International Naval News & Discussion

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 17:24

I wouldn't bet on them pursuing Nuclear propulsion but I guess anything could happen and it would all depend on how China modernizes or rather sustains its modernization over the next decade. I also suspect that they'll look at using fast jets from the Canberra class boats especially how deeply they plan on working with the USN/MC. That could happen a decade to 15 years down the road.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 04 May 2016 17:53

Aussies are nothing but U.S in the Indian ocean. So they have everything including the nuke boats.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 May 2016 06:42

Is it time for US aircraft carriers to visit Taiwan?

I guess China did not sign the LSA.

Kidding aside, 'Nam, Philippines and now Taiwan.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 May 2016 22:53

IRAN - A look inside Iranian submarines

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 May 2016 11:47

A U.S. Admiral’s Bluntness Rattles China, and Washington

HONOLULU — He has called China “provocative and expansionist,” accusing it of “creating a Great Wall of sand” and “clearly militarizing” the disputed waters of the Western Pacific. “You’d have to believe in a flat earth to think otherwise,” he said in one appearance before Congress.

These are the words of the American commander in charge of military operations in the Asia-Pacific region, Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who has turned heads — and caused headaches — in Beijing as well as in Washington with language starker than any coming from his commander in chief, President Obama.

Admiral Harris makes no apologies for his candor, which has unsettled a more cautious White House. As China builds militarily fortified islands in the South China Sea, a strategic waterway long dominated by the United States, it is his job, he says, to talk to Congress, the American public and allies abroad about the threat.

“There is a natural tension between elements of the government and the chain of command, and I think it’s a healthy tension,” he said during an interview in his office, perched high above Pearl Harbor. “I’ve voiced my views in private meetings with our national command authorities. Some of my views are taken in; some are not.”

For the Chinese, Admiral Harris, 59, is not only a tough talker. He was born in Japan, the son of a Japanese mother and an American father who was a chief petty officer in the American Navy. The Chinese have zeroed in on his ethnicity as a mode of attack.

“Some may say an overemphasis on the Japanese background about an American general is a bit unkind,” Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, wrote. “But to understand the American’s sudden upgraded offensive in the South China Sea, it is simply impossible to ignore Admiral Harris’s blood, background, political inclination and values.”

The derogatory comments had two goals, the admiral said. First, they were meant to show that the Pacific Command was “disconnected from the rest of government,” an idea that was “completely untrue.”

Second, they seemed intended to tarnish him. “You know when I am described as a Japanese admiral it’s not true. I am not sure why they have to have an adjective in front of admiral.”

When his family moved back to rural Tennessee, his mother refused to teach him Japanese, insisting that her son was 100 percent American. In that vein, the admiral does not make much of the fact that he is the first Asian-American to be appointed a combatant commander.

That insistence on his American identity makes the Chinese comments particularly galling to him. “In some respects, they try to demonize me, and that’s really ugly,” he said. “I think in a lot of ways the communications that come out of the Chinese public affairs organ, they are tone deaf and insulting.”

Interactive Feature | What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea China has been feverishly piling sand onto reefs in the South China Sea, creating seven new islets in the region and straining already taut geopolitical tensions.
A United Nations tribunal in The Hague is expected to rule soon on a case brought by the Philippines that could make China’s recent fortifications on islands in the South China Sea illegal. The panel could declare Beijing’s claim over most of the South China Sea, which stretches from the coast of China to the beaches of Southeast Asian nations, invalid.

The decision is widely expected to be unfavorable for Beijing, with potentially sharp consequences for the increasingly brittle relationship between China and the United States.

How boldly China reacts to the ruling is a major concern for Admiral Harris, whose task is to recommend military options should China push forward, either in the short or longer term, with its efforts to control a waterway through which trillions of dollars in trade, including oil and gas, passes every year.

Chinese military commentators have said China plans to make the Scarborough Shoal, an atoll Beijing grabbed from the Philippines four years ago, into a fortress. Only 120 miles from the Philippine coast, it would be a potential threat to an American ally. Beijing could also declare an air defense zone over parts of the South China Sea, forcing civilian airliners to make long and expensive detours to avoid risking encounters with the Chinese Air Force.

The stakes are so high that Mr. Obama warned the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, during their recent meeting in Washington not to move on the Scarborough Shoal or invoke an air defense zone, said an American official who was briefed on the details of the encounter and spoke anonymously because of the diplomatic sensitivities.

Neither side wants conflict over specks in the sea. But the possibility has to be considered, and Scarborough Shoal is now the place Pentagon officials say the United States might take a stand.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., recently asked Admiral Harris just that question. In a conversation overheard by a reporter while the two men chatted at the Pentagon, the admiral’s answer was indistinct.

Asked later — war or not over the Scarborough Shoal — the admiral chuckled.

“It is good that my voice is low,” he said, popping a Coca-Cola as he sat on a couch in his expansive office. “I will say I’m a military guy. I look through the lenses darkly, and that’s what I’m paid to do.”

To defend American interests, he said, “I have to do it with the tools I have, and they are military tools, and they are great tools.”

“In the China piece, we just have to be ready for all outcomes from a position of strength,” Admiral Harris said, “all outcomes whether it is Scarborough, South China Sea in general, or some cyberattack.”

He said he was worried not so much about miscalculations in the South China Sea between the Chinese military and the forces of other countries. “I view them as a professional military.” The bigger risk, he said, is a clash caused by China’s paramilitary ships that could bring American forces to bear in defense of American allies.

The job of a United States combatant commander — there are nine across the globe — is to serve as soldier, diplomat and an advocate of his theater to just two bosses, the president and the defense secretary.

The admiral has added another facet to his job: communicator, an unusual objective for a military leader. In his “commander’s intent,” a document he drew up last year describing his goals, he wrote, “We must communicate clearly with key audiences, including allies, partners and potential adversaries.”

Wherever he goes, he points out that his responsibilities cover not just China but also North Korea, a pressing current danger, and beyond. “From Bollywood to Hollywood, from polar bears to penguins,” is how he puts it.

He recently carried his message to New York City, speaking to 30 members of the Council on Foreign Relations. He met with Henry A. Kissinger (and whipped out a first edition of Mr. Kissinger’s “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy” for an autograph).

Then it was on to Malaysia to fly in an American P-8 spy plane with Malaysian defense officials, a trip intended to persuade that country to align more closely in the South China Sea dispute with the United States over its chief economic benefactor, China.

After graduation from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., Admiral Harris trained as a naval flight officer. In 1991, he flew over the Persian Gulf during a naval war in which the United States sank the Iraqi Navy in 48 hours.

Although most of the admiral’s assignments have been in Asia, he has made some detours.

About a decade ago, he served as the commander at Guantánamo Bay. He studied the ethics of war at Oxford. Then came a posting as the military adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when he monitored the “road map” for the final status accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

“Harry — Thanks for traveling the world with me — Hillary” reads a handwritten note on a photograph of the two of them that hangs on a wall in his office.

A wall map of the South China Sea sprinkled with islands hangs to the left of his desk. Black circles show the three artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago where the Chinese have built military-capable airstrips and other assets. Admiral Harris refers to those islands as Chinese bases.

