International Naval News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23362
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Dec 2018 09:17

K-549 Knyaz Vladimir lead ship of the fifth generation Project 955A Borei II on sea trials ( High Res Photo )

https://i.redd.it/qrmokd0wd2621.jpg

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23362
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Dec 2018 18:18

The first test of the Brazilian anti-ship missile MANSUP

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3470905.html
Image

The MANSUP anti-ship missile has been developed since 2009 under the Esporão program, under the leadership of the Brazilian Navy’s Naval Arms Administration (DSAM) by a consortium of Brazilian companies led by Avibras Indústria Aeroespacial as the lead contractor. Avibras is responsible for the development and manufacture of the airframe of the rocket, the solid propellant propulsion rocket engine, the warhead and the fuse, and also carries out the general assembly and integration of the anti-ship missiles. The MANSUP solid-fuel rocket engine is believed to be analogous to the main propulsion AV-RE 40 (weighing 543 kg), previously developed by Avibras to replace the engines of the French anti-ship missiles MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 1 in service with the Brazilian aircraft (tests Exocet MM40 expired Block 1 with Avibras engine were held in 2012).

The consortium also includes the companies Omnisys Engenharia (the Brazilian branch of the Thales group, responsible for creating for the MANSUP X-band active radar homing head with a range of up to 20 km and a weight of 30 kg), SIATT Engenharia, Indústria e Comércio the creation of a missile control system, including an onboard computer, a radio altimeter, an inertial navigation system, a fuse, interfaces with SUV, batteries and drives, and is also responsible for the creation of telemetric testing equipment) and Fundação Ezute (technical project management and documentation). ARES Aeroespacial e Defesa (Brazilian branch of the Israeli Elbit Systems) manufactures the ITMSS target complex (Instalação de Tiro para Míssil Superfície-Superfície) for CRP tests.

From the Brazilian Navy, the head fleet engineering organization Empresa Gerencial de Projetos Navais (EMGEPRON) is involved in the project. Naval Technology Center PqM, Naval Technology Center Sao Paulo CTMSP and Center for Analysis of Naval Systems CASNAV.

In general, the MANSUP rocket is similar in appearance and characteristics to the French Exocet MM40 Block 1, designed to replace it in the Brazilian fleet, and looks like its complete clone, and can be launched from the same MBDA cannon launchers MBL ITA-70A. The MANSUP rocket has a launch weight of 860 kg and a high-explosive fragmentation warhead 154 kg. The length of the rocket is 5780 mm, the fuselage diameter is 344 mm and the span of the folding wing is 1135 mm. Marching solid-fuel rocket engine must provide a rocket speed on the main part of the trajectory of about 1000 km / h, officially announced the maximum flight range of 70 km.

To date, three experimental MANSUP rockets (one of which was launched on November 27) and one non-flying telemetry rocket have been manufactured. The test cycle is scheduled to be completed in 2019, after which it will begin the “industrialization and certification” stage, after which it will begin mass production - however, its start date has not yet been determined.

Based on the MANSUP design, its aviation version of the MANAER is also being developed.

Image


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66599
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 25 Dec 2018 18:32

Austin wrote:K-549 Knyaz Vladimir lead ship of the fifth generation Project 955A Borei II on sea trials ( High Res Photo )

https://i.redd.it/qrmokd0wd2621.jpg



a moody and meaningful pic.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 25 Dec 2018 18:33

^^^ Nice find on Brazilian MANSUP, Austin. I like reading of developments outside the basic gora triangle of US-EU-Rus.

Here’s one that had intrigued me for a while now — Turkey’s drone industry. I am impressed by the Turks overall to be perfectly honest.

(The tweet contains a video from the POV of the UAV.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheAnkaraTimes/status/1074609687855841281
5 Bayraktar TB2 armed UAVs make maiden flight for Turkish Naval Forces at Çanakkale Airport in northwestern Turkey, to begin aiding operations against irregular migration and trafficking in North Aegean Sea



This is the Bayraktar TB2 armed UAV:
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Dec 2018 21:19

chola wrote:
brar_w wrote:
6500-7000 tons if I have anything to say about it ;)


Brar ji, but why a FFG if you are buying/building something the size of an AB DDG? I am confused by the terminology of FFG/DDG/CG these days. FFG because of different role?

In the past, roles can be gauged by tonnage. These days, the FFGs being built in the EU and India are DDGs in all but name.


On the European designs it is because of the missions and the utility they want from their Frigates. If you look at the brochure of the FREMM I posted (the best of the lot the USN is considering IMHO), you can add a version of an AEGIS combat system on it, with a smaller or the Delta SPY radar or the new ESAR and a wide area defense suite with SM2/SM6 missiles and I think you can go with a standard 16 MK41 set up up to 32 MK41 cells if you so please along with 8 or so launchers for NSM or a similarly sized weapons. I think the users want a hull that is 70% as capable as a DDG and that allows them to save a fair bit of money on Operational cost over the lifetime. EU Navies cannot afford to have 85+ AEGIS cruisers and destroyers like the USN.

These aren't cheap either. For example, on the US FFG(X) the US Navy expects to award a fixed price contract for a production run of 20 or so ships at around $900 Million - $1 Billion (all inclusive) on average over the ship class (first couple are expected to be slightly more expensive with cost coming down when they go to 2 a year procurement). A DDG-51 Flight III will run you about $950 Million- $1 Billion (on average) for the ship contract (with the yard) and another $600-700 Million for the government furnished equipment (AEGIS combat system, weapons etc). So these large european frigates (most of the frigates offered by teams in the FFG(X) are european designs) come in around 60% of the cost of a large destroyer anyways.

