US Navy News and updates

ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Can’t help but think this is a recognition that navy surface vessels may very well be extremely vulnerable in the Asia-pacific battlespace and unmanned vessels offer a less expensive and PC solution (i.e. no loss of life).
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Agreed, why not develop MUSV and LUSV as both nodes and shooters regardless of the theatre given the increasing range and sophistication of threats. One doesn’t have to be a a peer or near peer to have both small ship and land based ASHMs. Send in LUSV etc first, same concept working with using a Fifth Gen fighter as a node and linebacker for the more heavily armed 4+ gen shooters.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
ngatimozart said:
@Ranger25 Can you provide a source for this please and provide a bit of commentary.
Click to expand...

Some additional details

“LUSVs will provide relatively low-cost, high-endurance, reconfigurable ships able to accommodate various payloads for unmanned missions to augment the Navy’s manned surface force,” he said in a statement.

The request for information released Wednesday that seeks more inputs on vehicles from industry is continuing of the effort started with Overlord, said Danny Hernandez, a spokesman for the Navy’s Research, Development and Acquisition office.

“Overlord Vessels were experimental efforts," Hernandez said. “The RFI is a separate effort from Overlord that will launch the LUSV prototyping project."

Moving fast

In the Navy’s fiscal year 2020 budget rollout, the Navy’s budget director told reporters that the large surface combatant, part of what the Navy is terming its “ghost fleet,” would be about a third the size of the FFG(X), which could displace upwards of 6,000 tons.



A classified Pentagon maritime drone program is about to get its moment in the sun

And from the USNI. More data about the USN and DARPA working in the “ghost fleet”


Navy Wants 10-Ship Unmanned ‘Ghost Fleet’ to Supplement Manned Force - USNI News
 
Ananda

Ananda

The Bunker Group
When it comes to missile-killing lasers, the US Navy is ready to burn its ships

According to this, you need 500 kilowatts laser to make it able to shoot down missiles. But, 1 megawatts need to make it reliable missile defense system.

Just wondering, how much power now the ship has to generate and reserve, considering the amount of other ellectronics and weapon systems they have to powered also in operating modern Frigates/Destroyers.
With that kind of power need..perhaps Burke's class destroyers still can't cope.. however will that be sufficient on smaller Frigates or Littorals ?
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Four, I think - BIW/Navantia, Fincantieri, Ingalls and Austal. Does suggest that they have decided that the USN is after, or at least the requirements lead to, a bigger platform than the Saudi version of the Freedom LCS. That might mean trouble for Ingalls with their solution based (presumably) on the Legend Class Cutters and possibly Austal, with the Independence class's limiting displacement being apparently somewhere around 4,000 tones. Although the Independence design is probably more capable of carrying a higher deadweight than the Freedom I can't seem to find any detail of what the "stretch" to the design they are currently pushing does to that.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
spoz said:
Four, I think - BIW/Navantia, Fincantieri, Ingalls and Austal. Does suggest that they have decided that the USN is after, or at least the requirements lead to, a bigger platform than the Saudi version of the Freedom LCS. That might mean trouble for Ingalls with their solution based (presumably) on the Legend Class Cutters and possibly Austal, with the Independence class's limiting displacement being apparently somewhere around 4,000 tones. Although the Independence design is probably more capable of carrying a higher deadweight than the Freedom I can't seem to find any detail of what the "stretch" to the design they are currently pushing does to that.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine the Independence or Legend classes being serious contenders. Surely it should be between the FREMM and F-100 variants if for no reason other than they want to get these things in the water as quickly as possible. The F-100 variant in particular would probably require very little modification.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
spoz said:
Four, I think - BIW/Navantia, Fincantieri, Ingalls and Austal. Does suggest that they have decided that the USN is after, or at least the requirements lead to, a bigger platform than the Saudi version of the Freedom LCS. That might mean trouble for Ingalls with their solution based (presumably) on the Legend Class Cutters and possibly Austal, with the Independence class's limiting displacement being apparently somewhere around 4,000 tones. Although the Independence design is probably more capable of carrying a higher deadweight than the Freedom I can't seem to find any detail of what the "stretch" to the design they are currently pushing does to that.
Click to expand...
Austal Further Improves its Frigate Design to Better Match Latest FFG(X) Requirements - Naval News

About the best I could find on the Austal offering. Hull increased to 139m, 32 x VLS, 8 x NSM, Berthing for 183 crew, 4,000nm range, >26 knot speed and pretty much all or most (not sure my self on what is entirely mandated) of the mandated government requirements/equipment/systems.

The Austal hull always did have more room for growth due to its large size but being aluminum has always been its let down in the eyes of most people. Apparently they have been continuously improving the design and may continue to do so further so dont assume this will be the end product if selected.

While the chances of Austal winning are low there is always the political part that may cause it to do so (jobs - politicians - Enough said). That said in the likely chance Austal doesnt win and they play their cards right they may be able to offer one of the previous designs with the 16 x VLS as a refit option to the existing Independence class LCS fleet depending on the level of modifications required and risk involved plus cost.

On a side note I never did understand why Austal went with such a massive helicopter pad, Always seemed like a massive waste of spacethat they could have set aside for 'optional' weapons and systems that would have given them even better chances of wining more orders.

In regards to the LCS and the mandate for the Navy to down select to one variant this year based on the last few contracts is it just me or does it seem to be going straight to Austal with the Independence class?
 
M

Milne Bay

Active Member
Well that makes the Austal submission for the FFG (X) the only one of the Littoral Combat ships put forward.
Lockheed Martin are not bidding their ship, but will be focussing their attention on the FFG (X) combat system.
Interesting
MB
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
spoz said:
Four, I think - BIW/Navantia, Fincantieri, Ingalls and Austal. Does suggest that they have decided that the USN is after, or at least the requirements lead to, a bigger platform than the Saudi version of the Freedom LCS. That might mean trouble for Ingalls with their solution based (presumably) on the Legend Class Cutters and possibly Austal, with the Independence class's limiting displacement being apparently somewhere around 4,000 tones. Although the Independence design is probably more capable of carrying a higher deadweight than the Freedom I can't seem to find any detail of what the "stretch" to the design they are currently pushing does to that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like BAE May still tender a version of the Type 26 for the Competition. The USN hopes to have the RFP completed by September 2019.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top