Well, that was wierd.
The link I wanted...and have now fixed in that post...was this one to the full length PDF file of the Admiral's paper:
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
The link I wanted...and have now fixed in that post...was this one to the full length PDF file of the Admiral's paper:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
JMSDF has been reported in Warship magazine to be establishing a marine type Expeditionary type unit
It also confirmed that the second of the giant Izumo Class flat tops was laid in Jan 2014
Unit will use V22 in conjunction with Osumi Class, Hyuga Class and Izumo Class
No doubt F35B is on the cards too
It also confirmed that the second of the giant Izumo Class flat tops was laid in Jan 2014
Unit will use V22 in conjunction with Osumi Class, Hyuga Class and Izumo Class
No doubt F35B is on the cards too
Hope so, that would be a smart choice for Izumo class..
Jura The idiot
General
On Joint Precision Approach and Landing System
Posted on InsideDefense.com: April 25, 2014
The Navy has overhauled plans for its Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, reducing near-term spending spending by $1 billion, cutting procurement by 27 percent and accelerating development to support the Joint Strike Fighter and the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System, according to service officials.
The net effect of these moves, made by the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense as part of restructuring of the JPALS program, was to increase total program costs from $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion, with unit costs exceeding a 100-percent increase compared to the original baseline, according to Navy officials and Pentagon acquisition documents. The cost growth triggered Nunn-McCurdy statutory provisions last month, requiring that the defense secretary re-certify the JPALS program as essential to national security by August.
JPALS, a Raytheon-developed, satellite-guided aircraft handling capability, consists of sensors, radios, antennas and processing equipment that is used to compare the GPS-calculated position and motion of both aircraft and ships and formulate a flight path to a touchdown point on the ship's deck.
The Defense Department had planned to buy up to seven JPALS increments beginning with Increment 1, which the Navy had split into two parts. JPALS Increment 1A was centered on the installation of the capability on carriers and big-deck amphibious ships. JPALS Increment 1B, meanwhile, was to involve the integration of the system on aircraft beginning with the C-2A, the F/A-18E/F, the EA-18G, the MH-60R/S and the E-2D, after which the system was slated to be outfitted on all sea-based aircraft.
Last year, the Department of the Navy put those plans under the microscope as part of a wider study of the Navy and Marine Corps Precision Approach and Landing Capability (PALC) requirement through 2040. That assessment, begun in January 2013, produced a July 2013 PALC Roadmap that recommended jettisoning Increment 1B -- the plan to incorporate JPALS into the aircraft carrier fleet, according to a Navy spokesman.
"Under the recommended restructure, the JPALS Ship System (currently designated as Increment 1A) will continue to be developed and procured for use on US Navy aircraft carriers (CVN-type) and amphibious assault ships (LH-type) in support of the F-35B/C and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) programs," Rob Koon, a spokesman for the office of Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA-213), which is responsible for JPALS' development, told InsideDefense.com in an April 24 statement.
Pentagon plans to develop and field seven JPALS increments have also been revamped. Last year, the Air Force, which was originally slated to develop JPALS Increment 2, a version of the system for land-based aircraft, canceled its part in the project and transferred responsibility to the Navy (DefenseAlert, Nov. 20, 2013). Under the revised program, the Navy is walking away from executing Increment 2, scrapping plans to develop JPALS for land-based air stations and expeditionary airfields. That program reduced the total procurement quantity from 37 to 27, a 27 percent reduction that was a primary factor in the planned reduction of JPALs spending by $1.1 billion between fiscal years 2015 and 2019, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told lawmakers in a March 19 letter.
To meet this capability, the Navy will procure -- separate from the JPALS program -- civil instrument landing systems at these Navy and Marine Corps fixed based air stations as well this capability into legacy aircraft, according to Koon. "Further, legacy shipboard landing systems will be recapitalized and/or sustained to support the fleet until 2040," the Navy spokesman added.
In addition, the Pentagon is abandoning plans for JPALS Increment 5, a land-based man-pack system; Increment 6, tailed for Special Operations Forces; and Increment 7, which was to upgrade the AN/SPN-41 Instrumented Carrier Landing Systems.
"Developmental efforts for Increments 3 and 4, manned and unmanned auto-land respectively, have been extended under the PALC Roadmap," according to Koon.
The new JPALS program of record extends the engineering and manufacturing development phase until the third quarter of fiscal year 2016 and delays a planned full-rate production decision from the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 to the second quarter of 2017, according to budget documents.
Posted on InsideDefense.com: April 25, 2014
The Navy has overhauled plans for its Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, reducing near-term spending spending by $1 billion, cutting procurement by 27 percent and accelerating development to support the Joint Strike Fighter and the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System, according to service officials.
The net effect of these moves, made by the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense as part of restructuring of the JPALS program, was to increase total program costs from $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion, with unit costs exceeding a 100-percent increase compared to the original baseline, according to Navy officials and Pentagon acquisition documents. The cost growth triggered Nunn-McCurdy statutory provisions last month, requiring that the defense secretary re-certify the JPALS program as essential to national security by August.
JPALS, a Raytheon-developed, satellite-guided aircraft handling capability, consists of sensors, radios, antennas and processing equipment that is used to compare the GPS-calculated position and motion of both aircraft and ships and formulate a flight path to a touchdown point on the ship's deck.
The Defense Department had planned to buy up to seven JPALS increments beginning with Increment 1, which the Navy had split into two parts. JPALS Increment 1A was centered on the installation of the capability on carriers and big-deck amphibious ships. JPALS Increment 1B, meanwhile, was to involve the integration of the system on aircraft beginning with the C-2A, the F/A-18E/F, the EA-18G, the MH-60R/S and the E-2D, after which the system was slated to be outfitted on all sea-based aircraft.
Last year, the Department of the Navy put those plans under the microscope as part of a wider study of the Navy and Marine Corps Precision Approach and Landing Capability (PALC) requirement through 2040. That assessment, begun in January 2013, produced a July 2013 PALC Roadmap that recommended jettisoning Increment 1B -- the plan to incorporate JPALS into the aircraft carrier fleet, according to a Navy spokesman.
"Under the recommended restructure, the JPALS Ship System (currently designated as Increment 1A) will continue to be developed and procured for use on US Navy aircraft carriers (CVN-type) and amphibious assault ships (LH-type) in support of the F-35B/C and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) programs," Rob Koon, a spokesman for the office of Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA-213), which is responsible for JPALS' development, told InsideDefense.com in an April 24 statement.
Pentagon plans to develop and field seven JPALS increments have also been revamped. Last year, the Air Force, which was originally slated to develop JPALS Increment 2, a version of the system for land-based aircraft, canceled its part in the project and transferred responsibility to the Navy (DefenseAlert, Nov. 20, 2013). Under the revised program, the Navy is walking away from executing Increment 2, scrapping plans to develop JPALS for land-based air stations and expeditionary airfields. That program reduced the total procurement quantity from 37 to 27, a 27 percent reduction that was a primary factor in the planned reduction of JPALs spending by $1.1 billion between fiscal years 2015 and 2019, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told lawmakers in a March 19 letter.
To meet this capability, the Navy will procure -- separate from the JPALS program -- civil instrument landing systems at these Navy and Marine Corps fixed based air stations as well this capability into legacy aircraft, according to Koon. "Further, legacy shipboard landing systems will be recapitalized and/or sustained to support the fleet until 2040," the Navy spokesman added.
In addition, the Pentagon is abandoning plans for JPALS Increment 5, a land-based man-pack system; Increment 6, tailed for Special Operations Forces; and Increment 7, which was to upgrade the AN/SPN-41 Instrumented Carrier Landing Systems.
"Developmental efforts for Increments 3 and 4, manned and unmanned auto-land respectively, have been extended under the PALC Roadmap," according to Koon.
The new JPALS program of record extends the engineering and manufacturing development phase until the third quarter of fiscal year 2016 and delays a planned full-rate production decision from the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 to the second quarter of 2017, according to budget documents.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Jura The idiot
General
On the 11th Carrier:
Posted on InsideDefense.com: April 29, 2014
The House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee's portion of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill would call on the Navy to fund an 11th aircraft carrier and require a review of the service's solicitation for its Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike program, according to the subcommittee chairman.
The Navy's FY-15 budget request, released in March, did not include funding for the refueling of the George Washington carrier (CVN-73). But Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) asserted that Congress will not let that stand -- and his subcommittee will not issue a mark of the FY-15 defense authorization bill without carrier funding.
"I will tell you this -- we will keep that carrier. You know that, the Navy knew that, the Pentagon knew that. You know, I had folks at the Pentagon tell me: 'We know you wouldn't let them take that carrier.' We told them that," Forbes told reporters at an April 29 Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.
"Nobody in their right mind thought they were going to take that carrier out. It was put in there because somebody at [the Office of Management and Budget] or somebody just said: 'We want the Navy to look like they're taking pain and this is the big symbol that we do it.' That's not a good symbol to use," he added, noting that U.S allies see that as a move "dismantling" the U.S. Navy.
"The carrier will go in there," Forbes told reporters. "I just don't think you will see a mark coming out under my name that does not have that carrier taken care of."
In addition, Forbes' subcommittee mark -- scheduled for release on Tuesday -- will fence off funding for the service's UCLASS program, pending a review of the draft request for proposals for the system.