As far as nomenclature, I have no idea but on the USN side it is the roles that define the ship. The USN wants 52 Small Surface Combatants split between 32 LCS hulls of which half or so would be upgunned (corvettes) and 20 FFG(X) frigates which would slot in between the upgunned LCS and the DDG-51 and are expected to perform the full spectrum of missions in lower threat environments in the absence of a DDG.

The FFG(X) while not replacing anything will basically be a Perry class replacement meant to slot in between the DDG-51's on the upper side and the LCS on the lower side. Capability was budget driven and the US Navy basically asked its requirements team to put together a frigate that would cost no more than 50% more than the average unit cost of the LCS so if you work in that trade space and look at the mission needs you end up with a range of possible designs that are in between 5000 ton to 6500/7000 ton mark depending upon how much capability you need. I think the Freedom LCS based frigate that Lockheed is going to submit will probably come in at the lower end of that range (5000 or so tons) with the FREMM right up their at the top. DDGs are now 9000 tons and up (DDG-1000 is 14000+ Tons) and the next US cruiser (LSC) will likely be in the 15K - 25K ton displacement so using just that one metric everything has just shifted to the right if one compared to the Perry Class ---> Burke ----Tico set up of the past.

The USN FFG(X) RFP is expected in the summer of 2019, but broadly speaking here is what is known in terms of capabilities based on the RFI (from a congressional report)::

As mentioned above, the (X) in the program designation FFG(X) means that the design of the
ship has not yet been determined. In general, the Navy envisages the FFG(X) as follows:
* The ship is to be a multimission small surface combatant capable of conducting
AAW, ASuW, ASW, and EMW operations.
* Compared to an FF concept that emerged under a February 2014 restructuring of
the LCS program, the FFG(X) is to have increased AAW and EMW capability,
and enhanced survivability.
* The ship’s area-defense AAW system is to be capable of local area AAW,
meaning a form of area-defense AAW that extends to a lesser range than the areadefense AAW that can be provided by the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.
* The ship is to be capable of operating in both blue water (i.e., mid-ocean) and
littoral (i.e., near-shore) areas.
* The ship is to be capable of operating either independently (when that is
appropriate for its assigned mission) or as part of larger Navy formations.
Last edited by brar_w on 26 Dec 2018 00:38, edited 4 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66599
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 25 Dec 2018 21:33

the bayraktar drones fly over syria spotting targets for the turkish 155mm howitzers whenever they want to shell the kurds.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Dec 2018 22:02

US Navy Awards Bath Iron Works a Second FY 2019 Destroyer, In First Move to 3-a-Year Buy Rate


The Navy awarded General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works a second destroyer for Fiscal Year 2019, in the first contract option that accelerates DDG buys from the Navy’s previous two-a-year rate.

In September the Navy awarded the first 10 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the five-year multiyear procurement contract that spans FY 2018 to 2022. Six ships went to Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss. – two in 2018, and one a year in 2019 through 2022. Bath Iron Works got zero ships for 2018 and one a year in 2019 through 2022.

This option award that gives another ship to BIW in 2019 not only boosts the Maine yard’s workload but also is the first move to three DDGs a year. The Navy in previous budget submissions had outlined a two-a-year procurement rate for the near future, but the House and Senate armed services committees authorized the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for up to 15 ships in five years. The contracts with Ingalls Shipbuilding and Bath Iron Works were signed at the end of September and awarded the first 10 right away, with options for five more ships...

According to the press release, BIW currently has five Arleigh Burke destroyers in production at the yard: Daniel Inouye (DDG-118), Carl M. Levin (DDG-120), John Basilone (DDG-122), Harvey C. Barnum (DDG-124) and Patrick Gallagher (DDG-127). Under contract but not yet under construction are Louis H. Wilson Jr. (DDG-126) and the five ships that have now been awarded under the multiyear contract.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 26 Dec 2018 00:47

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:
Brar ji, but why a FFG if you are buying/building something the size of an AB DDG? I am confused by the terminology of FFG/DDG/CG these days. FFG because of different role?

In the past, roles can be gauged by tonnage. These days, the FFGs being built in the EU and India are DDGs in all but name.


On the European designs it is because of the missions and the utility they want from their Frigates. If you look at the brochure of the FREMM I posted (the best of the lot the USN is considering IMHO), you can add a version of an AEGIS combat system on it, with a smaller or the Delta SPY radar or the new ESAR and a wide area defense suite with SM2/SM6 missiles and I think you can go with a standard 16 MK41 set up up to 32 MK41 cells if you so please along with 8 or so launchers for NSM or a similarly sized weapons. I think the users want a hull that is 70% as capable as a DDG and that allows them to save a fair bit of money on Operational cost over the lifetime. EU Navies cannot afford to have 85+ AEGIS cruisers and destroyers like the USN.

These aren't cheap either. For example, on the US FFG(X) the US Navy expects to award a fixed price contract for a production run of 20 or so ships at around $900 Million - $1 Billion (all inclusive) on average over the ship class (first couple are expected to be slightly more expensive with cost coming down when they go to 2 a year procurement). A DDG-51 Flight III will run you about $950 Million- $1 Billion (on average) for the ship contract (with the yard) and another $600-700 Million for the government furnished equipment (AEGIS combat system, weapons etc). So these large european frigates (most of the frigates offered by teams in the FFG(X) are european designs) come in around 60% of the cost of a large destroyer anyways.

