US Navy News and updates

John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Again, without physically seeing the setup, it is hard to assess how awkward the throttle control is. I guess if the majority wants a real throttle then go for it.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
Again, without physically seeing the setup, it is hard to assess how awkward the throttle control is. I guess if the majority wants a real throttle then go for it.
Click to expand...
I’ve spent most of my post service working life driving ships. My harbour cruise business meant that berthing and unberthing was a multiple daily occurrence so I can safely say that the thought of using a touch screen would give me nightmares.
The driver never looks at the controls, your attention is fully engaged looking at the pier and the ships side and “feeling” the throttles.
It’s the same as driving a car, you don’t look at the pedals or the wheel, you look at the road and to my knowledge I’ve never seen an aircraft pilot touchscreening the throttles as he rolls down a runway!

You say it’s hard to assess! Try driving your car with a touchscreen, it’s no different, it’s lunacy, IMHO naturally.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
ASSAIL said:
I’ve spent most of my post service working life driving ships. My harbour cruise business meant that berthing and unberthing was a multiple daily occurrence so I can safely say that the thought of using a touch screen would give me nightmares.
The driver never looks at the controls, your attention is fully engaged looking at the pier and the ships side and “feeling” the throttles.
It’s the same as driving a car, you don’t look at the pedals or the wheel, you look at the road and to my knowledge I’ve never seen an aircraft pilot touchscreening the throttles as he rolls down a runway!

You say it’s hard to assess! Try driving your car with a touchscreen, it’s no different, it’s lunacy, IMHO naturally.
Click to expand...
Have to agree and I don’t know if I could ever surrender control of a car to a Automatic parking mode or any other driving systems that has me taking my hands of the wheel.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
ASSAIL said:
I’ve spent most of my post service working life driving ships. My harbour cruise business meant that berthing and unberthing was a multiple daily occurrence so I can safely say that the thought of using a touch screen would give me nightmares.
The driver never looks at the controls, your attention is fully engaged looking at the pier and the ships side and “feeling” the throttles.
It’s the same as driving a car, you don’t look at the pedals or the wheel, you look at the road and to my knowledge I’ve never seen an aircraft pilot touchscreening the throttles as he rolls down a runway!

You say it’s hard to assess! Try driving your car with a touchscreen, it’s no different, it’s lunacy, IMHO naturally.
Click to expand...
Fair point, especially during docking maneuvering. I am aware of pleasure craft that have dual controls, traditional wheel and throttles for running, and joystick control for docking (sometimes running operation too). With a DDG, wouldn't the watch officer dictate commands to the helmsman? I can see that throttle man would be necessary as well, certainly for docking with touch screen control.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
Fair point, especially during docking maneuvering. I am aware of pleasure craft that have dual controls, traditional wheel and throttles for running, and joystick control for docking (sometimes running operation too). With a DDG, wouldn't the watch officer dictate commands to the helmsman? I can see that throttle man would be necessary as well, certainly for docking with touch screen control.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure of the arrangements in current fleet units. Certainly in the Armidale PBs the CO has direct control on the bridge wings and I assume he has direct control of the azipods on the LHDs.
In my time both in PBS and destroyer/frigates the CO “conned the ship by giving wheel and speed commands but there have been huge advances in engine/gearbox controls over the last 30 odd years but it depends on the configuration of the propulsion units, there will be differences.
However, even though the quartermaster may be given conning orders it’s still a tactile reaction function, the con order says”slow astern” he expects to put the control lever backwards without delay not gin around with a touchscreen input.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Certainly the Hobarts and ANZACs have coventional throttles although you could also exercise control of the main engines via the integrated platform management system screen/keyboard interfaces if you wanted to and had the correct permissions but except for start and stop not what would normally be done.
 
Last edited:
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
ASSAIL said:
I’m not sure of the arrangements in current fleet units. Certainly in the Armidale PBs the CO has direct control on the bridge wings and I assume he has direct control of the azipods on the LHDs.
In my time both in PBS and destroyer/frigates the CO “conned the ship by giving wheel and speed commands but there have been huge advances in engine/gearbox controls over the last 30 odd years but it depends on the configuration of the propulsion units, there will be differences.
However, even though the quartermaster may be given conning orders it’s still a tactile reaction function, the con order says”slow astern” he expects to put the control lever backwards without delay not gin around with a touchscreen input.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the slowness of the touch screen was on of the issues. Also can be hard to see if you order is being completed successfully, when it just someone punching away at a touch screen. One of the issues is the controls and the data wasn't the same on each screen, so it may have been user customisable, and not always obvious where your controls are. Which you might not find until you try to comply with the order. One of the things the investigation found was multiple issues all affecting each other.

Touch screens are horrid for a lot of input and provide very little in the way of confirmation (maybe a haptic buzz if your lucky). You certainly would hope very frequent/immediate controls would have a switch, throttle, button, etc.
 
B

barney41

Member
IIRC year's back a LM source mentioned that the extra weight from the electronics resulted in a LRASM's range comparable to that of a regular JASSM.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
John Fedup said:
The link suggests a range comparable to the JASSM ER at 500 nautical miles which is considerably longer. Any idea if this is correct.
Click to expand...

From what I’ve read the exact range is classified but does seem to be compatible to the JASSM ER (500km). Vastly extends the offensive surface strike range of the carrier air wing and in most cases would allow launch from well outside and surface groups Anti air bubble.
 
FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Ranger25 said:
In a significant move for the embattled USN LCS, it just deployed with dual quad packed NSM for a PACOM deployment. Also May indicate the NSM has the upper hand in arming the rest of the LCS fleet


USS Gabrielle Giffords is the 1st LCS to Get its Full Load of Next Gen NSM Missiles - Naval News
Click to expand...

She's seen significant improvement since first spotted in July, sporting 2x2 mounting racks, with exposed cabling running externally along the port side of her superstructure. Seen back on post#2715

Image from Phil Ewing on Twitter (orange highlight from me)
LCS 10 Jul highlight.jpg

Then in the first week of September she was seen with her NSM mounts improved, showing her capable of a 2x4 configuration. Unfortunately there was no port side view to see if the external cables wear still in-place

Image from CavasShips on Twitter
LCS 10 Sep.jpg


And now, the article you've linked shows that the external cabling from July has been removed. I would assume that signifies a much more permanent arrangement.
LCS 10 Oct.jpg
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Another article on the Ford’s troubled electromagnetic elevators. One has to wonder if these devices can ever work on a ship given the requirement for tight tolerances being compromised by the ship’s natural flexing. Then there is the shock issue. Worse still, what about the ships under construction? Should there be a halt until these elevators prove them selves on the Ford? A return to a cable system would likely require some significant design work.

The Most Expensive Ship In The World Is Broken. The U.S. Navy Secretary Should Be Held Accountable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top