International Naval News & Discussion

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Jul 2017 01:07

Australian P-8 low level flying

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Jul 2017 11:23

UK signs up for first three Type 26 frigates

Key Points

The long-awaited Batch 1 contract covers the construction of the first three of a planned class of eight ships
The formal steel cutting for the first of class will occur at BAE Systems' Govan facility later this month

BAE Systems will officially begin production of the first of the UK Royal Navy's new Type 26 frigates later in July after being awarded a GBP3.7 billion (USD4.8 billion) contract by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for the programme's manufacture phase.

Signed on 29 June, the long-awaited Batch 1 contract covers the construction of the first three of a planned class of eight ships. The contract for the second batch of five ships is expected to be negotiated in the early 2020s.

A formal steel cutting ceremony for the first of class will occur at BAE Systems' Govan facility on the River Clyde later this month. A pilot block steel cut was previously performed in March this year to test the engineering and planning process.

Intended to replace eight anti-submarine warfare (ASW) configured Type 23 frigates from the mid-2020s, the 6,900-tonne displacement Type 26 Global Combat Ship has been conceived as an acoustically quiet surface combatant optimised for ASW but also capable of contributing to a wide range of other missions. The Royal Navy had originally planned to procure a further five general purpose variants, but the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) cut these from the programme, committing instead to the acquisition of at least five smaller, cheaper Type 31 general purpose frigates (GPFFs).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jul 2017 13:44

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -the-21382

Here's Why the U.S. Navy Could Add 'Light' Aircraft Carriers to the Fleet
Dave Majumdar
June 29, 2017

The U.S. Senate Armed Service Committee (SASC) is inserting language in its markup of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would mandate that the U.S. Navy study a preliminary design for a new light carrier.

The new ships would not replace the Gerald R. Ford-class (CVN-78) supercarriers, but rather if the new ships were built, they would be used to disperse naval aviation assets across a larger geographical area to help support amphibious ready groups and the like.

“Authorizes $30 million for preliminary design of a smaller aircraft carrier, which is in addition to the administration's request,” reads the summary of the SASC version of NDAA.

Senate aides told reporters during a background brief on June 29 that the reason they inserted the language was because they are seeking information on different carrier types. Several naval force structure studies commissioned by the Navy have shown that there is a need for a light carrier to complement the service’s massive nuclear-powered supercarriers.

“This is something we have continually heard,” a senior SASC aide told reporters.

“The thought here is to put some money into some kind of detailed design work…showing us more specifically what if any merit there is as to how a program like this could come together.”

Another Senate aide with specific expertise in naval aviation and naval platforms said that all three naval force structure studies have called for the addition of a smaller carrier to the fleet.

There is also a RAND Corporation study that calls for such a vessel, the aide said, however that report is classified. The Senate is trying to have the RAND study declassified and released publicly.

The Senate aide said that the studies have indicated that a light carrier in the 60,000-ton to 70,000-ton range—roughly the size of an old Forrestal-class or Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier—would be the “sweet spot” for such a ship. The ship would also likely only need two catapult launch systems because it would not need to generate the same number of sorties as a full-sized carrier.

“It would also provide options for contingency operations,” the aide said.

The reason the Senate wants to mandate a preliminary design for the new light carrier is because a simple design concept does not provide enough insight into the cost or schedule that the new ships might need.

“A preliminary design is appropriate to take the next step,” the aide said.

If the Navy does proceed with the new light carrier, those vessels would be in addition to the Ford-class—as the smaller vessels are no substitute for the larger supercarriers. There are some factions within the U.S. Navy that are adamantly opposed to even studying a smaller carrier in event that someone questions the need for a minimum of 12 full-sized supercarriers.

The Senate staffers are clear that the proposed new ships are not intended to challenge the primacy of the Ford-class. Indeed, the Senate bill speeds up the procurement of the CVN-78-class to every four years rather than every five years.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @Davemajumdar.

The same logic is what I've been applying to my proposal that our 30,000t 3-4 amphibs are similarly designed for greater multi-role tasking and flexibility instead of narrow specialisation.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Jul 2017 16:48

The US Congress has a habit of sanctioning the same thing every few years. There are more than half a dozen studies the USN has done for them and others in order to determine the right carrier size factoring in lethality, survivability, cost, and the mission set that they are required to perform by the national security apparatus of which the Congress is a part. The last one concluded in the early 2000s and nothing has really changed since then. This like the others will reaffirm the fact that they need the CVN and its CBG since they did a very comprehensive analysis of alternatives on the CVN-21 program to right size the battle group and the carrier.

The new ships would not replace the Gerald R. Ford-class (CVN-78) supercarriers, but rather if the new ships were built, they would be used to disperse naval aviation assets across a larger geographical area to help support amphibious ready groups and the like.

Gator Navy is building and fielding 11 of these -

What the Congress wants them to explore is not happening. You don't gain much by adding a catapult on an Americas..what you may get in terms of higher SGR you still don't make full use of because it is still a small carrier unable to generate a sustained air campaign. It is best utilized just the way the Marines intend on under the distributed lethality concept.

A small carrier against the same quality of threat that the USN is required to operate in can't stand off since it does not have enough long range aircraft, cannot penetrate since it is not as survivable as the current one let alone more survivability as would be required, and it won't be able to sustain a campaign if in the odd chance it gets to where it needs to be. So unless the mission changes and the USN is not expected to provide certain capabilities adding 2, 3 or even 4 such carriers for one Ford or Nimitz won't get you any performance benefits besides presence. You'll essentially be LCS'ing the carrier fleet.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Jul 2017 15:07

Triton UAV base to be built in UAE

The US Navy (USN) is to acquire a facility in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for its Triton unmanned maritime surveillance aircraft, under a USD18-million contract awarded to Assist Consultants Inc on 30 June.

The project involves designing and building environmentally controlled hangar space sufficient for four Triton aircraft and a mission control system, with an associated communications tower and emergency generator at Al-Dhafra Air Base in Abu Dhabi, according to information released on the US Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website.

Drawings released by the FBO show the facility will be constructed on and around the apron that is currently used by the US Air Force to refuel aircraft that operate from Al-Dhafra.

The original solicitation anticipated the work to take 660 calendar days subsequent to the contractor receiving a notice to proceed. The deployment of Tritons to the UAE should significantly improve the USN's ability to monitor shipping in the Gulf. Set to formally enter service with the USN in 2018, the aircraft is a development of the Global Hawk that is designed to carry out high-altitude, long-endurance maritime surveillance missions. Its primary sensor is the AN/ZPY-3 radar, which can cover a wide area in all weather conditions, but it also carries a high-resolution electro-optical/infrared system.
Make a New Note

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2017 15:36

Philip wrote:http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -the-21382
Here's Why the U.S. Navy Could Add 'Light' Aircraft Carriers to the Fleet
Dave Majumdar
June 29, 2017

.........

Did anyone tell these Senate guys that under the DTTI that the USN was looking at the INS Vishal. Sign on the dotted line and India would be glad to produce half a dozen made-2-order boats.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Jul 2017 16:09

Rao Saab, the Congress can choose from a menu of rejected ship designs and configurations that the USN has explored as they developed the requirements for a Nimitz replacement. The USNA Museum has models of some of these and I have posted pictures of those here earlier as well. Unless the requirements change in terms of what is demanded from the Navy the configuration, long term won't change. The dozen or so L-class vessels (keep a few Wasp's longer) are good force multipliers and can plug the gaps and you can scale them up if you wish.

