Herman
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Herman
-
-
RUSSIAN NAVY TO MAINTAIN SURFACE SHIP FLEET INTACT FOR 10-15 YEARS
MOSCOW, May 10 (RIA Novosti) - Russia can maintain its current surface ship fleet without sizeable reduction for the coming 10-15 years, the Russian Navy's commander-in-chief, Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov, told RIA Novosti. "By overhauling our ships, we can maintain the current surface fleet until 2015-20 without any considerable reduction," he said.
According to the admiral, the situation is more complicated as far as small surface ships and craft operating in the littorals are concerned. "Repairs and overhaul will not be enough here," Kuroyedov stressed.
"It is simple - the smaller is the ship, the shorter is its service life that cannot be extended indefinitely. Therefore, small ships and craft will be the first to be decommissioned, which, by the way, are the most numerous ones in the inventory. It is them that are in need of replacement in the first place," the admiral said.
He added that the Russian Navy in the near future would focus on phased construction of lead-in and then production of warships, starting with those to operate in the littorals.
According to Adm. Kuroyedov, the "firstborn" of the new surface combatant series is going to be the corvette - an advanced multirole littoral warfare ship dual-hatted as an antisubmarine-warfare (ASW) and guided missile (GM) ship. Two such ships - the Steregushchy and Soobrazitelny corvettes - have been laid down recently.
"At the next stage, an advanced multirole frigate capable of both ASW and strike missions is slated to be built for operations far out at sea. The ship is being designed, with its construction to begin soon," Kuroyedov emphasized.
-
Continental Connection - EC2003 GIUK
By Mark Gellis
This scenario appears to be almost ripped from the headlines. Nuclear Proliferation.
Since I only had one base with any ability to support my meagre aerial assets, I decided that I would have to be very careful in protecting her from attack. I only had 18 Falcons at my disposal so I elected to configure them for AAW missions. Once armed, 4 were assigned as a continuous Combat Air Patrol [CAP] approximately 200 nm NE of the base and in line with the Russian base on the Kola Peninsula.
A pair of Falcons were sent north to reconnoitre for the convoy. Their Electronic Support Measures [ESM] detection equipment picked up the distinctive emissions of a KA-31 Airborne Early Warning [AEW] helo about 160nm from the coast near Tromso. They moved in to investigate but were nearly at the limits of their fuel range. Meanwhile, all ships and subs moved to close the distance.
USAF Archive Photo
The Falcons were forced to return without any additional information. On their path home, they encountered a Bear on patrol. At that same moment, FFG Hessen reported incoming torpedoes. She executed a crash stop manoeuvre and tried to turn her tail to the torpedoes while firing a torpedo back down the bearing in order to try and confuse the hidden submarine. At the same time, she launched her two Lynx Mk 88 helos to search for the submarine.
The subsea lurker was detected and identified as a Kilo-class submarine at a range of 10 miles. The torpedo was racing in at 45 knots while the Hessen fled at 29 kts. She just might survive this ordeal. The helos closed and successfully prosecuted her but did not kill her! The little submarine was struck by 2 torpedoes but did not die. Although empty of ordnance, the two helos maintained contact with her until 2 additional helos could be sent to assist them from the FF Augsburg. The four additional torpedoes were sufficient to silence this bushwhacker.
As the helo crews were patting each other on the back and returning to base, one of the systems operators sounded the alarm. "Vampires!" The ships immediately began activating their radar systems and fire-control radar. The FFG Hessen fired her SAMs but the AS-4 Kitchen missiles had obviously only been fired on a Bearing-Only Launch [bOL] attack. They passed by the ship with a wide margin. Every sailor aboard thanked their lucky stars. Had those missiles been given better targeting information, there would not have been enough left of their ship to fill a sardine can. The attacking submarine must have not been able to send complete information back to base.
Over the Norwegian Sea, one Falcon pilot could not believe his luck. The Bear recon aircraft flew, literally, right into his gunsight! All that he did was pull the trigger to claim the victory. (Game glitch. You can't stop a plane from Auto-Fire)
My initial CAP was returning to base. Their replacement were just arriving on station when 4 aircraft believed to be Fencer jamming aircraft were detected. My pilots moved to investigate when suddenly their radar screens turned to hash. In fact, they were so electronically blinded that, once again, they didn't spot the Fencers until they had run themselves into gun range. One plane triggered a snap shot and quickly killed one of the jammers. [Game glitch, again.]
As these aircraft were basically unarmed, my ROE did not permit me to destroy them. However, they kept buzzing my aircraft which continued to automatically fire on them until they were destroyed. Thus far, one Bear and 4 jammers had been destroyed. My curiosity was definitely piqued. The enemy does not send such support for nothing. What were they screening/supporting?
Soon enough, 2 Backfire appeared in visual range of the Hessen. She kept her radar under Emissions Control [EmCon] in hopes of allowing them to pass her by undetected and unmolested. Unfortunately, her automatic systems engaged and destroyed both aircraft. [Game glitch]
DDs Cassard and Dupleix were crossing the G-I-UK gap when Cassard heard the unmistakable sounds of incoming torpedoes. She put on emergency speed and ran for her life while launching her lone helo to search for the submarine. Again, no sign of subsurface activity had been seen. The waters around Vagar appeared to be heavily infested with Sugar Skunks [submarines].
The race between Cassard and torpedo was neck and neck. However, in this game, all ties are resolved in favour of the torpedo. After another tense race, Cassard came out ahead by a nose. Meanwhile, the three helos from the destroyers pounded the waters with their dipping sonar in vain. This meant that I would have to go in and draw more torpedo fire with my ships serving as bait. A very unpleasant but vital function.
Cassard and Dupleix turned to run down the bearing from which the torpedoes had come from. They slowed and activated their sonar suites. Meanwhile, the helos continued their search. Another torpedo was detected! This was confirmed as a Type 65-76 weapon. It had very long range and a carrier-killing type of warhead. We were up against the varsity as only the most capable submarines carried this lethal weapon. Once again, the Cassard ran for her life while the helos tried to find the source of their tormentor.
This time, DDG Cassard lost the race taking with her the precious Lynx helo that had landed seconds before. Curse all submarines! Dupleix decided to continue the hunt but approached the area with great trepidation and extreme caution.
Meanwhile, 3 Nanuchka FFLs had run underneath my Falcons on CAP and open fired with SA-N-4 SAMs. What a stroke of luck/misfortune. They were quickly brought under fire and sunk without loss.
The convoy was moving at a rapid pace towards the G-I-UK Gap. A quick and daring pass by a Falcon pilot determined that the group contained a Slava-class CG as an escort. The Russians meant business. This ship was lethal to aircraft and ships up to 250nm with her SSM/SAMs. This was going to be one tough nut to crack with my 6 puny ships.
I withdrew to draw up a plan of action but was pre-empted by enemy action. An intelligence trawler spotted the Dutch FF Van Galen and reported her position to Russian HQ. Suddenly, she faced a veritable hailstorm of lethal SS-N-12 Sandbox missiles. Only 2 Falcons were on patrol and they were only able to shoot down 4 missiles. The other 8 detonated within her hull. There were no survivors. One problem solved the hard way. Van Galen had soaked up the entire SS-N-12 supply of the task force.
I decided that while the Slava was the toughest ship in the entire Norwegian sea this day, she had her Achilles heel, too. I sent my 2 diesel submarines to neutralize her. The Dutch SS Bruinvis would arrive first. Imagine her surprise to find a submarine escorting the convoy! The F-16s on CAP tried to localize the ships and darned near got themselves shot down for their troubles. Those SA-6 Grumbles are very scary weapons to face.
As SS Bruinvis continued her surveillance, she learned that the Russian submarine was an SSN Akula, another elite unit. As if NATO wasn't already having a bad enough day, DD Dupleix found herself under torpedo attack yet again. She died from a Type 65-76 torpedo that broke her back.
I wasn't paying attention and all of a sudden had one of my submarines vanish. I don't even know what got her. U-31 would not make port again. Somehow, SS Bruinvis managed to penetrate the ASW Screen and positioned herself between the Akula and the main body. She loosed her torpedoes at the Slava, a Udaloy destroyer, an FFG Krivak, and the Akula and then ran to evade. The results were wildly terrific. Every escort was sunk. The merchants sailed onwards naked to attack.
All that my ships had to do was board them and search them. Easy to say, difficult to do. Another Bear recon aircraft had positioned herself near the convoy. She could easily spot any vessel closing on the group and call in airstrikes from the Kola airfields. The day was not over yet. However, NATO would catch a break today. They deserved at least one. DDG Tromp managed to close to 3nm before demanding that the ships heave to and await boarding. They failed to comply so she executed her orders and sank them with gunfire.
This is truly a challenging scenario. The units are not numerous. However, NATO capabilities are very limited and demand that the player get the most out of his assets. Another superb offering from one of Harpoon's finest designers. Thanks very much for sharing your work with us Mark. The only drawback was the Game Engine. The enemy always attacks whether you want him to or not and nothing that a designer can do about it.
This scenario is currently hosted in the WarfareHQ File Archives
And at the FilesOfScenShare
Coming soon to HarpGamer.com
-
Kilo Crush - EC2003 MEDC
By Mark Gellis
According to my orders, I was not allowed to freely engage the Kilos until they were east of Sicily. I decided that that a more pressing problem would be finding them in the first place. Therefore, I elected to employ a barrier strategy whereby I hoped to locate and track the Kilos at the narrowest point of their journey; the area between Sicily and Tunis.
I moved my surface and submarine assets there as expeditiously as possible. As DDG Luigi Durand and DD Jean de Vinne moved into the area, the DDG reported, "Transients! Incoming torpedoes". There had been no indication of submarine activity. She immediately changed course to race away from the incoming menace. However, the torpedoes were travelling in excess of 50kts and she could only run at 30kts. Slowly, the separation was eaten up. The seconds counted down as the torpedoes drew ever closer. Just as they were about to detonate in her wake, they either missed or ran out of gas. Luigi Durand was lucky this time.
