A new study suggests U.S. air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020. The study, entitled "Air Combat Past, Present and Future," by John Stillion and Scott Perdue, says China's anti-access arms and strategy could deny the U.S. the "ability to operate efficiently from nearby bases or seas." According to the study, U.S. aircraft carriers and air bases would be threatened by Chinese development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the fielding of diesel and nuclear submarines equipped with torpedoes and SS-N-22 and SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), fighters and bombers carrying ASCMs and HARMs, and new ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The report states that 34 missiles with submunition warheads could cover all parking ramps at Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa. An "attack like this could damage, destroy or strand 75 percent of aircraft based at Kadena," it says. In contrast, many Chinese air bases are harder than Kadena, with some "super-hard underground hangers." To make matters worse, Kadena is the only U.S. air base within 500 nautical miles of the Taiwan Strait, whereas China has 27. U.S. air bases in South Korea are more than 750 miles distant, and those in Japan are more than 885 miles away. Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, is 1,500 miles away. The result is that sortie rates will be low, with a "huge tanker demand." The authors suggest China's CETC Y-27 radar, which is similar to Russia's Nebo SVU VHF Digital AESA, could counter U.S. stealth fighter technology. China is likely to outfit its fighters with improved radars and by "2020 even very stealthy targets likely [would be] detectable by Flanker radars at 25+ nm." China is also likely to procure the new Su-35BM fighter by 2020, which will challenge the F-35 and possibly the F-22. The authors also question the reliability of U.S. beyond-visual-range weapons, such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM. U.S. fighters have recorded only 10 AIM-120 kills, none against targets equipped with the kinds of countermeasures carried by Chinese Su-27s and Su-30s. Of the 10, six were beyond-visual-range kills, and it required 13 missiles to get them. If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, the authors say it is difficult to "predict who will have had the last move in the measure-countermeasure game." Overall, the authors say, "China could enjoy a 3:1 edge in fighters if we can fly from Kadena - about 10:1 if forced to operate from Andersen. Overcoming these odds requires qualitative superiority of 9:1 or 100:1" - a differential that is "extremely difficult to achieve" against a like power. If beyond-visual-range missiles work, stealth technology is not countered and air bases are not destroyed, U.S. forces have a chance, but "history suggests there is a limit of about 3:1 where quality can no longer compensate for superior enemy numbers." A 24-aircraft Su-27/30 regiment can carry around 300 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), whereas 24 F-22s can carry only 192 AAMs and 24 F-35s only 96 AAMs. Though current numbers assume the F-22 could shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when "outnumbered 12:1 without loss," these numbers do not take into account a less-than-perfect U.S. beyond-visual-range performance, partial or complete destruction of U.S. air bases and aircraft carriers, possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025, and the possible use of Chinese "robo-fighters" to deplete U.S. "fighters' missile loadout prior to mass attack." The authors write that Chinese counter stealth, anti-access, countermissile technologies are proliferating and the U.S. military needs "a plan that accounts for this." |
Chinese Military Adventure |
| China's military is in the nascent stages of becoming an expeditionary force. The country's anti-piracy deployment to the Gulf of Aden and the use of naval and air assets to support the evacuation of Chinese citizens from Libya in February and March 2011 have shown real capability in this arena. What is an expeditionary power? The US Department of Defense defines it as 'an armed force organized to accomplish a specific objective in a foreign country.' Additionally, such a force should be able to transport, sustain,and protect itself so that it hasthe freedom toconduct independent missions necessary forthe defense of national interests. The PLA's gradual but important evolution toward greater expeditionary capability coincides with China's steadily rising economic presence and the increasing number of Chinese seeking their fortunes in volatile but often fast-growing countries in places like Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East, both as employees of large state conglomerates and as private entrepreneurs. For now however, due to cost and perception reasons, China's expeditionary capabilities will most likely be tailored to handling threats to Chinese citizens and economic interests abroad. Foremost among these are non-traditional threats to resource security, such as piracy and terrorism, as well as threats to PRC citizens overseas, such as the internal chaos seen in Libya. Compare this with the US military, which possesses highly sustainable expeditionary capabilities that enable it to fight large wars halfway across the world and simultaneously handle other contingencies. The platforms and operational infrastructure that make high-intensity missions possible can also be scaled down to deal with non-traditional security missions like humanitarian relief after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami or suppression of piracy off Somalia. Therefore, the PLA's naval, air and ground capabilities for out-of-area operations are likely at least 15 years away—and even further away from achieving the ability to handle the range of missions—from achieving the capabilities the US Department of Defense possesses today. But the Chinese military is improving its capacity for dealing with smaller-scale threats that do not involve potential forcible entry into a hostile area, but still involve long-range deployments. Improved abilities to show the flag and assist with humanitarian missions and other military operations other than war can potentially allow a limited expeditionary military capacity to yield substantial diplomatic benefits for China. The PLA Navy's anti-piracy mission to the Gulf of Aden, now over two years old, is proving highly successful. The 2010 China Defense White Paper noted that by the end of 2010, the PLA Navy (or PLAN)had dispatched 7 sorties with 18 ship deployments, 16 embarked helicopters,and 490 Special Operation Force(SOF)soldiers. Using means including accompanying escort, area patrol,and onboard escort, the PLAN has safeguarded 3,139 ships sailing under both the Chinese and foreign flags, rescued 29 other ships from pirate attacks and recovered 9 ships released from captivity by pirates. The Gulf of Aden anti-piracy mission, in turn, helped improve the Chinese military's readiness to take part in the February/March 2011 operation to evacuate more than 30,000 PRC citizens from strife torn Libya. While the majority of these left via chartered ships and aircraft or overland, the operation marked the first time China has deployed military assets to protect PRC citizens overseas. Beijing deployed Xuzhou, one of its most modern missile frigates, and also sent four IL-76 long-range military transport aircraft to help evacuate PRC citizens trapped near Sabha in central Libya. The PLA Navy led the way on China's first expeditionary mission, the GoA anti-piracy deployment, but the PLA Air Force has also been gaining experience in long-range operations through increasingly challenging military exercises that are helping it improve relevant capabilities such as aerial refueling and long-range strike. In September 2010 the PLAAF deployed SU-27's to the Operation Anatolian Eagle exercise in Turkey and the planes reportedly made refueling stops in Pakistan and Iran, according to Hurriyet news. In addition, during the September 2010 Peace Mission multilateral exercise with Kazakhstan and Russia, Chinese J-10s operating from bases in Xinjiang and supported by aerial refueling conducted a 2,000km strike mission with live ordnance against targets in Kazakhstan, according to reports. |
