Fire Control


Leveraging its air-defense sensors, the Navy helps coordinate all shooters in a battle area

By AMY KLAMPER, Seapower Correspondent

As the U.S. military works to better coordinate operations when more than one service is firing on a single target, the Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air is emerging as a new capability that will deliver fully networked, distributed and long-range defensive fire control.

During the next decade, the service plans to implement the integration program, commonly known as NIFC-CA, and ultimately incorporate it into a joint tracking and fire-control network. It will help U.S. forces create a single integrated air picture and foster the ability to push engagement distances beyond the launching platform’s radar horizon.

This revolutionary ability will be key when operating in littoral waters, where compressed fire control timelines and an often-cluttered battle space make coordinated joint fires increasingly critical.

Rear Adm. Nevin P. Carr Jr., the Navy’s deputy for Combat Systems/Weapons, who oversees NIFC-CA said it “really cuts right to what joint warfighting is all about at a macro level; to share the tactical picture and take maximum advantage of the weapons you already have, and shoot the right weapons at the right target to get the most out of your system.”

He sees NIFC-CA as “a metaphor for getting the services to work together, to share a picture and share their systems in such a way that one plus one equals five.”

The Navy portion of the joint endeavor evolves from existing systems while leveraging and improving the capabilities of each, “so that it all fits together to provide a leap in capability,” Carr said.

These systems are the Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, Aegis combat system, the SM-6 Extended-Range Active Missile and the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), which fuses tracking data from many sources and distributes it to all.

The E-2D offers theater air missile defense enhancements that include the ADS-18, a rotating electronically steered array radar for superior overland performance, far greater precision and a higher degree of automation compared to the present E-2 variants, Carr said.

Aegis open architecture increases the computing power of the combat systems necessary to perform future missions, and allows for ease of future war fighting upgrades.

The SM-6 Extended Range Active Missile is being developed with a future integrated fire-control capability that will engage remote tracks not held on the firing ship’s radar or covered by a firing ship’s fire control illuminators. Employing the legacy SM-2 Block IV airframe and Advanced Medium Range

Air-to-Air active seeker technology, the SM-6 will provide the Navy with an increased capability against over-the-horizon anti-air threats.

CEC will be the network that ties it all together, for example enabling the E-2 to communicate directly with Aegis to generate and update the targeting basket for the missile. That will provide a huge advantage, according to Carr.

Today, an inbound enemy missile headed toward a sea base at very long range might not be visible.

“But if we had an elevated sensor,maybe with the E-2, we can know that it’s coming and actually send a missile on its way to engage the target before it would even come in range of the illuminators,” he said. “It gives us longer range.”

Carr said the other services are tackling similar networked systems as well. The Army’s Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, or even radar from ashore, could be incorporated into an eventual joint fires scheme, providing an overland capability.

“The Army has surface-to-air missiles, so there’s potential for that to be part of the system, and the Marines have shore-based radars, and use a network similar to ours, the [Tactical Component Network], so everyone is working on something,” Carr said. “Ultimately, the potential is there to knit it together in a joint fashion.”

Carr said such a quantum leap is aided by the Navy’s use of existing systems that can be modified on the margins in order to use them in a complementary fashion.

For example, while Aegis does not currently allow a missile to launch without taking it all the way to its target, the system can be modified to accommodate the radical new SM-6 capability.

Carr said one of NIFC-CA’s biggest leaps in capability will be “getting CEC up in the sky to take advantage of its full capability,” where it will provide a more accurate picture by fusing together raw information from multiple radars.

Although the Navy is excited about using CEC as the data path for its new integrated fires capability, Carr said it might not evolve into the larger joint fires effort.

That path is expected to involve three components — air, land and sea — he said, noting that the other services may offer other options for the data path.

The Navy expects to spend nearly $60 million for NIFC-CA through fiscal 2010, including $14.8 million in the fiscal 2007 budget alone.

Carr said the air and land “kill chains” should come on line by 2011, while the sea portion is slated for operational capability in 2014. To date there has been no designated lead agency for joint integrated fire control, though the Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization plays a role in guiding the effort.  