"Maybe it's not unreasonable to say, 'Let's let the [defense secretary] maybe have a relook at these requirements and just make sure we've got it right," Forbes said.
The Navy released the draft RFP on April 17, but Forbes and other lawmakers have been critical of the service's plans for the UCLASS program and its ability to balance survivability, endurance and payload on the platform for missions in future anti-access, area-denial environments.
"Bottom line, I'm not so arrogant as to say that I'm right and the Navy's wrong, but I'm arrogant enough, I guess, to say, 'I'm going to get you to take a second look at that,' you know," he told reporters. "This is important we get this right . . . the decisions that we make with the UCLASS now [are] going to last us a decade, 20 years . . . I want to make sure there are no major gaps that we have between what we have to do and our operational needs for that UCLASS."
In February, Forbes sent a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus asking him to ensure that the service gets its UCLASS draft RFP requirements right, including aerial refueling, survivability, lethality in order to help secure its future in the defense budget.
"In short, the UCLASS platform must ensure long-term utility to warrant full funding amidst severe defense budget constraints," he argued.
Overall, Forbes said the president's FY-15 defense budget sends the wrong message to U.S. allies, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, where President Obama recently visited.
"He has a budget that probably symbolically did one of the worst things it could possibly do, saying, 'We're going to pull a carrier out' to our allies. I mean, that's a big-ticket item," Forbes said at the breakfast. "I don't think there's a single ally that hasn't been in my office saying: 'What in the world is this about, perhaps pulling a carrier out? And perhaps reducing the number of carriers out?' Then when you hear them talking about parking 11 cruisers and maybe 6 destroyers next time, I don't think that is sending a very good message to our allies or our potential competitors in that region."
But Congress will find a way to keep the Navy at an 11-carrier fleet and to rework the Navy's plan for its cruisers, Forbes assured. "I think that you will feel comfortable, by the end of the day, that that carrier will be having everything that carrier needs to make sure that we have 11 carriers," he said.
While the Navy's FY-15 budget request did not include funding for the refueling and complex overhaul of the CVN-73, it did fund the inactivation of the ship at $2.4 billion, as Inside the Navy reported March 17. But the Navy has said that the ship's fate will depend on potential sequestration cuts and will be reflected in the FY-16 budget.
The Navy would need an additional $7 billion from FY-15 through FY-19 to keep 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the fleet, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the House Armed Services Committee on March 12. This money would pay to refuel, man, operate and maintain the carrier and to procure some of the MH-60R Seahawk multimission helicopters in its air wing.
The Navy had initially planned to include $796 million for the FY-15 portion of the CVN-73 restoration effort in an unfunded priority list sent to Congress last month, but Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert ultimately decided not to include the funding in the final version of the list, as it would only cover FY-15 refueling costs.
While Forbes would not offer many specifics, he said the subcommittee would work to ensure that industry would be able "to continue to do the engineering and the acquisitions of materials necessary to do that."
"You can't just turn all that stuff on a dime. . . . Even some of my friends still think defense is like a faucet -- you turn on and turn off -- it's not like that," he added.
Beyond carrier concerns, Forbes said the subcommittee has been pushing back on the Navy's plan to "lay up" 11 of its 22 guided missile cruisers, but was less confident that this effort would be reflected in his subcommittee mark. "We are still working on the cruisers. I don't know that that will be in my mark. It may be an amendment to my mark; it may be the full committee" mark, Forbes said. "I am not real comfortable with the Navy's plan. I think that it's important we keep those cruisers alive. I think it's important we begin doing the modernization of some of those cruisers . . . it may be later this week you'll see it."
Posted on InsideDefense.com: April 29, 2014
The House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee's portion of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill would call on the Navy to fund an 11th aircraft carrier and require a review of the service's solicitation for its Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike program, according to the subcommittee chairman.
The Navy's FY-15 budget request, released in March, did not include funding for the refueling of the George Washington carrier (CVN-73). But Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) asserted that Congress will not let that stand -- and his subcommittee will not issue a mark of the FY-15 defense authorization bill without carrier funding.
"I will tell you this -- we will keep that carrier. You know that, the Navy knew that, the Pentagon knew that. You know, I had folks at the Pentagon tell me: 'We know you wouldn't let them take that carrier.' We told them that," Forbes told reporters at an April 29 Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.
"Nobody in their right mind thought they were going to take that carrier out. It was put in there because somebody at [the Office of Management and Budget] or somebody just said: 'We want the Navy to look like they're taking pain and this is the big symbol that we do it.' That's not a good symbol to use," he added, noting that U.S allies see that as a move "dismantling" the U.S. Navy.
"The carrier will go in there," Forbes told reporters. "I just don't think you will see a mark coming out under my name that does not have that carrier taken care of."
