US Navy News and updates

[Sea Toby]

Both bids came in low, thus the Navy decided to buy both, ten each this year... While the Navy was going to choose one over the other, with the low bids they can play that game again in the future. Plus the Navy couldn't decide which ship they liked better...

With this years buys, twenty six LCS ships out of 50+ have been ordered. That is half of the program....

The US Navy have never been thrilled to buy frigates in the past. Unlike other navies the US Navy doesn't consider frigates as front line combatants. You would think the same if you had over 100 cruisers and destroyers in your fleet as well. While there are problems with some of the weapons modules, the US is pressing ahead because they need to replace a number of ships. The US Navy can wait for the new weapons modules to develop... One way or the other... Its not the first time the US Navy has had problems with weapons development, remember the DASH drone helicopter?

Presently, all of the LCS have a medium gun and either RAM or Searam... Considering the FFGs don't have any SAMs at all, the US Navy see these ships as an improvement as is...

So many are quick to point out the negatives, but fail to see any of the positives... These ships are large enough to develop or use other weapons if necessary...

 

[AegisFC]

So many are quick to point out the negatives, but fail to see any of the positives... These ships are large enough to develop or use other weapons if necessary...

My complaints are about the ultra-low manning concept, the way all PMS (except daily and weekly) is contracted out, how field daying the ship is contracted out and the horrible fuel economy they get. Those water jets are also going to prove a maintenance problem as well.

 

[alexsa]

So many are quick to point out the negatives, but fail to see any of the positives... These ships are large enough to develop or use other weapons if necessary...

I can see the positives for a large navy like the USN (as noted in ,my comments) but do not support the idea of using this design in a smaller navy in lieu of a mulit role firgate or other MFU.

With other roles I wouel note payload is everything. Those light high speed hullls are restrictive in this regard but agree it works well for an littorail (fair conditions) converable weapons system.

 

[StingrayOZ]

US President Barak Obama has signed off on a deal for West Australian company Austral to build 10 Littoral Combat Ships at it's US shipyard worth more that $4 Billion, the remaining 10 will be constructed by Lockheed Martin.
A great win for an Australian company who have struggled in recent times, would be interesting if the Australian Government and Navy will now pay more attention to this company and type of ship for the RAN ?

I would imagine the OCV concept they were publising during the whitepaper release may resurface. Rudd was very big on getting the navy stronger, and he seems to be working his way into higher levels of decision atleast on Foreign policy.

I don't know how compatable the OCV would be with the LCS modules, but it was simular in concept. Being a LCS lite I would imagine there would be some international interest in it, now that Austal seems to be doing quiet well in the project. I thought the Israelies were interested.

The australian program seemed progressive. 20 OCV's. Unlike the USN the RAN doesn't have 200 destroyers/cruisers/frigates and 10 CVB etc. We already have 14 rather new patrol boats so this would appear in addition to them.

I think the LCS concept is an interesting experiment. I think they will be useful ships, but if your going to experiment with manning, ship design, construction etc, then atleast they aren't compromising their major vessels.

 

[rip]

Two questions about a new ship but not ours but still interesting.

Two questions about a new ship.

As reported in Defense Technology International, the Dec-10 issue, it says that Saudi Arabia might join the select club of countries that has both the Aegis ship based missile defense system for its navy with the added enhanced capacity of using a version of Aegis which includes the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system options. The platform would be the Lockheed Martin’s proposed Surface Combat Ship, with a length of 115 meters and approximate displacement of 3,300 tons. This proposed ship is designed for export as an upgraded derivative of the USN’s Littoral Combat Ship. It would use the SPY-1F (V) radar which has an 8 ft. diameter array, the same as used in the Norwegian (Fridtjof Nansen) class of new frigates. While the SPY-1D that is used in lager ships has a 12 foot diameter array and the new (AMDR) radar will have a 14 feet diameter array and that system will have much more power and range than has ever been seen before on a combat ship.

Not much information is given on the Lockheed Martin web site but going by the drawing provided, it would seem that the proposed design would have the same large rear aircraft landing area as the LCS with two guns instead one gun, different from the LCS with no RAM launcher, being replaced by another gun and will of course use the mark 41 cell launchers for standard SM-2 and SM-3 missiles that it must have to be a Aegis ship with two illuminator missile guidance radars to guide the missiles instead of three as on destroyers. It does not show witch type of Mark 41’s will be installed. Strike length launchers would seem to be too big for a 3,300 ton vessel but I could be wrong. I haven’t been able to determine if the SM-3 mod IA or IB can be lunched from the shorter versions of the Mark 41 or not. The SA-3 Mod IIA, I know can only be fired from the largest Mark 41 cell type made.

