International Naval News & Discussion

[TSJones]

yeah, they're being very very, modest about having a throttleable solid fuel ramjet. which tells me something is up.

I know how these guys think, and they're always thinking about the kill and bringing home the meat.

sounds gruesome but that's the way it is.

[putnanja]

How stealthy is Navy’s new destroyer? It needs reflectors

The Navy destroyer is designed to look like a much smaller vessel on radar, and it lived up to its billing during recent builder trials.

Lawrence Pye, a lobsterman, told The Associated Press that on his radar screen the 610-foot ship looked like a 40- to 50-foot fishing boat. He watched as the behemoth came within a half-mile while returning to shipbuilder Bath Iron Works.

...
Besides a shape designed to deflect enemy radar, it features a wave-piercing “tumblehome” hull, composite deckhouse, electric propulsion and new guns.

[brar_w]

yeah, they're being very very, modest about having a throttleable solid fuel ramjet. which tells me something is up.

ARC was very vocal about it with good presence at the trade shows when they were still around (late 90's to early 2000's). Aerojet wasn't really that enthusiastic and Raytheon never really talked about it even though they teamed up with ARC and aerojet on the various AMRAAM+ and Next. generation missile projects. Given the T-3 was never really explained as a project other than what was publicly available in DARPA's budget, the next opportunity would come with the AARGM-ER, which has range characteristics that make a VFDR application an ideal solution. While there is some doubt about a VFDR application in a BVR missile (with boeing firmly opposing it in favor of a multi-pulse motor) since the plume even not the meteor is quite large, there will be little resistance to getting it for a very long range ARM. Bayern Chemie and MBDA meanwhile just published an interesting technical paper on their work to create a medium ranged SAM using a VFDR approach so they are very heavily invested in solid fueled ramjet systems given.

Meteor Launch vs

AMRAAM launch

[brar_w]

USN's Next Generation Jammer transitions into development

The Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) Increment 1 (Inc 1) electronic attack pod destined for the US Navy's (USN's) EA-18G Growler aircraft has transitioned into its engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has confirmed.

This milestone comes just days after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) questioned the maturity of parts of the NGJ programme in its 2016 Selected Acquisition Report, citing risks associated with weight and power requirements, and pod integration with the EA-18G.Being developed by Raytheon to replace the EA-18G's legacy ALQ-99 tactical jamming pod, the NGJ is intended to provide enhanced airborne EA capabilities to disrupt and degrade enemy air defence and ground communication systems. The system represents a step change from ALQ-99 in terms of its software-based digital architecture, and use of high power active electronically scanned arrays based on Gallium Nitride technology.

The USN plans to field capabilities in three increments for different radio frequency bands, beginning with Increment 1 (mid-band) in 2021, with Increments 2 (low band) and 3 (high band) to follow.

Frank Kendall, under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, signed off the Acquisition Decision Memorandum approving the start of EMD on 5 April. The previous month he had conducted a review of the NGJ Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase, and the follow-on EMD programme plan, at Raytheon's El Segundo facility in California.

In September 2015 Kendall approved a plan under which NGJ has become the first programme in a so-called 'Skunk Works' pilot that aims to eliminate non-value added processes in order to ensure delivery on time and within budget. For example, the programme has streamlined the process for conducting its technology readiness assessment by reviewing key test results with Department of Defense and navy representatives and documenting those results in a memo instead of a formal Technology Readiness Assessment report.

During the EMD phase the system design will be further matured prior to manufacture. NGJ Inc 1 is expected to reach its system-level critical design review in early- to mid-2017; this will finalise the design and allow for the fabrication and assembly of test articles.

In its latest defence acquisition report, GAO stated that the NGJ programme considers "achieving the necessary power within weight constraints to be the greatest risk". Additional risks include integration of the NGJ with the EA-18G and the potential for electromagnetic radiation to affect the reliability of missiles carried by the aircraft.

The GAO noted that while the NGJ programme has taken multiple steps to reduce design risk prior to development start - including approval for a higher pod weight by making trades with the EA-18G, and working groups to address NGJ and EA-18G software and hardware interoperability - it does not plan to test an early system prototype prior to the programme's critical design review. [-- This is the same GAO that deemed Gallium nitride as such an unknown (Despite DARPA"s and Raytheon's 12+ years if working with the semiconductor) that they inflated the cost of the AMDR by 5 x and had to walk it back just a few days ago -- ]

A first test of a fully functional jamming pod is planned for March 2019. Navy programme officials told the GAO that prototyping and associated testing conducted to date had addressed the principal programme risks.Primary NGJ Inc 1 prototype testing is complete and, according to the USN, test results have indicated effective isotropic radiated power and prime power requirements have been met. A low rate initial production decision is currently planned for August 2019, with initial operational capability slated for June 2021.

The Prototype Pod and an old NAVAIR released graphic on the architecture of the new 360 degree pod with integrated RAT>

[Prem]

Catch me If U can game by Russian Plane and US Navy

[youtube]e-pLgvJULOM?t=9[/youtube]

[brar_w]

Japan provides details of Soryu-class submarine offered to Australia

Some technical information on the modified Soryu-class submarine proposed by Japan for Australia's AUD50 billion (USD37 billion) Future Submarine programme has been revealed for the first time to correct what the Japanese embassy described as erroneous information related to the Soryu's specifications and capabilities.

The details were included in an unusual statement sent by Japanese ambassador Sumio Kusaka to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and to specialist media, including IHS Jane's .

According to the statement, concerns that the Soryu would not be able to meet the Australian cruising range requirements were unfounded; the fuel load would be increased by extending the hull and re-designing the positioning of fuel tanks.

Notwithstanding one section of the Soryu being double hulled, 3D digital mock-up technology and design techniques had ensured reinforcement structures did not impinge on space, while the hull extension would allow a "much wider" internal space than in the current in-service boats.

"The internal space of the Soryu-class submarine has been shown to a large number of Australians who are familiar with the internal space of the Collins class submarine and so far we haven't received any comments indicating that the internal space of the Soryu class is narrow," the statement noted.

Although the reserve buoyancy of the Soryu class had been questioned, the estimated surfaced displacement of the class was approximately 3,600 tonnes while its dived displacement was around 4,200 tonnes and "there is no reason for saying that it possesses an excessive amount of reserve buoyancy compared to submarines of other nations".

The statement confirmed that the Japanese proposal for Project Sea 1000 did not include an Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) capability, relying instead on lithium-ion batteries.

This reflected the decision to rely on lithium-ion technology for all Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force (MSDF) submarines built from 2015 onwards. Short-circuit tests, shock-resistance tests, drop tests, overcharging-discharging tests, seawater soaking tests, and heat tests had clearly demonstrated that lithium-ion reliability was not an issue, the statement said.

Suggestions that the designated lifespan of Japan's submarines was limited to 24 years because of corrosion in the double hull structure were dismissed as untrue.

"If the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) desires to use the submarines over a long period of time, the same level of technological checks that we carry out on our own vessels now will enable those desires to be met," the statement said.

The proposed evolution of the Soryu-class, constructed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawaski Shipbuilding Corporation, is competing to supply 12 Future Submarines to replace the six-strong Collins class fleet against France's DCNS, proposing the 4,700 tonne Barracuda Shortfin 1A conventionally-powered version of the 5,300 tonne Barracuda nuclear attack submarine, and Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, proposing the developmental 4,000 tonne Type 216.Sources have confirmed that recommendations by the Department of Defence (DoD) derived from a 10-month Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) that concluded on 30 November 2015 now await a decision by the national security committee of cabinet on an international design partner for what will be Australia's largest-ever defence programme.

The final selection will take into account strategic considerations as well as capability.

The ambassador's statement came less than a week before the arrival in Sydney of the Soryu-class submarine, JS Hakuryu , and two Japan Maritime Self Defence Force Hatsuyuki and Asagiri-class destroyers for anti-submarine exercises with the RAN.

While the visit is too late to have any impact on the CEP, it should nevertheless boost public perception of the Japanese bid whose information flow has been less than stellar.

