the concerned
Active Member
I thought about the cruise missile capability already the downside to them is they are easily detectable and engaged. A few shells aren't.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Which would you rather put at risk of loss, a few LACM's at about USD$2 mil. each, or a USD$2.5+ bil. sub?
Incidentally, during the first Gulf War, 282 out of 297 Tomahawks were launched successfully, and between two and six of these were shot down en route to their target (the missiles shot down were on the same flight path) so the rate of intercept might be 2%.
Also many of the systems where are capable of detecting and engaging low-flying cruise missiles are also able to detect and engage incoming artillery shells. Keep in mind that if the shell is intended to hit a target at long range (100+ miles) the shell will almost certainly have some sort of ballistic trajectory and portions of the flight path are likely high enough to be picked up on air search radars, while LACM's usually have low altitude flight profiles to make use of terrain and the radar horizon to complicate detection. That is also before taking into account newer generation cruise missiles which are being developed which have LO features to complicate detection even further.
Developing a rail gun for NGS I think is a good idea (if it can be made workable) but I do not see such a system as a replacement aboard a sub for LACM's, which aboard at least some subs can be launched while submerged.
Apart from all technical issues outlined by Tod above' you have to ask why?
What purpose would the gun be used for? Submarines have limited magazine space, unless you removed all torpedoes/guided weapons so what could a gun be used for that guided weapons couldn't or that a surface ship could do better assuming that once cover was broken stealth is no longer and issue.
One major advantage of guided weapons, amongst many others ad nauseum, is hat they can be fired whilst submerged.
It's a strange query, do you have a purpose for asking it, maybe something I'm missing?
the concerned
Active Member
It was never to replace the current longer range options . But an extra option say against a complex or even a useful interception of a vessel. It was just a idea especially as the sub has the power to fire the ship. Surely you get ready everything underwater so your partial surfacing is a minimum and then disappar again.
the concerned
Active Member
You see everyone has this big thing about the US carriers which are a massive power projection force. But also against another naval foe the US attack subs are as deadly as they have ever been.i still feel that subs are the ultimate headache.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand the idea you have, the indiscretion rate for the weight of ordnance delivered is still going to be higher than sub-launched LACM's.
Using the LRLAP rounds developed for the AGS on the Zumwalt-class destroyers as an example, one gets a capability to fire PGM's via 155 mm gun out to ~110 km, delivering a ~100 kg round which might have a bursting charge of 10 kg. In order to actually fire the gun, the sub would need to load the round and compute some sort of firing solution, then surface and either position the sub in the proper direction before opening a gun port to fire, or open/extend the turret and gun and rotate it in the appropriate direction, then fire. Now if one wishes to fire several shells, the gun would need to either be reloaded each time, or the sub/turret would need multiple barrels.
Two important things which IMO has been overlooked with respect to NGS/bombardment missions. The range relative to standoff munitions is quite short. Even with the various extended range and precision munitions, one is looking at ranges that top out around 110 km, vs. 370 km for JASSM, over 1,000 km for JASSM-ER, or ~1,700 km for Tomahawk. Given that this would also be a ship-to-shore bombardment, that could mean subs might need to come relatively close to shore and into littoral/shallow waters to get within range of the target. In addition, there are a number of land-based conventional and rocket artillery systems with ranges of 40 - 60+ km which could potentially respond with counter-battery fire while the sub is prepping to submerge, or while only submerged to a shallow depth. Again, keep in mind that the attacking sub might well need to get into confining waters to be close enough to strike the target.
Again, I just do not see the real advantage or value in trying to develop such a system, as it compromises a sub's greatest asset, which is the difficulty in it being detected, especially when there are already existing methods of delivering a strike from a sub which do not compromise this, or force a sub to get so close to a potential strike target.
The Navy has bought a couple of new LaWS incorporating lessons learned from operating a prototype laser on the now-retired USS Ponce in the Gulf. It should go to sea on a new-build Burke DDG in a couple of years with follow-on orders if it lives up to expectations. HVP and LaWS should add potent layers to the Navy;s defensive onion concept,
The US Navy Bought Its First Big Laser Cannon
In late January, the US Navy dropped $150 million on a pair of new laser cannons. One of the so-called "High Energy Lasers," built by Lockheed Martin, is destined for testing on land.