I do not know how long it has been since the US has sold brand new combatants to third countries because of our cost of production and general gold plating our ships have? There is president however for taking a hull originally designed as a gun platform and using it as a base line for a missile ship. The Spruance class DD had the very successful but underrated Kidd class DDG variant, which was originally ordered by the Shaw of Iran.

I have some doubts about the ability of such a small platform to accomplish the BMD mission and still be an otherwise effective fighting vessel in other respects. Let’s look at the mission. First the SPY-1F (V) has a smaller aperture and lower power output than the (D) version. But while the (D) version attempts to be able to counter all the ballistic missiles threats, perhaps the Saudi’s are only concerned with the short and medium ballistic missiles threats, since they are looking squarely at Iran's danger at close ranges. Betting that the only ballistic missiles they think they would be faced are not the long range ICBM’s, which are the hardest to detect, track, and destroy. If so the lower power and resolution of the (F) version radar may not be a mission killer for those types of targets. The (F) version has only one transmitter, if I am correct, which is functionally time shared with four phase arrays while the (D) version which has two transmitters, each of which is time shared with two arrays. That double configuration gives it some redundancy but it also gives it much more average radiated power for its volume air search functions (track while scan). While the new (AMDR) still under development with its active element phase array configuration, has many active elements embedded per every array and much, much more radiated power for all of its functions. Having just one transmitter for four arrays means there is even less average power to be budgeted when operating in the volume air search mode and less when operating in municipal radar search/track/command modes. But it will still have much better detection rates and tracking profiles than mechanically scanned air search and tracking systems that similar sized vessels now have.

Then there is the critical issue of number of cells available for these small type ships. For the USN which operates far from its home waters the numbers of cells and hence the number of available combat rounds it has to fire might be more important to its operations than it is for a ship that is used mainly as a costal defense vessel, as is the proposed Lockheed Martin’s Surface Combat Ship, but is looks to me that there will not be very many cells available on this platform. For the ABM mission you would need at least 5 or six dedicated cells exclusively for the exo-atmospheric SM-3’s and an equal number of cells for SM-2 Mod IV’s as backups for in atmosphere ABM intercepts. All of this is needed for just a one real world ABM engagement. It is very unlikely that if Iran fires ballistic missiles at Saudi Arabia they would just shoot one at a time. And even though they are talking about buying up to six ships and backing that up with Patriot Pac III systems based on shore, the Patriot missiles do not have a great foot prints as for large area coverage though as point defense they might be good enough.

Though I am not a great fan of the Ballistic Missile Bombardment Strategy that is currently in vogue in many circles Saudi Arabia has many Juicy targets for ballistic missile attack like huge oil refineries and storage facilities, pumping stations and ports crammed with oil tankers. These are much better targets for ballistic missiles than are military facilities.

While this propose ship for the ABM mission may not desperately need cells dedicated to land attack or anti-ship targets and since it can have up to two effective helicopters embarked on board as well as ship launch torpedoes it might not need any cells for ASW rounds there is still the question of how many cells it would need for its own AAW defense. The article made no mention of quad packed sea sparrow’s though I think that would be a sound decision if it is included.

But A more general question valid for all AAW type ships, which is only made more strident in this small ship configuration, is now many Cells do you need to defend yourself from a coordinated air attack from modern supersonic Fighter/bombers aircraft. Let us say four jets with medium range radar and or IR guided missiles as just one example. Remember you might want to shout down the missiles themselves after they are lunched not just the aircraft that carries them.

What do you guys think?

Can this design, which I personally think is like the Fridtjof Nansen class frigate a sound one for most typical naval missions, can this basic design be stretched to stay a sound combatant for typical naval missions and do the ABM mission at the same time? Is it a mission to far?

And generally how many SAM’s do you need to defend your ship from a coordinated attack from four modern supersonic aircraft armed with medium range guided weapons, regardless of the type of ship? When they launch from a high speed attack profile, where the aircraft first fire their weapons at some range from the ship and come rushing in from different directions and then follow them in to finish the job. Like they would do in a real war. How many missiles, how do you fire them, at what range, how fast?

