pmaidhof

What would the capabilities of an SA-9 Gaskin be,in H4.1 terms, at night versus a UH-1N flying NOE just after going feet dry at a range of 3,500m. Since my understanding for the H4.1 Data Annex, there is no associated Acquisition or Tracking Radars, and the missile guidance is IRH. Since IRH Guidance, the helo would have to be in the Visual Line of Sight of the SA-9. Would this mean that the Gaskin would have to visually detect the UH-1N? If the answer is visually, Surface to Air Visual Detection is 3nm versus a Small Target such as the UH-1N. Since this is a reconnaissance detachment insertion, the insert is going on a dark dark "Clear Night", say during a "New Moon" 4.5.5 tells me "Air % Vis" is 5. Would that calculation now be 3nm * 5% = 0.15nm with a Sigma of +/- 0.5nm? So visual detection would be from 0 to 0.65nm? With any dicipline, the SA-9 crew would generally not launch a missile at the sound of helicopter as their forces also operate helos in the area, although probably not at that hour (0115 local). Am I on the right track? Thanks in advance.

22nd MEU sat for almost three months in MODLOC at Mamba Station just over the horizon from Monrovia Liberia May/June/July 1990. Originally we were joined with a French and a British surface combatant, but both left after a few weeks due to a lack of logistical "legs". All component ships of the ARG, USS SAIPAN (LHA-2), USS SUMPTER (LST), USS PONCE (LPD), USS PETERSON (DD) stayed on station until the NEO began on 05 August 1990. An interesting side note was that in order for the MEU to reach the AO "in time" before other options would be considered, like a Bde of 82nd Airborne to be dropped on Robertson International Airport, the firing platoon from the BLT's artillery battery was cross-decked to PETERSON, which was punched forward due to its relative speed over the rest of the ARG which was hampered by PONCE which was doing a virtual doggy-paddle by this time. Also interesting was evacuees were field screened on the US Embassy grounds, flown to SAIPAN where a much more detailed screening took place before being shuttled to the Ivory Coast which the relative safe zone at that time.

What Harpgamer Wolfpack...?

Reuters.com February 27, 2006 US, Japan To Help Malaysia Boost Strait Security KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - The United States is ready to help Malaysia boost security in the vital Malacca Strait once it concludes a pact on joint air patrols with other littoral states, a U.S. defense commander said on Monday. Separately, Malaysia's defense chief said Japan, a major user of the busy sea lane, would provide a ship next month to Malaysia's coast guard to help patrol the strait, which carries roughly a quarter of global trade. Admiral William Fallon, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, said the United States was also looking to provide defense equipment to Indonesia following the resumption of military ties with Jakarta. Similar help is also on the cards for Malaysia, which along with Indonesia and Singapore, is one of the three states bordering the Malacca Strait. "We are waiting for certain things to occur," said Fallon, whose command covers more than half the globe and includes 300,000 military personnel. Malaysia's armed forces chief, Admiral Anwar Mohamad Nor, said Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore would sign a pact in Indonesia's Batam Island next month on standard operating procedure on joint air patrols. "We are hopeful that once this agreement is formalised, then we will have better understanding of what we might do. So, we are standing by to help," Fallon, on a tour of Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei, told reporters in the Malaysian capital. Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia have indicated they would like help in the form of equipment, patrol aircraft, training and intelligence sharing but have made clear foreign forces would not be welcomed. There are fears the narrow waterway, which carries a quarter of global trade and already plagued by pirates, could become a target for a terror attack. More than 63,000 vessels passed through the strait in 2004, carrying nearly all the oil imports of Japan, South Korea and China. Fallon, on his first visit to Malaysia since assuming the job a year ago, said there had been dramatic drop in cases of piracy in the strait last year. "I'm encouraged what I see just from this visit alone. "Indonesia is constructing a series of radar sites along the coast. You have that in existence on the Malaysian side. Singapore has careful monitoring of their area. "I think the bad actors of the world, the criminals who are doing most of these things, recognize that it may not be as easy as targets now, so they are backing off," he said. But he said the potential threat of sea terrorism remained.

Los Angeles Times February 28, 2006 Troubled Aircraft Nearly Battle-Ready By Associated Press RALEIGH, N.C. — The Marine Corps plans to send the troubled Osprey aircraft into combat within a year and is activating a squadron of the tilt-rotor planes this week. "Obviously, due to operational concerns we don't want to tell exactly when they will deploy," said spokesman Master Sgt. Phil Mehringer at Marine Corps Air Station New River in North Carolina, where the squadron will be based. "But it's certainly going to happen in the near future. Definitely, within a year." The Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an airplane, has had a number of troubles. Four Marines died in a 2000 crash in North Carolina that was caused by a ruptured titanium hydraulic line. Nineteen others were killed in an Osprey crash that year in Arizona that investigators blamed on pilot error. The Pentagon approved full production of the Osprey in a $19-billion program last year, and the Marines have been showing off the aircraft. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld flew aboard one last week. Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, which will carry the Vietnam-era "Thunder Chickens" nickname of the helicopter unit it is replacing, is to be formally activated Friday. There are about 250 people in the squadron and nine aircraft, Mehringer said. The squadron has trained on the aircraft for months and will continue working with it before deployment to a combat zone, he said. "It's the standard training package…. This one is a little longer in that all of the Marines coming together are new. They are starting this from scratch." The Ospreys will replace the Vietnam-era fleet of CH-46E twin-rotor helicopters. The newer aircraft can carry more cargo and fly five times farther at speeds up to about 300 mph.

