US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jura said:

very interesting (but not for the thread full of fanciful ideas LOL)
Navy Reverting DDGs Back to Physical Throttles, After Fleet Rejects Touchscreen Controls

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The US Navy is to replace touchscreen controls on destroyers with physical systems in 2020 after a report into the fatal 2017 USS John S McCain collision branded the controls ‘unnecessarily complex’.

The investigation into the accident that resulted in the deaths of 10 sailors said that the complexity of the control system and a lack of training led to the collision.

Bridge design on US naval vessels is largely uncontrolled by the military, with a lack of specific requirements leaving design decisions to shipbuilders.

The step-back in technology will give sailors more tactile feedback and remove the ambiguity and uncertainty that played a role in the collision.

The Navy will retrofit mechanical controls on all

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

class destroyers that currently use the Northrop Grumman Integrated Bridge and Navigation System (IBNS).

After incidents with the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald, the US Navy surveyed the crews of its ships and found a majority of sailors wanted to see a return to more intuitive mechanical controls.

The US Navy is to replace touchscreen controls on destroyers with physical systems in 2020 after a report into the fatal 2017 USS John S McCain collision branded the controls ‘unnecessarily complex’.

The investigation into the accident that resulted in the deaths of 10 sailors said that the complexity of the control system and a lack of training led to the collision.

Bridge design on US naval vessels is largely uncontrolled by the military, with a lack of specific requirements leaving design decisions to shipbuilders.

The step-back in technology will give sailors more tactile feedback and remove the ambiguity and uncertainty that played a role in the collision.

The Navy will retrofit mechanical controls on all

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

class destroyers that currently use the Northrop Grumman Integrated Bridge and Navigation System (IBNS).

After incidents with the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald, the US Navy surveyed the crews of its ships and found a majority of sailors wanted to see a return to more intuitive mechanical controls.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that: “Training on the operation of the Integrated Bridge and Navigation System for John S McCain watchstanders was inadequate, because it did not ensure that the crew could perform the basic functions of the watch, such as the transfer of steering and thrust control between bridge stations.”

The report also found that “The design of the John S McCain’s touch-screen steering and thrust control system increased the likelihood of the operator errors that led to the collision.”

The report did not place sole blame on the IBNS, however, adding that the sailors’ lack of training and fatigue also played a key role in the incident.

The incident was caused when sailors attempted to pass control of the throttle from one console to another, resulting in the belief that they had lost control of the ship.

The system on board the ship allows throttle and steering to be controlled from multiple stations on the USS McCain’s bridge. The ship’s crew enabled the “backup manual mode” to get more intuitive control of the ship, however, this meant it could be controlled from multiple stations. As a result crew members on all three stations could steer the ship when they tried to regain control of the vessel steering swapped between the three stations.

As a result, the report recommended that the US Navy “issue permanent guidance directing destroyers equipped with the Integrated Bridge and Navigation System to operate in computer-assisted steering modes, except during an emergency.”

The report added: “Mechanical throttles provide complementary information to an operator: direction, force, and the ability to confirm either visually or by touch whether the throttles are ganged and working in unison.

“Mechanical throttles are used in aviation and on most vessels still operating in the Navy. They are often preferred over touch-screen displays as they provide both immediate and tactile feedback to the operator.”

The report concluded that the US Navy should revise the way it trains sailors to use the IBNS system and provide clearer technical manuals on how to correctly transfer controls between the systems consoles.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Fly by wire or navigate by wire in this casecan be adapted for any number of interface types. Touch screens, Keyboard, Joy sticks and throttle are all options.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

7. Navy mulls frigate choices

sounds like I'll make it or break with the FFG(X) cancellation prediction Oct 30, 2018
LOL!

Click to expand...

From the report
What GAO Found

The Navy undertook a conceptual design phase for the FFG(X) Guided Missile Frigate program that enabled industry to inform FFG(X) requirements, identify opportunities for cost savings, and mature different ship designs. The Navy also streamlined the FFG(X) acquisition approach in an effort to accelerate the timeline for delivering the ships to the fleet. As shown in the figure, however, the Navy has requested funding for the FFG(X) lead ship even though it has yet to complete key cost estimation activites, such as an independent cost estimate, to validate the credibility of cost expectations. Department of Defense (DOD) cost estimators told GAO the timeline for completing the independent cost estimate is uncertain. Specifically, they stated that this estimate will not be finalized until the Navy communicates to them which FFG(X) design is expected to receive the contract award. GAO-identified best practices call for requisite cost knowledge to be available to inform resource decisions and contract awards.

