Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
Sir,
We usually find a nugget or two of info per post but do you have a habbit of producing gold mines of info with every post?
Dear Fellow Engineer:
Just sharing the nuggets gleaned from 25 years of service. Much of it as a main propulsion engineer, but also a Tactical Action Officer in both frigates and a cruiser, and command of a frigate.
My career took a real deviation off the course I was on after I graduated from the Naval War College. The degree one earns is a Masters in National Security and Strategic Studies. I was immediately posted to the Joint Staff at the Pentagon. I became decidedly "purple" in my outlook as I discovered the Navy did not have the corner on the market of good ideas. The stuff I learned in three years working with Army, Air Force and Marine Corps brothers and sisters was mind boggling. I also became involved with our "friends" at NSA (I don't look upon them as friends anymore. Now that I find they have gone beyond the scope of Echelon, I find what they are doing as truly frightening). One of my functions in life, because I am also technically a linguist (Spanish and Portuguese), was to procure military linguists for the NSA and also the FBI on short notice if they came calling . . . which the FBI did just prior to Y2K. I found 25 of the requested language, I cannot tell you which one or why, because that is classified in a TS/SCI program for which I was not "read in." I had a TS/SCI but the SCI stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information," and when you get to that level, there are programs, units, and functions that have code names affixed to them that effectively limit access to them on a "need to know" basis. I'll use a mythical example: TS/SCI "Majestic 12." I just had to find them, not tell them what they would be doing so no "need to know."
There were plenty of programs and operations I was read into because as a strategic planner I had to brief my flag and general officers (my boss was an Air Force LtGen who headed up J-8, and there was another Air Force BrigGen and Colonel in the operations section of the J-1 between me and him) on them. I also reported tangentially to the J-3, a Navy VADM. In any event, I found the required 25 linguists and they were sent, in mufti, TAD (or as the British say, "seconded") to the FBI.
You know, one of the interesting things about the linguist game that I learned when doing it, is that unlike the Navy, which defines linguists as members of the Cryptological Technition (CT) rating, the other services have a much broader view of things. There are of course people like me who are on record as being proficient in a particular foreign language, but we rarely use them unless it comes in handy when visiting a foreign country, or like when I was training the Brazilian Navy in San Diego to take over some Garcia-class frigates in late-'87. They had guys who spoke English, but between us, we produced a much better product; Brazilian sailors who really knew the plant because once I learned terms they used for various pieces of equipment, I could teach in Portuguese. That avoided a lot of confusion. Likewise, I did the same thing when we gave some Knox-class frigates to the Mexican Navy. I was a full Commander then, and the Director of Engineering Training at SWOSCOLCOM in Newport, RI. The Mexican Navy sent 30 men, including a Commodore to Newport for school house training before the US FMS folks rounded up some retired US CPOs or whatever to go down to Mexico to do some deck plate instruction.
Again, they brought a couple of guys to act as interpreters. I got every guy in my Directorship, four Americans, three CPOs and a LCDR of Mexican and Puerto Rican descent who spoke fluently, and a Naval Academy graduate who was trained at the Boat School to speak like a Castilian, which the Mexican personnel thought was quite humorous (they questioned his manhood! LOL!!) together, and had them standing by when the Mexican flag officer was brought down to my conference room. He addressed me and made a statement of introduction and the requirements for their training in Spanish, and his Lieutenant started to translate. I held up my hand politely with a ¡Con su permiso, señor! and with that, commenced responding in Spanish. You should have seen the smile on his face. It lit up the room. I told him that the five people I introduce him to, plus myself (I usually only taught prospective XOs and COs) would do all the instruction in Spanish with the assistance of their interpreters if necessary. Plus, their interpreters could translate all of our slides and handouts if they cared to. I wasn't going to waste my guy's time doing that. They still had plenty of American officers to teach.
Anyway, the point is that in the Navy, people like me aren't listed as "linguists." In all of the other services, we would have been, even if we had only been Mark One, Mod Zero riflemen. If you speak a foreign language, you go into a DoD database managed by some folks out in Monterrey, CA. All I had to do was enter that database with the language I needed, and it would spit out any and everyone who spoke it. I then would message their respective service personnel branches to tell them to have Private Bafumatta standing tall at FBI headquarters or whatever, no questions asked. I imagine it kind of sucked being on the receiving end. On the other hand, they got close to some interesting things as well. The Y2K operation being one really good example. Unfortunately, I don't know much, but what I do know, I can't share, so we'll leave it at that.
Sorry, got off on a tangent there. One of the problems when I start talking. Regardless, one culls together a lot of nuggets in a quarter-century of military service, not to mention having more or less "grown up" in the Navy in San Diego. When I don't know anything, you aren't likely to hear from me, but if I have something to offer, whether from actual experience, or from my War College education, I will provide. By the way, I don't know if I mentioned what I was doing those three years on the Joint Staff. To put it simply, it was counter-terrorism, and yes, I was there on September 11, 2001. I was in the process of transferring, and my next assignment for the Navy was also in the realm of counter-terrorism, and that, I cannot share at all. Like I said, my career took a detour that was quite unplanned by me, but turned out to be quite fulfilling in many respects. The course I have taught at a civilian university these past 12 years is called Terrorism and Extremist Activity. It keeps me up to speed, keeping it up to date. :)
U.S. Navy May Revisit Speed Requirements For LCS
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
6/14/2013
As the weight of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) continues to be a major concern, top program officials are considering throttling back on the top speed requirements that have driven LCS development thus far, a recent draft U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report says.
Rethinking the speed of LCS could involve a major propulsion plant redesign. Eliminating key engines that now provide the ships’ top speed would add payload space but make the ship ultimately slower, GAO says.
However, Navy officials say, speed remains a key requirement and any potential reductions will not be considered until more operational data are acquired.The speed requirement — a 40-kt. threshold and 50-kt. objective — is one of the LCS key performance parameters (KPPs). LCSs are meant to race ahead of the fleet to clear waters of mines, submarines and other threats, mostly using unmanned systems.
LCS vessels employ the most complex non-nuclear engine design in the Navy’s surface fleet, a combined diesel and gas turbine (codag) design that has seen its fair share of developmental and operational hiccups.
As previously reported by the Aviation Week Intelligence Network, defense analysts and sources intimately aware of LCS design and operations have been wary of any weight added to the ships by crew increases, new equipment and upgrades, because it would likely restrict the ships’ top potential speed.
An LCS “Cardinal Rule,” according to Navy briefing documents, is this: “Do NOT add weight. For anything added, something must be removed.”
But, GAO now says, “Seaframe weight remains a top technical risk for the program.”
And the Navy also continues to have technical problems with its propulsion plant. LCS-1 , the USS Freedom , now on its first deployment to Singapore, has experienced power outages and cooler-system leaks.Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, suggests some modifications may be needed to better pinpoint problems and potential solutions.
“It’s very integrated,” Greenert said of the codag setup during a May 14 media briefing aboard the Freedom at Singapore’s Changi Naval Base. “We need to look at that. I don’t know if we can change that much, but when you get so integrated, when something fails, everything has to kind of stop.”
Greenert says the Navy needs to figure out how to isolate problems in such a system. “What can we do to decouple and, as appropriate, repair more quickly? We have to look at that.”
But the special LCS Council of high-powered admirals overseeing the program apparently has more in mind.
“A senior LCS council official stated that the Navy is considering a potential reduction in the speed requirement for some seaframes,” GAO says. “While this could require significant changes to the seaframe designs and therefore increase the program ’s acquisition cost, it might allow removing the gas turbines needed for high speeds, and thus could increase range and available payload space.”
