US Navy News and updates

[ASSAIL]

The USNI has a link to the unclassified 1978 three-volume history, Sea-Based Airborne Antisubmarine Warfare 1940-1977 that was declassified in 1990.

The History of Sea-Based Airborne Antisubmarine Warfare: 1940-1977 - USNI News

The following is the unclassified 1978 three-volume history, Sea-Based Airborne Antisubmarine Warfare 1940-1977. The so-called Cross report was declassified in 1990. A partial version of this report was published by USNI News last month as part of the rolling release of documents related to the...

news.usni.org

Thanks for this, I have some reading to do.

 

[John Fedup]

LM has announced some future plant closings involving the Freedom class, heavy torpedo production and the Mk41 VLS. From a foreign navy perspective, the looming end of the Mk41 is significant as the reason suggested is due to the larger size of future hypersonic missiles which won’t be compatible with the Mk41. Hopefully a future VLS for hypersonic missiles will somehow be compatible later builds of the T26 by the UK, Canada, and Australia.

Lockheed Martin Shutters 2 Navy Plants, Heralding New Technology On The Waterfront

Lockheed Martin just announced the surprise closure of two factories supporting the Freedom class Littoral Combat Ship, the Mk 48 heavyweight torpedo and the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System--suggesting that big changes are ahead for maritime warfare.

www.forbes.com

 

[ngatimozart]

That's certainly going to put the cat amongst the pigeons for the newbuilds coming up. What do they go with? What do they do?

 

[Redlands18]

That's certainly going to put the cat amongst the pigeons for the newbuilds coming up. What do they go with? What do they do?

Yes it seems to be a bit strange, the USN, RAN, RN, RCN and Spain between them have somewhere in the vicinity of 70-80 ships to be fitted.

 

[Boagrius]

The issue was inevitable I suppose. We were never going to be able to use the Mk41 forever, and it is not surprising to find that we'll need bigger cells to do hypersonics "properly". While I don't know if it'll ever find it's way onto a ship, LM's recent renderings of the LRHW give some perspective:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1314284396552359942

 

[alexsa]

Yes it seems to be a bit strange, the USN, RAN, RN, RCN and Spain between them have somewhere in the vicinity of 70-80 ships to be fitted.

I am with you on this one. It appears to be case of reducing sites rather than dropping production and the author is drawing some very long bows in his assumptions.

The assumptions made that the 21" Mk48 would be made obsolete by the 12" LWT ignores the fact that all submarines in build (include the new Virginia) only have tubes for 21". And to be honest in submarine to submarine combat ... firing a LWT (with it reduced range) would be a gift to the other side because you have to be quite close to take the shot.

Same with Mk41 noting the SM6 and SM3 later blocks are just getting rolled out. I can see the point in shutting plants that can only do one thing .... but this does not necessarily mean production is about to stop.

However, on the LCS ... well the author may have a point there.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am with you on this one. It appears to be case of reducing sites rather than dropping production and the author is drawing some very long bows in his assumptions.

The assumptions made that the 21" Mk48 would be made obsolete by the 12" LWT ignores the fact that all submarines in build (include the new Virginia) only have tubes for 21". And to be honest in submarine to submarine combat ... firing a LWT (with it reduced range) would be a gift to the other side because you have to be quite close to take the shot.

Same with Mk41 noting the SM6 and SM3 later blocks are just getting rolled out. I can see the point in shutting plants that can only do one thing .... but this does not necessarily mean production is about to stop.

However, on the LCS ... well the author may have a point there.

The other thing that I have trouble getting my head around is how could a 12 in LWT sink a FFG, DDG or a CCG. In fact I don't think that a 21 in LWT could although it probably cause reasonable damage to the hull. But neither of them have the punch of a Mk-48 or its equivalent in other navies.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting commentary, and useful to highlight the closures.

However, while I am sure there are a lot of new build 12" LWT, the 21" heavys are just as important and useful as they have ever been. However, there aren't a whole lot of new sales for this specific line, most heavy weighs are in stock piles, with only a hand full of armed firings a year. It may make sense to have one line/facility that can produce both light and heavy weight torpedo's with a sustainable workload.

IMO mk41 will be around for a while yet, however, we are reaching the development end of that cell size, and that size is a problem for SM-3 and advanced high altitude weapons. I don't see MAC replacing mk41. Its not designed for hot launched weapons (ie surface ships), its about leveraging existing SSBN infrastructure to come up with a solution for subs. The mk57 size is slightly larger, and can handle more powerful rocket motors. However I also don't see mk57 replacing mk41, more augmenting. I also don't see the mk57 being the ultimate evolution. Putting PGS on surface ships is new idea, seemingly from the author..

