There are numerous other methods the CVW can find their way back to the bird farm. Just like in the good old days before satnav was around. No big deal!Unless it has a nuclear warhead! The same goes for AShMs and mines. But as the article I posted on another tread, EW UAVs can jamm sat nav on naval aircraft trying to find their CVN, and those planes wiil have to divert to land bases- a totally different ball game!
Well mate, you've gone from denying satnav to blanking out all communications to create no-win situation just to prove a point, which is what in the first place?What other methods are there if their communications also are jammed, and the CVN has to move all the time?
Even if it's true, they'll have to look for it longer, expending time & fuel. All that will curtail their mission effectiveness and power projection ashore.
To add to Salty's post the NAV subsystems in fighters are not like the NAVMAN (for your car) you find at the local electronics store. They are Inertial Navigation Systems updated by GPS. The INS does most of the heavy lifting, it could get the platform back into the vicinity of a CBG if it lost SATCOM, no worries. The only problem with INS's is that it drifts over time, so you need to update it.Well mate, you've gone from denying satnav to blanking out all communications to create no-win situation just to prove a point, which is what in the first place?
Other systems pilots can use are data link, TACAN, IFF, and voice as the CVN, CG/DDG/FFG, and airborne AEW&C controllers can track and guide the aircraft.
A UAV with the ECM capability to jam such as wide area and broad spectrum of comm and sat frequencies would require very high jamming power output which would mean lots of equipment and I doubt you could cram all that gear in a small airframe.
You can look here to see what the CVN can do: CV NATOPS MANUAL
Bottom line is just what exactly are you trying to prove?
Thanks for that manual, I'll enjoy reading it. Many small and bigger UAVs can be used for different frequencies, in addition to other platforms, both at sea and ashore. There will be combinations of UAVs, BMs, AshMs, mines, etc. to make CTF mission harder to execute. The old military principle applies: the attackers usually loose more men than defenders.A UAV with the ECM capability to jam such as wide area and broad spectrum of comm and sat frequencies would require very high jamming power output which would mean lots of equipment and I doubt you could cram all that gear in a small airframe.
Bottom line is just what exactly are you trying to prove?
The mission modules are quite interesting as they are capable of rapid swap-out which can be done in forward deployed locations.Navy to Roll Out New Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package
(Source: US Navy; issued September 18, 2008)
SAN DIEGO --- The Navy will roll out its new anti-submarine warfare mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in a ceremony Sept. 19 at Naval Base Point Loma Naval Mine & ASW Command Complex, San Diego.
Vice Commander, Naval Surface Forces, Rear Adm. Mike Shatynski; Principal Civilian Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development, Jim Thomsen; Deputy Director of Surface Warfare, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Rear Adm. Michael K. Mahon; Commander, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Rear Adm. Michael C. Bachmann; Program Executive Officer for Littoral and Mine Warfare, E. Anne Sandel; and Commodore, LCS Class Squadron, Capt. Lewis Chris Nygard, are all scheduled to speak at the event.
"The delivery of the anti-submarine warfare mission package will provide the Navy with a persistent large area detection capability, through our advanced unmanned vehicles and bi-static ASW systems," said Sandel. "Tomorrow we will take a critical step forward in support of assured access in the littorals for U.S. Joint Forces."
LCS can be configured to deploy with any one of three interchangeable mission modules: the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) module; mine countermeasures (MCM) module and surface warfare (SUW) module also know as mission packages. The first ASW mission package (MP) will use several different vehicles -- MH-60R, unmanned air vehicle, unmanned surface vehicle -- and associated sensors -- towed array sonar, remote towed active source, USV dipping sonar, multi-static off-board source -- to detect, classify, localize, track and engage submarines in the littoral environment.
LCS is a new breed of U.S. Navy warship with versatile warfighting capabilities, capable of open-ocean operation but optimized for littoral and coastal missions. Operational experience and analyses indicate that future adversaries will employ asymmetric means to deny U.S. and allied forces access into critical coastal regions, such as strategic chokepoints and vital economic sea lanes.
The LCS seaframe and mission modules are specifically designed to defeat such "anti-access" threats, which include fast surface craft, quiet diesel submarines and various types of mines.
The mission modules are quite interesting as they are capable of rapid swap-out which can be done in forward deployed locations.
Forgive my ignorance, however these three things seem to be important at the same time, so how will this work?the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) module; mine countermeasures (MCM) module and surface warfare (SUW) module
Have a look at these Lockheed Martin LCS presentations. They explain how the mission modules work on the LCS:Forgive my ignorance, however these three things seem to be important at the same time, so how will this work?
