Russian Navy To Receive 24 Submarines By 2020

     From RIA Novosti:

ST. PETERSBURG, July 7 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Navy will receive 36 warships in 2013, an unprecedented number in Russia’s history, Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Vice Admiral Alexander Fedotenkov said on Sunday.

“During this year, 36 combat ships, fast attack crafts and support vessels will join the Russian Navy. This has never happened before,” Fedotenkov said at the International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg.

Russian Navy warships are now performing missions in all areas of the World Ocean, with over 60 combat ships currently at sea, he said.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in March the Russian Navy would receive 24 submarines and 54 warships of various classes by 2020.

“As a result of the implementation of the state rearmament program to 2020, the navy should receive eight nuclear-powered strategic submarines, 16 multirole submarines and 54 warships of various classes,” Shoigu said.

The eight strategic missile boats include three Borey and five Borey-A class vessels (SSBN) armed with Bulava ballistic missiles.

The 16 multi-purpose submarines include eight Graney class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) and improved Kilo and Lada class diesel-electric (SSK) boats.

In addition to submarines, the navy will receive Admiral Gorshkov class frigates and Steregushchy class corvettes, Buyan class corvettes and Ivan Gren Class large landing ships.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last year that the procurement of new warships and submarines for the Navy would be a priority over the next decade. The Russian government has allocated five trillion rubles ($166 bln) or a quarter of the entire armament procurement budget until 2020 for this purpose.

     Russia is expanding their navy, but I find it hard to believe that they can build 8 SSNs and 8 SSBNs in seven years. It took four years to build the Severodvinsk, and the Kazan is slated to be launched in 2014, a build time of ~3 years. To build 16 nuclear submarines is possible for the Russians, but a building program like this hasn't been around since the end of the Cold War. 

     

Analysis of Alternatives: Zumwalt-class DDGs

     In 2011 The Navy began construction of it's latest class of DDGs, the Zumwalt-class. The mission of the Zumwalt-class is shore bombardment and cruise missile attack, with a little bit of AAW thrown in as well. However, the Zumwalt-class does not have sufficient VLS (80 missile cells) space to provide effective AAW while at the same time carrying the number of Tomahawks needed. At the same time Zumwalt-class has concerns about it's seakeeping capabilities  due to it's tumblehome hull design. The Zumwalt-class will also not be built it large numbers, with a production run of only three ships. Leaving the vast majority of the Navy without any high caliber guns for shore bombardment. Here are what I believe are solid alternatives to the Zumwalts.

     1. Modify Burke-class destroyers under construction and DDGs 85-112 to mount a single Mk 71 8"/55 caliber gun on the bow. The Mk 71 was developed back in the 1970s to fill the growing gap in naval gunfire support, as there were few guns in the Navy larger than 5". The Mk 71 offers improved range over a 155mm gun firing the M795 (27km vs 22.5km) and a larger round (118kg v 46.7kg). Off the shelf is a match for any 155mm gun in U.S. inventory firing any type of ammunition (the only acceptation being the LRLAP round).
     I would argue that the Mk 71 is better than the AGS because the AGS has no anti-ship capability, and fires only one round, the LRLAP. With only a small amount of LRLAPs being purchased for only 6  operation guns (3 Zumwalts, 2 guns apiece), the cost per round will be abnormally high. To sum it up, I'd like to quote ComNavOps over at Navy Matters.

• Cost – when the Navy committed to the AGS the Mk71 development costs were already long since paid for.  The gun was essentially free and a prototype had already been successfully tested.  Advanced rounds, if desired, would have entailed additional costs just as for the AGS.
• Explosive Power – the 8” round is so much more effective than a 6”.
• Shipboard Impact – the AGS, as we’ve discussed has a major impact on ship design and ship utilities.  The Mk71 is a simple gun and easily accommodated.
• Flexibility – the Mk71 is a general purpose gun capable of engaging both ship and shore targets unlike the AGS which has no anti-ship mode.

Since it is almost impossible to cancel the Zumwalts at this point, it would be best to cancel the AGS and LRLAP, and mount Mk 71s in lieu of AGSs on the Zumwalt-class. They will provide the Zumwalt-class with a WVR anti-ship capability and an improved naval gunfire support capability at a lower cost.

