US Navy News and updates

[Galrahn]

A few corrections and observations.

The AMDR is not a program of record yet, and will be chosen specifically to fit into the BLOCK III. I suspect the Navy has already made decisions on this - but won't tip their hand before the competition is complete.

The Navy's current 5 year plan (FY11-FY15) includes funding for 8 Burkes - all of which will be BLOCK IIA + BMD capability. The BLOCK III would presumably begin in FY16.

The Burke does have about 10% growth margin remaining in the hull for a "plus" redesign, which could include an extension of the hull (sometimes referred to as a plug). As these ships will be using a more powerful radar - it is possible we will see a slight size increase with extra cooling and some power adjustments folded into the new design. With these design changes we will certainly also see some SMARTSHIP tech get added in an attempt to reduce crew size.

The BLOCK III will also get some upgrades for ASW in addition to BMD. I suspect the Navy can get the BLOCK IIAs for around $1.8 billion in FY11 dollars for the 5th-8th ship, but the BLOCK IIIs will run at around $2.2 billion (in other words, be more expensive).

Expect cost growth on DDG-1000s - before they add the AMDR to the hull (yes they will add it). The DDG-1000s will be a playground for new technologies and the Navy will find a way to add new tech into the hull. While you won't find anyone praising the DDG-1000 on the record - I still strongly believe this is going to be one incredible ship. Some very, very smart folks (Navy folks who aren't industry shrill) still make strong arguments that DDG-1000 will be extremely challenging for any enemy to attack OTH, will be very hard for submarines to detect, and the gun system has strong support and has largely been successful.

One prevailing thought on the DDG-1000 is that of a goalkeeper role defensively in major war operations where the ship would hold goalkeeper with ~200 ESSMs and protect HVUs from any ASMs that get through a layered AEGIS defense. Some of the analysis of these roles is quite interesting - and creative. Ultimately, it will be very useful to actually have a platform to test these emerging theories.

We won't see a common hull design program until later this decade, so until then it will be Burkes and Zumwalts to help find the right mix of tech for the common hull design that will likely be the core of the US Navy surface combatant force for most of the 21st century.

 

[AegisFC]

Aren't cruisers manly for anti-air warfare and destroyers are manly for anti-surface warfare? Whats the difference between the mission of a cruiser and a destroyer?

The main difference between a Tico and Burke besides an extra gun, and 2 full sized Mk-41 VLS launchers is that the Tico's have the space and equipment for an embarked command staff.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The Navy says the future DDG-51 Flight III will be a multi-mission destroyer with unparalleled capabilities in ballistic missile defense and anti-air warfare, the ships will also be tailored for integrated air and missile defense. Additionally, incorporation of the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combat system will provide advanced ASW capabilities.

Does this sound like a capability of a cruiser anyone? Maybe more powerful than a Tico in AAW?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene....xml&headline=U.S. Navy Leverages DDG-51 Work

The main difference between a Tico and Burke besides an extra gun, and 2 full sized Mk-41 VLS launchers is that the Tico's have the space and equipment for an embarked command staff.

I wonder if Flight III will have the space for an embarked command staff?

The Burke does have about 10% growth margin remaining in the hull for a "plus" redesign, which could include an extension of the hull (sometimes referred to as a plug).

I guess they could add 50-56 feet to the hull which would be nice IMO, maybe more VLS as well?

 

[Locarnus]

When I compare the US branches, I feel that the navy is "missing" an element.

This is meant to be a very loose analogy, so dont take it too strictly.
The tanks of the army are eg like destroyers, meant to directly engage other vessels.
The APCs, IFVs and so on are like amphibious vessels.
The air bases are just mobilized.
So where is the artillery? I mean not for naval battles, but for invasions aso?

Sure, there are the Carriers, but the Air Force doesnt render the artillery obsolete in land warfare (costs!).
There were the battleships, but those were primarily designed for naval warfare, not bombardments (=> bad cost/benefit ratio, trade offs).
So whats used today? As in land warfare, jets are used but for many situations cost ineffective.
Then the destroyers are used as artillery, also not very cost effective. As in land warfare tanks can be used as artillery, but they are not designed for longer bombardments, the artillery is much easier resupplied while firing and doesnt need all that protection a tank needs, aso.

