photo ga-asi.com

Nov 21, 2011 ASDNews Source : General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.

San Diego - General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA‑ASI), a leading manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars, and electro-optic surveillance systems, today announced its successful participation in a U.S. Air Force exercise designed to demonstrate the capability of an aerostat equipped with maritime radar and an Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) sensor to provide situational awareness for littoral environments.

"Successful integration and operation of the Lynx(r) Multi-mode Radar on an aerostat, which presented many navigation system challenges, is a testament to the radar's versatility," said Linden Blue, president, Reconnaissance Systems Group, GA-ASI. "The exercise validated the robustness of the Lynx Maritime Wide Area Search [MWAS] mode and demonstrated that this capability is ready to transition to the military and border patrol users on various types of manned and unmanned aircraft."

The flight test was conducted on July 26th during the U.S. Air Force Airborne Combat Command (ACC) Mobile Unified Communications (MUC) exercise held at Naval Air Station Oceana, Dam Neck Annex in Virginia Beach, Va. The SkySentry Aerostat, operated on behalf of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command Battle Lab (SMDCBL) and tethered approximately 1000 ft Above Ground Level (AGL), was equipped with the Lynx radar, an EO/IR camera, and a maritime Automatic Identification System (AIS). Lynx successfully detected and tracked maritime targets of various sizes and speeds off the Virginia Beach coastline. The radar detections and AIS data were correlated and displayed as a common operating picture overlay for improved operational situational awareness of maritime traffic flow and target identification. Lynx enabled operators to point the EO/IR camera automatically to targets of interest. The test demonstrated that the Lynx Multi-mode Radar is capable of providing situational awareness on relatively stationary airship/aerostat platforms, as well as on unmanned and manned fixed-wing aircraft.

Capable of a 30-degree per second scan rate with algorithms optimized for detecting small vessels, including Self-Propelled Semi-Submersible (SPSS) vessels, the Lynx radar's MWAS mode has also been demonstrated successfully on a King Air aircraft and a surrogate Predator B UAS. The MWAS mode, along with a three-fold increase in the Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) area coverage rate and a new SAR-aided alignment mode, has been incorporated into Lynx radars deployed by U.S. customers over the past year and is available now for airship/aerostat applications.

A US Army soldier demonstrates network capabilities at the NIE 12.1. (Photo: U.S. Army)

November 18, 2011 Daniel Goure, Ph.D. / Early Warning Blog, Lexington Institute – defpro.com

Out in the West Texas desert, at the White Sands Missile Range, a miracle is unfolding. For the last three weeks, the Army has been conducting the latest in a series of what it is calling a Network Integration Evaluation (NIE). The immediate goal of the NIE is to evaluate the suitability of near-term networking and communications capabilities for deployment with U.S. forces. The two critical capabilities the Army hopes to demonstrate in this NIE (and the next) are first, extending the network to the individual soldier and second, mission command on the move. A subordinate but extremely important goal is to demonstrate the ability of the NIE approach to evaluate, integrate and deliver networks and capabilities incrementally.

More broadly, the NIE process could speed up acquisition of new capabilities, improve access to commercial technology and find ways of lowering the cost of military networks. The NIE process also reflects the Army’s decision to change how it buys capability. Rather than taking years to design, build and test a system and then buy tens of thousands of a given item, in the future the Army will buy in smaller increments, inserting new technology into a baseline platform or architecture.

The NIE process was born of the Army’s recognition that its requirements, testing and acquisition processes were too slow, expensive and complicated. Moreover, it did not include the operator’s perspective. This realization was in itself a minor miracle. Credit for this epiphany goes to the outgoing Vice Chief of Staff, General Peter Chiarelli.

A third, related miracle is that the Army is including the individual soldier in the process. The solutions are not being imposed on them by a program office or acquisition authority. The soldiers in the field are telling the evaluators what works and what does not, what else they want and how they want to employ these new capabilities.

The current NIE called 12.1 involves a brigade combat team from the 2nd Armored Division equipped with an array of some 50 communications devices, IT systems, computers and sensors. Individual platoons were equipped with a different set of devices. The only truly common capability was the overarching network called the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, or WIN-T. Not only are individual communications devices, network components and software packages being evaluated but for the first time in living memory the Army is testing the whole network. Just getting the bugs out of the system and learning how to get all the parts to work as an integrated, seamless network is worth the price of admission.

This latest NIE suggests that the Army stands on the verge of an even greater miracle, one that could change the very nature of ground combat. Air power was transformed in the 1990s when a combination of GPS-based navigation and precision targeting allowed the U.S. Air Force to solve the 80-year-old problem of finding and striking fixed targets. A bombing mission that once took a thousand bombers to perform poorly can now be achieved by a handful of aircraft and a dozen precision weapons. The dominant problem in land operations for five thousand years has been maintaining control over forces on the move. The fielding of a baseline network that provides reliable mission command on the move and also link the individual soldier to higher echelons would solve a problem of historic significance.

The NIE process is new and a bit rough. But is also something of a miracle.

photo by US Navy, Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Danny Ewing Jr.

November 19, 2011. David Pugliese - Defence Watch

From Raytheon

Tucson, Ariz. - The U.S. Air Force awarded Raytheon a $24 million contract for Paveway II laser-guided bomb components, the majority share of the Air Force’s laser-guided bomb buy for overseas contingency operations. The contract was competitively awarded because Raytheon offered the government the lowest price system that met all requirements.

“Numerous tests have demonstrated that Raytheon’s combat-proven Paveway has unbeatable accuracy and unmatched standoff distance; this contract validates that our weapon also has the best price,” said Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems’ Air Warfare Systems. “Because Paveway is approved for direct commercial sales, we look forward to offering customers around the globe the same competitive pricing.”

About the Paveway Family of Weapons

The combat-proven Paveway is a kit that transforms “dumb” bombs into precision-guided weapons. Paveway II and Paveway III are laser-guidance kits, while the Enhanced Paveway II, Enhanced Paveway III and Paveway IV use both laser- and GPS-guidance.

Paveway Highlights

– More than 300,000 Paveways are in the inventory of 43 nations.

– The Paveway family of weapons is integrated on 25 aircraft.

– Thousands of Paveways have been used in combat.

November 19, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

The U.S. is spending $46.8 million to upgrade its North American air defense radars. This network consists of 29 AN/FPS77 radars. Each can detect aircraft out to 450 kilometers, and up to 33 kilometers (100,000 feet) altitude. These radars are widely distributed, with 15 in Alaska, 11 in Canada, and one each in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Utah.

You can set up the phased array (AESA) radar panel in a remote location, and have the radar information, and the status of the radar, monitored elsewhere. The AN/FPS-77 operates, on average, about 11 weeks before needing the attention of any technicians. A mobile version of this radar, the AN/TPS-77, can be moved using three tractor trailers. The AN/FPS-77 is a very popular system. There are 175 similar radars in use in 25 countries.

November 18, 2011 By Stephen Trimble – Shepard Group

Washington DC - Three of the five developmental Lockheed Martin F-35Bs have developed tiny cracks in a lift fan-related component which prevent the flight-test aircraft from reconfiguring in flight and landing vertically.

Two flight-test aircraft - BF-1 and BF-2 - are now being modified with a redesigned actuator support beam, according to the joint programme office.

BF-4 has also developed "hairline" cracks in the same part, but is continuing to fly in conventional mode only until the part is modified, the programme said.

The potential for cracks to develop in the actuator support beam was identified several years ago. A redesigned beam was installed on the fifth short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) test aircraft during final assembly, the programme said. That means the BF-5 test aircraft can continue to make vertical landings as part of the flight-test programme.

The only remaining test aircraft - BF-3 - has accumulated fewer flight hours. No cracks have yet been found. BF-3 is not technically restricted from completing vertical landings, but has only flown in conventional mode since the cracking problem was discovered.

The overall impact on the flight-test programme is expected to be light, programme officials said. BF-5 was the only STOVL variant scheduled to complete more vertical landings this year.

The cracks were discovered about a month after BF-2 and BF-4 completed a series of shipboard vertical landings on the USS Wasp, an LHD-class amphibious carrier.

The 18-day period aboard the Wasp was hailed as a landmark in the F-35B flight-test programme, symbolising its recovery from technical issues that had limited the STOVL variant to 10 vertical landings in 2010.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates placed the F-35B variant on a loosely defined "probation" earlier this year, warning that further problems could result in the programme's termination.

The F-35B appeared to rebound after Gates' announcement on 6 January. Three of the five propulsion system glitches have been fixed, with the remaining two expected to be cleared by February. A cracked bulkhead discovered in durability tests last November has also been redesigned.

However, the F-35B continues to face higher scrutiny amid the US military's uncertain budget situation.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, and a noted F-35 critic, links the newly-discovered cracks on the actuator support beam to his overall case against the F-35B.

"The least capable, most complex, most expensive, most problematic F-35 is amply demonstrating its doomed-from-the-start heritage," Wheeler said.

