Advertisement

Right now, in many American ships beyond the top-tier AEGIS destroyers and cruisers, the detect-to-engage sequence against anti-ship missiles requires a lot of manual steps, involving different ship systems that use different displays. When a Mach 3 missile gives you 45 seconds from appearance on ship’s radar to impact, however, seconds of delay can be fatal. Seconds of unnecessary delay, are unacceptable.

Hence Raytheon’s Ship Self Defense System (SSDS), which uses software and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) electronics to turn incoming data from several systems (radar, radar warning receivers, combat identification, electro-optics) into a single picture of prioritized threats. SSDS will then recommend an engagement sequence for the ship’s crew, or (in automatic mode) fire some combination of jamming transmissions, chaff or decoys, and/or weapons against the oncoming threat. The entire ship’s combat system concept, including the sensors and weapons, is known as Quick Reaction Combat Capability (QRCC) – and SSDS is the key element that ties it all together.

SSDS began Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) in 1997 on USS Ashland [LSD 48], a Whidbey Island Class amphibious assault ship, and will soon begin equipping America’s new carriers…

• SSDS: Current Versions
• Contracts & Key Events, 2008 – Present
  
  Continue Reading… »

T-AKE Construction
(click to view full)

The entire T-AKE dry cargo/ ammunition ship program could have a total value of as much as $6.2 billion in exchange for 14 ships, as the US looks to modernize its supply ship fleet. Indeed, the House Armed Services Committee recently put together an FY 2008 budget that added $456 million for another T-AKE ship – though this figure would not cover all of the internal systems et. al. that must be added to make it operational.

How do T-AKE ships fit into US naval operations? What ships do they replace? What’s the tie-in to US civilian industrial capacity? How were environmental standards built into their design? And what contracts have been issued for T-AKE ships to date? DID has answers in this FOCUS Article. Recent updates include a minor contract for T-AKE 5 post-shakedown work…

• T-AKE Ships: Mission & Capabilities
• T-AKE Ships: The Civilian Industry Angle
• T-AKE Ships & the Environment
• T-AKE Ships: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Advertisement

LPD-17 cutaway
(click to view full)

LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious assault support vessels are a new class of ship which is just entering service with the US Navy. Much like their predecessors, their mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. What changes are the capabilities and technologies incorporated to perform that mission. This new ship class includes significant internal technology and design upgrades, and is designed to operate accompanying platforms like the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle amphibious armored personnel carrier.

Navy sources note that the 9 scheduled ships of this class (reduced from 12) are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships. Ships to be replaced include the USA’s older LSD-36 USS Anchorage Class dock landing ships (all decommissioned as of 2004, LSD-36 and LSD-38 transferred to Taiwan) and its LPD-4 USS Austin Class ships (12 built and serving, LPD 14 Trenton now India’s INS Jalashva). The San Antonio Class ships may also replace 2 classes of ships currently mothballed and held in reserve status under the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Program (ALEP): the LST-1179 Newport Class tank landing ships, and LKA-113 Charleston Class amphibious cargo ships.

Welcome to Norfolk…
(click to view full)

Replacing that many existing ships is already a very tall order. While its design incorporates notable advances, the San Antonio Class has also had its share of teething problems. So, too, has the New Orleans shipyard to which most of this contract has been assigned. Teething issues are not uncommon in new ship classes, but the number of serious issues encountered in this ship class have been higher than usual. The initial ships have been criticized for sub-standard workmanship, and costs are almost twice the originally promised amounts at over $1.5 billion per ship.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the San Antonio Class, detailing the ships’ unique features and capabilities as well as its program innovations and issues. We’ll also include an updated list of related contracts awarded throughout the program’s history. As has become DID custom, the most recent additions are highlighted in green type. Now, over 2 1/2 years after the initial ship of class was delivered and accepted, the San Antonio Class has reached Initial Operational Capability, LPD 20 just passed its INSURV trials, and the first ship of class has finally been deployed on a mission…

• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Project & Timelines [updated]
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Process & Issues
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Contracts and Events (1996-Present) [updated]
• Appendix A: Additional Readings & Sources – LPD-17 Ship Class [updated]
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources – News and Views [updated]
  
  Continue Reading… »

1991: HMCS Protecteur &
USS Wisconsin battleship
(click to view full)

The Canadian supply ships and oilers HMCS Protecteur, and HMCS Preserver have contributed to humanitarian aid missions in Florida and the Bahamas, peace-making off Somalia and East Timor, and have been poised for the evacuation of non-combatants from Haiti, to name but a few of their recent endeavors.

