US Navy News and updates

[Waylander]

Spike-ER/LR feature it. I would think the IDF retained the flexibility with the NLOS but I haven't found confirmation for it so far.

As with Hellfire and Brimstone LOS prior to launch would be needed.

I assume sea launched Brimstones need that, too and MMW Hellfires fired from a LCS cannot enjoy the same coorporative engagement support by Seahawks or Fire Scouts like Longbows from each other.

 

[jarvis]

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 .

By next year they might already have munitions available on the ship for the seahawk and firescout.

from defenseindustrydaily (I can't post links yet):

"The next targets are the US Navy’s MH-60S utility helicopter (2014) and MH-60R anti-submarine & strike helicopter (2015), using a digital LAU-61G/A 19-rocket pod."


I get the advantages of APKWS (relatively cheap to convert what US military has a shit-ton of) but again the USN preferred not needing terminal guidance with Hellfire so we could assume same would apply to APKWS.

I like the mortar concept, there are inherent range limitations with a simple mortar but it isn't like there is much range to a vertically launched hellfire unless they do something to boost it. Lob something up to split up and look for heat against the water.

 

[colay]

LM puts forward a persuasive argument in support of a modified LCS with upgraded offensive firepower e.g. bigger gun, VLS which it claims is feasible within a short timeframe. By contrast, going with a completely new design could wind up,costing more and taking up to a decade to accomplish. This would not appeal to,the Navy which is short on cash and has other priority modernization,programs in the works.
As to the survivability concern, LCS is built to Level1standard...,she is designed to take a hit and withdraw under her own power. A FFG (Level 2) and DDG (Level 3) will supposedly be able to,remain in action after sustaining battle,damage, though likely with degraded performance. However, if we look,at the USS,Stark (FFG) and the USS Cole incidents, AFAIK neither could be considered,operational after sustaining damage. So maybe more is being made out of the LCS survivability issue than is warranted?


Lockheed Says It Can ‘Easily’ Improve LCS « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

 

[StobieWan]

It's always been possible to beef up either LCS design with more weapons, but the problem is that that soaks up their margins for mission modules (which they're designed around)

 

[colay]

It's always been possible to beef up either LCS design with more weapons, but the problem is that that soaks up their margins for mission modules (which they're designed around)

LM does offer it's Mulit-Mission Combatant but it won't come cheap with all,the redesign and add-ons. One variant, the Surface Combat Ship, loses the MCM capability but gains significantly in the ASuW, AAW and ASW roles.
www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/.../MCS_Bifold.pdf

Multi-Mission Combat Ship · Lockheed Martin

 

[StevoJH]

I'd probably be looking into the USCG's Bertholf class cutters and seeing if the price of those could be cut down through mass production or simplification.

Put a full RAM mount on above the hanger instead of SeaRAM or Phalanx, it probably doesn't need more then that given the number of Aegis ships the USN has.

It might have space for a VLS behind the main gun? 8-16 strike length cells should be sufficient.

 

[RobWilliams]

The keel for the next America class LHA, USS Tripoli (LHA-7) was laid on Friday

Keel Laid For Amphibious Warship Tripoli | USNI News

Odd staggering, America is meant to commision this year and Tripoli is only starting to be built? But the first two willl always be kind of a little orphan class within the full amount to be constructed anyway.

 

[Volkodav]

Gotta love USN orphans, they tend to be highly capable vessels offered to allies at very good prices down the track. Something that could offer the ability to operate a significant number of F-35B and back up troop lift for an existing pair of LHDs could be very hand when it is determined that the LHDs are not affordably capable of operating Lightnings.

 

[colay]

Gotta love USN orphans, they tend to be highly capable vessels offered to allies at very good prices down the track. Something that could offer the ability to operate a significant number of F-35B and back up troop lift for an existing pair of LHDs could be very hand when it is determined that the LHDs are not affordably capable of operating Lightnings.

HI would gladly build one for the RAN but it would be pricey. LHA-7 is reportedly going to cost some $2.7B.

 

[StevoJH]

I seem to recall that one of the CV's was used in 2003 as a giant helicopter carrier during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Possibly Kitty Hawk?