 

[alexsa]

I would imagine the OCV concept they were publising during the whitepaper release may resurface. Rudd was very big on getting the navy stronger, and he seems to be working his way into higher levels of decision atleast on Foreign policy.

I don't know how compatable the OCV would be with the LCS modules, but it was simular in concept. Being a LCS lite I would imagine there would be some international interest in it, now that Austal seems to be doing quiet well in the project. I thought the Israelies were interested.

The australian program seemed progressive. 20 OCV's. Unlike the USN the RAN doesn't have 200 destroyers/cruisers/frigates and 10 CVB etc. We already have 14 rather new patrol boats so this would appear in addition to them.

I think the LCS concept is an interesting experiment. I think they will be useful ships, but if your going to experiment with manning, ship design, construction etc, then atleast they aren't compromising their major vessels.

In regards to the LCS model there is a limiting factor in the operating limitations of a HSC hull and that is the southern ocean will become a problem from a maintenacne of patrol perspective.

 

[StingrayOZ]

In regards to the LCS model there is a limiting factor in the operating limitations of a HSC hull and that is the southern ocean will become a problem from a maintenacne of patrol perspective.

Well it will be interesting to see how they will be used. There is going to be significant overlap between the OCV and the current armidale patrol boats. Perhaps there in lies the answer, the monohull patrol boats although smaller, are more suited to general patrol duties, while the OCV are more for clear sky interventions, dealing with refugees etc, a small seabase for policing duties, special forces, humanitarian, littorial operations, sub hunting etc. The patrol boat may operate in weather which would have the OCV in harbour but they don't replace each other in any of the literature I could find. I wouldn't be suprised if the main purpose of a OCV is ASW.

Although the Austal MRV looks very different even from the LCS. A hybrid of many design concepts. I think (from casual armchair i've compared two images) the MRV would appear to be better in blue water than a HSC or maybe even the LCS. With a lot more monohull focus.

 

[spectre000]

This article is a bit old, but I don't see its news posted anywhere else. Some interesting ideas for the Ohio/Trident fleet.

from globalsecuritynewswire.org (I can't post the exact link yet, due to my post count)

U.S. May Disable Some Submarine-Based Nuclear Arms Capacity
Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010


Washington is likely to "inactivate" one-sixth of its capacity to launch nuclear weapons from submarines

would involve rendering unusable four ballistic missile launch tubes on each of 14 Trident submarines

Obama administration plans to "deploy no more than 240 Trident 2 SLBMs at any one time

Just 12 of today's 14 Trident submarines are operational, with two boats in overhaul at any given time

Defense Department currently fields 288 Trident D-5 missiles, filling each of the 24 launch tubes aboard 12 deployed submarines

might reduce to 12 such boats before the end of the decade. With two of those typically in overhaul, just 10 would be regarded as operational day to day

it would have the option of reversing the launch-tube inactivation and renewing its capacity for the remaining 10 operational vessels to carry 24 missiles apiece, maintaining the level of 240 missiles fielded across the fleet

 

[RubiconNZ]

This article is a bit old, but I don't see its news posted anywhere else. Some interesting ideas for the Ohio/Trident fleet.

from globalsecuritynewswire.org (I can't post the exact link yet, due to my post count)

U.S. May Disable Some Submarine-Based Nuclear Arms Capacity
Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010


Washington is likely to "inactivate" one-sixth of its capacity to launch nuclear weapons from submarines

would involve rendering unusable four ballistic missile launch tubes on each of 14 Trident submarines

Obama administration plans to "deploy no more than 240 Trident 2 SLBMs at any one time

Just 12 of today's 14 Trident submarines are operational, with two boats in overhaul at any given time

Defense Department currently fields 288 Trident D-5 missiles, filling each of the 24 launch tubes aboard 12 deployed submarines

might reduce to 12 such boats before the end of the decade. With two of those typically in overhaul, just 10 would be regarded as operational day to day

it would have the option of reversing the launch-tube inactivation and renewing its capacity for the remaining 10 operational vessels to carry 24 missiles apiece, maintaining the level of 24 missiles fielded across the fleet

Thanks for the article I was just thinking about this with the recent ratification by the US. It will be interesting to see if the inactivate these or re-role these four tubes with other fitouts, Spec ops delivery, SSGN mods, UUV's, or perhaps due to success of the SSGN's take out a submarine, and convert it.