     2. New class of AAW and land attack ships built around large numbers VLS cells and the AMDR.  This is basically the Arsenal ship concept, a stretched Tico hull (Long Beach size) with an increased number of VLS cells, a nuclear power plant, and an Air and Missile Defense Radar. Remove the helipad, aviation facilities, 5" guns, torpedo tubes, and ASW suite. This would make room for 8-10 more Mk 41 VLSs, yielding a magazine increase of 481-610 missiles. The sole mission of this ship would be to provide anti-air coverage for carriers, and BMD and land attack support for amphibious assaults. The Zumwalt-class has a smaller VLS capacity than the Ticos (80 vs. 122), and yet it is expected to contribute in AAW while at the same launching TLAMs in support of amphibious assaults. This leads to a compromise and a loss of capability in the area of AAW which will be pivotal in any amphibious assaults.
      I do not believe that the Zumwalt-class is the right choice for the Navy in light of cost overruns and continued delays. Each mission (naval gunfire support, land attack, and AAW) that the Zumwalt-class is meant to perform requires vastly different capabilities, with AAW and land attack requiring large numbers of VLS cells which will deny space to needed guns for naval gunfire support. It would be more effective to build a class of ships meant entirely for missile warfare (AAW and land attack), while modifying existing and future destroyers to carry the Mk 71 to provide more effective naval gunfire support.

SSBN-X: What It Will Not Look Like

     Yesterday at Navy Live RDML Richard Breckenridge posted some facts about the SSBN-X that have solidified by this time. RDML Breckenridge specifically discussed the ideas for a stretched Virginia with a module for Trident SLBMs, A stretched Virgina with a new missile, and restarting the Ohio production line. Read:

Virginia-based SSBN design with a Trident II D5 missile. An SSBN design based on a Virginia-class attack submarine with a large-diameter missile compartment was rejected due to a wide range of shortfalls. It would:

• Not meet survivability (stealth) requirements due to poor hull streamlining and lack of a drive train able to quietly propel a much larger ship
• Not meet at-sea availability requirements due to longer refit times (since equipment is packed more tightly within the hull, it requires more time to replace, repair and retest)
• Not meet availability requirements due to a longer mid-life overhaul (refueling needed)
• Require a larger number of submarines to meet the same operational requirement
• Reduce the deterrent value needed to protect the country (fewer missiles, warheads at-sea)
• Be more expensive than other alternatives due to extensive redesign of Virginia systems to work with the large missile compartment (for example, a taller sail, larger control surfaces and more robust support systems)

We would be spending more money (on more ships) to deliver less deterrence (reduced at-sea warhead presence) with less survivability (platforms that are less stealthy).

Virginia-based SSBN design with a smaller missile. Some have encouraged the development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN. This would carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN we just discussed, and add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be challenging, costly and require extensive testing. We deliberately decided to extend the life of the current missile to decouple and de-risk the complex (and costly) missile development program from the new replacement submarine program. Additionally, a smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits. This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately weaken our deterrence effectiveness. With significant cost, technical and schedule risks, there is little about this option that is attractive.

Ohio-based SSBN design. Some have argued that we should re-open the Ohio production line and resume building the Ohio design SSBNs. This simply cannot be done because there is no Ohio production line. It has long since been re-tooled and modernized to build state-of-the-art Virginia-class SSNs using computerized designs and modular, automated construction techniques. Is it desirable to redesign the Ohio so that a ship with its legacy performance could be built using the new production facilities? No, since an Ohio-based SSBN would:

• Not provide the required quieting due to Ohio design constraints and use of a propeller instead of a propulsor (which is the standard for virtually all new submarines)
• Require 14 instead of 12 SSBNs by reverting to Ohio class operational availability standards (incidentally creating other issues with the New START treaty limits)
• Suffer from reduced reliability and costs associated with the obsolescence of legacy Ohio system components

Once again, the end result would necessitate procuring more submarines (14) to provide the required at-sea presence and each of them would be less stealthy and less survivable against foreseeable 21^stcentury threats. 

     Emphasis is mine. The objections to using the Virgina-class are new, but the problems brought to light are accurate. Same for new build Ohios. However, with the SSBN-X the boomer fleet will be reduced to 12 from 14, and the SSBN-X will carry 16 missile tubes instead of the Ohios 24 tubes. This is a reduction of 140 missiles, almost 50% of the Navy's capability. I'm curious is this because of budgets, NEW START, or something else? 

