US Navy News and updates

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

Well done USS Carney.
Not bad for a crusty old Flt1 AB, don’t write them off as geriatrics just yet!
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well done USS Carney.
Not bad for a crusty old Flt1 AB, don’t write them off as geriatrics just yet!
Didn't realise she was a Flt1..

Very impressive. It was an example of proving the worth of so many systems, the burkes, aegis, SM-3, Sm-6, other munitions and systems. Against new and different threats and targets.
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
From the RAN thread talking about how the Constellation is now getting way behind schedule, I'd hazard a guess and say that the people who were in charge with their congruence way of building, have fully entrenched an entire generation of naval people and instead of learning from their mistakes, which ironically, Constellation was chosen in order to avoid, they have simply repeated them, albeit not quite to the same extent as the LCS.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
I really dont like this video, since it is biased. Just take in consideration how big is his mistake about the CODLAG, that is nothing new since it is already present on FREMM ITA. But still gives an idea how things are going inside the project.


Plus the fact that the design is being modified by Gibbs and Cox as per this article

In April of 2020, the Navy chose Fincantieri Marinette Marine to build the frigate at its yard in Wisconsin. Based on the FREMM parent design that’s in service with the Italian and French navies, the design is undergoing modifications to meet U.S. Navy survivability standards. The Navy hired design agent Gibbs & Cox to alter the FREMM drawings. Gibbs & Cox is not mentioned anywhere in the GAO report.



I don't understand why, even worse considering they are the ones that designed one of the Freedom version of the LCS...
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Basically they were told to buy an existing frigate but ended up designing a whole new one kitbashed from the FREMM.
Even the propulsion systems although the same engine families.


Its added mass and electronic needs are going to play differently. This said the statement that the Navy doesn’t have a shore based lab for the FFG 62 class engineering system tests may be accurate. That they don’t plan on building one is not.

 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The falacy of the existing design.

Quite simply, when your requirements are incompatible with an existing platform you need a new platform.

Politicians and talking heads, with no technical or operational expertise get involved and say, no you are not getting a new platform, you will adapt an existing design.

There is an existing design that fits the USN requirements, it's called the Gibbs and Cox International Frigate, i.e. the reference design for the losing contender for what became the Hobart class destroyers.

Compare that to FREMM and F-100 and you can see the problem.

The USN said they needed a new family SUV with a V8 engine, congress told them to adapt a VW Golf GTI to do the job. Golf is a great car but try and turn it into an SUV you are going to suffer a lot of pain.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Here’s some updated information on Orca. Quite the beast with the payload module. Diesel electric propulsion offers a 6,000 mile range. Boeing is to deliver an additional 5 units by year’s end.

 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Here’s some updated information on Orca. Quite the beast with the payload module. Diesel electric propulsion offers a 6,000 mile range. Boeing is to deliver an additional 5 units by year’s end.

Interesting to see what the Americans are doing with XLUUVs from an Australian viewpoint. I can see some similarities between the Ghost Shark and Orca.

The designs seem to be both built around the idea of an adaptable mission bay.

It could explain why Australia recently scrapped its mine warfare program since this is one of the roles the USN plans for their own XLUUV fleet.
 
Top