Good Job Guys, Congratulations to all of your efforts

Norfolk Virginian-Pilot February 9, 2006 The Fight Over The New F-22 Raptor By Louis Hansen, The Virginian-Pilot HAMPTON — On a recent clear Sunday afternoon, Capt. John Echols took his fighter jet into the sky for another homeland security mission. The Air Force’s role in Operation Noble Eagle had grown routine since Sept. 11: Patrol the skies over East Coast cities and watch for planes drifting into restricted airspace. If a private pilot starts heading toward a potential target, the fighter pilots quickly introduce themselves and escort the intruder back on course. But Echols’ patrol this day was anything but routine. He and a wing mate flew out of Langley Air Force Base in a pair of F-22 Raptor fighter jets - the Air Forces’ new, top fighter. It was one of the Raptors’ first real-life missions. The pilots had a revelation in their cockpits. A single video screen captured an electronic vision far beyond what the pilots see in their older F-15 Eagles. “I can see from a God’s Eye perspective,” Echols said. “It’s a huge advantage.” As pilots and crews learn more about their advanced aircraft, its future uses are coming into focus. But critics still question whether a plane conceived in the 1980s for Cold War air combat with Soviet jets will prove useful against an enemy of stateless terrorists. The Bush administration this week called for $2.2 billion to be spent in fiscal year 2007 as a down payment to purchase 60 more F-22s. The Air Force hopes to get at least 183 of the aircraft. The 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base is the first in the country to receive the jet fighters. The stealthy fighters, which arrived here last year, boast a nearly invisible radar profile and sophisticated electronics to allow a pilot to spot an enemy, shoot and kill another plane without being seen. The squadron has 20 Raptors, with two more planes added every month. A full squadron will have 24 planes. Langley pilots - most of whom switched over from F-15 and F-16s - are still learning and testing their new plane’s capabilities, said Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, director of operations at the 27th Fighter Squadron. The pilots are excited about their jets, which the Air Force deemed ready for combat in December. “Even with limited capability, it’s a magnificent weapon,” Tolliver said. Col. Bill MacLure, chief of Checkmate, the Air Forces’ operational planning and strategy division, said the Raptor’s responsibilities will increase. It will contribute to the country’s air dominance, he said, and it will be ready for “any mission, across the board.” The United States already has established unchallenged flight paths over Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. Future combat deployments for the Raptor could include flying rapidly to a target, engage and destroy with a minimal chance of being caught. MacLure also said the Air Force is considering adding sensors to the Raptor to enhance its intelligence gathering role over combat zones. Ultimately, the services aim to network data collected by the jets’ advanced sensors to troops on the ground in real time. The F-15 have effectively performed homeland security operations, MacLure said. However, he added, the Raptors provide “a significantly better picture” of the airspace. Everest S. Riccioni is an retired Air Force colonel who worked on the Raptor during its earliest concepts. He doubts the plane’s capabilities to evade ground radar and provide enough fire power against enemy ground troops. The plane was a solution in search of a problem, he said. “They have about 15 missions for it,” Riccioni said, “and none of them are relevant.” The United States has proven its air dominance waging two wars against Iraq, and the expensive Raptor adds little to the combat zone, he said. “We went waltzing into Iraq twice and never lost a plane,” Riccioni said. The Air Force estimates the Raptor costs $133 million per plane, making it the most expensive jet fighter ever. Independent estimates that include research and development costs are much higher. The Pentagon plans to purchase 42 F-18 Super Hornet jets, used by the Navy and Marines, for roughly $83 million each. At Langley, Raptor pilots are eager to fly and learn the nuances of their new plane. Besides the sophisticated electronics, nozzles on the jet engines tilt, allowing pilots to maneuver tightly and quickly. Squadrons have been practicing air combat maneuvers and dog fights with the F-15s, but its not much fun. pilots say. The older jets get shot down quickly during drills. “We really don’t practice that much because it’s so easy,” said Capt. Jonathan Gration, a Raptor pilot who trained on the F-15. Echols said the fighter has meant a new mind set - with new tactics, new weapons, and new avionics. “It’s a complete paradigm shift,” he said. Langley pilots will be asked to fly more patrol missions in the coming months. This summer, the base will deploy 210 airmen to Alaska for more escort missions and training. There are no immediate plans to put the plane into combat, but Tolliver said the squadron would be ready for any mission thrown at them. The pilots, drawn from the top ranks of Air Force flyers, want to be Iraq, he said. “Everybody in this squadron wants to be over there.”

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report February 10, 2006 SEALs-Friendly Submarine Returns To Navy Fleet The first of four converted U.S. submarines, specifically designed to help special forces perform covert missions, returned to the Navy's fleet for service on Feb. 7. The USS Ohio, converted by General Dynamics Corp.'s Electric Boat unit, is the first of four nuclear-powered ballistic missile subs (SSBNs) to be converted into cruise missile-laden, special forces-friendly SSGNs. The other three -- the USS Michigan, USS Florida and USS Georgia -- are slated to rejoin the fleet by 2007. Ohio was returned to service at a ceremony in Bangor, Wash. "Ohio's return to service is truly monumental. In the span of a little more than three years, we have taken a proven weapon system and completely changed its operating paradigm," said Rear Adm. William H. Hilarides, program executive officer for submarines. "Now Ohio will conduct missions that will have a direct impact on the on-going global war on terrorism and, because of its payload capacity, Ohio and the other three SSGNs will free up Navy assets in the near future." Each converted sub is unloading its Trident ballistic missiles, and 22 of the 24 missile tubes on each boat will be retrofitted to carry up to seven Tomahawk cruise missiles for up to 154 missiles per sub. Specially designed stowage containers for special operations forces (SOF) equipment also will fit in the 22 missile tubes. SSGNs will be able to carry up to 66 SOF personnel, namely Navy SEALs, along with their own crew. The other two former missile tubes are dedicated lock-in/lock-out chambers that will allow SEALs to leave the subs while underwater. The boats also accommodate up to two Dry Deck Shelters, two Advanced SEAL Delivery Systems -- although that program is on hold at one vehicle -- or one of each atop the chambers. Florida will re-enter service on May 25 in Mayport, Fla. Michigan and Georgia are on schedule to return this December and September 2007, respectively, according to the Naval Sea Systems Command. The work is being done under a $1.4 billion contract won by Electric Boat in 2002 (DAILY Jan. 10). The conversions come as sub supporters in industry and in Congress are trying to push the Navy to speed up production of more attack subs. The so-called "silent service" is a favorite method of combat commanders to transport SOF personnel, and lawmakers have said they have requested 150 percent of the submarine days currently available to execute priority operations. -- Michael Bruno

Defense Today February 9, 2006 Pg. 2 Henry: Raptor Is Needed, But Should Be Cut Rather Than JSF By Dave Ahearn The Air Force needs the F-22A Raptor supersonic stealth aircraft to provide air dominance, but cutting the number of Raptors to 183 from an Air Force request for 381 makes more sense than cutting the numbers of future F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft. So said Ryan Henry, principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy, speaking to journalists at a Defense Writers Group breakfast. During a periodic Pentagon assessment of long-range needs, ranging from personnel strength to weapons platform procurement, the study found that there are some aspects of combat where tactical air assets such as the Raptor will make a difference. This Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) shows that the U.S. military does require "a fifth-generation, low-observable" aircraft such as the F-22A, he said, referring to the F-22A ability to slip past enemy radars undetected. "We do need to have the F-22," Henry said, "in numbers roughly sufficient." And that second phrase is critical. It made more sense, he added, to cut the purchase of Raptors, rather than to slash the JSF purchase. "It did not make sense to make cuts in the JSF" purchase, Henry said, noting that there is a need for a stealth aircraft that can fly from Navy aircraft carrier decks, which a variant of the JSF will do. The Raptor is designed for airport runways. (Another JSF variant can use runways, while a third version can operate from austere areas or ship decks, with short take-offs and vertical landings.) Both the Raptor and the JSF programs feature Lockheed Martin Corp. as prime contractor. The QDR, by slightly increasing the Raptor purchase from an earlier 178 or 179 production run to 183 aircraft, and stretching out production of F-22As for another two years, will mean that Lockheed can keep the Raptor production line humming until it's time to begin making JSFs. Otherwise, Henry said, there "would be technical risk in shutting down the production line." Asked how the QDR slashed the Raptor buy to just 183 when the Air Force still maintains it requires 381, Henry said he wasn't involved in the strategy sessions years ago that produced the 381 figure. Earlier still, the Air Force at one time had requested 750 of the cutting-edge aircraft, but their high cost prompted moves to cut the buy in half (to 381), and successive cuts then whittled the purchase down to 277, and finally to 183. "War plans change over time," Henry observed. He also said he hasn't heard any Air Force service chief say lately that 381 Raptors still are needed. Henry said the QDR calls for moving from funds for one Virginia Class submarine to buying two a year beginning in 2012. But, he said, that assumes that costs of the subs will drop to $2 billion each, from the current $2.4 billion to $2.7 billion per. General Dynamics Corp. unit Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Corp. unit Newport News shipbuilding jointly build the subs. Each company builds half a boat, and then the halves are joined.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin February 8, 2006 Navy's Top Admiral Endorses Strategic Shift To The Pacific By Gregg K. Kakesako The Navy's top admiral said yesterday that the majority of the Navy's 12 carriers will be based in the Pacific, reflecting the shifting security demands on the military and his plans to expand the fleet to 313 warships. Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chief of naval operations, said at a Pentagon news conference that he endorsed the Pentagon's recently unveiled strategic analysis, which calls for six carriers and 60 percent of its submarine fleet to be stationed in the Pacific. He did not comment on a nearly 3-year-old proposal to base a carrier at Pearl Harbor or Guam. The Navy now has five nuclear carriers based on the West Coast and one non-nuclear vessel -- the USS Kitty Hawk -- berthed in Japan. The remaining six are on the East Coast. The USS Kitty Hawk in Yokosuka will be replaced by the USS George Washington in 2008. Shifting a major portion of the Navy's power to the Pacific "focuses on the important region of the world," he said. "We also on the maritime side suffer the tyranny of distance. The Pacific is a big ocean, so you need more capability there just to get from point A to point B." Mullen said the Navy still wants to retire the USS Kennedy, now homeported in Florida. "The proposal in the budget is to decommission her and I would like that to happen as soon as possible," Mullen told reporters. Mullen's statement means the majority of the Navy's carriers in the Pacific will remain there. He referred to the carrier USS Carl Vinson, which has left its homeport in Bremerton, Wash., for a three-year overhaul in Virginia. That carrier will return to the West Coast after it has been refitted, Mullen said. He also said 60 percent of the Navy's nuclear submarine fleet will be shifted to the Pacific. Currently, 35 attack and ballistic missile submarines are based in the Pacific and an equal number in the Atlantic. There are 16 Los Angeles-class submarines at Pearl Harbor and three in Guam. He told reporters that he submitted to Congress today his proposals to increase the number of ships in the Navy to 313. There are now 281 vessels. Mullen commanded the Pearl Harbor-based destroyer USS Goldsborough from 1985 to 1986.

