bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Sixth Virginia-class submarine delivered in record time
Sixth Virginia-class submarine delivered in record time
USA military developments
- Thread starter RPK
- Start date
- Status
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Lockheed to sell 24 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt
Lockheed to sell 24 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt | Air Force News at Defense Talk
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Second F-35B Arrives at Navy Test Site
Second F-35B Arrives at Navy Test Site | Air Force News at Defense Talk
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
US mulling Japanese participation in F-35 fighter: report
US mulling Japanese participation in F-35 fighter: report | Air Force News at Defense Talk
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
US mulling Japanese participation in F-35 fighter: report
US mulling Japanese participation in F-35 fighter: report | Air Force News at Defense Talk
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,779
- Likes
- 2,666
F-22 Raptors return from training in Middle East | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
By Corinne Reilly
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 21, 2009
HAMPTON
Six F-22 Raptor pilots returned Wednesday to Langley Air Force Base from a five-week training mission in the Middle East. Their trip marked the controversial aircraft's first extended test under harsh desert conditions.
The pilots, who are part of the 27th Fighter Squadron of Langley's 1st Fighter Wing, spent most of the deployment carrying out simulated combat missions at a training center in the United Arab Emirates, the Air Force said. They practiced against military pilots from Pakistan, Jordan, France and Britain.
The exercise proved that desert conditions such as harsh sand storms and high temperatures don't diminish the Raptor's capabilities, said Lt. Col. Lance Pilch, the squadron's commander.
"In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water," Pilch said. "Their stats were off the chart."Now four years into its operational life, the Raptor is the Air Force's newest fighter jet. It's known for its maneuverability, speed and advanced electronics. But the aircraft also has been criticized for its slow development, lack of a clear mission and escalating price. At $143 million per plane, the Raptor is the military's most expensive fighter.
Detractors argue that the jet, designed for air-to-air combat against sophisticated enemies, holds little relevance in modern conflicts. Proponents counter that even though Raptors have never been sent into combat, their superiority could deter aggression from nations such as Iran and China.
Recently, though, the debate itself has become largely irrelevant: Under pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, lawmakers voted this summer to cut off funding for the aircraft, effectively capping its production at the 186 jets the military already has ordered. A House defense spending bill passed Wednesday included no new money for the Raptor program.
The aircraft's performance in the Middle East this month probably won't change its fate in the United States, said John Pike, director of the military Web site GlobalSecurity.org.
"It's never been a matter of its capabilities," said Pike, who described the Raptor as the fastest fighter jet in the world. "It's a matter of money and of necessity."
He said a renewed threat from China is probably the only circumstance that would push the Raptor into further production.
"If the Chinese suddenly showed up with a stealth fighter that rivaled the Raptor, things could change fast," he said. "The big argument against the Raptor is that it's a Cold War-era weapon. The only real argument for it is China."
About 40 Raptors are stationed at Langley, which was the first base to receive them. Officials at Air Combat Command said there are no plans to increase the number of Raptors based locally, despite a request from Virginia lawmakers.
Corinne Reilly (757) 446-2949, [email protected]
pictures below from the exercise though none of the raptors
PAF J-7
2 f-16'S A MIRAGE AND A J-7
PAF J-7
By Corinne Reilly
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 21, 2009
HAMPTON
Six F-22 Raptor pilots returned Wednesday to Langley Air Force Base from a five-week training mission in the Middle East. Their trip marked the controversial aircraft's first extended test under harsh desert conditions.
The pilots, who are part of the 27th Fighter Squadron of Langley's 1st Fighter Wing, spent most of the deployment carrying out simulated combat missions at a training center in the United Arab Emirates, the Air Force said. They practiced against military pilots from Pakistan, Jordan, France and Britain.
The exercise proved that desert conditions such as harsh sand storms and high temperatures don't diminish the Raptor's capabilities, said Lt. Col. Lance Pilch, the squadron's commander.
"In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water," Pilch said. "Their stats were off the chart."Now four years into its operational life, the Raptor is the Air Force's newest fighter jet. It's known for its maneuverability, speed and advanced electronics. But the aircraft also has been criticized for its slow development, lack of a clear mission and escalating price. At $143 million per plane, the Raptor is the military's most expensive fighter.
Detractors argue that the jet, designed for air-to-air combat against sophisticated enemies, holds little relevance in modern conflicts. Proponents counter that even though Raptors have never been sent into combat, their superiority could deter aggression from nations such as Iran and China.
Recently, though, the debate itself has become largely irrelevant: Under pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, lawmakers voted this summer to cut off funding for the aircraft, effectively capping its production at the 186 jets the military already has ordered. A House defense spending bill passed Wednesday included no new money for the Raptor program.
The aircraft's performance in the Middle East this month probably won't change its fate in the United States, said John Pike, director of the military Web site GlobalSecurity.org.
"It's never been a matter of its capabilities," said Pike, who described the Raptor as the fastest fighter jet in the world. "It's a matter of money and of necessity."
He said a renewed threat from China is probably the only circumstance that would push the Raptor into further production.
"If the Chinese suddenly showed up with a stealth fighter that rivaled the Raptor, things could change fast," he said. "The big argument against the Raptor is that it's a Cold War-era weapon. The only real argument for it is China."
About 40 Raptors are stationed at Langley, which was the first base to receive them. Officials at Air Combat Command said there are no plans to increase the number of Raptors based locally, despite a request from Virginia lawmakers.
Corinne Reilly (757) 446-2949, [email protected]
pictures below from the exercise though none of the raptors
PAF J-7
2 f-16'S A MIRAGE AND A J-7
PAF J-7
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Over 70% of Americans in favor of U.S. troops in Yemen – poll
Over 70% of Americans in favor of U.S. troops in Yemen ? poll | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
LPD Machinery Issue May Affect Other U.S. Ships - Defense News
The U.S. amphibious transport dock New York has suffered a mechanical failure and can't get underway, Defense News' sister publication Navy Times has learned. Engineers are investigating whether the ship's problems will affect its San Antonio-class siblings, several of which have struggled since joining the fleet.
Inspectors discovered problems with the bearings on the New York's diesel engines during an assessment while the ship was at sea, but it was able to return to its dock at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., under its own power, said Lt. Cmdr. Herb Josey, a spokesman for Naval Surface Force Atlantic.
Bearings hold a ship's engines and vital propulsion gear in place. The broken ones aboard the New York are still under warranty and will be repaired by its builder, Northrop Grumman, Josey said.
A spokeswoman for Northrop Grumman told Navy Times she had not heard about the New York's problems and didn't know whether they might mean problems with earlier copies of the class.
The New York - which enjoys international fame for the 7.5 tons of steel from the wreckage of the World Trade Center built into its bow stem - was commissioned with national fanfare Nov. 7 in its namesake city. Since then it has been doing at-sea tests and inspections, including the week-long "diesel baseline assessment" that revealed its failed bearings, Josey said.
Although Navy inspectors have noted an improvement in recent San Antonio-class gators, including the New York, the early ships in the class were plagued with technical woes and bad luck. After months of delays and millions dollars before the San Antonio's first deployment, it was laid up for a month in Bahrain with debilitating lube oil problems. Sailors aboard the second ship, New Orleans, told Navy Times about adversarial relationships with shipbuilders in the yard, who turned in shoddy work and even stole their tools.
The New Orleans also had to spend weeks getting repaired in Bahrain last year after a collision in the Strait of Hormuz with the fast-attack submarine Hartford.
New York sailors told Navy Times in November before the ship's commissioning they were working out their own bugs in their new ship; for example, New York's helmsmen had gotten used to piloting it manually because its fiber-optic control network tended to blink out.
The U.S. amphibious transport dock New York has suffered a mechanical failure and can't get underway, Defense News' sister publication Navy Times has learned. Engineers are investigating whether the ship's problems will affect its San Antonio-class siblings, several of which have struggled since joining the fleet.
Inspectors discovered problems with the bearings on the New York's diesel engines during an assessment while the ship was at sea, but it was able to return to its dock at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., under its own power, said Lt. Cmdr. Herb Josey, a spokesman for Naval Surface Force Atlantic.
Bearings hold a ship's engines and vital propulsion gear in place. The broken ones aboard the New York are still under warranty and will be repaired by its builder, Northrop Grumman, Josey said.
A spokeswoman for Northrop Grumman told Navy Times she had not heard about the New York's problems and didn't know whether they might mean problems with earlier copies of the class.
The New York - which enjoys international fame for the 7.5 tons of steel from the wreckage of the World Trade Center built into its bow stem - was commissioned with national fanfare Nov. 7 in its namesake city. Since then it has been doing at-sea tests and inspections, including the week-long "diesel baseline assessment" that revealed its failed bearings, Josey said.
Although Navy inspectors have noted an improvement in recent San Antonio-class gators, including the New York, the early ships in the class were plagued with technical woes and bad luck. After months of delays and millions dollars before the San Antonio's first deployment, it was laid up for a month in Bahrain with debilitating lube oil problems. Sailors aboard the second ship, New Orleans, told Navy Times about adversarial relationships with shipbuilders in the yard, who turned in shoddy work and even stole their tools.
The New Orleans also had to spend weeks getting repaired in Bahrain last year after a collision in the Strait of Hormuz with the fast-attack submarine Hartford.
New York sailors told Navy Times in November before the ship's commissioning they were working out their own bugs in their new ship; for example, New York's helmsmen had gotten used to piloting it manually because its fiber-optic control network tended to blink out.
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Lockheed Expects Steady 2010 Missile Defense Sales - Defense News
Missile defense systems accounted for 10 percent of Lockheed Martin's total sales in 2009, and company executives expect that number to remain steady this year.
Even with a new Japanese government expected to buy systems associated with Lockheed-made Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles at a slower rate than initially planned, Mike Trotsky, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems, said Jan. 7 he sees sales remaining constant in the new year.
The newly installed, and more liberal, regime in Japan hopes to implement a slate of bold social programs. That likely will force Japanese officials to squeeze the island nation's defense budget to free up funds - and the PAC-3 components could be a target.
Trotsky said Lockheed expects to continue supplying Tokyo with PAC-3 missiles and associated ground support components, but "we could make them at a lesser rate to support [Japan's] budget."
During a conference call with reporters, executives painted an upbeat outlook for international sales of the company's missiles and related components.
Along with the Japanese buy, Trotsky said he anticipates the United Arab Emirates could become "the first international customer" for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system during 2010 - or shortly thereafter.
Late last year, Taiwan became the fifth global buyer of the Patriot missile system. Lockheed officials expect "several other Patriot customers" that have not yet upgraded to the PAC-3 system to do so "within the next three to five years," Trotsky said.
As the company awaits those possible transactions, it will during 2010 continue crucial development work on the second generation of its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, dubbed the BMD 4.0.1.
The key component of the upgraded Aegis is its advanced integrated signal processor, which is designed to enhance the system's discrimination abilities, seen as key to taking down ever-more sophisticated ballistic missiles being developed by a number of potential U.S. foes.