Chinese crackdown on free speech. |
| One month before Chinese artist Ai Weiwei was detained by authorities in his country, he made a powerful case for free expression in a film shown at the TED2011 conference in Long Beach, California. The 53-year-old artist was shown talking about the limits on freedom of speech in China. At the end of the film, he was shown on a live webcam waving as he acknowledged the cheers and standing ovation from the audience at TED. Ai Weiwei was detained April 3 at the Beijing airport, as he was about to travel to Hong Kong, and authorities later said he was under investigation for suspicion of "economic crimes." A spokesman for the foreign ministry, asked about Ai Weiwei, said, "It has nothing to do with human rights or freedom of expression." In the film, the artist said, "I'm living in a society in which freedom of speech is not allowed" and pointed to the blocking of Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube. He said searches for his name on domestic websites were blocked and that he was constantly under surveillance. FlorCruz: Ai arrest highlights China's crackdown Introducing the film, TED curator Chris Anderson showed some of the artist's works, including the Bird's Nest stadium, which he helped design for the Beijing Olympics, an exhibit at Tate Modern in London of more than 100 million handcrafted porcelain "sunflower seeds" and a series of photos in which his middle finger is extended toward symbols of national pride and power such as the Eiffel Tower and the Forbidden City in Beijing. "In recent years, Ai Weiwei has become increasingly critical of the Chinese government and has faced consequences for that," Anderson said. "He's had exhibitions canceled, he's faced beatings and his beautiful new studio in Shanghai was bulldozed on January 11." Anderson said Ai Weiwei couldn't attend the conference "because of his current circumstances," but had secretly recorded the film. In it, Ai Weiwei said he had been trying to connect his art to social change to encourage people to be more involved in society and "to help China to become a more democratic society." After the devastating earthquake in China's Sichuan province in 2008, he mobilized people through the internet to investigate and document the deaths of students in poorly constructed buildings. He said he was "always trying to remind people that an individual can make an effort and also can make an impact." The artist noted China's great strides in growing its economy and becoming more connected to and recognized by the world community. "Still we are still a communist society," he said. "Basic values such as freedom of speech and human rights are still in poor condition. Many people -- only because (they) speak their mind -- they can be put in jail or can be put in a very difficult situation." Ai Weiwei said Western nations are tolerating a lack of human rights in China. "This is very shortsighted and will not help China to become a modern society." Eventually, he said, change will come. "Nobody can really avoid that." |
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Study Suggests U.S. Loses War With China
US Navy And Its New Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
 |
| courtesy General Dynamics |
US Navy believes that to face the non-conventional and asymetric threats posed by smaller nation or proxies of other nation , it will ned fast ships which are highly maneuverable even near the coast where the heavier ship cannot go. These ships will exploit the advances in network,robotics and modular design. This is supposed to become the back-bone of naval strategy of USA in future. To some extent this has come about after watching the success of "Flex" ships of Denmark. The US Navy’s $30+ billion “Littoral Combat Ship” program was intended to create a new generation of affordable surface combatants that could operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments, while remaining affordable and capable throughout their lifetimes.
The LCS program was announced on November 1, 2001. The LCS is a relatively inexpensive
Navy surface combatant that is to be equipped with modular “plug-and-fight” mission packages,
including unmanned vehicles (UVs). Rather than being a multimission ship like the Navy’s larger
surface combatants, the LCS is to be a focused-mission ship, meaning a ship equipped to perform
one primary mission at any given time. The ship’s mission orientation can be changed by
changing out its mission packages. The basic version of the LCS, without any mission packages,
is referred to as the LCS sea frame.
"1 On November 1, 2001, the Navy announced that it was launching a Future Surface Combatant Program aimed at acquiring a family of next-generation surface combatants. This new family of surface combatants, the Navy stated, would include three new classes of ships: a destroyer called the DD(X)—later redesignated the DDG-1000—for the precision long-range strike and naval gunfire mission; a cruiser called the CG(X) for the air defense and ballistic missile mission, and a smaller combatant called the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to counter submarines, small surface attack craft, and mines in heavily contested littoral (near-shore) areas. For more on the DDG-1000 program, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. For more on the CG(X) program, see CRS Report RL34179, Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. "
The LCS’s primary intended missions are antisubmarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures
(MCM), and surface warfare (SUW) against small boats (including so-called “swarm boats”),
particularly in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters. The LCS program includes the development and
procurement of ASW, MCM, and SUW mission packages for LCS sea frames. The LCS’s
permanently built-in gun gives it some ability to perform the SUW mission even without an SUW
Additional missions for the LCS include peacetime engagement and partnership-building
operations, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations, maritime intercept
operations, operations to support special operations forces, and homeland defense operations. An
LCS might perform these missions at any time, regardless of its installed mission module, although an installed mission module might enhance an LCS’s ability to perform some of these
missions.
The LCS displaces about 3,000 tons, making it about the size of a corvette (i.e., a light frigate) or a Coast Guard cutter. It has a maximum speed of more than 40 knots, compared to something more than 30 knots for the Navy cruisers and destroyers. The LCS has a shallower draft than Navy cruisers and destroyers, permitting it to operate in certain coastal waters and visit certain ports that are not accessible to Navy cruisers and destroyers. The LCS employs automation to achieve a reduced “core” crew of 40 sailors. Up to 35 or so additional sailors are to operate the ship’s embarked aircraft and mission packages, making for a total crew of about 75, compared to more than 200 for the Navy’s frigates and about 300 (or more) for the US Navy’s current cruisers and destroyers.
Planned Procurement Quantities
US Navy plans to field a force of 55 LCS sea frames and 64 LCS mission packages (16 ASW, 24
MCM, and 24 SUW). The Navy’s planned force of 55 LCSs would account for about one-sixth of
the Navy’s planned fleet of more than 300 ships of all types.
US Navy plans call for procuring 19 LCSs in the five-year period FY2012-FY2016, in annual
quantities of 4-4-4-4-3. These 19 ships account for more than one-third of the 55 battle force
ships in the Navy’s FY2012-FY2016 shipbuilding plan. The Navy’s FY2011-FY2040 30-year
shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress in February 2010 in conjunction with the FY2011
budget, shows three LCSs per year for FY2016-FY2019, two per year for FY2020-FY2024, a 1-
2-1-2 pattern for FY2025-FY2033, and two per year for FY2034-FY2040. LCSs scheduled for
procurement in the final years of the 30-year plan would be replacements for LCSs that will have
reached the end of their 25-year expected service lives by that time.
Two LCS Designs
On May 27, 2004, the Navy awarded contracts to two industry teams—one led by Lockheed
Martin, the other by General Dynamics (GD)—to design two versions of the LCS, with options
for each team to build up to two LCSs each. The LCS designs developed by the two teams are
quite different—the Lockheed team’s design is based on a steel semi-planing monohull, while GD
team’s design is based on an aluminum trimaran hull (see Figure 1). The two ships also use
different built-in combat systems (i.e., different collections of built-in sensors, computers,
software, and tactical displays) that were designed by each industry team. The Navy states that
both LCS designs meet the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) for the LCS program.
Estimated Procurement Costs for 55 LCS Sea Frames
The Navy’s FY2012 budget submission estimates the average unit procurement cost of the LCSs
to be procured at a rate of four ships per year in FY2012-FY2015 at about $468 million in then-
year dollars, excluding outfitting and post-delivery costs, and the average unit procurement cost of the three LCSs to be procured in FY2016 at about $512 million in then-year dollars, excluding outfitting and post-delivery costs. The Navy’s FY2012 budget submission estimates the total procurement cost of the final 53 LCSs at about $28 billion in then-year dollars, excluding outfitting and post-delivery costs. Adding the procurement costs of the first two LCSs would result in an estimated total procurement cost for all 55 LCS sea frames of about $29.9 billion in then-year dollars, excluding outfitting and post-delivery costs.
Manning and Deployment Concept
The Navy plans to maintain three LCS crews for each two LCSs, and to keep one of those two
LCSs continuously underway—a plan Navy officials sometimes refer to as “3-2-1.” Under the 3-
2-1 plan, LCSs are to be deployed for 16 months at a time, and crews are to rotate on and off
deployed ships at four-month intervals.8 The 3-2-1 plan will permit the Navy to maintain a greater percentage of the LCS force in deployed status at any given time than would be possible under the traditional approach of maintaining one crew for each LCS and deploying LCSs for six or seven months at a time.
SUW Module:
Griffin Selected as Recommended Replacement for N-LOS. The Navy had planned to use an Army missile program known as the Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) as part of the LCS surface warfare (SUW) mission package. The Navy planned for LCSs equipped with SUW mission packages to be nominally armed with three NLOS missile launchers, each with 15 missiles, for a total of 45 missiles per ship. The missiles could be used to counter swarm boats or other surface threats.
In May 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) approved an Army recommendation to cancel
NLOS-LS Following the cancellation of NLOS-LS, the Navy assessed potential alternative systems for fulfilling the NLOS role in the SUW mission package. On January 11, 2011, the Navy announced that it had selected the Griffin missile as its recommended replacement for NLOS-LS.
The Navy stated that Griffin will be about half as expensive as NLOS-LS, and that it could be
delivered about as soon as NLOS. The Navy stated that an initial version of the Griffin would be
ready by 2014 or 2015, and that a follow-on, longer-ranged version would be ready by 2016 or
2017 One press report quoted an official from Raytheon, the maker of the Griffin, as stating
that the Griffin’s current range is less than 5 kilometers (i.e., less than about 2.7 nautical miles) Another press report stated: “The Griffin’s range has not been officially disclosed, though
Anti Submarine Warfare Module:
Shift to Systems With “In Stride” Capability. The Navy in January 2011 provided information on changes it has decided to make to the systems making up the ASW module. A January 14, 2011, press report stated that the Navy
discovered that while its [originally planned] LCS ASW module was able to do the mission,
the equipment package proved unsatisfactory because the ship would actually have to stop in
the water to deploy the equipment. “The ship could not do it in stride,” says Capt. John
Ailes, Navy mission module program office manager….
As for its ASW defense, the Navy plans to deploy a module that will include three parts: a
variable-depth sonar; a multi-functional towed array; and a lightweight towed array, Ailes
says. The Navy will be testing the ASW module package throughout this and the coming
year, he says, with an eye toward initial operational capability in 2017
Mine Counter Measures Module:
Possible Replacement of RAMICS by Modified ALMDS
A January 13, 2011, press report stated:
The Navy is looking to terminate an underperforming anti-mine system from the LCS mission package being designed for that mission.
Service acquisition officials have become increasingly frustrated with the testing results of
the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMCS), Rear Adm. Frank Pandolfe, head of
the Navy’s surface warfare directorate, said this week.
While testing is still underway on the Northrop Grumman [NOC] system, which is to locate
and destroy mines in shallow waters, the results have fallen short of service expectations, he said during a Jan. 11 speech at the Surface Navy Association’s annual conference in
Arlington, Va.
To remedy the situation, Pandolfe said program officials are looking to modify the Airborne
Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) to carry out the RAMCS mission.
Also manufactured by Northrop Grumman, the ALMDS uses directed energy system mounted on board a MH-60R helicopter to detect mines at the same shallow depth the RAMCS was designed to destroy.
If the modification is successful, Navy decisionmakers plan to axe the RAMCS platform and use the ALMDS variant, Pandolfe said. The surface warfare chief did not go into specifics regarding what kind of development work would be necessary to make such a transition, but he did note the move would also trim costs on the growing costs on the LCS anti-mine package.
However, Pandolfe reiterated that if the Navy opts to go with the ALMDS approach, the mission package itself would be delivered on time. “They will be where they need to be when they need to be there,” he said
2011 Funding Request
The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requested $1,231.0 million in procurement funding for the
two LCSs that the Navy wants to procure in FY2011, and $278 million in FY2011 advance
procurement funding for 11 LCSs that the Navy wanted, under the FY2011 budget submission, to
procure in FY2012-FY2014. (The Navy now wants, under the dual-award strategy, to procure 12
LCSs in FY2012-FY2014.) The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget also requested $9.8 million in
procurement funding to procure LCS module weapons, $83.0 million in procurement funding for
procurement of LCS mission packages, and $226 million in research and development funding
for the LCS program.
2012 Funding Request
Under Navy budget plans, the four LCSs that the Navy wants to procure in FY2012 are to receive $79 million in prior-year advance procurement (AP) funding. Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests $1,802 million in FY2012 procurement funding to complete the four ships’ combined estimated procurement cost of $1,881 million. The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget also requests $79 million procurement funding for procurement of LCS mission packages, and $286.8 million in research and development funding for the LCS program.
Announced Changes in Mission Module Equipment
Potential risks being looked into by American Congress are
- How will the announced changes in the equipment making up the SUW and ASW modules affect the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) dates of these modules?
- How would the replacement of the NLOS-LS missile by the Griffin missile in the SUW module affect the SUW capability of the LCS, particularly in light of the range of the Griffin missile compared to that of the NLOS-LS missile?
- When does the Navy anticipate announcing its decision on whether to keep the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS) in the MCM module or replace it with a modified version of the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS)? If RAMICS were replaced by a modified version of ALMDS, how would that affect the IOC date of the MCM module and the MCM capability of the LCS?
Another potential risk which is being shown up is the poor combat survivability of these light ships.A December 2010 report from DOD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated:
[On LCS-1,] Critical ship control systems essential to support the crew have performed well
in testing; however, several systems required for self-defense and mission package support
have demonstrated early reliability problems….
LCS is not expected to be survivable in terms of maintaining a mission capability in a hostile
combat environment. This assessment is based primarily on a review of the LCS design requirements. The Navy designated LCS a Survivability Level 1 ship; the design of the ship just allows for crew evacuation. Consequently, its design is not required to include survivability features necessary to conduct sustained operations in a combat environment.
The results of early live fire testing using modeling and simulation, while not conclusive,
have raised concerns about the effects weapons will have on the crew and critical equipment.
Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program Additional live fire testing and analysis is needed to fully assess the survivability of the LCS class of ships. Additional information is available in the classified LCS 1 Early Fielding Report
Hull Cracking on LCS-1
Another potential grave risk which was discovered and is under investigation is the problem of Hull Cracking. A March 18, 2011, press report states that LCS-1 developed a crack as long as six inches through its hull during sea trials, prompting a U.S. Navy investigation of the design.
The Navy is analyzing the crack to determine if changes are required for future Lockheed Martin hulls, Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Christopher Johnson said yesterday in an e-mail. This includes reviewing “the design, construction drawings and welding procedures,” he said.
During a heavy-weather ocean trial on the USS Freedom in mid-February, he said, sailors discovered a six-inch horizontal hull crack below the waterline that leaked five gallons an hour. Inside the hull the crack measured three inches. It originated in a weld seam between two steel plates.
The ship returned to its home port in San Diego, avoiding rough seas, after the commanding officer judged the leak rate “manageable,” Johnson said.
Smaller cracks that indicated welding “defects” showed up in the welds of the vessel’s aluminum structure during sea trials last year, Johnson said in his e-mail.
Operation and Support (O&S) Cost
Another potential problem for the LCS program concerns the ship’s operation and support (O&S) cost. At the request of Senator Jeff Sessions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the impact of O&S cost and other types of costs on the total life-cycle costs of the LCS and (for purposes of comparison) four other types of Navy ships. The results of CBO’s analysis were released in the form of an April 28, 2010, letter to Senator Sessions. CBO estimates in the letter that LCS-1 (the Lockheed Martin LCS design) would have an O&S cost, in constant FY2010 dollars, of $41 million to $47 million per year, depending on how often the ship travels at higher speeds and consequently how much fuel the ship uses each year.
A February 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated:
The Navy estimated operating and support costs for LCS seaframes and mission packages in 2009, but the estimates do not fully reflect DOD and GAO best practices for cost estimating and may change due to program uncertainties. GAO’s analysis of the Navy’s 2009 estimates showed that the operating and support costs for seaframes and mission packages could total $84 billion (in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars) through about 2050. However, the Navy did not follow some best practices for developing an estimate such as (1) analyzing the likelihood that the costs could be greater than estimated, (2) fully assessing how the estimate may change as key assumptions change, and (3) requesting an independent estimate and comparing it with the program estimate. The estimates may also be affected by program uncertainties, such as potential changes to force structure that could alter the number of ships and mission packages required. The costs to operate and support a weapon system can total 70 percent of a system’s costs, and the lack of an estimate that fully reflects best practices could limit decision makers’ ability to identify the resources that will be needed over the long term to support the planned investment in LCS force structure. With a decision pending in 2010 on which seaframe to buy for the remainder of the program, decision makers could lack critical information to assess the full costs of the alternatives.
Operational Concepts
People are not really convinced about the operational concept of LCS
The February 2010 GAO report cited above also stated:
The Navy has made progress in developing operational concepts for LCS, but faces risks in implementing its new concepts for personnel, training, and maintenance that are necessitated by the small crew size. Specifically, the Navy faces risks in its ability to identify and assign personnel given the time needed to achieve the extensive training required. GAO’s analysis of a sample of LCS positions showed an average of 484 days of training is required before reporting to a crew, significantly more than for comparable positions on other surface ships. Moreover, the Navy’s maintenance concept relies heavily on distance support, with little maintenance performed on ship. The Navy acknowledges that there are risks in implementing its new concepts and has established groups to address how to implement them. However, these groups have not performed a risk assessment as described in the 2008 National Defense Strategy. The Strategy describes the need to assess and mitigate risks to executing future missions and managing personnel, training, and maintenance. If the Navy cannot implement its concepts as envisioned, it may face operational limitations, have to reengineer its operational concepts, or have to alter the ship design. Many of the concepts will remain unproven until 2013 or later, when the Navy will have committed to building
almost half the class. Having a thorough risk assessment of the new operational concepts would provide decision makers with information to link the effectiveness of these new concepts with decisions on program investment, including the pace of procurement
Nervous USA Bars Chinese Firms from Defense Department Contracts
Under the amendment, passed by voice vote May 25, all entities owned by or affiliated with the Chinese government are prohibited from providing defense articles to the United States and the U.S. secretary of defense must report to Congress 15 days before any planned waiver of the ban.
"With China making significant progress in the defense and aerospace industries it is critical that we ensure U.S. national security is protected and that the highly skilled jobs and associated technologies in these industries are not outsourced overseas," Rep. Rosa DeLauro said in a statement.
The Connecticut Democrat said the measure "will help guard American interests, not only for our national security, but also the innovation, job creation and long-term economic growth in Connecticut and across the country that will allow the United States to remain competitive globally."
Chinese state-controlled firm China Aviation Industry Corp, or AVIC, is said to be weighing a bid for the contract to produce the next U.S. presidential helicopter, prompting concerns in Washington about the possibility that Beijing may obtain U.S. military secrets.
DeLauro's measure, also sponsored by Republican Rep. Frank Wolf, is among dozens of amendments to the fiscal 2012 National Defense Authorization Act - the Pentagon's budget bill - currently being debated in the House.
It allows the secretary of defense to issue a waiver on the procurement limitations "if the good or service is critical to the needs of the Department of Defense and is otherwise unavailable to the Department of Defense" and indicating its reasoning in a report to Congress.
Companies affected by the amendment include any commercial firm "owned or controlled by, directed by or from, operating with delegated authority from, or affiliated with, the People's Liberation Army or the government of the People's Republic of China or that is owned or controlled by an entity affiliated with the defense industrial base of the People's Republic of China."
"Over the last several years, so-called 'commercial' Chinese companies have sought to compete for DoD contracts. In fact, these Chinese 'companies' are very much arms of Beijing and the People's Liberation Army," said Wolf.
"That is why we believe Congress must act quickly to make clear that it will not support any contract that involves a Chinese state-controlled company for the highly sensitive presidential helicopter program or any other defense system."
US Armies Experimental Squadron Of UAVs With Choppers
"Unmanned aircraft have endurance and range, whereas manned aircraft have the ability to react to contacts and have better situational awareness," said Ellis Golson, director of the Army Aviation Center of Excellence's Capability Development and Integration Directorate. "We know it will work. It's just a matter of how well it will work and how we can make it even better."
The US Army has been experimenting with manned-unmanned teaming as far back as 2002 under the now-canceled RAH-66 Comanche scout helicopter program. But technological advances and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thrown the effort into fast forward.
The concept of operations for the new hybrid squadron has been developed from feedback from deployed aviation soldiers flying Kiowas and Shadows in Iraq and Afghanistan, Golson said. To boost input from the conflict zones, the Army uses a "Wikipedia-like" collaboration site where deployed soldiers contribute ideas to keep the doctrine up to date, he said.
Now the Army is working to institutionalize the lessons of the wars, where the persistent ground surveillance provided by unmanned aircraft teamed with the Kiowa Warrior has proven instrumental, said Col. Jessie Farrington, assistant G-3 for operations and aviation at Army Forces Command.
RETROFITTING THE OH-58D
Key to the effort is equipping the Kiowas with the gear to stream live video from the Shadow UAV to the helicopter's cockpit, which the Army has already begun. The new suite is similar to the video from Unmanned Aerial Systems for Interoperability Teaming Level 2 found on the Block II version of the AH-64D Apache.
"Our system is that on steroids, but a lot lighter," said Lt. Col. Scott Rauer, the Army's product manager for the Kiowa Warrior armed reconnaissance helicopter.
The Tactical Common Datalink will enable the Kiowa to share information with ground commanders and other aircraft, but it won't allow pilots to control the Shadows.
The program office, which had previously demonstrated Level 2 manned-unmanned teaming in July 2009 as part of an experiment, rapidly modified its prototype equipment to production standards to meet the urgent demand from deployed commanders, he said.
"That system was actually developed by the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate at Fort Eustis, Va.," said Rauer, who credited the talent at the office with developing a "fantastic system."
A more advanced Level 4 manned-unmanned teaming system, which would allow the Kiowa to take full control of the Shadow instead of just receiving and transmitting video data, is unlikely to be fitted to the OH-58D, Golson said. The helicopter lacks the "space, weight and power" needed to support such equipment.
However, if a pending analysis of alternatives concludes the Army requires a new helicopter, the aircraft may be fitted with Level 4 teaming abilities if it has enough power, he said.
For now, the Army is focused on creating the first prototype hybrid air cavalry squadron, Golson said. Once the unit is selected, trained and reorganized for its new role, the squadron will deploy to Afghanistan in fiscal 2012, which begins Oct. 1, 2011. The forthcoming operational deployment will highlight "what works and what doesn't," he said.
Subsequently, the Army will adjust the organization of the squadron based on the "lessons learned" before converting further units to the new arrangement. "We have looked at this extensively. In every case, it seems to make sense. So ... we think we're getting more bang for the buck," Golson said.
If that is realized, Farrington said, the Army plans to convert three units per year to the new configuration until the entire force is standardized. Golson said it would take about five years to reconfigure all units.
The UAVs allow the air cavalry squadron to maintain continuous coverage of the enemy, which is not possible with a force composed solely of Kiowa Warriors, Golson said. OH-58Ds have to perform a complex handoff maneuver when a relief helicopter comes on station, Farrington said. Adding Shadows would allow a cavalry squadron to maintain unbroken coverage during such handoffs.
The US Army does not plan to arm the Shadows."In the operating concept, reconnaissance is at a premium. We don't want to trade endurance for weapons," Golson said.The Shadow's six-hour endurance, three times greater than the Kiowa, is a key advantage.
Still, Golson said, the Shadow carries a laser designator and data links that would allow it to pass targeting information to armed aircraft such as the Kiowa Warrior, the AH-64D Apache or even a Sky Warrior unmanned aircraft, which would make the actual kill."So in reality, it is armed," Golson said.
SHAPING THE FUTURE
The squadron's experience may shape the future of the service's air cavalry units.
The Army's Training and Doctrine Command is working on an Armed Aerial Scout Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) to help determine what UAV to buy and whether to upgrade the Kiowa or replace it with a new or existing aircraft. The AoA's second part, is looking at the mix of manned and unmanned aircraft.
It is possible the Army would end up with two parallel air cavalry inventories if the AOA concludes the service requires a new helicopter and a new unmanned aircraft, Golson said.Nonetheless, the Army will retain the venerable Kiowa Warrior for at least the next 15 years, Rauer said.
Both Golson and Farrington, however, said the Army would try to minimize buying any extra Shadows by carefully managing the existing inventory between deployed forces and those at their home stations. The Army does not provide numbers on how many Shadows are deployed overseas."It's all on the table. We're anxious to see where we go from here," Rauer said.
RQ-7 Shadow Key Data:
Manufacturer
AAI Corporation
Primary Operator
US Army
Dimensions:
Wingspan
4.27m
Length
3.4m
Height
0.86m
Weights:
Empty Weight
90kg
Maximum Payload
25.3kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight
127.3kg
Maximum Gross Weight
170kg
Engines:
Type
1 x UEL AR 741 rotary engine
Rating
28.3kW
Fuel Capacity
RQ-7A – 40l<br />RQ-7B – 57l
Performance:
Speed
194.5km/h (105kt)
Flight Ceiling
4,572m (15,000ft)
Endurance
5 to 7 hours
Mission Radius
200km
Climb Rate
300m to 450m a minute
Take-Off Distance (Launcher)
10m
Maximum Dash Speed
219km/h (118kt)
Cruise Speed
167km/h (90kt)
Loiter Speed
111km/h (60kt)
Datalinks:
Datalink Bands
X band, C band, UHF
Standard Datalink Range
50km
Optional Datalink Range
U.S. Arms Makers Bleeding Secrets To Cyber Foes
Top Pentagon contractors have been bleeding secrets for years as a result of penetrations of their computer networks, current and former national security officials say.
The Defense Department, which runs its own worldwide eavesdropping, spying and code-cracking systems, says more than 100 foreign intelligence organizations have been trying to break into U.S. networks.
Some of the perpetrators "already have the capacity to disrupt" U.S. information infrastructure, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, who is leading remedial efforts, wrote last fall in the journal Foreign Affairs.
Joel Brenner, the National Counterintelligence executive from 2006 to 2009, said most if not all of the big defense contractors' networks had been pierced.
"This has been happening since the late '90s," he told Reuters Tuesday. He identified the main threats as coming from Russia, China and Iran.
"They're after our weapons systems and R&D," or research and development, said Brenner, now with the law firm of Cooley LLP in Washington.
Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, said on Saturday that it had thwarted "a significant and tenacious" attack on its information systems network that it detected May 21. Ten days later, the company says its still working to restore full employee access to the network while maintaining the highest level of security.
Lockheed, which is also the government's top information technology provider, said it had become "a frequent target of adversaries from around the world." A spokeswoman said it said it used the term "adversaries" only in a general sense.
Lockheed builds F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets as well as Aegis naval combat system, THAAD missile defense and other big-ticket weapons systems sold to U.S. allies. It has not disclosed which of its business units was targeted.
Cyber intruders were reported in 2009 to have broken into computers holding data on Lockheed's projected $380 billion-plus F-35 fighter program, the Pentagon's costliest arms purchase.
Other big Pentagon contractors include Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, General Dynamics Corp, BAE Systems Plc and Raytheon Co. Each of these declined to comment on whether it believed its networks had been penetrated.
James Miller, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said last May that the United States was losing terabytes of data in cyber attacks, enough to fill "multiple Libraries of Congress." The world's largest library, its archive totaled about 235 terabytes of data as of April, the Library of Congress says on its web site.
"The scale of compromise, including the loss of sensitive and unclassified data, is staggering," Miller told a Washington forum.
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who led a Senate Intelligence Committee cyber task force last year, said in March that cybercrime has put the United States "on the losing end of what could be the largest illicit transfer of wealth in world history."
Retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, a former director of central intelligence and ex-head of the Pentagon's National Security Agency, said no network was safe if it had Internet access.
"You can isolate a network, a classified network," he told Reuters in an interview last year. "Maybe you can get a certain level of confidence that you are not penetrated. But if you are out there connected to the world wide web you are vulnerable all the time."
Anup Ghosh, a former senior scientist at the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, said there had been a string of intrusions into networks of U.S. defense contractors, security companies and U.S. government labs, including the U.S. Energy Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, since the start of this year.
The advantage is with the intruders, said Ghosh, who worked on securing military networks for DARPA from 2002 to 2006 and now heads Invincea, a software security company.
"We've failed to innovate in the area of information security," he said in an email Tuesday. "We're fighting today's battles with the equivalent of cold-war era defenses."
U.S. Military Chief 'Open' To New Ideas On Japan Base
"I think we need to be as open as we possibly can to solutions now," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a breakfast with reporters.
Sens. Carl Levin, John McCain and Jim Webb last month called for the United States to rethink base realignment plans in East Asia due to political opposition in Japan and cost overruns in both Japan and South Korea.
Japanese and U.S. officials earlier dismissed the proposal, saying that the plan worked out in 2006 was the best approach and would reduce troop numbers on Okinawa Island, where tensions with local residents have been frequent.
Mullen, whose term ends in September, did not comment specifically on the senators' proposal but said that the United States needed to be mindful both of costs and the political situation in Japan.
"This thing's been discussed for 15 years. There have been 20 different kinds of solutions that I've seen - all of them are difficult. So I think we have to be realistic here," Mullen said.
Any solution needs to preserve "the kind of influence and stability that our presence in that part of the world has done for 60-plus years, and at the same time recognize limitations and that there are needs on both sides."
The senators said that Japan needed to focus on reconstruction from its massive March 11 earthquake and not be distracted by the base dispute, which contributed to the resignation of a prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, last year.
Under the 2006 plan, the United States would move the flash point Futenma base out of a crowded urban area and to an isolated stretch of beach elsewhere on Okinawa.
Some Okinawan activists have demanded that the base be removed from the island completely. The senators said Futenma was needed for security but that its functions could largely be shifted to Okinawa's existing Kadena Air Base.
The United States stations 47,000 troops in Japan under a post-World War II security treaty, with half in Okinawa. The 2006 plan aims to shift 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam in 2014.
Latest USA Russia Nuclear Arsenal Data Released
Both countries are required to report key figures from their nuclear weapons arsenals as part of the landmark new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) adopted by Moscow and Washington on February 5.
The United States has 882 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers, compared with 521 for Russia, according to the State Department, which published the new START aggregate numbers.
The United States also has 1,800 deployed warheads and 1,124 launchers, as well as deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, compared with Russia's 1,537 deployed warheads and 865 launchers and heavy bombers, according to the figures.
The figures are current as of February 5, 2011, "as drawn from the initial exchange of data by the parties" that was required within 45 days of the treaty coming into force.
The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and heavy bombers, meaning the United States would still need to reduce its arsenal under the terms of the treaty.
The first nuclear pact in two decades has been feted as vital to global security because it reduces old warhead ceilings by 30 percent from a limit set in 2002, and establishes a streamlined new inspection procedure designed to eliminate cheating.
In October 2009, two months before the end of the original START treaty, the State Department issued strategic offensive arms figures that showed the United States possessed 5,916 "attributed" warheads, compared to Russia's 3,897.
A person familiar with START described it as a "totally different counting system" than the new START, which uses a more accurate counting in listing 1,800 actually deployed US warheads on ICBMs, SLBMs or heavy bombers.
A more realistic comparison, the person told AFP, would be with the approximately 2,150 operationally deployed strategic US nuclear warheads listed as of last December.
In May 2010, after extensive debate within President Barack Obama's administration, the Pentagon revealed the extent of its nuclear arsenal for the first time.
It said the US stockpile of nuclear weapons consisted of 5,113 warheads, including active warheads ready for deployment at short notice, as well as "inactive" warheads maintained at a depot in a non-operational status.
The new START accord limits still allow for enough weaponry to blow up the world many times over.Obama has described the treaty as a modest step toward "a world without nuclear weapons," but stressed he knew the goal would not be reached quickly and would take "patience and persistence."
