You may be right. It's rivals are newer designs incorporating the latest tech.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
anyone who's ever seen the pretty C4ISR comms sheet filled with talking and listening platforms would have seen it
the average bigfoot chaser from the NI might not have been aware of them though...
The USN is to delay by at least a year the award of the contract for the construction of the frigates that are to replace the LCS.
The Sea Hunter platform has yet to be deployed in it's primary tasking as an autonomous SSK tracker but the ONR folks are looking to expand it's portfolio to include the MCM mission.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/04/seahunter.aspx
Navy anti-submarine drone-ship conducts minehunting testing
BY KATHERINE OWENSMAY 04, 2017
The Navy’s next generation drone, the Class III Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MDUSV), will be adopted by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) this summer and enter operational testing and evaluation for mine-countermeasure and electro-optical/infrared technology, as well as its diesel electric submarine detection capabilities.
According to Dr. Robert Brizzolara, Director of the project at ONR, the Sea Hunter program will be fully transferred to the ONR in the next few months.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/04/seahunter.aspx
Navy anti-submarine drone-ship conducts minehunting testing
BY KATHERINE OWENSMAY 04, 2017
The Navy’s next generation drone, the Class III Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MDUSV), will be adopted by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) this summer and enter operational testing and evaluation for mine-countermeasure and electro-optical/infrared technology, as well as its diesel electric submarine detection capabilities.
According to Dr. Robert Brizzolara, Director of the project at ONR, the Sea Hunter program will be fully transferred to the ONR in the next few months.
The ongoing saga of the Navy's quest for an OTH missile to arm it's small surface combatants just claimed another victim. LM has pulled LRASM out of the running. Given all the buzz on NCW, it's a bit strange that the RFP seems to call for a less capable design. Simpler is usually cheaper.
Lockheed Martin drops out of US Navy missile competition
WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin, frustrated by changing requirements the company feels are skewed to a particular competitor, is dropping out of the U.S. Navy’s over-the-horizon missile program intended to give a lethal capability to littoral combat ships and frigates..
Industry sources indicated they felt the initial RFP was viable, but as requirements were refined during the question-and-answer process, Boeing and Lockheed felt that key attributes of their systems, particularly networking capabilities and in-flight targeting updates, were being discounted, robbing Lockheed’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, and Boeing’s extended-range Harpoon Block II Plus of key competitive advantages. Versions of both weapon systems are in development for Naval Air Systems Command to provide air-launched versions, expected to enter service ahead of any surface-launched variant.
“There was no value for being able to go after radiating or emitting targets,” an industry source said, discounting an LRASM capability that can detect emitting and moving targets. “Through responses it became clear there would be no credit for attacking emitting targets, and no requirement to be on a network.”
More
Lockheed Martin drops out of US Navy missile competition
WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin, frustrated by changing requirements the company feels are skewed to a particular competitor, is dropping out of the U.S. Navy’s over-the-horizon missile program intended to give a lethal capability to littoral combat ships and frigates..
Industry sources indicated they felt the initial RFP was viable, but as requirements were refined during the question-and-answer process, Boeing and Lockheed felt that key attributes of their systems, particularly networking capabilities and in-flight targeting updates, were being discounted, robbing Lockheed’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, and Boeing’s extended-range Harpoon Block II Plus of key competitive advantages. Versions of both weapon systems are in development for Naval Air Systems Command to provide air-launched versions, expected to enter service ahead of any surface-launched variant.
“There was no value for being able to go after radiating or emitting targets,” an industry source said, discounting an LRASM capability that can detect emitting and moving targets. “Through responses it became clear there would be no credit for attacking emitting targets, and no requirement to be on a network.”
More
I would assume the NSM would then be a running favorite if Harpoon and LRASM feel hard done by.
I like the NSM, I think it would be a good fit for the LCS. NSM can also do the emitting target thing.
Its the only one left standing for the RFP. I was surprised by LM's announcement but agree the NSM will be a solid addition to the future Frigate.
It would seem to indicate the USN is willing to have more than one OTH ASM in its future inventory.
I'm sure the US can support that arrangement.
The NSM and LRASM are two pretty different missiles.
NSM is ideal for fitting into a F-35 weapons bay, or onto a smaller combatant where weight could be an issue. It's lighter and physically smaller. LCS and perhaps other ships as a box launcher.
LRASM is bigger and has longer range. So is better suited for longer range strike and more complicated flight paths. It is over double the weight of a NSM and physically bigger. I would imagine destroyers would most likely arm themselves with this one.
IMO double the weight puts it in another category.
Which is an evolved NSM.
Your right of course.
There is rumored to be a sea launched version of the JSM, I wonder if they would consider that instead of the NSM. The sea launched JSM would be mk41 compatible where as NSM is not.
There is some ambiguity in the link. I read it as Lockmart have only pulled out of the competition for the LCS and proposed frigates.
I therefor assume that LRASM will still be purchased for the DDGs and CGs.
I think you're right. LRASM appears to have been overkill for this particular competition.