Navy officials say GAO’s suggestion of removing the gas turbines may not be practical, given their commitment to a ship with high sustained and sprint speeds. The Lockheed Martin-built Freedom-class ships are capable of only going about 14 kt. on their diesel engines, Navy documents show.
GAO also says, “The chair of the LCS Council told us LCS performance requirements might change, with potential areas including reduction in required top speeds and increases in lethality.”
The proposed LCS fleet has come under fire lately for being too lightly armed, and questions have arisen of the ships’ survivability. Officials say any changes to the speed requirement could allow for added survivability and mission potential, while still preserving the ship’s ability to operate at speeds above the current frigate force.
Navy officials say GAO overstates the significance of design changes to follow-on ships, saying the issues and corrective efforts being considered are consistent with all lead ships of any new class of surface combatants.
.
GAO Cites Benefits Of Single LCS Type
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
6/19/2013
While the U.S. Navy trumpets the money-saving benefits of the multiyear block-buy deals the service made with the contractor teams that are building the two different versions of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a recent draft U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlights potential savings of downselecting to only one LCS class.
Navy officials have not ruled out eventually going down to only one LCS version. But they are more focused now on developing more common components and systems for the two different LCS classes, which the GAO also recommends for the current two-LCS-type fleet.
One LCS team is led by Lockheed Martin and the other by Austal USA and General Dynamics.
The Lockheed team builds a steel monohull ship with an aluminum superstructure.
The Austal USA team builds an aluminum trimaran hull and superstructure.
Defense analysts — and even many within Navy circles — have been recommending that the service stick to a single version for logistics, life cycles and overall cost reasons, although Navy program officials say there should be enough of each class to support a logistics train for both. The service plan is to roughly split the proposed fleet of 52 vessels between the two LCS types.
“The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office stated in its 2011 independent cost estimate of LCS seaframes that if the Navy downselected to one variant and sold or decommissioned the variant that was not selected, it could have saved about $2.2 billion in operations and support costs,” GAO reports.
Given the current two-class acquisition plan, though, the emphasis is on developing common components and systems.
“A lack of commonality may also hinder effective and efficient maintenance, training, manning, and logistics,” GAO reports.
“One of the Navy’s high-priority changes is to select a common combat management system for both seaframes, since the different systems limit the ease with which sailors can operate each variant,” GAO says. “The combat management system is an architecture that uses computers to integrate sensors (such as a radar) with shipboard weapon systems.”
Navy inspectors “identified 36 major systems out of 52 that should be made common between the two variants and the Navy is currently evaluating the business case for each of these changes,” GAO says.
Looks like the ships are going to get a new missile to counter speed boats:
That ad is about as insightful as Raytheon's latest "Naval Mission Defense Solutions" brochure. As in, both don't say anything hard about what they're trying to sell. Just - more or less - pretty pictures. It's like "uh... uh... we have... something. can't tell you what. but it does what you want. we think. look at the pretty pictures. and give us money."
Oh, we can gleam from that CGI that it's supposedly vertically launched. And apparently flies in a full ballistic arc. And supposedly has about the shape of an elongated shell. And has something similar to MRSI capability. Someone picked up my 120mm-mortar-in-the-NETFIRES-hole idea? ;)
corvettes,i think US lacks corvettes ships with them ,why dont they go for the production of the same
A gentle word of advice
There is little benefit in throwing in one liners which say things like the above. Its more useful to expand the debate so that people can see that you're done some deep thinking as well
eg
why do you think the USN needs corvettes?
whats the role of the corvette in modern force constructs?
how does the corvette fit within the modern task force construct?
what does the corvette role fill that is not being currently addressed?
what is it in the corvette mission set that reflects what LCS does?
what does the corvette have to do with a thread on LCS?
what current class of vessel reflects your thinking?
and most importantly? what within the Concept of Operations (CONOPs) indicates a deficiency and a need for corvettes?
please pause before posting and have a think before committing fingers to keyboard - one liners without substance just won't cut it in here.
finally, if you're unsure, then just ask questions first...