Behind his desk, bookshelves are stacked with accounts of world affairs. “In reading history, it is those countries with militaries who are prepared and ready that fare much better than countries that have no militaries and aren’t,” he said.

The admiral talks about how his forces must be ready “to fight tonight.” One of his recent reads, “This Kind of War,” by T. R. Fehrenbach, about the Korean War, drove that point home. “He says the United States was not ready,” he said. “It is really a powerful book.”

Correction: May 6, 2016
An earlier version of this article misquoted Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who leads the United States Pacific Command. He said, “In the China piece, we just have to be ready for all outcomes from a position of strength,” not “from a position of strategy.”

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2016 15:26

Virginia Payload module will increase cruise missiles on Virginia Submarines by 76%

The US Navy plans to build one of the two Virginia-class boats procured in FY2019, and all Virginia class boats procured in FY2020 and subsequent years, with an additional mid-body section, called the Virginia Payload Module (VPM). The VPM, reportedly about 70 feet in length (earlier design concepts for the VPM were reportedly about 94 feet in length), contains four large diameter, vertical launch tubes that would be used to store and fire additional Tomahawk cruise missiles or other payloads, such as large-diameter unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).

The four additional launch tubes in the VPM could carry a total of 28 additional Tomahawk cruise missiles (7 per tube), which would increase the total number of torpedo-sized weapons (such as Tomahawks) carried by the Virginia class design from about 37 to about 65—an increase of about 76%. The Navy wants to start building Virginia-class boats with the VPM in FY2019. Building Virginia-class boats with the VPM would compensate for a sharp loss in submarine force weapon-carrying capacity that will occur with the retirement in FY2026-FY2028 of the Navy’s four Ohio-class cruise missile/special operations forces support submarines (SSGNs).Each SSGN is equipped with 24 large-diameter vertical launch tubes, of which 22 can be used to carry up to 7 Tomahawks each, for a maximum of 154 vertically launched Tomahawks per boat, or 616 vertically launched Tomahawks for the four boats. Twenty-two Virginia-class boats built with VPMs could carry 616 Tomahawks in their VPMs.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 May 2016 06:25

China's 'Boomers': Should America Fear Beijing's Underwater Nukes?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ukes-16130

the gradual, but steady development of China’s ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program has been closely monitored by international observers. China is the last of the Permanent Five members of the United Nations Security Council to establish an operational SSBN force. A recent report by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) says that China’s Jin-class SSBN represents the country’s “first credible at-sea second-strike nuclear capability.” That goal remains a long way off, however. Although the Jin-class is a potential step forward for China’s nuclear deterrent, its nascent SSBN program continues to face considerable challenges.A secure second-strike capability requires that some portion of a country’s nuclear forces survive an enemy’s first strike. By virtue of being able to hide in the vastness of the ocean, SSBNs have the potential to be an essential component of China’s nuclear second-strike capability. A reliable long-range submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), capable of striking a target at intercontinental range with a nuclear payload, is critical to this strategy. The JL-2 SLBM carried by the Jin-class can deliver between one to three nuclear warheads to an estimated range of 7,400 km. The relatively short range of the JL-2 requires China’s SSBNs to travel undetected through several crucial chokepoints into the Pacific Ocean in order to strike the continental United States.This shortcoming requires China to rely on the stealth of the Jin-class to sail the submarine into firing position. However, available information suggests that theJin-class is detectable by foreign Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) assets. According to a 2013 report in The National Interest, the Jin-class may have fundamental flaws that create a detectable sonar signature. Evidence of this vulnerability can be found in a 2009 ONI report, which compared the low-frequency noise of China’s SSBN force to Russian/Soviet submarines, and revealed that the Jin-class was the noisier than Russian Delta III-class SSBNs that were first commissioned in the mid-1970s.
China also faces the technological and bureaucratic hurdles of establishing effective command and control (C2) with its SSBNs. Reliable C2 communication with decision makers on the mainland and firing protocols for when an SSBN loses contact with its national command authority are critical to ensuring that an SSBNonly fires when it is absolutely necessary. Contacting an SSBN when it is submerged requires advanced communications technology. Salt water only permits radio waves to penetrate a short distance into the ocean, requiring communication stations to use Very Low Frequency (VLF) or Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radio waves to signal a submarine. An alternative option for relaying information to submarines comes from aircraft like the U.S.-E-6B TACAMO that trails a several-miles-long antenna to signal submarines at shallow depths. Little is publicly known about China’s communications infrastructure; however the Chinese navy maintains VLF facilities at Changde and Datong.
China may seek to improve its infrastructure on reclaimed land features in the SCS to help secure safe passage for its SSBNs to the Pacific Ocean. Establishing control of the waters within the nine-dashed-line could potentially lessen the drawbacks of the current submarine base on Hainan Island, as submarines operating out of the base are exposed to ASW forces of the United States and other countries. Theplacement of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island with a range of 125 miles, which could be deployed on other land features, may empower China to counter foreign ASW aircraft during a crisis. China’s own ASW forces may also play a key role. Establishing airbases for its emerging aviation-ASW program might eventually enable China to counter enemy attack submarines charged with tracking China’s SSBN fleet.These efforts could potentially enhance China’s second strike capability while a new, quieter SSBN and longer range SLBM are under development. There is limited available information on the development of new submarine and missile technology, making it unclear when China will be capable of fully addressing the aforementioned problems. In any case, securing safe passage into the SCS is only a partial solution.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2016 06:57

everyone is copying the arihant concept of inline or slightly interleaved UVLS tubes that can launch sub caliber missiles...after yasen its now virginia. the PLAN 093 Shang class SSN lacks this design feature which they will no doubt rectify in the next class. also means the virginia has adequate reserve power in its reactor to maintain acceptable submerged speed even with such a huge module added....it will displace as much as yasen/akula now and probably bigger than seawolf.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 May 2016 14:21

The various VPM designs have been doing the rounds as proposals for nearly 15 years now and the one finally chosen was the lower cost option of the 2 or three proposed by the partnership. At one time the politicos were suggesting replacing the new SSBN with the VPM SSN as well but that was quietly dropped after the capability trade was shown to be extremely large.

https://news.usni.org/2013/10/24/docume ... rce=feedly

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 May 2016 05:17

Navy fires commander of U.S. sailors detained in Iran waters
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-fires- ... picks=true

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 May 2016 09:15

Singha wrote:everyone is copying the arihant concept of inline or slightly interleaved UVLS tubes that can launch sub caliber missiles...after yasen its now virginia.

Yasen design since its inception in early 90's had those inline tube to launch various caliber missile , the only things is it can launch a 65 cm Onyx or 533 mm Kalbir , it was never designed to launch a IRBM class missile like Arihant.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 May 2016 00:14

Hidden high-tech ocean pods will unleash Naval drones
By Allison Barrie
·Published May 12, 2016

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/05/12/ ... html[b]Fox Firepower: The Navy's new ultimate element of surprise?[/b]

What if the U.S. could seed secret pods deep in the oceans that suddenly burst out of the water unleashing devastating surprise attacks on the enemy? While this sounds like the stuff of science fiction the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is working to make this amazing project science fact.

