US Navy News and updates

Belesari

New Member
My guess would be its a bid to make the refitt less expensive. To many the guns arent really needed at all. I and many others dont agree with this but...

Its a Air defense ship basicly so...they really arent as important sence for now the older guns will work.

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?
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #202
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?
They were upgraded but they retained the old shell.
 

rip

New Member
Some questions about the future developments in the US Navy’s, SAM and ABM missile developments.

Question one; with the introduction of the SM-6 along with the quad packed Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile then make the SM-2 obsolete?

Question two; will a scaled down version of the SM-3, or something like it, be developed to fit into Tactical length MK-41 VLS launchers?
Question three, will the Theater Area Defense Missile be adapted for ship board use.

To address question number one fully, let us cover some of the operational consideration used in employing the SM-2 as it currently now stands. This question has two serious considerations that must be addressed which are of tactical concern. The first is what are the various maximum and minimum ranges of the various missile variants under review and second, what are the tradeoffs of their different terminal guidance characteristics?

To review, all guided missiles launched from a stationary position have to travel a minimum distances before they become in effect true guided weapons, and for safety reasons to arm the warhead. For weapons that are aerodynamic controlled, and all current SAM’s are at least to some extent aerodynamic controlled, even if they are equipped with booster vector thrust control and axillary maneuvering jets. The reason is not only does the missile need to overcome the pull of gravity in a controlled and stable manner but it must also gain enough air speed for their fins and flunks (the air foils to be more exact), begin to have an effect in controlling missile flight and stability. True you could do this entirely with thrust producing devices like many of you have probably seen on the videos of exo-atmospheric kill vehicles tests designed for use where aerodynamic control is not even an option but this is not a practical choice here. In vertical launched systems, this is even truer than it was for the older, point and shoot, rail launched missile systems of the past. The SM-2 and SM-2 XR minimum ranges are classified thus making any analyses very hard.

Obliviously the shorter the minimum range of a weapon the better it is, especially against fast moving targets that pop up low on the horizon where you have very little time to react. Larger minimum engagement ranges cuts the available time to react or to evaluate a kill and to then fire again. But what about other targets like a helicopter or fast speed boats, which could get within your minimum range and then stands off at five hundred yards and blow the hell out of you with rockets and guns. It might not sink your ship but it would put your ship out of the fight.

For this reason the SM-2 comes in two versions the normal and extended range. The normal version is not only smaller and cheaper to make, it also has a much shorter minimum range. The extended version does not even begin controlled flight until after the booster stage has been jettisoned. Since these missiles use, an up and over flight profile so as to then seek the intercept with an energy efficient downward going angle to the target, they do not necessary take the quickest path to the target. But everything in the world is tradeoff.

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile has a shorter minimum range than the normal SM-2 which is good but does it have a sufficient maximum effective range or the speed to adequately overlap with the minimum range of the SM-6’s envelope? If it does and if it is it in every other way just as effective for close in targets then you get as a bonus, of four missiles per cell instead of one, and they are probably cheaper per missile as well when used against air targets or maybe even speed boats.

But what about the final stage of ballistic missile defense engagement which has very different energy kinetics especially for cross range targets. Where the target is not your ship but a ship that you must guard within the task group?

The SM-6 seems to be able to do everything that the SM-2 ER can do and much more except possibly for the SM-2 Block IIIB extended range semi-active homering with passive IR guidance variant. Not much information is publicly available on this model except that they haven’t made very many and that they cost allot of money. There was once some speculation that Passive IR was the best tracking mode for the interception of plunging ballistic missiles because of the supersonic speeds they travel they radiate very bright IR signatures. I do not know if that is true or not but sounds that it could be possible. If so would abandoning the SM-2 lose this capacity? Or is that capacity even very valuable? Are we stuck with having to support three missile types for the same engagement ranges and target profiles soaking up more cells or can we cut it to two types?

Another question, with the AGEIS system being extended too much smaller sized vessels than was true in the past would it not be a waste if these upcoming platforms will not have any ABM capacity at all. Especially now that they can be supported in engagements by other detecting and tracking assets (be they airborne, ground, sea, or even space) that will be coming on line at about the same time they are built? If they are used to fire their rounds by remote launch protocols their less powerful radars might be less critical to their sucesses. The missile used would undoubtedly be less capable than the current SM-3 but against short to medium range ballistic missile intercepts still a very useful weapon when used in the areas of costal defense. The THAAD is a smaller lighter missile than the SM-3 Block IA and it has the desired abilities but it is almost as long as the SM-3. As I understand it, it is the length of the round is the problem for these smaller ships.