Lisa Callahan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for Maritime BMD Programs, said that during 2010, the company will continue adding the 4.0.1 system to U.S. ships as each vessel undergoes modernization work.
John Holly, Lockheed's vice president of Missile Defense Systems, called Aegis "the shining star" of the defense giant's missile defense portfolio.
The Aegis program has proved highly profitable for Lockheed, and it stands to cash in further from the Obama administration's plans to make Aegis a bigger part of a future European missile shield.
Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute wrote in a recent brief that "like Lockheed's continuously improved C-130 transport [plane], Aegis has become one of the longest running, most lucrative franchises in modern military history.
"The Navy has selected an upgraded version of the Aegis architecture as its main solution for future sea-based missile defense, and the [U.S.] Missile Defense Agency now is giving Aegis the nod for European land-based missile defense," Thompson wrote. "Lockheed's role could actually grow in the future, when the Navy conducts a competition to determine which company builds the next generation of Aegis missiles. ... Aegis looks likely to remain a key revenue generator for the Bethesda, Md.-based contractor."
In the meantime, Lockheed officials said during the call that they are moving ahead with efforts to capture another massive Pentagon missile defense contract.
Lockheed last year announced plans to knock Boeing from its longtime perch as the prime contractor of the Pentagon's Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. That announcement followed the Defense Department signaling it would merge contracts for things like maintenance, operations and logistics support with one that covers ongoing development work.
The combined contract could total $600 million annually for five to 10 years. A solicitation for the GMD competition is expected in early 2010, with a contract slated for a year later.
Lockheed officials are currently "pulling together the right expertise from across the company," and working to bring industry teammates on board, Holly said.
The company believes it can "provide great value-add" by "leveraging [its] 30 years of experience" in the missile realm, he said.
Another Lockheed missile program, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), is slated for its critical design review "this summer," Trotsky said. "Two-thirds of the activities" for that review "are complete," he added.
Work on the system is done and financed in the United States by Lockheed, MBDA in Italy, and by EADS in Germany.
And in other THAAD news, Trotsky said 2010 will be a year of more "ambitious" tests, including one featuring two targets. After that, plans call for "other flight tests against more stressful targets," he added.
Defense analysts have said the outlook for the missile defense market remains sound.
Pointing to missile programs in North Korea, Iran, Russia and China, Holly said, "the world is not a very safe world ... and it is incumbent upon us in industry to provide [the Pentagon] with the best capabilities."
Missile defense systems accounted for 10 percent of Lockheed Martin's total sales in 2009, and company executives expect that number to remain steady this year.
Even with a new Japanese government expected to buy systems associated with Lockheed-made Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles at a slower rate than initially planned, Mike Trotsky, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems, said Jan. 7 he sees sales remaining constant in the new year.
The newly installed, and more liberal, regime in Japan hopes to implement a slate of bold social programs. That likely will force Japanese officials to squeeze the island nation's defense budget to free up funds - and the PAC-3 components could be a target.
Trotsky said Lockheed expects to continue supplying Tokyo with PAC-3 missiles and associated ground support components, but "we could make them at a lesser rate to support [Japan's] budget."
During a conference call with reporters, executives painted an upbeat outlook for international sales of the company's missiles and related components.
Along with the Japanese buy, Trotsky said he anticipates the United Arab Emirates could become "the first international customer" for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system during 2010 - or shortly thereafter.
Late last year, Taiwan became the fifth global buyer of the Patriot missile system. Lockheed officials expect "several other Patriot customers" that have not yet upgraded to the PAC-3 system to do so "within the next three to five years," Trotsky said.
As the company awaits those possible transactions, it will during 2010 continue crucial development work on the second generation of its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, dubbed the BMD 4.0.1.
The key component of the upgraded Aegis is its advanced integrated signal processor, which is designed to enhance the system's discrimination abilities, seen as key to taking down ever-more sophisticated ballistic missiles being developed by a number of potential U.S. foes.
Lisa Callahan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for Maritime BMD Programs, said that during 2010, the company will continue adding the 4.0.1 system to U.S. ships as each vessel undergoes modernization work.
John Holly, Lockheed's vice president of Missile Defense Systems, called Aegis "the shining star" of the defense giant's missile defense portfolio.
The Aegis program has proved highly profitable for Lockheed, and it stands to cash in further from the Obama administration's plans to make Aegis a bigger part of a future European missile shield.
Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute wrote in a recent brief that "like Lockheed's continuously improved C-130 transport [plane], Aegis has become one of the longest running, most lucrative franchises in modern military history.
"The Navy has selected an upgraded version of the Aegis architecture as its main solution for future sea-based missile defense, and the [U.S.] Missile Defense Agency now is giving Aegis the nod for European land-based missile defense," Thompson wrote. "Lockheed's role could actually grow in the future, when the Navy conducts a competition to determine which company builds the next generation of Aegis missiles. ... Aegis looks likely to remain a key revenue generator for the Bethesda, Md.-based contractor."
In the meantime, Lockheed officials said during the call that they are moving ahead with efforts to capture another massive Pentagon missile defense contract.
Lockheed last year announced plans to knock Boeing from its longtime perch as the prime contractor of the Pentagon's Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. That announcement followed the Defense Department signaling it would merge contracts for things like maintenance, operations and logistics support with one that covers ongoing development work.
The combined contract could total $600 million annually for five to 10 years. A solicitation for the GMD competition is expected in early 2010, with a contract slated for a year later.
Lockheed officials are currently "pulling together the right expertise from across the company," and working to bring industry teammates on board, Holly said.
The company believes it can "provide great value-add" by "leveraging [its] 30 years of experience" in the missile realm, he said.
Another Lockheed missile program, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), is slated for its critical design review "this summer," Trotsky said. "Two-thirds of the activities" for that review "are complete," he added.
Work on the system is done and financed in the United States by Lockheed, MBDA in Italy, and by EADS in Germany.
And in other THAAD news, Trotsky said 2010 will be a year of more "ambitious" tests, including one featuring two targets. After that, plans call for "other flight tests against more stressful targets," he added.
Defense analysts have said the outlook for the missile defense market remains sound.
Pointing to missile programs in North Korea, Iran, Russia and China, Holly said, "the world is not a very safe world ... and it is incumbent upon us in industry to provide [the Pentagon] with the best capabilities."
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Lockheed Expects Steady 2010 Missile Defense Sales - Defense News
Missile defense systems accounted for 10 percent of Lockheed Martin's total sales in 2009, and company executives expect that number to remain steady this year.
Even with a new Japanese government expected to buy systems associated with Lockheed-made Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles at a slower rate than initially planned, Mike Trotsky, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems, said Jan. 7 he sees sales remaining constant in the new year.
The newly installed, and more liberal, regime in Japan hopes to implement a slate of bold social programs. That likely will force Japanese officials to squeeze the island nation's defense budget to free up funds - and the PAC-3 components could be a target.
Trotsky said Lockheed expects to continue supplying Tokyo with PAC-3 missiles and associated ground support components, but "we could make them at a lesser rate to support [Japan's] budget."
During a conference call with reporters, executives painted an upbeat outlook for international sales of the company's missiles and related components.
Along with the Japanese buy, Trotsky said he anticipates the United Arab Emirates could become "the first international customer" for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system during 2010 - or shortly thereafter.
Late last year, Taiwan became the fifth global buyer of the Patriot missile system. Lockheed officials expect "several other Patriot customers" that have not yet upgraded to the PAC-3 system to do so "within the next three to five years," Trotsky said.
As the company awaits those possible transactions, it will during 2010 continue crucial development work on the second generation of its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, dubbed the BMD 4.0.1.
The key component of the upgraded Aegis is its advanced integrated signal processor, which is designed to enhance the system's discrimination abilities, seen as key to taking down ever-more sophisticated ballistic missiles being developed by a number of potential U.S. foes.
Lisa Callahan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for Maritime BMD Programs, said that during 2010, the company will continue adding the 4.0.1 system to U.S. ships as each vessel undergoes modernization work.
John Holly, Lockheed's vice president of Missile Defense Systems, called Aegis "the shining star" of the defense giant's missile defense portfolio.
The Aegis program has proved highly profitable for Lockheed, and it stands to cash in further from the Obama administration's plans to make Aegis a bigger part of a future European missile shield.
Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute wrote in a recent brief that "like Lockheed's continuously improved C-130 transport [plane], Aegis has become one of the longest running, most lucrative franchises in modern military history.
"The Navy has selected an upgraded version of the Aegis architecture as its main solution for future sea-based missile defense, and the [U.S.] Missile Defense Agency now is giving Aegis the nod for European land-based missile defense," Thompson wrote. "Lockheed's role could actually grow in the future, when the Navy conducts a competition to determine which company builds the next generation of Aegis missiles. ... Aegis looks likely to remain a key revenue generator for the Bethesda, Md.-based contractor."
In the meantime, Lockheed officials said during the call that they are moving ahead with efforts to capture another massive Pentagon missile defense contract.
Lockheed last year announced plans to knock Boeing from its longtime perch as the prime contractor of the Pentagon's Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. That announcement followed the Defense Department signaling it would merge contracts for things like maintenance, operations and logistics support with one that covers ongoing development work.
The combined contract could total $600 million annually for five to 10 years. A solicitation for the GMD competition is expected in early 2010, with a contract slated for a year later.
Lockheed officials are currently "pulling together the right expertise from across the company," and working to bring industry teammates on board, Holly said.
The company believes it can "provide great value-add" by "leveraging [its] 30 years of experience" in the missile realm, he said.
Another Lockheed missile program, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), is slated for its critical design review "this summer," Trotsky said. "Two-thirds of the activities" for that review "are complete," he added.
Work on the system is done and financed in the United States by Lockheed, MBDA in Italy, and by EADS in Germany.
And in other THAAD news, Trotsky said 2010 will be a year of more "ambitious" tests, including one featuring two targets. After that, plans call for "other flight tests against more stressful targets," he added.
Defense analysts have said the outlook for the missile defense market remains sound.
Pointing to missile programs in North Korea, Iran, Russia and China, Holly said, "the world is not a very safe world ... and it is incumbent upon us in industry to provide [the Pentagon] with the best capabilities."
Missile defense systems accounted for 10 percent of Lockheed Martin's total sales in 2009, and company executives expect that number to remain steady this year.
Even with a new Japanese government expected to buy systems associated with Lockheed-made Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles at a slower rate than initially planned, Mike Trotsky, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems, said Jan. 7 he sees sales remaining constant in the new year.
The newly installed, and more liberal, regime in Japan hopes to implement a slate of bold social programs. That likely will force Japanese officials to squeeze the island nation's defense budget to free up funds - and the PAC-3 components could be a target.
Trotsky said Lockheed expects to continue supplying Tokyo with PAC-3 missiles and associated ground support components, but "we could make them at a lesser rate to support [Japan's] budget."
During a conference call with reporters, executives painted an upbeat outlook for international sales of the company's missiles and related components.
