RIM-162: sections
(click to view full)

The RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is used to protect ships from attacking missiles and aircraft, and is is designed to counter supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles. Compared to the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, ESSM is effectively a new missile with a larger, more powerful rocket motor for increased range, a different aerodynamic layout for improved agility, and the latest missile guidance technology. Testing has even shown the ESSM to be effective against fast surface craft, an option that greatly expands the missile’s utility. As a further bonus, the RIM-162 ESSM has the ability to be “quad-packed” in the Mk 41 vertical launching system, allowing 4 missiles to be carried per launch cell instead of loading one larger SM-2 Standard missile or similar equipment.

The Sea Sparrow was widely used aboard NATO warships, so it isn’t surprising that the ESSM is an international program. The NATO Sea Sparrow Consortium includes Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the USA – as well as non-NATO Australia. Foreign Military Sales customers outside this consortium include Japan, Korea, and the United Arab Emirates.

This is DID’s FOCUS article for the program, containing details about the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile family, and contracts placed under this program since 1999. The latest addition is a pair of support contracts, plus international orders for associated equipment…

• ESSM: The Missiles and the Program
• ESSM-Related Contracts & Key Events (1999 – Present) [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

F/A-18F Super Hornet
(click to view full)

The US Navy flies the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, and has just taken delivery of its first operational EA-18G Growler electronic warfare & strike aircraft. These buys are actually managed out of a common multi-year procurement (MYP) contract, which also manages many of the EA-18G’s support costs since it’s derived from the Super Hornet and many of the required maintenance items are common to both planes. The contract covers 42 aircraft per year, split between Super Hornets and EA-18Gs, with a variation quantity clause permitting up to 6 additional aircraft per year under the same terms. FY 2008 marks year 4 of the 5-year MYP-II contract.

DID already has an EA-18G FOCUS Article; we will be using this entry to cover the Super Hornet MYP program’s budgets, and this article has been updated to include all announced contracts since MYP-II began. The latest entry is more engine contracts, which are now being added to this article…

• Hornet MYP: Aircraft Types & Budgets
• Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

(click to view full)

In the 1970s, fighter aircraft began to appear with Head-Up Displays (HUD) that projected key information, targeting crosshairs et. al. onto a seemingly clear piece of glass, so the pilot could keep his eyes on the sky instead of looking down at his instruments. We’ve been wondering when we’d see them in our automobiles ever since. In the 1990s, another innovation appeared: helmet-mounted displays put the HUD inside the pilot’s helmet, providing this information even when the pilot wasn’t looking straight ahead. The Israelis were already using a system called DASH when a set of former East German MiG-29s equipped with HMDs slaughtered USAF F-16s in exercises, and helmet-mounted displays suddenly became must-haves for modern fighters.

The Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) projects visual targeting and aircraft performance information on the back of the helmet’s visor, including aircraft altitude, airspeed, gravitational pull, angle of attack, and weapons sighting, enabling the pilot to monitor this information without interrupting the field of view through the cockpit canopy. The system uses a magnetic transmitter unit fixed to the pilot’s seat and a magnetic field probe mounted on the helmet to define helmet pointing positioning. A Helmet Vehicle Interface (HVI) interacts with the aircraft system bus to provide signal generation for the helmet display. This provides significant improvement for close combat targeting and engagement.

A September 2005 exchange with Boeing enabled DID to gain insights into the rocky past, overall state, and future of a program that has experienced its share of snags and controversy – but gone on to become the #1 helmet-mounted sight in the world today. That information fits nicely with DID’s expansion of our coverage to detail the JHMCS’ game-changing effects on air combat, its production sets and known customers, and all contracts since full-rate production began. The latest item is a minor contract to equip USAF F-15Es…

• JHMCS: A Combat Multiplier [updated] (i.e. Continue reading…)
• JHMCS: The Program to Date
• JHMCS: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Appendix A: JHMCS History & Challenges
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

NSC 1 Bertholf
(click to view full)

The US Coast Guard’s massive $25 billion Deepwater meta-program (really Deepwater-II given post-9/11 changes) has endured more than its share of ups and downs. Nevertheless, Congressional support remains strong, and efforts are being made to restructure the program and get it back on track. “Voted Off the Island: The USCG’s Deepwater FRC Program” offered an in-depth look into the difficulties faced by the USCG’s Island Class cutter modification program, and by the Deepwater Fast Response Cutter that was supposed to replace it. “US Coast Guard’s Deepwater Effort Hits More Rough Sailing” covers recent program developments more generally.