Joint fires has become such a hot area in recent years that the U.S. Joint Forces Command in February 2005 stood up a subordinate command with the sole mandate of improving it. The group, dubbed the Joint Fires Integration and Interoperability Team (JFIIT) aims to develop a new model for joint fires that can be incorporated into training, standards and doctrine, according to JFIIT’s operations officer, Army Lt. Col. Dale Ringler.

He said the JFIIT staff, comprising some 140 uniformed, civilian and contractor personnel at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is charged with breaking the broad issue of joint fires down into subsets that can be tackled individually through experimentation and analysis.

For example, integrated command and control for joint fires is one area singled out for attention in a November 2004 Defense Science Board study. The study was critical of the fact that, at the time, there was no concentrated effort to improve inter-service joint fire support. Today, as the services work these and other problems, Joint Forces Command is trying to help shape and guide their efforts, Ringler said.

Marine Lt. Col. Steve Banta, JFIIT’s command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance division chief, said one of the group’s largest initiatives is the Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 2006 (JEFX-06), which will take place at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., in late April and early May. With the Air Force as the lead service, JEFX-06 will address gaps in joint fires based on lessons learned from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Banta said JFIIT’s role will be to act as the analytical arm to help the Air Force look at these gaps and the initiatives proposed to fix them. One unique aspect of this experiment, he said, is that it aims to aid military leaders in making informed decisions in fielding equipment related to the experiment in the 18 months following it.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Shannon Coulter said the Navy’s role in JEFX-06, the sixth in a series of large-scale multiservice experiments to evaluate new operations and concepts, will involve a look at how they use Army and Air Force assets to prosecute time-sensitive maritime targets when there is no Navy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance or weapon systems of their own in the vicinity to handle a call.

Hypothetically, “if the Navy has a need for fires, they would have to call them from a Navy asset, despite the possibility that a carrier might not be available,” said Coulter, the group’s air targeting division chief. However, if there were unused Air Force assets in the area, Navy commanders need to know how to call on those assets, and the supporting service needs to know how to quickly process that request for fires to get warheads on target quickly.

“It all just doesn’t happen,” said Joint Forces Command spokesman Lt. James Krohne. “We have to conduct exercises jointly and JFIIT is the objective observer to monitor and support exercises to make recommendations to improve the joint fires process.”

link

Quoted: Quoted: For example, while Aegis does not currently allow a missile to launch without taking it all the way to its target,. That's why 'we', the Royal Navy, did not buy into AEGIS. the radical new SM-6 capability. 'Radical'?  Welcome to last Century! ASTER did system validation firings in 1997! www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=88

Yawn. The SM-6 capability will be there about the same time your T45s come online.

If they're using the Blk IV variant for the SM-6, HOT DAMN. That's a spicey meatball!

SM-6, eh?

Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out?

They were right. I HAVE been out too long...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: For example, while Aegis does not currently allow a missile to launch without taking it all the way to its target,. That's why 'we', the Royal Navy, did not buy into AEGIS. the radical new SM-6 capability. 'Radical'?  Welcome to last Century! ASTER did system validation firings in 1997! www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=88 Yawn. The SM-6 capability will be there about the same time your T45s come online. If they're using the Blk IV variant for the SM-6, HOT DAMN. That's a spicey meatball! I knew that would get you to bite ANdy

I couldn't disappoint.

This system does have some very interesting implications. People will get killed and not even know who the shooter was.

Quoted: SM-6, eh? Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out? They were right. I HAVE been out too long...

SM-3, BMD
SM-4, LASM
SM-5, Beats the hell out of me.
SM-6, Kick Ass!

Quoted: Quoted: SM-6, eh? Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out? They were right. I HAVE been out too long... SM-3, BMD SM-4, LASM SM-5, Beats the hell out of me. SM-6, Kick Ass!

What exactly does the SM-6 bring capability wise that's so much better than the previous versions?
Stupid landlubbers would like to know.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SM-6, eh? Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out? They were right. I HAVE been out too long... SM-3, BMD SM-4, LASM SM-5, Beats the hell out of me. SM-6, Kick Ass! What exactly does the SM-6 bring capability wise that's so much better than the previous versions? Stupid landlubbers would like to know.