General David Petraeus Planning A Retreat From Afghanistan
This news has been discussed quite often but more like conjunctures, rumors. Finally it is out in the open that General David Petraeus is giving the final shape to the retreat of Americans troops.(Do I see another Vietnam). Even though Taliban and AL-Qaeda remain undefeated in this region. The exact nature of this retreat is not clear to anybody because it is being guarded zealously by the General himself.
When asked about it he jokingly said that there is only one officer working on this project and you are looking at him.(Wry humor). The press was agog with news that around 5,000 to 10,000 troops will be removed in the first phase. This was dismissed by the General as rubbish because he said that he is the only person with the plans so how come the press knows about it.
It is expected that these plans will be presented to the President this June before he becomes the Director of CIA.So deep is the insecurity that Generals own staff have been kept out of it and some of them have been fed with false information to keep everybody confused. General believes this the best way to plug any leak which might give Taliban time to prepare and attack the retreating forces.
The General is a classic case of once bitten twice shy adage. This happened to his report of a troop surge in 2009. His report was meant for the President only got leaked to the press leading to a PR disaster and giving the enemy time to reposition assets and chalk out new strategies. The speculations became so much that President was forced to add that these new troops will start withdrawing within 2 years.
"What a commander in my position should do is to provide the chain of command and president with options to implement the policy … at a pace determined by conditions on the ground," said Petraeus, who led CENTCOM during deliberations over the troop surge
U.S. Military To Maintain A "robust" Presence Across Asia
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Saturday vowed the U.S. military would maintain a "robust" presence across Asia backed up with new high-tech weaponry to protect allies and safeguard shipping lanes.
It was quite evident that Mr Gates was going out of the way to assuage any concerns that American allies might have about the shifting power structure in favor of China. He made it amply clear that irrespective of what happens in Afghanistan USA will not abandon it allies in this region.
Secretary Gates who relinquishes office this month stated that America will maintain its presence not only in North-East Asia but in South-East too. They will increase the number of port calls as well as military exercises, sharing of intelligence and training programs to keep this part of the world safe.
Citing investments in new radar-evading aircraft, surveillance drones, warships and space and cyber weapons, Gates said the United Sates is "putting our money where our mouth is with respect to this part of the world - and will continue to do so." The planned weapons programs represented "capabilities most relevant to preserving the security, sovereignty, and freedom of our allies and partners in the region," he said. The programs also include maintaining America's nuclear "deterrence" amid continuing concern over North Korea's atomic weapons.
Siting an example he said US Navy has already deployed its new LCS ships in the Indian Ocean which clearly shows the intent of the US Navy. Though Mr. Gates tried his best to bring out the importance of maintaining shipping and trading routes for USA and thus the need for USA to take care of its allies in this region still the fact of the matter is China is rising rapidly. Some commentators are quite smug and say China is far behind US in technology. That might be true but if a war or conflict comes, imagine China fighting in Asia with all the bases it has got in mainland China and US fighting with one base in Japan and another in South Korea. Japanese base will be the first one to be attacked by the Chinese and the South Korean base is too far off to be of any real use.
In such a scenario the technological gap or dis-advantage will be nullified. Plus Chinese army is not a dads army is it? It is one of the stronger forces that USA will come across. Remember what they did to the US armies 50 years back in Korea. Therefore Secretary Gates cannot escape the fact that the advantage he talks about is now very small and with every passing year it is getting even smaller.
Secretary Gates clearly stated that after he took over he made it a point to renew ties with old allies like Japan and South Korea while making new ones with Vietnam and India. Still he did not touch upon the fact that this new alliance he talks about is fragile to say the least with sharp differences and regional problems. India will never trust USA as long as it keeps supplying weapons to the Pakistanis their old rivals. Russia has already shown its intense displeasure by insulting Indian Navy because it sees India tilting toward America. India cannot afford that either.
So the problems remain plenty and Secretary Gates is leaving the ship when it looks like the tides have turned against USA in Asia. Beware India you might find yourself alone when faced with the Chinese in battle.
U.S. Navy: Cost of Ohio Class Subs Down $1 Billion
The Navy has been able to reduce the expected cost of its Ohio Class submarine replacement by more than $1 billion with an overall goal of trimming more than $2 billion per vessel, according to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer.
Pentagon officials have generated the extra cost savings by examining the drivers of cost in the vessel's design, according to Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter.
Originally, cost estimators projected the SSBN(X) price tag at about $7 billion per submarine. The submarine's cost is now down to $6 billion with a goal of getting the cost down to $4.9, Carter said during a Feb. 22 presentation at a Center for New American Security event in Washington.
If the Navy were forced to pay $7 billion per submarine, it would not be able to afford any other ships, Carter said.
This same approach of looking at the drivers of cost in a weapon's design will be used during upcoming acquisitions, including the Air Force's new bomber, a Marine Corps effort to field a new helicopter for presidential transport and the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle, Carter said.
Pentagon officials have generated the extra cost savings by examining the drivers of cost in the vessel's design, according to Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter.
Originally, cost estimators projected the SSBN(X) price tag at about $7 billion per submarine. The submarine's cost is now down to $6 billion with a goal of getting the cost down to $4.9, Carter said during a Feb. 22 presentation at a Center for New American Security event in Washington.
If the Navy were forced to pay $7 billion per submarine, it would not be able to afford any other ships, Carter said.
This same approach of looking at the drivers of cost in a weapon's design will be used during upcoming acquisitions, including the Air Force's new bomber, a Marine Corps effort to field a new helicopter for presidential transport and the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle, Carter said.
Air traffic advisers aim high for Iraq’s future
"Our goal is to certify and license 24 controllers to conduct tower operations at five locations by the time we leave," Captain Trujillo said.
The ATC training program, which first started in 2006, mirrors the U.S. Air Force ATC training program developed by Air Education and Training Command officials at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. The Iraqi air force program currently has 55 officers in the training pipeline at Kirkuk, Ali and Taji airfields in Iraq. Of those officers, 15 have been certified and six have been licensed by the Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority -- the equivalent to the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S.
"The licensing of military controllers is the first ever in the country," said Major Kuehne, who recently returned from a site visit to Kirkuk and Ali airfields Feb. 11. "Under Saddam (Hussein), civilian air traffic controllers were the only licensed controllers, but now we're trying to get everyone on the same level so they all know and follow the same rules."
On the front lines of the training effort are four veteran U.S. Air Force air traffic controllers who serve as training program managers, as well as advisers to local Iraqi air force leaders at the three airfields.