The Legend Class National Security Cutters are the largest ships in the Deepwater program, and represent the program’s flagship in more ways than one. The 418 foot, 4,300 ton ships will be frigate-sized vessels with a 21 foot draughts¹, and are rather larger than the 379 foot, 3,250 ton Hamilton Class High Endurance Cutters (HECs) they will replace. Controversies regarding durability and potential hull fatigue, as well as significant cost overruns, have shadowed the new cutter’s construction. Nevertheless, the program appears to be moving forward.

This DID FOCUS Article covers recent developments concerning the Legend Class cutters. The latest developments include the tempest over TEMPEST, while a Navy review board gives the first of class ship Bertholf a thumbs-up review…

• Quick Background: The Deepwater Program
• The Legend Class National Security Cutters
• The Pitfalls of Being a Legend: NSC Issues & Action
• Legend Class Program: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

FRES-U finalists: There
can be only one…
(click to view full)

Many of Britain’s army vehicles are old and worn, and the necessities of hard service on the battlefield are only accelerating that wear. The multi-billion pound “Future Rapid Effects System” (FRES) aims to recapitalize the core of Britain’s armored vehicle fleet over the next decade or more, filling many of the same medium armor roles as the Stryker Family of armored wheeled vehicles and/or the Future Combat Systems’ Manned Ground Vehicle family. Current estimates indicate a potential requirement for over 3,700 FRES vehicles, including utility and reconnaissance variants. Even so, one should be cautioned that actual numbers bought usually fall short of intended figures for early-stage defense programs.

The FRES program was spawned by the UK’s withdrawal from the German-Dutch-UK Boxer MRAV modular wheeled APC program, in order to develop a more deployable vehicle that fit Britain’s exact requirements. Those initial requirements were challenging, however, and experience in Iraq and Afghanistan led to decisions that removed a number of FRES requirements including weight. The UK MoD has taken some criticism for its selection of wheeled APCs as its FRES-U infantry fighting vehicle finalists, and even more criticism for making the Boxer MRAV one of those finalists after spending all that time and sterling on FRES development. The MoD is defending its choices, however, and has now declared a winner…

• FRES: The Program (Continue reading…) [updated]
• FRES: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
• Appendix 1 – The British Army’s Armored Vehicle Fleet, late 2006
• Appendix 2 – A New Procurement Approach: System House Challenges
• Appendix 3 – FRES: Key Challenges for the Contractors
• Appendix 4 – FRES Experiments: Electronic Architecture Contracts
• Appendix 5 – FRES Experiments: Vehicle-Related Contracts
  
  Continue Reading… »

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, and Raytheon continues to get electronics contracts to equip new ships of class…

• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Project & Timelines
• 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
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources – News and Views
  
  Continue Reading… »

A Viking comes ashore
(click to view full)

The BvS-10 is the successor to the wildly popular Bv206, 11,000 of which have been sold to 40 countries around the world – including the USA (M978). It is in use in both Britain and the Netherlands as a key armored vehicle for their respective Marines, and is under evaluation elsewhere. Singapore has developed and manufactured an improved variant of its own called the Bronco ATTC, and Finland and Norway also have their own local Bv-206 variants.

What makes this unusual-looking vehicle family so popular? They aren’t like Hummers or similar wheeled mainstays. They aren’t full armored personnel carriers, either – they’re armored, but Bv family vehicles can’t take the kind of punishment that a Bradley or LAV can absorb. Instead, the secret to their success lies in a remarkable all-terrain capability, and their ability to fill a rare and critical role: air-portable and amphibious infantry enhancement.

