the concerned
Active Member
Maybe not new ones but used ones as they are replaced in japan could be an option plus add in US influence
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Japan does not recognise Taiwan in the official sense and it has been that way since 1972, reafirmed in 1998 and more recently in 2006 by Abe on his first term as PM. The official line is the one China policy and that will not change - unless the PRC pushes the Japanese too far and under estimates them. Ironically the Taiwanese can fly in and out of Narita on vacations to their hearts content. A mainland Chinese though gets the full weight of the Japanese bureaucracy impeding their wish to set foot in the country every step of the way. Japans new policy interpretation (not strictly legislation actually) is based on is the 3 Principles declared in the Diet in 1967 and is at this stage only allowing non lethal exports. That does nethertheless allows for diesel submarine engines or other heavy machinery componentry, which it probably will not likely be sold to Taiwan by Japan as even though Chinese sabre rattling greatly agravates them, they the Japanese have considerable corporate investments and export markets in the PRC which would be at risk. The loss would immeasurably out weigh the minute gains of selling a limited number of machines. The Japanese have recently sort to end a couple of their minor FM issues such as Whaling in the Southern Ocean in a move to win back some public sympathy with a number of strategic partners, friends and allies. Their efforts in the Philippines Response was another element in this move to create a positive impression in the region and in their view a counter balance to recent Chinese behavior in the battle for positive regional public perception.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If funding was made available for diesel electric subs without reducing Virginia production, the USN would be happy to see these subs being produced for key allies. As for the the USN wanting them to complement their SSNs, I am guessing YES, again, as long as there is no cut back on the Virginias. Better to lose a diesel electric in vulnerable littoral waters (but not by much).
Having a DE or two to train their attack boats and surface ships wouldn't be bad either, but that's what Joint Warrior with Northern European SSK fleets are good for 
The US requires nuclear submarines for their range, endurance and strategic mobility, when they decommed Blueback in '90 they were fully aware of the commitment they were making both in a capability sense and in a fiscal sense.
SSNs are still capable of doing the littoral work, but the same cannot be said the other way around. USN funding is stretched as it is with other more critical programs requiring the funding, building some kind of SSK would be an unnecessary waste of funds, manpower and production capacity for the USN and Electric Boat.
Virginia's are first class boats, naval doctrine in the Pacific (the big bear people talk about) involve staying as far off the coast of China as possible, it's why things like UCLASS are turning into tankers and the like, to increase the strike range of carrier based aircraft. Further stand off ranges extends the range in which the PLAAF need to go to hit USN assets, makes it harder for land based ISTAR aircraft to keep tabs on US formations etc.
Probably oversimplified quite a bit, but the point is the USN is developing how to fight China at arms length and avoiding the littoral at all costs, the exact theater where SSK's thrive, so is there necessarily the need for an SSK to counter a threat of which is not exactly critical? If we're talking close in around Pacific islands etc i'd imagine a LCS jetting around at 40kts would be the better alternative.
The US requires nuclear submarines for their range, endurance and strategic mobility, when they decommed Blueback in '90 they were fully aware of the commitment they were making both in a capability sense and in a fiscal sense.
SSNs are still capable of doing the littoral work, but the same cannot be said the other way around. USN funding is stretched as it is with other more critical programs requiring the funding, building some kind of SSK would be an unnecessary waste of funds, manpower and production capacity for the USN and Electric Boat.
Virginia's are first class boats, naval doctrine in the Pacific (the big bear people talk about) involve staying as far off the coast of China as possible, it's why things like UCLASS are turning into tankers and the like, to increase the strike range of carrier based aircraft. Further stand off ranges extends the range in which the PLAAF need to go to hit USN assets, makes it harder for land based ISTAR aircraft to keep tabs on US formations etc.
Probably oversimplified quite a bit, but the point is the USN is developing how to fight China at arms length and avoiding the littoral at all costs, the exact theater where SSK's thrive, so is there necessarily the need for an SSK to counter a threat of which is not exactly critical? If we're talking close in around Pacific islands etc i'd imagine a LCS jetting around at 40kts would be the better alternative.