As part of its spate of military modernization announcements issued just before Canada Day (July 1) 2006, the Canadian government issued an RFP that began the process of defining and building 3 “Joint Support Ships.” The aim was to deliver 3 multi-role vessels with substantially more capability than the current Protecteur Class oiler and resupply ships. In addition to being able to provide at-sea support (re-fueling and re-supply) to deployed naval task groups, the new JSS ships were envisioned as ships that would also be capable of sealift operations, as well as amphibious support to forces deployed ashore.

JSS
(click to view larger)

This was expected to be a C$ 2.9 billion (USD $2.58 billion) project. DID describes the process, the 4 pre-qualified industry teams participating, and some of the issues swirling around Canada’s very ambitious specifications.

Specifications that ultimately sank the whole project, in a manner that was predictable from the outset. Leaving Canada’s navy with a serious problem…

• JSS: The Procurement Process
• JSS: Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Appendix A: DID Op-ed/Analysis – June 30, 2006
• Appendix B: Additional Readings [updated]
  
  Continue Reading… »

The US Navy’s lack of a credible plan for its future naval forces has become a growing problem for the service. In Congress, the leadership of the HASC Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee has weighed in from both sides of the partisan aisle, with Navy plans squarely in their sights. Beyond, independent think-tanks and analysts (vid. Information Dissemination’s maritime strategy archive | FY 2009 budget analysis), and even official reports like the CBO’s Dr. Eric Labs (2005 testimony [PDF]), the late Vice-Adm. Cebrowski’s Alternative Fleet Architecture Design study [PDF] (q.v. also derivative 2005 CRS analysis: HTML | PDF), et. al. have been expressing grave doubts for several years now concerning the Navy’s ability to finance or implement its existing “313-ship navy” plan. Which is itself a major step down from the Reagan era’s 600 ship Navy.

The latest broadside comes from the respected center-right think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and was prepared with the assistance of US Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal winner Anthony Cordesman. The synopsis and title of “ABANDON SHIPS: The Costly Illusion of Unaffordable Transformation” [PDF] mince few words:

“The Navy’s procurement policy is in serious disarray. Unrealistic force plans, overoptimistic cost estimates, unrealistic projections of technical feasibility, and inadequate program management have created an unaffordable ship building program, led the Navy to phase out capable ships for new ships it cannot fund, and threaten the US Navy’s ability to implement an effective maritime strategy…. The problem starts at a conceptual disconnect between strategy and reality. The Navy’s Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower[i] is a set of concepts that was not linked to any clearly defined force plan, modernization plan, program, or budget. Navy shipbuilding plans are now shaped more as the result of budgetary constraints than as a response to strategic requirements. They seem to be an expression of wishful thinking rather than a realistic strategic guideline for naval procurement…. This reality-strategy disconnect in the entire shipbuilding program is a case study in failed leadership on the part of the most senior officers and civilians in the Navy. No reforms in procurement, changes in program management, cost analysis, and test and evaluation can begin to compensate for taking hard and realistic decisions at the top, and holding senior flag officers, senior civilians, and the Secretary of the Navy accountable.”

SSN-23 in MSF at Kitsap
(click to view full)

Aug 11/08: The Watts-Healy Tibbitts joint venture in Honolulu, HI receives an initial $42.4 million increment to build a drive-in magnetic silencing facility at Beckoning Point, Naval Station Pearl Harbor. The 2nd increment will be funded in FY 2009 at $35.9 million, and the 3rd increment will be funded in 2010 at $6.6 million to finish the $84.8 million contract. The contract also contains an unexercised option, which would increase the cumulative contract value to $86.1 million.

