Yeah, that should be the mission for the Large Surface Combatant.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
I found a video of scale-model testing. The Zumwalt hull slices cleanly through the water and appeared stable enougn in rough seas. The video makes special focus on tests with waves hitting it from the rear.
https://youtu.be/R-s3S3F8Mao
USN begins production of unmanned MCS vehicle
Textron’s Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle (CUSV) program has moved into the production phase and will begin delivering its minesweeping capability to the fleet by early next year, even as the program is also situating itself to enter the minehunting, patrolling and other surface warfare mission areas.
Textron's CUSV In Production As Minesweeping Vehicle, May Take On Minehunting Soon - USNI News
Textron’s Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle (CUSV) program has moved into the production phase and will begin delivering its minesweeping capability to the fleet by early next year, even as the program is also situating itself to enter the minehunting, patrolling and other surface warfare mission areas.
Textron's CUSV In Production As Minesweeping Vehicle, May Take On Minehunting Soon - USNI News
It must be great to be a paid professional nitpicker. How would a Burke DDG have fared in a similar situation?
LCS Test Vs. Fast Attack Boats ‘Unfair': Missile Missing, Navy Says « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
LCS Test Vs. Fast Attack Boats ‘Unfair': Missile Missing, Navy Says
PENTAGON: “Unfair!” That, in a word, is the Navy’s response to a Director of Operational Test & Evaluation report saying the controversial Littoral Combat Ship had trouble defending itself against Iranian-style swarms of fast attack boats.
Yes, a Navy official told me, in the test some “enemy” boats got dangerously close to the USS Coronado and inflicted simulated “damage.” But the LCS still repelled the attack — and without its full complement of weapons: The long-range Hellfire missile has yet to be installed...
irst and foremost, “the LCS defeated the adversary, right?” the Navy official said. “How nitpicking is that to criticize, ‘oh, some of them got too close.’ Oh, c’mon. I would call baloney on that.”
“Here’s the other thing: in the scenario, it didn’t have the missile package,” the official continued. “We did testing with the Longbow Hellfire” — a Navy test, not one run by DOT&E — and “in the same scenario, high speed maneuverable targets…it defeated seven of eight.”
LCS Test Vs. Fast Attack Boats ‘Unfair': Missile Missing, Navy Says « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
LCS Test Vs. Fast Attack Boats ‘Unfair': Missile Missing, Navy Says
PENTAGON: “Unfair!” That, in a word, is the Navy’s response to a Director of Operational Test & Evaluation report saying the controversial Littoral Combat Ship had trouble defending itself against Iranian-style swarms of fast attack boats.
Yes, a Navy official told me, in the test some “enemy” boats got dangerously close to the USS Coronado and inflicted simulated “damage.” But the LCS still repelled the attack — and without its full complement of weapons: The long-range Hellfire missile has yet to be installed...
irst and foremost, “the LCS defeated the adversary, right?” the Navy official said. “How nitpicking is that to criticize, ‘oh, some of them got too close.’ Oh, c’mon. I would call baloney on that.”
“Here’s the other thing: in the scenario, it didn’t have the missile package,” the official continued. “We did testing with the Longbow Hellfire” — a Navy test, not one run by DOT&E — and “in the same scenario, high speed maneuverable targets…it defeated seven of eight.”
the concerned
Active Member
I wonder when they where running that scenario was the helicopter used with hellfire armament or just the ship itself.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Apparently a UAV tanker along with more SHs and F-35s has a higher priority than UCLASS. NG must be pi$$ed.
Good-Bye, UCLASS; Hello, Unmanned Tanker, More F-35Cs In 2017 Budget « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Good-Bye, UCLASS; Hello, Unmanned Tanker, More F-35Cs In 2017 Budget « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Well they pay all those congress critters, lawyers and lobbyists lots of money so now those people will have to start earning their donations (congress critters) and fees. The budget has yet to get past the White House and through Congress so basically anything goes at the moment.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I wonder if the cost and performance of this proposed "reduced stealth" tanker makes sense compared to SH equipped with conformational fuel tanks along with a maximum external fuel tank load. The new tanker would have to carry a much larger fuel load IMO to justify the likely higher price plus unlike the SH it is a one-trick pony.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Wrong attude John, this is a brilliant first step. Breaks down the introduction of large UAV into 2 main steps, take off/landing and refuelling. Both fundamental to more complex missions. It will be a decade or more before a UAV can do the roles of a manned fighter in congested or contested air space. UCLASS was very ambitious. This gets them started in the very complex carrier environment, and doing a task that is truly needed.
Agreed, it can also be tailored for maximum endurance and fuel load without having to worry about LO weapons carriage or anything else that would detract from this. It is conceivable that additional functions could be added, i.e. I could see it being used as a communications and data node, perhaps even an ESM picket.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The article about this proposed UAV tanker indicates that stealth will be a limited feature. My point is this seems like a big investment for what will likely be a single application aircraft. Key is how much fuel will be able to deliver above and beyond what a fully loaded SH with conformation and external tanks could or for that matter a X-47B. A X-47B is more or less ready to do carrier operations for ISR so why not get the ball rolling with it? Not sure how useful it would be for a tanker role.
I can't find the article but I recall reading that the Navy is effectively losing approximately half a dozen Super Hornets annually thru wear and tear performjng the air tanker mission. Releasing the jets from tanker duty and accelerating acquisition of new jets, preferably F-35C, is the way to go.
Also mentioned in the linked article:
USNI News understands the Navy commissioned a study last year with the Center for Naval Analysis that found that modifying the existing UCLASS program was more capable and cost effective than a modified V-22, Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, bringing back the retired S-3 Viking or using the JSF.
It would seem that without the requirement for LO, the unmanned tanker's design may provide a superior capability vs. existing airframes. Fuel could possibly be stored internally and in EFTs in a package that is compikant with carapult and deck elevator specifications.
USN To add ASHM capabilities to SM6
The US SECDEF has confirmed plans to add an offensive capabi,it's to the SM6. This will add a 200NM+ range and 3.5 Mach capabilities. Most importantly it will allow VLS capacity to be dual purpose for offensive and defensive warfare.
SECDEF Carter Confirms Navy Developing Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile for Cruisers, Destroyers - USNI News
The US SECDEF has confirmed plans to add an offensive capabi,it's to the SM6. This will add a 200NM+ range and 3.5 Mach capabilities. Most importantly it will allow VLS capacity to be dual purpose for offensive and defensive warfare.
SECDEF Carter Confirms Navy Developing Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile for Cruisers, Destroyers - USNI News
VLS has long been capable of launching offensive missiles. Sea Sparrow, ESSM, SM2, RAM... all are capable of prosecuting surface threats.
Navy Upgrades Vertical Launch Systems |
SM-6 can do all roles (well kinda) in the one missile. Engage BM, engage air targets, engage anti-ship missiles, engage ships, strike land targets. It wasn't unexpected, as you pointed out most systems have a surface mode. Most likely OTH.
I wonder if this will be the final nail in the coffin for Harpoon.
I don't think so. It (ie. Harpoon) would fill a need for ships witnout VLS, specially in light of the Navy's Disrributed Lethality concept which envisions arming all sorts of ships other than CGs and DDGs. Boeing's offer of a new long-range networked Harpoon is attractive specially to a cash-strapped Navy when the advanced capabilities can be retrofitted to missiles already bought and paid for.
I wonder if Harpoon might then migrate from CG/DDG and large frigates to LCS/Patrol type vessels. As you have said, they are already bought and paid for and will no doubt still be able to hit a target.
However on destroyers it might free up space for more VLS. 16 VLS instead of 8 Harpoons.