US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Scratch said:

I think Samurai Blue is ...
...
Mach 5+.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

you know, I recently saw stories of this type:
Marines Had To Scrounge for F/A-18 Parts at a Museum

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so I think you guys are completely fantasizing, sorry

Click to expand...

The US Navy’s 7th fleet flag ship "Blue Ridge" arrives at the port of Colombo yesterday on a goodwill visit. The flag ship was ceremonially welcomed by the Sri Lanka Navy in accordance with naval traditions on her arrival. The USS “Blue Ridge” comprises of 1000 plus crew with the displacement of 19,200 tones. The ship is scheduled to leave Sri Lanka on March 31 having conducted a joint naval exercise (PASSEX) with the Sri Lanka Navy. - See more at:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Navy’s decision to switch its carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle program from an intelligence-gathering platform to a refueling aircraft will force contractors to resubmit their proposals and push the contract award to 2018, the Government Accountability Office said in a March 24 report.

The change of plans will also reduce the overall development costs by $1 billion. The unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike system (UCLASS) was to cost some $3 billion through fiscal year 2022.The redubbed carrier based refueling system (CBARS) will cost $2 billion through 2021, the report said.

The fundamental debate over the UCLASS’ role caused initial delays, the report said. Discussions within the Defense Department centered around whether the drone would be mostly a strike platform capable of penetrating robust air defenses with some intelligence-gathering capabilities, or primarily a sensor platform. The indecision pushed back the expected contract award date from 2014 to 2017, the report said.

The 2017 budget proposal outlined the Defense Department’s decision to scrap both ideas and make the drone a tanker that can conduct intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions when needed.

Four teams submitted proposals for the UCLASS program: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics. The Navy will issue a new request for proposals in early 2017, the report said.

The contractors’ UCLASS designs centered on a mostly surveillance aircraft, GAO said.

“The preliminary designs were based on a more surveillance-centric set of requirements. We concluded that if the final UCLASS requirements emphasized a strike role with limited surveillance, the Navy would likely need to revisit the technologies and proposed designs for the system, as well as the amount of funding that would be needed for development,” the report said.

Michael Novak, deputy director of the unmanned maritime systems office under the office of the chief of naval operations, told National Defense March 3, that the change in missions may mean a new competition. "There is going to be some discussion: 'Do you open it up again?'" he said.

Yet Novak said the UCLASS designs had already been through a program design review process. They may not have to undergo radical redesigns, since they are all basically aircraft that have to fly off a carrier. The Navy could choose to stick with the four teams, he said.

Meanwhile, the service continues work on supporting technologies such as modifications to shipboard systems and command-and-control capabilities, the report noted.

The Navy expects CBARS to provide an initial operational capability to the fleet by the mid-2020s, the report said.

“Although the general direction of the restructured program is outlined in the fiscal year 2017 budget submission, a more detailed acquisition strategy for this program has yet to be released,” it noted.

The 2017 budget request asks for $89 million, with the development costs ramping up to $349 million in 2018, $544 million in 2019, $646 million in 2020 and $532 million in 2021.

Click to expand...

Did you know, curious history, less severe for the 2 others fortunately ! and 10000 $ the pipe

Secret weld: How shoddy parts disabled a $2.7 billion submarine

In early 2015 engineers on a brand-new submarine made a troubling find: A pipe joint near the innermost chamber of its nuclear-powered engine showed signs of tampering.

The defective elbow pipe, used to funnel steam from the reactor to the sub's propulsion turbines and generators, showed evidence of jury-rigged welding that could've been designed to make it appear satisfactory. But the part was already installed, the sub already commissioned.

These defective parts, each probably valued on the order of $10,000 or less, have kept the $2.7 billion attack submarine Minnesota languishing in an overhaul for two years, while engineers attempt to cut out and replace a difficult to reach part near the nuclear reactor. Meanwhile, Navy engineers are scouring aircraft carriers and other submarines for problems and criminal investigators are gathering evidence.

The unauthorized parts are impacting three new Virginia-class attack submarines, likely extending the post-shakedown overhauls for the other two subs and adding greatly to the final tab at a time these fearsome vessels are needed around the globe to defend carrier groups and strike America's adversaries. It's also trapped its crew in limbo as repair deadlines come and go, while other subs must take their place.

The Minnesota, the 10th Virginia-class attack boat, was delivered 11 months ahead of schedule. But it has been in the shipyards at Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut for two years — more than twice as long as a normal post-shakedown availability. It still has months to go. The plankowner crew has spent only a handful of days at sea since joining the fleet and experts say they're likely to forfeit their whole deployment cycle, forcing fleet bosses to make tough decisions about whether to extend deployments or withhold forces from missions overseas.

News of the lousy parts first emerged in August, a month after the Minnesota was to have finished its overhaul. Since then, a Justice Department-led investigation is examining the quality control issues that led the shoddy part to be installed in the $2.7-billion sub.