 

[alexsa]

Although the Austal MRV looks very different even from the LCS. A hybrid of many design concepts. I think (from casual armchair i've compared two images) the MRV would appear to be better in blue water than a HSC or maybe even the LCS. With a lot more monohull focus.

The MRV and the LCS mooted by Austal are both High Speed Craft (HSC) code vessels and there seakeeeping is restricted by this factor. In the commercial world a HSC desighn must be within 4 hous of a safe ahven for a pessenger vsssels and 8 hous for a cago vessels. these vessel are not really capable of lue water operaionsin the southern ocean which is a factor. Currently BPC charter large, ice class, offshore vessels for this work.

The other issue is you pay for speed and that is the reason this is an alloy hulls and have limtied uplift. With the LCS the payload is only about 180 tonnes. this is not a lot and includes all supporting a pacakge and weapons. They are alos much more prone to damage and operating effectiveness declines with sea state and the speed is only available to you up to a certain point (at hugh cost in fuel).

Don't get me wrong the LCS us a remarkable concept if you have the depth of support for platforms for other roles, we (Australia) , the problem I see is we need a more capble system given we already ahve the ACPB.

Given this is a USN page I will refrain from any further comment.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

This article is a bit old, but I don't see its news posted anywhere else. Some interesting ideas for the Ohio/Trident fleet.

from globalsecuritynewswire.org (I can't post the exact link yet, due to my post count)

U.S. May Disable Some Submarine-Based Nuclear Arms Capacity
Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010


Washington is likely to "inactivate" one-sixth of its capacity to launch nuclear weapons from submarines

would involve rendering unusable four ballistic missile launch tubes on each of 14 Trident submarines

Obama administration plans to "deploy no more than 240 Trident 2 SLBMs at any one time

Just 12 of today's 14 Trident submarines are operational, with two boats in overhaul at any given time

Defense Department currently fields 288 Trident D-5 missiles, filling each of the 24 launch tubes aboard 12 deployed submarines

might reduce to 12 such boats before the end of the decade. With two of those typically in overhaul, just 10 would be regarded as operational day to day

it would have the option of reversing the launch-tube inactivation and renewing its capacity for the remaining 10 operational vessels to carry 24 missiles apiece, maintaining the level of 240 missiles fielded across the fleet

240 missiles with multiple warheads is enough to do some serious damage. It probably does not take more than a 100 warheads to change the Earth's climate for many years.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

New SSBN(X) to probably be same size as Ohio.

The Pentagon will likely support a new design SSBN that will in order to cut cost will have 16 missile tubes but still be the same size as an Ohio.

NTI: Global Security Newswire - Pentagon Said Likely to Back New Design for Ballistic Missile Submarine

 

[RubiconNZ]

DOD Announces $150 Billion Reinvestment from Efficiencies Savings

Access the article here

The main of the points for the USN are below

Specifically, the Department of the Navy is proposing to use efficiencies savings to:

Accelerate development of a new generation of electronic jammers to improve the Navy's ability to fight and survive in an anti-access environment;
Increase the repair and refurbishment of Marine equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Develop a new generation of sea-borne unmanned strike and surveillance aircraft;
Buy more of the latest model F-18s and extend the service life of 150 of these aircraft as a hedge against more delays in the deployment of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF); and
Purchase additional ships – including a destroyer, a littoral combat ship, an ocean surveillance vessel and fleet oilers.

The Department of the Navy proposed efficiencies savings of more than $35 billion over five years to include:

Reducing manpower ashore and reassigning 6,000 personnel to operational missions at sea;
Using multi-year procurement to save more than $1.3 billion on the purchase of new airborne surveillance, jamming, and fighter aircraft;
Disestablishing several staffs (but not the associated platforms) to include submarine-, patrol aircraft-, and destroyer-squadrons plus one carrier strike group staff; and
Disestablishing the headquarters of Second Fleet at Norfolk, Va., and transferring responsibility for its mission to the Navy's Fleet Forces Command.

Additional F-18's are a smart but worrying sign for the JSF, The Ocean Surveillance vessel is a interesting one, not something I had heard about on the wish list.

Finally knocking out some flag positions over 100 of 900 will be going. In the Navies case this equals the commands listed above.

