This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
The Navy initiated several significant aircraft and missile programs in 1984. The new advanced tactical aircraft employing stealth technology will replace the A-6 Intruder in the 1990s and beyond, and two new adversary aircraft will teach Navy fighter pilots the combat techniques of enemy aircraft. But perhaps most significantly, the Navy in 1984 initiated programs that will bring remotely piloted vehicles and blimps into the fleet. Both have appeared previously, with varying degrees of success. The application of new technologies to their construction and sensor fits and the changing requirements of “hi-tech” warfare have resurrected them from what many feel were premature graves. Developments in these and other Navy aircraft and missile programs are chronicled in the following pages.
Attack Aircraft
The ubiquitous A-4 Skyhawk is beginning to leave active Marine Corps service. Marine attack squadron VMA-331 gave up its A-4Ms in 1984 to prepare to stand up in early 1985 as the first operational AV-8B Harrier squadron. The Marine Corps also received its last three AV-8C conversions of AV-8As in 1984. Attack aircraft in production or under development for the Navy and/or Marine Corps are the Grumman A-6 Intruder series, the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, and the advanced tactical aircraft (ATA).
A-6E + : A decision was made in early 1984 to abandon the A-6F designation for upgrades of the A-6E Intruder, with some of the modifications planned for the A-6F to be included in an upgrade package for new and backfitted A-6Es. The improvements include new radar, air-to-air missile capability, standoff air-to-surface
At right is an AV-8B Harrier V/STOL aircraft which has joined VMAT-203 for Marine pilot training. On the opposite page, an F/A-18 conducts carrier qualifications on board the USS Constellation (CV-64) in February 1984.
capability, and higher thrust, more efficient engines. On 8 May, the Navy solicited bids for the new A-6 engines, specifying that they must be off-the-shelf. Only General Electric responded, offering its F404 engine in a twin non-afterburning, side-by-side configuration. The F404 also powers the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18, and, according to one Navy spokesman cited in Aviation Week, an F/A-18 engine could be installed in an upgraded A-6 in about four hours.
On 1 August the Navy contracted Grumman for the A-6E upgrade program, establishing a program ceiling of $397.8 million. The 1983 estimate for developing the A-6F was $500 million, including the engine. Chief among the improvements specified for the A-6E upgrade is a new radar that will provide sharper resolution, longer range, and additipnal modes of operation, including an air-to- air mode for self defense. According to Grumman, the radar:
“. . . must be capable of improved recognition, acquisition, and tracking of tactical targets at ranges nearly twice those of the present system. It must also be able to classify ship targets at distances consistent with the greater range capabilities of conventional and planned standoff attack weapons—an advance made possible with inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) processing—and to track surface targets at all speeds.”
Norden Systems, Hughes, and Westing- house are vying to supply the new radar.
Other improvements programmed include the consolidation of cockpit displays to five multi-function instruments plus a new head-up display, new tactical computers, data transfer equipment, stores management system, navigation sensors, communications equipment, and automatic self-protection jamming (ASPJ) system, all of which are common to other Navy aircraft. Grumman will also modify the aerodynamics of the A-6 by changing the configuration of the inboard slat on the wing leading edge and the adjacent glove vane to lower the A-6E upgrade’s landing speed by 8-10 knots, thereby increasing the aircraft’s permissible landing weight. Two additional wing- mounted store stations will be added for air-to-air missiles—probably Sidewinder and the advanced medium-range air-to- air missile (AMRAAM). The total upgrade package is expected not only to enhance the Intruder’s operational capabilities, but also to improve its maintenance man-hours per flight-hour by 2030% and its mission-capable rate by 13%.
The Navy plans to begin the A-6E upgrade with a 12 aircraft buy in fiscal year 1988, building toward an anticipated requirement for 126 new aircraft and an unspecified number of backfitted A-6Es.
Also in 1984, the last Navy medium attack squadron reequipped with the latest configuration Intruder, the A-6E TRAM, with the Hughes target recognition attack multisensor (TRAM). TRAM includes a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system, laser designation and rangefinding system, and a laser receiver, all contained in a chin-mounted turret called the detection and ranging set (DRS). A-6E TRAMs are the current production model and are scheduled to remain in production until the A-6E upgrade development is completed. Eleven A-6E TRAMs were delivered in 1984, and six more were approved in the fiscal year 1985 budget.
In December a large portion of the Navy’s A-6/EA-6/KA-6 fleet was grounded as a result of two separate and unrelated discoveries. Faulty rivets used by the Jacksonville Naval Air Rework Facility in the overhaul of A-6/EA-6 J52 engines started cracking, creating the possibility of engine failure. The rivets "'ere not procured from a regular supplier, but were purchased instead from ihe winner of a competitive procurement designed to lower spares costs. Late in December wing cracks were discovered in several A-6s at Navy and Grumman rework facilities, apparently the result of accelerated fatigue caused by operating the A-6s at excessive operational "'eights. An ongoing A-6 rewinging program will likely be accelerated as part of an overall solution.
KA-6D: The aerial refueling variant of the A-6 Intruder, the KA-6D, operates alongside the attack variant in all the Navy’s deployed medium attack squadrons. Four KA-6Ds are normally assigned to each squadron; a total of 49 were active at the start of 1984. Grumman St. Augustine Corporation, an aircraft overhaul and modification subsidiary of Grumman Aerospace, received a contract in 1983 to convert four additional A-6 attack versions to the KA-6D variant and to apply reliability and maintainability upgrades to the existing KA-6D fleet. These enhancements include structural improvements as well as new wiring, avionics, and fuel cells, and a capability to carry five 400-gallon drop tanks in lieu of the old 300-gallon tanks. The first two modified aircraft were delivered in October and December of last year. The other two were scheduled for March and April 1985 delivery, after which upgrades of the rest of the KA-6D fleet were due to begin.
AV-8B: The first of 12 pilot production AV-8Bs .was delivered to the Marine Corps’ Harrier II training unit, VMAT- 203, on 12 January. The rest were delivered through the remainder of 1984, allowing VMAT-203 to train instructor pilots for the AV-8B at ever-increasing rates. The first operational AV-8B squadron, VMA-331, was scheduled to stand up with two aircraft on 30 January 1985; it had been an A-4M squadron.
After completing 18 months of testing, deficiencies found in AV-8B full-scale development prototypes were corrected under the full-scale development contract. Chief among the problems were inadequate acceleration and insufficient low-altitude maximum airspeed. McDonnell Douglas and Rolls Royce engineers corrected these problems by uprating the interim F402-RR-404A engine and by recontouring the engine inlets to permit better airflow. The combination of these efforts resulted in an increase in thrust from 21,500 pounds to over 22,100 pounds. The production standard F402- RR-406 engine, which was first flight- tested in an AV-8B in late 1984, is expected to generate this higher thrust level at significantly lower operating temperatures. The -406 engines will equip Harrier IIs delivered in late 1985.
The AV-8B entered operational test and evaluation 31 August, with results due in February 1985. Other tests completed included climatic testing at Eglin AFB where a Harrier was frozen, cold soaked, and then baked over a two-month period to determine its ability to operate in extreme temperatures. Tests were also conducted at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake in Alberta, Canada, to determine what, if any, effect cold weather has on the Harrier’s operational effectiveness.
McDonnell Douglas received Navy contracts in 1984 for continued full-scale development of the two-seat trainer variant of the Harrier II, the TAV-8B, and for design definition of a night-attack version of the AV-8B. The night attack variant will likely include a forward-looking infrared system, night vision goggles for the pilot, and some changes in cockpit lighting. McDonnell Douglas is also studying the potential for a radar- equipped, all-weather variant of the aircraft for the Marine Corps.
The fiscal year 1985 budget contains authorization and funding for 32 AV- 8Bs. Ten pilot-production and two full- production AV-8Bs were delivered in 1984.
ATA: On 1 March, Richard DeLauer, Under Secretary of Defense Research and Engineering, told a House Armed Services subcommittee that top Pentagon officials including Secretary of the Navy John Lehman and Deputy Defense Secretary William Howard Taft IV agreed that development of a new Navy attack aircraft should begin as soon as possible. In
ADVANCED STRUCTURES CORP. 235 WEST INDUSTRY COURT DEER PARK, NEW YORK 11729
516-667-5000
NOMEX 'ARAMID IS A TRADEMARK OF DUPONT
THE NAVY'S LIGHTEST AND STRONGEST HONEYCOMB BULKHEAD PANELS - IN STOCK AND AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY ! (U.S. Navy Approved)
‘Corrosion Resistant ‘Lightweight
‘High Strength/Weight Ratio ‘Decorative
'Aluminum ‘Steel
‘Stainless Steel *GRP/Nomex
TYPICAL APPLICATIONS:
‘M.J. Bulkheads 'Berthing Partitions
'Shower Enclosures "Waterclosets
‘Work Stations ‘False Decks
AVAILABLE WITH ALUM, CRES & GRP ERECTION MEMBERS
We re already ahead of schedule and on budget.
