US Navy News and updates

Sea Toby

New Member
Appears the Navy will continue to develop the PAM NLOS-S system modules and missiles without the Army. Being a joint program of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon the PAM is the surface strike weapon system for the LCS. While the PAM costs three times more than a Hellfire or Javelin missile, its a third of the price of Harpoon.

The Navy wasn't expected to test its version using LCS shipborne sensors until 2012 anyway. While the Army has other missile systems currently in its cache, the Navy doesn't. While the Army considers this missile system expensive, the Navy doesn't...

The alternative to mount Harpoons instead on the LCS is at the moment is considered more expensive than to continue to develop PAM..

Just because the Army gave up doesn't mean the Navy has given up yet. I doubt whether the Navy will give up until there are failures with the Navy tests two years hence. Its not over until its over.
 
Last edited:

Juramentado

New Member
Appears the Navy will continue to develop the PAM NLOS-S system modules and missiles without the Army.
Sources? So far only Defense Update is quoting such an outcome and it's mostly editorial in that regard, nothing official. The 2012 timeline was strictly under the assumption that the entire SuW package was still on the rails for IOC in the following year.

Discussions of the options should probably move back to the current LCS thread.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/littoral-combat-ships-they-useful-9186-9/
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
MarineTimes: Gates: U.S. must rethink expensive ships, EFV

Pentagon and naval officials must decide whether to keep buying multibillion-dollar warships, since the Navy’s shipbuilding budget is unlikely to grow amid economic uncertainty and two wars, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
Gates raised eyebrows at a Navy League-sponsored conference in National Harbor, Md., by questioning, among other things, whether the United States will need 11 carrier strike groups when no other nation has more than one.
“At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers.” the secretary said. “Mark my words, the Navy and Marine Corps must be willing to reexamine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, new threats and budget realities.
“We simply cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more and more expensive technologies onto fewer and fewer platforms — thereby risking a situation where some of our greatest capital expenditures go toward weapons and ships that could potentially become wasting assets,” he said to a silent luncheon crowd.
Gates sent a shot across the bow of the Marine Corps’ troubled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program, saying it is time to “take a hard look” at the kind of platform needed for ship-to-shore maneuvers, “and how many.”
He also said Pentagon officials must question where the U.S. military might be ordered to carry out an amphibious insertion under enemy fire.
Gates noted that the U.S. Navy is the world’s best-equipped and most lethal, and can position more fighter jets at sea than the “rest of the world combined.” But he also said that no other nation is interested in matching the Navy in a ship-for-ship arms race. Instead, foes — big and small alike — will attempt to blunt America’s at-sea advantage “at the low end,” using things like long-range ballistic cruise missiles.
“The U.S. will also face increasingly sophisticated underwater combat systems — including numbers of stealthy subs — all of which could end the operational sanctuary our Navy has enjoyed in the Western Pacific for the better part of six decades,” Gates said.
These new tactics and systems possessed by potential foes mean U.S. naval forces must “have the widest flexibility” to deal with a wide variety of enemy tactics and potential kinds of conflicts, Gates said.
This “altered landscape” also will require “more innovative strategies” and “joint approaches.” On the latter, he plugged the Air Force-Navy “air-sea battle” concept.
The secretary also used a large chunk of his speech to call for additional resources for capabilities that can “see and strike deep” into hostile areas.
He said the Pentagon plans to increase funding for long-range unmanned aircraft and ISR platforms. He said additional resources are needed to carry out a planned increase of ships for missile defense missions.
Submarines’ expanded roles

Gates signaled submarines will be asked to do more in coming years.
Pentagon brass see a “submarine force with expanded roles that is prepared to conduct more missions deep inside an enemy’s battle network.
“We will also have to increase submarine strike capability and look at smaller and unmanned underwater platforms,” Gates said.
He also called for more ships that can operate in shallow waters.
“The Navy will need numbers, speed and the ability to operate in shallow water, especially as the nature of war in the 21st century pushes us toward smaller, more diffuse weapons and units that increasingly rely on a series of networks to wage war,” the secretary said. “As we learned last year, you don’t necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK47s and [rocket-propelled grenades].
“The Navy has responded with investments in more special warfare capabilities, small patrol coastal vessels, a riverine squadron, and joint high-speed vessels,” he said.
Gates also gave a thumbs-up to the embattled Littoral Combat Ship program. He acknowledged “its development problems,” but called it “a versatile ship that can be produced in quantity and go places that are either too shallow or too dangerous for the Navy’s big, blue-water surface combatants.”
Funding