Interesting stuff, on a side note, the EFV is terminated, this will have impact on how the Navy operates in the Littoral, I hope it was considered.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Today the Los Angeles SSN was decommissioned worthy of a mention in itself see the full story here.

Though the real reason I mention it was the most recent FY2011 ship decommissioning schedule I have (July 2010) did not mention have it listed:
FYI 2011 Projected Inactivation Schedule:

SHIP NAME INACTIVATION POST INACT STATUS
USNS S L COBB (T-AOT 1123) 30 OCT 2010 SEE NOTE 1
USS HAWES (FFG 53) 10 DEC 2010 SEE NOTE 2
USNS KISKA (T-AE 35) 14 JAN 2011 SEE NOTE 3
USS MEMPHIS (SSN 691) 14 MAR 2011 SEE NOTE 4
USNS R G MATTHIESEN (T-AOT 1125) 31 MAR 2011 SEE NOTE 1
USS NASSAU (LHA 4) 31 MAR 2011 SEE NOTES 5&6
USS DUBUQUE (LPD 8) 29 APR 2011 SEE NOTE 6
USS JARRETT (FFG 33) 27 MAY 2011 SEE NOTE 7
USS DOYLE (FFG 39) 29 JUL 2011 SEE NOTE 7
USS CLEVELAND (LPD 7) 30 SEP 2011 SEE NOTE 6
USNS SHASTA (T-AE 33) 30 SEP 2011 SEE NOTE 3


Why was the LA SSN decommissioned now?

Was this due to budgetary considerations or age?

Does anyone have a more recent Inactivation list that may include the LA, are there more than what is on the list.

Thanks in advance
Rob

 

[AegisFC]

Why was the LA SSN decommissioned now?

Was this due to budgetary considerations or age?

Does anyone have a more recent Inactivation list that may include the LA, are there more than what is on the list.

Thanks in advance
Rob

Age, she was over 30 years old, and US subs seem to last about 30 years before decomming.

 

[Galrahn]

Why was the LA SSN decommissioned now?

Was this due to budgetary considerations or age?

She was due, 34.2 years old and almost out of fuel. Couldn't support another deployment on the reactor. See here.

 

[Galrahn]

What do you guys think?

Can this design, which I personally think is like the Fridtjof Nansen class frigate a sound one for most typical naval missions, can this basic design be stretched to stay a sound combatant for typical naval missions and do the ABM mission at the same time? Is it a mission to far?

And generally how many SAM’s do you need to defend your ship from a coordinated attack from four modern supersonic aircraft armed with medium range guided weapons, regardless of the type of ship? When they launch from a high speed attack profile, where the aircraft first fire their weapons at some range from the ship and come rushing in from different directions and then follow them in to finish the job. Like they would do in a real war. How many missiles, how do you fire them, at what range, how fast?

There is a brochure on the Lockheed Martin website here (PDF) of the specific version of the ship they are looking at. It is not really a "LCS" (Lockheed calls it Surface Combat Ship (SCS) but is loosely built on the same design).

When thinking about Saudi Arabia, you need to think about what defense in depth looks like to them. Keep in mind Saudi Arabia has advanced radar, AEW, AWACS, etc already. They are giving serious thought and likely will invest in land based AEGIS, which consists of an AEGIS decktower on land and MK 41s in a field around the decktower (really looks like an AEGIS deckhouse, except on land).

Now extend one layer to sea, and something like the 32 cell LM SCS with Standards for AAW and an AEGIS system that can link with the land AAW/BMD system, and I'm sure that the same E-2D systems will eventually find themselves in the hands of Saudi Arabia as well.

So ultimately you end up with a big AEGIS network across and around the Arabian peninsula in the air, at sea, and on land. Assuming their people can be trained to put all these pieces together and make it work, the network will be quite capable of defending Saudi infrastructure from attack.

The Royal Saudi Air Force is where offensive firepower of Saudi Arabia lies, all they need from their Navy is defense, so this approach makes a lot of sense.

To the last point, the Fridtjof Nansen is a lot more expensive than the Lockheed ship, but it is also bigger and more survivable. Most of the missions for any combatant for Saudi Arabia will either be infrastructure protection at sea or anti-piracy stuff, and almost always short range.

 

[rip]

There is a brochure on the Lockheed Martin website here (PDF) of the specific version of the ship they are looking at. It is not really a "LCS" (Lockheed calls it Surface Combat Ship (SCS) but is loosely built on the same design).