We re proud to be part of your team and look forward to future shipbuilding projects with the Navy.
September Naval Air Systems Command established a program office to develop an all-weather strike aircraft that will eventually replace the A-6E TRAM (target recognition attack multisensor) and A-6E upgrade aircraft in the Navy’s medium attack squadrons. In October the Navy announced it had invited four companies—General Dynamics, Lockheed, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas—to submit proposals for the ATA, defining attack as the primary mission and air-to- air combat as a collateral role. The Navy selected these four companies on the basis of experience in the development of “stealth” technology, and encouraged potential respondents to form teams with other airframe manufacturers. General Dynamics apparently teamed with McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed with Vought, and Northrop with Grumman. The Navy will select two teams for competitive development and then compete production of the winning design between the team members. First production contracts for the ATA are projected for fiscal year 1994.
Fighter Aircraft
The Navy’s last F-4 Phantom Fleet Replacement Training Squadron, VF- 171, was decommissioned at Norfolk’s Oceana Naval Air Station on 1 June, leaving only two F-4 squadrons in the active fleet, VF-151 and VF-161, both assigned to the USS Midway’s air wing. The Marine Corps’ F-4 training squadron, VMFAT-101, will train both Navy and Marine Corps aviators until all F-4s are retired from active service.
Other fighters currently under development, being procured, or active in the Navy and/or Marine Corps are Northrop’s F-5E adversary fighter; Grumman’s F-14 series; McDonnell Douglas’ F/A-18A and reconnaissance variant, the RF-18; and two new adversary aircraft, Israel Aircraft Industries’ F-21A Kfir, and General Dynamics’ F-16N Fighting Falcon. The last two aircraft will supplement rather than replace the F-5E in the adversary training role.
F-14: On 8 February Secretary Lehman announced the selection of the General Electric FI 10 augmented turbofan engine to equip Grumman F-14A Tomcats beginning with fiscal year 1987 procurement, and the upgraded F-14D variant starting the next year. The maximum installed thrust of each FI 10 engine will be 23,100 pounds with maximum afterburner, and 14,100 pounds at military power, compared with 17,000 pounds and 10,300 pounds respectively for the F-14A’s current TF30 engine. The Navy version of the FI 10, which is a development of the Air Force’s F101 engine that powers the B-l bomber, will be designated F110-GE-400, and will have 80% commonality of parts with the Air Force’s FI 10 that will equip its F-15 and F-16 fighters. Fiscal year 1987 F-14A Tomcats that are equipped with the new engine will be called F-14A(PLUS) and are scheduled for delivery beginning April 1988. Plans call for 18 of these aircraft to be delivered prior to shifting Grumman’s production line to the more advanced F-14D, which will also use the FI 10. Early production F-14As will be re-engined with the FI 10 if their TF30 engines require replacement for any reason. The Navy announced in early summer that it had not yet decided on a formal re-engine program for other early F-14As. Pressure for such a program could be intense: in March testimony before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee Secretary Lehman called the F-14/TF30 “. . . probably the worst engine-airplane mismatch we have had in many years. The TF30 engine is just a terrible engine and has accounted for 28.2% of all F-14 crashes. . . .”
On 1 August, the Navy contracted Grumman to begin full-scale development of the F-14D, with a ceiling development price of $863.8 million in fiscal year 1984 dollars over a 57-month development schedule. In addition to the FI 10 engine, the F-14D will boast the Block V development of the Hughes AWG-9 radar/fire control system, a digitized upgrade of the original analog AWG-9 design currently in the F-14. This conversion from analog to digital radar will allow the F-14D to take advantage of a number of digital systems common to other Navy aircraft, including computers, inertial navigation system, multifunction displays, communications and identification, friend or foe (IFF) gear, JTIDS, ASPJ, ECM, ADF, and a new radar altimeter. The Navy plans to achieve avionics commonality greater than 80% between the F-14D and such other first-line Navy aircraft as the A-6E upgrade and the F/A-18. Other systems to be added include the Air Force-developed infrared search and track system (IRSTS) and the Navy/Air Force Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMR A AM), four of which will be carried along with four AIM-54C Phoenix missiles as the standard F-14D weapons loadout. The first of the F-14D deliveries is planned for March 1990.
In late July the Navy tore down and inspected a production Hughes AWG-9 radar destined for delivery to the Grumman F-14A production line. Some de-
fects were found, and Hughes suspended deliveries of the radars until quality control corrective measures could be applied.
Grumman delivered 26 F-14As to the Navy in 1984. An additional 24 aircraft were authorized and funded in the fiscal year 1985 budget.
F/A-18A: In January, the aircraft carrier Constellation (CV-64) completed an overhaul that, among other things, equipped her to operate F/A-18A Hornets, the first carrier so capable. In February, the Pacific Fleet F/A-18 readiness squadron, VFA-125, and the first Marine F/A-18 squadron, VFMA-314, conducted carrier qualifications on board the Constellation. They were followed during April, May, and July by the two Hornet squadrons assigned to the Constellation's air wing, VFA-25 and VFA- 113, which, during these operations, flew 746 sorties, accumulating 1,013 flight hours and 842 arrested landings. The Constellation was scheduled to deploy with her F/A-18s last summer but was delayed until February 1985.
On 14 July the Navy restricted all F/A- 18s from flight at high angles of attack pending the resolution of a design deficiency that caused accelerated metal fatigue and cracks in important structural components of the aircraft’s empennage. Some aircraft were grounded when inspections revealed that one of six fuselage attach points for the F/A-18’s vertical stabilizers was broken. McDonnell Douglas agreed to design and install modification kits to correct the problem without charge to the Navy. The first modified Hornet was flight tested on 20 November; shortly afterward deliveries suspended by the Navy on 27 July were resumed. Aircraft already in service were being retrofitted at the same time produc- lion line aircraft were modified.
Difficulties were also experienced with the quality control of the F/A-18’s radar and engines. Hughes voluntarily suspended deliveries of the Hornet’s APG- 65 radar while it resolved quality control problems at its El Segundo radar plant; deliveries were resumed in October, two months later. General Electric, manufacturer of the F404 engines that power the F/A-18, was informed by the Navy on 31 August that no additional engines would be accepted until a problem with an abradable coating material on the engine’s low-pressure turbine shroud was resolved. General Electric corrected the Problem, and the Navy resumed accepting the F404 in October.
In early 1984 McDonnell Douglas initiated its own program to develop a dorsal fin fuel tank to increase the F/A-18’s fuel load by 3,000 pounds. The development by Naval Air Systems Command of a voice command system for such functions as stores management finished its first phase in late 1984. Hornet upgrades contemplated by the Navy for future installation include the ASPJ, JTIDS, AMR A AM, and HR and laser Maverick missiles.
The Navy and Marine Corps accepted 39 F/A-18s in 1984, and the first Australian Hornet, a two-seat trainer, entered flight testing in the United States. An additional 84 F/A-18s were authorized and funded for the Navy/Marine Corps in the fiscal year 1985 budget.
RF-18: In February the Navy awarded McDonnell Douglas a $2 million contract to design, fabricate, and test a reconnaissance variant of the F/A-18. The Naval Air Development Center (NADC) supplied McDonnell Douglas with a prototype reconnaissance pallet to fit in the Hornet’s nose, displacing its internal cannon. The pallet provides two sensor stations that can accommodate a variety of the Navy’s existing cameras and sensors. The first flight of the reconfigured Hornet took place on 15 August, after which the aircraft entered flight tests at the Patuxent River, Maryland, Naval Air Test Center.
Later in the year the Navy awarded McDonnell Douglas an additional contract to develop a production reconnaissance variant of the F/A-18. On 24 December, the Navy announced that it intended to conduct tests of “advanced reconnaissance systems” in its reconfigured F/A-18, and solicited industry for “no-cost loans” of such systems for testing purposes. The types of sensors specified were: electro-optical standoff sensors; long-range oblique photographic sensors; electro-optic, short-range overflight sensors; and all-weather sensors. Other equipment requested included realtime, surface-based, imagery processing equipment; on-board display processing equipment; narrow-, medium-, and wideband data links; and wide-band data recorders. The testing period is planned for
In September 1984, the Navy announced a four-year, no-cost lease of 12 Israeli Kfir fighters to serve as interim adversary aircraft for training U. S. pilots.
June 1985 through August 1987.
