International Naval News & Discussion

[Leo.Davidson]

Russia claims it's in the early stages of developing an aircraft carrier that can hold 100 planes

:
The Russian carrier, if constructed, would be slightly larger than the US's current Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, which can carry around 90 aircraft.

Ridiculous. What purpose does it serve? to have over 100 aircraft on board an AC. Realistically with the roles and traffic the AC can handle, around 75 is most appropriate. The US with their involvement in world affairs has reason to go over that count. What purpose does a 100 aircraft AC serve the Russians???

[Austin]

Good Info on Barracuda Program

Exclusive Interview With The French Navy On The Barracuda SSN Program

[brar_w]

[Singha]

I do not think the white seagull survived..it was falling down and hit with shrapnel. just their bad luck to be sitting right above the impact point on his long target.

[brar_w]

Hope they survived..

This is what the JHSV would look like next year when it gets a railgun for testing

[Austin]

Grainy Pictures have emerged from Russian Design Bureau on New Nuclear Powered Destroyer Leader

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/58358/

6 * 10 = 60 large cells (for example, long-distance air defense missiles / missile type 40N6E or 4 smaller anti-aircraft missiles, a total of 240 missiles)

12 * 4 = 48 very large cells (though there fit hypersonic Zircon, though 4 Onyx / X-101, a total of 192 missiles).

In total, 108 very large missiles or up to 432 smaller ones.

[Philip]

12:50 09.02.2015
Russia has successfully tested its newest anti-submarine system, which features anti-torpedo capabilities, during military exercises in the Baltic Sea.

Iskander-M tactical ballistic missiles

© Sputnik/ Aleksei Danichev

Russia Will Test Launch Iskander-M Missiles During March Drills
Russia’s stealth corvette Soobrazitelny has successfully tested the country’s newest Paket-NK small-sized anti-submarine system with anti-torpedo capabilities during the military exercises in the Baltic Sea.

The Kilo class diesel-electric torpedo submarine “Varshavyanka” (Project 877) served as a target and was fired at with actual torpedoes (which hadn't been equipped with warheads).

The corvette is set to engage in more practice firing and conduct a number of other military exercises.

The Paket-NK system is designed to engage (destroy) submarines in a ship's close-in zone, when carrying out submarine warfare tasks, and to destroy torpedoes, attacking the ship while carrying out anti-torpedo defense tasks.

Russia to Test Strategic Missile Forces in Unscheduled Drills
The Paket-NK system can operate independently or be integrated into ship's antisubmarine/anti-torpedo defense system, solving a number of tasks in fully automatic or automated modes.

The tasks may include the generation of target designation data for smaller heat-seeking torpedoes, based on data provided by ship's sonar systems and posts.

Detection and classification of attacking torpedoes, determination of their movement parameters, and generation of target designation data for anti-torpedoes

Pre-launch preparation of combat modules, generation and transfer of firing data to them, launching of anti-torpedoes and/or miniature heat-seeking torpedoes

Launching units control

The Paket-NK system is a radically new weapon system, allowing surface ships to complete ASW/anti-torpedo defense tasks with high effectiveness, and to substantially increase their survivability.\

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150209/ ... z3RWhuuuYE

[Philip]

Austin,in the link,.there is also a pic of the island/deck of a new carrier design with naval FGFA/T-50s aboard. If so ,this could be a possibility for future large CXVs for the IN,also N-powered.

Australia's submarine-building capacity trashed by officials overseas: Xenophon
http://www.abc.net.au/news/5829868

http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/australi ... ne-debate/
Australia’s Ongoing Submarine Debate
Confusion seems to reign in the wake of the PM’s “near-death” experience last week.

By Helen Clark
February 13, 2015

The submarine debate has been simmering in Australia for quite some time but only rarely has it poked its head above sea-level in the political news cycle, which has mostly been concerned with the unending dramas over Tony Abbott and his likely lifespan as prime minister. Last month we reported on the possibility of a deal with Japan. A few days before last Monday’s spill motion, The Australian suggested that Tony Abbott’s future worried Tokyo enough that the sub deal might be off, except that it was unlikely that it was on in the first place, owing to domestic pressures.

The question of the day has been, what did Abbott promise South Australian politicians in return for votes at the spill (essentially a no-confidence motion)? Meanwhile, the rent-seeking squawks, nationalistic chest beating, political attacks (Abbott: “We could have Kim Jong-il-Class submarines” in response to Labor’s admittedly inadvisable call for open tender), and concern over domestic industry have muddied the main points.

Australia needs to replace its submarines. It needs 12. It currently has six diesel-fuelled Collins class subs which date from the mid-1990s. As we’ve previously reported, there might be an alliance angle in the Japanese sub idea in that this would necessarily increase defense ties and play into some form of three way alliance with the U.S. As we’ve also reported, this does not mean Australia will, or at least its polity will want to, support the U.S. and Japan in a conflict with China. (Whether Australia’s U.S. alliance will compel it to is another matter; Cameron Hawker, writing at the Australian Institute of International Affairs, reckons so.)

The larger issue is that South Australia wants the subs built in its state, though some concede that Australia may not be able to actually design them from scratch. Nuclear-powered subs are out; they will be diesel. Does Australia have the capacity to go it alone? Possibly not. Gaining that capacity is theoretically a good thing and, more theoretically, even a remunerative thing at some point in the medium- to longer-term future, but it may not be practicable.

Prof. James Holmes, formerly of this publication and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, told Oceania: “I’m very skeptical of Australia’s (or anybody else’s) capacity to build up submarine-building expertise and infrastructure on the fly,” given the limited number of boats it wants to buy and, “I think Australia does well in light of its small populace, but my counsel is to buy Japanese in this case, and to keep any modifications to the Soryu to a bare minimum to hold down costs and maximize compatibility between RAN and allied submarines. The U.S. Navy is used to working with JMSDF boats, so the more commonality the better.” The issue of range, that Aussie boats have to travel much farther than so many others owing to the enormous coastline is, he says, not as relevant as those who want a “Made in Australia” sub believe it is.

Dr. John White, a naval expert on the Defence South Australia board, would probably disagree. In October last year he recommended against the Soryu-class Japanese subs, saying the deal was more complicated than it seemed given that Japan had never exported them before; instead he urged a tender for several international and local companies. What Dr. White did make clear was that it was the shipping lanes that were important: this is where Australia does most of its trade and they must be protected. It is this and not, say, the threat of Indonesia which, according to Professor Hugh White at the ANU, was still a quietly vexatious issue of the 2013 Defense White Paper, that must occupy Australia.

Helen Clark was based in Hanoi for six years as a reporter and magazine editor. She has written for two dozen publications including The Diplomat (as Bridget O’Flaherty), Time, The Economist, the Asia Times Online and the Australian Associated Press.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/th ... race-12248
The Buzz
Silent but Deadly: Korea's Scary Submarine Arms Race

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/th ... 2248[quote]
Zachary Keck
February 13, 2015

A number of recent events underscore South Korea’s plans to establish a formidable submarine fleet to counter North Korea and other regional security threats.

Last week, South Korea established its first independent submarine command to conduct “more integrated, efficient and stable submarine operations.”

“The launch of the submarine force command is a clear display of our will to perfectly defend our East, West and South Seas through the enhanced quality and quantity of our submarine capabilities," the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy said in a press release announcing the command. “With the command, we have secured capabilities to more proactively deter North Korean threats by effectively controlling and managing our submarine forces ― strategic weapons systems that could stealthily strike the heart of enemy forces.”

The new command will be headquartered at Jinhae Naval Base in South Gyeongsang and will have a fleet of 13 submarines with ambitious plans to expand in the coming years. South Korea is just the sixth country to have an independent submarine fleet after U.S., Japan, France, Britain and India, South Korean media outlets reported. Other local media reports said that Rear Adm. Upper Half Youn Jeong-sang, a former deputy naval operations commander, would head up the new command, which will be tasked with “maintaining deterrence against the North, conducting wartime missions to strike strategic enemy targets, and protecting sea lines of communication.”

Indeed, on Thursday of this week the South Korean military announced it is developing a new comprehensive submarine operation plan. “The comprehensive operation plan on submarine capabilities to be based upon the existing one aims to counter not only threats by North Korea but potential danger to be posed by neighboring countries," an anonymous ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) official told Yonhap News Agency. “The military will also continue to develop precise and powerful underwater weapons to attach them to our submarines.”

The announcement of the revised operations plan coincided with Adm. Choi Yun-hee, the chairman of the JCS, visiting the new submarine command. Speaking to sailors at the command, the chairman instructed them to take a “one shot, one sink" mentality.

"As our military's key capabilities in operational and strategic terms, the submarine command needs to materialize the proactive and offensive concept of operation suitable for the combat circumstances of our time," Choi said, according to Yonhap.

South Korea’s submarine push comes at a time when there is growing concern about North Korea’s undersea capabilities. North Korea is believed to have over 70 submarines, many of them midget subs, but also around 20 Russian-built 1,800-ton Romeo-class submarines. There is also growing concern that North Korea is seeking submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which theoretically could be armed with nuclear warheads in the future.

Even before these concerns began to surface, South Korea had been amassing a formidable undersea fleet. As noted above, Seoul currently boasts thirteen submarines. Nine of these are 1,200-ton Chang Bogo class diesel-electric attack vessels that are the export versions of the German Type 209 class submarines. According to Naval Technology, the Chang Bogo class has a single hull and “a length of 56 m, a beam of 6.2 m and a draft of 5.5 m.” In terms of weaponry, the Chang Bogo class vessel boasts eight 533 mm tubes and 14 Surface and Underwater Target (SUT) Mod 2 torpedoes, each of which has a range of 28 km. Some of them can also fire Harpoon cruise missiles and all can hold mines instead of torpedoes. Their diesel-electric propulsion system enables them to travel at a maximum speed of 22 knots when submerged, with a range of 595 km.