Just for thought. Probably could be better fodder for a H4.1 paper scenario since more geared for smaller engagments - for me at least.

Washington Times February 8, 2006 Pg. 13 U.S. Navy Boards Suspected Pirate Ship Fears alliances with terrorists By Richard Halloran, The Washington Times HONOLULU -- The United States was striking a pre-emptive blow when it ordered a U.S. Navy destroyer to detain and board a suspected pirate ship in the Indian Ocean last month, aiming to see that terrorists do not lash up with pirates in the Asia-Pacific region. The destroyer, the USS Winston S. Churchill, was ordered to intercept the suspected pirate ship on Jan. 21 after the U.S. Central Command, from its forward headquarters in Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, was contacted by the International Maritime Bureau, based in Malaysia. The maritime bureau monitors piracy all over the world, but especially in Asia. It took the U.S. warship several hours of maneuvering and firing warning shots to get the smaller vessel to surrender. A Navy boarding party then confiscated a cache of small arms to disarm the ship before sending it on its way. "This was a maritime security operation," said a Navy officer informed of events in the Indian Ocean. That effort, broadly defined, includes tracking thousands of ships, much as aircraft are monitored, knowing what cargoes the ships are carrying, driving off pirates when they attack a ship, or recovering the ship if it is seized. For several years, leaders of maritime nations from India and Sri Lanka in South Asia to Singapore and Australia and South Korea and Japan in Northeast Asia have worried that terrorists would seek alliances with pirates, particularly those operating in the South China Sea. Through that sea lane passes more international shipping each year than through the Suez and Panama canals combined. Terrorists who might seize, for instance, a large oil tanker and scuttle the vessel in the Straits of Malacca between Singapore and Indonesia would wreak economic, political, military and environmental havoc. Until now, the U.S. Navy has been reluctant to engage pirates because the service is stretched out with other duties. Asian coastal nations, meanwhile, have said they do not want outside powers, notably the United States, operating in their sovereign waters, where many pirate assaults occur. Many Asian naval officers argue that combating piracy is the job of law enforcement, not navies. Many U.S. Navy officers agree but assert that some Asian nations lack the proper ships -- small, high speed and adequately armed -- to defeat or capture pirates. Moreover, coordination and intelligence sharing among the littoral nations has not been fully developed. The war against terror has led many U.S. Navy officers to the conclusion that their service needs to be involved, if for no other reason to preserve its standing among the U.S. armed forces. Thus, said a Navy officer, "there is no overall policy on going after pirates." Rather, an internal debate seems to be rumbling through the Navy.

Defense Today February 1, 2006 Pg. 1 Designing Small Destroyer Would Cost Years, Billions Of Loss By Dave Ahearn Designing a new, much smaller destroyer would cost the Navy at least part of its $7.5 billion investment in developing the cutting-edge DD(X) destroyer that now is poised for construction, and also would mean five years or so in designing and developing what would be a far lesser warship, a key admiral said in an interview. Rear Adm. Mark Buzby, deputy director for surface warfare, said the resultant ship wouldn't provide the Navy with many capabilities it requires to counter the current and clearly foreseeable threat environment. Further, the salient point here is that the Navy may not have the luxury of years to design another destroyer, he said. While he declined to respond to a question specifically citing the threat of China and its 700-plus radar-guided missiles aimed at waters near Taiwan, an island the Navy might have to defend from a Chinese invasion, he did say the DD(X) would be vital to meet the sort of threat posed by a near-peer competitor nation. China is amidst an enormous military buildup, purchasing or producing advanced destroyers, aircraft and super-quiet submarines. The Chinese navy in the next decade is on track to become larger than the U.S. Navy. The DD(X) destroyer would be a stealthy ship, showing up on enemy radar screens as a small commercial vessel. Buzby's comments come as some military analysts have suggested the Navy could obtain much of the advances of the DD(X) destroyer, a 14,500-ton ship, in a vessel costing far less that would displace perhaps 9,500 tons, or a frigate size of roughly 7,000 tons or so. But Buzby said that the DD(X) would be a 14,500-ton ship because that is what is required to provide the capabilities the Navy needs to counter clearly visible threats in the near future. The DD(X) already has been down-sized, Buzby noted. When the Navy began conceptualizing the ship, estimates of its size ranged from 9,000 to 17,000 or 18,000 tons. Then the Navy began jettisoning some less-needed capabilities, establishing those most critical, and worked down from 18,000 tons to a 14,500 ton weapons platform, he said To further diminish the ship by any substantial amount would mean losing capabilities required to meet known threats, he said. For example, a downsized ship might still have two guns (the Advanced Gun System), capable of destroying targets as much as 100 miles distant, but it might lack sufficient numbers of Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells for missiles. The DD(X) would use VLS to provide a shield against airborne threats, both for itself and for other Navy ships. Further, a downsized ship might not have the stealthy sloping hull and reverse-raked bow that afford the DD(X) the ability to elude enemy radar detection, he said. As well, a smaller vessel might not have the stability in high seas of a 14,500 ton ship, a critical point in a craft intended to conduct helicopter and unmanned aerial vehicle operations from its aft deck, he noted. The next destroyer "needs the open ocean sea-keeping capabilities" of the DD(X), he said. In moving to take out any single segment of the DD(X) during a downsizing move, that could affect the overall capability of the ship to counter the threats it must address, Buzby said. Design and development of this futuristic ship "was not just a capricious" exercise in blithely assembling unrelated systems. Rather, "this was a fairly well thought-out" system of interrelated components working together as a unified entity, he said. Losing Time, Money Designing a new ship would leave a five- to-six-year gap in providing futuristic capabilities, "at a minimum," Buzby said. Deciding at this late hour to deep-six the DD(X) design and start from scratch to plan a smaller vessel would create "a five- to six-year gap to get to where we are today" with the DD(X), ready for construction to begin, he said. One proposal for designing a smaller destroyer would, to be sure, call for building four, or perhaps five, DD(X)s before shifting to a smaller destroyer, which by that time might be more or less fully designed. But Buzby said the DD(X) is poised for a construction run now, having passed a critical design review in the fall, and this spring being set for a final design review and construction contract. Further, he said, roughly $7.5 billion has been spent thus far on research and development of the new ship, and part of that investment would be lost if the DD(X) is abandoned or cut short in favor of a smaller ship. To be sure, he added, some of the cutting-edge technology in the DD(X) program could be scavenged and incorporated in the sister ship, the future CG(X) cruiser, and in the next-generation CVN 21 aircraft carrier, such as sensors and radar suites. The Navy, which at one time proposed building perhaps 24 to 30 DD(X)s, more recently suggested building just eight of the ships. Some lawmakers have suggested building just five, or perhaps one or two as technology demonstrators, or building no DD(X)s, moving instead to design a smaller and cheaper ship. But the question is what would take the place of the DD(X) if another ship is to be designed and developed, and when that vessel might be available. While Buzby declined to address the threat of China specifically, "there are capability gaps that exist today" in addressing threats posed by "a major peer competitor," he said. In assessing the DD(X) program, "this ship helps fill that void," he said. While the current Arleigh Burke DDG 51 Class of destroyers aren't stealthy, China possesses hundreds of radar-guided missiles. As well, North Korea and Iran also possess sophisticated missiles technology. It is critical for the Navy to deploy ships able to counter nations with advanced military capabilities, he indicated. Otherwise, lacking platforms with stealth and other advances, the Navy might be confronted with unpalatable choices such as foregoing a mission, altering the concept of operations as to how to fight a war, or being forced to take other difficult steps. But should the Navy possess DD(X)s in sufficient number, then "a ship with this capability would be useful," he said. Two Shipyards Buzby also endorsed the rationale that Congress decided upon in mandating that DD(X)s will be built in two shipyards, widely separated geographically. General Dynamics Corp. unit Bath Iron Works shipyards is in Maine, while Northrop Grumman Corp. unit Ship Systems has yards in Louisiana and Mississippi. When Hurricane Katrina caused substantial damage to Ship Systems yards, the storm caused no major damage to Bath Iron Works. "Certainly strategically there is sense in not having one shipyard" be the only one capable of building surface combatants, he said. The current plan to build DD(X)s at a pace of merely one per year might entail some extra costs, perhaps $300 million per ship, to split the work between General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, it has been estimated. Building all DD(X)s at a single yard might yield efficiencies and volume savings, according to this view. And that argument can be made, Buzby said, noting that one might choose to have all the work performed by just one contractor to obtain more efficiencies and cost reductions. But with the threat of storms, or terrorist attacks, or some debilitating sicknesses that might strike across a given region, "that's probably strategically wise not to limit yourself" to one yard, he said. And the savings of using just one yard might be overstated. For example, Bath Iron and Ship Systems, while separated by more than 1,000 miles, easily can exchange computerized blueprints for the DD(X), so that in essence it is more akin to a ship being designed in a single yard. The key, he concluded, is to move the DD(X) program forward in a manner that spends tax dollars wisely and well, while providing capabilities required to counter enemy threats and meeting needs of warfighters, and at the same time meeting mandates of Congress. The Navy must "come up with the most cost-effective and congressionally approved" means of providing all that, a plan that yields best value for the military and taxpayers, he said.

