DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Littoral Combat Ships for Open-Ocean Anti-Submarine Warfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Littoral Combat Ships for Open-Ocean Anti-Submarine Warfare View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis and Dissertation Collection 2016-03 Evaluation of Littoral Combat Ships for open-ocean anti-submarine warfare Valerio, Victor Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/48592 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CAPSTONE PROJECT REPORT EVALUATION OF LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS FOR OPEN-OCEAN ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE by Team LCS Cohort 311-143O March 2016 Project Advisors: John Green Gregory Miller Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) March 2016 Capstone project report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS EVALUATION OF LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS FOR OPEN-OCEAN ANTI- SUBMARINE WARFARE 6. AUTHOR(S) Team LCS, Systems Engineering Cohort 311-143O 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND 10. SPONSORING / ADDRESS(ES) MONITORING AGENCY N/A REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. IRB Protocol number ____N/A____. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) This report evaluates the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and its potential to fulfill the open-ocean anti- submarine warfare (ASW) mission. It is unknown whether the LCS platform can support open-ocean ASW. This report examines which LCS variant, Freedom or Independence, is more suitable for open- ocean ASW. Initial analysis defines the open-ocean ASW problem space in terms of a threat analysis, mission analysis, current Concept of Operations (CONOPS), and current LCS capabilities. An Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) uses derived functional and operational requirements within a Pugh matrix to decide which variant best performs ASW, and what modifications can improve future designs of the LCS. The analysis shows the Freedom class has marginal advantages in performing open-ocean ASW mission tasks, and establishes three areas for improvement: self-noise emissions, weight, and communication. Potential solutions are explored to address these shortfalls and to analyze their impact on LCS’s ability to meet core requirements of the open-ocean ASW mission. This paper concludes that the LCS is capable of fulfilling the open-ocean ASW mission if improvements are made to the design and CONOPS. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF anti-submarine warfare, littoral combat ship, mission module, systems engineering, PAGES requirements development, architecture, capability, functional decomposition, modeling and 99 simulation, ASW, LCS 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited EVALUATION OF LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS FOR OPEN-OCEAN ANTI- SUBMARINE WARFARE Team LCS, Systems Engineering Cohort 311-143O Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING Victor Valerio Herbert Nichelson William Wascom AND MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS Michael DeSousa Keith Sadeck from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL March 2016 Lead editors: Herbert Nichelson and Keith Sadeck Reviewed by: John Green Gregory Miller Project Advisor Project Advisor Accepted by: Ronald Giachetti Systems Engineering Department iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT This report evaluates the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and its potential to fulfill the open-ocean anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission. It is unknown whether the LCS platform can support open-ocean ASW. This report examines which LCS variant, Freedom or Independence, is more suitable for open-ocean ASW. Initial analysis defines the open-ocean ASW problem space in terms of a threat analysis, mission analysis, current Concept of Operations (CONOPS), and current LCS capabilities. An Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) uses derived functional and operational requirements within a Pugh matrix to decide which variant best performs ASW, and what modifications can improve future designs of the LCS. The analysis shows the Freedom class has marginal advantages in performing open-ocean ASW mission tasks, and establishes three areas for improvement: self-noise emissions, weight, and communication. Potential solutions are explored to address these shortfalls and to analyze their impact on LCS’s ability to meet core requirements of the open-ocean ASW mission. This paper concludes that the LCS is capable of fulfilling the open-ocean ASW mission if improvements are made to the design and CONOPS. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................1 B. PROBLEM STATEMENT .......................................................................5 C. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE .......................................................................5 D. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS..................................................6 II. PROBLEM SPACE EXPLORATION ................................................................9 A. HISTORY OF ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE ..................................9 B. THREAT ANALYSIS ...............................................................................9 1. North Korea ..................................................................................11 2. People’s Republic of China .........................................................13 3. Russia ............................................................................................16 C. MISSION ANALYSIS .............................................................................18 1. Open Ocean vs. Littoral ASW ....................................................18 2. Open-Ocean ASW Mission..........................................................19 3. CONOPS of the Current LCS ....................................................23 D. CURRENT SYSTEMS IN LCS ASW MISSION PACKAGE ............25 E. ACOUSTIC MODEL ..............................................................................27 III. CURRENT CAPABILITY GAPS ......................................................................39 A. OWNSHIP NOISE CONTROL CAPABILITY ...................................39 B. RANGE AND ENDURANCE CAPABILITY .......................................40 C. DATA LINK CAPABILITY ...................................................................40 IV. POTENTIAL LCS IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................43 A. ACOUSTIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS .......................................43 B. POTENTIAL CONOPS IMPROVEMENTS ........................................48 C. RANGE AND ENDURANCE IMPROVEMENTS ..............................51 D. DATALINK CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT....................................56 V. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...........................................................................59 A. COST COMPARISON BETWEEN LCS AND OTHER PLATFORMS ..........................................................................................59 B. LCS ENDURANCE COST TRADEOFF ..............................................62 C. DATALINK IMPROVEMENT COST ..................................................63 D. LCS VARIANT SELECTION ................................................................64 E. IMPROVED LCS COMPARISON ........................................................67 vii VI. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................69 A. FINDINGS ................................................................................................69 1. Operational Improvements .........................................................69 2. System Improvements .................................................................69 B. RESPONSE TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................70 C. AREAS OF FUTURE STUDY ...............................................................71
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Navy Activities Descriptions
    Appendix A: Navy Activities Descriptions NORTHWEST TRAINING AND TESTING FINAL EIS/OEIS OCTOBER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A NAVY ACTIVITIES DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................................. A-1 A.1 TRAINING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 ANTI-AIR WARFARE TRAINING ............................................................................................................ A-1 A.1.1.1 Air Combat Maneuver ............................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.2 Missile Exercise (Air-to-Air) ....................................................................................................... A-3 A.1.1.3 Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air) ............................................................................................. A-4 A.1.1.4 Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Air) ................................................................................................ A-5 A.1.2 ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE TRAINING ..................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.2.1 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface (Ship) .............................................................................. A-7 A.1.2.2 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface .................................................................................................. A-8 A.1.2.3 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile
    [Show full text]
  • Underwater Mines - Past, Present and Future
    UNDERWATER MINES - PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE Prof. S.Veerabhadraiah1, Dr. M.Purnachandra Rao2 1Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Raghu Engineering College, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, (India) 2Professor of Physics, Head, Department of Systems Design, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, (India) ABSTRACT Some examples of past, present and future mines available in the world are initially covered in this paper. This paper makes an assessment of present day underwater Mines technology for various applications in the area of defensive as well as offensive mining. The capabilities of underwater mines namely, operating as automatic sentinels in deep waters and easy deployment for offensive applications as well, meeting the future needs of naval task forces have also been covered in this paper. Finally the limitations of past and present mines are identified and the solutions to overcome these limitations so as to develop a state of the art mine are suggested towards the end of this paper. Keywords: Automatic Sentinels, Contact Mines, Influence Mines, Underwater Mine, World War I. I. INTRODUCTION A naval mine is a self-contained explosive device placed in water to damage or destroy surface ships or submarines. Unlike depth charges, mines are deposited and left to wait until they are triggered by the approach of, or contact with, an enemy vessel. Naval mines can be used offensively—to hamper enemy shipping movements or lock vessels into a harbour; or defensively—to protect friendly vessels and create "safe" zones. The Sea Mine which was earlier thought to be a poor nation‘s weapon has attained a position of prime importance in the armories of many navies of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Pumpjets and Propellers for Non-Nuclear Submarine Propulsion
    A comparison of pumpjets and propellers for non-nuclear submarine propulsion Aidan Morrison January 2018 Trendlock Consulting Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Executive Summary 5 3 Speed and Drag - Why very slow is very very (very)2 economical 9 3.1 The physical relationship . .9 3.2 Practical implications for submarines . 10 4 The difference between nuclear and conventional propulsion 12 4.1 Power and Energy . 12 4.2 Xenon poisoning and low power limitations . 12 4.3 Recent Commentary . 14 5 Basics of Ducted Propellers and Pumpjets 16 5.1 Propellers . 16 5.1.1 Pitch . 16 5.1.2 Pitch and the Advance Ratio . 18 5.2 Ducted Propellers . 20 5.2.1 The Accelerating Duct . 21 5.2.2 The Decelerating Duct or Pumpjet . 22 5.2.3 Waterjets . 24 5.3 Pump Types . 25 6 Constraints on the efficiency of pumpjets at low speed 28 6.1 Recent Commentary . 28 6.2 Modern literature and results . 28 6.3 A simple theoretical explanation . 31 6.4 Trade-offs and Limitations on Improvements . 34 6.5 The impact of duct loss on an ideal propeller . 36 6.6 An assessment of scope for improving the efficiency of a pumpjet at low speeds . 41 6.6.1 Increase mass-flow by widening area of intake . 42 6.6.2 Reduce degree of diffusion (i.e. switch to accelerating duct) to reduce negative thrust from duct.................................................. 45 6.6.3 Reduce shroud length to decrease drag on duct . 46 6.6.4 Summary remarks on potential for redesign of pumpjet for low-speed conditions .