USN looking to add Flight III DDG51s in 2017 contracts
The USN is working with both builders of the DDG 51s to upgrade new hull builds to Floght III configurations. Main improvements are around the SPY-6 upgrade from SPY-1 AMDR. Another notable upgrade is the powerplant. Overall power goes from 9 up to 12 MW. Interesting if you consider what the new excess power could be used for.
https://news.usni.org/2017/05/31/na...troyer-program-hii-set-build-first-flight-iii
The USN is still actively testing a 150KW laser on the USS Ponce with a goal of ramping up to 200-300 KW sooner than intitially planned.
https://news.usni.org/2017/05/26/report-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectiles
The USN is working with both builders of the DDG 51s to upgrade new hull builds to Floght III configurations. Main improvements are around the SPY-6 upgrade from SPY-1 AMDR. Another notable upgrade is the powerplant. Overall power goes from 9 up to 12 MW. Interesting if you consider what the new excess power could be used for.
https://news.usni.org/2017/05/31/na...troyer-program-hii-set-build-first-flight-iii
The USN is still actively testing a 150KW laser on the USS Ponce with a goal of ramping up to 200-300 KW sooner than intitially planned.
https://news.usni.org/2017/05/26/report-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectiles
Interesting news in the the April 2014 Russian Claims on DDG51 electronic attack
I think we all assumed a minimal about of truth to State Media claim in Russian that the April 2014 electronic attack of the USS Donal Cook disabled its Aegis Systems. Now a report has been closed detailing that is was merely State Propoganda and that the Khibiny system is not even installed on SU-24s.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/12/fakeew.aspx?m=2
I think we all assumed a minimal about of truth to State Media claim in Russian that the April 2014 electronic attack of the USS Donal Cook disabled its Aegis Systems. Now a report has been closed detailing that is was merely State Propoganda and that the Khibiny system is not even installed on SU-24s.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/12/fakeew.aspx?m=2
Looks like a reasonable idea. Spend the money to extend the life of existing hulls, upgrading capabilities where feasible. Balance it with new build/designs incorporating new tech that can't be retrofitted to legacy platforms.
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/01/na...up-355-ship-buildup-by-10-15-years#more-25945
NAVSEA: Extending Surface Ship Service Lives Could Speed Up 355-Ship Buildup By 10-15 Years
The Navy could reach a 355-ship fleet 10 to 15 years faster than current plans allow if it extended the service life of today’s surface ships by five or 10 years each, effectively cutting in half the time it would take to complete the fleet buildup, the commander of Naval Sea Systems Command said today.
Vice Adm. Tom Moore called the plan “extremely low risk” and said most, if not all, steel-hulled ships could remain in service for 30 to 35 years or more instead of the planned 25 years for a relatively low cost...
Moore told reporters after the event that he was confident cruisers, destroyers, amphibious ships, Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships and even logistics ships could be kept for 30 to 35 years with proper maintenance – though he noted he was less confident about the aluminum-hulled Independence-variant LCSs made by Austal USA.
“I don’t want to presuppose a decision” on the Austal LCSs, he said.
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/01/na...up-355-ship-buildup-by-10-15-years#more-25945
NAVSEA: Extending Surface Ship Service Lives Could Speed Up 355-Ship Buildup By 10-15 Years
The Navy could reach a 355-ship fleet 10 to 15 years faster than current plans allow if it extended the service life of today’s surface ships by five or 10 years each, effectively cutting in half the time it would take to complete the fleet buildup, the commander of Naval Sea Systems Command said today.
Vice Adm. Tom Moore called the plan “extremely low risk” and said most, if not all, steel-hulled ships could remain in service for 30 to 35 years or more instead of the planned 25 years for a relatively low cost...
Moore told reporters after the event that he was confident cruisers, destroyers, amphibious ships, Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships and even logistics ships could be kept for 30 to 35 years with proper maintenance – though he noted he was less confident about the aluminum-hulled Independence-variant LCSs made by Austal USA.
“I don’t want to presuppose a decision” on the Austal LCSs, he said.
Further to my previous post, the Navy is looking at tapping the mothball fleet to bump up fleet numbers. If the numbers work out then the USS Kitty Hawk may possibly return to active service. Older Ticos don't seem to be under consideration though some Perry-class frigates may be.
US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive
US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive
Bringing Kitty back would seem to be a pretty big effort, but as an additional carrier would be a huge asset.
Lightly upgraded FFG's would be handy fill ins for LCS ships.Not sure if I would recommend a FFG up.
If the US is desperate, maybe they could have a few of the RAN's old FFG's, they have already been upgraded.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,220
Usual crap from Tyler Rogoway. Of the five decommed Tico's two of them have already been scrapped. The others have been raided for 10 or so years to support the other SPY-1A ships.
Besides the USN looked at updating them in the early 2000's and replacing the twin arm bandits with VLS wasn't really possible (hull layout is different internally, specifically back aft), from what I remember they would of ended up with a SPY-1A ship with less VLS cells than a Flight IIA Burke. Also all the Tico's are structural basket-cases and the early ones with the heavier masts were even more so. All that meant that refitting the flight 0 Tico's would of cost more than half the cost of a brand new IIA Burke with less of a service life and older, more manpower intensive radar set.
The Kitty Hawk has been raided for parts to support the Nimitz's as well. There may also be issues with it's boilers no longer being supported and a host of other logistical issues. It could all be done but really, is it worth the cost? The USN may be looking at it but I'd be surprised if any of this happened.