Known as Upward Falling Payloads (UFPs), the pods are made by DARPA, which aims to develop innovative technologies to keep the U.S. safe.

Hidden throughout global seas, the giant pods would let the U.S. Navy launch surprise attacks anytime, anywhere. UFPs would let the Navy deploy Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, to provide surveillance and other key cutting-edge tech to support operations.

How does it work?

UFPs resemble giant 15-foot high pods or capsules. Inside is state-of-the art military techology.

Related: Australia's $39 billion submarine deal heralds new era of super-subs

The military would pre-position these huge pods throughout the oceans. The pods would enter hibernation and could be activated after weeks, months, or years.

When needed, the military would command the UFP to “wake up.” The pod would then set off on its rapid journey from ocean deep to surface using its buoyancy collar.

Once at the surface, the pod’s contents are released. Inside the pod could be a small UAV that would burst forth to provide eyes in the sky. Alternatively, the capsule could contain a futuristic weapon system that provides a decisive element in a surprise attack. DARPA is working on a number of decisive payloads that could fit within the UFP.

What are the challenges?

There are four key elements to developing UFPs: survival in the depths for long periods of time, communicating with the pod, how the pods travel from the ocean depths to the surface and the payloads themselves – what is hidden inside the pod.

Related: Meet the military's new $1 billion jammer

Whether on the ocean floor or in the darkest depths, the UFPs must survive under very extreme ocean pressure for very long periods of time – no small feat.

In terms of activation, communicating with something so deep under water after possibly many years of sleep is also a difficult challenge. The pod will also need to send back health status information and the military will need to be able to communicate with it from a great distance.

How does the 5,000-pound pod then rise to the surface? The UFP ‘riser’ is designed to provide pressure-tolerant encapsulation while rapidly rising to the surface, thanks to its collar. The collar is made out of a material that is positively buoyant so it lifts the UFP to the surface.

Once at the surface, the riser must launch its ‘payload,’ which could be an airborne or waterborne drone … or lots of other mind-blowing options. Some options under consideration maximize the element of surprise. The payloads could deploy for a wide range of missions including deception, decoy, disruption, situational awareness and even rescue.

How will they be used?

Almost half of the world’s oceans are more than 2.5 miles deep and this gives the U.S. military lots of opportunities for concealment and storage of the devices. The UFPs can lie dormant and undetected for very long periods of time.

Related: This huge combat tractor is the ultimate multitasker

Oceans cover about 71 percent of the world’s surface. The Navy needs to operate over the vastness of these oceans, yet ever-shrinking budgets continue to limit the Navy’s ability to develop and acquire weapons systems and platforms.

Unmanned systems are one way to help fill these coverage gaps and give the military the ability to strike far-flung targets, overcoming the distance limitations of UAVs on Navy vessels. Instead, a UFP nearby would simply need to be activated.

What’s next?

DARPA has been building and sea testing both the system’s riser and communications components. In Phase 3, DARPA is running sea demonstrations of the UFPs communicating and rising to the surface, as well as deploying different payloads.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 May 2016 08:51

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:everyone is copying the arihant concept of inline or slightly interleaved UVLS tubes that can launch sub caliber missiles...after yasen its now virginia.
Yasen design since its inception in early 90's had those inline tube to launch various caliber missile , the only things is it can launch a 65 cm Onyx or 533 mm Kalbir , it was never designed to launch a IRBM class missile like Arihant.

thats because they have other subs for that. but in future if they develop Shourya or PGS type hypersonic medium range weapons like the zircon ... new sub caliber tubes and firing systems can be installed.

increasingly they will be looking into hypersonic system to knock out well protected (PAC3,Thaad) type NATO ABM sites and airbases in europe. and A2AD ULRSAMs to strike deep into EU airspace against large logistical targets like tankers, awacs, cargo planes and drive them off station or out of theater.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 May 2016 13:49

SeaRAM takes on the GQM-163 SST

US Navy uses Raytheon's SeaRAM to knock out complex targets in at-sea test

TUCSON, Ariz., May 17, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Navy completed a series of test shots using Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system, taking out several targets in a variety of scenarios that mimic today's most advanced threats to naval ships.

The Raytheon SeaRAM Anti-ship Missile Defense System is a low-risk evolution of the proven Phalanx Block 1B Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile.

The series of two shots included one in which two supersonic missiles were inbound simultaneously, flying in complex, evasive maneuvers. In both flights, SeaRAM detected, tracked and engaged the threats, and fired Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2 guided missiles which successfully intercepted the targets.

"SeaRAM achieved a new level of success today, intercepting targets under high-stress conditions," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon's Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "The system demonstrated once again that it can provide the sophisticated protection warfighters need."

The tests were conducted on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship off the coast of Southern California.

Navy League 2016: Detail design contract for USN's Ohio replacement submarine to be awarded in fourth quarter 2016

A proposal for the detail design phase of the US Navy's (USN's) Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) replacement programme (ORP) is imminent, officials said on 17 May.

Previously selected as the prime contractor for the USN's ORP effort, General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) will submit its proposal to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on 20 May, and negotiations will commence in mid-2016, culminating in a contract award in the final quarter of 2016, Captain David Goggins, ORP programme manager, said during a briefing at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space symposium in National Harbor, Maryland.

ORP is expected to proceed through a Milestone B review in August 2016 to enter the engineering, manufacturing, and development phase.

The USN is replacing its current 14-boat Ohio class with a 12-boat class. GDEB is partnered with Huntington Ingalls Industries' (HII's) Newport News Shipbuilding division to co-build ORP, much in the same vein as it has been teamed with the yard for the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) programme.

Similar to the Virginia-class programme's four 'super module' construction process, ORP construction will be composed of six super modules, with HII producing the fore and aft sections and collaborating with GDEB on the rest of the hull, officials said. Unlike the Virginia programme, which has had GDEB and HII alternating on final assembly and delivery of the boats, GDEB will conduct final assembly on and delivery of all 12 ORPs.

Officials expect delivery of the lead boat in October 2030.

As previously reported by IHS Jane's , in late March USN officials announced that GDEB would serve as prime contractor on the USD100 billion ORP, with work set to commence fiscal year (FY) 2021.

Lead boat acquisition is planned for FY 2021, with acquisition of a second boat in FY 2024. The remaining boats will be acquired at a rate of one per year beginning in FY 2026.

To continue building Virginia-class SSNs during the years of ORP acquisition, the USN has come up with a unified build strategy designed to keep costs down by leveraging components used by both programmes and to drive performance and schedule by allocating specific shipbuilding responsibilities to each of the two yards.

On the US-UK Common Missile Compartment effort - part of the US ORP effort and the UK's Successor programme to replace its own SSBNs - officials said that arrangements will be completed in mid-2016, with a prototyping effort kicking off shortly thereafter to capture manufacturing lessons and to help drive down costs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 May 2016 14:09

Navy League 2016: US Navy's CVN 78 on track for September delivery

The lead ship of the US Navy's (USN's) new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is on track for sea trials and handover in the final quarter of fiscal year 2016, a programme official said on 16 May.

The future USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) is 98% complete at Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding division in Virginia, Captain Chris Meyer, programme manager of the CVN 78 class, said during a briefing at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space symposium in National Harbor, Maryland.

