The keel-laying ceremony for the first mobile landing platform (MLP) was held Jan. 19 at San Diego’s General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard.

MLP 1 will be named USNS Montford Point, to honor the approximately 20,000 African American Marine Corps recruits who trained at the North Carolina facility from 1942-1949. Their service prompted President Harry S Truman to direct the end of segregation in the U.S. military services in 1948. “The courage shown by these Marines helped forge the Corps into the most formidable expeditionary force in the world,” said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.

“The keel laying is a major milestone for the Montford Point and the MLP class,” said Capt. Henry Stevens, strategic sealift program manager, Program Executive Office, Ships. “The MLP program is benefiting from the Navy/NASSCO team’s high level of design and production-planning maturity.”

The Navy plans to build three MLP ships. They will be operated by Military Sealift Command.

Montford Point (MLP 1) shown under construction in the building dock at NASSCO. Photo courtesy of General Dynamics NASSCO

The second MLP will be named USNS John Glenn, after the decorated Marine Corps pilot, distinguished astronaut, Congressional Space Medal of Honor recipient and U.S. Senator.  “Glenn flew 59 combat missions during World War II and a combined 90 missions over the course of two tours in the Korean War,” according to a DoD statement.

The final ship of the three planned, the USNS Lewis B. Puller, “is named in honor of Lt. Gen. Lewis “Chesty” Puller, the most decorated Marine in history and the only one to be awarded five Navy Crosses,” the statement continues.

A Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman says Montford Point is expected to deliver in fiscal year 2013 and be operational in fiscal year 2015.

The keel was “authenticated” by Pat Mills, wife of Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Richard P. Mills, deputy commandant of Combat Development and Integration, who welded her initials into the keel plate, symbolically verifying that the keel of USNS Montford Point had been” truly and fairly laid,” according to naval tradition.

The MLP is critical to the Navy and Marine Corps “seabasing” concept, which provides the capability to exploit the sea lines of communication and maneuver space beyond territorial waters to support sustained operations.

Rendering of the starboard side profile of the MLP. Image courtesy of General Dynamics NASSCO

According to Maj. Gen. Timothy C. Hanifen, Director Expeditionary Warfare (OPNAV N85), “Seabasing cannot work without connectors, which bring manpower, material and machines from the sea base to the objective.”

MLP will use float-on/float-off (Flo/Flo) technology and a reconfigurable mission deck to transfer vehicles and equipment at sea and interface with surface connectors to deliver the vehicles and equipment ashore.

“In order to accomplish seabasing, you must have a platform that provides a surface interface between large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) prepositioning ships and landing craft surface connectors,” says Hanifen. “That platform is the mobile landing platform (MLP).”

The relatively rapid production of the MLP will be due in part to a downgrading of requirements, including the requirements to land helicopters, embark LCAC/SSC hovercraft, and employ the Test Article Vehicle Transfer System (TAVTS).

“MLP will provide the core capabilities to transfer vehicles and equipment at-sea and interface with surface connectors to deliver the vehicles and equipment ashore,” according to a NAVSEA statement. “The MLP will leverage float-on/ float-off technology and a reconfigurable mission deck to maximize capability.”

“The platform in its basic form possess[es] add-on modules that support a vehicle staging area, sideport ramp, large mooring fenders and up to three landing craft air cushioned vessel lanes to support its core requirements. Ship utility services support to the mission deck will enable the flexibility to incorporate potential future platform upgrades which could include additional capabilities such as berthing, medical, command and control, mission planning, vehicle transfer system, a connected replenishment, a container handling crane and an aviation operating spot.”

“In today’s challenging fiscal environment shipbuilders must continue to provide our Navy customer with competitive pricing and fair value,” said Fred Harris, president of General Dynamics NASSCO. “With the Mobile Landing Platform, NASSCO is meeting that challenge once again. The Navy and Marines will be getting a ship with significant capability at approximately one-third the cost of the Navy’s original plan.”

A graduate of the Test Pilot School at NAS Patuxent River, Md., with Class 107, he was picked to be one of three original Navy Test Pilots for the beginning of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Engineering and Manufacturing Development flight test program.