These success factors are discussed below, along with contracts and key developments related to this vehicle family. The latest development involves a bulletin from the Dutch, who are finding that they need to fix some issues with the BvS-10 Vikings headed for duty in Chad…

• The Bv Family of Vehicles (i.e. Continue reading…)
• Bv Family: Why So Popular?
• Bv Family: Performance in Afghanistan [updated]
• Contracts and Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

ASDS
(click to view full)

In a program that began with great promise but soon spiraled out of control, Northrop Grumman has been building the ASDS “Advanced SEAL delivery System” mini-subs, the successors to the previous SDV (SEAL/Swimmer Delivery Vehicle) carried on US Benjamin Franklin Class (SSBN-640) attack submarines.

Unlike the SDV, which is flooded and requires SCUBA gear, the 16 Navy SEALs, MARSOC, or other covert action personnel in an ASDS can arrive at their mission drier, warmer, and less fatigued[1]. The ASDS was meant to be launched from the converted SSGN Ohio Class Special Ops/Land Strike submarines, and also from Virginia Class (SSN-744) submarines, from the improved Los Angeles Class SSN-688I subs Charlotte [SSN 766] and Greeneville [SSN 772], or from the well decks of amphibious assault ships like the LHD Wasp Class or LPD-17 San Antonio Class. The new mini-sub also fits in a C-17 Globemaster or C-5 Galaxy aircraft for rapid transport to an appropriate launch platform.

In the end, however, technical, reliability, and 400% cost overrun issues proved nearly insuperable. The ASDS has been canceled for all intents and purposes; all that’s left is Kenneth Krieg’s April 6, 2006 acquisition decision memorandum directed the Navy and SOCOM to establish an ASDS-1 improvement program to boost the performance of the existing sub, and complete its operational testing. Which limps on, still, as the ARIP…

• The ASDS Program & Its Mission
• ASDS: Taking on Water
• Updates: To Davy Jones’ Locker – and Back Again?
• Appendix A: DID Op/Ed, December 2005
• Appendix B: Additional Readings and Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

General Dynamics Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy’s newest surface combatant class. Optimized for shallow seas and operations within 100 miles of shore, but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA’s new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing “asymmetric” threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. They will also perform intelligence gathering and scouting using helicopters and UAVs, offer some ground combat support capabilities, and share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units. Swappable “mission modules,” UAV robot aircraft, and robotic UUV and USV vehicles will give these small ships the specialized capabilities they require for each of these roles – and the quick-replace adaptability they need to keep up.

At present, 2 teams are competing for the final LCS design. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran based on Austal designs and experience. The Lockheed Martin team offers a high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. Team Lockheed’s efforts have run into serious trouble, including cancellation of the contract for their second ship. The General Dynamics/Austal team hit the same rocks soon afterward, in part because of the US Navy’s unusual proposal for future business arrangements.

DID places recent developments in context by explaining a bit more about the US Navy’s new surface combatant; detailing the teams, key time line events, and contract awards under the program to date; and providing additional resources and links to complete our in-depth coverage. New material appears in green type. The latest updates include the launch of Austal/GD’s LCS 2 Independence…

• LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Modules
• LCS: Budgets and Program Structure
• LCS: Designs & Teams
• LCS Controversies
• LCS: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

NETFIRES concept
(click to view full)

The basic concept of NETFIRES (a Future Combat Systems program) is to develop a family of artillery-like precision attack missiles based upon a vertical launcher design. Yet the idea goes far beyond that simple description. The NETFIRES CLU box launcher is intended to be be fully autonomous, meaning it can be dropped off anywhere and operate on its own without a support vehicle. The launch unit includes power generation and control systems as well as a total of 15 missiles, each with a warhead similar in size and capability to a 155mm artillery shell.

The system is also known as Non Line-Of-Sight, Launch System, or NLOS-LS, and remains one of Future Combat systems’ most promising programs, slated for early fielding to the Army and even for integration with US naval forces.

This will be DID’s focus article for the NETFIRES program, and it will be updated as new events and contracts enter the picture. The latest news involves successful logistics and field tests for the platform, as it gears up to be part of FCS Spinout Phase 1.

• The NETFIRES Concept
• NETFIRES Missiles
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Appendix A: Lockheed’s Successful Design Improvement Workshops
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »