Top Admiral Affirms Commitment To 313-Ship Fleet

[USS ALASKA]

GovExec.com
September 15, 2009

Top Admiral Affirms Commitment To 313-Ship Fleet

By Katherine McIntire Peters

While the Navy is not planning to submit its annual 30-year shipbuilding plan to Congress until after the Quadrennial Defense Review is completed early next year, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said he expects the future fleet will have at least 313 ships, the number of ships in the service's most recent plan.

"As an operator, the 313-ship fleet is what I see as the floor of what we need," he told an audience at the National Press Club during a Government Executive leadership breakfast on Tuesday.

The Navy earlier this year irked some lawmakers when service officials said they would not submit their annual shipbuilding plan, which is required by law, because the QDR would inform future plans and potentially render anything submitted earlier moot.

"We'll be better able to produce a plan that has a better prediction [after the QDR is complete], rather than generate a plan simply to generate a plan," Roughead said.

The size and composition of the fleet has been of great concern to Navy watchers in recent years. At 283 ships, the service has the smallest fleet since 1916. While the array of capabilities in the fleet is critical, so too is the number of platforms. A ship only can be in one place at one time, and with global responsibilities increasing, the Navy has been forced to deploy an ever-growing percentage of its ships at any given time to meet security requirements.

Under current budget projections, the Navy cannot build and maintain a 313-ship fleet without a substantial infusion of procurement funds or a dramatic reduction in shipbuilding costs. A recent paper by naval expert Ronald O'Rourke at the Congressional Research Service concluded the Navy would have to build more than 12 ships every year during the next 18 years at an estimated annual cost of $23 billion to $25 billion. Yet during the past 17 years, the Navy has built an average of 5.4 ships annually, and its annual shipbuilding budget is now about $11 billion.

Some analysts have speculated the Navy will seek to reduce the number of aircraft carriers in the fleet as a result of the QDR. Roughead declined to speculate on the outcome of the review, but said he expected the Littoral Combat Ship, a relatively inexpensive ship designed to operate in shallow waters where the Navy increasingly is in demand, would be a key factor in the service's ability to reach the 313 ship goal. (Cost is relative: the first two Littoral Combat Ships have come in at around $400 million; by contrast an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer costs around $1.3 billion and an aircraft carrier around $9 billion.)

Besides championing the LCS, Roughead is a proponent of using common hull designs as a means for delivering more ships at lower cost in the future.

Acquisition costs are only one factor in affordability, however. Roughead said it is critical that the Navy do a much better job of estimating operating costs -- including the personnel costs associated with weapons systems -- over the lifetime of its ships and other major procurements.

"One of the drivers for me is the affordability of being able to operate the force," he said. "Operating costs are going to become more and more important. We no longer have the luxury to say, 'This is a good deal today, let's buy it.' We have to get our arms around [life-cycle] costs."

A transcript of the discussion with Adm. Roughead will be available on http://www.govexec.com later this week.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Democrats since the days of Jimmy Carter always cut down defense budget (as Labourer Ramsay McDonnald did in Britain many, many years ago) making a mess when there is need to fight someone. It was Clinton that cut the number of army divisions to "just" ten, remember? And it was Clinton that sent the army all over the world, piecemeal, to help causes so alien to the western hemisphere except for chasing down Osama bin Laden who was having fun blowing USS Cole and the US Embassies in Africa (which does not excuse Bush of being a complete idiot and the third worst US president ever).

Don´t think that socialist populist Obama will commit seriously to give money for the military, specially for a high tech navy, because it is clear that his priorities are to strip middle class white workers of their money and give it to non worker black community in order to soften the "post slavery trauma" they have been experiencing for the last 144 years. Also is important to give the non contributing ilegals health care paid by the white hard working and law abiding citizens.

Obama (as the British Labour Party) will happily see HMS Hood go to battle with a weak deck armour. He will also go to the funeral service and speak of those who died when Hood was "surprisingly" blown and tell everybody how proud he is of the bravery of the almost totally white crew that made their ultimate sacrifice.

Best regards,

[Bgile]

I was going to make a post and realized I was letting anger get the best of me.

Perhaps we need a political forum here, so those who wish can post there and those who don't want to read it don't have to.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile,

That´s sad. We, those that are center-right "conservative" persons, have to stand everything the liberal left yell to us in silence, with our heads down, upon the wisdom of people like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. We could be insulted and branded as fascists, nazi pigs, medieval inquisitors and no one will come up with some dignified defense.

But if, somehow, we say timid things, like that Obama is trying to favour his own kin by using unlawful govermental powers or stealing from the "silent majority" white middle class then, like Sen Wilson, we have to apologise.

Freedom of thought and speech goes both ways, not only leftist way.

And it is NOT a secret that democrats has undermined the US military every time they can. Remember how Carter cut down the B1 bomber project and the MX missiles and the Abrams M1 tank when the ruskies were arming themselves to the teeth? And Boy Clinton with his military cuts? Now we have Obama, and he is just starting his "weakening programm": see CNN.

[Bgile]

Karl,

I don't agree with you, but I really don't want to go there in this forum.

You should keep in mind that Clinton and Obama both inherited big federal budget deficits. Fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican calling card. It's easy for you to sit there in your country and push huge military adventures on us because you don't have to pay for them.

Lets talk about the fleet. Why does the USA need 10 CVNs?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

You should keep in mind that Clinton and Obama both inherited big federal budget deficits. Fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican calling card. It's easy for you to sit there in your country and push huge military adventures on us because you don't have to pay for them.

I work for an American company. I pay taxes. I prefer those to be expended in missiles to protect my family than to pay for benefits for a bunch of bums.

Lets talk about the fleet. Why does the USA need 10 CVNs?

In 1930 many British politicians (leftists) want to scrap the battleship fleet of the RN. Also scrap the military as an entity. There was no "big menace" then, they argued. Even when Hitler was in power and his miltary projects ongoing, like in 1936 or 1938, many still believed that military expenditure in Britain was inexcusable.

In the XXI century the US had the following reasons not to have 10 CVNs or 10 divisions but 20 CVNs and some 50 divisions:

1. The Islamic Threat: Afganistan, Pakistan, Iran, Irak, Siria, Egypt, Libia funded by Arabia, Yemen and those emirates and supplied by France.
2. Comunist Threat: China
3. Russian Threat: there is no need to explain this one, I think
4. Latin American emergence of comunist "republic" that hate the US above everything else in the world: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Brazil. supplied, also, by France.

So, if you ask me, US must begin to work, fast, in more CVNs and more planes than you already have. And by no means cut down the number of reserve nuclear warheads nor missiles. Regular army must emphasize, again, in mass combat WWII style in order to escalate the low intensity conflicts that are unwinnable and turn them in high intensity in depth wars in order to neutralize, by anhililation, the enemy, specially in the muslim countries and prepare for the showdown against China.

I like a lot the US. I enjoy when I´m there and I admire the spirit of the US. That´s why I dislike Obama.

So, I think the USN needs to duplicate it´s quantity of everything. Just to be on Winston Churchill side of History and not that of Ramsay or Chamberlain.

[Bgile]

I work for an American company. I pay taxes. I prefer those to be expended in missiles to protect my family than to pay for benefits for a bunch of bums.

I assume you are referring to my son, who works for a company which doesn't provide health insurance.

And me, who won't have any health insurance for myself and my wife when I retire unless I manage to scrape up the money from my life savings. My current employer pays about $1,100 per month for mine and I would have to do the same if I want similar coverage. That's if I can get any, what with my diabetes and my wife's health problems.

Maybe we are supposed to just die and make room for more missiles.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile,

If the federal goverment had not expended, for the last 40 or 50 years, in NAACP inspired projects and giving welfare to hundreds of thousands of non working people (that do not want to work, just to extend a hand saying: "the granpa of my granpa was a slave and you, white men, owe me for that" ) maybe the US will have a more fair pension system. Like the one in my country, Costa Rica, in which you get what you contributed for ( and I have to pay for it, too, being the division of the company I work with based in Costa Rica). It is for them, not for the CVN or SSBN that unfariness exists in the US.

And, in order to address you not as Bgile but as Steve, which I respect a lot, I´m very sorry and I´m emphatic for any problem your family and you are experiencing because that idiotic Bush was not able to handle anything (which I reckon he is guilty). Since the crisis I have been in Trinidad & Tobago working because there is no job for me in my country: I have to accept that or face lay off. And since a year I have seen my family a total of some 20 days overall with the atrition that has. I want to return to my country and work there, not here, looking at these.... people.

