US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Ask the Third Reich how that worked out.
oldsig
(apologies for the one liner. These things are never so simple as they may appear on the surface)
This is definitely true, but also not exactly something I am convinced is getting too fixated on reversing. With the lack of private shipbuilding industry in most of the West in general (S. Korea and to a much lesser extent, Japan, are the only nations among "the Allies" that maintain robust shipbuilding capabilty - and those would be easily targeted in a Pacific War), there isn't much you can credibly expect defense spending to fix other than to hit a steady state of shipbuliding to support a Fleet capability (ie fixed number).
One of the things to note is how this scenario is NOT like WW2 with Japan. The US was able to ramp up its war machine taking advantage of the larger industrial base in advance of the actual outbreak of war to start to build its iron mountain by ‘42. The US can’t just simply outproduce China to victory.
The article does present some great points though.
The talk about increasing "Joint" capabilities is definitely valid. The Marine Corps is already pivoting massively to a Pacific War with dumping all their MBTs as one major force structure change, along with more thoughts about how they could operate within the USN networks in theater. Both the Army and Air Force have started to realize they have sold off many capabilities that would be required for them to provide a net contribution in a Pacific War...and the need to start integrating into a theater wide C4I structure.
The other point about affordability is a good one, but not one that is really something I believe the Navy can independently control. A Pacific War strategy at the moment revolves around the Navy. The capabilities that are required to effect it are currently all under the Navy portfolio...simply because the other services haven't had much interest in weapons with capability to strike at ships. This is likely going to require DOD or higher level decision making to either get all the other services to start chipping in collaboratively or to risk seeing their funding get swept straight under Navy control.
And my final Unmanned plug - the munitions/ordnance are what are really needed. It doesn't particularly have to matter, after a certain point, whether the missiles are coming off your FFG, another FFG, or that USV over there that is a VLS magazine under your direct control.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Things might have worked out better if some focus existed along with a later war starting point. In some ways the huge array of current exotic weaponry development is beginning to look like the Reich’s. Focusing on submarine technology and jet engines would have made things more difficult along with less arrogance about having an unbreakable encryption device. In the end they still would have lost though.
If Hitler had waited until 1944 and wasn't so greedy about Austria, Poland and Czechoslovaķia, he would have won. He would have had one possibility two CVs, a jet fighter and bomber fleet, advanced subs etc. Stalin would've still been purging his way through the USSR and gutting the Red Army officer corps. The poms and French would have bumbled their way through and still been unprepared. The US would've been engaged in a Pacific war and not to concerned about the European situation.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
OT, he got a good part of Czechoslovakia and Austria witout starting a war. Both were important to his war industries. Anyways he lost...bloody good thing.
Except that the German economy would have crashed first. The architect of the German economic revival in the 1930s, Hjalmar Schacht, warned Hitler in 1938 that his military build up was unsustainable because of foreign exchange shortages. Schacht was sacked, & ended up in a concentration camp (though one of the milder ones, & survived).
Hitler dealt with short-term shortages by cutting non-military spending that generated imports, such as railway maintenance & rebuilding (that led to problems later), squeezing consumption of imported goods (e.g. animal fats: Germans ate less Danish butter), looting the gold reserves of Austria & Czechoslovakia (he tried to get Poland's, but a trainload of gold was got out to Romania in the nick of time & used to finance the exiled government & armed forces), & a barter deal with the USSR, which he tried to cheat as much as possible (Stalin stuck more closely to the agreement, but didn't ship enough oil to allow Hitler to build up reserves, the canny bugger). Nor had Hitler built up strategic reserves of tungsten or other war-critical materials, resulting in deterioration in quality of ammunition, armour, etc. as the war went on. There hadn't been enough foreign exchange before the war.
From 1940, he had a lot more occupied territories to loot - though the French had also shipped out most of their own, & a lot of Belgium's, gold. Exchange rates were set in Germany's favour, workers were recruited or conscripted to work in factories, etc. Consumption & investment in occupied lands were suppressed drastically to free resources for Germany's war effort.
For Germany, the war made the war possible.
The CNO has authorised a RFI for the MH-60R/S and MQ-8B/C replacement. Responses are to be submitted by 13/4/2021. The project is titled FVL (MS) - Future Vertical Lift (Maritime Strike).
beta.sam.gov
It has been suggested that two contenders will be Bell’s V-280 Valor advanced tiltrotor and the Sikorsky-Boeing Defiant X which are part of the US Army's FVL long range competition.
www.navalnews.com
SAM.gov
It has been suggested that two contenders will be Bell’s V-280 Valor advanced tiltrotor and the Sikorsky-Boeing Defiant X which are part of the US Army's FVL long range competition.
US Navy launched effort for MH-60R/S and MQ-8B/C replacement - Naval News
The US Department of Defense began an effort to replace the US Navy’s MH-60S/R Seahawk helicopters and MQ-8B/C Fire Scout UAVs.
www.navalnews.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
As the V280 and V247 are possible choices for the army FVL, wouldn’t there be some significant additional cost for marine use?
I would have thought that a major requirement would be to be able to fit the aircraft into extant ship hangars; not sure either of the Bells would be able to achieve that. It’s not beyond possibility that it will be yet another development of the H-60 airframe.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
While I can’t find any specs on the Defiant X it looks to be significantly longer and higher then the H-60 family, NH-90 or the AW-101. That top Rotor is a long way off the ground. Height definitely looks to be an issue for the V-280 once you fold its Wings and they would nearly have to remove the Rotor Blades, leaving them on would add to the width.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Yes however how to do it was already solved by V22.