They can deploy with upwards of 20 F-35Bs during surge periods so they have some ability to flex especially when you can send one with a higher aviation component with an action group in deployments where they aren't sending a carrier (they did one recently in the Pacific this year).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jul 2017 06:55

Exclusive: CNO Announces the Return of Vertical Launch System At-Sea Reloading

The U.S. Navy is looking to restore its ability to reload its ships’ vertical launch systems at sea, which could be a dramatic logistical game changer in the planning and execution of high-intensity contingencies against peer competitors.

This encouraging revelation comes from an exclusive one-on-one conversation with Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson following his remarks at the U.S. Naval War College’s 2017 Current Strategy Forum last month.After discussing the means by which the Navy seeks to ensure its forward-deployed naval forces remain survivable and up-to-date with the latest tactical and technological innovation, Admiral Richardson said in reference to vertical launch system (VLS) underway replenishment, “we’re bringing that back.”

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2017 16:08

The sober assessment of a new CV's cost by the Ru editor should be carefully looked at by the IN's carrier cheerleaders and the MOD.The Ford costs $12B carrier alone,without the accompanying bells and whistles.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/senior-n ... -for-sure/

Senior Naval Official: Russia to Build Next-Generation Aircraft Carrier ‘For Sure’
The Russian Navy purportedly continues to pursue plans for a new aircraft carrier.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
July 06, 2017

The Russian Navy plans to build an advanced aircraft carrier, a senior Russian naval official confirmed on June 28 at the 2017 International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg, Russia.

“Yes, the Navy will build an aircraft carrier, for sure,” the deputy head of the Russian Navy, Vice Admiral Biktor Bursuk, said, according to TASS news agency.

The Russian defense industry has developed a number of design concepts for a next-generation aircraft carrier. As I reported in March, the Russian shipbuilding research and development institute, Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC), has been promoting its concept for a new conventional or nuclear-powered carrier under the name Project 23000E Shtorm (Storm).

“The mockup demonstrated by the Krylov [Krylovsky] State Research Center is just a mockup. There are many of them. Different bureaus are hammering out an image of this ship,” admiral Bursuk said on June 28. The admiral did not offer additional details on the new carrier design. According to Russian defense industry sources, the new 90-100-ton warship should be capable of accommodating 80-90 aircraft and stay at sea for 90-120 days.

According to Russian defense industry estimates, construction of the carrier would take seven to ten years and cost as much as $9 billion. Despite the admiral’s affirmation that the Russian Navy will continue to pursue the carrier project, multiple hurdles would need to be overcome. Next to the obvious fiscal constraints given the stagnating Russian defense budget, technical issues abound.

“For starters, Russia has never built an aircraft carrier,” I explained previously. “All Soviet carriers were constructed in Ukraine. Russia’s shipbuilding industry currently lacks the capacity to build a supercarrier and does not even have a large enough dry dock to accommodate a vessel the size of the Shtorm.”

The Russian Navy also lacks escort ships and support vessels for a carrier strike group not to mention carrier-based long-range strike and electronic warfare aircraft. In an interview, Victor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, and chairman of Russia’s Military-Industrial Commission, expressed skepticism that Russia would be able to afford an entire new carrier strike group.

“Judging from the American experience, a group like that should consist of two or three cruisers and 6-7 smaller displacement vessel, plus one or two submarines,” Murakhovsky said. “To crown it all, one will need to set up special ground-based infrastructure for the aircraft carrier and accompanying ships, as well as ship crews and aviation crews. Therefore, the cost of the construction of the aircraft carrier can thus increase seven or eight times.”

Why the recent demos of deadly KH-101 supersonic LRCMs by vintage Bear bombers (which we've just retd.) ,which have a range of 1000-2000+kms in addition to the 6500km combat radius of the Bear,can be abso deadly in the IOR /ICS context,using India's land and island bases. A cost-effective way to exterminate any intruding pests.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jul 2017 05:14

U.S. Navy’s New Target Drone Moves To Production

A new high-subsonic target drone designed for the U.S. Navy to replicate the flight patterns and countermeasures of enemy anti-ship cruise missiles and aircraft has moved into low-rate initial production after more than six years of development.
On June 27, Sacramento, California-based Composite Engineering, part of Kratos Defense’s unmanned systems division, received a $37 million contract to deliver the first batch of BQM-177A subsonic aerial targets.

The deal for 45 air vehicles and other associated items such as installation kits and radar altimeters was expected for some time, but was held up by the late passage of the fiscal 2017 defense spending bill. This is the first of two planned low-rate production options under the original development contract, won by Composite Engineering in 2011 against two other contenders.

The target drone will eventually take the place of Northrop Grumman’s BQM-74E Chukar, being capable of flying farther, lower and with greater maneuverability. BQM-177A was adapted from the Kratos BQM-167X, an advanced derivative of the Air Force’s BQM-167A Skeeter subscale aerial target. The new air vehicle has a sleeker fuselage with high-mounted wings and is powered by the MicroTurbo TR60-5+ turbojet.

“We are extremely proud of the performance capabilities of this target aircraft, arguably the most capable and maneuverable low-altitude, high-subsonic unmanned aircraft in existence,” says Steve Fendley, president of Kratos’s unmanned systems group. “Transitioning to production is a significant milestone for our team.”

The next “LRIP-2” order is funded in the Navy’s fiscal 2018 budget request. Kratos expects the contract volume to be 25% greater than in this round, providing about 56 targets.

The Navy has already begun laying the contractual groundwork for full-rate production thereafter.

On June 22, the service released a market survey for its Subsonic Aerial Target (SSAT) program, saying it anticipates 15 years of production at 45 targets per year.

BQM-177A specifications released by Kratos show the air vehicle being 17 ft. in length with a 7-ft. wingspan. It can achieve airspeeds “in excess” of Mach 0.95 (633 kt.) and an extreme altitude range from 6.6 ft. off the ground or ocean up to 40,000 ft.

The aircraft can carry a variety of stores internally and on its wing tips, including electronic countermeasures, active and passive radar augmentation devices, infrared sensors, identification friend-or-foe interrogators, chaff and flares, threat emitter simulators, smoke and towed targets.

The company already is offering an export-compliant version designated BQM-177i. “The BQM-177i has no equal when it comes to delivering realistic anti-ship missile threat emulation,” the company says.

BQM-177 could eventually be modified into an autonomous or semi-autonomous unmanned combat aircraft. Kratos has already spun the BQM-167 into an unmanned combat derivative called UTAP-22 “Mako” and is actively working on a longer-range clean-sheet designed called the XQ-222 “Valkyrie,” which will be flight-tested next year.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2017 13:54

Looks like a Good Design Solution , Royal Navy Type 26 Global Combat Ship

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2017 12:31

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 1436[quote]
Did China Just Create the "Holy Grail" Of Submarine Technologies?[/quote]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2017 13:11

where will this expensive overly complex Type26 hunt submarines?

they are not about to get into ASW vs the chinese.

