Fórum Defesa Brasil

Aegis v2.0

So with littoral combat being all the rage these days, what's being done to posture the fleet against the rising threat of enemy ballistic missiles? Rear Admiral Thomas Marfiak says "not enough."

Proceedings sends

With all the talk about the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the next guided-missile destroyer, DDG-1000, no one has seen fit to discuss the future of the next generation of cruisers-the CG(X), the follow-on to the present class of Aegis cruisers. Because those remarkable ships will reach their 30th anniversaries-and beyond-in the middle of the next decade, we need to confront the issue of their successors now.

The Analysis of Alternatives for the CG(X) has been in the works for several months, but the outcome is far from certain. And with the target initial operational capability of the new cruiser class set for 2019, the present study of required capabilities and how to develop and fund them has reached the point of urgency.

new Aegis.jpg

A knotty problem. Back during 2006's Lebanon War, Hezzy baddies killed four Israeli sailors with a UAV packed with explosives. Granted, textbook definition doesn't exactly qualify that as a ballistic missile. But it does raise the larger point of potential enemies like Iran, Syria, and North Korea -- and what tech they'd employ as a means of knocking back our air and sea power. Seeing that every dictator and his sweet mother have -at minimum- a few medium range ballistic missiles and a whole mess of lighter ship/aircraft killers, I'm thinking that the good Admiral has a point here.

Furthermore, most of our enemies (and potentials) are eager customers of a booming Russian defense industry. Taking into consideration the fact that Aegis was originally designed to protect our carriers from Russian missile attack, logic would dictate that as the Russians upgrade their ship-killing kit, we upgrade our seaborne defense systems as well.

--John Noonan
August 4, 2008 11:39 AM

Aegis 2.0 que isso ? Deve ser atualização de software rs

Accepted by the US Navy on Sept. 18, the future USS Freedom is the first Littoral Combat Ship to enter service. It will be commissioned in November. (US Navy photo)

Lockheed Martin Team Delivers Nation's First Littoral Combat Ship to U.S. Navy


(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued September 18, 2008)



MARINETTE, Wis. --- The Lockheed Martin led industry team delivered the nation's first Littoral Combat Ship, Freedom (LCS 1), to the U.S. Navy today. The delivery milestone marks the Navy's preliminary acceptance of LCS 1, clearing the way for the ship's crew to prepare her for commissioning and service.

"This is a truly exciting day for the Navy. Today marks a critical milestone in fulfilling the need and realizing the vision we began just a few years ago," Capt. James Murdoch, the LCS Program Manager said. "Despite our challenges, the Navy and industry have continued to press on to build and deliver the first ship of a unique class, a ship class that will give our Nation our own asymmetric advantages against future maritime threats."

"I am extremely proud of all the men and women of Lockheed Martin, Marinette Marine, Gibbs & Cox and Bollinger whose hard work has successfully delivered Freedom to the fleet," said Dan Schultz, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin's Maritime Security & Ship Systems business. "Our team is prepared to build more of these agile warships to give the Navy unsurpassed capabilities and dominance in the littorals."

The 378-foot Freedom -- a survivable, semi-planing steel monohull -- will help the Navy defeat growing threats and provide access and dominance in the littoral battlespace. Reaching speeds over 40 knots and displacing 3,000 metric tons, Freedom is a fast, maneuverable and networked surface combatant with operational flexibility to execute focused missions, such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare and the potential for a wide range of additional missions including maritime interdiction and humanitarian/disaster relief.

In 2004, the Navy awarded a contract to the Lockheed Martin team to develop the first LCS. Construction began in February 2005 and Freedom was christened and launched in September 2006. This represents less than half the time typically required to design, build, launch and deliver a first-in-class combatant. Freedom successfully completed sea trials in August 2008 and will be commissioned on November 8, 2008 in Milwaukee, WI and eventually home-ported in San Diego, CA.