Meantime, the secretary defended his years-long effort to shift more Pentagon funds and resources from hardware for conventional warfare to irregular conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.
He said for this fiscal year, “the department requested nearly $190 billion for total procurement, research and development — an almost 90 percent increase over the last decade.
“At most, 10 percent of that $190 billion is dedicated exclusively to equipment optimized for counterinsurgency, security assistance, humanitarian operations or other so-called low-end capabilities,” he said. Gates called that shift “needed and noticeable ... but hardly a dramatic one.”
As funding becomes scarce or is shifted to more-pressing programs, Gates noted the services often begin talking of “gaps.” But he said talk about addressing these perceived gaps typically include the wrong solutions.
“More often than not, the solution offered is either more of what we already have or modernized versions of pre-existing capabilities,” he told the audience. “This approach ignores the fact that we face diverse adversaries with finite resources that consequently force them to come at the U.S. in unconventional and innovative ways. The more relevant gap we risk creating is one between the capabilities we are pursuing and those that are actually needed in the real world of tomorrow.”
He then cited two examples: the aforementioned EFV program and aircraft carrier strike groups.
Finally, Gates repeated his fierce opposition toward funding an alternative F-35 engine and additional C-17 cargo planes. The Pentagon has for several years attempted to stop funding the power plant and end the Globemaster buy; Congress has continued each program each time.
“The fight is on,” he said, to convince Congress to resist putting money into the 2012 Pentagon budget for either. He did not, however, repeat his threat to recommend a presidential veto of the Pentagon spending bill if it contains monies for either effort, both of which Gates has concluded are not needed.
Gates said he will address the broader defense budget picture during a May 8 speech at the Eisenhower Library in Kansas.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
In response to my last post, I would like to know where Gates is going with this crap?

Is he planing on cutting the shipbuilding budget? Are we still going to keep 11 carrier strike groups? Will we still fund 12 new boomers? What about the DDG-51 missile destroyers?
 

Juramentado

New Member
Naval Operations Concept 2010 Released

Naval Operations Concept (NOC) 2010 was released this week (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Understandably, everyone will probably jump to Chapter 10 - Force Structure to see how aligned the document is with SECDEF Gates' recent comments at several professional conferences. (hint: there is little dissension in this document, at least to this reader)

I've had two passes over this document but will reserve the deep-dive for the long weekend coming. Some common themes and interesting highlights I noted though:


* A distinction of blue, green and brown water ops - although I'm still in disagreement that there is enough thinking on how to effectively apply strategy to the latter two types of water
* Not a great departure from the last known official Strategy Doc - CS-21
* The COIN Lite being espoused (where local forces are doing the heavy lifting with US soft support) is embodied in Maritime Joint Ops and Maritime Security sections
* This coincides with the emphasis on a more regional approach to deployment and security
* For those of you sweating what the future of the CV is, there is clear endorsement of the 3-2-1 strategy, so the eleven carriers future is still in doubt (that's on top of 3 deployed, so 9 total)
* Area-access/denial, HA/DR, BMD and non-kinetic options (read cyberwar) were big bullets
* Despite SECDEF Gates open thinking about future amphib ops, MAGTF lives
* SSGNs will have a limited life - but they didn't say Zumwalt was the answer
* Like it or not - LCS will carry on

So there you go. It's important to note this does NOT imply doctrine or tactics. As it clearly says in the beginning of the document, NOC2010 is the method by which the Navy will execute the Strategy of CS-21. Happy reading all!
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #146
An interesting pic of LHD-6 USS Bonhomme Richard refueling LCS-1 has been making its way across the net over the last couple days.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/100617-N-1200S-947.jpg

Right in front of the RAM launcher platform you see 2 fixed wing aircraft, one with a distinctive camouflage pattern. They are a pair of vintage L-29's and they are being transported to Hawaii for RIMPAC.