Along with the Japanese buy, Trotsky said he anticipates the United Arab Emirates could become "the first international customer" for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system during 2010 - or shortly thereafter.
Late last year, Taiwan became the fifth global buyer of the Patriot missile system. Lockheed officials expect "several other Patriot customers" that have not yet upgraded to the PAC-3 system to do so "within the next three to five years," Trotsky said.
As the company awaits those possible transactions, it will during 2010 continue crucial development work on the second generation of its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, dubbed the BMD 4.0.1.
The key component of the upgraded Aegis is its advanced integrated signal processor, which is designed to enhance the system's discrimination abilities, seen as key to taking down ever-more sophisticated ballistic missiles being developed by a number of potential U.S. foes.
Lisa Callahan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for Maritime BMD Programs, said that during 2010, the company will continue adding the 4.0.1 system to U.S. ships as each vessel undergoes modernization work.
John Holly, Lockheed's vice president of Missile Defense Systems, called Aegis "the shining star" of the defense giant's missile defense portfolio.
The Aegis program has proved highly profitable for Lockheed, and it stands to cash in further from the Obama administration's plans to make Aegis a bigger part of a future European missile shield.
Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute wrote in a recent brief that "like Lockheed's continuously improved C-130 transport [plane], Aegis has become one of the longest running, most lucrative franchises in modern military history.
"The Navy has selected an upgraded version of the Aegis architecture as its main solution for future sea-based missile defense, and the [U.S.] Missile Defense Agency now is giving Aegis the nod for European land-based missile defense," Thompson wrote. "Lockheed's role could actually grow in the future, when the Navy conducts a competition to determine which company builds the next generation of Aegis missiles. ... Aegis looks likely to remain a key revenue generator for the Bethesda, Md.-based contractor."
In the meantime, Lockheed officials said during the call that they are moving ahead with efforts to capture another massive Pentagon missile defense contract.
Lockheed last year announced plans to knock Boeing from its longtime perch as the prime contractor of the Pentagon's Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. That announcement followed the Defense Department signaling it would merge contracts for things like maintenance, operations and logistics support with one that covers ongoing development work.
The combined contract could total $600 million annually for five to 10 years. A solicitation for the GMD competition is expected in early 2010, with a contract slated for a year later.
Lockheed officials are currently "pulling together the right expertise from across the company," and working to bring industry teammates on board, Holly said.
The company believes it can "provide great value-add" by "leveraging [its] 30 years of experience" in the missile realm, he said.
Another Lockheed missile program, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), is slated for its critical design review "this summer," Trotsky said. "Two-thirds of the activities" for that review "are complete," he added.
Work on the system is done and financed in the United States by Lockheed, MBDA in Italy, and by EADS in Germany.
And in other THAAD news, Trotsky said 2010 will be a year of more "ambitious" tests, including one featuring two targets. After that, plans call for "other flight tests against more stressful targets," he added.
Defense analysts have said the outlook for the missile defense market remains sound.
Pointing to missile programs in North Korea, Iran, Russia and China, Holly said, "the world is not a very safe world ... and it is incumbent upon us in industry to provide [the Pentagon] with the best capabilities."
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Seaborne Intelligence Comes Aboard
By Robert K. Ackerman
December 2009
The U.S. Navy’s Distributed Common Ground System–Navy (DCGS-N) is undergoing operational testing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman.
As U.S. Navy intelligence changes course, a system changes with it.
The U.S. Navy is designing its newest intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting system to fit advanced information systems that already have begun to take shape ashore and afloat. The first increment is receiving its shipboard introduction as a major milestone nears this spring.
The Distributed Common Ground System–Navy (DCGS-N) has been evolving for several years. About two years ago, the program shifted course, and it now is being tested at sea aboard an aircraft carrier.
The Navy is trailing the other services in DCGS implementation, but that may give it an advantage when it comes to incorporating it into the fleet. The Navy knows the networking environment into which DCGS-N will be incorporated, so it is able to tailor the system to fit into that architecture.
And, having a better understanding of command and warfighter requirements than what existed at the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism has enabled the Navy to implement a system that comes close to the users’ wish list. The system is more likely to serve as the basis for new capabilities than as a legacy system that needs to be upgraded or replaced.
Bob Poor, assistant program manager for DCGS-N increment 1, states that DCGS-N will allow the fleet more flexibility from both workstation and work sensor perspectives. In the past, individual intelligence disciplines—the “-INTS”—would be addressed by separate computers. However, DCGS-N workstations can address multiple mission needs.
The onset of the Global War on Terrorism led to a five-year period in which the Navy learned lessons that helped it develop requirements and concepts. Over time, the service incorporated new ideas on how best to optimize the system beyond its original design. The DCGS-N has been able to satisfy some of those ideas, often by reconfiguring existing software. Another approach has been to add software to ships outside of the DCGS-N construct, and the program has coordinated efforts with fleet personnel to facilitate that goal.
For example, the 7th Fleet headquartered in Japan is trying to federate imagery analysis across the Asia-Pacific region. The fleet is working with the U.S. Pacific Command and the Navy’s Pacific Fleet commander in Hawaii.
The aim is to enable different elements of the joint community and the Navy to divide image analysis to avoid redundant activities.
Several applications that are under consideration for DCGS-N fielding were not even under consideration two years ago, Poor says. The DCGS-N program is working to install these applications aboard ship now, after which it would try to incorporate them into a future DCGS-N baseline.
Over the long term, Poor sees DCGS-N achieving two goals. One is to help connect the Navy’s operational intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets to the broader Defense Department and intelligence community enterprise. The second goal is for DCGS-N to act as a tactical gateway to share Navy-unique sensor data across that enterprise.
The first operational unit has been installed aboard the USS Harry S Truman, where it has undergone operational testing. That unit recently completed its initial operational test and evaluation, and formal results will be reported shortly. Informal returns from the ship have been positive.
“The crew loves it,” says Poor of the DCGS-N aboard the Harry S Truman. He reports that the supercarrier’s combat systems officer describes it as a “very stable system” about which operators and maintainers have expressed “significantly more confidence in the DCGS-N applications suite than in any other tool recently introduced in the afloat intelligence, command and control domain.”
Poor also relates that the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) rated it highly following Empire Challenge 09. JFCOM’s after-action report states that DCGS-N succeeded in meeting its primary and stretch goals.
One of these goals involved proving a full federation between DCGS-N and the other members of the DCGS family. These included the DCGS Integration Backbone (DIB), and it especially involved sharing data among different versions of the DIB. DCGS-N also was able to share different types of imagery through the image product library.
In testing at China Lake, California, DCGS-N was incorporated with the Distributed Information Operations Services (DIOS) and the Battlespace Awareness Sensors Enterprise Service (BASES) portal. In this configuration, it served as a DIOS node in a multilevel security configuration to the National Security Agency. This allowed it to publish data into the DIB metadata catalog and share it during Empire Challenge.
Capt. Robert Parker, USN, is the program manager for battlespace awareness and information operations, Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (PEO C4I). He lauds the support from the user community, saying that the fleet buy-in has been “very spectacular.” The captain relates that DCGS-N has been assembled largely from existing products, and integrating many existing applications into a seamless whole did prove more difficult than expected.
Even though DCGS has close relatives among the other services, interoperability is neither seamless nor assured. Each of the services’ DCGS programs are at different funding and maturity levels. Trying to enable all of the DCGSs to share data in a truly interoperable manner remains a challenge, Poor maintains.
Capt. Parker notes that the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force versions are well-established and have much greater funding than DCGS-N.
For example, the Army’s DCGS-A is extensive with built-in capabilities such as video teleconferencing. It also has a mature human intelligence (HUMINT) capability, which allows it to operate to a greater degree at the tactical level than the Navy is considering.
For the Air Force, DCGS-AF already operates five sites.
“Each one of the DCGS programs of record really is tailored to its individual service’s requirements,” Capt. Parker points out. “Where we come together is where we have the requirement to expose data to one another. We can all have different on-the-ground tactical and operational implementations, and where we actually bring all of the systems together is through our DIB federation,” he says.
The captain allows that the different status of the three services’ DCGS programs makes it difficult for the Navy to keep DCGS-N synchronized on the DIB. Multiple DIB variants already are in operation, and each service builds and uses them according to their own requirements. Keeping the DCGSs synchronized so that they can communicate with one another is a challenge, he allows.
Because the core components of DCGS-N consist of mature commercial and government off-the-shelf products, the Navy system faced its own integration challenges, Poor notes. When a core component specializing in one particular -INT is changed or upgraded, that may affect other core components. Similarly, if a workstation utility product is changed across a ship’s network or even the whole Navy, the DCGS-N’s ability to share data may be affected adversely.
“It can be an ongoing ‘whack-a-mole’ challenge to ensure that the integration continues to be there,” he says.
Poor points out that the Navy’s service-specific approach involves coordinating DCGS-N through the Navy’s networks programs, particularly the Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise Services program, or CANES. This program features two core components: a hardware component known as the common computing environment, or CCE; and a software component known as afloat core services.
The innovative nature of the DCGS-N approach entails evolving the program into what would be largely a software program, Poor explains. Future iterations would eschew hardware in favor of software implementation. “We’re looking to leverage as much of the networking infrastructure way ahead as possible,” he states.
Capt. Parker offers that the system can transition gracefully to the CANES environment, where it primarily will be a software provider. By the time it is a part of the CANES hardware baseline, the program will be able to provide new capabilities every two years.
The captain notes that the maritime environment in which the Navy operates drives the applications that will ride on top of DCGS-N. In particular, the Navy connects to different types of sensors than do the Army and Air Force. The Army employs large numbers of ground sensors, and the Air Force operates many unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The Navy’s main concern is to absorb data from a host of airborne sensors, and then provide that data to the other services. For example, the F-18’s reconnaissance pod can provide imagery data that can be used operationally throughout the Navy afloat and ashore as well as by the other services.
Navy intelligence has extremely close ties with the Navy command and control (C2) community, Poor points out.
At the core of intelligence activities always has been the ability to share data seamlessly from the ISR realm to the C2 node.
Beyond that, the Navy is looking at how it can use the Defense Information Systems Agency’s (DISA’s) Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES) to share data with the broader Global Information Grid (GIG) customer field.
The Navy has the DCGS-N Enterprise Node, or DEN, at the National Maritime Intelligence Center at Suitland, Maryland, which aggregates all of the data from Navy ships. The Navy would access the NCES through DEN.
DCGS-N exploitation suites are located at the numbered fleet maritime operations centers and on large amphibious ships and aircraft carriers. The goal is to have 36 exploitation suites—11 on carriers, 11 on large-deck amphibious ships and 14 at maritime operations centers and training sites.
As always, long-term plans run afoul of budgetary constraints, especially during periods of change. The Navy is bringing intelligence and network centricity together, beginning with its new N-2/N-6 construct. That in turn will lead to new approaches for meeting emerging cybersecurity and information dominance concepts and requirements. However, the Navy faces “expectation management challenges” because of its limited budgetary resources, Poor points out.