The Lockheed Martin-led industry team for LCS also includes naval architect Gibbs & Cox, ship builders Marinette Marine, a subsidiary of The Manitowoc Company, Inc. and Bollinger Shipyards, as well as best-of-industry domestic and international teammates to provide a flexible, low-risk war fighting solution.


Headquartered in Bethesda, MD, Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion. (ends)



Navy Accepts Delivery of Future USS Freedom


(Source: US Navy; issued September 18, 2008)



WASHINGTON --- Supervisor of Shipbuilding Gulf Coast officially accepted delivery of Freedom (LCS 1) on behalf of the Navy from the Lockheed Martin/Marinette Marine/Gibbs and Cox team in Marinette, Wis., Sept. 18.

"This is a truly exciting day for the Navy. Today marks a critical milestone in fulfilling the need and realizing the vision we began just a few years ago," said Capt. James Murdoch, the LCS program manager. "Despite our challenges, the Navy and industry have continued to press on to build and deliver the first ship of a unique class, a ship class that will give our nation asymmetric advantages against maritime threats."

Since builder's and acceptance trials this summer, the Navy and the Lockheed Martin team have been working to prepare the ship for delivery, sail away and commissioning. With acceptance by the Navy, the LCS crew will move aboard and prepare the ship to depart Marinette Marine for Milwaukee, the location of the ship's commissioning. Upon commissioning, the ship will sail out of the Great Lakes and down the East Coast for Norfolk, Va., making a number of port calls along the way.

Prior to delivery, the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) conducted acceptance trials aboard LCS 1 Aug. 17-21. INSURV found the ship to be "capable, well-built and inspection-ready" and recommended that the Chief of Naval Operations authorize delivery of the ship. Because the trials were conducted in Lake Michigan, some ship systems, including aviation and combat systems, could not be demonstrated. Systems not demonstrated during recent trials will be presented to INSURV in early 2009 trials in Norfolk and in the open ocean.

The second ship of this class, Independence (LCS 2), is currently being built by General Dynamics in the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala. Independence is scheduled to be christened next month in Mobile.

Freedom class ships will help the U.S. Navy defeat growing littoral, or close-to-shore, threats including mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare. Littoral combat ships are fast, easy to maneuver and are equipped with interchangeable mission modules that allow commanders to meet changing warfare needs.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release#

SHIPS THAT WON'T SAIL



"No more amphib excuses" reads the headline of a recent editorial in Navy Times newspaper. The editorial went on to enumerate some of the problems being encountered by the Navy's new amphibious ships of the San Antonio (LPD 17) class.

After a construction period that lasted twice as long as planned, and cost twice as much as originally budgeted, the San Antonio was belatedly placed in commission on 14 January 2006.

But the ship was not ready for service and, after two and a half years of being "fixed," the San Antonio was to deploy with an amphibious group. But on the eve of her August sailing it was discovered that there were problems with the stern gate to her docking well, where LCU landing craft and AAV amphibian assault vehicles are carried and discharged.

After additional work was performed the ship was able to deploy two days later.

Still, the San Antonio probably goes down in Navy history as having taken the longest time on record from being placed in commission to first deployment. This is amazing when one considers that the LPDs are basically "transport ships" with docking wells and helicopter decks. The Navy has been building docking well ships since the early 1940s, with the first, the USS Ashland (LSD 1), completed in 1943.

The new LPDs have relatively simple and basic systems -- no high-tech radars, no sonar, no advanced missiles, no nuclear propulsion, no advanced electronic warfare systems. Okay. As the Navy Times editorial of 8 September pointed out, the Navy and industry spokesmen "repeatedly have given the same excuse: You will always have issues with the first ship of a class."

That is not a true statement -- look at the intervals between being placed in commission and the first deployment of the first U.S. nuclear-propelled submarine, the Nautilus (SSN 571); the first Polaris submarine, the George Washington (SSBN 598); the first nuclear surface warship, the Long Beach (CGN 9); the first Aegis warship, the Ticonderoga (CG 47); and many other high-tech lead ships.