From Information Dissemination:

The amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), en route to participate in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010, is carrying unique cargo for training evolutions during the international maritime exercise. Bonhomme Richard left San Diego June 14 with two Czechoslovakian-built 1964 and 1965 Aero-Vodochody airplanes, modified with U.S. standard small turbojet J60 engines. These planes will simulate air to surface missile attacks for training purposes, during RIMPAC.

Traveling aboard with the embarked aircraft is retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Gerry Gallop, who is Chief Operating Officer for Tactical Air Support Inc. The company, that owns and operates the aircraft, provides consulting services, tactics development and test and evaluation services to U.S. THIRD Fleet.

“Our company’s main goal is to increase readiness through quality training with affordable platforms,” Gallop explained. “It adds realism and training value, because we can do a pretty-good job simulating a profile a missile would fly.”

Gallop said that he and three other retired military pilots will fly the Aero Vodochody airplanes during the RIMPAC exercise.

“We all happened to retire from the military, but we weren’t done contributing,” reflected Gallop. ”So we came together and found a way to continue doing what we are passionate about and continue to contribute to training and readiness of the U.S. military.”

Gallop said the modified Aero-Vodochody airplanes reach top speeds of approximately 420 knots or approximately 500 miles per hour. Tomahawk cruise missiles move at speeds of approximately 550 miles per hour. The ability to use the contracted aircraft in training simulations provides a more realistic and time-sensitive approach to the detection and countermeasures used to combat an inbound threat.
Information Dissemination: About Those Fixed Wing Aircraft on Bonnie Dick
 

Belesari

New Member
An interesting pic of LHD-6 USS Bonhomme Richard refueling LCS-1 has been making its way across the net over the last couple days.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/100617-N-1200S-947.jpg

Right in front of the RAM launcher platform you see 2 fixed wing aircraft, one with a distinctive camouflage pattern. They are a pair of vintage L-29's and they are being transported to Hawaii for RIMPAC.

From Information Dissemination:



Information Dissemination: About Those Fixed Wing Aircraft on Bonnie Dick
OO nice post i knew the airforce used modefied f4s for anti air training didnt know the navy would use those. Cool
 

Juramentado

New Member
Fire Scout Debuts in CENTCOM 2011

Having completed TechEval onboard USS McInerney (including a successful catch of a drug smuggler go-fast), the MQ-8 Fire Scout will make it's theater debut in CENTCOM around 2011. The Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) will move from McInerney to Halyburton, another Oliver Hazard Perry frigate.

Farnborough 2010: CENTCOM to receive Fire Scout by 2011 | Shephard Group

It's ironic that the UAV will make an operational debut in a real hot theater well ahead of LCS, but it's good news for the warfighters as it gives much needed additional air assets in the maritime domain surveillance role.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Its interesting, this looks like the first real small scale laser defence system. I thought larger ones were actually easier to make.

I wonder if they will stick 2 or 3 on a ship or 1 laser and one gun etc.
 

hoagie

New Member
Prompt Global Strike (PGS) / Vertical Launching System (VLS)

I see that the Navy is intending to ultimately replace the TLAM's etc that are presently occupying Vertical Launching System (VLS) launchers with some type of newer weapon as Prompt Global Strike (PGS) capable weapons are developed and deployed.

Here's the question.....The Falcon HTV2 vehicle looks to be in the latter stages of development as evidenced by a test launch. Is some derivative of this vehicle going to be a possibility for use as a PGS weapon to be launched from VLS or are they not even of the same genre? Thanks. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
I see that the Navy is intending to ultimately replace the TLAM's etc that are presently occupying Vertical Launching System (VLS) launchers with some type of newer weapon as Prompt Global Strike (PGS) capable weapons are developed and deployed.

Here's the question.....The Falcon HTV2 vehicle looks to be in the latter stages of development as evidenced by a test launch. Is some derivative of this vehicle going to be a possibility for use as a PGS weapon to be launched from VLS or are they not even of the same genre? Thanks. :)
As far as I know there are two different programs PGS which is the hypersonic cruise missile program and there is a sort of super tomahawk which twice as big twice the range and twice the warhead which would be the most direct replacement don't know how their going to fit in MK41's though
 

hoagie

New Member
As far as I know there are two different programs PGS which is the hypersonic cruise missile program and there is a sort of super tomahawk which twice as big twice the range and twice the warhead which would be the most direct replacement don't know how their going to fit in MK41's though
Actually, I believe that DARPA and the Navy have visualized something more than just a "super tomahawk" as evidenced by DARPA's website and its Arclight program.

