JJqJ I 1 ■ 1,1 ollip 111 II 1C VJ vvilll acvciai MI1U.1 I 1IIIA.1IIC.'), ii uuta
laim u6 tlme wbile moving the appropriate weapon into place under a The l0ad'n® ^a’ch-
•ban th Marl<-41 systems installed in Aegis cruisers carry more missiles tj,ee'r Predecessors: 61 per launcher compared to 44 in the Mark-26s amD,reP>ace. However, like the Mark-26, Mark-41 is modular. For ex- class^ ttl£ ^4'm‘ss'le version of Mark-26 (as in the Kidd [DDG-993] Hurl ’"'^responds to a 29-missile version of Mark-41 (in the Arleigh
it G'51]class)'
des(e ^ark‘^* wiH arm future Aegis cruisers and the Arleigh Burke The s -S entire‘y comparable foreign systems are yet in service. mech-°Vlet launcher (in the Kirov and the Slava) incorporate a
the M.niCa* ‘n^ex'ng system below the firing hatch, which cannot match 'vhethe-- .if* S ^Texibility or (almost certainly) rate of fire. It is unclear
of "" exes- Certainly, both Soviet launchers are limited to a single type Pon- Both Canada and Britain plan to install vertical launchers in m,,i, n?W fo'8ates, which are still several years away and not designed for mul"Ple weaoon
Contract Enters Competition
timely^be^ S part‘c‘Pat'on m a British AEW competition is particularly a Pfoie t C|*t)Se t*le lJ' S- Navy is opening development and production of changi cf.. Pa,r°l airplane to competition. This reflects the Navy’s
Vertical Launch System Works
(CG4 m‘SS‘le cruiserBunker Hill (CG-52), first of the Ticonderoga in • ' *^ass vertical missile launchers, carried out successful fir- 41® trials in the Gulf of Mexico in May (see pages 102-103). Her Mark- vertical launchers are the first of what will become the standard Navy sjl*SI *" bundling system, capable of firing the Standard antiaircraft mis- I h ^orna^awk land-attack and antiship missiles, and a vertically anyHf C<^’ *on8er_range version of ASROC (antisubmarine rocket)—and for UtUre *ar£e’ long-range, advanced surface-to-air weapon required, j^xamPle, to fight the outer air battle. fua ^ark-41, each missile is carried in a vertical cell which also much*fnS 3S 'tS *aunc*ler- Compared to the Mark-26, the Mark-41 fires sPeed aS*er ant^ Can accommodate much larger weapons. Greater firing mis i IS ac^'evec* by eliminating the mechanical step of ramming the js ® fr°m the magazine onto the launcher: in Mark-41, the magazine tnissil aUnCher' *n acl<-lhion, the system does not have to move the next into place. In a ship armed with several kinds of missiles, it does
The r WeaP°n typ£S-
°ga ■ ma SPY-1A Aegis radar, the type installed in existing Ticonder- whichrU1SerS’ 'S ^Cln" completed. The prototype SPY-1B (for CG-59, <s to be launched in October 1987) is now being tested.
n°t to d*5 pijocurernenl practices. The P-3G itself represents a decision nated VP^ cP 30entirely new Patrol airplane—a jet tentatively desig- year fo th F°Ur a‘rcraft are to be bought in fiscal year 1989, then 25 per represent e next ’our years, and the last 21 in fiscal year 1994. This (nine perS U mUC*1 higher rate of production than that achieved for P-3Cs (raitw ,:yCar)’ wbich reflects the current practice of seeking economical The Mr sus,aining) Production rates.
Lockhee I r rf 'ncorPorate a new avionics suit. Update 4: Boeing and comDetit' a ' 0rn‘a are competing for the development contract. The of 133 exOI|'W!nper a*S° reP,ace ’be Update 2 and Update 3 avionics bay length* ^<"s' 3I'C airplane will also be reengined, and its bomb Some featiCn.e f? Carry harpoon and the Mark-50 torpedo internally). Were disnl /08)0 . ocbbeetl s proposal, such as the enlarged bomb bay, designation^ tu U|St yC3r S ^“vy League exhibition under the unofficial It is „ " , L 0r P'3 heavyweight version.
sua ut not unique—for the Navy to allow several manufacturers to compete for production of an improved version of an airplane one of them designed. That was standard practice in the 1920s, and it explains some of the confusion of airplane designations in use at that time. Later it was dropped, and later transfers of production were limited to World War II development of additional sources of supply for such widely-used types as the Grumman/Eastern Avenger and Wildcat, and the Vought/Goodyear Corsair. However, competition has been used more recently in such subsystems as torpedoes (e.g., Mark-48) and shipboard radars (SPS-40), and it has helped keep costs down during the current naval expansion.