If we told you...we'd have to shoot you.  

Quoted: If we told you...we'd have to shoot you.

Oh, sure! Rub it in, why don'tcha?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SM-6, eh? Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out? They were right. I HAVE been out too long... SM-3, BMD SM-4, LASM SM-5, Beats the hell out of me. SM-6, Kick Ass! What exactly does the SM-6 bring capability wise that's so much better than the previous versions? Stupid landlubbers would like to know. If we told you...we'd have to shoot you.

As long as it's better than anything the British have.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SM-6, eh? Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out? They were right. I HAVE been out too long... SM-3, BMD SM-4, LASM SM-5, Beats the hell out of me. SM-6, Kick Ass! What exactly does the SM-6 bring capability wise that's so much better than the previous versions? Stupid landlubbers would like to know. If we told you...we'd have to shoot you.   As long as it's better than anything the British have.....

We try not to use anything in our missile systems that has 'Lucas' printed on it.  

The Navy is moving towards a totally integrated battle management system.  The system will integrate the various platforms and their sensor suites and local track managers into one large net.  The concept uses "Open Architecture" and is totally software based.  This means that whether it is an Aegis CG or DDG, or a CV or amphib with the Ship Self Defense System, or the DD(X) with "whatever" combat system it eventually gets, ALL will (In theory) operate the same way, track the same targets and share the track data, seamlessly.

This concept will initially use the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) as a basis.

Ultimately, the Navy - Marine Corps systems will be incorporated into the "Single Integrated Air Picture" or SIAP...which will be our part in the Big Daddy Joint system called the "Integrated Air Battle Management" (IABM) Joint battle management system.

Have I confused everyone?  Good...join the crowd!

Seriously, this is VERY important on many fronts.  OATM is the future.

Operationally, this will permit commanders far away from the battlefield to know what is happening as if they were on the closest unit.  It will also permit the employment of weapons from units well over the horizon who do not hold the hostile track in close control...but have a weapon with the reach.

As we add faster, more accurate and more destructive "hard kill" capabilities to our Fleet and FMF, we increase our ability to kill our enemies much quicker too...before he can run back into his cave, for example.

Accurate track management is the Holy Grail of the Fleet.  They've been trying to nail it down since the '50s and early '60s with the introduction of the first NTDS systems.  It has turned out to be a tough nut to crack.

¿que?

Quoted: LOOK, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT… Rather than LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK, LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK…

Actually the article is talking about:
Unit #1: Look
Unit #2: Shoot
Unit #1: Evaluate
Unit #2: Re-engage if necessary.

Quoted: the Big Daddy Joint system called the "Integrated Air Battle Management" (IABM) Joint battle management system.

Is this what you and the good Doctor were talking about at lunch?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: LOOK, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT… Rather than LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK, LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK… Actually the article is talking about: Unit #1: Look Unit #2: Shoot Unit #1: Evaluate Unit #2: Re-engage if necessary. That's the 'System' I thought he was asking about the 'missile'... ANdy

You still have to look somewhere in there. Unless you got the cheat code for infinite magazines.

I was under the impression that the SM-6 was basically a standard missile booster with and AMRAMM seeker, I'm guessing there is more capability.

Quoted: Quoted: the Big Daddy Joint system called the "Integrated Air Battle Management" (IABM) Joint battle management system. Is this what you and the good Doctor were talking about at lunch?

Yup...that'd be it all right!  

Howgozit shipmate!

Raytheon PDF on SM-6

Quoted: Quoted: I was under the impression that the SM-6 was basically a standard missile booster with and AMRAMM seeker, I'm guessing there is more capability. Pre-supposing it's the same(ish) as 'our' system, basically anyone, be they airborne, seaborne etc, who detects a target(s) can direct a launch from a DD onto targets it can't see or detect and use a data link to vector, change targets etc, the miissile onto the threats where it's active seeker will finish the attack. Basically the big plus is you can now engage a saturation attack by ASM's out at 100+nm instead of waiting till they reach the radar horizon. But I'm sure dport will correct me! ANdy

That's how the article reads.