Analysis of Alternatives: The Littoral Combat Ship

     Back in 2012 I ran a post that called for the cancellation of the Littoral Combat Ship on the grounds that none of it's required modules have become operational, and the fact that the LCS is underarmed. Here are what I belive are solid alternatives to the LCS.

1. Visby-class corvette.

     The Visby-class was developed in Sweden for ASuW and ASW. The Visby-class runs about 184 million dollars each. Specs:

Displacement:	640 tonnes
Length:	72.7 m
Beam:	10.4 m
Draught:	2.4 m
Propulsion:	CODOG 2 × 125SII Kamewa Waterjets 4 × Vericor TF50A gas turbines, total rating 16 MW 2 × MTU Friedrichshafen 16 V 2000 N90 diesel engines, total rating 2.6 MW 3 x generators of 270kW each
Speed:	35+ knots
Range:	2500nm @ 15 knots
Complement:	43
Sensors and processing systems:	Ericsson Sea_GIRAFFE AMB 3D surveillance radar Ceros 200 fire control radar system Condor CS-3701 tactical radar surveillance system GDC Hull-mounted sonar Hydroscience Technologies towed array sonar system GDC variable depth sonar
Electronic warfare & decoys:	Rheinmetall TKWA/MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System)
Armament:	1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk3 8 × RBS15 Mk2 AShM 4 × 400 mm torpedo launchers for Type 45 torpedoes Mines and depth charges Provision for but not fitted with 2 × 6 127 mm ALECTO anti-submarine rocket launchers (cancelled) 8 × Umkhonto SAM(cancelled)
Aviation facilities:	Helicopter pad

Modify the Visby-class to carry a RIM-116 in lieu of Umkhonto SAMs, Mk48s or Mk50s in lieu of Type 45 torpedoes (along with 324mm or 533mm torpedo tubes as needed). Exchange the RBS15 for two quad Harpoon launchers, and the Bofors 57mm gun for an OTO Melera 76mm gun. Exchange the electronics and propulsion for U.S. equipment where possible and affordable. Then we have a lightweight, fast ship built specifically for combat in the littorals at a lower cost than the LCS.

2. Saar 5 corvette

The Saar 5-class corvette was designed by the Israeli Navy, as the latest in the Saar series which traces it roots back to Germany's WWII E-Boats. The mission of the Saar 5-class is ASuW, with a touch of AAW.  The price of a Saar 5 corvette is 260 million dollars. Specs:

Class & type:	Corvette
Displacement:	1,227 tonnes (full load) 1,075 tonnes (standard)
Length:	85.64 m (280.97 ft)
Beam:	11.88 m (38.98 ft)
Draft:	3.17 m (10.40 ft)
Propulsion:	Combined Diesel or Gas 2 MTU V12 1163 TB82 diesel engines General Electric LM2500 gas turbine
Speed:	20 knots (37 km/h) (diesel engines) 33 knots (61 km/h) (gas turbine)
Range:	3,500 nautical miles (6,500 km)
Complement:	64 officers and crewmen 10 aircrew
Sensors and processing systems:	Elta EL/M-2218S air search radar Elta EL/M-2221 fire-control radar EDO Type 796 sonar Rafael towed sonar array
Electronic warfare & decoys:	Argon ST AN/SLQ-25 Nixie decoy Elbit chaff rocket launchers Rafael RF corner reflector Elisra NS-9003A/9005 RWR
Armament:	8 RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles 64 Barak 1 surface-to-air missiles Phalanx CIWS 6 Mark 32 torpedo tubes (Mark 46 torpedoes)
Armor:	Steel and aluminum
Aircraft carried:	Eurocopter Panther, unmanned helicopter[1]
Aviation facilities:	Helipad and helicopter hangar

      Global Security lists the ship as being armed with a Phalanx 20mm CIWS (as shown in the picture above). Changes to the design would be to replace Israeli electronics with American where possible and affordable, and possibly the addition of a 76mm gun. 