GIUK gap? meh meh.

they were better off buying some "Buyan" sized ships for colonial wars in the africa-mideast belt and thats all RN will do. and for show the union jack in the baltic.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jul 2017 16:35

US Navy adds 18 SSN-774 Virginia Class submarines to its program of record for a new total of 48 Subs. 17 SSN-774s have been launched till date:

Navy adds 18 attack subs, $68 billion in future spending to Virginia-class program of record

With the stroke of a pen, the Navy's acquisition executive has increased the size of the Virginia-class submarine program, expanding the official acquisition target from 30 to 48 boats, adding a $68 billion obligation to future Pentagon budgets and making the total cost of the nuclear-powered attack submarine project second only to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

On Feb. 13, acting Navy acquisition executive Allison Stiller approved an update to the Virginia-class submarine acquisition baseline program, "extending the program of record from 30 to 48," according to the Navy's fiscal year 2018 budget request. The change, which hasn't been previously reported, marks a 60 percent increase in the program's formal acquisition objective.

That change lifts the total cost of the SSN-774 program to about $162 billion, up from $104 billion last year, according to Navy documents. Last year, the Navy was planning to buy 33 boats, operating under a provisional extension of the 30-boat program that tacked $11 billion on to the total program cost. The Navy's March 2016 estimate before that change was $93.2 billion.

The service's FY-18 budget request indicates a revised total procurement cost of $155.3 billion; the service has previously reported $6.6 billion in sunk research and development costs.

This addition of 18 Virginia-class submarines would fulfill a target the Navy set in 2012, but would only get the service halfway to a more ambitious goal recently advanced by the chief of naval operations.

The Navy's 2012 force structure assessment called for the service to procure 48 attack submarines as part of a 308-ship fleet; by contrast, the service's 30-year shipbuilding plan sent to Congress in 2016 envisioned procuring a total of 44 attack boats.

Meanwhile, in December, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson advanced findings of a 2016 fleet structure assessment that called for 66 attack submarines, another 18 boats.

In June, the industry team building the Virginia-class boats -- Electric Boat of Groton, CT, and Newport News Shipbuilding of Virginia -- launched the Indiana (SSN 789), the 16th boat in the class, into the James River in Virginia to begin final outfitting, testing and crew certification.

The first 28 Virginia-class boats are currently either purchased or under contract, including 10 boats being procured as part of a five-year acquisition deal that began in FY-14 and concludes in FY-18. The Navy has been buying Virginia-class boats since 1998.

By expanding the program of record well beyond 30 boats, the Navy paved the way for what it hopes will be a fourth multiyear procurement of the Virginia-class submarine beginning in FY-19. The service last month submitted an FY-18 legislative proposal to Congress seeking permission to begin negotiating another multiyear deal beginning in FY-19 for 10 boats worth a potential $32.6 billion.

Lawmakers have drafted legislation approving such negotiations, and authorized the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for even more boats -- as many as 13.

The Navy's FY-18 budget request seeks $5.2 billion for the last two submarines of the current multiyear contract. The request forecasts buying two Virginia-class submarines annually through FY-22, allocating $5.3 billion for the program in FY-18, $7.3 billion in FY-19, $7.3 billion in FY-20, $6.7 billion in FY-21 and $5.4 billion in FY-22.

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 08 Jul 2017 16:59

Chilean's posted a video of inside their scorpene submarine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTltIsXY49E

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jul 2017 12:56

A critical analysis of the latest Chinese touting of their rim-driven pumpjet propulsion system,as the world's quietest system.
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/s ... b-quieting

Could China’s rim-driven pumpjet propulsion technology be the quietest in the world?

DAVE MAJUMDAR
Friday at 7:58 PM
If China’s rim-driven pumpjet propulsion technology works, it would be a significant advance for the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s undersea force.

If China’s rim-driven pumpjet propulsion technology [3] works, it would be a significant advance for the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s undersea force.
In a recent article that appeared in the South China Morning Post [4], Beijing claims to have developed such a silent propulsion system—which some have compared to the so-called caterpillar-drive in Tom Clancy’s Hunt for Red October.
With vastly improved acoustical performance, a new generation of advanced Chinese nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) could add another dimension to Beijing’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities [5].

-- This Story First Appeared in The National Interest --
Further, new Chinese ballistic missile submarines hiding inside their heavily defended ‘bastions’—like the Soviet boomer fleet before them—would be much more difficult to detect and eliminate, greatly enhancing Beijing’s strategic nuclear deterrence.
But that’s only if China can build an operationally relevant rim-driven pumpjet propulsor—American naval analysts are mostly convinced that the new Chinese silent propulsion system is a science project that may never make it to sea.
“If it is well-built, a rim-driven pump jet would be a quieter propulsion system than traditional propellers, and could be quieter than shaft-driven pump jets like those on some U.S. submarines,” Bryan Clark, a retired U.S. Navy undersea warfare officer and analyst the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told The National Interest.
“The question is whether the Chinese can build one with the fine machining necessary to achieve the degree of quieting possible. The article doesn't address that. The basic technology is straightforward, but building a good one is hard. Manufacturing precision equipment like turbines has been a challenge for China’s shipbuilding industry.”

Retired U.S. Navy submariner Thomas Callender, a senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation and former director of capabilities at the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy (Policy) agreed with Clark’s assessment.
“I agree that if engineers can develop a shaft-less rim-driven electric motor pump-jet, it would reduce the noise signature of the host submarine since without large traditional shaft with multiple bearings along its length (shaft must be long enough to connect propulsion motor inside the engine room to screw or pump-jet at the stern) and only having one bearing per pump-jet, the noise associated with the shaft would be reduced,” Callender told The National Interest in an email.

“In addition, since the propeller is not driven by a traditional steam propulsion turbine, but by an electric motor, there is no need for large reduction gear which reduces RPM of steam turbine (in 1000’s of RPM at higher speeds) to more efficient and quiet propeller speed (for submarine typically less than 200 rpm max).”
The improved quieting would also likely more than offset potential drawbacks such as a greater magnetic signature.
“A rim-driven pump jet would use an electric motor that is installed in the rim around the propulsor. Like any electric motor, it would generate a magnetic field. Because it’s outside the hull, it might be easier to detect with magnetic anomaly detection, but it could be designed to shield some of the field,” Clark said.

“It again comes down to how well they build the propulsion system. In any event, magnetic anomaly detection does not work at long ranges, and is not useful as a search capability. It is generally used to target a submarine once it has been located and tracked.”
While there are advantages to a rim-driven pumpjet, there also some serious potential drawbacks. One problem is that such motors may not be able to generate the horsepower to drive a massive nuclear submarine.
“If China can put a well-built rim-driven pump jet on a submarine, the next question is how much thrust it provides,” Clark said.
“With submarine propulsion, one of the tradeoffs is quietness versus speed. Most changes to the propulsion architecture that reduce noise also reduce sprint speed. One of the concerns I have heard from engineers is whether a rim-driven pump jet can deliver the horsepower needed to reach high sprint speeds for torpedo evasion or repositioning.”