Keep in mind LCS is a small fast reaction (40+ knots) warship smaller than a multipurpose frigate. It can carry up to 75 crew, but 45-50 should be about the average "core" crew. Although the core crew would be able to operate all modules, they could be augmented by additional crew according to the mission specific modules and or duration of a mission. An example could be more aircrews for the MH-60R helos or VTUAVs.What the use of the different configuration for the same ship (three modules for each ship, along with three crews trained to be effective using these modules)?
A ship will use a single module at a time (i think)
Agreed, however this is a function of operational planning and not platform specific. The same challenges will be confronted with CVBG, MARG, etc. deployments and not just for the LCS.A naval operation will require very specific intelligence to predict which one from mine countermeasures, surface warfare, Anti-submarine warfare have to be stronger.
- In the time it takes the LCS group to arrive opposing force can: put some mines into the area, Submarine(s) can arrive or go to another place , Small ship/boat threat can scatter or intensify.
LCS is a first responder. It gets on station first perhaps 1-3 days prior to main naval force. If the LCS forces can resolve the situation great. IMHO in the very least, the mere presence of a US warship (LCS) may be sufficient to defuse a volatile situation, or keep it at bay until the heavies arrive on station.So, in many cases will the USN need to send a force consisting of all three elements in a strength good enough to take care of whatever might happen, in case it does, why bother with replaceable modules?
AFAIK the shortcomings in the both the MEKO and STANFLEX are those modular concepts have not been fully exploited. Whilst the modular capability exists, customers have not taken advantage of swapping out modules, most likely due to cost and current requirements. No reason to upgrade to a wartime configuration from a peacetime configuration. It remains to be seen if the LCS mission modules also fall into the same lack of exploitation.MEKO and STANFLEX have shown that such full module swaps are not really a realistic possibility. Modularization is useful in quick repairs - both systems allow switching out weapon systems within hours or days in case of breakdown for example - and can be frequently used in fleet realignment during regular refits, in particular with STANFLEX.
The LCS modules - with one system of a diverse type procured per ship - won't be any different than STANFLEX in that regard.
Also, NETFIRE does not really make the LCS a viable ASuW platform; the ASuW module gives the ship moderate self-defense capabilities, but that's it. It distinctly lacks a longer range, preferably OTH, strike weapon with a dedicated large anti-ship/anti-surface warhead - especially considering it carries VTOL drones, this represents a distinct lack of capability use.
This is nothing new. STANFLEX has been able to do exactly the same for decades. Modules have been swapped in hours, alongside in a port with no facilities other than a crane. But as Kato suggests, it's never proved useful on deployment. For a start, nobody ever sends a ship out to a foreign station without the equipment it's likely to need. Why would you do that?Previously, modular construction warships would require a refit period in a shipyard to change out a combat system. An example were the DD-963 Spruance class destroyer hulls that received conversion to VLS. I see that akin to swapping out a hard drive in a PC. You don't need to buy a new PC, but you do have to open it up to make changes.
The LCS mission modules are truly faster and efficient, like using a pen drive.
No disagreement here. The LCS gives the option of configuring for specific mission or tasks. This is a departure from using multi-mission platforms which is the traditional way of thinking as multi-mission also means your warship should deal with all threats, so sending a FFG/DDG/CG should meet those. LCS does have limitations in that is configured for specific-missions. I doubt any commander would send an LCS into harms way unless it could deal with the threat. Some of those missions would be best left to larger multi-mission warships.For a start, nobody ever sends a ship out to a foreign station without the equipment it's likely to need. Why would you do that?
LCS mission modules will be strategically pre-located in forward areas such as Japan and Bahrain. Much of what you mention with harbours and ports, will be challenging, however nothing really different from current US Navy logistics support worldwide.I agree with Kato that modular equipment greatly eases maintenance. It also makes it easy to build otherwise identical ships with different equipment, & also makes it possible for ships being sent to an overseas station to be fitted out appropriately before being sent, without major work. But seriously . . . what is the chance that the ship on the X station is not going to have the appropriate kit? And if it doesn't, is the situation likely to remain static long enough to change it over? It will have to sail away from the crisis to a secure, friendly port, near a secure, friendly airport capable of accepting the load, & with a secure, friendly route from the airport to the harbour; meet its new module(s) which have just been flown out, along with the crew to operate them, have 'em fitted, test them (essential after that process), make adjustments if needed, then get to where it's needed. How long will that take?