DOCSLIB.ORG

Review and Evaluation of Plans to Incorporate NAVSTAR Global Positioning System User Equipment on Military Sealift Command Ships

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review and Evaluation of Plans to Incorporate NAVSTAR Global Positioning System User Equipment on Military Sealift Command Ships Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1984 Review and evaluation of plans to incorporate NAVSTAR Global Positioning System user equipment on Military Sealift Command ships. Foureman, Ariane R. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/19536 KN0XUBRA&1 »£S'Ssss : NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PLANS TO INCORPORATE NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM USER EQUIPMENT ON MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND SHIPS by Ariane R. Foureman December 1984 Th esis Advisor W.H. Cullin Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited T220191 Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whan Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT 4 PERIOD COVERED Review and Evaluation of Plans to Master ' s Thesis Incorporate NAVSTAR Global Positioning December 1984 System User Equipment on Military 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER Sealift Command Ships 7. AUTHORS 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERf*; Ariane R. Foureman 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA 4 WORK UNIT NUMBERS Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93943 II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE Naval Postgraduate School December 1984 Monterey, California 93943 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 159 U. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft AODR ESS(lt dlllerent from Controlling Olllca) 15. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thta raport) Unclassified 15*. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 16. DISTRIBUTION ST AT EM EN T (ol this Raport) Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol the abstract entered In Block 20, // dlllerent Irom Report) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 19- KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide II necessary and Identity by block number) NAVSTAR, Global Positioning System (GPS) , User Equipment (UE) Military Sealift Command (MSC), Strategic Sealift, Strategic Mobility, Sealift, MSC Mission, Commercially Chartered Ships, Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force (NFAF) , MSC Fleet, MSC Controlled Fleet, Radio Navigation Equipment/Installation, 20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side II necessary and Identity by block number) The NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS) is a spaced- based navigation system scheduled to be fully operational by 1990. GPS User Equipment (UE) is scheduled for installation on Navy ships commencing 1987. This thesis examines plans to incorporate GPS UE on Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships. The Naval Auxiliary Force and Special Mission Support ships have been funded and scheduled for military GPS UE . Plans for RM DD EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE ,^ N 73 1473 Unclassified S/N 0102- LF- 014- 6601 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) . , Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (TTh«n D*» Enfrtd) Block 19 (KEY WORDS) (continued) Augment Installation Team (AIT) Block 20 (ABSTRACT) (continued) Strategic Sealift and Miscellaneous Service Support ships have not yet been made. Alternatives for equipping these ships with either commercial or military GPS UE are examined. Primary recommendations for MSC ships when GPS is operational with two- dimensional coverage (by the end of 1987) are: (1) equip Strategic Sealift ships with military GPS UE (2) include GPS navigation equipment in ship enhancement programs , and (3) require GPS UE in MSC time and voyage charters. S N 0102- LF- 014- 6601 Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOEfWitn Dmtm Entarmd) 2 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited Review and Evaluation of Plans to Incorporate NAVSTAR Global Positioning System User Equipment on Military Sealift Command Ships by Ariane R. Foureman Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy B.S. The Ohio State University, 1971 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 1984 UBRARY DUDLEY KNOX 7J ATE SCHOOL NAVALj...,,;, p » JF0RmNIA, 9939433943 ABSTRACT The NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space- based navigation system scheduled to be fully operational by 1990. GPS User Equipment (UE) is scheduled for installation on Navy ships commencing 1987. This thesis examines plans to incorporate GPS UE on Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships. The Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force