Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


US Navy News and updates

This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I remember this getting discussed in the final days I was on StratPage - we argued long and loud that ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 4.00 average.
Old September 5th, 2015   #1651
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
I remember this getting discussed in the final days I was on StratPage - we argued long and loud that a BM sinking a static target at sea was not a valid test.

if you want to test it then it needs to be an "aware" vessel moving at speed and under guidance to avoid (ie jinking)

that can be tested if you're committed enough

a static kill is not a real world test

re the pershing guidance, that was certainly the case with respect to the development of the indian SRBM, IRBM, TBM's and the core development eas actually a pershing missile - nit just its guidance system
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2015   #1652
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Manila
Posts: 238
Threads:
How to account for the different crater sizes?
barney41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2015   #1653
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney41 View Post
How to account for the different crater sizes?
crater sizes are due to issues of topography and yield

a variation on either will make a difference.

+ its a test area - so it will be cratered from other weapons anyway - I'd bet that higher resolution sat imagery would shows that the site has been cratered before and that it has fill ins from prev tests
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2015   #1654
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 553
Threads:
US, Japan set up SOSUS line

The USN and Japanese Self Defense forces are working to establish a SOSUS line to detect PLAN naval movements




Japan, U.S. running undersea listening post to detect Chinese subs | The Japan Times
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015   #1655
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,011
Threads:
The four Rota based Burkes are getting SeaRAM upgrades to provide self defense capability while they are in BMD mode.

Navy Integrating SeaRAM on Rota-Based DDGs; First Installation Complete In November - USNI News
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015   #1656
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Manila
Posts: 238
Threads:
SeaRAM also recently launched successfully from LCS for the first time.

For the long term, the Navy and Raytheon have achieved a major milestone in the AMDR Program. The new radar will be installed on new Flight III Burkes. Curious if it will be possible to retrofit it into earlier builds? In any case, in a networked CEC environment a single AMDR's view of the battlespace would be fused and shared with other friendlies.


US Navy completes CDR of Raytheon’s air and missile defence radar - Naval Technology
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stor...-raytheon.html
barney41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2015   #1657
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
Blackshoe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 263
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post
The four Rota based Burkes are getting SeaRAM upgrades to provide self defense capability while they are in BMD mode.

Navy Integrating SeaRAM on Rota-Based DDGs; First Installation Complete In November - USNI News
I've been waiting for them to do that for a long time. Fantastic move, and makes perfect sense.

Logical answer to me is they replace MT21 and leave 22, but that's just a guess.

As the story notes, software integration will be interesting to work out, but that's what Dahlgren's for, right?
Blackshoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2015   #1658
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,011
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshoe View Post
I've been waiting for them to do that for a long time. Fantastic move, and makes perfect sense.

Logical answer to me is they replace MT21 and leave 22, but that's just a guess.

As the story notes, software integration will be interesting to work out, but that's what Dahlgren's for, right?
I'm not sure there will be much software integration, SEA RAM is being installed as a completely stand alone system while the ships are running BMD software.

My least favorite phrase "Well, it worked in Dahlgren!".
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2015   #1659
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 553
Threads:
USN accepts sixth LCS

The Navy has accepted the third Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship Milwaukee (LCS-5) in a Friday ceremony, the service announced.

The 3,400-ton ship is the sixth LCS overall to enter Navy service and will commission in Milwaukee before transiting to its homeport at Naval Station San Diego, Calif.

The ship will join USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) and Austal USA built ships USS Independence (LCS-2), USS Coronado (LCS-4) and the soon-to-be-commissioned Jackson (LCS-6) in San Diego following its Nov. 21 commissioning.

Milwaukee completed and passed its acceptance trials in mid-September during a five-day trial period in the Great Lakes near the Marinette Marine Shipyard in Wisconsin.

When the ship commissions in November it will be the first ship to enter the service from a 2010 $8.9 billion block-buy deal between Austal USA and Lockheed Martin for 20 LCS — 10 of each variant.
“With each LCS delivered, we have succeeded in driving down costs by incorporating lessons learned to provide the Navy with a highly capable and flexible ship,” said LCS program manager Capt. Tom Anderson in a Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) statement.
“We are honored to place the Milwaukee in the able hands of her crew as they set sail for the ship’s commissioning.”

Freedom-Class Littoral Combat Ship Milwaukee Delivers to Navy - USNI News
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2015   #1660
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
FormerDirtDart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
Threads:
LCS To Get Missiles for Next Deployment

A directive has been issued for the installation of an unspecified over the horizon missile aboard the Freedom and the Coronado, the next two LCSs scheduled for deployment to the Western Pacific during 2016.

Quote:
“The objective is to install the OTH missile system aboard all in-service LCS deploying to forward operating stations starting in fiscal year 2016,” Rear Adm. Pete Fanta (director of surface warfare at the Pentagon) wrote in the directive, “as well as on all under-construction LCS prior to their commissioning ceremonies.”
A specific missile was not identified, initial installations are understood to be the Harpoon and Kongsberg NSM. According to sources, each ship will have a different system installed, though there is no requirement to fully integrate the missiles with the LCS' fire control system

The OTH system will be considered part of the surface warfare package, and might also be carried when the anti-submarine warfare package is embarked. However, weight constraints will preclude carrying the missiles, when the mine countermeasure module is embarked.
FormerDirtDart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2015   #1661
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Manila
Posts: 238
Threads:
In terms of affordability, Harpoon may have a significant advantage.The Navy has them in inventory and spending $600K to upgrade existing stock looks like a good deal.

OTOH, NSM is stealthy and has evasive maneuveeing to confound defenses.


Navy League 2015: Boeing developing kit to upgrade Harpoon missiles for extended range - IHS Jane's 360
barney41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2015   #1662
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,415
Threads:
Interesting, I wonder if the launch canisters will eventually be integrated with the mission module systems of the LCS.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2015   #1663
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Manila
Posts: 238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Interesting, I wonder if the launch canisters will eventually be integrated with the mission module systems of the LCS.
Makes sense, maybe when they make up their mind on which missile to adopt. In the meantime, the Navy may reintroduce AShM capability aboard it's subs.


U.S. Navy Considering Adding Anti-Ship Missiles Back to Submarine Force - USNI News
barney41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2015   #1664
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
FormerDirtDart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
Threads:
I came across some art from Kongsberg at USNI News depicting possible launcher positions on the seperate LCS models.
LCS NSM mount 60.jpg

One thing I noted on the Independence-class mounting (left) is that their depiction seems to indicate the desire to leave the forward module bay free for the vertical launched Hellfire surface to surface missile module (SSMM)
(remember, this bay is originally designed to only accommodate the 6 1/2 ft (2m) tall NLOS missile canisters)

For the Freedom-class (right), the only other location that I can think of to mount the launchers & possible reduce the ships signature, would be to put them in the topside decoy/chaff launcher/liferaft bay (just forward of the Mk 44 module bays). There is already hull openings (for the liferaft canisters) that could likely used for missile exhaust ports.
I figure the decoy/chaff launcher could possibly be moved a little aft, adjacent to the SSMM bay (just aft of the Mk 44 bays).
But I assume you might also need to consider the additional weight being mounted that high up on the ship having some effect during high speed maneuvering, as additional Kongsberg literature I've seen states that an 8 missile mounting configuration weighs around 17,000 lbs (7700 kilo). And, this might be even worse with a Harpoon launcher as a Harpoon weighs about 70% more than the NSM.

I included a larger version of the above image
Attached Images
File Type: png LCS NSM mount.png (229.3 KB, 7 views)
FormerDirtDart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2015   #1665
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 553
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerDirtDart View Post
I came across some art from Kongsberg at USNI News depicting possible launcher positions on the seperate LCS models.
Attachment 6591

One thing I noted on the Independence-class mounting (left) is that their depiction seems to indicate the desire to leave the forward module bay free for the vertical launched Hellfire surface to surface missile module (SSMM)
(remember, this bay is originally designed to only accommodate the 6 1/2 ft (2m) tall NLOS missile canisters)

For the Freedom-class (right), the only other location that I can think of to mount the launchers & possible reduce the ships signature, would be to put them in the topside decoy/chaff launcher/liferaft bay (just forward of the Mk 44 module bays). There is already hull openings (for the liferaft canisters) that could likely used for missile exhaust ports.
I figure the decoy/chaff launcher could possibly be moved a little aft, adjacent to the SSMM bay (just aft of the Mk 44 bays).
But I assume you might also need to consider the additional weight being mounted that high up on the ship having some effect during high speed maneuvering, as additional Kongsberg literature I've seen states that an 8 missile mounting configuration weighs around 17,000 lbs (7700 kilo). And, this might be even worse with a Harpoon launcher as a Harpoon weighs about 70% more than the NSM.

I included a larger version of the above image
Yes, and the NSM was successfully tested this past summer. I think the. Over makes great sense and is in line with the CNO's intent of using off the shelf tech to increase and distribute lethality.

The NSM is ready now, the new block II Harpoon, to my knowledge, is still not in production
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42 PM.