US Navy News and updates

ASSAIL said:
Fantastic programme and great boats. Now all you need to do is sell or lease 6 to Australia because these are exactly what we need as the Collins replacement. Only problem is that the political class fail to distinguish between nuc weapons and nuc power:ohwell
Click to expand...

One of the hilights of my career has been attending a loooong briefing on the Virginias and program discussions a few years back

I came away impressed and with it etched in my brain on how projects should be run....

plus I got to meet the USN's grand daddy of UDT systems - including cavitating torpedo technology - he did it years before the general public got excited over the Russians crowing about Skval
 
Possibility of of LCS procurement to be further reduces to 24 ships

Defense News is reporting that the office of the Secretary of Defense is considering support to limiting acquisition of littoral combat ships to only 24 (12+12), and ending procurement with the fiscal 2015 budget.

DN further stated that sources have the Navy pushing for a higher number, while pursuing procurement of at least 32 ships. A Navy spokesperson also stated that the service "...remain committed to a 52-ship LCS program —this number accurately and appropriately captures the requirement for capacity and capabilities.”

Sources: Pentagon Backs Cutting LCS to 24 ships | Defense News | defensenews.com

As to the distribution of mission focus amongst the 24-ship plan:
"Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander of the Navy’s surface forces, noted in an internal memo produced in November that with 24 ships — half devoted to mine warfare — the Navy will have exceeded the current minesweeping capacity of its ships and aircraft. While the modules are required to be interchangeable between the two LCS variants, only the Independence-class ships have been used in developmental MCM testing."

The article suggests these actions are sequestration driven.

(Edit: I apologize for the somewhat incoherent post title, I can't find a way to edit/correct it)
 
AegisFC said:
More than a week old, but I haven't seen it posted here.

Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 engages first over-the-horizon targets at sea - WSJ.com

The USS Chancellorsville shot 2 SM-6's at over the horizon targets using CEC data. The first time it was done at sea.
Click to expand...

Great news. The SM-6 looks like it'll provide a great deal of capability, I can only hope my own country is serious about procuring it for the Hobart-class, though of course our CEC capabilities aren't anything like those of the USN...
 
Where does SM-6 fit in a war load of a ship?

Will it eventually replace all SM-2's or is it supplementary to their mission.
 
It'll probably eventually replace SM-2, AFAIK SM-6 is essentially an updated SM-2 with an active radar seeker . It can supplement SM-3 in the ABM role as it can defend against ballistic missiles in their terminal phase.

Wouldn't mind a bit more info though
 
There is a tug-of-war going on over the UCLASS and what it will bring to the CSG. Will UCLASS remain true to it's original concept of being a long-range ISR/Strike platform able to thrive in contested airspace? Or will it emerge as something more suited to fighting the GWOT with reduced range and weapons load? The original idea would have fit nicely into the whole Pacific Pivot/Air-Sea Battle concept but perhaps the Navy is getting cold feet about entrusting such a key role to a robot.

www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-grapples-with-different-uclass-philosophies-391094/0
 
The USS Ford was floated for the first time.
Navy floods dry dock around USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier ahead of Nov. 9 christening | MLive.com

Looks like the DDG-1000 christening ceremony is a bystander of the governemnt shutdown, though it is nice to see everything coming together.
Navy: Shutdown postpones DDG 1000 christening | Navy Times | navytimes.com

Rayheon wins the AMDR contract.
Raytheon wins U.S. Navy radar deal worth up to $1.6 billion | Reuters
Raytheon Scores Another Breakthrough Victory In Radar Competition - Forbes
This wasn't really surprising, lots of people have been trying to break up LM's hold on Aegis for a few years now. Also LM is still the lead contractor up until 2018.
 
RobWilliams said:
There's a really good album of very recent DDG-1000 pictures, she's a mean looking ship!

Wow. Latest pics of ZUMWALT (DDG 1000)

Looking forward to her going to sea, same with GRF too
Click to expand...

Read a piece years ago in, I think, APDR that suggested Australia delay the AWD project until the DDG1000 was available. I cant remember exactly but I think discussions at the time wee that the quantum leap in capability would be worth the wait and that in the interim other capabilities could benefit from the cash.
 
