US Navy News and updates

[RobWilliams]

That would be great thing. is there any other name from the freedom fighter which is given to the other ship?

The post you're replying to is almost 5 years old, July 25th 2008.

What's the point in responding to something like that? Please focus on more recent comments in future mate.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The T-AKE's use the Puma for Vertrep (non connected mumbo jumbo whatever its called these days) but I don't know about other USNS's

Those Pumas are commercial aircraft, operated by civilian contractors.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Would the CH-148 be too late and too much trouble?

I've read that the USN really wants to consolidate all helos to the Romeo and Sierra, but maybe they would have to have a new helo for the 55-ship LCS program. It's only the USMC who operates the CH-53 right? Not the USN?

The US Navy operates 36 MH-53E Sea Dragons. While listed a "Multi-Mission Helicopters" their primary focus is counter-mine operations ie: pulling mine hunting sleds.

 

[fretburner]

The US Navy operates 36 MH-53E Sea Dragons. While listed a "Multi-Mission Helicopters" their primary focus is counter-mine operations ie: pulling mine hunting sleds.

I presume these Sea Dragons operate off the Nimitz Carriers? These helos seem way to large to operate off Ticos and Burkes. And from FAS, the last one was delivered in 1994. Looks too big and too expensive a solution for the LCS.

The CH-148 is closer to the dimensions of the MH-60 and seems to have a lot more power from its 2 engines (even the interim ones). I don't know if this is a candidate though, given its troubles with Canada.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I presume these Sea Dragons operate off the Nimitz Carriers? These helos seem way to large to operate off Ticos and Burkes. And from FAS, the last one was delivered in 1994. Looks too big and too expensive a solution for the LCS.

The CH-148 is closer to the dimensions of the MH-60 and seems to have a lot more power from its 2 engines (even the interim ones). I don't know if this is a candidate though, given its troubles with Canada.

They are, and have in the past, been operated off of CVN, LHAs, LHDs, LPDs, LPAs and LSDs.
The USS Ponce (AFSB-I and formerly LPD-15) is currently serving as essentially a Mine Countermeasures Command and Support Ship, a role it has performed in the past, as has the former USS Inchon (LPH-15).
I think it is important to remember that US Navy mine countermeasure vessels have not in the past been capable of supporting any kind of helicopter operations.

 

[colay]

The T-AKE's use the Puma for Vertrep (non connected mumbo jumbo whatever its called these days) but I don't know about other USNS's

They also demonstrated Osprey/T-AKE compatibility during last year's BA 2012 exercise.

 

[ASSAIL]

Those Pumas are commercial aircraft, operated by civilian contractors.

Thanks for that I didn't know. Are all the flight crew and flight deck crew contractors as well? I saw a doco on the USNS Peary and the helos still carry military markings.
Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Littoral Combat Ship Lcs :: Naval Vessels :: Defence Products :: Products And Services :: En :: Austal

According to this Austal link the LCS 2 can accommodate 1 x CH 53 if that is what is required for the towed Minehunter sled, however as I previously reported, the stated plan was to modify the sled and retain the Seahawk airframe.

 

[colay]

I read somewhere? that there is no thought of introducing any other helo than the SH60. The problem (dangerous to tow the MW unit on 1 x engine) is to be remedied by redesigning the towed unit.
Cheers

Good to know. Any link?

 

[icelord]

Thanks for that I didn't know. Are all the flight crew and flight deck crew contractors as well? I saw a doco on the USNS Peary and the helos still carry military markings.
Cheers

From experience operating with USNS the only military people are operations officer, comms and embarked security detachment. Occasional uniforms float around but the Replenishment and majority stores are Merchants along with flight deck.
Im guessing the helo would come under the same protections as the USNS fleet has in regards to maritime laws and operations?

 

[ASSAIL]

From experience operating with USNS the only military people are operations officer, comms and embarked security detachment. Occasional uniforms float around but the Replenishment and majority stores are Merchants along with flight deck.
Im guessing the helo would come under the same protections as the USNS fleet has in regards to maritime laws and operations?

Back in the iceage, 1970's all the service ships were commissioned (oilers, ammo food etc) usually with a brown shoes as a CO to give them experience before taking over a CV.
On deployment, Operation Market Time, we were supported by the ships of COMSERVGRU5 based in Sasebo.
Don't know when it all changed.
Cheers

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Thanks for that I didn't know. Are all the flight crew and flight deck crew contractors as well? I saw a doco on the USNS Peary and the helos still carry military markings.
Cheers

All USNS vessels are primarily manned by civilian crews with a small number of Navy personnel. I believe Evergreen Aviation may currently holds the contract.