They are after a weapon that would have the range and response time of an SLBM, basically, but would be a conventional vs nuclear weapon. At any rate, with the vast number of VLS launchers at sea, the weapon will very likely be VLS compatible.
 

hoagie

New Member
I see that the Navy is intending to ultimately replace the TLAM's etc that are presently occupying Vertical Launching System (VLS) launchers with some type of newer weapon as Prompt Global Strike (PGS) capable weapons are developed and deployed.

Here's the question.....The Falcon HTV2 vehicle looks to be in the latter stages of development as evidenced by a test launch. Is some derivative of this vehicle going to be a possibility for use as a PGS weapon to be launched from VLS or are they not even of the same genre? Thanks. :)
Defense Tech (Craig Hooper), on July 8, 2010 had a very interesting article that refers to the PGS weapons going into VLS launchers. Well worth the read.
 

rip

New Member
Plans for the Arleigh Burk flight III destroyers.

I am having trouble figuring out the US Navy’s plans for the new Arleigh Burk flight III destroyers. There is some confusing information out there. The following is what I know, what I think I know, and what I am sure I don’t know.

1. The navy is starting up the DDG-51 class again after limiting the new Zumwalt class to just three units, supposedly to save money (we will see about that, I have heard that story before). To save money, the flight IIa design would be modified as little as possible to accommodate its new add requirements to those beyond that of the flight IIa.

2. The Zumwalt class, as it was originally intended to be built was to have as part of its Aegis weapons system, a duel X and S band radar systems for air/space search and tracking. Using the AN/SPY-3 for the X-band tracking portion of the task and the AN/SPY-4 S-band radars for the search portion of the task, though both radars can and under some circumstances will do both functions at the same time. Plus all kinds of IFF, UHF, VHF, HF, target illumination, satellite communications, data links, ECM/ESM, navigation and all kinds of other stuff all going through active/passive phase array antennas plastered upon the many faceted composite parts of its superstructure. Now the Zumwalt will be built without the AN/SPY-4 but the new Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), now undergoing testing will be installed sometime later. The AN/SPY-4 will still be used on the new Ford class carriers however.
3. It seems now to be the policy that all new Aegis equipped ships build in the future will be made with installed ABM capacity and some number of additional, but not all legacy Aegis systems, will have ABM capacity, of some type, added at major overhauls and or FRAM type refits.

4. The Arleigh Burk flight III will be built with (AMDR) even though the diameter of its antennas is 14 feet and not the 12 feet of AN/SPY-1D and will require other significant modifications. Because of the way that the Arleigh Burk is built, by pre assembling large sections in an on sight factory and then lifting them into place and welding them together in the dry-dock. Read, The yard: building a destroyer at the Bath Iron Works by Michael S. Sanders. There are several choices. The greatest challenge being in the amount of available electrical power. The Zumwalt’s Aegis weapon suite is said to require 26 megawatts of power and the current Arleigh Burk uses only 8 megawatts. The flight III will not get all the extras of the Zumwalt but the (AMDR) is a real energy hog that has been reported to have a max range of 1,800 miles and that takes power.

5. Now what about the High-Power Discriminator X-band radar (HPD) the AN/SPY-2 ? A shortened derivative of the (THAAD)’s AN/TPY-2 that was going to be added to both the older Arleigh Burk’s and the later built Ticonderoga’s. Is it still in the game? I do not see how you could add theAN/SPY-3 to the Arleigh Burk without a complete redesign.

6. Did they finally decide to go with the (THAAD) at sea? Where there would be three layers of missile protection used in the most advanced applications. The highest layer being the full up sized 21 inch SM-3 block 2B with its greatly expanded range and area footprint of coverage, then at a lower level but still exo-atmospheric, the THAAD, and finally SM-2 Block IV and or whatever new round that will follow it. I saw a diagram somewhere that showed you could fit four THAAD missiles into to one strike length Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) cell or MK 57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System cell (PVLS) just like you do with the Advances Seasparrow giving you more rounds to play with (more operational flexibility) and there are never enough cells for all the bullets you may want to shoot.