As far as nomenclature, I have no idea but on the USN side it is the roles that define the ship. The USN wants 52 Small Surface Combatants split between 32 LCS hulls of which half or so would be upgunned (corvettes) and 20 FFG(X) frigates which would slot in between the upgunned LCS and the DDG-51 and are expected to perform the full spectrum of missions in lower threat environments in the absence of a DDG.

The FFG(X) while not replacing anything will basically be a Perry class replacement meant to slot in between the DDG-51's on the upper side and the LCS on the lower side. Capability was budget driven and the US Navy basically asked its requirements team to put together a frigate that would cost no more than 50% more than the average unit cost of the LCS so if you work in that trade space and look at the mission needs you end up with a range of possible designs that are in between 5000 ton to 6500/7000 ton mark depending upon how much capability you need. I think the Freedom LCS based frigate that Lockheed is going to submit will probably come in at the lower end of that range (5000 or so tons) with the FREMM right up their at the top. DDGs are now 9000 tons and up (DDG-1000 is 14000+ Tons) and the next US cruiser (LSC) will likely be in the 15K - 25K ton displacement so using just that one metric everything has just shifted to the right if one compared to the Perry Class ---> Burke ----Tico set up of the past.


Thanks for the in-depth reply, Sir! The shift towards larger vessels is definitely a trend among western/western-influenced navies. Though the Russians are going in the other direction because of cost.

A 25K ton cruiser would be a sight to behold. Many moons has passed since battlewagons of such size.

USS Salem, Des Moines Class Cruiser:
Image
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Dec 2018 00:51

chola wrote:A 25K ton cruiser would be a sight to behold. Many moons has passed since battlewagons of such size.


To be more precise, they are not calling it a "Cruiser" but sticking with the generic Large Surface Combatant (which is a terminology used for anything in the DDG-51 and above) but it just so happens that this ship will be coming online as most of the Ticos leave. I've posted it before some time ago but here is what the upper range ship could potentially look like (notice the capability to add 250+ Mk41 cells and the Radar HII put on its concept - 35 ft. diameter vs a 14 ft diameter of the SPY-6).

Image


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 26 Dec 2018 00:55

Singha wrote:the bayraktar drones fly over syria spotting targets for the turkish 155mm howitzers whenever they want to shell the kurds.


They have another armed drone called the Anka which had garnered interest from Indonesia.

The speed and execution of the Turkish drone industry is surprising.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 26 Dec 2018 00:58

brar_w wrote: I've posted it before some time ago but here is what the upper range ship could potentially look like (notice the capability to add 250+ Mk41 cells and the Radar HII put on its concept - 35 ft. diameter vs a 14 ft diameter of the SPY-6).

Image


HOLY CRAP! I’d like see this come to fruition. lol

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby John » 27 Dec 2018 00:06

South Korea is moving ahead with 6 Aegis Destroyers. I am impressed they can crank these out at billion a piece, so in spite of much lower budget they are able to keep pace with PLAN.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23951/South_Korea_Approves_Plan_to_Develop_Six_Aegis_equipped_Destroyers#.XCPHgzBKhEY

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Dec 2018 00:32

John wrote:South Korea is moving ahead with 6 Aegis Destroyers. I am impressed they can crank these out at billion a piece, so in spite of much lower budget they are able to keep pace with PLAN.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23951/South_Korea_Approves_Plan_to_Develop_Six_Aegis_equipped_Destroyers#.XCPHgzBKhEY


John, these are likely shipbuilding costs to develop and procure the ships. South Korea orders its AEGIS combat system and related sensors and shooters separately via FMS. That total package runs about $650 Million per large destroyer. This is similar to how the US orders its destroyers i.e. they budget and contract ship building and then buy the combat system as a government furnished equipment. DDG-51 IIA also runs around $910 Million. Of course you need to add the combat system and sensors on top of that which runs $600-$700+ Million.

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2018/1 ... 545834317/

That said the KDDX could feature an AEGIS-lite type set up that is cheaper and it could also have a smaller VLS load out to save cost. But it is tough to imagine that they can produce 6 8000 ton destroyers for $750 Million Unit Cost (subtracting the 1.8 Trillion Won for development). This surely does not include the combat system and the sensor suit which they have always purchased separately on their AEGIS destroyers currently in service.

At the moment South Korea is upgrading its AEGIS ships from Baseline 7.1 to Baseline 9.0 which would provide them the ability to perform simultaneous BMD and AAW/Ship Defense if they do decide to move towards that option. Moreover it seems they will be buying SM2's in the early 2020's so they would most likely be the first export customer for the SM2 Active (possibly second after Netherlands) .

I wouldn't be surprised, given the 2030 timeframe for these Next gen. destroyers, if these ships adopt AEGIS Baseline 10.0 which is the version DDG-51 Flight III will adopt with the SPY-6 radar and SEWIP Blk. 3.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Dec 2018 03:11, edited 2 times in total.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby John » 27 Dec 2018 01:33

^ Yea i figured the cost won't include AEGIS, sensor suite and Mk 41 but it is still seems quite cheap for the price since vessels aren't going to get built for another couple years. Last design showcased 48 Mk41 cells and 16 K-VLS so beefier armament than Vishakapatnam and if you factor in inflation at a cheaper price as well.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Dec 2018 01:48

John wrote:^ Yea i figured the cost won't include AEGIS, sensor suite and Mk 41 but it is still seems quite cheap for the price since vessels aren't going to get built for another couple years. Last design showcased 48 Mk41 cells and 16 K-VLS so beefier armament than Vishakapatnam and if you factor in inflation at a cheaper price as well.


