US Navy News and updates

[colay]

LHA-6 has had a successful builder's trials and hopefully avoids the tribulations that marked the USS San Antonio's debut into USN service. This comes at a time when the Navy is considering pulling 3 CVNs from service to save money, so it's enhanced aviation capabilities will be put to good use by the Corps.

Ingalls Shipbuilding's America returns from successful week of builder's trials | gulflive.com

PASCAGOULA, Mississippi -- Amphibious assault ship America, LHA 6, returned Saturday from successful builder's sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico, Ingalls Shipbuilding announced today.

The test and trials team at Ingalls began dock trials Monday and then spent five days operating the ship at sea, where more than 200 tests were conducted.

"It's an awesome feeling riding this ship, knowing the hard work that took place to get her ready for sea trials," said George Jones, Ingalls' LHA 6 program manager.

"The LHA 6 team continued to work diligently during our time underway," he said. "The ship performed well, and our team will work to ensure LHA 6 will be prepared for her acceptance trials. We have confidence this will be a great opportunity for America to prove her mettle as she prepares to enter the U.S. Navy fleet."

During testing team looked at the operation of the gas turbine/electric-powered propulsion system and performed other tests such as anchor handling, flight operations and combat systems' evaluations.

"America, designed to take sailors and Marines into harm's way, proved her seaworthiness during builder's trials," said Richard Schenk, Ingalls' vice president of test and trials.

 

[RobWilliams]

IIRC won't LHA-8 and onwards have a dock built in? Which in turn hobbles the hangar space.

But in other news, the USN has picked which configuration of VPM it will use on the Block 5 boats and onwards. The preferred design was the cheapest & required the least amount of modification from the baseline ship.

But - there's always a but - this config produces a slight humpback in the boats hull because doing this is cheaper than re configuring the internals of the boat to allow the door mechanisms to fit within the current 34' hull diameter of the boat, it's just easier to add the protrusion on and fit in the gubbins there.

As such the boats will "suffer a slight acoustical penalty" & due to a difference in displacement & length of the boat it will have some performance penalties compared to the earlier boats but not as much as the longer 97' plugs (this config is 70').

Navy Selects Virginia Payload Module Design Concept | USNI News

 

[kev 99]

IIRC won't LHA-8 and onwards have a dock built in? Which in turn hobbles the hangar space.

Yes pretty sure the America class will be only 2 strong, everything after that has the dock put back in.

But in other news, the USN has picked which configuration of VPM it will use on the Block 5 boats and onwards. The preferred design was the cheapest & required the least amount of modification from the baseline ship.

But - there's always a but - this config produces a slight humpback in the boats hull because doing this is cheaper than re configuring the internals of the boat to allow the door mechanisms to fit within the current 34' hull diameter of the boat, it's just easier to add the protrusion on and fit in the gubbins there.

As such the boats will "suffer a slight acoustical penalty" & due to a difference in displacement & length of the boat it will have some performance penalties compared to the earlier boats but not as much as the longer 97' plugs (this config is 70').

Navy Selects Virginia Payload Module Design Concept | USNI News

40 Tomahawks per boat, pretty nice I must say.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yes pretty sure the America class will be only 2 strong, everything after that has the dock put back in.

If anything, could work for them in two ways. When Bob Work was the UnderSec of the USN he wasn't hot on the idea of amphibious assault ships without docks

An aviation-centric amphibious ship is not a new concept. In the late 1950s, the Navy built a class of amphibious assault ships called Landing Platform Helicopters, or LPH. These vessels carried Marines and rotory-wing aircraft. The only way to leave the ship was by air.

“That turned out to be largely a failed experiment,” says Work. In operations off the coast of Lebanon in the late 1970s, the ships’ helicopters encountered a significant air threat that resulted in the Marines being transferred to another amphibious ship to go ashore by sea.

“What we learned about the LPH is that we needed a well deck,” says Marine Col. Robert Coates, director of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force’s training and exercise group.

...

“It was a tremendous success. The ship was extremely flexible. The Marines could get off either by sea or by air,” says Work.

