Marinha dos EUA

[knigh7]

Segundo comunicado oficial da Frota do Pacífico (US NAVY) vários marinheiros do submarino USS Connecticut ficaram feridos. Está na matéria:

Submarino de guerra dos EUA atinge “objeto não identificado” no Mar da China
Incidente acontece em meio as tensões entre os EUA e a China, que aumentaram com as incursões dos militares chineses na Ilha de Taiwan
07/10/2021 às 19:51


https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/internacio ... -da-china/

[P44]

Foi o Godzilla?

[knigh7]

Não, estava perto da China. Deve ter sido um Dragão mergulhado que o estava acompanhando.

Lembra-se do incidente no Mar de Bering na década de 90? Naquele caso chocou-se com um urso mergulhado que estava acompanhando os yankees.

[knigh7]

Ele fez alguns comentários interessantes. Dentre as hipóteses, pode ter se chocado com um drone da Marinha chinesa, cuja presença deles está aumentando bastante nos últimos anos na região.

[vplemes]

Acho que nunca vamos descobrir exatamente o que foi que bateu nesse sub. Mas cá entre nós, não duvido nada que não passe de um prosaico e inocente container meio afundado que caiu de um desses super cargueiros da vida.

[P44]

Virginia Block III: The Revised Bow
Oct 11, 2021 04:56 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff

October 11/21: Lead Yard Support General Dynamics won a $482.1 million contract modification external link for lead yard support and development studies and design efforts related to Virginia Class submarines. The Virginia Class new attack submarine is an advanced stealth multimission nuclear-powered submarine for deep ocean anti-submarine warfare and littoral operations. Work will take place in Connecticut, Virginia and Rhode Island. Estimated completion will be by October 2022.

Virginia Block I-II
(click for SuperSize)
“GDEB Receives $148M as Virginia Class Lead Yard” described changes to the Virginia Class submarine’s design that are expected to reach 20% of the $200 million savings goal by the time orders for the versatile sea attack/ land attack/ special forces submarines rise to 2 per year, in 2012.

The bow changes cover the FY 2009-2013 ships, referred to as Block III. SSN 774 Virginia – SSN 777 North Carolina are Block I, and SSNs 778-783 will be Block II. Block III begins with the 11th ship of class, SSN 784. Long lead time component orders began May 22/08, and the submarine is expected to be ready for delivery around 2015. A fuller explanation of Block III’s extensive bow changes, and an accompanying graphic, may be found below – along with contract updates that include additional improvements and sonar development.

The Virginia Class Program: “2 for 4 in 12”

SSN 777 costruction
(click to view full)
The SSN-774 Virginia Class external link submarine was introduced in the 1990s as a Clinton-era reform that was intended to take some of the SSN-21 Seawolf Class’ external link key design and technology advances, and place them in a smaller, less heavily-armed, and less expensive platform. The resulting submarine would have learned some of the Seawolf program’s negative procurement lessons external link, while performing capably in land attack, naval attack, special forces, and shallow water roles. In the end, the Seawolf Class became a technology demonstrator program that was canceled at 3 ships, and the Virginia Class became the naval successor to America’s famed SSN-688 Los Angeles Class.

The Virginia Class program was supposed to reach 2 submarines per year by 2002, removing it from the unusual joint construction approach between General Dynamics Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding – but that goal has been pushed back to 2012 in progressive planning budgets.

In FY 2005 dollars, SSN-21 submarines cost between $3.1-3.5 billion each. According to Congressional Research Service report #RL32418, and the Navy is working toward a goal of shaving FY05$ 400 million from the cost of each Virginia Class boat, and buying 2 boats in FY2012 for combined cost of $4.0 billion in FY 2005 dollars – a goal referred to as “2 for 4 in 12”. In real dollars subject to inflation, that means about $2.6 billion per sub in 2012, and $2.7 billion in 2013. The Navy believes that moving from the current joint construction arrangement will shave FY05$ 200 million from the cost of each submarine, leaving another FY05$ 200 million (about $220 million) to be saved through ship design and related changes.


Block III: The Changes



The most obvious change is the switch from 12 vertical launch tubes, to 12 missiles in 2 tubes that use technology from the Ohio Class special forces/ strike SSGN program. The Virginia’s hull has a smaller cross-section than the converted ballistic missile SSGNs, so the “6-shooters” will be shorter and a bit wider. Nevertheless, they will share a great deal of common technology, allowing innovations on either platform to be incorporated into the other submarine class during major maintenance milestones. Net savings are about $8 million to program baseline costs.