These are also early times so the budgets are prone to revisions as they were when they embarked on the KDX-3 program. It will also be based largely on how they slot in the AEGIS combat system and what version they seek as the capability difference between a pre Baseline 9 and baseline 9 and 10 is considerable and with 10 and beyond you are also looking at significantly more capable and expensive radars.

If they decide to develop an indigenous radar with Thales then they would need to invest in integrating and certifying it with AEGIS and go through the 3-4 year process of mating the sensor with the software and conducting all the integration and weapons system tests like the AMDR is doing right now. These costs and integration complexities add up when you are dealing with something like AEGIS which is designed to work with a very broad spectrum of missiles against a very broad threat type ranging from mid course defense right down to cheap UAVs (AB10.0 with HELIOS).

Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 27 Dec 2018 06:34


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Dec 2018 19:14

US Navy establishes first CMV-22B squadron


Image

The US Navy (USN) has begun the transition from the C-2A Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft to a modified variant of the Bell-Boeing MV-22 tiltrotor with the commissioning of Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron 30 (VRM 30) as its first CMV-22B squadron.

The USN in 2015 selected the CMV-22B tiltrotor to meet its Airborne Resupply/Logistics for Seabasing (AR/LSB) requirement, eschewing the alternative option of a life extension for the legacy C-2A Greyhound COD aircraft. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) awarded the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office a USD151 million contract in March 2016 for nonrecurring engineering associated with CMV-22B development/engineering change proposal (ECP) embodiment.

According to the navy, the CMV-22B acquisition approach is based on the re-use of a mature platform – in the shape of the MV-22B Block C aircraft – adapted with ECP modification to integrate a series of navy-specific subsystems/requirements: the ECP will add extended range capability with aft/forward external conformal fuel tanks on wings and sponsons, a public address system for use while transporting passengers, fuel jettison capability, cargo bay and loading ramp lighting, and secure beyond-line-of-sight communications with a high frequency (HF) radio.

The main driver for the CMV-22B is to transport the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine – the powerplant for the US Marines Corps’ (USMC’s) F-35B and the USN’s F-35C variants – direct from shore bases to carrier decks. Being able to put the F135 power module inside the tiltrotor is significant because the capability to transport the load internally extends range out to 1,000 n miles. In addition, the CMV-22B will enable direct delivery to amphibious ships as well as carriers.

VRM 30 was formally established on 14 December in a ceremony at Naval Base Coronado in San Diego, California. The first CMV-22B aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the squadron in fiscal year 2020 (FY 2020). In the meantime, navy pilots and maintainers will train with the USMC, which has flown the MV-22 since 2007.

Initial operational capability (a first detachment of three aircraft able to deploy) is planned for no later than September 2020, while full operational capability (the ability to support major combat operations) is to be achieved in 2024.

C-2A pilot and aircrew will transition to the CMV-22B as their squadrons stand down. The final C-2A squadron is scheduled to decommission in FY 2024.

Current USN planning calls for the total purchase of 44 CMV-22B tiltrotors. In June 2018 NAVAIR confirmed a USD2.85 billion series production order to Bell-Boeing for 39 CMV-22B aircraft as part of a multi-year production contract covering the delivery of 58 V-22 Osprey variants.



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Jan 2019 07:25

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:
Brar ji, but why a FFG if you are buying/building something the size of an AB DDG? I am confused by the terminology of FFG/DDG/CG these days. FFG because of different role?

In the past, roles can be gauged by tonnage. These days, the FFGs being built in the EU and India are DDGs in all but name.


On the European designs it is because of the missions and the utility they want from their Frigates. If you look at the brochure of the FREMM I posted (the best of the lot the USN is considering IMHO), you can add a version of an AEGIS combat system on it, with a smaller or the Delta SPY radar or the .....


Here are a few slides the US Navy shared with interested parties last year. RFP has still not been fixed but the Fixed Price contract for ships 3 through 20 has to be under the $950 Million per ship cap including the combat system. Just checking into the price of the FREMM the most capable version cost around $750 Million on average in 2010 dollars and adjusted for inflation this comes to around $800 Million + so there is not a whole lot of margin to support the higher cost of producing the ship in the US and allowing for learning curve over time and accommodating and integrating a more capable combat system and sensor suite.

Both Lockheed with its 4500 ton Freedom class based FFG and a potential smaller ship from Ingalls may be at a cost advantage here. Keep in mind that both the proposed US FREMM, and the Lockheed Freedom class based Frigate would be produced at the same yard by the same workforce/FIncantieri marietta marine so the difference in hull production cost b/w a 4500 ton ship and a 6400 ton ship should be fairly significant which needs to be offset by much higher capability in the proposed design of the FREMM for it to be successful.

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Jan 2019 11:08

An excellent article from the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings Magazine on the handling qualities of the Zumwalt Class destroyer from a first hand account of operating the ship. Full article is available to subscribers so posting only a few highlights and notable observations.

Handling the Zumwalt-Class Destroyer


Image

Unique to the modern U.S. Navy, this design was used on wooden warships for centuries and was prevalent until the late 1800s. The defining tumblehome feature is the way in which the bow cuts through the waves rather than riding over them, which has both pros and cons.

On the plus side, the ship’s performance is not degraded in sea states up through 6 (significant wave height of 13–20 feet). For example, the Zumwalt attained a top speed of 30+ knots in 12-foot seas. Additionally, the hull form provides a much lower radar cross-section. For a “stealth destroyer,” this is imperative.