USS Hopper Supports Ballistic Missile Defense in “Sky Hunter”
Story Number: NNS060228-01
Release Date: 2/28/2006 7:05:00 AM

By Ensign Jamie Lynn De Coster, Commander, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs

PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) -- USS Hopper (DDG 70), an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer homeported at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, participated in the successful “Sky Hunter” Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) test event off the coast of southern California Feb. 15.

Using a recent upgrade to its Aegis weapons system, Hopper was tasked with detecting and tracking a Minuteman III Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., during the boost and initial ballistic portions of flight, and providing cueing data to SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare) Space Systems Center (SSC) in San Diego and the Joint National Test Center in Colorado Springs for analysis.

In a role known as long range surveillance and track (LRS&T), Hopper has the capability to detect and track ICBMs and report track data to shore-based components of the missile defense system.

It can further provide fire control data to the ground-based ICBM interceptors located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base.

“We get invaluable training and technical support from civilian Aegis experts during these missions,” said Fire Controlman 2nd class James Wickham. “I have learned a lot about our system – its capabilities and the future of BMD."

At-sea tracking events, such as “Sky Hunter,” have verified the capability of surface ships to track ICBMs and demonstrated the reliability of transmitting track data necessary to support missile defense situational awareness, target cueing and engagements.

Hopper has participated in three successful BMD missions. “Sky Hunter” and “Glory Trip-189” tracked ICBMs launched from Vandenberg.

During “Stellar Valkyrie” in November, Hopper provided cueing and track data on a medium range ballistic missile, which USS Lake Erie (CG 70) acquired and engaged with the newest variant of Standard Missile (SM-3).

Hopper’s technicians are excited by the new mission area and the opportunity to flex their system.

Thirteen Aegis destroyers are currently equipped with the LRS&T capability.

Quoted: USS Hopper Supports Ballistic Missile Defense in “Sky Hunter” Story Number: NNS060228-01 Release Date: 2/28/2006 7:05:00 AM By Ensign Jamie Lynn De Coster, Commander, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) -- USS Hopper (DDG 70), an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer homeported at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, participated in the successful “Sky Hunter” Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) test event off the coast of southern California Feb. 15. Using a recent upgrade to its Aegis weapons system, Hopper was tasked with detecting and tracking a Minuteman III Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., during the boost and initial ballistic portions of flight, and providing cueing data to SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare) Space Systems Center (SSC) in San Diego and the Joint National Test Center in Colorado Springs for analysis. In a role known as long range surveillance and track (LRS&T), Hopper has the capability to detect and track ICBMs and report track data to shore-based components of the missile defense system. It can further provide fire control data to the ground-based ICBM interceptors located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. “We get invaluable training and technical support from civilian Aegis experts during these missions,” said Fire Controlman 2nd class James Wickham. “I have learned a lot about our system – its capabilities and the future of BMD." At-sea tracking events, such as “Sky Hunter,” have verified the capability of surface ships to track ICBMs and demonstrated the reliability of transmitting track data necessary to support missile defense situational awareness, target cueing and engagements. Hopper has participated in three successful BMD missions. “Sky Hunter” and “Glory Trip-189” tracked ICBMs launched from Vandenberg. During “Stellar Valkyrie” in November, Hopper provided cueing and track data on a medium range ballistic missile, which USS Lake Erie (CG 70) acquired and engaged with the newest variant of Standard Missile (SM-3). Hopper’s technicians are excited by the new mission area and the opportunity to flex their system. Thirteen Aegis destroyers are currently equipped with the LRS&T capability.

LWilde,
Yet another reason to take your advice. I don't think I'm long for VA.

I'm curious... can the standard missile engage surface targets or land targets?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SM-6, eh? Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out? They were right. I HAVE been out too long... SM-3, BMD SM-4, LASM SM-5, Beats the hell out of me. SM-6, Kick Ass! What exactly does the SM-6 bring capability wise that's so much better than the previous versions? Stupid landlubbers would like to know. If we told you...we'd have to shoot you.