Volkodav said:
Read a piece years ago in, I think, APDR that suggested Australia delay the AWD project until the DDG1000 was available. I cant remember exactly but I think discussions at the time wee that the quantum leap in capability would be worth the wait and that in the interim other capabilities could benefit from the cash.
Click to expand...
I would be keen to wait until its in really bad storm in N Atlantic I still have deep concerns about the hull form and seaworthiness what with the sharp Tumblemhone hull(also not too sure about the AGS and the wave piercing hull and water ingress during NGS) I assume these concerns have been dealt with in its long expensive development
 
harryriedl said:
I would be keen to wait until its in really bad storm in N Atlantic I still have deep concerns about the hull form and seaworthiness what with the sharp Tumblemhone hull(also not too sure about the AGS and the wave piercing hull and water ingress during NGS) I assume these concerns have been dealt with in its long expensive development
Click to expand...

I know from ABS and BIW that the hull form has been tank tested to death. There were apparently some stability issues when large waves hit the hull from behind but these were addressed before construction began.

Looking forward to hearing how these ships perform in service as I expect many to be pleasantly surprised as people were with the Type 45.
 
Probably not so much surprised, more "we've spent buckets of cash on these things so it's a good job they bloody well work!" ;)

At $3bn a pop - IIRC - they will not be bad ships.
 
RobWilliams said:
Probably not so much surprised, more "we've spent buckets of cash on these things so it's a good job they bloody well work!" ;)

At $3bn a pop - IIRC - they will not be bad ships.
Click to expand...

The $3.5bn is for the first of class and the overall project cost is because they only ordered three. If the US were to cancel the Flight III Burkes and build more Zummwalts the price would drop.
 
Volkodav said:
I know from ABS and BIW that the hull form has been tank tested to death. There were apparently some stability issues when large waves hit the hull from behind but these were addressed before construction began.

Looking forward to hearing how these ships perform in service as I expect many to be pleasantly surprised as people were with the Type 45.
Click to expand...

There was at least one "real" test bed, the Sea Jet.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Jet"]Sea Jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I've also heard stories of hull demonstrators in the Chesapeake but I can't find any hard evidence for it.

The way I figure it, a DDG-1000 can't be any worse to ride on than a Tico. The only time I've ever been sea sick (and land sick) was when I spent a couple months on the Philippine Sea.
 
Not wanting to sound negative to the Zumwalt's in anyway, especially before any have been in the water and commissioned, but I do wonder what sort of service life they will have?

As I understand it, originally they were supposed to be a class of 30+, then reduced to 10 and finally to three. The fact there will only be three of them (certainly good by RAN standards for example) but will they become the victim of future cost cutting (easier to cut a whole class of only three out of service) or not being able find a permanent place for them in the USN fleet structure?

I'm wondering if they will be continuously in service or if their service life be something like the Iowa class BB's for example, in service after completion for a few years then mothballed, reactivated for the Korean War, mothballed again, reactivated for Vietnam, mothballed again and their final reactivation in the 80's.

Is it likely the three Zumwalt's could follow a similar path and be used sparingly during their service lives?

Interested in everyone's thoughts.
 
John Newman said:
Not wanting to sound negative to the Zumwalt's in anyway, especially before any have been in the water and commissioned, but I do wonder what sort of service life they will have?

As I understand it, originally they were supposed to be a class of 30+, then reduced to 10 and finally to three. The fact there will only be three of them (certainly good by RAN standards for example) but will they become the victim of future cost cutting (easier to cut a whole class of only three out of service) or not being able find a permanent place for them in the USN fleet structure?

I'm wondering if they will be continuously in service or if their service life be something like the Iowa class BB's for example, in service after completion for a few years then mothballed, reactivated for the Korean War, mothballed again, reactivated for Vietnam, mothballed again and their final reactivation in the 80's.

Is it likely the three Zumwalt's could follow a similar path and be used sparingly during their service lives?

Interested in everyone's thoughts.
Click to expand...

Judging from this interview Capabilities and Missions of the Zumwalt Class Destroyers
I would imagine that they would be an integral part of any opposed Marine amphibious expedition.

I'm fascinated by them, for their audacity in design, and I only wish the RAN funders were a bit more ambitious (on a smaller scale naturally).
Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top