Callender noted that a single rim-driven pumpjet would probably be insufficient. The U.S. Navy’s forthcoming Columbia-class SSBN design will incorporate a permanent magnet electric drive propulsion—eschewing the traditional steam-driven propulsion turbine. The new propulsion system will be much quieter, Callender said, but it will come at the price of being enormous.
“The electric drive motor with sufficient power to drive Columbia SSBN will be extremely large, partially contributing to its 43-foot hull diameter,” Callender said.
“For example, similar sized Ohio Class SSBN produced 60,000 shaft horsepower. Virginia SSN produces 40,000 shaft horsepower to power a submarine.”
Because of the sheer size and weight of the electrical motors, there are some size constraints that are inherent to a rim-mounted pumpjet.
“Bryan is correct and I agree that the most critical technical issue with the rimless electric motor pump-jet as the main propulsion for an SSN or SSBN is delivering sufficient power in size and weight limitations of a stern pump-jet,” Callender said.
“As you can imagine, a 40-foot diameter rimless pump-jet would not be practical (current propulsors are less than 20ft in diameter) from both a size and weight standpoint. Having a huge and heavy motor and pump-jet at the extreme stern would also make hull stability near impossible.”

As such, the Chinese would have to use multiple propulsors to design and build a practical submarine.
“A more likely solution to incorporate a smaller rim-driven pump-jet (and therefore less power) would be to have multiple pump-jets located on the stabilizing stern fins (2 or more likely 4),” Callender said.
“But the issue of size and weight is still a huge engineering leap and would likely not incorporate more mature but heavy permanent magnet motors.”
Clark points out another potential problem even if the Chinese are able to solve all of the other technical issues. A rim-driven pumpjet would draw an enormous amount of electrical power and it is not clear that the Chinese can generate that kind of energy onboard their submarines.
“The last challenge I see with a rim-driven pump jet is the ability of the ship to provide the electrical power needed to drive the pump jet,” Clark said.
“An electric propulsion system will be less efficient than traditional steam or diesel propulsion because the reactor or diesel generator is powering a generator that then powers a motor, compared to a diesel motor or steam turbine directly driving the shaft.”
If the Chinese were to successfully develop and build a rim-driven pumpjet, there could be wider strategic implications.

“If they have developed a genuinely silent drive for SSNs, though, they could use those boats as a free-range element of their A2/AD network: SSKs could form a relatively static defensive cordon closer to shore while SSNs roamed ahead in an effort to detect, track, and target oncoming U.S. Pacific Fleet or Seventh Fleet task forces (and to notify A2/AD forces to the rear of U.S. forces' whereabouts),” James Holmes, professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, told The National Interest.
“SSNs thus could comprise a forward defense of China's forward, layered maritime defense. And that leaves aside all of the more offensive uses for stealthy SSNs, such as forward operations in the Indian Ocean.”

The new propulsion system could also be a boon for the Chinese SSBN fleet, which like the Soviet boomer fleet, uses the so-called ‘Bastion’ strategy.
“This type of propulsion would enhance what appears to be China's ‘bastion’ strategy for SSBNs in the South China Sea,” Holmes said.
“Propulsion machinery is at its quietest when running slowly, while SSBNs crawl along on patrol. SSBNs based at Sanya and fitted with newfangled propulsion plants could get underway, dive quickly, and dawdle out to their patrol grounds--keeping their acoustic signature, and thus chances of hostile detection, to a bare minimum. That would make the anti-submarine challenge for U.S. and allied forces daunting indeed. We would be hunting Chinese subs in China's extended neighborhood, in proximity to an array of PLA A2/AD weaponry.”
However, there are plenty of indications that the Chinese rim-power pumpjet silent propulsion technology is overblown. In the SCMP article, author Minne Chan quotes Collin Koh Swee Lean, a submarine expert from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University as saying that: “In the long term, if the pump-jet propulsion is declared fully operational and tested successfully ... future [Chinese] submarines would be equipped with pump-jet propulsion as a standard design feature.”

To Callender, that is an indication that the Chinese technology is still in the lab.
“To me this means that the rimless pump-jet is still very much in the Science and Technology phase of development and not a near-term mature technology,” Callender said.
Ultimately, only time will tell if the new Chinese silent propulsion system proves to be genuine.
But some U.S. naval analysts believe the rim-driven pumpjet is simply Chinese propaganda. “I read this earlier this morning and concluded that the PLAN propaganda machine was busy on July 4th,” Bryan McGrath, managing director of the FerryBridge Group naval consultancy, explained to The National Interest yesterday.
“Yes, something...if genuine. And there is no question in my mind that the undersea advantage we enjoy will come under increasing pressure from PLAN capabilities. But quieter that U.S. subs? No.”
-
- This Story First Appeared in The National Interest --

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jul 2017 14:14

if I understand it correctly, there is no shaft from a motor or turbine inside the hull, but the cowl shroud of the pumpjet itself is a motor using magnets and electric coils which turns 1 or more prop stages attached to the circular rim like a waterproof motor ? the rim and the cowl are two parts of the motor.

the con imo is that if something goes wrong with this at depth, there is no way to fix or troubleshoot . and unlike turbines or motors in a engine room there is no room for redundant systems out there.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jul 2017 17:16

Yes,unless they do not have creeper motors also for silent running,which are featured on Ru subs and one supposes our desi N-subs too.Creeper motors swing out from the hull and are supposedly hydrodynamically shaped. The issue is whether these shaftless screws can provide the sub that acceleration reqd. when countering an enemy torpedo attack,making swift evasive manoeuvres,and high speed bursts to escape anti-sub pursuit by surface ships and ASW helos.Otherwise these shaftless wonders will get shafted!

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Jul 2017 10:38

Philip wrote:http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 1436[quote]
Did China Just Create the "Holy Grail" Of Submarine Technologies?

[/quote]

Adm, just take it from me. As the one with the "who has the upper hand" in "technology strategy " (especially in these particular matters), I couldn't but help rolling my eyes at the B.S (pardon the French) that the Chinese have come up with.

1. As a plain engineering model it makes no sense. Any review with half decent peer , will tell you that it doesn't pass any sanity checks.
2. In a "Kort Nozzle" (aka better known as ducted prop ) like in a tug, the nozzle, cross section is actually airfoil shaped that actually generates lift (and also drag.. you can't have one without the other) thus generates more thrust than an open prop, at the expense of efficiency
3. The reason why you have want to have pump jet propulsors is two.
a. You can reduce the prop dia , by having a multi stage set of impellers within the nozzle, thereby accelerating the flow in stages (vs across just one set of blades in a conventional prop), and since it is spread across stages, the drop in pressure on the top of the blades will be lower (than vs a single stage) and hence you wont have cavitation to a greater degree. We talked of this earlier. In a deep submerged sub, cavitation is not a problem (10m of water is 1 atm), it is only when running at high speeds close to the surface it is (blades are highly loaded and the local pressure is not high).
b. More importantly, you can cut down the direction in which the prop noise is radiated from 360 deg (from the blade) to just a pure directional noise directly astern .. sort of like a modern turbofan in a jet plane. the noise is now directly behind, and unless you are right in flight path, you rarely hear a modern passenger jet flying some way off in your sight.

Engg, design wise, this entire thing has to have a kort nozzle directly enclosing a huge and powerful electric motor (most probably permanent magnet one like in a submarine main propulsion motor with exotic neodymium magnets (to generate the magnetic flux), for which the rotor is a multi stage pump. In essence what the chinese are claiming is that they will move the propulsion motor and magnet from inside the hull to outside and do away with the shaft. Trouble is, the shaft is rather short (distance from motor to prop) and can be made really stiff (and hence wont vibrate much) and is far easier to do . Putting that outside the hull in the water will see the dia of the pump jet nozzle approaching the hull dia itself of the sub . Just making that watertight and sealed and working will be a stiff task (don't even ask about reliability, maintenance, battle damage tolerance etc).