Bell Unveils V-247 Autonomous Tiltrotor and It's the Size of a Huey - Rotor & Wing International
Bell unveiled the full-size mockup of its V-247 autonomous tiltrotor Sept. 25, and it is much larger than a scale-model suggests. Just outside the company’s booth at the Modern Day Marine in Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, passersby kept up an audible chorus of surprise as each caught a...
www.rotorandwing.com
any Naval or Marine or Socom V280 production version would require a folding system to fit in a Ship or carry in C17. Personal Opinion is that the Army production version would also at least require V280 to fold as well not for naval but to transport in C17. I mean Self deployment is fine in theory but even if it’s self deployed unmanned you would still have to spend time and money in maintenance post flight Shipping In C17 without a folding system means disassembling the airframe in a manner requiring major resources on the receiving end.
V247 hasn’t been built yet but was concepted for the Marines with a folding system ala V22. In fact I have more confidence in a naval Valor or tiltrotor in general than X2 because of the proven Osprey.
Terran
Well-Known Member
V280 naval would basically copy how V22 folds so the wing box would turn 90* clockwise. So the wings are inline with the hull the rotors would be in their forward position the inward most blade would be parallel to the deck with the upper and lower blades folded inward. Concept art for V247 does the exact same save that it is supposed to have additional wing that extend from the nacelles these would fold inward.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I was thinking more about salt water corrosion resistance as opposed to folding, which of course is very important.Yes however how to do it was already solved by V22.
Posted as the article shows concept art for V280 folded compared to V22 and UH1Y.Bell Unveils V-247 Autonomous Tiltrotor and It's the Size of a Huey - Rotor & Wing International
Bell unveiled the full-size mockup of its V-247 autonomous tiltrotor Sept. 25, and it is much larger than a scale-model suggests. Just outside the company’s booth at the Modern Day Marine in Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, passersby kept up an audible chorus of surprise as each caught a...
any Naval or Marine or Socom V280 production version would require a folding system to fit in a Ship or carry in C17. Personal Opinion is that the Army production version would also at least require V280 to fold as well not for naval but to transport in C17. I mean Self deployment is fine in theory but even if it’s self deployed unmanned you would still have to spend time and money in maintenance post flight Shipping In C17 without a folding system means disassembling the airframe in a manner requiring major resources on the receiving end.
V247 hasn’t been built yet but was concepted for the Marines with a folding system ala V22. In fact I have more confidence in a naval Valor or tiltrotor in general than X2 because of the proven Osprey.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Well even buying new Seahawks would incur added price points. FVL is in part multi service with the Marines AURA program piggybacked on the FLRAA. USMC looks for high-speed replacement to Bell UH-1 and AH-1
Because the Marines would be demanding the same corrosion protection and size requirements.
the Bell V247 was basically tailored for a Marine request for MUX. So again Navalized based on the Marine Corps air wants.
Because the Marines would be demanding the same corrosion protection and size requirements.
the Bell V247 was basically tailored for a Marine request for MUX. So again Navalized based on the Marine Corps air wants.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Would that still make them compact enough to fit inside a Destroyer/Frigate Hangar which i think was the point of @spoz post? obviously they would be fine for the Marines operating off the Amphibs.
Terran
Well-Known Member
@Redlands18
I can’t comment on the Defiant because Boeing and Sikorsky never released size data or naval concepts.
However Bellks marketing team has been quite open on the foot print for a projected naval Valor. They produced a graphic in this catalog which compares a Navalized V280 to a UH1Y by overlaying the two aircraft. See page 3
pdf.aeroexpo.online
UH1Y is a couple feet all around smaller than Seahawk.
Another brochure for the V247 specifically states among the “Operational viability”
So basically if it can carry Seahawk than it could carry a Navalized Valor assuming all goes Bells way which seems the case. Bonus UH1Y fits in C17s.
I can’t comment on the Defiant because Boeing and Sikorsky never released size data or naval concepts.
However Bellks marketing team has been quite open on the foot print for a projected naval Valor. They produced a graphic in this catalog which compares a Navalized V280 to a UH1Y by overlaying the two aircraft. See page 3
Bell V-248 - BELL HELICOPTER - PDF Catalogs | Technical Documentation | Brochure
pdf.aeroexpo.online
Another brochure for the V247 specifically states among the “Operational viability”
So basically if it can carry Seahawk than it could carry a Navalized Valor assuming all goes Bells way which seems the case. Bonus UH1Y fits in C17s.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Readying for FFG 62, Fincantieri Marinette Marine breaks ground for new building
Helping Maritime Professionals Make Informed Decisions
www.marinelog.com
Fincantieri break ground on yard Facilities for FFG-62 Constellation Class Frigates. The facility have capabilities for 2 FFG build simultaneously.
Last edited:
Excuse my observation , but the footprint graphic does not appear to show the seahawk / blackhawk with the tail rotor folded - which brings their lenght down to 41 ft (ish) so the v247 seems to be a lot longer in the stowed config.@Redlands18
I can’t comment on the Defiant because Boeing and Sikorsky never released size data or naval concepts.
However Bellks marketing team has been quite open on the foot print for a projected naval Valor. They produced a graphic in this catalog which compares a Navalized V280 to a UH1Y by overlaying the two aircraft. See page 3
UH1Y is a couple feet all around smaller than Seahawk.Bell V-248 - BELL HELICOPTER - PDF Catalogs | Technical Documentation | Brochure
Another brochure for the V247 specifically states among the “Operational viability”
So basically if it can carry Seahawk than it could carry a Navalized Valor assuming all goes Bells way which seems the case. Bonus UH1Y fits in C17s.