The senior ATC advisers also expanded the pool of contracted instructors who provided English tutoring as well as on-the-job training throughout the program.
"We more than doubled the number of contractors, from six to 15, since last October," Major Kuehne said.
For trainees, the journey to become an air traffic control officer starts at the Defense Language Institutes at Taji or Tikrit, Iraq, where they study basic English for up to a year, depending on personal learning curves. The trainees advance to aviation English, which is the international aviation language, after scoring higher than a 60 on their basic English aptitude test.
After more than 150 hours of aviation English instruction, Iraqis move on to the nine-week long, 180-hour air traffic control fundamentals class, where they learn about principles of flight, airfield markings, basic meteorology and air traffic communication skills.
The Iraqi trainees then put their skills to the test with simulated airfield operations during a five-week-long, 120-hour aerodrome course. The students at Kirkuk took it upon themselves to build a model airfield to add a third dimension of realism while learning about departure clearances, aircraft separation distances and more in-depth air traffic control instructions during aerodrome training.
Trainees then take an English proficiency test before starting on-the-job training inside the tower. After another 90 hours or more of OJT, trainees take their certification exam and prepare to get their license through the ICAA.
The training process is by no means easy, officials said, especially considering language differences and cultural considerations, as well as personal security risks and the occasional mortar attack on an airfield.
"The trainee's duty schedule and learning English are the most significant challenges we face," said Tech. Sgt. David Lusher, an ATC adviser at Ali Air Base.
Sergeant Lusher explained that the Iraqi air force work schedule revolves around "mu-jas," or paid leave, which typically ranges from one to two weeks depending on the local Iraqi air force commander's policy. Sergeant Lusher and other advisers said the long break between technical training prolongs the learning curve for most students, and in limited cases, impacts their career progression.
"Just like in the ATC program in the United States, this job is not for everyone," Major Kuehne said. "There are people out here who are motivated to do the job, and there are some who are not. The ones who make it through can be proud because they did a lot of work and they did it by themselves."
Around bases like Kirkuk, ATC students are held in high regard by the Iraqi pilots who are learning to fly various fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft.
"With the success we've had here, Iraqi pilots like to hear our Iraqi students in the tower," said Master Sgt. Jenny Tibi, who serves as the ATC adviser for more than a dozen students at Kirkuk.
Master Sgt. Jerry McBride Jr., an ATC adviser at one of the program's busiest towers, Taji Airfield, said his students get plenty of training with a monthly average of 25,000 operations that includes arrivals, departures, over flights and training flights.
He said his Iraqi air force students also get a sample of joint operations working with U.S. Army Soldiers and Iraqi army aviation command officials.
At Ali Air Base, Airmen and contractors, along with Iraqi air traffic controllers, handle 2,500 operations, 400 cargo tons and 2,500 passengers per month on a single runway. Base officials also recently reopened the base's second runway after a $5 million reconstruction project to fix cracks and spalls, or divots created from mortar and rocket attacks.
"The operations here run very smooth because of the teamwork between ITAM-Air (officials), contractors and the Iraqi air force trainees," said Master Sgt. Bryan Herrington, Ali AB's chief air traffic controller. "As a collective team, we all strive for the same goal of ensuring Iraqi sovereignty while providing quality air traffic control services to our customers."
3rd ACR, Iraqi Army practice basic combat
With guidance from the Soldiers of Battery L, "Lion," 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, local IA soldiers are currently conducting basic squad level drills on Contingency Operating Base Delta, Iraq, to hone their ability to operate in small groups.
"These guys really enjoy getting out here and training like this," said 1st Lt. Jason Yankee, officer in charge of the training.
Lion Battery Soldiers and their Iraqi counterparts spent a recent day covering basic movement techniques. This involved moving in a file, spreading out in a wedge formation, and stacking in a close-quarters security formation.
The IA soldiers split into three separate groups, each with two or three Lion Soldiers, and worked their way through the drills, repeating the processes several times.
"I like training with these guys and trying to get them proficient," said Spc. Matthew Christopher, a small group trainer with Battery L. "There are some obstacles with our language barrier, but the interpreters make sure it doesn't effect the training too much."
Between iterations, both Iraqi and American Soldiers took breaks together, drinking water, smoking cigarettes, and sharing some laughs too.
During each phase of the training, a Lion Soldier would take the lead, and his group would slowly go through the motions. After one dry run, an Iraqi Soldier would take over as squad leader and run through the exercise a few more times. This process was repeated throughout the day until all felt confident in a particular drill.
Soldiers finished their training with bounding forward and falling back from an objective, swiftly running from one point to another and diving deliberately into the gravel, just as they would during actual combat.
After observing the days work, Yankee said he believes the IA Soldiers will now have valuable techniques and skills to share with their peers, strengthening the army's role as a successful security force for Iraq.
USAF Officials Launch Digital Airport Surveillance Radar
This modern, digital radar replaces traditional airport-surveillance radar used by air traffic controllers, eliminates ground distractions and displays multiple levels of precipitation.
The new system also helps address maintenance and parts challenges, while increasing Ellsworth AFB capabilities to control more airspace in Rapid City and other locations in South Dakota, said Chief Master Sgt. Brian Lavoie, the 28th Operations Support Squadron radar approach control facilities chief controller.
"This is the first Air Force DASR to be located outside of the military installation," Chief Lavoie said. "This location provides us with line of sight to the runways at both airports and provides us with a clearer digital presentation which reduces our maintenance team's workload on a daily basis."
The system does this by automatically transmitting digital radar to the standard terminal automation replacement system. This process eliminates the electronic conversion that was necessary when using traditional airport surveillance radar signals, and decreases the amount of time used to convert an electronic signal into a digital signal.
Along with these advantages, the new system allows Ellsworth AFB air traffic controllers to work more efficiently with Rapid City Regional Airport.
"The old radar wouldn't be able to see aircraft landing at Rapid City Regional Airport," said Airman 1st Class Ryan Anger, a 28th OSS air traffic controller. "The DASR provides a larger range of scope and can actually see airplanes landing at Rapid City Regional and picks-up echoes from aircraft farther away."
This two year project involved members from 28th OSS, 28th Communications Squadron, 28th Civil Engineer Squadron and contractors.
"The implementation of the DASR is landmark for us as controllers," Chief Lavoie said. "We have lived with 1960s technology until today and our controller force now has state-of-the-art equipment to provide the safest air traffic control service possible to our military and civilian flying communities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)