I´m very sorry of having offending you, it has never been my intention. This is an ideologic discussion far away of any personal experience.

Best regards,

Karl

[Bgile]

It's fine Karl, I know you mean well.

I just don't understand why my country has to provide the lion's share of troops and materiel for conflicts the rest of the world doesn't seem to care much about.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Steve:

I just don't understand why my country has to provide the lion's share of troops and materiel for conflicts the rest of the world doesn't seem to care much about.

It´s history, it´s the dynamics of power. No one choose Egypt nor Rome nor Spain nor England. Events turned that way and there are nations breave enought to take the challenge and those that chicken out and don´t take it. For those that take it a lot of sacrificies come and go, including the lives of many brave men that are worth more than millions that sit in other countries criticizing, like me by the way. And I recognize that and salute them. The small contribution I tried to made in the 80ies is of small amount in comparison to the crews of vessels standing years of separation from their families only to risk their lives and eventually be killed while a university student in Venezuela or France spits on their graves calling them "baby killers" or "imperialistic pigs".

But long after the good old years of the USA had passed and some other powers are in place, I can assure you, that EVERYBODY, including the damn commies and latin american detractors and very conscious socialist vermin will be crying and missing the US. When the trade the US produce died and all the world economies are broken and to buy a pack of cigarretes will cost 2 thousand euros, or 1,000,000,000,000 bolivares and the old told the youth that the present generation had the oportunity to buy and own a car that used petrol fuel before the enviromentalists destroyed all sign of inteligent lifeforms on Earth.... that day everybody will stop and say: "... and remember those US soldiers that fought in Afganistan or Irak or Germany or Vietnam... those legionaires. It´s a pity that they don´t exist anymore against the ayatollahs that rule Rome, Paris and Madrid. It´s terrible we did not support the US against the Chinese wheh the Spratley War started... it´s a shame no body did something with Hugo Chavez whose sons rule South America from Buenos Aires and had their winter palace in Rio..." That day will come, it´s a matter of waiting.

And I´m sure it will come because people like Obama, Lula, Zapatero and all the Euro Left will win the day and turn the society in their dream. And as soon as that happens the ayatollahs, the narco vermin, the Chinese Empire, the ruskies, Chavez, Morales and Corea will jump over a weak western hemisphere and steal everything: humilliate the sons of anglo saxon white people and vanish God and tradition.

The democrats are going to achieve this. They started with Carter and the B1. The Clinton and his "just" ten divisions. Now is Obama and the missile shield and God knows what´s there in his populist agenda.

But there is still hope. A hope for a Churchill, a hope for a Reagan or a Thatcher. And you never relinquish hope.

[José M. Rico]

Ok Karl, point taken.
Now let's stop the political lesson of the day and move on.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Yeah, sorry.

[USS ALASKA]

Bloomberg.com
September 23, 2009

Littoral Ships, Other Weapons Cut In New U.S. Navy 5-Year Plan

By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News

The U.S. Navy has proposed a new five-year budget that cuts by almost half its purchases of a new warship that operates close to shore, a potential blow to Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp.

The Navy would buy 15 of these ships through 2015, down from 29 in its plan of a year ago, and trim spending overall by 4.5 percent, according to an unreleased budget document. That’s the goal set by top Defense Department officials.

Lockheed and General Dynamics are the prime contractors for the new Littoral Combat Ship. Each has a contract to build two and would have to compete for contracts for the next 15.

The Navy’s proposal is being reviewed, along with those of the other services, in keeping with the Pentagon’s intent to submit in January its long-range budget to the White House in conjunction with its detailed fiscal 2011 budget.

The Navy’s proposed cuts reflect the pressure on the military services to meet spending targets that allow little growth beyond inflation. Top Navy officials say they still plan ultimately to increase the fleet to 313 ships, up from 286 now, and to buy the initially planned total of 55 littoral ships.

The ships are designed for mine clearance, submarine hunting, humanitarian relief, and other missions in shallow coastal waters called littorals. They have a draft of no more than 20 feet, enabling them to operate close to coasts in the Persian Gulf, Korean peninsula and elsewhere.