Adversary Aircraft: The Navy runs two adversary squadrons, VF-43 with Northrop F-5Es, McDonnell Douglas A-4E/Fs and TA-4Js, and Rockwell T-2Cs on the East Coast, and VF-126 with A-4E/Fs and T-2Cs on the West Coast. VF-43, operating from Oceana Naval Air Station, also provides calibrated air-combat maneuvering training on an instrumented range off the North Carolina coast. The role of these two squadrons is to simulate Soviet air tactics to acquaint Navy and Marine Corps fighter pilots with what they could expect from a Soviet or Soviet trained and equipped enemy. These aircraft can accurately simulate MiG-17/Su- 7/MiG-21-era aircraft, but cannot perform as well as such new generation Soviet aircraft as the Mig-23/27 Flogger.
On 30 September 1983 the Navy solicited bids from 22 potential sources for an adversary aircraft that has the physical and performance characteristics of potential enemy fighters. The Navy specified that it wanted 24 aircraft over a three-year period, beginning with four in 1984, to supplement the F-5Es already used in the adversary role. Contract award was due in June 1984, but political considerations intervened. In May the Senate Armed Services Committee added $50 million to the Navy’s fiscal year 1985 $66.8 million request for adversary aircraft, apparently intending to make the Northrop F-20 Tigershark a viable contender. Northrop has sold no F-20s, despite its acknowledged capabilities as a fighter/intercep- tor, which many feel is owing to the absence of the F-20 from the U. S. arsenal. In June the Senate directed the Navy to postpone its purchase of adversary air-
13: ■'
They had 10,000 pounds of constant pull on a doublearmored underwater communications cable.
They called Maloney.
After more than a year of effort trying to solve a difficult termination problem, this private company called on Maloney EnviroCon experience.
In a matter of months, a connector/ cable system was developed that would provide a reliable termination to the towed body. The system is still in operation without change.
In addition to manufacturing high quality standard or custom connectors and cable systems, Maloney EnviroCon specializes in working with its customers from the concept to the completion of every job. From product design through installation. For complete connector and cable system technology, contact Maloney EnviroCon:
P. 0. Box 287 Houston, TX 77001 713/222-1753
Toll-free
1-800/392-3613 in Texas 1-800/231-9822 outside Texas TWX 910/881-5035
MALONEY PRECISION PRODUCTS CO. EnviroCon®
m
craft and combine its fiscal year 1984 and 1985 budgets . .to expand the number of eligible candidate aircraft, and to enable the Navy to take advantage of economies associated with larger quantity procurements.”
Sidestepping the political issues, the Navy in September announced a no-cost, four-year lease of 12 Kfir Cl fighters from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) as interim adversary aircraft. The Navy will pay only for operation, maintenance, and upkeep of the Kfirs. The first three Kfirs were handed over to Navy personnel in Israel in early October and will be used in that country to train Navy pilots until early 1985. The Kfir in U. S. service has been designated F-21A. Based on the Mirage 50 design, the Kfir is fitted with an American J79 turbojet engine and emulates the performance of late model MiG-2 Is.
Meanwhile, in October Congress ordered the Navy and Air Force to determine the desirability of combining their adversary/aggressor aircraft requirements. If the services could agree on the F-20, Northrop could justify opening an F-20 production line.
On 17 November, the Navy issued a new bid request for a supersonic adversary aircraft, with the first 14 to be purchased in fiscal year 1985 and an option to acquire 12 more in fiscal year 1986. Performance requirements were different from those specified in the 1983 request, opening the way for new aircraft types to be bid. LTV responded with Chinese- built, LTV-modified and maintained MiG-2 Is (Shenyang J-7); Northrop submitted its F-20; and General Dynamics offered its baseline F-16C, which it is building for the Air Force. On 7 January 1985, the Navy announced it had selected a more austere version of the F-16C, delivered without electronic countermeasures, tail-warning radar, and gun, at a unit fly-away cost of $11 million. Pentagon sources asserted that General Dynamics’ F-16 bid did not include profit or overhead costs, in order to preempt selection of the Northrop F-20, a competitor of the F-16 on the international market. The F-20 price was reportedly about $1.5 million more per unit than the F-16.
Electronic Aircraft
The importance of electronics in modem warfare grows almost daily. In recognition of this fact, the Navy on 19 October 1984 established a new branch of the Office of Naval Warfare: the electronic warfare division. In effect, electronic warfare was redefined from a supporting element to air, surface, and subsurface warfare to an equal warfare area. The new division, coded OP-956, assumed resource sponsorship for all Navy electronic warfare programs, which gives its director, Commodore Hugh Webster, significant input to the Navy’s electronic warfare budgetary process.
Electronic aircraft under development or being procured for the Navy and/or Marine Corps are the Grumman E-2C Hawkeye and EA-6B Prowler, and the Boeing E-6A TACAMO replacement. The Navy initiated some upgrades to its elderly Douglas EA/ERA-3B tactical airborne signal exploitation system (TASES) fleet and announced future development of a battle surveillance airship system (BSAS).
E-2C: Ten Grumman E-2C Hawkeyes were delivered in 1984 and six funded for fiscal year 1985. Grumman reported in August that it had signed a contract with Goodyear Aerospace for a compact associative processor that would upgrade target tracking capabilities of the E-2C’s Litton L304 computer; deliveries will begin in November 1985. Grumman also received a Navy contract to flight test a conformal radar antenna system that will be mounted in the leading edge. Designated the Passive Wing Array Flight Test Demonstration Program, the project will assess the conformal wing array as an advanced antijamming system when operating in conjunction with the E-2C’s rotating radar dome. The three-year program is scheduled to start in 1986.
E-6A: The Boeing E-6A replacement for the Navy’s aging EC-130 TACAMO fleet became a political football in 1984. Early in the year, when the Navy found it had to reduce its fiscal year 1985 budget by $455 million, the first program to be cut was the E-6A. Secretary Lehman felt that $1.9 billion for 15 aircraft was excessive and threatened to reopen the ECX competition the E-6A won in 1983. Boeing responded by itemizing several options it could pursue to reduce the program price by $306 million if certain U. S. and foreign government sales took place. Nevertheless, the two E-6A procurements scheduled in 1983 for the fiscal year 1985 budget were not included in the Reagan Administration budget submitted to Congress in early 1984.
In testimony before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, Lehman backed the E-6A over upgrades of the existing TACAMO aircraft, the Lockheed EC-130Q, an option apparently favored by some in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Lehman argued that the Navy had achieved a $400 mil-
(Continued on page 343)
U. S. Naval Aircraft and Missile
Development—1984 (Continued from page 80)
t^°n Price reduction from Boeing, and v-at E-6A was considerably more sur- vable and capable of far greater growth toM ^ EC-130Q. Meanwhile, Boeing ^ the Navy it could not remain com- 1 ted to its lower projected costs if fiscal 1984 funds were not released to per- yj1 Payment for ongoing work before 31 arch. The Navy was forced to take ad- tional budget cuts in May, $77 million f.rfniln8 from the E-6A program, which Actively cancelled it. n June the Senate Armed Services th<eIr'pI'*ttee called for the reinstatement of e E-6A program, citing a change of DeT* *n Deputy Under Secretary of ense for command, control, commutations, and intelligence (C3I), Donald q Eatham, was quoted by Aerospace >’ in August as saying Secretary Leh- it n ranked the E-6A as his lowest prior- buyfr°8ram and wanted to protect ship- at anri other procurement accounts re t 6 expense, which was in di-
QfC,,0PPositi°n to the wishes of the Chief j aval Operations, the Chairman of the Vj,lnt Chiefs of Staff, and most of the ci- jjglan Pentagon. This internal Defense fro^artmCnt disagreement disappeared m the open press for the next three m°nths.
jh November, OSD announced that ardr^ Eefense Secretary William How- r | ft IV had released to the Navy the recp year ^4 funds for the E-6A, di- lng the Navy to proceed with devel- fUi^ent- The budgeted fiscal year 1985 bu'lH- ^at* ^een shifted to the Navy ship- c1 ding account, delaying the E-6A pro-
enu men! start from 1985t0 1986’ aPPar‘
S2 k ra’s'n8 program costs to about •j. • 5 billion, according to some sources. Com .al year 1986 Navy budget was to ain about $488 million for the E-6A. gj^ERA-3B: The 25-year-old EA-3B/ as airframe continues to soldier on Ex i6 Navy’s Tactical Airborne Signal B0P:°itation System (TASES). In 1984 erej n§ Military Aircraft Company deliv- ra, 12 new ventral, canoe-shaped
at A?*65 t0 t*le l9aval Air Rework Facility °n p3meda, California, for installation craf,ERA-3B electronic warfare air- ■ In December Electrospace Sys,ngs / Naval Review 1985
tems, Inc., announced that it had received a contract to install new ESM gear in EA/ERA-3Bs in 1985 and 1986.