Morley was assigned as the Navy’s performance, propulsion and carrier suitability test pilot for the first two years of the Super Hornet program. In this capacity, he conducted the first ever Super Hornet shipboard landing in January 1997 as part of Initial Sea Trials. He has more than 3,600 flight hours in 35 different aircraft and more than 750 carrier arrested landings. Morley flew the first missions of Operation Southern Watch in August 1992, participated in Operation Desert Fox, led strikes on Iraq in Operation Southern Watch, flew missions over New York City immediately following Sept. 11, 2001 in Operation Noble Eagle, and supported troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

An F/A-18F Super Hornet flies with an infrared search and track (IRST) system integrated in the front section of the aircraft's centerline fuel tank during system flight testing. Boeing Company photo

Now in the EMD (engineering and manufacturing development) phase, the IRST system being developed by Lockheed Martin and the USN is exemplary of a renewed interest worldwide in “out-of-band” air to air sensors for modern fighter aircraft. It’s a road the Navy first went down with the F-14D, for which the AN/AAS-42 IRST was developed in the 1980s.

Today, sophisticated EW equipment for threat aircraft has proliferated, and its potential to compromise the effectiveness of RF (radar-based) sensors is significant. Consequently, an increasing number of western fighters, including the Boeing F-15K, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen have recently adopted IRST systems. Russian MiG and Sukhoi fighters have employed them for nearly two decades.

Because radars are active sensors they are vulnerable to jamming. IRST systems are passive, searching for and detecting heat sources within a field of regard. They emit no RF radiation and are therefore more difficult to detect as out-of-band sensors.

A buy of 150 IRST sensors is planned for the Super Hornet. For an update on the program and insight into its genesis Jan Tegler chatted with Morley.

Jan Tegler: I understand that the new IRST system the program is pursuing is based on technology from the AAS-42 IRST on that was carried on F-14Ds. When did this new program get under way and what spurred further development of IRST for the Super Hornet?

Capt. Francis Morley: The program officially got under way in 2008. There had been discussions and analysis of alternatives prior to that. The reason for it is the prevalence of advanced electronic attack and jamming systems today. Everyone is looking for an out-of-band solution. We’ve still got to work in the RF bands and certainly radar is still a very powerful tool, but let’s increase our options. Knowing that the Super Hornet is here for a long time, the Navy decided to invest in getting an out-of-band air to air targeting solution for the airplane. So that’s where the IRST went.

This new IRST sensor is an evolution of the sensor we started using on the F-14D. Lockheed Martin was the manufacturer and invested in improving and updating it over time. An updated version of that original IRST was put into the F-15, the South Korean version. That is the baseline and we’re taking the next step with the system for the Super Hornet. It’s a new sensor but it has evolved through a couple generations of technology.

New and developing IRST systems seem to be growing in popularity internationally. What are the advantages of this type of system for the Super Hornet and why has IRST found favor of late with our air forces?

The IRST pod being developed for the Super Hornet will take up the first third of a centerline tank, with fuel carried in the remaining portion. Lockheed Martin imagery

There are two drivers of that. The electromagnetic spectrum that we spoke about with advanced threat aircraft equipped with electronic jamming technology is one. That’s driving everybody to take a more serious look at alternatives, and IRST is one of them. Couple that with technological progression and our ability to provide not only a sensor but also a passive targeting solution and you can see the why the U.S. would pursue IRST for the Super Hornet.

How will the IRST be fielded on the F/A-18E/F?

The IRST is incorporated in the front one-third of a centerline fuel tank with the remaining two-thirds dedicated to fuel [approximately 2000 pounds] so the lost fuel capacity is fairly small. The podded solution is a low-cost option because it means you don’t have to change the mold line of the airplane and it allows you to switch IRSTs from aircraft to aircraft. I suspect that they will get a lot of use. Putting the pod on the tank locates the sensor on the centerline which is important from a field of view standpoint. You get a symmetrical field of view on both sides of the airplane. It’s also far enough forward to have an adequate field of view without blanking from the nose.

A new IRST would seem to be a cost-effective way of keeping the Super Hornet viable into future. If the system is operational by 2016, that would seem to be a great benefit as the fleet awaits the delayed F-35C.

The Navy’s air wing of the future, through 2030 and beyond is a Super Hornet, F-35C and EA-18G combination. I think the vision here is to give this additional out-of-band air to air solution to the Super Hornet because of the airplane’s longevity. If you want an effective fighter into the future you’re probably going to need this capability.

The new Department of Defense (DoD) strategy document, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” released by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Jan. 5, served to underscore the symposium’s theme, “Surface Navy: A Credible Force in Uncertain Times.”