DD de Vinne was also subjected to torpedo attacks. Four successive waves, in fact! Despite having her sonar suite active, she was unable to catch the faintest whiff of her attacker. Her two Lynx helos were practically useless, too. For hours, she tried to approach the area only to find torpedos shot into her face. Only because the torpedos had been fired at long range did she survive her ordeal. Finally, a helo returned a MAD [Magnetic Anomaly Detector] contact and dropped her 2 MU-90 Murene torpedoes on the de Vinne's tormentor. Both torpedoes struck the submarine and sank her. DD de Vinne assumed her position in the barrier.
Meanwhile, I had moved flights of MPA [Maritime Patrol Aircraft] into the area. The ships warned me that there were marauding aircraft coming from Libya so I was forced to escort my patrols. The most difficult part was the ROE [Rules of Engagement] which prevented me from firing unless fired upon. The beautiful long-ranged Mica AAMs on my aircraft were negated by a politician's whim.
As my Combat Air Patrols [CAP] flew their patterns over the barrier ships, several fighters emerged from Libyan airspace. I cautiously approached them and they opened fire on me. I immediately returned fire and turned away. It would be another race between missiles. Luckily, mine would arrive first to destroy the Libyan interceptors. Without terminal radar guidance, the Libyan missiles fell into the sea. After a few repeats of this engagement, the Libyans stopped sending their pilots out to die.
On the surface, various small craft began to appear in the area. As my ships were under the same ROE as the aircraft, they could not fire unless fired upon. Instead, I decided to assign CAP between my ships and the unknown vessels. My tactic worked. When the Osa PTM boats opened fire with Styx SSMs, my fighters were in position to shoot down the missiles. Return fire from my ships quickly sank the near-defenceless boats. A pair of Nanuchka PTMs also tried to open a hole in my barrier but were destroyed in the same manner.
My ships and aircraft maintained their patrols and were rewarded by a subsurface detection from a sonobuoy. A second submarine was soon detected. They were soon confirmed as SSK Kilo submarines. While I was under orders not to initiate hostile action, the was no restriction from giving them a serious sonar lashing. This way, I intended to track and trail them until they either gave up and turned around or else I would sink them once they were east of Sicily.
As I moved towards them, they both fired 53-65K torpedoes at me! My ships fled while launching helos to prosecute the submarines which had confirmed their hostility. The ships evaded but the submarines did not. Two SSK Kilos would not reach Benghazi. I was awarded victory.
A nice little scenario. Thanks for sharing it with us.
This scenario is currently hosted in the WarfareHQ File Archives
And at the FilesOfScenShare
Coming soon to HarpGamer.com
-
Pakistan Pins High Hopes on New Chinese Fighter Jet
By TAHIR IKRAM, REUTERS, KAMRA, Pakistan
Pakistan, which has been seeking high technology aircraft for the last two decades, said May 9 it hoped to start joint production with China from 2007 of multi-role fighter jets.
The first four JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft are expected to be introduced into the air force some time in 2006, said Air Vice Marshal Shahid Latif, project director for JF-17 planes.
The medium-technology aircraft matches the Mirage in performance but has better avionics and weapons, Latif told a news conference at the Kamra Aeronautical complex, 80 km (50 miles) west of Islamabad.
It would replace the aging fleet of Mirage 3 and 5, A-5 and F-7 aircraft, he said.
Latif said the JF-17 could achieve a speed of 1.6 Mach, altitude of 55,000 feet (16,760 meters) and carry weapons of modern warfare.
“The project is not only of strategic importance to the air force but it has far-reaching implications both for the national defense and economic prosperity of Pakistan,” he said.
Latif said the performance of prototypes of the JF-17 had far exceeded expectations and China wanted 250 aircraft to be added to its fleet while Pakistan was looking to acquire 150.
According to the agreement between China and Pakistan, once full production starts, half the plane would be produced in China and half in Pakistan, the officials added.
Chengu Aircraft Design Institute designed the aircraft, and the prototypes were manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Company — both based in China’s Sichuan province, officials said.
Pakistan was also equipping the manufacturing facility to cater for exports. “We already have some export orders,” Latif said, but did not give details.
Pakistan is also planning to introduce more state-of-the art F-16 fighter jets after the United States agreed to sell them to Islamabad in March after two decades of refusal.
Pakistan bought 40 F-16s in the early 1980s when the country was serving as a base for the U.S.-backed resistance against the former Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan.
But another order for the purchase of 70 F-16s in the late 1980s failed to materialize because the United States imposed sanctions on the country for its clandestine nuclear program.
After almost a decade, Pakistan got its money back, having paid for the planes in advance.
-
Posted on: Sunday, May 8, 2005
Study lists pros, cons of basing carrier at Hawai'i
By Dennis Camire
Gannett News Service
A preliminary report by a federal commission concludes it makes strategic sense to shift another Navy aircraft carrier group to the Pacific, and Hawai'i is the likely location.
However, the report by the Overseas Basing Commission also warns it would be expensive to place a carrier group in Pearl Harbor because of land prices and the high cost of living.
The panel does not specifically recommend a Hawai'i-based carrier, but members of the state's congressional delegation said they found the document encouraging.
Dan Inouye
"I am pleased that the commission has concluded that the current world situation calls for the presence of another carrier group in the Pacific," said Sen. Dan Inouye, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. He said there is "no doubt" Hawai'i is the best place in the Pacific for a carrier group, citing many advantages that the state has over Guam.
"Hawai'i already has the infrastructure in place to support a carrier group," he said. "With Guam, you would need to build highways and more schools and health facilities. It would be like starting from scratch."
Inouye also cited military morale as a factor that weighs in Hawai'i's favor. "I am certain that the men and women who serve on a carrier, their spouses and their children would prefer to live in Hawai'i."
Half of the United States' dozen carriers are based on the East Coast, five are on the West Coast and one nonnuclear carrier is in Yokosuka, Japan. There has not been a carrier based at Pearl Harbor since World War II, but new attention has focused on potential threats in the Pacific since the end of the Cold War.
Navy Secretary Gordon England has said there is a "strong desire" to base a carrier in Guam or Hawai'i.
Business groups have lobbied for a Hawai'i-based carrier, which would bring about 5,000 crew members and an air wing of 70 to 80 aircraft as well as escort ships.
Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a think tank in Alexandria, Va., said the commission findings highlight the obvious: that a carrier in Hawai'i could reach the western Pacific or Indian Ocean far more quickly than one based in San Diego or Washington state.
"There is a lot of simple geographical sense to wanting one of your aircraft carriers stationed in Hawai'i," he said.
As for Guam, Thompson said he has heard Navy estimates that it would cost $5 billion to prepare the island territory to accept a carrier and its crew, which is as much as the cost of a carrier itself.
"Obviously, Hawai'i would cost less," he said. "Even with the cost of housing in Hawai'i, it would be a lot easier to find a place to stick the crew and an air wing than it would in Guam."
The report calls for strong congressional oversight in the revamping of military bases overseas.
U.S. Rep. Ed Case, D-Hawai'i, said he agrees that the U.S. Mainland is too far away from the action and finds that Hawai'i fits the bill for providing a closer location. "I believe that does make the case for a carrier strike group here in Hawai'i," said Case, whose 2nd Congressional District encompasses rural O'ahu as well as the Neighbor Islands.
Michael Pavkovic, director of the diplomacy and military studies program at Hawai'i Pacific University, said the commission's conclusions that a carrier should be shifted to the Pacific almost automatically points to Hawai'i.
For one thing, Guam probably doesn't have the political clout to get a carrier based there, he said. For another, Hawai'i has valuable infrastructure such as housing and the Pearl Harbor shipyard that would be needed by a carrier group, Pavkovic said.
If another carrier is to be based in the Pacific, "I'm not sure there would be much of an alternative other than Hawai'i," he said.
The Overseas Basing Commission, which will issue its final report in mid-August, concluded that a carrier group in Hawai'i may be needed to deter regional threats or cope with other threats that emerge, but warned that the political and economic consequences of shifting a group from the Mainland would be "significant."
The report comes just before the Pentagon is expected to announce its list of proposed stateside base closings as part of the base realignment and closure process. That list, due by May 16, is the focus of intense interest in U.S. communities that fear loss of jobs and other economic benefits.
On Thursday, the advisory panel called for the Pentagon to slow its plans to close overseas bases and bring troops home, saying the military may not have enough space for those troops at U.S. bases, according to the Army Times.
Easing the pace of overseas restructuring "is of paramount importance in addressing quality of life issues for 70,000 returning American military personnel plus their families," Al Cornella, chairman of the Overseas Basing Commission, said in a statement accompanying the panel's report.
"The detailed synchronization required by so massive a realignment ... requires that the pace of events be slowed and reordered," the report contends.
The panel, created by Congress, was appointed to examine the Defense Department's global basing strategy, which calls for moving at least 70,000 troops back to the United States, mostly from Europe.
The overseas commission has no direct power to alter Pentagon plans or policies. But the report will give ammunition to critics of the Pentagon's overseas basing policy and is likely to intensify calls from lawmakers concerned about losing bases in their districts.
This report contains information written by Gordon Trowbridge of the Army Times. Advertiser staff writer Kevin Dayton also contributed.
-
As a real fan of mountaineering and Argentina's Mount Aconcagua, I elected to play side.
After examining my initial dispositions, I decided that since my troop transports were virtually defenceless and I had no idea where the Chileans had positioned their submarine, I had to see to their protection first. I re-organized my CTF to provide ASW support and to escort them to the disputed zone. All available aerial assets were also launched to attack the Chilean airbase at Punta Arenas. Since there was only one Chilean base in the region, I hoped to squelch her air operations with a lightning strike. My lone, slow Dakota recon asset was sent to look for the Chilean fleet.
Instead of taking direct routes to the airbase, I chose 'dog-leg' ingress paths and tried to circle around to attack from behind the defences. I gambled that any offensive counter-air missions coming from the enemy base would likely be coming down a direct vector to my own bases so I positioned my CAP [Combat Air Patrol] in a direct line between my bases and the enemy base. I guessed correctly and was able to destroy the defending CAP defences with relative ease. The doors were wide open to my bombers.
The Argentine Fuerza Aérea's reputation as "stick and rudder" men would be well earned. I had them fly circuitous routes at low level and think that I managed to evade detection. They delivered their bombs with precision and thoroughly ravaged the base. No further air operations would be seen from the Chileans without major repairs first to Punta Arenas. Unfortunately, it also took every bomber and strike aircraft in my inventory to complete this mission. The only assets I had to support my fleet would be reconnaissance planes.
