US Navy News and updates

[barney41]

The Navy is exploring the possibility of arming new LPDs with missiles for ASuW and AAW. This could possibly come in the form of the Mk-41 VLS or perhaps a dec-mounted box launcher eg, BAE's Systems Adaptable Deck Launcher. The latter could more readily be retrofitted to current ships in the Gator fleet as part of the Distributed Lethality concept.


Navy, Marine Leadership Looking at LPD Flight II Missiles, Additional Virginia-class Buys - USNI News

 

[barney41]

Sea Hunter has joined the fleet under a cloud of secrecy as to it's tech capabilities. Previous reports had quoted it's cost as $20M but that seems way too low as the contract for the follow-on vessel's hull alone is $43.5M. Still a bargain though compared to manned ships doing the ASW mission

Sea Hunter Anti-Submarine Vessel Joins Naval Fleet; Nevin Carr Comments


Leidos’ Sea Hunter autonomous anti-submarine vessel has passed nearly two years of testing with the U.S. Navy and joined the service’s fleet of warships, CNBC reported Wednesday.

The report said almost all of Sea Hunter’s elements are now classified.

Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, vice president and Navy strategic account executive at Leidos, stated that Sea Hunter will be used alongside naval vessels instead of competing with them...


The Navy awarded a potential three-year, $43.5 million to the Virginia-based firm in December 2017 to develop a hull structure for the second Sea Hunter vessel.

 

[John Fedup]

Short article on the contenders for the USN frigate, nothing new. HI has not announced its design choice but as it has to be a working design will it be a duplicate offer on one of the other contenders or something else (maybe Iver Huitfeldt)?

Sizing up the US Navy’s future Guided Missile Frigate designs - Naval Technology

 

[barney41]

Curious as to why HI is playing it coy. Unless, of course they think a NSC-based platform isn't competitive.


National Security Cutter as America's New Frigate - Navy General Board

 

[John Fedup]

Does seem odd HI wouldn't just say so. From a cost perspective it has to very competitive against the Littoral candidates unless the modifications needed for the weapons add-ons are cost prohibitive.

 

[barney41]

The article quotes the NSC costing $680M prior to mods and add-ons. This would appear to put it at the high end cost-wise vs the competition.

 

[barney41]

A video on the recent Navy League's Sea-Air-Space 2018 Exposition including coverage of FFG-X contenders and some of the offensive and defensive tech being proposed.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.ph...-ffg-x-future-u-s-navy-frigate-programme.html

 

[StingrayOZ]

NSC at $680m is probably inline or even a fair bit cheaper than a FREMM or F-105 similarly spec'd. It is probably a realistic price.

The LCS proposals I think are really about comparing the LCS design to something in this role and I assume neither will win.

 

[Joe Black]

NSC at $680m is probably inline or even a fair bit cheaper than a FREMM or F-105 similarly spec'd. It is probably a realistic price.

The LCS proposals I think are really about comparing the LCS design to something in this role and I assume neither will win.

Actually I suspect there will be a strong case for the Lockheed Martin's FFG(X) proposal if they could adopt LCS components into their FFG(X) design. That will play straight into lowering logistic and maintenance costs, which I suspect will be their big selling point. Out of the 5 contenders, I suspect they will be fair high up on the list, with Navantia's F105 and NSC likely to be the dark horses.

With the Austal's proposal, it doesn't look like they have done significant changes to it, I wonder if the USN wouldn't just simply convert the rest of Austal LCS's contract (those that are planned but not built) into something similar and still call them LCS Flight II.

 

[CB90]

NSC at $680m is probably inline or even a fair bit cheaper than a FREMM or F-105 similarly spec'd. It is probably a realistic price.

The LCS proposals I think are really about comparing the LCS design to something in this role and I assume neither will win.

As Joe Black pointed out, LM proposal has commonality aspects with existing LCS that can be brought into play. They appear to be pushing low cost hard. Their bid appears focused on being the "easy" solution, even if not necessarily the most capable.

