US Navy News and updates

[RobWilliams]

LCS Now Officially Called A Frigate

LCS has officially became a frigate according to the USN.

SecNav is pushing for platforms with unusual designators (LCS, JHSV, MLP & AFSP) to be redesignated with more traditional names.

For example, LCS-1 will now be redesginated as FF rather than LCS. FFG doesn't count as it can't fulfill the 'G' element.

 

[Ranger25]

LCS Now Officially Called A Frigate

LCS has officially became a frigate according to the USN.

SecNav is pushing for platforms with unusual designators (LCS, JHSV, MLP & AFSP) to be redesignated with more traditional names.

For example, LCS-1 will now be redesginated as FF rather than LCS. FFG doesn't count as it can't fulfill the 'G' element.

I saw that, interesting the SECNAV wants to also set up smaller Offensive Stike groups outside of the Traditional CVNS groups and form more "Distributed Lethality"


'Distributed Lethality' | U.S. Naval Institute

 

[barney41]

LCS Now Officially Called A Frigate

LCS has officially became a frigate according to the USN.

SecNav is pushing for platforms with unusual designators (LCS, JHSV, MLP & AFSP) to be redesignated with more traditional names.

For example, LCS-1 will now be redesginated as FF rather than LCS. FFG doesn't count as it can't fulfill the 'G' element.

Great! Now all those clamoring for a frigate have no more reason to complain.

 

[ADMk2]

I saw that, interesting the SECNAV wants to also set up smaller Offensive Stike groups outside of the Traditional CVNS groups and form more "Distributed Lethality"


'Distributed Lethality' | U.S. Naval Institute

Sounds like a good idea. Seems like something that many navies should be considering, particularly those that don't have the benefit of carrier air wings to support them...

 

[ASSAIL]

Sounds like a good idea. Seems like something that many navies should be considering, particularly those that don't have the benefit of carrier air wings to support them...

It's "back to the future". In the 60's and 70's there were dedicated ASW "hunter killer" groups led by the CVS's and in the smaller Aust, Canadian, Dutch and British navies these were the dominant strategic function.

On a smaller scale, I can't remember ever not carrying out a SAGEX, almost nightly, as we strove to counter the threat of the Soviet Sverdlovs et al

 

[AegisFC]

The USN is planning on a demonstration of F-35 in a CEC environment either this year or next.

http://defensetech.org/2015/01/22/navy-to-integrate-f-35-with-beyond-the-horizon-technology/

Also plans are underway for a new Surface Warfare development center.

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150120-surface.html

 

[Volkodav]

It's "back to the future". In the 60's and 70's there were dedicated ASW "hunter killer" groups led by the CVS's and in the smaller Aust, Canadian, Dutch and British navies these were the dominant strategic function.

On a smaller scale, I can't remember ever not carrying out a SAGEX, almost nightly, as we strove to counter the threat of the Soviet Sverdlovs et al

Well that's basically what Japan is forming with their new through deck DDHs, they have been trying to acquire CVS since the late 50s but have been prevented by political considerations. This is why I am so keen on the DDH concept for the RAN, it would, so long as we had sufficient frigates as well, permit the formation of flexible hunter killer groups that would also be able to swing to escort, amphibious and sea control.

 

[swerve]

Indeed. There's a lot of guff talked about the Japanese through deck DDHs, calling them LPHs (sometimes even LHDs, despite the lack of a dock) & aircraft carriers. I think they're what the Japanese say they are, i.e. big anti-submarine ships, designed to operate as the core of an ASW flotilla - or 'hunter-killer' group, carrying out ASW actions directly, & also supporting helicopter operations off smaller ships.

That doesn't mean they don't have the potential to be converted into STOVL carriers for F-35B*, & I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was taken into account when designing them - but they'd need some modification. Not too much, though, nothing that couldn't be done in a normal refit AFAIK.

They're what the Invincible class started out as: through deck ASW cruisers. For now.


