DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 APPENDIX A Navy Activity Descriptions Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................ A-1 A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Events .................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sources ......................................................... A-1 A.1.2 Munitions .............................................................................................................. A-7 A.1.3 Targets ................................................................................................................ A-11 A.1.4 Defensive Countermeasures ............................................................................... A-13 A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13 A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-16 A.2 Training Activities ................................................................................................... A-17 A.2.1 Major Training Exercises ..................................................................................... A-17 A.2.1.1 Composite Training Unit Exercise ....................................................... A-17 A.2.1.2 Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise .................................................. A-20 A.2.2 Integrated/Coordinated Training ........................................................................ A-22 A.2.2.1 Navy Undersea Warfare Training and Assessment Course ................ A-22 A.2.2.2 Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training ...................................... A-24 A.2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development Exercise................... A-26 A.2.2.4 Amphibious Ready Group Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise ............................................................................................... A-28 A.2.2.5 Group Sail ............................................................................................ A-30 A.2.3 Air Warfare Training ............................................................................................ A-32 A.2.3.1 Air Combat Maneuver ........................................................................ A-32 A.2.3.2 Air Defense Exercise ........................................................................... A-34 A.2.3.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Air Medium-Caliber ..................................... A-35 A.2.3.4 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Large-Caliber .................................. A-37 A.2.3.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Air Medium-Caliber .............................. A-39 A.2.3.6 Missile Exercise Air-to-Air ................................................................... A-41 A.2.3.7 Missile Exercise – Man-Portable Air Defense System ........................ A-43 A.2.3.8 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air ........................................................... A-45 A.2.4 Amphibious Warfare Training ............................................................................. A-47 A.2.4.1 Amphibious Assault ............................................................................ A-47 A.2.4.2 Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise ............ A-49 A.2.4.3 Amphibious Raid ................................................................................. A-50 i Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 A.2.4.4 Amphibious Vehicle Maneuvers ......................................................... A-52 A.2.4.5 Humanitarian Assistance Operations ................................................. A-53 A.2.4.6 Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification Exercise ............................... A-54 A.2.4.7 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – At Sea ..................................... A-56 A.2.4.8 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – Land-Based Target ................. A-58 A.2.5 Anti-Submarine Warfare Training ....................................................................... A-60 A.2.5.1 Torpedo Exercise – Helicopter ............................................................ A-61 A.2.5.2 Torpedo Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft ...................................... A-63 A.2.5.3 Torpedo Exercise – Ship ...................................................................... A-65 A.2.5.4 Torpedo Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-67 A.2.5.5 Tracking Exercise – Helicopter ............................................................ A-69 A.2.5.6 Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft ...................................... A-71 A.2.5.7 Tracking Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-73 A.2.5.8 Tracking Exercise – Ship ...................................................................... A-75 A.2.6 Electronic Warfare .............................................................................................. A-77 A.2.6.1 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Aircraft ....................................... A-77 A.2.6.2 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Ship ............................................. A-79 A.2.6.3 Counter Targeting Flare Exercise ........................................................ A-81 A.2.6.4 Electronic Warfare Operations ........................................................... A-83 A.2.6.5 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) ............. A-85 A.2.7 Expeditionary Warfare ........................................................................................ A-87 A.2.7.1 Dive and Salvage Operations .............................................................. A-87 A.2.7.2 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades ................. A-88 A.2.7.3 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Air .................................................. A-90 A.2.7.4 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Surface and Subsurface ................. A-92 A.2.7.5 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Swimmer/Diver.............................. A-93 A.2.7.6 Underwater Construction Team Training ........................................... A-94 A.2.8 Mine Warfare ...................................................................................................... A-95 A.2.8.1 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Mine Detection ............................ A-95 A.2.8.2 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Towed Mine Neutralization ..................................................................................... A-97 A.2.8.3 Civilian Port Defense – Homeland Security Anti- Terrorism/Force Protection Exercise .................................................. A-99 A.2.8.4 Coordinated Unit-Level Helicopter Airborne Mine Countermeasures Exercise ............................................................... A-101 A.2.8.5 Mine Countermeasures – Ship Sonar ............................................... A-103 A.2.8.6 Mine Countermeasures – Mine Neutralization – Remotely Operated Vehicle .............................................................................. A-105 ii Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 A.2.8.7 Mine Laying ....................................................................................... A-107 A.2.8.8 Mine Neutralization – Explosive Ordnance Disposal ........................ A-109 A.2.8.9 Underwater Mine Countermeasure Raise, Tow, Beach and Exploitation Operations .................................................................... A-111 A.2.9 Surface Warfare Training .................................................................................. A-113 A.2.9.1 Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface ...................................................... A-113 A.2.9.2 Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft ................................ A-115 A.2.9.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber ............................ A-116 A.2.9.4 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber ................................ A-118 A.2.9.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber ............ A-120 A.2.9.6 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber ................. A-122 A.2.9.7 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber ................. A-124 A.2.9.8 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber ............ A-126 A.2.9.9 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber ................. A-128 A.2.9.10 Integrated Live Fire ........................................................................... A-131 A.2.9.11 Laser Targeting – Aircraft .................................................................. A-133 A.2.9.12 Laser Targeting – Ship ....................................................................... A-135 A.2.9.13 Maritime Security Operations .......................................................... A-137 A.2.9.14 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface ........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Navy Columbia-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
    Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 14, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41129 Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program Summary The Navy’s Columbia (SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program is a program to design and build a class of 12 new SSBNs to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 aging Ohio-class SSBNs. Since 2013, the Navy has consistently identified the Columbia-class program as the Navy’s top priority program. The Navy procured the first Columbia-class boat in FY2021 and wants to procure the second boat in the class in FY2024. The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $3,003.0 (i.e., $3.0 billion) in procurement funding for the first Columbia-class boat and $1,644.0 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in advance procurement (AP) funding for the second boat, for a combined FY2022 procurement and AP funding request of $4,647.0 million (i.e., about $4.6 billion). The Navy’s FY2022 budget submission estimates the procurement cost of the first Columbia- class boat at $15,030.5 million (i.e., about $15.0 billion) in then-year dollars, including $6,557.6 million (i.e., about $6.60 billion) in costs for plans, meaning (essentially) the detail design/nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the Columbia class. (It is a long-standing Navy budgetary practice to incorporate the DD/NRE costs for a new class of ship into the total procurement cost of the first ship in the class.) Excluding costs for plans, the estimated hands-on construction cost of the first ship is $8,473.0 million (i.e., about $8.5 billion).
    [Show full text]
  • Should the United States Develop and Employ Strategic Information Warfare Capabilities?
    Should the United States develop and employ strategic information warfare capabilities? Information technologies have transformed U.S. and, indeed, international society. The ways we socialize, educate and inform ourselves, engage in business and practice our religions have been changed, and in many cases now rely, on digital information and communication. Can warfare—the defense and promotion of our national security and interests—be exempt under any circumstances from developing and employing the latest information strategies? Is this even a choice in the 21st century, much less a hard choice? Information warfare has been variously defined by different analysts but a standard general definition, as provided by the U.S. Air Force is “any action to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy the enemy’s information and its functions; protecting ourselves against the actions and exploiting our own information operations.” The goal of information war is now frequently described as “information dominance.” (1) Major General Kenneth Minihan, stated, “information dominance is not ‘my pile of information is bigger than yours’…It is a way of increasing our capabilities by using that information to make right decisions, (and) apply them faster than the enemy can. It is a way to alter the enemy’s entire perception of reality. It is a method of using all the information at our disposal to predict (and affect) what happens tomorrow before the enemy even jumps out of bed and thinks about what to do today.” (2) Pro: Information warfare is not a new concept that arose with the Internet. Information has always been a decisive factor in deciding the victory or defeat of one military force over another.