International Herald Tribune January 31, 2006 An Aircraft Carrier For China? By David Lague BEIJING--As China builds a military to match its growing economic power, its neighbors and potential rivals including the United States have puzzled over a key question: When will the Chinese Navy launch an aircraft carrier? For decades, senior Chinese military and political officials have argued that for the country to become a great power, the People's Liberation Army Navy needs to add these potent warships to its fleet. However, the major obstacle to this ambition is that aircraft carriers are hugely expensive. The two 50,000-metric-ton conventionally powered carriers now under development for Britain's Royal Navy are expected to cost a minimum of $2.5 billion each. To outfit them with aircraft could cost that much again. And, aircraft carriers do not operate alone. They need a fleet of warships, submarines and supply vessels along with advanced electronic surveillance for support and protection. For these reasons, most experts assumed a Chinese carrier was decades away. But after double-digit increases in defense spending over much of the past 15 years, evidence is now emerging that China has a more ambitious timetable. "I am convinced that before the end of this decade, we will see preparations for China to build its first indigenous aircraft carrier," said Rick Fisher, the Washington-based vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center and an expert on the Chinese military. Fisher and other analysts note that extensive work now appears to be under way on a carrier purchased from Ukraine, the Varyag, now moored in the northern Chinese port of Dalian. They speculate that the Varyag, fresh from the dry dock and, according to recent photographs, now painted in the navy's gray, could be used for training or even upgraded so that it was fully operational. Not surprisingly, the Taiwan military has also been monitoring activity on the Varyag. At a briefing in Taipei on Jan. 19, a Taiwan military spokesman, Liu Chih-chien, pointed to satellite photographs of the carrier at anchor in Dalian, where he said it had been under repair. "Although China claimed that the Varyag will be used as a tourist attraction, the aircraft carrier would actually be used as a training ship in preparation for building an aircraft carrier battle group," Liu said. Analysts also report that at recent international air shows, Chinese military officers have been showing strong interest in strike aircraft suited to fly from carriers. As with earlier reports that the Chinese Navy intended to acquire aircraft carriers, Beijing denied Taiwan's claim. "We don't know where the Taiwanese authorities got their so-called intelligence," said Li Weiyi, a spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, according to a report carried last week by the official Xinhua news agency. Whatever the timetable, most naval experts agree that China will almost certainly build or buy aircraft carriers. "Given China's strategic ambitions, it's a logical move," said Sam Bateman, a maritime security expert at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies. "I am sure the PLAN has carrier aspirations," he said, referring to the People's Liberation Army Navy. Bateman said that, like the United States, two of China's neighbors, India and Japan, would be anxious about the prospect of carriers in the Chinese fleet. What is clear is that China has already invested decades of effort in its bid to gain the technology and skills needed to build and operate these warships. Admiral Liu Huaqing, vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission before his retirement in 1997, is widely regarded as the father of the navy's aircraft carrier program. Heavily influenced by his exposure to top Russian naval experts during his studies in the Soviet Union as a young officer in the 1950s, Liu advocated that China should have aircraft carriers as the backbone of a "blue water" navy that could deploy beyond the country's coastal waters. In military journals published in the 1990s he wrote that aircraft carriers would ensure China's control over Taiwan and territories it claimed in the South China Sea and match the growing military power of neighbors including Japan and India. Liu, along with other senior Chinese defense analysts, also recognized that China was becoming a major trading power and would become increasingly dependent on secure sea lanes to carry its imports of energy and raw materials and exports of manufactured goods. They argued that aircraft carriers would give the navy the ability to keep these sea lanes open in times of conflict or international tension. Other analysts also say that a carrier would be symbolically important as evidence of Chinese power in the same way that U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier battle groups serve as a reminder of America's global reach. Early work on the feasibility of building a carrier began in Shanghai in the early 1980s but the first clear sign of China's ambition came in 1985 when China bought a decommissioned Australian aircraft carrier, apparently for scrap. However, before the vessel was dismantled, Chinese experts studied the design of this carrier and used the flight deck for pilot training, according to naval analysts. The disintegration of the once-powerful Soviet Navy after the collapse of the Soviet Union provided further opportunities to study the design and construction of modern carriers. Senior defense officials in Japan and Southeast Asia were intrigued when Chinese companies bought two decommissioned Russian antisubmarine carriers, the Minsk and Kiev, but speculation that these would have some military role in China proved groundless. The Minsk was converted into a floating museum in Shenzhen, and the Kiev is also being modified, to serve as a floating tourist attraction in Tianjin. In the 1990s, a number of countries including Spain and France signaled that they would be prepared to build or sell an aircraft carrier to China but Beijing apparently declined these overtures. Some experts on the Chinese military say that plans to build or buy a carrier were shelved after 1997 with the retirement of Liu and renewed emphasis on military preparations to fight a war over Taiwan if the island declared independence. Taiwan's proximity to the mainland means land-based Chinese aircraft and missiles would be well within range in the event of a conflict. As recently as 2003 in its annual report to Congress on China's military, the Pentagon said China appeared to have "set aside indefinitely" its plans to acquire a carrier. Instead, the Chinese military seemed intent on developing the firepower to sink aircraft carriers, a move clearly aimed at deterring the United States if it decided to intervene in any conflict over Taiwan. This included a rapid upgrade of China's conventional and nuclear submarine fleet, the delivery of advanced Russian surface warships armed with supersonic missiles and an expanded force of Russian-made and domestically produced strike aircraft. However, the purchase for $20 million of the 67,500-metric-ton Varyag from Ukraine in 1998 suggested that Beijing retained a strong desire for aircraft carriers and a blue-water navy. The Varyag was still under construction in a Ukrainian shipyard when the Soviet Union collapsed and neither Russia nor Ukraine had the funds to complete the work. A Macao-based company with close ties to the Chinese armed forces bought the carrier without engines, rudders or armament and said it would be moored in the former Portuguese colony as a floating casino. At the time, most analysts said this seemed an unlikely explanation for the purchase because Macao's harbor was far too shallow to berth a warship of this size. After a long delay while Turkish authorities, fearful of the danger to shipping, refused permission for the carrier to be towed through the Bosporus, the Varyag was eventually delivered to the Dalian shipyard in 2002. The fact that Beijing went to great diplomatic lengths to persuade Turkish authorities to allow the transit was seen by some experts as further evidence of China's determination to improve its understanding of carrier technology. There is tight security surrounding the Varyag in Dalian harbor, but work on the vessel is clearly visible from nearby highways. Recent photographs show extensive repairs or maintenance to the carrier's superstructure and deck. "There is a lot of work happening on that thing which is not consistent with a gambling casino," Fisher said.