and Special Mission Support ships have been funded and scheduled for military GPS UE. Plans for Strategic Sealift and Miscellaneous Service Support ships have not yet been made. Alternatives for equipping these ships with either commercial or military GPS UE are examined. Primary recommendations for MSC ships when GPS is operational v/ith two-dimensional coverage (by the end of 1987) are: (1) equip Strategic Sealift ships with military GPS UE, (2) include GPS navigation equipment in ship enhancement programs, and (3) require GPS UE in MSC time and voyage charters. DUDLEY Al ~ POSTt VTEREY, c vn TABLE OF CONTENTS " WA 93943' I. INTRODUCTION ------------------ 10 A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ------------ 10 B. METHODOLOGY ---------------- H C. BACKGROUND ----------------- 12 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER I --------------- 18 II. GPS PROGRAM AND MSC ORGANIZATION -------- 19 A. GPS PROGRAM ---------------- 19 1. GPS Program Organization -------- 19 2. GPS Program Management --------- 22 3. Navy GPS Program Relationships ----- 25 4. GPS Program Schedule and Status - - - - 30 B. MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND (MSC) ------- 32 1. Organization -------------- 33 2. Sealift and Mission ---------- 34 3. Ships ----------------- 37 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER H--------------- 47 III. GPS SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND USER EQUIPMENT (UE) - 50 A. GPS SEGMENTS ---------------- 50 B. MILITARY GPS UE -------------- 52 C. COMMERCIAL GPS UE --------_----_ 55 D. MARKET STATUS --------------- 57 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER III -------------- 6 6 IV. CURRENT STATUS OF MSC AS A USER -------- 68 A. CURRENT RADIONAVIGATION SYSTEMS USED - - - - 68 B. COMPARISON OF MSC AND THE MILITARY GPS UE INSTALLATION SCHEDULE ----------- 70 1. Ships Scheduled for Military GPS UE (Included in POM-86) ---------- 72 2. Ships Not Scheduled for Military GPS UE (Not Included in POM-86) -------- 78 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER IV --------------- 83 V. EVALUATION OF GPS UE FOR MSC USE -------- 85 A. REQUIREMENT ---------------- 85 B. EXAMINATION OF CONSIDERATIONS IN MSC USE OF GPS UE --------------- 87 1. Equipment Capability ---------- 87 2. Security ---------------- 93 3. Other Factors ------------- 96 C. EVALUATION OF MILITARY GPS UE FOR CURRENTLY SCHEDULED SHIPS -------------- 109 1. Advantages --------------- 109 2. Disadvantages ------------- no 3. Options ---------------- no 4. Recommendation ------------- m D. EVALUATION OF MILITARY GPS UE ALTERNATIVE FOR NON-SCHEDULED SHIPS ---------- m 1. Advantages for STRAT Ships ------- 112 2. Disadvantages for STRAT Ships ----- 113 3. Advantages for MSS Ships -------- 113 4. Disadvantages for MSS Ships ------ 114 5- Options ---------------- 114 6. Recommendations ------------ 115 E. EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL GPS UE ALTERNATIVE FOR NON-SCHEDULED SHIPS ---------- H5 1. Advantages --------------- 115 2. Disadvantages ------------- H6 3. Options ---------------- 117 4. Recommendations ------------ 120 F. IMPLICATIONS OF GPS UE SELECTION ------ 120 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER V ---------------123 VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS --------- 124 A. CONCLUSION ----------------- 125 B. RECOMMENDATIONS --------------12 8 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER VI ---------------130 APPENDIX A (MSC FLEET (MSC CONTROLLED FLEET) ) - - - - 131 APPENDIX B (MSC CHARTER TYPES) ------------13 5 APPENDIX C (MILITARY GPS UE SET COMPONENTS) ----- 137 APPENDIX D (GLOSSARY) ---------------- 143 LIST OF REFERENCES ------------------15 BIBLIOGRAPHY --------------------- 157 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST -------------- 158 LIST OF FIGURES 2-1. GPS Program Organization ------------- 21 2-2. Major Air Force Commands and Organization - - - - 23 2-3. GPS Program Management (DOD Common) ------- 24 2-4. Navy GPS Program Management ----------- 27 2-5. Navy GPS Organization Relationships ------- 28 2-6. MSC Organizational Relationships --------- 35 2-7. MSC Fleet Organization -------------- 38 2-8. MSC Fleet Inventory (Functional Ship Groups) - - - 40 2-9. MSC Strategic Sealift Ship Group --------- 41 4-1. Comparison Between NFAF Constructed Summary and POM-86 for Miltiary GPS UE ------------ 74 4-2. Comparison Between SMS Constructed Summary and POM-86 for Military GPS UE ------------ 76 5-1. Estimated Total GPS UE Procurement and Installation Cost for One T-AO 187 Class Ship (FY 79 Dollars) - 100 5-2. Estimated GPS UE Purchase and Installation Costs and ±20% Ranges of Cost for One T-AO 187 Class Ship (FY 79 Dollars) --------------- 