Since 2007, South Korea has commissioned four 1,800-ton Son Won-Il class Type 214 submarines (and launched a fifth), which hold a number of advantages over the Type 209 vessels. For one thing, the Type 214 submarines are equipped with Air Independent Propulsion (AIP), which allows them to stay submerged for two weeks at a time. They also have a diving depth of 400 meters, although their underwater speed is reportedly only about 20 knots. Their ISUS 90 submarine combat systems allow the Type 214 vessels to engage 300 targets simultaneously.

The navy has also said it will commission five more of the Type 214 submarines by 2019. The following year it will begin work on the first of nine indigenous 3,000-ton submarines, which will be capable of launching ballistic missiles.
[/quote]

[Philip]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... ubmarines/

Russian Intel Ship Spying on US Missile Submarines
AGI Viktor Leonov recently spotted in Cuba

BY: Bill Gertz
February 13, 2015

A Russian intelligence-gathering ship is again plying the waters off the southern United States in operations aimed at spying on U.S. ballistic missile submarines based in the area, defense officials said.

The intelligence collection ship, Viktor Leonov, has been closely watched by U.S. Navy ships and aircraft for the past several days near Jacksonville, Fla., close to the Naval Submarine Base at Kings Bay, Ga. The ship also conducted operations there in April.

The spying comes amid heightened U.S.-Russia tensions over the crisis in Ukraine, where Russian forces annexed the Crimea last year and are continuing to arm pro-Moscow rebels in the eastern part of the country.

The Kings Bay base is homeport for the Navy’s Submarine Group 10, with six nuclear-armed missile submarines and two conventionally armed missile submarines.

“It’s been all in international waters and all perfectly legal,” said a defense official familiar with efforts to monitor the ship. “But it’s interesting that it is operating, collecting on us where it is.”

This week, the Leonov was spotted anchored about 22 miles off the Florida coast, southeast of Kings Bay.

It reportedly left Cuba on Jan. 22, and its movements since then have not been made public.

The ship, known as an AGI in military parlance, is equipped with high technology gear designed to pick up electronic communications and underwater signals. It is also armed with 30-millimeter cannon and anti-aircraft guns.

The Leonov recently made headlines by making a port visit to Havana, Cuba, in late January that coincided with the Obama administration’s initiative to normalize relations with the communist regime in Cuba.

The spy ship’s presence also comes as Russia is increasing the number of strategic bomber flights near U.S. and allied coasts. One recent air defense zone incursion took place near eastern Canada that U.S. officials said simulated a nuclear cruise missile attack on the United States.

The Tu-95 flights appear to have subsided in recent weeks, defense officials said.

The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, told Congress last week that Russia is building up nuclear forces and increasing out-of-area operations, including in the Caribbean.

“Russian forces have conducted exercises and … record numbers of out-of-area air and naval operations,” Stewart said in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.

“ We expect this to continue this year to include greater activity in the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas.”

On Moscow’s nuclear buildup, Stewart said: “Moscow has made significant progress in modernizing its nuclear and conventional forces, improving its training and joint operational proficiency, modernizing its military doctrine to integrate new methods of warfare, and developing long range precision strike capabilities.”

“We anticipate continued high levels of Russian military activity in 2015,” he added.

New Russian strategic forces include additional deployments of an advanced version of the road-mobile SS-27 missile with multiple warheads, the new RS-26 missile, and the SS-N-32 submarine launched ballistic missile.

In April, the Washington Free Beacon revealed that the Leonov, along with the Nikolay Chiker, a naval tug capable of serving Russian submarines, were conducting operations off the East Coast.

The Pentagon played down the vessels’ presence as outside U.S. territorial waters, but near Cuba.

Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, has shown a revival of Cold War rhetoric and nuclear activities, including large-scale strategic nuclear exercises and a build up of nuclear forces.

In 2012, the Navy detected a Russian Akula attack submarine near the East Coast. In a conflict, Akula submarines would be tasked to find and sink U.S. missile submarines.

[brar_w]

[sooraj]

New Russian aircraft carrier

[sarang]

Look like a ulyanovsk-Nimitz hybrid. wonder why the russians did not go for Catapults.

Post by sooraj » 17 Feb 2015, 13:48
New Russian aircraft carrier

Picture is grainy.

[Philip]

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/abbott ... 3fmw4.html

Abbott's plunge into submarine market is a risk we cannot afford

Date February 17, 2015now
Hugh White

The Prime Minister's submarine adventure with our tax dollars, which doesn't follow due process, is the biggest captain's pick yet.

Last week Tony Abbott did not just back away from promises allegedly made to South Australian back-benchers. He stood up in Parliament and mocked the idea of choosing our new submarines through a competitive tender process. That makes it clearer than ever that he intends to sign an agreement with Japan just as soon as he can, without seriously considering the alternatives.

This is the biggest captain's pick of them all – in the dollars involved, in the consequences of getting it wrong, and in the lack of elementary due diligence in making really momentous national decisions. There is simply no precedent in Australia for a defence decision of such importance to be made so irresponsibly.

Japan builds fine submarines but there are major doubts that they are the best bet for us, and there is no way we can be sure without a rigorous competition against the other possibilities.

Instead, Tony Abbott wants to go straight to the Japanese option for three reasons. Strategically, it would strengthen the growing alliance with Japan, which he and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are so keen to build in the face of China's rise. It would also please Washington, which is pushing very hard behind the scenes because it too likes the idea of an Australia-Japan alliance to counterbalance China

Administratively, he believes it would be easier to buy from Tokyo in a government-to-government deal, rather than to create the kind of messy partnerships that have caused such problems in the air warfare destroyer project.

And technically, he believes Japan is the only country building non-nuclear submarines that are big enough for us, so we can avoid risk by buying a tried and proven design from Japan off-the-shelf.

He is wrong on all three points.

There are huge strategic risks to Australia in mortgaging the future of our submarine capability to Abe's vision of Japan as a resurgent strategic power in Asia. There are huge administrative risks in partnering in such a complex and sensitive project with a country that has no experience at all in arms exports or collaborative defence procurement.

And it is simply not true that the Japanese are already building the kind of submarine we need. Their Soryu-class boats are big enough, but size isn't everything, and that design is already being superseded. Japan's boats would need a lot of changes to meet our requirements.

The fact is that no one anywhere in the world has an existing design that meets all our needs. Germany's Type 214 is an excellent boat but is too small. France has a bigger boat but it is nuclear powered. Sweden, which designed the Collins class submarine, has nothing close to that size on its books now. So whatever happens, we will have to modify an existing design.

That will be both costly and risky. The question is how best to manage those costs and risks, and the answer is carefully managed competition. There is a well-established process for situations such as this, where none of the potential suppliers have what you want. It is called a project definition study, or PDS. We have used it before on many complex projects, and it works.

First, we invite anyone who wants to register their interest in being considered. From those we select a small number – maybe four or five – of the most serious contenders. They are then asked to develop their proposal by doing substantial preliminary work on the design and project planning. It is a big task, and we pay them quite serious money to do it, which is why it is called a funded PDS.

At the end of that process, the two most promising proposals are invited to submit fully developed tenders for a fixed-price contract. The winner of that contest gets the job.

The shape of a funded PDS for the new submarine is pretty clear. There is no reason why the Japanese should not be invited to take part, but they should be joined on the starting line by the Germans, the French, the Swedes and perhaps some others as well. If, as some reports suggest, the Japanese are not willing to compete against the others – well, that tells you something, doesn't it?

The PDS responses would, among other things, explain where the bidder would plan to build the submarines, and allow the government to make an informed decision about whether to build them in South Australia or somewhere else, and in partnership with ASC or with someone else.

No one would pretend for a moment that a funded PDS followed by a limited final tender removes all the risks from a project like this. Of course it doesn't. But long experience shows it limits and manages those risks better than any other approach – and certainly a lot better than a Captain's pick.

The biggest problem for us today is that a PDS process like this takes several years at least, and we are running out of time to get new boats in the water as the first of the Collins class approach the end of their service terms. Labor's defence ministers under Rudd and Gillard bear a big share of the blame for this, because they wasted years while they were in government by simply refusing to make a decision.

However, that is no excuse for the present government to say, as Joe Hockey has done, that there is now no time for a proper competitive process. The Japan option might very well go bad on us for any number of reasons, leading to even longer delays, so going straight to Tokyo with our chequebook is no solution. Instead, the government must apply itself to managing the problem sensibly, by launching a funded PDS as soon as possible, and by looking at ways to extend the life of the Collins-class boats until the new ones are ready.

And before it does anything else, it must decide what it actually wants these submarines to be able to do. Believe it or not, that question has never been seriously answered.

Hugh White is a Fairfax columnist and professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, ANU.

[Cosmo_R]

Look like a ulyanovsk-Nimitz hybrid. wonder why the russians did not go for Catapults.

Post by sooraj » 17 Feb 2015, 13:48
New Russian aircraft carrier

Picture is grainy.

Do they have catapult tech? The French used US CT on CDG

[Cosmo_R]

....
Ridiculous. What purpose does it serve? to have over 100 aircraft on board an AC. Realistically with the roles and traffic the AC can handle, around 75 is most appropriate. The US with their involvement in world affairs has reason to go over that count. What purpose does a 100 aircraft AC serve the Russians???

It gives our very own dear Philip an orgasm

[Sid]

^^^and why 75 is a more appropriate number then 100 on an aircraft carrier?? If US builds a ship with similar capability tomorrow will it still be a ridicules concept?

[Singha]

it suffers from the usual russian failings of a ski jump and no onboard AWACS, so restricted utility near the russian borders only.

[brar_w]

it suffers from the usual russian failings of a ski jump and no onboard AWACS, so restricted utility near the russian borders only.

No Cat - YES

But..





Do keep in mind however that this is one of the concepts that the KSRC is considering. Throughout the cold war similar bodies within the SU researched such concepts. I'd have to dust off some old materials and scan them but there was plenty of stuff from AEW to even Cats. Given carrier designs are likely to remain in service for half a century a 21st century carrier in my opinion absolutely needs electro magnetic cats for unmanned aviation is going to be the next big thing and the last thing one wants to end up with is having to compromise on that vehicle, since they do not have endurance limits.

My favorite concept was this for a Nimitz replacement (practicality aside):

[Singha]

is there a larger image ? sounds interesting...one could add some EM guns at the front over that huge battering ram thing.

100 yrs from now I forsee totally unmanned submersible or awash carriers that will briefly raise themselves to unleash 24 hr endurance UCAVs and automatically recover them later, while remaining awash or submerged most of the time and manipulating the water salinity and temp above itself to cloak from satellite and airborne sensors. it will also have protective UUVs armed with torpedoes and mines to shield itself like all behemoths do.

even today a DDG could control remotely a swarm of 500t unmanned VLO gunboats some 200-1000km further up along the threat axes and have them launch LRSAMs passively to inbounds much before its organic SAMs can get into action.

B52 size unmanned drones armed with 500 hellfire sized missiles will still be orbiting over pakistan and shooting at the next generation of pakiban.

[brar_w]

is there a larger image ? sounds interesting...one could add some EM guns at the front over that huge battering ram thing.

I clicked this picture last month when I went to the US Naval academy for a session on the future of aircraft-carrires. I bet there is more information on the internet, i'll try to find some better quality material on this particular design.

100 yrs from now I forsee totally unmanned submersible or awash carriers that will briefly raise themselves to unleash 24 hr endurance UCAVs and automatically recover them later, while remaining awash or submerged most of the time and manipulating the water salinity and temp above itself to cloak from satellite and airborne sensors. it will also have protective UUVs armed with torpedoes and mines to shield itself like all behemoths do.

Depending on the mission, a very large submarine (doesn't even need to be as stealthy as the Virgina) that could launch a Cormorant type vehicle is a great extender of carrier ops. Have a few submarines launch a few dozen of these vehicles in first day or night of conflict to attack the A2AD structures that may threaten a carrier and you open up a pocket for the larger CAW to exploit. Submerging a carrier has been discussed about in the academia (and we have had them before) but almost everyone thinks the cost factor is going to be around 5-10X that of a floating carrier and that would mean that to stay within the budget the USN would only be able to afford 2 aircraft-carriers.

On the flip side however, there are huge investments that have been and continue to be made (unfortunately a lot of them are not in the open ) in order to hide the big carrier and its escorts. Ultimately it comes down to SSA and how you can deny it. One of the interesting theories (actually Bill sweetman form AvWeek claimed this (5:01 onwards)) of the X-37's mission was that it could spray a tiny amount of liquid paint like material on satellites thereby making them overheat (apparently messing with their thermal management)..That aside, there are plenty of non-kinetic ways to deny SSA and Space assets in general especially when you are talking about cyber-battle damage assessment and armed escort of data in space



^^ Was an unsolicited proposal that actually got tested. If someone actually spends time and money to think a mission through you could achieve quite a bit, even if you restrict yourself to existing sub designs.

[brar_w]

Courtesy secretprojects

[vasu raya]

it suffers from the usual russian failings of a ski jump and no onboard AWACS, so restricted utility near the russian borders only.

No Cat - YES

But..

Is it the size of a Dornier?

And something suitable for the Dornier or even the HTT-40 with the Navy with the aerial launch ...

Return of the Navy’s Tiny Tactical Torpedo: The Cutie II

“When Bennett [skipper of the USS Sea Owl (SS-405)] returned from patrol, Lockwood was pleased. Although the test had been “spotty” (as Lockwood described it), it seemed to him that the Cutie had merit, especially as a weapon to use against shallow-draft antisubmarine vessels. Even if the Cutie didn’t sink them, it might damage the propellers and force them to stop, as had been the case in Bennett’s first two attacks. Then, once they had been stopped, a submarine might actually sink them with another Cute or with an electric set to run at shallow depths from short range…”

A small torpedo, capable of disrupting propulsion and/or steering mechanisms, can stop a large ship in its tracks.

[brar_w]

Its just a concept at the moment.

[Philip]

Everyone knows how versatile and ingenious the Vietnamese are.They kicked both French and US backsides in splendid style.But this takes the cake,their sub sector!

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/scienc ... ality.html

Vietnam-made submarine sector nearly a reality
VietNamNet Bridge – More and more Vietnamese, from businessmen to engineers, farmers to students, are devoting time and money to creating mini-submarines.

Do Thai Binh, a renowned maritime expert, said a group of students from HCM City University of Technology has tested an ROV (remotely operated vehicle), a robot submarine that is tethered to a ship, where "pilots" control its movement and actions.
Binh declined to give detailed information about the ROV before the students can be sure of the test success. He also said that the path to an unmanned sub like Tianjin that China has launched into the East Sea is still thorny.
However, he said only if Vietnamese begin their navigation will they be able to reach their destination; in other words,if they do not try, they will never get success.
Binh’s sources said that another school in HCM City has also started its research work on marine science, planning to launch its ROV in “the near future”.
More and more Vietnamese have devoted themselves to creating diving devices, submarines and mini-submarines over the last two years.
In the north, the Truong Sa submarine invented by Nguyen Quoc Hoa, an engineer and businessman in Thai Binh province, has caught the special attention from the public. he said he hoped to develop it into a submarine with military capability.
Truong Sa is equipped with an air independent propulsion (AIP), described as a technology breakthrough in the submarine manufacturing industry.
In the south, the Yet Kieu submarine invented by Phan Boi Tran has been put into commercial development. Some consignments of Yet Kieu subs have been exported to Malaysia.
In the central region, Hoang Sa,an unmanned mini sub invented by Le Nga has been successfully tested and introduced to the public. Nga said he is planning an ambitious development plan with the submarine version.
In late 2014, a group of engineers successfully tested a diving vessel named Hoa Binh as witnessed by Minister of Science and Technology Nguyen Quan.
Binh said though the inventions are not perfect, their appearance has prompted management agencies to rethink the development of marine sciences and sea-borne economy.
He noted that Vietnam has more than 3,000 kilometers of coastline.
Hoang Hung, deputy chair and secretary general of the Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Science Association, said that it was now the right time for Vietnam to think of making the most of people’s abilities to develop a sea-borne science economy.
Hung said that his association is discussing measures to create a playing field for Vietnamese submarine inventors in 2015.
Dat Viet

[Philip]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/w ... se/6141254

WA wave energy project turned on to power naval base at Garden Island
Updated yesterday at 11:21amWed 18 Feb 2015, 11:21am

Equipment at the wave energy farm
PHOTO: The wave energy is delivered to a plant onshore to be converted to power for the base. (ABC News: Courtney Bembridge)
RELATED STORY: Perth-based company building wave energy farm
MAP: Garden Island 6168
The world's first wave-energy farm connected to the electricity grid has been switched on in Western Australia.

The project by Perth-based Carnegie Wave Energy will provide renewable electricity for Australia's largest naval base, HMAS Stirling, on Garden Island.

The same system is also used to run a small desalination plant, which will be used to supply up to one-third of the base's fresh water needs.

Carnegie has placed buoys beneath the ocean surface off Garden Island and when waves move the buoys, it creates hydraulic pressure that is delivered to a plant onshore to be converted to power for the base.

The project cost about $100 million and has two operating units, with a third to be added, for what will be a three-megawatt project.

Carnegie CEO Michael Ottaviano said the units provided enough energy to power the equivalent of between 1,500 to 2,000 households.

"It's the only operating wave power station in the world," he said.

"We're really excited to be putting power into the grid to supply HMAS Stirling on Garden Island.

"It's a culmination of about 10 years work, about $100 million in funding, most of it from shareholders, and also with the support of the Federal Government and the State Government of Western Australia, and the Department of Defence."

Challenge is about 'scale and cost'

Mr Ottaviano said it was not easy to secure financing.

"It's never a linear path to get to a point like this when you're developing a new technology," he said.

"Eight, nine years ago we were an idea in need of about $100 million and some serious innovation, and that's really what we've been able to deliver.

"Through the ups and downs - we've had the global financial crisis in the midst, we've had renewable energy supported, not supported, and in amongst all that, the team has been able to deliver a world first."

The CEO said wave energy provided a very reliable source of energy 24/7.

The buoys
PHOTO: The buoys are anchored to the seabed off Rockingham as part of the wave energy plant. (Supplied: Carnegie)
"The challenge from here on is really about scale and cost. We need to make the technology bigger, we need to make our projects bigger because that's what allows you to get your costs down," Mr Ottaviano said.

"If you built a one-megawatt coal-fired power station, it would be the most expensive... in the world.

"Likewise with wave energy - we need to be building 20 megawatts, 50 megawatts, 100, 200 megawatt power stations and we would be cost-competitive.

"We've specifically designed the technology to be scalable and one of the main aims of this project was to show you could plug multiple wave units together and have them operating in sync.

"So, if you can do it with two or three, and it's actually harder to do it with two or three than it is with 100 because the variability is quite high - if you've got 100 units, it's much to easier to control and the footprint's very small."

He said the WA site was chosen specifically.

"Our wave resource in Western Australia is the best in the world, and theoretically the resource that hits our coastline every day could power the state 10 times over," Mr Ottaviano said.

"Across the country, it's the best in the world as well, and the resource there could power the country twice over, so the opportunity is huge and Australia should be a world leader in this particular technology because we've got the best resource."

WA's Energy Minister Mike Nahan said the plant could operate in a variety of conditions.

"This technology... can operate in a variety of water depths, swell directions and seafloor conditions and can generate power for both onshore and offshore consumption," he said.

The WA Government had contributed $9.96 million from its low-emissions energy development fund towards the development of the technology and the project.