*Especially Izumo & her as yet unnamed sister ship to be, which are 248 m long x 38 m beam, vs Cavour 244 x 34. The second one should be launched in August this year.

 

[Volkodav]

Indeed. There's a lot of guff talked about the Japanese through deck DDHs, calling them LPHs (sometimes even LHDs, despite the lack of a dock) & aircraft carriers. I think they're what the Japanese say they are, i.e. big anti-submarine ships, designed to operate as the core of an ASW flotilla - or 'hunter-killer' group, carrying out ASW actions directly, & also supporting helicopter operations off smaller ships.

That doesn't mean they don't have the potential to be converted into STOVL carriers for F-35B*, & I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was taken into account when designing them - but they'd need some modification. Not too much, though, nothing that couldn't be done in a normal refit AFAIK.

They're what the Invincible class started out as: through deck ASW cruisers. For now.


*Especially Izumo & her as yet unnamed sister ship to be, which are 248 m long x 38 m beam, vs Cavour 244 x 34. The second one should be launched in August this year.

Another thing I like about the Hyugas and Izumos is they would cost Australia less than the extra planned submarines. I'll leave it up to those better informed than me to work out what is better value for money or more to the point delivers the best capability for the available money, three DDH, four to six additional submarines, eight modified F-100 GP/ASW frigates, or a mix of the above. Well to be honest I know the DDHs aren't even on the radar, they are about as likely as Australia announcing the FMS acquisition of six to eight block VI or V Virginias, as well as a couple of squadrons of MV-22 and F-35B.

 

[kev 99]

I'm a big fan of the Japanese DDHs, lots of capability for the money.

 

[Ranger25]

Well that's basically what Japan is forming with their new through deck DDHs, they have been trying to acquire CVS since the late 50s but have been prevented by political considerations. This is why I am so keen on the DDH concept for the RAN, it would, so long as we had sufficient frigates as well, permit the formation of flexible hunter killer groups that would also be able to swing to escort, amphibious and sea control.

Fully agree, I'd like to see the USN add some similar capabilities to the American Class. Add the Mk 41 VLS, upgrade AAW, ASW, SSM all together. If we truly want to get to "if it floats it flights" then we'll mpneed to do this. Also I think the additional of intrinsic self defense would be goo for our Amphib groups.

 

[RobWilliams]

Fully agree, I'd like to see the USN add some similar capabilities to the American Class. Add the Mk 41 VLS, upgrade AAW, ASW, SSM all together. If we truly want to get to "if it floats it flights" then we'll mpneed to do this. Also I think the additional of intrinsic self defense would be goo for our Amphib groups.

Is that what the Americas need though? They've got RAM and ESSM capability ( + Phalanx), isn't that enough for a capital flat top when you're accompanied by a pair of ABs?

Plus if there's a heavy air threat, that expeditionary strike group would be embedded within a CVBG for additional protection.

They do not need SSM capability. Period. Their associated escorts plus air group (especially when the F-35B comes online) can deal with that.

ASW capability = fewer lift assets or fighters, that's the primary job of the platform (in the case of America). It's a role which falls to the escorts which are (in all likelihood) a couple of AB. Probably have an SSN sneaking round if the subsurface threat is judged to be high enough.

 

[Ranger25]

Is that what the Americas need though? They've got RAM and ESSM capability ( + Phalanx), isn't that enough for a capital flat top when you're accompanied by a pair of ABs?

Plus if there's a heavy air threat, that expeditionary strike group would be embedded within a CVBG for additional protection.

They do not need SSM capability. Period. Their associated escorts plus air group (especially when the F-35B comes online) can deal with that.

ASW capability = fewer lift assets or fighters, that's the primary job of the platform (in the case of America). It's a role which falls to the escorts which are (in all likelihood) a couple of AB. Probably have an SSN sneaking round if the subsurface threat is judged to be high enough.

Great points, I still like the built in capabilities of the Japanese Hyuga class. Certainly doesn't hurt

 

[t68]

Is that what the Americas need though? They've got RAM and ESSM capability ( + Phalanx), isn't that enough for a capital flat top when you're accompanied by a pair of ABs?

