New Paint May End Color Mismatch of Some U.S. Navy Ships

"Haze gray and underway" has been a mantra of U.S. Navy warships for decades, and the sight of a sleek warship sliding across the ocean has stirred many a sailor's heart.

THE CRUISER SAN Jacinto shows the effect of the current paint used on U.S. Navy ships, and how it often dries to different shades of gray. (Christopher P. Cavas / Staff)

But a lot of those greyhounds of the sea start looking a bit poorly up close. Various shades of haze gray appear as patches of dark gray, light gray, tannish gray. Here and there might be patches of green-gray. Sometimes, if a ship has received a lot of touch-up work, there might be a dozen or so different grays.

Worst of all, some parts of a ship might not appear gray at all but look downright pink.

"What you are noticing is indeed true," admitted Mark Ingle, the Naval Sea System Command (NAVSEA) technical authority for paint.

"The way the pink happens is a function of time, weather and ultraviolet radiation," Ingle said. "There are an infinite number of variations on the pink theme, depending on the conditions."

The phenomenon has existed since the mid-1990s, when heat-reducing paints, called low solar absorbance (LSA) paints, were introduced. The pinking problem arrived with the LSAs and, ever since, ships' crews have struggled to keep their floating homes looking spiffy.

But help is on the way. A new type of paint is being introduced fleetwide, and before too long, the Navy hopes, its ships will regain their luster, sailors will find it easier to keep their ships looking smart and some money can be saved.

The new paint - "Type 5" in Navy-speak - is called polysiloxane.

"It's basically an epoxy-functionality paint with siloxane groups grafted on that make it extraordinarily resistant to chalking, weathering degradation," Ingle said.

In English, please? a reporter asked.

"It's an extremely hard, wear-resistant coating," Ingle explained.

The new stuff eliminates the pinking problem, he said. And if it gets scuffed or banged up, it's designed to be cleaned, not repainted.

The new paint, Ameron PSX-700 from PPG Industries, Pittsburgh, was developed as an anti-graffiti coating and, rather than painting over rough spots, the Navy hopes that eventually most stains will come off with a power-wash.

Several ships have tested the new paint, including the amphibious ships Ponce, Kearsarge, Boxer and Bonhomme Richard, cruiser Antietam, aircraft carrier Nimitz, and even the museum battleship Missouri at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

The new paint, Ingle said, "supports the fact that the Navy has moved toward less repainting, longer service life, longer docking intervals."

The polysiloxane is "very good for the environment, with very low volatile organic compound levels. And they are very popular. Ships want to use them all the time.

"We are in the process of these being the required paint for use in the Navy to avoid the pinking problem and save the money of having to repaint because of cosmetic color shifting of paints," he added.

But unlike the old silicone alkyd paint that comes in a can and is stirred, the Type 5 paint comes in two cylinders that are squeezed together to mix polysiloxane and epoxy glue.

"We have these two cartridges, like a double-barreled caulking gun," Ingle said. "The cartridges are fitted together and squeeze out into baffles, which mix the paint so that it comes out as a properly-mixed product ready to be applied. It uses a gun similar to a caulking gun."

Ships in overhaul availabilities already are getting the new paint, he said, and fleet technical manuals are being updated to include procedures and policies for using the cartridges.

"Sailors have never had a two-pack topside paint before," he noted, but "eventually everyone will have the two-pack systems."

The paint is available from three manufacturers: PXLE-80 from Sherwin Williams, PSX-700 from PPG and Interfine 979 from International Paint.

The new Type 5 paint costs roughly twice as much as older paints, Ingle said, "about $70 to $100 a gallon for the new paint, versus about $30 to $60 a gallon for the Type 2 or 3 LSA."

But since ships will not need to be painted as often, the paint should save money. The Office of Naval Research, working on the Future Naval Capabilities' Topside Coating program, estimates the polysiloxane will save about $153 million over 30 years.

The paint already has been in widespread use in the Coast Guard.

