Rao bulletin 1 October 2016 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles pg Article Subject



Download 7.71 Mb.
Page22/37
Date23.11.2017
Size7.71 Mb.
#34288
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   37
Miller’s career spans nearly 35 years. She spent eight years on active duty before choosing to switch to the full-time reserves. A few years after that transition, Miller decided to open a restaurant and really take advantage of the reserve status to try her hand at dual military-civilian life. “As I was in the reserves [I decided to] quit the full-time reserves piece, and expand even further into the private sector and open a restaurant in a resort community in Delaware,” she said.
On 9 SEP — just two days before the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attack — Miller has her sights set on the Reserve’s future, but reflected on how 9/11 set the trajectory that brought her to this point. At that time, Miller had been running the restaurant in Rehoboth Beach for about five years, and was toying with the idea of retiring from the military. After the attack, however, she realized that quitting the Air Force was not an option for her. “We have really become truly an operational reserve since then,” Miller said. “I would say 20 years ago … when Saddam Hussein entered Kuwait … that is when transition began with the Reserve forces to go from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve. After September 11, that just increased the flame on that.” Now, she said, the 70,000 men and women of the Air Force Reserve stand side-by-side with the active component around the globe to bolster mission readiness, and she is incredibly proud to be a part of that. And as the active components for all the services decrease, the role of the reserves is expected to grow, which was both an exciting and daunting prospect for Miller.
Being that she is the first female to hold this position, Miller said she is looking forward to increasing diversity across the board. This year, the Defense Department took proactive steps toward creating a more diverse force by making the move to fully integrate women into all combat positions and allow transgender men and women to enlist or commission. But Miller knows there is still work to be done. “We’re going after the last few doors, and we’re busting those doors down, and everything will be open,” she said. This role, she added, was one she was able to obtain because the service members who came before her were encouraging and invested in nurturing talent of young airmen and women regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. “My path was paved by men and women before me and by great mentors who provided opportunities,” she said. That’s what I see as my role as, to provide as many opportunities for young people as we can.”
Miller plans to start targeting often neglected demographics by boosting recruitment efforts across the nation. During the four years she will spend in this role, she hopes to make the reserve a place that offers something unique for everyone who wants to join. “My goal is to get out to every population and let them understand the opportunities that are out there for them.” However, she was also concerned that arbitrary budget caps might hamper her abilities to do that. “We’re the smallest Air Force we’ve ever been, and the oldest Air Force we’ve ever been in terms of 27-year-old air planes,” she said. “When you take into account that we’re the smallest, we’re the leanest, [and] have old aircraft — we’ve got to get this right.” She added that she was worried that there is not enough money to perform all the reserve functions needed around the globe, and to provide adequate compensation for her airmen and women.
As that nation enters the final stages of election season, Miller said that the next Commander-in-Chief will need to work with Congress to ensure that Defense Department can provide sufficient funding long term. “It’s a fine balance we have to keep everyday because the money is not going to increase, so within the money that we have, we have to get this right,” Miller said. “We need stability in the funding lines. We need stability in how we build for the future. That’s what we hope comes out of the administration.” But supposing that is an achievable goal, Miller added that she intends to continue to build out the reserves as a crucial part of the Air Force by seeking out the best talent both from those who transition out of the active component, and also the civilian population. “The desire to help others is there,” she said. “What I am going to do in this particular area is to show an opportunity to serve. You can serve in your civilian capacity and then bring that same expertise into the military side. There’s many, many opportunities to participate at all levels.” [Source: Task & Purpose | Sarah Sicard | September 20, 2016 ++]
*********************************
Littoral Combat Ship Update 01 ► USS Montgomery Problems
