Saturday, September 13, 2008
India Requests Harpoon II Missiles
India Requests Harpoon II Missiles
(NSI News Source Info) September 14, 2008: Sometimes, an order request is just an order request. Sometimes, as we saw in Singapore, it’s more than that. The US DSCA just announced [PDF] India’s official request to buy 20 AGM-84L Harpoon Block II missiles with GPS guidance and improved near-shore capabilities; 4 ATM-84L Harpoon Block II Exercise missiles; containers; training devices; spare and repair parts; supply/technical support; support equipment; personnel training and training equipment; technical data and publications; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $170 million, and Boeing in St. Louis, MO would be the prime contractor. Surprisingly, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale, and implementation of this proposed sale will not require the long-term assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to India.
The AGM-84L is the air-launched version of the Harpoon, which immediately raises questions. That missile – and especially its GPS-capable version – is not currently integrated with any of the aircraft in India’s current inventory, which are Russian (MiG-21/27/29, SU-30MKI, TU-95 Bear), French (Mirage 2000, Jaguar), or British (Sea Harrier). India also has its own Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, and an air-launched version for their large SU-30MKI fighters and TU-95 maritime patrol aircraft is currently in development and testing.
A Harpoon buy appears to make little sense. On the other hand, Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon aircraft could carry them without requiring an expensive integration project, something that is not true for India’s existing Russian and French missiles. Which adds fuel to the rumors that a $2 billion deal for the 737-derived P-8A long-range maritime patrol aircraft is close.
Transfer of First F-16s to Jordan
Will DDG 1000 Produce Any Ships at All?
(NSI News Source Info) September 13, 2008: Frustration with the U.S. Navy's refusal to talk substantively about its decision to shrink the DDG 1000 destroyer program is widespread in Washington, noticeably among some key lawmakers - particularly Navy allies - major industrial partners and even senior Pentagon leaders. The lack of a ballistic missile defense capability contributed to the decision to cut the DDG 1000 program.
The unanswered questions, the Navy's sudden switch away from support for the ship and new hints that structural problems might make construction even more of a problem are adding up, some say, to mean that no ships might come out of the decadelong effort.
Sources familiar with the ship tell Defense News that issues have arisen in guaranteeing the seals between the composite construction panels of the huge Zumwalt deckhouse. The structure - one of the program's 10 key engineering development models - is to be built by Northrop Grumman's dedicated composite facility at Gulfport, Miss.
The deckhouse is one of the major changes in DDG 1000 over previous warships. All of the ship's major sensors - radars, missile guidance systems, electronic warfare and other sensors - are embedded in the structure, and all of the ship above the first superstructure level is contained in the composite structure. A partial test section of the structure has been built, and Northrop and Navy officials have maintained that there are no significant problems with the composite deckhouse.
Navy officials hadn't responded to questions about the deckhouse before deadline for this article, but Northrop issued a statement Sept. 12.
"Our testing program of the composite deckhouse is very mature and continues to meet the technical requirements of the design," Northrop said.
But one source familiar with the situation said the Navy is so worried about the problem that it has been canvassing other manufacturers of composite structures to see if an alternate production source could be found.
So will any Zumwalts be built?
"I think the Navy has undermined its own case made over a decade," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and a key supporter of the DDG 1000, told Defense News. "I still expect the Navy's going to abandon the DDG 1000."
Navy Largely Mute
The service has never released a public announcement on what it's trying to do with the program. Immediately after a July 22 top-level Pentagon meeting, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Navy Secretary Donald Winter traveled to Capitol Hill to personally inform key lawmakers that the service wished to slash the planned seven-ship Zumwalt class of stealthy, advanced destroyers to two ships and return to building tried-and-true DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers. This was in response to a new intelligence assessment of a Chinese ballistic missile that can target ships at sea. Word of the move quickly filtered out to media via the offices of a number of senators and congressional representatives.
A well-attended hearing of the House Seapower subcommittee followed on July 31, when two senior Navy officials testified about the destroyers. At the hearing, several lawmakers expressed frustration at the lack of analysis and explanation for the move, and Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, the Navy's requirements chief, and Allison Stiller, the top ship acquisition executive, afterward rushed away from reporters and declined to answer questions about why the Navy wants to end a program that has cost about $11 billion in research and development and taken more than a decade to develop.
Given no warning of the Navy's change in attitude, congressional supporters of the ship - including most of the delegation from New England, where electronics giant Raytheon is developing the Zumwalt's combat system and radars - fought vociferously to save at least the third ship, currently in the Navy's 2009 budget request.
Faced with strong opposition, the Navy backed off its decision and on Aug. 18, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England sent a letter to Congress explaining that "the Navy has been directed" to support the budget request for one DDG 1000 but would protect future options for restarting DDG 51 production.
Since then, mum's been the word for a detailed explanation by top Navy leaders of what the service now wants and why.
"I've yet to get an answer to what changed," Collins said Sept. 9.
Collins, in whose state the first DDG 1000 would be built at the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard, is widely viewed as the strongest champion for the ship on Capitol Hill. She said the Navy's decision to cut the class to two ships left her "out to dry."
"Along with John Warner and one or two others, I have been the Navy's biggest advocate in the Senate. I have worked tirelessly to get the Navy the assets, the budget, the personnel it needs. And so it did feel like I had the legs cut out from under me," Collins said.
"If there is a serious new threat from China," Collins said, "it seems to us the Navy should have come to us and given us a classified briefing. That still hasn't occurred. There are these vague references to this new Chinese missile, but the Navy's never given us a briefing. You would think that if this threat was emerging and potent the Navy would have come and given us a classified briefing.
"This whole thing is very strange," Collins declared. "I'm baffled by the way this has been handled."
Supporters Left Out
Collins also questioned the Navy's rationale to build perhaps a dozen more DDG 51s, despite the fact that Bath is building six of seven of the last DDG 51s on order.
"The other part that is very troubling," Collins said, "is that when the Navy came to me with their alternative plan to restart the DDG 51 line, there were so many unanswered questions. Obviously, I have a great concern about the industrial base. I asked the Navy if they had had conversations with the two shipyards and what kind of work would be necessary to sustain production. And the Navy had not - apparently they wanted to try out the plan on the Hill. But the problem with that is that to evaluate the military aspects, all of us turned to the industrial base."
But the Navy's industrial partners aren't entirely sure what's going on either. Spokesmen for shipbuilders Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics would not comment on the situation, but sources inside the companies said no Navy DDG 1000 briefings have been forthcoming. Raytheon, however, was more forceful.
"There's been zero communication between the Navy and us about this," Dan Smith, president of Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems division, said Sept. 9.
The frustration even extends to Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the House Seapower subcommittee and a strong supporter of the Navy's move to build more DDG 51s. In a Sept. 3 letter to Winter, Taylor asked for an explanation of the Aug. 18 England letter again reversing the Navy's position on the FY 2009 ship. Taylor also asked for a detailed Navy response to a Government Accountability Office report on DDG 1000 presented at the July 31 hearing.
Taylor, in the letter, also asked Winter to "instruct the appropriate individuals on your staff to respond promptly" to questions from lawmakers and staffers.
At least a week later, the Navy had yet to respond.
The Missing Missile Link
One of the key q uestions provoked by the Navy's July 31 testimony on the DDG 1000 is why McCullough said the ship "cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6 missile."
The SM-2 is the Navy's primary area air defense weapon, intended to reach out 40 to 90 nautical miles to destroy enemy aircraft, missiles or ships; SM-3 is a ballistic missile defense weapon and SM-6 is the SM-2 replacement under development by Raytheon. The missile is what provides the "G" in DDG.
A DDG, or guided-missile destroyer, is able to provide air defense for other ships such as aircraft carriers, amphibious ships or merchant convoys. A "DD," or destroyer, might be armed with surface-to-surface missiles such as Harpoon or Tomahawk, or carry point-defense missiles such as Sea Sparrow to defend itself.
The Navy marks the distinction between the two types with separate series of hull numbers, represented by the current DDG 51-class destroyers and distinct from earlier destroyers such as the Spruance DD 963-class. The same situation applies to guided-missile cruisers (CGs), and used to apply to guided-missile frigates (FFGs), before their aging missile systems were removed a few years ago.
The DDG 1000 designation, a mix of the DDG classification and the DD hull number series, is viewed with ambiguity by many naval professionals, but the Navy firmly and consistently described the ship as capable of operating the Standard missile - until July 31.
Congress, industry and naval analysts remain confused as to why the Navy now says the DDG 1000 cannot use the Standard missile.
"Our [combat system] design has the SM-2 using the same link as used in all the other ships," said Raytheon's Smith. "The Volume Search radar is essentially the same as the SPY-1D" Aegis radar used in all current DDGs and CGs.
"I can't answer the question as to why the Navy is now asserting that, after years of funding and years of documentation, that Zumwalt is not equipped with an SM-2 capability," Smith said.
Navy officials have declined to explain the issue, tying it to responses about a ballistic missile defense capability the service did not require the DDG 1000s to have.
The service also hasn't responded to a weeks-old request on whether it considers the Zumwalt a DD or DDG, or what the difference is now between the types.
Congress continues to consider the 2009 defense budget, which officially requests the third DDG 1000. The Navy, for now, isn't advocating what kind of destroyer the ship is.
"Making certain that we have - I'll just say, a destroyer - in the '09 budget is more important than whether that's a DDG 1000 or a DDG 51," Winter told Navy Times on Sept. 4.
Ukraine major arms supplier to Georgia - Russia's military
India test-fires its new supersonic missile
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Egypt - UH-60M BLACK HAWK Helicopters
Saudi Arabia - AH-64D APACHE Longbow Helicopters
Australia Acquires 4 C-17s
Australia Acquires 4 C-17s
(NSI News Source Info) September 10, 2008: In March 2006, the Australian government announced that the Australian Defence Forces will acquire up to 4 new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlift planes and associated equipment for A$ 2 billion ($1.49 billion then conversion). The first aircraft will be delivered to Australia later in 2006, with the balance of the fleet originally slated for to delivery by mid 2008.
Since then, aircraft have been rolling off the assembly line, and flying the (un)friendly skies to support Australia’s military. The last aircraft has arrived, but that doesn’t mean expenses are done. The latest item is a contract with Boeing, which will create an Australian training facility.
*Australia: Why the C-17?
*Australia: C-17 Related Contracts & Events
*Appendix A: A New Day for Boeing’s C-17? (April 2006)
Australia: Why the C-17?
Boeing’s C-17 Globemaster III was in competition with the Airbus A400M to become Australia’s next-generation transport aircraft. While the A400M’s flyaway price tag of USD$ 100 million or so would be approximately half that of a C-17 in return for about half the payload and two-thirds of the cargo volume, Australia’s M1 Abrams tanks would not be transportable in an A400M. Indeed, the Long Beach Press-Telegram quotes industry observers, who said it was the C-17’s ability to tote its M1 Abrams tanks and CH-47 Chinook helicopters that won over the Australian government. Another consideration was the fact that the A400M lacks even a test model, and would not have been available sooner than 2009 at the very earliest.
The maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg), and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 lb (265,350 kg). With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of 2,800 nautical miles (5,200 km). The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,000 ft (900 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although this is rarely done due to the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft). The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point (or in some cases, multi-point) turn maneuver.
The C-17 is designed to airdrop up to 102 paratroopers and equipment. In Australian terms, it ca also can carry one 60-ton M1 Abrams tank, as well as loads ranging from 5 Bushmaster infantry vehicles to 3 Tiger reconnaissance/attack helicopters.
Australia now joins the USA and Britain as operators of the C-17 Globemaster III. Australia plans on basing No. 36 Squadron’s C-17s at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Amberley near Brisbane, which will become the primary base for both its new C-17s and its A330 MRTT tanker aircraft. Amberly is currently home to Australia’s F-111 fleet, and is undergoing the infrastructure upgrades required for these new roles.
Australia: C-17 Related Contracts & Events
Sept 5/08: Boeing announces a $33 million U.S. Air Force Foreign Military Sales contract to provide a C-17 Aircrew Training System (ATS) to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The contract marks the first international sale of the system, which has been used by the USAF since 1992. The RAAF’s Heavy Air Lift Director, Group Captain Andrew Doyle, added that the RAAF had deliberately reduced the frequency of simulator training, in order to avoid long trips to the United States. With the new ATS in place, that will no longer be an issue.
The new ATS at the RAAF’s Amberley base will include a Weapons Systems Trainer, a loadmaster station, and a learning center. It will also use Boeing’s newly developed Virtual Cargo Load Model, a new training device that allows loadmaster students to practice configuring a variety of cargo loads on a laptop computer.
Boeing subcontractor Flight Safety International of Tulsa, OK is providing the hardware, while Boeing Support Systems is responsible for software development and integration as well as program management. Boeing Australia Limited will provide support. Boeing release.
March 10/08: The RAAF’s 4th and final C-17 touches down at RAAF Base Amberley after making the journey from the US. The delivery has now been finalized within its agreed timeframe and within budget, and RAAF C-17s have already been involved in Operation Catalyst (Iraq), Operation PNG Assist, and Operation Astute (Timor-Leste), as well as several Australian Defence Force exercises. The RAAF is now working towards more complex roles, including the airdrop of personnel and cargo and high dependency aero-medical evacuation.
The Globemaster fleet will be operated by No. 36 Squadron out of RAAF Base Amberley. Full operational capability of the aircraft is scheduled for the end of 2011, with the completion of in-country training and permanent facilities for No. 36 Squadron. Related upgrades are also in progress at RAAF Bases Darwin, Townsville, Edinburgh and Pearce.
Feb 12/08: The RAAF’s 3rd C-17A arrives in Australia. The 4th Globemaster will arrive at RAAFB Amberley in early March.
Jan 18/08: Boeing delivers the 4th and last C-17A Block 17 to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during a ceremony at the company’s Long Beach, CA manufacturing facility. In 2008, a variety of air lift roles are planned to be cleared for Australia’s Globemasters, including aero-medical evacuation, in which the C-17 will be configured to carry 6 “high-dependency”/intensive care patients or 36 “low-dependency” patients. Australian Ministerial release.
With the delivery of this new airlifter, the worldwide C-17 fleet now includes 171 U.S. Air Force C-17s as well as 4 in the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) and 2 in the Canadian Forces. The RAF and the Canadian Forces will each receive 2 additional C-17s in 2008, completing their orders. The U.S. Air Force is on contract to receive 19 more C-17s by mid-2009, whereupon their current orders will also be complete unless new planes are added to the program. Boeing release.
Sept 20/07: The Minister for Defence announces the official go-ahead for Stage 3 of the redevelopment of RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland. The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works gave their approval, and that was then approved by Parliament. Construction is expected to begin in early 2008 with completion expected in late 2011.
Sept 20/07: The Minister for Defence announces the official go-ahead for the C-17 Infrastructure project. Specifically, the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works gave their approval, and that recommendation was approved by Parliament. Construction will commence in early 2008 around each of the 5 home and deployment bases.
May 30/07: A Ministerial release announces that the Government will commit A$ 268.2 million (currently about $220 million) for The C-17 Infrastructure project, which will create the required permanent facilities and airfield pavements to support C-17 operations at RAAF Base Amberley, and expanded infrastructure at deployment bases RAAF Bases Edinburgh, Darwin, Pearce and Townsville. Subject to Parliamentary clearance of the works, construction is planned to start in early 2008 and is expected to be complete by 2011.
The release adds that this project will generate a significant amount of short-term employment opportunities for skilled consultants, sub-contractors and construction workers in each of the 5 regions that encompass the home and deployment bases.
May 30/07: The Australian Government announces that it is committing A$ 331.5 million (currently about $271 million) for RAAF Base Amberley’s 3rd stage of redevelopment. RAAFB Amberley is located in the middle of Australia’s eastern coast, near Ipswich in Queensland. This stage of the redevelopment will include fuel farm works, training accommodation, medical and dental facilities, trainee living-in accommodation, combined messing facilities and office accommodation. Subject to Parliamentary clearance of the project, construction is expected to begin in early 2008 with completion expected in late 2011.
The efforts are meant to keep up with Amberley’s growth, including the newly arrived No 36 Squadron to operate the new C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, the planned relocation of 9th Force Support Battalion in late 2007, and the 2009 relocation of 33 Sqn from RAAFB Richmond in New South Wales once they begin receiving their KC-30B Multi-Role Tanker Transports.
Amberley currently supports Australia’s 22 F-111C/G fighter-bombers and RF-11C reconnaissance aircraft, and is slated to receive 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets as replacements when the F-111 are retired in 2010. RAAF Base Amberley is also home to 38 Sqn and its aged but incomparable DHC-4 Caribous; as well as providing support for RAAF units including the Headquarters of Combat Support Group, and the RAAF Security and Fire School and Airfield Defence Wing.
May 11/07: The RAAF takes delivery of its 2nd C-17 Globemaster III a month ahead of schedule, during a ceremony at the Boeing facility at Long Beach, California.
The aircraft will transport newly acquired Army Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats and their support equipment, along with C-17 logistical equipment, back to RAAF Base Amberley. It is expected to arrive on May 19, 2007.
Nov 28/06: Australia’s first C-17 is rolled out in “Block 17” configuration. A black stallion on the C-17’s tail identifies the airplane as part of the RAAF’s No. 36 Squadron, an airlift unit that will be based in Amberley, west of Brisbane. After a December 4, 2006 welcome ceremony in Canberra, Australia, the aircraft will fly to RAAF Base Amberley on December 6th.
The aircraft arrived on schedule.
Oct 5/06: Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in Long Beach, CA received an $8.5 million cost-plus-incentive fee, fixed-price-award fee and time and materials contract modification. This is an undefinitized contract action for the FY 2007 portion of the Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster III sustainment partnership program.
The RAAF has procured four C-17 aircraft (via a separate contracting action). This action will provide the sustainment of these aircraft over the course of FY 2007 to include aircraft maintenance, upgrade, and sustainment. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8614-04-C-2004/P00129).
July 31/06: Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in Long Beach, CA received a $780 million firm-fixed-price, undefinitized delivery order contract that will provide 4 C-17 aircraft to the Royal Australian Air Force ($195 million per plane). The C-17 system group, in accordance with air mobility command, has arranged for the reallocation of four C-17 aircraft delivery positions from the Air Force Multi-Year Procurement II (MYPII) contract, F33657-02-C-2001, for delivery to the RAAF. Negotiations were complete July 2006, and work will be completed in phases: 1st delivery November 2006; 2nd, May 2007; 3rd, January 2008 and 4th, February 2008 (FA8614-06-D-2006, delivery order 0001).
The Headquarters 328th Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract. The Public Affairs point of contact is ASC/PAM at 937-255-3334.
July 28/06: Boeing Co. in Long Beach, CA is awarded an $80.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/ fixed-price award-fee/ time-and-materials contract modification. This contract modification is a foreign military sales requirement for Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) C-17 Globemaster IIIs to join the international C-17 Sustainment Partnership Program. This action incorporates the RAAF’s 4 aircraft into the C-17 “virtual fleet” which includes aircraft maintenance, upgrade, and sustainment. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH is the contracting activity (FA8614-04-C-2004/P00110).
The proposed plan will also require seven each U.S. Government and Australian representatives at the facility, plus the assignment of up to ten each U.S. Government and contractor representatives to travel to Australia for annual participation in training, program management, and technical review. Additional subcontractors may be needed depending on the exact nature of the contracting arrangements established. As part of its role, Boeing will establish a facility at RAAF Base Amberly to provide logistics support for the C-17. See also Boeing’s August 17, 2006 release.
April 3/06: The formal DSCA request [PDF format] includes:
*Up to four C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft
*Up to 18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines
*Up to four AN/AAQ-24V(13) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems
*Up to 15 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles; plus
Personnel Life Support equipment, spare and repair parts, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and technical data.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notes that this sale will involve the following contractors:
*Boeing Company Long Beach, CA
*Boeing Company Training Systems St. Louis, MO
*AAI Services Corporation Goose Creek, SC
*United Technologies Corporation East Hartford, CT
*Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation Rolling Meadows, IL
Appendix A: A New Day for Boeing’s C-17? (April 2006)
RAAF-3 assembly
The timing is fortuitous for Boeing, as C-17 production is expected to shut down in 2008 and each new C-17 aircraft ordered reportedly extends Boeing’s C-17 line by 3 weeks. Nevertheless, as Copley News Service explains, Boeing is slightly ahead of schedule and will be able to deliver the additional four aircraft without affecting its timelines for closure. The US Air Force has listed obtaining 7 more C-17s as its top unfunded requirement, however, and this could buy enough time to extend C-17 production into early 2009 while Boeing hunts for more orders.
The DSCA notes in conclusion that industrial offset agreements associated with this proposed sale are expected, but at this time the specific offset agreements are undetermined and will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractors.
Canada to Spend C$ 500 Million on CFB Trenton
(NSI News Source Info) September 10, 2008: CFB Trenton, located in the province of Ontario about 2 hours drive away from Toronto, is one of the Canadian Forces’ busiest bases. It is the backbone of Canada’s transport fleet, housing Canada’s new C-17 fleet along with C-130 Hercules transports, Airbus A310 Polaris (CC-150) transports/refuelers, and Challenger (CC-144) VIP business jets. When Canada’s new C-130J Hercules transports arrive, they, too will be based at CFB Trenton.
Accommodating that level of activity and restoring Trenton’s flightline over the next 5 years will require the rebuilding and construction of new taxiways, ramps and aprons, as well as several new maintenance hangars. All of these activities are included within the C$ 500 million (about $470 million) budget, announced by the Minister for Defence on Sept 5/08.
So, too, is relocation of Canada’s JTF2 special forces to Trenton. JTF2 has seen long-standing service in the “commando olympics” of Afghanistan, and is also Canada’s key unit for potential domestic anti-terrorism operations like hostage rescues. The unit is growing in size, and has begun to outgrow its current location at Dwyer Hill Training Centre near Ottawa. Moving to CFB Trenton keeps the unit close to its required transports for fast deployments, and CFB Trenton already hosts the Canadian Forces Land Advanced Warfare Centre so it was a natural choice. DND has been working with the Department of Public Works and Government Services to purchase parcels of land bordering the base, and associated buildings, training centers, and other infrastructure will also be required.
Russia to test-launch four ICBMs by year-end
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)