By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by AegisFC, Jul 3, 2008.
Thanks for the correction — have edited previous video link to Boeing’s offering.
The new USMC Commandant has changed course on USN amphibs and wants more "smaller more lethal, risk worthy" amphibs rather than the current 38 large amphibs that USN require. His reasoning is that in todays environment, amphib task groups / forces can be hit with precision guided weapons hundreds / thousands of miles from their intended targets, when they are still concentrated. Even if they make it to the target, moving the marines shore from the large ships, parked 10 miles off shore, in slow amphib vehicles / ships and helos is still providing multiple targets in a geographically confined area for enemy PGMs etc. he says that it's time to think and change.
Sacred Cows Die As Marine Commandant Changes Course On Amphibs
Full guidance document
The USN has commissioned its 67th (of a contracted 82) Burke Class DDG. Will be a Flight IIA Burke. Aegis Baseline 9.
Navy Commissions Destroyer USS Paul Ignatius - USNI News
More bad news on the Ford’s electromagnetic elevators. Only 2 out of 11 working despite promises they would be working by now. Apparently there is a very tight requirement on tolerances for stuff that interfaces to the elevator shafts. Is anyone aware of successful land based electromagnetic freight elevators?
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
No, but I'm not sure it would be applicable. Hulls move a lot more, often multiple different vectors at once, so something needing tight tolerances may be challenged in a marine environment in a way that land based systems never would be. Torsion in a hull could be a real problem, as would modest corrosion. Lot's of electricity, magnetic fields, metallic surfaces with wear & tear combined with seawater actually sounds a really, really challenging environment to run an electromagnetic lift or EM catapult.
Does anyone know the sorts of the magnetic fields they would be generating?
Do they get up to the sorts of levels to effect medical implantable devices?
How do they compare to an MRI? (MRI commonly 1.5 T, albeit in very close proximity to the person)
I know the strength of magnetic field from HT lines, electronic article surveillance (EAS) gate, MIG welding machine and even early mobile phones (if laid on the chest) can effect cardiac devices, sometimes fatally. If you want to shuffle off your old granny with a pacemaker, stick her through an MRI. In civilian life, an MRI is by far the commonest, but it's possible with new electronic weapons, EM catapults etc that the military will be exposed to higher levels of magnetic fields.
Not much info info available on field strength for these devices. A junk yard magnet capable of lifting 3000 lbs is 1T. Ford freight elevators would likely have higher fields as would the electromagnetic catapult. The distance from the source would be important as far as safety is concerned and hopefully this was factored for during the design process. I assume fields effects on PGM parts was also evaluated.
The USNI has just published a paper titled Dispelling 7 myths about LCS, it is a supportive paper and provides real insight into the programme.
I can’t post the paper but one reply caught my eye, it’s from a total believer and I think gets to the reasons why the LCS is a success and will be an important contributor for the USN.
Naturally there will be a variety of views but they should target the points made in the linked reply.
However, I think that what drives most of the incomprehensible ship hatred directed at LCS - it is thus, a raw emotion devoid of facts or common sense - is nothing more than blatant old timerism. A bunch of gnarly old geezers who hate change, who think the glory years of the US Navy were decades ago, when of course they served .. and who simply are not intellectually capable of understanding that 21st century naval warfare is nothing at all like 20th century naval warfare. Just as, of course, 20th century naval warfare was nothing at all like 19th century naval warfare. The dedicated shiphaters are mostly nothing but old fellows who are still living as if it is 1945 or 1975 or 1995, and who are incapable of getting with the modern world of naval warfare, which is changing at a rapid rate. Every single myth about LCS has been thoroughly debunked hundreds of times over, yet the shiphaters refuse to acknowledge their own incapacity to grasp modern naval warfare. LCS are indeed the most heavily armed littoral surface warships on the planet, especially now with the addition of the OTH missiles, RAM missile defenses, the fantastic Mk 110 57 mm gun system which is death for small vessels, small aircraft, and for cruise missiles. Plus now the 24-cell Hellfire missile. And the AEGIS-derivative COMBATTS-21 combat management system. And the pair of 30 mm cannons. And Mk 54 LWTs for ASW. And now SEWIP Block 2 electronic countermeasures for missile defense. When the integration work on it is complete by next year, the LCS will have, according to Surface Warfare Director Admiral Boxall, the world's finest surface ship ASW sonar system with both VDS and a new towed array. LCS already features the MH-60 and its air dropped Mk 54 torpedoes, and both the MH-60 and the MQ-8 drop dipping sonobuoys to detect submarines at ranges both near and far from the ship at any depth, along with periscope detection systems and shallow water submarine detection systems. ASW skills and equipment in the US Navy have degraded substantially since the end of the Cold War, but the LCS is in the process of restoring and improving upon those capabilities. Once the final integration work is completed, the already half-deployed unmanned MCM systems will enable LCS to operate the world's finest and safest mine countermeasures systems. And there are many other kinds of equipment and roles that the LCS can take on, if necessary. And as for that silly trope about insufficient room for growth, the LCS has already, just in the last 10 years, actually incorporated more growth in weapons and sensors and aircraft than any other warship in the US fleet.