Now the second ship of the San Antonio class, the USS New Orleans (LPD 18), has been found to suffer from a long list of problems. That ship, also behind schedule and far over cost, was commissioned on 5 March 2007 -- a year and a half ago. The recent report of a Navy inspection team concludes that the ship "cannot support embarked troops, cargo or landing craft," and was deemed "degraded in her ability to conduct sustained combat operations."

These ships were built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems at Avondale, Louisiana. An additional ship, the Mesa Verde (LPD 19), was commissioned on 15 December 2007, and several more are under construction at the yard.

By accepting these ships the Navy has taken responsibility away from the shipbuilder to pay for fixing these massive problems. Beyond these issues, the basic design of the LPD 17 must also be questioned. Compared to the Navy's previous LPD class of 12 ships completed from 1965 to 1971, the San Antonio class is one-third larger (24,900 tons compared to 16,585 tons), but has minimal improvements in troop, vehicle, and landing craft capacities, with a slight increase in speed.

Coupled with the delays and major cost increases in the Navy's littoral combat ship (LCS) program, and the Navy's continued confusion and changes in the DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program, the credibility of the Navy's shipbuilding efforts must be questioned. When addressed in the broad context of the shrinking size of the fleet and the expected reductions in shipbuilding budgets, the situation should be considered critical

-- Norman Polmar

September 19, 2008

Navy blames crew, command for fire aboard carrier
Oct 7, 2008 7:40 PM EST
SAN DIEGO - A fire aboard the nuclear-powered USS George Washington aircraft carrier resulted from a failure to properly store hazardous materials and other missteps that allowed the fire to burn unchecked for more than eight hours, Navy investigators found.

The report, released by the Pacific Fleet command, found that at least a month before the May 22 fire, the USS George Washington's chief engineer reported finding more than 300 gallons of flammable liquid improperly stored on the carrier.

The report found the carrier's damage control team took nearly eight hours to discover the source of smoke and flames. By the time the team discovered the fire, it had burned through eight decks of the carrier and damaged 80 compartments.

The Navy estimates the cost to repair the carrier was $70 million.

"This fire was entirely preventable," Adm. Robert Willard, the Pacific Fleet commander, wrote in an addendum to the report.

The report said the carrier's damage control department, which includes its firefighting unit, had been given poor marks on performance and training practices during three inspections in the months before the fire.

"The extent of damage to the USS George Washington could have been reduced had numerous long-standing firefighting and firefighting management deficiencies been corrected," Willard wrote.

Willard in July ordered the carrier's commanding officer and executive officer be relieved of duty. He also recommended disciplinary action against 11 officers and 12 enlisted sailors, most of them in the departments of engineering and hazardous materials.

But Navy officials punished only six enlisted crew members, said Mark Matsunaga, a Pacific Fleet spokesman. None of those punished were court-martialed.

Pacific Fleet officials did not immediately answer an Associated Press request as to why no further or more severe punishments were meted out despite the severity of the report's findings.

Citing privacy restrictions, Matsunaga would not give the names, positions or ranks of those cited and wouldn't disclose the punishments.

The estimated cost to repair the boat does not include the cost to house the crew in San Diego for two months while repairs were made, nor does it include the cost of keeping the USS Kitty Hawk, the last conventionally-fueled carrier, at sea for two months to cover for the George Washington. Pacific Fleet said those costs had not been completely tallied, and would not comment on an estimate.

The carrier was en route from Chile to San Diego when the fire began. Earlier, investigators said unauthorized smoking in a space where there were improperly stored hazardous materials was the likely cause of the fire.

After making repairs in San Diego, it has since moved to its new homeport in Yokosuka, Japan, taking over for the USS Kitty Hawk, which has been decommissioned.

The George Washington, which can carry a crew of up to 5,600 and 70 aircraft, will become the U.S. Navy's only carrier with a home port outside of the United States.

The fire on the nuclear-powered carrier exacerbated concerns in Japan where use of nuclear weapons are a sensitive issue. After the fire, the U.S. Navy was forced to ease concerns among Japanese that the carrier was safe.