Topics: alternative-energy, tidal-energy, electricity-energy-and-u

[brar_w]

Saudis Detail Eastern Fleet for US

ABU DHABI — The long-sought-after deal to upgrade and replace Saudi Arabia's Eastern Fleet has taken a major step forward, sources said, with the January delivery of a letter of request (LoR) to the US detailing Saudi wishes.

Rear Adm. Jim Shannon, head of the US Navy International Program Office, reportedly obtained the LoR during a visit to Saudi Arabia. The letter marks a major step forward after years of talks and negotiations with the Saudis, who have also strongly considered French proposals to replace their fleet.

The French hold the preponderance of contracts in support of the Saudi's western, or Red Sea, fleet. France and the US are considered the primary contenders for the Eastern Fleet contract, said to be worth as much as $16 billion or higher.Several sources said the Saudi LoR did not list specific ship designs, but rather gave general guidelines. Among the highlights are:

• Four 3,500-ton frigate-like warships, armed with vertical launch systems (VLS), capable of anti-air warfare and speeds of 35 knots

• 12 1,150-ton corvette-like warships

• 24 or so smaller patrol craft

The deal would include MH-60R helicopters to operate from the frigates, along with support and training.

One condition is the shipbuilder would be the prime contractor.

The US Navy is reportedly working to define details of the LoR, including what air radar the Saudis want to fulfill the anti-air requirement. Sources said that while no specific radar is listed in the LoR, the only system that fits the requirement is the SPY-1F lightweight Aegis system from Lockheed Martin.

SPY-1F is fitted only to Norway's Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. All other Aegis warships — US cruisers and destroyers, foreign ships including those from Spain, Korea, Japan and Australia — carry the heavier SPY-1D antenna. While there is a high degree of commonality between the two versions, the 1F features smaller antennas and less power, resulting in shorter range.

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA have offered versions of their littoral combat ships fitted with VLS and phased-array radars, including the SPY-1F, both for export and most recently for the US Navy's Small Surface Combatant (SSC) competition conducted in 2014. In the end, the US Navy chose to forego Aegis and VLS on its SSCs, now designated as frigates.

Other than the LCS/SSC/frigate designs, there are no other US projects that would fit the 3,500-ton parameters of the Saudi frigate.

Lockheed Martin in particular has doggedly been holding talks with the Saudis for years about adapting its LCS design to Saudi needs, probably a 118-meter version with a hull similar to the LCS 1 Freedom-class now under construction.

The LoR was transmitted to the US shortly before the Jan. 23 death of the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah. His successor, King Salman, however, was the defense minister at the time of the LoR's transmission, and sources here said the new regime continues to favor the Eastern Fleet plan.

It is not clear from the LoR where the ships are expected to be built, although the frigates would likely be built in the US.

The only other significant US design built in recent years for a foreign customer is the 500-ton Ambassador Mark III class of missile corvettes recently completed for Eqypt. Those four ships, intended to defend the Suez Canal, were built by VT Halter Marine in Pascagoula, Mississippi, but their details don't seem to fit the Saudi LoR.

[brar_w]

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Completes Successful Tracking and Simulated Engagements of Three Short-Range Ballistic Missiles

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Sailors aboard the USS CARNEY (DDG-64), USS GONZALEZ (DDG-66) and USS BARRY (DDG-52) successfully completed a flight test today involving the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) weapon system.

At approximately 2:30 a.m. EST, three short-range ballistic missile targets were launched near-simultaneously from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia. Two Aegis BMD destroyers acquired and tracked the targets, while another destroyer participated in associated operations. Using this data, the Aegis BMD ships conducted simulated Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB guided missile engagements with the Distributed Weighted Engagement Scheme (DWES) capability enabled. The DWES provides an automated engagement coordination scheme between multiple Aegis BMD ships that determines which ship is the preferred shooter, reducing duplication of BMD engagements and missile expenditures while ensuring BMD threat coverage. Several fire control, discrimination, and engagement functions were exercised. Since no SM-3 guided missiles were launched, the test did not include an attempted intercept.

This test was designated Flight Test Other (FTX)-19. This was the first flight test to assess the ability of the Aegis BMD 4.0 weapon system to simulate engagements of a raid consisting of three short-range, separating ballistic missile targets. This was also the first time Aegis BMD 4.0 ships used the DWES capability with live targets.

The MDA will use test results to improve and enhance the Ballistic Missile Defense System and support the advancement of Phase 2 of the Phased Adaptive Approach for missile defense in Europe to provide protection of U.S. deployed forces and our European allies and partners.

[Aditya G]

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -navy.html



The Wuhan-made new-type Offshore Patrol Vessel, which was delivered to Nigeria on Nov.27, 2014

P18N Offshore Patrol Vessels have a displacement of 1,700 tons, a length of 95 m, width of 12.2 m and beam of 3.5 m. It is powered by two MTU 20V 4000M diesel engines. The maximum speed is 21 knots. The endurance of the vessel is 20 days at sea (range 3000 nautical miles at 14 knots) for a crew of 70 sailors.

Sensors include:
- TR47 Tracking Radar
- SR60 Surveillance Radar
- Navigation radar (of chinese origin)
- PJ46 Decoy launchers
- 2x communication antennas under radomes
- UHF/VHF radios
The class is not fitted with sonars.

The Combat Management Systems (CMS) was developped by the Wuhan Digital Engineering Institute.

These OPVs are fitted with a H/PJ26 76mm main gun mount and two H/PJ14 30mm gun mounts. The class may accomodate a Z- 9 helicopter thanks to its helipad. Only rotary UAVs may fit inside the hangar space however.

[Aditya G]

http://www.janes.com/article/42238/firs ... d-in-china

C28A corvettes of the Algerian Navy - development of F-22P class:



Details and a near-definitive model of the C28A first emerged during the DSA show. According to CSTC officials, the ship is about 120 m in length, with a beam of 14.4 m, a draft of 3.87 m, a standard displacement of about 2,880 tons, and a full-load displacement of more than 3,000 tons.

According to a 30 May 2014 press release from CSSC, it was designed by the 708 Institute, which is also known as the Marine Design and Research Institute of China (MARIC).

Chinese sources suggest it is an evolution of Pakistan's F-22P on the basis that Algerian naval teams visited Pakistan to see that frigate's operations first-hand. The C28A also appears to borrow design elements from the Type 054A frigate of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy.

The C-28A's combat system is largely Chinese with the exception of the Thales Smart-S Mk 2, associated multifunction operator consoles (MOC)/Tacticos cluster, Link Y datalinks, and associated consoles. Four or so MOC for the Smart-S are integrated with a CSTC-supplied combat management system (CMS).

Weapons include a single 76 mm gun - the export variant of which is known as NG-16-1 - two quad launchers for C-802 or C-802A anti-ship missiles mounted transversely amidships, an octuple FM-90N launcher for short-range HQ-7 surface-to-air missiles, two 30 mm Type 730B close-in weapons systems (CIWS) similar to the ones on the F-22P, two triple-tube torpedo launchers that fire through an opening in the hull, and four 24-barreled decoy launchers.

As well as the Smart-S Mk 2, sensors include two navigation radars - an I-band (X-band) set and an E/F-band (S-band) set - that are thought to be Kelvin Hughes SharpEye radars. The C28A also has a radome for what is likely to be a Type 364 radar, two fire control radars (FCR) from the Type 47 family, and what looks like a Type 343G FCR with a combined radar and electro-optic system that is identical to the sets mounted on the F-22P.

The electronic warfare (EW) suite appears to be similar to the F-22P's. Speculation that its sonar will be of Chinese origin has yet to be confirmed.

The propulsion system consists of four MTU diesels. In a departure from existing designs, there is no funnel stack. Instead, the diesels exhaust near the waterline as they do on MEKO-type frigates to minimise infrared signatures. Top speed is expected to be around 30 kts. The hull has two sets of fin stabilisers as well as bilge keels.

The ship has hangars for boats and a helicopter. The latter will presumably be able to accommodate one of the AgustaWestland AW-159 Wildcat helicopters in service with the Algerian Navy.

[brar_w]

Lockheed Working On Undersea-Launched LRASM Variant

Lockheed Martin is working on an undersea-launched version of the company's Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, with an eye toward an upcoming competition for the second increment of the Navy's offensive anti-surface warfare capability.
Lockheed is developing LRASM as an urgent capability solution because the Navy's existing Harpoon anti-ship missile does not have the range or survivability to take on emerging surface threats, particularly in anti-access/area-denial environments. LRASM fulfills the Navy's OASuW Increment 1 requirement for an offensive weapon system that can be launched from the air.
The Navy will continue to develop LRASM with a goal of early operational capability on Air Force B-1s in 2018 and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets in 2019, Frank St. John, Lockheed's vice president of tactical missiles, told Inside the Navy in a Feb. 18 interview.
But LRASM is merely a stop-gap until the Navy can develop a more comprehensive solution that can be air, surface and potentially sub-surface-launched -- called OASuW Increment 2. The Navy is planning a competition for Increment 2 sometime in the next few years.
In preparation for that competition, Lockheed is investing internal funds in a version of LRASM that can be launched from below the surface, according to St. John. Right now, the company is doing the risk reduction necessary to drive down schedule and cost risks associated with integrating the missile into submarine launchers, he said. Lockheed is looking at launching LRASM out of the same type of system that today launches Tomahawk missiles, he added.
"The primary work there is to just get it out of the sub, free of the water, and then once the engine starts it runs just as if it was dropped off a plane or shot off a ship," St. John said.
The company must make some mechanical modifications to the system to ensure the missile can interface with the submarine launcher and booster, St. John said. The team is also working to integrate the missile with different targeting systems as well as different software and electrical interfaces.
Lockheed plans to start testing the system in the third quarter of this calendar year, according to St. John.
To date, the company has invested more than $50 million in developing all three variants of LRASM, and will likely invest at least $50 million more in the program, St. John said.
"All this is done on our own investment to prepare for an eventual Navy competition," he said. "It's a significant, significant activity for us, it's one of our most important pursuits.

