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 Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 APPENDIX A Navy Activity Descriptions Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX 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-12 A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13 A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-15 A.2 Training Activities ................................................................................................... A-16 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 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-44 A.2.3.8 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air ........................................................... A-46 A.2.4 Amphibious Warfare Training ............................................................................. A-48 A.2.4.1 Amphibious Assault ............................................................................ A-48 A.2.4.2 Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise ............ A-50 i Table of Contents Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 A.2.4.3 Amphibious Raid ................................................................................. A-51 A.2.4.4 Amphibious Vehicle Maneuvers ......................................................... A-53 A.2.4.5 Humanitarian Assistance Operations ................................................. A-54 A.2.4.6 Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification Exercise ............................... A-55 A.2.4.7 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – At Sea ..................................... A-57 A.2.4.8 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – Land-Based Target ................. A-59 A.2.5 Anti-Submarine Warfare Training ....................................................................... A-61 A.2.5.1 Torpedo Exercise – Helicopter ............................................................ A-62 A.2.5.2 Torpedo Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft ...................................... A-64 A.2.5.3 Torpedo Exercise – Ship ...................................................................... A-66 A.2.5.4 Torpedo Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-68 A.2.5.5 Tracking Exercise – Helicopter ............................................................ A-70 A.2.5.6 Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft ...................................... A-72 A.2.5.7 Tracking Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-74 A.2.5.8 Tracking Exercise – Ship ...................................................................... A-76 A.2.6 Electronic Warfare .............................................................................................. A-78 A.2.6.1 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Aircraft ....................................... A-78 A.2.6.2 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Ship ............................................. A-80 A.2.6.3 Counter Targeting Flare Exercise ........................................................ A-82 A.2.6.4 Electronic Warfare Operations ........................................................... A-84 A.2.6.5 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) ............. A-86 A.2.7 Expeditionary Warfare ........................................................................................ A-88 A.2.7.1 Dive and Salvage Operations .............................................................. A-88 A.2.7.2 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades ................. A-89 A.2.7.3 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Air .................................................. A-91 A.2.7.4 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Surface and Subsurface ................. A-93 A.2.7.5 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Swimmer/Diver.............................. A-94 A.2.7.6 Underwater Construction Team Training ........................................... A-95 A.2.8 Mine Warfare ...................................................................................................... A-96 A.2.8.1 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Mine Detection ............................ A-96 A.2.8.2 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Towed Mine Neutralization ..................................................................................... A-98 A.2.8.3 Civilian Port Defense – Homeland Security Anti- Terrorism/Force Protection Exercise ................................................ A-100 A.2.8.4 Coordinated Unit-Level Helicopter Airborne Mine Countermeasures Exercise ............................................................... A-102 A.2.8.5 Mine Countermeasures – Ship Sonar ............................................... A-104 A.2.8.6 Mine Countermeasures – Mine Neutralization – Remotely Operated Vehicle .............................................................................. A-106 ii Table of Contents Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 A.2.8.7 Mine Laying ....................................................................................... A-108 A.2.8.8 Mine Neutralization – Explosive Ordnance Disposal ........................ A-110 A.2.8.9 Underwater Mine Countermeasure Raise, Tow, Beach and Exploitation Operations .................................................................... A-112 A.2.9 Surface Warfare Training .................................................................................. A-114 A.2.9.1 Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface ...................................................... A-114 A.2.9.2 Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft ................................ A-116 A.2.9.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber ............................ A-118 A.2.9.4 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber ................................ A-120 A.2.9.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber ............ A-122 A.2.9.6 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber ................. A-124 A.2.9.7 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber ................. A-126 A.2.9.8 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber ............ A-128 A.2.9.9 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber ................. A-130 A.2.9.10 Integrated Live Fire ........................................................................... A-132 A.2.9.11 Laser Targeting – Aircraft .................................................................. A-134 A.2.9.12 Laser Targeting – Ship ....................................................................... A-135 A.2.9.13 Maritime Security Operations .......................................................... A-136 A.2.9.14 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface ......................................................... A-138 A.2.9.15 Missile
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BA-6, Management Support Because It Includes Studies and Analyses in Support of R&D Efforts
    UNCLASSIFIED Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification Date: February 2007 Appropriation/Budget Activity R-1 Item Nomenclature: RDT&E Defense-Wide, BA 6 Special Technical Support PE 0603704D8Z Cost ($ in millions) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total PE Cost 19.683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification: Special Technology Support to Intelligence and Light Forces is a classified program. See the Congressional Justification Book for program details. Program Accomplishments and Plans: FY 2006 Accomplishments: • Mission Support $19.683M FY 2007 Plans: N/A FY 2008 Plans: N/A FY 2009 Plans: N/A B. Program Change Summary: (Show total funding, schedule, and technical changes for the program element that have occurred since the previous President's Budget Submission) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY2009 Previous President’s Budget 20.977 0 0 0 Current President's Budget 19.683 0 0 0 Total Adjustments -1.294 UNCLASSIFIED R-1 Shopping List Item No. 125 Page 1 of 2 UNCLASSIFIED Congressional program reductions Congressional rescissions Congressional increases Other Adjustments -1.294 FY 2006: Congressional add transferred to other activity FY 2007: Funding transferred out of USD-I C. Other Program Funding Summary: Not Applicable D. Acquisition Strategy: Not Applicable E. Performance Metrics: Classified UNCLASSIFIED R-1 Shopping List Item No. 125 Page 2 of 2 UNCLASSIFIED FY 2007 RDT&E,D BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET DATE: FEBRUARY 2007 Exhibit R-2 BUDGET ACTIVITY: 06 PROGRAM ELEMENT: 0603757D8Z PROGRAM ELEMENT TITLE: TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (T2) PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL COMMENTS: As directed in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005, all RDT&E funding for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Torpedo Technology
    DRDO MONOGRAPH ERIES NO. I INTRODUCTION TO TORPEDO TECHNOLOGY Rear Adm (Retd) NK Ramanarasaiah, VSM Former Director Naval Science & Technological Laboratory Visakhapatnam DEFEN E RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION MINISTR Y OF DEFENCE, GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI·II0 011 1993 © 1993, Defence Scientific Information & Documentation Centre (DESIDOC), Delhi-110 054 Cover Photograph (Taken by the author) : The firing of a practice torpedo from a Kamorta class ship. Designed, typeset and printed at DESIDOC, Metcalfe House, Delhi-110 054. uthor r eh ing the' ienti t of the Y ar' award from the then Prime Mini ter ,'mt. Indira ;undhi - 198 ... uthor with Shri R Venkataraman, the then Defence Mini °ter \ hen he vi ited TL in the earl eightee. FOREWORD Oceans have always fascinated man and he has, from early days of civilisation, turned to them for adventure and exploration. Indeed, they have been his 'main highways' for extending his 'empire' and 'trade'. Over the last century, he has been exploiting the waters of the ocean for re ources-living and nonliving-and to fill his unsatiating need for energy. With such a role to play, oceans have been the arena where man has been waging wars to protect his sovereignty over the resources and to subjugate his enemies resulting in 'Armadas'-from Spanish wars to the present. It would not be an overstatement to declare that the 'sea power' to a large extent dictated the outcome of many wars upto and including the World War II The most potent weapon the seagoing ships of this century have been carrying is the 'torpedo', be it for antiship warfare or antisubmarine warfare, the latter being dominant since the World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, ARSENAL HERBICIDE APPLICATORS CONCENTRATE,09/07/2017
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION September 7, 2017 Nina S. Rao Regulatory Manager BASF Corporation 26 Davis Drive P. O. Box 13528 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528 Subject: Notification per PRN 98-10 – Updating label language to specify NY State applicator requirements. Product Name: Arsenal Herbicide Applicators Concentrate EPA Registration Number: 241-299 Application Date: 08/10/2017 Decision Number: 532575 Dear Nina S. Rao: The Agency is in receipt of your Application for Pesticide Notification under Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 98-10 for the above referenced product. The Registration Division (RD) has conducted a review of this request for its applicability under PRN 98-10 and finds that the action requested falls within the scope of PRN 98-10. The label submitted with the application has been stamped “Notification” and will be placed in our records. Should you wish to add/retain a reference to the company’s website on your label, then please be aware that the website becomes labeling under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and is subject to review by the Agency. If the website is false or misleading, the product would be misbranded and unlawful to sell or distribute under FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(E). 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5) list examples of statements EPA may consider false or misleading. In addition, regardless of whether a website is referenced on your product’s label, claims made on the website may not substantially differ from those claims approved through the registration process.
    [Show full text]
  • And Financial Implications of Unmanned
    Disruptive Innovation and Naval Power: Strategic and Financial Implications of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Long-term Underwater Power Sources MASSACHUsf TTT IMef0hrE OF TECHNOLOGY by Richard Winston Larson MAY 0 8 201 S.B. Engineering LIBRARIES Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012 Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February 2014 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2014. All rights reserved. 2) Author Dep.atment of Mechanical Engineering nuaryL5.,3014 Certified by.... Y Douglas P. Hart Professor of Mechanical Engineering Tbesis Supervisor A ccepted by ....................... ........ David E. Hardt Ralph E. and Eloise F. Cross Professor of Mechanical Engineering 2 Disruptive Innovation and Naval Power: Strategic and Financial Implications of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Long-term Underwater Power Sources by Richard Winston Larson Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering on January 15, 2014, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering Abstract The naval warfare environment is rapidly changing. The U.S. Navy is adapting by continuing its blue-water dominance while simultaneously building brown-water ca- pabilities. Unmanned systems, such as unmanned airborne drones, are proving piv- otal in facing new battlefield challenges. Unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) are emerging as the Navy's seaborne equivalent of the Air Force's drones. Representing a low-end disruptive technology relative to traditional shipborne operations, UUVs are becoming capable of taking on increasingly complex roles, tipping the scales of battlefield entropy. They improve mission outcomes and operate for a fraction of the cost of traditional operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge
    Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge Andrew Krepinevich, Barry Watts & Robert Work 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge by Andrew Krepinevich Barry Watts Robert Work Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 2003 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent public policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century. CSBA’s analytic-based research makes clear the inextricable link between defense strategies and budgets in fostering a more effective and efficient defense, and the need to transform the US military in light of the emerging military revolution. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundation, corporate and individual grants and contributions, and government contracts. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 http://www.csbaonline.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... I I. NEW CHALLENGES TO POWER PROJECTION.................................................................. 1 II. PROSPECTIVE US AIR FORCE FAILURE POINTS........................................................... 11 III. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND ASSURED ACCESS: A CRITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .29 IV. THE ARMY AND THE OBJECTIVE FORCE ..................................................................... 69 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 93 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the Cold War, the United States defense posture called for substantial forces to be located overseas as part of a military strategy that emphasized deterrence and forward defense. Large combat formations were based in Europe and Asia. Additional forces—both land-based and maritime—were rotated periodically back to the rear area in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Terrorist Naval Mine/Underwater Improvised Explosive Device Threat
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2015 Port Security: The eT rrorist Naval Mine/ Underwater Improvised Explosive Device Threat Peter von Bleichert Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Public Policy Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walden University College of Social and Behavioral Sciences This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Peter von Bleichert has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Karen Shafer, Committee Chairperson, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Gregory Dixon, Committee Member, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Anne Fetter, University Reviewer, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2015 Abstract Port Security: The Terrorist Naval Mine/Underwater Improvised Explosive Device Threat by Peter A. von Bleichert MA, Schiller International University (London), 1992 BA, American College of Greece, 1991 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Administration Walden University June 2015 Abstract Terrorist naval mines/underwater improvised explosive devices (M/UWIEDs) are a threat to U.S. maritime ports, and could cause economic damage, panic, and mass casualties.