No - you are present/former SWOs.  You'd have to sleep-deprive him to death.  

Quoted: Quoted: i'm curious can the standard missile engage surface targets or land targets? Most naval SAM's have a limited anti surface capability... Either way you look at it, half a ton travelling at Mach 3+ leaves a mark! ANdy

Yep, the Iranians found out the hard way. LINK

Quoted: Quoted: i'm curious can the standard missile engage surface targets or land targets? Most naval SAM's have a limited anti surface capability... Either way you look at it, half a ton travelling at Mach 3+ leaves a mark! ANdy

How about a Talos?  Now THAT would leave a mark you couldn't buff out.

We actually did some BMD hypothesizing support in '77 or so, with NAVSEA, and others, on the Terrier equipped cruiser I was stationed on.  There was even a "What the heck, It Can't Hurt to Try"  plan to use Terrier cruisers as a BMD defese for coastal cities and areas.  A Terrier having the capability to engage a re-entry vehicle if the conditions were right.  Mostly getting the FCS on the incoming vehicle in time.  But once MIRVs came along, the chances of a successful engagement of ALL the incoming vehicles which was marginal at best went down the pooper.

And any actual testingwas not possible because of the Carter Administration not daring to even do something that the Soviets could call a violation of SALT.  Not that they weren't violating it already big time, but heaven forfend Carter stand up to the Bear.

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: Budgets and Plans

The USA has budgeted a total of $289.4 million for its Standard family of naval air defense missiles in FY 2006, a slight rise from the $259.3 million in FY 2005. This family also includes the SM-3 extended range missile that is capable of being used in a ballistic missile defense role, and the next-generation SM-6 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) is still in development.

The 75 missiles noted in the February 15, 2006 contract is the usual annual purchase listed in Pentagon budget documents. The FY 2006 procurement budget is set at $143.8 million, which leaves $3.8 million remaining for this missile family after the main procurement and spares contracts ($122.2 + $17.8 = $140 million). Unlike the 2005 purchase, this year's American order stands alone rather than being part of a larger multi-national order.

The FY 2006 budget for Standard missile family RDT&E (Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation) has risen to $145.6 million, from $110.6 million in FY 2005.

This should allow more intensive work on the SM-3 ABM variant, aka. RIM-161A. It uses the RIM-156 (SM-2 Extended Range Block IV) test program's airframe and propulsion/booster, then adds a third-stage rocket motor (a.k.a. Advanced Solid Axial Stage, ASAS, made by ATK), a GPS/INS guidance section (a.k.a. GAINS, GPS-Aided Inertial Navigation System), and a LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) kinetic warhead (i.e. a non-explosive hit-to-kill warhead).

The launching ships, usually CG-47 Ticonderoga Class cruisers or Japanese Kongo Class destroyers, are updated with AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) computer software and hardware, as well as the Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) AEGIS enhancements that will be implemented across all AEGIS ships that take the upgrade. When used in conjunction with the USA's Co-operative Engagement Capability components, the result is a single integrated "picture" available to all CEC-equipped ships in the area - a picture that can even be used to help guide long-range anti-air missiles launched from other ships.

This SM-3/AEGIS LEAP combination plays a prominent role in near-term US and Japanese missile defense plans. These interceptors have a better record in ABM tests than their land-based counterparts to date, and their naval mobility makes them well suited for forward defense.

The SM-6 ERAM will also continue development per the $440 million multi-year SDD contract signed September 3, 2004. That contract expires in 2011, which means the SM-6 ERAM is unlikely to reach active procurement status before 2013. Present plans call for the ERAM to replace the SM-2 missiles - note that it may not have a theater ballistic missile defense role like the SM-3.

(from defenseindustrydaily.com)

Quoted: I'm curious... can the standard missile engage surface targets or land targets?

As I recall, the Standards could do an airburst on a target within it's radar horizon, ie, ship or ground target airburst. Kinda like a poor mans anti ship msl; airburst above target to knock out radars/wpns, etc.