102 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation to Mr. C. Weber (MSC) and Mr. T. Yamato (MSCPAC) who both provided valuable information for this thesis; to Professor W.H. Cullin for his guidance and assistance in the elaboration of the manuscript; to Ms. J. Birnbach for her timely counseling; and to Professor D.C. Boger for his useful comments. Acknowledgement is also due YNCS D.J. Schmitt, USN for the esthetics of this work. I . I NTRODUCTION A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE This thesis reviews and evaluates plans to incorporate NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS) User Equipment (UE) on Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships in the MSC Fleet Inventory and in the New Ship Construction/Conversion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Not for Publication Until Released by the House Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL LUKE M. McCOLLUM, U.S. NAVY CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2021 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE March 3, 2020 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4 NAVY RESERVE FORCE ................................................................................................................................... 5 Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command (CNRFC) ........................................................................... 5 Commander, Naval Air Forces Reserve (CNAFR) ...................................................................................... 5 Commander, Naval Information Force Reserve (CNIFR) .......................................................................... 6 Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) ........................................................................................ 7 PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Civilian Skills .............................................................................................................................................. 7
    [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]
  • Defense Primer: United States Transportation Command
    Updated December 23, 2020 Defense Primer: United States Transportation Command United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM TRANSCOM operates in over 85% of the world’s or TRANSCOM) is a Department of Defense (DOD) countries. To accomplish its missions, the command uses functional combatant command responsible for providing military assets; it also relies heavily on its commercial- air, land, and sea transportation to meet national security sector partners. TRANSCOM’s commercial partnerships needs. TRANSCOM’s assigned mission is to “conduct are reflected in its large volume of contracting activities. globally integrated mobility operations, lead the broader See Table 1 for TRANSCOM’s contracting estimates for joint deployment and distribution enterprise, and provide FY2020. enabling capabilities to project and sustain the Joint Force.” It is the centerpiece of the Defense Transportation System, Table 1. Estimated FY2020 USTRANSCOM which comprises U.S. military, U.S. commercial, and Expenditures on Contracted Services foreign transportation resources. Division Programs FY2020 Established in 1987, TRANSCOM is located at Scott Air Force Base (AFB), IL. Historically, the command has Airlift Division 10 $2.3B provided strategic mobility in support of several major Sealift Services 6 $877M contingency operations from Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm to Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. It Specialized Transportation 15 $2.5B has supported peacekeeping initiatives such as Operations & Support Restore Hope (Somalia), Uphold Democracy (Haiti), and Information Technology & Support Hope (Rwanda). It has also aided humanitarian 60 $251M relief operations in response to natural disasters such as Related Services Hurricanes Dorian, Florence, and Michael. Source: USTRANSCOM. TRANSCOM has a workforce of over 116,000 personnel, Component Commands of which about 45% are in the Reserve Component.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Defense Ch. 2, App. G