Once aerial supremacy was assured, I turned my recon assets loose on the Chilean coast. One Dakota found a small force of gunboats running down one of the channels. I assigned 2 destroyers to intercept them and moved the Dakota onward to search for the main fleet.
A large group of ships was spotted by radar. This had to be the enemy's main battle fleet. I confirmed this visually and set about to intercept with the General Belgrano and my CTF. Now that my transports were within the landing zone, I re-tasked them to attack the Chileans. After examining the various enemy ships, I realized that their Exocet SSMs far out-ranged my own ASuW [Anti-Surface Warfare] gun capabilities. Those ships had to die if I before I would be able to engage the main gun ships.
Unfortunately, I had nothing to kill them with as all my planes were being serviced after their attack on Punta Arenas. I ordered my sub to full speed in hopes of her intercepting those heavy gun ships. This was going to be a tricky operation to coordinate.
A few aircraft became ready and I immediately launched them to attack this SAG [surface Action Group]. I decided to try and first kill the SSM-equiped ships first so that my cruiser could close on the group. I was successful in bombing both the FFs without loss.
Next, I concentrated on the ASW escorts. By carefully maintaining gunnery range and separation, I manoeuvred my CL so that I could fire on the escorts without receiving counterfire from the Chilean gun line in return. Both the Chileans and my ships carried 152mm main batteries. If I could hit his CLs, he could, in turn, hit mine [and he had 2 cruisers to my lone Belgrano]. My gunners were soon able to kill his escorts. The enemy CLs sailed on alone.
Instead of risking an uneven surface gunnery duel, I ordered my CL force to withdraw. I almost had to relieve the officer commanding the CL in order to have him comply as he wanted to close and "Cross the T" on the enemy cruiser line. Instead, I granted the glory of their destruction to my submarine. Since they had no ASW detection equipment, my submarine was able to race in and intercept them with virtual impunity from counter-detection. She waited until she saw "the whites of their eyes" and loosed a full volley of torpedoes; four at each target. The explosions were spectacular and the Chilean Navy was no more.
Conversely, my own CTF had 'discovered' the location of the Chilean submarine. The first indication of the enemy submarine was reported as, "Torpedoes in the Water!". Sort of looking for a needle in a haystack by sitting on it! The Veinticinco de Mayo and her escorts immediately launched helos and Trackers to prosecute this subsurface intruder and immediately ran away at flank speed. With her slow speed, the diesel could not clear the datum point fast enough and was easily localized and destroyed. Her torpedoes were only capable of 35 knots and this was exactly the same speed as my destroyers so they were easily evaded.
I thought that the battle was over. How wrong I was. I had totally forgotten about the force of gunboats running up the inshore channel until a Dakota chanced upon them as she returned to base to re-fuel. The destroyers assigned to intercept them had totally missed them and now they were about to erupt into the landing zone! Only my 2 troopships were there. Can anyone say, "Shades of Samar"?!? They immediately fled the scene while the destroyers were ordered to sanitize the area. The escorts returned in time to kill the gunboats in a long-ranged gunnery duel. Once they were eliminated, the troopships completed their operations and I was granted victory.
Another very fine scenario, Quinton. Thanks very much for sharing it with the community. It is nice to see forces not normally found in the mainstream news. This doesn't make them any less bellicose or capable.
-
A really nice setup. The size of the AO stretches the player to cover many bases with very limited resources. Excellent.
I started by moving FFs Torquay and Lynx into positions near Akrotiri to add their limited AAA support to the base in the event of air attack from Syria. The Malta MCM squadron also set sail to rendezvous with the inbound Malta Convoy. They were limited in their combat abilities, but some ASW detection gear is better than none at all. SS Orpheus and SSN Tinosa were ordered to set up positions in order to blockade the Aegean Sea. I wanted to keep whatever surface assets that might be there bottled up tightly.
Malta launched her long-range recon assets to try and give me a better aerial picture of the Eastern Mediterranean while the Gannets, Tracers, and Hawkeyes would provide AEW. I positioned one of the Hawkeyes over Cyprus while reserving the Tracers for Fleet defence duties with the Coral Sea CVBG. Skywarriors were launched to help me ascertain the intentions of the numerous vessel detections.
During my opening reconnaissance phase of the game, 6 marauding Fresco approached one of the Gannets from Benghazi and were destroyed after they opened fire on the Eagle's CAP. An SAG centred on the CL Zhdanov was found west of Cyprus and quickly tagged for attack. An OSA was also found lurking near Tunis/Sousse in an apparent ambush position for the Maltese convoy. Another SAG centred on CL Kutuzov was sighted surging forth from Benghazi whilst another group lunged from Alexandria.
This presented a very nice dilemma. The group closing on Cyprus was probably going to bombard the virtually helpless island. To attack it first from the Coral Sea would mean that the SAG coming out of Egypt might close the distance on the CVBG and get within firing range. The proverbial rock and a hard place. I elected to defend Cyprus first so launched the CVBG's strikers against her assailants. The Eagle also launched her Buccaneers against the SAG leaving Benghazi. Two Canberra bombers were assigned to remove the Osa threat near Tunis.
8 Skyhawks dove in on the Zhdanov group and released their bombs. They only managed to sink 2 of the smaller FFGs. The light Mk82 bombs appeared to bounce off the armoured cruiser. I had to call in the Hawkers with their heavy 1000lb bombs from Akrotiri. The Hawkers finished off the group with ease.
The Eagle air group released their Martel AShMs against the only SAM-armed ship, DDG Provornyy, in the SAG and followed them in. Once the SAM defences were destroyed, the other Buccaneers bombed the ships with impunity. They concentrated on stripping the CL of her SSM-equipped escorts. They were successful and only the CL continued on her mission to intercept the Eagle.
The 2 Canberra bombers out of Malta made short work of the Osa with a minimum of expenditure of ordnance. With their bomb racks still laden with bombs, they were re-directed to attack the CL. They were joined by 2 more Canberra for a total of 30 x 1000lb bombs. Amazingly enough, the CL Kutuzov survived! The Russians sure build their ships strongly. She continued to bore down on the Eagle CVBG. Luckily 4 more Canberra were just finished fueling on Malta. I intended to use them to finally eliminate this persistent pest.
Meanwhile, the Canberra recon aircraft found yet another CL SAG bursting forth from the Aegean. This was looking like a Wagon Wheel attack of epic proportions encompassing the entire eastern Mediterranean! The Canberra pressed on into the Aegean to find yet two more SAGs! One was centred on PK Moskva while the other consisted of two Kynda-class cruisers. Although the SS Orpheus was potentially in a position to intercept these groups, the helos were going to present a major barrier. I had to weigh the option of just letting the Soviets KEEP the Aegean Sea.
On Cyprus, the Syrians were able to execute an exquisitely timed attack. Their TarCAP surprised the Hawkeye and nearly killed her. Only the last minute scramble of the Javelin interceptors saved her. The Fresco escorts arrived just minutes before the bomb-laden Beagles made their ingress from a different direction. A furious air battle on the approaches to Akrotiri saw all of the strikers killed with no damage to the base. The use of the frigates as AAA platforms proved providential.
A similar strike was detected 50nm from Souda. Very nice timing, indeed. The defending Phantoms managed to get in the air just as the Frescoes were on their final run. They were intercepted over the outskirts of the city.
Just minutes after this attack was repulsed, the air raid sirens wailed once more over Akrotiri. Another flight on inbound bogeys had been detected. As many of the fighters had just been recovered, only 4 aircraft were ready to launch. I thanked my lucky stars that I had remembered to keep some planes in reserve. There were only 3 more Beagles and each was destroyed.
I mis-judged the SAG surging forth from the Aegean. It was based upon the CL Dzerzhinsky. I thought that it was seeking to break out into the Mediterranean proper. Imagine my surprise when I saw it charging into Souda Bay! Yikes. All of my strike assets had already been committed. The next ones to come available would be the flight of 4 Canberra bombers from Malta and they were a long ways away. They had been slated to destroy the damaged Kutuzov and a newly discovered Osa stalking the Eagle. I decided to try and save the Souda base and ordered them to full speed in hopes that they might arrive before the entire base was levelled.
The CL group arrived first and set about demolishing the base. Most of the base had been damaged when the bombers arrived. They immediately pressed their attack and survived the SAM barrage to deliver their bombs. They managed to kill the escorts for a loss of 2 bombers but the CL was merrily bombarding the entire base into rubble. The SSN Tinosa had been ordered to Souda Bay post haste. She would arrive either to save or avenge the base.
The Souda struggle for survival was interrupted by a missile attack on the Eagle group. Four inbound missiles were suddenly seen coming out of nowhere. (Must be one of those pesky submarines.) Luckily, the CAP was in position to intercept. The CL and Osa were about to catch the Eagle in a pincer action. So, some precious Sea Slug missiles were used to finally kill the Kutuzov. The Osa managed to fire her Styx. Lucky for me, they came in two separate volleys and thus were more easily defeated.
SSN Tinosa arrived at Souda Bay only to find the base flattened. She exacted her revenge by sinking the cruiser before heading towards the Aegean to join SS Orpheus. Unfortunately, Orpheus had already been detected and sunk by a Fras-1B.
Multiple inbound bogies were detected from Malta. All the fighters had been re-fueled and were ready to intercept. A score of Fitters and Fishbeds were brought down without any losses. While the fighters re-armed, another attack was sighted. Paratroops! Luckily, the base was defended by Bloodhound SAMs. The entire battery was expended and was just enough to shoot down the airborne attack.
I thought that I had the situation well in hand when some type of supersonic [890kt] bombers materialized almost out of thin air from Libya. I was really sweating bricks as my Sea Vixen launched from the Eagle hoping to intercept them. Since my interceptors were only capable of 690kts, I was very worried whether I could even catch them. I did catch and destroy them but it was a very closely run race.
As the convoys continued enroute to their destinations, I sent the SSN Tinosa into the Aegean Sea to avenge the Orpheus. She approached on a vector given by the patrolling Canberra and soon killed the 2 cruisers. She then turned her sights to the PK Moskva group and destroyed the entire group save one FF. As she was out of torpedoes, she attempt to evade and escape but was caught and destroyed by a helo on patrol.