If you're wanting to tackle an SSK in the littorals, I'd guess a USV being swum in remotely from an SSN would be the smooth move.
SSN's do have a couple of advantages if they want to go in closer ashore mind - while they're big, they have mammoth power reserves - and some SSN's have thruster systems for station keeping in currents, meaning they can hold position without much noise produced, for *days* if need be. An SSK would drain it's batteries dry holding against an offshore current in similar positions.
For the US, adding an SSK to the fleet would be a complete embuggerance - they're not that cheap vs Virginia in serial production, if we're talking about standing up a design and production run for a half dozen or so. Neither are SSK's easy to get into theatre for the US - all the muddy shallow places they need to get into are a long ways off (unless they start doing ops in the Gulf of Mexico)
So, add in a separate training stream for SSK's, spares line, program costs for design and construction, you're deep sixing any chance of getting enough Virginia's into the water.
SSN's do have a couple of advantages if they want to go in closer ashore mind - while they're big, they have mammoth power reserves - and some SSN's have thruster systems for station keeping in currents, meaning they can hold position without much noise produced, for *days* if need be. An SSK would drain it's batteries dry holding against an offshore current in similar positions.
For the US, adding an SSK to the fleet would be a complete embuggerance - they're not that cheap vs Virginia in serial production, if we're talking about standing up a design and production run for a half dozen or so. Neither are SSK's easy to get into theatre for the US - all the muddy shallow places they need to get into are a long ways off (unless they start doing ops in the Gulf of Mexico)
So, add in a separate training stream for SSK's, spares line, program costs for design and construction, you're deep sixing any chance of getting enough Virginia's into the water.
The Next Act for Aegis | USNI News
This article does a good job explaining what Aegis Baseline 9 is and what it brings to the table. It also has a good explination of what NIFC-CA is and why it is important.
Baseline 9B was supposed to be upgraded Tico's with the 9C MMSP but was deemed not worth it considering the Cruisers age and normal job.
This article does a good job explaining what Aegis Baseline 9 is and what it brings to the table. It also has a good explination of what NIFC-CA is and why it is important.
Baseline 9B was supposed to be upgraded Tico's with the 9C MMSP but was deemed not worth it considering the Cruisers age and normal job.
Providing the surface fleet with their own organic UAV is what DARPA' TERN initiative seeks to achieve. Never really thought of this as a NIFC-CA enabler but now it's beginning to make more sense. Such a UAV would offer greater range/endurance over E-2D and provide a persistent coverage for an ESG, for example.
As the Navy continues to develop NIFC-CA, it’s currently tied to a carrier centric model that relies on aircraft — primarily the Navy’s new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar aircraft — to provide the target tracking information to the ships and their SM-6s.
“One of the limitations of NIFC-CA is the E-2D,” Hesser said. “You can do NIFC-CA shots with two Baseline 9 ships. Now it doesn’t really optimize its extended range capability; you need an airborne sensor and that sensor is the E-2. But there are a limited number of E-2s and one of the issues with doing NIFC-CA is getting the E-2 out on station.”... Kilby and N96 are already thinking about how to make the ability of the Baseline 9 ships less reliant on the assets of the carrier strike group and still get the maximum punch from the system.
Among the ideas include creating an organic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for Aegis ships with the necessary data links to provide the tracking and targeting data to the ship’s systems...
I wonder if they could add a booster to up the range a bit and facilitate vertical launch, and make so could put four (or five, or nine whatever fits) in a VLS cell?
Then any tico/burke/zumwalt could dedicate a couple cells to hellfire as needed to have a relatively cheap anti small boat swarm capability.
Well, you will get the lmco extensible launching system, which will allow e.g. 4 Ram block II in a single cell, and this can engage air as well as surface targets. Why bother with Hellfire?