This is an area of much change in the tactics and strategy in naval warfare and it is not clear to me which way we are going. What do you think?
 

fretburner

Banned Member
Revised U.S. Fleet Plan

This one caught my attention:

A new surface combatant, previously designated DDG(X), has become the DDG 51 Flight IV, scheduled to begin in 2032 with two ships per year through 2041, except for three ships in 2036. The move means the basic DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class design, first procured in 1985, will be bought continuously for at least 56 years.

All I can say is WOW!

This would probably make the Burke the most "successful" design of a Destroyer. With the Spruance the most "successful" hull-design.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #205
I wouldn't put too much faith in that "30 Year Plan",the whole idea is just idiotic. A lot in that "plan" does not make any sense, at all such as not replacing the command ships untl they are over 60 years old the steam plants in them are knackered. Basically Congress asked the USN a stupid question by asking the Navy to foresee that far down the road and they gave a stupid answer by just extending current plans and technology with no innovation.

I think Galrahn has the right of it.
Information Dissemination: A Fleet Of No New Ideas
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
I wouldn't put too much faith in that "30 Year Plan",the whole idea is just idiotic. A lot in that "plan" does not make any sense, at all such as not replacing the command ships untl they are over 60 years old the steam plants in them are knackered. Basically Congress asked the USN a stupid question by asking the Navy to foresee that far down the road and they gave a stupid answer by just extending current plans and technology with no innovation.

I think Galrahn has the right of it.
Information Dissemination: A Fleet Of No New Ideas
I was shocked to hear that they were keeping the the command ships till they were 60-70 years old. Don't they have any ideas of what to do with them (do they even need such vessels what with the San Antonia class capability when working would make a useful command vessel).

The 30 year plan reminds me a bit of 330 ship fleet (is it dead yet)
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
I was shocked to hear that they were keeping the the command ships till they were 60-70 years old. Don't they have any ideas of what to do with them (do they even need such vessels what with the San Antonia class capability when working would make a useful command vessel).

The 30 year plan reminds me a bit of 330 ship fleet (is it dead yet)
Please tell me how, in this time of fical restraint, that this is supposed to happen? My guess is building more Burkes and refurbishing the Tico's...the whole fleet, would be more cost effective. Heck, the US (and I know and apologise for being off topic) is having to raise the debt ceiling.......how does this help the US. Military is NOT the only way to secure national security!
 

jack412

Active Member
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.
]
one thing I read that might be of interest is that the welding tech that was developed for collins was transfered to usn
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Please tell me how, in this time of fical restraint, that this is supposed to happen? My guess is building more Burkes and refurbishing the Tico's...the whole fleet, would be more cost effective. Heck, the US (and I know and apologise for being off topic) is having to raise the debt ceiling.......how does this help the US. Military is NOT the only way to secure national security!
The problem is that maintaining old ships gets more and more expensive as they get older with out keeping up their tempo. In regards to the Blue Ridge class (and if the US Armed Forces starts cutting which is quite likely) serious questions need to be asked of need for such vessels.
In an ideal world the USN would love a new class based of a San Antonio or America but that as likely as pigs flying in this fiscal situation.

They will probably keep making Burks (don't know what they will do with the Flight 1s without hangers though as they lack utility of the later models). Not sure about Ticos as they are getting on (exended Burks could cover it I guess).
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #210
Please tell me how, in this time of fical restraint, that this is supposed to happen? My guess is building more Burkes and refurbishing the Tico's...the whole fleet, would be more cost effective. Heck, the US (and I know and apologise for being off topic) is having to raise the debt ceiling.......how does this help the US. Military is NOT the only way to secure national security!
Do some research the Ticonderoga's ARE going through an extensive refit program and a lot of info on it is available in the public domain, a similar program is underway for the older Burkes.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #211
The problem is that maintaining old ships gets more and more expensive as they get older with out keeping up their tempo. In regards to the Blue Ridge class (and if the US Armed Forces starts cutting which is quite likely) serious questions need to be asked of need for such vessels.
In an ideal world the USN would love a new class based of a San Antonio or America but that as likely as pigs flying in this fiscal situation.

They will probably keep making Burks (don't know what they will do with the Flight 1s without hangers though as they lack utility of the later models). Not sure about Ticos as they are getting on (exended Burks could cover it I guess).
The command ships have proven themselves time and again (both are currently very busy both off the coast of Japan and in the Med) and are worth having. At this point the main expense of the class is keeping their ancient steam plants operational. The Blue Ridge class is based off a tanker design and isn't built to full military standards so any replacement can be built the same standard, no need for a LPD-17 derrived design.