There is also a common misconception that Zumwalt -class ships are one big wave away from submerging or capsizing. However, the Navy tested a model of the tumblehome more than any other hull design the service has ever built. This background, along with our at-sea operations, provides evidence that the ship can withstand seas worse than anything an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)–class destroyer or a Ticonderoga (CG-47)-class cruiser can tolerate.

That said, extremely large seas taken on the bow could submerge the forecastle, resulting in damage to equipment or the bow. Also, the ship’s righting arm is several times larger than an Arleigh Burke ’s. Generally this results in exceptional stability with minimal (<5 degrees) pitch and roll. However, if the ship were taking extremely large seas on the stern quarter or beam, with rolls greater than 15 degrees, the large righting arm would force the ship back to centerline much faster than on other ships—causing significant G-forces that could damage equipment or injure personnel.

The Zumwalt is also the only surface-combatant class in the Navy that uses electric-drive propulsion. Power is provided by four gas turbine engine–electrical generators with a combined output of ~78 megawatts, nearly ten times that of an Arleigh Burke . To put this in perspective, the ship generates approximately four cruisers’ worth of excess power while operating at 20 knots.

Performance at Sea

As noted, much has been made of the ship’s tumblehome hull design and its perceived lack of stability. In early operations the ship displayed good sea keeping, even at high speeds, and very good vertical and axial stability. Shiphandlers must keep in mind six attributes:

1. The tumblehome bow design cuts through seas but also produces an extended surge distance. The combination of the tumblehome and the fixed pitch propellers, which must change direction of rotation to generate astern propulsion, creates a stopping distance greater than those of an Arleigh Burke or a Ticonderoga .

2. The ship’s broad, shallow stern, in conjunction with the tumblehome hull design and substantial metacentric height, enables her to steady up during a turn much faster than an Arleigh Burke . Regardless of the speed and rudder combination, all that is needed is a “rudder amidships” order 5 to 10 degrees in advance of the desired heading. The DDG-1000’s shallow stern also slides during a turn rather than digging, which produces a flat turn (around 7 degrees heel at maximum speed with maximum rudder in light seas) and drastically reduces the squatting effect in shallows.

3. The large sail area produced by the broad flat surfaces of the hull and deck house has the same effect as on other ships, making it easier to turn into the wind than out of it (the weathervane effect), and more difficult to hold a course if the wind is abaft the beam at slow speeds. The large sail area also makes the ship difficult to moor in offsetting winds.

4. The variable draft, if properly utilized, can improve performance in different sea states and reduce the effect of environmental conditions including wind and current.

5. A keel anchor is fitted at frame 30 (frames on DDG-1000s are notated in meters), forward of the forward-most gun mount, and is operated from below deck. This sole anchor has an extended shank that aligns it in the hull but also requires a minimum of 12 feet of water below the keel for operation—making it difficult to anchor in shallow water or place the anchor underfoot when pierside. Because the anchor is well behind and below the sonar dome, however, it is not necessary to gain sternway before letting go, which is particularly useful when forced to enter an anchorage with winds abaft the beam.

6. The radar cross-section is significantly less than that of an Arleigh Burke . Merchant ships, which frequently use a small bridge watch team and rely on radar alarms to alert them to approaching vessels, are especially susceptible to dismissing the Zumwalt’ s radar return. This means bridge watchstanders must be trained differently. They still adhere to the various rules of the road governing ship interactions, but they must assume that other vessels may not give way or act in accordance with their expectations.

This new class has unique advantages and challenges. At sea, the tumblehome hull design, electric-drive propulsion, and broad, flat stern create a powerful, responsive, and agile platform. Entering port, the ship is capable, but shiphandlers must respect her size and factor in the time lag between order and response her momentum requires. Once these challenges and advantages are understood, a good shiphandler will quickly adapt and find that the DDG-1000s are worthy keepers of the “Greyhounds of the Sea” legacy. Sleek and graceful in lines (they grow on you), they are quick in acceleration and top speed, as well as nimble in their maneuver.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 06 Jan 2019 23:52

Why have they authorized the release of this info now ? i.e in the past year

Interestingly even Neil Armstrong spoke about chasing these objects on full afterburners with air bases up and down the coast launching intercepts unsuccessfully.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 00:06

This was probably a major failure to properly firewall a SAP and the subsequent inability to control the event has probably made the situation even worse by involving the usual "Aliens/UFO" crowd. But stuff like this happens at times with SAPs. I believe Ben Rich's book has a few accounts of things like this.

Jayram
BRFite
Posts: 301
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Jayram » 07 Jan 2019 04:43

brar_w wrote:This was probably a major failure to properly firewall a SAP and the subsequent inability to control the event has probably made the situation even worse by involving the usual "Aliens/UFO" crowd. But stuff like this happens at times with SAPs. I believe Ben Rich's book has a few accounts of things like this.

Forgive me but what is SAP?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 07 Jan 2019 05:16

brar_w wrote:This was probably a major failure to properly firewall a SAP and the subsequent inability to control the event has probably made the situation even worse by involving the usual "Aliens/UFO" crowd. But stuff like this happens at times with SAPs. I believe Ben Rich's book has a few accounts of things like this.


But why reveal it now?

It was doing just nicely behind a wall of obscurity.

---------------

6 Key Assessments from a report by the DOD program in 2009 that interviewed all key Navy witnesses :

• The anomalous aerial vehicle was no known aircraft or air vehicle currently in the inventory of United States or any foreign nation.

