В НОЯБРЕ ВЗНОСЫ ОПЛАТИЛИWhat WWII US Submariners did-Navy Cuts for Border Wall-Washington Returns to Norfolk-Russian Subs Had lots to worry about-Hyper to deploy on Virginia-GD to build UVU's-Maine fires Trident D5LE-one new sub for 2021-New EW detects enemy Radar-Dutch Sub's
Date: 23 Feb 2020
Only 88 days until the worlds Submariners meet in The Swedish Naval Port of Karlskrona a UNESCO World Heritage Centre
The Swedish May 2020 Congress website
Join 31 Other Nation’s Submariners for fun and travel.
Consider becoming a member of the ISA-USA; you will benefit in many ways.
- Be part of a 50-year tradition of international friendships of submarine sailors. Check out www.submariners.org for the history of the International Association
- Travel to foreign countries to participate in conventions that usually include thirty-one countries in attendance.
- Establish friendships with submariners from other nations.
- Contribute your Submarine history and experience in our World Wide e-mail blast.
- We Cheerfully accept members that have not served but are interested in worldwide submarine activities
Lifetime membership only $50.00.
ISA/USA Membership Application. All new members of ISA/USA receive a Membership card, ISA/USA Patch, and new larger Vest Pin. Click on the attached file below.
Or our weblink below:
Send completed application and membership fee to:
John Bud Cunnally ETC (SS) Ret. USN – President
International Submariners Association of the U.S.A. (ISA/USA)
4704 Coppola Drive
Mount Dora, Fl 32757-8069
What World War United States Submariner Did
During the 1,347 days of WWII, 465 skippers took 263 boats and 16,000 men out on 1,736 patrols, collectively spending 79,838 days at sea, of which 31,571 days were spent in operating areas where they attacked 4,114
Merchant ships, firing 14,748 torpedoes and sinking 1,178 of them along with 214 Naval vessels. Of these Two hundred sixty-three boats, 52 subs, and 3,617 men never returned.
Never in the annals of military history has there been a record of achievement to equal that of the United States Submarine Service during WWII. With 1.6 percent of all Naval personnel, the Submarine Service sank over 55%
of all Japanese ships sunk, including one-third of them Men-of-War.
They also performed many other tasks such as carrying ammunition to Corregidor, evacuating the Philippine government and all its gold, attacking enemy land positions, landing spotters and raiders on many islands, and
Rescuing downed U.S. pilots.
Secret surveillance was another mission of the submarines. U.S. submarines scouted every landing made during the war in the Pacific and on many occasions acted as “point” for the invading forces guiding them to the
Invasion place.
The United States Submarine Service had the Island of Japan isolated long before the end of the war. Japan was unable to support its army in the field or even sustain the economy of the home islands.
Navy, Marine Program Cuts Pay Biggest Share of New $4B Pentagon Border Barrier Funding
By: Sam LaGrone
About Sam LaGrone
Sam LaGrone is the editor of United States Naval Institute News. He has covered legislation, acquisition and operations for the Sea Services since 2009 and spent time underway with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Canadian Navy.
U.S. Northern Command border support operations at Bisbee, Arizona, on Nov. 6, 2018. US Army Photo
This post has been updated with statements from shipbuilder HII, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, HASC chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and HASC ranking member Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas).
Pentagon leaders want to reroute $1.5 billion in money from two major shipbuilding programs and aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps to support the construction of $3.8 billion in new physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a copy of the Fiscal Year 2020 reprogramming request obtained by USNI News.
According to the reprogramming request that hit the Hill today, the Department of Defense would move the money from the military services to the Department of Homeland Security’s counter-drug activities.
“DHS had identified areas along the southern border of the United States that are being used by individuals, groups and transnational crime organizations as drug smuggling corridors and determined that the construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the United States border is necessary to impede and deny drug smuggling activities,” reads the request signed by acting DoD comptroller Elaine McCusker.
The DoD justified its move in a Thursday afternoon statement.
“The Department of Defense is committed to supporting the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to secure the southern border by constructing fences and roads and installing lighting to block drug smuggling corridors. Consistent with the President’s April 4, 2018, direction to the Secretary of Defense, DoD used its statutory authority to provide the support that aids in blocking drug-smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States,” read the statement.
“Last month, we received a new request from the Department of Homeland Security asking for assistance in blocking drug-smuggling corridors on Federal land along the southern border of the United States. In response, the Secretary of Defense authorized support of $3.8 billion to build approximately 177 miles of fencing that will help to protect our borders. We will continue to support DHS and other agencies as needed to keep our homeland is secure.”
The request, in two parts, asks for $2.2 billion to be reprogrammed from defense appropriations for vehicles and weapons and another $1.63 billion from the Pentagon’s Overseas Contingency Operations fund.
Of the $2.2 billion in the first part of the request, the Navy pays the lion’s share, with the request asking for $1.5 billion coming from shipbuilding and Navy and Marine Corps aircraft.
Specifically, in naval aviation, the sea services would lose two F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters for $233 million, two V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft for $155 million, and one P-8A anti-submarine warfare aircraft for $180 million.
From the shipbuilding account, the Navy would lose $650 million in early procurement for the yet-to-be-named amphibious assault ship LHA-9 and $261 million for a new Spearhead-class Expeditionary Fast Transport ship.
The cuts are all labeled in the document as “congressional special interest items” and are defined as either excess to requirements or early to need. They do, though, support priorities laid out in the National Defense Strategy and in the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations concept for fighting against peer adversaries like China.
In a statement, House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) lashed out at the move.
“The Trump Administration claims that every military decision they make is in support of the National Defense Strategy and that their primary focus is the great power competition with Russia and China. But their policy simply does not match their rhetoric. Rather than investing in the procurement of critical platforms, this administration would rather dump another $3.8 billion into a wall on our southern border,” the statement read.