[Austin]

Iranian Navy Tests Weapon

Iran Underwater launched strategic cruise missile SLCM

[brar_w]

Australia ups interest in Norway's Joint Strike Missile

The Australian and Norwegian defence ministries have strengthened their relationship on the latter’s in-development Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (JSM), boosting the chances of Canberra acquiring the weapon for its future fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35s.

Under an expanded agreement discussed at the Avalon air show near Melbourne, the ministries will work together to investigate the potential of both air forces acquiring the weapon.

“Norway and Australia have maintained a close dialogue for several years regarding the JSM within the framework of the multinational F-35 partnership,” Norway’s defence ministry says. “This agreement takes the process one step further, with ­Australia agreeing to provide expertise in missile control and guidance systems.”

Australian defence minister Kevin Andrews says: “Participating now in a cooperative JSM development programme with Norway will maximise the cost-effectiveness of Australia’s contribution, and ensure the weapon capability is developed and integrated onto the F-35A in the timeline required by Australia, should the Joint Strike Missile be ultimately considered for acquisition by government later this decade"

Designed for internal and ­external carriage by the F-35, the JSM will be suitable for use as an anti-ship and land-attack missile. Oslo expects the combination to achieve operational readiness “in the early 2020s”.

Edit: This additional information from the Avalon Air Show 2015

Australia and Norway cooperate on Joint Strike Missile

Australian will cooperate with the Norwegian Ministry of Defence to develop Kongsberg’s Joint Strike Missile as a potential future weapon for Australia’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighters.
The Kongsberg Defence Aerospace Joint Strike Missile (JSM) system is a fifth-generation, long range precision guided stand-off missile designed for both Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) and Naval Fire Support (NFS) missions over land, sea and the littoral.

At four metres long and weighing around 400kg, it can be carried externally or internally by the F-35A, but is too large for the F-35B’s smaller internal weapons bay.

A stealthy shape and use of terrain profile matching navigation are designed to minimise detection and help the missile fly dynamic, unpredictable profiles to target.

Norway intends to buy up to 52 F-35A aircraft and will field the Joint Strike Missile early in the next decade for its own fleet, but is also attempting to interest other F-35A customers.

Although Australia won’t formally consider buying the JSM until later this decade, early participation has ensured the system will be understood and compatible should an order be placed.

But Australian industry has been part of the program since development began in 2008.

QinetiQ Australia has been providing mission planning support to Kongsberg for the Joint Strike Missile since 2008.
QinetiQ software developers have created a tool for JSM that allows Joint Strike Fighter pilots to visualise the best route to fly to maintain connectivity with the JSM after launch, in case of a post-launch target change, mission abort, safe detonation and/or damage assessments.
BAE Systems Australia has been working with Kongsberg on the electronics for a second, independent sensor within the missile to identify hostile radar targets.
“BAE Systems Australia will deliver a pre-production passive RF sensor in April 2015 for the JSM program,” said BAE Systems Director, Land and Integrated Systems, Graeme Bent.
“This will involve fit checks, system integration and flight testing for a development-standard missile in order to demonstrate it provides enhanced operational capability.”

[Singha]

way they are rushing LRASM into service as a stop gap when two next gen projects will deliver something around 2020 is alarming and indicates the harpoon has somehow been totally compromized by Cheen.

ofcourse it is happy to sell harpoon at high prices to anyone who has no choice like india with the P8I.

[brar_w]

way they are rushing LRASM into service as a stop gap when two next gen projects will deliver something around 2020 is alarming and indicates the harpoon has somehow been totally compromized by Cheen

It isn't being rushed into service. The project started off many years (2008-2009) go to develop a seeker technology with DARPA and the USN collaborating. The scope of that program was to develop and demonstrate a seeker that could do the things required of the LRASM today. That program was to conclude after the seeker technology was adequately de-risked and demonstrated as is the norm with most DARPA run programs.

A Harpoon replacement had been a wish list for well over a decade (either a replacement or an upgrade) with the Navy pushing it ahead due to the focus being on the Littorals, subs and ship building. As per the better buying initiative the Navy along with the Pentagon was able to spin off urgent need requirements through the DARPA program. Basically, what they did was use the DARPA competition (which lockheed won) as a benchmark for an new weapon i.e. expand the scope of the DARPA program to include an operational weapon. Lockheed always suspected that this may happen so they always offered a proven missile as the platform for the new seeker. They took the gamble by competing (LRASM DARPA competition) on a 250 nm requirement competition with a missile (JASSM-ER) that offered double that range (actual LRASM Range is expected around 300-350 nm with the payload and new seeker) at the expense of larger weight and higher cost. This process of extending a DARPA program to an operational weapon is allowed, and in fact has happened before. The LRASM is a result of those efforts. The recent THawk demonstrations are also the result of the better buying initiatives where you look first to gain capability rapidly form existing systems.

The rush in launching the thing from the VLS, and now the submarines is all a Lockheed Martin, internally funded effort to get it cleared for all three uses so that it is presented as a relatively low risk solution for the bigger competition which is a few years away for the ship and possibly submarine launched anti-ship weapon. That competition would eventually be many many times that of the LRASM-A procurement. Raytheon has been pushing multiple versions of the Tomahawk including a supersonic version and holds an advantage of having it cleared on VLS submarines etc. Lockheed is trying to do the same so as to level the playing field for the competition. Raytheon is also doing the same with the JSM (that it is now collaborating with kongsberg on) that it is also considering offering.

This is also not a stop gap. The Harpoon would co-exist with the LRASM-A. The LRASM-A is an air launched weapon while the next weapon program is for sea or submarine launched requirement with the air launched weapon requirement not required to be one missile (So OEM's can compete with 2 missiles if need be). The missile programs are rapidly getting funded now, through the HSSW efforts being led by DARPA and the USAF (AFRL). A mach 6 missile would be TRL7 by 2019 so if the Navy wished they could use that as follow on to the LRASM but currently there is no need to replace the vast majority of Harpoon missiles given the threat especially when the JSM is going to be plug and play in 2021 for all UAI platforms. The JSM can potentially become the best case for BBP given its mostly done (R&D), UAI compatible, being pursued in collaboration with a US partner now (Raytheon) and the F-35C can carry 6 of them. The JSM aside, there is really no program-of-record to replace the massive Harpoon inventory for the air-launched role and the next offensive weapon program (that is 2020 as you mentioned) would not address that.

ofcourse it is happy to sell harpoon at high prices to anyone who has no choice like india with the P8I

The Harpoon is going to remain as the main weapon for the P-8 even with the USN. The only platforms that are going to be cleared for the LRASM-A are the B-1 Bomber and the F-18E/F Super hornet. Once UAI proliferates throughout the USAF/USN/USMC the LRASM-A would eventually be plug and play for all platforms but there is no program currently on to insert UAI software into the P-8 so that aircraft would not be able to carry the LRASM-A unless something is funded in the future. The platforms is always going to be limited because of there being only a few hundred (100-200) missiles procured and the weapon would mostly be in the USAF arsenal given the B-1's are going to be supporting maritime missions as per the plan. The unique algorithms and the threat libraries (which would be very closely guarded) on the LRASM would pretty much make it a USN/USAF weapon and i doubt it would be opened up for export in its current form.

The LRASM is too large, expensive ( they would do well imho to get it to cost around 2x of the latest block Harpoon) and capable (range plus electronics) for it to be a direct Harpoon replacement. It is more of a UAV/Missile hybrid then a pure missile and is unlikely to be acquired as a direct harpoon replacement even when the time comes to look at the broader program to replace all air launched Harpoons. It carries a warhead that weighs nearly the same as the entire Harpoon missile. Raytheon has smartly collaborated with Kongserg as the JSM would always be a more effective direct "threat" to Boeing and the Harpoon then the LRASM-A.

Being compromised has nothing to do with it (what does that even mean with respect to a missile? Seeker?), the harpoon is shorter ranged and does not execute the mission in the sort of denied environment the LRASM is expected to perform. The LRASM is a specific weapon that is expected to leverage the collaborative ISR and NIFC-CA constructs that the USN is fielding in the next few years. With all that ISR data they are basically creating a UAV that can go out at long distances and either through the use of this data or independently find its target amidst clutter and sea-traffic. An eventual Harpoon replacement would have to be cost effective, ideally below the 1-1.2 million price tag. Here Lockheed would be at a severe disadvantage if they competed with the LRASM so it remains to be seen how they go.

Although the article makes it look like this is a stop gap till the OASuW Inc. 2 that program itself has been delayed a bunch of times (leading to the LRASM) and it does not stipulate that the same missile needs to cover all three solutions for example. Raytheon could meet the gap with the Tomahawk at one end (submarine and VLS launched) and the JSM on the other (LCS, VLS and aircraft). Depending upon the combinations selected you could end up buying the OASuW Inc.2 as well as existing SLAM ER's.

