US Navy News and updates

gf0012-aust said:
one would think that there is a flow on effect to other users...as it affects classics as well as shornets

https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/...n-deprivation-and-cabin-decompression-issues/
Click to expand...

The article mentions the RCAF loss of a CF-18 last Dec but I don't recall any mention of blaming it on the OBOGS. The CAF are very tight-lipped about news releases in general and even more so regarding problems. WRT to Hornet/SH stuff the RCAF is well aware that any negativity would be a career ender as far as junior is concerned. Therefore, for other user data, it would best be looked for in Spain, Finland, or Australia.
 
I also posted this link on the RCAF thread. The RCAF claims they have no oxygen issues in their legacy CF-18s during the period from 2010 to 2016. I guess this means the Dec 2016 crash at Cold Lake, Alberta was not an oxygen loss incident. The more bizarre comment is there claim they can deal will this problem when they receive their new SHs, something the USN has been struggling with for years. As per my earlier comment on this thread and the RCAF thread, junior will not tolerate negativity on his interim purchase of SHs.

RCAF figures it can deal with Super Hornet oxygen problems | Ottawa Citizen
 
Last edited:
gf0012-aust said:
op-ed on Austal proposing VLS on smaller combatants.

Austal Pushes Big Missiles For Small Ships: LCS & VLS « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Click to expand...

And it all brings us back to weight.

The weight set aside for module on these ships is quite low. Any add ons basically removed or limit the ability to use the mission modules proposed as the rataional for the LCS (now FF). I have no issue wiht upgunning them but it will reduce flexibility in the swing role. Wanted to put that out there before there is a rush of blood to the head wiht some posters suggesting all sorts of stuff can be added to these vessels.
 
Indeed - both manufacturers of the LCS have said that they can add in VLS and all sorts of other stuff, but the margins for the mission modules get eaten up very quickly -which leaves you with a ship with a large internal mission bay that becomes a basket ball court.
 
alexsa said:
And it all brings us back to weight.

The weight set aside for module on these ships is quite low. Any add ons basically removed or limit the ability to use the mission modules proposed as the rataional for the LCS (now FF). I have no issue wiht upgunning them but it will reduce flexibility in the swing role. Wanted to put that out there before there is a rush of blood to the head wiht some posters suggesting all sorts of stuff can be added to these vessels.
Click to expand...

ah yes, the chinese philosophy of turning anything that can float into an arsenal ship :)
 
John Fedup said:
Zumwalt's shaft cooling problem has been resolved. It really is an awesome looking ship. If it performs as well as it looks, the USN really should try for a second block build.

https://news.usni.org/2017/04/05/navy-found-fix-uss-zumwalt-engineering-problem
Click to expand...

Its a shame , IMO, this class has been reduced to three hulls from the original 32. Will be interesting to see how many of the technologies make it into the next gen surface combatant. Will likely need two classes to replace the DDGs and CGs.
 
StobieWan said:
Indeed - both manufacturers of the LCS have said that they can add in VLS and all sorts of other stuff, but the margins for the mission modules get eaten up very quickly -which leaves you with a ship with a large internal mission bay that becomes a basket ball court.
Click to expand...

They'll likely need to use up some of the mission bay space to build in increased accommodations for the needed increase of assigned crew. As well, the Austal "frigate" design lops off a sizable piece of the aft portion of the mission bat & flight deck, along with notching in a port side small boat launch and storage area.
 
FormerDirtDart said:
They'll likely need to use up some of the mission bay space to build in increased accommodations for the needed increase of assigned crew. As well, the Austal "frigate" design lops off a sizable piece of the aft portion of the mission bat & flight deck, along with notching in a port side small boat launch and storage area.
Click to expand...

Saw the boat platform and had to wonder what effect that has on the low RCS shaping. Around the stern I ma not sure if the loped a bit off or added a bit ... to be honest I think it is the latter looking at the changes to the transom and the fact the flight deck looks to be the same size.

http://breakingdefense.com/wp-conte...ate-Rendering-Sea-Air-Space-2017-1024x666.jpg

http://www.austal.com/sites/default/files/page-hero/Future Frigate - LCS_0.jpg

Only speculation as this is just renderings. The fact that the SSMs forward and aft of the rendering suggest marketing had a lot to do with it.
 
alexsa said:
Saw the boat platform and had to wonder what effect that has on the low RCS shaping. Around the stern I ma not sure if the loped a bit off or added a bit ... to be honest I think it is the latter looking at the changes to the transom and the fact the flight deck looks to be the same size.

http://breakingdefense.com/wp-conte...ate-Rendering-Sea-Air-Space-2017-1024x666.jpg

http://www.austal.com/sites/default/files/page-hero/Future Frigate - LCS_0.jpg

Only speculation as this is just renderings. The fact that the SSMs forward and aft of the rendering suggest marketing had a lot to do with it.
Click to expand...

The link is an interesting discussion by an ex SWO who is VP of LCS programme at Austal.
He discusses the changes in design, weight, speed and lethality and survivability which will/may be incorporated in the Frigate version.
Nothing too seminal but worth a look.

https://youtu.be/OpP1ilcEZ24
 
Some insight into the requirements that may find their way into the design of the new frigate with an emphasis on AAW capability. Previous discussions in the public domain had focused on the SuW and ASW missions so this is an interesting glimpse into the Navy's thinking. Both LM and Austal designs would do well to have a more powerful complement to SeaRAM specially in the escort role. It remains to be seen what piece of the frigate pie is reduced/sacrificed in the process.


PressTV-US Navy considering more powerful warships

RET has been tasked with designing LCS-based frigates that can carry a minimum of 16 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) Block 2 missiles or make use of a Mark 41 vertical launch system that can house at least 8 Standard SM-2 missiles—one of the primary anti-air weapons used by on the Navy’s various vessels.

The challenge is that using that type of weaponry requires the addition of several new radars and a more capable command and control system.

The ships would also have the Cooperative Engagement Capability, which links sensors and weapons carried on multiple ships, aircraft or shore installations and turns them into an integrated fire control system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top