EA-6B: Grumman delivered the first ICAP 2 standard EA-6B to the Navy in May. All six EA-6Bs delivered in 1984 were ICAP 2s. This fourth-generation Prowler can jam two different frequency bands simultaneously from each of its five wing- and fuselage-mounted pods. Other improvements over the ICAP 1 configuration include an improved AYK- 14 computer and improved software that provides threat identification information and geographic display. A cooperative jamming capability not present in earlier configurations links as many as three EA-6Bs for concentrated jamming missions. Grumman expects to deliver six ICAP 2 standard EA-6B Prowlers to the Navy each year until 1990, when the newest configuration, ADVCAP, will succeed the ICAP 2. In addition to about 40 new ICAP 2 aircraft, the Navy plans to accept at least 15 ICAP 2 conversions of older models before 1990.
BSAS: The Battle Surveillance Airship System (BSAS) is a Naval Air Systems Command initiative calling for a lighter- than-air craft of unspecified size and detail to provide fleet surface units with an organic area surveillance system that can remain airborne, on station, 24 hours per day for extremely long periods. The details of the system will be worked out in 1985 in several study contracts to be awarded early in the year. BSAS adapts existing systems to the airship platform. The only major new development is a low-frequency radar optimized to detect low observable, low-altitude targets.
Maritime Patrol/Search and Rescue
The Navy continues to refine and procure the Lockheed P-3C Orion, now being delivered in its Update III configuration. Also being updated is the carrier- based Lockheed S-3 Viking. The Coast Guard received five Lockheed HC-130H- 7 Hercules long-range surveillance aircraft in 1984 and obligated funds for an additional four aircraft for 1985 delivery. The Coast Guard also followed up on the
1983 patrol airship concept evaluation it conducted with the Navy and will apparently bring airships back into its fleet.
P-3C: Lockheed delivered the first production P-3C Update III in June to the Patuxent River Naval Air Test Center where VX-1 ran a series of performance checks. The key upgrade of the Update III configuration is the IBM Proteus single advanced signal processor that greatly improves the efficiency and capability of sonobuoy data analysis. Other elements of the Update III package include an adaptive controlled phased array sonobuoy antenna system, an advanced sonobuoy communication link, and a new sonobuoy signal testing device to check deployed buoys. In September the Navy awarded Lockheed a contract to begin upgrading the rest of the 226 P-3Cs to the Update III configuration. The first prototype modification kit is scheduled for an October 1985 delivery.
In November the Navy hosted a presolicitation conference on a bid request for the P-3C Update IV avionics
A wing-tip extension for the Navy’s P-3C Orion aircraft, modified to incorporate 18 antennas for the AN/ALR electronic support measures system, is prepared for testing.
343
, and bom additions1
program, which will include development of a new distributed data processing subsystem, a new multi-station display and control subsystem, and integration of new radar, acoustic processor, and communications subsystems with the Update III avionics. Up to 314 new and earlier model P-3Cs will eventually be brought to Update IV standard. The bid request for the first phase of the competition was to be issued in early 1985.
Another P-3C improvement envisioned by the Navy is the addition of the Eaton/ AIL ALR-77 ESM system for the passive targeting of antiship missiles. The ALR- 77 uses 18 antennas in each wingtip to provide direction-finding accuracies of one degree or less against emitting radars
After going to their apparent demise years ago, airships may be making a comeback. Shown here is Airship Industries Skyship 500 undergoing Navy-Coast Guard evaluation at the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland.
and other systems in the appropriate frequency ranges. Eaton/AIL was awarded the ALR-77 development contract in 1982 and expects to deliver the first set in 1985 for flight testing. Deployment is planned for 1989.
In late 1984 the Navy awarded Lockheed a contract to modify up to 30 early model P-3As to a cargo/passenger configuration designated CP-3 A. The modification will entail removal of the P-3A’s antisubmarine warfare equipment; installation of a cargo floor, door, and another emergency exit; and upgrade of the aircraft’s avionics. The first CP-3A should be delivered in 1986.
Another modification of the venerable P-3A was performed by Lockheed for the U. S. Customs Service, which is receiving six P-3As on loan from the Navy for use in drug enforcement. Lockheed added the Hughes APG-63 look-down, shoot-down radar from the F-15 to the nose of the P-3, giving it the ability to track drug smugglers in low-flying aircraft at ranges of 100 miles and more. Lockheed delivered the first modified P-3A in late spring for Navy testing; test results were overwhelmingly positive. The five additional P-3As will likely be modified in fiscal year 1985.
In 1984 Lockheed delivered nine new P-3Cs. Nine more were approved in the fiscal year 1985 budget.
S-3: The Navy’s inventory of S-3 Vikings stood at 166 in January 1984, which is insufficient to maintain ten-aircraft squadrons on all 15 of the Navy’s planned big-deck carriers. While some Navy sources are in favor of reopening the Lockheed S-3 production line to make up the shortfall, others object to the cost. The 1985 five-year aircraft procurement plan presented to Congress in early 1984 showed no plans to procure additional S-3s.
Up to 160 S-3 As will be upgraded under the Navy’s Weapon System Improvement Program (WSIP) to S-3B standard. The upgrade includes the new Texas Instruments AN/APS-137(V) inverse synthetic aperture radar, which generates recognizable two-dimensional radar images of surface targets by a technique that measures shifts in doppler caused by the target ship’s motion relative to a stabilized reference. Also new to the S-3B are the capability to carry Har
poon, the IBM Proteus acoustic signal processor that is also included in the P-3L Update III program, improved electronic support measures, and the ability to dispense chaff, flares, and electronic jammers. The first flight of the prototype S-3B converted from a Navy S-3A took place on 13 September. A second prototype was scheduled for completion m February 1985. Lockheed’s own ffighj test program was expected to last until mid-summer 1985, when the Navy would begin its own test program. The Navy plans to make a decision on total modification program size in late 1986.
Under a Naval Air Systems Command contract, Lockheed equipped a Navy S-3 A with a pod-mounted, in-flight refueling system and tested the aircraft under a variety of load and flight conditions. This increases the S-3A’s fuel load to 16,000 pounds, of which 11.00 pounds can be transferred. Navy fligW tests at Patuxent River took place last fall.
PACE: In the summer of 1983, the Navy and Coast Guard jointly tested an Airship Industries Skyship 500 blimp aI Patuxent River and the Coast Guard AH' Station at Elizabeth City, North Carolina- This patrol airship concept evaluation (PACE) proved very promising services are proceeding with airship evaluations. The Navy’s program centers on the battle surveillance airship system (BSAS) an airborne early warning system, while the Coast Guard is continuing to investigate the suitability of am ships for the patrol mission. On 18 December 1984, the Coast Guard issued a request for proposals from industry fora,r and groundcrew airship training with aI1 option to lease the same or a similar a>r' ship to that used for the training program for a five-month operational evaluation- The characteristics specified are a si* man crew, minimum 48-hour endurance- and a length of 160-200 feet. Responses were due 31 January 1985 and an awar was anticipated sometime after 1 Aprn-
Trainer Aircraft
The most compelling training need o naval aviation is the replacement of m rapidly-aging T-2C and TA-4J trainers m the jet training pipeline. After a series 0 setbacks in 1983, that replacement Pr^ gram appears finally on track at costs sig nificantly lower than projected. The yea 1984 also brought a new aircraft to 1 Navy’s navigator training program, 1 Cessna T-47A.
T-45TS: The T-45 training system survived a Navy reevaluation follow) t>
- 198$
THE U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE SHIP & AIRCRAFT PHOTOGRAPH COLLECTION
Choose from over 35,000 photographs! The Naval Institute’s photo archives include photographs of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard vessels commissioned since 1883, as well as a wide selection of aircraft photos. All photographs are 8x10 black and white with your choice of matte or glossy finish. $6.00 each.
ncdoB mill
SHIP (NAME, HULL #, AND YEAR ABOARD) MATTE
AIRCRAFT (TYPE AND YEAR) OR GLOSSY
Name --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Address ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City/State/Zip ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
Number of photographs__________________ x $6.00 =-----------------------
Maryland residents please add 5% tax -------------------------- -----------------
Shipping and handling -----------------------------------------------------------------
Total enclosed__________________________________________________
If photo requested is unavailable, will sister ship substitution be acceptable? L Yes C No
Please allow four to six weeks for delivery. Order form and payment should be mailed to: Ship and Aircraft Photo Collection, U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland 21402.
1983 congressional refusal to fund a combination of T-45A carrier-capable and T-45B land-based trainers. In March Secretary Lehman informed the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee that the Navy had dropped the T-45B and would proceed only with the development of the T-45A as the aircraft component of the total training system. The Navy then issued a bid request to McDonnell Douglas for development of the T-45A, and announced plans to procure up to 304 of the aircraft with deployment planned for 1991. At the same time, the Navy decided to defer a plan to lease 1~ British Royal Air Force Hawks, frorn which the T-45A is to be derived. because support costs for the aircraft would have been too expensive.