Nearly all construction work on the carrier is complete and the remaining 2% of work falls into the test programme, he added. More than 2,000 sailors are currently on board the carrier, and 74% of the shipboard systems have been completed and turned over to the fleet.

Replacing the in-service Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carriers, the CVN 78 design incorporates several new technologies, including the Advanced Arresting Gear, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), and the Dual Band Radar (DBR). Integrating those systems on first-in-class Gerald R Ford has presented challenges that previously have set back the carrier's delivery date.

Comprising two systems, the DBR has achieved success in its ongoing test programme, Capt Meyer said. All three faces of the multifunction radar have completed high-power radiation tests and tracked objects of opportunity. The volume search radar recently achieved high power on the third of its three array faces. Both radars will tie into the larger combat system, the testing of which will occur in mid-2016.

The programme's team has conducted 242 dead-load launches using EMALS, with the latest accomplished using ship's power on 15 May. In November, a land-based test facility in New Jersey, where the EMALS technology continues to be trialled, will complete land-based testing and what is known as the 'recovery bulletin' for F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft.

Gerald R Ford will conduct sea trials in August, with a planned delivery in late September. In the six months after handover, the USN plans to conduct 400-500 aircraft arrests and launches.

Once the carrier is operational, the fleet will test how rotary-wing platforms can utilise the carrier. It also will conduct air traffic control certification with the new radars.

Full ship shock trials are planned to be conducted on Gerald R Ford in mid-2019 after some at-sea testing has been completed on the carrier.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 May 2016 02:36

Boeing's HAWC (High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability) Glide/Torpedo for the P-8 -

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... rpedo.html

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 May 2016 14:19

General Dynamics Electric Boat - Building the ORP Submarine [VIDEO]

http://www.defensenews.com/videos/defen ... /84559938/

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 May 2016 14:09

With this, all three improved Interceptors (RAM-2, SM6, and ESSM) have taken down Mach 2-3 Anti Ship missiles simulating various profiles (sea skimming, medium and high altitude cruise)

FCLIP demonstrates improved SSDS detect-to-engage co-ordination

A live fire test performed from the United States Navy (USN) Self-Defense Test Ship (SDTS) has successfully demonstrated an upgraded fire control chain designed to improve detect-to-engage co-ordination in the Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Mk 2.

Performed in April on the Point Mugu sea range off California, the test culminated in the destruction of two supersonic targets by RIM-116C (Block 2) missiles fired from the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapons System installed on the SDTS.

The Fire Control Loop Improvement Project (FCLIP) is an incremental software upgrade developed to address classified performance deficiencies identified during prior testing of the SSDS Mk 2 system. According to the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), FCLIP "is designed to improve co-ordination across all elements of the overall SSDS to accurately detect, control, and engage targets, and represents an evolutionary improvement to the SSDS through increased precision fire control and precision engagement to close the fire control loop".

During the live fire test, the SSDS Mk 2 system - using the RAM Guided Missile Weapons System, Mk 49 Mod 3 Launcher, and the Block 2 missile - successfully engaged and killed two GQM-163A Coyote supersonic sea-skimming targets designed to represent real-world anti-ship missile threats.

NAVSEA said the test was the "second successful integrated combat systems firing event against this surrogate threat accomplished by the shipboard air search radars and surface-to-air missiles found on US Navy amphibious ships". This integrated combat system is comprised of the SSDS Mk 2 Mod 4B, AN/SPS-48 radar, AN/SPS-49 radar, AN/SPQ-9B horizon search radar, SLQ-32 electronic warfare system, the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, and the RIM-116C RAM Block 2 missile.

"FCLIP is an essential pacing activity and will help keep our carriers and [amphibious ships] safe in dangerous places," said Captain Danny Busch, NAVSEA's SSDS major programme manager, in a statement. "FCLIP is the first phase of a multi-phase approach which will allow those ships to defeat real-world anti-ship cruise missile threats by means of planned incremental updates."

The April test also represented the eighth successful RAM Block 2 live fire test supporting its Developmental and Operational (DT/OT) requirements since 2013. The RAM Block 2 missile has been in Low Rate Initial Production since 2012 with first deliveries by Raytheon to the USN in June 2014. RAM Block 2 achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) with the deployment of RAM Block 2 missiles aboard the USS Arlington (LPD 24) in May 2015.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 May 2016 16:43

The centenary of the world's greatest naval battle.Jutland. More than 250 warships took part in it.The battle was considered a stalemate,but Germany was less ambitious after it. More details in the report below.

I am fortunate to own a letter opener made from the teak of the Iron Duke,Lord Jellicoe's flagship at the battle! To truly experience the era,one must visit the amazing Orkney islands and enjoy the sight of Scapa Flow from where the RN set sail to battle. Later on in WW2,Gunther Prien became famous for penetrating the Home Fleet's sanctuary of Scapa Flow and sank the RN's battleship the Royal Oak for which he received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its higher grade Oak Leaves,which was awarded to recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership. It was Germany's highest military decoration at the time of its presentation to Günther Prien.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... als-orkney

Duke of Edinburgh to miss Jutland memorial on medical advice
Buckingham Palace says Princess Royal will represent family at battle commemoration in Orkney

Members of the armed forces rehearse outside St Magnus Cathedral in Orkney, ahead of a commemoration of the Battle of Jutland.
Press Association

Monday 30 May 2016

The Duke of Edinburgh will not attend commemorations marking the Battle of Jutland in Orkney, following medical advice.

A statement from a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: “Following doctors’ advice, the Duke of Edinburgh has reluctantly decided not to attend the commemorations marking the Battle of Jutland tomorrow in Kirkwall and Hoy. The Princess Royal, who was already attending the events, will represent the royal family.”

The duke, 94, is understood to have no plans to cancel any other forthcoming engagements, and has not attended hospital.

The Battle of Jutland: the Chilcot shambles of its day
Michael White

Descendants of those who fought at Jutland have been invited to join the commemorations, which include a service at St Magnus Cathedral on Kirkwall on Tuesday.

Events will continue with a service at Lyness cemetery on the island of Hoy – the final resting place for more than 450 service personnel who died in the war, including sailors killed at Jutland. The cemetery stands close to Scapa Flow, from where the British grand fleet set out for the Jutland bank to repel German forces attempting to break a British blockade. Almost 250 ships took part, creating a scale of battle that has not been seen since.

Both nations claimed victory: Germany because of the 6,094 British losses compared with the 2,551 men it sacrificed, but Britain had seriously weakened the enemy’s naval capability.

There will also be a remembrance service at sea where British and German naval representatives will scatter poppies and forget-me-nots – the German flower of remembrance – into the North Sea at Jutland bank.

The Princess Royal will be accompanied by V-Adm Sir Tim Laurence as vice-chairman of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Telegraph UK

The confused clash as the German navy tried to break the Royal Navy’s blockade saw terrible British casualties when three battlecruisers exploded and sank. The Royal Navy lost 6,094 men and 14 ships, compared to the German loss of 2,551 sailors and 11 ships. Yet the German High Seas Fleet withdrew to port and the blockade held as the Royal Navy remained in control of the North Sea.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Jun 2016 02:02

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... fear-16026
Why Japan Lost Australia's $40 Billion Submarine Deal: Fear of China?