Bloomberg.com January 17, 2006 U.S. May Arm Subs With Conventional Warheads For Quicker Strike By Tony Capaccio The Pentagon wants to spend up to $500 million through 2011 to replace nuclear warheads with conventional warheads on some submarine-launched ballistic missiles, according to budget documents. The purpose is to allow quicker preemptive attacks on deeply buried enemy command centers or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. submarines carry ballistic missiles that fly at supersonic speeds, faster than those launched from land- based silos or airplanes. ``This weapon would give the U.S. global, conventional preemption -- a first-strike capability -- in 30 minutes, to attack North Korean or Iranian WMD or leadership facilities,'' said William Arkin, a former Army intelligence analyst and independent defense consultant and author. The fiscal 2007-2011 defense budget plan calls for building as many as 96 conventional warheads for installation on 24 of the Navy's roughly 336 nuclear D5 Trident missiles, according to a 33-page Dec. 20 memo signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Each missile carries up to four warheads. The U.S. would have to work out notification procedures with its allies as well as China and Russia to prevent a nuclear misunderstanding, said Stan Norris, a senior analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the author of an annual compilation of U.S. nuclear forces. ``While there are advantages, especially in being able to hit a target within 20-30 minutes, there are important questions that will need answers,'' he said. For example, ``how would Russian early warning radars differentiate between conventional missile attacks aimed at say al-Qaeda caves on the Afghan-Pakistan border and those aimed at Russian missile silos?'' Norris said. ``Is it possible that the U.S. would notify Russia or China of an impending attack to avoid the possibility of Russian or Chinese misinterpretation?'' Arkin agreed. ``Before we start shooting ballistic missiles at countries we had better work to resolve the question of false warnings and accidental nuclear war, particularly if North Korea were ever a target,'' he said. The U.S. presently can launch non-nuclear strikes using B-2 bombers based in Missouri or Tomahawk cruise missiles off submarines and surface vessels. Neither weapon travels as fast as a sub-launched ballistic missile. This new strategy ``places the ballistic missile submarine on the front line of U.S. offensive capabilities,'' Arkin said. ``Trident missiles will be able to place a conventional warhead on target in only 12 minutes, far quicker than any other long- range weapon.'' Any strikes would be coordinated by a new joint-service unit that the U.S. Strategic Command set up in November at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. The Pentagon commitment suggests contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. has made progress in improving the accuracy of the D5 missile, said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. Cold War nuclear missiles were built less for precision than for widespread destruction. Lockheed Martin Space Systems since 1995 has spent its own research money to improve the accuracy of a conventional Trident missile. Test flights in 2002 and 2005 demonstrated ``the feasibility of achieving near-tactical GPS accuracy with conventional warheads on the D5,'' spokesman Thomas Greer said in an e-mail statement. The 2005 test showed that a conventional warhead bearing on a target could slow down and maneuver to receive last-minute Global Positioning System satellite coordinates, ``providing capabilities that would be needed for the delivery of some types of conventional warheads to their targets,'' Greer said. About 2,500 Lockheed Martin employees work on the Trident D5 missile program in California, Georgia, Florida and Washington State. ``The warhead could possibly provide Trident missiles with the accuracy to strike within 10 meters of their intended, stationary targets,'' the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a Sept. 7 report. A Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. official in July laid out these finding to the Pentagon Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities and said it could start producing the warheads by 2010 if it received money this year, CRS said. The long-range budget plan calls for spending $127 million in fiscal 2007 and $225 million in fiscal 2008 to develop and buy a warhead with a capability to penetrate ``hard and deeply buried targets,'' according to England's memo, which also spells out other major budget decisions. Kristensen said the Pentagon's new strategy will enable the Navy to meet the Strategic Command's goal ``of having both nuclear and conventional strategic strike options available to the president.'' ``U.S. Strategic Command is examining ways for delivering prompt, precise strike globally,'' the command said in a Jan. 9 statement e-mailed to Bloomberg News. ``A requirement for a specific weapon system has not been identified but leveraging existing systems has the potential to quickly deliver capability to the warfighter,'' the statement said. ``Increased precision may allow targets currently held at risk with nuclear weapons to be targeted with conventional weapons, providing options other than nuclear weapons for prompt global strike,'' it said.

Congrats to both Brad and Ed. Extremely well deserved! BZ

Korea Herald December 22, 2005 Navy Successfully Tests Ship-To-Ship Missile By Jin Dae-woong The Navy successfully completed test-firing the first domestically-made ship-to-ship missile, the Defense Ministry said yesterday. The 150-km-range missile was developed in 2003 by a domestic defense institution, the Agency for Defense Development. Brig. Gen. An Jung-hun, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the ministry and Navy together conducted the final test-firing of the indigenous missile on the East Sea before the military begins mass-production of the weapon in 2006. During the test firing, the military also successfully tested the capabilities of the missile's domestically designed surveillance equipment. "The military confirmed that the missile's surveillance equipment 'seeker' also successfully operated during the test-firing," An said. "Domestic seekers will replace exported ones." When the missile was first developed in 2003, its surveillance equipment was supplied by foreign partner firms. Korea succeeded in developing the equipment this year. The government has invested 100 billion won (about $98 million) in developing the missile since the development project was launched in 1996. "We are expected to see as much as 900 billion won (about $870 million) of profits by substituting the imports with the domestic mass production," the spokesman said. The missiles are scheduled to be onboard the Korean Navy's 4,000-ton vessels and 7,000-ton Aegis destroyers for marine operations by 2010. The navy plans to invest more than 3 trillion won to build three Aegis ships by 2012.