•The anomalous aerial view exhibited advanced low-observable characteristics at multiple radar bands rendering US radar-based engagement capabilities ineffective.

•The anomalous aerial vehicle exhibited advanced aerodynamic performance with no visible control services and no visible means to generate lift.

•The anomalous aerial vehicle exhibited advanced propulsion capabilities by demonstrating the ability to remain stationary, with little to no variation in altitude, transitioning to horizontal and or vertical velocities far greater than any known aerial vehicle, with little to no visible signature.

•The anonymous aerial vehicle possibly demonstrated the ability to cloak or to become invisible to the human eye or human observation.

•The anomalous aerial vehicle possibly demonstrated a highly advanced capability to operate undersea, completely undetectable by our most advanced sensors.
Last edited by Neshant on 07 Jan 2019 05:16, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 05:16

Jayram wrote:Forgive me but what is SAP?



*Special Access Program. It's not very hard to imagine the reactions described in the discoverable material being similar to that of a (hypothetical) Navy F-8 Crusader pilot upon accidentally encountering a D-21 in 1965 or an F-4 pilot running into the Have Blue circa 1978.

But why reveal it now?

It was doing just nicely behind a wall of obscurity.


We are all just guessing here but if I were to guess this is probably a result of someone somewhere dropping the ball and the initial few encounters ending up hitting a non controlled or classified part of reporting and therefore being discoverable. They could have subsequently tried to have recovered the situation hence some of these reports may be with an aim to do just that which further muddies the waters. Don't expect the unclassified report to reflect what really happened for obvious reasons.

One thing should be clearly obvious regardless the reporting on the matter - Aliens did not decide to show up and shadow US Navy ships with a "Tic Tac" shaped flying object. If that had happened Obama or Trump would have given the doomsday speech already.

Maybe a few decades from now we'll know what actually the objects were and whether these unclassified reports were true and weren't just last minute coverups trying to divert attention from what the sailors and airmen actually "accidently" ran into.

https://twitter.com/CIA/status/549643808166526981

FACT - "Classified Procurement" and "Classified R&D" still tops the USAF procurement and R&D budget bucket just as it did during the 70's and 80s.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 07 Jan 2019 09:16

Note, this wasn't the first encounter with such objects in that area.

There were multiple encounters with video footage of it taken by the USN. Some of the footage you see towards the end of the Nimitz Encounter video are from those other sightings.

Now if it were a mistake, how many times would this mistake be occurring?


I've seen a longer version of that 'white dot' footage towards the end of the video flying across the surface of the water near the shore while being auto-tracked by IR sensor aboard a chase aircraft. The pilot literally cheers when he manages to get the sensor to lock onto the moving dot with auto-track as apparently that was hard to do.

It flew right atop the ocean's surface near the coast and then did a fly through on land through a populated coastal area before flying back out to sea. All at near sea level.

At one point it literally flies "through" the waves while turning translucent. Moving through the waves seemed to have no effect on its motion whatsoever. A second 'white dot' appears from the water and flies along with the first dot not long thereafter.

All this would normally sound like photoshopped bullsh&t except the source is the USN itself.

One has to wonder, what kind of SAP program would be flying these things in populated areas near the shore doing all that stuff.
What would be the purpose of that?

If it were aliens, what would be their purpose?

Something doesn't sound right about the whole thing.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23362
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2019 09:23

These encounters has been a very common phenomena happend across centuries even in 50's pilot spoke of such encounters and its a documented fact of such object being triangular shape cigar shape etc.

The only difference is today we have video graphical evidence to prove it , Those manouver displayed are extraordinary something no aerodynamics or propulsion system can achieve it

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 10:10

Neshant wrote:Note, this wasn't the first encounter with such objects in that area.

There were multiple encounters with video footage of it taken by the USN. Some of the footage you see towards the end of the Nimitz Encounter video are from those other sightings.

Now if it were a mistake, how many times would this mistake be occurring?



I have followed this story since it first broke so am well aware of the # of encounters and the background that was reported. The fact that there is a report out there describing multiple observations and encounters is in no way inconsistent with the fact that they may have been attempting to recover something that had occured accidently and had wound up in a report or a venue that was not protected. It could also have been something done preemptively to cover for a SAP that was going to be doing more flight testing where it could have been encountered by civ/mil folks not read in. Again, unless one is totally bonkers and sold on the Alien angle there is usually a reasonable explanation for most of these encounters. Some will naturally always remain a mystery because of a lack of complete information, data, or an interest and resources to fully investigate these things. But the lack of a proven explanation is a far cry from justifiably attributing them to a non human cause just as it would be unjustifiable to attribute unsolved crimes to aliens.

There is historical evidence out there that shows that plenty of past events that have been attributed to UFO's were in fact SAP/SAR at the time. There is also evidence out there from Ben Rich's writings that describe accidental aerial encounters between SAP or SAP-like programs and military pilots etc not read into those programs. Sometimes people make mistakes.

In the darkest days of the cold war, the military lied to the American public about the true nature of many unidentified flying objects in an effort to hide its growing fleets of spy planes, a Central Intelligence Agency study says.

The deceptions were made in the 1950's and 1960's amid a wave of U.F.O. sightings that alarmed the public and parts of official Washington.

The C.I.A. study says the Air Force knew that most reports by citizens and aviation experts were based on fleeting glimpses of U-2 and SR-71 spy planes, which fly extremely high....