    Department of Defense Ch. 2, App. G TABLE 4ÐFUEL REGION LOCATIONS AND AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY a. DFR Northeast ........... Defense Fuel Region Northeast, Building 2404, McGuire AFB, NJ 08641±5000. Area of Responsi- Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New bility. Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia. b. DFR Central ............... Defense Fuel Region Central, 8900 S. Broadway, Building 2, St. Louis, MO 63125±1513. Area of Responsi- Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North bility. Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. c. DFR South .................. Defense Fuel Region South, Federal Office Building, 2320 La Branch, Room 1213, Houston, TX 77004±1091. Area of Responsi- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caribbean Area, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mexico, Mississippi, New bility. Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Indies, Central America, and South America. d. DFR West ................... Defense Fuel Region West, 3171 N. Gaffney Street, San Pedro, CA 90731±1099. Area of Responsi- California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. bility. e. DFR Alaska ................ Defense Fuel Region Alaska, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506±5000. Area of Responsi- Alaska and Aleutians. bility. f. DFR Europe ................ Defense Fuel Region Europe, Building 2304, APO New York 09128±4105. Area of Responsi- Continental Europe, United Kingdom, Mediterranean Area, Turkey, and Africa (less Djibouti, Egypt, bility. Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia). g. DFR Mideast .............. Defense Fuels Region, Middle East, P.O. Box 386, Awali, Bahrain, APO New York 09526±2830. Area of Responsi- Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, bility. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Navy in the World (1981-1990)
    The U.S. Navy in the World (1981-1990): Context for U.S. Navy Capstone Strategies and Concepts Peter M. Swartz with Karin Duggan MISC D0026419.A1/Final December 2011 CNA is a not-for-profit organization whose professional staff of over 700 provides in-depth analysis and results-oriented solutions to help government leaders choose the best courses of action. Founded in 1942, CNA operates the Institute for Public Research and the Center for Naval Analyses, the federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. CNA Strategic Studies (CSS), created in 2000, conducts high-quality research on and analysis of issues of strategic, regional, and policy importance. CSS’ analyses are based on objective, rigorous examination and do not simply echo conventional wisdom. CSS provides analytic support to U.S. Government organizations and the governments of partner countries. CSS also maintains notable foundation- sponsored and self-initiated research programs. CSS includes a Strategic Initiatives Group, an International Affairs Group, and a Center for Stability and Development. The Strategic Initiatives Group (SIG) looks at issues of U.S. national security, and military strategy, policy and operations, with a particular focus on maritime and naval aspects. SIG employs experts in historical analyses, futures planning, and long-term trend analysis based on scenario planning, to help key decision makers plan for the future. SIG specialties also include issues related to regional and global proliferation, deterrence theory, threat mitigation, and strategic planning for combating threats from weapons of mass destruction. The Strategic Studies Division is led by Vice President and Director Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Verified Attendee Report
    VERIFIED ATTENDEE REPORT AFCEA/U.S. Naval Institute WEST 2014 February 11-13, 2014 Based on registrant statistics provided in the registration process. REGISTRANT DEMOGRAPHICS Thank you to all who participated in WEST 2014, the 22nd year. This year, WEST continued to become a highly regarded source for senior leadership to discover, discuss and view full- platform solutions for the Sea Services, including emerging technologies and equipment that will impact all areas of future operations. We greatly value your participation and do all we can to ensure you thrive and achieve your goals. There is no question that the event and the industry as a whole is successful when you — and others like you — succeed. To assist in your success and in the decisions you make as they pertain to WEST, we are proud to provide verified information about WEST attendees. In 2014, 6,375 defense industry professionals attended WEST from 23 countries, including 1,945 active duty military and government personnel, a 25% increase over 2013, and 404 at- tendees obtaining continuing education units (CEUs). The exhibit hall spanned over 150,000 sq. ft. and included 260 exhibitors who engaged with leadership at all levels of DoD and Govern- ment to discuss emerging technologies and equipment that will impact all areas of future Sea Service operations. ATTENDING ORGANIZATIONS Type of Company Attendee Count Percentage of Total Active Duty Military & Government 1,945 30.5% Industry 2,196 34.4% Educator/Academia/Student 106 1.7% Press 48 0.1% Exhibitor Staff 1,787 28.1%
    [Show full text]
  • 30 Nov Hires Report