The Navy plans to use a fixed-price incentive contract for FFG(X) detail design and construction. This is a notable departure from prior Navy surface combatant programs that used higher-risk cost-reimbursement contracts for lead ship construction. The Navy also plans to require that each ship has a minimum guaranty of $5 million to correct shipbuilder-responsible defects identified in the 18 months following ship delivery. However, Navy officials discounted the potential use of a warranty—another mechanism to address the correction of shipbuilder defects—stating that their use could negatively affect shipbuilding cost and reduce competition for the contract award. The Navy provided no analysis to support these claims and has not demonstrated why the use of warranties is not a viable option. The Navy’s planned use of guarantees helps ensure the FFG(X) shipbuilder is responsible for correcting defects up to a point, but guarantees generally do not provide the same level of coverage as warranties. GAO found in March 2016 that the use of a guaranty did not help improve cost or quality outcomes for the ships reviewed. GAO also found the use of a warranty in commercial shipbuilding and certain Coast Guard ships improves cost and quality outcomes by requiring the shipbuilders to pay to repair defects. The FFG(X) request for proposal offers the Navy an opportunity to solicit pricing for a warranty to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different mechanisms to address ship defects.

Download the document

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

quote of the day comes from inside of
Surge Sealift Force in Need of Urgent Recapitalization, Officials Say

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
“I am deeply concerned about our ability to muster an adequate number of mariners to operate the sealift fleet for surge and sustainment operations during a mobilization lasting about six months,” Buzby said.

Click to expand...

It’s “not clear” the Navy’s sealift fleet would be able to quickly move US forces overseas in a crisis, according to a new study commissioned by the Navy. The concerns raised in the report reflect issues brought up recently in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill over the health and readiness of the aging 61-ship Merchant Marine fleet, a strategic asset critical in moving troops and heavy equipment across the globe.

Given these concerns, the Navy asked the Rand Corporation to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at fleet readiness. The report found the split management structure of the sealift fleet that moves troops, tanks, and supplies across the globe has lead to confusion over how ready the ships really are to deploy quickly, casting some doubt over how much the Pentagon really knows about the health of this critical strategic asset.

While there’s no formal readiness requirement for how much of the sealift fleet could be mobilized after being handed a five-day emergency notice, Rand researchers found there is an informal requirement for 85 percent of ships to be available.

That’s where the discrepancy comes in. Military Sealift Command, which controls about 15 ships, has reported approximately 71 percent of its fleet would meet the five-day readiness standard, while the Maritime Administration reports about 85 percent of its Ready Reserve Force of 46 ships would be good to go. The Rand researchers found that since there’s no formal guidance or set of rules over what this kind of readiness should look like, the Navy should “provide a more accurate picture of strategic sealift readiness and more accurate requirements against which to measure.”

Even with better reporting however, the modernization of the sealift fleet is in a precarious position.

A recent study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated the Navy will need to spend about $48 billion beyond what it is currently budgeted for over the next 30 years to build and maintain a modernized logistics fleet that could meet future needs.

It’s unclear where the money will come from, as short-term budget plans call for relatively flat growth in defense spending, and the Navy is already busily planning to build its expensive Columbia-class ICBM submarine program, buying two to three Virginia-class submarines per year, a new class of FFG(X) frigates, and a new class of Large Surface Combatant ships.

Speaking at CSBA in May, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer admitted that with all these new ships planned, “I can’t afford a lot of $600-million ships. I can’t really afford a lot of $400-million ships, when I can go out and buy used for $35 to $40 million. I’m up on the Hill asking to get a little more relief. I said, I don’t want to abandon shipbuilding, please don’t get me wrong, but I need a quick little shot in the arm.”

At the moment, the Navy is currently working off a three-armed modernization plan that includes extending the service lives of some logistics ships, buying used ships to replace the rustiest of the existing fleet, and moving out on the Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-Mission Platform (CHAMP) program. In June,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

four $2.9 million contracts to Bollinger Shipyards, General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, Philly Shipyard, and VT Halter Marine to work on designs for the CHAMP effort. The Navy says it is looking to award a contract by 2023.

During this summer’s confirmation hearings for Gen. Mark Milley as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Mark Esper for Defense Secretary, Sen. Tammy Duckworth asked both men very direct questions about sealift. Esper replied that 90 percent of the Army’s equipment gets overseas by sea, “and if they can’t get there [the Army] won’t be in the fight, it won’t be relevant.” He added that Navy Secretary Richard Spencer “agrees we need to modernize and build capacity into our sealift.”

As Secretary of the Army before he moved up to become Defense Secretary, Esper no doubt knew those numbers well, as the service has long been worried about the aging sealift fleet. Last year, the Army

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that “without proactive recapitalization of the Organic Surge Sealift Fleet, the Army will face unacceptable risk in force projection capability beginning in 2024.”

Army Gen. Stephen Lyons, Transcom commander,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

earlier this year the “sealift fleet is able to generate only 65 percent of our required capacity…and is rapidly approaching the end of [its] useful life.”

But with little wiggle room for the Navy to buy new — or even used ships — and sealift ships growing rusty and less able to meet the needs of sailing into potentially contested seas, both the Navy and the Pentagon will have some hard choices to wrestle with. And those decisions will need to be made soon.

Click to expand...

Air Force Brat said:

Yes, but on a naval vessel removing the physical helm stations and throttles is the damndest, dumbest, stoopidity humanly possible! Aircraft, Naval Vessels, and Automobiles require a tactile touch or feel for a great many operations, that's simply NOT THERE with electronics, so you replicate the controls, and give them "feel" to complete the man/machine interface...