While the strategy alludes to the significant reductions in defense brought about by budget realities, just about all of the goals and objectives in the strategy point to a strong, flexible forward presence, which is exactly what naval surface forces provide.

With the Navy’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal due to be released soon, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert could offer no specific programmatic details. But, he said, the new DoD strategy placed the Navy “on a good course.”

“The value of the Navy is well recognized in the department,” he said.

Greenert showed a chart of key “choke points” for global commerce, and discussed how U.S. Navy presence and partnerships in these regions were vital.

Delivering the keynote address at the 24th Annual Surface Navy Association Symposium, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert pointed to the recent rescue of 13 Iranian fisherman held captive by pirates in the North Arabian Sea as an example of the motivated, relevant, and diverse pool of talent that makes up today's surface force. He said the actions of crewmembers involved illustrate the symposium's theme "Surface Navy: A Credible Force in Uncertain Times." U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kyle P. Malloy

“We need to be where the maritime crossroads are,” he said. “That’s what keeps the world economy rolling along.”

And while each of the services will look at where it can scale back overseas presence, Greenert pointed to the recent invitation from Spain to send four Aegis-class destroyers to be homeported in Rota to provide ballistic-missile defense for Europe, as well as “Aegis Ashore” facilities being built in Romania and Poland; the invitation from Singapore to base four littoral combat ships (LCS) there; and Australia’s invitation to base Marines in northern Australia.

While the sea service will continue to evolve, Greenert does not foresee a change in course. “My top priorities are the same as those who came before me: to remain ready to meet our current challenges today.”

“Uncertainty surrounds everything we do today,” said Vice Adm. Richard W. Hunt, commander, Naval Surface Forces, agreed. “That is the biggest challenge of all, and that’s the essence of what we must deal with as we train and prepare our surface force – providing credible combat power with properly manned and equipped personnel ready to prevail. That’s where our focus needs to be. The surface navy brings the ability to have contact with other nations and people and shape the situation, perhaps minimizing or avoiding conflict when we can. We are the only community in the Navy who can do that.”

Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/Africa/Allied Joint Force Command, Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, who led the NATO effort in Libya, shared some detail into the surface navy’s involvement in the Libyan conflict, particularly the initial Tomahawk strikes. He also pointed to the converted Ohio-class guided-missile submarines, SSGNs, that saw action for the first time.

Locklear was reminded of how the U.S. Navy was no stranger in Libyan waters, but that much has changed over the years. “When our force first deployed to Tripoli back in 1803, collateral damage hadn’t been invented yet. Information came by horse. We didn’t have to worry about network interoperability. At the tactical level, the main lesson of the Libyan operation and Arab Spring is that there’s an uncertain world out there and our ships, our systems, and our crews have to be ready to deal with anything. They have to be ready and they can’t focus on just one mission.

“Our primary focus is to fight, win, and protect our nation. We must maintain combat credibility and forward presence and prepare as a surface force for the reality that we may have to operate in non-permissive environments in the future,” he said.

Also drawing parallels in history, Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., commander, Fleet Forces Command, talked about the evolution of the surface Navy, pointing out that 2012 marks the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, and expeditionary roots of the Navy and Marine Corps team.

Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Rick D. West delivers remarks about "Defining the Future Force," within the enlisted ranks of sailors, during the 24th Annual Surface Navy Association Symposium. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Thomas L. Rosprim

“Our services were born and bred to be expeditionary. It is in our DNA,” Harvey said. “It is a Navy and Marine Corps future we are talking about, and we best understand it better than we do now. The Navy/Marine Corps team gives us options as a nation.

“It’s not going to be easy. But ‘hard’ is authorized. Never forget, it is our choices, not our circumstances, that will determine our future. It’s up to you, so get it done,” he said.

“It’s exciting to be a sailor in today’s Navy,” said Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Rick D. West. “When you talk about things like LCS, high-speed vessels, our new amphibious vessels … it’s pretty special.

“At the end of our day, it’s our sailors who make the Navy go ‘zoom!’” West said. “As I speak right now, 50,000 of our sailors are under way or deployed. The surface force is a huge part of that. They’re worldwide, they’re ready, and they’re out there making a huge difference for us.

Lt. (j.g.) Thomas Jerome Hudner, Jr. was flying as wingman for section leader Ensign Jesse L. Brown. In the newly integrated U.S. armed forces, Brown was the first African-American to complete naval aviator training. Although of lower rank, Brown had more air hours and experience than Hudner. That didn’t help Brown when North Korean gunfire ripped into his Corsair.

