February 4, 2020 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter
ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER GERALD R. FORD IN THE VIRGINIA CAPES — The U.S. Navy is trying to find an alternative to shooting down anti-ship missiles with other missiles, and the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford could prove useful in this pursuit.
A major difference with Ford over its Nimitz-class predecessors is its twin A1B nuclear reactors that produce more than three times the electrical power of the reactors on Nimitz — more than 100 megawatts.
That means Ford, with survivability questions looming over aircraft carriers, can support large, power-sucking equipment such as lasers, according to Capt. J.J. Cummings, the Ford' commanding officer.
“When you talk about innovation in the Navy, this is where it lives,” Cummings said, referring to his ship. “We're lighter — designed lighter — than Nimitz class.
“Nimitz class, she's barreling down pretty good now with a lot of stuff on her, and her electric plant is almost at maximum capacity. We're light and designed to have excess capacity in our electrical system to bring future systems on board.”
That's a big advantage for the class, and it's one of the reasons the Navy has pursued the Ford class despite the controversies over buggy new technology and cost overruns. The Ford class is essential for the survivability of carriers, said James Geurts, the Navy's top acquisition official.
“Part of the reason Ford is so important is that it gives you the flexibility to generate the next generation of systems you'll need to ensure the carrier can continue to stay survivable,” Geurts said.
Killing missiles with missiles
Bryan Clark, a retired naval officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said Ford could use a boost in the survivability department and the Ford's powerful reactors could help them get there.
“To improve the self-defense on carriers, you could put lasers on there to support that short-range, self-defense capacity,” Clark said. “Because the big problem with lasers right now is power management. You can build a three or four hundred-kilowatt laser, but for one, it's a big footprint so you have to find a ship big enough to put it on; and two, you have to have the power to actually supply it. So you're going to need a capacitor bank somewhere on the ship or you need a generator big enough to provide it continuously. On the Ford, you'd get that."
Clark has argued for years that the Navy needs to get away from trying to shoot down missiles with missiles because a saturation attack from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or anyone else who might have cause to attack a U.S. Navy ship could force a cruiser or destroyer to expend all its missiles and still not have defeated the threat.
That's where shorter-range missiles such as the Evolved Seasparrow Missile, which can be packed four per cell in a vertical launch system, and lasers can have a big impact, even if it means the ship has to let missiles get uncomfortably close to the ship before it's taken down.
“I think lasers could make a difference for Ford because the technology is pretty mature, you could fit it on the ship and it would address a big challenge for carriers, which is air defense,” Clark said. “You could put several lasers on there and really give a boost to your air defense capacity.”
However, it's unlikely lasers could address all threats faced by carriers, Clark said.
“It would be effective for cruise missiles up to maybe the supersonic cruise missiles,” Clark said. “Of course, it would also work against small boats and things like that. It may not work that well against hypersonic missiles or ballistic missiles.”
June 4, 2024 | International, Security
Russian organizations under sustained cyberattack! APT group HellHounds is using a new Windows variant of Decoy Dog malware to infiltrate critical inf
January 22, 2024 | International, C4ISR
Seoul centralized military drone activities under a single command last year, following an embarrassing intrusion by North Korean aircraft in 2022.