Did that influence the thoughts of the Navy on building a pair of dedicated helicopter carriers without the well deck?

 

[Volkodav]

My post was slightly tongue in cheek but was referring to the possibility of the transfer of LHA-6 and or 7 to the RAN at a discount price after about ten years service for the sake of the USN standardizing on the later variant with a well dock.

 

[Ships in Port]

No Crew

My post was slightly tongue in cheek but was referring to the possibility of the transfer of LHA-6 and or 7 to the RAN at a discount price after about ten years service for the sake of the USN standardizing on the later variant with a well dock.

RAN doesn't have the crew for this type of vessel, plus we had our fingers burnt buying used ships from the USN, (Tank Landing Ship rust buckets).
Why weren't the LHA-6 and 7 given "Ski-Jumps", would only take up one or two Helicopter spots and would improve AV8 and F35 launching.

 

[Volkodav]

Australia stuffed up the purchase of the ex USN LSTs that were alread old ships that had seen hard lives. The two hulls that had been selected and surveyed were missed due to timing and another two hulls were taken instead that had not been surveyed an Australian not a US failing.

As for crewing, given enough notice of the requirement this should not be an issue, remember the RAN used to operate a greater number of ships with much larger crews. Having the LHDs in service for several years and the fleet tankers replaced with more modern smaller crewed vessels would help with this.

Besides I did say tongue in cheek.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I seem to recall that one of the CV's was used in 2003 as a giant helicopter carrier during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Possibly Kitty Hawk?

Did that influence the thoughts of the Navy on building a pair of dedicated helicopter carriers without the well deck?

Kitty Hawk, with a reduced air wing, served as a afloat foward staging base for 160th SOAR during the early stages of the Afghanistan invasion.

The Eisenhower essentially served as a LPH, for a task force of some 50+ helicopters and a couple thousand soldiers from the US Army 10th Mountain Divison's 1st BDE and Combat Aviation Brigade, off of Haiti during Operation Restore Democracy in 1994

I believe Flight 0 America class ships were more influenced by the anticipated need to conduct operations further from shore, leading to optimization for air assault operations while negating any amphibious landing capability.

 

[RobWilliams]

Which probably goes some way to explain the noise coming out about the USMC and their landing craft and AAV no longer going to be effective in the future, about how technology is forcing ships to stand off further and further from the coast and existing platforms don't have the necessary capabilities to make those transits from longer ranges as effective as they need to be.

 

[colay]

The new LHAs should give the war planners greater flexibility in providing a timely response to crises. For many situations, the addition of a LHA to an ARG/ESG will allow a scaled up aviation component. This may negate the need to task a CSG or, possibly, allow time for one to arrive at the scene.

 

[Blackshoe]

I seem to recall that one of the CV's was used in 2003 as a giant helicopter carrier during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Possibly Kitty Hawk?

Did that influence the thoughts of the Navy on building a pair of dedicated helicopter carriers without the well deck?

I don't think Kitty Maru's experiment influenced LHA development nearly as much as it led to the development of the AFSB concept and its further refinement.

Which, speaking of, is being expanded.

 

[t68]

HI would gladly build one for the RAN but it would be pricey. LHA-7 is reportedly going to cost some $2.7B.

Which is still far cheaper than a QE class carrier, when converting the current estimated price of 6.2billon GBP to 11.2billon AUD

The US Gator comes out roughly 2.8billion AUD, we should have got in at fixed price when the AUD was at $1.08 to the USD.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24801942


It would be interesting to compare the two ship in an Australian context if the current government gets their way in regards to F35B, what is their intension more of a strike carrier or ASW?

Using the pretext that the LHD lose much of their viability when x number of F35B are on board

 

[RobWilliams]

6.2 billion for a pair of ships, not just one. Even then they could have been cheaper if not for the UK govt screwing it around.

 

[t68]

6.2 billion for a pair of ships, not just one. Even then they could have been cheaper if not for the UK govt screwing it around.

yep my bad meant to half that when I put it through the currency converter, but still a big difference all the same.

Australia would be in a different position to the UK goverment in regards to ordering a QEC wonder what you could do for a fixed price buy?

would be interesting to see if POW came out any cheaper as they would have some idea where to cut cost in the second build.