The other is going to sea aboard an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer as early as 2020, potentially making it the world's first large, war-ready "directed-energy" weapon.
Lockheed's laser reportedly draws as much as 150 kilowatts of power per shot—enough to fry boats and unmanned aerial vehicles. Upgrading the laser to 300 kilowatts, thus boosting its range and power, could allow it to also destroy fast-moving, incoming missiles before they can strike their targets...
The Navy clearly expects Lockheed's new laser to be a much more effective weapon, and is already anticipating ordering more copies. The January deal includes contract options worth an additional $800 million. That's enough to buy another 10 weapons and arm more than 10 percent of the fleet's destroyers.
The US Navy Bought Its First Big Laser Cannon
In late January, the US Navy dropped $150 million on a pair of new laser cannons. One of the so-called "High Energy Lasers," built by Lockheed Martin, is destined for testing on land.
The other is going to sea aboard an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer as early as 2020, potentially making it the world's first large, war-ready "directed-energy" weapon.
Lockheed's laser reportedly draws as much as 150 kilowatts of power per shot—enough to fry boats and unmanned aerial vehicles. Upgrading the laser to 300 kilowatts, thus boosting its range and power, could allow it to also destroy fast-moving, incoming missiles before they can strike their targets...
The Navy clearly expects Lockheed's new laser to be a much more effective weapon, and is already anticipating ordering more copies. The January deal includes contract options worth an additional $800 million. That's enough to buy another 10 weapons and arm more than 10 percent of the fleet's destroyers.
More on the Navy work on lasers; The laser to be installed on the DDG in my previous post is a 60kW system developed under the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System, The USS Ponce had a 30kW laser.
.Also, a mention that no money is included in the 2018 budget for the railgun program but funding is provided for HVP. to be fired from powder guns.
The Navy Is Now Funding 4 Different Laser Weapons
.Also, a mention that no money is included in the 2018 budget for the railgun program but funding is provided for HVP. to be fired from powder guns.
The Navy Is Now Funding 4 Different Laser Weapons
This report contradicts the source in my previous post that the Navy is not funding the EMRG. Perhaps a more credible source.
Despite What You've Heard, The Navy Isn't Ditching Its Railgun And Budget Docs Prove It
On Feb. 12, 2018, the Navy released its proposed budget for the 2019 fiscal year, which allots almost $45.8 million for research and development into both electromagnetic and directed energy weapons, reflecting the latest phase in the project's evolution. This is a common pool that pays for the railgun project, as well as work on maturing solid state laser technology and a joint program with the U.S. Air Force to build a high-powered radio frequency weapon for aircraft called High-power Joint Electromagnetic Non-Kinetic Strike (HIJENKS).
Though the new budget proposal calls for more than $10 million less than the service asked for in the previous fiscal cycle, the documents are clear that the service remains committed to the electromagnetic weapon. The funding, in part, will go toward “development addressing the unique technical challenges inherent in the construction, assembly and operation of a high-power, kinetic energy weapon prototype capable of repeatedly launching long range, precision guided projectiles using electricity instead of chemical propellants,” the official description says.
Despite What You've Heard, The Navy Isn't Ditching Its Railgun And Budget Docs Prove It
On Feb. 12, 2018, the Navy released its proposed budget for the 2019 fiscal year, which allots almost $45.8 million for research and development into both electromagnetic and directed energy weapons, reflecting the latest phase in the project's evolution. This is a common pool that pays for the railgun project, as well as work on maturing solid state laser technology and a joint program with the U.S. Air Force to build a high-powered radio frequency weapon for aircraft called High-power Joint Electromagnetic Non-Kinetic Strike (HIJENKS).
Though the new budget proposal calls for more than $10 million less than the service asked for in the previous fiscal cycle, the documents are clear that the service remains committed to the electromagnetic weapon. The funding, in part, will go toward “development addressing the unique technical challenges inherent in the construction, assembly and operation of a high-power, kinetic energy weapon prototype capable of repeatedly launching long range, precision guided projectiles using electricity instead of chemical propellants,” the official description says.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I just saw the article today and was about to post it but you beat me to it. The technology is just too important to give up on and I am glad to see the continued effort. The PLAN pictures of their railgun should guarantee future Congressional support.