The LCS, well are perhaps coming to the end of the great LCS experiment. While perhaps not building the perfect ship, its clear the USN and the US as a nation has learnt a lot about aluminium ships. Also, there is a flight II of the expeditionary fast ship spearhead class being designed and constructed. Fast aluminium cats, as logistics ships may still be very useful, and may really solve a lot of the Marines fast amphibious problems. However, making fast aluminium combat ships, may not be an idea that perpetually continues. It may be best to consolidate that type of ship building to a single yard, and build just a single design for those type of needs. The new spearheads are keen to advertise their medical capability, and it may be useful to have smaller, but faster to deploy medical ships to disasters or urgent need, like an ambulance. When tied up or in protected waters the cat hull offers nice stability as well.

New Details of Austal’s EPF Hospital Ship Emerge - USNI News

After the Navy last week issued a $235-million contract modification to Austal USA to build its latest multi-purpose Expeditionary Fast Transport ship, new details of the ambulance variant have come to light. A spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command told USNI News this week that the ambulance...

news.usni.org

 

[alexsa]

The other thing that I have trouble getting my head around is how could a 12 in LWT sink a FFG, DDG or a CCG. In fact I don't think that a 21 in LWT could although it probably cause reasonable damage to the hull. But neither of them have the punch of a Mk-48 or its equivalent in other navies.

I agree and the whole idea that a 12" LWT torpedo can do the job of 'any' heavyweight is laughable. Range and hitting power cannot be compared irrespective of the target you are shooting at.

LWT provide air assets with an effective ASW weapon as well as surface ships in certain circumstances (in a hot situation I suspect air assets will drop more of these than are fired from a ship).

The heavy weight torpedo is a multipurpose weapon intended to be fired at long range and guided to its target.

Anyway ... rant off.

 

[John Fedup]

Interesting commentary, and useful to highlight the closures.

However, while I am sure there are a lot of new build 12" LWT, the 21" heavys are just as important and useful as they have ever been. However, there aren't a whole lot of new sales for this specific line, most heavy weighs are in stock piles, with only a hand full of armed firings a year. It may make sense to have one line/facility that can produce both light and heavy weight torpedo's with a sustainable workload.

IMO mk41 will be around for a while yet, however, we are reaching the development end of that cell size, and that size is a problem for SM-3 and advanced high altitude weapons. I don't see MAC replacing mk41. Its not designed for hot launched weapons (ie surface ships), its about leveraging existing SSBN infrastructure to come up with a solution for subs. The mk57 size is slightly larger, and can handle more powerful rocket motors. However I also don't see mk57 replacing mk41, more augmenting. I also don't see the mk57 being the ultimate evolution. Putting PGS on surface ships is new idea, seemingly from the author..

The LCS, well are perhaps coming to the end of the great LCS experiment. While perhaps not building the perfect ship, its clear the USN and the US as a nation has learnt a lot about aluminium ships. Also, there is a flight II of the expeditionary fast ship spearhead class being designed and constructed. Fast aluminium cats, as logistics ships may still be very useful, and may really solve a lot of the Marines fast amphibious problems. However, making fast aluminium combat ships, may not be an idea that perpetually continues. It may be best to consolidate that type of ship building to a single yard, and build just a single design for those type of needs. The new spearheads are keen to advertise their medical capability, and it may be useful to have smaller, but faster to deploy medical ships to disasters or urgent need, like an ambulance. When tied up or in protected waters the cat hull offers nice stability as well.

New Details of Austal’s EPF Hospital Ship Emerge - USNI News

After the Navy last week issued a $235-million contract modification to Austal USA to build its latest multi-purpose Expeditionary Fast Transport ship, new details of the ambulance variant have come to light. A spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command told USNI News this week that the ambulance...

news.usni.org

WRT the LCS, has anyone seen a decent article assessing the performance differences between the Freedom and Independence classes? Most problems seem to be with the Freedom class (maybe I just haven’t seen any on Independence). Anyways, the program needs to end.

 

[Terran]

I think it’s important to put the LCS in context. They were designed for the asymmetrical conflict model.
As such it was designed more for low intensity patrols off thirst world shores hunting pirates and sending SF troops into troubled lands. Which is why I generally feel the classes should be kept but in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Med. where said operations would be the norm.

Both classes have had issues. The Indi class has had corrosion issues.

 

[John Fedup]

Well there is a bunch of them now and to junk them probably doesn’t make sense economically (assumption by me) but the cost of operation may make the F-35 CPFH look like a great deal and at least it delivers effective capability.

 

[StingrayOZ]

WRT the LCS, has anyone seen a decent article assessing the performance differences between the Freedom and Independence classes? Most problems seem to be with the Freedom class (maybe I just haven’t seen any on Independence). Anyways, the program needs to end.

Everything I've read seems to indicate they aren't heading in that direction anymore. However the Independence seems to have had more success, with the last 4 to be built will be Independence ships (totaling 19) with no matching orders for the freedom class. While this program cops a lot of media and flack IMO, in the niche they were designed for, they can do that. It was an odd program, with lots of confused issues, but the media feeds off that kind of stuff. Throw in all the risk of a new class, with all the risk of new tech, out of a material the US doesn't typically build entire navy ships out of, and high level targets for speed, sure its had issues.