On 2 October, the Navy and McDonnell Douglas signed a $9.5 million contract to begin full-scale engineering development of the T-45A, the increment of a $438 million firm fixed price development effort for the entire training system. Originally estimated at $810 million, the T-45TS development was carefully pared to a cost target established by Secretary Lehman that was close to the final $438 million. Cuts included the replacement of planned digita cockpit displays and equipment with ana' log instruments and avionics, reduction of the T-45A flight test program by some 200 hours, elimination of two flight tes and one ground test prototype aircrat, increased use of components already developed for other systems such as the F/A-18 flight simulators, and replacement of some computer instruction by old-fashioned textbooks. The $438 mi lion development cost will buy two 1 45 As, the development of training curric ula and courses, and the partial develop ment of flight simulators, the last being supplied by Sperry. Overall program costs are estimated to be $3.2 billion the entire buy of over 300 aircraft, ■> simulators, curricula, courses, and sup port equipment. ,
T-47A: In May 1983 Cessna Aircrat1 Company won the Navy’s Undergraduate Navy Flight Officer/Training System
Upgrade (UNFO/TSU) competition
and
was awarded a $159.4-million turnkey service contract to supply aircraft an support services for training naval fbg officers in Pensacola, Florida. Cessn teamed with Northrop Worldwide Air craft Services (pilots and maintenance • Singer/Link (air-to-air and air-to-gr°un^ radar training simulators), and Pratt Whitney (engines). The T-47A aircra itself, a modification of the Cessna Cl tion 2 business jet with more power engines and a modified wing, was to L
1985
P ace the Navy’s North American RockWell T-39D Sabreliners that had been Used to train Navy bombardier/navigators 196()aC*ar 'nterccPt °ff'cers since the early
The original UNFO/TSU schedule tilled for deliveries to begin on 1 August 84 and end on 1 June 1985. Aerodynamic problems associated with the mod- 1 >ed wing and shortcomings in the performance of the Emerson APQ-159 radar paused deliveries to slip to 4 January °5. All 15 aircraft on order are now scheduled to be delivered by 1 May 1985. he Navy contract is for five years of raining services with an option for an additional three years.
Rotory’-Wing Aircraft_____________
Rotary-wing aircraft under development for the Navy and/or Marine Corps ln 1984 were the JVX, officially designated the V-22 Osprey in January 1985; he so-called “CV Helo,” which will ^nd up being the SH-60F discussed in ls Mature last year; the AH-1T+; and e MH-53E minesweeper. In procurement are the Marine/Navy CH-53E, the m^vy SH-60B and UH-60A, the Navy H-2F (12 delivered in 1984), and the L°ast Guard HH-65A.
JVX (V-22): Preliminary design of the (tv'1 Serv>ces Vertical Lift Development aircraft continued in 1984. In Pril 1983 the Navy awarded the Bell- oeing Vertol team a 23-month contract 0r the preliminary design of the JVX wmh the goal of reducing the technical, Schedule, and cost risks in the full-scale engineering development phase. As a tmsult, the Bell-Boeing team completed trade-off studies and evaluated liter- fy thousands of alternative system and “system configurations to achieve the miost efficient design possible for meeting Tt? serv*ces’ performance requirements.
hese include: capability to hover out of gromnd effect (OGE) at 3,000 feet on a •5°F day with an 8,300-pound exter- al*y-slung cargo; capability to carry 24 c°mbat-equipped Marines (5,760 Pounds) 200 nautical miles at 250 knots, amd to hover with this payload at 3,000 ®et OGE on a 91,5°F day; dash speed of 5 knots; tactical range of 1,400 nauti- a miles; and ferry range of 2,100 nautiCal miles.
Rell and Boeing delivered a full-scale ®ngineering development draft proposal o the Navy on 12 August 1984. The avy evaluated the draft for the remain- er of 1984 and intended to respond to . ‘ and Boeing in time for them to sub- a formal proposal in January 1985. m*s formal proposal was to provide data
Pi* for the Milestone II decision on full-scale development scheduled for 15 May 1985.
In August the Navy issued a bid request for production engines for the JVX, responses to which indicated new technology engines could be available earlier than the Navy had thought. As a result, the Navy announced in December that it would dispense with an interim engine planned for early production JVXs, push back the first flight six months to February 1988, and equip all JVXs with the winner of the engine competition. Savings of about $66 million were projected. Initial operational capability for the Marine Corps variant of the JVX is set for 1991. Congress approved $188.5 million for fiscal year 1985 JVX development, $10 million less than the Navy requested.
AH-1T+: The Navy conducted a limited evaluation of Bell’s prototype AH-1T+ (AH-1T with two General Electric T700-GE-401 engines) from 15 December 1983 to 10 January 1984, concluding that upon correction of some minor deficiencies the T700-equipped AH-IT was a significant improvement over the AH-IT with the earlier T400 powerplant. On 3 May the Navy awarded Bell a $5.6 million contract for long leadtime funding of the first batch of 22 AH-lT+s, full procurement of which was authorized and funded in the fiscal year 1985 budget. In October the Navy awarded Bell an additional $6.5 million contract for adding the Hellfire antiarmor missile system to the AH-1T+ SuperCobra. The Navy plans to complete its technical and operational evaluations of the SuperCobra during the last half of 1985, at which time approval of the second batch of 22 Marine AH-1T+s for fiscal year 1986 procurement will be considered. Bell plans to deliver the first production AH-1T+ to the Marine Corps in March 1986, with additional deliveries following at the rate of two per month until all planned 44 aircraft are delivered. In addition, under an Operational Safety and Improvement Program (OSIP), the Marine Corps plans to upgrade its existing fleet of T400-powered AH-lTs with the T700 engine and the Hellfire missile system so that by the 1990s all attack helicopters in the Marine Corps inventory will be the AH-1T+ configuration.
CH/MH-53E: Procurement of the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion by the Navy and Marines continues on schedule, with 16 delivered in 1984 to the Marine Corps. The fiscal year 1985 budget allocated funds for another ten aircraft. Congress also approved CH-53E multi-year procurement covering 56 aircraft in the fiscal years 1987-1990. The MH-53E airborne mine countermeasures prototype
NAVAL ACADEMIES
America’s first preparatory school with Naval training offers an extensive, fully accredited academic program.
- Grades 5-12-FLA
- Grades 7-12 and P.G.-NJ
- Small Classes
(Junior School - Teacher/ Student ratio -10:1 NJ)
- College Guidance Program
- Full Sports and Music Programs
- NJFtOTC
- Waterfront Locations
- Summer Naval Camp-NJ
Choose from two locations. Write or phone for information.
Admiral Farragut Academy-North Box 46, Toms River, NJ 08753 (201)349-1121
Admiral Farragut Academy-South Box 46, St. Petersburg, FLA 33710 • (813) 384-5500
0
NOMEX ARAMID IS A TRADEMARK OF DUPONT
JOINER DOORS
THE NAVY'S LIGHTEST AND STRONGEST JOINER DOORS - IN STOCK AND AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY I
spent 1984 undergoing flight tests with Sikorsky and the Navy at West Palm Beach and Panama City, Florida, Patuxent River, Norfolk with squadrons VX-1 and HM-12, and on board the USS Austin (LPD-4) for shipboard suitability trials. During flight tests the MH-53E towed the Marks 104 and 105 mine countermeasures sleds. Over $14.5 million was approved for fiscal year 1985 research and development of the H-53E series.
SH-60B: The Sikorsky SH-60B helicopter component of the LAMPS Mark III system continued in production through 1984 with 24 aircraft delivered to the Navy. The Navy conducted fleet shipboard operations with production Seahawks for the first time on board the USS Underwood (FFG-36) in July. The first two fleet SH-60B squadrons, HSL- 42 in Mayport, Florida, and HSL-43 in San Diego, California, were established in October. Also in the fall the Navy requested from Sikorsky an engineering change proposal (ECP) to integrate the Penguin Mark 2, Mod 7 antiship missile into the SH-60B system. Congress approved the procurement of 24 Seahawks for fiscal year 1985, six more than the Navy originally requested.
UH-60A: Added by Congress to the Navy’s budget were funds to buy two
A Proud Addition to
Your Collection
Craftsmen in Sheffield, England created this pewter stein expressly for our members. The stein displays a raised USNI seal, finished in silver. Send $28.00 to the Institute for yours — today!
Use your convenient order form in the “Books of Interest” section.
Sikorsky UH-60A Black Hawk utility helicopters for evaluation by HC-9, the Navy’s only combat search and rescue (CSAR) squadron. HC-9, a Naval Reserve squadron based at North Island (California) Naval Air Station, currently operates eight 20-year-old Sikorsky HH-3As that are severely limited in the CSAR role: they lack armament, have no night or in-flight refueling capability, and are comparatively slow for the arduous task of penetrating enemy airspace to locate and recover downed pilots. The Navy intends to equip HC-9 with suitably-configured JVX (V-22) aircraft when they become available in the mid-1990s, but Congress decided that an interim aircraft was required and authorized and funded two Black Hawks.