From what I could find, the use of contract Pumas began in 1999: The Naval Institute Guide To The Ships And Aircraft Of The U.S. Fleet - Norman Polmar - Google Books

Every image I have seen of the MSC Pumas show them sporting a basic all white livery with large black aircraft registration numbers. This can hardly be construed as "military markings"

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Back in the iceage, 1970's all the service ships were commissioned (oilers, ammo food etc) usually with a brown shoes as a CO to give them experience before taking over a CV.
On deployment, Operation Market Time, we were supported by the ships of COMSERVGRU5 based in Sasebo.
Don't know when it all changed.
Cheers

It seems to have changed in 1990:
"Today's Navy Regulations define the classification and status of naval ships and craft:
1. The Chief of Naval Operations shall be responsible for ... the assignment of classification for administrative pur- poses to water-borne craft and the designation of status for each ship and service craft. ....
2. Commissioned vessels and craft shall be called "United States Ship" or "U.S.S."
3. Civilian manned ships, of the Military Sealift Command or other commands, designated "active status, in service" shall be called "United States Naval Ship" or "U.S.N.S."
4. Ships and service craft designated "active status, in service," except those described by paragraph 3 of this article, shall be referred to by name, when assigned, classification, and hull number (e.g., "HIGH POINT PCH-1" or "YOGN-8").
-- United States Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0406."
USN Ship Naming

 

[justsomeaussie]

Some interesting things in this link about the three "modular" slots on the Independance. Will be interesting to see it fitted out with the MK46 30mm cannons like the Freedom.

Independence class littoral combat ship LCS Austal US Navy

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Some interesting things in this link about the three "modular" slots on the Independance. Will be interesting to see it fitted out with the MK46 30mm cannons like the Freedom.

Independence class littoral combat ship LCS Austal US Navy

Yes, the Independence class LCS are able to carry two Mk46 30mm GWS. They would be inserted in two bays (port & starboard) just aft of the antennae mast.

You can see the cover over the empty starboard bay in this photo: http://goo.gl/sfFk9

You can also see the empty bay that was intended for the cancelled NLOS missile module aft of the Mk 110 turret.

Edit: This photo show the module bays better: http://goo.gl/MsLKO

 

[Anixtu]

It seems to have changed in 1990:

Civilian manning of US replenishment ships began in the 70s, but it wasn't until the 2000s that the entire replenishment fleet became civilian manned. IIRC the Supply class AOEs were the last to transfer to MSC.

 

[MickB]

Sure a couple of RAMs and ESSMs is not cheap but seriously how often does a ship has to kill so many swarm ships that costs are a real problem?

What may happen much more often is hitting land targets in some backwater area with PGMs. And that's where costs and capability really matter.

The last time I can remember anything remotely like a swarm attack was the Iranian boghammers in the 1980's.
While it would be foolish to totally ignore the posability of one happening, I think the money would be better spent enhancing existing, more versatile and cost efective weapon systems so they can also deal with possable swarm tactics.

In the case of the LCS rather than the Griffin, I would have a 76mm gun with PGM. Add to this a drone capable of over the horizon targeting. Then back it all up with a missile armed helo.

All equipment readily available, all capable of performing this and many other missions.

In all a much cheaper more versatile weapons package.

 

[StobieWan]

The last time I can remember anything remotely like a swarm attack was the Iranian boghammers in the 1980's.
While it would be foolish to totally ignore the posability of one happening, I think the money would be better spent enhancing existing, more versatile and cost efective weapon systems so they can also deal with possable swarm tactics.

In the case of the LCS rather than the Griffin, I would have a 76mm gun with PGM. Add to this a drone capable of over the horizon targeting. Then back it all up with a missile armed helo.

All equipment readily available, all capable of performing this and many other missions.

In all a much cheaper more versatile weapons package.

There was a MOU signed to market the 76mm with LCS back in 2003, and I understand that this is being looked at again with a view to perhaps inserting it on later ships in the class. There's some debate as to if Indy can take the gun without reinforcement but LCS 1 (Freedom) is good to go apparently.

We'll see- 76mm with Vulcano ammunition backed up by a navalised Fireshadow or SPIKE would be potentially a game-changer.

It *really* depends on what the USN want to do with the thing however - and what they plan to team LCS up with when it's doing stuff.

 

[fretburner]

Well, the Philippinos did what they were advised - I'm sure that there has been a lot of .....Taking it up with the US embassy ever since ....................

Was it stupidity or simply arrogance? .................. probably both!

Brings to mind that old joke:

US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

Just in today: Four fired for marooning minesweeper on ocean reef

When someone is fired in the USN, is he/she going to get discharged from service or get a demotion?

 

[RobWilliams]

It *really* depends on what the USN want to do with the thing however - and what they plan to team LCS up with when it's doing stuff.

I'm linking back to a doc ASSAIL put up a while back, it's a paper by Bob Work.

Nevertheless, senior Navy leaders envisioned the ship would be used in three basic ways:

• As an integrated part of a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) or Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), several LCSs with tailored mission configurations would perform “vanguard scouting,pouncing support, and other tasks.”

• As part of an LCS Division or a Littoral Action Group (LAG) withup to six ships, LCSs would be forward deployed in order tomaintain a continuous presence in forward theaters in order to build FORCEnet situation awareness. In wartime the divisions/LAGs would integrate into FORCEnet battle networks “to complement power projecting multimission ships.”

• Finally, LCSs could conduct limited independent (mobility) missions in low threat areas, such as SOF support, AT/FP, MIO,NEO, HA/DR, or logistics support

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/122722216/Littoral-Combat-Ship-How-we-Got-Here-and-Why"]Littoral Combat Ship - How we Got Here and Why[/ame]

I've made bold the most interesting concept IMO, the other 2 options being pretty much what was expected.

It's given me something to think about though, a network of LCSs working in conjunction with eachother would produce a much more survivable unit in a higher threat environment. It's important to rememberthat as much as people like to talk about the LCS being incredibly vulnerable, that the USN doesn't intend to let them operate independently in anything other than a low threat environment.