US Navy News and updates

Humming Drone said:
Can someone please point out where and why the speed requirement for LCS came from?
Click to expand...

  • Responsive mobility - to concentrate rapidly in forward theaters from a globally dispersed posture (range of 1000-1500nm at sprint speeds)
  • Increased volume of seach - consistent with the LCS's expected FORCEnet ISR function
  • Threat evasion - especially against torpedos

Highly recommend this document from Bob Work about the LCS, bottom of page 14/15 discusses speed, the rest of 15 on how that effected the endurance, the stats and the consequences of the moves.

Frankly, it's just an interesting document about what the Navy are looking to do with the LCS.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/work white paper.PDF
 
Anyway, a day after the reduction order came out at the behest of OMB, the Navy's acquisition chief defends the Program. I guess we shall see in due time how committed,the Navy is to the Littoral strategy it had been preaching these past years. DDG-1000 was to have been a key player but was truncated at 3 hulls so LCS may be in line for the same.



SNA 2014: 52-Ship LCS Requirement is 'Solid' | USNI News

“We have a valid requirement for 52 ships, and the program is performing strongly,” Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley told reporters on Thursday... “So the Navy’s position on the LCS program is that it is solid,” Stackley said during a media briefing at the Surface Navy Association’s 2014 symposium in Crystal City, Va.

That said, the Navy acquisition chief declined to comment on, “any press reports to the contrary.”

Stackley’s comments come a day after a report in Defense News stated the the White House’s Office of Management and Budget ordered Navy leaders to slash the proposed LCS buy from 52 ships down to 32.

More at the link.
 
ASSAIL said:
It will be interesting to see how the X band radar performs in the monsoonal conditions often encountered in the tropical littorals.
I can only assume that technology has improved to prevent the total white out found on older X bands?
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the Zumwalt X-band radar features a high bandwidth so operators presumably can find the optimum frequency to,suit prevailing weather conditions.
 
My very limited experience with modern radars suggests that newer sets are more adjustable and while performance will still be degraded the gain can be adjusted to clear the picture up. I imagine a high end set up as on Zummwalt would have a lot of software driven solutions to this.
 
The processing of the signal can off course be fiddled and upgraded but the real problem with X (or I) band is the physical characteristic of the transmitted wavelength (3 cm). In the case of rain, the particles which effect the scattering and attenuation are raindrops. If the size of these is a good proportion of the 3cm wavelength (normal in the tropics) strong clutter is produced along with serious loss of energy due to attenuation and scattering.
I just wonder how they overcome this?
 
I found an interesting graphic illustrating the effect rain has on different radar wavelengths. Perhaps a future consideration may be installing AMDR on the Zumwalts to mitigate any potential risk.

Radar Basics
 
So it begins . . .

In Pursuit of the U.S. Navy's Next Surface Combatant | USNI News

The Navy needs to perfect three technologies on its quest for its next generation of large warships, Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare (N96) for the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) told USNI News in an interview in the Pentagon on Jan. 9.

Energy weapons (like lasers), electromagnetic rail guns and advanced energy systems to power the new weapons are all likely to be part of the next major surface ship, though the specifics for a ship (or ships) — which won’t begin construction in 15 years — are far from settled.
Click to expand...

As expected, the DDG-1000 will pretty much serve as the test bed for the power generation and DE/EM weapons.
 
colay said:
I found an interesting graphic illustrating the effect rain has on different radar wavelengths. Perhaps a future consideration may be installing AMDR on the Zumwalts to mitigate any potential risk.

Radar Basics
Click to expand...

An issue particularly with the Zumwalts is that to detect anti ship missiles the radar needs to be mounted very high to give a better angle against the water/clutter). US combat vessels can't do this due to the immense weight of the SPY-1D and no doubt the AMDR will be just as heavy.
 
justsomeaussie said:
An issue particularly with the Zumwalts is that to detect anti ship missiles the radar needs to be mounted very high to give a better angle against the water/clutter). US combat vessels can't do this due to the immense weight of the SPY-1D and no doubt the AMDR will be just as heavy.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why so many ships are getting SPQ-9B mounted as high as possible on the mast.
 
justsomeaussie said:
An issue particularly with the Zumwalts is that to detect anti ship missiles the radar needs to be mounted very high to give a better angle against the water/clutter). US combat vessels can't do this due to the immense weight of the SPY-1D and no doubt the AMDR will be just as heavy.
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen if the AMDR would pose a,weight problem IF it was retrofitted to DDG-1000 down the road. Zumwalt may look top heavy but the composite superstructure on the first two hulls and the conventional steel design on the third ship pose no stability concerns.
If AMDR will be retrofitted to older DDG-51s, I think it would be less worrisome doing the same on the larger Zumwalts.
 
How networkable is LRASM going to be? Would it - for example - be able to receive targeting data from offboard sensors like from an MPA to hit targets outside of the launch ships radar picture?
 
RobWilliams said:
How networkable is LRASM going to be? Would it - for example - be able to receive targeting data from offboard sensors like from an MPA to hit targets outside of the launch ships radar picture?
Click to expand...

I'd say almost certainly. No point investing in a JASSM based long range missile if you can't see far enough to use it... CB90 probably knows more (whether or not he's telling is another matter :P)
 
Haha... I'll take "non line of sight datalink" as a yes :D

Thanks for the video link, very curious about this weapon and glad to know it's fitted to launch from today's VLS. Looks like it'll be a hell of a lot more effective in that role than a few Harpoon tubes and surface-targeted Standards, although I understand the USN's primary ASuW capability is going to come from carrier based air and subsurface assets. Just hope that Australia is keen to procure a few for the Hobarts, future frigate and Collins replacement, given its JASSM roots and comprehensive targeting capabilities I imagine it could do true double duty as a standoff strike weapon as well as an anti-ship missile.
 
The thing is designed to fly hundreds of kilometers and pick out and engage a specific target, if need be while operating in a heavy EW environment where it may be denied access to offboard data feeds. Magical stuff.

The airborne LRASM variant seems to have a clear field to replacing Harpoon in USN/USAF service. The ship-launched variant may have to go thru a competitive flyoff vs an anti-ship Tomahawk version if Raytheon supporters in Congress have their way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top