Ensign Jesse L. Brown, U.S. Navy, in the cockpit of an F4U-4 Corsair fighter, circa 1950. He was the first African-American to be trained by the Navy as a naval aviator, and as such, became the first African-American naval aviator to see combat. Brown flew with Fighter Squadron 32 (VF-32) from USS Leyte (CV 32). U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command photo

Badly out of control and coughing gouts of smoke, Brown’s Corsair made a belly landing on snow and ice. While Brown was going down, Hudner and division leader Lt. Cmdr. Richard Cevoli heard Brown say things like, “I think I’m getting it,” meaning Brown felt he was still in control. That was before Brown’s Corsair made a violent belly landing in the snow. Once on the ground, Brown fell silent inside his wrecked F4U-4, even as the plane sputtered and smoked.

Lt. (j.g.) William Koenig, Cevoli’s wingman, climbed to make a Mayday radio call. The members of the Corsair flight learned, discouragingly, that a helicopter was at least 30 minutes away. Cevoli, Koenig and Hudner feared that flames might consume Brown while he was trapped inside his wrecked aircraft.

Hudner made a difficult decision. He called Cevoli and announced his intention to make a belly landing to assist Brown. There was no discussion. Cevoli simply said, “Good luck, Tom.”

Hudner got rid of his napalm bombs and belly tank, fired off his rockets, and put his Corsair into a tight, carrier-style approach. Every account of what followed, including the official version, says that Hudner made a wheels-up belly landing, but Hudner said in an interview that he lowered his landing gear. He touched down at 6,000 feet of elevation alongside a snow-strewn slope.

Hudner sprinted from his plane to Brown’s. “Jesse had barely survived the crash,” said Hudner. “But his aircraft had been crumpled in the landing and he was pinned in his cockpit.” Brown was near death, his badly mangled leg caught in the twisted fuselage.

Said Hudner, “The canopy of his aircraft was open but he was gravely injured and wedged inside, unable to move.”

Lt. j.g. Thomas J. Hudner is congratulated by Mrs. Daisy P. Brown, widow of Ensign Jesse L. Brown, after he received the Medal of Honor from President Truman at the White House, April 13, 1951. Lt j.g. Hudner was awarded the medal for attempting to rescue Ensign Brown, who had been shot down by enemy fire near the Chosin Reservoir, North Korea, on Dec. 4, 1950. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command photo

The heat was tremendous. Struggling to suppress the fire in Brown’s burning Corsair, Hudner began packing snow around its smoking cowling. He had to use one hand to balance himself, so had only one hand to attempt to snuff the blaze and attempt a rescue. “There was no way to get traction to pull.” Although enemy troops were nearby, the helicopter arrived and, without hesitation, HO3S-1 pilot Marine 1st Lt. Charles Ward made a risky landing at the scene. Ward brought an ax, but it proved useless in extricating Brown.

“We were running out of daylight, Jesse was obviously dying, and we could find no way to get him free,” Hudner recalled. Because the HO3S-1 could not navigate at night, Hudner knew that if he and Ward did not leave, there would be three bodies in the Korean snow instead of one.

“We had no choice but to leave him. I was crushed. But there was absolutely nothing we could do.” Brown and Hudner had met when serving at Naval Air Station Quonset Point. Rhode Island. The two men did not socialize, but they knew each other well and enjoyed great mutual respect.

Brown died quietly. Hudner and Ward escaped in the helicopter with night closing in. Because the crash site was far behind Chinese lines and there was no hope of retrieving the slain pilot’s remains, VF-32 returned to the site a few days later and torched it with napalm.

Jesse LeRoy Brown was born in 1926 in Hattiesburg, Miss., enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1946, and became a naval aviator in October 1948. He flew the F9F Panther jet fighter before transitioning to the prop-driven Corsair. He wrote daily letters to his wife Daisy and year-old daughter, Pamela. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his Korean War combat service. The destroyer escort USS Jesse L. Brown (DE 1089), later classified as a frigate (FFT 1089), was named for the slain Corsair pilot. The ship was decommissioned and transferred to Egypt in 1994, a move that Hudner lamented because, said Hudner, “We need to honor Jesse’s memory.”