"The Coast Guard has been using polysiloxane for years and has had tremendous success," Ingle said. "How often do you see different shades on a Coast Guard cutter? Running rust?"

To assist sailors in using the new paint, Corrosion Control Assist Teams come pierside and provide the equipment to do a paint job.

Ingle likened it to a lending library. "The crew comes down and takes out what they need - five needle guns, two grinders, etc," he said.

A major goal is to minimize the amount of paint carried on a ship, said Stephen Melsom, NAVSEA's program manager for fleet corrosion control.

"There are hazards associated" with paint stowage, Melsom said. "I'd like to go from them having this paint locker and just having touchup kits if you will. So when you need the touch-up, they can inject it from the twin-tube system. Get away from all that stowage on the ship."

NAVSEA is working with the Naval Research Laboratory to develop a new, low-pressure, electrically driven power washer to clean polysiloxane surfaces.

"We're not talking about washing the entire ship at one time but a portion of the ship," Melsom explained. "Take a power washer with a brush scrubber, not that different than what you'd use at home on a deck, to get the salts off."

A corrosion control manager is also being designated aboard each ship.

"It's typically a senior enlisted sailor," Melsom said. "They're getting trained, and they'll be taught on polysiloxane and other things they need to do to make corrosion control a way of life."

The new paint is proving extremely popular, Melsom reported.

"Ships are asking where they can get it. They understand there is a difference," he said. "And when you see the difference between the new paint and the old paint, it's pretty evident."

China Criticizes New U.S. Defense Policy

BEIJING - Beijing said Jan. 9 that a new U.S. defense strategy focused on countering China's rising power was based on "groundless" charges, and insisted it posed no threat to any nation.

U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled the strategy Jan. 5, calling for a leaner U.S. military focused on the Asia-Pacific region and signaling a shift away from large ground wars against insurgents.

But China, whose People's Liberation Army has benefited from a huge and expanding budget boosted by the nation's rapid economic growth, said the fears were baseless, urging the U.S. to "play a more constructive role."

"The charges against China in this document are groundless and untrustworthy," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said in response to a question from state media about whether China poses a threat to U.S. security.

Liu was referring to the strategy document released last week, which said the growth of China's military power "must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region."

"To maintain the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region serves the common interest of all countries within the region," Liu added. "We hope the U.S. side will play a more constructive role to this end."

Washington's focus on Asia is fueled by concerns over China's growing navy and its arsenal of anti-ship missiles that could jeopardize U.S. military dominance in the Pacific. China's responses to recent U.S. moves to boost its military presence in Asia - including the deployment of up to 2,500 Marines to northern Australia - have so far been restrained.

China's official Xinhua news agency said Jan. 6 it welcomed a bigger U.S. presence in Asia as "conducive to regional stability and prosperity," while urging it against "warmongering."

China "adheres to the path of peaceful development, upholds an independent foreign policy of peace and a defense policy that is defensive in nature," Liu said. "Our national defense modernization serves the objective requirements of national security and development and also plays an active role in maintaining regional peace and security. It will not pose any threat to any country."

Qatar, Kuwait Await UAE's Move on Rafale

PARIS - Qatar and Kuwait are interested in buying French Rafale fighter jets but are waiting to see whether the United Arab Emirates will make a purchase first, France's defense minister said Jan. 9.

"They are, in effect, interested but they won't know for sure until the first one jumps in," minister Gerard Longuet said, adding that he hoped the UAE, which is talks with France to buy 60 Rafales, would make a decision "within a time frame that will allow its two neighbors, which hope to be interoperable with the Emirates, to make decisions."

Industry experts have estimated that Kuwait needs 18 to 22 new fighter jets and that Qatar needs 24.

After opening talks on the purchase in 2008, the UAE said in November that the offer for Rafales from France's Dassault Aviation was uncompetitive and opened up the tender to competition.

France has raised concerns over the future of the Rafale program, which has struggled to find foreign buyers to support a project that has so far cost more than 40 billion euros ($51 billion).

Longuet warned in December that production on the multirole fighter could halt if it remains unable to sell any abroad.

Israel Hikes Defense Spending By $700 Million

JERUSALEM - Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu announced Jan. 8 an increase of nearly $700 million in the defense budget, after saying last year that he would cut military spending to finance social reforms.

"We are going to add three million shekels to the defense budget," Netanyahu said at a news conference.

Netanyahu had in October supported the recommendations of a report he commissioned, by respected economist Manuel Trajtenberg, which were intended to address rising frustrations about the cost of living and income disparity in the Jewish state that triggered mass protests last year.

One of the Trajtenberg report's proposals was to cut a defense budget that amounts to around $14 billion, of which $3 billion comes in annual U.S. military aid, to finance a series of social initiatives without increasing the deficit.

"I have reflected on this question, but in view of what has happened in the region, I have reached the conclusion that cutting the defense budget would be a mistake, even a big mistake," Netanyahu said.

"Any sensible person can see what is happening around us. ... All these changes have strategic implications for the national security of the state of Israel, for our ability to face the new challenges and instability," he told a weekly cabinet meeting, according to a statement from his office.

The Israeli army "is the shield of the country, which is why we must increase its means," he added.

The prime minister said that in return for the spending increase, the defense ministry would have to respect the principle of transparency, which would allow the government to monitor the management of the budget.

"In the past, we discovered things late, whereas now we will become aware of them in real time," Netanyahu said.

Israel's cabinet in October approved the recommended economic reforms outlined by the 267-page Trajtenberg report, which covered housing, competitiveness, social services, education and taxation.

Keep Investing in Stealthy ISR

A big danger with having sophisticated military systems is that you run the risk of losing them if you use them.

That appears to be the case with the U.S. Air Force RQ-170 Sentinel, the remotely operated reconnaissance aircraft that was recently lost over Iran. The stealthy aircraft, built by Lockheed Martin, entered service about a decade ago and has seen duty over hot spots worldwide since.

The United States has been using manned and unmanned aircraft for this mission for decades; the RQ-170 is only the latest that allows the United States to see into denied airspace.

The loss of any advanced aircraft poses special risks because it exposes its materials and technologies to enemy scientists and engineers. Now that the Iranians have the Sentinel - especially since it appears to have come into their possession largely intact - it's only a matter of time before China, North Korea and others learn about the UAV's stealth coatings, airframe structures and materials, sensors and electronic components, flight controls and more.

The Air Force is trying to learn as much as possible from the loss, such as why the plane lost signal and how it came to be recovered in one piece.

But more important, it must learn how to guard against such a dangerous loss of technology in the future. Such aircraft must be fitted with physical and electronic self-destruct mechanisms that will obliterate anything of interest as soon as it falls into enemy hands.

Last, the inherent value of having the kind of technology that makes an RQ-170 possible is a critical U.S. advantage in warfare. As defense budgets decline, continuing robust investment in advanced stealth, sensor and reconnaissance technologies is crucial to maintaining America's strategic and tactical advantages.

The Missile Defense Answer to Iran

As the past three years have shown, President Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush, don't often see eye-to-eye on foreign policy. On at least one issue, however, the two appear to be in full agreement. Both have stated clearly and repeatedly that the radical, revolutionary regime that rules Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

And yet, neither the current president nor the previous one made serious headway on this most serious of national security challenges.

The time to do so is running out. As the most recent International Atomic Energy Agency report makes painfully clear, Iran is perilously close to crossing the nuclear threshold, and its intentions are anything but peaceful. The U.S. desperately needs a strategy to keep the fingers of Iran's ayatollahs off the nuclear trigger. For a nuclear-armed Iran - oil-rich, bellicose and ambitious - would change the 21st century in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Those who don't believe we can stop Iran from crossing the nuclear Rubicon, as well as those who minimize the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, have taken to talking about "containment." But the clerical regime that rules Tehran will not be as easy to keep in a box as was the Soviet Union.

The leaders of the Soviet empire may have been evil, but they were not irrational. As a result, they chose to abide by the "balance of terror" that emerged over time with the U.S., backing away from thermonuclear confrontation even as they competed with America for primacy in the political theaters of Latin America, Africa and beyond.

Whether Iran will be willing to honor such a bargain is very much an open question. At least one segment of the Iranian leadership ascribes to a radical revisionist (even apocalyptic) world-view, one which requires and embraces confrontation with the West.

And while Iran's clerical army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, casts a growing shadow over politics within the Islamic Republic, recent provocations, such as the botched attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabia's envoy to the U.S. in Washington, suggest the Guards themselves are anything but risk averse.

All of this implies that we will be forced to rely on more than deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction to contain Iran. We also will need to make it as difficult as possible for the Iranians to use nuclear weapons, or even to credibly threaten to do so.

This can only be achieved by developing, as an integral component of a containment regime, a comprehensive missile defense system composed of space-based, sea-based and land-based defenses. Such a system would make it doubtful, if not impossible, for Iran to successfully fire a missile against the American homeland, American troops abroad or America's allies and be confident that the weapon would reach its intended victims.

Fortunately, the U.S. has the ability to defend against this threat. Since at least the early 1990s, America has possessed the technological know-how to erect a comprehensive national defense against enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. But for just as long, we have lacked the political will to do so.

Today, the state of affairs is much the same. The four-phase missile defense plan unveiled by the White House in September 2009 has a good deal to commend it, including major investments in sea-based defenses and the protection of allies abroad.

But it also suffers from potentially fatal deficiencies, chief among them the fact that it mortgages defense of the U.S. homeland until 2016 or later, when Obama will no longer be in office, even if he wins re-election next November. By doing so, it leaves the U.S. a provocatively weak and inviting target to adversaries who seek to do us harm, Iran chief among them.

Policymakers in Washington are hotly debating what, exactly, should be done to thwart the Islamic Republic and its stubborn quest for a nuclear capability. As they do, they should focus on missile defense as part of the logical answer. Anyone who seriously favors containment must also seriously favor comprehensive missile defense as a way of ensuring that Tehran's opportunities for aggression are limited. But others should favor this course of action as well.

Of course, it would be best to stop Iran's drive for nuclear weapons or to see the current regime replaced by one less bellicose. And it would be good to slow Iran's drive to nuclear weapons for as long as possible. But should all else fail, contingency plans must be in place to better protect Americans from the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, which is now on the verge of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons. America has the means to defend itself from Iranian nuclear missiles; it just needs to make such a plan a reality.

Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council. Clifford May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Both are members of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.

U.S. Navy Frees Iranian Sailors from Pirates

The fishing dhow Al Molai looks like hundreds of similar craft plying the waters of the Arabian Sea.

A BOARDING TEAM from the destroyer Kidd approaches the dhow Al Molai to free a group of Iranian sailors held hostage by pirates (U.S. Navy)

For about six weeks, the fishing boat moved around attracting little attention, its average appearance masking evil intentions.

The picture of innocence began to change Jan. 5.In reality, the vessel and its crew of Iranian sailors was being held hostage by pirates. The Al Molai became a mother ship for smaller boats apparently carrying Somalis bent on attacking merchant ships.

The end of the Al Molai's pirate career began when the Bahamas-registered cargo ship Sunrise issued a distress call around 8:30 a.m. A group of suspected pirates in a small, 15-foot open skiff was, according to the master of the Sunrise, attacking his ship.

The nearby U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis heard the radio call and dispatched the escorting cruiser Mobile Bay to move in. When an MH-60S helicopter from Helicopter Anti-submarine Squadron 8, Detachment 1 operating from the cruiser approached, the six people aboard the skiff tossed a number of objects in the water.

"We suspected the objects to be RPGs [rocket-propelled grenade launchers] and rifles," Rear Adm. Craig Faller, commander of the John C. Stennis carrier strike group, told reporters during a conference call from his flagship on Jan. 6.

According to Faller, the suspected pirates surrendered to the helicopter. The cruiser moved in and sent over a boarding team, but no direct evidence was found to hold the Somalis. Despite being found about 175 miles at sea, southeast of Muscat, Oman, the skiff's sailors feigned innocence.

"They told us they were operating in the area for fun," Faller said. "We didn't think so."

Released, the suspected pirates set off on a course for an unknown destination. The helicopter followed at a distance. Soon, the small boat approached an Iranian-flagged dhow. The destroyer Kidd, patrolling in the region against pirates since mid-November, was vectored in, and its embarked MH-60R helicopter from Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71, Detachment 3, took over from the Mobile Bay's helo.

Asked by reporters on the conference call if it was clear it a pirate situation was at hand, Cmdr. Jennifer Ellinger, the destroyer's commanding officer, was confident.

"Yes, definitely," she said.

The helicopters "observed there were Middle Eastern as well as Somalis on board the craft," Ellinger said. "But when we talked bridge-to-bridge they indicated they were Iranian and there were no foreigners aboard, which we knew not to be true," she said.

The dhow's master spoke to the Americans over the radio in Urdu, a language widely spoken in Pakistan. The pirates were unable to follow along, but an Urdu-speaker aboard the Kidd had no trouble translating.

"When we talked to the master, it was clear he was under duress," Ellinger said. "He said they were physically abused, they were scared. They invited us to come over. We reassured them that we would be on the way."

According to Ellinger, the master told the pirates the Americans were coming on board and they knew they were there.

"He convinced them to surrender," she said.

The destroyer drew up to the dhow with guns manned and ready. "Basically it was a forceful approach," Ellinger said. "We asked them all to come topside and surrender their weapons."

The pirates put down their weapons but then tried to hide. When the American boarding team arrived, the master helpfully pointed out all the hiding places, and 15 suspected pirates were taken into custody without any shots being fired.

The 13 freed Iranian fishermen were ecstatic.

"We brought food and meals," Ellinger said. "They had no refrigerator, it was broken. They were relying on fishing to get food, although the pirates had some fruit and provisions."

The Iranian sailors "were extremely grateful," Ellinger said. "Their morale continued to increase as we removed the Somali pirates."

The pirates were transferred on Jan. 6 to the Stennis, where they were still being held on Jan. 7.

"The pirates are under our custody and evidence is being gathered," Faller said. "This will be referred to the interagency in the U.S. to determine what will occur."

The pirates would be treated appropriately, Faller told reporters. "As bad as they are, they deserve humane treatment like any person."

Provisioned with food and wearing Kidd ball caps, the Iranians sailed off to return to their home port.

UNAWARE OF CONTROVERSY

Faller said neither the Iranian fishermen nor the pirates seemed to have any awareness of the recent tensions between Iran and the U.S. over transits of the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

Shortly after the Stennis left the Gulf earlier this week, Iran's Army chief threatened the U.S. Navy and declared that the carrier would not be allowed back in. The threat was issued at the conclusion of a major 10-day Iranian naval exercise, and as new economic sanctions were slapped on Iran by the U.S. and other Western nations.

Despite the heated rhetoric from Tehran, the U.S. has sought to downplay the situation. Asked if the U.S. was exploiting the rescue of the Iranian sailors for publicity reasons, Faller was adamant.

"No sir. We didn't have a vision we'd be on a conference call tonight talking about it," he said during the conference call.

"The Navy is just doing its job out here. Conducting combat operations over Afghanistan and maintaining freedom of the sea."

No response to the rescue has been received from Iran, Faller said, although he acknowledged his forces have recently encountered Iranians.

"We have had interactions at sea with Iranian aircraft and surface ships," he said. "Those interactions have all been professional."

He did not provide further details.

Asked if the Stennis might go back through Hormuz, Faller gave the standard response.

"The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait, and by international law is subject to freedom of navigation," he said. "If it means moving back through the strait that's what we'll do. Right now it's business as usual as we focus on operations over Afghanistan."

"The U.S. Navy has been here for over 60 years," Faller added, "and we'll be here as long as we're needed. On call and ready."