    [Show full text]
  • Unlocking NATO's Amphibious Potential
    November 2020 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE J.D. WILLIAMS, GENE GERMANOVICH, STEPHEN WEBBER, GABRIELLE TARINI Unlocking NATO’s Amphibious Potential Lessons from the Past, Insights for the Future orth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members maintain amphibious capabilities that provide versatile and responsive forces for crisis response and national defense. These forces are routinely employed in maritime Nsecurity, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO), counterterrorism, stability operations, and other missions. In addition to U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and U.S. Navy forces, the Alliance’s amphibious forces include large ships and associated landing forces from five nations: France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). Each of these European allies—soon to be joined by Turkey—can conduct brigade-level operations, and smaller elements typically are held at high readiness for immediate response.1 These forces have been busy. Recent exercises and operations have spanned the littorals of West and North Africa, the Levant, the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Given NATO’s ongoing concerns over Russia’s military posture and malign behavior, allies with amphibious capabilities have also been exploring how these forces could contribute to deterrence or, if needed, be employed as part of a C O R P O R A T I O N combined and joint force in a conflict against a highly some respects, NATO’s ongoing efforts harken back to the capable nation-state. Since 2018, NATO’s headquarters Cold War, when NATO’s amphibious forces routinely exer- and various commands have undertaken initiatives and cised in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic as part of a convened working groups to advance the political intent broader strategy to deter Soviet aggression.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-20-257T, Navy Maintenance
    United States Government Accountability Office Testimony Before the Subcommittees on Seapower and Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET Wednesday, December 4, 2019 NAVY MAINTENANCE Persistent and Substantial Ship and Submarine Maintenance Delays Hinder Efforts to Rebuild Readiness Statement of Diana C. Maurer Director Defense Capabilities and Management GAO-20-257T December 4, 2019 NAVY MAINTENANCE Persistent and Substantial Ship and Submarine Maintenance Delays Hinder Efforts to Rebuild Readiness Highlights of GAO-20-257T, a testimony before the Subcommittees on Seapower and Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The 2018 National Defense Strategy The Navy continues to face persistent and substantial maintenance delays that emphasizes that restoring and retaining affect the majority of its maintenance efforts and hinder its attempts to restore readiness is critical to success in the readiness. From fiscal year 2014 to the end of fiscal year 2019, Navy ships have emerging security environment. The spent over 33,700 more days in maintenance than expected. The Navy was Navy is working to rebuild its readiness unable to complete scheduled ship maintenance on time for about 75 percent of while also growing and modernizing its the maintenance periods conducted during fiscal years 2014 through 2019, with aging fleet of ships. A critical component more than half of the delays in fiscal year 2019 exceeding 90 days. When of rebuilding Navy readiness is maintenance is not completed on time, fewer ships are available for training or implementing sustainable operational operations, which can hinder readiness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War and Early Submarine Warfare, 1863 Introduction
    1 The Civil War and early submarine warfare, 1863 Introduction Civil War combat foreshadowed modern warfare with the introduction of the machine gun, repeater rifles, and trench warfare, and the use of trains to quickly move troops. However, one of the most celebrated tactical innovations of the war was the use of submarines by the Confederate Navy. An early example of this type of naval ingenuity was the CSS Pioneer developed by Horace Lawson Hunley, James McClintock, and Baxter Watson. The Confederates were forced to abandon the Pioneer during testing for fear of capture but she eventually found her way into Union hands, where the submersible was examined and sketched by Ensign David Stauffer of the USS Alexandria. Following the war, the Pioneer was scrapped for metal. Most accounts of actual Civil War submarine combat focus on the sinking of the USS Housatonic by the CSS H. L. Hunley in February 1864, but few mention an earlier but unsuccessful attack by a cigar-shaped vessel, the CSS David, in October 1863. This letter from Union sailor Lewis H. West is a rare eyewitness account of that incident, one of the earliest submarine attacks in naval history. On his first night on board the USS New Ironsides, West experienced the David’s attack. Stealthily cutting through Charleston Bay almost entirely submerged, the David crew attempted to explode a torpedo (what we now refer to as a mine) and in the process nearly destroyed their own vessel. According to West, the “nondescript craft” barely damaged the New Ironsides, and divers found “that not a plate or bolt is started.” The CSS David survived the explosion and the small-arms fire that raked the hull.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of the War at Sea During WWI