Nov 18, 2011 By Lt. Col. Deanna Bague, Fort Bliss Public Affairs Office Source : US Army - ASDNews

White Sands Missile Range, N.M. - The Army has committed 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, to evaluate new technologies and network capabilities that are shaping the Army's evolving tactical network.

Since the adoption of this mission, the brigade has built an experience base to address the requirements of the testing community and the program managers, said Col. Daniel Pinnell, commander of 2nd BCT, 1st AD.

The 2nd BCT is comprised of more than 3,800 Soldiers and is tasked organized and equipped to replicate heavy, light and Stryker formations. These Soldiers interface with systems or technologies for extended periods of time and must provide impartial feedback through a series of semi-annual network integration evaluation exercises, or NIEs.

Pinnell said it is important to understand what was really required when any one of these given systems was requested and sent in to the design process. This comprehension, he said, is critical to the brigade's ability to answer the real questions at hand.

"What was the system meant to do? [In] whose hands was it intended to be placed? And what environment did we intend it to operate in?" Pinnell said.

Knowing the answers to these questions ensures the scenarios generated, the tasks given to the Soldiers and their executions are of the essential complexity in the environment required to give the right answer back to the Army, added Pinnell.

"Is this stuff doing what we wanted it to do to meet the capability gap that we identified?" he said.

Officials said having one dedicated brigade combat team, or BCT, to evaluate the systems or technologies lessens the burdens on deploying units. This means the Soldiers from 2nd BCT are balancing the testing mission and their training requirements in preparation for deployment.

Pinnell said the unit has a very aggressive timeline to meet the requirements of training on new equipment and fielding it to the Brigade. In some cases, that's 3,000 to 4,000 pieces of new equipment coming and going every four to five months.

The Soldiers train typically through platoon level prior to deploying to the field for tests, though they sometimes do train at company level as well. Once the unit is deployed in the field and testing, it is a non-stop, on-going event, said Pinnell. Every one of these missions adds to the Soldiers' skill sets, he added.

"Because of the length of the test, we will enter at one level of competence and capability [and] we'll exit at a dramatically higher level just by the sheer investment of resources and time that have been provided," said Pinnell. "So I'm very confident, as happened last time -- we'll enter, say, at company level of competence -- [and] we will leave at battalion level of competence. [The] good news is, bottom line, it's training. While we're testing, we're getting pretty darn good resource training, and we make pretty good headway."

The brigade has a strong combat veteran ratio. About 40 percent of the Soldiers have single or multiple combat tours served in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas.

Pinnell said he committed about 600 Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, to serve as civilians on the battlefield and as opposition forces in injected insurgent scenarios. These injects allow Soldiers to execute tactics, techniques and procedures used in Afghanistan against an enemy who's replicating it as accurately as set forth in these scenarios, said Pinnell.

Soldiers role playing the opposition force said they are able to see the other side of warfare in terms of how the enemy may react and counteract what the coalition forces are doing.

"It makes you think outside the box," said 2nd Lt. Zachary Taylor, a platoon leader for D Company, 1-6th Inf. "So when you actually do deploy, you can understand how the enemy is thinking, [and] therefore you can react in a more appropriate manner, thus, hopefully, saving the lives of my Soldiers and of myself as well."

Sgt. Charles Bell, also from 1-6th Inf., is role playing a suicide bomber during the NIE 12.1 exercise. He said the experience he has from multiple deployments helps him develop the TTPs he needs to implement tasks as a member of the opposing force.

"I know how to get in the FOBs (forward operating bases) -- what kind of tactics that you use to get in [or] sneak in, [or] place IEDs (improvised explosive devices)," said Bell. "I've done [many] route clearings. We facilitate a live-action enemy so [Soldiers] can get hands-on training to [carry out] their [standard operating procedures]. Each time, we add more and more stuff to make it harder for them."

The Soldiers from 2-1 AD take the mission the Army has handed them very seriously. They say all of the time and effort are well worth it if it means helping save lives.

"It kind of gives you a sense of purpose because you know you're shaping things for the future," said Sgt. Ryan Moore, a team leader from C Company, 1st Battalion, 35th Armored Regiment. "I tell all my guys -- specially -- make sure you're very candid with what you say, because if you don't give accurate feedback, you'll have a system that's no good. We don't want our brothers in arms down range to get some garbage equipment."

Moore said he does not want Soldiers to carry a piece of equipment that does not function.

"That's just something else [they'll carry] around, [adding] more weight to them as opposed to being something that's functional and [is] helping them do their job and stay safe."

The Soldiers are extremely dedicated to the mission, said Pinnell.