7. Will the SM-3 block 2B have multiple kill vehicles (Lightweight Exo-atmospheric Projectile (LEAP)?

8. Will the SM-3 Block 1 variants still continue to be developed for older or smaller ships that do not have strike length Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells or MK 57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System?

9. Where dose the SM-6 play in all of this? Is it strictly for killing air-craft and cruse missiles at OTH? That is not what the South Korean’s said they were buying them for.

The Arleigh Burk will require more electrical power that is for sure. One proposal was to use one or both of the hello hangers to install gas turbine electrical generators and lose some or all of that capacity. Another was to add a center section plug to the center of the ship like they do with stretched commercial airliners designs like the 747 dash 9. Or do you redesign of the entire power plant section of the ship using the newest and greatest bits and pieces now available and lose fleet compatibility in supply and training? What are the effects on ship speed and range, sea keeping, damage control, and the low speed maneuverability in and out of port from these different changes? The last of the three options would seem to be the most expensive both in the short and long term. The first would seem to be an unacceptable loss of military capacity.
I would vote for the second, the stretch section option that would fit in with Bath’s building style quit easily. The MK 57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System is about 15 feet long. If a plug was to be devised to add amidships for the Arleigh Burk off approximately 15 feet, and if the required generators could be added plus some extra full tanks and whatnot else they can cram in, it could also be barracked with a pair of Mk 57’s (PVLS) port and starboard, adding 8 more of the largest cells now available that can accommodate whatever new missiles they come up with in the future at I think the lowest cost for what you could get. Not being a naval architect I have no idea what this added wait, length, change in center of gravity and buoyancy dose to the design, especially as in compare to the strength of the keel and what it would have on the ships sea keeping abilities. I know that when big commercial ship haulers have done this sort of thing in the past (adding a section but not changing anything else) it hasn’t always worked out so well. If I was really dreaming big I would add a second section making it thirty feet longer, getting 16 more missile cells and enough top side space to add back the harpoons and increase the hanger space enough so it could carry, not just two hellos as it dose now but two remotely operated drones as well but I guess that would be wishing for too much.
So guys, how much of it did I get right or have they even made up their minds yet?
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #157
I am having trouble figuring out the US Navy’s plans for the new Arleigh Burk flight III destroyers. There is some confusing information out there. The following is what I know, what I think I know, and what I am sure I don’t know.
Nothing has been confirmed in the public domain other than it will be based on the Burkes basic hull form and drive-train and it will probably have AMDR. Everything else is speculation at this point.
 

rip

New Member
Nothing has been confirmed in the public domain other than it will be based on the Burkes basic hull form and drive-train and it will probably have AMDR. Everything else is speculation at this point.

According to wikipedia they have already ordered long time lead items for DDG-113, DDG-114, and DDG-115 units so they must have some idea.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #159
According to wikipedia they have already ordered long time lead items for DDG-113, DDG-114, and DDG-115 units so they must have some idea.
Those will just be follow on Flight IIA's with some incremental improvements (such as Aegis baseline ACB-12), nothing major.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Aren't cruisers manly for anti-air warfare and destroyers are manly for anti-surface warfare? Whats the difference between the mission of a cruiser and a destroyer?

The MK 57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System is about 15 feet long. If a plug was to be devised to add amidships for the Arleigh Burk off approximately 15 feet, and if the required generators could be added plus some extra full tanks and whatnot else they can cram in, it could also be barracked with a pair of Mk 57’s (PVLS) port and starboard, adding 8 more of the largest cells now available that can accommodate whatever new missiles they come up with in the future at I think the lowest cost for what you could get.
I was thinking they should add 20 cells both fore and aft to allow for a total of 160 missiles in Flight III up from 96 cells in a Flight IIA ship.

Nothing has been confirmed in the public domain other than it will be based on the Burkes basic hull form and drive-train and it will probably have AMDR. Everything else is speculation at this point.
Isn't the new Flight III supposed to be larger in size?
 
Top