Here is a better explanation on the program

USN lines up competition for OASuW Increment 2 Subscription

The US Navy (USN) has confirmed plans to run a competition for a long-term Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) capability, with an acquisition programme expected to kick off in Fiscal Year 2017.
Known as OASuW Increment 2, this new programme seeks to deliver a "multiple launch platform capability" with a planned Initial Operational Capability (IOC) of 2024.
Meanwhile, the Naval Air System Command's (NAVAIR's) Precision Strike Weapons programme office (PMA-201) has given formal notice of its intention to enter sole source negotiations with Lockheed Martin for the procurement of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) to meet OASuW Increment 1. This will deliver an Early Operational Capability (EOC) to meet endorsed requirements for an air-launched OASuW capability to support an urgent need generated from US Pacific Command.
Based on the existing AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile - Extended Range (JASSM-ER) missile, LRASM has been developed with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funding to demonstrate technologies relevant to a future offensive anti-ship weapon. DARPA's goal has been to prove the concept of an autonomous and survivable precision-guided anti-ship stand-off missile with reduced dependence on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, network links and GPS navigation, and an ability to penetrate advanced shipborne defences.
Another of DARPA's objectives has been to develop a prototype of a LRASM weapon system that could demonstrate the technical maturity required to enable rapid transition to an acquisition programme. Following two successful end-to-end flight tests of LRASM prototypes, using the US Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber as the launch platform, in late 2013 DARPA announced plans to fund Lockheed Martin to take the programme into a 24-month follow-on development phase.
Raytheon Missile Systems and Kongsberg Defence Systems subsequently objected to DARPA's decision to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), claiming that the sole source award was not justified under applicable law and regulation, and was prohibited by the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). However, in June the GAO dismissed the objection, concluding that DARPA "reasonably determined that a sole source award to Lockheed Martin was appropriate under the circumstances", and deciding that such an award "was not prohibited by the 2014 NDAA" because it was not a navy contract, and fell within an NDAA exemption.
The Department of Defense's FY 2015 defence budget included plans to go forward with sole-source acquisition of LRASM to deliver an EOC on B-1B bombers from FY 2018. EOC on the USN's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter aircraft is to follow in FY 2019. In a 28 July pre-solicitation notice, NAVAIR said PMA-201 would enter sole source negotiations with Lockheed Martin for the final development, integration, and EOC production quantities, adding that LRASM "is the only system that can provide the EOC in the timeframe required by the services".
In the same notice, NAVAIR additionally advised that the USN is developing an OASuW Increment 2 acquisition strategy with programme initiation planned for FY 2017. "Increment 2 will pursue a full-and-open competition strategy for multiple launch platform capability (air, surface, and sub-surface)," it said. "Navy OASuW Increment 2 requirements, currently in development, will address the advanced maritime threat with a planned [IOC] of 2024."
Lockheed Martin is looking to develop a family of LRASM variants to satisfy the OASuW Increment 2 requirement; it is already de-risking a vertical launch variant for surface ships and has undertaken preliminary study work on an encapsulated submarine-launched version.
Rival Raytheon is working along two complementary lines of development: an OASuW evolution of its Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile; and, in partnership with Kongsberg, a tailored version of the latter's air-launched Joint Strike Missile. The relationship with Kongsberg may also be extended to cover the ship-launched Naval Strike Missile, shortly to be tested from the USN's Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship USS Coronado .

The program started in 2008-09, around the same time the JSM program started. The JSM is based on the NSM technology and is ready to go on a platform around 2019-2020, the LRASM (based on the JASSM ER) is ready to go on a platform starting 2018. The reason why the JSM is taking a little longer is because Kongsberg had to work with A) Lockheed Martin and B ) The Pentagon to get certification and design approvals for the F-35A and F-35C internal bays as well as access to the Universal Armament Interface that would allow them to field the weapon as plug and play to all the US tactical and strategic fleet (and export customers).

[brar_w]

Just dug up a Janes IDR review of the program from last year that I had saved on my HD. Posting it in toto. It is by far the most comprehensive write up on the program anywhere. Important parts are in Bold.

Back into the blue: LRASM honed for
extended reach, precision punch

For most of the quarter century since the end of the Cold War, the US Navy (USN) has been focused on operations in the littorals, and attendant requirements to project power ashore. One consequence has been a substantial disinvestment in the long-range anti-surface warfare (ASuW) capability built up to defeat the Soviet blue-water threat, including the cancellation of the Harpoon Block 1D programme (which would have offered increased range and a re-attack capability) and the early withdrawal of the BGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM). TASM was a conventionally armed variant of the Tomahawk cruise missile modified to incorporate a strapdown attitude and heading reference set, and the active radar seeker of Harpoon.
In terms of their design, and attendant concept of operations, both TASM and Harpoon Block 1D were conditioned by assumptions of an over-the-horizon engagement in the empty expanses of the open ocean. Conversely, the move into the cluttered and congested littoral arena drove very different requirements for precision strike weapons with much improved target discrimination, and an ability to pinpoint targets in port, close to shore, or in close proximity to neutral shipping.

However, USN interest in long-range ASuW has revived in recent years, driven principally by the Western Pacific-centred doctrine of the Air-Sea Battle and specifically the means to counter future anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats. While China is not explicitly identified as the potential protagonist, the focus of Offensive ASuW (OASuW) studies on the defeat of a 'near-peer surface action group' leaves little room for doubt as to the principal A2/AD challenge vexing Pentagon planners.
Responding to the concerns of US Pacific Command, the Department of Defense (DoD) had as early as March 2008 issued an Urgent Operational Needs Statement (UONS) to fill a capability gap in ASuW capabilities. In November 2010 the Joint Resource Oversight Council approved the OASuW Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), essentially an audit of capability gaps across the ASuW Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess' (F2T2EA) kill chain. The following month the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) issued a request to industry for information to feed into an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to evaluate material solutions that "specifically address the OASuW engage gaps in the F2T2EA kill chain and ... support the Joint Force Commander's requirement to gain and sustain access to the maritime battlespace".
NAVAIR's unclassified synopsis presented a vision of a weapon system "mission effective in satellite-enabled, satellite-constrained, and satellite-denied environments to maximise lethality at critical points in the OASuW battle". It also articulated the criticality of survivability, extended range, the ability to function under a wide range of targeting conditions (such as jamming or inclement weather) and a capability for both air and ship launch. And tellingly, it additionally stipulated that the capability should be "network enabled, but not network dependant".
Activity was by this time already underway to address the UONS. One strand saw NAVAIR work with Raytheon on engineering studies for a Multi-Mission Tomahawk weapon, evolved from the existing Tactical Tomahawk Block IV weapon system infrastructure, to meet an Interim OASuW requirement. However, a Rapid Deployment Capability development programme intended to field an Interim OASuW capability was suspended in early 2013 owing to changing priorities within the navy, and some disagreement about the validity of the UONS that initiated the effort.
On another track, the USN - through the Office of Naval Research - commenced work with the Tactical Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to identify and demonstrate potential technology solutions to realise the 'leap ahead' in OASuW capability considered necessary to penetrate sophisticated A2/AD systems at extended ranges. Launched in the second quarter of 2008 with a classified industry day and the release of a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), this Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) programme sought to overcome the limitations of legacy anti-ship missiles, and demonstrate tactically relevant prototypes of a next generation anti-surface warfare weapon that could be flight tested within three years of contract award.
LRASM was conceived as a mould-breaking standoff anti-ship strike weapon capable of achieving mission kill against selective surface targets at significant standoff ranges. Accordingly, the programme would need to develop and mature technologies that would enable weapon launch from well outside counter-fire ranges, with an inherent capability to ensure weapon survivability against advanced defensive systems.
DARPA foresaw autonomous guidance algorithms supporting organic wide area target discrimination in a network-denied environment, so enabling the weapon to use less-precise target cueing data to pinpoint specific targets in the contested domain. It also placed a high priority on "innovative terminal survivability approaches" in the face of very advanced defensive systems. Furthermore, it conceived an advanced prototyping effort that would demonstrate the technical maturity required to enable rapid transition to an acquisition programme.

In its original BAA, DARPA identified a number of advanced component and integrated system technologies of specific interest, including robust precision guidance, navigation and control with GPS denial, multimodal sensors for high probability target identification in dense shipping environments, and precision aimpoint targeting for maximum lethality. The BAA outlined a two- phase development programme: a Phase 1 effort to encompass system concept development, culminating in a preliminary design review (PDR) and independent technical assessment; and a follow-on Phase 2 to progress development through to a critical design review (CDR), system fabrication, integration, and full-scale end-to-end flight testing. A little over six years on, and with initial risk reduction, development, prototyping and flight test activities concluded, DARPA and its chosen industry performers - Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control - Strike Weapons (LRASM weapon) and BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration (onboard sensor suite) - have recently entered a new phase of follow-on development. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the vehement protestations of industry rivals and some Congressional disquiet, the LRASM programme is now set to transition into acquisition to meet the air-launched Increment 1 of the OASuW programme.

JASSM-ER heritage

The basis for the LRASM proposal put forward to DARPA by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control - Strike Weapons in 2008 was the company's AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER) air-launched cruise missile. The onboard multimode sensor/seeker package has been developed by BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration under a separate but associated DARPA contract.
According to Frank St John, vice-president Tactical Missiles in Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, the DARPA requirement emphasised a capability against peer combatants in an environment that was contested. "And when I say contested, I mean in an environment where you have limited access to ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] assets, limited GPS capabilities, limited access to datalink capabilities," he said. "So they wanted something that could autonomously engage these threats with reduced dependence on ISR, GPS and datalinks."

St John continued: "You want to be survivable, so that as you're approaching the threat you can penetrate threat defences, so that minimises the salvo size - the number of weapons you need to fire to defeat the threat. And lastly DARPA wanted something that had an extended range beyond what the current anti-ship missiles are, so that you could stand off with impunity and engage these threats.

"We offered a modified JASSM-ER missile. That made sense to us for a number of reasons. Number one, JASSM offers what some people have called 'eye-watering' stealth capabilities, and so the survivability of the [missile] is inherently high. It also had the range capability [DARPA] were looking for.


"Also, JASSM is in rate production, and the ER version is going into its third LRIP [Low Rate Initial Production] lot and is headed into rate production. So from an affordability point of view, it made sense to us to leverage the existing JASSM industrial base and supply base."
In low-rate production for the US Air Force (USAF), and already integrated into the service's B-1B Lancer bomber, the AGM-158B JASSM-ER is an extended range variant of JASSM able to deliver a 1,000lb penetrating blast/fragmentation warhead against high-value, well-defended fixed and relocatable targets at ranges in excess of 500 n miles. This much longer reach - two-and-a half times that of the AGM-158A JASSM missile - is achieved by the incorporation of larger fuel tanks and the use of the higher thrust, more efficient Williams International F107-WR-105 turbofan engine (vice the Teledyne CAE J402-CA-100 turbojet powering the AGM-158A).
The LRASM airframe itself is very similar to the JASSM-ER, modified as required for the anti-ship mission. Lockheed Martin has sought to keep the mass properties of the missile within the JASSM- ER band of tolerances to enable straightforward integration with the B-1B.
"The tooling, everything we need for rate production, is already in place at our Troy, Alabama, facility," pointed out St John. "What we basically did is we added some sensor capability and software to provide the air-launched LRASM variant with a capability against surface combatants.

