Agreed , and the budget reflects a very sharp increase in LRASM purchases as well as new speakers for the maritime strike TLAM and new purchases for the NSM
As China expands navy, US begins stockpiling ship-killing missiles
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Agreed , and the budget reflects a very sharp increase in LRASM purchases as well as new speakers for the maritime strike TLAM and new purchases for the NSM
As China expands navy, US begins stockpiling ship-killing missiles
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Littoral Combat Ships | Why Is the Navy Is Retiring Ships Early?
USN plan to retire 4 LCS to save operational budget to be used as additional Investment budget. Still this is relatively young ships, wonder if they can attract some buyers overseas. I now they are relative light armed for their size, but still have good sensors and electronics.
USN plan to retire 4 LCS to save operational budget to be used as additional Investment budget. Still this is relatively young ships, wonder if they can attract some buyers overseas. I now they are relative light armed for their size, but still have good sensors and electronics.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Basically the USN is acknowledging the LCS is a failure. Mission modules are missing, they are tough on crews, and reliability is questionable. Only now are they getting some better weapons kit. LCS sailors will enjoy the new frigates.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something a few of us have been commenting about for some time. While the concept first came about in the late 1990's, it seems that it really got going when Rumsfeld was SecDef, not unlike some of the transformational plans for the US Army, namely the Stryker family of vehicles and associated formations the Stryker Brigades.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Yeah, LCS was a project that US Defense Planners put on basic assumption that peace dividend with Russia will hold, and an assumption that hugely underestimate China abilities to field large Navy as potential adversaries in relative short period.
LCS basically a Frigate size OPV that being put on area that increasingly will face USN peer strength opposition. They should never drop Frigates for this.
Still if they are going to offer those to overseas customers, depends on how much US going to put the price on, it still be attractive buy for countries that will not going to face large Navy opposition. Perhaps some in South America or even Gulf and North Africa.
The LCS is designed for high speed transit and operations (with limited endurance) ahead a CBG, which no other regional navy needs. See this 2010 CBSA paper: Littoral Combat Ship: An Examination of Its Possible Concepts of Operations
IMHO, Saudi Arabia’s purchase of 4 Lockheed Martin vessels armed as frigates is a mistake in force planning. With a different design, they could have made better trade-offs for speed, with other weapons or sensor fit outs.
Last edited:
Those 4 are the first four which are basically non standardised and had all the problems. They're costing the USN a lot of money to keep in service and it is not financially viable to upgrade them to the standard of the other LCS, so their cutting their losses.
On the whole, any USN ship building programs have some issues that needs effort to resolve. The US Congress gave the US Navy US$1.3 billion in Fiscal Year 2020 to buy the lead ship for the FFG(X) programme, for which the US Navy is still in the process of selecting a shipbuilder. The US Navy is currently considering bids for the program. Austal USA proposed a design based on its Independence-variant LCS. Fincantieri and its Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin proposed a design based on Fincantieri’s FREMM Italian frigate design. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia are pairing on a bid based on the F100 frigate design. And Huntington Ingalls Industries proposed a design it has not talked publicly about. See: Navy Budgeting $1.1B for 2nd Frigate as Timeline Slows - USNI News
Though lower than the cost of the lead FFG(X) ship, the US$1.1 billion for the second ship is above the ultimate cost goal of US $800 million (constant year 2018 dollars) for the average follow ships (i.e. ships 2-20). The threshold cost for average follow ships is $950M (constant year 2018 dollars). The US Navy’s new acquisition profile, as outlined in the FY 2021 budget request, would buy just one a year in 2021 and 2022, go up to two in 2023 and 2024, and then go up to three frigates in 2025.
Though lower than the cost of the lead FFG(X) ship, the US$1.1 billion for the second ship is above the ultimate cost goal of US $800 million (constant year 2018 dollars) for the average follow ships (i.e. ships 2-20). The threshold cost for average follow ships is $950M (constant year 2018 dollars). The US Navy’s new acquisition profile, as outlined in the FY 2021 budget request, would buy just one a year in 2021 and 2022, go up to two in 2023 and 2024, and then go up to three frigates in 2025.
Finally some good news for the troubled Ford class carrier program. Michael Fabey writing for Jane's Navy International, on 5 Feb 2020 has reported that USS Ford has completed aircraft compatibility testing. This class of Super Carriers are intended to sustain 160 sorties per day for 30-plus days, with a surge capability of 270 sorties per day. See: Carrier Ford completes aircraft compatibility testing | Jane's 360
Last edited:
Is it just me, or is the US giving a lot more attention to Australian designs and companies for their naval ships these days?
Navy Researching New Class of Medium Amphibious Ship, New Logistics Ships - USNI News
Navy Researching New Class of Medium Amphibious Ship, New Logistics Ships - USNI News
Nope ... Sea Transport Solutions have been in everyones facw with their stern landing graft. I have said my piece on this particular style of craft in the past. Not a fan.
One way to sort it out would be for STS to give one to the RAN to independantly trial. That way the RAN could basically put it through all the hoops and test it thoroughly without any input from STS. The RAN could do the testing up the top end with the USMC. If it stacks up good. If it doesn't sobeit.
Vessels similar to this have been in operation for a while ..... we know the issues. I will go back to the big one .... your back side is on the beach and so are your props.
t68
Well-Known Member
According the this site that should not be a problem, does this arrangement also create the suction effect from pulling itself off the beach?
https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=456177
Like trying to ride a surfboard with the fin 2/3 the length from the front.
Even standard commercial landing barges chew through props and stern bearings at alarmingly short intervals because of the amount of sand and sediment encountered during landings. Imagine the effect of sticking them virtually on the beach.
SLVs have been around for over 20 years, there’s a reason why they are not extensively used.
Last edited:
CVN 81 USS Doris Miller, is being named after an American hero from the Pearl Harbour attack who was subsequently killed on active service during the Pacific campaign.
USS Doris Miller (CVN 81) Naming Ceremony - Navy Live
USS Doris Miller (CVN 81) Naming Ceremony - Navy Live
Little known fact - Miller was awarded his Navy Cross on the deck of USS Enterprise, by Chester Nimitz. There you go, three US Navy supercarriers named in one sentence.
oldsig
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This Forbes Magazine article discusses the USN’s apparent loss of heavy seas expertise since the end of the Cold War, partly due to extensive operations in the relatively calm ME waters. Also there seems to be a push towards smaller less crew intensive (i.e. cheaper and smaller) vessels. Sailors can rest assured as per the best line in the article, the navy will be reshaped by the secretary of defence and his deputy, the former an ex army paratrooper and the latter a certified government financial manager. I am guessing they are also brown nosers for you know who. The U.S. Navy’s Future Fleet May Run Aground In Heavy Weather
I call that article horse manure.
Ships fighting in rough weather have always done it tough and when you compare the escorts of the Battle of the Atlantic to modern ships the difference is stark, I know which ship I want to be posted to.
When the weather deteriorated beyond Force 5 all escorts have difficulty functioning but then so to does the enemy’s problems increase.
Are they suggesting that the Flower and Hunt Class ships of the RN and the Fletchers and Gearings of the USN were useless in the Atlantic becaor even more recently the T12’s and the Ruderows, Dealys and Brookes were better than modern escorts at fighting in rough seas?
This seems to me to be a backhand swipe at LCS even though these ships would be unlikely to serve in the extreme weather in northern or southern climes.