The service’s proposal to trim planned spending from 2011 through 2015 to $666.3 billion from $698 billion reflects Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s guidance calling for modest growth with emphasis on improving the security of nuclear weapons and upgrading the capabilities to conduct irregular warfare and cyber defense.

The Air Force’s new five-year plan proposes cuts totaling $24.2 billion, or 3.8 percent, according to its unreleased budget.

President Barack Obama assigned Gates to rein in defense spending, which now consumes about 19 cents of every dollar of the federal budget. Adjusted for inflation, defense spending has grown about 43 percent since fiscal 2000. When war costs are included, the number increases to 72 percent.

Gates, in an Aug. 31 interview with Bloomberg Television, said the long-range budget being crafted calls for growth that is “modest” when adjusted for inflation and “that allows us to sustain the programs that we have.”

“It’s the stability we need, and I don’t think the rates of growth need to be significantly” higher, Gates said.

Navy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sean Stackley told reporters last week the service remains committed to buying 55 littoral ships. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead told reporters Sept. 15 the service remains committed to a fleet that totals 313 vessels.

The Navy, in its new plan, proposes “significant reductions” in planned purchases of Raytheon Co. missiles and other weapons.

Purchases of Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon air-to-air missiles, Jsow-C cruise missiles, the latest version of the Standard Missile-6 and lightweight MK-54 torpedoes all are cut in the five-year plan.

The purchase of air-to-air missiles is cut to 849 from 1,033; the Jsow-C is reduced to 1,879 from 2,663; the Standard Missile-6 is cut to 637 from 688 and torpedo quantities drop to 770 from a planned 1,336.

On the other hand, purchases of Raytheon’s advanced Sea Sparrow weapon for intercepting anti-ship missiles, an international program involving nations including Australia, Denmark and Germany, will be boosted to 236 from 62.

Purchases of Alliant Techsystems Inc.’s air-launched advanced anti-radar missile scheduled to enter service in 2010 will be cut to 719 from a planned 954.

Like the Air Force, the Navy would cancel the Joint Tactical radio communications program for ships and planes that is managed by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin.

The Navy also proposes to delay purchase of the EP-X replacement for its Lockheed Martin EP-3 Orion surveillance aircraft, according to the document. The program is in a stage of early development, and no contractor has been chosen.

Altogether, $3.4 billion would be cut from research and development, including $1.6 billion for the EP-X program.

The Navy would trim about $25 billion through 2015 by deferring or canceling weapons programs, including a total of about $18 billion in its shipbuilding account, which includes the littoral ship.

The Navy also would cut to 132 from 150 its purchases of the V-22 tilt-rotor plane built by Textron Inc. and Boeing Co. and would buy 15 of 28 planned Lockheed KC-130J refueling tankers, according to the Aug. 19 budget document made available to Bloomberg News.

Navy spokesman Commander Cappy Surette said the service declined to discuss its budget request.

The Navy plan also would cut through 2015:

*Six of seven planned amphibious warfare ships. These include one of two that would be capable of carrying the Marine Corps’ new Lockheed F-35 vertical takeoff plane and V-22 Ospreys and all five “mobile landing platform” vessels that would carry pre-positioned equipment. Northrop Grumman Corp. is building the first ship; no construction contracts have been awarded for the other five vessels.

*Two new ships intended to replace aging command ships such as the USS Mount Whitney. The first vessel was planned for 2012. General Dynamics and Northrop have received contracts for design studies but not for construction.

*Two of 11 planned high-speed, shallow-draft troop and cargo vessels managed by the Navy to transport Army and Marine Corps units and helicopters. Austal USA is building the vessels in Mobile, Alabama.

*One of 10 planned Virginia-class submarines made jointly by Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

In addition, the Navy would save as much as $825 million by retiring 20 ships one year ahead of schedule, including the USS Halyburton that in April helped free the American captain of a container ship hijacked by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. The Halyburton would be decommissioned in 2013 instead of 2014.

[USS ALASKA]

Newport News Daily Press
October 10, 2009

Congress To Navy: Don't Delay Carrier Construction Until Analysis

By Peter Frost

Federal lawmakers will require the Navy to complete a detailed risk assessment of slowing aircraft carrier construction to produce a new ship every five years instead of four before it signs off on funding those programs, according to the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill.