3. New build Perry-class frigates

     The Perry-class is a strudy design that can take a beating and keeping on moving (see the USS Samuel B. Roberts). Designed to escort amphibs and merchant convoys in a WWIII scenario they had an emphasis on AAW, but still highly capable in the area of ASuW. The last Perry-class frigate, the USS Ingraham, cost about 785 million dollars when adjusted for inflation (cost comes from the 1983-84 issue of Jane's Fighting Ships). Specs for the Ingraham:

Displacement:	4,100 tons (4,165 t) full load
Length:	453 ft (138.1 m), overall
Beam:	45 ft (13.7 m)
Draft:	27 ft (6.7 m)
Propulsion:	2 × General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines generating 41,000 shp (31 MW) through a single shaft andcontrollable-pitch propeller
Speed:	29+ knots (54+ km/h)
Range:	5,000 nm (9,300 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h)
Complement:	15 officers and 190 enlisted, plus SH-60 LAMPS detachment of roughly six officer pilots and 15 enlisted men
Armament:	1 × OTO Melara Mk 75 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun 2 × Mk 32 triple-tube (324 mm) launchers for Mark 46 torpedoes 1 × Vulcan Phalanx CIWS 4 × .50-cal (12.7 mm) machine guns.
Aircraft carried:	2 × SH-60 LAMPS III helicopters

      The only change to the design would be to add a Mk 41 VLS in lieu of the Mk 13 launcher that was deleted from later Perrys.
      Each of the ships discussed above could be built under license in U.S. shipyards, in fact only the Visby-class has not been built in a U.S. shipyard. In the mid-90s the Israelis had Ingalls buld the Saar 5-class. Each of these classes, barring the Perrys, are cheaper than the LCS which costs 680.7 million dollars. Each of these classes has a greater combat capability than the LCS, and greater survivability in combat. Each of these classes is better than the LCS and offers a solid alternative.

A Strategy For The 21st Century Part 4: Africa

     Africa. In that last few months Africa has undergone series of radical events (not all good): Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarack in Egypt, the creation of South Sudan, a Kenyan military campaign against the Somalian pirates, and even deployment of 200 U.S. special forces troops to the Central African Republic. Overall the African continent has no major threats or concerns for the U.S.. However, there are a few things which are cause for minor concern, and which must be dealt with.
     1. Somalia's pirates and terrorists. In the last few years Somalia has spawned many small bands of pirates on the sea, and Al-Shabab on land. The pirates Somalia has produced have attacked thousands of ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean, not all successfully though. Some ships which were attacked and taken are the Maersk Alabama (cargo ship), MV Faina (carrying arms, including T-72 tanks), and numerous other cargo and fishing vessels. Along with Al-Shabab they pose a threat to American shipping, including oil tankers coming from the Persian Gulf. In this situation it would be best to carry out a series of cruise missile strikes on the bases, and also hit their "stock exchange" in Haradheere. But, overall the long term solution would be to have every U.S. flagged ship have a squad or two of private security agents (e.g. mercenaries) onboard while moving through the Gulf of Aden or the Western Indian Ocean.
     2. Egypt's new government. The new government in Egypt which is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, has control of one the most valuable assets in the world: the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal is a the link by which many U.S. warships get to the Indian Ocean, and 15,648 oil tankers, bulk carriers, LNG tankers, and many types passed through the Suez Canal in 2010. If the Suez Canal is shut down by Egypt's new muslim government, it would be enormous blow to the world economy, and to U.S. economic interests in the Indian Ocean region. This would also force U.S. warships to either double the Cape of Good Hope, or sail from the West Coast, both of which would vastly reduce time on station, and increase the time needed to get to the Indian Ocean if a crisis arose. In this instance there really is no military solution as the "Dear Leader" (Obama) has backed the new muslim government instead of our former ally Hosni Mubarack, who generally did things that were good for the U.S.. Since there is no real military solution, and negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhoo  would be like talking to brick wall, it would be best to: 1. Wean the U.S. off Arab oil, and drill in the U.S. 2. Do not attempt to reenter the Indian Ocean and the Middle East until we have realized the our enemy here is Islam.
     Overall, there is not much to say about Africa with the exception of keep out! Africa is at the moment a big pit filled with quicksand, if you step in it you are basically screwed. The best strategy would be to stay out of Africa (this includes pulling out all 200 U.S. soldiers from the C.A.R.), and only do anything if attacked. 