Marines Question the Utility of Their New Amphibious Warship

• 1 - The USN gets the more flexible amphibious assault ship
• 2 - If the aviation capacity is reduced then a stronger argument can be put forward for keeping as many CVN's as possible as LHA-8 onwards aren't capable of doing so

40 Tomahawks per boat, pretty nice I must say.

Yup, was reading about it today and something like 50%+ of the USN's sub-launched TLAM capacity is those 4 SSGN's. Makes you understand more about why the USN is keen for the VPM to come into being.

 

[StobieWan]

That'll get very scary when TLAM Block IV becomes prevalent. When you absolutely, positively have to kill something, even if it's jinking rapidly, 1000 miles away.

 

[colay]

If anything, could work for them in two ways. When Bob Work was the UnderSec of the USN he wasn't hot on the idea of amphibious assault ships without docks

AFAIK LHA-8 will still have an enhanced aviation capability, though not matching LHA-6 and 7. A sizable portion of the ship will be dedicated to supporting aviation assets, resulting in a well deck with a reduced capacity i.e. it will accommodate one less LCAC than older LHDs.

 

[colay]

That'll get very scary when TLAM Block IV becomes prevalent. When you absolutely, positively have to kill something, even if it's jinking rapidly, 1000 miles away.

For the future, some conjecture if Navy can get together with the Air Force to develop an advanced cruise missile based on the latter's planned LRSO. Given the increasing sophistication of hostile IADS, planning a follow-on to TLAM makes sense.

USAF to move ahead with Long Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile - IHS Jane's 360

USAF to develop new cruise missile

 

[Belesari]

AFAIK LHA-8 will still have an enhanced aviation capability, though not matching LHA-6 and 7. A sizable portion of the ship will be dedicated to supporting aviation assets, resulting in a well deck with a reduced capacity i.e. it will accommodate one less LCAC than older LHDs.

So basically a priority on Air with a reduced but still capable amphibious dock capability. Is a dock really necessary with the San Antonio's? Or do they operate seperately.

 

[RobWilliams]

AFAIK they operate in conjunction with LHD's as part of an ARG but primarily go for horizontal troop movement via LCAC/LCU but have the capability to go vertical too.

The mixture is the optimum solution.

 

[colay]

...The mixture is the optimum solution.

Exactly. LHA 6 and 7 have been tagged as "dead end" designs when really they are another step in the evolutionary ladder. MV-22, F-35B, CH-53E are game-changers and will allow for innovative CONOPs down the road.

 

[colay]

A peek inside DDG-1000. She is still in the process of being fitted out but the impression is one of plenty of internal volume to accommodate growth and changing operational requirements. A stark contrast to the Burkes which have been described as the most densely packed ships in the Navy and, not surprisingly, quite a challenge to upgrade with new systems.

Inside the U.S. Navy's New Stealth Destroyer
Inside the U.S. Navy's New Stealth Destroyer

It doesn’t look like a ship. It doesn’t even feel like a ship.

The hallways are too wide. The ceilings are incredibly high. There’s barely an outdoor deck. No bridge tower. No lookout crow’s nests. Flat-screen TV mounts are everywhere. In fact, the only sign that this is a ship are the steep deck ladders and “knee-knocker” air lock doorways sailors and ironworkers duck through from bow to stern.

There’s also the relatively cavernous mission control room, which looks more like something from Houston than Groton, with large flat-screen displays at the front of the room, five rows of 18 work stations with even more flat screens at each station, and a rear loft for flag officers to oversee the entire operation.

Welcome aboard the Zumwalt, the Navy’s first DDG-1000 stealth destroyer.

Launched just last month, she is an impossibly spaceship-looking trapezoid tower jutting from the still water. The incredibly
automated, totally electrical vessel will hold a smaller crew than any destroyer before her. She can house two helicopters that can land in higher seas than ever and then be automatically pulled inside a concealed hanger. There’s room for several drone aircraft. It can power a small city. And her two advanced guns on the forward deck can hit a basketball with a 155mm Howitzer-sized artillery shell from 63 miles away.

More at the link.

 

[John Fedup]

A peek inside DDG-1000. She is still in the process of being fitted out but the impression is one of plenty of internal volume to accommodate growth and changing operational requirements. A stark contrast to the Burkes which have been described as the most densely packed ships in the Navy and, not surprisingly, quite a challenge to upgrade with new systems.

