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 tinclude the mystery of the disappearing shipbuilding appropriation, and the launch of USNS Amelia Earhart…

• 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… »

Merry Xmas, K-Dog!
(click to view full)

The global proliferation of advanced, ultra-quiet diesel electric submarines has prompted a number of responses around the globe, from initial-stage efforts to mimic a shark’s senses in the USA, to the most obvious route of using more powerful active sonars. In Western countries, concerns have been expressed that these sonars may disorient or scare marine mammals, leading to decompression sickness or disruption of their biological sonar navigation systems. This has led to (unsuccessful) lawsuits aimed at curtailing submarine exercises by Western navies.

In December 2007, USN Rear Adm. Lawrence S. Rice, director of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness, discussed some of the measures that are being taken to investigate the issue, and also mitigate any possible effects. In January, a court battle erupted over undersea training off the coast of San Diego, CA, throwing the issue back into the limelight….

Continue Reading… »

French Mirage F1s
(click to view full)

Morocco’s combat air force currently flies 2 squadrons of old F-5s, and 2 squadrons of only slightly newer Mirage F1s; T-37 light jets serve as key transitional trainers. Their neighbor and rival Algeria flies MiG-23s of similar vintage, but adds far more modern and capable MiG-29s. The Force Aerienne Algerienne also flies SU-24 Fencer and SU-25 Frogfoot strike aircraft, and is set to receive 36 multi-role MiG-29SMTs and 30 multi-role SU-30MKs as part of a multi-billion dollar weapons deal with Russia. Morocco is looking for replacement aircraft that will prevent a complete overmatch, and provide it with a measure of security.

Initially, they looked to France. France’s Rafale is part of a set of European 4+ generation fighters that were developed and fielded during the 1990s-early 21st century, with the aim of surpassing both existing offerings among America’s “teen series” fighters, and Russia’s Mig-29 Fulcrum and SU-27/30 Flanker family. “Dogfight at the Casbah: Rafale vs. F-16” discussed the French sales slip-ups that cost Dassault its first export order for the 4+ generation fighter. That outcome is now official. Just to make things worse, the final multi-billion dollar deal involves new-build F-16s, at a price comparable to the rumored figures for the Rafale. Not to mention an accompanying request to replace their T-37 trainer fleet…

Continue Reading… »

Eurofighter, Spain
(click to view full)

Aviation Week’s Ares reports that The European Parliament will vote on including military aviation in the EU’s greenhouse gas emission trading scheme (ETS) during its plenary session in Strasbourg, France, this week. Military aircraft were not originally included, but an amendment to the draft legislation calls for flights performed by military aircraft to be included in the ETS unless they are “part of an international mission.”

If the aircraft are included, the cost of purchasing emissions credits would be added to the price of training flights and other military activities – presumably including local disaster relief, unless this too was exempted.

Amusingly, the Green party has criticized the European Parliament itself for the emissions its members and staff cause, by moving back and forth from Brussels and Strasbourg to hold plenary sessions.

In 2005, Republic of Korea (ROK, aka. South Korea) Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said that he aimed to increase the defense budget from 2.8% of the total gross domestic product to 3.2% by 2008, a 12.5% increase in relative terms even before economic growth is factored in. In 2006, the government announced plans to cut troop levels from 680,000 to 500,000 by 2020, and funnel more money to modern weaponry. This related move is partly driven by weapons costs that rise much faster than inflation as each new generation is fielded, and partly by the realities of South Korea’s birth rate and future population pyramid.

With 2008 approaching, the ROK intends to keep a string of 8-10% increases going, after raising its defense budget from 22.8 trillion won in 2006 to 24.49 trillion (+9.7%) in 2007, and now to 26.7 trillion won (about $28.9 billion, +9%) in 2008. Ordinary operating expenditures rise by 6.2% in 2008 to 18.9 trillion won, with improvements in soldiers’ living conditions and salaries up 2.6% to 3 trillion won. True to the espoused strategy, procurement will rise 16.5% to 7.8 trillion won, covering both domestic production and imported weapons. The ministry will also set aside 120 billion won for R&D projects, from domestic UAVs to Korea’s new XK2 tank, their recently-unveiled XK-21 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle, and tank landing ships. KOIS report. See also:

• RAND’s Corp (2006) – A Brief Analysis of the Republic of Korea’s Defense Reform Plan” [PDF format]

• Defense News (Sept 24/07) – Different Agendas Drive Western Pacific Budgets

• Global Analysis – Budget 2008: Welfare and Defence Dominate South Korea’s Budget

• Nautilus Institute (June 26/06) – Policy Forum Online 06-49A: “The Self-Reliant National Defense of South Korea and the Future of the U.S.-ROK Alliance”

In three years, the price of oil has risen from $30 a barrel to about $80. The US military reportedly represents 97% of the US federal government’s energy costs and now spends more than $10 billion a year on fuel, $4.7 billion of which went to pay for Air Force jet fuel. Meanwhile, the US Army Corps of Engineers sees energy use as a future operational issue for US bases and forces on the ground, and the Pentagon is taking a closer look at alternative energy options. Including new options for jet fuel and naval propulsion.

Along similar lines, Congressional Reps. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD] and Steve Israel [D-NY – and see his blog also] recently inaugurated a bipartisan panel called the Defense Energy Working Group. Its goals include attracting other members of Congress to the working group, channeling funds for advanced energy initiatives in the Pentagon via federal incentives & handouts, and bringing in sectors like business and universities to collaborate. “Our reliance on foreign energy is a glaring military vulnerability,” Israel said. “It’s a fundamental national security issue.”