Landing an aircraft is highly dependant on "feel", as is maneuvering a Naval Vessel!

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Apr 19, 2019
while now
After delay, US Army clears Joint Light Tactical Vehicle for full-rate production

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Marine Corps’ Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is officially ready to deploy and support missions of the naval expeditionary force-in-readiness worldwide, the Marine Corps announced.

Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Combat Development and Integration declared that the JLTV program — part of the Light Tactical Vehicle portfolio at Program Executive Officer Land Systems — reached initial operational capability (IOC) on Aug. 2, nearly a year ahead of schedule.

“Congratulations to the combined JLTV team for acting with a sense of urgency and reaching IOC early,” said James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition.

“Changing the speed in which we deliver, combined with coming in under cost and meeting all performance requirements, is a fine example of increasing Marine Corps capabilities at the speed of relevance, which enables our Marines to compete and win on the modern battlefield.”

The JLTV, a program led by the U.S. Army, will replace the Corps’ aging high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle fleet. The JLTV family of vehicles comes in different variants with multiple mission package configurations, all providing protected, sustained, networked mobility that balances payload, performance and protection across the full range of military operations.

“The warfighting capabilities the JLTV provides our Marines far exceed the capabilities offered by its predecessor,” said PEO Land Systems’ John Garner. “I’m proud of what our team, in collaboration with the Army, has accomplished. Their commitment to supporting the warfighter delivered an exceptional vehicle, ahead of schedule, that Marines will use to dominate on the battlefield now and well into the future.”

Several elements need to be met before a program can declare IOC of a system, which encompasses more than delivery of the system itself. The program office also had to ensure all the operators were fully trained and maintenance tools and spare parts packages were ready.

“IOC is more than just saying that the schoolhouses and an infantry battalion all have their trucks,” said Eugene Morin, product manager for JLTV at PEO Land Systems. “All of the tools and parts required to support the system need to be in place, the units must have had received sufficient training and each unit commander needs to declare that he is combat-ready.”

For the JLTV, this means the program office had to fully field battle-ready vehicles to the Marine Corps schoolhouses — School of Infantry East at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; School of Infantry West at Camp Pendleton, California; The Basic School at Quantico, Virginia; and the Motor Transport Maintenance Instruction Course at Camp Johnson, North Carolina — and to an infantry battalion at II Marine Expeditionary Force. The program office started delivering vehicles to the schoolhouses earlier this year and started delivering vehicles to the infantry battalion last month.

On Aug. 2, Lt. Col. Neil Berry, the commanding officer for 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines, notified Morin and his team of the unit’s combat readiness with the JLTV. On Aug. 5, The Director, Ground Combat Element Division at CD&I notified PM LTV of its IOC achievement. The JLTV is scheduled to start fielding to I MEF and III MEF before the end of September.

According to LTV Program Manager Andrew Rodgers, during the post-acquisition Milestone C rebaseline of the JLTV schedule in January 2016, IOC was projected to occur by June 2020.

Rodgers says that detailed program scheduling, planning and, most importantly, teamwork with stakeholders across the enterprise enabled the program office to deliver the vehicles and reach IOC ahead of schedule.

“It was definitely a team effort, and we built up a really great team,” Rodgers said. “In terms of leadership, our product managers’ — both Gene Morin and his predecessor, Dave Bias — detailed focus and ability to track cost, schedule and performance was key. Neal Justis, our deputy program manager, has significant prior military experience working for the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, so having him on board knowing how to work the Pentagon network was a huge force multiplier.”

Rodgers is quick to note that, although the team has reached IOC, this is only the beginning of the JLTV’s future legacy. “We are really at the starting line right now. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see JLTVs in the DoD,” Rodgers said. “We’ll easily still have these assets somewhere in the DOD in the year 2100. Welcome to the start of many generations of JLTVs.”

Click to expand...

As a crop of offensive hypersonic weapons approaches a crucial flight-testing phase, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has advanced a hypersonic defense architecture that some industry and military officials describe as potentially broader in scope and more challenging to achieve than their attacking counterparts.

The requirements are being drafted for a defensive architecture that encompasses new interceptors, sensors and command-and-control systems. The MDA also has started awarding contracts to vendors to develop enabling technologies for a new, purpose-built hypersonic interceptor, including a cooling mechanism for new sensors and multi-stage propulsion. At the same time, the MDA is modifying existing equipment, including the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) system, to be used as an interim interceptor for hypersonic weapons.

The ultimate goal is to field a new Hypersonic Defense Weapon System (HDWS) that closes the gaps in the U.S. military’s array of systems tailored to counter a limited number of ballistic missiles. By maneuvering at speeds above Mach 5 and at altitudes below the field-of-view of existing early-warning and tracking sensors, a new class of hypersonic missiles being fielded by Russia and China is designed to sneak through or around American and NATO defenses.

Click to expand...