CV Helo: The Navy had planned in
- to replace its aging carrier-based SH-3H “inner-zone” antisubmarine warfare helicopters with a derivative of the Sikorsky SH-60B, the SH-60F with dipping sonar. In late 1983 Sikorsky was awarded a contract to modify one of the full-scale development SH-60Bs to test the Navy’s preferred dipping sonar, the Bendix AQS-13F. This aircraft was delivered to the Navy in the summer of
- and tests were completed in November. The Navy then returned the aircraft to Sikorsky for additional sonar-associated hydraulic equipment and improvements to the automatic flight control system in preparation for the next phase of tests.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) had determined that the Navy should compete the entire SH-3H replacement program, not just the sonar and mission-associated gear. Congress and the Navy expressed deep concern over the delays that a competition would cause in the Navy’s effort to modernize its inner-zone antisubmarine warfare capabilities. OSD prevailed, however, and the Navy issued a bid request for the “CV Helo” on 19 June, demanding a 60-day response time instead of the customary 90 days. One of the conditions of the request was a requirement for all CV Helo systems to be “off-the-shelf” so the program would not be further delayed by long development schedules.
In response, Sikorsky submitted its SH-60F configuration, designated S- 70B-4. Kaman reportedly submitted a variant of its SH-2F upgraded with the SH-60’s T700 engines and a dipping sonar. IBM proffered a system based on the LAMPS Mark III, which uses the Sikorsky SH-60B as its aircraft component, but with alternative options for avionics fits including some foreign systems. Sikorsky received official notification in November that only its proposal met specifications. Although the Senate had directed the Navy to issue a contract for the SH-3H replacement by 30 November, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Melvyn R. Paisley convinced the Armed Services Committee to push back this deadline to February 1985, permitting contract negotiations with Sikorsky.
HH-65A: In January the Coast Guard announced it was further delaying acceptance of the Aerospatiale HH-65A Dolphin until the manufacturer corrected an engine surge problem associated with the ingestion of snow, and substandard air conditioning performance of the cabin environmental control unit. On 19 November the Coast Guard conditionally accepted the first production HH-65A, three years to the month after the delivery date stipulated in the original contract- After accepting the first Dolphin from Aerospatiale’s Grand Prairie, Texas, plant, the Coast Guard commenced negotiations for an additional six aircraft, which would bring the total procurement
to 96. The first HH-65A will go to the Coast Guard training unit in Mobile, Alabama. Additional deliveries are scheduled at one per month until May 1985, then two per month to the end of 1986, followed by three per month until deliveries are complete in 1988.
Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Until 1984 the Navy had traditionally operated two types of airborne unmanned vehicle systems (UVS): target drones and missiles. From 1963 to early 1971 that service had also operated a third UV5> the remotely piloted helicopter designated QH-50 DASH (drone antisubmarine helicopter). In 1984 the Navy once again admitted remotely piloted vehicles to its inventory—the Israeli Mastiff-
Mastiff: In January 1984 the Navy °r' dered a complete Mastiff Unmanned Vehicle System from Tadiran Electronics, the Israeli manufacturer. The Mastiff waS to provide surveillance of hostile P°s1' tions in Lebanon, including spotting f°r naval shore bombardment and real-time identification of targets. The immediacy of the Mastiff requirement was diminished when Marines were withdrawn from positions in Lebanon on 26 February. On 26 March Tadiran personnel fie"' a Mastiff from shore to the USS Gua"1 (LPH-9) off the Israeli coast and lands without incident. The subsequent takeot went just as smoothly.
After delivery of the complete Masti system—at least six remotely piloted air craft, a ground control station, a shod distance landing system (arresting wme
1985
and inertial reels), and support equipment—Navy and Marine Corps personnel at Camp Lejeune began developing operational concepts and employment doctrine for unmanned vehicle support of Navy and Marine Corps operations. In July Mastiff successfully spotted for the USS Iowa (BB-61) in a gunfire support exercise. Mastiff was integrated into Navy/Marine Corps operations for Exercise Solid Shield in the fall. The Marine Corps formally activated a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) platoon in September and equipped it with four Mastiffs and support equipment. Two additional Mastiffs were delivered to the unit by December, at which time one of the RPVs was lost owing to command link interference by a commercial television station. AAI Corporation, Tadiran’s U. S. licensee for the Mastiff, was to incorporate a fix to enable evaluations of the system to continue early in 1985.
Upon completion of these evaluations in 1985, the Navy intends to issue a bid request for five complete mini-RPV systems. By 1987 complete systems will be assigned to Fleet Marine Force (FMF) Atlantic, FMF Pacific, Atlantic Fleet, Pacific Fleet, and Naval Training Command. According to Dr. Richard DeLauer, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the Navy will procure these mini-RPVs from the source offering the best system at the lowest price, without regard to nationality.
BQM-74C: Northrop is developing a reconnaissance modification of its BQM- 74C Chukar target drone to fulfill a Navy requirement for a high-speed reconnaissance RPV to replace the tactical air reconnaissance pods (TARPS)-equipped F-14A in some high-threat, low-altitude missions. Announced at the annual Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems (AUVS) symposium in August, the reconnaissance Chukar will employ a realtime television payload with video-recording backup for when the drone is out of line-of-sight to its control station on an aircraft carrier. The recording can be played back when the drone is within range. The RPV would be air-launched and recovered by parachute.
The Navy intends to evaluate the reconnaissance Chukar for service entry in the late 1980s. If the system proves inadequate, the Navy will investigate the feasibility of a reconnaissance variant of the more powerful and longer-range Tomahawk cruise missile.
BQM-126A: In October 1983 the Navy began flight tests of two target drones, the Beech Model 997A and the Northrop NV-144, to select a replacement for the Ryan BQM-34 in service since the 1950s.
The Navy required a remotely controlled or preprogrammed drone capable of variable speeds up to 550 knots, altitudes up to 40,000 feet, and maneuvers up to 7g. Both targets exceeded these requirements. On 20 September the Navy selected the Beech entry, designated BQM- 126A, for full-scale development, and awarded Beech a $5.8-million contract with options for limited and full production. The Navy anticipates a requirement for 200 targets annually over a 20-year period.
AQM-I27A: On 10 September Naval Air Systems Command issued a $6.2 million advance acquisition contract to Martin Marietta Aerospace for full-scale engineering development of the AQM-127A Supersonic Low Altitude Target (SLAT). The team headed by Martin won the SLAT competition over teams led by Vought Missiles and the Advanced Program Division of LTV, and by Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical. SLAT will be designed to simulate supersonic sea- skimming antiship missiles of the Soviet SS-N-22-class, which will require Mach 3 speed, a 50-nautical mile range, and sustained altitudes of 30 feet or less. The Martin design is based on its advanced strategic air-launched missile (ASALM), prototypes of which made successful test flights during 1978-1980. The Navy could ultimately require up to 1,000 SLATs for testing antiship missile defenses over a ten-year period. Current plans call for delivery of the first 15 targets in 1987.
Missiles
Although missiles technically qualify as unmanned vehicle systems, tney are commonly perceived to be a category unto themselves. This article covers only air-to-air, air-to-surface, and antiship missiles. Tomahawk in all its forms is included here because it is a land attack and an antiship system.
In addition to the missiles discussed in the following pages, the Navy has interests in the development of two other systems: an Air Force/Navy “stealthy” cruise missile to replace the medium range air-to-surface missile (MRASM), cancelled in 1983, and a European development to replace the Sidewinder, designated the advanced short-range air-to-air missile (ASRAAM). Little about the former has reached the open press, and the latter development currently boasts no active Navy involvement. Since ASRAAM may become a standardized NATO weapon like AMRAAM, the Navy may eventually procure it to replace Sidewinders. ASRAAM is projected to
be operational in 1990.
Phoenix: When the Ayatollah Ruhol- lah Khomeini assumed power in Iran he also assumed control over one of the Navy’s most advanced weapon systems, the AIM-54A Phoenix-armed F-14A delivered to the Shah’s Imperial Iranian Air Force only a short time before. The possibility that details of the AIM-54A may have been compromised to Soviet agents prompted the Navy to accelerate the development of the next generation Phoenix, the AIM-54C. The new version entered operational evaluation in 1983 and continued testing into 1984.
After indications of quality control problems were discovered during evaluation, the Navy tore down a production Phoenix at the Hughes Aircraft plant in Tucson, Arizona, in June, uncovering numerous quality control discrepancies- On 22 June the Navy suspended Phoenix deliveries until Hughes made improvements, but not before about 100 of this latest Phoenix variant were delivered. In August the Navy suspended progress payments to Hughes pending quality control improvements. In late November the Navy resumed payment as a result ot Hughes’ efforts to correct the deficiencies.