Frankly, this entire thing was a red herring, meant for half literate fan boys in Chinese and Paki Def forums to salivate over. For everyone else, it is a source of mirth.

Added later. Okay, in a nuke sub, you hitch the prop directly to the steam turbine via gearing. So if you want to go all electric (like in a conventional sub) it is easy to replace the shafting with a generator that feeds a motor (like in a conventional sub). It has already been done in cruise ships and even warships (Type 45?) with the ABB's Podded Propulsors and "Power station" concept (also Rolls Royce has its version) . This is FAR FAR easer to do and more sensible to do (if needed and you want to do away with reduction gearing and propellor shafting) than the B.S put out by the Chinese.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jul 2017 14:39

A Dave Majumdar article. What did you expect? Serious analysis?

DrRatnadip · Post by **DrRatnadip** » 11 Jul 2017 22:47

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -35s-21493

Japan's Strange Non-Aircraft Carrier (That Could Carry F-35s Someday)

Japan has three “helicopter destroyers”: Hyuga, its sister ship Ise and the larger Izumo. Each strongly resembles an aircraft carrier, but due to political and engineering concerns are technically not—nor ever will be. All that being said, Japan is on a trajectory that could lead to actual carriers if the need arises.
.
.
In 2009, Japan took another ponderous step towards naval aviation with the launching of JS Hyuga. Hyuga and its sister ship Ise are 676 feet long and weigh 19,500 tons fully loaded, making them even bigger than HMS Invincible. Both carry four antisubmarine warfare helicopters, and can support up to eleven. In 2013 an even large helicopter carrier, JS Izumo, was launched. 816 feet long and twenty-seven thousand tons fully loaded, Izumo and its sister ship under construction, Kaga, normally embark nine helicopters and can carry up to fourteen. Each is the centerpiece of an escort flotilla of destroyers and destroyer escorts, designed to protect ship convoys from submarine attack.

All four ships have full-length flight decks, aircraft elevators, islands to oversea aerial operations and large, voluminous hangars. Still, unlike conventional aircraft carriers, the Hyuga and Izumo classes are unable to operate fixed-wing aircraft
.
.
Japan’s naval aviation ships are steadily growing larger and more capable—almost ridiculously so: at 27,500 tons and more than eight hundred feet long, Izumo is unnecessarily large for an all-helicopter ship. The intimation is Japan is building progressively larger ships to gain experience for eventually constructing a genuine, fixed-wing aircraft carrier.
.
.
Finally, Japan simply cannot afford real carriers. Japan’s gross government debt is now twice the size of the entire economy. Pegged at roughly per 1 percent of GDP, Japan’s defense budget grows slowly, when it grows at all. Still, that assumes that no great security crisis makes aircraft carriers a necessity. If relations with China continue to worsen, Tokyo could always finance the construction of aircraft carriers with debt.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Jul 2017 15:13

UK assessing Poseidon as potential Sentinel replacement

The United Kingdom is looking to use the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime multimission aircraft (MMA) to replace the Raytheon Sentinel R1 Airborne Stand-Off Radar (ASTOR) aircraft in the overland surveillance role, the government disclosed on 11 July. Answering questions in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Harriet Baldwin said that the possible use of the Poseidon in this role is one of a number of options currently being explored by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) ahead of the Sentinel’s planned retirement date of 2021.

“Work is ongoing in the Ministry of Defence, led by Joint Forces Command, to determine the detailed requirements underpinning any future overland capability programme. A number of space-based, manned and unmanned aircraft solutions, including the development of a sensor for integration onto P-8A, are being explored as part of this work,” Baldwin said.

The ASTOR system that comprises the Sentinel aircraft and its ground-based support elements currently provide UK and allied forces with a long-range, battlefield-intelligence, target-imaging and tracking, and surveillance capability. Since 2007, 5 (Army Cooperation - AC) Squadron based at Royal Air Force (RAF) Waddington in central England has fielded five Sentinel platforms in a range of theatres including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, and Syria. These five aircraft were originally due to be retired in 2018, but due to their operational success were extended to 2021. However, in order to maintain this capability through to this revised out-of-service date (OSD), one airframe was withdrawn on 1 April of this year. The UK is set to receive the first three of nine Poseidon MMA aircraft in 2019, with the remaining six scheduled to be in-situ at RAF Lossiemouth in northern Scotland by early 2022. Although being procured as a maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), the MMA designation speaks to a wider capability set that could, with the appropriate investment and development, include the overland surveillance mission of the Sentinel.

While the Poseidon is not currently equipped with the GMTI radar that gives the Sentinel its wide-area airborne surveillance (WAAS) capability, Boeing is touting a derivate of the 737 airliner on which the Poseidon is based as a Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) replacement for the US Air Force (USAF). The USAF’s JSTARS performs essentially the same role as the RAF’s Sentinel, and the UK could certainly leverage what would likely be a substantial investment by Boeing and the USAF to cross-deck that capability over to the Poseidon.

Besides any Boeing and USAF investment, there would be a number of advantages for the UK in using its Poseidon’s in this role. Being based on the 737 airliner, the Poseidon is significantly larger than the Sentinel, which is a modified Global Express business jet. This increase in size translates into more onboard real-estate to house the additional equipment and personnel; greater power and cooling capabilities with which to run this equipment; as well as an increase in endurance from up to seven hours in the Sentinel to more than 12 hours with the Poseidon. It would also mean using an already existing fleet, with the associated synergies in training and support.

However, there would also be some disadvantages. At just nine aircraft, the UK’s Poseidon fleet will be relatively small and no doubt fully stretched with its ‘day job’ of monitoring and countering increased Russian naval activity, protecting the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers, providing long-range search and rescue, and the host of other regular MPA duties for which it was procured in the first place. There have to be questions raised as to its capacity to take on a major additional role such as overland WAAS.

Major structural modifications would need to be undertaken for the Poseidon to be outfitted for such a role, with the GMTI/SAR being fitted to the aircraft in an approximately 40 ft (12 m) 'canoe' beneath the fuselage. Presently, this would interfere with the retracting electro-optical/infrared sensor turret. For the USAF’s JSTARS requirement, this would not be an issue as the aircraft would be used for this role only, but it could present problems for the UK, which would certainly look to use all of its Poseidons in a multirole capacity rather than having particular platforms devoted to particular missions.

Also, besides the Sentinel aircraft a major component of the ASTOR system is the ground-based element located at RAF Waddington. While these mobile Tactical Ground Stations and the containerised Operational Level Ground Station (OLGS) facilities do not necessarily need to be co-located with the Poseidon’s at RAF Lossiemouth, it would make operational, training, and support sense to do so. The British Army personnel currently assigned to the Sentinel would also have to be relocated.

Whatever path the UK chooses to adopt in its search for a Sentinel replacement, the idea that it might be replaced by the Poseidon marks something of a reversal of fortune as it was only a few years ago that the MoD was looking at the Sentinel as a potential MPA for the UK. In 2014, the government said that a contract for the development and installation of a maritime-capable software upgrade onto the aircraft was planned for the second quarter of 2015. This never happened, however, with the Poseidon being procured instead.

CommentBoeing has long viewed the USAF's E-8C JSTARS as a potential opportunity for its 737 platform, and the UK decision to procure the 737-based Poseidon provides a golden opportunity for the cash-strapped MoD to piggy-back on such a development.

Company officials noted back in 2012 that work had begun in 2009 to develop its P-8A-derived Airborne Ground Surveillance (AGS) project in anticipation of a formal JSTARS-replacement requirement from the USAF.

Boeing's plan was and remains to leverage the billions of dollars that the US Department of Defense has already invested in the US Navy's P-8 programme to offer a derivative to the air force at a fraction of the cost of developing a new platform. These investment savings would add to the benefits derived from such a large user base already flying the commercial 737. Boeing has previously stated that a 737/P-8A-based JSTARS solution would save some USD8 billion over the 40-year life of a possible programme, and the savings to the UK of utilising its Poseidons for this overland WAAS mission are likely to be substantial also.

While the article does mention the AAG, it forgets to mention that the AGS sensor is integrated on the P-8A already and is a US Navy program of record. Perhaps they don't mention it because it is still largely a classified sensor but Raytheon has said that its JSTARS sensor submission is an upgraded (X-band GaN T/R modules) AAS and is roughly of the same dimensions. There is no reason the UK can't go for the JSTARS sensor for commonality reasons. The lack of an IR sensor (space taken by the radar) can easily be compensated for by carrying a wing mounted pod.

The NextGen-JSTARS program is actually choosing a platform and a sensor independently so the Raytheon sensor, and the Boeing aircraft may not ultimately be the winning combination but regardless, in the AAS version the sensor is fully funded and will be fielded so the UK can perhaps take it from there and add their own modes and capability. But for that they will likely ned b/w 12 and 15 total P-8 force to serve both missions with 4-5 of those aircraft housing the GMTI sensor.

Boeing Next-JSTARS mounts the radar aft of where the Navy does it because it does not have to accomodate a weapons bay on the USAF 737s but I don't know where Jane's gets its 40ft radar length - it is not a requirement and the likely radar selected (either Northrop or Raytheon) will be around 25 ft. -

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 13 Jul 2017 16:39

So what happens to the existing Global Express based platforms? As far as I understand, those are fairly new and quite capable on their own, so I dont quite get why the UK is retiring them. Perhaps I am missing something?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Jul 2017 16:55

I think the plan is to retire the fleet in the early to mid 2020s (the Jane's article says 2021 but that will likely be extended as most things in Britain tend to move to the right) or probably around the time the radar and associated systems would need major mid life upgrades. Another option could be to just pick the USAF NG-JSTARS radar (which ever one wins) and mount on these platforms, since the radar has to adhere to the SWaPC of the smallest JSTARS platform so will work on this. A unique radar and associated mission systems would cost quite a bit to upgrade and sustain over the life-time but by aligning themselves with a larger fleet they can get a better sensor while also spreading the cost of future enhancements. What's driving this decision is long term support and life-cycle cost and not necessarily capability obsolescence.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jul 2017 17:12

Details : Stealth Warship Gremyashchy-class corvettes (Project 20385)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jul 2017 02:56

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2017 18:47

BAE Systems - Type 26 Global Combat Ship for Australia

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jul 2017 19:05

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jul 2017 01:17

Size comparison

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2017 12:10

Israel plans to acquire another 3 upgraded Dolphin class subs from Germany ,which can carry N-tipped cruise missiles. However,the on-going sub scandal affecting Bibi N and his top aides is only growing larger and may affect the deal.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/isr ... ng-scandal

Israel-Germany submarine deal in jeopardy amid widening scandal
By: Barbara Opall-Rome, July 14, 2017
TEL AVIV, Israel — A widening scandal in Israel over a slew of suspected criminal offenses is likely to torpedo a €1.2 billion (U.S. $1.4 billion) submarine deal between Israel and Germany, as a former Israeli Navy commander and the personal attorney of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are the latest to be caught up in an ongoing probe.

Vice Adm. Eliezer Marom, who commanded the Navy from 2007-2011, and David Shimron, Netanyahu’s personal attorney, remain under house arrest after three days of questioning in what is known here as the Case 3000 Affair.

There are now four ongoing police probes into Netanyahu or his close associates spanning a spectrum of allegations including accepting inappropriate gifts to abuse of influence over the telecommunications sector, ranging from Case 1000 to Case 4000. Hence, the naval procurement scandal's colloquial label of Case 3000.

Three other suspects in the Case 3000 Affair — including Micky Ganor, the local agent for ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems; a retired Navy officer; and retired Rear Adm. Avriel Bar-Yosef, a former deputy National Security Council chief — are in police custody on suspicion of bribery, conspiracy, break of trust and money-laundering.

Defense News
Israeli Navy backs Netanyahu’s submarine scheme
Marom is the highest-ranking Israeli military officer ever to be arrested here. Investigators suspect him of conspiracy and of taking bribes from Ganor, the local agent of TKMS, the Kiel, Germany-based shipyard that builds Dolphin-class submarines and surface ships for the Israeli Navy.

During interrogation earlier this week, Marom confirmed that, as Navy commander, he insisted TKMS replace its longtime agent in Israel, a former Israeli Air Force officer, with Ganor. Through his attorney, Marom has denied receiving payment from Ganor, yet experts say it is unprecedented for an active-duty officer to intervene on contracts between foreign companies and their in-country agents.

In an interview earlier this year, Yeshayahu Bareket, the retired Air Force officer who was ousted from his role with TKMS, told Defense News that he was “strong-armed” out of the position he held for 20 years.

“My work there was to the mutual benefit of my country and the shipyard. Thank God I’m out with my integrity and clean hands,” Bareket said.

The package for three new Dolphin 2-class, air-independent propulsion submarines was approved by the Israeli Cabinet last October after an extraordinarily fast-tracked process that circumvented normal oversight and approval procedures within the Navy, the Israel Defense Forces' General Staff and the Defense Ministry. It was negotiated directly between Netanyahu and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and their direct representatives, although a contract has yet to be signed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2017 12:58

Dolphin-2s delayed tx to the ongoing sub-scandal,but Germany says that they will be built once the inquiry is over.

Where we can also start an R&D programme asap for the same.IIT Mds. was supposed to have helped develop a UUV torpedo size for the IN.It coud expand its vision into developing something on the lines of this revolutionary DARPA UUV.Long endurance UUVs/UCAVs is the holy grail of UUV programmes today. The ability of an unmanned "mini/midget-sub",that can loiter on the oceans for a few months,carrying anti-sub weaponry as well,able to sanitise chokepoints and approaches to naval bases,harbours,ports,seaboard,etc.,will reduce enormously the expensive and limitations of manned subs doing the same duties."Schools" of such UUVs could work like WW2 German "wolfpacks" ,tracking enemy subs and shipping,transmitting the data to NCW linked naval assets for prosecution in case they lack the required weaponry.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/unde ... obot-subs/

Underwater Bloodhounds: DARPA’s Robot Subs
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on July 19, 2017
A US Navy attack submarine enters Apra Harbor in Guam
Run silent, run deep — and now, run in packs? Submarines are traditionally lone wolves, but the rise of robotics is starting to change that. Just yesterday, defense contractor BAE announced a $4.6 million award from DARPA to build an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) to accompany manned submarines, helping them spot targets by sending out active sonar pulses.