Washington Times December 22, 2005 Pg. 15 Official Sees China As 'Considerable Threat' TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso told a press conference early today that China is beginning to pose a considerable threat, referring to its military buildup. China is "a neighbor equipped with nuclear bombs and has expanded its military outlays for 12 years in a row," Mr. Aso said. "It is beginning to be a considerable threat." The remarks appeared to signal a new approach in the way Tokyo looks at its giant neighbor. Japan normally emphasizes accommodation, not criticism, in its comments on China. Mr. Aso's remarks come against a rapidly changing international posture that Japan appears to be projecting to the world. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi appears determined to pay repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, which is devoted to Japanese military heroes, including those deemed by the international community as World War II war criminals. This has drawn strong protests from China, as well as South Korea. A robust campaign also is being waged by Japan's leadership to amend the constitution, which contains a no-war clause intended to prevent the revival of Japanese militarism. Meanwhile, China's State Council -- its super-Cabinet -- today issued a white paper reiterating that the country intends to develop peacefully by relying on itself while not hurting other countries. The State Council Information Office's 30-page white paper, titled "China's Peaceful Development Road," follows criticism from abroad that the country's military expansion poses a security threat, that its energy consumption could drain world resources and that its economic power could strain job markets overseas. Having been a victim of foreign aggression for 100 years after the 1840-42 Opium War, China wants to prosper without further warfare, according to the white paper. "China is now taking the road of peaceful development and will continue to do so when it gets stronger in the future," the paper said. Beijing has taken "practical steps to establish fraternal relations" with other countries, such as signing border treaties with 12 neighbors, joining regional cooperation efforts such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and helping arrange the six-nation talks on scrapping North Korea's nuclear programs. China's future hinges on using domestic resources for development, the paper adds, noting that it feeds 22 percent of the world's population with 10 percent of its land. The paper says that since the 1990s, China has found 90 percent of its energy domestically. "China is not only a big energy-consuming country, but also a big energy-producing one," according to the paper. Staff reporter Gus Constantine contributed to this article.

DefenseNews.com December 21, 2005 First U.S. Navy SSGN Sub Completes Trials By Christopher P. Cavas The first of the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile submarines to be converted so it can launch cruise missiles and carry teams of special operations forces completed its sea trials Dec. 19, the Navy said in a statement released Dec. 21. The USS Ohio is one of four former SSBN submarines to undergo the SSGN conversion. The ships — the largest submarines ever built for the United States — have traded in their Trident ballistic missiles for Tomahawk cruise missiles. Twenty-two of the submarine’s 24 missile tubes have been converted to each carry seven Tomahawks, for a total of 154 cruise missiles. The other two tubes have been changed into lock-in/lock-out chambers so that special operators can enter and leave the submarine while it is submerged. Up to 66 special forces personnel can be carried and supported aboard each submarine. The Ohio entered Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., in November 2002 to begin the conversion process, which began with a refueling of the submarine’s nuclear reactor. The Ohio-class submarines were designed in the 1970s to carry the Trident missile, a replacement for older Polaris and Poseidon missiles. The Ohio, which was commissioned in 1981, carried out its last ballistic missile patrol in the summer of 2002. Three other former Trident submarines, the Michigan, Florida and Georgia, also are being converted to the SSGN role. The Navy plans to complete all the conversions by 2007. The naval shipyards at Puget Sound and Norfolk, Va., are each carrying out two SSGN conversions under the direction of General Dynamics Electric Boat at Groton, Conn., which built all 18 of the original Trident submarines. The Navy has no further SSGN conversions planned, and intends to operate a force of 14 Trident submarines in the nuclear deterrence role. The Navy plans to “redeliver” the Ohio to the fleet early next year.

Initial 2 Kidd-class Destroyers Take Their Places in ROC Fleet (Source: Taiwan Information service; issued Dec. 19, 2005) (Edited for content) The first two of four Kidd class destroyers purchased from the United States arrived at the Suao naval base on the northeast coast of Taiwan Dec. 9 after a month-long journey from Port Charleston in South Carolina. The addition of the destroyers to the ROC Naval fleet is expected to be a shot in the arm to Taiwan's ability to defend itself against China. A formal ceremony to commission the two destroyers has been scheduled for mid-December when President Chen Shui-bian is expected to officiate in his capacity as the commander-in-chief of the ROC armed forces. A handover ceremony was held Oct. 29 in Charleston, South Carolina when the ROC navy formally took possession of the two destroyers from the shipyard. The ceremony, attended by the ROC general, South Carolina's Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer and other U.S. representatives, was a rare event since the United States severed formal diplomatic relations with the ROC in 1979. "The destroyers will significantly boost the navy's fleet air defense and anti-submarine warfare capabilities," Chen was reported as saying in a local newspaper. The navy said that, once commissioned, the refurbished destroyers will form the outer periphery of the defensive fleet, while the Perry, Knox and Lafayette class frigates will be deployed closer to home for a more central defense of the island. Each ship's fitted radar-system is capable of simultaneously tracking dozens of incoming airborne threats and has a range of 400 kilometers. Their Standard II surface-to-air missiles have a range of 144 kilometers and vastly outperform the Standard I missiles with which Taiwan's Perry-class frigates are equipped. According to the navy, the new destroyers will be tasked with taking out enemy fighters that are launching missiles at the island, while other vessels will deal with the incoming missiles themselves. The Kidd class destroyers were originally built in the late 1970s for the shah of Iran, but were commissioned in the U.S. Navy following that leader's ouster in the 1979 Islamic revolution. After 20 years of service, they were decommissioned in the late 1990s until the Taiwan purchase took them out of mothballs. The ROC government purchased the four vessels, at a cost of US$800 million, in June 2003 as part of an arms package approved by U.S. President George W. Bush the previous year. The deal came after a two-year review of Taiwan's air force and navy conducted by the United States. Taipei originally had its eye on the top-of-the-line U.S. destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class, which are equipped with the Aegis battle system capable of intercepting China's M-9 and M-11 missiles. China was infuriated by talk of the sale, as it claims Taiwan as its own territory and opposes any arms sales to the island. Under the provisions of its 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, however, the United States is obligated to sell weapons to Taiwan to help the island defend itself against a Chinese attack. Nevertheless, there was trepidation on Washington's part that selling Taipei the advanced Aegis weapons system would be too provocative to Beijing. There were also concerns about the expense, estimated at US$1 billion per ship, and the ability of Taiwanese forces to operate the complicated system. Finally, there was the fear that a future political solution to the cross-strait conflict would see the advanced technology delivered right into Beijing's hands. Instead, the Bush administration offered the four Kidd class ships, which are expected to remain serviceable for another 20 years. "It is a package to help Taiwan provide for its defense," former White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer was quoted as saying. According to a report released by the Pentagon in July, China has up to 730 ballistic missiles targeted at Taiwan, and that number is increasing by 75 to 125 per year. The report also said that Beijing's rapid military build-up could soon tip the scales against the island and pose a credible threat to the entire region. The purchase of the Kidd class ships gave rise to controversy in Taiwan. Members of the Legislature's defense committee opposed the procurement and made several attempts to block it. Critics suggested that Taiwan should keep pushing for the Aegis system instead, citing the advanced age of the Kidd class vessels and their relatively high cost. The remaining two destroyers, designated Zuoying and Magong, are expected to be transferred to Taiwanese ownership by March 2007.