AMRAAM: In 1984 Hughes continued its development of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air MlS" sile (AMRAAM), keeping its validation phase competitor, Raytheon, technically informed on the program as a second source for future production contracts- Managing this Navy/Air Force program- the Air Force has changed the first production contract from fiscal year 1985 to fiscal year 1986 because of problems experienced by Hughes in the transiti°n phase from development to productionComing under fire from both houses ° Congress for problems in the AMRAA' development program, the Air Force announced in late August that it woul reprogram advance production funds earmarked for Hughes to the procurement o tools and test equipment for Raytheon, permitting the latter company to qualu) as a second source for the missile earlier than planned. This will change Air Force AMRAAM deployment from 1986 to a least 1987, but should have little effect on the Navy’s planned deployment in 19°V- On 7 December, the first production ver sion of AMRAAM was successfully teS fired by an Air Force F-16 over White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico- This initial test was flown without the AMRAAM’s seeker installed; the f'rs guided test launch of AMRAAM waS scheduled for early 1985. .
Tomahawk: At the beginning of 19° ’
1985
the
Q against low-silhouette land targets n 19 June. The missile was launched pO.rn the destroyer Merrill (DD-976) off 0|nt Mugu, California, and hit a target the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada a ter a 400-nautical mile flight. On 25 liv^ Nayy tested the TLAM/C with a le6 Conventional warhead in its original, Vel terminal mode against a bunker on
^ 1P1T1 Onto Tclonrl ' I ’ll I r* firpt lana iirna*
head
0n|y submarine-launched Tomahawk ^ntiship missile (TASM) had completed s operational evaluation and was opera- *°nal in both the Atlantic and Pacific eets. The USS New Jersey (BB-62) had I Cpl°yed with TASM and the Tomahawk an<t attack missile with conventional ^arhead (TLAM/C), but that was prior to
^ ASM and TLAM/C operational evalua- /qrS ^ata collected during that
®J-1984 deployment were used as part *he missiles’ evaluation. The nuclear- anried Tomahawk land attack missile jUM/N) was still being tested in early
0" 9 January, the Navy launched a ASM from an underwater test sled that 'Related the vertical-launching tubes in hich Tomahawk would be deployed on a,er-model Los Angeles (SSN-688)-class ^fclear attack submarines. The first SSN 7° Configured, the Providence (SSN- j A was launched by Electric Boat on 2 [trie. The 9 January test, first from the , e“ while it was moving to simulate the unch conditions anticipated for a mis- e firing by a Los Angeles-class subma- ti'v6’ SUccessful|y fulfilled all test objec-
The Navy first tested a TLAM/C with a
°P-up terminal maneuver for employment -
Clemente Island. This first live war- Ta v t6St comPletely destroyed the target.
SM and TLAM/C testing continued hr°ugh 1984.
j. Cn 27 June, the Department of De- Qense announced that the TLAM/N was ^rational on board “some U. S. Navy °nibatants.” Jane's Defence Weekly re- 200^ l^at e'8ht TLAM/Ns, each with a u Tiloton warhead, were loaded in an a(sPecified Los Angeles-class submarine a Navy base, but that the submarine h not deployed in deference to Ian- ^Uage in the House version of the Dense Authorization Bill barring such a
deployment until the nuclear Tomahawks could be distinguished from the conventional ones, for purposes of arms control verification. The language did not survive the conference committee.
McDonnell Douglas rolled out the first Tomahawk produced under its second- source contract on 26 July. Also in July, both McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics, the latter being the Tomahawk’s prime contractor, submitted proposals for the Navy’s fiscal year 1985 Tomahawk purchase. In December the Joint Cruise Missile Project Office announced that General Dynamics was awarded a contract for 45 TLAM/Ns, 45 TASMs, and 72 Air Force ground launched cruise missiles (GLCMs), while McDonnell Douglas received orders for 30 of each Navy Tomahawk and 48 GLCMs—a 60/40 split between the prime and second sources. Production contracts for an additional 30 TLAM/Cs were deferred until spring 1985, pending the results of additional testing.
Harpoon: McDonnell Douglas continued production of Harpoon missiles through 1984 at a rate of approximately 40 per month for the Navy and foreign customers. Current production versions are the Block IB, which has a sea-skimming terminal flight profile, and the Block 1C, which has a programmable terminal flight profile. According to
At left, a Navy A-7E Corsair carries an AGM-65 imaging infrared Maverick missile. Below is a series of three images produced by the missile’s infrared seeker as it approached the frigate Bagley (FF-1069).
McDonnell Douglas, recent improvements in production Harpoons include a 50% reduction in altitude during the sea- skimming mode and a 100% increase in on-board computer memory. The manufacturer also plans replacement of the seeker’s analog electronics with digital components, a 15% range extension through the use of JP-10 fuel, and an increase in the size of Harpoon’s fuel tanks, doubling its current range.
Maverick: The AGM-65F Maverick missile, under development by Hughes for the Navy, employs the imaging infrared (HR) seeker used by the Air Force’s AGM-65D and the 300-pound warhead developed for the Marine Corps’ AGM- 65E laser-guided Maverick. Designed as an antiship weapon, the AGM-65F was first tested against a ship target in September 1983. Development test and evaluation (DT&E) continued into 1984 with three successful launches announced early in the year against a stationary destroyer target, a stationary destroyer tender at night, and a 55-foot drone target boat cruising at 15 knots. Operational evaluation was scheduled to begin last summer, but the Navy’s desire to incorporate a new fuze in the warhead, combined with quality control problems at the Hughes Tucson, Arizona, plant caused the Navy to reschedule the operational evaluation to April 1985.
HARM: The AGM-88A high-speed, anti-radiation missile (HARM) entered 1984 still embroiled in controversy over the cost of its seeker, which accounts for about 60% of the missile’s total cost. Congress cancelled its own requirement that the Navy and Air Force compete production of the missile between the HARM’S manufacturer, Texas Instruments (TI), and a second source to be established with $87.7 million appropriated by Congress. The services then attempted to reprogram those second-source funds to permit buys of additional production missiles, but Congress specified that $32 million must be allocated to the development of a low-cost seeker. It was announced in May that such a seeker would be designed by the Naval Weapons Center in China Lake, California, within eight to ten months; then the Navy would request bids for full-scale development and production of the seeker. The Navy also announced in May that agreement
NO ONE SPEAKS WITH MORE AUTHORITY ON
THAN LIPS.
planned to issue a contract in early
had been reached with TI on warranties for all missiles procured under fixed- priced contracts. With that agreement in hand, the Navy awarded TI a $222.4-million contract for fiscal year 1984 procurement of 515 HARMs. In November, Congress appropriated $278.2 million for a fiscal year 1985 purchase of 803 AGM- 88A HARMs.
Sidearm: The Naval Weapons Center
USN1 Mug
Our blue and white porcelain mug holds 11 ounces of your favorite beverage. High quality, dishwasher safe. Only $5.50.
Use the order form in the "Books of Interest" section to buy one for home and one for the office, too.
United
States
Naval
Institute
Front
:or Members Only______
in China Lake designed the Sidearm missile as a low-cost, lightweight alternative to the HARM for less demanding missions. A combination of the AIM-9 Sidewinder airframe and propulsion system with a new warhead and low-cost antiradiation seeker, Sidearm weighs just 250 pounds compared with the HARM’S 800 pounds. At that weight, Sidearm can be carried by Marine AH-1 attack helicopters and virtually the entire combat aircraft fleet of the Navy and Marine Corps. In late 1984 the Navy and Motorola were negotiating a contract for full-scale Sidearm development.