The other big change you can see in the above diagram is switching from an air-backed sonar sphere to a water-backed Large Aperture Bow (LAB) array. Eliminating the hundreds of SUBSAFE penetrations that help maintain required pressure in the air-backed sonar sphere will save approximately $11 million per hull, and begins with the FY 2012 boats (SSNs 787-788).

The LAB Array has 2 primary components: the passive array, which will provide improved performance, and a medium-frequency active array. It utilizes transducers from the SSN-21 Seawolf Class that are that are designed to last the life of the hull. This is rather par for the course, as the Virginia Class’ was created in the 1990s to incorporate key elements of the $4 billion Seawolf Class submarine technologies into a cheaper boat.

The SUBSAFE eliminations, plus the life-of-the-hull transducers, will help to reduce the submarines’ life cycle costs as well by removing moving parts that require maintenance, eliminating possible points of failure and repair, and removing the need for transducer replacements in drydock.

The bow redesign is not limited to these changes, however, and includes 25 associated redesign efforts. These are estimated to reduce construction costs by another $20 million per hull beginning with the FY 2012 submarine.

With the $19 million ($11 + 8) from the LAB array and Vertical Payload, and the $20 million from the associated changes, General Dynamics is $39 million toward the $200 million baseline costs goal of “2 for 4 in 12”. While the changes themselves will begin with the FY 2009 ship, the savings are targeted at FY 2012 because of the learning curve required as part of the switch. Recent discussions concerning an earlier shift to 2 submarines per year would result in faster production of the Block III submarines, but would be unlikely to make a huge difference to that learning curve.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/vi ... bow-04159/

[P44]

A Nuclear Engineer and his wife are arrested by the FBI for selling US Navy Submarine Reactor Data to a Foreign Country
By Ryan White -October 10, 2021



According to court documents, a US Navy nuclear engineer and his wife were charged with repeatedly attempting to pass secrets about US nuclear submarines to a foreign government in an alleged espionage scheme found by the FBI.

The investigation began when the FBI obtained a package that had been sent to another country with operational manuals, technical details, and an offer to establish a covert relationship. The package was intercepted in the other country’s mail system and sent to an FBI legal attaché. The package was containing U.S. Navy documents, a letter, and instructions for how to conduct encrypted communications with the person offering the information. The letter in the package said: “Please forward this letter to your military intelligence agency. I believe this information will be of great value to your nation. This is not a hoax.”

The FBI followed the package’s instructions and started an encrypted communication with the sender, who offered Navy secrets in exchange for $100,000 in cryptocurrency. The FBI persuaded the sender to leave information at a dead drop in exchange for cryptocurrency payments through a series of transactions. The FBI arrested Jonathan and Diana Toebbe on October 9, after he placed yet another SD card at a pre-arranged “dead drop” at the second location in West Virginia.

The secret material in question includes plans for submarines that could be beneficial to a variety of countries. Because the reactors are fueled by highly enriched uranium, which can also be converted to bomb fuel for nuclear weapons, nuclear propulsion is one of the most tightly guarded secrets in the US Navy.



The details of the incident according to US Department of Justice as follows:
Jonathan and Diana Toebbe were arrested in Jefferson County, West Virginia by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) on Saturday, October 9, 2021. They will have their initial appearances on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, in federal court in Martinsburg, West Virginia. For almost a year, Jonathan Toebbe, 42, aided by his wife, Diana, 45, sold information known as Restricted Data concerning the design of nuclear-powered warships to a person they believed was a representative of a foreign power. In actuality, that person was an undercover FBI agent. The Toebbes have been charged in a criminal complaint alleging violations of the Atomic Energy Act.

“The complaint charges a plot to transmit information relating to the design of our nuclear submarines to a foreign nation,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The work of the FBI, Department of Justice prosecutors, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the Department of Energy was critical in thwarting the plot charged in the complaint and taking this first step in bringing the perpetrators to justice.”

Jonathan Toebbe is an employee of the Department of the Navy who served as a nuclear engineer and was assigned to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, also known as Naval Reactors. He held an active national security clearance through the U.S. Department of Defense, giving him access to Restricted Data. Toebbe worked with and had access to information concerning naval nuclear propulsion including information related to military sensitive design elements, operating parameters, and performance characteristics of the reactors for nuclear-powered warships.

The complaint affidavit alleges that on April 1, 2020, Jonathan Toebbe sent a package to a foreign government, listing a return address in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, containing a sample of Restricted Data and instructions for establishing a covert relationship to purchase additional Restricted Data. The affidavit also alleges that, thereafter, Toebbe began corresponding via encrypted email with an individual whom he believed to be a representative of the foreign government. The individual was really an undercover FBI agent. Jonathan Toebbe continued this correspondence for several months, which led to an agreement to sell Restricted Data in exchange for thousands of dollars in cryptocurrency.