Photo Credit: Chris Lofting

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 2: Asia

     Asia. Since the Communist Chinese took over China in 1949 there has been a secret war waged along the west side of the Pacific Rim. After that was the Soviet naval buildup under Admiral Gorshkov, that turned the Soviet Navy into a true blue-water navy. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and it's navy) there is only one real Communist nation that poses a threat in the Pacific, the People's Republic of China. Just in the last few weeks China's president Hu Jintao urged the PLAN to prepare for combat. This comes as tensions continue to rise over the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, and the PLAN stopped an Indian Navy ship just outside Vietnamese territorial waters. As China continues to buildup their military, the United States must respond. Here is what I believe the U.S. must do to stop China.
     1. Build new bases, and reopen old ones. Since the U.S. took over the Philippines from Spain in 1896, we operated Naval Base Subic Bay, and Clark Air Base a few miles away. However, after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Clark AB was covered in ash. The year after in 1992 the treaty leasing NB Subic Bay expired. Thus, the U.S. lost 2 very valuable bases located only 1100km from China. With the U.S. backing the Philippines in the Spratly Islands dispute, it would be in the Pilippines' and the U.S.'s best interests to reopen NB Subic Bay, and if possible Clark Air Base, as the former Clark Air Base is now Diosdada Macapagal International Airport. Also, the Marine Corps is in the process of stationing 2500 Marines near Darwin, this should be augmented with a full-fledged Air Force base and Naval Station in Australia, if the Australians are willing. Bases should also be established in Taiwan, and Singapore, existing bases on Guam, Hawaii, and Okinawa should be expanded.
     2. Cease the construction of "Supercarriers", and design and build a new class of aircraft carriers about the size of the USS Midway-class. In that last few years the Chinese have begun developing the DF-21D, as a means of denying most of the Western Pacific to U.S. aircraft carriers. This coupled with the proliferation of supersonic cruise missiles, and Kilo-class submarines poses a grave threat to U.S. naval air power throughout the Pacific. Furthermore, in this case quantity is better than quality, because at the moment if one carrier is lost there is a gaping hole the Navy's capabilities until the next carrier is completed. Thus, it is necessary that the Navy instead of building very few "Supercarriers", build a smaller class of carriers with a displacement not to exceed 65,000 tons, a max speed of 40 knots, and a complement of  50 aircraft. This is feasible as the USS Midway had a displacement of 62,000 and could carry 65 aircraft as of it's decommissioning in 1992. 
     3. Resurrect the Navy's ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) capability. During the Cold War the U.S. Navy was the best in the world at ASW. However, since the USSR collapsed in 1991 the Navy's ASW capability has gone down hill. This can be rectified by, 1. Extending the life of Perry-class frigates 2. Investing in more SOSUS systems and towed array sonars. 3. Developing a new class of frigates specifically for the ASW role.
     There is more that I will lay out in future posts, but the ideas I have laid out in this post, I believe are a good start to beating China and maintaining the U.S.'s national security.





Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

Ex-Varyag Begins Her Second Sea Trial

     Yesterday, China Defense Blog and Alert 5 posted new photos showing the Ex-Varyag leaving Dalian at 11:30 AM local time. This marks the second time the Ex-Varyag has sailed, the first time was back August. This time it appears that the Ex-Varyag has more of her equipment on board as she is riding a bit lower than previously.

Starting here the photos are from China Defense Blog

This photo below is from the Ex-Varyag's first time out.

Photo Credit: Alert 5 and China Defense Blog

U.S. Air Force To Replace ALCM

     Defense News reports that the USAF is planning to replace the aging AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile with a new stealth cruise missiles.
     The AGM-86 was selected to be the Air Force's air launched cruise missile back in the 1980s. Since then the ALCM has seen service in Operation Desert Storm, and in several other operations over Iraq. As of 2011 all ALCMs are AGM-86Bs which are equipped with a single W-80 nuclear warhead which has yeild of between 5 and 150 kilotons. As of 2011 the AGM-86B and AGM-129 are the only nuclear weapons the B-52 is capable of carrying, and due to reliability issues and cost the AGM-129 is being phased out of service. The AGM-86B is also going phased out of service due to it's age and the New START treaty.
     With the retiring of the AGM-86B and the AGM129 this will leave the B-52 without a nuclear mission, that is why the Air Force is planning to start a new nuclear cruise missile program. This proposed missile will be stealthy, have a long range, and "be able to penetrate the most challenging of enemy air defense systems" in the words of Maj. General William Chambers the Air Force's strategic deterrence and nuclear integration officer.
     However, this program may never get off the ground as Congress has yet to come to a compromise over budget cuts, and if they do not, a large amount (1+ trillion dollars) of the defense budget will be cut. But, if this program actually survives then it will be fascinating to see how the program progresses and what capabilities the cruise missile will have.


