US Navy News and updates

76mmGuns

Active Member
Can you provide another reference for the C130 and LCAC apart from this. I looked for this as I was, frankly, sceptical. I note that NSM's were fired by the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) (which could be deployed by a LCAC or C130) but noting to suggest they fired the missiles as this article suggests.

The Commander Pacific Fleet caption for the same image was:

A Naval Strike Missile is launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands during the sinking exercise

U.S. forces conduct sinking exercise in Pacific | Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (navy.mil)

The drive have no mention of C130 or LCAC either but reflect that NMESIS fired a missile with the video showing elements of NMESIS being unloaded from a LCAC.

Watch The Ex-USS Ingraham Frigate Get Its Back Broken By A Torpedo (thedrive.com)

Not sure Navy today got this right.
I checked a few websites I follow like usni. I couldn't find another mention of the NSM being fired from a C130 or LCAC either.
Guess you're right about it.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Seems more likely NSM fired from a unit deployed from the LCAC and a unit deployed from a C130, not fired from those platforms while in transit.


“This week was very successful,” said McPherson. “In addition to the two live fire shots that hit the target, we also successfully deployed the system aboard the Marine Corps’ primary transport systems, the C130 and LCAC.”

Someone writing copy that knows little about these systems may have conflated the message and presumed they were fired from the C130 and from the LCAC.

Quite nice seeing constellation packed out with 4x4 NSM launchers. Bow shape is also interesting, quite keen to demonstrate true ocean capability. I think this will be quite a well liked class, with a reasonable fitout, decent capability.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
probably the confusion could be with the Rapid Dragon that did a demonstration few days ago.


The Rapid Dragon Program will complete a live-fire test with a production JASSM-ER from a cargo aircraft before the end of 2021. These tests will inform potential design refinement and accelerate the maturation of these systems for further capability experimentation and rapid fielding. A follow-on program will look at expanding the Rapid Dragon portfolio to include additional weapon systems and multiple effects capabilities.

Rapid Dragon could ultimately lead to a roll-on, roll-off system that transforms mobility aircraft into lethal strike platforms that augment the strike capacity of tactical fighters and strategic bombers. The retargeting methodology used is transferrable to other strike and cargo platforms, potentially increasing lethality of all JASSM-capable strike assets. These new capabilities can provide combatant commanders additional flexibility to prosecute targets en-masse in the high-end fight, thus changing the adversary’s calculus in an increasingly complicated and dynamic near-peer conflict.

SDPE’s Rapid Dragon Program is progressing from concept to powered-flight within 24 months. From a modular deployment box design to a flight test in only 10 months, this nontraditional acquisition program continues to take risks and push the developmental envelope, accelerating change to deliver operationally-relevant capabilities for the Future Force. These recent tests were supported both operationally and logistically in many ways by organizations from across the Air Force.
And on the constellation class, the bulbous was already out of the model year ago if not more, the interviewer was wrong on this particular.

Something I dont understand is why they have a single Heli hangar when the FREMM has space for 2.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
probably the confusion could be with the Rapid Dragon that did a demonstration few days ago.




And on the constellation class, the bulbous was already out of the model year ago if not more, the interviewer was wrong on this particular.

Something I dont understand is why they have a single Heli hangar when the FREMM has space for 2.
Unlikely.
The obvious error is a product of language. Since "deployed" can be categorized as "launched" in many cases. While in this case it was referring to "landed" and/or "delivered"
And, the Constellation-class has a large 'single door' hanger because the USN specifically stated a requirement to operate a "single" MH-60 aircraft along with the possible deployment of a MQ-8C UAV. Plus, a single door is cheaper.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member

The Navy’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER) received Milestone C (MS-C) approval Aug. 23, allowing the program to move into its first phase of production.

The Navy plans to award the first two low-rate initial production lots over the next several months.

“The combined government/industry team has worked tirelessly over the last few years to reach this milestone,” said Capt. Alex Dutko, Direct and Time Sensitive Strike (PMA-242) program manager. “We look forward to getting this new weapon with its increased capability and lethality out to the fleet as soon as possible.”

Another project making steady progress. Impressed with it so far.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is preserving money to develop a new surface-launched nuclear cruise missile, and is adding 12 Super Hornets and a second guided-missile destroyer to the US Navy’s shipbuilding plan, according to a copy of the chairman’s mark for the Fiscal Year 2022 budget obtained by USNI News on Wednesday. The mark, headed by HASC chair Rep Adam Smith (D-Wash.) largely keeps to the Biden administration’s request for a topline of US$704 billion, with adjustments to some US Navy programs.

2. The US Navy has delayed the fielding of its planned F/A-XX aircraft, removed 104 F/A-18E/F Block II aircraft from the planned Service-Life Modification (SLM) program, and F-35C procurement quantity has still not reached 24 aircraft per year.

3. US Navy leaders earlier this month, asked defense companies to not lobby Congress for legacy weapons programs, and to specifically resist buying more Super Hornets so the service can instead direct the money toward the development of the US Navy’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform. Super Hornets are, “a 30-year airframe at 10,000 hours. So that takes us out to about 2055. And there isn’t a lot of analysis out there that supports fourth-generation viability against any threat in that timeframe,” said Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle, head of the Navy’s air warfare directorate (OPNAV N98).
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
The USN has canceled it's program to field Block III Super Bugs with CFTs. Citing problems ("technical, structural, sustainment) that emerged during testing in a "carrier environment". Seems the USN issued a stop work order on the program back in January.
Boeing has reiterated that all Block III Super Hornets will still come off the assembly line manufactured to support the use of CFTs. So that option is still available for those users that don't intend on their aircraft operating under the structural stresses of carrier takeoffs and landings
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Shame about the CFT..
Not too many other operators of the Superhornet. I thought also that they could be retrofitted to existing airframes?
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Imagery of a new USN USV has surfaced. It was spotted in the port at San Diego recently. The manufacturer is not known and the USN is not saying much about it.

They've updated the article a couple times. And someone got video of it underway
And it was recorded by a marine traffic tracking site as making 17.5 knots. I'm thinking it might have gotten a little assist from the wind under the solar panels at the stern
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
message-editor_1632863410462-ffg-62-versus-fremm-graphic.jpg


The article in thedrive.com showm the graphic based on latest information on Constellation/FFG62 class compared to original FREMM. Shown bit larger and longer Frigates. Original FREMM is around 144m, thus by adding 23.6 feet is already around 151m. This make it close to Type 26 dimension, and also Arleigh Burke Class destroyers.

Certainly much larger than previos OHP FFG class. Shown as expected much bigger role that need to be brought by this new FFG.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
View attachment 48548


The article in thedrive.com showm the graphic based on latest information on Constellation/FFG62 class compared to original FREMM. Shown bit larger and longer Frigates. Original FREMM is around 144m, thus by adding 23.6 feet is already around 151m. This make it close to Type 26 dimension, and also Arleigh Burke Class destroyers.

Certainly much larger than previos OHP FFG class. Shown as expected much bigger role that need to be brought by this new FFG.
So this means the american version of the FREMM will not get a hull mounted sonar, but instead of that the AN/SLQ-61 light weight towed array sonar and the AN/SQS-62 Variable-Depth Sonar.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, that was always the plan. For some reason the USN has decided it doesn't like low frequency HMS; not sure if that's related to its effectiveness or lack thereof, or the environmental constraints they operate under which are designed to protect marine mammals. Presume it's the former, but I worry it's the latter!
 
Top