Quoted: Quoted: USS Hopper Supports Ballistic Missile Defense in “Sky Hunter” Story Number: NNS060228-01 Release Date: 2/28/2006 7:05:00 AM By Ensign Jamie Lynn De Coster, Commander, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) -- USS Hopper (DDG 70), an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer homeported at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, participated in the successful “Sky Hunter” Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) test event off the coast of southern California Feb. 15. Using a recent upgrade to its Aegis weapons system, Hopper was tasked with detecting and tracking a Minuteman III Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., during the boost and initial ballistic portions of flight, and providing cueing data to SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare) Space Systems Center (SSC) in San Diego and the Joint National Test Center in Colorado Springs for analysis. In a role known as long range surveillance and track (LRS&T), Hopper has the capability to detect and track ICBMs and report track data to shore-based components of the missile defense system. It can further provide fire control data to the ground-based ICBM interceptors located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. “We get invaluable training and technical support from civilian Aegis experts during these missions,” said Fire Controlman 2nd class James Wickham. “I have learned a lot about our system – its capabilities and the future of BMD." At-sea tracking events, such as “Sky Hunter,” have verified the capability of surface ships to track ICBMs and demonstrated the reliability of transmitting track data necessary to support missile defense situational awareness, target cueing and engagements. Hopper has participated in three successful BMD missions. “Sky Hunter” and “Glory Trip-189” tracked ICBMs launched from Vandenberg. During “Stellar Valkyrie” in November, Hopper provided cueing and track data on a medium range ballistic missile, which USS Lake Erie (CG 70) acquired and engaged with the newest variant of Standard Missile (SM-3). Hopper’s technicians are excited by the new mission area and the opportunity to flex their system. Thirteen Aegis destroyers are currently equipped with the LRS&T capability. LWilde, Yet another reason to take your advice. I don't think I'm long for VA.

If you and your missus choose Hawaii, you will NOT be sorry!  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SM-6, eh? Uh...... When did 3, 4, and 5 come out? They were right. I HAVE been out too long... SM-3, BMD SM-4, LASM SM-5, Beats the hell out of me. SM-6, Kick Ass! What exactly does the SM-6 bring capability wise that's so much better than the previous versions? Stupid landlubbers would like to know. If we told you...we'd have to shoot you.   No - you are present/former SWOs.  You'd have to sleep-deprive him to death.

How TRUE!!!

On all my deployments the helo drivers had it pretty good...plus they made more money that us poor schlump SWOs.

On my last deployment, my son returned with us from Hawaii to San Diego as a Tiger.  One beautiful Sunday morning at breakfast, just after we'd finished the morning watch (0400 - 0700 for you landlubbers) as OOD, my son engaged the pilot sitting across from us in conversation.  In his oh-so-simplistic but beautiful way of looking at the world, he said to the roterhead, "I really like your job a lot better than my Dad's.  You get to fly the helo.  You get to sleep every night, watch the movie here in the wardroom and eat ice cream.  Plus...you don't have to stand those watches in the middle of the night and get yelled at by the Captain whenever your men mess up!!!"

At that point...what do you say?  an eleven year old has just clarified the difference between an aviator and a black shoe.  

Ah yes Tiger Cruises.  Like the time my DS1 brought his 12 year old on one. Had to be 12.   And in the San Diego paper shortly after we arrived a picture of the boy winning the 11 and under class of a San Diego 10K.  The CO asked him why he only had one of his two sons listed in his dependents records? uumm well aye uuhh ah um well.



The old beam riding Terriers and probably the Talos also would follow the beam for a contact hit.  I believe the Talos also had a very rudimentary cruise missile capability.  But the target had to be something like an airfiled and you hoped it hit something valuable when it got there.

Quoted: just after we'd finished the morning watch (0400 - 0700 for you landlubbers) as OOD

0400-0700?

My how things have changed. I've never stood a 04-07 only 02-07s.

Quoted: Quoted: just after we'd finished the morning watch (0400 - 0700 for you landlubbers) as OOD 0400-0700? My how things have changed. I've never stood a 04-07 only 02-07s.