The Flight I and II Burkes are getting some extensive upgrades (new computer and display suite, new 127mm, integrated plant controls, ESSM and SM-6 capability, CEC, ect) and the lack of a hangar isn't as much as a hinderance as many make it out to be since the Flight II's don't have Harpoon or a towed array. The ships they replaced didn't have a hangar and the USN doesn't have enough helo's to out fit all the escorts anyway, usually a Flight IIA will deploy with one helo with the other used as a crew gym and storage.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Blue Ridge class is based off a tanker design

Are they? I sort of thought the hull & main machinery was from the Iwo Jima class LPH (not USN so can't remember the hull number - LPH3?)
 

Transient

Member
The command ships have proven themselves time and again (both are currently very busy both off the coast of Japan and in the Med) and are worth having. At this point the main expense of the class is keeping their ancient steam plants operational. The Blue Ridge class is based off a tanker design and isn't built to full military standards so any replacement can be built the same standard, no need for a LPD-17 derrived design.

The Flight I and II Burkes are getting some extensive upgrades (new computer and display suite, new 127mm, integrated plant controls, ESSM and SM-6 capability, CEC, ect) and the lack of a hangar isn't as much as a hinderance as many make it out to be since the Flight II's don't have Harpoon or a towed array. The ships they replaced didn't have a hangar and the USN doesn't have enough helo's to out fit all the escorts anyway, usually a Flight IIA will deploy with one helo with the other used as a crew gym and storage.
Hi, I have a couple of questions which I hope you can answer. Are the Flight IIAs going to be equipped with MFTA tails like what was done on Mason? Also, are the SLQ-49 Rubber Duckies still in service, and if so, are the Burkes still equipped with them? Where would they be placed on board? Thanks.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Are they? I sort of thought the hull & main machinery was from the Iwo Jima class LPH (not USN so can't remember the hull number - LPH3?)
same I thought they were based of the Iwo Jima class same with the hull just with a superstructure built up instead of a deck
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #215
Are they? I sort of thought the hull & main machinery was from the Iwo Jima class LPH (not USN so can't remember the hull number - LPH3?)
I was told that by an old timer who used to be stationed on the Blue Ridge back in the day, he may of been wrong though.

Hi, I have a couple of questions which I hope you can answer. Are the Flight IIAs going to be equipped with MFTA tails like what was done on Mason? Also, are the SLQ-49 Rubber Duckies still in service, and if so, are the Burkes still equipped with them? Where would they be placed on board? Thanks.
1) No clue space but weight was reserved for a tail on the Flight IIA's.

2) I've never seen a SLQ-49 in my nearly 9 years in the USN it appears they've been replaced on the surface combatants by NULKA.
 

bd popeye

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
AegisFC is correct. The Blue Ridge and the Mt Whitney have the same machinery as an Iwo Jima class LPH.

LCC 19 Blue Ridge class

The ships have the same machinery and basic hull form as the Iwo Jima-class LPH. The are air-conditioned, with fin stabilizers. Kevlar plastic armor has been added. Three LCP, two LCVP landing craft, and one personnel launch are carried. No helicopter hangar is included, but they do have a landing pad at the stern and carry 123,510 gallons of aircraft fuel.
 

Transient

Member
1) No clue space but weight was reserved for a tail on the Flight IIA's.

2) I've never seen a SLQ-49 in my nearly 9 years in the USN it appears they've been replaced on the surface combatants by NULKA.
Thanks, I appreciate the reply as I've been trying to spot the Rubber Duckie every time I went near a Burke. Always had a strange obsession with it. I understand that it inability to move and thus fool the more discriminating missile seekers got it replaced by Nulka, but I thought that against a surveillance network it might still have some use due to its very long endurance.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
What are people thought on this, USN going away from nuclear submarines to diesel powered, if they can design one large enough with enough endurance can you see it happening, being less than half of what a nuclear boats cost, will the US do it?

Articles & Commentary
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What are people thought on this, USN going away from nuclear submarines to diesel powered, if they can design one large enough with enough endurance can you see it happening, being less than half of what a nuclear boats cost, will the US do it?

Articles & Commentary
Zero chance. Energy tech for UUVs is almost to the point where any new SSK would be obsolete before it is expected to retire.

Folks get wood these days when talking about the potential of UUVs, and with underwater seabed mining poised to take off - underwater tech is on the verge of getting a nice little investment for new tech boost from the commercial side - something we haven't really seen with submarine tech historically.
 

wormhole

New Member
Not likely. One look at the globe and you see a lot of blue areas and the US national interests spans these oceans. Speed and endurance are strengths of nuke subs that no diesel will ever be able to match.
 
Top