Medal of Honor recipient retired Capt.Thomas J. Hudner, Jr. addresses friends, Midshipmen, and several honored guests during his "Visions of Valor" portrait unveiling in Bancroft Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy on Dec. 15, 2008. Hudner and 139 other military Medal of Honor recipients are celebrated in the "Visions of Valor" portrait collection. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kevin S. O'Brien

Thomas Jerome Hudner, Jr., was born in 1924 in Fall River, Mass., where his father ran Hudner’s Markets, a chain of grocery stores. He graduated from Phillips Academy in 1943 and the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946.

Hudner served as a communications officer aboard the cruiser USS Helena (CA 75), and became a naval aviator in August 1949. For his unsuccessful effort to save his section leader, Hudner was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Harry S Truman on April 13, 1951, the first Navy member to receive the award during the Korean War. The citation for the award refers to Hudner’s “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.”

Hudner retired as a captain in 1973, and served as Massachusetts’ commissioner for veterans’ affairs. He believes recognition should go to helicopter pilot Ward, who came to the scene “at great peril.”

Over the years, Hudner has maintained an aw-shucks attitude about the nation’s highest award for valor. “I once tried to clean it with Brasso but that didn’t work very well,” he said. In 1998, Hudner misplaced the medal during an appearance in Boston. “That’s what happens when you carry it around in your pocket a lot,” Hudner said. A local resident found it and returned it to him.

Editors note: Jesse Brown was “the first African-American to complete naval aviator training.” He was not the first African American naval aviator. Quotes from Hudner are from an interview in June 2001.

Collins is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and is the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Both the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which repairs nuclear submarines, and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, which builds destroyers for the U.S. Navy, are in her state.

Collins said that Congress passed a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and appropriations bill last year that were good news for the surface warfare community. “Shipbuilding programs were funded to 99 percent of the president’s budget request, and we continued to reverse the trend of the 2000s when shipbuilding averaged a meager six new starts per year. These funding levels demonstrate Congress’s strong commitment to the industrial base and a combat capable surface navy. Based upon the Navy’s five-year projections from last year, we should average 11 new ship construction starts for the next four years.”

However, Collins said, Capitol Hill is currently a “toxic partisan environment that has continued to get worse.”

“The ramifications of this culture were epitomized in the ‘Supercommittee’s failure to propose reforms that would place our fiscal trajectory on a sustainable course despite the urgent need to do so,” she said.

“We now face automatic spending cuts that are slated to begin next year that would undoubtedly result in serious consequences for our national security,” Collins said.

Collins said cuts to defense that would occur under sequestration would be disproportionate. “The biggest driver of our long-term debt and deficits is not defense spending, it is the spending on entitlement and health care programs which continues to balloon on autopilot,” she said. “Defense has already taken a huge reduction in future spending.

“Sequestration remains the giant sword of Damocles hanging over our collective head,” she said.

Collins noted that the growing “national debt is a security concern in its own right.”  She said the federal government spent $266 billion in interest payments. “This means we are spending more on interest on the national debt each month than we spend in a single year on naval shipbuilding. The implications of such spending habits are evident, and this is the budget crisis we face as a country.”

Collins said she has paid close attention to the new defense strategy document, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” which was released by the Department of Defense Jan. 5, 2012. “I welcomed certain parts of the review, specifically the renewed focus on Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. But it is difficult to completely assess the president’s new defense strategy without knowing what he intends to propose for specific programmatic cuts and for the end strength and allocation of our forces. I will be looking to see how the new strategy is translated into resource decisions when the administration’s budget request is rolled out next month.

“The new strategy, when combined with comments made during the course of the last year, does, I think, offer three distinct commitments made by senior administration officials that affect surface warfare. They are:

• A commitment to shipbuilding and the shipbuilding industrial base;
• A commitment to maintaining a high-end combat capability; and
• A commitment to focus on the Asia-Pacific region as the area of highest strategic priority.

In articulating these three commitments, the administration has rightly identified three of the top priorities for our national security in the 21st century,” Collins said.

“The last two commitments are among the greatest justifications for maintaining a strong and capable surface fleet, but this fleet can only materialize and be sustained by making good on the first commitment to shipbuilding and the fragile industrial base that supports it,” she said. “Our fleet begins in our nation’s public and private shipyards. I have always been a leading advocate for our shipyards, not only because of the great contribution Bath Iron Works makes to my home state of Maine, but also because a strong industrial shipbuilding base is a vital national asset. When Secretary [Leon] Panetta visited Electric Boat in Groton late last year, he described that it was the nation’s shipyards and factories that enabled the U.S. to ramp up armament production at the outbreak of World War II. He went on to say that the country should never lose this capability, and I could not agree with him more.