Photo Credit: USAF

Photo: Stern of the USS Gerald R. Ford

     Defense Tech posted this photo of the Gerald R. Ford's stern being lifted into place. The Gerald R. Ford is scheduled to be launched in 2013, and will feature a new type of nuclear reactor, electro-magnetic catapults, and a number of other new features.

Photo Credit: Defense Tech

Obscure Stealth Aircraft Part 2: South Korea's KAI KF-X

     I have written previously on South Korea's KF-X program, but I did not discuss the KAI KF-X program in much detail at the time. The KAI KF-X differs from the original KF-X program in that the KAI KF-X it is supposed to be an indigenous stealth fighter. The original KF-X program is meant to purchase fighter aircraft from other countries, the aircraft purchased under the KF-X program is the F-15K Slam Eagle, the F-15K was purchased in both first and second phases of the KF-X program.

     The KAI KF-X is supposed to be equipped with a AESA radar built in South Korea, along with a IRST system. At the moment there are two designs competing in the KAI KF-X program, one design is similar to the F-35 in that it has only one engine. The second differs from the first in that the design uses two engines versus one, this would give the pilot a degree of insurance if one engine went out. Besides this there is not much else known about the KAI KF-X, but it is probably safe to say that the KAI KF-X will carry American missiles and bombs.

     If the cost stays down there could be a market for around 300-500 KAI KF-Xs being sold to various countries. South Korea has partnered with Indonesia in development of the KAI-KF-X, and Turkey has been discussed as a third partner, but as of yet Turkey has joined the KAI KF-X program.

     As the KAI KF-X program progresses it will be interesting to see which design is picked, how the program fares, and if North Korea attempts to purchase stealth fighters.

Photo Credit: TR Defense

Video: F-35 Flyby

Video Credit: YouTube

J-20 Moves It's Canards

China Defense Blog posted these photos showing the J-20 moving it's canards. One of the more unusual features of J-20 is that it features canards which are not stealth enhancing features because they increase an aircraft's radar cross section.  This might make the J-20 more of a technology demonstrator rather than a new type of Chinese fighter.

Photo Credit: China Defense Blog

Obscure Stealth Aircraft Part 1: Japan's ATD-X

     This is the first of a new weekly series centered on lesser known stealth aircraft like Japan's ATD-X, South Korea's KAI-X, Russia's T-50K, and several others. This week the subject is Japan's ATD-X. 

     ATD-X stands for Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X, and will probably be built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The ATD-X's maiden flight is scheduled for around 2014, and in June the Japanese government reaffirmed the plan for the ATD-X's maiden flight in 2014. 

     The ATD-X is thought to be a jumping off point from where the Japanese can develop their own stealth fighter similar to the F-22 Raptor. The ATD-X is supposed to be equipped with a 3D thrust vectoring system similar to that of the Rockwell X-31. The ATD-X is also supposed to be equipped with an unknown AESA radar which possibly could have microwave weapon capabilities. Other planed features the ATD-X is supposed to have are, a fly-by-optics flight control system, a so-called "Self Repairing Flight Control Capability", which can detect damage or failures in the flight control system and use the remaining flight control surfaces to maintain controlled flight.

     Besides this, not much else is known about the ATD-X, but in 2005 there was a series of tests done with a model to examine the ATD-X's radar cross section, but no results have been  made public from those tests. The Japanese government has said that if they decide to put a stealth fighter into production the decision will be made around 2016. The ATD-X program will probably not affect Japan's purchase of either, the F-35 Lightning II, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, or the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace their aging F-4Js and F-15Js.

     Over the next few years it will be interesting to see how Japan develops the ATD-X, and how other Asian nations respond to it.

Photo Credit: Flightglobal, (picture is an artist's impression of the ATD-X)

      

Are The F-35C And F-35B Going To Be Canceled?