The reason behind these expensive facilities is simple. Any mass of iron stressed in the earth’s magnetic field becomes a magnet. Riveting and other construction activities magnetize a ship, as do some operational activities. That magnetization then changes gradually when the ship is underway, depending on its heading and location. A magnetized object can be detected, of course, and magnetic field changes can also be used as a trigger for weapons like mines and homing torpedos. Magnetic Silencing Facilities provide deperming/ degaussing, which reduces the ship’s electromagnetic signature to a point that’s much closer to the earth’s natural level. Cryptome has a partial list of American MSFs, including some photos and links.

Work will be performed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and is expected to be complete by October 2010. This contract was competitively procured, with 41 offers solicited and 4 proposals received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI (N62742-08-C-1311).

RFA Largs Bay
and cruise ship
(click to view full)

The UK Ministry of Defence’s concerted effort to reform its defense support operations continues. Overall, “future contracting for availability,” rather than paying for parts and labor hours, remains the overall direction. The Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, which provided a number of services in and around the Royal Navy’s major ports, was outsourced to Serco in a GBP 1 billion December 2007 contract.

Now, a deal that could last for 30 years looks to provide through-life support for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary of 16 oilers, supply ships, and landing ships.

Previous arrangements, which saw individual contracts competed when required, are being replaced by a comprehensive contract worth GBP 250 million (about $500 million). Now, the first ships are undergoing refits and maintenance under the new arrangements…

• A New Support Model for the RFA
• Development & Updates
  
  Continue Reading… »

HSV/TSV Cutaway
(click to view full)

“UAVs, Blimps, and HSV-2, Oh My!” covered the USA’s leased Incat TSV/HSV wave-piercing catamaran ship designs – and we’ve also covered the Marines’ very successful use of Austal’s Westpac Express high-speed catamaran. These Australian-designed ships’ ability to roll on a company with full gear and equipment (or a full infantry battalion if used as a troop transport), haul it intra-theater distances at 38 knots, then move their shallow draft safely into austere ports to roll them off, has attracted favorable comment and notice from the US Navy, Marines, and Army alike.

So favorable that the experiments have resulted in a program called the Joint High Speed Vessel. While still in its early stages, the final specifications are beginning to gel and the ships appear to be on track for construction funding in FY 2008.

M-Ship Stiletto
(click to view full)

DID has covered the late Vice-Admiral Cebrowski’s legacy at the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation. With the formal roll-out of the 88-foot Stiletto stealth ship and its cutting-edge “M-Hull” wave-damping design, that legacy takes another step forward. The Stiletto is part of Project WolfPac, which aims to test new concepts of shallow-water and riverine warfare organized around swarms of smaller, affordable ships linked by communications. The Stiletto can slip into shallow waters, launching inflatable boats and even UAVs while serving as a communications hub via its “electronic keel.” Best of all, the M-Hull significantly reduces the pounding its occupants take from waves – poundings that often result in back injuries that cut careers short, or leave sailors with lingering disabilities in later life.

After a long, drawn-out testing period, the ship is finally being given a chance to silence doubts about its ability to stand up to open sea conditions. It has been deployed – with a crew of Army mariners to operate it…

• The Stiletto Program
• Contracts and Key Events
• Appendix A: M-Hull Technology – From Venice to Victory
• Appendix B: Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

CG-71, Persian Gulf
(click to view full)

If the rising cost of fuel is pushing you to change some of your transportation habits, you’re not alone. The US military started to focus on energy efficiency and alternate energy sources several years ago, as a response to the triple threat of future strategic supply concerns, rising costs that eat into service budgets, and the vulnerability of their fuel supply lines to IED land mines or mine-based interdiction at sea.

In addition to moves like installing wind power at Guantanamo Bay, solar-generating parking lot shaders at NAB Coronado, etc., the US Navy has a pair of key energy conservation programs that are expected to save 1.14 million barrels of oil, and about $157 million, in FY 2008.

Continue Reading… »