"We take this incredibly seriously, both from a national treasure stand, as well as the lives of our brothers and sisters and our own futures as we return back into the theater," Pinnell said. "I'm just incredibly proud of these young men and women and their professional demeanor and their ability to provide very detailed feedback in a candid fashion to the leaders to really help them make the best possible decisions on acquisition."

Senior Army leaders said these Soldiers, as well as their families, are at the root and foundation of the ability to effectively conduct network integration evaluation exercises.

"I am absolutely amazed at how these Soldiers operate in the field," said Brig. Gen. Randal A. Dragon, commanding general for Brigade Modernization Command, Army Capabilities Integration Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. "One of the most important things that we have that is unseen here is the support of families at Fort Bliss. These Soldiers operate here knowing that their children and their families are looking after them and are being taken care of; this provides them the ability to perform this very important mission and remain focused on their tasks. The love and support we get from our families at Fort Bliss and beyond is unmatched in our Army."

18 November 2011 - by Beth Stevenson – Shepard Group

Lockheed Martin is preparing its Airborne Early Warning (AEW) Vigilance podded mission system for the export market, company representatives announced on 17 November.

Speaking at a media briefing in the UK, Neil Morphett, future helicopter programme engineer for the company, said that while looking at potential mission systems for the UK Royal Navy's Merlin Mk II helicopter, Lockheed Martin had developed this self-contained variant for integration onto 'any sort of multirole platform'.

It is understood that Vigilance will be exhibited to potential customers in Malaysia towards the end of the month, although company officials were unable to disclose any information on this.

The 300 kg ‘role-on/role-off’ sensor payload is designed for applications such as anti-submarine warfare; anti-surface warfare; ground and air surveillance; command and control; and search and rescue. It is based on an 'out-of-the-box' concept that is podded onto the side of aircraft such as a Merlin Mk II helicopter or the C-130 Hercules.

The company is also exploring a larger pod for aircraft such as the C-130, however, Morphett said Lockheed Martin’s intention is not to have multiple sized pods.

‘It is the same core computer capability as the Merlin Mk II,’ Morphett explained. ‘We are aiming it to be as minimally disruptive to the aircraft as possible.’

For 360-degree coverage, two pods can be added with one on either side of the aircraft, and the system only needs access to a single power source, with integration taking between two and four hours depending on the platform. As a cost-saving measure for customers, the system can be re-deployed as required, it was added.

The Vigilance already has ‘several customers’ Morphett told Shephard, covering a range of different aircraft types. He also said that there will ‘probably be another generation’ of prototype before production standard, although it should be delivery-ready ‘within two years’.

In development since 2009, Lockheed Martin is currently working on the second prototype for the system, with the first having had a fixed radar and the second a gimbal, although both types will be available depending on the customer requirement.

‘Dedicated platforms are becoming more and more expensive to run,’ a Lockheed Martin representative pointed out, describing how it was aimed at customers with ‘limited resources’ who cannot afford an entirely new platform for each different application.

Flight tests are expected to be conducted in the UK next year for three months on a medium-sized helicopter, although the specifics of the testing are undisclosed at this stage.

The integrated AESA radar on offer is being provided by Northrop Grumman. However, both companies admitted that each sale will be made on a ‘case by case basis’ and therefore the fourth-generation radar that Northrop is providing may not necessarily be the one integrated on a customer’s system.

Northrop Grumman representatives said it is ‘fair to assume’ that using the company’s radar would be a cheaper option because it is tested and works, and therefore is confident that potential customers with a lower budget would be inclined to pick it.

Representatives from both companies were quick to point out that they could not comment on the system’s connection with the UK MoD’s Crow’s Nest programme, going so far as to say that the programme ‘doesn’t exist’.

However, an industry source told Shephard that Crow's Nest was designed to replace the Royal Navy's Sea King ASaC capability, although a contract has yet to be awarded.

18 November 2011 by defenceWeb

The US Department of State has given Raytheon approval to export its SeaVue eXpanded Mission Capability (SeaVue XMC) maritime and overland surveillance radar to Morocco. Morocco is the first country cleared for export of this radar with expanded technology, the company says.

"Raytheon's proven experience as a global leader in maritime surveillance is further solidified by this approval to export our unique capability," said Tim Carey, vice president for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Systems for Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems business. "No other company offers this exclusive technology to the Middle East-North Africa region."

SeaVue is a family of lightweight, modular, X-band surveillance radars. They provide inverse synthetic aperture, synthetic aperture radar and moving target indicator modes as well as a weather detection and avoidance mode. The mechanically scanned system, consisting of a transmitter, processor and antenna, can be adapted to different fixed- or rotary-wing platforms, with nose-mount or belly-mount antennas.