That ad is about as insightful as Raytheon's latest "Naval Mission Defense Solutions" brochure. As in, both don't say anything hard about what they're trying to sell. Just - more or less - pretty pictures. It's like "uh... uh... we have... something. can't tell you what. but it does what you want. we think. look at the pretty pictures. and give us money."
Oh, we can gleam from that CGI that it's supposedly vertically launched. And apparently flies in a full ballistic arc. And supposedly has about the shape of an elongated shell. And has something similar to MRSI capability. Someone picked up my 120mm-mortar-in-the-NETFIRES-hole idea? ;)
The piece of news here is that the Navy is looking to extend the surface warfare package with a high volume of fire vertically launched missile that's integrated with the mission package.
Lockheed's doing this towards a Navy program request that officially began last year. The international customers are being offered MK41 vertical launchers.
Since they are putting out this ad, and the Griffin missile tests were last month, it's possible that the Navy may not be satisfied with the Griffin and the new missile is going forward. The missile will be mostly off the shelf, fire and forget, so maybe the Lockheed version will be related to the Hellfire family. Competition is slated for next year.
The piece of news here is that the Navy is looking to extend the surface warfare package with a high volume of fire vertically launched missile that's integrated with the mission package.
Lockheed's doing this towards a Navy program request that officially began last year. The international customers are being offered MK41 vertical launchers.
Since they are putting out this ad, and the Griffin missile tests were last month, it's possible that the Navy may not be satisfied with the Griffin and the new missile is going forward. The missile will be mostly off the shelf, fire and forget, so maybe the Lockheed version will be related to the Hellfire family. Competition is slated for next year.
It would be nice if the LCS could do all four Fs of the evolutionary imperative in terms of "fight, feed, flee and f***." I think we can all agree that they can flee pretty well, and now that we are no longer not asking, but merely telling, one assumes that some sort of f****** is going on; and being that there are upwards of 90 or so red blooded Americans of both genders aboard, we can assume that a whole bunch of feeding is going on four times per day. It's that whole "fight" part that has most of us old, unrepentant, "tin can sailors" shaking our heads. There's your "corvette" and what the hell are its roles and missions really? Trust me, I know plenty of people still in the business, including a couple wearing stars, who are scratching their heads over what to do with these things.
Just sharing the nuggets gleaned from 25 years of service. Much of it as a main propulsion engineer, but also a Tactical Action Officer in both frigates and a cruiser, and command of a frigate.
My career took a real deviation off the course I was on after I graduated from the Naval War College. The degree one earns is a Masters in National Security and Strategic Studies. I was immediately posted to the Joint Staff at the Pentagon. I became decidedly "purple" in my outlook as I discovered the Navy did not have the corner on the market of good ideas. The stuff I learned in three years working with Army, Air Force and Marine Corps brothers and sisters was mind boggling. I also became involved with our "friends" at NSA (I don't look upon them as friends anymore. Now that I find they have gone beyond the scope of Echelon, I find what they are doing as truly frightening). One of my functions in life, because I am also technically a linguist (Spanish and Portuguese), was to procure military linguists for the NSA and also the FBI on short notice if they came calling . . . which the FBI did just prior to Y2K. I found 25 of the requested language, I cannot tell you which one or why, because that is classified in a TS/SCI program for which I was not "read in." I had a TS/SCI but the SCI stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information," and when you get to that level, there are programs, units, and functions that have code names affixed to them that effectively limit access to them on a "need to know" basis. I'll use a mythical example: TS/SCI "Majestic 12." I just had to find them, not tell them what they would be doing so no "need to know."
There were plenty of programs and operations I was read into because as a strategic planner I had to brief my flag and general officers (my boss was an Air Force LtGen who headed up J-8, and there was another Air Force BrigGen and Colonel in the operations section of the J-1 between me and him) on them. I also reported tangentially to the J-3, a Navy VADM. In any event, I found the required 25 linguists and they were sent, in mufti, TAD (or as the British say, "seconded") to the FBI.