They will probably do these missions better than the pegasus class did. Chasing drugs and pirates and patrols outside of US waters, but not in war or contested spaces. The USN is a large navy, and it can have a class for this kind of mission

Pegasus-class hydrofoil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They have been successfully (sort of) deployed, and the lighter design, has been useful in perhaps allowing basing in non-traditional allies, like Singapore and Vietnam.

4 US Littoral Combat Ships to Operate out of Singapore by 2018

The controversial naval vessel will also participate in a military exercise off the coast of South Korea next month.

thediplomat.com

US Navy Littoral Combat Ship Arrives in Singapore for Rotational Deployment

The USS Montgomery arrived in Singapore on July 6 as part of a rotational deployment to the Indo-Pacific region.

thediplomat.com

USS Montgomery Deployment Proves Out Changes Made in LCS Program Overhaul - USNI News

USS Montgomery (LCS-8) recently wrapped up its maiden deployment – and the ship class’s first since a restructure of the Littoral Combat Ship program – and the head of LCS operations said the ship leveraged lessons learned from earlier deployments to avoid readiness problems and make the most of...

news.usni.org

They aren't a traditional frigate, and they really aren't going to replace the role of a traditional FFG. The new frigates are those ships.

 

[John Fedup]

Perhaps the Zumwalt has finally found a mission. The combination of stealth and surplus power should allow for good control over unmanned assets in contested waters and with added hypersonic missiles and hopefully laser weapons it should be reasonably survivable.

Zumwalt Destroyer Will Control Unmanned Ships, Aircraft in Upcoming Fleet Battle Problem - USNI News

The Navy will get a first glimpse of what future operations could look like, when a Zumwalt-class destroyer manages long-range surveillance and fires by manned and unmanned platforms in an upcoming exercise in the Pacific. U.S. Pacific Fleet will host its most complex exercise to date involving...

news.usni.org

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Looks like an innovative design, it also has export potential, many LSTs around the world need to be replaced.
Only the expected service life of 20 years is not that impressive.

USMC General Tracy King Comments on the US Navy's New Light Amphibious Warship - Naval News

The U.S. Navy’s new and upcoming Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) will be the “new strategy and tactic” to countering the Chinese Anti-Access/Area Denial island chains around the South China Sea.

www.navalnews.com

 

[John Fedup]

A suggestion that the America class can serve as a CV “lite”. Makes sense to me, it exists now and can be built reasonably quickly. Sure, a smaller CATOBAR CV would be nice but the time and expense of designing another carrier is a big negative given some of the recent design mis-steps. Once Ford passes the shock tests, CVN builds with be more secure. Perhaps a joint USN/RN redesign of the QE class for CATOBAR might be a distant option.

New Small Aircraft Carrier Unlikely, Admiral Says As US Navy Begins New Assessment

Air warfare chief: “I believe the L-class ships operating with the F-35B fit that bill.”

www.defenseone.com

 

[Terran]

I disagree. I do think that elements of the CV light concept could improve the LHA America class ships. A Ski jump and rolling landing ability would be nice. But neither it as a CV light nor Queen Elizabeth have the growth potential to match the potential needs to face off against sea denial/Air denial. That being the ability to sortie multiple longer range assets, Escort and refilling for establishing and maintaining a penetrating package into denied space.

 

[ngatimozart]

I disagree. I do think that elements of the CV light concept could improve the LHA America class ships. A Ski jump and rolling landing ability would be nice. But neither it as a CV light nor Queen Elizabeth have the growth potential to match the potential needs to face off against sea denial/Air denial. That being the ability to sortie multiple longer range assets, Escort and refilling for establishing and maintaining a penetrating package into denied space.

Actually if the QE class was modified to CATOBAR then it definitely would meet the criteria. I do believe that there exists a CATOBAR design option for it, because the UK looked at it and started the process around 2011 when their pollies were going through their cost cutting frenzy.

 

[CB90]

Actually if the QE class was modified to CATOBAR then it definitely would meet the criteria. I do believe that there exists a CATOBAR design option for it, because the UK looked at it and started the process around 2011 when their pollies were going through their cost cutting frenzy.

Really depends on what one considers to be a “CVL.”

As you pointed out, QE certainly had the capacity to simply be a CATOBAR carrier. And the Charles de Gaulle class is actually a fairly small carrier, with roughly the same displacement as a LHA, but with CATOBAR capability including AEW.

 

[t68]

Actually if the QE class was modified to CATOBAR then it definitely would meet the criteria. I do believe that there exists a CATOBAR design option for it, because the UK looked at it and started the process around 2011 when their pollies were going through their cost cutting frenzy.

Yep only have to look at the original collaboration between the English and French with PA2, I think from a design there was to be slightly different form with extra sponsons to give the angled recovery area extra length

This gives a good overview of the early project, but there was an excellent site which has gone by the way side and I can’t find again Bedall or something along that line, would love to find it again as was very informative on RN ships