“It is clear to me, and anyone with experience in national security policy, that a wall on our southern border will do nothing to support our strategic advantage over Russia and China, support counterterrorism, address rogue states, or enhance relations with partners and allies.”
LHA-9 shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries responded to the prosed cut in a statement.
“We remain committed to building ships for the nation most efficiently and affordably and to building LHA-9 in a manner that best leverages our hot production line and our suppliers in 47 states,” the statement said.
“We look forward to working with Congress as the budget cycle progresses.”
In contrast to the Navy cuts, $861 million was requested rerouted from Air Force programs – four C-130Js, eight MQ-9 Reaper uncrewed aerial vehicles, F-35 advanced procurement, and the OA-X light attack aircraft. The Army would lose $200 million for National Guard Humvee modernization and $100 million from a service program of the Army’s fleet of Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks.
An additional $1.3 billion would come out of National Guard and reserve equipment.
A message left with a Pentagon spokesperson as to why the Department of the Navy had a disproportionate share of the burden was acknowledged but not immediately returned.
Other congressional defense leaders were critical of the request shortly after it was delivered to the Hill.
USNS Yuma (T-EPF-8) enters the Black Sea on June 28, 2019. Cem Devrim Yaylalı Photo used with permission
“The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress’s constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action. I will be working with my colleagues to determine the appropriate steps to take,” House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said in a Thursday afternoon statement. “The wall should be funded, but the funding must come through the Department of Homeland Security rather than diverting critical military resources that are needed and in law.”
The proposal followed the reveal of the Navy’s proposed Fiscal Year 2021 budget in which the service requested the smallest shipbuilding budget since sequestration.
“The request includes just $19.9 billion for eight ships, which falls about $4 billion and four ships short of the FY 2020 ship procurement. The last time lawmakers approved a shipbuilding plan of only eight ships was FY 2015, when sequestration spending caps loomed over the budgeting process,” USNI News wrote on Monday.
The Thursday request follows a similar September reprogramming that took $3.6 billion from military construction projects to fund border barriers with Mexico.
Those included $26.1 million for a new ship maintenance facility and $22.5 million for a hazardous materials warehouse at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Va.; $88.9 million for a submarine pier and maintenance facility at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, Wash.; and $9.08 million for a replacement to the working dog treatment facility at Naval Station Guantanamo, Cuba.
Thornberry, on Wednesday, just ahead of the release of the reprogramming request, expressed concern about the White House using that strategy of taking military construction funds away to support the activities at the border, saying, “there are real needs out there in MILCON.”
USS Washington (SSN 787) returns to Naval Station Norfolk
200211-N-ON977-1065
NORFOLK (Feb. 11, 2020) The Virginia-class fast-attack submarine USS Washington (SSN 787) returns to Naval Station Norfolk after its maiden deployment, Feb. 11, 2020. Washington, commissioned in October of 2017, has a unique tradition among the submarine force. Many of Washington's still-forming traditions revolve around the boat's unofficial nickname "Blackfish," a term commonly used to refer to orcas. When Washington was underway, Sailors who earned their submarine warfare pins, known as "dolphins," earn a version that is all black instead of the typical gold or silver. Washington deployed to U.S. European Command's area of responsibility, where it executed the chief of naval operations' maritime strategy by supporting national security interests and maritime security operations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alfred A. Coffield/Released)
Charlie Tomkins sends this:
Russian Submariners Had More To Worry About Than Enemy Navies
February 11, 2020
Key Point: The frequent, catastrophic disasters onboard the Project Russian 627 boats seem almost like gruesome public service announcements for everything that could conceivably go wrong with nuclear submarines.
The United States launched the first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus, in 1954, revolutionizing undersea warfare. The Nautilus's reactor allowed it to operate underwater for months at a time, compared to the hours or days afforded conventional submarines. The following year, the Soviet Union began building its nuclear submarine, the Project 627-known as the November class by NATO. The result was a boat with a few advantages compared to its American competition, but that also exhibited a disturbing tendency to catastrophic accidents that would prove characteristic of the burgeoning Soviet submarine fleet during the Cold War.
The original specifications drafted in 1952 for a Soviet nuclear submarine had conceived of employing them to launch enormous nuclear torpedoes at enemy harbors and coastal cities. At the time, the Soviet Union lacked the long-range missiles or bombers that could easily hit most of the continental United States. However, as these capabilities emerged in the mid-1950s, the Project 627 design was revised to reflect an antiship role, with eight torpedo tubes located in the bow and combat systems taken from Foxtrot-class diesel submarines.
The first Project 627 boat, the K-3 Leninsky Komsomol, launched in 1957 and made its first voyage under nuclear power in July 1958 under Capt. Leonid Osipenko, using a reactor design supervised by renowned scientist Anatoly Alexandrov. The large, torpedo-shaped vessel displaced more than four thousand tons submerged and was 107 meters long. Its double-hulled interior was divided into nine compartments, housing a crew of seventy-four seamen and thirty officers.
K-3 rapidly demonstrated the extraordinary endurance of nuclear submarines, embarking upon two-month long cruises while submerged. In 1962, it became the first Soviet vessel to travel to the North Pole, while a sister ship, K-133, was the first submarine to traverse the Drake Strait submerged in a twenty-one-thousand-mile cruise that lasted fifty-two days.
K-3 was soon joined by twelve additional November-class vessels of a revised design designated the Project 627A, distinguishable by a bulbous sonar dome under the bow, as well as a single Project 645 prototype powered by an experimental VT-1 liquid metal reactor with greater power efficiency. The fourteen November-class boats were deployed to the Third and Seventeenth Divisions of the Northern Fleet, though later, four were transferred to the Pacific Fleet by transiting under Arctic ice.
The 627's VM-A reactors were more powerful than their American contemporaries, speeding the Project 627s along up to thirty knots (34.5 miles per hour). However, the 627 lacked another quality generally expected of a nuclear submarine: the reactors were extremely noisy, making the Project 627 boats easy to detect despite the use of stealthy propellers and the first anti-sonar coating applied to a nuclear submarine. This lack of discretion, combined with its inferior sonar array, made the November class ill-suited for hunting opposing submarines.
Nonetheless, the 627s still dealt the U.S. Navy a few surprises. In 1965, K-27 managed to sneak up on the antisubmarine carrier USS Randolph off of Sardinia and complete a mock torpedo run before being detected. In 1968, another November-class boat proved capable of matching pace with the carrier USS Enterprise while the latter moved at full power, causing a minor panic in the Navy leadership that led to the adoption of the speedy Los Angeles-class attack submarine, some of which remain in service today.
However, the power of the November class's reactors was bought at the price of safety and reliability. A lack of radiation shielding resulted in frequent crew illness, and many of the boats suffered multiple reactor malfunctions over their lifetimes. This lack of reliability may explain why the Soviet Union dispatched conventional Foxtrot submarines instead of the November-class vessels during the Cuban Missile Crisis, even though the diesel boats needed to surface every few days, and for this reason, were cornered and chased away by patrolling American ships.
The frequent, catastrophic disasters onboard the Project 627 boats seem almost like gruesome public service announcements for everything that could conceivably go wrong with nuclear submarines. Many of the accidents reflected not only technological flaws but the weak safety culture of the Soviet Navy.
K-8 started the trend on October 13, 1960, when a ruptured steam turbine nearly led to a reactor meltdown due to loss of coolant. The crew was able to jury-rig an emergency water-cooling system, but not before radioactive gas contaminated the entire vessel, seriously irradiating several of the crew. K-14, which would distinguish itself in the medical evacuation of an Arctic expedition in 1963, also experienced a reactor breakdown in 1961, necessitating its replacement in the following years.
In February 1965, radioactive steam blasted through K-11 on two separate occasions while it underwent refueling at the base. The repair crews misdiagnosed the implications of the first event and followed incorrect procedures during the second, and were ultimately forced to evacuate the reactor room, leading to fires breaking out across the ship. The Soviet crew flooded the vessel with 250 tons of water to put out the flames, spreading radioactive water throughout the entire vessel. Seven men were badly irradiated, and the reactor required a complete replacement before it could be returned to active duty three years later.
K-3, the first Soviet submarine to sail on nuclear power, was on a Mediterranean patrol on September 8, 1967, when a hydraulic fire broke out in its torpedo tubes, with the resulting buildup of carbon monoxide killing thirty-nine sailors. The entire command crew passed out, save for a lone petty officer who managed to surface the ship, saving the vessel. A later investigation concluded the fire might have been caused by a sailor smoking in the torpedo compartment.
K-27, the lone Project 645 boat, experienced a breakdown in its port-side reactor on May 24, 1968, in the Barents Sea-despite the crew warning that the reactor had experienced a similar malfunction in 1967 and had yet to test that it was functioning properly. The entire crew of 124 was irradiated by radioactive gas, but Captain Leonov refused to take emergency measures until hours later due to his faith in the reactor. Shortly after the ship limped home on its starboard reactor, five of the crew died from radiation exposure within a month, with twenty-five more to follow in subsequent years. Repair of K-27 ultimately proved too expensive a proposition, so it was scuttled by ramming in Stepovoy Bay in waters only thirty-three meters deep-rather than the three to four thousand meters required by the IAEA.
In 1970, the ill-fated K-8 was participating in the Okean 70 war games off the Bay of Biscay when it suffered simultaneous short circuits in its command center and reactor control room, spreading fire through the air conditioning system. The captain managed to surface the boat, and the crew nearly escaped with only moderate loss of life-except that the Soviet Navy ordered about half of the men back on board to conduct emergency repairs and pilot the ship home. An encounter with a sea squall led to the damaged boat sinking to the ocean floor, taking fifty-eight crew and four nuclear torpedoes with it.
The November-class boats finally began to enter retirement in the 1980s and early 1990s-but not before being subject to a final few accidents, not of their own making. In August 1985, K-42 was berthed next to the Echo-class submarine K-433 near Vladivostok when the latter suffered a nuclear refueling accident that killed ten and irradiated 239. K-42 was deemed so badly contaminated that it, too, had to be decommissioned.
As the Soviet Union was succeeded by an economically destitute Russia, many decommissioned nuclear submarines were left to rust with their nuclear fuel on board, leading to safety concerns from abroad. International donors fronted $200 million to scrap the hulks in 2003. Flimsy pontoons were welded onto K-159 to enable its towing to a scrapping site, but on August 30, a sea squall ripped away one of the pontoons, causing the boat to begin foundering around midnight. The Russian Navy failed to react until hours later, by which the time submarine had sunk, taking eight hundred kilograms of spent nuclear fuel and nine of the ten seamen manning the pontoons with it. Plans to raise K-159 have foundered to this day due to lack of funding.
This is just an accounting of major accidents on the November-class boats-more occurred on Echo- and Hotel-class submarines equipped with the same nuclear reactors. Submarine operations are, of course, inherently risky; the U.S. Navy also lost two submarines during the 1960s, though it hasn't lost any since.
The November-class submarines may not have been particularly silent hunters, but they nonetheless marked a breakthrough in providing the Soviet submarine fleet global reach while operating submerged. They also provided painful lessons, paid in human lives lost or irreparably injured, in the risks inherent to exploiting nuclear power, and in the high price to be paid for technical errors and lax safety procedures.
US Navy Confirms Global Strike Hypersonic Weapon Will First Deploy on Virginia Attack Subs
By: Megan Eckstein
February 18, 2020 4:55 PM
Rendering of Block V Virginia-class submarine with Virginia Payload Module. General Dynamics Electric Boat Image
The Navy intends to deploy its conventional prompt strike hypersonic weapon on Virginia-class attack submarines, after previous discussions of putting the weapon on the larger Ohio-class guided-missile submarine (SSGN), according to budget request documents.
In its Fiscal Year 2021 budget overview, the Navy outlines a research and development portfolio with 5 percent more funding than this current year – for a total of $21.5 billion – that is aimed at “providing innovative capabilities in shipbuilding (Columbia class), aviation (F-35), weapons (Maritime Strike Tomahawk), hypersonics (Conventional Prompt Strike), unmanned, family of lasers, digital warfare, applied [artificial intelligence], and [U.S. Marine Corps] expeditionary equipment. These technologies are crucial to maintaining the DON’s competitive advantage.”
On the Conventional Prompt Strike, the Navy wants to invest $1 billion for research and development.
“The CPS program develops warfighting capability to enable precise and timely strike capability in contested environments across the surface and sub-surface platforms,” reads the budget documents.
“The Navy’s CPS program will design a missile comprised of a Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) and a 34.5-inch two-stage booster. The program is pursuing an [initial operational capability] of FY 2028 in which the missile will be fielded on a Virginia class submarine with Virginia Payload Module.”
In the fall of 2017, the Navy and Defense Department tested “the first conventional prompt strike missile for the United States Navy in the form factor that would eventually, could eventually be utilized if leadership chooses to do so, in an Ohio-class tube,” now-retired Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, who then directed the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs (SSP), said, calling it “a monumental achievement.”
The conventional prompt global strike capability would allow the U.S. to hit any target on the planet with precision-guided weapons in less than an hour. Similar to nuclear weapons, part of that prompt strike capability would rely on multiple ways to launch the missiles from ships, submarines, or ground launchers around the globe.
Following Benedict’s comments, which focused on the SSGNs as a future host for the weapon, the SSP office told USNI News that the four Ohio-class SSBNs that were previously converted to guided-missile submarines (SSGNs) or future Virginia-class attack submarines with the Virginia Payload Module would likely be the platforms contributing to conventional prompt global strike mission.
The Virginia Payload Module is a segment added into the middle of the Virginia SSN design that holds 28 additional missile tubes, for a total of 40 missiles per boat. Its insertion into the design for Block V Virginias and beyond is meant to help add more missile tube capacity as the four Ohio-class SSGNs that carry 154 missiles apiece retire from service.
The guided-missile submarine USS Ohio (SSGN 726) moors alongside the submarine tender USS Emory S. Land (AS 39) in November 2015. US Navy photo.
A year later, in the fall of 2018, Benedict’s successor, Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe, said the Navy was developing a common cone hypersonic glide body for all the services to field on whatever platforms they want – and for the Navy, that could be submarines, or it could be a surface ship like a destroyer.
“From a Navy perspective, we’re developing the booster that our hypersonic glide body will go on, and we’re doing it though in such a way that we’re taking the most stringent requirement – which is underwater launch – and so as we develop it we will do it in such a way that as the bigger Navy comes through what platform or platforms they want to deploy this on, the launcher and the glide body will be able to survive any of those environments,” Wolfe said.
“The key is, we will start with the most stringent requirement, we will build the missile and the glide body to that so that as we look at how we’re going to do it, we don’t have to go back and do a bunch of redesigns.”
Last month, Commander of Naval Surface Forces Vice Adm. Rich Brown told reporters that he could envision the Zumwalt-class destroyer – with its larger size, power generation, and missile launcher compared to the Arleigh Burke-class DDG – being a host for the conventional prompt strike weapon.
“I have got to tell you; I am thoroughly impressed with the capabilities that that destroyer will bring into our fleet. I would love to have six more of them because the capabilities are that good. If you look at conventional prompt strike, I can think of no other better platform than to put a conventional prompt strike on that platform. And then once that happens, or if that happens, make no mistake, it will put the fear of God into our adversaries once we marry those two platforms together,” he said.
The Navy has not ruled out this possibility, but it appears that the Virginia subs with the Virginia Payload Module – which will be included in the Block V submarines being built today – will be the first to operate with the new hypersonic weapon.
The budget documents note that research and development efforts in FY 2021 include “continued development of the weapon system and flight subsystem, platform integration, and advanced research and development to support future spiral capabilities such as enhanced warhead, advanced communication, alternative navigation, and terminal sensor technology.”
Navy picks General Dynamics for uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs), upgrades to SATCOM and sensor payloads
The contract asks General Dynamics for five new Black Pearl UAVs; two side-scan sonars, upgraded tail, and nose sections, and spare parts.
Feb 10th, 2020
WASHINGTON – U.S. uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV) experts needed a company to upgrade the 21-inch-diameter Black Pearl UUV with new capabilities such as satellite communications (SATCOM) capability. They found their solution from the General Dynamics Corp. Mission Systems segment in Quincy, Mass.
Officials of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington announced a $20.9 million contract last week to General Dynamics to upgrade the Navy's fleet of UUVs to accommodate new sensor payloads, and build new UUVs to support future research missions.
The contract calls for General Dynamics to provide five new Black Pearl UAVs; two side-scan sonars, upgraded tail, and nose sections, and spare parts. The Black Pearl UUV supports Navy research programs in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and mine countermeasures.
The contract asks General Dynamics to provide two-way Iridium SATCOM to the Black Pearl UUV; alter the unmanned submersible's payloads bay; determine the best way to accommodate side-scan and multi-beam sonar; and manufacture new UUVs and control systems, tail sections, and batteries.
The five new Black Pearl UUVs include tail sections for each of the Black Pearl UUVs, a battery power section for each UUV, and a nose section for each UUV.
General Dynamics is the original manufacturer of the Black Pearl. The company won a $7.1 million contract in April 2014 design and built the Black Pearl underwater drone for research in long-range and multi-static mine hunting and ASW programs, as well as in new distributed sensing research. Bluefin experts were to build as many as five next-generation underwater drones based on the company's Bluefin 21 UUV.
General Dynamics also will provide a new software driver for the Black Pearl's Iridium board, develop software to enable basic two-way messaging, software to help upload missions to the UUV via Iridium, and software drivers and mechanical structures to accommodate Navy research payloads in the payload sections.
The company also will provide topside UUV-operator equipment that includes two RF deck boxes with antennas; two Iridium deck box with antennas; one Sonardyne Dunker kit; two RDF receivers and antennas; five battery chargers; two sets of vehicle carts; two-vehicle shipping cases; one vehicle tool kit; and two ruggedized operator laptop computers with operator software.
The original Black Pearl design has a 3-to-5-nautical-mile per hour operating speed, a 400-meter depth capability, a minimum of 18-kilowatt-hour energy storage, and a real-time GPS-aided fiber optic gyro (IXSEA PHINS III), inertial navigation system (INS) integrated with Doppler velocity log instrument capable of measuring the vehicle's horizontal position, velocity, and attitude.
The position accuracy drift rate while traveling submerged on a straight line is 0.15 percent of distance traveled or less. The system has an over-the-horizon (OTH) communication capability for periodic vehicle status, monitoring, and redirection using the Iridium SATCOM system while the vehicle is on the surface.
The UUV supports several payload types, supplied by NRL researchers, that may include broadband low-frequency sonars for MCM and ASW; environmental data sensors such as water depth, speed of sound in water along vehicle path, water temperature, and water current); and payloads for acoustic modem research (ACOMMS).
It can carry several sensors and payloads at once in swappable payload sections and battery modules for in-field mission reconfiguration. The UUV is a deep-rated ocean drone that can be launched and recovered from a simple A-frame or docking head.
The Bluefin 21 design is 16.2 feet long, 21 inches in diameter, and weighs 1,650 pounds. It can dive to nearly 15,000 feet, can operate for 25 hours on one battery charge, and moves at speeds to 4.5 knots while using a total of 13.5 kilowatts of electricity.
The UUV is a popular vehicle for deep-dive research and counter-mine operations. The UUV is the basis for the Navy General Dynamics Knifefish surface-mine countermeasure crewless underwater vehicle (UUV).
For more information, contact General Dynamics Mission Systems online at https://gdmissionsystems.com, or the Naval Research Laboratory at www.nrl.navy.mil.
USS Maine Successfully Tests Trident II D5LE Missile
Story Number: NNS200212-18Release Date: 2/12/2020 6:34:00 PM
From Navy Systems Programs Public Affairs
PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) -- The U.S. Navy conducted a scheduled, one-missile test flight of an unarmed life-extended Trident II (D5LE) missile from USS Maine (SSBN-741), an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, on the Western Test Range off the coast of San Diego, California, today.
This was part of a Demonstration and Shakedown Operation, designated DASO-30. The primary objective of a DASO is to evaluate and demonstrate the readiness of the SSBN’s strategic weapon system and crew before operational deployment following the submarine’s engineered refueling overhaul.
“The professional performance by the crew of the USS Maine today demonstrated they are ready to stand the watch for our nation's strategic deterrence mission," said James F. Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition who embarked USS Maine for the launch. “They, and the acquisition and sustainment teams that support them, showed the teamwork, commitment, and attention to detail needed to continue to provide the undersea strategic deterrence for our nation, just as the Navy has done uninterrupted for the last 60 years.”
This launch marks 177 successful missile launches of the Trident II (D5 & D5LE) strategic weapon system (SWS).
“Today’s test demonstrates the continued reliability of our sea-based nuclear deterrent, which is made possible by our sailors, civilians and industry partners who bring expertise and dedication to the mission that is unmatched by any other country,” said Vice Adm. Johnny R. Wolfe, director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs. “These same teams are now developing the next generation of the Trident strategic weapon system, which will extend our sea-based deterrent for the next 40 years.”
The Trident strategic weapon system is highly accurate and reliable. The Trident II (D5) missiles recently underwent a life extension program to address potential impacts from aging and obsolescence. The life-extended missiles – Trident II (D5LE) – are now being deployed to the Fleet and will serve for the remaining service life of U.S Ohio-class and United Kingdom Vanguard -class SSBNs, and as the initial loadout for the U.S. Columbia-class and U.K. Dreadnought-class SSBNs.
The Navy’s last DASO was in May 2019 off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, from USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740). The Navy’s most recent flight test – a Commander’s Evaluation Test – was a series of four launches from USS Nebraska (SSBN-739) in September 2019 off the coast of Southern California. All five of these 2019 flight tests were of the life-extended Trident II (D5LE).
Flight test missiles are not armed. Safety of the public and the crew conducting the mission is paramount. Today’s launch was conducted from sea, the missile flew over the sea, and landed in the sea. At no time did the missile fly over land.
The missile test was not conducted in response to any ongoing world events or as a demonstration of power. Test launches – including DASOs – are scheduled years in advance.
A credible, effective nuclear deterrent is essential to our national security and the security of U.S. allies. Deterrence remains a cornerstone of national security policy in the 21st century.
Strategic Systems Programs is the Navy command that provides cradle-to-grave lifecycle support for the Navy's strategic weapon systems. This includes training, systems, equipment, facilities and personnel responsible for ensuring the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nation’s Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) Trident II (D5LE) strategic weapon system.
SLBMs are the sea-based leg of the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent Triad that also includes the U.S. Air Force’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and nuclear-capable bombers. Each part of the Triad provides unique capabilities and advantages.
The sea-based leg makes up the majority – approximately 70 percent – of the U.S.’s deployed strategic nuclear deterrent Triad. The SLBM is the most survivable leg of the triad, provides a persistent presence, and allows for flexible concepts of operations.
200212-N-EA818-0055
PACIFIC OCEAN (Feb. 12, 2020) An unarmed Trident II (D5LE) missile launches from the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Maine (SSBN 741) off the coast of San Diego, California, Feb. 12, 2020. The test launch was part of the U.S. Navy Strategic Systems Programs' demonstration and shakedown operation certification process. The successful launch demonstrated the readiness of the SSBN's strategic weapon system and crew following the submarine's engineered refueling overhaul. This launch marks 177 successful missile launches of the Trident II (D5 & D5LE) strategic weapon system. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Thomas Gooley/Released)
The U.S. Navy may only build six new warships in Fiscal Year 2021
The U.S. Navy may only build six new warships in Fiscal Year 2021, including just one submarine, and retire at least five, according to a budget proposal released Monday by the Pentagon. It contrasts with China, which continues to grow and modernize its navy. China is producing warships at an incredible rate, almost certainly many more than the Pentagon plan.
The Chinese Navy, known as the PLAN, has several new shipbuilding programs underway. Last month it commissioned the first of its latest Type-055 class of destroyers, the 10,000-ton Nanchang. At least five more Type-055s are at various stages of construction. And then there is its second aircraft carrier, the Shandong, which was commissioned in December. And an array of other modern destroyers and frigates, not to mention new assault carriers. The first of the assault carriers was launched last year and at least one more is already under construction.
It is difficult to closely compare the U.S. Navy and Chinese Navy shipbuilding. The two navies have different starting points for underlying capabilities. The U.S. is still ahead in numbers and quality so needs to build fewer to maintain its position. And China often takes longer to build warships. But stepping back it is hard not to see the growing gulf in output. This latest U.S. budget plan is much smaller than previous years, while Chinese shipyards continue to pump out very modern hulls.
The 2021 budget plan does include two Arleigh Burke Class air defense destroyers and the first of a new class of guided missile frigates. The U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) reported that 3 major vessels previously expected are cut from the plan. These are a Virginia Class attack submarine, the second frigate and an oiler. The attack submarine is particularly significant as both China and Russia are building new nuclear-powered submarines.
And on the other side of the equation, the first four Littoral Combat ships (LCS) and a large amphibious warfare ship will be retired to save money. Four Ticonderoga Class cruisers and two more amphibious ships would also be retired earlier than planned. The LCS in particular are relatively young and retiring them so early may be controversial in itself.
The Pentagon plan will certainly be controversial. The Chairman of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, Joe Courtney, has already laid out a challenge. Referencing previous plans to grow the U.S. Navy, he said, “The President’s shipbuilding budget is not a 355-ship Navy budget. As Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I can say with complete certainty that … it is dead on arrival.”
China’s own shipbuilding program may also face some challenges. The ongoing Coronavirus outbreak may impact the delivery timelines of some Chinese projects. But it is unlikely to change the story.
This article was written by H I Sutton from Forbes and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.
Lockheed Martin to build and upgrade electronic warfare (EW) to enable submarines to detect enemy radar
The AN/BLQ-10 helps Virginia-, Los Angeles-, Seawolf-, Ohio-, and future Columbia-class submarines detect enemy radar and communications.
Feb 13th, 2020
WASHINGTON – Submarine combat systems experts at Lockheed Martin Corp. will build and upgrade the U.S. Navy AN/BLQ-10 electronic warfare (EW) system for Navy submarines under terms of a $40 million order announced Wednesday.
Officials of the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington are asking the Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems segment in Syracuse, N.Y., to design, upgrade, and support the AN/BLQ-10 submarine EW system, which provides automatic detection, classification, localization, and identification of potentially hostile radar and communications signals at sea.
This order calls for Lockheed Martin to design, prototype and test AN/BLQ-10 EW systems equipment. The order is an option on a potential $970.1 million 10-year contract awarded to Lockheed Martin last year.
The AN/BLQ-10 helps Virginia-, Los Angeles-, and Seawolf-class fast-attack submarines, Ohio-class conventional guided-missile submarines, and future Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarines detect enemy radar and communications. It is not for existing Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines.
Related: Technology comes to bear on radar and sonar
The original contract calls for Lockheed Martin to provide upgrade kits and spare parts for the AN/BLQ-10, covering advanced processor builds and technology insertion (APB/TI) cycles TI-20, TI-22, and TI-24. Efforts include work on new-construction and in-service submarines.
The AN/BLQ-10 processes signals from the submarine’s imaging mast or periscope when the boat is at periscope depth. It provides threat warning to avoid counter-detection and collision; determines the number and location of targets for subsequent prosecution; and conducts intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to support the fleet or battle group.
The program is adopting an open-architecture incremental development process that fields hardware and software technology insertions every two years. The AN/BLQ-10 blends modular interoperable systems that adhere to open standards with published interfaces.
The system's first technology insertion in 2008 added a subsystem to intercept some low-probability-of-intercept radar signals. Fielded upgrades from the 2010 technology insertions updated commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) processors and displays, and Improved Communications Acquisition and Direction Finding (ICADF) system.
Related: Raytheon developing ship antennas to handle radar, radio, and EW simultaneously
For TI-20, Lockheed Martin is building an upgraded AN/BLQ-10 for Virginia- and Columbia-class submarine new construction, and in-service Virginia-class modernization.
TI-22 work will provide upgraded AN/BLQ-10 systems for in-service Los Angeles- and Seawolf-class attack submarines, as well as for Ohio-class conventional missile submarines. TI-24 work will build an upgraded AN/BLQ-10 for Virginia-class and Columbia-class new construction, as well as for in-service Virginia-class modernization.
On this order Lockheed Martin will do the work in Syracuse, N.Y., and should be finished by February 2021. For more information contact Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems online at www.lockheedmartin.com, or Naval Sea Systems Command at www.navsea.navy.mil.
Huntington Ingalls Industries Planning for Increased U.S. Navy Demand for UUVs
By: Ben Werner
February 13, 2020 6:01 PM
U.S. Navy Chief Aerographer’s Mate Travis Lawson and U.S. Navy Mineman 2nd Class Mathew Williams, both assigned to the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) 5 Unmanned Systems (UMS) Platoon 141, lower an Mark 18 MOD 1 Swordfish unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) into the water as members of the Indonesian Navy’s Komando Pasukan Katak (KOPASKA) 2nd Fleet Surabaya Unit observe during a UUV familiarization drill as part of a mine countermeasures knowledge exchange for Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Indonesia 2019. US Navy photo.
Huntington Ingalls Industries is restructuring its shipbuilding businesses to tap into the Navy’s growing demand for unmanned undersea vehicles.
The Navy will still buy the large capital ships and big-deck amphibious warships that HII has built and plans to build for decades. However, the Navy’s appetite for UUVs to amplify the presence of large manned platforms will only grow, Mike Petters, chief executive of HII, said Thursday while discussing 2019 financial results during a conference call with analysts.
“You’re not going to see a hard-left turn here, where we’re going to say, OK we don’t need big platforms with people on them anymore and we’re going to have a Navy that’s completely unmanned,” Petters said. “I think what you’re going to see is an evolution.”
With tightening government spending and a shipbuilding budget squeezed by the massive Columbia-class submarine program, Petters said the evolution is occurring now.
The Navy’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget request includes the proposal to spend $288 million on unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). The Navy also plans to purchase 113 UUVs between now and FY 2025, according to the Navy’s FY 2021 budget request. For HII, the Navy’s emerging focus on unmanned undersea capabilities represents a market company can’t ignore, Petters told investors.
“I think the Navy is going to be moving towards more unmanned systems to amplify the platforms they have and see where that goes from there,” he said. “As their principal partner, we want to be right there with them and help them make that successful.”
With the prospect of the potential to land more UUV contracts in the future, Petters said HII sought to restructure its Technical Solutions business segment. The restructuring included:
- Last week’s $350-million deal for HII to buy UUV maker Hydroid from Norway-based Kongsberg.
- HII’s Wednesday announcement that its repair yard in San Diego would join a newly formed maritime maintenance and repair consortium.
- HII’s plan to sell its oil and natural gas engineering and field services business that works on pipelines and production facilities. In 2018, this segment reported $189 million in sales, about 2 percent of HII’s $8.2 billion in sales for the year.1
“I think 15 years from now you can see a Navy that is talking a lot more about what they can and want to do undersea,” Petters said. “I just think that’s where it goes.”
Buying Hydroid is particularly significant, Petters said, because it increases HII’s UUV footprint at a time the Navy is looking to buy. The Navy plans to purchase 72 MK-18 UUVs, made by Hydroid, by 2025, according to the Navy’s FY 2021 budget request.
The Hydroid deal, expected to close by the end of March, is likely to result in high single-digit growth, Christopher Kastner, the chief financial officer of HII, said during the call.
“That’s the near-term growth rate we see in that business, so we believe it can only get better beyond that,” Kastner said.
The challenge, Petters said, is the Navy is having trouble finding existing UUVs with the capabilities it wants. He’s counting on the UUV knowledge gained from the Hydroid deal as complementing HII’s ability to build up a workforce and use its technology and manufacturing expertise to create platforms.
“The Navy is trying to match up the requirements that they see out in the world, that they feel like they need, with the ability of the industry to support it,” Petters said. “So, our view of that is we need to be on the front edge of that and help them evolve that.”
Petters, a former submarine officer and graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, conceded during the call he has a strong belief in the value of undersea operations – both manned and unmanned. A single sub can bottle-up an entire fleet in port, he said.
“When countries can no longer buy the full navy that they want, they buy submarines because they’re asymmetric for the money that you put into them. I think that we have history that says that,” Petters said. “I don’t know if it will quite play out that way here, because presence is important, and presence actually keeps conflict from becoming hot conflict. So, I think the Navy has a great understanding of that.”
Where did they go?
You can trash the article if you feel inappropriate. I read it and the Old Fleet Sailor flashed back on me. Though many moons ago, it reminded me of a young 18-year-old fleet sailor. Enjoy the flashbacks.
Where Did They Go?
>> by: Garland Davis
>>
>> They were famous throughout the Navy. The Gut in Barcelona; East Main Street in Norfolk; Flatbush Ave in Brooklyn; The Combat Zone in Boston; The Pike in Long Beach; Market Street in San Francisco; Broadway Street in San Diego; Hotel (Shit) Street in Honolulu; The Honcho in Yokosuka, China Town and Sakuragi-cho in Yokohama; Wanchai in Hong Kong; Buggis Street in Singapore; Magsaysay in Olongapo; and all the other places where fleet sailors congregated. People ask, “Where did they go?” Well, shipmate, they didn’t go anywhere. You are asking the wrong question. You should ask, “Where did all the fleet sailors go?”
>>
>> Long ago, on payday night and in the nights following, these streets were a paradise to the North American Blue Jacket. A person could look down the street and see neon signs advertising beer and bars and a sea of white hats bobbing up and down as sailors made their way from bar to bar. At liberty call these became a shopping center for intoxicating beverages and sex. And in some places, a PO2 could get that new First Class crow sewn on or that old Third Class crow sewn back on. No need for crows these days. It is all collar and hat devices. Hell, I don’t see much need for dress canvas these days. The only time I see it worn is when a ship is leaving or returning from a deployment. With all the straight sailors and females, the gays and lesbians and “don’t knows” aboard these days, I figure sailors are shopping for sex closer to home.
