeopardy those we count on to protect us. For even at a stratospheric price, the V-22 is going into combat shorthanded. As a result of decisions the Marine Corps made over the past decade, the aircraft lacks a heavy-duty, forward-mounted machine gun to lay down suppressing fire against forces that will surely try to shoot it down. And if the plane's two engines are disabled by enemy fire or mechanical trouble while it's hovering, the V‑22 lacks a helicopter's ability to coast roughly to the ground — something that often saved lives in Vietnam. In 2002 the Marines abandoned the requirement that the planes be capable of autorotating (as the maneuver is called), with unpowered but spinning helicopter blades slowly letting the aircraft land safely. That decision, a top Pentagon aviation consultant wrote in a confidential 2003 report obtained by Time, is "unconscionable" for a wartime aircraft. "When everything goes wrong, as it often does in a combat environment," he said, "autorotation is all a helicopter pilot has to save his and his passengers' lives." Read the rest of the article at the link above.

I was referring to the submunition failure rate. It varies between about 1% and 23% for Western manufactured submunitions, and although there isn't much publicly available information, I don't think its a stretch to guesstimate that the Soviet submunition failure rate would be at least that high, and possibly higher. Ask the Afghans and Chechens about the prevalence of unexploded Soviet/Russian manufactured submunitions. My point is, that even if there was a high failure rate among Soviet submunitions sprinkled over NATO airfields, the end effect would have been the same or perhaps appreciably worse than if the submunitions had actually exploded. That end result being the virtual shutdown of the NATO airfield until the unexploded ordnance (UXO) was cleared.

I wonder if mobile land units are the only option. There are plenty of SAR/CSAR scenarios where the "rescuee" would be in the water. Or is it too hard to implement it so that both land and sea are covered ?