Shipyard workload plays into this as well.
A lot of money was put into getting the Fincantieri yard up in Marinette to produce LCS-1 variants. A LM or FREMM win would keep that yard alive. The FREMM variant would be the big money, big capability contender, while the LM offering is the quick and cheap solution.

F100 has a solid reliable track record, but Bath Iron Works has already got a steady line of DDG work to keep them busy.

My money is the GD LCS-2 variant is a dead end.

 

[Todjaeger]

As Joe Black pointed out, LM proposal has commonality aspects with existing LCS that can be brought into play. They appear to be pushing low cost hard. Their bid appears focused on being the "easy" solution, even if not necessarily the most capable.

Shipyard workload plays into this as well.
A lot of money was put into getting the Fincantieri yard up in Marinette to produce LCS-1 variants. A LM or FREMM win would keep that yard alive. The FREMM variant would be the big money, big capability contender, while the LM offering is the quick and cheap solution.

F100 has a solid reliable track record, but Bath Iron Works has already got a steady line of DDG work to keep them busy.

My money is the GD LCS-2 variant is a dead end.

Me being me, I kind of take the whole FFG(X) programme as an indication that the USN has come to the conclusion that the LCS programme is not what it wanted or needs.

While unfortunate, I am of the opinion that neither LCS design can really deliver the sort of broad capability that the USN needs in a frigate. When I look at the crew size and armament available to the LCS designs compared to frigates of comparable size and displacement in other navies and what their crew size, armament and sensor fitout is... There are guided-missile patrol boats and corvettes in service with other navies which have a greater combat capability. The principal advantages the LCS designs have is range (assuming not going full bore) or speed.

Unfortunately the design choices made to enable a high speed in low sea states have limited the options available to increase capability.

 

[Blackshoe]

While unfortunate, I am of the opinion that neither LCS design can really deliver the sort of broad capability that the USN needs in a frigate. When I look at the crew size and armament available to the LCS designs compared to frigates of comparable size and displacement in other navies and what their crew size, armament and sensor fitout is... There are guided-missile patrol boats and corvettes in service with other navies which have a greater combat capability. The principal advantages the LCS designs have is range (assuming not going full bore) or speed.

In a rare (for me) defense of LCS, in fairness, it was explicitly designed not to be a frigate (using the OHP as a template for what a frigate should be, since that was available as an idea). And while the basic hull doesn't do much, it was supposed to be the modules that would make it great. But we were never trying to make a frigate out of it, until we realized we were back in the days of sea control as a mission, and we might not need to worry about the littorals as much, and thus we needed frigates, not large gunboats. We're just hoping the LCS frame can be modified successfully to become an okay-ish frigate.

You are very, very correct about how there are PGs/FFLs out that are much, much more capable now, and probably ever will be, than LCS.

IMHO, of the many, many sins of the LCS program, the inability of the module development to yield results is among the greatest.

 

[Todjaeger]

In a rare (for me) defense of LCS, in fairness, it was explicitly designed not to be a frigate (using the OHP as a template for what a frigate should be, since that was available as an idea). And while the basic hull doesn't do much, it was supposed to be the modules that would make it great. But we were never trying to make a frigate out of it, until we realized we were back in the days of sea control as a mission, and we might not need to worry about the littorals as much, and thus we needed frigates, not large gunboats. We're just hoping the LCS frame can be modified successfully to become an okay-ish frigate.

You are very, very correct about how there are PGs/FFLs out that are much, much more capable now, and probably ever will be, than LCS.

IMHO, of the many, many sins of the LCS program, the inability of the module development to yield results is among the greatest.

I get that the LCS concept was not about the USN getting a new frigate. Where I have had issues with the LCS concept for years is how the vessels were mandated to meet essentially competing requirements for speed/response time and range/sea-keeping/ocean crossing, and then the resulting impact such design requirements had on the vessel's capabilities as a whole.

The fact that it seems the US opted to 'reinvent the wheel' in terms of the approach used for mission modules, and the degree of success such an approach has delivered so far has not helped either.

