Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_UH-1Y_4516-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-35B_5220-1.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_1778-1.jpg

Yuma_17_PT-17_3864-1.jpg
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; Originally Posted by StobieWan What's the reasoning behind wanting SSK's, put it that way? If there's a specific mission, let's ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 4.00 average.
Old 6 Days Ago   #2146
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post

What's the reasoning behind wanting SSK's, put it that way? If there's a specific mission, let's have at it - if it's "more numbers for less money" I say not so..
its also not a capability issue - some of the prev debate was that conventionals were better in the green - and thats just not the case for USN nukes. their sensor arrays to go into shallow waters are far better than the majority if not all of the conventionals - and they can do it because decent sensors and fitouts are energy hungry - and the only conventionals that can start competing on having decent onboard energy to power better systems are the large fleet conventionals such as owned by Australia and Japan

the nuke/conevntional debates from 5-10 years ago just don't fly anymore
________________
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 5 Days Ago   #2147
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 273
Threads:
Re the SSK vs SSN debate, the MITRE argues it's case and the Navy prompltly shoots it down.


https://news.usni.org/2017/03/13/set...-navy-platform

One debate came over whether a mainstay of the fleet – the nuclear-powered attack submarine – should continue to be the sole manned undersea platform for fighting a high-end conventional war. MITRE argued in its report that the Navy should invest in diesel submarines to supplement the Virginia-class boats, creating a more affordable high-low mix.


“Our concern was on the capacity side and actually bringing up the number of attack submarines,” Sunoy Banerjee, manager for MITRE’s Naval Research Development Test & Evaluation portfolio, said at the hearing.
“The diesels are going to have issues with speed of advance and magazine depth, they don’t have the magazine depth as they have in the Virginia [class]. But our thought was, base them forward – base them in Guam and Japan or in the Baltics – so they are close to the fight. And when the balloon goes up, flush them out early because it’s going to take them a while to get there. And the Virginias and the nuclear subs that are deploying from [the continental United States] or from other locations can speed into the [area of responsibility] and get on station very quickly. Once they’re on station, [diesel submarines are] something the adversary is going to have to worry about, so the thought there was this is a way of actually increasing the size of the submarine force relatively cheaply – because our back-of-the-envelope math suggests you can get three diesels for the cost of one Virginia – so as a way of increasing quickly to try to overcome the loss of the Los Angeles class as they retire out of the force.”






A Navy representative – speaking on behalf of the Navy FFA study group, and not the Navy requirements community – however, firmly denounced that idea.

“We don’t have the luxury of fighting close to our shore. We play an away game,” Charles Werchado, the deputy director of the Navy’s assessments division (OPNAV N81) said.
“If I was a country like China, I would buy a lot of diesels because I know you’re going to come and fight me here at home. We have to deploy, and the only way to deploy is to bring your own fuel with you. When we buy a Virginia, it comes with a lifetime of fuel. So I have nothing against diesel submarines, but you have to say, am I’m going to be fighting within 200 miles of where I’m based at? Or else now I have to buy extra oilers. I’m going to make them vulnerable when I refuel them; they’re going to have to snorkel and they’ll become vulnerable. It’s just not an option for us as long as we have to be a global navy.”
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #2148
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,220
Threads:
Following the logic in the USN response Australia should have gone for SSNs years ago. The three SSKs for one Virginia is probably a furphy as well unless they are talking a very very basic boats with extremely limited capabilities. Big boats with high end combat systems cost a lot no matter how they are powered.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #2149
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
a cogent lesson on the issue of logistics....

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/17/u-s...eid=d7b25005c6
________________
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 4 Days Ago   #2150
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,763
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
a cogent lesson on the issue of logistics....

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/17/u-s...eid=d7b25005c6
Agreed and not to forget the total interoperability experienced by the RAN and USN during the CFA deployments to 7th Fleet during VN
In Subic we were given carte Blanche and this was returned in kind by RAN technical sailors often called to repair USN defects. These were the days when technical training was superb and many USN units were manned in large part by conscripts.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #2151
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 504
Threads:
USN SSK v SSN

Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
a cogent lesson on the issue of logistics....

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/17/u-s...eid=d7b25005c6
If you take a good look at the Force structure survey from 10/16 it looks like the USN plans to augment the SSN fleet with classes of UUVs. Large and medium UUVs will be able to preform offensive and defensive operations autonomously or in concert with an SSN. (Think manned unmanned pairing like the US Army is. Is doing with the AH64 and Grey Eagle.).

Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This large (~90 ton submerged displacement) pier- launched autonomous vehicle will be capable of transiting to preprogrammed points with a large payload volume (~1,300 ft3). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
• Medium Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This is an autonomous vehicle capable of conducting pre-programmed independent operations once launched from a surface or subsurface host platform or shore facility.
• Unmanned Surface Vehicle: Similar to the UUV, this large (~80 ft length) pier-launched or well deck-launched autonomous vehicle can transit (200-300 NM) following pre- programmed points with a large payload capacity (~6,500 lbs). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point (pier or well deck) for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #2152
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger25 View Post
If you take a good look at the Force structure survey from 10/16 it looks like the USN plans to augment the SSN fleet with classes of UUVs. Large and medium UUVs will be able to preform offensive and defensive operations autonomously or in concert with an SSN. (Think manned unmanned pairing like the US Army is. Is doing with the AH64 and Grey Eagle.).

Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This large (~90 ton submerged displacement) pier- launched autonomous vehicle will be capable of transiting to preprogrammed points with a large payload volume (~1,300 ft3). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
• Medium Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This is an autonomous vehicle capable of conducting pre-programmed independent operations once launched from a surface or subsurface host platform or shore facility.
• Unmanned Surface Vehicle: Similar to the UUV, this large (~80 ft length) pier-launched or well deck-launched autonomous vehicle can transit (200-300 NM) following pre- programmed points with a large payload capacity (~6,500 lbs). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point (pier or well deck) for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
I was lucky enough to see some of the early USV/UUV developments in Hawai'i about 10 years ago

at that stage they were trialling an unmanned asset the size of a large family car (in volume and dimensions)
________________
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 2 Days Ago   #2153
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Fast-Tracked Ramjet Provides Deep-Strike Capability - solid-fuel ramjet engine back at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD)

Fast-Tracked Ramjet Provides Deep-Strike Capability
________________
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 2 Days Ago   #2154
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,731
Threads:
From the same site there is this article summarizing 3 emerging technologies, any one of which could be a game changer for the USN. Add in the solid fuel ramjet and I'd say the USN's future is looking good.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-programs.html

Last edited by John Fedup; 2 Days Ago at 07:19 AM. Reason: Forgot link
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #2155
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 273
Threads:
Much speculation that the DDG 1000 is the preferred platform to field test a EMRG. The Navy is looking at the DDG 51 Flt IIA to host a laser weapon. If successful one could envision a subsequent roll out to the DDG fleet.

USN plans accelerated laser weapon fit on DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer | IHS Jane's 360

USN plans accelerated laser weapon fit on DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer


Key Points:
Seasaber Increment 1 will consist of a minimum 60 kW-class High Energy Laser along with counter-ISR dazzling capability

The USN plans to fit Seasaber Increment 1 on board a DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer in the fiscal year 2020 timeframe


A fast-track plan is being developed by the US Navy (USN) with the aim of deploying a laser weapon system on a DDG-51 Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer in the 2020 timeframe.

An initial request for information (RFI) for what the navy refers to as Seasaber Increment 1 was released by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on 22 February.
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 PM.