Capt. Parker adds that DCGS-N is reaching the fleet amid a great deal of pent-up demand for it. Many requirements evolved during system development, and developers needed to be “parsimonious” to avoid changing the system baseline.
“When you go through two years of development, the requirements that were exciting two years ago and the requirements that are available right now are two different things,” he says. “But, a system that is continually developing isn’t a system that’s fielding. It’s a testament to the great relationship we’ve had with the fleet that we’ve managed to stabilize the requirements baseline long enough to get a system out—which then gives us a basis for meeting some of those other requirements that have come out.”
Poor offers that one big challenge facing the program is to maintain adaptability while continuing to satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements. These can range from documentation to testing, and each event adds cost and time to program development.
In March 2010, the DCGS-N program will reach its full deployment decision review. Capt. Parker notes that the program is fielding capabilities in two blocks. The current fielding is the Block 1 baseline, and by 2012-2013 the program will field Block 2. This will allow an upgrade to provide an interface to the various families of Navy UAVs that will be operating at the operational and tactical levels. This data will be available at both maritime operation centers and the joint community.
Poor offers that this might be the key to unifying the diverse UAV data that is burgeoning in the Navy.
These are elements of DCGS-N in increment 1. Experts are beginning the gap analysis to determine the capabilities that will be needed for increment 2. Its target date is the fiscal year 2014 time frame.
Another thrust is to extend the range of DCGS-N. This would entail finding a way to place its capability on unit-level platforms such as destroyers and cruisers. This would make DCGS-N information more widely available.
“In the intelligence business, it’s hard to figure out ahead of time who needs the information,” Capt. Parker says. “So, it’s better to get the information to as many people as possible and allow them to do good work with it.”
The program will award a prime mission product contract in this fiscal year, the captain offers. A strong industry team has supported the effort so far, but the program is looking forward to working with one prime contractor for faster and more efficient fielding.
Capt. Parker allows that the program wants partners that are plugged into the intelligence business line. He wants program goals met using existing elements to the maximum extent possible.
Poor echoes the captain’s point. “There simply isn’t enough money for us to reinvent the wheel. If there is a capability out there that we can leverage, that certainly is what we want to do. We’re looking for industry partners that intuitively understand that in their DNA.”
WEB RESOURCE
PEO C4I: Program Executive Office - Command, Control, Computers, Communications and Intellegence
Link
By Robert K. Ackerman
December 2009
The U.S. Navy’s Distributed Common Ground System–Navy (DCGS-N) is undergoing operational testing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman.
As U.S. Navy intelligence changes course, a system changes with it.
The U.S. Navy is designing its newest intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting system to fit advanced information systems that already have begun to take shape ashore and afloat. The first increment is receiving its shipboard introduction as a major milestone nears this spring.
The Distributed Common Ground System–Navy (DCGS-N) has been evolving for several years. About two years ago, the program shifted course, and it now is being tested at sea aboard an aircraft carrier.
The Navy is trailing the other services in DCGS implementation, but that may give it an advantage when it comes to incorporating it into the fleet. The Navy knows the networking environment into which DCGS-N will be incorporated, so it is able to tailor the system to fit into that architecture.
And, having a better understanding of command and warfighter requirements than what existed at the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism has enabled the Navy to implement a system that comes close to the users’ wish list. The system is more likely to serve as the basis for new capabilities than as a legacy system that needs to be upgraded or replaced.
Bob Poor, assistant program manager for DCGS-N increment 1, states that DCGS-N will allow the fleet more flexibility from both workstation and work sensor perspectives. In the past, individual intelligence disciplines—the “-INTS”—would be addressed by separate computers. However, DCGS-N workstations can address multiple mission needs.
The onset of the Global War on Terrorism led to a five-year period in which the Navy learned lessons that helped it develop requirements and concepts. Over time, the service incorporated new ideas on how best to optimize the system beyond its original design. The DCGS-N has been able to satisfy some of those ideas, often by reconfiguring existing software. Another approach has been to add software to ships outside of the DCGS-N construct, and the program has coordinated efforts with fleet personnel to facilitate that goal.
For example, the 7th Fleet headquartered in Japan is trying to federate imagery analysis across the Asia-Pacific region. The fleet is working with the U.S. Pacific Command and the Navy’s Pacific Fleet commander in Hawaii.
The aim is to enable different elements of the joint community and the Navy to divide image analysis to avoid redundant activities.
Several applications that are under consideration for DCGS-N fielding were not even under consideration two years ago, Poor says. The DCGS-N program is working to install these applications aboard ship now, after which it would try to incorporate them into a future DCGS-N baseline.
Over the long term, Poor sees DCGS-N achieving two goals. One is to help connect the Navy’s operational intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets to the broader Defense Department and intelligence community enterprise. The second goal is for DCGS-N to act as a tactical gateway to share Navy-unique sensor data across that enterprise.
The first operational unit has been installed aboard the USS Harry S Truman, where it has undergone operational testing. That unit recently completed its initial operational test and evaluation, and formal results will be reported shortly. Informal returns from the ship have been positive.
“The crew loves it,” says Poor of the DCGS-N aboard the Harry S Truman. He reports that the supercarrier’s combat systems officer describes it as a “very stable system” about which operators and maintainers have expressed “significantly more confidence in the DCGS-N applications suite than in any other tool recently introduced in the afloat intelligence, command and control domain.”
Poor also relates that the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) rated it highly following Empire Challenge 09. JFCOM’s after-action report states that DCGS-N succeeded in meeting its primary and stretch goals.
One of these goals involved proving a full federation between DCGS-N and the other members of the DCGS family. These included the DCGS Integration Backbone (DIB), and it especially involved sharing data among different versions of the DIB. DCGS-N also was able to share different types of imagery through the image product library.
In testing at China Lake, California, DCGS-N was incorporated with the Distributed Information Operations Services (DIOS) and the Battlespace Awareness Sensors Enterprise Service (BASES) portal. In this configuration, it served as a DIOS node in a multilevel security configuration to the National Security Agency. This allowed it to publish data into the DIB metadata catalog and share it during Empire Challenge.
Capt. Robert Parker, USN, is the program manager for battlespace awareness and information operations, Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (PEO C4I). He lauds the support from the user community, saying that the fleet buy-in has been “very spectacular.” The captain relates that DCGS-N has been assembled largely from existing products, and integrating many existing applications into a seamless whole did prove more difficult than expected.
Even though DCGS has close relatives among the other services, interoperability is neither seamless nor assured. Each of the services’ DCGS programs are at different funding and maturity levels. Trying to enable all of the DCGSs to share data in a truly interoperable manner remains a challenge, Poor maintains.
Capt. Parker notes that the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force versions are well-established and have much greater funding than DCGS-N.
For example, the Army’s DCGS-A is extensive with built-in capabilities such as video teleconferencing. It also has a mature human intelligence (HUMINT) capability, which allows it to operate to a greater degree at the tactical level than the Navy is considering.
For the Air Force, DCGS-AF already operates five sites.
“Each one of the DCGS programs of record really is tailored to its individual service’s requirements,” Capt. Parker points out. “Where we come together is where we have the requirement to expose data to one another. We can all have different on-the-ground tactical and operational implementations, and where we actually bring all of the systems together is through our DIB federation,” he says.
The captain allows that the different status of the three services’ DCGS programs makes it difficult for the Navy to keep DCGS-N synchronized on the DIB. Multiple DIB variants already are in operation, and each service builds and uses them according to their own requirements. Keeping the DCGSs synchronized so that they can communicate with one another is a challenge, he allows.
Because the core components of DCGS-N consist of mature commercial and government off-the-shelf products, the Navy system faced its own integration challenges, Poor notes. When a core component specializing in one particular -INT is changed or upgraded, that may affect other core components. Similarly, if a workstation utility product is changed across a ship’s network or even the whole Navy, the DCGS-N’s ability to share data may be affected adversely.
“It can be an ongoing ‘whack-a-mole’ challenge to ensure that the integration continues to be there,” he says.
Poor points out that the Navy’s service-specific approach involves coordinating DCGS-N through the Navy’s networks programs, particularly the Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise Services program, or CANES. This program features two core components: a hardware component known as the common computing environment, or CCE; and a software component known as afloat core services.
The innovative nature of the DCGS-N approach entails evolving the program into what would be largely a software program, Poor explains. Future iterations would eschew hardware in favor of software implementation. “We’re looking to leverage as much of the networking infrastructure way ahead as possible,” he states.
Capt. Parker offers that the system can transition gracefully to the CANES environment, where it primarily will be a software provider. By the time it is a part of the CANES hardware baseline, the program will be able to provide new capabilities every two years.
The captain notes that the maritime environment in which the Navy operates drives the applications that will ride on top of DCGS-N. In particular, the Navy connects to different types of sensors than do the Army and Air Force. The Army employs large numbers of ground sensors, and the Air Force operates many unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The Navy’s main concern is to absorb data from a host of airborne sensors, and then provide that data to the other services. For example, the F-18’s reconnaissance pod can provide imagery data that can be used operationally throughout the Navy afloat and ashore as well as by the other services.
Navy intelligence has extremely close ties with the Navy command and control (C2) community, Poor points out.
At the core of intelligence activities always has been the ability to share data seamlessly from the ISR realm to the C2 node.
Beyond that, the Navy is looking at how it can use the Defense Information Systems Agency’s (DISA’s) Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES) to share data with the broader Global Information Grid (GIG) customer field.
The Navy has the DCGS-N Enterprise Node, or DEN, at the National Maritime Intelligence Center at Suitland, Maryland, which aggregates all of the data from Navy ships. The Navy would access the NCES through DEN.
DCGS-N exploitation suites are located at the numbered fleet maritime operations centers and on large amphibious ships and aircraft carriers. The goal is to have 36 exploitation suites—11 on carriers, 11 on large-deck amphibious ships and 14 at maritime operations centers and training sites.
As always, long-term plans run afoul of budgetary constraints, especially during periods of change. The Navy is bringing intelligence and network centricity together, beginning with its new N-2/N-6 construct. That in turn will lead to new approaches for meeting emerging cybersecurity and information dominance concepts and requirements. However, the Navy faces “expectation management challenges” because of its limited budgetary resources, Poor points out.
Capt. Parker adds that DCGS-N is reaching the fleet amid a great deal of pent-up demand for it. Many requirements evolved during system development, and developers needed to be “parsimonious” to avoid changing the system baseline.
“When you go through two years of development, the requirements that were exciting two years ago and the requirements that are available right now are two different things,” he says. “But, a system that is continually developing isn’t a system that’s fielding. It’s a testament to the great relationship we’ve had with the fleet that we’ve managed to stabilize the requirements baseline long enough to get a system out—which then gives us a basis for meeting some of those other requirements that have come out.”
Poor offers that one big challenge facing the program is to maintain adaptability while continuing to satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements. These can range from documentation to testing, and each event adds cost and time to program development.