[Austin]

Russian Navy will receive a hypersonic missile after 2020

http://vpk.name/news/153452_vmf_rossii_ ... _goda.html

Moscow. April 13. INTERFAX.RU - hypersonic missile, designed for development work (R & D) "Zircon", and designed in the long term to replace the supersonic cruise missiles "Onyx", the first stage of the test, said Wednesday "Interfax" a source close to the Military Industrialization Russian commission.

"Flight testing of the product prototype began six months ago, in the autumn of 2015 According to experts, they can last about five years." - The spokesman said.

He recalled that the predecessor test "Zircon" - antiship missiles "Onyx" - "were much longer."

In the case of "zircon" the duration of the flight test, "among other things, due to the fact that he will learn to start from different environments and fly five or six speeds to Mach (Mach 1 - corresponds to the speed of sound, about 300 m / s or 1224 km / h - IF), "the source said.

Earlier it was reported that the ROC "Zircon" performs "NPO Machine Building" (Reutov, Moscow region) - a developer and manufacturer of missiles "Onyx". There is reason to assume that the range "Zircon" is comparable to "Onyx", that is about 500 km. These missiles can be equipped with ships and nuclear submarines, as well as aircraft and coastal mobile missile systems.

It is believed that as missiles "Onyx", and rocket "Zircon" will play a significant role in the implementation of non-nuclear deterrence.

The former commander of the Russian Navy Admiral Viktor Chirkov, said earlier that the Russian Navy in 2020 should be set up "grouping of forces of strategic non-nuclear deterrence", equipped with high-precision long-range weapons.

The basis of this group will make nuclear submarine project 885M "Ash", modernized nuclear submarine project 949M, heavy nuclear missile cruiser Project 1144.

Under the non-nuclear deterrence implies the existence of the possibility, if necessary, to hit critical military and economic targets of the potential enemy.

[Viv S]

What does this mean for the BrahMos II?

[Austin]

What does this mean for the BrahMos II?

That would be developed by Brahmos Corp , Sudhir Mishra has mentioned that it would be 2 stage project.

Zircon is a different project and using different mechanism likely developed by Tactical Missile Bureau

[Viv S]

That would be developed by Brahmos Corp , Sudhir Mishra has mentioned that it would be 2 stage project.

Zircon is a different project and using different mechanism

Overlapping roles nonetheless. Have the Russians committed to ordering the Brahmos IIs?

[Austin]

Overlapping roles nonetheless. Have the Russians committed to ordering the Brahmos IIs?

Hypersonic is a very broad program that gets painted with just one brush , it can be strategic/substrategic/tactical with different speed propulsion and its own challanges with this , Brahmos 2 is just in R&D phase not sure even if they had their first flight.

[Viv S]

Hypersonic is a very broad program that gets painted with just one brush , it can be strategic/substrategic/tactical with different speed propulsion and its own challanges with this , Brahmos 2 is just in R&D phase not sure even if they had their first flight.

Both programs are intended to deliver a hypersonic anti-ship missile to replace the BrahMos (in Indian service) and Onyx (in Russian service). I can't see the space for a mixed buy.

[Aditya G]

What does this mean for the BrahMos II?

That would be developed by Brahmos Corp , Sudhir Mishra has mentioned that it would be 2 stage project.

Zircon is a different project and using different mechanism likely developed by Tactical Missile Bureau

Whatever be the case Brahmos-II is at the moment only a paper project and I wager nothing is going to be move till Russians put the Zircon on the table. The brahmos JV could be used to test and develop the missile.

[brar_w]

U.S. Navy Awards Raytheon $1 Billion To Build Jammer Models

The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon a $1 billion contract to build 15 engineering development models of the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ), its future electronic warfare pod. The contract calls for completing work in December 2020, in advance of the Navy beginning initial operations with the pod on the Boeing EA-18G Growler.

Under the contract, announced by the Department of Defense (DOD) on April 13, Raytheon's facility in El Segundo, Calif., will manufacture both the engineering development models and 14 aero-mechanical test pods to verify aircraft flying qualities with the underwing pod and “pod safe separation.” The DOD on April 7 announced a $19.9 million contract award to Boeing to begin preliminary integration work on the EA-18G electronic warfare aircraft.

The NGJ will replace the long-serving and continuously updated ALQ-99 tactical jamming pod. The Navy plans to field the new pod in three increments representing different radio frequency ranges, beginning with Increment 1 (mid-band) in 2021, followed by Increments 2 (low-band) and 3 (high-band). The estimated program cost is $7.4 billion, including $3.3 billion for research and development and $4 billion to procure 128 systems.

The Naval Air Systems Command (Navair), which serves as the contract authority, announced on April 5 that Increment 1 was approved by the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics to begin the next phase of development. Navair expects to conduct a critical design review of the system in 2017 to finalize the design and provide for fabrication and assembly of test models. The first test of a fully functional jamming pod is planned in March 2019.

Navair selected Raytheon to develop the NGJ in July 2013 over Northrop Grumman, ITT Exelis and BAE Systems, awarding the company a $279 million contract for the technology development phase. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld a following protest by BAE Systems, referring the procurement back to the Navy for re-evaluation. The service reconfirmed Raytheon as the contractor in January 2014.

Raytheon and the Navy completed a preliminary design review of the NGJ in September. In a report last month, the GAO said the parties assessed the jammer’s seven critical technologies, which include two separate arrays, each with different transmit/receive modules, and a power generation system. “The program considers achieving the necessary power within weight constraints to be the greatest risk,” the GAO stated. “Additional risks include integration of the NGJ with the EA-18G and the potential for electromagnetic radiation to affect the reliability of missiles employed on the EA-18G.”

[Philip]

Countdownn to OZ sub decision has started. reminds one of the famous song,"3 coins in a fountain,thrown by 3 happy lovers..." with the refrain ,"make it mine,make it mine!" So the 3 suitors,France,Germany and Japan will know whom their OZ gal will choose in a few days time. One report says that "Madam Butterfly" has all but been eliminated becos of poor performance when compared with the existing Swedish Collins class subs. It will be a huge setback for the Japanese and the US which was lobbying hectically for the Japanese subs so that they could be integrated into the USN's order of battle more easily than German or French boats.This gives the French conventional version of the Barracuda an edge imop,cos the extended German U-boat does nto exist but on paper.France even told OZ that they would not give India the same tech,to clinch the deal.

http://www.marinelink.com/news/submarin ... ]Submarine Bidders Step up Lobbying for Australia Tender[/b]
Posted by Eric HaunTuesday, April 19, 2016
Japan's advanced attack Soryu submarine carried out drills with Australia's navy on Tuesday as a German company launched a campaign to advertise its expertise - as a race for a A$50 billion contract to build Australia's next submarine fleet neared a climax.

Industry sources told Reuters the Australian government is speeding up its decision on the contract - France is the other major bidder - with a winner now expected to be announced by the end of the month.

Australia intends to buy 12 new submarines, a centrepiece of its defence strategy unveiled in February, which called for an increase in military spending of nearly A$30 billion over the next 10 years to protect strategic and trade interests in the Asia-Pacific.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/s ... ek/7340996

Submarine deal: Successful bid for new Royal Australian Navy boats to be announced next week
Exclusive by political editor Chris Uhlmann
Updated April 20, 2016 13:53:54

HMAS Dechaineux participating in Exercise Kakadu 2010 off the coast of Darwin.
PHOTO: The long-awaited submarine contract announcement is expected within days. (Royal Australian Navy: Able Seaman James Whittle)
RELATED STORY: Submarine decision delay 'politically suicidal' for Pyne: WeatherillRELATED STORY: Submarine industry given boost with new vessels pledgeRELATED STORY: Germany argues political incentives in bid for submarine contract
MAP: Australia
The Federal Government is preparing to announce the successful bidder for Australia's new fleet of submarines next week.
Key points:

Unknown if a final decision on the subs contract has been made
Coalition MPs and senators in SA have been pressing the Government for a decision
Window for announcement narrows with Budget looming
The ABC understands Cabinet's National Security Committee discussed the three international bids for the $50 billion contract last night.

While it is not clear if the committee has made a final decision, it has all but eliminated the Japanese bid to build a fleet of 12 submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's ageing Collins Class subs.

That leaves France and Germany still in the race.