I suppose part of the issue I have relates to issues I have had with the US adopting Stryker vehicles and units where rapid deployment and mobility was of paramount importance, to the point where the 'stock' armoured vehicles were only protection vs. small arms. To my way of thinking, it is presumptuous to assume that one side is always going to have the advantage of being the attacker, and therefore does not have to consider or account for any attacking or return fire.

Both the Stryker vehicles and units, as well as the LCS vessels, seem to be influenced by the same view that rapid mobility is adequate to cover any lack in self-protection capabilities.

 

[AegisFC]

The Navy is exploring the possibility of arming new LPDs with missiles for ASuW and AAW. This could possibly come in the form of the Mk-41 VLS or perhaps a dec-mounted box launcher eg, BAE's Systems Adaptable Deck Launcher. The latter could more readily be retrofitted to current ships in the Gator fleet as part of the Distributed Lethality concept.

That's nothing new. A lot of the old concept art for the LPD-17's had them firing missiles towards the shore with a DD(X) and a Burke.
I think there even might be space and weight reserved in the design for a 8 cell module or two.

 

[Blackshoe]

That's nothing new. A lot of the old concept art for the LPD-17's had them firing missiles towards the shore with a DD(X) and a Burke.
I think there even might be space and weight reserved in the design for a 8 cell module or two.

There is. They were designed for them and everything, just never installed.

 

[ASSAIL]

What advantages are gained from re-establishing the Second Fleet which has been in abeyance since 2011?
I understand the reasons given were the concentration on the Northern Atlantic in part due to the rising Russian capabilities there however, I had assumed this focus had never changed despite the economy gained from disbanding the fleet staff.
Any comments from our US contributors?

Please excuse the tedious automated voice commentary.

 

[CB90]

What advantages are gained from re-establishing the Second Fleet which has been in abeyance since 2011?
I understand the reasons given were the concentration on the Northern Atlantic in part due to the rising Russian capabilities there however, I had assumed this focus had never changed despite the economy gained from disbanding the fleet staff.
Any comments from our US contributors?

Please excuse the tedious automated voice commentary.

Staff. That's pretty much it.

Right now, the old Second Fleet Operational duties were folded into a mix of subcodes within what is really an Administrative staff.
This essentially is a message that the Operational duties are growing to the point that they want a dedicated command to resume responsibility for those functions. It's not like we're re-assigning any actual hardware units (ships, subs, planes).

Second Fleet's been both disestablished and now re-established in my relatively short career. Interesting times.

 

[John Fedup]

We often hear concerns about the military industrial base. I guess this article is a good example. A manufacturing detect of a main thrust bearing caused the CVN 78 to return to port. As CVNs have been in continuous production for decades, it is surprising this critical part should have a manufacturing issue, apparently for a second time. I guess it could be a new design or new low bid supplier. Perhaps I do not understand the complexity of the main thrust bearing.

U.S. Navy’s Costliest Warship Suffers New Failure at Sea

 

[ASSAIL]

We often hear concerns about the military industrial base. I guess this article is a good example. A manufacturing detect of a main thrust bearing caused the CVN 78 to return to port. As CVNs have been in continuous production for decades, it is surprising this critical part should have a manufacturing issue, apparently for a second time. I guess it could be a new design or new low bid supplier. Perhaps I do not understand the complexity of the main thrust bearing.

U.S. Navy’s Costliest Warship Suffers New Failure at Sea

In very simple terms the purpose of the thrust block is to transmit the torque produced by the rotating propellor through the housing hold down bolts into the ships structure.
You can therefore imagine the precision, size, complexity, lubrication, cooling system and forces apparent in a ship such as CV 78.

 

[StobieWan]

QE actually had to put into port due to a crack in a thrust block on her trials - everyone on that trial was pretty much relieved they'd caught it on trial as it was a relatively easy fix but the consequences were potentially "oh crap, abandon ship" if it failed in some circumstances. Somewhere along the line the specs for the block had slipped down to an assumed 100% possible load, leaving no margin at all - so a component that was built correctly (to spec with no manufacturing defects) failed very early on in it's lifetime.

There's an overview of what these things do here if anyone's interested:

https://www.brighthubengineering.co...ngine-thrust-block-prop-shaft-and-stern-tube/