Given the conflicts the US is engaged in, imho such a dedicated "artillery" ship would make sense. Maybe only 2 or 3 of them. The land threats to artillery do not apply for the US, normally, like a hostile air force or navy. When the artillery ship moves in range, they are normally obliterated anyway. Those ships would eg be equipped with lots of launch tubes and/or long range guns like the Zumwalts have, designed for easy resupply during engagements (artillery), but without the need for the self protection a destroyer (tank) has. Also the firing systems and general electronics would be much more simple.

I read somewhere about the idea of pure missile carriers, what happened to that idea?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

If the Flight III DDG-51 will take over the cruiser AAW/BMD role and replace the Ticonderoga class, will the Flight III DDG have the embarked command facilities that the cruiser has?

 

[Juramentado]

GAO Report on LCS

U.S. GAO - Defense Acquisitions: Navy's Ability to Overcome Challenges Facing the Littoral Combat Ship Will Determine Eventual Capabilities

The one damning paragraph out of the GAO report reads:

"Until mission package performance is proven, the Navy risks investing in a fleet of ships that does not deliver its promised capability. As the Navy stated, the underlying strength of the LCS lies in its innovative design - interchangeable mission equipment that allows the ship to used for different missions. Fundamental to this approach is the capability to rapidly install interchangeable mission packages into the seaframe. Absent that significant capability within its mission packages, seaframe functionality is largely constrained to self-defense as opposed to mission-related tasks." (Page 25 GAO-10-523 Littoral Combat Ship)"

Coupled with the analysis that the report has on Mission Package delivery - none of them are complete and MP development is now projected out through 2017, it confirms that LCS will not be able meet the combat requirements of the Fleet for a significant period of time.

So what to do now?

 

[Sea Toby]

Probably what the US has done in the past when weapons development fall behind schedule, plow ahead... The ships are needed to replace the FFGs now when the budget window is available,, never mind how ready the mission modules are... Eventually, the mission modules will be ready, or another system will be installed... The US intends to build over 50 LCS ships.

The ships will have RAM and SeaRAM SAMs and a 57-mm gun along with ASW equipped helicopters. Their radars work. Their towed sonar array works. The LCS will be more than capable of doing the mid ocean ASW escorting role, the most vital requirement...

defence.professionals | defpro.com

The pressing need is to replace the FFGs before the mine countermeasures and littoral combat operations. Those roles can be completed at a later date... While many suggest the waterjets speed isn't required, I disagree. Plus the water jets will provide for a more quiet ship for ASW operations...

Simply put these ships will be better at doing jobs the FFGs don't do well... They will operate more as a team than individually fully linked with the fleet... The US Navy has put a lot of thought into the new ships and their roles, and have spent too much time and funds to back down now...

 

[Juramentado]

Probably what the US has done in the past when weapons development fall behind schedule, plow ahead... The ships are needed to replace the FFGs now when the budget window is available,, never mind how ready the mission modules are... Eventually, the mission modules will be ready, or another system will be installed... The US intends to build over 50 LCS ships.

The ships will have RAM and SeaRAM SAMs and a 57-mm gun along with ASW equipped helicopters. Their radars work. Their towed sonar array works. The LCS will be more than capable of doing the mid ocean ASW escorting role, the most vital requirement...

defence.professionals | defpro.com

The pressing need is to replace the FFGs before the mine countermeasures and littoral combat operations. Those roles can be completed at a later date... While many suggest the waterjets speed isn't required, I disagree. Plus the water jets will provide for a more quiet ship for ASW operations...

Simply put these ships will be better at doing jobs the FFGs don't do well... They will operate more as a team than individually fully linked with the fleet... The US Navy has put a lot of thought into the new ships and their roles, and have spent too much time and funds to back down now...

The report states the Navy STOPPED the development of the ASW module in light of it not meeting requirements. They're back to square one. There are ZERO complete Mission Packages of any flavor. So how can this weapon system be anything but a defensive asset between now and effectively 2020? How does this make LCS a valid replacement for an FFG that can do pretty much all the desired missions except shoot missiles and hunt mines? As it stands currently, a competent squadron commander could not, in good conscience, send an LCS into an environment that a Cyclone-class PC could not survive in. That's how toothless LCS is.

Accelerating the FFG retirement makes no sense given the delay to down-select and now this revelation, but SECDEF is going to push it as far as he can until he retires either next year or the year after.