Navy photo
Navy Mark 48 torpedo undergoing maintenance. The proposed underwater drone must be this size or smaller so submarines can launch it from their torpedo tubes.
While the contract is tiny by Pentagon standards, it’s a harbinger of things to come underwater. Done right, the sonar drone could give bubbleheads a new advantage at a time when Russia and China are copying our old ones. But there are plenty of technical and tactical hurdles to overcome. The first is cramming a sufficiently high-powered sonar, an underwater datalink, and an adequate power source in a drone small enough to launch from a torpedo tube. If you can do all that, then you have to make sure the sonar and datalink aren’t too powerful, or they’ll give away the drone’s location — or even help the enemy find the manned submarine itself.

Known as MOCCA (Mobile Offboard Clandestine Communications & Approach), the sonar UUV would help the manned mothership detect enemy submarines at greater distances, without being detected in return. Active sonar, which sends out a pulse of sound — that loud “PING” you hear in war movies — has a much longer range than passive sonar, which merely listens. But submarines generally rely on passive sensors, because the enemy can home in on active pulses. If the sub can launch an unmanned underwater vehicle with active sonar, though, the UUV can move a safe distance away before it starts pinging. Yes, the enemy may well detect the drone, but even if they destroy it, the manned sub is safe.

The relationship between sub and drone would be a bit like that between a hunter and his hound, working together to find prey. But in this hunt, though, the prey shoot back. The hope is they shoot the noisy hound instead of the quiet hunter. The danger is the hound will give the hunter away.

How? One danger is that the UUV’s active sonar pulse might hit its parent submarine, echoing off and effectively spotlighting it for the enemy. While you would never intentionally aim your sonar at a friendly sub, sound bends and bounces in funny ways underwater. “Sound that is projected will be scattered,” warns DARPA’s Broad Agency Announcement outlining the problem. “Scattered sound may inadvertently illuminate the host submarine and possibly compromise stealth.”

The other danger is the datalink. The manned submarine and the UUV have to communicate, if only so they know where the other one is. The more data they exchange — the humans sending orders to the drone, the drone sending scouting reports back — the more transmissions there are to detect. Submarines traditionally operate alone precisely because coordination requires communication, and communication can be detected. As the BAA puts it, “the MOCCA communications link cannot degrade submarine stealth.”

Bryan Clark
“Underwater data links are a relatively mature technology. The challenge here is to create one that can provide high bandwidth if the UUV needs to send data to the submarine and can also be hard for an enemy to detect,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submariner and former aide to the Chief of Naval Operations, how the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments. (Clark wrote an intriguing study on underwater communications). The crucial question is how much bandwidth you want, which in turn depends on what, exactly, you want the drone to do. There are two basic approaches, Clark told me:

The unmanned underwater vehicle has an active sonar transmitter, but only the manned submarine has a receiver. This basically splits the sonar in two. The UUV is just sending out the ping, not listening for the echoes. That means it’s not collecting any data, which means it doesn’t need to transmit much. This is the stealthier approach — but it forgoes the opportunity of using the UUV as a second sensor platform to look at things from a different angle.
The UUV has both a sonar transmitter and a receiver. The submarine’s passive sensors can still listen for the echoes from the UUV’s pings, but now the UUV is listening too, providing a second chance to pick up faint signals and a second perspective to triangulate a signal’s source. The problem is now the UUV has to transmit all this information back to the manned submarine. This approach is more likely to see the enemy coming, but it’s also more likely to be seen.
“If the UUV just transmits active sonar and other platforms listen to the reflections form the sonar, the datalink only needs to be able to control the UUV and provide feedback on its location,” Clark said. “If the UUV is also acting as a sensor, much more bandwidth is needed, (and) as bandwidth goes up, the required power level probably rises and could make the link more detectable.”

Clark still firmly believes underwater drones are central to the future of naval warfare: He just never said developing the technology or the tactics would be easy. “Overall, the idea of using UUVs as adjuncts to submarines or surface ships in Anti-Submarine Warfare to be sensors…is a good one,” he told me. “The key is coming up with tactics and applications where they offer better performance than the traditional approaches we use today.”

The DARPA contract starts us down that road.

PS:There is another concept similar to the Israeli Harpy/Harop air loitering "suicide" drone which could be pursued. Once a contact/target has been detected and identified,the drone executes a "kamaikaze" dive. Instead of releasing a weapon,the UUV could be the weapon itself,which could search ,seek out and then attack the enemy subs/ships,would in effect be torpedoes with long-endurance and superior sonars than regular "fish".In case of these UUVs not finding any worthwhile target,there must be a method of recovering and re-using them.These UUVs could even be launched and recovered in ":pods" fitted to the mother sub's hull,just as spl. forces' modules are fitted atop a sub's hull.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Jul 2017 16:47

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 22 Jul 2017 13:01

Fresh boatload of problems on jsf:

https://sputniknews.com/amp/us/20170721 ... 5-landing/

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jul 2017 16:13

A dev. flight discovered a glitch during the development phase (exactly when you are supposed to go through the discovery process) and the program issued a correction work order, and put that through lab testing and will send the aircraft with the correction back to the ship to complete its envelope testing in September. This is precisely what you do at this phase of flight testing. Keep in mind that the first F-35B deployment at sea on an L-Class ship will be next year..So far it is operating form Land only. Full weapon, mission system and flight envelope FOC for the Marines isn't till later in 2018.

It is not surprising..I posted the entire video in the International Aerospace thread a couple of weeks ago. The video was from a presentation by a test pilot lead on the perils of envelope expansion, discovery and new aircraft testing and how effective communication strategies helps mitigate some risk. It is the job of test pilots to accomplish 'firsts' with a new system, discover bugs, glitches so that those can be remedied. It is also they who have to take the risk of establishing the safe envelope as the full video clearly shows them doing. Sputnik will not cover this but when the MSM reacted using this as a source (it was a DOD released video from a tester presentation) they asked the PO on what they did to correct this and the program office responded that they have incorporated changes to their hardware/software and will be taking those changes to the boat in late summer or early autumn to fully verify them.

The point of development testing is to DISCOVER, CORRECT and then VERIFY. This is why they have multiple visits to ships out at sea during the developmental phase of the program. They are always testing something or the other, taking lessons learned from one deployment, making corrections and going back to the vessel to test those out. This phase of the JSF testing is going to be completed by early next year. The final Generation 3+ Helmet configuration is now out with the development test team, and is being tested from land. It will be sent to the boat around September. It is lighter in weight, and addresses some of the hardware and software based issues identified with the currently deployed Gen. 3 helmet. It will be an upgrade to Gen. 3 sets currently out in the field.

Literally hundreds if not thousands of such discoveries are a part and parcel of developmental testing work on a program of this size and scale (three variants requirement, essentially 3 test programs) and this is why you seperate DT from OA and OT with the latter assuming that you have a fully developed, and sufficiently debugged and sufficiently mature aircraft that you can put into an operational test scenario with the expectation that no major system faults will be discovered during that process (as they would have been dealt with during developmental testing work). As a contrast to Developmental Testing which is performed by a combined Air Force Test Pilot, and Contractor Test Pilot team, Operational assessments, and official Operational testing (both IOT&E and if required FOT&E) is always performed by operational pilots taken from frontline squadrons.