You know, one of the interesting things about the linguist game that I learned when doing it, is that unlike the Navy, which defines linguists as members of the Cryptological Technition (CT) rating, the other services have a much broader view of things. There are of course people like me who are on record as being proficient in a particular foreign language, but we rarely use them unless it comes in handy when visiting a foreign country, or like when I was training the Brazilian Navy in San Diego to take over some Garcia-class frigates in late-'87. They had guys who spoke English, but between us, we produced a much better product; Brazilian sailors who really knew the plant because once I learned terms they used for various pieces of equipment, I could teach in Portuguese. That avoided a lot of confusion. Likewise, I did the same thing when we gave some Knox-class frigates to the Mexican Navy. I was a full Commander then, and the Director of Engineering Training at SWOSCOLCOM in Newport, RI. The Mexican Navy sent 30 men, including a Commodore to Newport for school house training before the US FMS folks rounded up some retired US CPOs or whatever to go down to Mexico to do some deck plate instruction.
Again, they brought a couple of guys to act as interpreters. I got every guy in my Directorship, four Americans, three CPOs and a LCDR of Mexican and Puerto Rican descent who spoke fluently, and a Naval Academy graduate who was trained at the Boat School to speak like a Castilian, which the Mexican personnel thought was quite humorous (they questioned his manhood! LOL!!) together, and had them standing by when the Mexican flag officer was brought down to my conference room. He addressed me and made a statement of introduction and the requirements for their training in Spanish, and his Lieutenant started to translate. I held up my hand politely with a ¡Con su permiso, señor! and with that, commenced responding in Spanish. You should have seen the smile on his face. It lit up the room. I told him that the five people I introduce him to, plus myself (I usually only taught prospective XOs and COs) would do all the instruction in Spanish with the assistance of their interpreters if necessary. Plus, their interpreters could translate all of our slides and handouts if they cared to. I wasn't going to waste my guy's time doing that. They still had plenty of American officers to teach.
Anyway, the point is that in the Navy, people like me aren't listed as "linguists." In all of the other services, we would have been, even if we had only been Mark One, Mod Zero riflemen. If you speak a foreign language, you go into a DoD database managed by some folks out in Monterrey, CA. All I had to do was enter that database with the language I needed, and it would spit out any and everyone who spoke it. I then would message their respective service personnel branches to tell them to have Private Bafumatta standing tall at FBI headquarters or whatever, no questions asked. I imagine it kind of sucked being on the receiving end. On the other hand, they got close to some interesting things as well. The Y2K operation being one really good example. Unfortunately, I don't know much, but what I do know, I can't share, so we'll leave it at that.
Sorry, got off on a tangent there. One of the problems when I start talking. Regardless, one culls together a lot of nuggets in a quarter-century of military service, not to mention having more or less "grown up" in the Navy in San Diego. When I don't know anything, you aren't likely to hear from me, but if I have something to offer, whether from actual experience, or from my War College education, I will provide. By the way, I don't know if I mentioned what I was doing those three years on the Joint Staff. To put it simply, it was counter-terrorism, and yes, I was there on September 11, 2001. I was in the process of transferring, and my next assignment for the Navy was also in the realm of counter-terrorism, and that, I cannot share at all. Like I said, my career took a detour that was quite unplanned by me, but turned out to be quite fulfilling in many respects. The course I have taught at a civilian university these past 12 years is called Terrorism and Extremist Activity. It keeps me up to speed, keeping it up to date. :)
Culling gold nuggets is good and offers a field grade officer's view of the topics! ;)
PACIFIC OCEAN (July 18, 2013) --- The littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) demonstrates its maneuvering capabilities in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego.
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Daniel M. Young (Released)
130718-N-NI474-218
Tweet
Comment