The same shoddy elbow joints were installed aboard attack subs North Dakota and John Warner, forcing the Navy to spend millions of dollars and many more months to repair them. If these pipes ruptured, they would leak steam and force the submarine to take emergency measures that would impair its combat effectiveness.

Minnesota’s repairs should be completed sometime this summer, according to Naval Sea Systems Command, but for many of the officers and crew that may be too late. They'll have to report to their next tour of duty without having deployed, which they worry could hurt their careers, said Brian Skon, the head of the Minnesota Navy League, who helped sponsor the commissioning ceremony and stays in touch with the crew.

"They're frustrated," Skon said. "They want to be underway, they want do a deployment. I spoke with the chief of the boat and he's been very clear: he wants to be a COB on deployment."
At the center of the debacle is pipe-maker Nuflo Inc., a Jacksonville, Florida-based manufacturer that is the focus of the investigation into quality control issues, according to two Navy sources familiar with the inquiry. The investigation has delayed the repairs so that agents can recover evidence, sources said.

With 120 employees, the pipe maker bills itself as "the primary manufacturer of fittings for U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers and Submarines," according to their website. Nuflo has provided parts for the carrier Theodore Roosevelt's recent mid-life refueling overhaul, as well as for the new carrier Gerald R. Ford, according to various news reports. Neither the Nuflo's CEO or spokespersonresponded to repeated calls and emails for comment by March 25.

The setback for what has been the Navy's most successful shipbuilding program is startling because Virginia-class has been in production for more than 15 years, according to a defense acquisitions expert.

"This is an unusual situation, especially since this is a relatively mature program," said Dan Goure an analyst with the Lexington Institute, based in Arlington, Va. "It's also surprising that the yards would have had this problem."

Making matters worse are concerns that the flawed pipe fittings may extend well beyond the three identified attack submarines. In a statement, NAVSEA, which oversees ship construction and maintenance, said it has sent inspectors across the fleet to test Nuflo-made fittings on other ships.

As part of an ongoing investigation into a quality control issue with a supplier, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Newport News, determined that fittings supplied by the vendor in question required additional testing and repair due to incorrect test documentation, incorrect testing, or unauthorized and undocumented weld repairs performed on these fittings,” a NAVSEA spokeswoman said in the statement. “The fittings, which are used in various piping applications aboard new construction submarines, are also installed on other ships. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Navy, in coordination with its industry partners, has been performing additional inspections and surveys throughout the fleet to fully bound the issue.”

The full scope of the problem remains unclear. NAVSEA declined to comment on whether any other shoddy parts had been found on other ships, citing the ongoing investigation.

"NuFlo has been doing business with the Navy's nuclear enterprise for some time now," said one industry source who asked to speak anonymously due to the Justice Department investigation.

The Virginia-class submarine is a joint project between General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls. A spokeswoman for HII declined to comment because of the ongoing investigation. A spokesman for Electric Boat deferred all questions to NAVSEA.

'Gold standard'

The Minnesota's plankowners in the late summer of 2013 were eager to take one of the fleet's most lethal ships out for a spin.

“I think it will be one of those defining moments in our careers," said Senior Chief Machinist's Mate (SS/DV) Jody Reynolds in a Navy release, marking all the effort to establish a great command.

At its commissioning ceremony, the brass took a victory lap. The sub was delivered 11 months ahead of schedule and they cited it as as proof that the Virginia-class program was the "gold standard" in defense acquisitions.

Then Minnesota entered the yards. It was supposed to last less than a year.
The post-shakedown availability would repair problems identified at inspections and in sea trials. The work, valued at $57.2 million, would be completed by February 2015.

That was extended to July, which became public a month later when the deadline was missed and Navy Times' sister publication Defense News reported that the joints were sidelining three submarines.

NAVSEA's latest completion estimate is sometime "this summer," according to their statement. This means Minnesota’s post-shakedown repairs will have lasted more than two years — as much time as it takes to refuel a Los Angeles-class attack sub.

By contrast, the post-shakedown availability for the the Virginia-class attack submarine California, the eighth of the class, was completed in 2013 in just 11 months.

All of this is ending up on the shoulders of the crew. If the PSA had gone off without a hitch, Minnesota would be nearing its first deployment, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer. To top it off, a big chunk of the plankowners are likely never to deploy with their boat.

“For the crew it sucks because most of them came on not long before commissioning with the understanding that they would be doing a post-shakedown period in the yards, then work-ups then a deployment,” said Clark, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Now you’ve got a whole crew of people who will spend their whole time in the shipyards or work-ups but never deploy.”

Mounting pressure

Meanwhile, the demand for attack boats, capable of running spy missions or delivering stealthy special operations teams against well guarded adversaries, is nearing Cold War levels.

In February, U.S. Pacific Command head Adm. Harry Harris, whose forces must respond to the growing tensions between China and its neighbors, testified that attack subs were among his most pressing needs; the fleet was only meeting 62 percent of his demands for attack boats, he said. In October, the 6th Fleet commander, Vice Adm. James Foggo, said he needed more attack boats in Europe in part to counter Russia moves.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

By:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

March 28, 2016 6:05 PM • Updated: March 29, 2016 10:48 AM

The Virginia-class attack submarine Pre-commissioning unit John Warner (SSN 785) is moved to Newport News Shipbuilding’s floating dry dock on Sept. 1, 2014. Huntington Ingalls Industries photo.

The Navy released a Submarine Unified Build Strategy (SUBS) for concurrent Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarine and Virginia Class attack submarine production through at least 2023, with the plan calling for Newport News Shipbuilding taking on additional responsibilities with the Virginia class to help General Dynamics Electric Boat more efficiently deliver the new class of boomers, service officials told USNI News on Monday.

To deliver the first Ohio Replacement Program (OR) boats on time and cost without sacrificing performance on the Virginia-class submarines – and while adding a new Virginia Payload Module segment into the attack boats – the Navy decided to look holistically at the workload across the two yards and make adjustments.

“To execute this strategy, General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation (GDEB) has been selected as the prime contractor for OR with the responsibilities to design and deliver the twelve OR submarines. Huntington Ingalls Industries- Newport News Shipbuilding (HII-NNS) will participate in the design and construct major OR assemblies and modules leveraging their expertise with VCS construction,” Navy spokeswoman Capt. Thurraya Kent said in a statement today.
“Both shipbuilders will continue to deliver [Virginias] throughout the period, with GDEB continuing its prime contractor responsibility for the program. Given the priority of the OR Submarine Program, the delivery of [Virginias] will be adjusted with HII-NNS performing additional deliveries. Both shipbuilders have agreed to this build strategy.”

Under the current Virginia-class delivery plan, each yard builds different sections of the submarine, and the yards rotate where final assembly and delivery takes place. The new SUBS plan will have Newport News take a larger role in final assembly and delivery to free up the workforce at Electric Boat so they can focus on the Ohio Replacement Program.

“This strategy aligns OR and [Virginias] to achieve best cost by analyzing key components including submarine shipbuilder construction capabilities and capacities, required schedules, contracting approaches, cross program procurement strategies, funding, legislative authority, material availability, and supplier capacity and capability while balancing warfighter requirements,” Kent said.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), whose district includes the Electric Boat yard and who serves as the top Democrat on the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, said today he was pleased that the plan also calls for continuing to build two Virginia-class subs a year through at least 2023 – whereas the Navy had previously called for building only one in 2021, the first year the service will buy an Ohio Replacement boat. The Navy is facing a submarine shortfall beginning in about 2025, and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Navy officials have said.

The Navy will face a shortfall in its attack submarine force beginning in the mid-2020s, and the service hopes to blunt the impact of this bathtub by building one additional SSN in 2021. USNI News Graphic

Director of Undersea Warfare Rear Adm. Charles Richard (OPNAV N97) told USNI News in a March 22 interview that building the second SSN in 2021 “is one of the best opportunities that we have to take action to address” the upcoming shortfall.

“It paints about 27 percent of that trough, so you get that back, and that’s an opportunity you won’t have after that point – you will have other opportunities, they just wont be as effective,” he said, explaining that the 2021 submarine would erase the shortfall in years the fleet will be short just one boat and will lessen the severity of the shortfall in other years.
“And from a program I think some have described as getting 10 for the price of nine (in the previous block buy), now that they’re giving you a chance to potentially get 10 for the price of 9.4 or something and do it again, I think that’s something that deserves a hard look in terms of can we take advantage of that opportunity.”

Courtney said in his statement that combatant commanders and Navy leadership have been increasingly urgent in their testimony recently about “the pressing need to also sustain the two-a-year build rate for new attack submarines.”

“Over the last two months, experts and major combatant commanders have made it clear that our current fleet is strained beyond its ability to meet the demand for undersea capabilities – and that we need to do all we can to mitigate the looming shortfall in the decade ahead.

“The plan released today leverages the deep talent and unmatched skills of the hard-working shipbuilders at Electric Boat, and their partners in Newport News, Virginia,” Courtney added in his statement.
“The replacement of our sea-based strategic deterrent is a pressing and multigenerational commitment to our nation’s defense. With the talent of our industrial base, we have risen to this challenge in the past, and by applying the same successful approach of the team delivering the Virginia class submarines today, I am confident that we will do so again.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Bernard said:

I have a question on the so called "shortfall" that the U.S will supposedly hit in mid 2040's. This could be a serious problem.

Does the U.S sub yards have the capacity to pump out more than two nuke subs a year in quick time? If need be.

Click to expand...