Except for an occasional patrol or sortie from Libyan, Egyptian, or Syrian bases, the picket line of CAP from the CVBGs did well to screen the bases and convoy from southern attack. However, as the Souda bound convoy neared its destination, it was more and more difficult to provide air cover for her as she pulled away from the Eagle group. My luck finally ran out as Fresco fighters sortied from Benghazi and were not detected until they were already in attack position. They strafed and destroyed one merchant while heavily damaging a second merchant. This second vessel would soon succumb to flooding.
To make matters worse, marauding Badger bombers were detected overflying Greece. They released their ASMs well beyond the range of my CAP and retired. Luckily, they concentrated their fire on the Radar picket group of DD Cavalier and FF Salisbury. Both were quickly destroyed. A second Badger attack focused on my escort group. Although two more warships were destroyed, the more vital merchant ships were unmolested.
All was quiet with no further attacks as my ships made port. The time limit expired and it was game over. Thanks for a truly exceptional experience. The timing and near-constant wave of attacks was enjoyable and challenging.
-
I re-organized my ships in hopes of keeping as many escorts between the Queen and the threat axis. There were many unidentified vessels in the area so I had my Shackelton MPA investigate them and found many of them to be neutral. Only one vessel was from Indonesia but she was not operating in an openly hostile manner so I was not allowed to engage her. Instead, I kept a close eye on her throughout the voyage.
My fighters positioned themselves as BarCap in hopes of intercepting any potential attacks from Indonesia. As the island was very large, an attack could conceivably appear from a very wide area. I kept my fingers crossed that I would have sufficient warning from my radar picket vessel, DD Barrosa.
As I ran for port, the enemy did not appear before my fighters ran low on fuel and had to return to base. I did not want to leave the ships unprotected by CAP so I immediately launched replacements once the original fighters landed. My replacements were just about at their Bingo fuel level when their radar turned to hash from jamming. They moved to investigate and found two Badgers inbound. As I was still under strict orders not to initiate combat, I had them close on the bombers in hopes of enticing them to fire first. My gambit prevailed. Once I was in position behind the bombers, the tail gunners opened fire on me and thus allowed me to destroy them. And not a moment too soon, either. Just after destroying them, my fighters were forced to return to base for re-fueling. Now the TF was relatively naked for aerial attack.
I was not to be disappointed. Not long after my aircraft landed, my radar screens again turned to hash. Three more Badgers were detected inbound. I was totally helpless to act. HMS Barrosa tried in vain to position herself so that the bombers would overfly her in hopes of getting her batteries into action. However, their is now way that a ship can intercept aircraft. The bombers closed and released their Kennel missiles unmolested. Pucker time.
DDG Devonshire tried to engage the AShMs but only succeeded in destroying one. The rest of them continued to close as the AAA defences opened fire without any success. Closer and closer they came; directly in line with the cruise liner and HMS Ajax. I kept my fingers crossed and was "rewarded" by seeing them strike the escort instead the Queen Mary. Long live the Queen.
One final "Vic" of Badgers appeared. I thought that I was totally out of luck. I had no CAP and was short of SAMs. The situation could not be more dire. "Fortunately", the bombers elected to attack the radar picket vessel, HMS Barrosa. She never had a chance and was demolished by 6 Kennel missiles.
Although there was a submarine warning in effect, I made the run to Singapore without further incident. A very nice and compact scenario. Short but very intense, at times. Thanks for writing it, Paul.
-
As CinCPac:
The screen was studded with numerous subsurface and unknown contacts from the very beginning. I re-organized my ships within their patrol zones and immediately launched ASW aircraft to prosecute the submarines. Two subs were detected in very close proximity to the Wasp and Yorktown ASW Groups and both died soon afterwards. Subs were being detected all around the board from my sub units. I guess that they must have been tracking them already.
An AGI trawler was found near the Aleutians chain. A quick visit by a lone Crusader pilot put paid to his ticket with ammo to spare.
These subs had teeth. DDG Byrd detected incoming torpedoes! The Essex task force scattered while launching SeaBats to prosecute the sub. Their attack was successful. The sub's torpedoes were not.
SOSUS reported numerous contacts for the ASWGroups to pounce upon. One after another, each contact was prosecuted. All was going well when the AEW reported jamming emissions from multiple contacts. Fighters were immediately scrambled from CVN Enterprise. The Phantoms met the Badgers just as they were reaching their launch points. Most of the bombers were killed before they were able to release their payloads but 2 managed to fire before their destruction. These four AShMs were nearly sufficient to penetrate the SAM defences! Only after great effort were they brought down.
Three times the fighter groups were scrambled for deck-launched interceptions. Luckily, the enemy revealed himself from his distinctive radar and jamming emissions thereby giving me sufficient notice to launch the fighters.
After the Kamchatka bombers were suppressed, I returned to ASW work and was awarded victory after destroying 8 submarines. Luckily for me, one of them was the Boomer.
A really superb scenario, Paul. Thanks very much for sharing it.
-
India to induct BrahMos into Navy
NEW DELHI, May 04: Following a series of successful flight trials, the Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos supersonic cruise missile has proved its efficacy against ship targets and is ready for induction in the Indian Navy.
Giving this information in the Rajya Sabha today, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said a Letter of Interest had been placed on BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited for installation of the missiles on certain ships of the Navy.
The BrahMos cruise missile -- believed to be the first supersonic anti-ship missile -- is designed to be able to attack surface targets from a low altitude of 10 meters, at a speed of Mach 2.8, from a range of 290 kms. The ship-launched missile has a 200kg warhead.
The high cruise and terminal speed of the BrahMos poses a significant challenge for the attacked target as it leaves ''significantly less time'' for deployment of countermeasures.
Following a series of test trials from 2001 through November 2003, the missile is being integrated into the Indian Navy.
BrahMos performed another series of Indian Navy acceptance tests in 2004, with a total of two launches of the anti-ship missile and a first launch of the surface-launched version tested on December 21, 2004.
The missile has been developed under a joint venture between India's Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM) from Russia.
-
Looks like another step close to David Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" storyline.
U.S. Army Balks at Sending Laser Weapon to Iraq
By REUTERS
U.S. Army officials so far have balked at deploying an experimental laser weapon to guard against insurgents’ mortar and rocket fire in Iraq, the system’s builder said Wednesday.“We’ve talked to them about it,” said Art Stephenson, a vice president at Northrop Grumman Corp., Los Angeles, which built the Tactical High-Energy Laser, or THEL.
A short-range air defense system made up of several components, THEL is the laser weapon closest to possible use in the field. It ties an advanced radar that detects and tracks incoming rockets to a chemically generated high-power beam that destroys them. The system’s development was jointly funded by the U.S. Army and the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
Army officers had lots of questions about logistics and safety, Stephenson told reporters at a Northrop briefing titled “Directed Energy: Out of the Lab — Onto the Battlefield.”
“And there are answers to all those questions that alleviate those concerns,” he said. “It’s up to the military to decide how they want to use this capability.”
Army officials involved in the matter would not be available for comment until May 5, said Nancy Ray, an Army spokeswoman.
In tests at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, THEL has destroyed 46 targets in flight, including mortar rounds fired singly and in salvos, artillery shells and rockets, Northrop officials said. A target is zapped by the real-life equivalent of a Star Trek-like beam of light. The highly focused beam, generated by a mix of hydrogen fluoride and deuterium fluoride, focuses enough energy to heat the target until it explodes in mid-air.
Stephenson, vice president of Northrop’s new “Directed Energy Systems” business area, said the Army pulled the plug late last year on plans to develop a mobile version of THEL on the grounds it would be too bulky.
Since then, Northrop has designed a second-generation, “relocatable” system that’s about one-quarter the size of the one now at White Sands, N.M, with the same capability, he said.
The “relocatable” system could be deployed within two years at about $25 million apiece from the 30th unit if the Army were to buy that many of them, he said.
“We’re at a tipping point, so to speak, with chemical lasers, as it applies to ground-based” systems, Stephenson said.
Northrop Grumman is making progress on electric lasers, also known as solid-state lasers, which lag their chemical cousins for now, he said. Ultimately, these may be the Army’s weapon of choice because they run on diesel-fueled generators, doing away with chemical supply lines, Stephenson said.
The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency is using Northrop chemical-laser technology for an airborne laser to be mounted on a specially designed Boeing 747. The aircraft would be used to shoot down ballistic missiles during their “boost” phase, or shortly after launch.
Overall, the United States plans to spend $7.2 billion on high-energy laser-related military projects from 2006 to 2011, including $5.2 billion for the airborne laser, according to figures from President Bush’s proposed 2006 budget culled by Phillip Brown, laser systems marketing manager for Northrop’s Space Technology business unit.
-
FORMIDABLE CLASS MULTI-MISSION FRIGATES, SINGAPORE
Six Formidable Class multi-mission frigates are being built for the Singapore Navy. The first of class, RSS Formidable, was launched on 7 January 2004 at the Lorient dockyard in Brittany, France. The Republic of Singapore Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) awarded the contract in March 2002 to DCN in France for the design and construction of the frigates. The contract includes a technology transfer program under which the construction of the first frigate is carried out in France and then five further frigates are built in Singapore by Singapore Technology Marine (STM) at the Benoi shipyard. The frigate programme is named Project Delta and is being managed by Singapore's state-owned Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA).
Following the launch of the RSS Formidable in January 2004, work started on fitting the combat and platform systems. The frigate will arrive in Singapore in 2005 and will enter service in 2007. All six Formidable class frigates will be in service by 2009.
As well as RSS Formidable (68), the class will consist of: RSS Intrepid (69), RSS Steadfast (70), RSS Tenacious (71), RSS Stalwart (72) and RSS Supreme (73). RSS Intrepid, constructed by STM, was launched in July 2004. RSS Steadfast was launched in January 2005.
The frigates will replace the six Sea Wolf Class missile gunboats that entered service in 1972 and are approaching the end of operational life.
FRIGATE DESIGN
The Project Delta design is a smaller derivative of the French La Fayette class stealth frigate with low radar, acoustic, infrared and electromagnetic signatures. A high level of automation and closely integrated combat and ship management systems have been selected to allow the frigate to be operated with a crew of just 70. The overall length is 114.8m with a beam of 16.3m and draught of 6.0m. The full load displacement is 3,200t.