Naval officials said 36 sailors were treated for minor injuries suffered while fighting the fire and one sailor suffered minor burns. All were returned to duty shortly afterward.

Flames were initially spotted near the auxiliary boiler room and air conditioning and refrigeration space in the rear of the ship. The safety of the ship's nuclear reactor was not threatened.

Navy officials say it took about 12 hours to put out the fire.

As a result of the fire, the Navy will now put the damage control team aboard the George Washington through 1,000 hours of mandatory training, according to the report.

The Navy has also changed the carrier's smoking policy and requires a weekly inspection of the entire carrier for possible issues.



By CHELSEA J. CARTER AP Military Writer
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

por falar em Porta-Aviões que tal estes movidos a rodas de pás, quais vapores do Mississipi?

http://ix-carriers.blogspot.com/

Nunca tinha ouvido falar

Nem eu...

Deve ter sido uma inovação que um já idoso frequentador de cervejarias em Cacilhas, um velho lobo do mar, que ao olhar para o rio teve a ideia, um tal de Mulah VCR, apreciador dos velhos couraçados dos tempos da batalha da Jutlândia, quando ele era um jovem grumete.

U.S. Coast Guard Chooses New Patrol Boat
By christopher p. cavas
Published: 30 Sep 17:33 EDT (21:33 GMT)
Print Print | Print Email

Years after Congress urged the U.S. Coast Guard to speed up its patrol boat replacement program, the service finally picked a design and a shipbuilder for its new cutters.
The $88 million contract announced Sept. 26 is for the design and construction of the first Sentinel-class patrol boat. (Coast Guard)

The winner: Bollinger Shipyards, with a proven design from Dutch shipbuilder and ship designer Damen.
Related Topics

* Americas
* Naval Warfare

"It's imperative that we get this program under way," Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard, told reporters gathered Sept. 29 at service headquarters in Washington.

The $88 million contract announced Sept. 26 is for the design and construction of the first Sentinel-class patrol boat.

The firm fixed-price contract includes six option periods which, if exercised, would add up to 34 new cutters at an ultimate price of $1.5 billion. The average unit price of the new ships, once the program kicks into production, should be $45 million to $50 million, said Rear Adm. Gary Blore, the Coast Guard's top acquisition official.

The service has a need for 58 new Fast Response Cutters (FRC) to replace the aging 110-foot Island class cutters that have reached the end of their service lives. The FRC is the smallest of three new cutter types envisioned under the Deepwater program to upgrade the Coast Guard's ships, aircraft and systems.

The first of the largest new ships, the National Security Cutter, entered service in August, while construction of the medium-sized cutters has yet to begin. For budget reasons the service had wanted to put off buying new FRC patrol boats for some years and as a stopgap measure rebuild the Island class to become 123-footers, but the conversions failed and the modernization program was halted at eight ships.

Coast Guard engineers also balked at Northrop Grumman's proposal to build a new class of patrol boats using composite construction techniques, and in the spring of 2007 the service announced it was "taking back" management of the patrol boat program to produce an "FRC-B" alternative to the original plan. The FRC-B would come from an existing patrol boat design, and the service began a worldwide search for an acceptable ship.

"This marks a new era in how we do acquisitions," Allen declared of the service's effort to eliminate middlemen. "This is a cradle-to-grave Coast Guard program."

Earlier this year, the service winnowed down proposals from six shipbuilders to a final list of three, from which "Bollinger had by far the best proposal," Blore said.

Citing federal regulations, the service would not reveal what companies submitted competing proposals, but industry sources said the other two finalists were General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Marinette Marine.

The choice of Bollinger continues a long-standing relationship between the Louisiana shipbuilder and the Coast Guard.

"We're very pleased," Bollinger CEO officer Donald "Boysie" Bollinger told Defense News on Sept. 30. "We have built every patrol boat they own."

While Bollinger also carried out the failed 123-foot conversions, Bollinger said the new contract showed the service still had faith in the shipbuilder.

"We searched all the patrol boats around the world and came up with that design as best fitting the Coast Guard requirements," Bollinger said.

Bollinger said the shipyard would deliver a new cutter every eight weeks starting with the fifth hull.

The Sentinels will be built at the company's shipyard in Lockport, La., Bollinger said - the same yard that built the 110-footers in the 1980s and now is finishing up the last of 73 87-footers for the Coast Guard and Navy.

Bollinger also had planned to build its Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) at Lockport if the Navy awards prime contractor Lockheed Martin enough new LCS contracts. While that hasn't yet happened, Bollinger said the new Coast Guard contract means the company now will build the LCS at its shipyard in Amelia, La., west of Lockport and closer to the Gulf of Mexico.

Features of the New Ships

The 153-and-a-half foot-long Sentinels are based on the Damen 4708 design for the South African Coast Guard's three Lilian Ngoyi-class patrol boats. Those ships were built at Cape Town and entered service in 2004 and 2005.

Similar craft include Jamaica's three Cornwall-class and three Leonard C. Banfield-class patrol boats for Barbados, all built in Damen's Gorinchem shipyard in the Netherlands, and Britain's four Seeker-class patrol vessels for the Revenue and Customs Maritime Branch.

The Sentinel design, Blore said, features a pilot house with 360-degree all-around visibility set near-amidships to minimize motion. The craft will be fitted with active fin stabilizers and a bow thruster, and Bollinger added a stern ramp with the same 12-degree angle found on the 87-footers. The ramp can accommodate rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs) up to 7.9 meters in length, but Blore noted the choice of an RHIB for the craft has yet to be made.

The Damen design's controllable-pitch propellers were changed to fixed-pitch on the U.S. version, eliminating some complexity and saving weight without giving up much maneuverability.

Coast Guard officials liked the large mess area, able to hold the vessel's entire 22-person crew at the same time, as well as the cozy berthing arrangements, where the largest berthing space has 4 bunks.

The Sentinels will be armed by an automatic, stabilized, remotely operated 25mm chain gun mounted far forward and four crew-served .50-caliber machine guns. The craft will be powered by two 20-cylinder, 4,300 kilowatt MTU diesel engines providing a top speed of 28 knots - better than the 23.8-knot-speed of the South African patrol boats, but short, Blore noted, of the 30-knot requirement the Coast Guard had wanted.

Only one other requirement isn't met by the Sentinels - they don't have the limited chemical-biological-radiological protection of the original Fast Response Cutter requirement, Blore said.

The ships will be able to stay at sea for at least five days and be underway for 2,500 hours per year.

Coast Guard officials have not yet traveled to South Africa to see the 4708 parent craft for themselves, but said that with the contract award they "probably" would talk with the South African Coast Guard about the ships' concept of operations, and visit Damen to discuss potential design modifications.

Having chosen a new patrol boat, Coast Guard officials are eager to see the new ship in action. The service will be evaluating the design once it enters service, and could re-compete the remainder of the total of 58 new patrol boats that are needed.

"We may look at a different patrol boat a few years from now if it doesn't meet all our criteria," Blore added.

The U.S. Navy's newest ship and the first ship of the Littoral Combat Ship Program, the USS Freedom, is docked at Cleveland, Ohio adjacent to the Rock N' Roll Museum and in the shadow of the stadium where the NFL's Cleveland Browns play. Built in Marinette, Wisconsin and commissioned November 8, 2008, the USS Freedom is enroute to Little Beach, Virginia in its inaugerial cruise which has seen numerous mechanical problems pop up, not the least losing 3 generators that provide "hotel power." Repairs are underway during its Cleveland stay and the ship is also refueling from a tanker truck. The USS Freedom is 379 feet long and has a draft of only 13 feet. November 14, 2008.

foto grande
http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/mya ... lid=771449

Rui Elias Maltez escreveu:Deve ter sido uma inovação que um já idoso frequentador de cervejarias em Cacilhas, um velho lobo do mar, que ao olhar para o rio teve a ideia, um tal de Mulah VCR, apreciador dos velhos couraçados dos tempos da batalha da Jutlândia, quando ele era um jovem grumete.

Cala-te, apreciador de comboios!!! De comboios?

De comboios... comboios, a sério, não dos outros

"LPD-17, THE FLOATING FIASCO"

Navy Secretary: Quality Inspections Need to Start a Process, Not Just Come at the End


(Source: Project On Government Oversight; published Nov. 18, 2008)



Government Executive [magazine] reports that Navy Secretary Donald Winter is echoing a criticism of defense procurement that we're hearing a lot: there's not enough of an emphasis on trying to control things early in the process to get the requirements right during the design stage.

"Every quality analysis that's ever been done...suggests that the hardest way to build quality is by inspecting at the end," said Winter to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "You've got to start at the beginning, you've got to design the right way, you've got to build the right way."

Most recently, the media has been shining a light on the many problems with the Navy's LPD-17 San Antonio. Time called it a floating fiasco, with design flaws so profound that they may never be able to be "made right." From the article:

“Navy inspections of the San Antonio have found a raft of problems so baked into its design that many Navy officials fear it can never be made right, despite its price tag's having risen from $644 million to $1.8 billion. ‘Some significant fraction of the welds in that ship were flawed and had to be redone,’ John Young, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, told Congress in June. ‘I shouldn't be forced to pay on behalf of taxpayers any price for any level of deficient performance.’ "

The Navy Times reports that some experts are even calling the workmanship on the ship criminal. For a disturbing slideshow of the lube oil leaking from failed welds in the ship's main machinery, go here. http://www.militarytimes.com/static/pro ... ntonio.pdf

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also cited the LPD-17 as an example of how the Navy need to improve business cases to prevent San Antonio class cost overruns of $1.3 billion, an almost 77 percent increase above the initial budgets.

Winter has criticized warship builder Northrop Grumman Corp in the past for their mismanagement of the project, despite the fact that he used to be a corporate VP at the company. We've also questioned the company's management and performance concerning the Coast Guard Deepwater project.

And not surprisingly, Secretary Winter "continues to be unsatisfied" with the performance of the LPD-17, saying there needs to be a "culture of quality" for Navy acquisitions. We couldn't agree more.

And while we're at it, how about if we actually complete developmental and operational testing before going into production? (ends)




The Navy's Floating Fiasco (excerpt)


(Source: Time Magazine; published Nov. 12, 2008)



WASHINGTON --- The maiden voyage of the taxpayers' newest nearly $2 billion warship stalled for two days in August. That's when the stern gate of the U.S.S. San Antonio — needed to roll vehicles onto and off the nearly 700-ft. vessel — wouldn't work. The Navy eventually got the gate fixed in time for the ship to leave Norfolk and sail to the Persian Gulf, where its mission is to hunt down smugglers.

But now the San Antonio has been forced into port in Bahrain for at least two weeks of repairs to leaks in the hefty pipes feeding fuel to two of its four engines. Hinting at the seriousness of the problem, the Navy has just dispatched a team of 40 workers — including engineers, pipe fitters and welders — to Bahrain to make the San Antonio shipshape.

"Forty technicians — that's ludicrous," says Norman Polmar, an independent naval expert. "It means the problems are major, because the ship has mechanics, metal smiths and other people on board as part of the crew, and they're supposed to take care of minor problems." And you thought McHale's Navy was canceled back in 1966.

The San Antonio is the first in a new class of amphibious ships — blue-water buses — each of which carries 350 sailors and is responsible for ferrying 700 Marines and their gear to global hot spots. And the ship's sad plight represents in miniature all that is wrong with the way the Pentagon buys its weapons. The pattern of haste and waste accelerated in the Cold War's wake and simply exploded following 9/11.

It highlights the challenge facing President-elect Barack Obama as he contemplates retooling an Industrial Age military — primed for state-on-state warfare — into the more agile force better suited for 21st century conflicts of the type now being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full story (HTML format) on the Time.com website.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 49,00.html


-ends-