The brand new littoral combat ship Montgomery suffered two engineering casualties at sea this week, only three days after its commissioning ceremony. The Montgomery, an Independence-class trimaran variant that was commissioned 17 SEP in Mobile, Alabama, is the third LCS to experience engineering problems in as many weeks. The problems forced the crew to lock both the port propeller shafts, complicating their transit and limiting their top speed. The ship is headed for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for fuel and then will go to Mayport on its own power to receive “warranty repairs,” Naval Surface Force Pacific said in a Friday statement. “On Sept. 13, the littoral combat ship USS Montgomery (LCS 8) experienced two unrelated casualties within a 24-hour period while transiting from Mobile, Alabama to her homeport of San Diego, Calif.,” the statement said. “The first casualty happened when the crew detected a seawater leak in the hydraulic cooling system. Later that day, Montgomery experienced a casualty to one of its gas turbine engines,” the SURFPAC statement continued. “The built-in redundancy of the ship's propulsion plant allows these ships to operate with multiple engine configurations.  However, with the two casualties resulting in the loss of both port shafts, it was determined that the best course of action would be to send the ship to Mayport to conduct both repairs.”  [Source: Navy Times | September 16, 2016 ++]
*********************************
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Update 03 ► Another Deployment Delay
For over a year, the US Navy and its shipbuilders have been anxious to get the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to sea and begin engineering trials of the first-of-class design. A number of publicly-announced target dates have come and gone, but the ship is still firmly moored at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. Now, however, a key factor in preventing the ship from casting off lines and getting underway is coming into view. A serious voltage regulator problem on the carrier’s four main turbine generators (MTGs) has prevented engineers from running the motors up to full power, and only now has the problem been identified and a fix decided upon. The MTGs are a significant element in the ship’s power generation system – an all-new layout supporting a plant developing at least three times the electrical power of previous carriers.
The problem manifested itself 12 JUN when a small electrical explosion took place on the No. 2 MTG during testing. Navy sources disagree whether the term “explosion” is appropriate, but two sources familiar with the situation used the reference, one noting that “it was enough of an explosion that debris got into the turbine.” Smoke from the event reportedly was drawn into other spaces, one source reported. According to Capt. Thurraya Kent, spokesperson for the Navy’s acquisition directorate, “personnel detected a burning smell.” There was no fire, Kent insisted, and “no fire-extinguishing actions were taken.” No one was injured and there was no evacuation of personnel, she added.
In a statement responding to a Defense News query, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said the issues “were not associated with the nuclear reactor plant and had no impact on safe operation of the nuclear reactor.” On the record, NAVSEA declined to provide further details, other than to acknowledge that two MTG issues have been experienced. But, according to sources, the 12 JUN event severely damaged the No. 2 MTG, and the accident slowed further MTG testing until the problem could be identified. Then in July, a similar, less-dramatic event took place on the No. 1 MTG, according to a Pentagon source. Eventually the root cause was found to be faulty voltage regulators, the Pentagon source said. It is not clear if the voltage regulators are part of the generators, which are made by Northrop Grumman Marine Systems, or are a sub-component from another supplier.
Engineers were also debating how to repair the generators, and for a time it was feared the entire 12-ton No. 2 MTG would have to be lifted out and replaced – a complex, time-consuming and expensive operation that would involve disrupting numerous ship systems and making major cuts in several decks. But subsequent investigation showed the No. 2 MTG’s rotors could be removed and replaced without the major disruption of a complete replacement, and No. 1 MTG could be repaired in place. Several repair options were developed, including whether or not to completely repair the MTGs before sea trials and delivery – causing further delays -- or wait until a post-commissioning shipyard period to finish the work. On Sept. 14, the Pentagon source confirmed, Navy officials decided on a partial fix now and a permanent fix later. The No. 2 MTG rotors will be removed while repairs are made to No. 1, and full repairs to No. 2 will wait for the post-shakedown availability (PSA) overhaul sometime after the ship is commissioned.
Repairs are estimated to cost about $37 million, the Pentagon official said, and while delivery is likely delayed until about March 2017, Navy officials said enough cost offsets have been identified that the work can be completed under congressionally-imposed cost caps – currently set at $12.9 billion. Even with the delivery delays, officials said, the planned initial deployment in 2021 is not affected, nor are full-scale shock trials now scheduled for 2019. The Pentagon source noted that if the shock trials are put off until subsequent ships – as was done with the previous carrier class – the first deployment could come sooner. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, in an 31 AUG memo on the carrier’s technical issues to Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall, reported the MTG issue was “likely due to a manufacturing defect,” and that “analysis of this issue revealed design vulnerabilities that must be addressed prior to ship’s delivery.” Mabus noted that “the nation’s leading experts on shipboard power generation systems are working resolution of these issues with a priority on safe, reliable system performance while balancing cost and schedule considerations.”