When thinking about Saudi Arabia, you need to think about what defense in depth looks like to them. Keep in mind Saudi Arabia has advanced radar, AEW, AWACS, etc already. They are giving serious thought and likely will invest in land based AEGIS, which consists of an AEGIS decktower on land and MK 41s in a field around the decktower (really looks like an AEGIS deckhouse, except on land).

Now extend one layer to sea, and something like the 32 cell LM SCS with Standards for AAW and an AEGIS system that can link with the land AAW/BMD system, and I'm sure that the same E-2D systems will eventually find themselves in the hands of Saudi Arabia as well.

So ultimately you end up with a big AEGIS network across and around the Arabian peninsula in the air, at sea, and on land. Assuming their people can be trained to put all these pieces together and make it work, the network will be quite capable of defending Saudi infrastructure from attack.

The Royal Saudi Air Force is where offensive firepower of Saudi Arabia lies, all they need from their Navy is defense, so this approach makes a lot of sense.

To the last point, the Fridtjof Nansen is a lot more expensive than the Lockheed ship, but it is also bigger and more survivable. Most of the missions for any combatant for Saudi Arabia will either be infrastructure protection at sea or anti-piracy stuff, and almost always short range.

Thankyou that was very helpfull. Do you think that they will realy buy it and will anyone else do the same. I know that the US has a different path but it looks like it would make it much easer to work with some of our Allies if push came to shove.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

SSBN(X) to be based on improved Trident and Vrginia class submarines.

The U.S. Navy sees its SSBN(X) ballistic missile submarine replacement fleet basically as an improved model of the current SSBN boats leveraging Virginia-class sub advancements and refined construction methods.
“The initial plan is for 16 tubes, a new-design reactor plant, [and] similar antennas and design to the Trident- and Virginia-class submarine,” Rear Adm. Joe Mulloy, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget, said Feb. 14 during his briefing on the service’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal.
He added: “We know general specs. But the specifics of the power and weight and layout of all that will now happen as a result of this money being in the 2012 budget. We can rapidly move down that path.”
There would be no advanced torpedo room, he says, but the Navy does hope to improve the sub’s stealth aspects. Both the Virginia- and Seawolf-class boats are acknowledged as the stealthiest submarines in operation.
The service is requesting about $1.1 billion to jump-start the Ohio-class SSBN replacement program, compared to a $672 million baseline for the current fiscal year. The Navy could wind up paying up to $40 billion to buy the entire replacement fleet in decades to come, and total program costs could reach $100 billion by some industry estimates.
The service has always been keen on submarine program funding. Subs were the single greatest Navy vessel expense between 1999 and 2009, according to an Aerospace DAILY analysis of contracting data provided by the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting. The Navy spent about $11.4 billion for subs during those years, excluding nuclear reactor expenses, the analysis shows.
In addition to the SSBN(X) plan, the Navy also is requesting about $5 billion to buy another two Virginia-class submarines in fiscal 2012 — and plans to keep buying two more annually over the next five years.
While the Navy has not yet come out with the exact specifications for the SSBN(X), the service is starting related work for the program.
“Four contractors are building tubes that will be shipped to Electric Boat and assembled into a tube pack,” Mulloy says. “They will not go on the first submarine, but the idea is [to figure out] how do you build and weld, because it’s a different-design submarine.”
Instead of the traditional missile-sub building process — build the missile compartment, cut holes and drop tubes — the Navy and contractors will take advantage of the modular construction now used for the Virginia-class boats. “You’re going to build tubes in four-packs that are fitted to hull pieces that will then be added into the cylinders that are assembled,” Mulloy says.
“The idea is I can assemble in pieces and build,” Mulloy adds, citing the “dramatic savings” Electric Boat has seen in building subs using its facility in Quonset, R.I.

U.S. Navy Eyes SSBN Improvements | AVIATION WEEK

 

[jeepman]

Cruiser Modernization Program

Greetings, this is my first post and I have a question...I recently saw the CG 58 docked at Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. This is the first east coast Tico to undergo the modernization. I saw several items as I sped by, the phalanx is now block 1b, the sps 49 radar has been removed, spq 9b radar on the mast but the question is why were the main guns not upgraded to the newer mk 45/62 ? I was wondering if this will be performed later or was this a cost saving omission?