    The Importance of The War At Sea During WWI By: Taylor Pressdee, Anna Ward, Nathan Urquidi What Was the Impact of ‘The War at Sea’? ● Opened a new kind of warfare: Submarine Warfare ● Involved civilians as well as sailors and soldiers ● One of the major reasons that the United States joined the Allies ● Influenced major events during the war: Battle of Jutland, the naval blockade, submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania Who Was Affected By The War at Sea? ● “Total War” ● War At Sea affected civilians as well as soldiers ● Ship Liners, and Coastal cities were in danger of attack ● Starvation was prevalent in specifically Germany because supply ships were being sunk Timeline May 31st 1916 September 1915 Battle of Jutland Germans stop using U-boats February 1st 1916 Germans begin using U-boats again May 7th 1916 Lusitania Sinks Battle of Jutland Battle of Jutland ● Fought on May 31st 1916 ● Only major battle fought at sea ● Fought by the Jutland Peninsula between England and Germany ● Two Admirals in charge of both fleets: Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer (Left) and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe (Right) The Battle ● British forces intercepted a German message containing a plan to attack them on May 28th ● However, Admiral Scheer postponed the attack due to bad weather ○ Attempted to plan another attack down by the Jutland Peninsula, however Britain intercepted this plan as well ● Vice Admiral Jellicoe moved his fleet down to the Jutland Peninsula, awaiting the attack Aftermath of the Battle ● The British suffered losses, but not nearly
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Sea Mines in the Indo-Pacific
    Issue 18, 2020 BREACHING THE SURFACE: THE FUTURE OF SEA MINES IN THE INDO-PACIFIC Alia Huberman, The Australian National Internships Program Issue 18, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report argues that several dynamics of the coming few decades in the Indo-Pacific will see naval mines used once again in the region. It suggests they will form the basis of anti-access strategies for some Indo-Pacific states in a way that will be deeply transformative for the region’s strategic balance and for which Australia is thoroughly unprepared. It seeks to draw attention to the often- underappreciated nature of sea mines as a uniquely powerful strategic tool, offering the user an unparalleled asymmetric ability to engage high-value enemy targets while posing a minimal-risk, low- expense, and continuous threat. In the increasingly contested strategic environment of the contemporary Indo-Pacific - a region in which the threats to free navigation and the maritime economy are existential ones - there is considerable appetite for anti-access and sea denial weapons as defensive, offensive, and coercive tools. Naval strategists must,, prepare for the resurgence of mine warfare in the Indo-Pacific, and for the grand-scale and rapid timeline in which it can transform an operational environment. This report first seeks to collate and outline those characteristics of sea mines and of their interaction with an operational environment that make them attractive for use. It then discusses the states most likely to employ mine warfare and the different scenarios in which they might do so, presenting five individual contingencies: China, Taiwan, North Korea, non-state actors, and Southeast Asian states.
    [Show full text]
  • US Navy Mine Warfare Champion
    Naval War College Review Volume 68 Article 8 Number 2 Spring 2015 Wanted: U.S. Navy Mine Warfare Champion Scott .C Truver Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Truver, Scott .C (2015) "Wanted: U.S. Navy Mine Warfare Champion," Naval War College Review: Vol. 68 : No. 2 , Article 8. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol68/iss2/8 This Additional Writing is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Truver: Wanted: U.S. Navy Mine Warfare Champion COMMENTARY WANTED U.S. NAVY MINE WARFARE CHAMPION Scott C. Truver Successfully implementing innovation within a bureaucracy ultimately requires a champion to navigate the inherently political processes of securing sponsorship and resourcing. This is just as important to the very small as to the very large programs, particularly during periods of fiscal austerity. “It’s fragmented,” com- mented retired rear admiral Paul Ryan, former commander of the U.S. Navy’s Mine Warfare Command, in April 2014. “There is no single champion for mine warfare.”1 This lack of support presents challenges for the U.S. Navy and the nation, as the service struggles to articulate, and to muster the necessary backing for, mine warfare (MIW) strategies, programs, capabilities, and capacities. The task of confronting these challenges is complicated by the fact that MIW comprises not only mine-countermeasures (MCM—that is, minesweeping and mine hunt- ing) systems and platforms but also mines that can be employed to defeat our adversaries’ naval strategies and forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Revitalizing Mine Countermeasure: Lessons from the Royal Navy In