Though House and Senate negotiators acknowledged that slowing construction "may be the appropriate course of action" for the Navy, they "are concerned that this decision may not have been made following a rigorous cost-benefit analysis," the bill states.

The nation's carriers, built at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Newport News shipyard, were scheduled to be funded every four years, beginning with the Gerald R. Ford. Northrop received a $5.1 billion contract to build that flattop in 2008.

Under the original plan, the next carrier — the yet-to-be-named CVN-79 — was to receive its construction contract in 2012. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed scaling back construction with an end goal of reducing the nation's fleet by one carrier to 10 after 2040.

The carrier fleet already is expected to dip to 10 carriers in 2012 after the USS Enterprise is decommissioned and before the Ford is completed. But Gates' plan would make a 10-carrier fleet permanent.

The Navy has hinted that the five-year schedule could start with the CVN-79, with its funding pushed back to 2013.

In the authorization bill, negotiators inserted language that urges the Navy to not adopt the delayed schedule until it produces the detailed assessment.

The report would include an assessment of the cost of shifting to five-year construction intervals, including the effect it would have on other programs. Those effects could include impacts to the fleet, deployments, Northrop and its industrial supplier base.

Generally, the closer a manufacturer can get to mass production, the more efficient — and cost-effective — it is at producing each copy. Further, the steadier the stream of similar work at a shipyard, the more stable the skilled workforce needed to build the ships.

Northrop declined to comment.

The authorization bill also approved full funding for one Virginia Class submarine in 2010 and advance procurement for two per year starting in 2011.

The measure passed a full House vote, but is still awaiting approval by the Senate, which is expected to vote on it next week.

Authorization bills essentially spell out how the government can spend money. The funding itself isn't divvied out until the appropriations process, which is still ongoing.

[USS ALASKA]

Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
October 15, 2009

Navy Secretary Seeks Greener Fleet

By Kate Wiltrout, The Virginian-Pilot

McLEAN -- Teddy Roosevelt had the Great White Fleet. Ray Mabus envisions a "Great Green Fleet."

The secretary of the Navy on Wednesday outlined five energy goals for the Navy and Marines in the next decade. Four involve reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, increasing use of alternative energies and factoring energy costs into the price tag of every new ship, engine or building.

The fifth might be the most radical: Mabus committed to fielding by 2012 a "green" strike group composed of aircraft powered by biofuels, surface ships that operate on hybrid power supplies, and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.

The "green" fleet won't just be for show, Mabus said. The strike group will deploy by 2016.

"Nobody has ever gotten anything big done by being timid," Mabus told more than 750 Navy personnel, industry representatives and academics at a two-day forum on energy priorities. "Bold steps are in our nature as Americans."

Roosevelt sent a coal-powered fleet of white ships around the globe in 1908 to demonstrate American naval might, Mabus noted. And President John F. Kennedy declared that Americans would walk on the moon in a matter of years - even though most of the technology required to do so hadn't yet been invented.

The Navy deserves credit for recent innovations such as the soon-to-be-commissioned Makin Island, Mabus said. The hybrid amphibious ship, powered by gas and electricity, saved $2 million in fuel costs on its initial voyage from Mississippi, where it was built, to San Diego.

But much more can be done.

"I'm here to encourage you and us to go further," Mabus said. "To dream what might be, instead of to simply accept what is."

Asked afterward for specifics on the cost of fielding the "green" strike group, Mabus declined to hazard even an estimate. But he emphasized that expensive innovations often get cheaper over time. By demanding a renewable source for at least half its jet fuel, for instance, the Navy would help create demand for large volumes, driving the price down.

That seems to be the case for the aviation fuel derived from the camelina plant, according to Rick Kamin, who leads the Navy fuels team.

Kamin said a gallon of camelina-based fuel is costlier, now, than a gallon of petroleum-based JP-5. But when the Navy begins buying large quantities of the newer fuel, it will probably be comparable in price - and much better environmentally than the old version.

Tuesday, at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, the Navy tested an F/A-18 Hornet engine using camelina-based fuel. The engine ran for about an hour and maxed out at afterburner speed. Initial data showed the engine performing the same way it does with petroleum-based JP-5.

"It looks like the engine did not know the difference," Kamin said. "I think this is a tremendous leap for the fuels field."

The next big challenge comes in the spring, when the new fuel will be tested in an actual flight.

It might be a few years before Navy jets based at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach run on renewable fuels. But Mabus - followed at the podium by Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations - made clear that day is coming.

Mabus said the Navy can't stop using fossil fuel overnight. But he said the service is too reliant on energy from finite and depleting sources, making the country dependent on supplies in unstable areas from governments that might not be allies.

"Energy reform is a strategic initiative," Mabus said.

Not all alternative energies are created equal, he noted. It takes much more energy to turn corn into ethanol than it does to create ethanol from cellulose products, such as wood, grasses or non-edible plants.

Mabus and Roughead did not rule out wider use of nuclear power to fuel ships.

Currently, only aircraft carriers and submarines use nuclear fusion for power. Nuclear power creates far less air pollution than burning fossil fuels. But reactors are expensive to build and maintain, Roughead said, and require a big investment in human capital to find and educate nuclear technicians.

Roughead, the Navy's top admiral, also encouraged smaller innovations that reduce consumption of fuel by 5 or 10 percent.

For example, coating ship hulls with a special paint that discourages barnacles and marine life reduces drag - which increases efficiency. Pilot programs show the innovation could save $180,000 in fuel costs annually per ship.

That might not seem like a lot - but multiply it by 285 vessels and it adds up.

Every bit counts when gas prices are high, as they were in mid-2008. Roughead said every time the price of a barrel of oil rose $10, it created a $300 million hole in the Navy budget.

Because ships have long lives, fuel efficiency is critical. The Navy shouldn't wait until a ship's midlife overhaul to make adjustments, Roughead said.

It's also time for the service to start pricing new programs, not just in terms of labor and materials. Mabus said Navy procurement practices will be changed, requiring bidders to include energy costs over a project's lifetime. Before a contract is awarded, he said, acquisition officials will compare the energy footprints of competitors' bids.

The vision

Hydrogen powered UAVs -- One example of “green” energy with a battlefield application is an unmanned aerial vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.

Last weekend, at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, the Ion Tiger UAV set a record for hydrogen-powered flight. The aircraft, which is developed by the Naval Research Laboratory, the University of Hawaii and two commercial companies, stayed aloft for 23 hours, 17 minutes.

At 37 pounds, the Ion Tiger is lighter than drones that use petroleum-based fuel. It hasn’t been deployed but holds promise because it produces electrical energy directly from hydrogen gas and air. That means it’s quiet and has a low heat signature.

Underwater solar power -- A solar cell that can be used in water usually loses efficiency because water filters the sunlight to the blue end of the spectrum. Naval researchers are “tuning” photovoltaic cells to use that filtered sunlight to power underwater unmanned vehicles and sensors. The project uses semiconductors designed for use in space to take advantage of the bluer underwater spectrum. Eventually, the underwater cells will provide continuous power for longer remote sensor missions up to 20 meters underwater. That will eliminate the need to replace or recharge conventional batteries.

Flight-deck cleaning system -- Cleaning an aircraft carrier’s flight deck takes a lot of time and people. It’s necessary to remove debris, fuel, oil and hydraulic fluids, but using sailors armed with mops and brushes wears down the non-skid surfaces, and saltwater used in the scrub-down corrodes metal parts. Now, the Navy has a Zamboni-like system that uses recycled freshwater, without detergents, to rinse the flight deck in a closed-cycle vacuum recovery system. It will speed up flight-deck cleaning operations, cost less and eliminate the environmental impact of detergents. The system was tested on the carrier Abraham Lincoln and amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard earlier this year.

Green goals

The Navy’s five energy targets for the next decade:

*When awarding contracts, consider how much energy a building or ship will use.

*Demonstrate a “green” strike group in local operations by 2012 and deploy it by 2016.

*By 2015, reduce petroleum in the Navy’s commercial vehicle fleet by 50 percent, adding flex-fuels and electric vehicles

*By 2020, produce at least half of the Navy’s shore-based energy requirements from renewable sources

*By 2020, use alternative energy sources for at least 40 percent of the Navy’s total energy needs, including ships, tanks, planes, and shore installations. (Currently the Navy uses 17 percent renewable energy.)