Rather than acknowledgeing the existence of the top-secret flights or saying nothing about them publicly, the Air Force decided to put out false cover stories, the C.I.A. study says. For instance, unusual observations that were actually spy flights were attributed to atmospheric phenomena like ice crystals and temperature inversions.

''Over half of all U.F.O. reports from the late 1950's through the 1960's were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights'' over the United States, the C.I.A. study says. ''This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project.''

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/us/c ... tings.html



If folks want to believe in Aliens and extraterrestrial UFO's then have at it. I guess in a way SAP'ers would probably also prefer that because this gets them the sort of protection needed to do what they need to do without risk since this sort of noise takes up so much of bandwidth. Usually there is a reasonable explanation either some other human-designed/built aircraft/missile/object or nothing at all..

If these things were genuinely as scary/exciting as them being ET alien crafts because they "displayed are extraordinary something no aerodynamics or propulsion system can achieve" then they wouldn't be sitting in an unclassified report out there. Think about it - If the unclassified report and the other reporting is to be taken at face value, there were multiple objects that not only defied detection by pretty much the entire sensor suite available to a CVN (Powerful phased array radars aboard destroyer/cruisers, E-2's, tactical fighters etc) but also performed maneuvers no human designed craft can fathom. So what exactly is the world doing about these divine abilities exhibited in front of the most power naval flotilla out there? I think we are back to the "regularly scheduled programming" months/years after the last of the data on them was made available. That says quite a bit.

But if they were Aliens and that story floats your boat then feel safe since they seem to have gone back now and we'll be fine.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Jan 2019 11:53, edited 2 times in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23362
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2019 10:48

There could be many classified program that may get labelled as alien by untrained mind or people who may not understand even basics of flying.

These incident did not started with Nimitz encounter , These incidents are documented across centuries and some of those documented pattern have a common denomitator in them. The difference is post 50's when people began flying more often and with the age of supersonic rushing in these encounters became more common either by choice or just by sheer coincidence.

US military is not the only one to encounter this , similar documented stories exisit between Soviet Submarine and Air forces as well as other armed forces.

Some of these are also deliberate prank but a trained minded who knows about aerodynamics and military aircraft can distinguish between ordinary and extra ordinary incidents.

Even Live Feed of ISS has been known to catch such incidents

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 11:07

Austin wrote:There could be many classified program that may get labelled as alien by untrained mind or people who may not understand even basics of flying.


Right. This is what I just said. It has at times been used as a cover story. If you read what I wrote earlier, this was in reference to a question asking why the government or a military service would go to lengths to attribute or classify something into a category to which it does not belong.

Austin wrote:These incident did not started with Nimitz encounter , These incidents are documented across centuries


You mean unidentified aerial sightings have happened across centuries? I am not sure about that but I agree there have been unidentified and unexplained sightings for the last many decades and that is not being debated here.

That they are in any shape or fashion linked to one another and for one to assume that these are just one sort of phenomenon/creature/craft/ET has absolutely no basis. Only thing common between them, and especially between the ones that are actually real is that they describe aircraft/objects/phenomenon that could not be ascribed to something "known" to the observer or attributed by others to something known at the time based on the observer described appearance and interaction. Most of the time there is very little direct evidence to analyze and almost never is there any information to justify a giant leap from an unexplained object or event to ALIENS as many around these reportings often do.

Austin wrote:US military is not the only one to encounter this , similar documented stories exist between Soviet Submarine and Air forces as well as other armed forces.


I am not really getting into a thesis on each and every encounter of unidentified objects having been reported but on this occasion as in many occasions there is usually a reasonable explanation of events.

But again, I am in no way challenging anyone who believes that these were in fact alien/ET UFO's with extraordinary flying characteristics or abilities because doing so is going down a completely wild and crazy road best left out of this thread or forum (unless there is a dedicated thread about extraterrestrial contact).
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Jan 2019 11:35, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23362
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2019 11:34

No one really knows what these SAP programs are what has really come out of these programs and how much of these are even successful one , if this is all classified then we are just left with conjecture

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 11:42

Austin wrote:No one really knows what these SAP programs are what has really come out of these programs and how much of these are even successful one


Nowhere in any of my comments on this matter have I ever attempted to link success or failure to a SAP or even remotely attempted to ballpark their success rate. That has absolutely nothing to do with this or the opening post on the line of discussion.

All I did was link past claims of UFO sightings to acknowledged SAP/SARs and attempted to ascribe a reasonable explanation/theory to a specific event and pointed out that if we are to believe the publicly shared tale then we must also be willing to believe that there are objects out there, the size of a fighter with mythical flying qualities and that have stealth properties that defy detection against even some of the largest naval sensor systems out there and that potentially a squadron sized group of those were seen shadowing a US Navy strike group and now that this is all said and done the US and the rest of the world are doing nothing about it and it has also died down and out of the news cycle.

Austin wrote:if this is all classified then we are just left with conjecture


brar_w wrote:
We are all just guessing here but if I were to guess....


Honestly, anything is a better guess than ALIENS :) (not suggesting that you believe this to be the work of aliens but pointing to the fact that their is a constituency out there that truly and genuinely believes that this is a work of ET).