PM issued a correction re EMRG funding.
The U.S. Navy Is Funding Lasers and Killing the Railgun (Corrected)
The U.S. Navy Is Funding Lasers and Killing the Railgun (Corrected)
And then there were five. The Navy has confirmed the contenders for FFG(X) who have each been awarded $15 million to advance their conceptual designs over the next 16 months followed by issuance of a RFP with a winner declared by 2020. A VLS is key requirement for FFG(X) and on paper it looks like a Baby Burke.
Navy Picks Five Contenders for Next Generation Frigate FFG(X) Program - USNI News
Austal USA, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Fincantieri Marine and Huntington Ingalls Industries were each awarded $15 million contracts for the work....
Each design the Navy selected was based on a “mature” parent design that is already in production for the U.S. or foreign navies and that could incorporate a laundry list of systems the Navy will require for the FFG(X). Foreign designs required a partnership with a U.S. shipyard for construction. The Navy expects to pay anywhere from $800 to $950 million per hull for the next-generation frigate...
“Many of the required weapons systems are pulled from the previous FF requirements: the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which pulls software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants; the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system; a canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system; the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6; and a slew of undersea warfare tools such as the AN/SLQ-61 light weight tow, AN/SQS-62 variable depth sonar and AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system. It also requires use of the MK 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile being developed for the LCS and frigate,” USNI News reported last summer.
Navy Picks Five Contenders for Next Generation Frigate FFG(X) Program - USNI News
Austal USA, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Fincantieri Marine and Huntington Ingalls Industries were each awarded $15 million contracts for the work....
Each design the Navy selected was based on a “mature” parent design that is already in production for the U.S. or foreign navies and that could incorporate a laundry list of systems the Navy will require for the FFG(X). Foreign designs required a partnership with a U.S. shipyard for construction. The Navy expects to pay anywhere from $800 to $950 million per hull for the next-generation frigate...
“Many of the required weapons systems are pulled from the previous FF requirements: the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which pulls software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants; the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system; a canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system; the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6; and a slew of undersea warfare tools such as the AN/SLQ-61 light weight tow, AN/SQS-62 variable depth sonar and AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system. It also requires use of the MK 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile being developed for the LCS and frigate,” USNI News reported last summer.
Quite a few surprises in that shortlist. I assume both the Austal and Lockheed Martin LCS are being considered. I wouldn't want to go to war in either of those ships. I am also not sure about the Huntington Ingalls entry. It may be OK but like the two LCS vessels I would hardly call it a proven design for a frigate.
The only contenders that are actual proven frigate designs are the FREMM and F-105 derivatives. Both nice designs but the F-105 is about the closest thing you will get to a mini bourke and that might give it the edge in this competition.
IS it a 'disappointment' that BAE Inc. didn't get considered with the Type 26 design ?
Or is it a blessing in disguise ???
The USN had added twin 4 cell Griffin launchers to the Cyclone class boats. This will offer the, some better standoff and capability against small craft and swarm style boats
Raytheon receives $104.9M contract for Griffin missiles
Raytheon receives $104.9M contract for Griffin missiles
Doubt it is quite about cost as much as it is about keeping the LCS based designs in the running.
Setting the requirement for 5 inch (along with the other additional requirements from a baseline LCS) likely would've just disqualified the LCS variants altogether.
Joe Black
Active Member
if the F100 design is selected, won't it be easier just to have AGEIS+SPY1D instead of the new EASR with CombatSS-21 CMS?
I feel there are two types frigates in this group. The "political frigate", and the "real frigate".
My dark horse prediction is that the Austal and Lockheed Martin designs will be used to upgrade the curret 2 LCS designs. eg they stop at whatever num,ber of LCS they have now eg 28, and the remaining number on contract, eg, another 14, get built according to the "frigate" design.
Meanwhile, The real frigate will be chosen from the other three designs- FREMM, Navantia or the so far unseen Coast Guard vessel variant.
I know, I know...this isn't what the USN has said will happen.
But golly gee whizz....I think I've seen the USN do things before that they didn't tell us about upfront.