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Undersea Balance Between the US and China
    SSP Working Paper February, 2011 Assessing the Undersea Balance Between the U.S. and China Owen R. Cote Jr. 1 Assessing the Undersea Balance Between the U.S. and China Owen R. Cote Jr. This paper will assess the undersea balance between the U.S. and China by comparing their relative abilities to accomplish their respective undersea warfare objectives. I will assess both the current balance, and how it might evolve in the future. In the latter case, I will focus on opportunities each side will have to adopt competitive strategies, or strategies designed to exploit its unique strengths or its opponent‟s weaknesses in ways that create favorable asymmetries in the resources that must be committed to accomplish particular missions. Defining the Undersea Balance Naval warfare is at bottom a contest over who will be able to use the seas, how, where, and when. Traditionally, it boiled down to the fate of surface ships carrying civilian or military cargo between ports, or sea lines of communication (SLOCs). One was either trying to assure SLOCs, deny them to one‟s opponent(s), or both. And for stretches of time and in certain areas the balance could be such that SLOCs were denied to both parties to the conflict. Thus naval operations occurred in only two dimensions and tended to unfold in almost complete operational and tactical isolation from events ashore and vice versa.1 The twentieth century saw submarines, aircraft, and earth orbiting satellites add a vertical dimension to naval warfare, and it also saw the obliteration of the coastline principle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Dreadnought Revolution
    THE NEXT DREADNOUGHT REVOLUTION BY DAVID MURRIN 15TH MARCH 2021 WWW.DAVIDMURRIN.CO.UK PART 1: CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS AND LIMITATIONS THE NEXT DREADNOUGHT REVOLUTION THE NEXT DREADNOUGHT REVOLUTION HISTORY DECODED TO INFORM THE FUTURE PART 1: CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS AND LIMITATIONS BY ANALYSING PAST PATTERNS WE CAN PREDICT FORTHCOMING EVENTS AND TRENDS 1.0 TIME FOR A NEW DREADNOUGHT-TYPE INNOVATION IN WARSHIP DESIGN In a time when battleships usually took several years to build, the construction and launch in 1906 of HMS Dreadnought in less than 12 months was a demonstration of British military intention and industrial might. But most critically, her all big gun design and steam turbines made every ship built before that point obsolete. The geostrategic consequences were enormous as it gave Germany a window to attempt to challenge for control of the world’s oceans and accelerated the British-German naval arms’ race to astronomical levels. Today we are witnessing a new and fourth great industrial arms’ race, catalysed by China’s hegemonic ambitions as it seeks to outbuild America and its allies to create a blue-water navy that can dominate the world’s oceans. In this similar environment, perhaps it is time to consider the emergence of a new class of Dreadnought destroyers, which I have named Dominators, that can control large areas of ocean both below and above it. 1.1 DEDICATED MISSION DESTROYERS AND FRIGATES This ship design concept of dedicated mission escorts is favoured by all European navies and the Royal Navy is an excellent specific example of using this concept in its escort fleet.
    [Show full text]
  • SAESSOLUTIONS DEFENCE & SECURITY Electronica-Submarina.Com SPECIALISTS in UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS and ELECTRONICS
    SAESSOLUTIONS DEFENCE & SECURITY electronica-submarina.com SPECIALISTS IN UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS AND ELECTRONICS ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE MARINE SECURITY & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Sonobuoy Processing SPAS System SYSTEMS FOR SUBMARINES AND SURFACE SHIPS SONARS ACOUSTIC CLASSIFICATION OWN NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM SONAR PERFORMANCE PREDICTION SYSTEM RDTAS Towed Array Sonar Diver Detection Sonar UNDERWATER SIGNATURE MEASUREMENT ENGINEERING & TRAINING SERVICES Multi-Influence Range MIRS System NAVAL MINES TRAINING & SIMULATION Tactical Simulators MINEA – MULTI-INFLUENCE NAVAL MINES MILA – LIMPET NAVAL MINE SAES High Technical Qualification Own Technical Capability Specialists in Underwater Electronics SAESSOLUTIONS DEFENCE & SECURITY 2 WELCOME SAES is a Spanish company specialized in submarine electronic equipment and systems for undersea security and defence that provides advanced solutions technologically adapted to the need of clients and offers security services in the civil and military fields. SAES offices and electronic workshop are located in Cartagena and Cádiz, where the Spanish Navy has its main facilities and schools related to Submarine, Mines Warfare and Antisubmarine Warfare. Our engineers are highly skilled and experienced in electronics, acoustics, design, software and hardware development, methodologies, quality and operational requirements on underwater based needs. SAES, founded in 1989, is classified as a strategic national company being NAVANTIA, INDRA and THALES their shareholders. SOLUTIONS Innovation SAES Cost- Quality Effective Customer Confidence oriented 3 electronica-submarina.com CONTENTS From our engineering and manufacturing facilities, we have successfully developed and integrated solutions tailored to the governments needs. Cost effectiveness, reliability, modularity and open architecture defines our systems, which are in-service around the world. SONAR & ONBOARD SYSTEMS PAG. 5 UNDERWATER SIGNATURES ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE MEASUREMENT PAG. 10 PAG.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Commerce
    Vol. 80 Wednesday, No. 106 June 3, 2015 Part IV Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 218 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area; Proposed Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Conservation Division, Office of Background Protected Resources, National Marine Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct Administration Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910– the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 3225. upon request, the incidental, but not • 50 CFR Part 218 Fax: (301) 713–0376; Attn: Jolie intentional, taking of small numbers of [Docket No. 140109018–5464–01] Harrison. marine mammals by U.S. citizens who Instructions: Comments sent by any engage in a specified activity (other than RIN 0648–BD89 other method, to any other address or commercial fishing) within a specified individual, or received after the end of geographical region if certain findings Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to the comment period, may not be Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training are made and either regulations are considered by NMFS. All comments issued or, if the taking is limited to and Testing Activities in the Northwest received are a part of the public record Training and Testing Study Area harassment, a notice of a proposed and will generally be posted for public authorization is provided to the public AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries viewing on www.regulations.gov for review.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress
    Order Code RL33360 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress April 12, 2006 Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress Summary General strategies for reducing the Navy’s dependence on oil for its ships include reducing energy use on Navy ships; shifting to alternative hydrocarbon fuels; shifting to a greater reliance on nuclear propulsion; and making use of sail and solar power. Reducing energy use on Navy ships. A 2001 report by the Defense Science Board (DSB) stated that fuel efficiency has not been given a high priority in future system design. A 2001 study for the Navy by the Rocky Mountain Institute concluded that fitting a Navy cruiser with more energy-efficient electrical equipment could reduce the ship’s fuel use by 10% to 25%. The Navy has installed fuel-saving bulbous bows on certain ships, but might be able to install them on others. The Navy has installed fuel-saving stern flaps on many of its ships. Ship fuel use could be reduced by shifting from simple-cycle gas turbines to other turbine designs such as an intercooled recuperated (ICR) gas turbine. Shifting from mechanical-drive to integrated electric-drive propulsion can reduce a ship’s fuel use by 10% to 25%, and some Navy ships, such as TAKE-1 class cargo ships and DD(X) destroyers, are to use integrated electric drive.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 84
    Calendar No. 84 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session SENATE 105±29 "! NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 924] ON AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 FOR MILI- TARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILI- TARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE JUNE 17, 1997.ÐOrdered to be printed NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 1 Calendar No. 84 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session SENATE 105±29 "! NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 924] ON AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 FOR MILI- TARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILI- TARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE JUNE 17, 1997.ÐOrdered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41±406 WASHINGTON : 1997 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (105th Congress, 1st Session) STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts DAN COATS, Indiana JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico BOB SMITH, New Hampshire JOHN GLENN, Ohio DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine MAX CLELAND, Georgia PAT ROBERTS, Kansas LES BROWNLEE, Staff Director DAVID S.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX H ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS I GULF of ALASKA NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES EIS/OEIS FINAL (MARCH 2011)
    Appendix H Acoustic Systems Descriptions GULF OF ALASKA NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES EIS/OEIS FINAL (MARCH 2011) TABLE OF CONTENTS H ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................... H-1 H.1 GENERAL SUMMARY OF ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS ............................................................................. H-1 H.1.1 SURFACE SHIP SONARS ................................................................................................................ H-1 H.1.2 SURFACE SHIP FATHOMETER ....................................................................................................... H-2 H.1.3 SUBMARINE SONARS .................................................................................................................... H-3 H.1.4 SUBMARINE AUXILIARY SONAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................... H-4 H.1.5 AIRCRAFT SONAR SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... H-4 H.1.6 TORPEDOES ................................................................................................................................... H-7 H.1.7 EXERCISE TRAINING TARGETS ..................................................................................................... H-7 H.1.8 TRACKING PINGERS, TRANSPONDERS, AND ACOUSTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (ACOMS) .......... H-8 H.1.9 PORTABLE UNDERSEA TRAINING RANGE (PUTR) ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy
    House of Commons Defence Committee Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy Third Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 November 2016 HC 221 Published on 21 November 2016 by authority of the House of Commons The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dr Julian Lewis MP (Conservative, New Forest East) (Chair) Douglas Chapman MP (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline and West Fife) James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Jack Lopresti MP (Consevative, Filton and Bradley Stoke) Johnny Mercer MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Moor View) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Jim Shannon MP (Democratic Unionist Party, Strangford) Ruth Smeeth MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) John Spellar MP (Labour, Warley) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Phil Wilson MP (Labour, Sedgefield) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in the House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this Report is published on the relevant inquiry page of the Committee’s website. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are James Davies (Clerk), Dr Anna Dickson (Second Clerk), Claire Cozens, John Curtis, Eleanor Scarnell, and Ian Thomson (Committee Specialists), David Nicholas (Senior Committee Assistant), Carolyn Bowes and David Gardener (Committee Assistants).
    [Show full text]