Penguin: From 1979 to 1982, the Navy evaluated the Norwegian designed and built Penguin antiship missile as a surface-to-surface weapon for small patrol craft. While the tests were an unqualified success, the need for a short-range (15 nautical miles), surface-launched ASM was not as great as the need to arm the SH-60B with such a missile for attacks on surface ships, including surfaced submarines. Although the Penguin’s manufacturer, Kongsberg Vapenfabrikk, was at that time developing an air-launched Penguin (the Mark 3) for Royal Norwegian Air Force F-16 fighters, the surface- launched Mark 2 tested by the Navy has a rocket booster to get the missile up to speed before its sustainer rocket motor
takes over for the cruise flight to the target—needed if the missile is to be launched from a hovering or slow-flyin§ helicopter. The Mark 2, then, is the van- ant the Navy is considering for the SH- 60B. Kongsberg teamed with Grumman Aerospace in 1983 to adapt the Mark 2 to Navy requirements, and a production h" censing arrangement is likely to folio"' when the Navy places production orders for SH-60B-compatible missiles, designated by Kongsberg and Grumman as the Mark 2, Mod 7. ,
For fiscal year 1984 Congress adde $5 million to the Navy’s budget for pr°" curement of Penguin missiles. Additions development work remained before pr° curement could begin, however, so those funds were converted in late 1984 to tn research and development (R&D) cate gory. For fiscal year 1985, Congress an thorized and appropriated an additions $14.6 million in R&D funding plus $11- million for advanced procurement, lb development funds will go to Grumman for redesign of the Penguin’s wings to permit folding, to Kongsberg for interna work, and to IBM and Sikorsky to oS velop the interfaces between the miss'iL and the LAMPS III system, of which the SH-60B is part. The advanced procure ment money will go primarily for modm cations to the SH-60B to enable it to carry the Penguin. On 29 November the Navy contracted the Norwegian Navy to pr° cure development missiles fr°nl Kongsberg Vapenfabrikk. .,
Skipper II: Skipper II is another hybrj design from the Naval Weapons Center l® China Lake. The missile uses a Pavevw II Mark 83 glide-bomb body, the rocke engine from the AGM-45 Shrike missne’ and a new guidance and control mech nism based on that of the Paveway >■ ' Skipper II’s terminal guidance is by laS,s illumination, which limits the missile range to a maximum of nine nautic miles. Tests conducted in 1984 provt- the effectiveness of the 1,000-pound m's sile against ship targets, and the Na r
for series production of Skipper II. Sollja prototypes were deployed on carriers 1984.
Lips research, design and manufacturing expertise
has made Lips' propellers the standard of excellence in marine propulsion.
Our fixed pitch propellers, large or small are designed to provide vessels with optium performance at competitive prices.
Vessel owners and operators benefit from our utilization of proven designs combined with quality alloys in order to insure efficiency, durability and repairability.
WE PROVIDE LIPS SERVICE.
Headquarters/
East Coast Operations
3617 Koppens Way Chesapeake. VA 23323 (804) 485-5275 Telex 825429
West Coast Operations
1899 Seventh Street Oakland. CA 94607 (415)451-8219 Telex 335317
0
LIPS
Swan Island Shipyard. Bldg 64 Todd Shipyard Bdlg T- 72
PO Box 17161 1801 16th Ave S.W.
Portland. OR 97217 Seattle. WA 98134
(503) 289-9830 (206) 223-080 lor 0804
General Developments
The size of the deficit and the Rea^0 Administration’s adamant opposition defense budget cuts combined to f°c intense political interest on the dem^ procurement process in general and Navy in particular. Resulting initiate include: the Defense Office of OPer
nties
tional Test and Evaluation and warrai for defense equipment, both mandated -
aon8ress; the Office of Spare Parts Man- gement and “cost-effective contract ^Nirements,” both initiated by the De- ense Department; and Navy efforts to rnPlement these and other initiatives. EvinSe °ftice °f Operational Test and o1 ^ Ua,ion: In response to congressional tjf ers t0 set up a central office for opera- 0nal testing of new weapon systems, the j.Ccretary of Defense created a new Of- Operational Test and Evaluation f.1 &E) early in 1984. Retired Rear of n *ra' ^s*lam binder, who was Director U He^ense Test and Evaluation under the and ? Secretary Defense for Research Engineering, was charged with over- tof!n8 *he creation of the new office. He te • Ble House Armed Services Commit- 6 In February that the office would not torn Uct *esting but would closely moni- v-r ,ae testing done by the individual ser- - anc* make recommendations on the in UJ|eS tested systems. In June the act- § director of the new testing office was ^ anted a seat on both the Defense Sys- (DSa ^cclu'sttion Review Council i, ^RC) and the Defense Resources Board (DRB).
Ii('^lc OT&E office became fully operate ^urmS the summer and by late Sep- ^ m er had a staff of 15 under the acting DSApr, BriSadier General Michael Hall, *F. The office’s official charter is to ren,lt0r and evaluate test procedures and eSU ts> coordinate joint service tests, acj Ure that test equipment and procedures andqUat-ely rePresent the enemy threat, review program 6.5 budget requests, •ttiral Linder’s Office of Defense Test Wj(, Evaluation (DT&E) coordinates „ ’ hut does not operate through the
Se,f office- *n 1984 the OT&E found it- fa I embroiled over the Administration’s q Ure to nominate a formal director. Cancral Hall refused to fill civilian va- a,incies (approximately half the office’s otted strength), feeling that the new ^l°r should help select his staff.
Pri arran,‘es: The 1984 Defense Appro- toratl0ns Act stipulated that all contracts ^PPlying major weapon systems to Defense Department (DoD) must arantee that the system and each comaeent were designed and manufactured °rding to the government’s perfor- 0p Ce requirements. This provision was Posed by representatives of DoD on the flatUnds *hat it would unnecessarily in- Loh costs °t systems so guaranteed. Ut), argued that the language in the law tra , restricted their flexibility in con- Mai ae8ot'ations. The Chief of Naval gr ^r‘a*> Admiral Steven White, disa- Pref ’ Sa^'n8 Le “. . . would frankly 3 law w‘th more teeth in it that u make it easier to administer and
get good contracts.” Congress, however, established certain minimum warranty requirements in the 1985 Defense Authorization Act, but left the specifics of warranty provisions beyond those mini- mums to government contract negotiators. Congress ordered the new provisions to take effect on 2 January 1985.
Office of Spare Parts Management: On 4 December the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) announced the creation of a new office of spare parts management under the assistant secretary of defense for manpower, installations, and logistics. The newly installed deputy assistant secretary for spare parts management, Maurice N. Shriber, described his new charter as the consolidation, institutionalization, and implementation of all DoD and individual service initiatives currently underway or planned, in order to improve spares procurement. The new office has a staff of 15 to monitor some 15 million separate purchases each year.
Cost-Effective Contract Requirements: In January OSD announced a new management initiative designed to streamline the development of selected new systems. Beginning with four development programs in each service, and later expanding to all appropriate programs, government-issued bid requests and resulting contracts would specify “results required” rather than detailing how to achieve those results. The intent was to bring industry more into the decision process for cost-effective applications of specifications and military standards, and to speed up the development process by eliminating some early developmental restrictions that tended to stifle innovative approaches and increase costs.
In December Deputy Defense Secretary Taft attempted to accelerate this process by designating an OSD official, the Director of Industrial Productivity in the Office of the Under Secretary for Defense Research and Evaluation, as the focal point for the effort. Taft also directed each service to appoint its own advocate for the streamlining initiative, and to begin increasing the number of programs covered by it.
Navy Initiatives: On 13 July 1983 Secretary Lehman announced the appointment of a Competition Advocate General of the Navy to pursue and oversee increased contractor competition. Commodore Stuart Platt, Supply Corps, was appointed and immediately established goals for the elimination of sole-source contracting throughout the Navy procurement system. Some 300 competition advocates were appointed at commands throughout the Navy to foster competition. These efforts resulted in a 54% increase from the fiscal year 1982 to the fiscal year 1984 in the total direct procurement dollars awarded competitively (from $9.4 billion to $14.5 billion). Individual contract actions awarded competitively climbed from 29.9% in the fiscal year 1982 to 50.3% in the fiscal year 1984.
Two examples of the Navy’s new verve for competition are the F404 jet engine and the advanced tactical aircraft. The Navy insisted that General Electric (GE), manufacturers of the F404 engine that powers the F/A-18 and will power the upgraded A-6E + , share all its manufacturing data with its arch-rival, Pratt & Whitney, so the latter could qualify as a second source for production of the engine, and thereby compete with GE for future Navy purchases. This required GE to release proprietary information to Pratt and Whitney, a previously unheard of practice. Aerospace Daily reported that the Navy even used such pressures as putting all GE contracts through additional reviews at the Naval Material Command to slow up contract awards. GE finally acquiesced in December.
The Navy has structured procurement of the advanced tactical aircraft (ATA) so that at each level from research and development to production, either teams of prime contractors or individual aerospace companies would be competing for major system contracts. The competitive aspects of the ATA development program are so overwhelming that Aviation Week reported industry bidders were asking whether the Navy was developing an aircraft or simply a competition.
Additional Navy procurement initiatives include the use of “should-cost” studies versus actual costs on sole-source contracts where competition is impossible, and the creation of a new Navy officer career path called weapon system acquisition management. Secretary Lehman stated that one third of the flag billets in the Naval Material Command would be reserved for this new specialty.
Floyd Kennedy is maritime editor and columnist for National Defense magazine. While this H article was being compiled, he
was also consultant for ad- Kjr vanced naval systems with the
IEaton Corporation’s AIL Divi- **’---* sion. He is a regular contributor
to a number of publications and co-author of two books, including Military Helicopters of the World. The author is a graduate of the University of Illinois and has a master’s degree from The American University. He is a commander in the Naval Reserve intelligence program.