In March 2010, the DCGS-N program will reach its full deployment decision review. Capt. Parker notes that the program is fielding capabilities in two blocks. The current fielding is the Block 1 baseline, and by 2012-2013 the program will field Block 2. This will allow an upgrade to provide an interface to the various families of Navy UAVs that will be operating at the operational and tactical levels. This data will be available at both maritime operation centers and the joint community.
Poor offers that this might be the key to unifying the diverse UAV data that is burgeoning in the Navy.
These are elements of DCGS-N in increment 1. Experts are beginning the gap analysis to determine the capabilities that will be needed for increment 2. Its target date is the fiscal year 2014 time frame.
Another thrust is to extend the range of DCGS-N. This would entail finding a way to place its capability on unit-level platforms such as destroyers and cruisers. This would make DCGS-N information more widely available.
“In the intelligence business, it’s hard to figure out ahead of time who needs the information,” Capt. Parker says. “So, it’s better to get the information to as many people as possible and allow them to do good work with it.”
The program will award a prime mission product contract in this fiscal year, the captain offers. A strong industry team has supported the effort so far, but the program is looking forward to working with one prime contractor for faster and more efficient fielding.
Capt. Parker allows that the program wants partners that are plugged into the intelligence business line. He wants program goals met using existing elements to the maximum extent possible.
Poor echoes the captain’s point. “There simply isn’t enough money for us to reinvent the wheel. If there is a capability out there that we can leverage, that certainly is what we want to do. We’re looking for industry partners that intuitively understand that in their DNA.”
WEB RESOURCE
PEO C4I: Program Executive Office - Command, Control, Computers, Communications and Intellegence
Link
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Networking the Navy
Bad grades behind it, the U.S. Navy closes in on joining national intel network
By Evan Sweetman
January 01, 2010
The U.S. Navy is poised to decide in March whether it is ready to link dozens of ships and shore sites in an intelligence network that would be plugged into the national network the Pentagon has struggled to deploy fully in the years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The decision whether to install the new computers and software services will be up to Vice Adm. Jack Dorsett, the Navy’s deputy chief of operations for information dominance. He runs a new Navy headquarters organization called N2/N6 that is in charge of naval intelligence systems. If he gives the go-ahead based on the results of a recent evaluation, the Navy and its contractors will have the job of making up for lost time.
Twice, early versions of the Distributed Common Ground/Surface System-Navy (DCGS-N) failed tests during the U.S. Empire Challenge intelligence-sharing demonstrations. During Empire Challenge, the services collect video and other intelligence and attempt to disseminate it to far-flung sites.
The Navy came up red on the official score card in 2008 because DCGS users outside the Navy could not get enough Navy intelligence to come up on their computers. The service also came up red in 2007.
A Navy manager expressed confidence that a total reworking of the program has overcome those problems. He predicts the Navy soon will be ready to join the overarching Distributed Common Ground/Surface network, which includes Army and Air Force versions, and eventually will include Special Operations Command and U.S. intelligence agencies. Intelligence officials want to ensure commanders can share tactical information, while analysts at the spy agencies watch for evidence of planned terror attacks.
The Navy’s new plan is a challenging one. Between 2010 and 2013, Navy engineers and a team of contractors to-be-decided must install DCGS systems at nine ground sites and on 21 large-deck ships — nine aircraft carriers, two amphibious command ships and 10 amphibious attack ships. That is the first planned increment. Destroyers and cruisers would be equipped in Increment 2 in 2013 and 2014.
“We are a very schedule-risk-centric program because of time lost as a result of the business model and schedule the previous program was using,” said the Navy’s Robert Poor, assistant manager for the first increment. ”As we get into more of a production mode in this program, I see this shifting from a schedule-centric-risk to more of a cost-centric-risk” program.
The Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) began reworking the program after the first Empire Challenge failure in 2007, devising a new schedule and budget.
BAE Systems led the DCGS installations on the first three ships and three ground stations used in the evaluation, but the Navy put out a request for proposals in November for the installation work on the remaining 30 ships and shore sites.
Poor was upbeat about recent developments. In July, the Navy earned a green mark at Empire Challenge 2009, and in September, it completed the operational evaluation trials aboard the aircraft carrier Truman at its home port in Norfolk, Va., and two other ships. The formal test report by the Navy’s Operational Test Evaluation Force was still being completed last month, but officials at PMW-120, the branch of SPAWAR responsible for developing things such as DCGS, were given a peek at the draft. All systems are go, Poor said.
The Navy has launched an information-dominance initiative led by Dorsett’s N2/N6 organization. Because of that work, additional functions will be added to the DCGS system in the future, but specifics have yet to be defined, Poor said. “In terms of capabilities, we’re being proactive,” he said.
The Navy has lagged behind the Air Force and Army in developing and deploying its DCGS system, said officials at the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, which is coordinating deployment of the DCGS systems across the military.
While the current Navy system under the formal DCGS moniker has been in development only since 2004, U.S. forces started to see the need for a multiservice intelligence network during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. As Iraqi soldiers began firing Scud missiles into Israel and Kuwait from trucks, hunting those mobile launchers created the need for a network for sharing intelligence across the services, a Navy official said.
The widespread use of unmanned aircraft and ground vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased that demand as well. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Department and intelligence community accelerated efforts to tie the various networks operated by the services and intelligence agencies into a seamless web. Forces would have better tactical intelligence in the field, and U.S. intelligence analysts would be better positioned to spot evidence of planning for new terrorist attacks. Intelligence analysts no longer would have to rely on friendships, e-mails and luck to share information.
Those in charge of the overarching network have based the computer interface on the Apple App Store, which provides applications for iPhone users. The apps in the case of DCGS are packets of intelligence grouped by categories, whether that is regional, subject matter or type of intelligence. One application will give all available data gathered by the intelligence community regarding a subject.
“Frankly there is more than one app out there that can do the same thing, but there are proprietary issues. Sometimes it can be a package deal where if you get A, you get B as well. It’s a matter of telling engineers: This is what I need.” said Col. Kevin Wooton, a military assistant with the intelligence office.
For the Navy, the operational evaluation was the breakthrough it had been waiting for, Poor said. “First was being able to share data within the skin of the ship and across the command and control center, combat center and other centers,” he said. “Part of the testing needed to show the system’s ability to share info provided by the Navy with the broader joint intelligence community.”
The Navy demonstrated the ability to share intelligence among the ships and to a group of computer servers in Suitland, Md., called a DCGS-N Enterprise Node.
The Navy plans to deploy similar nodes at numerous shore-based headquarters around the country to form a network of gateways through which Navy intelligence would be shared with the broader intelligence community
In addition to the first six DCGS nodes, PMW-120 plans to install DCGS systems onboard 10 ships in 2010, after awarding a contract to an industry partner in March 2010 to help with the work. First in line are the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and amphibious command ship Blue Ridge.
In keeping to the tight timeline, PMW-120 put out a request for proposals for installation work Nov. 4; responses were due back 30 days later. That way, it would be ready to award a contract if Dorsett approves the deployment decision, as Poor and others anticipate he will.
That contract would include a minor update to the baseline called the Early Adopter Engineering Change Proposal. The goal there is to get the DCGS-N applications integrated with the upgraded computers the Navy plans to install on ships under a separate program, the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) program.
“We want our DCGS-N to run in that so we won’t have to buy as much hardware or buy as many software licenses,” Poor said. The first of the DCGS engineering change installations would be on the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard in late 2010.
BAE Systems has formed a team of industry and academia to bid for the contract for the upgrade and installation work. Joining BAE’s existing team of Utah State University’s Space Dynamics Lab and Athena Consulting Sun Microsystems are General Dynamics, California-based computer tools builder MTCSC and InVisM, a Denver gaming company that specializes in military training systems.
Engineers with SPAWAR and the BAE team face their own challenges. Because the equipment would be installed on ships, engineers are unable to borrow hardware from Air Force and Army systems and must build it from the ground up.
Then there is the bandwidth issue. A typical destroyer has about a megabyte of bandwidth shared by about 350 people, whereas the typical cable Internet service in a home offers about 3.5 megabytes for two computers. When the ship’s bandwidth is divided up, each sailor is left with nearly the same bandwidth as a cell phone. Compounding this difficulty, the typical shipboard communications system is connected to the outside world by a 3-foot wide satellite dish that sweeps back and forth. Sometimes the signal’s on and sometimes it isn’t.
To combat the bandwidth issue, the Navy is developing CANES, and PMW-120 is working to integrate its intelligence-sharing applications into the CANES computers.
“We need to be able to leverage this emerging network infrastructure that’s heading toward CANES. ... So we’re coming in with DCGS-N heal-to-toe after the current networking folks do their own program upgrades,” Poor said. “Ultimately the intent is that the actual hardware footprint for C4ISR capabilities is reduced and the actual number of lines of code is reduced because we’re leveraging [other ISR systems].
From the sailor’s prospective, it should make their jobs easier in terms of number of steps to move information between these systems and to simplify maintenance and systems integration.”
Physical constraints on ships are also a considerable concern. Currently, the DCGS system on the Truman operates on three racks of computers. PMW-120 is hoping to get that down to a single rack when DCGS Increment 2 is rolled out in the 2013-2014 time frame.
The system to be installed on Stennis and Blue Ridge will already be reduced to a two-rack system.
Unlike the Air Force and Army networks, SPAWAR engineers also face the challenge of catching the ships while they’re at port. Since ships can be out to sea for 18 months at a time, and a have limited time in port, engineers must work quickly to get the systems installed.
Installation work on the Blue Ridge would test the ability of Navy and industry engineers to install the systems while away from home port. The ship is on deployment in the Indian Ocean and is scheduled to dock in Bahrain while engineers install its DCGS system.
The DCGS installations, if they are approved, could amount to something of a test for Dorsett’s new N2/N6 organization. “As we go forward, quick sharing of info up and down the chain of command and across the battlespace is what information dominance of the Chief of Naval Operation and N2/N6 is all about,” Poor said. ”I see as we go to the future being a tactical gateway to share unique Navy information up the chain of command and across the joined battlespace.”
Link
Bad grades behind it, the U.S. Navy closes in on joining national intel network
By Evan Sweetman
January 01, 2010
The U.S. Navy is poised to decide in March whether it is ready to link dozens of ships and shore sites in an intelligence network that would be plugged into the national network the Pentagon has struggled to deploy fully in the years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The decision whether to install the new computers and software services will be up to Vice Adm. Jack Dorsett, the Navy’s deputy chief of operations for information dominance. He runs a new Navy headquarters organization called N2/N6 that is in charge of naval intelligence systems. If he gives the go-ahead based on the results of a recent evaluation, the Navy and its contractors will have the job of making up for lost time.
Twice, early versions of the Distributed Common Ground/Surface System-Navy (DCGS-N) failed tests during the U.S. Empire Challenge intelligence-sharing demonstrations. During Empire Challenge, the services collect video and other intelligence and attempt to disseminate it to far-flung sites.
The Navy came up red on the official score card in 2008 because DCGS users outside the Navy could not get enough Navy intelligence to come up on their computers. The service also came up red in 2007.
A Navy manager expressed confidence that a total reworking of the program has overcome those problems. He predicts the Navy soon will be ready to join the overarching Distributed Common Ground/Surface network, which includes Army and Air Force versions, and eventually will include Special Operations Command and U.S. intelligence agencies. Intelligence officials want to ensure commanders can share tactical information, while analysts at the spy agencies watch for evidence of planned terror attacks.
The Navy’s new plan is a challenging one. Between 2010 and 2013, Navy engineers and a team of contractors to-be-decided must install DCGS systems at nine ground sites and on 21 large-deck ships — nine aircraft carriers, two amphibious command ships and 10 amphibious attack ships. That is the first planned increment. Destroyers and cruisers would be equipped in Increment 2 in 2013 and 2014.
“We are a very schedule-risk-centric program because of time lost as a result of the business model and schedule the previous program was using,” said the Navy’s Robert Poor, assistant manager for the first increment. ”As we get into more of a production mode in this program, I see this shifting from a schedule-centric-risk to more of a cost-centric-risk” program.
The Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) began reworking the program after the first Empire Challenge failure in 2007, devising a new schedule and budget.
BAE Systems led the DCGS installations on the first three ships and three ground stations used in the evaluation, but the Navy put out a request for proposals in November for the installation work on the remaining 30 ships and shore sites.
Poor was upbeat about recent developments. In July, the Navy earned a green mark at Empire Challenge 2009, and in September, it completed the operational evaluation trials aboard the aircraft carrier Truman at its home port in Norfolk, Va., and two other ships. The formal test report by the Navy’s Operational Test Evaluation Force was still being completed last month, but officials at PMW-120, the branch of SPAWAR responsible for developing things such as DCGS, were given a peek at the draft. All systems are go, Poor said.
The Navy has launched an information-dominance initiative led by Dorsett’s N2/N6 organization. Because of that work, additional functions will be added to the DCGS system in the future, but specifics have yet to be defined, Poor said. “In terms of capabilities, we’re being proactive,” he said.
The Navy has lagged behind the Air Force and Army in developing and deploying its DCGS system, said officials at the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, which is coordinating deployment of the DCGS systems across the military.
While the current Navy system under the formal DCGS moniker has been in development only since 2004, U.S. forces started to see the need for a multiservice intelligence network during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. As Iraqi soldiers began firing Scud missiles into Israel and Kuwait from trucks, hunting those mobile launchers created the need for a network for sharing intelligence across the services, a Navy official said.
The widespread use of unmanned aircraft and ground vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased that demand as well. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Department and intelligence community accelerated efforts to tie the various networks operated by the services and intelligence agencies into a seamless web. Forces would have better tactical intelligence in the field, and U.S. intelligence analysts would be better positioned to spot evidence of planning for new terrorist attacks. Intelligence analysts no longer would have to rely on friendships, e-mails and luck to share information.
Those in charge of the overarching network have based the computer interface on the Apple App Store, which provides applications for iPhone users. The apps in the case of DCGS are packets of intelligence grouped by categories, whether that is regional, subject matter or type of intelligence. One application will give all available data gathered by the intelligence community regarding a subject.
“Frankly there is more than one app out there that can do the same thing, but there are proprietary issues. Sometimes it can be a package deal where if you get A, you get B as well. It’s a matter of telling engineers: This is what I need.” said Col. Kevin Wooton, a military assistant with the intelligence office.
For the Navy, the operational evaluation was the breakthrough it had been waiting for, Poor said. “First was being able to share data within the skin of the ship and across the command and control center, combat center and other centers,” he said. “Part of the testing needed to show the system’s ability to share info provided by the Navy with the broader joint intelligence community.”
The Navy demonstrated the ability to share intelligence among the ships and to a group of computer servers in Suitland, Md., called a DCGS-N Enterprise Node.
The Navy plans to deploy similar nodes at numerous shore-based headquarters around the country to form a network of gateways through which Navy intelligence would be shared with the broader intelligence community
In addition to the first six DCGS nodes, PMW-120 plans to install DCGS systems onboard 10 ships in 2010, after awarding a contract to an industry partner in March 2010 to help with the work. First in line are the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and amphibious command ship Blue Ridge.
In keeping to the tight timeline, PMW-120 put out a request for proposals for installation work Nov. 4; responses were due back 30 days later. That way, it would be ready to award a contract if Dorsett approves the deployment decision, as Poor and others anticipate he will.
That contract would include a minor update to the baseline called the Early Adopter Engineering Change Proposal. The goal there is to get the DCGS-N applications integrated with the upgraded computers the Navy plans to install on ships under a separate program, the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) program.
“We want our DCGS-N to run in that so we won’t have to buy as much hardware or buy as many software licenses,” Poor said. The first of the DCGS engineering change installations would be on the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard in late 2010.
BAE Systems has formed a team of industry and academia to bid for the contract for the upgrade and installation work. Joining BAE’s existing team of Utah State University’s Space Dynamics Lab and Athena Consulting Sun Microsystems are General Dynamics, California-based computer tools builder MTCSC and InVisM, a Denver gaming company that specializes in military training systems.
Engineers with SPAWAR and the BAE team face their own challenges. Because the equipment would be installed on ships, engineers are unable to borrow hardware from Air Force and Army systems and must build it from the ground up.
Then there is the bandwidth issue. A typical destroyer has about a megabyte of bandwidth shared by about 350 people, whereas the typical cable Internet service in a home offers about 3.5 megabytes for two computers. When the ship’s bandwidth is divided up, each sailor is left with nearly the same bandwidth as a cell phone. Compounding this difficulty, the typical shipboard communications system is connected to the outside world by a 3-foot wide satellite dish that sweeps back and forth. Sometimes the signal’s on and sometimes it isn’t.
To combat the bandwidth issue, the Navy is developing CANES, and PMW-120 is working to integrate its intelligence-sharing applications into the CANES computers.
“We need to be able to leverage this emerging network infrastructure that’s heading toward CANES. ... So we’re coming in with DCGS-N heal-to-toe after the current networking folks do their own program upgrades,” Poor said. “Ultimately the intent is that the actual hardware footprint for C4ISR capabilities is reduced and the actual number of lines of code is reduced because we’re leveraging [other ISR systems].
From the sailor’s prospective, it should make their jobs easier in terms of number of steps to move information between these systems and to simplify maintenance and systems integration.”
Physical constraints on ships are also a considerable concern. Currently, the DCGS system on the Truman operates on three racks of computers. PMW-120 is hoping to get that down to a single rack when DCGS Increment 2 is rolled out in the 2013-2014 time frame.
The system to be installed on Stennis and Blue Ridge will already be reduced to a two-rack system.
Unlike the Air Force and Army networks, SPAWAR engineers also face the challenge of catching the ships while they’re at port. Since ships can be out to sea for 18 months at a time, and a have limited time in port, engineers must work quickly to get the systems installed.
Installation work on the Blue Ridge would test the ability of Navy and industry engineers to install the systems while away from home port. The ship is on deployment in the Indian Ocean and is scheduled to dock in Bahrain while engineers install its DCGS system.
The DCGS installations, if they are approved, could amount to something of a test for Dorsett’s new N2/N6 organization. “As we go forward, quick sharing of info up and down the chain of command and across the battlespace is what information dominance of the Chief of Naval Operation and N2/N6 is all about,” Poor said. ”I see as we go to the future being a tactical gateway to share unique Navy information up the chain of command and across the joined battlespace.”
Link
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Gates To Stay At Pentagon Through End Of Year
WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to stay in his post for at least another year, his press secretary said Jan. 7.
In a meeting before Christmas, Gates promised President Barack Obama to remain on the job through 2010, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said in a statement.
Gates, a former CIA director, has forged an influential role in Obama's administration and helped shape the president's decision to surge 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
A Republican who served in the same post under George W. Bush's presidency, Gates had shown no sign he was preparing to leave.
But when he was first named to Obama's cabinet, officials had suggested he might serve for a short time to ensure a smooth transition in wartime.
"They agreed to revisit this issue again later this year, but for all intents and purposes their original agreement still stands: He serves at the pleasure of the president indefinitely," Morrell said.
But Gates "certainly looks forward to one day retiring to his family home in the Pacific Northwest."
Gates, 66, started as a CIA analyst in the 1960s and rose up through the ranks to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also served as a senior adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as the Soviet empire crumbled.
As deputy director of national intelligence at the spy agency in the 1980s, Gates was deeply involved in the U.S. effort to funnel arms to Afghan mujahideen who eventually forced Soviet forces to withdraw from Afghanistan. Now some of those same Afghan fighters are aligned against U.S. forces overseen by Gates.
He is widely portrayed as a seasoned pragmatist, but at the close of the Cold War he was accused of taking a hawkish view and missing signs of the Soviet Union's imminent collapse.
When the elder Bush nominated him to lead the CIA in 1991, he faced tough questioning at congressional hearings over his role in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration.
After leaving government and eventually serving as president of Texas A&M University, Gates was asked by George W. Bush in 2006 to take over the Defense Department after the tumultuous leadership of Donald Rumsfeld.
Gates oversaw the surge of additional U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007, which has been credited in Washington with helping to reduce violence in the country and pave the way for a gradual U.S. withdrawal.
Gates To Stay At Pentagon Through End Of Year - Defense News
WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to stay in his post for at least another year, his press secretary said Jan. 7.
In a meeting before Christmas, Gates promised President Barack Obama to remain on the job through 2010, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said in a statement.
Gates, a former CIA director, has forged an influential role in Obama's administration and helped shape the president's decision to surge 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
A Republican who served in the same post under George W. Bush's presidency, Gates had shown no sign he was preparing to leave.
But when he was first named to Obama's cabinet, officials had suggested he might serve for a short time to ensure a smooth transition in wartime.
"They agreed to revisit this issue again later this year, but for all intents and purposes their original agreement still stands: He serves at the pleasure of the president indefinitely," Morrell said.
But Gates "certainly looks forward to one day retiring to his family home in the Pacific Northwest."
Gates, 66, started as a CIA analyst in the 1960s and rose up through the ranks to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also served as a senior adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as the Soviet empire crumbled.
As deputy director of national intelligence at the spy agency in the 1980s, Gates was deeply involved in the U.S. effort to funnel arms to Afghan mujahideen who eventually forced Soviet forces to withdraw from Afghanistan. Now some of those same Afghan fighters are aligned against U.S. forces overseen by Gates.
He is widely portrayed as a seasoned pragmatist, but at the close of the Cold War he was accused of taking a hawkish view and missing signs of the Soviet Union's imminent collapse.
When the elder Bush nominated him to lead the CIA in 1991, he faced tough questioning at congressional hearings over his role in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration.