    Hire Heroes USA Confirmed Hires 2017 Through November 30 Service (Last) Branch Service Rank Other Hiring Company Name Position Hired For Army CW-2 Special Security Officer Navy CW-4 Black Knight Financial Services IT Production Manager Army CW-4 ASM Research Benefits Lead Army 0-1 General Dynamics Manufacturing Engineer Army 0-1 Scribe America Medical Scribe Gwinnett County Office of Strategy & Army 0-1 Performance Mgmt. Business Analyst Marines 0-1 Campus Hollywood Instructor- Theater History and Acting Air Force 0-1 Global Threat & Risk Analyst Navy 0-1 Advanced Systems Development Help Desk Specialist Army W-5 United Airlines Pilot Marines W-5 San Diego Passport Agency Passport Support Associate Army W-5 Selective Service System Program Analyst Marines W-5 Ulta Beauty Warehouse Manager Army W-5 DOD Pilot Military Program Analyst-Organization and Personnel Force Development Army W-5 US Army DOD Directorate Army W-5 NES Associates Technical Director Army W-5 Program Manager Army W-5 AFS Army Fleet Service Test Flight Pilot Army W-5 Investigator Navy W-5 R3 Strategic support Group Manager Army W-5 AFSC/Magellan Federal Training Center Manager Navy W-5 Naval Systems Incorporated Senior Logistics Analyst Army W-5 Aviation Specialties Unlimited Aviator Marines W-5 District Manager Army W-4 TFW - Tsay Ferguson-Williams Deputy Project Manager Army W-4 CACI International Lessons Learned Analyst Army W-4 Colorado Springs Police Department Criminal Investigator Army W-4 Intel Corporation D1D Manufacturing Technician Army W-4 Erickson Air Crane
    [Show full text]
  • NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 1998 NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers GAO/NSIAD-98-1 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-259298 August 27, 1998 The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable C.W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable John P. Murtha Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on National Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The aircraft carrier forms the building block of the Navy’s forward deployed peacetime presence, crisis response, and war-fighting forces. The nuclear-powered carrier is the most expensive weapon system in the Nation’s arsenal and represents a significant portion of the Navy’s shipbuilding and conversion future years defense program. As requested, this report discusses the cost-effectiveness to the Navy of using conventionally and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. As the Defense Department and the Navy assess design concepts for a new class of carriers, they will evaluate a number of factors, including different propulsion types. This report contains information and analysis that you may find useful in the process of allocating future defense resources. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, Navy, Energy, and State and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others on request. Please contact me on (202) 512-3504 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. NAVAL BATTLE FORCE CHANGES 1 January 2011– 31 December 2011 Compiled by Samuel Loring Morison
    U.S. NAVAL BATTLE FORCE CHANGES 1 January 2011– 31 DECEmBER 2011 Copyright © 2012, Proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland (410) 268-6110 www.usni.org Compiled by Samuel Loring Morison COMMISSIONINGS Date Name (Hull No.) Comments 9 May Cesar Chavez Keel laid at General 1 Feb Resolute (JHSV-5), Names announced by the (T-AKE-14) Dynamics National Steel Courageous (JHSV-7), U.S. Army. and Shipbuilding, San and Sacrifice (JHSV-9) Diego, CA. 1 Feb Maury (AGS-66) Contract for construction 14 May Anchorage (LPD-23) Christened. awarded to VT Halter 18 May Cesar Chavez Named. Marine, Moss Point, MS. (T-AKE-14) 12 Feb Anchorage (LPD-23) Launched at Huntington 19 May William P. Lawrence In Commission, Special Ingalls Industries, (DDG-110) at Moss Point, MS. Pascagoula, MS. 20 May Minnesota (SSN-783) Keel laid by Huntington 23 Feb William P. Lawrence Delivered by Huntington Ingalls Industries, (DDG-110) Ingalls Industries, Newport News, VA. Pascagoula, MS. 27 May Unnamed (AGOR-27) Contract for construction 17 Mar Montgomery (LCS-8) Construction contract awarded to Dakota awarded to Lockheed Creek Industries Inc., Martin for construction Anacortes, WA. at Fincantieri Marinette 28 May John F. Kennedy Named. Marine, Marinette, WI. (CVN-79) 18 Mar Milwaukee (LCS-5) Named. 4 June William P. Lawrence In Commission, 25 Mar Montgomery (LCS-8) Both named. (DDG-110) Full. Commissioning and Jackson (LCS-6) ceremony at Mobile, 26 Mar Arlington (LPD-24) Christened at Huntington AL. Homeported at San Ingalls Industries, Moss Diego, CA. Point, MS. 15 June Finn (DDG-113) Construction contract 1 Apr John P.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipbuilding Plan
    Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels Prepared by: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities - OPNAV N9) 2000 Navy Pentagon Washington, DC 20350-2000 Approved for Release by: Office of the Secretary of Defense December 9, 2020 The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $265,000 in Fiscal Years 2019 - 2020. This includes $20,000 in expenses and $245,000 in DoD labor. 2020Feb28 RefID: 2-295B307 Table of Contents I. Reporting Requirement ...........................................................................................3 II. Submission of the Report ........................................................................................3 III. Analytic Context .....................................................................................................3 IV. Fiscal Context .........................................................................................................3 V. Plan Objectives – Priorities ......................................................................................3 VI. Unmanned Systems ..................................................................................................4 VII. Industrial Base..........................................................................................................4 VIII. Shipbuilding Plan .....................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court for the District Of
    Case 1:05-cv-01599-RMU Document 32 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GUAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 05-1599 (RMU) : v. : Document No.: 18 : DONALD H. RUMSFELD, : Secretary of Defense et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DEFERRING RULING IN PART THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, Guam Industrial Services (“GIS”), is a shipyard in Guam which claims that the United States Navy’s bid proposal and contract procurement practices violate 10 U.S.C. § 7310.12 GIS seeks to enjoin the defendants from soliciting bid proposals and contracting for repairs of Navy vessels from shipyards not located in either the United States or Guam. Before the court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because the naval vessels at issue in this case are not under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy, the defendants’ bid proposal process does 1 Section 7910(a) is a “Buy America” provision which directs the Department of the Navy to contract with United States shipyards in the repair and maintenance of vessels under its jurisdiction. 10 U.S.C. § 7910(a); Guam Indus. Servs., Inc. v. United States, No. 03- 706C (Fed. Cl. 2003) at 3. 2 The defendants are Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”), Gordon England, Secretary of the Department of Navy (“Navy”), Norman Mineta, Secretary of the Department of Transportation (“DOT”), and John Jamain, Acting Administrator of the Maritime administration (“MARAD”). 1 Case 1:05-cv-01599-RMU Document 32 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 12 not violate 10 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Houston Hall Hosts Vaccination Clinics
    JULY 2021 VOLUME 83, NO. 7 OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ATLANTIC, GULF, LAKES AND INLAND WATERS, AFL CIO Houston Hall Hosts Vaccination Clinics Paul Hall Center Eases Some Restrictions for Vaccinated Students Progress continues in the effort to vaccinate individuals against COVID-19. In photo at right, Seafarers and family members gather at the Hous- ton hiring hall for a late-May vaccination clinic conducted by a local health agency (the hall also hosted one a few weeks ear- lier). Meanwhile, the SIU-affiliated school in Piney Point, Mary- land, has modified some protocols for fully vaccinated stu- dents. Page 3. Stewards Complete Recertification Class In another sign of steps towards normalcy, eight Seafarers in early June completed the steward recertification course at the union-affiliated school in Piney Point, Maryland. They comprised the first pandemic-era recertifi- cation class. Pictured in the school’s auditorium immediately following the June membership meeting (photo at left) are (from left) SIU Assist. VP Pat Vandegrift, SREC Edwin Bonefont, SREC Francisco Madsea, SREC Jatniel “Bam Bam” Aguilera, SIU Executive VP Augie Tellez, SREC Mario Firme Jr., SIU VP Government Services Kate Hunt, SIU VP Contracts George Tricker, SREC Dante Cruz, SREC Albert Sison, SIU Port Agent Mario Torrey, SREC Marlon Battad, SREC Kenneth Greenidge and SIU Secretary-Treasurer David Heindel. Pages 12-13. Sunshine State Provides Key Assist During Rescue Mariners from the Sunshine State on April 12 helped save two boaters who had been stranded off the Florida coast. Some of the SIU crew and American Maritime Officers members are pictured aboard the Intrepid Personnel and Provisioning vessel.
    [Show full text]