Australia Launches Navy Catamaran
The Royal Australian Navy launched HMAS Rushculter, the first of a class of two (with four more planned) fiberglasshulled, catamaran inshore minehunters on 3 May. Delivery is scheduled for August or September. At 170 tons fully loaded and with a crew of only two officers and 11 enlisted men, the Rushculter is one of the world’s smallest minehunters. Like the new U. S. minesweeper/hunter (MSH), her unusual configuration emphasizes deck area (to handle minehunting equipment) over internal volume, partly because—unlike a minesweeper—a minehunter does not need the power to tow heavy sweeps. The great inherent stability of the catamaran configuration makes it possible to mount her engines in the deckhouse, driving propellers through two electric propulsion/steering motors, so that minimal noise is transmitted into the water to trigger acoustic mines. The diesel engines are mounted on sound isolation rafts and hooded to further reduce noise emission. Magnetic signature has been minimized, but it is not clear whether the diesel engines are non-magnetic.
Minehunting equipment includes a Krupp-Atlas MWS-80 system consisting of a modular integrated control and precision navigation system, a German DSQS-11H sonar (as used in the German Type-332 minehunters and Type-343 minesweepers) beneath the port hull, and two PAP-104 mine location and disposal submersibles. The control room is in a dis- mountable deckhouse, reflecting a “repair by replacement" operational philosophy, to minimize crew size and, thus, ship size.
The hull is an asymmetric catamaran built of foam sandwich glass- reinforced plastic. A full-scale hull section (from keel to upper deck) was built in 1980 and successfully shock-tested. Even stores spaces are shock-hardened.
Aspin Proposes New Game
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-WI) is trying to change his committee’s approach to the Department of Defense (DoD) budget for fiscal year 1987. Given the pressure to make deep cuts (owing to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), he proposes that such cuts should be based on specific policy decisions—which the committee should make. Aspin argues that policy should govern specific cuts, and not the other way around (as in the past). However, in the past, policy has been virtually the exclusive prerogative of the executive branch. Aspin’s proposal, then, might create a conflict between DoD and Congress on the most fundamental policy issues rather than—as in the past— on particular procurement issues. Congress is showing increasing inter-
123
Pfoceedings / August 1986
Sidewinders May Arm S-3 Vikings
The Navy is to study the feasibility of carrying two AIM-9 S i^L^Va'r(-are air-to-air missiles on board S-3 Viking carrier antisubmarine
s or drop tanks. This proje_er
.. ‘ the survivability of U. ■ c^viet
aircraft operating near current or future Soviet carriers, or near j
inverse synthetic aperture-imaging radar, will be used as an ^ strike leader or “snooper,” it will be a particularly attractive^ a^^iy
est in basic strategic questions and other policy matters in the ongoing debate over the future organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One argument growing in popularity is that U. S. defense can be conducted more economically if it is based on a more coherent policy—an argument that underlies the current Navy emphasis on a coherent maritime strategy. Of course, the proponents of overall defense cohesiveness do not necessarily support the concepts of the maritime strategy.
The House Armed Services Committee is also pressing for a reduction in the scope of “black” (highly classified) programs within the overall DoD program. Black, or codeword, classification was formerly applied only to intelligence operations. However, some weapons hardware research, including that involving stealth, has also been conducted in this manner, i.e., outside the usual defense security system, and also outside most congressional oversight. Such programs, primarily stealth research, have grown eightfold since 1981. As controversy over the future of the stealth bomber has grown, it has become clear that Congress cannot effectively participate in the choice between the stealth bomber and further B-l production. In effect, as the black portion of the budget grows, congressional power over the budget declines. The House Armed Services Committee leadership is now arguing that 70% of all black projects can be disclosed without harming national security, and that further black projects should be curtailed.
It seems likely that some design information on the stealth bomber and fighter will be released later this year. Reportedly, civilians have seen tests of such aircraft in the southwestern United States. Such a release, in turn, would make it easier for the U. S. defense industry to investigate countermeasures to a Soviet equivalent. The release of such information has been strongly resisted by DoD on grounds that it would also make Soviet countermeasures easier. Given the lack of available information, it is by no means clear that there is a single stealth technology; thus, U. S. and reported Soviet projects might invite different countermeasures.