In the 31 AUG memo, a copy of which was obtained by Defense News, Mabus also ticked off the status of several other issues highlighted by Kendall in an 23 AUG memo directing a new, 60-day independent review team to look at issues with the CVN 78 class. The power generation issue was included in the memo, but none of the other issues seem to directly prevent the ship from getting under way to conduct hull, maintenance and engineering trials. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), Mabus reported, “has completed all shipboard testing pending the commencement of shipboard aircraft operations” during extensive post-delivery testing and trials, adding that “the Navy is confident that EMALS is on track to support CVN 78 system performance requirements and we look forward to demonstrating continued reliability growth of this system.” The ship’s Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) is more problematic, and “has had significant delays in completing its land-based test program due to the technical challenges encountered in transitioning from design” through final testing, Mabus reported. Other Navy sources report dozens of roll-through tests have been conducted with the AAG at the Navy’s test facility in Lakehurst, New Jersey, but to date no true arrested landings have been accomplished.
Mabus noted that the Navy is reviewing whether to continue with AAG installation on the Enterprise (CVN 80), third ship in the class, or return to the standard Mark 7 aircraft recovery system operating on all current carriers. Installation of AAG on the second ship, John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), is continuing for now, Mabus noted, because design and construction work has progressed to the point where a replacement would have a significantly negative impact on costs and schedule. The Ford’s dual band radar (DBR) installation is still completing its shipboard test program, Mabus reported, but full system testing won’t be carried out until the ship’s power system is lit off in conjunction with the shipboard test program. “We are confident in our ability to successfully demonstrate the functionality required for successful sea trials and, subsequently, for operation testing in post-delivery,” Mabus wrote.
Testing of the ship’s 11 advanced weapons elevators continues, Mabus said, acknowledging that “these new-design weapons elevators have experienced delays in late-stage integrated shipboard testing mainly due to correction of software discrepancies.” While indicating he doesn’t expect all 11 elevators to be properly operating at the time of sea trials, Mabus declared that “the Navy is confident we will get through these first-of-class issues and ensure that lessons learned on CVN 78 are directly applied to CVN 79.” [Source: Defense News | Christopher P. Cavas | September 18, 2016 ++]
*********************************
SDB II ► Small Diameter Bomb Under Development
The Air Force is engineering and testing a new air-dropped weapon able to destroy moving targets in all kinds of weather conditions at ranges greater than 40-miles, Air Force and Raytheon officials said. The Small Diameter Bomb II, or SDB II, is designed to destroy moving targets in all kinds of weather, such as small groups of ISIS or terrorist fighters on-the-move in pick-up trucks. A weapon of this kind would be of extreme relevance against ISIS fighters as the group is known to deliberately hide among civilian populations and make movements under cloud cover or adverse weather in order to avoid detection from overhead surveillance technologies. While the Air Force currently uses a laser-guided bomb called the GBU-54 able to destroy moving targets, the new SDB II will be able to do this at longer ranges and in all kinds of weather conditions. In addition, the SDB II is built with a two-way, dual-band data link which enables it to change targets or adjust to different target locations while in flight.
The new bomb is slated to be operational on F-15E fighter jets by 2018, Raytheon and Air Force officials said. “It is making good progress. It is moving along well in its test program. We started the first Low Rate Initial Production for 144 weapons back in June (2015). The threshold platform is the F-15E. The Navy is looking at integrating that on the F-18,” Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, Air Force Military Deputy for Acquisition, told Scout Warrior in an interview last year. The SDB II could be operational on an F/A-18 Super Hornet by 2020, Raytheon officials said.
A key part of the SDB II is a technology called a “tri-mode” seeker — a guidance system which can direct the weapon using millimeter wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared guidance and semi-active laser technology. A tri-mode seeker provides a range of guidance and targeting options typically not used together in one system. Millimeter wave radar gives the weapon an ability to navigate through adverse weather, conditions in which other guidance systems might encounter problems reaching or pinpointing targets. Imagining infrared guidance allows the weapon to track and hone in on heat signatures such as the temperature of an enemy vehicle. With semi-active laser technology, the weapon can be guided to an exact point using a laser designator or laser illuminator coming from the air or the ground. Also, the SBD II brings a new ability to track targets in flight through use of a two-way Link 16 and UHF data link, Raytheon officials said. The millimeter wave radar turns on first. Then the data link gives it a cue and tells the seeker where to open up and look. Then, the weapon can turn on its IR (infrared) which uses heat seeking technology, Raytheon officials said.