In addition, Forbes' subcommittee mark -- scheduled for release on Tuesday -- will fence off funding for the service's UCLASS program, pending a review of the draft request for proposals for the system.
"Maybe it's not unreasonable to say, 'Let's let the [defense secretary] maybe have a relook at these requirements and just make sure we've got it right," Forbes said.
The Navy released the draft RFP on April 17, but Forbes and other lawmakers have been critical of the service's plans for the UCLASS program and its ability to balance survivability, endurance and payload on the platform for missions in future anti-access, area-denial environments.
"Bottom line, I'm not so arrogant as to say that I'm right and the Navy's wrong, but I'm arrogant enough, I guess, to say, 'I'm going to get you to take a second look at that,' you know," he told reporters. "This is important we get this right . . . the decisions that we make with the UCLASS now [are] going to last us a decade, 20 years . . . I want to make sure there are no major gaps that we have between what we have to do and our operational needs for that UCLASS."
In February, Forbes sent a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus asking him to ensure that the service gets its UCLASS draft RFP requirements right, including aerial refueling, survivability, lethality in order to help secure its future in the defense budget.
"In short, the UCLASS platform must ensure long-term utility to warrant full funding amidst severe defense budget constraints," he argued.
Overall, Forbes said the president's FY-15 defense budget sends the wrong message to U.S. allies, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, where President Obama recently visited.
"He has a budget that probably symbolically did one of the worst things it could possibly do, saying, 'We're going to pull a carrier out' to our allies. I mean, that's a big-ticket item," Forbes said at the breakfast. "I don't think there's a single ally that hasn't been in my office saying: 'What in the world is this about, perhaps pulling a carrier out? And perhaps reducing the number of carriers out?' Then when you hear them talking about parking 11 cruisers and maybe 6 destroyers next time, I don't think that is sending a very good message to our allies or our potential competitors in that region."
But Congress will find a way to keep the Navy at an 11-carrier fleet and to rework the Navy's plan for its cruisers, Forbes assured. "I think that you will feel comfortable, by the end of the day, that that carrier will be having everything that carrier needs to make sure that we have 11 carriers," he said.
While the Navy's FY-15 budget request did not include funding for the refueling and complex overhaul of the CVN-73, it did fund the inactivation of the ship at $2.4 billion, as Inside the Navy reported March 17. But the Navy has said that the ship's fate will depend on potential sequestration cuts and will be reflected in the FY-16 budget.
The Navy would need an additional $7 billion from FY-15 through FY-19 to keep 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the fleet, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the House Armed Services Committee on March 12. This money would pay to refuel, man, operate and maintain the carrier and to procure some of the MH-60R Seahawk multimission helicopters in its air wing.
The Navy had initially planned to include $796 million for the FY-15 portion of the CVN-73 restoration effort in an unfunded priority list sent to Congress last month, but Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert ultimately decided not to include the funding in the final version of the list, as it would only cover FY-15 refueling costs.
While Forbes would not offer many specifics, he said the subcommittee would work to ensure that industry would be able "to continue to do the engineering and the acquisitions of materials necessary to do that."
"You can't just turn all that stuff on a dime. . . . Even some of my friends still think defense is like a faucet -- you turn on and turn off -- it's not like that," he added.
Beyond carrier concerns, Forbes said the subcommittee has been pushing back on the Navy's plan to "lay up" 11 of its 22 guided missile cruisers, but was less confident that this effort would be reflected in his subcommittee mark. "We are still working on the cruisers. I don't know that that will be in my mark. It may be an amendment to my mark; it may be the full committee" mark, Forbes said. "I am not real comfortable with the Navy's plan. I think that it's important we keep those cruisers alive. I think it's important we begin doing the modernization of some of those cruisers . . . it may be later this week you'll see it."
There was no way the US House, as cuirrently constituted was going to let the plan to cut out the Washington stand.
Glad to see it being resolutely stated.
They should also, until the Burke IIIs start coming on line to replace them, not touch any of the cruisers either. Do what they need to do to modernize them (if necessary so that they last from oldest to newest, so they can one for one be replaced by Burke IIIs. They may not need to modernize any of them to get them that far along.
I danced a little when I read that article. Jeff is so correct. The law of the land will stand. I'm guessing CVN-73 RCOH will be pushed back at least one year or more. We shall see.
IF CVN-73 was decommissioned that would mean the loss of thousands of jobs at Hunington Ingalls in Newport News VA. Virginias members of congress would not allow that to happen without a big fight.
Check this abomination out gents;
Now.. are they going to tow it? Or is it remote control? I see no propulsion. And I guess the island is not finished yet. And what is it constructed of??? Wood? Steel? Just what?
- Status