On June 8, 2021, the undercover agent sent $10,000 in cryptocurrency to Jonathan Toebbe as “good faith” payment. Shortly afterwards, on June 26, 2021, Jonathan and Diana Toebbe traveled to a location in West Virginia. There, with Diana Toebbe acting as a lookout, Jonathan Toebbe placed an SD card concealed within half a peanut butter sandwich at a pre-arranged “dead drop” location. After retrieving the SD card, the undercover agent sent Jonathan Toebbe a $20,000 cryptocurrency payment. In return, Jonathan Toebbe emailed the undercover agent a decryption key for the SD Card. A review of the SD card revealed that it contained Restricted Data related to submarine nuclear reactors. On August 28, 2021, Jonathan Toebbe made another “dead drop” of an SD card in eastern Virginia, this time concealing the card in a chewing gum package. After making a payment to Toebbe of $70,000 in cryptocurrency, the FBI received a decryption key for the card. It, too, contained Restricted Data related to submarine nuclear reactors. The FBI arrested Jonathan and Diana Toebbe on October 9, after he placed yet another SD card at a pre-arranged “dead drop” at a second location in West Virginia.

https://navalpost.com/us-navy-submarine ... espionage/

[P44]

[ernando]

https://jovempan.com.br/noticias/mundo/ ... relas.html
Estados Unidos nomeiam primeira mulher trans para cargo de almirante quatro estrelas

O que são as novas armas hipersônicas da Rússia e da China perto de generais transgêneros?
É assim que se prepara para a guerra!
Go, America!!

[knigh7]

[knigh7]

Apenas desta Classe Virgínia, 11 estão em construção atualmente. É impressionante como a indústria de Defesa movimenta a economia americana:

O vídeo é interessante a partir dos 3 min.

[knigh7]

https://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/aci ... meridional

[vplemes]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... des-192063


The P-8 Poseidon Might Be the U.S.'s First Export Bomber in Decades


The crazy part is this bomber is a modified airliner.

by Sebastien Roblin

Here's What You Need To Remember: Still, if the defense establishment in the United Kingdom, South Korea, or Norway decide they need a long-range strike platform it can wield against distant land and sea targets, that capability may now only be an upgrade away, rather than requiring some fantastical bomber design that simply is not being produced anywhere in the world, and that would be too expensive to develop domestically.

A January 28, 2020 solicitation by the Naval Air Systems Command indicating it may modify its P-8 Poseidon patrol planes to carry a wide range of long-range missiles, mines and bombs has brought about an epiphany of sorts in the defense analysis community: the sea-warfare service appeared to be gearing up to convert its fleet of 122 submarine-hunting patrol planes into bombers—and moreover, a bomber based on the Boeing 737 airliner!

The reason that’s possible for a modified airliner to become a deadly weapons platform today is that new glide bombs and missiles allow an airplane to fly well outside the range of enemy air defense weapons and still unleash devastating standoff-range attacks.

All that’s needed is a large “missile truck” that can carry a lot of fuel of weapons, as well as the sensors and datalinks to acquire and engage targets.

For that reason, I wrote in a 2017 profile of the P-8 that there was a distinct possibility the Navy might adapt its submarine-hunters to serve as a sort of B-52 bomber substitute.

But there’s another interesting implication in the decision to adapt the P-8: the U.S. might effectively have an export bomber on its hands for the first time in decades.

The overlap between bombers and maritime patrol planes focused on tracking and attacking enemy ships and submarines, and bombers, dates back to World War I.

In World War II, Liberator heavy bombers armed with depth charges and rockets played a major role in hunting German U-Boats, while Catalina patrol planes were often employed to bomb land and sea targets. The important quality bombers and patrol planes had in common were the range to fly across huge distances on long-endurance missions.

The Poseidon is hardly toothless in its current configuration, capable of employing Mark 54 torpedoes and Harpoon anti-ship missiles against both ships and submarines.

But the Navy upgrade would dramatically improve anti-ship lethality with the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), which possesses over twice the range of the Harpoon at an estimated 300+ miles, a stealthier radar-cross section, and an advanced multi-mode seeker.

The upgrade may also outfit the P-8 to deploy Mark 62, 63 and 65 naval mines, 500- and 2,000-pound JDAM GPS-guided bombs, and the GBU-53/B Stormbreaker Small Diameter Bomb II, a small 105-pound weapon combining GPS with laser, infrared or radar guidance which can be carried in greater numbers and is intended to have much less potential for collateral damage. These weapons have more modest stand-off range capabilities, and the GBU-53B could be employed against small boats that lack high-altitude air defense weapons, like those employed by the Iranian Navy.