After leaving government and eventually serving as president of Texas A&M University, Gates was asked by George W. Bush in 2006 to take over the Defense Department after the tumultuous leadership of Donald Rumsfeld.
Gates oversaw the surge of additional U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007, which has been credited in Washington with helping to reduce violence in the country and pave the way for a gradual U.S. withdrawal.
Gates To Stay At Pentagon Through End Of Year - Defense News
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Gates To Stay At Pentagon Through End Of Year
WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to stay in his post for at least another year, his press secretary said Jan. 7.
In a meeting before Christmas, Gates promised President Barack Obama to remain on the job through 2010, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said in a statement.
Gates, a former CIA director, has forged an influential role in Obama's administration and helped shape the president's decision to surge 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
A Republican who served in the same post under George W. Bush's presidency, Gates had shown no sign he was preparing to leave.
But when he was first named to Obama's cabinet, officials had suggested he might serve for a short time to ensure a smooth transition in wartime.
"They agreed to revisit this issue again later this year, but for all intents and purposes their original agreement still stands: He serves at the pleasure of the president indefinitely," Morrell said.
But Gates "certainly looks forward to one day retiring to his family home in the Pacific Northwest."
Gates, 66, started as a CIA analyst in the 1960s and rose up through the ranks to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also served as a senior adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as the Soviet empire crumbled.
As deputy director of national intelligence at the spy agency in the 1980s, Gates was deeply involved in the U.S. effort to funnel arms to Afghan mujahideen who eventually forced Soviet forces to withdraw from Afghanistan. Now some of those same Afghan fighters are aligned against U.S. forces overseen by Gates.
He is widely portrayed as a seasoned pragmatist, but at the close of the Cold War he was accused of taking a hawkish view and missing signs of the Soviet Union's imminent collapse.
When the elder Bush nominated him to lead the CIA in 1991, he faced tough questioning at congressional hearings over his role in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration.
After leaving government and eventually serving as president of Texas A&M University, Gates was asked by George W. Bush in 2006 to take over the Defense Department after the tumultuous leadership of Donald Rumsfeld.
Gates oversaw the surge of additional U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007, which has been credited in Washington with helping to reduce violence in the country and pave the way for a gradual U.S. withdrawal.
Gates To Stay At Pentagon Through End Of Year - Defense News
WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to stay in his post for at least another year, his press secretary said Jan. 7.
In a meeting before Christmas, Gates promised President Barack Obama to remain on the job through 2010, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said in a statement.
Gates, a former CIA director, has forged an influential role in Obama's administration and helped shape the president's decision to surge 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
A Republican who served in the same post under George W. Bush's presidency, Gates had shown no sign he was preparing to leave.
But when he was first named to Obama's cabinet, officials had suggested he might serve for a short time to ensure a smooth transition in wartime.
"They agreed to revisit this issue again later this year, but for all intents and purposes their original agreement still stands: He serves at the pleasure of the president indefinitely," Morrell said.
But Gates "certainly looks forward to one day retiring to his family home in the Pacific Northwest."
Gates, 66, started as a CIA analyst in the 1960s and rose up through the ranks to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also served as a senior adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as the Soviet empire crumbled.
As deputy director of national intelligence at the spy agency in the 1980s, Gates was deeply involved in the U.S. effort to funnel arms to Afghan mujahideen who eventually forced Soviet forces to withdraw from Afghanistan. Now some of those same Afghan fighters are aligned against U.S. forces overseen by Gates.
He is widely portrayed as a seasoned pragmatist, but at the close of the Cold War he was accused of taking a hawkish view and missing signs of the Soviet Union's imminent collapse.
When the elder Bush nominated him to lead the CIA in 1991, he faced tough questioning at congressional hearings over his role in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration.
After leaving government and eventually serving as president of Texas A&M University, Gates was asked by George W. Bush in 2006 to take over the Defense Department after the tumultuous leadership of Donald Rumsfeld.
Gates oversaw the surge of additional U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007, which has been credited in Washington with helping to reduce violence in the country and pave the way for a gradual U.S. withdrawal.
Gates To Stay At Pentagon Through End Of Year - Defense News
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,236
Aluminum Glitters Inside 2nd Littoral Combat Ship Variant - Defense News
MOBILE, Ala. - Inside and out, the new USS Independence is like few other warships put into service by the U.S. Navy. The severe angles of the unpainted aluminum trimaran give way inside to a spacious interior covered by aluminum-foil-like fire protection cladding - which gives one the sense of being surrounded by a foil burrito wrapper.
The relatively few interior working spaces in the pyramidal superstructure are connected by wide passageways and stairwells - not ladders - reflecting the design's origin as a commercial ferry. Unusually for a naval ship, some stairwells even turn corners, as in a landlocked building.
The vast flight deck that tops the after third of this 417-foot-long ship is almost 90 feet wide and is the biggest ever fitted to a surface combatant. The large hangar features two roller doors, has great interior height and is able to house two H-60 helicopters. On the starboard side of the hangar, a vehicle elevator leads down to the mission bay, the ship's primary payload area.
The mission bay is one of the key features of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) concept, which envisions a ship able to move at speeds of more than 45 knots that can take on extra equipment tailored to specific missions such as anti-surface or anti-submarine warfare, all packaged into mission modules. The Independence design, adapted by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works from a high-speed commercial ferry design from the Australian firm Austal, features a hull described variously as a three-hull trimaran or a monohull supported by outriggers. Either way, the configuration has never before been used for a U.S. warship.
The mission bay is about the width of six highway traffic lanes, split into thirds fore-and-aft by steel supports. The space would seem to have no trouble simultaneously housing two of the planned mission modules.
CONTINUING WORK
During a Jan. 4 visit to the Independence, shipyard workers from Austal USA swarmed the ship, even though the Navy took delivery Dec. 18 and the commissioning ceremony is to take place here Jan. 16. Rear Adm. James Murdoch, the Navy's LCS program manager, acknowledged work will continue past the commissioning date, including, for example, work on the stern doors at the rear of the mission bay and on the overhead cradle system that will be used to launch and recover waterborne vehicles.
"Those will be tested in the future, after sailaway from the yard," Murdoch said.
Although the Independence began initial sea trials in early July and has been underway numerous times - at speeds up to 46 knots - those voyages were crewed by civilian mariners hired by shipbuilder Austal USA. The ship's two Navy crews - Blue and Gold - are eager to take the ship to sea, said Cmdr. Curt Renshaw, commanding officer of the Blue Crew. But much of the ship's equipment still needs to be certified for operation, he said, and sailors will then need to be qualified. That means the ship likely won't get underway manned by a Navy crew until late February or more likely March.
The Navy was keeping a tight lid on visits to the ship but relaxed those rules after the ship's delivery. A small group of reporters was among the first media to get a good look inside the ship.
The wide bridge area on the O4 level is surrounded on three sides by large windows more akin to a cruise liner than a gray warship. The ship control stations are in the center, up close to the glass: side-by-side seats and consoles for use by the officer of the deck and the readiness control coordinator or junior officer of the deck. The two watchstanders can use either left or right seats according to preference. Each has a multifunction joystick that is also the ship's helm.
Between the two positions are controls for the two gas turbines and two diesels that each power a steerable water jet. A fifth control operates a drop-down azimuthing bow thruster.
Sitting between the two and behind them is a third seat for a tactical awareness coordinator - essentially, Renshaw said, a third set of hands on the bridge who can handle a variety of duties. The commanding officer has his seat in the traditional forward starboard corner location.
INTERIOR COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
The area behind the control positions is filled by Interior Communications Center No. 1 (ICC1), a combat information center-like set of consoles complemented by a similar ICC2 below on the O1 level. Although the ICCs have interchangeable functionality, ICC1 on the bridge will be used primarily for ship-related functions such as self-defense, navigation and the engineering watch, while ICC2 will be dedicated for use by the mission module detachments. A curtain can close off ICC1 from the bridge watch.
The ICCs also function as the ship's central damage control and machinery control centers, and the ship's internal computer network allows laptop control from dozens of drops throughout the vessel. With the right access codes, for example, any laptop connected to the network can control the ship, including engineering and navigation functions.
No exterior bridge wings are provided; as a high-speed ship, the Independence is meant to be handled from inside. Toward the rear of each side of the bridge, there is a large roll-down window from which a sailor can stick his head out to peer forward or aft or down to the water. A set of halyards leads to a bar just outside the window, and an aluminum flag bag for signal flags lies just inside. Forward, all anchor- and line-handling arrangements are inside the bow.
The narrow bow forward of the bridge - not meant to be regularly accessed while the ship is underway - features an enclosure for the future Non-Line-of-Sight surface-to-surface missile battery and, ahead of that, an automatic 57mm gun mount. Forward of the gun, the deck drops off precipitously to the prow, which is not visible from the bridge. Video cameras on the bow and around the ship give the watch a topside view.
Two machinery rooms in the central hull each contain a General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine and MTU 8000 diesel. The outer hulls carry little gear and are mostly void space, Renshaw said. Two damage control stations are provided, both on the port side at each end of the mission bay. A small boat deck on the port quarter carries one rigid-hull inflatable boat.
The mess deck and wardroom share a common galley, and individual berths - though not the staterooms - are large and roomy, big enough for a sailor to sit up, stretch his arms and work on a fold-down tray table that can hold a laptop. The big, double-high racks are designed to give way to triple-highs should the need arise to increase berthing space.
On sailaway, the Independence is expected to head to Norfolk, Va., for more tests and trials before eventually going westward to its future homeport of San Diego, Calif.
There are many similarities and dissimilarities between the GD's Independence design and that of the first LCS, Freedom, from Lockheed Martin. Sometime this spring or summer, the Navy will choose one of the designs as the basis for 51 more LCS ships.
MOBILE, Ala. - Inside and out, the new USS Independence is like few other warships put into service by the U.S. Navy. The severe angles of the unpainted aluminum trimaran give way inside to a spacious interior covered by aluminum-foil-like fire protection cladding - which gives one the sense of being surrounded by a foil burrito wrapper.
The relatively few interior working spaces in the pyramidal superstructure are connected by wide passageways and stairwells - not ladders - reflecting the design's origin as a commercial ferry. Unusually for a naval ship, some stairwells even turn corners, as in a landlocked building.
The vast flight deck that tops the after third of this 417-foot-long ship is almost 90 feet wide and is the biggest ever fitted to a surface combatant. The large hangar features two roller doors, has great interior height and is able to house two H-60 helicopters. On the starboard side of the hangar, a vehicle elevator leads down to the mission bay, the ship's primary payload area.
The mission bay is one of the key features of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) concept, which envisions a ship able to move at speeds of more than 45 knots that can take on extra equipment tailored to specific missions such as anti-surface or anti-submarine warfare, all packaged into mission modules. The Independence design, adapted by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works from a high-speed commercial ferry design from the Australian firm Austal, features a hull described variously as a three-hull trimaran or a monohull supported by outriggers. Either way, the configuration has never before been used for a U.S. warship.