At this moment the JSF is in developmental test phase with Dev. Testing of block 2B and 3I having been completed (3I is currently fleet deployed) with 3F (full capability) being in the final phases of dev. testing. 3F developmental testing will finish on F-35A and F-35C, likely by the end of 2017 with developmental testing on F-35B likely to go into the first quarter of 2018. Both the F-35A and F-35B have also undergone block specific Operational Assessments by their individual services based on their own TPs and it is based on those criteria and OA clearances that they have declared the capability operational (IOC). Full Operational Test and Evaluation on fully developed JSF (Block 3F) will begin in the summer of next year and will be a 24 aircraft(+/-) - 12 month long process.

The JSF is the largest program in terms of the sheer number of aircraft the US has ever put into a developmental and operational test program. The jointly developed Operational TEMP (OT&E) is also the most extensive ever produced since the DOTE turned on its lights. It involves an estimated 5000+ hours of operational flight testing over the course of one year with 100% of that being over range infrastructure or out at sea. This follows an even more extensive and longer Developmental testing plan not counting the service level operational assessment and the 5+ large force exercises the aircraft has participated in including its 3rd Red Flag that it is currently in.

By historical standards, the JSF testing has been a relatively event free thing and if one goes by the number of reportable incidents and the fact that the total fleet (A,B and C) has now clocked in excess of 100,000 cumulative flight hours - a very safe program by most historical standards. The test pilots have contributed a lot towards keeping it so and this was the context of the presentation that I had posted in the Int. Aero thread. Here it is again in case someone wants to watch it. Again, the objective was to share some lessons learned within the T&E community, not give a laundry list of the 1000s of discoveries made during the development phase or to chest thump. Not surprisingly, the Media jumped on individual examples cited by the speaker and completely neglected the underlying message.

chola · Post by **chola** » 22 Jul 2017 17:03

Philip wrote:Israel plans to acquire another 3 upgraded Dolphin class subs from Germany ,which can carry N-tipped cruise missiles. However,the on-going sub scandal affecting Bibi N and his top aides is only growing larger and may affect the deal.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/isr ... ng-scandal
Israel-Germany submarine deal in jeopardy amid widening scandal
By: Barbara Opall-Rome, July 14, 2017
TEL AVIV, Israel — A widening scandal in Israel over a slew of suspected criminal offenses is likely to torpedo a €1.2 billion (U.S. $1.4 billion) submarine deal between Israel and Germany, as a former Israeli Navy commander and the personal attorney of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are the latest to be caught up in an ongoing probe.

Nice to know that corrupt babus are a world wide phenomenom.

chola · Post by **chola** » 22 Jul 2017 17:11

Our Russian "friends" have invited the chini navy to the Baltics. Britshits have their panties in knots after sighting their first war junks from White Cliffs of Dover.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... h-channel/

Royal Navy scrambles to shadow Chinese warships in English Channel as they head to Baltics for first war games with Russia

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jul 2017 04:14

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/politics/ ... index.html
simply marvelous! check out the video as well /scroll down

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2017 08:41

'Dmitriy Donskoy' Typhoon class submarine & 'Pyotr Velikiy' battlecruiser passing Danish waters en route to St. Petersburg,Baltic Sea.

https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/8 ... 3515002880

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2017 16:40

Ck out the USN's pos. config for a new naval stealth bird.AMCA should take a look at this config.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/spe ... ighter-jet

Speed and range could be key for Navy's next fighter jet
By: Valerie Insinna, July 21, 2017 (Photo Credit: Boeing)
WASHINGTON — The Navy is knee deep in an analysis on how best to replace its Super Hornet and Growler aircraft. Though much work is still left to be done, the resulting platform could look a lot different than both those jets, with a much higher priority on range and speed.

The service kicked off its “Next Generation Air Dominance” analysis of alternatives in January 2016 to study potential replacements for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler. (Confusingly, the Air Force has used the NGAD term to describe its own analysis of alternatives for an F-22 follow-on aircraft, but the services’ efforts are not connected and there are no plans to pursue a joint fighter).

Now, after about a year and a half, the Navy team feels they have a complete understanding of what capabilities the future carrier strike group needs to have and, importantly, what threats it will face, Capt. Richard Brophy, who is working the AoA effort as part of the service’s air warfare division, said during a panel at the Office of Naval Research’s science and technology expo.

“The tradespace is completely wide open as we look at what is going to replace those airplanes,” he said, adding that the “family of systems” that replace the Super Hornet and Growler could include a fighter jet , but perhaps also include shipboard systems or multiple aircraft working together.

Although the study is not slated to wrap up until at least April, Brophy offered his thoughts on some key capabilities for NGAD.

For one, it could be unmanned or optionally manned, as was the hope of former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

“It is not lost on us that A.I. [artificial intelligence], unmanned, it’s coming and it’s out there, and we need to be able to incorporate that into what we’re looking at out there,” Brophy said.

One key attribute that NGAD will likely incorporate is a longer range — something Brophy says is a significant limitation for the current carrier air wing.

“I tend to think of it not only as range, but as reach. Not only how far my airplane flies, but how far do my weapons go on top of that,” he said. “Reach also gets into propulsion, and when we look at propulsion, I’m looking for efficiency. The longer I can fly without having to go get gas, the better.”

Another critical capability is a throwback to the F-14 Tomcat-era of flight operations: the need for high speed.

Brophy said the Navy, which has historically been more skeptical of stealth than the Air Force, will likely incorporate some low observable capabilities into its future NGAD capability. But it is still undetermined as to whether it becomes as high of a priority as it was for the F-35 joint strike fighter.

“We certainly need survivability. Stealth is just one piece of the survivability equation,” he said. “I kind of look at stealth as sort of like chaff and flares. It’s not going to defeat [the enemy] every time, but it will help. Stealth is part of what any future design — if you look at any country, they’re going that way. So, yes it would probably be part of it.”

Defense News
Air Force Prepares to Hash Out Future Fighter Requirements
Bill Nickerson, a program officer for ONR’s division of aerospace sciences, added that the office is investing in stealth as well as other technologies that would improve survivability, such as ultra-lightweight armor and counter-directed energy capabilities.

As the AoA progresses, the Navy will look at multiple options to replace the Super Hornet and Growler. The first option — to do nothing — will likely be quickly ruled out because the service will need capacity as those aircraft begin retiring in the mid 2030s, Brophy said.

The team will also consider whether Navy can meet the threats it encounters in the 2040 timeframe with simply by buying more Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35Cs, or whether it could upgrade versions of those platforms could accomplish those missions.

Finally, the Navy will look a starting a new program that includes some “transformational capabilities.” However, Brophy acknowledged that the service will need to keep cost low enough to buy a high volume of air vehicles.

“Numbers matter. We’ve got to be able to have enough aircraft out there,” he said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2017 16:45

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-21635
The U.S. Navy Is Turning Its Nuclear Attack Submarines into Cruise Missile Boats

Why we need a few more Akula SSGNs too.