The outcome is likely to have pleased Beijing, (and here) given that ‘Option J’ would have opened the doors to a greatly expanded strategic partnership between Tokyo and Canberra—both allied to the US. Paul Dibb summed up the situation:"Beijing must be rubbing its hands with glee that we are not buying submarines from its adversary, Japan…there is every possibility that the harsh authoritarian leadership under President Xi Jinping considers it has successfully bullied Australia to kowtow to its demands."t’s ironic that despite China’s probable happiness at Japan’s loss, Australia’s ability to operate alongside the US and Japan to counter Chinese naval forces will increase with this decision—albeit far too slowly in a rapidly changing security environment.
However, in managing strategic policy, perceptions really matter. It’s unconvincing to suggest that the Turnbull government has chosen ‘Shortfin Barracudas’ over ‘enhanced Soryus’ in part because of a fear of angering Beijing, but Australia can’t allow the perception that Beijing has a veto over Australian defense and foreign policy gather strength. The best way to burst Beijing’s prospective bubble in this issue is to move decisively to repair any damage with Tokyo through visible and concrete policy measures that strengthen the ‘special strategic partnership’. That’s vital, given increasing uncertaintyover the US role in Asia (let alone under a possible future Trump Administration), and China’s more assertive posture in the South China Sea.
In this worsening strategic environment, the old motto ‘united we stand, divided we fall’ is more relevant than ever. Failing to follow up the CEP outcome with new approaches to Japan for fear of entrapment would incentivize greater Chinese assertiveness at the expense of its neighbors—America as well as Australia. A policy of deterrence and dissuasion, matched by constructive engagement, is the best approach to take with regards to China, and closer defense relations between Japan and Australia should be a cornerstone to that.Australia should also seek defense cooperation with Japan in operations and sustainment of the F-35, and in particular through provision of access to the Woomera Test Range in South Australia for combined training with the Japanese Air Self Defense Force. Beyond the F-35, Japan is developing its X-2 stealth demonstrator for the future F-3 stealth fighter program that could support a future bid to replace the RAAF F/A-18Fs in the 2030s.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jun 2016 04:19

USN Carrier PEO briefing on carriers and the Ford Class :

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jun 2016 09:38

Norwegian Navy Skjold-class Corvette Fires NSM against Coastal Land Target

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jun 2016 19:06

Failure of the Indonesian corvettes Pati Unus

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1931349.html

As reported Indonesian web resource jakartagreater.com, it was reported that on the evening May 13, 2016 suffered a serious accident Indonesian Navy corvette Pati Unus (tail number "384") of the project in 1331 (the former GDR small anti-submarine ship fleet Ludwiglust). When leaving the naval base Belavan near Medan in north-eastern Sumatra poberzhe, Pati Unus Corvette ran into the body of the wreck. As a result, the corvette was severely damaged with significant flooding in the bow and on the starboard side, I got a strong list and trim, and sat down on the bow of the ground. In order to save the ship moored to it were pribuksirovannye barge to the site of the accident.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Jun 2016 10:28

Good Read

Israel’s Navy Adds Sophisticated Anti-Missile Defense Systems

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2016 16:57

Russia to Modernize Sole Aircraft Carrier in 2017

“The modernization will focus on the aircraft carrier’s flight deck, including replacement of the deck covering, tailhooks, aircraft arresting gear and other elements of the take-off system,” he added.

Captain Vladimir Tryapichnikov, head of the Russian Navy’s Shipbuilding Directorate, officially spoke of the carrier modernization plans in a radio interview back in January: “At the end of 2016 the ship will undergo modernization works, and then obtain a new air wing, new capabilities, so she will accomplish two or even three times more missions than earlier.”

The future air wing of the Admiral Kuznetsov will consist of Sukhoi Su-33 air superiority fighters, MiG-29K/KUB multirole fighter aircraft, and Kamov Ka-27, Ka-31, and Ka-52K helicopters. The aircraft carrier can accommodate approximately 41 aircraft.

vishal · Post by **vishal** » 08 Jun 2016 19:11

The Royal Navy Is Down to 17 Frigates and Destroyers

Excerpt: "The fleet has declined amid steady cuts to the Ministry of Defense’s budget as a share of overall government spending, from 4.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1988 to 2.6 percent in 2010. Reductions in 2010 sliced another eight percent from the ministry budget in real terms."

A warning to the netas & babus in New Delhi. Much scarier for India given the neighbourhood we are in.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jun 2016 02:20

Navy’s £1bn high-tech destroyers break down in warm water
https://www.rt.com/uk/345838-royal-navy ... -overheat/

The British military’s supposedly cutting-edge Type 45 destroyers are effectively overheating and shutting down outside of cold waters, the Defence Select Committee has heard.
On Tuesday defense chiefs admissions to committee suggested that the program is not as successful as made out. This is despite years of downplaying the vessel’s failures as mere teething problems.
They told the committee that the Type 45s could not handle warm waters and would have their apparently sub-standard Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines replaced with diesel generators.The current system is said to leave the vessel vulnerable to “total electronic failure” which would leave it without propulsion and unable to fire its weapon systems.The navy originally wanted 12 Type 45’s, but ended up with six destroyers at a cost to the taxpayer of £1 billion (US$1.45 billion) each.The committee actually warned of issues with the destroyer as long ago as 2009, when it reported that there was “persistent over optimism and underestimation of the technical challenges combined with inappropriate commercial arrangements.”Problems with the vessel were also raised after the Type 45 HMS Darin lost power in the Atlantic in 2010 and had to be repaired in Canada.One source told the Daily Record newspaper that the UK “can’t have warships that cannot operate if the water is warmer than it is in Portsmouth harbor.”

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 09 Jun 2016 06:02

What about offering the Brits Visakapatnam class of destroyers?

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 09 Jun 2016 06:21

Visakhapatnam would be too sophisticated for them.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2016 09:31

Operational issues
The WR-21 engines as fitted in Type 45 destroyers were not designed to operate in warmer water temperatures. Rolls-Royce said that the engines had been built as specified, but that conditions in the Middle East were not "in line with these specs".

^^^ will be very expensive fix to remove these turbines and put in diesel engine as the main power plant. and I guess unlike a conventional diesel engine + reduction gear + propulsion shaft it has to be a loco-style diesel-electric kit still driving the old electric propulsion motors on Type45.
Space could be an issue in engine room as the gas turbines are usually more compact.

might as well retire these or donate to TSPN and go with better design in the Type26

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 09 Jun 2016 10:10

^

To think these were the snobs who wouldn't sell us stuff a couple of decades ago because it was too sophisticated for us.

How the might have fallen. The RN can't even beat warm water.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jun 2016 22:00

Vietnam developing its own anti-ship missile !

Douglas Barrie and Tom Waldwyn: Vietnam paddles its own Kayak

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Jun 2016 02:04

Inquiry reveals UK's Type-45 destroyers even less reliable in warm waters

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 10 Jun 2016 04:35

Austin wrote:Vietnam developing its own anti-ship missile !