The mission bay is about the width of six highway traffic lanes, split into thirds fore-and-aft by steel supports. The space would seem to have no trouble simultaneously housing two of the planned mission modules.
CONTINUING WORK
During a Jan. 4 visit to the Independence, shipyard workers from Austal USA swarmed the ship, even though the Navy took delivery Dec. 18 and the commissioning ceremony is to take place here Jan. 16. Rear Adm. James Murdoch, the Navy's LCS program manager, acknowledged work will continue past the commissioning date, including, for example, work on the stern doors at the rear of the mission bay and on the overhead cradle system that will be used to launch and recover waterborne vehicles.
"Those will be tested in the future, after sailaway from the yard," Murdoch said.
Although the Independence began initial sea trials in early July and has been underway numerous times - at speeds up to 46 knots - those voyages were crewed by civilian mariners hired by shipbuilder Austal USA. The ship's two Navy crews - Blue and Gold - are eager to take the ship to sea, said Cmdr. Curt Renshaw, commanding officer of the Blue Crew. But much of the ship's equipment still needs to be certified for operation, he said, and sailors will then need to be qualified. That means the ship likely won't get underway manned by a Navy crew until late February or more likely March.
The Navy was keeping a tight lid on visits to the ship but relaxed those rules after the ship's delivery. A small group of reporters was among the first media to get a good look inside the ship.
The wide bridge area on the O4 level is surrounded on three sides by large windows more akin to a cruise liner than a gray warship. The ship control stations are in the center, up close to the glass: side-by-side seats and consoles for use by the officer of the deck and the readiness control coordinator or junior officer of the deck. The two watchstanders can use either left or right seats according to preference. Each has a multifunction joystick that is also the ship's helm.
Between the two positions are controls for the two gas turbines and two diesels that each power a steerable water jet. A fifth control operates a drop-down azimuthing bow thruster.
Sitting between the two and behind them is a third seat for a tactical awareness coordinator - essentially, Renshaw said, a third set of hands on the bridge who can handle a variety of duties. The commanding officer has his seat in the traditional forward starboard corner location.
INTERIOR COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
The area behind the control positions is filled by Interior Communications Center No. 1 (ICC1), a combat information center-like set of consoles complemented by a similar ICC2 below on the O1 level. Although the ICCs have interchangeable functionality, ICC1 on the bridge will be used primarily for ship-related functions such as self-defense, navigation and the engineering watch, while ICC2 will be dedicated for use by the mission module detachments. A curtain can close off ICC1 from the bridge watch.
The ICCs also function as the ship's central damage control and machinery control centers, and the ship's internal computer network allows laptop control from dozens of drops throughout the vessel. With the right access codes, for example, any laptop connected to the network can control the ship, including engineering and navigation functions.
No exterior bridge wings are provided; as a high-speed ship, the Independence is meant to be handled from inside. Toward the rear of each side of the bridge, there is a large roll-down window from which a sailor can stick his head out to peer forward or aft or down to the water. A set of halyards leads to a bar just outside the window, and an aluminum flag bag for signal flags lies just inside. Forward, all anchor- and line-handling arrangements are inside the bow.
The narrow bow forward of the bridge - not meant to be regularly accessed while the ship is underway - features an enclosure for the future Non-Line-of-Sight surface-to-surface missile battery and, ahead of that, an automatic 57mm gun mount. Forward of the gun, the deck drops off precipitously to the prow, which is not visible from the bridge. Video cameras on the bow and around the ship give the watch a topside view.
Two machinery rooms in the central hull each contain a General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine and MTU 8000 diesel. The outer hulls carry little gear and are mostly void space, Renshaw said. Two damage control stations are provided, both on the port side at each end of the mission bay. A small boat deck on the port quarter carries one rigid-hull inflatable boat.
The mess deck and wardroom share a common galley, and individual berths - though not the staterooms - are large and roomy, big enough for a sailor to sit up, stretch his arms and work on a fold-down tray table that can hold a laptop. The big, double-high racks are designed to give way to triple-highs should the need arise to increase berthing space.
On sailaway, the Independence is expected to head to Norfolk, Va., for more tests and trials before eventually going westward to its future homeport of San Diego, Calif.
There are many similarities and dissimilarities between the GD's Independence design and that of the first LCS, Freedom, from Lockheed Martin. Sometime this spring or summer, the Navy will choose one of the designs as the basis for 51 more LCS ships.
StealthSniper
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,111
- Likes
- 61
NavAir Offers F-18 Ammo Amid JSF Woes
Congressional aides are beginning to wonder if the Navy should buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, in light of the program’s rising price tag and its higher flight costs.
“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”
For its part, the Navy, already worried it won’t have enough planes for its carrier fleet, has briefed senior Pentagon leaders that the Joint Strike Fighter program “will have a significant impact on naval aviation affordability in the FYDP and beyond.”
A source who follows JSF closely quoted portions of the NavAir study, “Joint Programs TOC Affordability.” A congressional aide who has seen the report confirmed the information. The study was briefed to DoD leaders earlier this month;
The source said that the study finds “the cost to operate and support the F-35 (all variants) will be $442 billion or more depending on additional costs for integration on ships and currently unforeseen development costs. This estimate is in FY 2002 program baseline dollars; the current dollar cost will be significantly higher. The production and development costs are cited, by the JET II, to be $217 and $46 billion respectively (2002 $), thereby making total program ownership cost to be $704 billion, or more, in 2002 dollars,:” according to this source.
That would put operating costs of the F-35 B and C versions some 40 percent higher “than the cost to operate the existing (larger) fleet of F-18A-Ds and AV-8s. Cost per flight hour of the combined F-18A-D and AV-8 fleets is estimated to be about $19,000 per hour; F-35B/C cost per flight hour is estimated to be about $31,000,” the source said. “These higher and growing operating costs are certainly typical for a new generation aircraft, but the revelation of these estimates at this relatively early point in the program would seem to demonstrate some real and growing concern that the highly complex F-35 is anything but ‘affordable.’”
An industry source noted that the chief of Naval operations “has been very interested across the force in terms of total operating costs. It is significant that this study addresses this.” The industry source said that Super Hornet flying hour costs are about $5,000 an hour.
A second congressional aide raised some questions about the study’s methodology, saying that “the worker level people, when asked about the assumptions by an assistant secretary in the Navy, didn’t have real good answers to that question. So while some of the numbers are very specific, the assumptions are not.” But this aide, who follows both programs, agreed that the NavAir study was a good argument for the F-18. “But yes, if they are looking for tails versus presumed better capability for more money and given the budget crunch and need for more ships they have HUGE problems,” the aide said.
The source who provided the study results noted that it “shows nothing for F-18E/F flight hour costs, which makes me suspicious.”
While Congress may not be ready to cancel the carrier version of the F-35, the industry source noted that support for the F-18 “has been gaining momentum in the Congress really over the last three years,” largely to address what has been identified as a shortfall in the number of planes available. “Each year more and more language has been written noting Congress’ concern with the shortfall as well as questioning what the Navy and DoD are going to do about it.”
Most interestingly, this source said the Navy is looking over the long term for a sixth generation aircraft, one with “increased range, increased persistence, increased speed and increased payload.” The F-35 is, of course, a fifth generation fighter.
Link:
DoD Buzz | NavAir Offers F-??18 Ammo Amid JSF*Woes
Congressional aides are beginning to wonder if the Navy should buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, in light of the program’s rising price tag and its higher flight costs.
“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”
For its part, the Navy, already worried it won’t have enough planes for its carrier fleet, has briefed senior Pentagon leaders that the Joint Strike Fighter program “will have a significant impact on naval aviation affordability in the FYDP and beyond.”
A source who follows JSF closely quoted portions of the NavAir study, “Joint Programs TOC Affordability.” A congressional aide who has seen the report confirmed the information. The study was briefed to DoD leaders earlier this month;
The source said that the study finds “the cost to operate and support the F-35 (all variants) will be $442 billion or more depending on additional costs for integration on ships and currently unforeseen development costs. This estimate is in FY 2002 program baseline dollars; the current dollar cost will be significantly higher. The production and development costs are cited, by the JET II, to be $217 and $46 billion respectively (2002 $), thereby making total program ownership cost to be $704 billion, or more, in 2002 dollars,:” according to this source.
That would put operating costs of the F-35 B and C versions some 40 percent higher “than the cost to operate the existing (larger) fleet of F-18A-Ds and AV-8s. Cost per flight hour of the combined F-18A-D and AV-8 fleets is estimated to be about $19,000 per hour; F-35B/C cost per flight hour is estimated to be about $31,000,” the source said. “These higher and growing operating costs are certainly typical for a new generation aircraft, but the revelation of these estimates at this relatively early point in the program would seem to demonstrate some real and growing concern that the highly complex F-35 is anything but ‘affordable.’”
An industry source noted that the chief of Naval operations “has been very interested across the force in terms of total operating costs. It is significant that this study addresses this.” The industry source said that Super Hornet flying hour costs are about $5,000 an hour.
A second congressional aide raised some questions about the study’s methodology, saying that “the worker level people, when asked about the assumptions by an assistant secretary in the Navy, didn’t have real good answers to that question. So while some of the numbers are very specific, the assumptions are not.” But this aide, who follows both programs, agreed that the NavAir study was a good argument for the F-18. “But yes, if they are looking for tails versus presumed better capability for more money and given the budget crunch and need for more ships they have HUGE problems,” the aide said.
The source who provided the study results noted that it “shows nothing for F-18E/F flight hour costs, which makes me suspicious.”
While Congress may not be ready to cancel the carrier version of the F-35, the industry source noted that support for the F-18 “has been gaining momentum in the Congress really over the last three years,” largely to address what has been identified as a shortfall in the number of planes available. “Each year more and more language has been written noting Congress’ concern with the shortfall as well as questioning what the Navy and DoD are going to do about it.”
Most interestingly, this source said the Navy is looking over the long term for a sixth generation aircraft, one with “increased range, increased persistence, increased speed and increased payload.” The F-35 is, of course, a fifth generation fighter.
Link:
DoD Buzz | NavAir Offers F-??18 Ammo Amid JSF*Woes
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
The QDR has the USN looking heavily at stealthy UCAV bombers as the future strike option of carrier aviation. With that platform it makes the F-35 strike component redundant. France is doing the same with the Neuron. Have the UCAVs go in and take out the high threat targets/SEAD and let the Rafale/SH come in and finish the job. With Meteor or AIM-120D, the fighters can stay out of harms way until the air threats are neutralised. The only thing that threatens that strategy are enemy stealth fighters. As long as PAKFA doesn't get proliferated, it shouldn't be a problem.
- Status
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Military history: USA's war on terror (2001- 2014) | Military History | 10 | |
|
Huangqiu: China's military R&D expenditure only behind USA's | China | 4 | |
|
Balochis ask USA to stop military aid to Pakistan | Pakistan | 0 | |
|
USA Military interventions - from 1890 to present | Military History | 6 |