“If we lose the skills at our shipyards or they begin to atrophy, there is no guarantee that we can reestablish them quickly enough when they are needed the most,” she said. “I question whether building an average of only 1.5 destroyers per year is adequate to preserve the skills and the number of production workers needed for a secure and cost-efficient industrial base. I would also note that this procurement rate alone is insufficient to preserve competition between the two yards – competition which has worked to keep shipbuilding affordable for American taxpayers.”

Collins pointed to the importance of maintaining a strong cruiser-destroyer force with “high-end” capabilities such as ballistic-missile defense, open-ocean anti-submarine warfare, and strike warfare, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, which will be the region of highest strategic priority.

“This strategy must have a strong maritime component, with combat capable ships on station throughout the region,” Collins said.

Building a large number of ships with limited combat capability at the expense of increasing the number of ships with higher capability is a Pyrrhic victory,” she said, drawing a comparison to the Navy’s littoral combat ship, now being built in large numbers, and the guided missile destroyers built in her state.

The release of the Marine Corps OEF reset strategy accompanies the December 2011 release of the “Ground Equipment Reset Playbook” and comes approximately 18 months after the mid-June 2009 release of the Marine Corps’ earlier Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Ground Equipment Reset Plan.

In his preface to the earlier OIF reset plan, then-Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, observed, “In Iraq, we are moving into the most long awaited phase of operations – the reset of our equipment and redeployment of the force.

“For the last five-plus years have placed an unprecedented demand on our ground mobility assets and equipment sets,” he wrote. “The accelerated wear and tear from the harsh operating environment has far exceeded normal usage rates during peacetime. Many items have been destroyed or damaged beyond salvage. Reset will include all actions required to repair, replace, or modernize the equipment and weapons systems. As our numbers grow in Afghanistan, this effort is critical to the sustainment of our Corps.”

The new OEF reset strategy draft, formally dated Jan. 1, 2012, opens with a message from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos, in which he acknowledges that, “Sustained combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade have placed an unprecedented demand on our ground equipment. The accelerated degradation to the service life of our ground equipment, resulting from these harsh environments, has far exceeded normal peacetime usage rates. Many items have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair. We must align our force structure requirements, acquisition plans and maintenance strategies to ensure our reset program supports the rapid reconstitution of our force. We also must conduct this reset in stride because our Corps continues to be forward deployed and forward engaged in response to unforeseen threats as well as the many ongoing Combatant Commander requirements for amphibious forces.”

“This OEF Ground Equipment Reset Strategy charts the way forward,” Amos adds. “It will guide the planning and execution of logistics tasks needed to restore our combat capability. I require the personal commitment of every Marine to ensure our equipment is repaired and returned quickly to the war fighter.”

The strategy itself stresses that, as the Marine Corps draws down from the current campaign, “[I]t is vital that ground equipment returning from OEF is fully reset in order to posture the Marine Corps for the nation’s next crisis.”

“A fully reconstituted Marine Corps will be trained, equipped, and postured to enable Combatant Commanders to rapidly employ Marine forces in the post-OEF security environment,” it adds. “While the focus of this document is on reset of ground equipment returning from OEF, it is important to understand how the reset strategy fits into ongoing operations and the larger force reconstitution effort. The Marine Corps does not anticipate a post-OEF “operational pause” whereby the service will have the luxury of focusing exclusively on reset and reconstitution. The Marine Corps must remain ready to respond to unforeseen crises, reconstitute III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF), continue to source Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU), and meet the ever-increasing demand for theater security cooperation. This means equipment reset will occur in stride with current operations and the larger reconstitution effort to ensure operating forces and strategic programs are fully equipped with mission capable equipment.”

Identified factors guiding the planning and execution of OEF ground equipment include:

• Ensuring compliance with the Commandant’s Planning Guidance;
• Quickly reestablishing presence in the Pacific and achieve improved readiness across the force;
• Ensuring ground equipment reset is integrated with equipment modernization objectives, long-term support costs and strategic investment plans;
• Ensuring ground equipment reset spending is applied as authorized, documented and assessed against available Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, and;
• Ensuring the velocity of reset efforts is balanced against the need for depot level overhauls, refresh actions or full replacement of end items in order to protect the long-term health and readiness of critical ground equipment.

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition Sean Stackley delivered the principal address at the ceremony.