India should help them - assuming they need the help.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jun 2016 10:22

The Uran "Harpoonski" Ru missiles which the Viets are planning to produce locally ,are already in use by India and other navies close to the Russians. Since the majority of navak vessels used by the Viets are of smaller tonnage,they cannot carry BMos,or modernization/modification of them would be v.difficult and expensive. Therefore to give their existing warships more punch the Urans are being looked at as the solution. BMos when supplied to the Viets would be on their larger FFGs,etc. and also one would expect for coastal batteries too. The version used by the IA may also be exported that's if the Viet army also wants them. The brand new 6 Kilo 636.3 diesel subs will carry Klub missiles too. This would make the Viet navy a very potent force in the Indo-China region.

What India should do too,beef up its naval land/carrier based aviation with more 29Ks (or even MKIs if the IN wants them) which can also be based in the island naval air stations,Vizag (already,other coastal naval air bases,)Lakshadweep,etc.THis can then release IAF sqds which are being tasked for the maritime role,and transferred to the east and west to deal with Pak and China.

http://sputniknews.com/military/2016060 ... hters.html

Russian Aerospace Forces, Naval Aviation Receive Over 60 Su-30SM Fighters
Military & Intelligence
12:53 08.06.2016

The Russian Aerospace Forces and the Naval Aviation have received more than 60 Su-30SM multirole fighters, production director of Russia's Irkut Corporation Sergei Yamanov said Wednesday.

Why Russian Military Needs More Su-30SM Gone Through Baptism by Fire in Syria
IRKUTSK (Sputnik) —The Su-30SM are produced by Irkutsk's aircraft manufacturer under the contact with the Russian Defense Ministry. The Su-30SM has been supplied to the Aerospace Forces since 2012, to the Naval Aviation since 2014.

The Su-30SM is a 4++ generation fighter jet, developed by Russia's Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company.

"Currently, Irkutsk's aircraft manufacturer [Irkut Corporation] constructed and supplied to the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Naval Aviation of the Russian Navy 61 Su-30SM fighters," Yamanov told RIA Novosti.

It is a two-seat derivative of the earlier Su-27UB (NATO reporting name: Flanker) capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions with a wide variety of precision-guided munitions. The aircraft features thrust-vectoring engines to enhance maneuverability.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/2016060 ... z4B9aaCZub

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 10 Jun 2016 14:48

Austin wrote:Failure of the Indonesian corvettes Pati Unus

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1931349.html
As reported Indonesian web resource jakartagreater.com, it was reported that on the evening May 13, 2016 suffered a serious accident Indonesian Navy corvette Pati Unus (tail number "384") of the project in 1331 (the former GDR small anti-submarine ship fleet Ludwiglust). When leaving the naval base Belavan near Medan in north-eastern Sumatra poberzhe, Pati Unus Corvette ran into the body of the wreck. As a result, the corvette was severely damaged with significant flooding in the bow and on the starboard side, I got a strong list and trim, and sat down on the bow of the ground. In order to save the ship moored to it were pribuksirovannye barge to the site of the accident.

Looks like a Grisha

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jun 2016 17:28

#Shifting Goalpost !!

The cost of an SH is almost twice that of a Mig-29K.

That wasn’t your point. No one is arguing that the Mig-29K isn’t cheaper. Your point was that its ‘comparable capability’ at ‘half the cost’ which is totally wrong since : A) It’s not comparable capability, since a Mig-29K variant, with advanced sensor fusion, AESA radar (let alone a mature one with multiple hardware and software upgrades delivered, or planned) and B ) Its not exactly half the cost since you don’t know what that capability comes in as far as a price point. Raytheon delivered an AESA a decade ago..What is the cost to get that capability in that timeline? Boeing switched the mission computers and had early sensor-fusion demonstrated by the turn of this decade with more advanced sensor fusion capability came in 2012 (Link provided earlier in this very thread). What is the cost to get that capability around 2010-2012? The Aim-9X Block II is now operational and comes with a data link that provides the ability for them to best align engagement ranges with kinematic ranges (optimize the profile). What is the cost to get that capability? The ASRAAM is integrated and is essentially pushing into a medium ranged WVR missile. The AMRAAM-C7 EPIP, and the AMRAAM-D with its longer ranged, improved GPS guidance, better HOJ capability, improved seeker and a 2-way data link is operational in 2016 and Is cleared for export and has its first export customer (A Shornet operator no less).

Unfortunately, it isn’t as simple as sticking in a new radar with a 30% higher cost into an airframe and calling it a day. The IN is an export customer for the Mig-29K. Russian Air Force, has yet to place an order for the Mig-35 with the earliest possible deliveries now expected to go into 2018. There is absolutely no program to take Mig-35 unique technology/capability and port it over to the Mig-29K – things like avionics, radars, TV, etc. You need to set up a program to do that, then incorporate it and test the new platform variant out in the maritime context. When someone enters a path of modernization that overhauls the avionics architecture, sensors, weapons etc one needs to invest in it. The USN, Boeing, Raytheon and others DID and as a result, obtained baseline AESA capability around 2007, baseline sensor fusion around 2010, with advanced AESA and sensor fusion coming in smaller increments between 2007 and 2016 and more capability planned over the next short to medium term. For example, the Radar processor, and emitter upgrade contracts went out in 2015. The Block IV EW upgrade will be fielded later this year, the IRST is in LRIP and already operational with the aggressor squadrons. If you want to bring the Mig-29’s mission systems up to the standard of the Current block Shornet you need to invest to get there..develop the capability, test it, validate it, and then procure it.

OEM’s incorporate what they spent getting to that capability into the cost of the aircraft. This is if MiG delivers current SH level capability in 2018. What if a customer wanted the same capability by 2010? How much would it have cost MiG to move everything ahead by a decade? That would have been reflected in its sticker price as at the end “ someone has to pay for it”. Its just not a math where the IN paid $32 Million for its MiG’s, and the USN Paid $56 Million for its Shornets..

It’s about getting advanced capability in a given time and paying the cost to do so. The USN invested in their industry’s capability to deliver that capability by a particular date. The MiG – 29, and 35 are playing catch up with the -35 to begin to field baseline advanced 4.5 Generation capability starting 2018 and into the 2020’s, a time-frame where the F-18E/F and particularly the EA-18G would be in the process of their 3 or 4th block improvement plan. MiG has small orders to play with, with even the Russian Air Force not expected to order massive amounts of -35’s while the USN, even in the last few years of SHornet/Growler procurement are likely to out-buy the RuAF’s MiG-35’s in the 2017-2020 time-frame leaving a very large fleet of Shornets and Growlers to justify incremental capability improvement over an already impressive block II capability.