Inside the U.S. Navy's New Stealth Destroyer
Inside the U.S. Navy's New Stealth Destroyer

It doesn’t look like a ship. It doesn’t even feel like a ship.

The hallways are too wide. The ceilings are incredibly high. There’s barely an outdoor deck. No bridge tower. No lookout crow’s nests. Flat-screen TV mounts are everywhere. In fact, the only sign that this is a ship are the steep deck ladders and “knee-knocker” air lock doorways sailors and ironworkers duck through from bow to stern.

There’s also the relatively cavernous mission control room, which looks more like something from Houston than Groton, with large flat-screen displays at the front of the room, five rows of 18 work stations with even more flat screens at each station, and a rear loft for flag officers to oversee the entire operation.

Welcome aboard the Zumwalt, the Navy’s first DDG-1000 stealth destroyer.

Launched just last month, she is an impossibly spaceship-looking trapezoid tower jutting from the still water. The incredibly
automated, totally electrical vessel will hold a smaller crew than any destroyer before her. She can house two helicopters that can land in higher seas than ever and then be automatically pulled inside a concealed hanger. There’s room for several drone aircraft. It can power a small city. And her two advanced guns on the forward deck can hit a basketball with a 155mm Howitzer-sized artillery shell from 63 miles away.

More at the link.

Surely a vessel with the huge electrical requirements that this one has would be better with a nuclear reactor for electricity production? Forthcoming lasers and rail guns will place further demands on the ship's power supply.

 

[StobieWan]

You'd add another $800 million to each copy however. Plus the additional overheads of having 8 nuclear qualified watch standers on tap - those are expensive resources.

Nuclear reactors on surface combatants are generally held to be impracticable however. DC with a ruptured reactor core would be a troublesome matter.

 

[RobWilliams]

Thought this might make for good reading on this topic, dated Sept 2010. Side note Ian, the 600-800mn figure is in FY2007 dollars, so imagine the costs today!

Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

The usefulness of nuclear power in terms of cost effectiveness is very much linked to the price of crude, if crude goes above a certain price then the high procurement cost of a reactor is even more offset with the higher cost to fuel conventional plants.

 

[John Fedup]

You'd add another $800 million to each copy however. Plus the additional overheads of having 8 nuclear qualified watch standers on tap - those are expensive resources.

Nuclear reactors on surface combatants are generally held to be impracticable however. DC with a ruptured reactor core would be a troublesome matter.

The latest generation of reactors used on navy ships require no refuelling during their lifetime. The additional cost is significant but it is very likely future electrical demand will put a strain on the conventional generating system. A nuclear option is attractive considering the shift to the vast expanse of the Pacific and there is the uncertainly of oil prices over the lifetime of this ship.

 

[Belesari]

Am I the only one that see's that Giant open office space called a command center as a HUGE weakness? I would have expected to see it down in that nice armored hull protected. It is a warship.

I mean I can ignore everything else. Hull form, The gun/missiles are fine not what they should have been or could have been but they will work, No clue why people are complaining about the VLS on it, The manning will be a issue.
But to me that command center honestly it felt like it smacked me in the head. Literally it has bugged me all week. I mean the ship is designed to operate on its own or with another DDG-1k (where are the logistics ships?) and with maybe a sub to protect it against sub threats. I get that. But this means if it get's detected its all on its own.

It just seems a Huge weakness to me. Not to mention if a missile or shell hits in there it will kill or maim most of the people in there.

A peek inside DDG-1000. She is still in the process of being fitted out but the impression is one of plenty of internal volume to accommodate growth and changing operational requirements. A stark contrast to the Burkes which have been described as the most densely packed ships in the Navy and, not surprisingly, quite a challenge to upgrade with new systems.

Inside the U.S. Navy's New Stealth Destroyer
Inside the U.S. Navy's New Stealth Destroyer

It doesn’t look like a ship. It doesn’t even feel like a ship.