June 5, 2018 | International, Aerospace
NASA is talking to several international companies about forming a consortium that would take over operation of the International Space Station and run it as a commercial space lab, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in an interview. “We're in a position now where there are people out there that can do commercial management of the International Space Station,” Bridenstine said in his first extensive interview since being sworn in as NASA administrator in April. “I've talked to many large corporations that are interested in getting involved in that through a consortium, if you will.” The White House touched off a heated discussion about the future of the orbiting laboratory earlier this year when it said it planned to end direct government funding of the station by 2025, while working on a transition plan to turn the station over to the private sector. Some members of Congress said they would vigorously oppose any plan that ends the station's life prematurely. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said the decision to end funding for it was the result of “numskulls” at the Office of Management and Budget. And it was unclear, who, if anyone, would want to take over operations of the station, which costs NASA about $3 billion to $4 billion a year and is run by an international partnership that includes the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency. An orbiting laboratory that flies some 250 miles above the Earth's surface, it has been continuously inhabited by astronauts since 2000. In unveiling its plan to commercialize the station earlier this year, the White House offered few details of how exactly it would work. As it prepares a transition plan, the White House said it “will request market analysis and business plans from the commercial sector and solicit plans from commercial industry.” The international nature of the station could make it tricky, though perhaps there could be an international commercial partnership with some sort of a government role, said Frank Slazer, the vice president of space systems for the Aerospace Industries Association. “It will be very hard to turn ISS into a truly commercial outpost because of the international agreements that the United States is involved in,” he said. “It's inherently always going to be an international construct that requires U.S. government involvement and multinational cooperation.” Bridenstine declined to name the companies that have expressed interest in managing the station, and said he was aware that companies may find it “hard to close the business case.” But he said there was still seven years to plan for the future of the station, and with the White House's budget request “we have forced the conversation.” A former congressman from Oklahoma, Bridenstine, was confirmed by the Senate by a narrow 50-to-49 votethis spring, after the post had remained vacant for 15 months. Democrats had rallied against his nomination, saying he lacked the managerial and scientific background for the job. Many had labeled him a climate-change denier over controversial comments Bridenstine, a conservative Republican, had made in the past. But during a Senate hearing last month, he said his views had evolved, and that he believes human activity is the leading cause of climate change. That earned him plaudits from Democrats, such as Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) who had opposed his nomination. “I have come to the conclusion that this is a true evolution,” Schatz said. “That you respect people with whom you work, you respect the science, you want their respect.” In the interview, Bridenstine said there was no single event that cause him to change his thinking. As chairman of the Environment subcommittee, he said he “listened to a lot of testimony. I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot. I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen. And we've done it in really significant ways.” In the wide-ranging interview, Bridenstine also listed a return to the moon and the restoration of human spaceflight from United States soil as two of his top priorities. NASA has proposed building an outpost in the vicinity of the moon that could be inhabited by humans from time to time, with landers that could ferry supplies to the lunar surface. Known as the Lunar Orbiting Platform Gateway, the system would be built by NASA in partnership with industry and its international partners, he said. “I've met with a lot of leaders of space agencies from around the world,” he said. “There is a lot of interest in the Gateway in the lunar outpost because a lot of countries want to have access to the surface of the moon. And this can help them as well and they can help us. It helps expand the partnership that we've seen in low Earth orbit with the International Space Station.” But the first element of the system wouldn't be launched until 2021 or 2022, he said. Perhaps as early as this year, Boeing and SpaceX, the companies hired by NASA to fly its astronauts to the space station, could see their first test flights with people on board, though it's possible they could be delayed to next year. Since the space shuttle was retired in 2011, Russia has flown NASA's astronauts to the station, charging hundreds of millions of dollars over that time. Bridenstine said that it is “a big objective is to once again launch American astronauts on American rockets from American soil.” Both Boeing and SpaceX have had delays and setbacks in their programs. Government watchdogs have said they were concerned about an issue with Boeing's abort system that may cause its spacecraft to “tumble,” posing a threat to the crew's safety. Boeing has said it has fixed that problem, as well as a concern with the heat shield that the Government Accountability Office said last year could disconnect “and damage the parachute system.” John Mulholland, Boeing's commercial crew program manager, told Congress earlier this year that the company's "analyses show that we exceed our requirements for crew safety." As administrator, Bridenstine and his staff will also have to sign off on SpaceX's decision to fuel its Falcon 9 rocket after the crews are on board -- which some have said could put astronauts at risk. But during a recent NASA safety advisory panel, some members said they thought the procedure could be a “viable option” if adequate safety controls are in place. SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk told reporters last month that he did not think the fueling process "presents a safety issue for astronauts. But we can adjust our operational procedures to load propellant before the astronauts board. But I really think this is an overblown issue.” In the interview, Bridenstine said no decision had been made yet about the fueling procedures. “I haven't signed off on anything at this point,” he said. “We're going to make sure we test it every which way you can possibly imagine. And that's underway right now. We're not going to put anybody in any undue risk.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/05/nasas-new-administrator-says-hes-talking-to-companies-to-take-over-the-international-space-station/