The SH carries no Supersonic ASM’s, only Harpoon

That is the only advantage the Mig-29Ks weapon package has but there isn’t an operator in the west that currently has that requirement and can’t integrate its own weapon using UAI. The USN has a small niche requirement for a short range ASM that can do supersonic attack and for now the AGM-88E fills that niche (Demonstrated secondary AS capability). Additionally, UAI compliant JSM is in integration phase on the Shornet and the aircraft is being cleared to carry 4 for now (could carry more but the current integration is with 4 missiles). That, and then there is the Harpoon ER (240 km range), and the entire Increment 2 competition that is going to result in a down select in the next few years. There will eventually be 5 Anti Ship Missiles/weapons integrated into the Super Hornet (Harpoon, JSM, JSOW, Increment 2 Weapon, LRASM) with ranges ranging from 100 km, all the to closer to 500km all allowing loadouts of between 2 to 4 missiles without sacrificing either its self defense capability (A2A weapons) or extra fuel (CFT’s or centerline tank) , and UAI allows any potential customer to just borrow the interface (no need to share the weapons systems with Boeing or the USN) and make its weapon compliant if it has a unique need.

The Air Launched Brahmos is a 2500 kg weapon. How many will the Mig-29K carry, and how far? The Mig-29K requires the brahmos-M to come in that is smaller, and that weighs less so that 3-4 can be carried. That will take some time and is far from being an operational capability. Going forward you would need to saturate a ship with anti-ship munitions and missiles. Not all of it will be done by missiles but a combination of missiles and conventional PGM’s. It’s a matter of time before the USN demonstrate ship attack role with an SDB II much like the JSOW. A potential customer looking at the Rhino has plenty of Anti Ship options to choose from, ranging from short-medium ranged options to JSM that given attack profiles can go into 200-300 nautical miles. The LRASM with a different seeker (perhaps an active seeker) can be an export option as well, and that will have a significantly longer range given the size and range of the weapon it’s based on (nearly 1000 km).

And BTW, the NSM/JSM – NG Is essentially a LRASM-Lite minus the GPS/SATCOM denied stuff and long range networking (SATCOM). It virtually mimics the dual-mode sensor combination so its eventual capability is essentially a function of BaE funding the sensor, and Australia and Norway jointly completing an extensive fusion, and software development program.

The Mig-29K will also carry the BMos, which for at least 5-19 years, no USN naval aircraft will be carrying anything similar

That’s a fairly loaded statement. What are the timelines for BMos integration on the Mig-29K? How many will it carry and by when? Do you know the requirements for the LRASM follow on for the USN? What about the Hypersonic demonstrations that are going to be occurring in the 2019-2020 time-frame. Do you know what planned uses the USN has given they are invested partners? Do you know whether the surface attack capability inherent in the AARGM, has and will be eliminated from its follow-on (AARGM-ER) which should double the range and increase the speed through an IRR?

So you share a report on the AESA but don’t factor in the fact that Raytheon and Boeing delivered an AESA for development testing specifically for the Shornet a decade ago, and had 2 dozen fielded systems 9 years ago, and have since upgraded both the emitters (modules), and the processors and through software, introduced enhanced capability over the two increments since its induction. You also ignore the fact that Raytheon delivered its first generation fighter AESA 16 years ago (to frontline combat units) and has since then completely revamped its T/R module designs, switched to a common processor path for three radars (economies of scale in upgrades) and with the AN/APG-82, switched to a common software base that allows the USAF and the USN to collaborate on upgrades to their respective radars. The 63 V(2) EW mode was demonstrated 6 or so years ago, and the USN will be getting this shortly into the AN/APG-79 as well. Mission system maturity, comes at a cost..it’s just not a check-list that you can check when you haven’t yet fielded an operational AESA on a fighter, and the one that looks to go into operational service would be with Algeria and Egypt – both customers unlikely to spend millions to continuously improve it.

for Egypt was aprox. $40 M…

Again, its not a naval fighter and the price was $45+ and we only have news-reports to go by so can’t really see what is included, and what is excluded. On the Shornet, you get the entire program Selected acquisition report . The point however, remains…no one is argueing that the Mig-29K isn’t cheaper. The argument was that it comes in with half the cost and offers comparable performance, mission systems and weapons package.

Your cost comparison argument is flawed because you aren’t comparing like for like. The $60 Million dollar program fly-away Shornet offers (at the moment) significantly superior mission systems, more mature high technology sub-systems, a larger and more diverse weapons package across the spectrum of air, land and sea strike (Supersonic ASH aside) and a dedicated investment by its primary operator that operates more than 700 aircraft of related type (F-18E/F and EA-18G) and is continuously investing to make it more lethal, block by block as has been seen over the last 10 years. All these things are valued by potential customers when they have to decide since product development, upgrade, enhancement and life-cycle support are extremely important – A lot more than a $20 million price difference in acquisition cost which is tiny when compared to the system LCC.

Projecting a future year capability if it ever arrives, at a cost of the current aircraft, against another aircraft that delivers that capability now, and did so 5-8 years ago, is rather absurd. You are saying the Mig-29K will get an AESA, will get TVC, will get advanced sensor-fusion at par with the current block SH, will get similar Guided PGM capability..will get a next generation color HMD, upgrades all of its A2A weapons (and integrate new one) – And once it gets it it will be comparable, and come in at half the cost of a Rhino delivered years ago (getting capability a decade earlier seems to have no monetary value). You refuse to provide a timeline for all that capability. You refuse to share the cost to run a Navy specific test, evaluation and upgrade program and factor that into the cost of upgrade. You then go in make the claim, that WHEN the Mig-29K FINALLY gets that capability, it will come in at half the cost of a Shornet that had most if not all of that capability a good decade to 15 years before you project the Mig29K to get that capability ((getting capability a decade earlier seems to have no monetary value in your view).

If that wasn’t enough, you talk of a capability that the Mig-29K doesn’t have NOW (BMos), and project that as a advantage to it, and also predict that it would be 19 years (or a weird 5-19 years time-frame) before the USN could even hope to field such a capability and somehow spin this as an advantage for the Mig-29K. I don’t think you want to get into a “potential upgrades” list when it comes to the SH, especially not with the Mig-29K. There are a lot of really interesting things that have been lab designed, lab tested, and/or designed and flown on the Shornet family that are much more promising to a potential customer looking to incrementally build capability over and above the USN’s plans. Things like EPE/EDE engines (lab tested components), Better Digital EW packages, CFT’s to free up stations and add range, more weapons (SDBI Integration, SPEAR III, and others) and of ocurse the Next Generation cockpit that is now developed for the F-15 (in that the risk to get it remains very low since someone else paid Boeing and Rockwell Collins to put into a combat aircraft) at someone else’s expense.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Jun 2016 03:02

Excellent post brarw.

Just as a reference source for the actual price of a Rhino for the USN- here is a report that emerged soon after the mid-air collision between 2 Rhinos.

The recent midair collision between two F/A-18F Super Hornets is the costliest mishap for the U.S. Navy so far this decade, and combined with the fatal F/A-18C Hornet Blue Angels crash earlier this month puts the Navy on pace for its most expensive year for incidents during that time, an Aviation Week analysis of U.S. Navy Safety Center record shows.

Altogether, the Navy has racked up about 1,400 mishaps for about $4.4 billion in damages—or about $3.1 million per incident since fiscal 2009—the analysis shows. From Oct. 1, 2014, through June 3 this year, the Navy has reported 29 mishaps and about $1.2 billion in damages.

The May 26 loss of the Super Hornets cost the Navy about $173.2 million, the service says. Before then, the most expensive Navy mishap was the fiscal 2014 loss of two F/A-18Cs, which cost the service about $148.2 million. The Blue Angels’ June 2 fatal mishap during the “beginning stages” of an afternoon practice at the Smyrna Airport in Tennessee cost the service about $76.5 million, the Navy says.
..