However, JDAMs and Stormbreakers would also enable P-8s to provide long-endurance air support to ground forces in the much the same way that Air Force B-1 and B-52 bombers are routinely called upon today.

A final unusual payload to under consideration is the MALD air-launched decoy, which is designed to so convincingly emulate the performance and signature of a jet fighter that it draws away fire from deadly enemy air defense missiles. The Navy foremost likely intends P-8 launched MALDs to help its carrier-based jet fighters overcome enemy integrated air defense systems.

Undoubtedly, some in the Navy will contend that expanding the P-8’s mission will inevitably come at the expense of the anti-submarine warfare mission, which is high in demand as China’s rapidly expands its submarine fleet.

But the demand for bombers that can both support troops on the ground and bring long-range anti-ship capabilities remains high—particularly as the Air Force is considering early retiring its B-1 bombers that brought both capabilities to the table, due to their operating costs and low maintainability.

An Export Bomber for the 21st Century?

The U.S. has exported very few bombers since World War II, though not a few bombers leftovers from that conflict did indeed go on to see colorful Cold War careers in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. That’s not only because multi-engine bombers are expensive, but they’re associated with aggressive offensive warfare and (by the Cold War era) nuclear warfare.


Besides some B-57 Canberra jet bombers sold to Pakistan, one of the few exceptions to that rule was Australia, which between 1973 and 2010 operated the speedy F-111 Aardvark swing-wing bomber. Australia’s interest in the aircraft it dubbed the “Pigs of the Pacific’ was driven by its need to project forces across long distances to foist off pressure from its military rival, Indonesia.

Australian Aardvarks have since been superseded by Super Hornet and Lightning fighters that, despite their other virtues, simply can’t fly nearly as far. But the Royal Australian Air Force already operates a dozen P-8, and it also has stocks of AGM-158 JASSM stealth cruise missiles (from which the LRASM is derived), as well as JDAM bombs. Converting Australian P-8 to carry standoff-range cruise missiles and glide bombs would be a very simple way to restore Canberra’s ability to project force further into the Pacific as it comes under increasing pressure from an expanding China.


India also operates over a dozen customized P-8I Poseidons which play a critical role in enabling the Indian Navy to monitor ship and submarine movements in the Indian Ocean. The P-8I differs in that it incorporates a sub-hunting Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) sensor, an export variant APY-10 radar, and an Indian Navy-specific datalink.

A report by the Center for New American Security suggested that a logical step to improve the Indian Navy’s sea control capabilities by integrating its highly capable domestic Brahmos supersonic cruise missile for launch from its P-8Is. However, it may not be all that simple to jury-rig integration of a weapon with largely Russian origins onto an American military platform! The soon-to-be-existence of the American upgrade kit might give India a simpler route to beefing up its anti-ship firepower, though undoubtedly a costly one.


Three other operators of the P-8—Norway, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—might be interested in the capabilities offered by upgraded Poseidons. The UK fundamentally has an expeditionary military, but no longer has any long-range strike jets. Norway has come under increasing pressure from Russian ships and land-based missile systems. And South Korea is of course locked in into its long-lasting security competition with its northern brethren.

Of course, training and equipping P-8 units for a larger surface-strike role would necessarily come at the detriment of time spent combing the seas for submarines, which pose significant security challenges to all three countries. Thus, it’s far from given that these nations will pursue the ability to convert their Poseidon’s into de facto bombers. Nor is it guaranteed that the upgrade will necessarily be authorized for sale abroad, though neither is it unlikely.

Still, if the defense establishment in any of the above countries decide they need a long-range strike platform it can wield against distant land and sea targets, that capability may now only be an upgrade away, rather than requiring some fantastical bomber design that simply is not being produced anywhere in the world, and that would be too expensive to develop domestically.

That change could have important implications as the security competition between China and the United States over the vastness of the Pacific Ocean seems only set to intensify in the coming decade.


Sébastien Roblin writes on the technical, historical and political aspects of international security and conflict for publications including The National Interest, NBC News, Forbes.com and War is Boring. He holds a Master’s degree from Georgetown University and served with the Peace Corps in China. You can follow his articles on Twitter. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

[P44]

https://www.navaltoday.com/2021/11/15/h ... tegration/

deve ser o primeiro submarino LGBT+R2D2C3POXPTOAPUTAQUEOSPARIU

[P44]

The Navy's $9B Stealthy Super Destroyer Is Covered In Rust

The controversial futuristic warship looked less than gleaming as it pulled into San Diego Bay recently.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... ed-in-rust