FRIGATE COMMAND AND CONTROL
The Combat Management System was developed by the state owned DSTA with ST Electronics to meet the operational requirements of the Republic of Singapore Navy. DSTA also has responsibility for the combat systems integration. The Standard Operating Common Consoles, with 20in LCD displays, are supplied by Singapore Technologies Electronics, a subsidiary of ST Engineering.
The Integrated Communications System is also supplied by Singapore Technologies Electronics.
FRIGATE MISSILES
The frigate is armed with the Boeing Harpoon surface-to-surface anti-ship missile. The Harpoon missile has a range of 130km and uses active radar guidance. The missile is armed with a 227kg warhead.
The frigate is fitted with the DCN Sylver vertical launch system with MBDA Aster 15 surface-to-air missiles. There are four eight-cell SYLVER A43 launch modules with 32 missiles. The two-stage Aster missile is a very high agility and high manoeuvrability defence missile for deployment against incoming sea skimming anti-ship missiles which use evasive terminal manoeuvres and re-attack modes. In anti-missile mode the Aster 15 has a range of 15km. Aster also provides protection against manned and unmanned aircraft to a range of 30km.
FRIGATE GUN
The main gun is the Oto Melara 76mm/62 Super Rapid gun which fires 6kg shells to a range of 16km at a firing rate up to 120 rounds per minute.
ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE
The EDO Model 980 ALOFTS active low frequency towed sonar provides long-range detection and classification capability against submarines. ALOFTS comprises a variable depth sonar (VDS) towed body with a towed array. The frigate has two triple-barrelled lightweight torpedo launchers and is armed with the Eurotorp A244S torpedo.
FRIGATE AIRCRAFT CAPACITIES
The frigate has the capacity to operate a single medium size helicopter in the 10t class. The helicopter deck at the stern, approximately 22m x 16m (360m²), has a single landing spot. The hangar is fully equipped with helicopter support and maintenance systems. The frigate carries an additional 15 aircrew for helicopter flight operations.
The Republic of Singapore Air Force will fly the shipborne helicopter and helicopter mission crew will be from the Republic of Singapore Navy. In January 2005, MINDEF placed an order for six Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk helicopters to operate from the frigates. Deliveries are scheduled from 2008-10.
FRIGATE SENSORS
The Herakles multi-function radar, supplied by Thales, is the frigate's primary surveillance radar. The phased array radar is a passive, three-dimensional, search and fire control radar operating over E- and F-bands. The radar, installed in a radome on top of the main mast, carries out long-range air and surface surveillance and weapon control. The Herakles radar is integrated with the Aster air defence missile system.
The frigates surface search and navigation radar is the Terma Scanter 2001, operating at I-band.
Countermeasures systems are yet to be announced.
FRIGATE PROPULSION
The frigate is powered by four MTU 20V 8000 diesel engines in a combined diesel and diesel (CODAD) configuration. Each engine is rated at 8,200kW. The engines drive two shafts with constant pitch propellers.
The cruise and maximum speeds are 18 and 27 knots and the range is 7,200km (4,000 nautical miles).
-
New RSA submarine launched in Germany
Johannesburg, South Africa
04 May 2005 01:00
advertisementSouth Africa's second of three Type 209 submarines was launched in Emden in northern Germany on Wednesday. The boat was christened "S102".
Speaking during the ceremony, Deputy Minister of Defence Mluleki George said the naming and launching of any vessel is a significant occasion, as it only happens once in its lifetime.
"The ceremony of today represents but one of the milestones in the life of the vessel, of which there will be many.
"She still has to be completely fitted out, trials and tests carried out, and some fine-tuning done before she can proceed to sea and commence with her first dive," George said in a speech prepared for delivery received in Johannesburg.
"So, there is still much to be done before she is handed over to the South African Navy and commissioned under South African command and the South African flag prior to her sailing under her own power home to [south Africa]."
George said S102's sister, S101, is on track to commission later this year.
"Her diving trials were successful and so far all is going well. The last of the three boats, S103, is taking shape following the laying of her keel recently. So, in terms of the project in general, I am happy to report that all seems to be progressing extremely well."
George also used the opportunity to set the record straight and discount speculations from some quarters with regard to the ability of the personnel of the South African Navy to operate the vessels.
"Uninformed and premature comments with regard to the method that will be used to deliver the submarines to our country were unfortunate. The ministry of defence encourages everyone who require information to approach relevant officials in the department, in order to prevent sowing doubts and confusion in the public mind.
"I will take this opportunity to make it clear that all the submarines will be making their delivery voyages under own power, with South African Navy personnel on board, and under escort by one of the South African Navy surface vessels. In the case of S101, it will probably be the combat support vessel, the SAS Drakensberg." -- Sapa
-
NATO Members Train for Electronic Threats
Source: US Air Force
May. 3, 2005
In today’s technologically advanced wartime environment, training in a realistic electronic combat threat environment is essential.
Attached to the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, Detachment 2, or Multinational Electronic Warfare Tactics Facility Polygone, is charged with training pilots on how to avoid surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, jamming devices, and other like defense mechanisms, said Lt. Col. Jess Palmer, Det. 2 commander.
Based on a 1979 agreement, the unit, located south of Ramstein Air Base, is jointly hosted by the US, French, and German air forces and “exists to develop and test tactics, verify those tactics, evaluate and validate equipment and increase aircrew proficiency,” said Colonel Palmer. “The customer calls in a request for training against a certain type of threat, and we provide it,” he said.
They perform this mission on seven fixed sites and more than 7,000 square miles, ranging from Spangdahlem Air Base in the north to Epinal, France, in the south. “We don’t actually control the airspace over the 7,000 miles,” he said. “We just control the devices that jam the radar of the aircraft flying over.”
The evaluation systems at Polygone test and validate airborne electronic counter measure systems, threat signals, and recognition of the air picture on radar. "It’s important for pilots to learn defensive techniques against real threats,” said Colonel Palmer.
“The training is essential,” said an F-16 pilot at Spangdahlem. “The primary role of the F-16CJ is suppression of enemy air defenses, so we have to train against SAM sites like Polygone replicates.” On average, pilots from Spangdahlem train at Polygone at least two times a week and Ramstein C-130 pilots train at least once.
“We try to go once a week to practice threat reaction, responding with the right maneuver,” said Maj. Jessica Nichol, 37th Airlift Squadron navigator. “It’s what we need to practice every day for when we’re downrange.”
In 2004, Polygone trained approximately 5,000 aircraft on about 2,000 missions from countries all over Europe. “Anyone in NATO can use the facility,” said Chuck Kesterson, Polygone’s American scheduler. Because the signatory nations are the largest customers at Polygone, each of the three has one person sitting in each section of Polygone, he said. “This way each nation can focus on the needs of its nation, and we’re all here to alleviate confusion.”
-
By KATE WILTROUT, The Virginian-Pilot
© May 3, 2005
The Navy plans to create a sonar training range where its forces can learn to detect enemy submarines. But with sonar known to have contributed to some whale deaths and possibly linked to other cases of animal distress – including a recent beaching incident, shown above, on the Outer Banks - a battle is brewing.Four months ago, as a half-dozen Navy ships practiced hunting submarines off the coast, more than 30 whales of various species stranded and died on North Carolina’s Outer Banks.
The Navy said no sub-detecting sonar had been used within 50 miles of the beach during the exercise, and officials discounted it as a cause of the incident.
Results of a government investigation are eagerly awaited – especially because the Navy is planning to create a range for such sonar training.
The swath of sea in the Navy’s sights, farther down the Carolina coast at Onslow Bay, could become the latest battleground in the clash between military training and environmental protection.
Unlike the jet landing field the Navy wants to locate in the state, a 660-square-mile training range wouldn’t involve the condemnation of private property or affect migratory birds. Exercises would be far from the public eye.
But marine-mammal experts and environmentalists worry that sub-hunting sonar could physically harm whales and dolphins. Mid frequency naval sonar is known – as the Navy has acknowledged - to have contributed to the stranding and death of beaked whales in the Bahamas five years ago .
While the Navy prepares to release its draft environmental study of the range, possibly this month , military and government officials, scientists and environmentalists are grappling with vexing questions.
How many whales and dolphins pass through the waters where ships would use the sonar? What can be done to minimize mammals’ exposure to the sonar, which can be as loud as a jet engine at take off? Which is the bigger priority, military preparedness or safeguarding mysterious creatures of the deep?
The Navy says it must train crews to detect increasingly sophisticated diesel submarines, which are virtually silent when they run on battery power. Experts say more than 40 nations, some of them adversaries, are thought to possess about 400 diesel subs.
Still, the service says, it’s committed to balancing training with the welfare of marine mammals, protected by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
“It really becomes a matter of management, and it is a manageable problem,” said Navy Capt. William Toti , who heads the Norfolk detachment of the San Diego-based Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Command . “Sometimes it’s inconvenient, but we’re going to do the right thing for the right reasons.”
Others see the January strandings as an ominous sign.
“The fact that this is happening on the doorstep of North Carolina as the Navy is pushing its plans to turn North Carolina into 'sonar central’ rightfully causes us concern,” said Michael Jasny , a Los Angeles lawyer who specializes in marine mammal issues for the National Resources Defense Council .
The federal act prohibits the injury and harassment of mammals. But defining what constitutes injury or harassment, let alone proving what caused it, are tricky issues. Then there’s the difficulty of measuring the problem: If a mammal dies at sea and doesn’t beach itself or wash up, how can it be determined whether human activity caused it?
Andy Read , an associate professor of marine conservation biology at Duke University, cautions that it will take great effort to make sure mammals aren’t harmed if the range is put into use, probably no earlier than 2008 .
“We shouldn’t underestimate how much monitoring it’s going to take to make sure there are no effects, or if there are effects, what those effects are,” he said.
If the Navy’s environmental impact statement doesn’t meet experts’ standards for monitoring sonar’s impact, the matter could end up in court – like the Navy’s proposal for the outlying landing field, which a federal judge has halted, citing insufficient environmental study.
“I can tell you there are a lot of people in the coastal conservation area here who are ready for another fight,” Read said. “Hopefully this one will be a little smoother.”
Less eavesdropping,
more searching
Toti said the range, which would be almost twice the size of the city of Chesapeake , is necessary for ship-based sonar technicians to hone their skills and for patrol planes and ships to learn how to work together to pinpoint underwater threats.
The range’s main feature would be a series of cables and underwater microphones – hydrophones – placed on the sea floor and connected to the shore so exercises could be monitored.
On the range, ships would play “cats” hunting a “mouse” – a U.S. nuclear sub simulating a diesel craft, or an actual diesel submarine loaned from another country .
The “enemy” sub might hide in the crevasses of the continental shelf, trying to evade detection.
That’s different from the Cold War submarine game, when U.S. and Soviet nuclear subs trailed each other in the ocean’s depths, passively listening for clues that revealed the other’s location.
Now, Toti said, the threat is diesel submarines, which are cheaper and more prolific than nuclear-powered ones. In the past 10 years, because of technological advances, diesel subs have gotten so much quieter that eavesdropping through passive sonar is no longer adequate to track them.
Lying in wait in a noisy shipping channel or hiding along continental shelves that provide lots of cover, diesel submarines are elusive targets.
One of the biggest worries is that an unfriendly submarine could endanger the chokepoints of international commerce, like the Strait of Malacca or the Strait of Hormuz. Or that they could attack U.S. warships abroad.
Another concern is the transport ships that deliver the hardware of U.S. military might. Bombs, tanks and artillery are shipped overseas separately from the troops who use them.
“This isn’t just a 'let’s protect the carrier’ issue ,” Toti said. “Everything we do in the United States military flows where it needs to go – 90 percent of it – by sea.”
Cruisers, destroyers and anti-submarine aircraft actively search for submarines using mid frequency sonar, which blasts streams of sound through the ocean, returning with an “echo” that reveals underwater objects.
Ships now have no single area to practice that skill. Sometimes they do it while in transit, other times closer to a home port, Toti said.
The problem, the captain added, is that it often takes multiple attempts to get the exercise right, and it isn’t always clear why.
“When we get the training range, it’s quite possible, even likely, that the amount of anti-submarine warfare exercises will go down,” Toti said.
The Navy’s pending environmental impact statement will outline four training scenarios for the range, from basic to advanced, he said. Most would last “a matter of hours.”
Though some larger-scale exercises would be scheduled, typical exercises would involve fewer than 10 ships, and many would involve two or three, Toti said.
A history of problems
The Navy concedes that its use of mid frequency sonar contributed to the stranding of 17 whales and dolphins, seven of which died, during sonar training in the Bahamas in 2000 , an event it had initially characterized as an unfortunate coincidence unrelated to its exercises.
There are other possible links between mid frequency sonar and animal distress :
nHours after NATO naval exercises off the Canary Islands in 2002, 14 beaked whales stranded and died. Scientists later determined that 10 of the animals had developed nitrogen gas bubbles in their tissues and blood vessels, possibly from surfacing too quickly in reaction to sonar.
nIn waters off Washington state in 2003 , a Pacific-based destroyer was conducting sonar exercises at the same time a pod of killer whales was observed behaving erratically. Within a month of that drill, 14 harbor porpoises were found dead. A government report concluded that it was impossible to tell whether the whales had suffered hearing loss or whether the dead animals showed signs of acoustic trauma.
nAs many as 200 melon-headed whales in Hanalei Bay, Hawaii, came unusually close to shore and showed clear signs of stress in 2004 . A six-ship group of U.S. and Japanese naval vessels had started sonar exercises 20 miles away that morning.
The beaching of the 34 whales in North Carolina in January is the most recent incident. Skeptics refuse to dismiss the sonar exercise as a coincidence and are waiting for a National Marine Fisheries Service report to see why the whales died.
Jasny, the lawyer, said there’s little debate among scientists that active sonar can harm or kill mammals. “The only uncertainty,” he said, “is how many marine mammals does it kill?”
But even if the investigation concludes that the North Carolina deaths weren’t directly related to sonar, some think there’s still cause for alarm.
Scientists say they are becoming increasingly convinced that even if mid frequency sonar at certain strengths or distances doesn’t cause physical problems – such as ruptured eardrums, a telltale sign of acoustic trauma – it could affect mammals’ behavior more subtly, or over time.
Maybe, scientists suggest, their feeding or mating patterns change, they surface too quickly to escape the noise, or they stay under water too long.
“How often are these effects just not being detected?” asked Erin Vos , sound project manager for the Marine Mammal Commission , a government agency.
The Navy has not announced which of the three sites it studied is the top choice for the range, but it’s known that North Carolina is the preferred alternative to waters off Virginia’s Wallops Island or Jacksonville, Fla .
To limit the potential effects of active sonar, Toti said, the Navy posts lookouts to watch for whales and dolphins and delays or moves training when mammals are spotted within a certain distance. Other measures include using passive sonar to listen for mammals and doing aerial surveys before, during and after sonar training.
Whether those safeguards are satisfactory will be up to the Fisheries Service, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , which issues permits for the incidental “taking,” or threatening, of marine mammals.
NOAA Fisheries officials have worked with the Navy on its proposal for at least four years. Ken Hollingshead , a biologist with the agency, said the Navy and NOAA do have scientific disagreements about the point at which sonar damages mammals and how to calculate the number of animals affected. Roger Gentry , a marine biologist and acoustics expert at NOAA Fisheries, said the North Carolina site may have the least mammal activity.
Although some species probably migrate through the area, Gentry said, there seem to be few resident whales, and the area doesn’t appear to be a prime habitat for endangered right whales.
Read said the North Carolina site stretches over the continental shelf to include relatively shallow areas a few hundred meters deep to sections that may be 2,000 meters deep. The edge of the Gulf Stream passes through the site, he said.
That varied topography is a double-edged sword: The Navy wants to train in varied terrain to learn how sonar travels at different depths and water temperatures. But those same characteristics might make it more habitable for mammals looking for food in warmer waters.
Scientists said it is difficult to count mammals in the area of the proposed training range, largely because the deep-diving beaked whales thought to be especially vulnerable to mid frequency sonar can stay submerged for an hour or more and be missed by aerial surveys.
Ann Pabst , a marine biologist at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington , was involved in a yearlong mammal census at the Wallops Island and Onslow Bay sites.
The university conducted aerial surveys from September 1998 to October 1999 for a Navy subcontractor in the project, she said.
Pabst said far more marine mammals were spotted in Virginia than in North Carolina, but the survey did find bottlenose, common and Risso’s dolphins in North Carolina, as well as beaked whales and a few pilot whales.
There’s no way to get a perfect count .
“The ocean is a changeable and dynamic habitat. These animals move, and most are capable of moving very long distances,” Pabst said. “It’s just giving us a hint at what might be out there.”
-
U.S. May Use Spanish Base for Special Forces
Report By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MADRID
The United States is considering a plan to concentrate its special forces units in Europe, which currently are scattered across the continent, at its base at Rota, southern Spain, the El Pais newspaper reported May 2.
Right now, U.S. Marine, Army and Air Force special forces units are stationed in Britain, Germany and Italy.
A possible regrouping of the forces at Rota could be discussed during a visit by Spanish Defense Minister Jose Bono to the United States this week, his first since the Socialist government came to office in 2004 and pulled its forces out of Iraq.
He is due to meet U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington on May 3.
According to El Pais, U.S. Gen. James Jones, commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe, plans to create an “advance post” for U.S. special forces somewhere in southern Europe to “confront the emerging threats in eastern Europe, the Caucasus and in a large part of Africa.”
Such a move would be in line with the Pentagon’s decision to regroup its forces in Europe and cut back the number of its bases on the continent.
The move would also bring U.S. special forces closer to Africa. Recently they have conducted maneuvers or training missions in Morocco, Algeria and various countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
-
1982: British sub sinks Argentine cruiser
Argentina's only cruiser, the General Belgrano, has been sunk by a British nuclear submarine in the South Atlantic.
It is the first serious attack on the Argentine navy by the British since the conflict over the disputed Falkland Islands began last month.
The second largest ship in the Argentine navy was struck by two Tigerfish torpedoes from HMS Conqueror. It is thought there were about 1,000 men on board.
British helicopters also sank a patrol boat and damaged another using Seaskua air-to-surface missiles.
According to sources in Buenos Aires, at least five Argentine warships have been taking part in the search for survivors throughout the day.
Chances of anyone being found are limited with reports of 30-foot high waves and icy conditions.
The Belgrano, an old World War II ship, was reported to have been severely damaged this morning. News that she had actually sunk came as the Defence Secretary, John Nott, was answering questions from journalists this afternoon.
The Belgrano was outside the 200-mile total exclusion zone at the time of the attack and Mr Nott was asked whether the bombing was therefore justified. He replied: "The General Belgrano was a threat to our men and therefore it is quite correct that she was attacked by our submarines," he said.
-
I tried it from the Syrian side to see if I could have a different result from history.
I was hoping to use the same tactic I had employed when I played as the Israelis. I wanted to have the lightly armed MCM and MTB act as "beaters" for my Osa "hounds". Unfortunately, from the disposition of the Syrian vessels, I realized that I could not use the MCM vessel as much of searcher since she was severely limited by her speed.
The MTB set out at creep speed to allow for the Osa PGMs to catch up. Once they were positioned, the ships headed in a southwesterly direction under EmCon. Almost immediately, the MTB detected an Israeli ship visually. Knowing that this meant her immediate counter-detection, she activated her radar and was immediately rewarded by the exact positions of the Israelis.
The PGMs loosed their missiles in a single volley and concentrated on only 3 vessels as this was their minimal victory condition. The MTB tried vainly to close the distance for her torpedoes but was quickly blown out of the water by Gabriel SSMs. I saw that the SSMs were going to miss their targets by quite a large margin so I had one of my Osa boats radiate in order to give them terminal guidance. This proved successful as all three ships were struck by the Styx missiles. Unfortunately for the Radar-active Osa, she died under a barrage of Gabriel SSMs. Her sacrifice allowed for the Styx to ultimately hit their targets, though.
Thanks for putting this scenario together, Chris. Quick and dirty.
-
I played from the Israeli side and started off by breaking up my groups into individual ships and spreading them out in hopes of getting some ESM cross-detections. I saw that the PCFG Mivtach had no SSM armament and was thus the weakest of my assets so I chose her to be my "beater" to flush the game for my "hounds".
After gaining separation from one another, I set the Mivtach and 2 other ships from the flanks on intermittent active radar watches so that only one would be active at any particular time. I felt that this would, hopefully, prevent me from total surprise from the Syrians. The Mivtach increased her speed to flank since she had the duty of 'sniffing' out the prey. Through careful choreography, my missile-armed boats were in a line abreast with the Mivtach ahead of them but still within their SSM coverage. It was a tricky manoeuvre maintaining position, but I wanted to be able launch an immediate SSM attack against any contacts that appeared suddenly within visual distance of the Mivtach. I felt that only visual contact would be able to confirm the hostile nature of a contact.
I found a few ships which turned out to be Neutral. A very suspicious grouping of ships appeared from the NW. I was very tempted to open fire despite the ROE but the Mivtach proved that they were harmless fishing vessels. Whew, that was a close one. If only those fisherman knew how close they came to "sleeping with the fishes", they'd never go out to see again!
As I made for Point X, the Mivtach came across a Motor Torpedo boat. While she immediately reversed her course in hopes of avoiding a torpedo/SSM attack, the nearest PCFG unleashed a single Gabriel SSM. The missile ran true and skewered the MTB. The Mivtach resumed her original course.
Minutes later, a contact was detected radiating Drum Tilt FCR and was immediately classified as hostile since neutral vessels only carry the Decca series of radar. I shut down all radar and closed to maximum SSM range before firing a pair of Gabriel SSMs at her. She was struck by both missiles and went down in a flash.
As I resumed the sweep, the Miznag reported missiles and promptly exploded. However, her death was not in vain as she was able to give a bearing on the missiles before her destruction. The MT Natya was caught and quickly sunk by another Gabriel SSM, soon after.
Three vessels were detected close ashore along the bearing reported by the Miznag. I grew very suspicious of them and gathered my flock for a maximum missile barrage should they prove hostile. The hounds gathered around while the Mivtach closed the distance to investigate. This was going to be real
'quick-draw'.
Suddenly, they were all confirmed as hostile. I loosed two Gabriel SSMs at each contact and immediately shut down my radar and ran at flank speed on different bearings. I hoped that any potential return fire would be BOL and I was trying to clear the datum point. I was successful. Three explosions registered without any damage to my remaining ships. Soon afterwards, I was
awarded victory.
A very nice and tense situation, Quinton. Great pucker factor. Thanks very much sharing it with the community.
-
Revealed: Blair to upgrade Britain's nuclear weapons
PM secretly signs up to new deterrent as UN tries to cut global threat
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
02 May 2005
Tony Blair has secretly decided that Britain will build a new generation of nuclear deterrent to replace the ageing Trident submarine fleet at a cost of more than £10bn - a move certain to dismay thousands of Labour Party loyalists in the approach to polling day.
The disclosure that the decision has already been taken will expose Mr Blair - who has struggled throughout the election campaign to fend off accusations that he lied over the Iraq war - to fresh allegations of deception. He said last week that the decision would be taken after 5 May.
But The Independent has learnt that he has already decided to give the go ahead for a replacement for Trident to stop Britain surrendering its status as a nuclear power when the Trident fleet is decommissioned. The choice over the type of nuclear missile system that Britain will deploy is yet to be made. One Labour candidate described the new deterrent as "Blair's weapons of mass destruction".
The revelation comes as the United Nations hosts a five-yearly review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Britain is a signatory. The five nuclear powers in the treaty promise to work towards global nuclear disarmament. Mr Blair will therefore face accusations of hypocrisy, for pressing other states, such as Iran and North Korea, to renounce their suspect nuclear weapons programmes while planning a new British deterrent.
The Independent can also reveal that Britain is involved in a plan to build a uranium enrichment facility in the New Mexico desert, with British Nuclear Fuels involved in a consortium to develop a $1.2bn (£630m) plant. The UN's nuclear watchdog wants a five-year moratorium on such facilities.
Critics argue that the twin developments make it more difficult for Britain to take a principled stance against states accused of building nuclear weapons in breach of the treaty. Fuelling those concerns, the White House said yesterday that it believed North Korea had test-fired a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan.
A senior defence source said: "The decision [to replace Trident] has been taken in principle very recently. US law does not allow the US to build bombs for us. We have to build our own."
Although Trident is not due to be decommissioned until 2024, "there is a very long lead time," the source said. "That is why the decision in principle had to be taken now."
Aldermaston, Britain's nuclear bomb-making facility, has been hiring physicists and mathematicians for the past year to retain the capability to build a new nuclear weapon when a new system is agreed. The source explained: "If you looked at the scientific press over the past year you would have seen an increase in advertisements for everything. It's mostly physicists and mathematicians, but it's a sign we are gearing up."
A small group of ministers including Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is understood to be involved. Mr Hoon recently began studying papers on the options for a replacement.
Defence experts said the replacement for Trident would still be based on submarines, which are less vulnerable to counter measures. New submarines could be built in British yards, saving thousands of jobs. Britain could buy the missiles "off the shelf" from the US. The front-runner is a new generation of cruise missiles, based on the RAF's air-launched weapon, Storm Shadow, with its range increased.
But nuclear non-proliferation agreements forbid Britain from exchanging nuclear technology with the US, and so they would have to be equipped with British-made nuclear warheads. Britain supplies its own weapons-grade plutonium from the nuclear power plant at Sellafield.
Mr Blair hinted at the decision when he said on BBC Newsnight last week: "We have got to retain our nuclear deterrent. That decision is for another time. But I believe that is the right thing."
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Tories support the retention of a nuclear deterrent, but Mr Blair will face a battle with his own party. Rows over the British nuclear deterrent split the Labour Party in the 1980s and made it unelectable, until Mr Blair took over as leader and finally ditched any lingering support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
But since the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, the nature of the threat has dramatically changed. Many Labour members believe Britain faces a greater threat from terrorists with a "dirty" nuclear bomb than a rogue state firing sophisticated nuclear weapons.
Trident is virtually useless against such a terrorist threat, because the enemy does not present a target. The US is converting some of its Trident missile submarines to fire conventional cruise missiles, armed with tactical warheads, instead of the unwieldy ballistic nuclear missiles.
The US is also developing a new range of nuclear bombs, including smaller devices that could be used on the battlefield. This is controversial because it could lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons.
Clare Short, the former cabinet minister, said before the general election campaign began that she was "astonished" by the "quietness" of the party on the issue. "This will wake up the party," she said.
"It's just a symbol saying that Britain is in the big league, but if you need nuclear weapons to be in the big league, it's no wonder India and others want them. But when is Britain ever going to use a nuclear weapon when the US isn't? I would favour Britain becoming a leader in getting the non-proliferation treaty updated and back on course rather than going along with American breaches of it."
Tam Dalyell, the former father of the Commons, who is not standing at the election, said: "If Blair was wrong about Iraq, why should we trust him with updating Trident?"
Alan Simpson, a leading member of the left-wing Campaign Group, said: "These are Tony's weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector could have looked no further than Downing Street before identifying the threat to international stability.
"There will be widespread resentment about this decision, taken in secret. This amounts to a £10bn first strike against better state pensions, school building and hospitals. If we build a new bomb, how can we tell Iran or North Korea they are wrong to do the same?"
Labour left-wingers are also gearing up to oppose the basing of America's national defence system in Britain, and any plans to site US missiles on British soil, which some claim would breach non-proliferation treaties.
Replacing Trident is one of several issues the Government has been keen to keep out of the political spotlight during the election campaign. Others are pensions, council tax and nuclear power, all of which have been kicked into the political long grass after reviews were ordered.
How successive governments have kept up in the global arms race
Does Britain need nuclear bombs of its own? There is a chasm between those who say "yes" and those who say "no". For much of the past 50 years, the UK's independent nuclear deterrent has been controversial. But every government since the last war has deemed it necessary.
Under the 1945 Labour administration of Clement Attlee, crucial decisions were taken about Britain's first atom bomb, which was eventually exploded in the desolate Monte Bello islands off Australia on 3 October 1952. Britain thus became the third member of the nuclear club, following the United States (1945) and the Soviet Union (1949).
A new generation of bombers to carry the threat was developed, the V-bombers - the Valiant, the Victor and the Vulcan - and when Britain stepped up a level in the club and developed the much more powerful hydrogen bomb, it was a Valiant that dropped the first British H-bomb on Christmas Island in the Pacific, in May 1957.
The attack technique switched to using "stand-off" bombs - early cruise missiles which could be launched 100 miles from the target. One short-lived version of that was the Blue Steel missile.
Britain had counted on buying a US missile to do it, Skybolt. In 1962 the US cancelled Skybolt, thereby hoping, many thought, to deprive the UK of its independent capability. British strategic defence policy was suddenly in tatters. The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, appealed to John F Kennedy to think again. After a walk with Kennedy he succeeded - astonishingly - in persuading the Americans to make available to Britain the submarine-based missile Polaris, on which they were basing their offensive capability.
The first British Polaris submarine went on patrol in 1968, an event signalling two changes that are still in effect to this day - the UK "independent" deterrent began to be operated by the Royal Navy, instead of the RAF, and became directly dependent on the Americans.
In the mid-1970s, under Labour governments, Polaris was secretly updated with a British multiple warhead, codenamed Chevaline. When it became obsolete, in the 1980s, the Thatcher government persuaded the Americans to share their submarine missile technology and sell the UK a replacement system, Trident.
The first of four giant British Trident missile submarines, HMS Vanguard, went on patrol in 1994. These four boats are each equipped with 16 American Trident missiles, with multiple warheads capable of vaporising targets more than 4,000 miles away. At least one is always on patrol.
But at some time in the coming 20 years, Trident will go the way of Polaris - ministers are thinking about its replacement.
Michael McCarthy
-
Fourth Stealth Destroyer for Korean Navy
The Navy will launch another Korean Destroyer Experimental (KDX) II class destroyer armed with the latest anti-ship and anti-air missiles on Wednesday, when the "Wang-geon" steams out of the Hyundai Heavy Industries shipyard in Ulsan. The 4,200 ton stealth destroyer, the fourth KDX-II class destroyer after the Chungmugong Yi Soon-shin, Munmudaewang and Daejoyeong, takes its name from the founder of the ancient Korean kingdom of Goryeo. It's 150 meters long with a beam of 17 meters and height of 9.5 meters and has a top speed of 30 knots.
The Wang-geon packs a powerful punch with its Harpoon anti-ship missiles with a range of 130 km and Standard SM-II anti-air missiles capable of accurately intercepting aircraft and cruise missiles 100 km away. It also features the 30mm Thales Nederland Goalkeeper close-in weapon system (CIWS) for downing incoming missiles and can carry two Super Lynx anti-submarine helicopters. The ship's hull incorporates stealth technology to frustrate attempts by enemy radar to detect it.
The Wang-geon is the biggest warship in the Korean Navy, but not nearly as big as Japan's or China's latest. The Japanese have four 7,250 ton Aegis destroyers, sometimes called the "dream warship". China has bought two 7,000 ton Sovremenny-class destroyers from Russia, and has built or is building several other warships between 4,000 and 7,000 tons. Korea will have to wait until 2008 for the KDX-III, which at 7,000 tons has roughly the same displacement as Japan's Aegis.
-
Aegis Tested Successfully on Norwegian Frigate
Source: Lockheed Martin
Apr. 29, 2005
Lockheed Martin (Moorestown NJ) successfully completed the first live shipboard tracking exercise with its new SPY-1F multifunction phased-array radar system aboard the Norwegian frigate Fridtjof Nansen (F-310).
The Aegis-based system identified and tracked multiple live targets during a three-hour window of fault-free operation at Navantia's shipyard in Ferrol, Spain.
The SPY-1F is a modified version of the AN/SPY-1D radar system, designed to provide anti-air warfare capability with the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and Standard Missile-2. Lockheed Martin is responsible for system integration of all integrated warfare-system elements – including sensors, communications, and weapons – for the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates.
The Aegis weapon system includes the SPY-1 computer-controlled radar system. When paired with the MK 41 Vertical Launching System, it is capable of delivering missiles for every mission and threat environment in naval warfare. The Aegis weapon system is currently deployed on more than 75 ships around the world, with 30 more ships planned. In addition to the US and Norway, Aegis is the weapon system of choice for Japan, the Republic of (South) Korea, and Spain. Recently, Australia also selected the Aegis weapon system for its Air Warfare Destroyer program.
-
NAS Report on Nuclear Earth Penetrators Estimates Huge Human Costs, Overstates Need for the Weapons
Contact : Ivan Oelrich (ioelrich@fas.org)
On 27 April, the National Academy of Science (NAS) released the summary and conclusions of a long-awaited report Effects of Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Other Weapons. The damage calculated by the Academy panel is sobering, with projected casualties exceeding one million people.
The decision of whether or not the United States should further pursue nuclear earth penetrating weapons needs to be based on a comparison of costs and benefits. While the Academy study indicates the unacceptable consequences of the nuclear program, it also exaggerates its benefits. Specifically:
“Conclusion 1. Many of the more important strategic hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs) are beyond the each of conventional explosive penetrating weapons and can be held at risk of destruction only with nuclear weapons. Many—but not all—known and/or identified hard and deeply buried targets can be held at risk of destruction by one or a few nuclear weapons.”
While this statement is technically correct, it contains hidden assumptions that mischaracterize the current and future military problem and potential solutions. First, it is true that there are hundreds of deeply buried targets that are important and just out of reach of U.S. conventional earth penetrators. However, this is exactly the situation we should expect to find.
Nations around the world started digging in response to technical developments in precision guided weapons - developments that rendered virtually any fixed target on the surface vulnerable to air attack. But digging costs money.
So how deep should a nation dig? They will dig until they get beyond the reach of existing earth penetrators, add a bit for a safety margin, and stop. The result is the collection of targets we see today.
This makes nuclear weapons appear particularly attractive. There is an array of targets, just barely out of reach, that we can destroy with the greater power of a nuclear explosion. Yet, nuclear earth penetrators will not change the measure-countermeasure dynamic.
A recent study by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) shows that any nation that can tunnel under a hundred meters of hard rock can tunnel under a thousand meters of hard rock. There is no great technical challenge to digging down to depths of a kilometer or so.
The NAS study calculates that even a one megaton warhead will not be able to reliably destroy targets under just 300 meters of rock. If the U.S. begins work on nuclear earth penetrators, then countries will respond exactly the way they responded to conventional earth penetrators. They will restart digging.
Long before a nuclear earth penetrator is deployed, targets will be located more than 300 meters deep, just out of range of the nuclear weapon. The U.S. will have lost all the benefits that non-proliferation restraint would have won us, and we will be in exactly the same position we are in today.
The conclusion also implicitly accepts the key premise that the tunnel must be destroyed, not just isolated. For some reason, sealing the entrances with conventional weapons and cutting off the power, air, cooling, and water are not adequate. The tunnel must be crushed.
This objective is not plausible for real targets. For example, one of the targets explicitly mentioned in the NAS study are missile tunnels. If we can seal the entrance with conventional explosions, the missile will not be able to go anywhere and we will have accomplished what the military calls a “functional” defeat. The missile might not be destroyed but it is no longer capable of fulfilling any useful military mission.
Some may counter that the tunnel could be dug out again. This is true and it could be attacked again with conventional weapons. If they can dig out the tunnel again, they could build a missile again. No attack has permanent effects, it just buys time. The only way to insure that an enemy does not rebuild destroyed weapons is to occupy the country or install a friendly regime, in which case we need neither conventional nor nuclear bombs, we can send in engineers to dismantle the buried facility. Finally, since digging deeper to be out of reach of even nuclear weapons is straightforward, we will have no choice in many cases except to seal up the entrances and that can be done with conventional weapons.
-
Russia to Deliver 2 Boomers in 2006 With New SLBMs
Posted 29-Apr-2005 06:40
Project 941 'Typhoon' SubThe Russian Navy has announced that 2006 will see the deployment of two new strategic nuclear missile submarines (SSBNs, a.k.a. "boomers") armed with SS-NX-30 Bulava sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), a sea-launched variant of their new land-based SS-27 Topol-M ICBM. One sub will be a restored Typhoon Class vessel, while the other will be a new SSBN class design.
The TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoi" is a Project 941 (Typhoon) class submarine, six of which were deployed from 1981-1989 at the end of the Cold War. Since their original SS-N-20 missiles have reached the end of their service lives, all Project 941 submarines have been withdrawn from service except for the "Dmitry Donskoi," which has been used as a test platform for the SS-NX-30 missile and has been refitted for the system. It will re-enter active service in 2006.
The Project 955 or Borey is a new SSBN designed to replace the Typhoon and Delta IV submarines in service with the Russian Navy. Borey Class submarines reportedly incorporate a number of new advances, including improved quietness and the ability to carry 12-20 of the new SS-NX-30 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The first submarine of this class, the "Yuri Dolgoruky", has been under construction in Sevmash shipyard, Severodvinsk since 1996. Sevmash reportedly received extra funding to accelerate the completion of this submarine in 2003, and the "Yuri Dolgoruky" was specifically named by Commander-in Chief of the Russian Navy Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov as the second SSBN due to enter active service in 2006.
In March 2004, construction begun in Severodvinsk on a second Borey Class sub, the "Alexander Nevsky". Though details are sketchy, the Russian Navy reportedly plans to procure up to 12-16 of these submarines through 2020. However, the future of the entire program and its final specifications remain uncertain owing to Russia's political and budgetary situation. There is little question, however, that the Borey Class subs are currently the highest priority in the Russian fleet.
The Russian SS-NX-30 Bulava, is an intercontinental-range, submarine launched, solid propellant ballistic missile. It is a submarine launched version of the SS-27 Topol-M, which represents the pinnacle of Russian ballistic missile technology and is claimed to be invulnerable to any modern anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. The Topol-M is reportedly capable of making evasive maneuvers as it approaches the target, enabling it to evade any terminal phase interceptors. It almost certainly also carries countermeasures and decoys to increase the chances of its success, reportedly including laser countermeasures. Finally, the warhead is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance, including nuclear blasts closer than 500 m according to Russian claims.
The SS-NX-30 is reportedly identical to the SS-27 except for a slight decrease in range resulting from the conversion for submarine launch. It has a range of 10,000 km (6,214 miles) and is reported to be equipped with a 550 kT yield nuclear warheads. It is reported that up to six MIRV warheads can be mounted, albeit at the cost of removing warhead shielding and decoys. It uses a Post-Boost Vehicle (PBV) system to deploy its warhead(s) using a digital inertial navigation system with a GLOSNASS (equivalent to Global Position Satellite) receiver. This achieves a reported accuracy of 350m CEP, but this accuracy is lower than is reasonable to believe given modern guidance systems and previous US and Russian missiles.
Sources & Readings:
ITAR-TASS, April 27, 2005: The Russian Navy will get in 2006 two new strategic nuclear submarine cruisers
GlobalSecurity.org: Project 941 Typhoon Class Submarine
Bellona Foundation: Project 955 (Borey Class)
Deagel.com: Project 955
Russianforces.org: Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces (Naval)
MissileThreat.com: SS-NX-30 Bulava SLBM
GlobalSecurity.org: SS-27 Topol-M ICBM
Moscow Defense Brief #1 2005: The Russian Military - Still Saving for a Rainy Day
Tehran launches production of Iranian-made submari
in Current Events in Mideast-Africa
Tehran officially launches production of first Iranian-made submarine
CanadaEast
Tehran launches production of Iranian-made submarine
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran officially launched production of the country's first Iranian-built submarine, a craft capable of operating stealthily, state-run television reported.
Defence Ministry spokesman Mohammad Imani was quoted as saying "the enemy would not be able to detect the submarine."
He did not elaborate.
One submarine has apparently already been built and was shown on television Tuesday, cruising at sea level. The Defence Ministry has commissioned an unspecified number of the craft, dubbed Ghadir in honour of a site in the Arabian peninsula that is holy to Shiite Muslims, the overwhelming majority of Iran's 69 million people.
The submarine, capable of operating in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, can launch both missiles and torpedoes at the same time, the television reported, without specifying the range of the projectiles.
In December, Iran announced the production of a line of stealth torpedoes that could be launched from helicopters, ships or submarines.
Iranian officials have repeatedly said the Islamic Republic will defend itself should the United States or Israel launch a strike against it. There have been suggestions either or both countries might launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, which Washington suspects may be aimed at building atomic weapons.
Iran already mass produces the Shahab-3 missile, capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It also has, since 1992, produced its own brand of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.