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23362
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2019 11:51

BTW here is CIA report which CIA claims stolen from Soviet Union which details encounter between UFO and Soviet soldiers and Aliens had killed 24 of them.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/77 ... CIA-report

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 12:01

Austin wrote:BTW here is CIA report which CIA claims stolen from Soviet Union which details encounter between UFO and Soviet soldiers and Aliens had killed 24 of them.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/77 ... CIA-report



:rotfl: :rotfl:

Aliens Zapped Soviet Soldiers Report wrote:The report in question, created on March 27 1993, is a translation by the CIA of a report from the Ukrainian newspaper Ternopil vechirniy.....However, the translated newspaper report contained in the declassified CIA file said the source of the information had come from the Canadian Weekly World News, which was known at the time for publishing outlandish and fictional news headlines.


Would you happen to know which SAM shot the craft down? Sounds like a MANPAD :lol: Appears they didn't even need to infiltrate the craft to upload a virus into it to weaken its defenses before bringing it down. Maybe Alien-flying saucer Mk-0 didn't yet have the force fields.

This would definitely be something you put on your brochure. Perhaps someone form BR can ask KBM about it if they are present at the next Aero India. :wink:

In all seriousness, all that the CIA "Report" has is a translation from an article published in a Ukrainian newspaper with a later suggestion that this may have originally come from a Canadian weekly that was known to dabble in fiction. :roll:

But who am I to shake anyone's belief in aliens.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Jan 2019 12:33, edited 9 times in total.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 07 Jan 2019 12:01

brar_w wrote: pointed out that if we are to believe the publicly shared tale then we must also be willing to believe that there are objects out there, the size of a fighter with mythical flying qualities and that have stealth properties that defy detection against even some of the largest naval sensor systems out there and that potentially a squadron sized group of those were seen shadowing a US Navy strike group and now that this is all said and done the US and the rest of the world are doing nothing about it and it has also died down and out of the news cycle.



There is the possibility that people simply assume it was a black project and think that some agency or another is dealing with it when in actuality no one is doing the due diligence :shock:

Sometimes people and agencies do nothing until things finally happen like a full fledge encounter.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 12:04

chola wrote:
There is the possibility that people simply assume it was a black project and think that some agency or another is dealing with it when in actuality no one is doing the due diligence :shock:

Sometimes people and agencies do nothing until things finally happen like a full fledge encounter.


Which would explain why they not only claim to have *conducted* an inquiry into the events but also *catalogued* it and even published a report based on which we actually know of the event.

Trust me aliens on earth haven't gone undiscovered because people are just brushing aside encounters that are so damn obvious to us on forums. :wink:

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 07 Jan 2019 12:20

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:
There is the possibility that people simply assume it was a black project and think that some agency or another is dealing with it when in actuality no one is doing the due diligence :shock:

Sometimes people and agencies do nothing until things finally happen like a full fledge encounter.


Which would explain why they not only claim to have *conducted* an inquiry into the events but also *catalogued* it and even published a report based on which we actually know of the event.

Trust me aliens on earth haven't gone undiscovered because people are just brushing aside encounters that are so damn obvious to us on forums. :wink:


That is a Congressional report. And yes, they publicized it years after original incident because the US government cannot get a full grip on this. If even Congress are left guessing because they do not have full knowledge of the SAPs then it is not far fetch to think that they simply cannot pursue further when there is no answer, assuming it was a black project or another.

Brar ji, I don’t want to sound like one of those guys with the tinfoil cones on my head but how likely is there a SAP that can outfly and outdive a F-18 in the air AND goes into and out of the water too?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2019 12:25

chola wrote:...how likely is there a SAP that can outfly and outdive a F-18 in the air AND goes into and out of the water too?


Because there is a possibility that what you are witnessing in the report is not in fact reality but an exaggeration that is being put out their to provide cover for something else? Like abetting rumours of alien UFO's to cover for A-12 et al something that is known to have been done in the past? I haven't researched this but I'm pretty sure that not every capability being attributed to the flying saucers and strange events back in the 50's, 60's or 70's lined up perfectly with the performance envelope of the U-2 or the SR. That would actually defeat the purpose of disinformation, which is to obfuscate.

As I said, there are probably a million more reasonable explanations for this than "Ancient Aliens" but we'll probably not know for years if not decades (if ever).

In the meantime, no one is losing sleep over the risk to mankind of highly capable alien crafts of unfathomable capability invading anytime soon. :wink:

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 08 Jan 2019 12:12

Its stupid to ridicule any possibility as it adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm open to the possibility it could be anything - of extra-terrestrial origin, a secret program, or something else.
My point is that none of it makes any sense either way.

The circumstances under which these craft are encountered and the activities they engage in either prior to or during the encounter are bizarre.
What would be the purpose of such activities - especially flying around a populated area.

I also don't understand why after 13 years, they decide to release the information now. They could have simply left the story to die instead of giving it a huge jolt of official publicity.


My best theory is that this craft (e.g. tictac) was some kind of holographic projection designed by the military to fool (enemy) pilots. That could explain how it appeared to change directions instantaneously and move at incredible speeds. That would be an excellent weapon of confusion.

Then again, it had a radar signature and the semblance of a thermal profile (even if it wasn't emitting exhaust) so it was a real object of some kind and not trick of light.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3695
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 08 Jan 2019 12:29

Neshant wrote:
I also don't understand why after 13 years, they decide to release the information now. They could have simply left the story to die instead of giving it a huge jolt of official publicity.



If it was a known cover up for a SAP then they would have left the story to die. The story was released because Congress and the military couldn’t figure out what is was after all these years. Maybe it was a call for help in hopes that other more clandestine agencies of the US government would step up.

Or maybe it is the first trial balloon to prepare the general public.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Jan 2019 18:48



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, Google Feedfetcher, kapio and 45 guests