$173.2 million for the loss of 2 Rhinos. that's approx. $86.6 million each. And ~$75 million for the classic Hornets.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 03:13

$173.2 million for the loss of 2 Rhinos. that's approx. $86.6 million each. And ~$75 million for the classic Hornets.

Its different the way these things are calculated. The US Government publishes the Selected Acquisition Report that you can use to calculate the recurring item cost (commonly known as base fly away). Over the F-18E/F program it is between $55 and $60 Million. Now, that Boeing has hit a reduced production number - the lowest financially viable, the cost is higher as would be the case for most. For example, the cost for the Classic Hornet makes ZERO difference, since the Classic Hornet is no longer in production and therefore cannot be bought AT ANY COST. You couldn't buy a classic hornet for $200 Million.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 05:05

UK P-8 decision imminent

UK defence officials are likely to approve a planned purchase of nine Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), with a decision possible over the next seven days.

London indicated in a November defence and security review that it intended to acquire the 737-derived aircraft and the so-called maingate decision is one of the final steps prior to contract signature.

To be operated by the Royal Air Force, the CFM International CFM56-powered aircraft are to be acquired via the US government’s Foreign Military Sales mechanism.

Speaking to media at NAS Jacksonville on 9 June, Andy Miller, commander of the US Navy’s VP-30 training squadron, said the decision is expected in June, and could even be made in the next seven days. Further announcements are then likely to be made at July’s Farnborough air show.VP-30 operates both P-8 and Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. RAF personnel have been training on the P-8 at Jacksonville under its Seedcorn MPA capability retainment effort. Defence secretary Michael Fallon also visited the site in May to discuss the introduction of the new type.

“We know what our own six transitions [from P-3 to P-8] look like now… and I spent time with the British contingency last month to outline their transition,” Miller says.

The USN has so far switched all six East Coast squadrons to the P-8, with their six West Coast counterparts to follow in October.

On 9 June the service received its 40th of a contracted 80 P-8s. Its total requirement is for 117 examples, with funding in place for 109.

US Navy prepares for west coast transition of Poseidon

The US Navy (USN) is to shortly begin transitioning its west coast maritime patrol squadrons over to the Boeing P-8A Poseidon as it looks to phase out of service the lion's-share of its Lockheed Martin P-3C Orion fleet before the end of the decade, a service official told reporters on 9 June.Speaking at the home of the USN's P-8A training force at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville in Florida, instructor pilot with Patrol Squadron (VP) 30, Lieutenant Nikee Giampietro, said that with all of the east coast fleet having recently completed the move at the base from the P-3C over to the P-8A, work to do the same for the west coast fleet at NAS Whidbey Island in Washington state will begin in the coming weeks.

"[The USN] completed the stand up of its six east coast squadrons in April, and the west coast transition will start in the [beginning of the third quarter] of this year," Lt Giampietro said, adding that it will take approximately seven to eight months for each of the remaining six operational units to go through the transition process.

Those squadrons now stood up at NAS Jacksonville comprise VP-30 responsible for P-8A, P-3C, and Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle training, with P-8A operational units made up of VP-16, VP-5, VP-45, VP-8, VP-10, and VP-26. VP-30 will also undertake training for NAS Whidbey Island, with that station's operational P-8A units set to comprise VP-4, VP-47, VP-9, VP-1, VP-40, and VP-46. The first operational unit to be located at NAS Whidbey Island will be VP-4, which is currently deployed to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii. The second unit will be VP-47, with the remaining order to be announced.

The USN plans to transition over to the P-8A for all its Patrol Squadrons by 2019, although a number of P-3Cs may remain in service after this date with the Special Projects Patrol Squadron.

Initial P-8A pilot training by VP-30 typically takes six months, and is conducted chiefly at the Integrated Test Center (ITC) at NAS Jacksonville. Another VP-30 instructor pilot, Lieutenant John Fazetta, noted that the training philosophy can be summed up as "crawl, walk, and then run", with classroom-based instruction, simulation, and real-world flight time all being utilised during the course of instruction.

Briefing reporters on the 11,600 m 2 ITC, Commander Andy Miller, officer in-charge of the Fleet Integration Team (FIT), said that pilots receive 100 hours of instruction on the centre's 10 CAE-built and Boeing-adapted Operational Flight Trainers (OFTs), plus 36 hours of actual flight time. The OFTs can be networked with the rear-crew Weapons Tactics Trainers (WTTs), with the combined system being dubbed the Weapons System Trainer (WST).

As well as the USN students that pass through the ITC, NAS Jacksonville also hosts 12 UK Royal Air Force (RAF) and 36 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel ahead of those countries receiving P-8s in the future. India, the other current operator of the P-8, does not have any personnel in the United States as the Indian Navy (IN) procured its P-8I Neptunes directly from Boeing rather than through the Foreign Military Sales programme.

According to Cmdr Miller, while the inclusion of the UK and Australian crews in the ITC has not changed the way the way in which the USN conducts its maritime patrol aircraft operations, it has had a positive effect. "We haven't made any wholesale changes as we are already pretty closely aligned to the UK and Australia," he said, adding, "We have got better though [as a result]".

The USN has a programme of record of 117 P-8A aircraft, of which 109 have been approved and 80 contracted. Of these, 40 have so far been delivered across five production lots (there will be 10 lots in all). The IN has received its initial eight aircraft and ordered a further four; the RAAF has ordered eight and approved a further four; while the UK is set to sign for nine. In terms of global sales, Boeing sees a market for the P-8 of 100 aircraft over the next decade.Derived from the Boeing 737-800 commercial airliner (but with 737-900 wings), the P-8 Poseidon has been built by a Boeing-led industry team that includes CFM International, GE Aviation, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Spirit AeroSystems.

Compared to its P-3 predecessor, the P-8 can be described as being able to operate further and faster, while being more reliable. A cursory comparison between the four-turboprop P-3 and twin-jet P-8 gives the former an endurance of 3.6 hours at 1,200 n miles and the latter 4.7 hours at the same distance (with the option of aerial refuelling soon to be adopted by the USN also). The P-3 can carry 18 weapons and 84 sonobuoys, while the P-8 can carry 12 and 120 respectively. The P-3 has a transit speed of 340 kt, while that of the P-8 is 440 kt. The older P-3 has a fleet availability rate of 60%, while that of the newer P-8 is 80%.

While the P-8 has proven to be a more than able successor to its venerable P-3 forebear, former P-3 operator and current P-8 instructor with VP-30, Lieutenant Commander Eric Andrews, was keen to redress the balance ever so slightly in favour of his former platform, telling reporters, "I'll give you an example, to prove that I'm not a Boeing employee, of where the P-3 will always beat the P-8. When it comes to visibility from the flight deck - the size of the windows and the deck angle at lower speeds - the P-3 always wins."

Other than that rather small caveat, both Lt Cmdre Andrews and Cmdre Miller were both full of praise for the P-8, saying that it had so far "exceeded all expectations" since it was introduced into service in 2013.