Raytheon's SeaVue XMC is deployed on U.S. Navy and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aircraft for surveillance along the U.S. coastline, as well as in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. Its flexible radar architecture allows custom configuration to various platforms.

The US CBP was the first to deploy the SeaVue XMC capability, completing flight trials in May last year. The radar is operating on the agency’s Bombardier DHC-8 aircraft, P-3 Orion and marinised version of the General Atomics MQ-9 Predator B called the Guardian, which adds SeaVue radar and electro-optical/infrared sensor. The U.S. Navy has been using SeaVue on a classified platform, according to AIN Online. The CBP’s office of air and marine branch operates 270 aircraft, including two Guardians and five Predator Bs.

Raytheon has delivered more than 1 900 maritime radars worldwide, fielded on a range of platforms including the U.S. Navy’s new P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft with upgraded Raytheon AN/APY-10 radar, the P-3, Beechcraft King Air 350, De Havilland Canada DHC-8 and Predator Guardian.

About 500 radars are still operating, including 150 SeaVue systems used by Japan, Mexico, Italy, Australia, the UK, Thailand, Norway, Pakistan and Taiwan. In Australia, SeaVue radar has logged 150,000 operational flight hours as part of that country’s Coastwatch program, operated by the Australian customs service.

17 Nov 2011 Defensenews AFP

Budget cuts must not be allowed to undermine the U.S. military's industrial base, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday during a visit to a shipyard that builds attack submarines.

Panetta used his stop at the Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Conn., to underline the importance of preserving the know-how of the country's defense industry, which he said was jeopardized by potential sweeping cuts in military spending.

"We cannot have a strong defense for the United States without protecting this industrial base," Panetta told a crowd of about 200 workers in hard hats. "I need to be able in this country to produce our ships, to produce our submarines, to produce our planes, to produce our fighter planes, to produce our tanks, to produce what we need for the military. I don't need to rely on another country. We've got rely on the United States to do that," he said to cheers, with an imposing Virginia-class submarine behind him.

The defense chief said the specialized skills of those building submarines or other weapons could not be easily replaced and might be lost permanently if deeper cuts go forward due to political deadlock in Congress.

"You, too, are the patriots that I need to depend on. Your skills, your capabilities, what you're able to do, that is an important resource that we have to protect for the future," he said.

Before he spoke, Panetta got a tour of the soon-to-be commissioned Mississippi fast attack submarine, which manufacturer General Dynamics says has been produced a year ahead of schedule and under budget.

The U.S. Navy has eight of the nuclear-powered Virginia-class vessels and plans to build at least 30. The submarines, which cost more than $2 billion each, are designed to strike enemy subs, launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, gather intelligence and deliver special operations forces.

While commanders see the Virginia-class submarines as an important counterweight to anti-ship missiles being developed by China and other states, the Navy faces budget pressures that could mean scaling back plans for the future fleet of fast attack subs.

The Pentagon is already preparing for more than $450 billion in cuts over the next decade, but a political stalemate in Congress could mean roughly another $600 billion in additional reductions.

Panetta this week warned that if Congress fails to prevent deep defense budget cuts, the U.S. military will be left weaker, slower and smaller.

He outlined on Monday the potential effects of automatic cutbacks should a congressional "supercommittee" fail this month to reach a deal to reduce the country's deficit, painting a dire picture.

Panetta, a former lawmaker and White House budget chief under former president Bill Clinton, said at the shipyard on Thursday that members of Congress needed to "suck it up" and show leadership on the deficit, saying the problem could not be solved without tackling mushrooming spending on so-called entitlement programs as well as raising tax revenues.

"You want to fix these deficits, you got to make the same damn decisions" that were made in budget deals in the past, he said.

"So I really urge leaders in Congress, I urge this committee: Suck it up, do what's right for the country," he said.

"That's why we elect people, to govern. Not to just survive in office."

source armyrecognition.com

November 17, 2011 defpro.com

Marmen Inc. of Trois-Rivières, Québec, today announced it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Force Protection Industries, Inc. as of August 30, 2011 to provide manufacturing and machining services for the Timberwolf, a safe, reliable and technically-advanced Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) specifically designed for the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian Government previously selected Force Protection Industries, Inc. as one of the qualified companies to provide up to 600 wheeled combat vehicles and related long term support services. The Department of National Defence (DND) expects to award a contract to the final selected bidder in 2012.