"We didn't sacrifice the stealth and survivability of the JASSM-ER airframe, and these two birds are about 85% common at part level. And because of that high degree of commonality, the affordability is going to be there when this system goes into production. In essence, we are just treating it as a third JASSM configuration [alongside JASSM and JASSM-ER]. Leveraging an existing active production line, and just adding or modifying components as necessary, allows us to accelerate manufacture."

What differentiates LRASM from its progenitor is the integration of additional sensors and systems to enable precision attack against moving targets at sea. Alongside an enhanced digital anti-jam GPS receiver (also common to JASSM-ER), LRASM introduces a weapon datalink for in-flight communications, and a multimode sensor suite consisting of a radio frequency (RF) sensor (to provide area detection) and an electro-optical (EO) seeker (for positive target identification and precise targeting during the terminal phase of flight).

BAE Systems' Information and Electronic Systems Integration division, based in Nashua, New Hampshire, is the prime contractor for the design and delivery of the LRASM multimode sensor system. Precise details of the sensor suite have never been publicly disclosed, but it is generally understood that the long-range sensor is a passive RF device, while the EO channel is thought to use an imaging infrared seeker.

The long-range sensor is seen as a key discriminator, being designed to enable targeted attacks within a group of enemy ships protected by sophisticated air-defence systems; according to BAE Systems, the sensor "uses advanced electronic technologies to detect targets within a complex signal environment, and then calculates precise target locations for the missile control unit".

Captive carry flight tests of the LRASM multimode sensor package began in May 2012 using a modified T-39 Sabreliner business jet. According to DARPA, these first trials "successfully demonstrated all elements of the integrated sensor suite, including sensing and fuzing targets and validation of the geo-location algorithm. The sensor suite performed as planned, paving the way for additional captive-carry tests in increasingly complex simulated scenarios through the remainder of 2012 and beginning of 2013."

According to Lockheed Martin, the objectives of the seeker flight tests - conducted at various airspeeds and altitudes - included detecting, classifying and recognising targets. The company said that "flight tests exceeded all objectives and demonstrated successful sensor operation, as well as integration of the sensor suite with the missile electronics. Littoral imagery was captured during the tests, and target data processing algorithms ran [in] real-time in the missile electronics, and demonstrated outstanding performance".
Additional captive carry tests, in increasingly complex simulated scenarios, continued through the remainder of 2012 and into 2013. The first of these, run off the coast of Florida in August 2012 was essentially a continuation of initial testing. This was followed in December that year by captive carriage trials off California; these tests progressively increased in complexity, and so raised the maturity of the seeker system against different targets in different scenarios.
Further captive seeker tests were conducted in the first half of 2013, these effectively serving as a 'dry run' ahead of a first flight test. A first captive carry test of the LRASM missile on board a B-1B was flown on 17 June from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, by the 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron.

Flight testing

The original LRASM prototyping programme culminated with high-fidelity, end-to-end flight tests intended to demonstrate sufficient maturity to support rapid transition to operational use. The first of these, flown on the Point Mugu sea range off the California coast on 27 August 2013, and described by DARPA as a Free-Flight Transition Test (FFTT), primarily sought to verify the missile's flight characteristics and assess subsystem and sensor performance.

The FFTT saw the tactically representative LRASM All-Up-Round released from a B-1B from the 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron and then navigate a series of pre-planned waypoints before transitioning to autonomous guidance approximately halfway through the flight. Taking inputs from the onboard multimode sensor, the attack was conducted without any external target updates. The missile descended to low altitude for final approach to the target area, and then positively identified and impacted a 260 ft threat-representative mobile sea target with an inert warhead. An F/A-18 fighter from the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron VX-31 in China Lake, California, followed the weapon during the flight.
"JASSM-ER is already integrated onto the B-1B," said St John, "and so it was a very straightforward exercise to take a LRASM weapon, integrate that onto a B-1B and then program the mission and send [the missile] off looking for its target.
"It was a difficult test for the system," he continued. "We autonomously routed to the target location, successfully searched for and discriminated the correct target among multiple tracks, and put a pretty good size hole right where you want it through the target.
"It was a very successful flight ... we achieved all the primary and secondary objectives including demonstrating the threshold range requirements of the system."
A second flight test was completed on 12 November 2013, again on the Point Mugu range. This repeated all of the first flight objectives, and added four additional first-time objectives. "We did everything we did on the first test," said St John, "plus we now went out and demonstrated the objective range of the system, prosecuted the target at a lower tactical altitude, and also demonstrated the ability to receive a linked update. We also exercised some additional sensor modes.
"Again, it was a very successful result on the target. So at [the] end of November we had checked the box from the maturity of the technology from an air-launched point of view."

Surface launch

Alongside the air-launched LRASM programme, DARPA in early 2012 commenced a parallel effort in support of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to adapt the JASSM-ER-based LRASM weapon for vertical launch from a surface vessel. This initiative, which followed the decision to cancel LRASM-B development (see box), is planned to culminate in two surface launch test events that are intended to mature an offering applicable to a projected OASuW Increment 2.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control - Strike Weapons had in fact conducted preliminary design activities for ship launch as part of its Phase 1 risk reduction effort. Further work was deferred due to resource limitations, but in the wake of the LRASM-B cancellation, the OSD added USD64 million to LRASM funding providing for the resumption of the surface launch engineering and demonstration effort.

In parallel, Lockheed Martin has invested around USD30 million of its own funds to reduce surface launch programme risk, and accelerate time to Initial Operating Capability (IOC). St John explained: "Basically, we're taking the air-launch version, standing it on its end inside of a VLS [Vertical Launch System] canister, and putting on a production Mk 114 [rocket] booster."
Company-funded work on a Mk 41 VLS-compatible All-Up-Round started in October 2012. According to St John, the first challenge was to prove that the weapon could successfully exit from a VLS canister. "This was an environment the weapon hadn't seen before," he pointed out. "We worked with our sister MST [Mission Systems and Training] division in Lockheed Martin to verify that we could load a LRASM munition into a VLS canister, and we could successfully push-through the cover that goes over [the] top of the VLS to provide the environmental and EMI seal.

"The reason that that is significant is that if you damage the sensors, or if you damage the coatings on the weapon, you could compromise some of the capability of the missile. We did the test in February 2013 on our own money, successfully demonstrating that the nose cone could survive canister lid push-through."
A successful boost vehicle test followed in September 2013 at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico. "Here we did our first 'smoke and fire demonstration' with the vertical launcher," said St John. "We took the production Mk 114 booster, set our LRASM test article on top of it, and demonstrated the capability of the missile to egress from the VLS system without damage."

He continued: "The Mk 114 is a very mature, very low risk motor that was originally developed for the Vertical Launch ASROC system, and is already fully proven with the Mk 41 VLS. There is an autopilot in that booster that flies the weapon away from the surface combatant, and we demonstrated that all that was functioning. So from a mechanical and launch interfaces point of view we feel like a big box has been checked in terms of risk reduction on that surface launched piece."
Lockheed Martin's internal spend on surface launch has also addressed shipborne integration with the ship weapon control system integration and the Mk 41 VLS, with Missiles and Fire Control working with its sister Mission Systems and Training, and Information Systems and Global Solutions businesses. As part of this investment, the company has successfully demonstrated the mission planning of a LRASM-based OASuW capability using the existing Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS).

"In December 2013 we did a significant risk reduction," said St John, "when we took the TTWCS system, the Mk 41 VLS, and a LRASM set of avionics and demonstrated that with software-only changes you could do mission planning of an engagement, and send that plan through the system all the way into the weapon, and go through the launch [routine] of the weapon.
"We provided all electrical interfaces and data transfers needed to prepare and launch LRASM. This verified compatibility and validated that LRASM can be integrated on [guided missile destroyer] platforms with the Baseline VII Mk 41 VLS with software-only modifications.

"That had previously been held up as a significant challenge for LRASM surface launch. If you're going to integrate LRASM in the place where historically other systems have gone, you'd like to know that you don't have to change a bunch of hardware in the ship to make that happen. Software only is a big deal here."
In March 2013 Lockheed Martin received a USD54.4 million contract modification funding two vertical launch demonstrations - intended to prove canister exit, and transition from boost to cruise phase - at the WSMR Desert Ship facility during the course of fiscal year 2014 (FY 2014). "DARPA said we want you to egress out of your VLS, we want you to separate from your booster, and then fly down range in controlled flight," St John said.

As of January 2014, Lockheed Martin had been planning to conduct the surface launch demonstrations in August and October this year. However, in August 2014 the company said that it was now planning to conduct surface launch flight testing in the fourth quarter of 2014 and mid- 2015. "As with any testing programme, range availability and co-ordination requires flexibility," the company told IHS Jane's . "In the case of the surface launch flight tests scheduled for late 2014, there were challenges with range availability, and since the second planned test was very similar to the first, Lockheed Martin decided to repurpose the flight test to add additional capabilities and rescheduled it for 2015." Lockheed Martin has also completed a self-funded feasibility study to examine how LRASM could be encapsulated for launch from a submarine platform. "We plan to further these studies and conduct testing over the course of the next two years, in anticipation of the upcoming OASUW Increment 2 competition," said the company.

Accelerated acquisition

In December 2013 DARPA gave notification of its intent to award Lockheed Martin a sole-source contract for a 24-month follow-on research and development effort to continue technology maturation of LRASM subsystems and systems design. At the same time, other potential sources were given an opportunity to provide data on alternative approaches. In response, white papers and past performance data was submitted by both Kongsberg Defence Systems and Raytheon Missile Systems prior to the 5 February 2014 special notice deadline: Kongsberg offered data on its Joint Strike Missile (JSM) while Raytheon provided information on an ASuW enhancement roadmap for its Tomahawk Block IV land attack cruise missile. DARPA rejected the initial proposals put forward by the two companies. In a 14 March justification and approval (J&A) notice for other than full and open competition, the agency said it had turned down both proposals, concluding that "the information submitted by Kongsberg and Raytheon does not demonstrate capabilities to meet the government's requirement for the LRASM follow-on R&D effort". The two companies were notified in writing on 5 March, although both were given the opportunity to submit additional data by 7 March.

Kongsberg subsequently provided supplementary information, but this did not sway DARPA, which again asserted that Kongsberg: "had not demonstrated the capabilities necessary to meet the government's requirement". The agency's J&A document maintained that awarding to a source other than Lockheed Martin would cause a delay of 60 months, and result in additional costs of at least USD132 million.

In the wake of this rebuttal, Raytheon and Kongsberg filed a protest to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on 18 March, arguing that the sole-source award was not justified under applicable law and regulation, and was prohibited by the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The two companies filed a joint supplemental protest on 24 March.
In a ruling issued on 24 June, the GAO denied the protest. It concluded that DARPA "reasonably determined that a sole-source award to Lockheed Martin was appropriate under the circumstances", and further concluded that such an award "was not prohibited by the 2014 NDAA" because it was not a navy contract, and fell within an NDAA exemption.

The GAO's adjudication cleared the way for DARPA to place a sole-source contract, worth up to USD202 million, with Lockheed Martin on 2 July for follow-on development and accelerated acquisition of LRASM. During the 24-month period of performance, the company will continue to mature the long-range sensor, the missile control unit, EO terminal sensor hardware and associated LRASM software, missile autonomy, and the weapon datalink.

Lockheed Martin's scope of work also requires the integration of the LRASM missile operational flight program with prototype sensor and guidance and control hardware; this will be subject to both hardware-in-the-loop testing and captive flight tests. Other activities include development and laboratory test of the mission planning system, integration with the B-1B and F/A-18E/F launch aircraft, and warhead fuze development. Additional flight tests will also be performed, building on the success of the previous air-launched flight tests conducted in 2013.

The LRASM accelerated acquisition component includes test vehicles and approximately 20 all-up- rounds, as well as integration efforts and systems engineering. BAE Systems will perform as subcontractor to Lockheed Martin for this phase, rather than being contracted through DARPA.

In a statement Lockheed Martin told IHS Jane's : "The LRASM follow-on contract from the US Navy will continue the aircraft integration efforts, flight and ground test assets, and activities that will lead the programme into the early operational capability [EOC] milestone. No other system can achieve the EOC milestone in the timeframe required by the services, as was determined in a recent government ruling."

The DoD's FY 2015 defence budget plan confirmed plans to move forward with sole-source acquisition of LRASM to deliver an EOC on USAF B-1Bs from FY 2018. EOC on the USN's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is to follow in FY 2019. In its top-line budget highlights book, the Department of the Navy stated that LRASM would satisfy OASuW Increment 1 fill: "the initial air-launched Anti- Surface Warfare requirement ... to address future/evolving surface warfare threats". It added: "LRASM, a variant of JASSM-ER, is an autonomous, precision-guided anti-ship standoff missile that is being developed to meet US Pacific Command's urgent need for an offensive anti- surface warfare capability against combatants in a contested environment.
"The missile will reduce dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, network links and GPS navigation. In FY 2015, the Department will focus on LRASM development with planned procurements beginning in FY 2017."
On completion of the current follow-on demonstration programme, DARPA plans to transition LRASM to the USN in FY 2016 to meet the service's OASuW Increment 1 requirement. Lockheed Martin anticipates that the USN will issue a follow-on contract in 2016 to conduct the Development Testing/Operational Testing phase of the programme in 2017, leading up to a production decision for EOC missile quantities. The USN's FY 2015 budget request projects initial buy of 30 LRASM all- up-rounds in FY 2017, to be followed by annual procurements of 40 missiles in FY 2018 and FY 2019.

In a 28 July pre-solicitation notice, the Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR's) Precision Strike Weapons Program Office (PMA-201) confirmed that it intends to enter into sole source negotiations with Lockheed Martin for the final development, integration and EOC quantities of LRASM to meet the air-launched OASuW Increment 1 requirement. NAVAIR added that LRASM "is the only system that can provide the EOC in the timeframe required by the services".

Further out, an OASuW Increment 2 will be competitively procured, with a competition expected to get underway in 2017. Planned to enter service in the 2024 timeframe, Increment 2 will address a multiple launch platform capability (air, surface and subsurface). Lockheed Martin is eyeing variants of LRASM to satisfy the OASuW Increment 2 requirement; it is expected to face competition from the alliance of Raytheon and Kongsberg (offering developments of Tomahawk and JSM).

Pictures attached -









The only company that has not disclosed its cards for the OASuW Increment 2 offerings is Boeing. They have kept quite amidst all this after not being selected as the development partner in the OASuW Increment 1 phase. They are delivering the AGM-84K SLAM-ER and could potentially offer improved variants of that or something new altogether. Given that they are the incumbents it is rather strange that they have neither come out publicly nor aligned with an international or domestic company to jointly compete.

Then there was the LRASM-B , which was to be a ramjet weapon with 250 nm Mach 2-3 terminal speed. That was cancelled by DARPA because of the risk with timelines (delivery by 2020 in time for increment 2) and because it would be pointless given there are ongoing programs for a HSSW weapon that is aiming much higher by a similar timeline. The HSSW is a vehicle designed around the 500nm ranged mission with a cruise speed between Mach 5 and Mach 6. The program started in 2012 and formally took off after the conclusion of the X-51 and this year they released a road-map to contribute 600 million towards its development. It is a sensor/seeker agnostic program and the sensor/seeker requirement request was released a few weeks ago and would be pursued as a separate program. The aim is to have the system in Technology Readiness level 7 (System prototype demonstration in an operational environment) by 2019-2020.

[VinodTK]

US wants India’s help in multilateral naval engagements in Asia-Pacific

NEW DELHI: The US still wants India to act as a "lynchpin'' in its ongoing strategic "re-balancing'' of military forces towards the Asia-Pacific, or at least help cobble up multilateral naval engagements for greater stability in what it considers to be an increasingly critical region.

Visiting US Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Harry Harris, after meeting Navy chief Admiral Robin Dhowan and others on Tuesday, said China was indulging in "provocative" tactics in the South China Sea which were "raising tensions" in the entire region. "It's an issue of concern for all of us... It's a dramatic land reclamation. We don't view South China Sea as anybody's territorial waters... they are international waters," he said.

Slated to soon take over the reins of the massive US Pacific Command that covers 36 nations, Admiral Harris was, however, quick to add that the "re-balance" to Asia-Pacific, under which 60% of the formidable US naval fleet will be positioned in the Pacific by 2020, was not directed against China.

"It is not about China. It's really about us. It's about recognising that our economic future lies in the Pacific and Indian Oceans," he said, adding it was up to India to decide whether it wanted to show more "presence" in the South China Sea though he would "personally welcome" it.

But India does not want to get caught in the middle of this new 'Great Game' unfolding in Asia-Pacific, with China already irked by the US strategy to increasingly show the flag in the region. India, however, has stressed that all should respect "unhindered freedom of navigation in international waters" like South China Sea, where China is locked in territorial disputes with the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and others.

The US is also very keen on upgrading the annual Indo-US Malabar naval exercise into a multilateral venture, with regular participation from countries like Japan and Australia. "There is a role for each of our navies to play in building multinational maritime relationships in the Indo-Asia-Pacific," Admiral Harris said.

"An enhanced India-US partnership helps us to ensure other nations respect international law and drives our mutual commitment to open access by all nations to the shared global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace," he added.

India has largely restricted the Malabar exercise to a bilateral one with the US after China protested against the 2007 edition of the war games in the Bay of Bengal since they were expanded to include the Australian, Japanese and Singaporean navies as well. But Japan did take part in the 2009 and 2014 editions, and is likely to do so this year as well.

[NRao]

I do not think the following is true any long, and it dates prior to the current gov:

But India does not want to get caught in the middle of this new 'Great Game' unfolding in Asia-Pacific

IMO, India will get involved, but on her terms. India cannot sit this one out.




And, to entice that involvement the US will help the IN as much as possible. India, IMHO, would be elevated higher than the UK, etc.

[brar_w]

As long as there are open disputes with China, Modi would continue to balance India's "involvement" and engagement with other stakeholders in the Indo-Pacific with China's ambitions and assertiveness. You do have to do it in a smart manner however. The current US-Philippines P-8 flights are a decent start but the plan that is floating around to help them create an A2AD coastal system underwritten by US forces is poorly designed imho because it assures economic ramification for that nation without any guarantee of any US involvement if their sovereignty is under risk (a guarantee of an economic impact without a guarantee of a security benefit). Its better to facilitate say advanced batteries of Brahmos to them to really throw a wrench in China's intentions to bully them for example.

[Philip]

Indo-Vietnamese naval cooperation in particular is a direct counter/mirror to Sino-Pak cooperation.Supplying warships and sub training for the Vietnamese navy's new Russia Kilo class subs,is a considerable level of engagement. It will provide Indian submariners with valuable operational experience in the Indo-China Sea (ICS) aboard the new Kilos,which the IN also operate,giving the IN the requisite knowledge with which to conduct its own forward naval operations in the ICS as well.Any extra cooperation/supply of defence eqpt. to the Phillipines and other ASEAN nations will be a very welcome bonus.

[Aditya G]

We could transfer couple of sukankya class opv to the Philippines. These vessels are well suited to the conflict in indo-china sea