Add to that Helicopter CONOPS. Anyone catch the paragraphs where the Sierra is going to be the helo most likely assigned to LCS? All the Romeos are going to the CSGs because of the production schedules and priority. That means at the most, armed-helo Sierras - no on-board radar. Your longest reaching remote asset is reduced to IR and EO search only. That's a big implication for TTP and asset effectiveness.

The best outcome for this? Turn LCS into dedicated minehunters. They have enough weaponry now without the NLOS replacement to easily be more self-sufficient and efficient compared to the Avenger class MCMs. Kill off the NLOS replacement search and start building Frigates and Corvette designs that are survivable in environements where air superiority is not a given. Keep the Sierras since they're the model for MCM operations anyway. That will take the pressure off to build enough Romeo models to make it into the LCS fleet.

 

[AegisFC]

On Sept. 24 the USS Enterprise turns 50 and is expected to make one more deployment before being decommed.

50 Years Ago Next Week - The Christening of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

I'm hoping that one of the Fords get named after her.

 

[spoz]

50 Years Ago Next Week - The Christening of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
.

She's FIFTY??? Seems like yesterday! Now I know I'm getting old (mutter, mutter , mutter).

 

[Juramentado]

A Great Summation of Current USN Status

This is a great summation on the problems the US Navy is currently facing, albeit we have yet to hear from senior leadership in a rebuttal.

Why No One Believes the Navy - Defense News

 

[AegisFC]

This is a great summation on the problems the US Navy is currently facing, albeit we have yet to hear from senior leadership in a rebuttal.

Why No One Believes the Navy - Defense News

That is an old article. Stout and Chosin failed INSURV back in 2008. You can read Stouts INSURV report here, you can ignore everything else the blogger has to say:

CDR Salamander: Sea Swap and the INSURV

Stout was a special case, and I was on her up until the Sea Swap (I transferred right before the crew left to deploy to the Gonzoles). She had maintenance money taken away several times to help pay for repairs to the Cole and then the JFK. She was supposed to go into dry dock while I was on board but that was canceled as well leading to the 53C being unusable and the hull being in poor shape listed in the INSURV report. Sea-Swap was also hell on that boat, it wasn't the deploying ship so even more money was moved away and for extended periods of time the ship was left sitting on a pier with nearly no crew. The only reason why the Gonzoles did not fail INSURV after its 18 month crew swap deployment was that pretty much immediately after coming back to the US she was put into the yards. Sea-Swap was an attempt to save money and it backfired, the sad thing is it could of worked but any money savings would of been long term or even non-existent in the end the USN tried a half assed approach and it failed.

Failing INSURV was probably the best thing to happen to the ship, it got the maintenance money it needed, a nice dry dock period, upgrades to BMD (BMD ships get more money than non-BMD Aegis assets) and no bad reports have come out from her since.

I'm not saying the fleet doesn't have major leadership problems who are more worried about diversity and lining up sweet contractor jobs when they retire, I'm just saying using Stout as an example isn't right she was an abnormality.

A much more recent report can be found here:
U.S. Aegis Radars' Readiness Plunges - Defense News

And a damning article on USN reliance on computer based training.

IG: Sailors trained on screens lack basics - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

I was lucky, I was one of the last sailors to go my entire training career without Computer Based Training (CBT) and it leads to idiotic technicians who while eager don't know a damned thing. When they check on board they need extensive on the job training to fill them in on what they should of learned in "C" school and more often than not they just pick up their superiors bad habits or are more concerned with collateral duties than being a good tech.
On my last destroyer and my first post Navy job I interacted with sailors who went through all CBT and they didn't know how to run simple POFA's and were gundecking paperwork because of it, I'd go on board with a paper saying all these tests were SAT and lo-and-behold undocumented problems because the tests weren't done. The 1st classes and chiefs who should know better were too busy with other collateral duties to teach the junior sailors how to do these things, or often they have not done one in so long they don't know themselves.

It used to be embarrassing for a ship to require outside help to fix a problem out side of scheduled C5RA's or an assessment coming out an availability. It was broadcast to the fleet that you were not good enough and needed help, now the gear isn't even broke for a couple hours and the tech just start troubleshooting and the khaki want to start flying CASREPS for outside hlep, when help does come the tech rep is often left alone since the sailors who should be following him/her around and learning what they can are off doing something else.