Defence department officials have had reservations about the Japanese bid from the outset, because it emerged as an understanding struck between former prime minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Officials feared there was less enthusiasm in the Japanese bureaucracy for the deal and that would undo it in the long run.

The Japanese bid has been pushed by some US officials who raised the prospect that America might not allow its most advanced combat systems to be installed in the European subs.

The Government is now convinced that is not that case and one senior source said President Barack Obama had made it clear to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull the submarine deal was a sovereign issue for Australia and there would be no implications for the alliance, no matter which bidder won.

This morning Mr Turnbull was not prepared to confirm whether the decision would be announced prior to the election.
"It will be made in due course, it will be made shortly," he told Adelaide radio station FIVEaa.
"I'm not going to be drawn on dates."

Timeline: The promises and policy of the subs saga
The lead up to the submarine contract has involved election promises, business and political campaigns and lots of speculation.
But with South Australian MPs and senators sweating on the announcement there is a small window in which it can be made.

There is currently a Japanese submarine in Sydney Harbour and the Government will not make any statement until it clears Australian waters.

The budget is on May 3 and shortly after that the Prime Minister will ask the Governor-General for an election and no major decisions can be made in the caretaker period.

The new submarine project has been embroiled in politics from the outset with the deal between prime ministers Abbott and Abe sparking fears in South Australia that it would lose its shipbuilding industry.

The political pressure on the Government did not dissipate, even after all three bidders made it clear the subs could be built entirely, or substantially, in Adelaide.

It has been a political gift for popular independent senator Nick Xenophon, who is running candidates in Lower House seats in South Australia at the July election.

Coalition MPs and senators in that state have been pressing the Government for a decision to try to stem the political bleeding that threatens several seats.

The window for the announcement has narrowed to next week, ahead of the budget.

Years of campaigning before announcement
The South Australian campaign to secure the submarine construction work for the state has been underway for about two years, Premier Jay Weatherill said yesterday.

Earlier this year the Defence White Paper revealed the Government planned to order 12 new vessels as part of its future submarine program.

Mr Weatherill said a submarine announcement would be needed before the election to help Liberal Industry, Innovation and Science Minister Christopher Pyne retain the SA seat of Sturt at the federal election.

"I hope Christopher and the team are able to get that organised before the federal election is announced because I think it would be politically suicidal for him not to do so," Mr Weatherill said.

The Liberals need to commit to building the next generation of submarines in Adelaide to avoid a potential voting backlash at the looming federal poll, a politics analyst said.

Professor in politics and international studies Carol Johnson, of the University of Adelaide, said there were electoral risks for the Liberals if Adelaide did not fare well from the submarines project.

"The problem is that the submarines are not only important for their build but also because of some of the high-tech components in it, so potentially it will still be damaging to the Liberals if they just have the ship build [offshore patrol vessels] and not the submarines as well," she said.

Industry watchers had anticipated a decision for one of the world's most lucrative defence contracts to come later in the year, but Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's recent gamble on a July 2 election has sped up the process.

The contract is politically sensitive as it will likely have an impact on thousands of jobs in the shipbuilding industry in South Australia state. Retaining votes in key electorates in that state will be critical for the government.

Two industry sources in Asia who are involved in the bid process told Reuters they were expecting an announcement as early as April 29. They declined to be identified because they are not authorized to talk to media.

On Tuesday, the Japanese Soryu submarine, a variant of the submarine that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries are offering to build, began exercises in Sydney harbour with Australia's navy - the first of its kind since 1999.

Despite the presence of the Soryu submarine and a well-attended media tour, Japan's Chief of Staff Commander Fleet Escort Force insisted the exercise was not a sales pitch.

"We do not have an ulterior motive in having this media conference," Rear Admiral Ryo Sakai told reporters.

As Japan showcased its submarine, Germany's ThyssenKrupp AG's launched an advertising campaign to illustrate its commitment to build the 12 submarines in South Australia.

"The German industry, backed by the German government felt it would be appropriate to explain to the Australian public the nature of the proposal being made," said John White, chairman, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Australia.

ThyssenKrupp is proposing to scale up its 2,000-tonne Type 214 class submarine.

France's state-controlled naval contractor DCNS has proposed a diesel-electric version of its 5,000-tonne Barracuda nuclear-powered submarine.

America's Raytheon Co, which built the system for the Collins-class boats, is vying for a separate contract for a combat system for the submarine with Lockheed Martin Corp, which supplies combat systems to the U.S. Navy's submarine fleet.

(By Colin Packham and Tim Kelly; editing by Jane Wardell)[/quote]

[brar_w]

First Phase Unmanned Aviation on CVN Complete

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) marked a historical milestone April 13 after installing the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) command center aboard an aircraft carrier.

Capt. Beau Duarte, program manager of Unmanned Carrier Aviation program office (PMA-268), inspected the site and recognized Carl Vinson Sailors instrumental in the security, logistics and installation of the UAV suite.

"This marks the start of a phased implementation of the MQ-XX system on an aircraft carrier," said Duarte. "The lessons learned and ground-breaking work done here will go on to inform and influence future installations on other aircraft carriers."

The work was performed during USS Carl Vinson's recent Chief of Naval Operations Planned Incremental Availability (PIA). The completion of all phases of installation is scheduled for 2022.

"We are carving out precious real estate on board the carrier, knowing that the carrier of the future will have manned and unmanned systems on it," said Capt. Karl Thomas, Carl Vinson's commanding officer. "This suite is an incremental step necessary to extend performance, efficiency and enhance safety of aerial refueling and reconnaissance missions that are expending valuable flight hours on our strike-fighter aircraft, the F/A-18 Echoes and Foxtrots."

The MQ-XX program will deliver a high-endurance unmanned aircraft that will replace today's F/A-18E/F aircraft in its role as the aerial tanker for the Navy's carrier air wing (CVW), thus preserving the strike fighter's flight hours for its primary mission. It will also leverage the range and payload capacity of high-endurance unmanned aircraft to provide critically needed, persistent, sea-based ISR capability in support of the CSG and the Joint Forces Commander. The MQ-XX is scheduled to be operational in the mid-2020s.

"Having a UAV asset that provides persistent, potentially 24/7, surveillance coverage for the strike group is a game changer," said Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 1, Rear Adm. James Loeblein. "Putting additional ISR capacity into the warfare commander's hands increases the flexibility and warfare capability of the entire strike group."

The Carl Vinson Strike Group is scheduled to deploy on a Western Pacific deployment in 2017. Carl Vinson is currently pierside in its homeport of San Diego.

[Philip]

Another report has the Germans out in front by a nose with their U-216. The French could tip the scales if they throw in N-power for the future.

Japan Falls Behind in Race for Australian Submarine Contract
Japanese bid was viewed as risky because of inexperience building naval equipment overseas

By ROB TAYLOR
Updated April 20, 2016 6:36 a.m. ET
CANBERRA, Australia—Japan has been virtually eliminated from a multibillion-dollar contest to supply Australia’s navy with new submarines, two people familiar with the matter said, with German or French competitors now favored to win one of the world’s most lucrative current weapons deals.

Senior Australian security ministers met Tuesday to consider offers to build 12 conventionally powered submarines in Australia, the people said. While the conservative government has yet to make a final decision, one of the people said the Japanese bid was viewed as having “considerable risk,” given Japanese inexperience building naval equipment overseas.

The government is expected next week to award the 50 billion Australian dollar (US$39.07 billion) contract to either German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Australia, a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems GmbH set up to pursue the Australian contract, or French contender DCNS.

The German company—one of the world’s largest suppliers of conventionally powered submarines—was emerging as a front-runner, having promised to transfer advanced manufacturing skills to an Australian hub where the submarines would be built, the people familiar with the matter said.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., the lead company in the Japanese consortium, declined to comment on the group’s bid. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, the Japanese government’s top spokesman, also declined to comment, saying the selection process was continuing.

ThyssenKrupp is offering its new Type 216 submarine, designed to meet Australian requirements that include long-range capability and endurance to suit the country’s vast ocean territory. It is up against a conventional version of the 4,700-metric-ton Barracuda, built by DCNS, and Japan’s 4,000-ton Soryu, built by Mitsubishi Heavy and Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corp.

