US Navy News and updates

S

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
The biggest problem I feel the LCS program made was to design the ships before the mission modules were complete.

This would be akin to building a fighter before designing the avionics, engines, and weapons.

The other issue is that the baseline version is undergunned, especially vs swarm-style attacks.

I had an idea on that: (sorry for not uploading pics, my account permissions are bugging out right now).

---The basic idea
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/LCS/587a1df2.jpg


---Pics of sub components
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/LCS/dsc_8155_zpsf5b9d677.jpg

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/...GR_Mounted_w_Hellfires_Concep_zpsc04cf934.jpg

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/..._30mm_M230LF_Chain_gun_automa_zps789ba267.jpg

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/...1000_Millennium_mounting_pic1_zpsb61b6fc8.jpg


The key to this UpGun idea is that it uses existing systems and takes up no space inside the vessel that is not already dedicated to the weapon modules. It triples the CIWS capability while adding swarm defense. It also puts back the long-range precision attack lost when NETFIRES was cancelled.

If it's not obvious, the General Dynamics LCS would be my choice going forward. The reason is simple, the massive flight deck and Mission Module bay. Drones and aviation assets in general are going to be the cornerstone of the litoral fight just as the carriers are the cornerstone of the navy in general.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
X-47B apparently failed its 3rd and 4th landing attempts on a US CVN.

X-47B Fails Fourth Landing Attempt | Defense News | defensenews.com

The X-47B unmanned jet, which successfully landed twice last week on an aircraft carrier, was unable to repeat the feat Monday, Navy sources have confirmed.

The aircraft nailed its first two landing attempts July 10 on the USS George H.W. Bush, but a third landing was aborted when the aircraft’s systems detected a problem with an onboard computer. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and Northrop Grumman engineers were back on board the carrier Monday to try for a third successful “trap.”

But it didn’t happen. For yet-to-be-revealed reasons, the aircraft developed technical issues while in flight to the ship, and officials decided to abort the attempt before the X-47B reached the carrier’s vicinity.

...

Officials have termed the tests “successful” in that the system responded properly when problems were detected. But the fact is that of four times the Navy attempted to land the aircraft on the ship, only two attempts were successful.

Officials point out that the program’s requirements called for only one successful landing.

It is not clear if further attempts will be made to land the aircraft on a carrier.
Click to expand...
Sad to hear but not surprising nor worrying. We're talking about a new era of naval operations so it's not exactly shocking that problems had developed with the prototype, Y'know, the one which is currently the only UAV to land on deck of an aircraft carrier?

Expect to hear this put out as a failure of the program and all that nonsense . . .
 
C

colay

New Member
'But the fact is that of four times the Navy attempted to land the aircraft on the ship, only two attempts were successful.'

Beancounters logic.
If the Wright Brothers had successfully made only one powered flight out of two attempts, then this guy would find a way to downplay the achievement.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yup.

"Failed to land, nailed the spudlocker and exploded in flames" - that'd be a big issue if it happened twice out of four attempts. Two landings and two go-arounds isn't a major panic attack.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Yes it certainly seems like a typical media beat up, the word 'fails' looks good in a headline.

Looking at this article and others I've read since the first landing, the two aborted landings were due to:

(1) One of the 'three' navigation computers had an issue.
(2) The aircraft experienced a 'minor test instrumentation' issue.

Obviously at this early stage in the development of a Naval UCAS the bar is set very very high, and of course both times that the carrier landings were aborted the X47B still managed to land safely back on dry land.

I guess eventually in a 'real world' situation in the future, when an operational UCAS is operating of a carrier, there will be multiple redundant systems to take into account for the failure of 'one' navigation computer, which is probably no different to the failure of part of a redundant system on a 'manned' aircraft.
 
C

colay

New Member
I was wondering the reason for LCS-1 Freedom's striking paint job and it turns out the ship's CO can take credit. Perhaps we can expect her siblings to sport a similar look once they are deployed.
LCS CO: Freedom is ‘A Mean Looking Ship’ | USNI News

Thien, commander of the Freedom’s Blue crew, convinced his leadership to paint the 3,000-ton warship with a camouflage pattern borrowed from naval history.

“Between my executive officer, my Command Master Chief and one of my Operation Specialists, we did some research online,” Thien told USNI News on Thursday. “My XO had a book on naval camouflage and we did a bunch of research and looked at some old pictures from World War II.”

They found a style suited for ship’s deployment to the South Pacific – a 68 year-old pattern called Measure 32.

“Measure 32 was designed for an area where radar or acoustic detection is expected but will still confuse visual detection,” Thien said.

With the proliferation of inexpensive radar, it’s unlikely Freedom will go undetected when it operates close to shore, “but with the different colors and the different angles and shapes; it makes it harder to figure out which way the ship is coming, where she’s coming from and what target angle you’re looking at,” he said.

Thien knew he liked camouflage during a test of paint schemes for Cyclone-class patrol crafts earlier in his career.

“On a moonlit night with pretty high-speed electro-optical gear, we disappeared from sight at a surprising range, given how close we were to the sensors,” Thien said. “From then on I was sold on camouflage schemes for ships.”
 
A

Alienware

New Member
RobWilliams said:
X-47B apparently failed its 3rd and 4th landing attempts on a US CVN.

Sad to hear but not surprising nor worrying. We're talking about a new era of naval operations so it's not exactly shocking that problems had developed with the prototype, Y'know, the one which is currently the only UAV to land on deck of an aircraft carrier?

Expect to hear this put out as a failure of the program and all that nonsense . . .
Click to expand...
Its a simple case of good-news is no-news! The media love to beat-up American (and British) defence programmes.

Good news on the X-47B successfully landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Its hard enough with a human in the cockpit!
 
CB90

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
colay said:
I was wondering the reason for LCS-1 Freedom's striking paint job and it turns out the ship's CO can take credit. Perhaps we can expect her siblings to sport a similar look once they are deployed.
LCS CO: Freedom is ‘A Mean Looking Ship’ | USNI News

Thien, commander of the Freedom’s Blue crew, convinced his leadership to paint the 3,000-ton warship with a camouflage pattern borrowed from naval history.

“Between my executive officer, my Command Master Chief and one of my Operation Specialists, we did some research online,” Thien told USNI News on Thursday. “My XO had a book on naval camouflage and we did a bunch of research and looked at some old pictures from World War II.”

They found a style suited for ship’s deployment to the South Pacific – a 68 year-old pattern called Measure 32.

“Measure 32 was designed for an area where radar or acoustic detection is expected but will still confuse visual detection,” Thien said.

With the proliferation of inexpensive radar, it’s unlikely Freedom will go undetected when it operates close to shore, “but with the different colors and the different angles and shapes; it makes it harder to figure out which way the ship is coming, where she’s coming from and what target angle you’re looking at,” he said.

Thien knew he liked camouflage during a test of paint schemes for Cyclone-class patrol crafts earlier in his career.

“On a moonlit night with pretty high-speed electro-optical gear, we disappeared from sight at a surprising range, given how close we were to the sensors,” Thien said. “From then on I was sold on camouflage schemes for ships.”
Click to expand...
Skeptics say it's an excuse for the fact they HAVE to paint to cover up the nastiness (corrosion, exhaust, etc). Also a NAVSEA study (from many decades ago) that states high speed camo paint schemes (ala WWI dazzle) are not effective. :eek:nfloorl:
 
C

colay

New Member
CB90 said:
Skeptics say it's an excuse for the fact they HAVE to paint to cover up the nastiness (corrosion, exhaust, etc). Also a NAVSEA study (from many decades ago) that states high speed camo paint schemes (ala WWI dazzle) are not effective. :eek:nfloorl:
Click to expand...
Does that NAVSEA study take into account a littoral environment with the LCS being able to operate in close proximity to the shore?
 
A

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #970
Those were probably post WW2 studies, so no. ;)
 
B

Belesari

New Member
In all honesty it is pretty nasty looking. The exhaust I mean. Almost makes it look Russian. :)


CB90 said:
Skeptics say it's an excuse for the fact they HAVE to paint to cover up the nastiness (corrosion, exhaust, etc). Also a NAVSEA study (from many decades ago) that states high speed camo paint schemes (ala WWI dazzle) are not effective. :eek:nfloorl:
Click to expand...
 
B

Belesari

New Member
C

colay

New Member
LCS Freedom completes first crew swap | Navy Times | navytimes.com

Aside from subs, what other Navy ships employ rotating crew rosters?

LCS Freedom completes first crew swap
Aug. 6, 2013

...Jones and the rest of Freedom’s gold crew are heading home. They completed their turnover with the blue crew Aug. 6. It’s the first such crew swap on a deployed LCS, but an event that’s going to become commonplace as the Navy grows its fleet of LCSs to 52 over the next decade.

Right now, each LCS has two crews apiece, but that, too, will change as the plan is to have three full crews for every two LCS ships, which will start when the Fort Worth, a sister ship to Freedom, deploys next year.

The idea is that one ship will be training “off hull,” while another crew is spinning up in the U.S., with the goal of heading overseas to swap with the third crew operating on a forward-deployed LCS.

The third crew will then head back home for rest and relaxation and begin training “off hull” to start the cycle over. Each period is slated to be four months long, though there have been discussions of stretching them to six months...
 
B

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Belesari said:
In all honesty it is pretty nasty looking. The exhaust I mean. Almost makes it look Russian. :)
Click to expand...
Belesari said:
Ouch. Well order another Virginia.
Click to expand...
You couldn't combine these into one post? You've been around long enough to know the rules on one-liners. They might occasionally be appropriate when responding to questions or the like but for non-analytical personal opinions like these, all they do is take up space. Please, please aspire to a better level of quality in your posts. It will do nothing but help both the discussion and your own understanding.
 
CB90

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
colay said:
Does that NAVSEA study take into account a littoral environment with the LCS being able to operate in close proximity to the shore?
Click to expand...
Here's the full study: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pdf/camo1953.pdf
Plenty on concealment patterns/littoral backgrounds...mainly for PT boats, transports, and such.

The course deception bit is covered on p10. Basically saying you can either go with a high vis dazzle that can effectively provide course deception that gives up any attempt at concealment, or a low vis pattern which makes the contrast required for effective course deception impossible.

Seeing as how LCS's dazzle uses a fairly subdued set of colors, it seems the course deception aspect would not be as effective as hoped. And of course, if you're up at sprint speed and kicking up a huge roostertail/wake, paint choice becomes a moot ponit.
 
C

colay

New Member
Obviously the higher-ups believed Freedom's CO's camo proposal merited their approval. We'll see soon enough if the paint scheme is adopted for the rest of the LCS Fleet.

Edit: could new paint tech somehow reduce effectiveness of night vision sensors?
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Unsurprising to hear this really, after the requirements of the UCLASS program were released earlier in the year

Reduced capability leaves UCLASS vulnerable to budget axe

Concerns have been raised that the capabilities of the US Navy's proposed Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft have been so watered down from the original concept that the programme is now vulnerable to cancellation by a cash-strapped Pentagon.

...

The original UCAS concept - championed by Roughead and former under-secretary of the navy Robert Work - called for a very stealthy, carrier-based, long-range bomber with a hefty payload that could be refuelled in-flight.

"The idea [of] a long-dwell, long-range, refuellable, survivable UAV coming off a carrier was extremely important," Roughead says.

By contrast, the current vision is for a modestly stealthy UCLASS that emphasises intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions over lightly contested airspace, with a light secondary strike mission.

...

She [Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research] says that the aircraft's lack of stealth capability and the small number the navy proposes to acquire have eroded its worth.
Click to expand...
The plan in 2009 was to build a UCAV which could hold up to 24 SDB, whereas the current plan is 1,360kg, of which 454kg (~1000lbs) is for A2G weapons.

What d'you across the pond think about this? It looks as though it's the typical scenario of a solution being driven by cost requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top