    [Show full text]
  • Torpedo & Directed Energy Weapons Indian Navy Perspective
    Torpedo & Directed Energy Weapons Indian Navy Perspective RAdm Om Prakash Singh Rana, VSM, Director General of Naval Armament Inspection IN Maritime Cap IN supporting Indigenisation Perspective Indigenisation Plan 2015-30 Plan Self-Reliance 90% Float 50-60% Move Fight 30% 3 Scope • Torpedo & Directed Energy Weapons – Technological advancement – Availability • QRs for Torpedo & DEWs • Way Ahead Advancement in Torpedo Technology Torpedo……. Advancement in Torpedo Technology Contd... • Broadband sonar, multi-beam & INS • Multi target tracking capability • S/W based & high speed sig processing • Re-programmable S/W & search pattern • ACCM features • Digital servo and retractable controls 6 Torpedo……. Advancement in Torpedo Technology Contd... • Al-Ag2O, Li-ion & Cu-Ni batteries • Brushless motor & pump jet propulsion • Semi open/close loop thermal propulsion • Super-cavitation propulsion • Tandem shaped charge insensitive W/H 7 Torpedo……. Advance Torpedoes Torpedo Origin Speed Range (Kts) (Kms) Black Shark Adv Italy 18- 50 >50 DM2 A4 Sea Hake Ger 50 > 50 A244S MOD-3 Italy 36 13.5 Flash Black Italy 50 20 F21 HWT France 25-50 > 50 Spearfish HWT UK 40 48 Torpedo (2000) Swed 40 > 40 MU-90 Eutorp 50 23 MK 48 ADCAP USA 55 38 MK 54 USA 28 -43 12 Shkval E Russia > 200 7 - 10 UGST Russia 50 40 8 Torpedo……. Torpedoes in Indian Navy 9 Directed Energy Weapons Directed Energy Weapons • Emit high energy beam • High power microwaves • High energy laser 11 DEWs…. DEW Advantages • High Speed of Engagement • Effective for Defensive/Offensive Role • Immunity from Gravitation Constraints • Space Requirement – Limited • Effective against Moving Air Targets • Minimal Collateral Damage • Low Marginal Cost per Shot 12 DEWs….
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMARINES; AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (Means of Attack Or Defence in General E.G
    B63G OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE ARRANGEMENTS ON VESSELS; MINE-LAYING; MINE-SWEEPING; SUBMARINES; AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (means of attack or defence in general e.g. turrets F41H) Definition statement This subclass/group covers: Arrangements of offensive or defensive equipment on vessels and vessels characterized thereby: • Arrangements of guns or missile launchers on vessels • Arrangements of ammunition stores or handlers on vessels • Vessels adapted to torpedo-launching • Offensive or defensive arrangements on vessels against submarines, torpedoes, or mines • Other offensive or defensive arrangements on vessels Marine mine-laying and mine-sweeping • Mine-laying and vessels therefor • Mine-sweeping and vessels therefor Naval water craft for particular purposes • Underwater vessels (naval and civilian) • Aircraft carriers Relationship between large subject matter areas B63G is the general home for defensive and offensive arrangements on warships and the like, for methods and devices for laying and sweeping of marine mines, for civilian and naval underwater vessels, such as submarines, and for military aircraft carriers. Whilst B63G 1/00 provides for arrangements of guns or missile launchers on vessels and vessels characterised thereby, B63B 3/70 provides for reinforcements in the hull construction for carrying localised loads from guns, and F41A provides for functional features and details of, as well as mountings for ordnance, e.g. cannons, and F41F provides for missile or torpedo launchers. 1 Whilst B63G 3/00 provides for arrangements on vessels of ammunition stores and handlers, and vessels characterised thereby, B63B provides for general cargo aspects of ammunition stores and handlers, and F41A 9/00 provides for feeding or loading of ammunition to guns, as well as ammunition magazines and handling dollies in general.