Philadelphia Inquirer December 16, 2005 EU Decries Russia-Iran Missile Deal Leaders said Moscow's sale sent a bad signal. A U.S. official called the arms deal a surprise. By George Jahn, Associated Press VIENNA, Austria - The European Union has formally protested to Russia about Moscow's sale of sophisticated missiles to Iran, European and U.S. officials said yesterday. In a note to Russia's Foreign Ministry, the EU said the sale sent a wrong signal at a time when Iran is increasingly isolated because of harsh anti-Jewish rhetoric from its president, suspicions that it is aiding extremist groups, and its poor human-rights record, the officials said. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the dispute with journalists, suggested that the EU's formal protest was significant because it came as the normally cautious bloc was wooing Russia as a strategic and economic partner. The complaint underlined European dismay with the timing of the arms agreement because the sale cast doubt on where Russia stands as the West pushes to get Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Although enrichment can produce material to make nuclear bombs, Iran insists its only aim is to make its own fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity. The United States has said Iran's real goal is to obtain atomic weapons. A U.S. official said both Washington and the EU were caught by surprise by the arms deal, which was initially revealed by Russian news media early this month. The official said the deal would suggest to the Iranians that there was no common will to confront them on nuclear and other issues. Before Russia's agreement to sell Tor-M1 air-defense missiles was made public, hopes were high that Iran would accept an EU proposal that would have Russia supply enriched uranium for Iranian reactors. Support from Russia is seen as key for the international effort to force a compromise on Iran. A new round of talks on the Iranian nuclear program is set for Wednesday, most likely in Vienna or Geneva. Representatives of Iran and diplomats from Britain, France and Germany are expected to participate.

San Diego Union-Tribune December 15, 2005 Marines Focus On Replacing Amphibious Troop Carrier Technical glitches have led to delays By Otto Kreisher, Copley News Service WOODBRIDGE, VA. – With the MV-22 Osprey apparently past its long struggle to become operational, the Marine Corps' top priority has become a replacement for its 30-year-old amphibious troop carriers. The proposed replacement, the expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV), is a technological marvel that is motorboat fast in the water and can keep up with the jet-powered M1 tank on land. It also gives Marine infantrymen better protection and tremendous fire support from a high-tech weapon system. But to get the new vehicle into combat service, the Marines and the manufacturer, General Dynamics, will have to keep the $10 million machines from breaking down. Because of multiple technical problems and funding cuts, the production date has been delayed three years, and the time when the new vehicles could begin replacing the current amphibious tractors by four years, to at least 2010. Those delays have increased the estimated total cost of the EFV program by about 25 percent, to more than $8 billion for the planned 1,013 vehicles, according to Col. Michael Brogan, program manager at the combined Marine-General Dynamics facility 30 miles south of Washington. Delaying the new vehicles' operational debut also will require additional expensive work to keep the tired old amphibious vehicles running. The Marines have used amphibious troop carriers with tanklike tracks since World War II. The "amtracks" proved their worth in 1943 by carrying the first wave of Marines across the shallow lagoon to the beach on the Pacific island of Tarawa. Improved models of the amphibious tractors have been introduced over the years, up to the current AAV-7 version, which entered service in 1972. But the water speed has not increased above the 6 to 7 knots of the first amtracks. That slow crawl through frequently rough seas has forced amphibious ships to launch assault vehicles from about 3 miles off shore, which puts the ships within range of ordinary artillery, let alone modern precision-homing missiles. And it allows an enemy to see where the infantry-loaded vehicles will come ashore, adding to the risk. But the new vehicles have demonstrated a water speed of more than 30 knots, Brogan said. That speed allows the amphibious ships to stay out of sight from land, making it harder for an enemy to target them. It also exposes a wider area as the potential landing site, again complicating the defenders' task, the colonel said. To obtain that speed, the EFV must convert from a clunky tracked vehicle into a flat-bottomed craft that skims over the surface of the water, propelled by two powerful water jets. That conversion requires a complex hydraulic system of thin tubing, connectors and pumps, more like an airplane than a tank-like vehicle. When skimming across the water at top speed, the vehicle also is controlled by a computerized "fly-by-wire" system similar to those used by jet aircraft. The vehicles also have high-tech navigation, communication and fire-control systems. But subjecting those complicated, sensitive systems to the pounding of land operations has produced an unacceptably high rate of failures, particularly in the hydraulics and electronics – similar to the problems experienced by the Osprey in its 20-year development. Reducing the rate of those failures "is our No. 1 priority," said Joseph Teets, deputy program manager. "We have made improvements in many aspects of maintainability and reliability," said Lt. Col. Michael Carter, director of the Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch at Camp Pendleton, which has been testing the new vehicles. "The mean time between failures has increased." "These are prototypes," Carter noted. "We are here to push the systems, see what breaks. They are running through the paces and performing very well." Carter said the program was on track to start operational assessment, which will determine whether the EFVs can get approval for low-rate production late next year. Like most major new weapons programs, the EFV has its critics. Max Boot, a military analyst and author, noted that the last time the Marines conducted a full-scale amphibious landing against a defended beach was at Inchon, Korea, in 1950. And he questioned if anything like that would ever be repeated. "In light of that, I wonder if it really makes sense to spend $7 billion to buy a thousand expeditionary fighting vehicles to replace today's amtracks," he said. The Marines, however, want the new vehicles as much for their improved ability ashore as for their high water speeds. While the original amphibious tractors were designed to get ashore and move a short distance inland, the AAV-7s carried Marines hundreds of miles over land during the rapid assaults in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. "We have not done a good job of articulating the land combat role," Brogan said. "This is a significant improvement over the AAV," particularly in combat power, survivability and the distance it can go without refueling, he said. The new vehicles are designed to be harder to detect, to provide much improved fire support with a stabilized, computer-aided 30 mm cannon, and to protect the 17 infantrymen and three crew members against chemical, biological or nuclear hazards. The pressurized system that provides that protection also can cool the interior, reducing the heat fatigue problems with the current AAVs. The Marines will subject the new vehicles to an extensive set of operational trials, starting with tests of its weapon system at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in January, followed by amphibious exercises at Pendleton and simulated combat at Twentynine Palms.

Defense Today December 16, 2005 Pg. 4 Rumsfeld On Increasing Fleet Size: Capabilities, Not Numbers, Count By Dave Ahearn Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about a plan to increase the Navy fleet size to 313 ships from the current 281 vessels, said it is capabilities that count, not numbers of ships. The plan to bolster the fleet to a strength of 313 over many years is being advanced by Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations. His predecessor, Adm. Vern Clark, and Secretary of the Navy Gordon England previously had advanced a plan with a range of 260 to 325 ships and submarines by 2035. Rumsfeld said there is too much focus on numbers, when the salient metric is the capability of weapons platforms together to place destructive power on targets. The size of a force, and numbers of units in a force, is "the way we've always thought of it," but that thinking is wrong-headed, Rumsfeld said at a "Town Hall" meeting in the Pentagon for Department of Defense employees. "We're trying to move away from size, numbers of things and mass," Rumsfeld said, and focus instead on the agility and speed of weapons platforms. He noted that 50 dumb bombs may be required to destroy five targets, but a mere five smart bombs can do the same job. Lighter, more agile and more intelligent systems "can be vastly more capable," he said. Speed, too, can mean a platform can accomplish far more, far earlier in a combat campaign, compared to slow and ponderous assets, he said. He noted, too, that with a smaller number of ships, the Navy nonetheless has obtained a great number of days on station, ready for action. The Navy has used streamlined maintenance and ship overhaul procedures, swapping of crews on ships, forward stationing of ships near likely trouble spots and more to wring an increased number of days in action from the same fleet size. Rather than numbers of ships, Rumsfeld said, the germane consideration is the total ability of whatever numbers of ships sail in the fleet to "put power on a target." He also noted that the United States confronts "a different target today," referring to fast-moving, elusive insurgents, terrorists and rogue state units. The secretary advised the Navy to "look at the ultimate effectiveness" of the fleet, whatever size it might be, "rather than numbers" of ships in the fleet. If the fleet "is vastly more capable that" a previous larger fleet of old-technology ships, then "the deterrence effect is greater, and the [fighting ability] is greater." He noted that the Navy, in responding to the tsunami in South Asia, demonstrated how rapidly the fleet can move when required.