    NAVAL MINE WARFARE ESSAY CONTEST—1ST PRIZE Sponsored by The Mine Warfare Association BY LIEUTENANT JOHN MILLER, REVITALIZE MINE U.S. NAVY COUNTERMEASURES The Royal Navy’s experience responding to mines in World War II offers lessons for today. RAYTHEON 48 PROCEEDINGS | AUGUST 2019 he U.S. Navy knows that its current adversaries pose a substantial offensive mining threat. Russia, China, and Iran each possess—and too often export—an advanced, ro- bust, and mature offensive mine capability. The U.S. Navy must consider if it has the T speed and resources with which to respond to restore freedom of maneuver in the event of sustained mining. The pre–World War II U.S. Navy had neither built a minesweeper nor swept a mine in its his- tory. It had zero minesweepers on the register of active ships in September 1939.1 In compar- ison, the Royal Navy had 76 fleet minesweepers.2 By the end of the war, more than 1,000 U.S. and Allied vessels had served as minesweepers, combating offensive mine operations from the Atlantic and the Mediterranean to the Far East. While some were purpose-built, many were commercial vessels, such as trawlers and drifters, pressed into service by the Royal Navy to support mine countermeasure (MCM), antisubmarine warfare (ASW), escort, and patrol mis- sions. Though lightly armed, these vessels played a vital role in combating and defeating ad- versaries across multiple warfare domains. By filling a critical capability gap, these ships and boats enabled the Royal Navy to effectively stretch its finite naval forces across the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress September 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32665 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the annual rate of Navy ship procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, and the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. In December 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made U.S. policy by Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115- 91 of December 12, 2017). The Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been working since 2019 to develop a successor for the 355-ship force-level goal. The new goal is expected to introduce a new, more distributed fleet architecture featuring a smaller proportion of larger ships, a larger proportion of smaller ships, and a new third tier of large unmanned vehicles (UVs). On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77 to 140 large UVs. A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of the Navy's New Frigate
    OCTOBER 2020 The Cost of the Navy’s New Frigate On April 30, 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri Several factors support the Navy’s estimate: Marinette Marine a contract to build the Navy’s new sur- face combatant, a guided missile frigate long designated • The FFG(X) is based on a design that has been in as FFG(X).1 The contract guarantees that Fincantieri will production for many years. build the lead ship (the first ship designed for a class) and gives the Navy options to build as many as nine addi- • Little if any new technology is being developed for it. tional ships. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office examines the potential costs if the Navy exercises • The contractor is an experienced builder of small all of those options. surface combatants. • CBO estimates the cost of the 10 FFG(X) ships • An independent estimate within the Department of would be $12.3 billion in 2020 (inflation-adjusted) Defense (DoD) was lower than the Navy’s estimate. dollars, about $1.2 billion per ship, on the basis of its own weight-based cost model. That amount is Other factors suggest the Navy’s estimate is too low: 40 percent more than the Navy’s estimate. • The costs of all surface combatants since 1970, as • The Navy estimates that the 10 ships would measured per thousand tons, were higher. cost $8.7 billion in 2020 dollars, an average of $870 million per ship. • Historically the Navy has almost always underestimated the cost of the lead ship, and a more • If the Navy’s estimate turns out to be accurate, expensive lead ship generally results in higher costs the FFG(X) would be the least expensive surface for the follow-on ships.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Mines and Naval Mine Countermeasures: Are Autonomous Underwater Vehicles the Answer, and Is the Royal Canadian Navy Ready for the New Paradigm?
    SEA MINES AND NAVAL MINE COUNTERMEASURES: ARE AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLES THE ANSWER, AND IS THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY READY FOR THE NEW PARADIGM? Lieutenant-Commander J. Greenlaw JCSP 39 PCEMI 39 Master of Defence Studies Maîtrise en études de la défense Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and do Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs et not represent Department of National Defence or ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Ministère de Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used la Défense nationale ou des Forces canadiennes. Ce without written permission. papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par le Minister of National Defence, 2013 ministre de la Défense nationale, 2013. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 39 – PCEMI 39 2012 – 2013 MASTER OF DEFENCE STUDIES - MAITRISE EN ÉTUDES DE LA DÉFENSE SEA MINES AND NAVAL MINE COUNTERMEASURES: ARE AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLES THE ANSWER, AND IS THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY READY FOR THE NEW PARADIGM? By Lieutenant-Commander J. Greenlaw, RCN Par capitaine de corvette J. Greenlaw, MRC This paper was written by a student La présente étude a été rédigée par attending the Canadian Forces un stagiaire du Collège des Forces College in fulfilment of one of the canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une requirements of the Course of des exigences du cours. L'étude est Studies. The paper is a scholastic un document qui se rapporte au document, and thus contains facts cours et contient donc des faits et des and opinions, which the author opinions que seul l'auteur considère alone considered appropriate and appropriés et convenables au sujet.
    [Show full text]