In signing the MoU, Marmen has joined Team Timberwolf, led by Force Protection Industries and CAE. CAE would have overall responsibility for the comprehensive in-service support (ISS) solution. Team Timberwolf is also composed of Canadian Tier 1 subcontractors Lockheed Martin Corporation, Elbit Systems Land and C4I (ESLC) and Malley Industries.

“We are very pleased to be part of Team Timberwolf,” said Patrick Pellerin, President of Marmen. “As an organization and as individuals, we take great pride in knowing that Marmen’s expertise and know-how can contribute to the safety of our Canadian troops.”

“Marmen was selected for the Timberwolf project based on the unmatched quality of its manufacturing and machining services, and we expect them to play a pivotal role in making what we think is the optimal vehicle for the Canadian Forces,” said Randy Hutcherson, Chief of Business Development of Force Protection. “In assembling Team Timberwolf, we have put together a dynamic group of Canadian companies with complementary capabilities that can deliver a low-risk, cost-effective, long-term TAPV solution to Canada.”

“Winning this project will allow Marmen to diversify and grow, yet we also expect the benefits of this project to extend beyond our own organization,” added Mr. Pellerin. “In addition to creating approximately 100 jobs at Marmen, the positive economic impact will certainly be felt throughout our region.”

Boeing is completing final integration, test and launch activities on three Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellites. WGS-4, WGS-5 and WGS-6 (right to left in photo) are the first WGS satellites in the Block II series, which includes a new radio frequency bypass that supports the transmission of airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance imagery at approximately than three times the data rate of Block I satellites. WGS-4 was recently shipped to Florida to undergo final preparations for a scheduled January launch. Photo credit: Boeing photo.

Nov 18, 2011 El Segundo, CA (SPX)

Boeing has shipped the fourth Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., to undergo final preparations for a scheduled January launch.

The new WGS satellite will join three others that are already on orbit and carrying the bulk of satellite communications traffic for the armed forces and other government agencies.

Built at Boeing's El Segundo manufacturing facility, WGS-4 is the first Block II WGS satellite.

The new series adds performance upgrades such as a switchable radio frequency bypass that supports the transmission of airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance imagery at data rates approximately three times greater than those currently available to the U.S. Department of Defense.

With the addition of WGS-4, all WGS satellites will continue to provide warfighters with instant, worldwide SATCOM connectivity.

"New airborne surveillance platforms are driving a need for higher data rates, and the upgrades on WGS-4 are designed specifically to meet these emerging requirements," said Craig Cooning, vice president and general manager of Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems.

WGS-4 will be placed into geosynchronous Earth orbit along with the three other WGS satellites that are operating over the Middle East, Pacific and Atlantic regions.

"We have three satellites on orbit that are meeting - and in most cases exceeding - customer requirements, and we remain committed to the mission of building affordable WGS satellites for the U.S. Air Force to connect warfighters worldwide," said Cooning.

WGS satellites are built on the proven Boeing 702HP platform, which features highly efficient xenon-ion propulsion, deployable thermal radiators and advanced triple-junction gallium-arsenide solar arrays that enable high-capacity, flexible payloads.

The WGS communications payload has unique flexibility that is important to the military, as well as the ability to interconnect terminals that operate in different frequency bands and to reposition coverage beams based on evolving mission needs.

WGS supports missions ranging from tactical communications to and between ground forces, to relaying data and imagery from airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms.

November 17, 2011 by Galrahn - informationdissemination.net

Sam Lagrone has a Janes Exclusive up behind the firewall. There is a lot to think about and discuss here, too much to cover in one post although I encourage folks to open fire in the comments.

The first of the US Navy's (USN's) future Arleigh Burke-class Flight III ballistic missile defence (BMD) destroyers could cost between USD3 billion and USD4 billion to build, Jane's has learnt.

The projected figures, which appeared in early USN estimates for a replacement for the cancelled next-generation guided missile cruiser (CG(X)), were confirmed by several industry and military sources. Shipbuilders Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII, formerly Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) were asked to provide the cost data for the Flight III - which will perform the BMD role in lieu of CG(X) - as part of the navy's 2009 Hull and Radar Study.

One source familiar with the estimates said a BIW-built Flight III destroyer would cost about $2.7 billion in total while an HII ship would cost about $3.7 billion, both under fixed-price construction contracts.

As has been previously discussed, the DDG-51 Flight IIIs are expected to field the radar selected as a result of the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) study from 2009, and with that requirement alone the Navy is required to make several changes to the DDG-51 design. The end result means that DDG-51 Flight III is not really a DDG-51, but an evolved new class of warship based on the best and lessons from the DDG-51 and DDG-1000.

With a planned aperture of 14 ft, the AMDR will be less sensitive than the 22 ft variant that was planned for CG(X) but more sensitive than the SPY-1D air-search/fire-control radar that equips Flight IIA ships. The power-hungry AMDR will require a costly new electrical system encompassing a more robust electrical grid, and must be able to integrate follow-on systems, adding risk and uncertainty to the Flight III design.

In particular, ship designers will probably have to upgrade the 440 V grid in the current Arleigh Burkes to a 4,160 V grid to accommodate the 10 MW needed to drive the AMDR. Increasing the voltage in a Flight III grid would allow more power to flow safely and reliably to the ship's systems, but it would incur additional engineering and design expenditures.

Ballistic Missile Defense is now the primary combat specialty driving the future ship design in major surface combatants. The major surface combatant of the future is being designed, by intent, to fight not only under the ocean, on the ocean, against targets on land, and over the ocean - but is also now expected to offer naval forces superiority against weapons that maneuver in low orbit space.

The DDG-51 Flight III design will leverage a hull form similar to the DDG-51 but will apparently require a complete redesign internally in order to leverage DDG-1000 technologies like electric power systems in order to support the expanding mission areas. Preliminary design of the new warship is currently planned through 2012 with a contract design phase towards specific detail planned for 2013-2014.

It is important to note, that while this warship is being called DDG-51 Flight III, that is a Flag level communications snafu waiting to happen. This ship clas should be a new program. The Navy is basically going to try to design, build, and field a new high end destroyer in about a decades time, which for naval construction is remarkably fast. As an evolutionary design - thanks largely to R&D from DDG-1000 and the DDG-51 Flight IIA restart - the Navy is actually saving a lot of money in developing this new warship, but with cost estimates of between $2.7 - $3.7 billion for the first ship, the Navy finds itself right back where it started with DDG-1000.

This is why, and I discussed this many times on the blog at the time, the Navy never made a cost argument in Congressional testimony regarding the DDG-1000. The Navy said a lot of things, but neither the CNO nor admirals in testimony ever publicly used the high cost of DDG-1000 or the lack-of-AEGIS issue as justification for truncating the DDG-1000 program. Right about now, that whole on-cost, on-schedule DDG-1000 program after ship #3 is looking like a real bargain, but again, DDG-1000 is designed to be a warship with superior land attack and gun warfare capabilities, while this new warship is intended to give the Navy the ability to be superior against low-orbit threats like ballistic missiles.

The enormous cost of this new surface combatant in the context of an emerging age of global naval power growth and more capable anti-access, area denial capabilities raises legitimate questions regarding the future force structure of the US Navy. As the high end surface combatant suffers from legitimate mission creep, now requiring capabilities towards military superiority against ballistic missiles, combined with all the other tasks found in the development of multi-mission capable warships, is the Navy properly accounting from a holistic perspective the impacts of more and mroe investment in sustaining mutli-mission capable ships that can perform at the highest end of every mission area? How long can the Navy sustain generational growth at the high end of surface warfare at a cost of an extra ~$1 billion added cost per ship before the fleet is too small to meet the primary mission of the Navy vs the threats given primary mission focus for the Navy?

When the Navy increases the capability requirement at the high end of any mission capability of the surface force, an action that will almost certainly require a reduction in the size of the surface force to compensate for the new requirement cost trade-off, how does that impact the lesser assets of the surface force? The Navy has argued, and until now I have agreed, the Navy does not need a frigate because the Navy has a high quantity of major surface combatants capable of meeting the entire range of combat requirements a frigate would perform. However, in the context of the cost of the AMDR surface combatant, quantity at the high end is very much in doubt, and the argument the Navy does in fact need a higher quantity of surface combatants at the low end to compensate for the reduced quantity of high end vessels is a very compelling argument in favor of a frigate. I know one thing, I do not see how the Navy can justify construction of the current LCS designs after the existing contracts through FY15 are fully executed, because as the high end shrinks due to cost constraints, the low end of the force must be adjusted in capability to compensate.

With that said, the requirement to field unmanned systems in quantity doesn't simply go away, and the contributing combat role the LCS represents for the 21st century fleet is just as necessary but very different from a frigate. Throughout the history of the Navy, major influences to force structure - like adding BMD to the fleet or observing cost increases in aircraft carriers or submarines - required a holistic view of the fleet and adjustments across the total of force structure. This is why, for example, since WWII ships are introduced as part of a family. The ASW destroyer (Sprunance) and convoy escort frigate (Perry) were part of a family, a family that included the Sea Control Ship until that was canceled. The DDG-1000 and LCS were part of a family of ships that included the canceled CG(X). The current cruiser and destroyer warships of the US Navy are part of the AEGIS family of warships. I do not see how the Navy can change the high end of surface warfare to be centric to fighting low-orbit threats like ballistic missile defense at such a high cost and not compensate this major force structure without introducing a family of ships that addresses the cost relationship this major combatant will have on the total force.

Today the Navy is facing significant costs, and is adding significant risk to the total force, by following a pattern of force structure evolution that may have reached the end of it's ability to meet mission requirements for the United States. Evolving the Nimitz CVN -> Ford CVN, evolving the DDG-51 Flight IIA -> DDG-51 Flight III, evolving the Los Angeles class SSN -> Virginia class SSN, and evolving the Ohio SSBN -> to SSBN(X) has resulted in the Navy building bigger, more capable, but a much smaller and more expensive force where combat capabilities are being condensed into a very powerful, but numerically challenged fleet relative to the scope and scale of demand and requirements. Has the multi-mission fleet evolution model for naval force structure reached a point of risk where, by putting all eggs into fewer baskets, the Navy now potentially assumes risks too great to compensate for should the Navy suffer from attrition in warfare?

What is the red line, and who has the guts in OPNAV to admit it gets crossed when the institution isn't really designed to admit potential weaknesses in major program efforts. It's like the big deck nuclear aircraft carrier question, how will anyone really know when it becomes obsolete in an age of increasingly sophisticated long range and lethal military capabilities being proliferated globally? It's why I warn young naval officers, be very careful not to be too critical of the battleship admirals prior to Pearl Harbor in 1941, because that same scenario could easily be repeated with the carrier admirals of 2011.

If the Navy was to build a larger quantity of smaller, single purpose ships - when comparing the cost of just four DDG-51 Flight IIIs at a cost of $12 billion in shipbuilding, what are the trade offs from a cost/benefit risk assessment perspective when evaluated against alternative force structures? Would 6 smaller frigates at $1 billion each, 1 LPD-17 sized unmanned systems mothership at $2.5 billion, and 1 $3.5 billion major surface combatant be a better mix of combat capabilities at the same cost as 4 DDG-51 Flight IIIs? What ever happened to the large, simple single mission destroyer? You know, the Brits might be a lot smarter than we think for building so much empty space into the Type-45s to keep costs down. I do wonder, was the proposed expensive CGN(X) large ballistic missile defense cruisers that would serve as major networked radar vessels really a bad idea, or was it simply a bad idea in the context of a surface navy that appears completely unwilling to address the changes such a vessel would have to the rest of the force structure?

One thing is certain, this DDG-51 Flight III is so expensive that it appears irresponsible for the Navy to introduce it as simply a replacement program for major surface combatants. This warship should be part of a family of ships that are designed to compensate for the stresses a smaller high end surface force will inevitably place on the rest of the fleet.

ORLANDO/MUNICH/ROME, November 17th, 2011 Lockheed Martin

The Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) successfully completed its first flight test today at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

The PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) MEADS Certified Missile Round was employed during the test along with the MEADS lightweight launcher and battle manager.

The test demonstrated an unprecedented over-the-shoulder launch of the MSE missile against a simulated target attacking from behind. It required a unique sideways maneuver, demonstrating a 360-degree capability. The missile executed a planned self-destruct sequence at the end of the mission after successfully engaging the simulated threat.

“Today, MEADS demonstrated its ability to engage and defeat a target coming from anywhere using just a single launcher,” said NATO MEADS Management Agency General Manager Gregory Kee. “MEADS provides more capability at a lower cost to protect our soldiers against a growing air and missile threats. The MEADS lightweight launcher is one of the most advanced mobile launchers in existence today and was designed to be easily adaptable to a variety of vehicles. ”

“Today’s successful flight test is an important validation for the continuing MEADS development,” said MEADS International President Dave Berganini. “MEADS’ advanced capabilities detect, track and intercept tomorrow’s threats from farther away and without blind spots. The MEADS digital design ensures high reliability and significantly reduced operational and support costs.”

Using its 360-degree defensive capability, the advanced MEADS radars and MSE missile, MEADS defends up to eight times the coverage area with far fewer system assets and significantly reduces demand for deployed personnel and equipment, which reduces demand for airlift.

MEADS International, a multinational joint venture headquartered in Orlando, Fla., is the prime contractor for the MEADS system. Major subcontractors and joint venture partners are MBDA in Italy and Germany, and Lockheed Martin in the United States.

The MEADS program management agency NAMEADSMA is located in Huntsville, Ala.