    [Show full text]
  • G Osd Pb09 Rdte Ba 6
    UNCLASSIFIED Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification Date: February 2008 Appropriation/Budget Activity R-1 Item Nomenclature: RDT&E Defense Wide BA 06 Training Transformation 0603757D8Z Cost ($ in millions) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total PE Cost 76.677 60.524 38.729 34.555 34.830 35.283 36.061 Joint National Training Capability, P758 43.260 39.668 23.599 24.127 25.014 25.446 25.961 Joint Training Capability Analysis of 9.052 10.214 3.686 0.746 0 0 0 Alternatives (TCAoA), P759 Joint Combined Training Centre, P763 4.230 0 1.798 0 0 0 0 Joint Simulation Systems (JSS), P761 10.144 10.642 9.646 9.682 9.816 9.837 10.100 Joint Integrated Information Operations 9.991 0 0 0 0 0 0 Range/JNTC (JIIOR), P762 A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification: These programs are part of a coordinated effort to develop and deploy capabilities for rapidly linking and integrating Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) forces of Services, Combatant Commanders (COCOM), coalition, and other government agencies. These programs will create a realistic battlespace environment in which to train as a Joint Warfighting force to meet emerging mission requirements including the Long War. These investments support the Secretary of Defense’s (SECDEF) Training Transformation (T2) initiative to enable and enhance Joint Warfighting readiness by training as we intend to fight. The elements associated with this coordinated effort consist of: - Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) - Training Capability Analysis of Alternatives (TCAoA) - Joint Combined Training Centre (JCTC) - Joint Simulation Systems (JSS) - Joint Integration Information Operations Range (JIIOR) JNTC: Initially established in 2003, JNTC continues to develop and integrate Advanced Training Technologies (ATT) into a seamless Joint training environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultra Full Sense to Effect Torpedo Countermeasure Capability 2021
    Full “Sense-to-Effect” Torpedo Countermeasure Capability ultra.group Image: RMS Lusitania For over a hundred years submarines have lurked beneath the waves, providing a silent and current threat to surface shipping, both commercial and military. During World War I, the sinking of the RMS Lusitania by a torpedo fired from a German U-Boat showed the tactical advantages of having an underwater capability in maritime operations. World War II showed prolific use of torpedoes in the maritime battlespace, prompting the increasing need for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) to detect and counter such threats. Torpedoes provide an asymmetric “bang for buck”; they are low cost, proven and effective weapons. The threat of a torpedo attack remains pertinent, even in current times of low conflict, as demonstrated by the sinking of ROKS Cheonan in 2010, resulting in the loss of 46 crew. ASW is a game of “cat and mouse” covering knowledge of threats and countermeasures, each keeping up with the change in the pace of technology. Situational awareness of the underwater battlespace is the core need for a surface ship or fleet to assess the threat of attack. Sensors deployed from surface ships constantly listen to the environment to detect the presence of submarine or torpedo threats, with operators using gathered intelligence to classify them. To achieve a low false-alarm rate, it is necessary for systems to reliably extract the essential signals from the ocean noise to confidently determine threats at tactically significant ranges where countermeasures can be effectively actioned. Passive sonar detection is used to avoid polluting the water with excess noise that the threat can detect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shape of Future Us Military Forces
    THE SHAPE OF FUTURE US MILITARY FORCES Richard L. Garwin July 4, 1972 INTRODUCTION Public discussion over the shape and size of future US military forces calls forth all of the trappings of debate and controversy. Advocates of strong military forces or of larger military budgets (or both) are accused of militarism, while advocates of smaller budgets and even those who propose to phase out an obsolete military system without budget reductions are often accused of selling out their country, wanting to be second best, or worse. More recently, any informed position on military matters leads to the appellation militarist; but we do have military forces and a Defense Department, and the country must decide what it wants to do with them and how best to do it. In this matter, of course, both the Administration and the Congress have a continuing responsibility. The advance of technology, together with changing relative costs, both permit and impel a new look at the military functions and possible ways to accomplish them. Examples abound of greatly different means of approach. For instance, the United States naval surface force is built around some 16 attack carriers, and its primary tactical offensive and defensive weapon is the manned aircraft. On the other hand, the Soviet naval force is built around the cruise missile, which can be launched from land—based naval air, from large and small ships, and from submarines. Similarly, the US land-based strategic offensive force has only 54 Titan 2 missiles to 1000 Minuteman ICBMs, while the Soviet strategic offensive force has a much larger component of heavy missiles (more than 500 SS-7, SS-8, and SS-9 missiles).
    [Show full text]