>>
>> The smoking lamp is cold and probably over the side or being saved for recycling or Mary Soo (forget her, CumShaw is Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and misappropriation of government property. ( I’ll tell a story about the consequences of CumShaw some time.) Instead of trading useless gear to Mary Soo for painting the ship, the Navy now recycles and lets a multi-thousand dollar contract to get the job done. Smoking is now frowned upon. Surface ships limit smoking to a tiny, uncomfortable topside space. My shipmates in the Bubble Head world can no longer smoke anyplace aboard the boat. Municipalities and states have also jumped on the bandwagon and banned smoking in bars and restaurants. Drive past any bar or lounge and you will see a group standing on the corner smoking and no, they cannot bring their drinks outside. It is against the law to drink in public.
>>
>> Drinkers are now pariahs in our modern Navy. The clubs are closed. They no longer exist or have been converted to MWR game rooms where the strongest drink available is a Red Bull. Quarterdecks of ships, in addition to a podium, logbooks, long glass, and weapon are now equipped with a Breathalyzer and probably a watchstander to operate it. Many commands are requiring that sailors refrain from drinking the day prior to a duty day.
>>
>> Back in the day, a sailor ashore knew that his shipmates had his back. Whether in a confrontation with a sailor from another ship, marines, or Limeys, he knew his shipmates would stand with him. Too much to drink? A shipmate would help you back aboard and even help you to your rack. You would do the same for him. These days, you are assigned a “Liberty Buddy.” You are to stay together and, I guess, keep each other from drinking or smoking. With the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, I guess a dalliance with a “Rump Ranger” would be okay. But, before you go ashore, you have to formulate a “Liberty Plan” and get it approved by your Department/Division Liberty Coordinator. If during your liberty, you or your Liberty Buddy change your plan, you must contact your Liberty Coordinator and get the change approved. I surmise that “I’ll be in the Barrio someplace getting messed up, blown and laid.” It would not be an acceptable liberty plan. It always worked for me!
>>
>> They were more than streets and bars. First and foremost, they were the repositories of small bits and pieces of the history of America's forces afloat. They were the unofficial clubhouses of those of us who went to sea on old gray steel under the flag of the United States. They were places where a thirsty bluejacket could go and park his butt where sailors of earlier fleets had parked theirs. They were the poor man's Valhalla, where lads who plowed deep saltwater, could go and share fellowship and sea stories with fellow practitioners of the nautical arts… A place where well-intentioned exaggeration and gilded flawed recollection were readily forgiven and accepted.
>>
>> They were places where lonely strays could tie up alongside a warm feminine fanny on a cold night… For a few bucks, and sometimes love.
>>
>> Where did the streets and the bars go you ask? Where did the sailors go?
Royal IHC, trade unions team up on Dutch submarine replacement program
Image Courtesy: Royal IHC
The Netherlands-based company Royal IHC and trade unions FNV, CNV vakmensen.nl, RMU and De Unie have signed a covenant within the framework of the program for the replacement of the Dutch Walrus class submarines.
A year ago, Royal IHC and France’s defense contractor Naval Group joined forces in a bid to secure a contract for the Royal Netherlands Navy’s USD 2.8 billion submarine replacement project.
The program will see the construction of four new submarines for the navy.
In this covenant, the parties have agreed to intensively work together when Royal IHC and Naval Group are selected by the Dutch government to carry out the assignment.
As informed, agreements have been made in the covenant on recruiting, training and keeping employees permanently employable. With this covenant, all parties involved endorse the importance of cooperation, good working conditions, the provision of apprenticeships, inflow and growth opportunities and the development of the right training.
“The replacement of the Walrus class is a very large and magnificent project. A challenge that IHC cannot take on alone. We of course need Naval Group for that, and certainly as many Dutch partners as possible, in all kinds of areas. We are therefore very happy with the support of the unions. Together we can ensure the correct inflow and flow of professionals in the Rotterdam region,” Dave Vander Heyde, CEO Royal IHC, said.
“With such a large order from the Dutch government, such as the replacement of the Walrus class submarines, in terms of construction and long-term maintenance should be chosen for employment in the Netherlands,” according to the trade unions.
“Investing in this strategic sector is good for preserving and expanding knowledge, good for employment and good for the Netherlands as an industrial country. This also includes clear agreements about training, employment conditions and working conditions as they are in the covenant signed today.”
In December 2019, the Dutch Ministry of Defence (MOD) selected Naval Group, Saab Kockums and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems for the next bidding phase in the navy’s submarine replacement program.
The contract would be signed with one of the companies in 2022. All four submarine newbuilds are planned to be operational by 2031.
The Royal Netherlands Navy has four older Walrus class submarines which have been in service since 1990 – Walrus, Zeeleeuw, Dolfijn and Bruinvis. This is the only submarine class in the navy’s fleet.
Regards,
Ed Sarlo
Lockheed Martin Tapped For Trident Missile Production
Feb 18, 2020 05:00 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff
Lockheed Martin Space won a $13.9 million contract modification for Trident II (D5) missile production and deployed systems support. The Trident II D5 is one of the most advanced long-range submarine-launched nuclear missiles in the world. It is the primary US sea-based nuclear ballistic missile, and is deployed aboard US Navy Ohio Class ballistic missile submarines. The US Navy operates 14 of these ballistic missile submarines, each of which can carry as many as 24 Trident II missiles. Although the Trident II is designed to carry as many as 12 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads, current treaties reduce this number to four or five. Work will take place in Florida, California, and other various locations. Work is expected to be finished by September 30, 2024.
Thanks, Bud
John Bud Cunnally ETC (SS) Ret. USN – President
International Submariners Association of the U.S.A. (ISA/USA)
4704 Coppola Drive
Mount Dora, Fl 32757-8069
352-729-4097 Home
352-638-1955 Cell