British Aerospace Hawk 200 Flies
The British Aerospace Hawk 200 light attack bomber flew for the first time on 21 May. It is a strike version of the Hawk trainer—the T-45A version of which is to be produced by McDonnell Douglas for the U. S. Navy. (A fixed-price contract for full-scale engineering development of the T-45A was signed on 16 May.) The Hawk 200 can carry up to 6,800 pounds of external weapons plus one or two built-in 25-mm. Aden or 27-mm. Mauser cannons. Hawk trainers are already either in service or on order with the Royal Air Force, as well as the air forces of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Finland, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe.
The Hawk is only one of many current jet trainers with significant light ground- and sea-attack capability (although without armor to match); Argentine trainers proved effective in the Falklands, for example. Such aircraft should become more attractive to medium and small air forces as the price of high-performance fighters continues to climb. Nor is this problem limited to smaller air forces: for some time, the U. S. Air Force has been under pressure to develop a low-cost attack bomber (sometimes called the “blitz fighter”) that could be produced in sufficient numbers to counter a massive Warsaw Pact tank attack in Europe. It seems arguable, moreover, that a less capable jet with an effective radar and a high- performance air-to-air missile (such as the Hughes AIM-1-DA ad '^ medium-range air-to-air missile [AMRAAM]) will prove atm* After all, the U. S. Navy came close to ordering just such a com
(the Eagle-Missileer) in the early 1960s. launched.
From a naval point of view, the wide dispersion of air a standoff antiship missiles, coupled with the wide availability o ^ like bomber/trainers, should increase the air threat to ships at seacen. next decade, perhaps to a greater degree than the spread ofniore ^ ^ sive higher-performance aircraft. It may be significant in this rec antj. Chile has just tested the British Aerospace Sea Eagle air-launc e ^ ship missile on a CASA C.101 Aviojet trainer. One missile can ried under each wing.
(ASW) aircraft, in addition to Harpoons or drop tanks. This projector
sumably reflects increased concern over the survivability of U. • . ,
- ’ s, or near sov ^
shore air bases. To the extent that the S-3B, with its ship-rec<’2^.p
: target ^
Soviet carrier-based aircraft. The S-3B’s main defenses will Pre*UJJJoUld be long-range electronic warning and evasion, but Sidewinders give it a measure of self-defense. were
The last U. S. carrier ASW aircraft to carry defensive weapo ^
TBM-3S Avengers. However, the P-2 Neptune, the predecessor___ ^
P-3 Orion land-based ASW aircraft, was originally heavily arme ^ armored. It seems likely that success in fitting Sidewinder to tm- be followed by attempts to fit it to future versions of the P-3- .V jefenSe. the P-3 must rely on electronic warning and evasion for sel -
South Korea to Buy German Subs
Reportedly, South Korea plans to construct German-designed,^orea electric submarines that have British fire control systems. Sout ^ has been interested in purchasing attack submarines for some t* ’ee. Netherlands has been reported as another possible supplier. The ment would almost certainly include sufficient technology trans permit the construction of further submarines in South Korea. ^
Previous agreements of this type (e.g., for fast patrol boats, w ^Jiip conta Boat) have led to the development of a South Korean wu|d export industry, which now designs its own frigates. South Korea ^ be particularly well-situated to deal with Taiwan, which will Paging find it difficult to purchase successors to the two submarines now built in the Netherlands. nnean
Any prospective South Korean order must be attractive to Eur (Q builders—given the near collapse of the warship export market, ow j^rd the generally depressed Third World economy. Aside from lll7,an.1(ja World, the principal prospective export submarine customers are ^ j, and Australia. For years, Israel has sought new submarines, w would have to buy with U.S.-provided funds. Such money rnust ® ,g(j. ally be spent either in the United States or in the country being 11 ^
However, neither the United States nor Israel has a diesel-electric su fine industry.
See For Yourself
A large defense contractor was hired to do a survivability study on an Air Force installation near San Francisco. A company engineer was briefing the results of the study to a group of officers in one of the buildings that had been analyzed. He had just finished a discussion of the building s ability to withstand earthquakes when an earthquake struck—and passed without any damage to the building. The engineer resumed briefing his shaken audience.
“The next threat considered." he said, “is nuclear war.”
A major in the audience quickly asked, “You’re not going to demonstrate that, too, are you?
Captain Billy Ray Smith, Jr., U. S. Air Force
124
Proceedings / Angus*