The hallways are too wide. The ceilings are incredibly high. There’s barely an outdoor deck. No bridge tower. No lookout crow’s nests. Flat-screen TV mounts are everywhere. In fact, the only sign that this is a ship are the steep deck ladders and “knee-knocker” air lock doorways sailors and ironworkers duck through from bow to stern.

There’s also the relatively cavernous mission control room, which looks more like something from Houston than Groton, with large flat-screen displays at the front of the room, five rows of 18 work stations with even more flat screens at each station, and a rear loft for flag officers to oversee the entire operation.

Welcome aboard the Zumwalt, the Navy’s first DDG-1000 stealth destroyer.

Launched just last month, she is an impossibly spaceship-looking trapezoid tower jutting from the still water. The incredibly
automated, totally electrical vessel will hold a smaller crew than any destroyer before her. She can house two helicopters that can land in higher seas than ever and then be automatically pulled inside a concealed hanger. There’s room for several drone aircraft. It can power a small city. And her two advanced guns on the forward deck can hit a basketball with a 155mm Howitzer-sized artillery shell from 63 miles away.

More at the link.

 

[AegisFC]

Am I the only one that see's that Giant open office space called a command center as a HUGE weakness? I would have expected to see it down in that nice armored hull protected. It is a warship.

<Shrug> No worse than a Tico, Spruance, Perry, the older amphibs had their CIC's located in the super structure. The Burkes have their CIC in the hull but there is just a passageway on either side separating it from the hull and nor is it very deep in the hull. None of them have secondary CIC's either.

The location of the computer room and CIC on a Tico (and Sprucan) is on the first and second level at the very front of the super structure. You really can't get more exposed than that.

 

[StobieWan]

The latest generation of reactors used on navy ships require no refuelling during their lifetime. The additional cost is significant but it is very likely future electrical demand will put a strain on the conventional generating system. A nuclear option is attractive considering the shift to the vast expanse of the Pacific and there is the uncertainly of oil prices over the lifetime of this ship.

You do *not* want a nuclear reactor in a surface combatant - you puncture one in a shooting match and it's a total goat f*ck.

In a carrier there's a deep hull and plenty of space to park a reactor further from harms way - and the carrier is buried inside a deep defensive ring of ships and aircraft. A surface combatant will typically have a an outer hull and a few feet of separation from the wide blue yonder. Get an antiship missile into that mix and you've gone from a survivable hit to an "all hands, this is not a drill.." moment.

Nuclear qualified watch standers are expensive too - the USN was paying re-up bonuses over £100K in some cases. Some allies won't allow nuclear powered ships in port - the list goes on.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think we are looking at what the world navies will build for next 50 years.

Not exactly the same ship, but the style, features, technologies. Nuclear power would have cost more, most likely lengthen construction and would not have resulted in much greater capability. The large open cic will make it a more effective ship in many of its operations where it will be deployed.

I like it. I don't agree with everything but I like it as a test bed.

 

[Bonza]

Am I the only one that see's that Giant open office space called a command center as a HUGE weakness? I would have expected to see it down in that nice armored hull protected. It is a warship.

I mean I can ignore everything else. Hull form, The gun/missiles are fine not what they should have been or could have been but they will work, No clue why people are complaining about the VLS on it, The manning will be a issue.
But to me that command center honestly it felt like it smacked me in the head. Literally it has bugged me all week. I mean the ship is designed to operate on its own or with another DDG-1k (where are the logistics ships?) and with maybe a sub to protect it against sub threats. I get that. But this means if it get's detected its all on its own.

It just seems a Huge weakness to me. Not to mention if a missile or shell hits in there it will kill or maim most of the people in there.

Don't ignore everything else, she's a fascinating vessel and was designed the way she was for a reason, by people that know better than you or I do (not having a go at you, just encouraging you to think about why they might have made certain decisions so as to better understand the design). Remember that naval defensive systems these days aren't about armour plating, it's about systems like signature management, defensive armament like CIWS/missiles, electronic warfare like jamming/Nulka/etc etc... and as Aegis said it's not exactly a first for USN surface combatants. And there are benefits to having advanced and large command facilities, too.

My point is I don't think it should bug you so much that you're really bothered by it. Think of the reasons why such a command centre could be useful, rather than the reasons why not, and you'll probably find yourself understanding the design better.