Naval Launchers and Munitions · Lockheed Martin
Naval Launchers and Munitions · Lockheed Martin
I suppose Hellfire is just more suited to surface targets as that is what it's designed for. If they're planning on fitting a booster to it then it should be able to out-range RAM. I liked the look of surface fired Brimstone as an option but from what I remember of previous discussions it wouldn't be very cost-effective as a counter to swarms of small surface targets.
It'd be good if they looked at a smaller but still relatively long-ranged anti-ship missile like Penguin, but again the costs would be very lopsided when engaging small targets. But then if they could load Penguin plus another option for small boats maybe that would be the more flexible fit? Or do you go all the way and go for LRASM plus a smaller missile? I really don't know...
protoplasm
Active Member
Cost is the issue, Hellfire is apparently less than a quarter of the cost per round than RAM. If you are going to put 8-9kg of HE into a small boat, find a cheap reliable means of doing it.
Wow, I had no idea the cost disparity would be so high. But then I guess anti-air missiles as a rule are pretty pricey compared to other weapons in the same weight/range class.
Options such as remote weapon stations, larger light guns (35,40,57mm etc), guided projectiles (76, 127mm), guided rockets etc. could all be possible using currently available systems to counter swarm boats. Another thought is an automatic 81 or 120mm mortar (turreted), firing guided ( mm wave radar or IR) projectiles developed for anti armour use. A short range rocket in the vls carrying multiple individually guided anti-armour sub-munitions adapted to engage swam boats could be interesting.
I'm a big fan of the potential for active guidance/moving target capability for large naval guns, but could either LCS design take the larger gun? I think I remember hearing somewhere that the Independence doesn't have room for an up-gunning to 76mm due to space issues. That said I'd love to see such projectiles in service for smaller targets, particularly if you can extend the range on them somewhat.
A naval mortar could be interesting, surely you'd need a way to boost the range though?
Ignorance here but how is a mortar fired? I know the early ASW mortars used propellant charges such as cordite, to fire the depth charges so me being simplistic, would an increase in the tube length and charge work to a certain degree?
the concerned
Active Member
Could it be possible to make a naval application of the laser guided rocket that are just coming on the helicopters then the US navy is using the same munitions as the USMC .
I doubt that guided mortar rounds like Strix are able to hit heavily maneuvering small boats. Minimum range could also be a problem.
As for cost effectiveness. We are hitting mud huts and sniper positions with ATGMs and LGBs delivered by fast movers in Afghanistan. Hitting a dozen small boats with a hellfire/brimstone salvo seems rather normal compared to this...
IMHO, something like Spike-NLOS would be even better suited for the envisioned role of the LCS. One gets a lovely OTH range with datalink targeting to plink everything spotted by the embarked Seahawk/Fire Scout. All this in a package which shouldn't be larger than a comparable Hellfire launcher. At least one would have something to hit the occassional FAC popping up in an Archipelago.
It would also make for some nice land support capability against specific high value/low signature targets.
As for cost effectiveness. We are hitting mud huts and sniper positions with ATGMs and LGBs delivered by fast movers in Afghanistan. Hitting a dozen small boats with a hellfire/brimstone salvo seems rather normal compared to this...
IMHO, something like Spike-NLOS would be even better suited for the envisioned role of the LCS. One gets a lovely OTH range with datalink targeting to plink everything spotted by the embarked Seahawk/Fire Scout. All this in a package which shouldn't be larger than a comparable Hellfire launcher. At least one would have something to hit the occassional FAC popping up in an Archipelago.
It would also make for some nice land support capability against specific high value/low signature targets.
APKWS II fired from one or two 19 rocket pods mounted on a modified Typhoon mount with Toplight would be interesting. Supersonic speed, enough hitting power to kill a tank, 19 or 38 ready to fire rounds on each mount. I'm not sure but if the IRST was good enough and its engagement processes automated it could almost be used as a air defence and CIWS as well.