0000-0400:    The Mid (Middle) Watch

0400-0800:    The Morning Watch (Actually 0700 to allow the offgoing watch to eat breakfast.)

0800-1200:    The Forenoon Watch

1200-1600:    The Afternoon Watch

1600-1800:    The First Dog Watch

1800-2000:    The Second Dog Watch

2000-2400:    The Evening Watch

How have things changed?

07-12
12-17
17-22
22-02
02-07

Last two ships have followed this rotation.

Quoted: Quoted: LOOK, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT… Rather than LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK, LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK… Actually the article is talking about: Unit #1: Look Unit #2: Shoot Unit #1: Evaluate Unit #2: Re-engage if necessary.

Ok, I'm the shooter here. Yes an actual Fire Controlman with trigger time if thou knowest what I mean.  Hmm, Look, Shoot, Evaluate, Re-engage will prevent you all from going home to wife and kids.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: LOOK, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT… Rather than LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK, LOOK, SHOOT, LOOK… Actually the article is talking about: Unit #1: Look Unit #2: Shoot Unit #1: Evaluate Unit #2: Re-engage if necessary. Ok, I'm the shooter here. Yes an actual Fire Controlman with trigger time if thou knowest what I mean.  Hmm, Look, Shoot, Evaluate, Re-engage will prevent you all from going home to wife and kids.

Ex-firecontrolman here, current SWO. I suggest reading Aegis doctrine statements.

Exactly the type of response I expected.  Maybe I should drink some coffee and sit around reading up on current Aegis doctrine. Then maybe I'll be able to deliver an awesome power point presentation, put my hands on my hips and keep on thinking we can trust in Aegis and our awesome array of self defense systems from a SS-N-22 Sunburn.  

Sir, I'm no hater. Just a realist. That's outstanding that you went from the best damn rate in the Nav to officer ranks. I wouldn't mind an LDO paycheck myself, however ship driving and no trigger time with small arms or bigger weapons would be a major drawback - but the paycheck is an overwhelming factor in going that route.

Quoted: Exactly the type of response I expected.  Maybe I should drink some coffee and sit around reading up on current Aegis doctrine. Then maybe I'll be able to deliver an awesome power point presentation, put my hands on my hips and keep on thinking we can trust in Aegis and our awesome array of self defense systems from a SS-N-22 Sunburn.

I'd love to discuss this with you, but obviously this is not the forum.

I remember my first time on sitting U/I on a WCC console. One of the first things my FCC drilled into me was our firing doctrines. Firing doctrines exist for a reason; thankfully, they are also flexible to fit the specific situation. So what I have said is not wrong, nor is what you have said, necessarily. It all depends on the circumstances, now doesn't it? The last thing you want to do is fail to shoot down the incoming threat. The second to last thing you want to do is fail to shoot down the incoming threat because you spent your magazine on the previous incoming threat.

Sir, I'm no hater. Just a realist. That's outstanding that you went from the best damn rate in the Nav to officer ranks. I wouldn't mind an LDO paycheck myself, however ship driving and no trigger time with small arms or bigger weapons would be a major drawback - but the paycheck is an overwhelming factor in going that route.

Who said I went for the money? Money was the last consideration for me. If you're wanting to do it for the money, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Sir, I'm no hater. Just a realist. That's outstanding that you went from the best damn rate in the Nav to officer ranks. I wouldn't mind an LDO paycheck myself, however ship driving and no trigger time with small arms or bigger weapons would be a major drawback - but the paycheck is an overwhelming factor in going that route.

Who said I went for the money? Money was the last consideration for me. If you're wanting to do it for the money, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Well money has kept me from getting out and pursuing a career with Customs and Border Protection or other LEO jobs that I've had my heart set on due to the fact I would take a freakin pay cut. What I do, I do for my family and if becoming an officer will improve their quality of life then I should make it a goal for myself, no?  One thing I do recognize though is that our stay with Navy will run out of time. I give the Navy a whole lot however I am still investing in my future without the NAV.