The SBD II is engineered to weigh only 208 pounds, a lighter weight than most other air dropped bombs, so that eight of them can fit on the inside of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Raytheon officials explained. If weapons are kept in an internal weapons bay and not rested on an external weapons pod, then an aircraft can succeed in retaining its stealth properties because the shapes or contours of the weapons will not be visible to enemy radar. About 105 pound of the SDB II is an explosive warhead which encompasses a “blast-frag” capability and a “plasma-jet” technology designed to pierce enemy armor, Raytheon officials explained. The SDB II also has the ability to classify targets, meaning it could for example be programmed to hit only tanks in a convoy as opposed to other moving vehicles. The weapon can classify tanks, boats or wheeled targets, Raytheon officials added. The potential value of the entire SDB II production run is expected to be $2.792 billion for 17,000 SDB II weapons – 12,000 for the Air Force and 5,000 for the Navy, Air Force officials said. [Source: The National Interest | Kris Osborn | September 21, 2016 ++]
*********************************
Military History Quiz 1 ► Do You Know?
1. Who commanded the Continental Army during the American Revolution?
2. Which war featured heavy use of trench warfare and chemical weapons?
3. Under which leader did France successfully conquer large portions of Europe during the early 1800s?
4. In which city did the Russian Army halt the German advance into their country during WWII. Leningrad or Stalingrad?
5. What animal did Hannibal use to invade Rome?
6. What was the bloodiest battle ever fought on American soil?
7. What were German submarines called in World War II?
8. Far more soldiers die in combat than of disease in most wars. True or False?
9. From the US perspective, the Vietnam War was fought as an attempt to stop the spread of which political ideology?
10. Which Greek General conquered Persia, as well as tremendous portions of the ancient world -- Alexander the Great, Odysseus, Scipio, or Africanus Leonidas
11. At what battle was Napoleon ultimately and finally defeated?
12. Which nation greatly and openly aided the fledgling colonies in the American Revolution?
[Source: http://offbeat.topix.com/quiz/17158/qidx1 | September 2016 ++]
*********************************
Navy Enlisted Rating Titles ► Deep-Sixed | NOS Will Replace
The Navy deep-sixed all of its 91 enlisted ratings titles 29 SEP, marking the beginning of an overhaul of the rigid career structure that has existed since the Continental Navy in a radical shift sure to reverberate through the fleet and the veterans community beyond. Sailors will no longer be identified by their job title, say, Fire Controlman 1st Class Joe Sailor, effective immediately. Instead, that would be Petty Officer 1st Class Joe Sailor. Officials say the controversial move will improve sailors' lives and ease their transition into the civilian workforce by broadening their skills in this tectonic shift in Navy’s personnel system to redraw the traditional lines between enlisted job specialties — a massive shake-up that is only beginning. Within the next three to four years, earlier if possible, the service plans to allow sailors to retrain in related skills, expanding their worth to the Navy while reaping broader assignment opportunities as well as increased advancement changes and greater access to special pays and bonuses that come with the most critical skills.
“We’re going to immediately do away with rating titles and address each other by just our rank as the other services do,” said Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Robert Burke in a 19 SEP interview. “We recognize that’s going to be a large cultural change, it’s not going to happen overnight, but the direction is to start exercising that now.” Sailors past and present have longstanding and deep love of the titles that have defined their Navy lives. All of these now belong to the history books. To highlight a few: Gunner’s Mate stood up the watch in 1775 in the Contintental Navy. Boatswain’s Mate dropped anchor in 1775, too. Hospital Corpsman rushed to duty in 1948 after being called four other names over the previous 150 years. Operations Specialists started tracking in 1972 an upgrade from the name Radarman before it.