     Aviation Week reports that U.S. Navy undersecretary Robert Work has ordered the Marine Corps and the Navy to  look for less costly alternatives to the Navy's current tactical aviation plan, and reexamine the consequences of canceling either the F-35C or the F-35B. Work also directed the Navy and Marines to find out if they could operate fewer than the planned 40 squadrons of F-35Bs and Cs. The order came in a June 7 memo that also ordered that "The key performance differences between the Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with all planned upgrades, F-35B and F-35C." 

     This is a major event in the F-35 Lightning II program, as there has always been solidarity in the high levels of all three participating services, in that they all supported the F-35 program and fiercely defended their service's variant. 

Thus, with this report it shows that the Navy at least is having some doubts about the F-35 program. This report could be based on fears that the F-35B's exhaust could be hot enough to melt the deck of the ships it lands on, and the fear that the F-35 could be canceled in future budget cuts.

      This is simply the beginning of a whole new F-111 fiasco, when the Navy left the F-111 program. During the 1960s then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara merged the Air Force's requirement for a high speed low altitude nuclear bomber, and the Navy's requirement for an aircraft capable of shooting down Soviet anti-ship missiles at long range. This snafu of a program became known as the F-111 Aardvark (hint: not a bird). The Navy eventually left the F-111 program because the aircraft was extremely expensive, overweight, under powered, just to name a few reasons.  The Navy then replaced the F-111 with the F-14 Tomcat, which today could be the F/A-18E/F, F/A-XX, or even the X-47B. The Air Force eventually bought the F-111 using it as a long range precision bomber and as an ECM aircraft (Electronic CounterMeasures) formerly known as the EF-111A Raven. 

     While the F-35 was originally a good idea, attempting to squeeze three different aircraft into one common airframe is a recipe for disaster, which we will see in the next couple of years. The Navy will probably pull out of the F-35 program, the F-35B will probably be canceled, but the Air Force will probably stick with the F-35 and rode out the storm.  

       

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

The P-8 Poseidon: The New Sub-Hunter

     The P-8 Poseidon is a new ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) aircraft based off the Boeing 737 airframe, and is being produced for the U.S. Navy and the Indian Navy. the P-8 Poseidon is the replacement for the P-3 Orion which has served in the U.S. Navy and several other navies since 1962.

     In 2000 the Navy announced the Multimission Maritime Aircraft competition for a replacement for the aging P-3. Boeing and Lockheed were the original two competitors, but BAE Systems later entered as well, Boeing submitted a design based on the 737 airliner, Lockheed submitted a a modified version of the P-3, and BAE Systems submitted a new build version of the Nimrod MRA4. BAE later pulled out of the competition because it had a very small chance of winning the contract, as BAE is based of the UK and the U.S. military purchases most of it's equipment from U.S-based companies.  

     The P-8 has a range of at least 2222 kilometers (1381 miles), a top speed of 907 kilometers per hour (564 MPH), and a max altitude of 12.5 kilometers (41,000ft). The P-8 has an endurance of 4 hours on station, and a crew of nine. The P-8 can carry a range of weaponry including, Mk 54 anti-submarine torpedoes, AGM-86 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, SLAM-ER land attack missiles, and possibly air-to-air missiles. The P-8 is equipped with a sonobouy launcher, a magnetic anomaly detector, and several other types of ASW sensors. 

     The U.S. Department of Defense is planning to follow a plan similar to that of the F-35, by getting help from potential P-8 users. In 2008 Boeing proposed the P-8I for the Indian Navy to replace the Indian's aging Tu-142s (ASW version of the Tu-95 "Bear"). In 2009 the Indian Navy signed a contract for 8 P-8Is, and later signed a contract for an additional 4 P-8Is. Australia has shown some interest in the P-8 to replace their aging AP-3 Orions, and signed a memorandum of understanding that would allow them to gain access to the program and make suggestions about the program. The U.S. Navy is planning to buy up to 108 P-8s with full scale production starting in 2013.

     It will be interesting to see in the next few years what other countries purchase P-8s, especially the UK since the cancellation of the Nimrod  MRA4 leaves a large gap in the UK's ASW and maritime surveillance capabilities. It also be interesting to see how the P-8 performs against increasingly quiet Chinese submarines.

     

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy