Monday, 20 July 2015

Boustead cuts steel on Malaysia's first littoral combat ship twice :

Boustead cuts steel on Malaysia's first littoral combat ship

15 June 2015

Malaysia's Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) has completed a steel-cutting ceremony for the country's first Second Generation Patrol Vessel - Littoral Combat Ship (SGPV-LCS) vessel, a company spokesperson told IHS Jane's on 15 June.
The ceremony, held at the company's shipyard in Lumut on 12 June, was attended by Deputy Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Bakri. "The first LCS vessel is expected to be completed in early 2019, with subsequent vessels at 10-month intervals thereafter," said the company.
The SGPV-LCS platform is based on the Gowind 2500 corvette designed by French shipbuilder DCNS. The vessel is 111 m long and displaces about 3,000 tonnes. "Malaysia is a maritime nation and in recent years there have been increasing threats, which call for the need to strengthen our defences with sophisticated surveillance and protection capabilities," Ahmad Ramli Mohd Nor, BNS' managing director, said in a statement.
Citing Royal Malaysian Navy sources, IHS Jane's reported in March that the service has selected the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) anti-ship missile and MBDA VL Mica point defence missile systems for the SGPV-LCS programme. Other weapons include BAE Systems' 57 mm Mk 3 naval gun, two MSI-Defence Seahawk 30 mm guns and two J+S 324 mm triple tube torpedo launcher systems.
The vessel's suite of sensors include the Thales Nederland SMART-S Mk 2 3-D multibeam radar, Rheinmetall's TMEO Mk 2 TMX/EO radar/electro-optical tracking and fire-control system, and the Thales Captas-2 low-frequency variable depth sonar for submarine prosecution.

Thursday, 04 December 2014 09:54

UPACARA FIRST STEEL CUTTING PROJEK LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) TLDM DI KINDERDIJK, BELANDA PADA 3 DIS 14

Upacara First Steel Cutting (pemotongan plat besi pertama) projek Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) TLDM telah dilaksanakan pada 3 Dis 14 di premis syarikat IHC Metalix, Kinderdijk (98 km dari Amsterdam) Belanda. Aktiviti ini telah disempurnakan oleh YBhg Panglima Armada TLDM, Laksamana Madya Dato’ Mohamad Roslan bin Mohamad Ramli dan Setiausaha Bahagian Perolehan KEMENTAH, YBhg Dato’ Zaiton binti Johari. Turut hadir ialah wakil Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia, En Nor Muhamad Che Dan, Ketua Pengarah Projek LCS TLDM, Kept Ir Azhar Jumaat TLDM dan Pengarah Program LCS Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (BNS), En Anuar Murad.
1
Panglima Armada TLDM, Setiausaha Bahagian Perolehan KEMENTAH,
Ketua Pengarah Projek LCS TLDM dan Pengarah Program LCS BNS
bergambar sebelum pemotongan plat besi

First Steel Cutting merupakan aktiviti pemotongan besi kapal dan menandakan kerja pembinaan kapal bermula (work start). Pada zaman pembinaan kapal secara tradisional sebelum ini, aktiviti pembinaan bermula (work start) apabila keel laying (lunas kapal) disusun. Bagi pembinaan secara blok, aktiviti keel laying tersebut telah diganti dengan First Steel Cutting.
23
Panglima Armada TLDM dan Setiausaha Bahagian Perolehan KEMENTAH
menekan butang mesin pemotong plat besi CNC bagi memulakan
aktiviti pemotongan pertama plat besi Projek LCS TLDM
Mesin pemotong otomatik memotong plat besi pertama Projek LCS TLDM

Setelah pemotongan besi dilaksanakan, kits besi yang telah dipotong mengikut lukisan kejuruteraan yang diluluskan akan dihantar ke Malaysia untuk dicantumkan (welding) menjadi blok-blok.

Rujukan: 041214/01
Sumber: Pasukan Projek LCS TLDM (Perancis)
Artikel & Jurugambar: Pasukan Projek LCS TLDM (Perancis)

Malaysia targeting 2019 in-service date for littoral combat ship

Dzirhan Mahadzir, Kuala Lumpur - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

05 October 2014

The Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) is targeting an operational entry date of 2019 for the first-of-class Second Generation Patrol Vessel - Littoral Combat Ship (SGPV-LCS), according to its chief, Admiral Aziz Jaafar.
Adm Aziz told IHS Jane's on 3 October that the RMN's current planning schedule calls for sea trials of the first ship to be carried out in 2018 and operational entry in 2019. Construction of the first of the six-ship LCS class has started at the Boustead Heavy Industry Corporation (BHIC) shipyard facilities in Lumut, with a 2017-18 delivery date and the remaining five ships delivered at six-month intervals thereafter.
BHIC is building the 3,000-tonne SGPV-LCS in partnership with DCNS, whose Gowind corvette design is being used as the basis for the vessel.
Most key equipments for the new class have now been confirmed. These include the DCNS SETIS combat management system, the Thales Nederland SMART-S Mk 2 3-D multibeam radar, Rheinmetall's TMEO Mk 2 TMX/EO radar/electro-optical tracking and fire control system, and the Thales Captas-2 low-frequency variable depth sonar.
Weapon systems include a BAE Systems 57 mm Mk 3 medium-calibre dual-purpose gun (in a stealth cupola), two MSI-Defence Seahawk single 30 mm guns, and two J+S Marine triple torpedo tube launchers (although no announcement has been made as to what torpedoes will be used). No contracts have yet been placed for the point defence missile system and surface-to-surface guided weapon system; however, MBDA's VL MICA and MM40 Block 3 Exocet missiles are thought to be in prime position.

COMMENT


Adm Aziz also said that the RMN auxiliary vessel Bunga Mas 5 , currently being leased from Malaysian International Shipping Corp and operating as a mobile sea base in East Malaysia, will soon have its ownership transferred to the RMN where it will be commissioned into service.
Adm Aziz added that the RMN had hoped to also have Bunga Mas 5 's sister ship,Bunga Mas 6 , transferred but was unable to obtain it as Bunga Mas 6 was required by MISC to serve as a training platform for the MISC-owned Malaysian Maritime Academy.
Bunga Mas 5 and Bunga Mas 6 were leased to the Malaysian government in 2009 and 2011, respectively, for use as navy auxiliary ships tasked with conducting anti-piracy escort missions off the Gulf of Aden: a mission that ended earlier in 2014.Bunga Mas 6 was subsequently used in the search operations for the missing MH370 airliner, deploying to Australia in April before returning to Malaysia in August. Bunga Mas 5 has been employed as a mobile seabase off the East Coast of Sabah as part of security operations to prevent cross-border kidnappings from armed groups in the Philippines.
Adm Aziz said the RMN would soon increase its capabilities in operations there with nine surplus US Navy Mark 5 Special Operations Boats along with the purchase of a number of locally built fast boats.

RSN’s LMV : Comparing to RMN’s LCS

SHAH ALAM: ON Friday, Singapore Defence Minister launched Independence, the RSN’s first Littoral Mission Vessel (LMV). Seven more LMVs will be built to replace the Fearless-class patrol vessels (PVs), which have been in service for 20 years.
Among the key features of the LMV according to a release is the Integrated Command Centre where the ships Bridge, Combat Information Centre and Machinery Control Room are co-located.
Normally they are placed in the different areas of the ship, one reason for which is to allow the ship to function even after suffering battle damage. However for a small ship like LMV putting all the main control functions in one area would allow better cordination and moreover free up space below decks for other functions.

An infographic on the LMV. RSN
An infographic on the LMV. RSN

According to the release, the LMVs also have greater endurance than the Fearless-class vessels and are able to stay at sea for up to 14 days (3,500 nautical miles). The LMVs ability to respond rapidly to maritime security incidents is further enhanced with its faster speed in excess of 27 knots and the ability to support a medium-lift helicopter.

A model of the LMV at Imdex 2015.
A model of the LMV at Imdex 2015.

The vessels will be fitted with 12 VL MICA surface to air missiles. There is no mention of the SSMs. Perhaps this capability is a Fitted For but Not Equipped With for the first vessel.

A mock-up of the VL MICA at Imdex 2015.
A mock-up of the VL MICA at Imdex 2015.

Based on the specifications published, it appears that the LMV has some of the equipment fitted on RMN’s own LCS. Apart from the VL MICA, both shared the same main radar, the Thales 3D radar and both are probably housed in the same stealthy mounting.

A CGI of the RMN LCS.
A CGI of the RMN LCS.

Of course, RMN’s LCS is much bigger, some 2500 tonnes compared to the much smaller LMV. The LMV is actually slightly bigger than the missile corvettes proposed by Daewoo of South Korea.
However, unlike that project, funds for the LMV has been allocated and probably by the time we decide to recapitalise the RMN patrol fleet, RSN will have another batch of vessels already to go.

A model of Royal Oman Navy PV build by ST Marine at Imdex 2015.
A model of Royal Oman Navy PV build by ST Marine at Imdex 2015.

So what is the cost of an LMV? There is no official announcement but ST Marine – the builder of the LMV – secured a US$880 million to build four 75 metres PVs for the Royal Oman Navy in 2012. Based on that contract we can assume that the LMV will cost at least US$200 million (RM833 million) each.

Friday, February 14, 2014


Fresh details of the Republic of Singapore Navy's (RSN) Littoral Mission Vessel surface

A model of the Littoral Mission Vessel (LMV) displayed at ST Marine's stand at the Singapore Airshow 2014 points to the design evolution that this upcoming Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) warship class has undergone since the concept was shown to the public in May last year.

While details are still sparse, the updated model provides telling indications of what we can expect the LMV design to look like when the first of class hits the water.

The hypotheses floated here assume the features on the scale model displayed at SA 2014 are a passable resemblance to the finished product.


Spot the differences: The Littoral Mission Vessel (LMV) scale model displayed in February 2014 (above) shows subtle yet noteworthy differences to the first LMV model unveiled to the public in May 2013 (below) at the Republic of Singapore Navy Navy Open House.


Prominent among the changes to her hull form is the addition of hull strengthening strakes either side of the bow. These strakes, which are common on salvage vessels and the ST Marine-built Submarine Support Rescue Vessel, MV Swift Rescue, are unique to this RSN warship class. The strengthened forr'ard hull might contribute to the LMV's robustness during incidents at sea which may involve ramming.

The new model also displays what appears to be air intakes/outlets under the flight deck for the air-breathing engines (of unknown type) and intakes for ship air handling units and machinery.

Topside, subtle yet noteworthy changes have been made to her superstructure and equipment fit.

These include:
* A prominent step of unknown purpose forr'ard of her bridge superstructure

* A pedestal for a fire control radar dish and what appears to be an electro-optic ball on the bridge roof. Placed in that position, both sensors should command a 180-degree coverage, which would be sufficient for the firing arc of the 76mm OTO Breda A-gun.

* As we move aft of the bridge wing, we note a flat faced array which appears to be a long-range acoustic device. These were used with notable success during RSN counter-piracy sweeps in the Gulf of Aden.

* The sensor mast is completed by a pole mast, possibly for hoisting signal halyards and navigation lights.

* The sensor mast has a different side elevation from the May 2013 incarnation.

Still missing are outlets for her air-breathing engines. These are expected to take the form of drowned exhausts and their location on her hull would be closely followed as these contribute to her wake  profile and noise signature. It remains to be seen if bleed air from her engine exhaust would be used to coat her underwater hull with a layer of bubbles, which act as a masking device of sorts to reduce her acoustic signature.

When completed, each LMV should measure 80 metres bow to stern, 12 metres wide and have a displacement of around 1,150 tons.  Max speed has been quoted as >27 knots. She would embark a core crew of 30 personnel and a mission crew of 30 pax.

As the LMV design evolution gathers pace, Singapore watchers should avoid placing too much scrutiny on drawings and models displayed by ST Marine and the RSN. Such open source material are known to have fallen far short of what the actual product looks like when the real thing is unveiled.



The Missile Corvettes (MCVs) designed for the RSN under Project S are a classic example. One of the first  drawings of the warship, published by Pioneer magazine in April 1988, excluded key anti-submarine warfare armament and sensors such as the torpedoes and VDS, along with all electronic warfare lumps and bumps eventually added to the MCVs under Project H, Project J, Project S and Project W.

Singapore launches first Independence - class Littoral Mission Vessel

02 July 2015


Key Points

  • Singapore launches LMV Independence, the first replacement for Fearless-class patrol vessels
  • The ship will prove out new concepts for the RSN, including an integrated bridge and combat centre
Singapore has launched the first of eight Littoral Mission Vessels (LMVs) on order for the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN).
The vessel, Independence , was launched on 3 July at ST Marine's shipyard in Benoi in a ceremony presided over by Singapore's defence minister Ng Eng Hen.
Singapore's Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) signed a contract for the LMVs in January 2013, with the ships replacing the RSN's 11 Fearless-class patrol boats (which have been in service since the mid-1990s). The LMV has been jointly designed by Saab Kockums AB and ST Marine, and is being built in Singapore by ST Marine. Singapore's Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) is the overall manager and systems integrator for the programme.
The Independence class is fitted with one Oto Melara 76 mm main gun, two Oto Melara Hitrole 12.7 mm remote-controlled weapon stations (one each on the port and starboard sides), and a stern-facing Rafael 25 mm Typhoon gun system. Protection against hostile aircraft and missiles is provided by MBDA's VL Mica anti-air missile system deployed via a 12-cell vertical launching system (VLS) in the forward section.
The platform's non-lethal options are provided by two water cannon and two remote-controlled long-range acoustic device (LRAD) system turrets with integrated xenon lights.
The sensor suite includes the Thales NS100 3D surveillance radar, Kelvin Hughes' SharpEye navigation radar, and an electro-optical director and 360° surveillance system supplied by Stelop (a business unit of ST Electronics). In response to a question from IHS Jane's , the RSN confirmed that the LMV does not have an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability.
The 1,250-tonne ship has a length of 80 m, a beam of 12 m, and a draught of 3 m. It has a top speed in excess of 27 kt and a range of 3,500 n miles on an endurance of 14 days.
The LMV's launch-and-recovery system, located at the stern, can accommodate up to two RHIBs or the Protector unmanned surface vessel (USV). (IHS/Ridzwan Rahmat)The LMV's launch-and-recovery system, located at the stern, can accommodate up to two RHIBs or the Protector unmanned surface vessel (USV). (IHS/Ridzwan Rahmat)
The LMV can embark a medium-lift helicopter on its flight deck. It also features a launch-and-recovery system (provided by Norwegian Deck Machinery) that can accommodate at the stern two rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs) or the Protector unmanned surface vessel (USV). The LMV has a baseline crew complement of 23, including five officers.
A concept that is being proven out in the RSN for the first time is the LMV's integrated command centre, which co-locates the ship's bridge, combat information centre (CIC), and machinery control spaces.
"The integrated command centre integrates and synergises the management of navigation, engineering, and combat functions to achieve greater operational effectiveness and efficiency, especially during maritime security operations", said MINDEF. This approach mirrors that adopted on the US Navy's Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
Also fitted is a remote monitoring system that allows for real-time reporting of serviceability data. "The ship's platform and combat systems' health status can also be transmitted back to shore for centralised monitoring and prognosis of the systems to detect anomalies and plan for pre-emptive maintenance," said MINDEF.
To maximise versatility, the LMV has been configured to deploy a range of containerised mission packages such as a medical module to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) operations. The platform can also deploy unmanned systems for surveillance and mine countermeasures (MCM) operations.
Following the launch, Independence will undergo a combat system installation period, and will then start sea trials. The vessel is scheduled for delivery in 2016 and is expected to be fully operational by 2017. All eight LMVs are expected to achieve full operational capability by 2020.

COMMENT

Concepts such as the integrated command centre exemplify the RSN's service-wide effort to reduce manpower requirements. In an interview in the Singapore Armed Forces' publication Pioneer in May 2015, chief of navy Rear Admiral Lai Chung Han highlighted the republic's dwindling birth-rate as a challenge facing the service.
Other recent efforts to ease the manpower burden include the deployment on board RSN vessels of unmanned systems, such as the Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
The LMV's lack of organic ASW capability, in contrast to its sonar-equipped predecessors, suggests that the RSN is now relying on its Formidable-class frigates as the service's main submarine prosecutors. It could also be an indication that the RSN may employ helicopter-based submarine prosecution capabilities for the LMVs.
An artist's impression of the LMV in its final configuration. (Singapore Ministry of Defence)An artist's impression of the LMV in its final configuration. (Singapore Ministry of Defence)

MH17 - The Malaysian Jet

2 Overlooked Clues in Malaysian Jet Shoot Down

on July 18, 2014 at 11:02 AM
1280px-9M317_surface-to-air_missile_of_Buk-M2E



[UPDATED 2:10 pm with comment from President Obama & Pentagon spokesman Kirby] Western media are hardly going easy on Russia. But in all the often-excellent coverage I’ve read so far of the Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 disaster – which claimed 295 lives – no one* is pointing out two basic facts that point towards Russia and its separatist proxies:
1) MH17 was flying eastwards.
2) The Russian-backed rebels don’t have an air force.
For our latest on the Ukraine crisis and Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, read MH17 Tragedy Strengthens European Spines To Sanction Russia: UK Ambassador
Both these factors make it extremely unlikely Ukrainian government forces shot down the airliner. It’s not that Ukrainian troops are incapable of such a horrific mistake: Theyaccidentally shot down a Russian jetliner during a military exercise in 2001, killing 78 people, and frankly the Ukrainian military’s skills have only degenerated since. Even the well-trained US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, killing 290, because, amidst high tensions in the Gulf, the USS Vincennes mistook the approaching airliner for an attack plane.
But context matters. First, from a Ukrainian perspective, MH17 was flying from friendly, government-controlled territory towards rebel-held territory and Russia. That outbound vector would make it much harder for an anxious, trigger-happy Ukrainian air defense officer to mistake it for an incoming attack. From the perspective of a separatist or Russian gunner, however, MH17 was inbound from enemy territory.
Second, Ukrainian air defenses haven’t been shooting at anything so far this war because they haven’t had anything to shoot at. Russia has given the separatists weaponry, evenrocket launchers and main battle tanks, but the rebels still don’t have aircraft. Russia itself does, of course, and Kiev claims a Russian aircraft shot down a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter Wednesday, so Ukrainian air defense units probably are now watching the skies more nervously than before (although, again, they would be watching for aircraft flyingwestwards).
But Russian-backed separatists have an actual track record of shooting down Ukrainian government aircraft, including a large-bodied AN-26 transport. A Ukrainian military AN-26doesn’t look particularly like a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777: It’s much smaller, with straight wings and propellers, in contrast to the larger, swept-wing jet. But the two look much more like each other than either looks like, say, a fighter plane, especially on radar where details of shape would be obscured. And, notoriously, a separatist commander (and suspected Russian operative) known as Col. Igor Strelkov tweeted a claim the rebels had shot down an AN-26 just after MH17 crashed – a post later deleted.
If rebel forces did fire the fatal missile, however, their regular shoulder-launched weapons couldn’t have reached the high-altitude airliner: They would have had to use a more sophisticated anti-aircraft system such as the Russian-made Buk (in English, “Beech”; NATO codenames “SA-11 Gadfly” and “SA-17 Grizzly” depending on the variant). AP reporters have seen a Buk in rebel hands, and the rebels themselves claimed to have captured one from Ukrainian government forces. With ex-Soviet, ex-Ukrainian, and ex-Russian military personnel in their ranks, it’s quite possible they had enough former air defense troops to get the Buk working – although they would not have had a supporting infrastructure of command, control, and sensor networks to help them distinguish hostile from friendly aircraft.
It is also possible that Russian operatives sent by Moscow were working the advanced equipment on the rebels’ behalf. I personally think it unlikely (not impossible) that the highly centralized Russian military would have opened fire by accident – but personnel loaned to the Ukrainian separatists would be operating outside the usual safeguards.
[UPDATE: At a press conference this afternoon, the Pentagon’s top spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, demurred on most questions about the tragedy, citing the ongoing investigation, but he did make some blunt statements.
“The SA-11 [missile], the one we believe was used to down Flight 17, is a sophisticated piece of technology,” Kirby said. “It strains credulity to think it could be used by separatists without at least some measure of Russian support and technical assistance.”
That could include the training of separatists on “vehicle-borne” anti-aircraft systems, which European Command chief Gen. Philip Breedlove has said has already happened on Russian soil. Or it could be Russian personnel working for or with the separatists. “We don’t know,” said Kirby. 
But the US is now confident that the missile that downed MH-17 was fired from separatist-controlled territory, Kirby said — a statement so damning that I felt compelled to email the admiral to confirm I heard it correctly (he said I had). President Barack Obama said the same thing.]
Those of us – myself included – who have long been suspicious of Putin’s Russia should be careful not to rush to judgment. But the circumstantial evidence so far makes it highly unlikely the blame falls on Ukraine.

The analysis in this article represents my personal judgment and not any official position of Breaking Defense. — Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.


MH17 Tragedy Strengthens European Spines To Sanction Russia: UK Ambassador

on July 21, 2014 at 5:31 PM
THE WATERGATE: United we stand, Great Britain’s ambassador to the US insisted today. Despite all the strains on the Atlantic alliance — post-Snowden backlash against American spying, rising anti-EU sentiment in Britain, German dependence on Russian energy — the US, the UK, and their continental European allies stand together against what he called Russian “hybrid warfare” in Ukraine, Sir Peter Westmacott said this afternoon. In fact, he said, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17, most likely by Russian proxies, has convinced even some of the more reluctant partners of the need to tighten sanctions.
“We have been genuinely joined at the hip,” Amb. Westmacott told me after his public remarks here at the offices of DefenseOne. “The entire response to what’s going on in Ukraine is something which we have all sought to make as trans-Atlantic as possible. [There have been] a fantastic number of telephone conversations between political leaders, on the same page: ‘This is terrible, what are we going to do about it?'”
That hardly means that unity on Ukraine erases differences on other issues. Only four NATO members — the US and UK among them — meet the alliance target for spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, a longstanding source of resentment in the US and a chronic worry for the Brits as well. Conversely, the Europeans’ new fear of the Kremlin has hardly made them forget their new fear of Fort Meade, home of the National Security Agency monitoring network that eavesdropped on both ordinary Europeans and their leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel herself. Indeed, Germany, the economic heart of Europe, has reacted with particular bitterness, and for good reason.
“I’m constantly reminded by my German friends that this whole issue of revelations of spying… is something that is taken very seriously in Germany and upsets German public opinion , and that it goes back to the days of the Stasi,” the notorious East German secret police, Amb. Westmacott told me. “It is important that we bear in mind this is not posturing, these are real concerns.”
As genuinely upset as the Germans and others are over American espionage, however, their dismay at Russia’s actions is “in a separate category” altogether, Westmacott went on. “The German response, with the rest of us in Europe, is about outrage at what’s going on,” he said. “It’s about trying to ensure that this behavior is brought to an end. It is about, in the short term, trying to ensure that we get to the facts and deal with the humanitarian aspects of the bodies and victims [of the Flight MH17 shoot-down]. It is also, of course, about trying to ensure that in years to come Europe is not excessively dependent upon Russia,” e.g. for energy.
russian-troops-parade-in-st-petersburg
Mobilizing Europe
In the public Q&A session, Amb. Westmacott modestly played down the idea the UK might play a unique role as intermediary between their bellicose American cousins and their cautious continental neighbors. That said, he told the group at the Watergate, “we have played quite an important role, much of it behind the scenes, in trying to stiffen the backbone of our other European partners who weren’t quite sure that this was the right path.”
Nor is the UK applying this pressure on America’s behalf.  “When we are trying to persuade some of our European partners to be more robust in their response to Russian behavior in Eastern Ukraine, it is not simply because the White House has said to us, ‘please beat up on your European allies,'” Westmacott said. “It is actually because we think it is the right thing to do and the international community must make that stand.”
Europe is working with the US but “looking at what’s going on in Ukraine through the prism of its own interests,” Westmacott told me, not simply following party lines in some new Cold War.
So what next? “There are a number of levers that we have” to turn up the pressure on Russia, the ambassador told the group at the Watergate. “One of the consequences of the terrible event, the shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines aircraft, is that a number of European governments that which been a little wary of going down the sanctions route are going to be more robust.”
Tighter sanctions won’t just hurt Russia, however, especially if they rise to the controversial level of “sectoral” sanctions against, say, the Russian energy or arms industries. (The current approach targets specific individuals and companies). The famous City of London won’t be happy to stop lending money to Russian oil magnates, for example, nor the French shipyards to cancel the sale of two Mistral-class amphibious warships, nor anyone in Germany to pay more for Russian oil and natural gas.
“We know that for us, it will be difficult for the financial services industry,” Westmacott said. “We know that for some of our partners it will be difficult if it’s an arms embargo. We know that for others that energy technology or energy purchases with be painful.” (The ambassador diplomatically declined to name specific countries, unlike me).
Nevertheless, Westmacott said, “we’ve got to make this stand on this joint principle that you can’t allow the playground bully to carry on beating on other children.”

A computer-generated image of a Royal Navy F-35B taking off vertically from the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, which will be commissioned July 4th.
A computer-generated image of a Royal Navy F-35B taking off vertically from the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Unshared Burdens and Grounded Jets
As Westmacott also repeatedly mentioned, however, diplomacy is a thin reed without “credible” military power to back it up. That’s where European failure to meet NATO’s two percent target becomes a problem. “We need strong traditional militaries,” the ambassador said, as well as “a subtle array of alternatives,” from intelligence to cybersecurity to diplomacy. “It is not reasonable to continue to expect the United States to continue to bear more than its fair share of costs,” he said, but currently the US spends roughly three times as much as all the other NATO nations combined.
“It’s not just about what is the amount of money you spend, it’s what you do with it,” Westmacott added. “Are you willing to use the equipment you’ve got?….Is [it] the right stuff to deal with current and future threats?…. There are of course countries which spend quite a lot on defense but then don’t actually do anything with what they’ve got.” Those are all crucial questions for September’s NATO summit in Wales, he said.
For its part, the UK has committed to being able to deploy and sustain, indefinitely, a 10,000-strong force at intercontinental distances, including if need be in the Asia-Pacific, the Ambassador said. Central to that power-projection force are the two (enormously expensive)Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers now under construction and their “state-of-the-art F-35s.” But what about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter‘s chronic cost overruns, delays, and glitches, most recently the engine fire that grounded the entire fleet and caused the plane to miss its scheduled international debut at the Queen Elizabeth’s christening, the Royal International Air Tattoo, and the mammoth Farnborough International Airshow.
“We were obviously disappointed that we didn’t have the F-35s,” Westmacott said. “New products unfortunately have teething troubles, [but] we remain confident in the product, convinced that it’s what we need, proud of the partnership the UK has with the United States, pretty much as a prime contractor.” (In fact, the ambassador emphasized the importance of a “two-way street” in arms sales and joint ventures of all kinds between the US and Europe). When it comes to the F-35, he said, “we are absolutely not wavering our commitment to this enterprise.

Ban introduced on civil flights over zone of military operation in eastern Ukraine

July 8, 2014, 9:06 p.m. | Ukraine — by Interfax-Ukraine

Ukraine's State Aviation Service has extended the ban on civil flights to the entire zone of law enforcement operation in the east of the country, State Aviation Service chief Denys Antoniuk told Interfax-Ukraine on July 8.














US NAVY LCS UPGRADE : Better Armed and Production Surges, Price Drops,

Once, the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship was a nightmare of cost overruns, schedule slips, and design flaws. That was especially true of Lockheed Martin’s LCS-1, the Freedom, with its hull cracks and electrical failures. Eight ships later, the design is fixed and the price has dropped by a third .
Production is moving at such a pace and has become so routine that Lockheed’s vice-president for LCS, Joe North, sometimes forgets which ship comes next.
“We’re up here this week [for] the launch of LCS-11, which is the future USS Sioux City — I’m sorry, LCS-9, which is the USS Little Rock,” North said, chagrined, in a conference call from Marinette. “Later this year, we will be launching LCS-11, which is Sioux City.”
Losing track is understandable. “We currently have seven ships in production up here,” North told reporters. LCS-9 will launch this Saturday and LCS-11 later this year. Work is well underway on LCS-13 and -15, while it has just started on LCS-17 is under production. LCS-19 and -21 are under contract, and Lockheed expects a contract for LCS-23 soon. (Even-numbered LCS are built by Austal in Alabama, which uses a completely different design).
The cost is currently about $358 million for the Freedom version and headed down to a low of $348.5 million. (Note these figures are for the ship itself and don’t include military equipment, such as weapons, that the government purchases separately, which can add over $100 million). The price has dropped steeply since the mismanaged early days of the program, when the Navy changed the design of LCS-1 and -2 midway through construction. Now the price is starting to level out. Costs will eventually climb back up slightly: After years of making LCS manufacture more efficient, the shipyard is reaching diminishing returns, while inflation in labor and materials is beginning to catch up.
Lockheed LCS costs

So what’s unique about LCS-9? The future Little Rock is the first Lockheed LCS to be built entirely in Marinette’s revamped facilities. When Marinette was bought in 2008 by Fincantieri — on whose civilian designs the Lockheed LCS is based — the Italian company committed to a $73.5 million investment in the shipyard, parts of which dated to World War II. The more streamlined manufactured process reduces the distance ship components travel through the yard by eight miles, North said.
LCS-5 and LCS-7 were built as the yard was renovated around them, which some work done in the old facilities and some in the new. LCS-9 was built entirely in the new.
“The one thing we will not to do is…break production,” said North, “because we’ve already bid these ships and we already have contracts in place for them.” That means keeping the design the same — and resisting any urges to “improve” it that might increase cost or impose delay.
That said, the Navy is looking at an upgunned, upgraded, and more expensive variant of the LCS, designated a frigate. The current plan is for 32 of the existing LCS designs and 20 LCS frigates, but there’s considerable interest in cherry-picking some of the frigate’s improvements and adding them to the original-model LCS.
North made clear, however, that such upgrades would not be allowed to interfere with ongoing production: They “would probably be [done] in a backfit mode once we’re done and delivered here,” he said.
Lockheed is already looking at how to modify its LCS into the frigate design — but the details of what weapons and other equipment it has to carry are still being decided by the Navy. “We’re working…on cost and weight reductions to account for the fact that you’re going to get rid of large open module areas and fill them in” with new systems, North said. “They’re supposed to have final definition later this year [and] tell us what their final selection of systems is.”
Lockheed Martin photo

on July 16, 2015 at 4:00 PM


McCain Warns Navy On LCS Upgrade


CAPITOL HILL: The war over the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship is far from over. This morning, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John McCain warned Navy leaders that their drive towards an upgraded LCS frigate may be repeating the mistakes that resulted in the original, much-criticized LCS design.
“Without a clear capabilities-based assessment, it is not clear what operational requirementsthe upgraded LCS is designed to meet,” McCain said. “The Navy must demonstrate what problem the upgraded LCS is trying to solve. We must not make this mistake again.”
The biggest controversy over the Littoral Combat Ship has been its inability to survive in combat. At this morning’s hearing, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus acknowledged a small ship would never be as tough as a full-size destroyer but that “survivability — for a small surface combatant, particularly with the upgrades — meets our fleet requirements.”
That sounds okay, but it begs the crucial question: Are the requirements right? Meeting the standard doesn’t help if the standard is set too low. Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi reactor was designed with the requirement to survive anything short of a once-in-a-century storm, for example, but it turned out that 100-year-storm occurred a lot earlier than anticipated.
For another example, both the current and upgraded LCS designs have radically unorthodox hulls and disproportionately massive powerplants — with a complex combination of both diesel and turbine engines — because the Navy wants the ships to go faster than 40 knots. That’s staggeringly fast for a warship, about 30 percent faster than an Aegis destroyer. But no one in the Navy seems to have ever figured out quite what to dowith all that expensive speed in a real-world tactical situation. It’s a solution searching for a problem.
Skeptics argue that launching helicopters, drones, and missiles provides far faster response at far less cost than trying to accelerate the whole ship. A requirement that sounded intuitively awesome to the admirals might have proven excessive if subjected to rigorous analysis, but that analysis wasn’t done.
The Navy did conduct a great deal of analysis before settling on the upgraded LCS designs — but much of that analysis was based on naval officers’ intuition and experience. A Small Surface Combatant Task Force conducted extensive focus groups with experienced officers across the fleet, asking them to rate the value of different capabilities and make tradeoffs among them to determine the highest priorities. The SSCTF then used computer modeling to work through thousands of alternative designs, from all-new warships to foreign designs to modifications of the existing LCS, ultimately choosing a modified LCS to absolutely no one’s surprise.
That was work worth doing, but it can’t replace the traditional process of formal analysis, Congressional Research Service analyst Ron O’Rourke argues in a recent study. O’Rourke takes issue not with the Small Surface Combatant Task Force itself, but with then-Secretary Chuck Hagel’s February 2014 memorandum that rebooted LCS in the first place.
“[There are] two formal, rigorous analyses that do not appear to have been conducted prior to the announcement of the program’s restructuring,” O’Rourke writes. Before you commit taxpayer dollars to a weapons program, you traditionally take three steps, he writes: “[1] identify capability gaps and mission needs; [2] compare potential general approaches for filling those capability gaps or mission needs…and [3] refine the approach selected as the best or most promising.” In short, you figure out what problem you’re trying to solve, then how to solve it, then how best to implement that solution. The upgraded LCS skipped the first two steps.
Specifically, the Small Surface Ship Combatant Task Force did Step No. 3. The SSCTF was created to examine existing, all-new, and modified designs for “a more lethal and survivable small surface combatant, with capabilities generally consistent with those of a frigate.” After extensive analysis, the task force came up with the ship that met those criteria best. But it was Hagel’s memo that set those criteria. It did so with no evident analysis of what specific problem the frigate was supposed to solve. Nor was there analysis of whether a frigate was the best solution, as opposed to some other kind of ship or something else altogether — for example a larger ship, an aircraft, or new tactics.
“Having refined the design concept for [the upgraded LCS], the Navy will now define and seek approval for the operational requirements for the ship,” O’Rourke writes. “Skeptics might argue that definition and approval of operational requirements should come first, and conceptual design should follow, not the other way around.”
For an expert like O’Rourke to pose the question is itself significant: He’s one of the most respected naval analysts around, and his job at CRS is specifically about advising Congress. For a bulldog like McCain to promise oversight on the issue raises it to a higher level — one the Pentagon needs to deal with.

What’s In A Name? Making The LCS ‘Frigate’ Reality

on January 16, 2015 at 6:45 PM


CRYSTAL CITY: What’s in a frigate? That which we call a Littoral Combat Ship by any other name would smell as sweet — or stink as bad, according to LCS’s many critics. While LCS is being redesigned and renamed, there’s a lot of hard work and hard choices required to make the improvements real.
Yesterday, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced the new upgunned, uparmored, and as yet unbuilt version of LCS would be formally redesignated as a “frigate.” (From heaviest to lightest, the traditional classification runs: battleship, cruiserdestroyer, frigate, corvette). One of the major criticisms of the original LCS design was its lack of firepower andprotection compared to the Perry-class frigates it would replace. The improved design will be worthy of the frigate designation, Mabus insisted.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus
“If you list the attributes of a frigate and then list the attributes of [an improved LCS], we’re actually more capable than a normal frigate is,” Mabus told reporters after his remarks to the Surface Navy Associationconference. “They don’t look like traditional Navy ships sometimes, and I think that’s one of the issues that traditionalists have, but if you look at missions, if you look at what a frigate is supposed to be able to do, that’s what this ship does.”
The basic plan set forth a year ago is to buy 32 Littoral Combat Ships of the current design, the last of them in the fiscal 2018 budget. Then the Navy will buy 20 of the upgunned version — what’s now the frigate — starting in fiscal 2019. The exact package of upgrades that will actually make the frigate a frigate won’t be finalized until ’19, but it will include more weapons, armor, and sensors.
The Navy wants to add at least some of these improvements to at least some the Littoral Combat Ships being built before 2019. “We’re going to try to fold in these new capabilities earlier than [LCS] 32,” Mabus said.
How many of them? “All of them,” Mabus hopes. “If we fold in some, we’re going to fold in all [the improvements]. It’ll add about $75 million a ship but, as we said, that’s still under the congressional cost cap. We’re not going to piecemeal it, we’re going to do the entire upgrade.”
The Secretary’s subordinates sounded somewhat less sanguine. “We’re going to want to do that [upgrade] across the board as best as possible,” said Sean Stackley, assistant secretary for acquisition. But “this isn’t exactly a binary thing,” Stackley told reporters: It’s not an either/or where you either have to add the entire upgrade package envisioned for the frigate or do nothing.
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
“[Upgrades] to improve the survivability, we want to do those on all the ships,” Stackley said: extra armor around weapons magazines, for example, shock hardeningaround vital equipment, or degaussing the hull to reduce its magnetic field. But the details of more complicated upgrades — such as missiles and electronics — will take a few years to figure out. In the meantime, he said, you might have to build ships with places for the systems-to-be-determined to plug in later.
Some of the Littoral Combat Ships already in the water may never get all the upgrades. Internal armor, for example, is such an integral part of a ship’s construction that it might be impractical or impossible to retrofit. “For ships that are already delivered, it may be such a large charge that we may only be able to do partial [upgrades],” said the Navy’s Program Executive Officer (PEO) for LCS, Rear Adm. Brian Antonio.
There’s also the constraint of time, Antonio told reporters. “LCS-1 was commissioned in ’08, and with a 25-year service life, that takes her to 2023,” when she retires — which would be just four years after the upgrade design is finalized in 2019. Littoral Combat Ships come in for major maintenance every 32 to 36 months. So with the earlier ships, said Antonio, “there’s a mathematical possibility that we wouldn’t be able to get everything in.” (It’s also inefficient to invest in upgrading a ship about to retire).
Rear Adm. Brian Antonio
Rear Adm. Brian Antonio
“We’ll catch as many as we’re funded [for] and can do,” the admiral said.
For every upgrade to the ship, there’s a delicate balance between how much combat capability it would add and how much time, cost, and complexity it would require. It’s worth remembering that the epic overruns and delays on the first two Littoral Combat Ships were caused primarily by a decision halfway through construction to change basic features of the design. Since then, the program has made only modest improvements from ship to ship, and it’s made remarkable progress controlling both cost and schedule.
“What I like is stability in the shipbuilding plan,” said Antonio. “Worst thing in the world would be, ‘hey, we’ve got this great new thing, we’ve got to go [add] it,’ and ship deliveries get delayed by six months, a year, two years, and all of a sudden everything’s out of whack.”
“It’s already going to be a sporty timeline,” Antonio said. What the Navy has to work from is the current LCS design — actually two designs, the Lockheed-built Freedom class and theGeneral Dynamics Independence — and a detailed concept for the upgraded frigate version, developed over six months by the Small Surface Combatant Task Force. That concept calls for such improvements as new electronic warfare gear and a new “over the horizon” anti-ship missile with a 100-150 nautical mile range. It doesn’t specify such things as whether the minimum acceptable is 100 or 150 or something in between, what specific targets the weapon must be able to hit, what kind of seeker the warhead should have, let alone which missile to buy.
“The task force identified capability,” said Antonio. “We’ve got to identify the systems; then we have to identify how those systems integrate or interface with the current systems; and then there’s a whole development and testing [process] that has to happen.”
US Navy graphic
The upgraded version of the LCS-2 Independence.
How far along are we? Antonio has hired three former Small Surface Combatant Task Force staff to form a “concept development team” with full access to all the task force’s analysis: “That kind of gives me a jump start,” he said. He’ll soon be able to show both shipbuilders a “sanitized” version of the task force materials as well.
The Navy needs to take all the task force’s concepts for capabilities and translate them into specific, formal requirements, Stackley explained. Those requirements then need approval by a Resources and Requirements Review Board (R3B). Then, for each requirement, the Navy needs to decide if it can meet it with equipment already in service — which may require buying more items off existing contracts — or if it must hold a competition for something new. A Request for Proposals will go out to industry in 2018, with award and procurement in 2019.
Then it’s up to the winners from industry to deliver the goods and to the government to integrate everything into a working warship. (The Navy is acting as its own “lead systems integrator” here rather than contracting that function out). Only then will the world be able to judge whether the final product is worthy of the name of “frigate,” an honorable heritage going back to the USS Constitution.
US Navy graphic


LCS Lives: Hagel Approves Better Armed Upgrade

on December 11, 2014 at 9:35 PM


PENTAGON: The controversial Littoral Combat Ship dodged a big torpedo today, whenoutgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel approved the Navy’s plan for a larger, better armed and better protected version of the ship. Critics had called for a radical redesign or an entirely new ship. The “modified LCS” simply adds new weapons, electronics, and armor to the two existing LCS variants for an additional $60-$75 million per ship.
“After rigorous review and analysis, today I accepted the Navy’s recommendation to build a new small surface combatant (SSC) ship based on upgraded variants of the LCS,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a statement early this evening. “The new SSC will offer improvements in ship lethality and survivability, delivering enhanced naval combat performance at an affordable price.”
Arguably the biggest change: the new version will not be able to serve as a minesweeper, focusing instead on fighting enemy surface vessels and submarines.
US Navy graphic
The upgraded version of the LCS-1 Freedom class
The Navy remains committed to buying both the speedboat-likeFreedom hull, built by Lockheed Martin and Marinette Marine in Wisconsin, and the space-age-catamaran Independence, built byGeneral Dynamics and Austal in Alabama. Between them, the two teams will build 52 Littoral Combat Ships, as was the plan before Sec. Hagel ordered a review of LCS in February. Today’s announcement simply means 32 of those will be the original LCS design and 20 will be the upgraded version. (At least some of the original 32 will eventually receive at least some of the upgrades, but the current design can’t accommodate all the changes).
The split between the teams and terms of competition remains to be determined: The Navy will submit an acquisition strategy to the secretary by May and work out detailed cost estimates as part of the budget process for 2017. While the shipbuilders themselves will remain the same, there may be multiple opportunities to compete on specific components of the upgrade package, such as new missiles and sensors.
US Navy graphic
The upgraded version of the LCS-2 Independence.
So what’s the difference between the “modified LCS” and the current design (bizarrely designated “Flight Zero Plus”)? The new version gets a lot more combat power for not much more cost, insisted the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. JonathanGreenert, and the Navy’s top procurement official, Assistant Secretary Sean Stackley, at a hastily convened roundtable with reporters this evening.
“Are you going to need an Aegis ship to protect this ship? The answer is no,” said Stackley. One major criticism of the original LCS was that it lacked the anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses to survive on its own against any serious threat, requiring escort by expensive cruisers and destroyers equipped with the Aegis defense system. While threat environments vary, Stackley said, “we have given this multi-mission [LCS] the degree of self-defense that it needs so it does not have to be operating underneath the umbrella of an Aegis ship.”
Unlike an Aegis ship, however, the new LCS design does not have the Navy’s standard multi-purpose missile-launcher, the Vertical Launch System. Used on larger craft from cruisers to attack submarines, VLS can fire different kinds of rounds to shoot down incoming aircraft and missiles, strike land targets, or — once the Navy finishes developing a new long-range anti-ship missile — sink enemy warships. Outsiders, including one of Greenert’s former aides, argued an LCS with VLS would be much more able to attack a wide range of targets and defend itself or even other ships against a wide range of threats.
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. photo
Adm. Jonathan Greenert briefs reporters on the new LCS
“They did evaluate a Vertical Launch System,” Adm. Greenert said. But it was “kind of heavy, kind of big, a major change [adding] cost, time. It was all part of the evaluation, Sydney, so it was considered.” But ultimately the Small Surface Combatant Task Force charged to review alternatives to the current LCS found adding a Vertical Launch System cost too much in terms of money, production delays, and weight for what it added, Greenert said.
What the new LCS will have, and the current one does not, is an over-the-horizon anti-ship missile: The Navy will probably hold a competition for the exact system, but Stackley said it would be at least comparable to the Harpoon Block II, which has about a 70-mile range.
For self defense, the new LCS will have an upgraded version of the current model’s SeaRAMmissile launcher. It will also add new 25 millimeter heavy machineguns. (The Navy decided against adding a 5-inch cannon, though, to traditionalists’ dismay). It have new decoy launchers and anti-torpedo defenses. An advanced degaussing system will make the hull’s magnetic field less detectable by naval mines.
To detect threats, the new LCS will have an upgraded radar and a “multifunction towed array” to detect torpedoes and submarines. When configured for all-out sub hunts, it will replace some of its anti-ship weapons with a variable-depth sonar — making it, said Stackley, “the most effective ASW [anti-submarine warfare] platform in the Navy.”
The USS John Paul Jones test-fires an SM-6 in June
A Vertical Launch System (VLS) firing.
From Adm. Greenert’s perspective, though, the most exciting new addition “would be the upgraded EW [electronic warfare] system,” he said. While the new LCS won’t get the full Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block II being developed for larger warships, it will get what Greenert called “SEWIP-light.” That allows for a “soft-kill” of incoming missiles, not by shooting them down but by scrambling their electronics.
Finally, if the enemy does manage to land a blow, the new LCS will be much better able to survive and recover, Stackley said. Crucial compartments on the ship will have additional armor and key systems will be hardened against shock. While the Navy doesn’t use its traditional Level 1/2/3 system of survivability ratings anymore, Stackley said the new LCS’s robustness “matches what we would have for a frigate” — a significantly larger class of vessel that Hagel himself ordered the Navy to consider as a replacement for LCS.
So how can the Navy cram all this new stuff into the existing hull designs? The current LCS is built as a “modular” design that can configured as a minesweeper, sub-hunter, or anti-ship combatant — but not all three at once. The new LCS, by contrast, will need some plug-and-play systems for specific missions, but it will always carry both its over-the-horizon missile launcher — an anti-ship weapon — and its towed array — anti-submarine — in addition to the new defenses.
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. photo
Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
That’s possible because the task force scoured the LCS design for places to cut weight. “We’ve looked at every item on the ship,” Stackley said. Every pound nipped and tucked from non-essential systems was more for weapons, sensors, and armor. That process will continue as designs get more detailed. It’s likely the new LCS will end up somewhat heavier than the current design, Stackley said, but that will only slow the ship by a few knots. That’s not a major sacrifice given that the Navy designed the LCS for a blisteringly fast 40-plus knots and thenstruggled to figure out what, tactically, all that speed was for.
The one real sacrifice in the new LCS design is the ability to clear mines. That mission will be left to the 32 original-model Littoral Combat Ships — which, Greenert insisted, was enough to handle “the most stressing” possible scenarios. What the theater commanders around the world wanted most, Stackley said, was not minesweeping but the ability to combat both surface craft and submarines. That is the mission against which the new LCS will be measured.