A DCNS spokesman said the French state-owned shipbuilder believed the government was still going through its selection process, with a final decision yet to be made.

ThyssenKrupp’s Australian chairman, John White, said the decision-making process had been tightly run, with no indications emerging of whether the company was likely to be successful.

Australia’s submarine replacement is being closely followed in Washington, given strategic jostling with China. The U.S. has given assurances to Canberra that it won’t stand in the way of the installation of sensitive U.S. Navy combat systems on Australian submarines if a European company wins the contract. U.S.-based Raytheon Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. are both vying to supply Australia with systems similar to those used to control U.S. nuclear vessels.

The contract decision also has become a political flashpoint in Australia in the lead-up to a general election, which Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week signaled will come in July.

Naval shipbuilding and manufacturing jobs have been a central issue, with Mr. Turnbull promising A$38 billion in surface-warship contracts for the state of South Australia, which has been hit hard by auto-industry manufacturing closures. The submarines are also likely to be built in the South Australian capital of Adelaide.

An unsuccessful Japanese bid would be a blow to the country’s hopes of becoming a major arms exporter for the first time since World War II. Japan had initially been favored to win the contest given close ties between Australia’s former prime minister, Tony Abbott, and Japan’s Shinzo Abe, who in 2014 eased a ban on weapons exports.

Mr. Abbott was ousted by Mr. Turnbull in September, in part to avoid an expected conservative wipeout in South Australia during the coming election.

The deal was seen by some strategic analysts as a test case for how Japan could reposition itself in the region as Mr. Abe seeks to use military-hardware trade to help build ties with neighbors wary of China’s growing strength and muscle-flexing in the South China Sea.

Noboru Yamaguchi, a professor at International University of Japan and a retired lieutenant general, said if the Japanese bid is unsuccessful it would be a disappointment for Tokyo, which has opened the door to arms sales under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

“The Japanese government and businesses are not used to working together to win such contracts. That is probably a reason for their loss in the latest bidding,” he said.

But military analyst Kazuhisa Ogawa said Japanese companies might have dodged a bullet because building submarines for Australia wasn’t likely to be profitable.

“Defense is not a main line of business for Mitsubishi Heavy,” Mr. Ogawa said. “For them, the concern was for the defense business to become a drag on the rest of the company.”

Both the Germans and the Japanese stepped up advertising this week in hopes of adding momentum to their bids. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries also set up an Australian subsidiary in Sydney to support its bid.

—Mitsuru Obe contributed to this article.

[brar_w]

Navy Seeking ‘Family of Systems’ to Replace Super Hornets, Growlers; Sheds F/A-XX Title

The Navy’s replacement for its Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet may not just be a single aircraft but several systems to fill the strike and air warfare missions in the carrier air-wing.

In January, the service kicked off its requirements study for the Next Generation Air Dominance program — the effort formerly known as F/A-XX – that could produce a family of NGAD systems to replace the capability of the Super Hornets and the electronic attack EA-18-G Growler in teh 2030s, service officials told USNI News in a Thursday statement.

Additionally, the Navy also is moving out on the Super Hornet replacements separate for the Air Force’s F-X program to replace its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air superiority fighters.

Last year, the Navy director of air warfare (N98), Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, told USNI News last year the service was considering partnering with the Air Force’s for a joint Air Force-Navy analysis of alternatives for the F-X and F/A-XX.

On Thursday the service said while it would share information with the Air Force, it wouldn’t be conducting a joint AoA for F-X and NGAD.

“The two services intend to utilize common analytical tools and methods, and will share information across the studies,” read the statement provided to USNI News.
“This approach is designed to ensure interoperability and leverage opportunities for common technology investments.”

In a Wednesday written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Department of the Navy aviation heads said January’s start to NGAD AoA – which followed approval of the initial capabilities document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff — would consider not only manned, but unmanned and optionally manned airframes.

The effort is also evaluating modifications “evolutionary or incremental” aircraft in inventory, derivations of legacy platforms and all-new designs with an emphasis on replacing the capability of the Super Hornets and the Growlers instead of wedding itself to a one-for-one replacement of the airframes.

The break with the Air Force in a joint development of NGAD’s system speaks to a lingering cultural difference between the Air Force and the Navy in tactical air development.

The Air Force has traditionally favored faster and stealthier manned platforms – like the F-22. The Navy focuses development on the ability of tactical aviation to field and deliver payloads.

In early 2015, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said the follow-on to the Super Hornets would likely rely less on stealth and speed and would ideally be expandable to include evolving weapons systems.

“I don’t want to necessarily say that [stealth is] over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable [which he explained later to be something different, since everyone else came out and said " we are submitting stealthy airframes" given Navy's requirements],” he said.
The Super Hornet follow-on “has to have an ability to carry a payload such that it can deploy a spectrum of weapons. It has to be able to acquire access probably by suppressing enemy air defenses… Today it’s radar but it might be something more in the future.”

The Navy has also been more vocal than the Air Force on pushing unmanned systems in the realm of tactical aviation [ Pushing but doing not much beyond that, given the way they have treated the UCLASS].

At last year’s 2015 Navy League Sea-Air-Space symposium, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said that the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter could be the last purely manned strike fighter [As if he would have any say in it.

“Unmanned systems, particularly autonomous ones, have to be the new normal in ever-increasing areas,” Mabus said.
“For example, as good as it is, and as much as we need it and look forward to having it in the fleet for many years, the F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly.[so that when it isn't, he can run for another office and claim he could have done a ton better..thats what happens when you place a political in a bureaucratic position]”

Manazir has said the lessons of the F-35Cs integration onto the carrier air wing and the enhanced sensor capability will inform the service’s replacement to the Super Hornets and Growlers.

[TSJones]

...may be a lot of hot air....if it's not a joint effort with the other services then the navy can't order the numbers of planes in order to get the economy of scale that they need for the money involved,,,,even if the Navy forces the Marines to buy several squadrons like they did with the f-35c.

they might as well ride with the air pukes' project and get a get a beefed up version for carrier landings.

the admirals are being deliberately obtuse and endangering the future of NavAir.
If it ain't a ship they hate anything that's new.

[brar_w]

.if it's not a joint effort with the other services then the navy can't order the numbers of planes in order to get the economy of scale that they need for the money involved,,,,even if the Navy forces the Marines to buy several squadrons like they did with the f-35c.

Fighter Aircraft the Navy has developed on its own in the last cycle : F-14, F/A-18 A-D, F/A-18 E-F, EA-18G. They can definitly develop a weapons system on their own and afford one if they play the timing right i.e. buy 3-6 dozen more Super Hornet's and push out the NGAD fighter to the mid 2030's. The primary reason is going to be a competing requirement where the Air Force is likely to outsize the margins that the Navy is likely to have for weight, size and cost. With Stand-Off Air Dominance quite openly being talked about by the USAF, their next fighter could be sized anywhere from the F-22 to the LRS-B size. The Navy on a carrier won't have those margins, or the money to buy something as large. They have said from day one that an F-35++ is in contention as a legitimate FA-XX candidate as long as there is a SOS approach where there is manned, unmanned and optionally manned in the mix.

If it ain't a ship they hate anything that's new

Thats been off late because the Congress had given them a choice where NAVAIR competed with presence. That is turning a lot differently given the recent actions of Carter, Work, and what is likely to come in the future.

[Singha]

the budgets are astonishing...$1b for a jammer. other nations can only dream of such budgets

[brar_w]

Actually at $1 Billion for the EMD phase the NGJ is a bargain given the technology they are pursuing and the fact that the 160 (they could add a lot more but the review on end-strength of the capability will be released next year) EA-18G's, will be the sole tactical Stand-Off EA/EW platforms for the Joint Forces once the USMC retires its Prowlers in 2019. The total price of the program in the current increment is $7 Billion to acquire, build, and develop/test. The capability is multi-fold better than the current pods, with the loosing RAT design offering 3 times as much power throughout the envelope. These things are also likely to last well into the next platform just like their predecessors. The program itself would go through 2 more EMD's for the Increment-2 and Increment-3 programs that cover the remaining two bands. Those are likely to wait, since the low-freq. pods have been overhauled and upgraded quite recently, and there isn't really an emerging demand for high frequency jamming atm. Those will be seperate programs and will be competed between the 3-4 players that remain in EA/EW (Cobham, BaE, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Exelis etc). Meanwhile, the JSF program has confirmed that they have an EW extender for the F-35 as well, and this could well be from either Raytheon, or incorporate some of Northrop Grumman's ideas in their bid for the NGJ which were generally considered more advanced (hence more risky and costly) for the Navy to pursue for the Inc-1 effort. This is relevant for the Marines, since once the Prowler goes, they will be reliant on the USN for Comms jamming to support the ground-troops.

ATGI has demonstrated that Hi-RAT can produce 90 kW of power at the original low-airspeed, high-altitude design point for NGJ, where the dynamic pressure of air flowing into the ram-air turbine is low.

http://atgi.us/pdf/news/Aviation-Week-HiRAT.pdf

It was and still remains a high technology risk/payoff, and a complicated program. Pre NGJ maturity and vendor down-select, this AWIN article highlighted some of the trades and challenges they would have to overcome and why they spent some time, and a lot of money in demonstrations prior to an EMD award, even after Raytheon was selected as the winner for the current Increment :

New Direction Charted For Electronic Warfare
Airborne jammer may change warfare and acquisition strategies (Aviation Week & Space Technology Jun 28, 2010)

The Next-Generation Jammer (NGJ) program will open the door for sophisticated air-launched electronic attacks and penetration of integrated command-and-control ­networks.
Operationally, the NGJ could change the face of both irregular and conventional wars. Programmatically, the U.S. Navy’s decision to allow contractor input to precede a specifications list or request for proposals could be revolutionary.“Every antenna is a target,” says Jim Bailey, Raytheon’s NGJ capture director. “You tailor the approach to the target.”

“The number-one mission is still suppression of enemy air defenses so that someone can ingress and egress a strike area,” says Charles Orbell, senior manager for electronic warfare business development.

The NGJ is expected to create a marriage of active, electronically scanned array (AESA) antennas that are controlled by easily updated and replaceable software packages.

For now, there are no specifications for NGJ. The Navy is instead taking a chance on a creative approach to defining the program. The goal is to find a balance between high performance and low cost/risk. Cost will be cut through the use of commercial equipment and scheduling the project to outmaneuver Moore’s Law, which predicts an 18-month technical obsolescence cycle for digital products.

The Navy has asked industry to assemble its best ideas for the NGJ and offer them as a “catalog” achievable in the near term. Perhaps the nonnegotiable part of the plan is that any architecture be open to new applications and improvements in capability. Also, power and cooling—not elec­tronic or network attack technology—have been identified as the biggest challenges.

The program will be developed in two parts. Designing a two-pod system for the Navy’s Boeing EA-18G Growler will be the first task. The second will be refining NGJ for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter so that the stealth signature will not be altered by external pods.

The Navy would like to choose the best products from each team’s offering and mold them into a single system. Competitors object to revealing their intellectual properties to other companies. Teams include ITT/Boeing, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Raytheon (AW&ST May 24, p. 57; March 29/April 5, p. 61; and Nov. 9, 2009, p. 74).

For example, the U.S. Air Force told Aviation Week several years ago that it had demonstrated a network-invasion capability. But the mission was conducted using a large electronic attack (EC-130 Compass Call) and electronic surveillance (RC-135 Rivet Joint) aircraft. After a series of experiments at Nellis AFB, Nev., the capability was fielded in Iraq. It is now being adapted for fighter-size aircraft, say Navy and Air Force officials.

Basically, electronic surveillance identifies the exact location of antennas linked with the network to be attacked. A data stream of specialized waveforms and algorithms is fired from an airborne emitter into the antenna of interest. Once inside, the digital package can transmit back what the enemy sensors see, take control of sensors as systems administrator, mine computer memories for data, and tap into remote appendages of the network such as mobile radars and missile launchers.

The EA/EW target set is becoming increasingly the distributed pieces of any network with wireless communications. So instead of attacking networks directly, operators go to those outlying sensors or antennas and work their way back.

Raytheon is the latest company to talk to Aviation Week about its ideas for NGJ. Researchers suggest that NGJ capabilities be applied to both stealthy and nonstealthy aircraft, a move dictated by the military’s interest in reducing the number of warplanes.

“Given that you have a limited number of stealthy aircraft, you’ve got to [generate support for] those that are not stealthy,” Bailey says. “Electronic attack and electronic warfare techniques are one way to help those aircraft. It is a way to use nonstealthy aircraft to complement stealth aircraft in a strike package.

“These new tools [associated with NGJ] should allow nonstealthy aircraft to penetrate farther into enemy air defense. Threats include longer-range [air defense] missiles and improved radars. [So for a new jammer,] we want more power, better polarization control, open modular architecture, a cleaner spectrum, complete spectrum coverage, 360-deg. field of regard and advanced modulation” to provide all those specialized waveforms that unlock enemy electronics.

The goal of NGJ is to shrink the lethal range of advanced air defenses. The stealthy F-35 will likely fly into those threat rings; the nonstealthy Growler will stay outside.

“The Growlers, carrying NGJ, will apply jamming to shrink the threats’ observable, controllable, attackable space to allow our strike packages to execute their mission,” Bailey says. “Air defense threats have gotten better over the years, so maintaining that modified escort arena is the result of EA/EW improvements. Any kind of jamming has to be well thought out to avoid making yourself vulnerable.”

Advanced surface-to-air missile (SAM) designs—such as the SA-20 (S-300) that Russia has considered selling to Iran and even newer anti-aircraft systems extending through the S-600 series—have longer-range, improved radars with electronic scanning, digital control, pulse compression and advanced electronic-protection techniques, and employ irregular tactics, U.S. analysts say.

For now, the Holy Grail for the Navy’s NGJ is an AESA that can scan 360 deg., launch electronic attack and conduct network intrusion while remaining impervious to any foe’s cyber- and electronic weaponry.

Up to this point, the AESA has been associated with radars—which use pulses of energy—and flat-array antennas, each of which produces only a usable 120-deg. field of view. And if the radar happens to be connected to a network, it may be vulnerable to interception, exploitation and manipulation by hackers of many types. Moreover, much of the ability to generate electronic trickery that AESA could bring to the battlefield will be the product of software upgrades that are still unfunded by Congress.

The NGJ also will face other emerging technical problems.

Detecting pulses from advanced radars is becoming more difficult, forcing NGJ to jam differently. If a pulse is misidentified—or a long, low-power pulse is undetected and jammed with generic noise—enemy operators could re-correlate the elements so that they recover a coherent pulse.

“You used to just transmit pulses to confuse the enemy,” Bailey says. “Now you have to pay attention to coherency so you can feed them something that looks like a real target.”

Another tactic involves the use of advanced electronic-detection techniques.

“The classic progression of electronic warfare,” Orbell says, is to try “to figure out all the things we do to confuse and mislead them. The enemy then designs in features that enable its radar to operate in an EW environment. That’s why we need something new.”

Bailey notes that multiple threats need to be addressed. “To counter advanced integrated air defenses, NGJ will have to generate multiple simultaneous beams and multiple techniques per beam. We would like to use a pencil beam; but when you are at low frequency, physics rules and you get a fat beam.

“In addition, there will be a range of frequencies we’re trying to cover in a layered approach,” he says. “First we take care of the search radars in the lower frequencies. High-frequency emitters [associated with missile radars] usually mean one against many. You try to find the worst threats and design the most optimal path through or around them. Then you deal with pop-ups and surprises as best you can.”

Because of the geographically diverse proliferation of advanced SAMs, part of the NGJ challenge will be to address all the threats with fewer transmitters and aircraft than is required today. Raytheon expects to transform the Navy’s concept with a sophisticated, open-architecture sensor over the next few years, once the Navy has released a request for proposals for the NGJ technology development phase.

The initial plan is to build a pod the size of a fuel tank for an EA-18G Growler. The plan is for two pods, but company officials say an interchangeable pod that can transmit out of one side at a time may be a more functional design.

The problem with fitting pod-mounted NGJs to the Growler is that each pod is outboard of a large 480-gal. fuel tank and the low-band transmitter on the center-line station. Neither can be radiated with high-power radio-frequency jamming signals from the NGJ pods. Thus, the solution so far appears to be pods that function to one side during each mission.

Each pod will likely carry two, 90-deg. field-of-regard AESA arrays, each canted 45 deg. from the center line. The two then provide 180-deg. coverage to each side. Other competitors are looking at a hexagon-shaped AESA with three flat arrays looking to each side.

Some of the NGJ competitors have designed AESAs to work at low or modest power over relatively narrow fields of regard. “The challenge is high power, broadband [operations] over large fields of regard,” Bailey says. “When scanning to large angles, unless the AESA is properly designed, power amplifiers can de-tune,” which transforms lots of power into heat and electronic output nose dives.

A more complicated question is how to change the pulsed-energy output of an AESA radar to the continuous-energy output needed to create predictable and repeatable effects on enemy electronics. That requires a lot more energy and cooling.

“Adapting AESA concepts from pulsed radar to continuous-power operation is not so hard,” Bailey asserts. “The focus is packaging sufficient aperture—strings of small transmitter/receiver modules—to cover the required bandwidth at power levels well above traditional radars. The challenges involve generating enough power in the pod to feed the transmitter and cooling the system. This NGJ design will stress thermal constraints.”

For the USN the 2020's will be the decade of getting AEGIS modernized through the new upgraded DDG (And SM3 Blk II A, and SM6 acquisitions), and getting the Ohio class replacement put into service on cost. They will also be buying 40 strike fighters a year over that decade (20 F-35B's, and 20 F-35C's). The SSBN program would be the most critical task given the new 40 year nuclear reactor, and the fact that there are a ton of risks still left to mitigate. If the Congress, and the next POTUS agree to fund the Ohio class replacement SSBN through the national deterrence fund then the navy will have plenty of money left in the middle to second half of the 2020's to fully fund NAVAIR's long term plans, but if that does not happen, more super hornet's now while the SSBN is still being designed (and therefore not a huge annual burden) can help in pushing the next fighter to around the middle of the 2030's which should give them the budget breathing room that is required. They may even decide to up the growler-count to closer to 200 that would have design-effects on the next fighter. The Navy wasn't going to fund an ATF like program anyways, their approach will be more super hornet like or an incremental improvement over the F-18E/F/G---F-35C combo and they'll look at how an unmanned platform fits in and could even offload multiple strike-fighter requirements to it, narrowing the design focus for the next fighter.

One advantage of going unmanned is that you don't put 300 hours a year on those frames for simply training and maintaining proficiency, and NAVAIR is quite aware of that. The M-Q-XX will just be a starting point.

[Philip]

Yeah,plenty of cast-off SHs for disposal in the near future! A future naval fighter is needed as from all available info,the JSF will not be the magic bullet of the future.

Oz sub deal leaks.

Sat Apr 23, 2016
Australian police to investigate submarine tender leak: ABC
A Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces diesel-electric submarine Soryu is seen in this undated handout photo released by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces, and obtained by Reuters on September 1, 2014.

Australian police are investigating how confidential information about the outcome of a tender process for Australia's next submarine fleet was leaked to the media, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported on Saturday.

It is the second leak from within the military acquisition project which has come down to a race between bids from French, German and Japanese companies for an A$50 billion contract to build 12 submarines.

Australia's Federal Police confirmed in a statement to the ABC that they had been asked to investigate, the broadcaster said. Police spokesmen were not available for comment.

The investigation follows an ABC report earlier in the week that said the Japanese bid had been "all but eliminated" from the tender process.

No official announcement on the outcome of the tender has been made.

A final decision had been expected at the end of the year but Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's recent gamble on a July 2 election has sped up the process and a winner is now expected to be announced by the end of the month.

The contract is politically sensitive as it will likely have an impact on thousands of jobs in the shipbuilding industry in South Australia state. Retaining votes in key electorates in that state will be critical for the government.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries are offering to build a variant of Japan's Soryu submarine.

Germany's ThyssenKrupp AG's is proposing to scale up its 2,000-tonne Type 214 class submarine.

France's state-controlled naval contractor DCNS has proposed a diesel-electric version of its 5,000-tonne Barracuda nuclear-powered submarine.

America's Raytheon Co, which built the system for Australia's current Collins-class boats, is vying for a separate contract for a combat system for the submarine with Lockheed Martin Corp, which supplies combat systems to the U.S. Navy's submarine fleet.

(Reporting by Tom Westbrook; Editing by Robert Birsel)

PS:Vill it be ,"Deutschland,Deutschland uber alles..." or "La Marseillaise" ?!

[TSJones]

Yeah,plenty of cast-off SHs for disposal in the near future! A future naval fighter is needed as from all available info,the JSF will not be the magic bullet of the future.

you're taunting because you're running scared Fowler and we all know it.....

the Rodina can't match the US in tech development and weapons research.

[brar_w]

Yeah,plenty of cast-off SHs for disposal in the near future! A future naval fighter is needed as from all available info,the JSF will not be the magic bullet of the future.

Most folks other than you realize that the the usn maintains and would continue to maintain multiple strike fighter types. With the arrival of the Charlie JSF this would make 4 types until Such time that the classic hornets are retired. The JSF will replace them and the early build Rhinos while they will obviously compete the larger super hornet - growler replacement given the number of jets involved and the fact that the SH itself is a departure from the USNs thinking post Tomcat. A JSF OFFSHOOT is a very strong possibility coupled with a couple of unmanned aircraft types.

Other than you most are aware of the USNs acquisition plans for the F35-C and what exactly it replaces. You are probably aware of them too....

Guess what? Whatever replaces the SH won't be a maguc bullets either unless of course the USN buys into the pre production, pre test, and pre operational Mig35 going off the investments Algeria and Egypt are making to keep it state of the art... At only 20 million a pop.

[Prem]

Australian submarines: France wins $50bn contract
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... edc97c5402

France is expected to be named today as the winner of the $50 billion submarine bi pipping Germany and Japan to build the next generation of submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.
The Australian understands that the prime minister Malcolm Turnbull called France’s president Francois Hollande last night to inform him that France had won the giant contract.Mr Turnbull is expected to announce the winning bidder in Adelaide at 11am.The decision means that Australia’s new submarines will be a conventionally powered version of France’s new nuclear-powered Barracuda-class of submarine.
This will be Australia’s biggest-ever defence project and it is considered huge even by international standards.Construction of the sub­marines will involve jobs for ­between 1200 and 2000 workers in roles ranging from submarine design to high-level welding.

[Karthik S]

Why do they need so many submarines?

[member_23370]

To keep an eye on the asian hordes. But not a bad choice given the barracuda exists in a nuke powered form.

[Singha]

Their problem is the huge transit ranges needed to reach patrol areas of the anglo kabila. Hence the size and range is at upper end of ssk.

I think its good because some tech will help our p75i if thats based on scorpene which was a ancestor of barracuda.

Japan did not even offer the soryu to india for p75i.o

[Singha]

Personally i think aus best bet was to cheaply buy 6 virginia with their choice of sensor suite and 30 yr sealed reactors....proven uber spec subs with assured funding being the sharp teeth of the khanate..but would mean no construction jobs so politically hard to sell

[brar_w]

Its tough to make a $50 Billion (AUS) case to your people without considerable money going back into the local economy both from a strategic perspective, and as a pure jobs perspective. Virginia Sale would have looked tough (though would have in the end been cheaper), particularly 6 since acquisition timelines would not have aligned. There are only 3-4 slots left for the ship next decade within its current 2 a year production strategy, and increasing capacity comes with a huge cost, and risk given there is an SSBN program that is building a boat significantly larger, more complicated with a ton of work to be done. The USN will manage to fill at least half of those available slots, so it really leaves (even for them) only a couple of subs over the decade to add capacity without having to make investments to increase production, and those aren't justifiable without a sustained acquisition phase at the higher rate.

[Philip]

Most folks...,dear,dear.Yeah,most folks do know about the "labours of Hercules",aka the JSF.Anyway,more cost-effective options are certainly available.

Vive la France! The French won because the German stretched U-216 is a paper sub,while the SSN-Barracuda exists. Oz once it has mastered the sub in the future could acquire the N-powered versions too. Another key factor.France said that it would give OZ sub-etch that it would NEVER give India.
So where does that leave us with our non-AIP Scorpenes vis-à-vis the OZsubs?Adm.Dhowan,take note please!
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4ab37572 ... z46vNB7h00

DCNS of France wins A$50bn Australia submarines contract
Jamie Smyth in Sydney and Leo Lewis in Tokyo

A Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A, designed by DCNS specifically for the Royal Australian Navy as Australia intends to buy 12 new submarines, is seen in this illustration picture released by France's DCNS to Reuters on April 22, 2016.
DCNS of France has beaten competitors from Japan and Germany to win a A$50bn contract to build a new fleet of 12 submarines for the Australian navy.

Tuesday’s announcement deals a blow to Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, who lobbied hard for a contract that would have boosted defence ties with Canberra and bolstered plans to build an arms export industry.

Insiders in the bidding process believe Japan’s bid failed mainly due to concerns over the ability of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries to transfer technology to Australia, where the submarines will be built, and its inexperience in delivering big defence export projects.

Gen Nakatani, Japan’s defence minister, said he would seek explanations for why Japan lost out.

“We are very disappointed that [Japan] was not chosen this time,” he said.

Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister, said the project with DCNS represented “a momentous national endeavour”.

“The recommendation of our competitive evaluation process . . . was unequivocal that the French offer represented the capabilities best able to meet Australia’s unique needs,” he added.

The French presidency, meanwhile, described the contract as “historic”.

“France is grateful for the confidence that Australia has shown in it, and is proud of the technological excellence of which its companies have proved themselves,” it said.

Mr Turnbull said the submarines would be built in Adelaide in a move that would sustain about 2,800 jobs — a welcome political boost to the federal government in South Australia, a key state for the Liberal party ahead of a July 2 general election.

Australia’s replacement of its submarine fleet comes amid an Asia-Pacific arms race led by China. Defence spending in Asia in 2014 was A$439bn (US$338bn), surpassing that of Europe, according to Australia’s defence white paper released this year. Canberra says the Indo-Pacific region will account for half the world’s submarines and at least half of advanced combat aircraft within two decades.

Under the winning bid, DCNS will build 12 Shortfin Barracuda submarines for the Australian navy and help maintain them over half a century.

The vessel, a conventional submarine using a pump-jet propulsion system, draws on the design of France’s existing Barracuda-class nuclear submarine. It is the first time Paris will share this stealth technology, which is quieter than a traditional propeller, with another country, said DCNS.

The deal follows an unprecedented lobbying campaign involving the bidding companies and the political leaders of all three countries. Mr Turnbull telephoned François Hollande on Monday night to inform him of DCNS’s success.

Chart: French Shortfin Barracuda submarine
On Tuesday he thanked Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and the government of Japan for their bids and stressed that both he and Mr Abe remained committed a special strategic partnership.

Japan had been in pole position to win the contract before Tony Abbott was ousted as prime minister by Malcolm Turnbull in September. Mr Abbott had envisaged Australia buying Japan’s Soryu-class submarine.

The proposal won the backing of Mr Abe, who overturned Japan’s decades-long ban on arms exports in 2014 as part of a loosening of military restrictions put in place after the second world war. It was also supported by some in the US defence establishment. But it proved politically toxic in Australia, where members of Mr Abbott’s own party favoured building submarines in Australia to save local jobs.

“It will take a fair amount of effort for Australia to soothe some unhappiness on Japan’s side on this,” said Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.


It will take a fair amount of effort for Australia to soothe some unhappiness on Japan’s side on this

Tweet this quote

People close to Japan’s bid said failure would be a source of “considerable personal embarrassment” to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and that Tokyo and the companies involved would now enter a period of “blame and recrimination” as each party sought to evade culpability.

The Australian government has called on Washington to “help manage the Japanese reaction” to losing the bid, according to people close to the situation.

People on both the Australian and Japanese sides of the bidding process told the Financial Times that Japan’s proposal had been the weakest in commercial terms, with the country’s inexperience obvious throughout.

The Japanese did not establish until well into the bidding process that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries would take the lead, the documents were presented in a way that caused the Australians to demand substantial revisions, and the teams that travelled to Canberra were an unwieldy mix of bureaucrats and business executives who had not worked together before.

The loss of the Australian contract leaves a deep dent in Mr Abe’s ambitions of propelling Japan from non-participant to major contractor in the arms export trade. On the naval side, where Japan’s products are potentially most competitive, there are no big international contracts coming up for at least three years.

A decision between Lockheed Martin and Raytheon on who will build the submarines’ weapons system has yet to be announced.

Additional reporting by Adam Thomson in Paris

[brar_w]

Most folks...,dear,dear.Yeah,most folks do know about the "labours of Hercules",aka the JSF.Anyway,more cost-effective options are certainly available.

The Super Hornet is an affordable strike fighter, that is in production and that can be upgraded over its lifetime. It however, doesn't have the survivability that the USN itself determined it needed when it proposed changes to the JSF at the bargaining table (refer to the FlightGlobal article from the early 2000's, I had provided in the JSF thread where the USN pushed and eventually succeeded in asking for better RCS on the F-35). The USN, does not envision it needing the higher end strike fighter all the time, hence the mix of the JSF and SH at the moment. However, one has to look at how they are planning to shape the carrier air-wing over the coming years and the overall Navy commitment to more than 650 F-35B's and C's. If someone wants to falsely spin the JSF program as the end all of USN strike fighter than they are likely to be disappointed. The Super Hornet was a change in direction to the USN air-wing, having a reduced capability threshold (in some cases) that came down along with the threat - allowing the USN to justify replacing the Tomcat with the Rhino. Going forward, such a trade may not apply. Moreover, with the reduced EW footprint requirement due to the JSF, and the fact that refueling, strike, and ISR missions can be taken over partially or wholly by Unmanned aircraft operating from the deck, they will no doubt offload them from the requirements of their next fighter, that at least numerically needs to replace the Super Hornet and Growler starting early to mid 2030s. NAVAIR prefers incremental improvements, given their budgeting and how their leadership is not always open to fully funding for the high end air-battle. Hence, here, a highly modified F-35 is a very legitimate contender for the FA-XX. To put it a little differently, the USN could well, design and buy a highly modified (F/A-18 to F/A-18E/F like transition) F-35++ along with a couple of unmanned aircraft as their requirements emerge in the 2020's and early 2030's. They will no doubt only spend money on a clean sheet if the threat absolutely demands it and the AOA supports the higher risk, and cost.

Meanwhile, as they mature the F-35C production and reach the 40 aircraft a year goal for themselves and the Marines, they will obviously keep buying the aircraft just like they keep buying more Rhinos based primarily on the fact that they are low-risk, available, and affordable. Thats what the USN does with mature programs and there is no reason for them not to this on the other side of the JSF program, in the late 2020's when it is mature while the FA-XX is new and therefore expensive. Unlike the USAF, that never bought an advanced Viper, or eagle, the USN has large numbers of fairly young Rhinos and they don't have the depth of missions that the USAF has that justifies a larger F-35 fleet. For now the Super Hornet is a smart choice for a strike fighter...depending how the A2AD strategy of China evolves, it may not be all that smart 10 years from now..and the USN, much like the USAF is putting considerable money into air-dominance programs to make sure they have the necessary capability to respond to the changing threat if need be. The F-35, and how it evolves is just one step along the way.


On a side note, the USN submarine procurement plan :

[brar_w]

To add to ^ This table from the latest JSF SAR illustrates the US Department of Navy's portion of the planned acquisition:

[member_28756]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austr ... SKCN0XQ1FC

How France sank Japan's $40 billion Australian submarine dream

TOKYO/PARIS/SYDNEY | By Tim Kelly, Cyril Altmeyer and Colin Packham


In 2014, a blossoming friendship between Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe looked to have all but sewn up a $40 billion submarine deal. Then French naval contractor DCNS hatched a bold and seemingly hopeless plan to gatecrash the party.

Almost 18 months later, France this week secured a remarkable come-from-behind victory on one of the world's most lucrative defense deals. The result: Tokyo's dream of fast-tracking a revival of its arms export industry is left in disarray.

Interviews with more than a dozen Japanese, French, Australian and German government and industry officials show how a series of missteps by a disparate Japanese group of ministry officials, corporate executives and diplomats badly undermined their bid.

In particular, Japan misread the changing political landscape in Australia as Abbott fell from favor. The Japanese group, which included Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) (7011.T) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI), (7012.T) also failed to clearly commit to providing skilled shipbuilding jobs in Australia. And Tokyo realized far too late its bid was being outflanked by the Germans and particularly the French, the sources involved in the bid said.

France, on the other hand, mobilized its vast and experienced military-industrial complex and hired a powerful Australian submarine industry insider, Sean Costello, who led it to an unexpected victory.

Japan's loss represents a major setback for Abe's push to develop an arms export industry as part of a more muscular security agenda after decades of pacifism.

"We put our utmost effort into the bid," the head of the Ministry of Defense's procurement agency Hideaki Watanabe said after the result was announced on Tuesday. "We will do a thorough analysis of what impact the result will have on our defense industry."

By the end of 2014, Japan was still comfortably in the driving seat thanks to the relationship between Abe and Abbott, which had begun soon after Abbott's 2013 election and strengthened quickly.

Japan and Australia - key allies of the United States - had wanted to cement security ties to counter to China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea and beyond.


FRENCH OVERTURES

Still, France saw an opportunity to get into the game. In November 2014, DCNS CEO Herve Guillou prevailed on French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to visit Australia and start the pitch for France.

Le Drian traveled to Albany in the country's remote southwest, where officials had gathered to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the first sailing of Australian soldiers to fight on France's Western Front during World War One.

The poignant shared history opened the door to discussions about the submarine contract, a source close to the French Ministry of Defense told Reuters.

"The French minister wished to be there for this important event. There, he held talks with his Australian counterpart David Johnston and with ... Abbott," said the source, who along with other officials asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.


FIGHTING FOR JOBS

Soon after, however, Australia's political instability would erode Japan's advantage with the old guard.

In December 2014, Johnston, the Australian defense minister, was forced to resign after disparaging the skills of Australian shipbuilders.

South Australian lawmakers, worried that Abbott had quietly agreed to Japan supplying the new submarines, insisted the government look at options to build them in their state. They pressured the prime minister into holding a competitive tender which DCNS and Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKAG.DE) quickly joined.

In February 2015, Abbott called his "best friend in Asia", as he had previously described Abe, to tell him about the new bidding process. Abe sympathized and said he would do his best to comply, two sources with knowledge of the conversation said.

Yet, convinced the deal was still in the bag, Japan's bidding group dithered.

"Even though we were in the competition we acted as though nothing had changed," said one Japanese government source involved in the bid. "We thought we had already won, so why do anything to rock the boat?"

The Japanese did not attend a conference for the Future Submarines project in March, failing to understand the importance of the crucial lobbying event and leaving the field to their German and French rivals, sources within the Japanese bid said.

Japan's belated attempt to engage with potential local suppliers at a follow up event in August 2015 went badly.

Companies complained Tokyo was unwilling to discuss substantive deals. Having only ever sold arms to Japan's military because of a decades-old ban on exports that Abe lifted in 2014, neither Japanese company had any Australian military industrial partners.

And unlike France and Germany which quickly committed to building the submarines in Australia, Japan initially only said it would follow the bidding rules, which required building in Australia as just one of three options.

"The Japanese had been invited in on a handshake deal and were left trying to compete in an international competition having no experience in doing such a thing," an Australian defense industry source said.

By September 2015, Japan's key ally Abbott had been deposed by Malcolm Turnbull, blowing the competition wide open.


LOCAL EXPERTS

Industry officials said all of the sub offerings had some drawbacks, meaning other factors including experience and connections came into play.

Crucially, in April 2015, DCNS hired Costello, who had earlier that year lost his job as chief of staff of Australia's Defence Ministry in the wake of Johnston's resignation.

A former navy submariner who had also been the general manager for strategy at state-run Australian submarine firm ASC, Costello was ideally placed to lead a bid.

Had the Japanese called first, Costello would have likely have accepted an offer to head their bid, according to a source who knows Costello. "They didn’t pick up the phone," he said. Costello declined to speak publicly about the bid.

Costello's team drew up a list of a dozen tasks DCNS needed to complete to win the deal, including the critical job of winning over U.S. defense companies Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Raytheon Co (RTN.N), one of which will eventually build the submarine's combat system.

In a final coordinated push, a huge delegation of French government and business leaders visited Australia a month ago, touting the economic benefits of their bid.


LATE JAPANESE PUSH

Finally stung to action, Japan ramped up its campaign in September 2015. Senior defense bureaucrat Masaki Ishikawa stepped in to unite what had until then been a disjointed approach spread around various ministries, the Japanese ambassador in Canberra, Sumio Kusaka, and MHI.

Japan began talking about investment and development opportunities beyond defense, including the possibility of opening a lithium-ion battery plant in Australia, while MHI opened an Australia unit.

In a last ditch attempt to woo Australia, Japan sent one of its Soryu submarines to Sydney this month. But as it sailed home on Tuesday, Turnbull announced the deal had gone to DCNS.

In an echo of his first Albany trip, Le Drian heard of France's win on Monday as he attended an ANZAC Day service for Australia's war dead in northwestern France.

For Tokyo, another big international defense competition that could help Japan develop the arms export industry that Abe envisaged is unlikely any time soon.

A more likely tack will be joint development projects with overseas partners to embed Japanese companies in military industrial supply chains. That might even include components for Australia's French submarines, one source in Tokyo said.

Other Japanese officials still want Australia to explain why they lost so they can learn from the painful and bewildering experience.

"We thought up to the end that we could have won," another source in Japan said.

[NRao]

China Blocks U.S. Navy Flotilla’s Visit to Hong Kong

Escalation in real time for you.

[kit]

http://idrw.org/what-excessive-maritime ... more-93733

In 2015, India again fell into the category of countries whose claims had been challenged “multiple times” for the “excessive claim” of requiring countries to seek prior consent for military exercises and manoeuvres in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The US began formally protesting India’s position in 1976 and fitfully thereafter, but the “operational challenges” have been a feature since 2008. What the Indian Navy did in response to this is unclear. In ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), New Delhi had declared that in its understanding the treaty did not authorise other states to carry out military exercises on its EEZ without India’s permission.

[Khalsa]

Why do they need so many submarines?

The view from here is a scary one.
China's foray into the international waters of China Sea and broad day light conversion of that into territorial waters is going unchallenged.
If you read some of the papers that detail China ascent into a Naval Power in the next 50 years. The first few chapters are being played out, word for word.

The Pearls, the chains the string, you get it.

Australia gave up the idea of aircraft carriers due to expense in maintaining a fleet around an Aircraft carrier.
I believe Melbourne was the last one or so.

Their strategy it to now play Sea Denial while USA counter attacks China.
They have a very very very strong pact with the United States of America that will guarantee American involvement if Australia is invaded (in water or ON land).

There are no other strong nations standing between China and Australia.
Indonesia and the Phillipines will be swept aside in a sweep and PNG and the other smattering of nations will just put up 48 hr fights.
So in Australia's view its not so good on the horizon. The western money that has fuelled the Chinese is coming home to roost so as to speak.

Maybe Tony Abbot was drunk or just being Tony Abbot but I did not see the Japanese deal working out.
Australia for all it is a Western Nation that will buy Western in the end unless the Japanese had a product that was twice as lethal and half as cheap.

I think they should buy more submarines or add few destroyers.
They only have ANZAC class frigates.

[Singha]

they are already nearing induction of 3 large Hobart class DDG, a spanish bazan class DDG mod.
but they do need more new FFGs and patrol ships.
SPY1D + 48 cell mk41 with SM2 and ESSM , harpoons ,1 seahawk - the basic munna ddg kit.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... l_2015.JPG

its quite likely they will make the last 6 of the 12 new subs as nuclear.

[Khalsa]

umm Singha I don't see that happening.
Aussies will never go nuclear fuelled, if they do .. I am buying you drinks