Plus if there's a heavy air threat, that expeditionary strike group would be embedded within a CVBG for additional protection.

They do not need SSM capability. Period. Their associated escorts plus air group (especially when the F-35B comes online) can deal with that.

ASW capability = fewer lift assets or fighters, that's the primary job of the platform (in the case of America). It's a role which falls to the escorts which are (in all likelihood) a couple of AB. Probably have an SSN sneaking round if the subsurface threat is judged to be high enough.

I agree that the USN does not need a dedicated helicopter ASW support ship with the amount of AB and soon the LCS and with the rumours of capping the LCS and building trational frigates.

But on the other hand those nations with limited resources which is everybody else they do make sence considering the UK with the Invincables were supposed to escort the CV 01 series of aircrarft carriers.

I am warming up to the idea of Volks for the RAN with Japanese Izumho class ships if we ever got them they need to be multi role with enough to carry at least 18xF35B (6x peace time)plus the 9x MH60R. A RAN ASW group would consist of 1x carrier 3x Type 26 ASW frigates.

Has any heard anymore on the Sth Koreans proposal for the S3Viking returning to operational readiness?
Did it get up or was it just a wish

 

[RobWilliams]

Great points, I still like the built in capabilities of the Japanese Hyuga class. Certainly doesn't hurt

Doesn't hurt, but it's a case of funding. While you're funding those, however much it may be, that's funding that has to be diverted away from other projects.

But on the other hand those nations with limited resources which is everybody else they do make sence considering the UK with the Invincables were supposed to escort the CV 01 series of aircrarft carriers.

Agreed, the current belief with the QEC for the UK is that an air group including 9 Merlins tasked for ASW is going to be a standard sight.

 

[swerve]

Great points, I still like the built in capabilities of the Japanese Hyuga class. Certainly doesn't hurt

Hyuga & Ise have ASW capability because it's their main role, & CIWS & SAMs (ESSM) for self defence. Their AAW capability isn't much different from the America LHAs. They don't have SSMs or long-range SAMs, & will always have escorts if they go somewhere dangerous. The Kongo & Atago class have the long-range SAMs the DDHs lack, & all the escorts have SSMs.

 

[brig]

Destroyer Halsey (DDG 97) met by folks after a seven-month absence

USS Halsey returned Thursday from a seven-month deployment to the western Pacific for CARAT, Valiant Shield and Keen Sword exercises. Wives and kids couldnt be happier...

youtube.com/watch?v=Mf7bKk7Auu8

I guess the whole Group is coming back this week?

 

[barney41]

Raytheon has demonstrated the ability of a modified Tomahawk to strike moving maritime targets. It would seem to offer a significant range advantage over LRASM and NSM in the upcoming OASuW competition. Being able to repurpose existing TLAM inventory and capitalize on existing infrastructure may give it an affordability advantage.
Video: Tomahawk Strike Missile Punches Hole Through Moving Maritime Target - USNI News

 

[Ranger25]

Raytheon has demonstrated the ability of a modified Tomahawk to strike moving maritime targets. It would seem to offer a significant range advantage over LRASM and NSM in the upcoming OASuW competition. Being able to repurpose existing TLAM inventory and capitalize on existing infrastructure may give it an affordability advantage.
Video: Tomahawk Strike Missile Punches Hole Through Moving Maritime Target - USNI News

I saw this

Q. Did the navy "fast track" the purchase of 90 LRASM? If so, deployed when?

 

[barney41]

I saw this

Q. Did the navy "fast track" the purchase of 90 LRASM? If so, deployed when?

IIRC Congress authorized funding of the limited number of LRASM but these are only for deployment from aircraft. This was OASuW Phase 1, essentially a stopgap move.
The Navy will solicit bids for a long term solution to arm the Surface Fleet and aircraft, not sure about subs though. This is Phase 2. LM will likely go with LRASM, Raytheon with Tomahawk variant. Maybe NSM/JSM will be in the running as well.