here’s a link to the article published in Proceedings.
7 Myths about LCS
Here’s a second article by the same author. All this hype about about how great the LCS is makes me wonder what the latest horror is about to be revealed. I would rather have another dozen SSNs with VPM instead of the LCS, less money, and they work.
Why LCS Has Been Slow to Deploy
John there are many things which we would “rather” have but you still haven’t reconciled the multi roles, deployment rotations or the concept of sending the ships to less important areas and expose those countries to the USN, they’re a package which doesn’t fit with convention.
It’s like owning a VW Beetle; it can’t compete with the limos or euro grand tourers but it can be everywhere on all types of roads doing all sorts of jobs which would waste the expense of the ,royalty.
@ASSAIL The LCS hasn’t exactly fulfilled the multi role function nor has it been much of deployment success. The first clue this was a troubled program was when the USN opted to build both versions (PC and kept the suppliers happy). The new frigate program confirms this. Had a frigate program been started instead, the roles you mention would be happening now. The USN would be better served with 30-40 frigates than 20 frigates and 30 LCS. The only mission module showing promise is MCM, something the USN definitely needs to invest in. Still like the idea of a dozen more SSNs, which BTW, is the USN’s best run procurement program.
Doesn’t seem much wrong with the Arleigh Burke program. Submarines are nice, but are not suitable for a lot of missions - something known as “presence”, where being seen is the whole point, is one of them. Escorting MERSHIPS through the Strait of Hormuz is another.
I understand the U.S.N installed a CAPTAS 4 towed variable depth sonar on one of its LCS a very similar equipment to what will be on the type 26 and its bretheren in the R.A.N these ships though are also built to be accoustically quiet ,I cant find information that the L.C.S have that capacity and suspect not , as to how this effects the capacity of a ship to detect very quiet submarines from a ship that may be noisy could be of interest
Agree, the AB class has been quite successful. I saw an article recently that suggested a flight 4 version is under consideration as the new large surface combatant ship may be delayed to allow more time to finalize its design. As for “presence”, the new frigate will certainly fulfill this requirement.
Edit: This is the link on a possible flight 4 AB.
Navy Considering More Advanced Burke Destroyers as Large Surface Combatant Timeline Slips - USNI News
Navy Reverting DDGs Back to Physical Throttles, After Fleet Rejects Touchscreen Controls - USNI News
Back to conventional control in the bridge. Seems despite most of the Sailors that will control, are millennials they are not comfortable enough with 'gadget' style touch screen.
Bit surprised for me at least, this supposedly has to be done trials interaction test with targeted segment (thus young sailors).
Apparently weld problems now affect both Columbia and Virginia missile tubes. The same vendor is involved, BWX. They are thinking of getting out of the missile tube business thus leaving only one vendor for the USN. Apparently they are going to concentrate on their reactor business (hope their welds are better on reactors!). In any event, another example of how thin the hitech industrial infrastructure is.
Columbia, Ohio Subs On Schedule, Despite Missile Tube Problems
US Navy pushing ahead with both MUSV and LUSV programs. The LUSV May have Aegis system on board
Navy Issues Draft Request for Proposal for Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle - USNI News
This somewhat surprising but I have never seen what the control interface looks like. Based on some interfaces I have seen for other applications, crap software and design interface are a nightmare. Perhaps this the case or training issues. Certainly numerous different interfaces throughout the fleet would be problematic as well.
This make total sense to me. You wouldn't want to control your car with a touch screen, people need something tactile to know what they are doing. Even video games use a mouse or joystick.