Bloomberg.com December 14, 2005 Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor Ready for Combat, Air Force Says By Tony Capaccio Lockheed Martin Corp's F-22A Raptor stealth fighter, the most expensive fighter plane ever built, is ready for wartime operations, the Air Force's top combat commander said today. “If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will be with us,” Air Combat Command General Ronald Keys wrote of a plane that's weathered congressional and public debate on its relevance post-Cold War. The Air Force says it needs at least 381 Raptors but the Pentagon plans to buy only about 180 though 2010. Lockheed already has delivered 56. Boeing Co. is the top subcontractor. Keys announced the plane's readiness in a memo to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne. The aircraft will initially be based with the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. The combat declaration comes 19 years after the Air Force started early development and 14 years after Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor, won the competition to take the plane into full-scale development and production. The Air Force once envisioned buying 750 fighters at about $125 million apiece. The number was repeatedly cut and the inflation-adjusted unit cost is now $338 million -- a price that includes research and production dollars. The F-22A is designed to handle threats in the air and on the ground and to have more speed and range than the fighter it's replacing, the F-15. New Air Force Chief of Staff General Ted Moseley this week changed the aircraft's formal designation to F-22A from its longtime F/A-22 designation to be consistent with Air Force heritage that keeps only an “F” in front of the number. The F-22A is capable of dropping two satellite-guided Boeing Joint Direct Attack Munitions as well as destroy enemy aircraft well beyond visual range with air-to-air missiles. About $46 billion has been approved by Congress for F-22A spending since the 1980s. The program's total cost is $61 billion.

Newport News Daily Press December 13, 2005 Pg. 1 Changing Course Navy's plans for fighting terror call for smaller ships By David Lerman WASHINGTON -- Newport News and other shipyards that build big ships, such as aircraft carriers and subs, could be hurt. A new Navy shipbuilding plan envisions a future fleet with one fewer aircraft carrier and six fewer attack submarines than exist today, posing a threat to jobs at Northrop Grumman Newport News in the next decade. The draft plan, which was obtained by the Daily Press but won't be released until February, calls for a total combat force of 313 ships, a significant increase from today's fleet of about 281 ships. But that total masks a proposed decline in the large -- and costly -- ships that sustain major shipyards like Newport News. The overall increase in fleet size can be explained by the Navy's plan to buy 55 Littoral Combat Ships -- small, fast attack boats that can patrol waters close to shore. None of those ships exist today. Without them, the proposed future fleet would decline to 258 ships. The Navy is considering two companies to build the new attack boats. Neither is located in Hampton Roads. The shift in force structure, analysts said, signals a desire to reorient the Navy away from traditional deep-ocean battles toward ways to better engage in the war on terrorism -- mostly fought on land or close to shore. "The fleet is being postured for irregular warfare and unconventional combat," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute. "It is not being postured for war against China in the future." The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, hinted at the new focus last week after visiting sailors in Pearl Harbor. "We're in a long war," Mullen was quoted as saying. "It's a global war on terror. The Navy is incredibly relevant in that. We're changing mission sets for the future to get at that." But the strategy shift, which has been evolving for years, could mean more economic pain in Newport News and other major shipbuilding cities. By sticking to a proposal to mothball the John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier next year and maintain only 11 carriers, the Navy must decide how to preserve a work force at Newport News -- the nation's only carrier builder -- sometime in the next decade. Without the need to replace the Kennedy, the carrier currently scheduled to get under construction in about 2012 might not need to be built until 2018, said Ronald O'Rourke, a naval analyst at the Congressional Research Service. The six-year gap in construction work "could also have large effects on employment levels at the yard," he said, unless there was other work available to offset the loss. The fate of the Kennedy could be resolved this week, as congressional negotiators try to complete a final version of a defense authorization bill for the current fiscal year. The House bill has called for maintaining a 12-carrier fleet, which would preserve the Kennedy, while the Senate version would not. The future of the Virginia-class submarine program likewise appears uncertain. The Navy's proposal would shrink its force of attack submarines from 54 to 48. But several analysts expressed skepticism that the Navy could maintain even 48 subs. Sustaining a fleet of 48 submarines would require doubling submarine procurement to two boats per year instead of one, to keep up with replacing all the older submarines scheduled to be retired. But the Navy has delayed for years the move to double submarine production. The current six-year shipbuilding plan would not begin buying two submarines a year until 2012. At that rate, O'Rourke said, the Navy would need to start buying three submarines a year for about eight years straight. And virtually no one considers a tripling of submarine production either realistic or affordable in a program already criticized for soaring costs. "No one wants to put more money into the program," said Norman Polmar, a veteran naval analyst and author with close ties to Pentagon leaders. "We're not going to build three a year. I doubt we'll build two a year in the next decade. That means we go down to 35 or 40" submarines. Despite such doubts, Northrop Grumman Newport News welcomed the plan, which comes after years of uncertainty over the desired size of the fleet. "While we have yet to see the report, from a shipbuilder perspective, we are optimistic because a defined plan from the Navy is an important step toward industry stability," said shipyard spokeswoman Jerri Fuller Dickseski. Industry officials have urged a doubling of submarine production for years to help cut overhead costs and stabilize the construction work. At a rate of one new submarine per year, the country's two submarine builders -- Newport News and General Dynamics Corp.'s Electric Boat yard in Connecticut -- effectively build half a boat each per year. General Dynamics last week announced plans to lay off up to 2,400 submarine workers, saying it did not receive contracts for submarine repair work that had been expected. Costs of the new Virginia-class submarines -- designed to be a cheaper alternative to the former Seawolf class -- is fast approaching $3 billion a copy, exceeding the cost of the Seawolf. The price tag of the submarine Texas, now under construction, has already reached $2.7 billion -- a 24 percent increase from original 1999 estimates. "I can't be anything but skeptical about their ability to do this," said Christopher Hellman, a military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "These things are expensive and their costs are growing. As they said in the movie, 'Show me the money.' " The Navy declined to discuss its draft plan, saying it is still being revised and must await the release of President Bush's budget in February. But analysts said the plan hinges on appropriations of roughly $13.4 billion a year for shipbuilding -- a steady state of funding that Navy budgets have been sorely lacking. It is not clear how -- or whether -- such significant funding will materialize at a time when defense budgets are expected to decline to help reduce the federal deficit. This year's shipbuilding budget, for example, calls for spending only $6.2 billion to build four new ships. If refueling and repair work are included, the figure rises to about $8.7 billion. But under current plans, the Navy wouldn't hit the $13 billion figure until about 2009. Polmar said Navy leaders are betting that more money can be found for shipbuilding by reaping the cost savings of recent reductions in personnel. He said the plan also assumes that managers can begin doing what they have failed to do for years: controlling the cost growth of ships. But with the next-generation aircraft carrier expected to cost $14 billion or more, he said, the challenge will be enormous. Most members of Congress have not yet been briefed on the fleet size plan. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "strongly endorses Adm. Mullen's greater emphasis on shipbuilding and fleet modernization," said Warner spokesman John Ullyot. But it was not clear whether Warner, who has fought to maintain the Kennedy carrier, will support reductions in the carrier and submarine fleets. Virginia Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Gloucester, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said, "I absolutely don't support going down to 12 carriers. Dropping our subs down to 48 is absolutely wrong, given what China's doing." Davis, who has not yet seen the plan, said she also has questions about the role of the new Littoral Combat Ship. "They may have their place, but to me they should not be the bulk of our Navy," she said.