The Balisle Report mentions problems obtaining voltage regulators for the SPY radar. Tech will put one on order and if the ship doesn't have enough money to buy one the supply department will cancel it, if it is back ordered supply will cancel it because if a JSN is left open too long somehow looks bad on the supply department.

None of this is new, it all of this really started happening during the Rumsfield years, he was big on "transformation" and somehow saving money by giving shore duty billets from sailors to civillians, by starving the fleet of money and removing techs from the ship to send them to Iraq and Afghanistan for 8 months to a year at a time.

There is an old saying "The navy gets better with every retirement" lets hope it is true with the current leadership.

 

[Sea Toby]

What about the new Coast Guard ships?

I just noticed on the ship list for Bath Iron Works that there is a Burke Class Destroyer called the John S McCain, so if the old boy is elected will he be the first serving President with a ship in active service named after him?

The destroyer John S. McCain was named after the senator's father, CINPAC during the Vietnam war era...

 

[aussienscale]

US Navy launches first aircraft using Emals

Attached is a youtube video of the first launch of an aircraft using the Emals system,. They launched an F/A-18E on the 16th December at Lakehurst N.J.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLsg_viWW0&feature=sub"]YouTube - Navy launches first aircraft using EMALS[/nomedia]

You can see the difference in launch style compared to the steam catapults, a slower and less aggresive start to the launch but picks up speed very quickly in the last two thirds of the launch

 

[RubiconNZ]

Attached is a youtube video of the first launch of an aircraft using the Emals system,. They launched an F/A-18E on the 16th December at Lakehurst N.J.
YouTube - Navy launches first aircraft using EMALS

You can see the difference in launch style compared to the steam catapults, a slower and less aggresive start to the launch but picks up speed very quickly in the last two thirds of the launch

I read about this, thanks for the video, this is really great news, though there is a ways to go, this will come as relief to the USN, as this was a vital design component of the new Ford Class, its really exciting it seems to have come together.

 

[Belesari]

Does anyone know if they have had problems with the EM emissions from the cats?

 

[aussienscale]

Does anyone know if they have had problems with the EM emissions from the cats?

It was an obvious concern for the entire project for not only the aircraft and its systems, but also potential issues with shipboard systems as well. The actual rail motor itself has been designed as a magnetically closed system, along with appropriate sheilding on the other equipment assiciated with the system such as the rotating disk alternator's etc

 

[aussienscale]

Austral to build 10 LCS for US Navy

US President Barak Obama has signed off on a deal for West Australian company Austral to build 10 Littoral Combat Ships at it's US shipyard worth more that $4 Billion, the remaining 10 will be constructed by Lockheed Martin.
A great win for an Australian company who have struggled in recent times, would be interesting if the Australian Government and Navy will now pay more attention to this company and type of ship for the RAN ? Here are some links
WA company to build US navy warships - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Defence - Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) - Austal

 

[alexsa]

US President Barak Obama has signed off on a deal for West Australian company Austral to build 10 Littoral Combat Ships at it's US shipyard worth more that $4 Billion, the remaining 10 will be constructed by Lockheed Martin.
A great win for an Australian company who have struggled in recent times, would be interesting if the Australian Government and Navy will now pay more attention to this company and type of ship for the RAN ? Here are some links
WA company to build US navy warships - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Defence - Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) - Austal

It is a ship for a niche and the core weapons systems are little better than those on large patrol craft. It greatest asset is the flight deck and interoperabiltiy modules allow a number of vessel to be converted to specific roles as needs dictate. Speed is also an advantabe but high speed operation does limit payload and ahs a drematic iffect on range It is important to note that the pay load for these modules is only about 150 to 180 tonnes and includes air assets.

They are a useful asset to the US who have the assets to back such a convertable weapons system but are of less use to a small navy where the cost, reliance on pay load modules, limited payload, seakeeping restrictions and effectiveness limited to installed moduesl for a small number of vessels (at the expense of a similar number of MFU multi purpose platorms) cannot really be warrented.

In short very sueful plaform for the USN but not a great deal of benefit to the RAN. Australia really needs a decent isce class long legged OPV as demonstrated by the ongoing leasing of commercial vessel for this purpose. For one LCS you could buy quite a few such vessels.

 

[Belesari]

Would far rather see them cancel the LCS program and just design a new frigate class to replace the P's.