Susan Keith of Coronado, Calif., the ship’s sponsor, broke the traditional bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship.  In 1966 she served as the “matron of honor” for USS Coronado (AGF-11) when that ship was launched, and her mother christened that ship as its sponsor.

“Susan Keith is a bulwark of the Coronado community and from a long-lined Navy family,” said Cmdr. John Kochendorfer, Coronado’s prospective commanding officer.

“Today’s ceremony is a testament to the hard work and dedication of Austal’s talented shipbuilders,” said Austal USA President and Chief Operating Officer Joe Rella. “We are proud of our accomplishments and honored to be building these magnificent warships that are already shaping the future of the modern day Navy.”

The City of Coronado has strong ties to the Navy.  Coronado is the home of Naval Air Station North Island and the Naval Amphibious Base.  It is also the home of Commander Naval Surface Forces, Commander Naval Air Forces and Commander Naval Special Warfare Command.  There have been two previous ships named USS Coronado, including PF-38, a Tacoma-class patrol frigate, which earned four battle stars for supporting landings in New Guinea and Leyte during World War II; and LPD-11/AGF-11, an Austin-class amphibious transport dock later re-designated as an auxiliary command ship that served as flagship for the Third Fleet and was decommissioned in 2006.

The Navy is building two variants of the littoral combat ship.  A 418-foot, 2,700-ton all-aluminum trimaran, Coronado is the second of the Independence-class of LCS.

The littoral combat ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Coronado (LCS 4) is rolled-out at the Austal USA assembly bay. The trimaran LCS variant was christened Jan. 14, 2012 and will undergo sea trials later this year.(U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Austal USA

The other LCS version is the Freedom class, a 378-foot, 3,000 ton semi-planing monohull being built at Marinette Marine in Wisconsin by a team led by Lockheed Martin. USS Freedom (LCS 1) was commissioned in November of 2008.  Freedom is currently serving in the U.S. Pacific Fleet and is homeported in San Diego.

Rear Adm. Jim Murdoch, the Program Executive Officer for LCS (PEO LCS), said that the LCS 2 construction required too many labor hours. The Austal ships now feature a more modular and economic construction process.

The new Modular Manufacturing Facility at Mobile will build both LCS and the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) for the Navy.  Both ships are made from aluminum on an assembly-line where large blocks of the ship are built with piping and wiring already installed and tested.  “The MMF has 17 acres under one roof to fabricate and assemble the sections of LCS and JHSV,” says Mike Wysong, Austal’s business development manager.

Both Lockheed Martin Corp. and Austal USA have a fixed-price incentive contract for the design and construction of a 10-ship block-buy, for a total of 20 littoral combat ships from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2015.  The average ship target-price across the entire dual-block buy for the Lockheed Martin LCS variant is $362 million; and the average ship target-price for the Austal USA LCS variant is $352 million, according to Navy officials.  Murdoch says the Navy remains committed to a total of 55 littoral combat ships for the fleet.

Both LCS variants have standard interfaces for mission packages, so the ship’s combat capability can be changed quickly by exchanging containerized modules.  The combat capability of the ships can be kept current by updating the mission packages instead of performing a major overhaul on the ship.  There are mission packages for each of the focused missions LCS was designed to address: mines warfare, anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare.

A platform for the launch and recovery of offboard manned and unmanned vehicles, Coronado’s combination of large volume for mission modules, large flight deck and hangar for helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles, speed in excess of 40 knots and draft of less than 20 feet make it an ideal platform to address anti-access threats in the littorals.

Coronado will be manned by a Blue and Gold rotational crew.  In addition to the  core crews that operate the ship, mission detachments and an aviation detachment. will come aboard with their respective mission packages. Kochendorfer, who commands the Blue crew, is from Dana Point, Calif. The commanding officer of the Gold crew will be Cmdr. Michael “Shawn” Johnston, from North Carolina. Coronado will eventually be homeported in San Diego, Calif.

Murdoch says LCS 4 has some improvements over Independence. He says the LCS 4 centerline waterjets, for example, are larger than on the first ship so as to take full advantage of the power generated by the two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines.  “These are small ships with a lot of propulsion plant in them,” Murdoch says.

Construction of Jackson (LCS 6) has begun in Mobile.

“We don’t have the intention of repeating our warning, and we warn only once,” said Brig. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, Iran’s armed forces chief.

The Stennis, flagship of Carrier Strike Group 3, recently passed through the Strait of Hormoz into the Sea of Oman in what the U.S. was a move scheduled long before the start of Iran’s naval exercises. The U.S. did not respond to Iran’s order not to return.

What may have confounded Iran’s bellicose rhetoric and posturing is the rescue, by the very navy it scorned, of an Iranian fishing vessel with 13 Iranian sailors aboard who had been attacked by pirates.

“When we get a distress signal, we’re going to respond,” said Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “That’s the nature of what our country is all about.”

On Jan. 5, at about 12:30 p.m. local time, an SH-60S Seahawk from the guided-missile destroyer USS Kidd detected what it suspected to be a Somali pirate skiff alongside the Iranian-flagged fishing dhow Al Molai. As the aircraft was reporting this, the master of the Al Molaisent a radio distress call saying he was being held captive by pirates.

A sailor assigned to the guided-missile destroyer USS Kidd’s (DDG 100) visit, board, search and seizure team greets a crew member of the Iranian-flagged fishing dhow Al Molai. Kidd's visit, board, search and seizure team detained 15 suspected pirates, who were holding a 13-member Iranian crew hostage for several weeks, according to the members of the crew. U.S. Navy photo

A boat from the Kidd with a visit, board, search and seizure (VBSS) team boarded the Al Molai, where they found 15 suspected pirates who had been holding a 13-member Iranian crew hostage for several weeks. The pirates surrendered without resistance. According to a DoD press report, the Al Molai had been attacked, then used as a “mother ship” to conduct further pirate operations throughout the region.

The Kidd’s VBSS team stated that the Iranian crew claimed they were held under harsh conditions, and threatened with violence for more than a month.

“We believe [the crew of the Al Molai] were forced against their will to assist the pirates with other piracy operations,” said Josh Schminky, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent aboard the Kidd. “After securing the ship and ensuring the safety of all persons on board, we began distributing food and water to both the crew and the suspected criminals, as is our standard practice in counterpiracy operations.”

The pirates were transferred to the USS John C. Stennis, where the matter will be reviewed for prosecution.

“The captain of the Al Molai expressed his sincere gratitude that we came to assist them,” Schminky said. “He was afraid that without our help, they could have been there for months.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s FARS news agency reports that a senior member of the Iranian Parliament has continued Iran’s position that America’s “threatening presence in the region” will not go unanswered. “Should the United States maintain its presence in Iran’s waterways as before with its rhetoric of threat, the Islamic Republic will act accordingly,” said Chairman of the Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh. FARS has not reported the story regarding the rescue of the Al Molai crew.

According to a recent government announcement, the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD) is seeking information “on readily available commercial based solutions that have proven field trials and/or prototype testing focused in the areas of magnifying optics detection, environmental adaptation, and automated variable power attenuation.”

The technologies would support a conceptual two-level LROI that would provide a lower level light beam to facilitate visual warning and a higher level light beam that would provide temporary visual suppression.

According to the announcement, the notional LROI would “deliver the correct irradiance to affect a targeted individual’s vision, providing a clear, unambiguous warning at a distance of 3,000 meters (approximately 3,300 yards, or 1.6 nautical miles), an increased range over previous systems. At a minimum, this extended range capability will provide increased tactical decision-making time to facilitate structured escalation of force (EoF) tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) across a broad range of military operations (ROMO). Further, the LROI system enhances Joint Force operations in assessing the intent of personnel and controlling a potential threat as early as possible.”

The LROI would provide a significant enhancement in capabilities over current shorter-range systems like “Dazzler,” which can be used for signaling or as a non-lethal deterrent to any hostile force approaching the ship.

The LROI announcement acknowledges that the individual underlying technologies associated with the LROI are considered mature, but adds that it is the integration and control of those technologies into a cohesive non-lethal capability is new. As a result, “the government plans on working with industry in a collaborative basis to explore technology advancements and alternatives to aid in accelerating maturation of system and subsystem capabilities needed to satisfy LROI design attributes and operational requirements.”

Based on current market analysis and preliminary technical readiness evaluation, four focus areas have been identified for the current activity: magnifying optics detection (addressing the possibility of an approaching individual using direct view optics); environmental adaptation (addressing the long range implications of humidity, airborne particulates or atmospheric refraction); automated variable power attenuation (to ensure appropriate personnel safety while maintaining desired performance); and expeditionary configured power sources (reliable power sources compatible with an expeditionary warfare operating environment).