Through Navy history, as many as 700 titles have come and gone. Over 400 were created and eliminating during and immediately after World War II. But this move will disband these ratings entirely and reorganize sailors into Navy Occupational Specialties, or NOS, that will define the peer group they compete with for promotion. Under this new system, for example, Gunner's mates will be identified as B320 and quartermasters will be B450. The move also strips the titles airman, fireman, constructionman and hospitalman, titles that will be also replaced by job codes. The title seaman is the sole non-rated rating remaining, for E-3 and below. The moves leaves the enlisted force's foremost symbols as the petty officer crow and the chief petty officer anchors. It remains unclear what will happen to the ratings badges that feature iconic rating insignia that officials are considering changing. An engineman’s gear. An information systems technician’s sparks. These images were beloved by many and inspired countless tattoos.
The huge shift was approved by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson and had been advocated by the now retired Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Mike Stevens, who urged it as way to promote more cross-training and boost sailors’ post-service employment opportunity. It began by a directive from Mabus to find gender-neutral rating titles that stripped them of the word "man," in an effort to be more inclusive to women sailors who make up an increasing size of the force. In June, the Marine Corps — also under the Mabus edict — announced they’d take “man” out of 19 occupational titles, as well. The Navy's newly released answer is to take a much more difficult and controversial approach by scrapping their existing system and starting over. Sailors's aren't losing everything in their titles, however: the warfare qualifications that demonstrate mastery of their operational commands will remain. “Sailors take great pride in earning those coveted warfare designations and they like to place those behind their ratings because they want people to know they’ve earned them," said Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (IDW/SW) Steve Giordano said in the 19 SEP interview. “That won’t go away — they will still have those as part of their titles.”
Burke says the Navy's new occupational specialties will be regrouped under broader career fields, an improved version of the 13 communities the service ratings these specialties had been grouped into. Where a NOS falls in those career fields will be driven by the individual skills within that field and not traditional lines, he said. Officials say these changes will allow sailors to choose from a wider variety of jobs and duty stations and ultimately provide multiple avenues for advancement. And when they get out — their skills and experience will more directly translate into a civilian job. Still up in the air is what to do about the Navy's specialty marks — those rating-specific designs on dress uniforms, belt buckles — even pins on a sailor's ball cap. For now, there is no change, Burke said. “It’s definitely our plan to cross that bridge, but it will be one of the last thing we’ll do for a couple of reasons. One depends on how we draw the career fields lines and something may fall out, based on that, I just don’t know, yet." [Source: Navy Times | Mark D. Faram & Sam Fellman | September 29, 2016 ++]
*****************************
Military History Quiz 1 ► Did you Answer Correctly?
1. George Washington, a Colonel prior to assuming command of the Continental Army, was the commanding general of the American forces for the entirety of the war.
2. The use of chemical weapons in World War I (the first major war in which they were ever successfully deployed) was so horrifying that they were explicitly banned in the 1925 Geneva Conventions.
3. Napoleon Bonaparte. Rising to prominence during the French Revolution, hewas the dominant figure in French politics and international affairs until 1815.
4. The five-month Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the Nazi invasion of Russia.
5. Elephants. Carthaginian General Hannibal famously crossed the Alps to attack Rome using them.
6. Battle of Gettysburg. Casualties between both sides were over 50,000 -- by FAR the bloodiest battle ever fought in the US
7. U-boats. The anglicized version of the German "U-boot," short for "Unterseeboot": literally "undersea boat."
8. False! Generally speaking, far, far more soldiers die of disease than of combat wounds -- especially in wars that occurred before the advent of modern sanitation.
9. The US government's aim in the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of Communism throughout Southeast Asia.
10. Alexander the Great. At its apex, his empire stretched from Greece into Egypt and all the way to India and modern-day Pakistan.
11. Battle of Waterloo. Though he had been initially defeated after his disastrous 1812 invasion of Russia, Napoleon returned, only to be defeated again at the Battle of Waterloo by the Duke of Wellington.
12. The French were instrumental in the success of the American colonies in breaking free from British rule. It's unlikely the colonists would've ultimately prevailed without their help. correct answer
[Source: http://offbeat.topix.com/quiz/17158/qidx1 | September 2016 ++]

* Military History *



Download 7.71 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   37



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
page number
long-term effects
next session
budget control act