Former CIA chief James Woolsey, the Chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board Policy Panel on DoD Energy Strategy, and an Advisory Board Member of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE), will also serve in the group. Woolsey is scheduled to address an energy security forum at the National Defense University later in 2006. For those wishing a preview, Transcripts and video of his appearance at the Pentagon’s recent Crystal City, VA conference are available.

Continue Reading… »

Sticker shock
(click to view full)

Following our reports today covering the USA’s recent purchase of $3.15 billion worth of various fuels and almost $230 million worth of electricity over the past week, it seems like a fuller picture is in order. A CNN online article notes that according to the Defense Energy Support Center, the U.S. military consumed 144.8 million barrels of fuel in 2004, spending $6.7 billion. In 2005, it consumed only 128.3 million barrels, but spent $8.8 billion. For 2006, the energy support center estimates the military will need 130.6 million barrels and pay more than $10 billion.

Fears of shortages after Hurricane Katrina gave the issue even more urgency, and set in motion a cascade of events from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England’s September 2005 fuel conservation memo, to by a December 2005 directive asking all defense facilities to cut their energy consumption and increase the use of renewable energy sources. The goal is reduce energy consumption by 2% each year, while increasing renewable energy use to 7.5% of total demand by 2013 and 25% by 2025.

B-52H: gas guzzler
(click to view full)

There are certain to be procurement-related implications from these moves up and down he chain. Re-engining the USA’s 1950s-era B-52 bombers was previously dismissed as not worth it, but odds are pretty good that it will happen in the new climate. DID’s March 17, 2006 “Energy Conservation Moving Up Pentagon’s Agenda” article describes a number of other initiatives that are already underway, excerpts and links to a key report from the US Army Corps of Engineers covering future military sustainability, and offers (updated) information about the Pentagon’s upcoming inter-agency Energy Conversation events at the end. We enjoyed seeing Rep. Bartlett’s [R-MD] office quote and reference that article in the invitation to former CIA director R. James Woolsey’s upcoming talk.

Continue Reading… »

DOSS Aviation Inc. in Colorado Springs, CO is being awarded a $178.2 million firm-fixed-price contract to support the USAF’s Initial Flight Screening program. Actual award of a contract will be contingent upon completion of a successful national Environmental Policy Act analysis by the Air Force at the offeror’s proposed training location in Pueblo, CO, before mobilization and performance begins. The contract is structured to screen between 1,200-1,700 students per year once the program is operating at full capacity. As a point of comparison, consider DID’s November 25, 2005 article covering the “Canada Wings Aviation Training Centre” for Canadian and foreign students near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba.

The contract will include a six-month mobilization effort, one basic year and nine one-year options and will provide ground school and flight training for Air Force officers with follow-on assignments to undergraduate flying training courses (Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training and Undergraduate Combat Systems Officer Training). The contractor will furnish all aircraft, aircraft maintenance, fire/crash/rescue support, labor (to include certified flight instructors), training facilities, physical and personnel security, lodging, dining, local transportation and physical fitness facilities for the students. In addition, the contractor will provide office space for a permanent-party military cadre that will oversee the students while they are in residence at the contractor’s training facility. Solicitations began August 2004, negotiations were complete in October 2005, and work will be complete by September 2006. The Headquarters Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base, TX issued the contract (FA3002-06-C-0002).

Continue Reading… »

F-16CJ: KA2 mock-up
(click to view full)

HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp. uses fractal patterns to create better military camouflage designs. Canada changed military camouflage standards by issuing their proprietary “pixelated” CADPAT uniforms as a result of a DND research program. Its improved performance in NATO exercises helped smooth the adoption of the related MARPAT for the US Marines and its ACUPAT derivative for the US Army. See this Hyperstealth page, and this MARPAT-related USMC page, to understand some of the key principles behind these new designs.

Working with Lt. Col. Timothy R. O’Neill, Ph.D. (U.S. Army, Ret.), whose research work formed the basis of both CADPAT and MARPAT, Hyperstealth Biotechnology Corp. has entered the digital camouflage field. In 2003, the firm was commissioned by King Abdullah II to create the advanced digital KA2 camouflage pattern for Jordan’s Armed Forces, Police, Customs and Counter-Terrorism battalions. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has since extended that research into other areas, and the company has been given permission to announce that after two years of R&D, digital camouflage patterns have proven themselves applicable to weapons, vehicles, helicopters, and even jet aircraft. Better still, they claim that these patterns can be applied with little specialized training and no drawbacks over conventional camouflage.

Continue Reading… »

Robins Air Force Base received ten 5kW fuel cells in October 2005 as part of the Robins Micro-grid Project. The fuel cells will provide 275,000 kilowatt hours of power to the base’s power source until their departure in October 2006. New York-based manufacturer Plug Power Inc., Atlanta-based Logan Energy Corp., the Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center and others are involved.

The quiet fuell cells reform propane gas and extract hydrogen to produce electricity as part of Robins’ Fuel Cell Micro-grid project, also known as the Common Core Power Production (C2P2) program. C2P2 a year-long demonstration-validation Department of Defense, Air Force program to ultimately seek alternative, environmentally-sound fuel sources for troops in deployed locations as part of BEAR (basic expeditionary airfield resources), or as backup power sources for stateside bases. So, how will this program work?

Continue Reading… »