US Navy News and updates

RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
That particular thread died just over 6 years ago, here's the link to download the appropriate GD LCS docs

Media Kit | LCS

Either way, I can't recall GD showcasing it at Euronaval. The downloadable brochure for GD's MMC is dated Jan 4th 2007, the 'postcard' is dated Jan '07 so i highly expect the data sheet is dated around the same timeframe.
 
harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
RobWilliams said:
I googled it and I only came up with 2 links which mention joint US/Japanese work on the LCS. Nothing else, nothing official or anything like that.

Even then, those links don't mention 'stretched' LCS-2 designs.

Personally, I wouldn't put money on seeing a stretched LCS design. The current LCS designs are already down to be a part of the solution of the USN FFG replacement, there's already 2 designs for the same job so I'm highly sceptical of any idea that the USN would bring another 1 (or 2) different designs.

Must emphasise, i've only been reading about the LCS fairly recently so I cannot speak about if Japan actually is working on it with the USN, from a quick google I come up with nothing much so i'm not convinced at the mo.
Click to expand...
A stretched ship would be very bad a these are lightweight hulls designed for high speed all these things equal lots of stress on the hull and worse sea keeping especially in high sea states.
Plus its been a horrifically expensive process for supposingly cheap ships.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Any sort of improved LCS design - IMO - would only come from the MMC concept put forward by GD but I would put money on the US not having any part of it. They've got their ships planned out & they're going to be budgeted for.

Even then, looking at the proposition from LockMart even their "stretched" design is only about 3m longer than LCS-1.

I suspect that any nation looking to procure these sorts of assets wouldn't plan on using them for blue water operations, they'll use them like the USN; in the littoral theatre for green water ops at best because of what the USN wanted out of the design.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Cool stuff, makes me excited for GRF.

But the thing I'm not looking forward too about the GRF class; the naming convention. Call me old fashioned, but i'd much prefer names like Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga + Hornet over ex-Presidents.
 
O

Olaf

New Member
"US Navy uses eyes in space to take out ballistic missile..."

I may not be up-to-date on current US ABM technology, but does not this recent announcement mark a tremendous boost in ABM capabilities--not just for the Navy but also for the land-based ABM systems?

Also, though not mentioned in the article, does not such satellite-based tracking boost anti-ICBM capabilities, in particular?

I could imagine so as the high speed of the ICBM would imply challenges for short-range tracking and engagement. But if you know in advance where the missile is flying, even slower interceptors might have time to maneuver into their flight-patch, which would be sufficient for their destruction. Am I correct?


defencetalk.com/u-s-navy-uses-eyes-in-space-to-take-out-a-ballistic-missile-threat-target-46786/]U.S. Navy uses eyes in space to take out a ballistic missile threat target | Missiles & Bombs News at DefenceTalk
 
C

colay

New Member
Olaf said:
I may not be up-to-date on current US ABM technology, but does not this recent announcement mark a tremendous boost in ABM capabilities--not just for the Navy but also for the land-based ABM systems?

Also, though not mentioned in the article, does not such satellite-based tracking boost anti-ICBM capabilities, in particular?

I could imagine so as the high speed of the ICBM would imply challenges for short-range tracking and engagement. But if you know in advance where the missile is flying, even slower interceptors might have time to maneuver into their flight-patch, which would be sufficient for their destruction. Am I correct?


defencetalk.com/u-s-navy-uses-eyes-in-space-to-take-out-a-ballistic-missile-threat-target-46786/]U.S. Navy uses eyes in space to take out a ballistic missile threat target | Missiles & Bombs News at DefenceTalk
Click to expand...
As I understand it, ICBMs achieve their extended range by flying in a high ballistic arcthat puts them out of reach of missiles like the SM-3 Blk1A. To target ICBMs during the mid-course portion of their flight, the US is developing the Ground Based Interceptor, a huge missile that has 5-6X the range of the SM-3 Blk1A. It uses a hit-to-kill kill vehicle to collide with and vaporize incoming nuke warheads.

The use of satellites to detect and track the incoming ICBM from launch throughout it's flight gives the defense an early heads-up. Interceptors can be launched at max range and there would be time to launch a follow-up should the first one miss.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Some exciting news about the X47-B and her next big steps

US Navy UAV programmes near major milestones

The US Navy's largest unmanned air vehicle programmes are nearing major programme milestones, says Adm Matthias Winter, the executive officer managing the service's UAV and strike programmes.

The Northrop Grumman X-47B is on schedule to fly to the USS George HW Bush, becoming the first conventional UAV to take off and land on an aircraft carrier, Winter told the Autonomous Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) conference on 13 February. The first landing is expected in April or May 2013.

"The whole demonstration objective is to demonstrate the feasibility of operating an unmanned air vehicle and unmanned system in the carrier environment. That's not trivial," says Winters. "We have made huge strides of success at digitising the carrier environment. You can bring an X-47, you can bring a UCLASS [unmanned carrier-launched surveillance and strike aircraft], you can bring a [Northrop MQ-8B] Fire Scout, you can bring a whatever to a carrier."
Click to expand...
Cannot wait to see if any videos of that come out, anyone got any ideas what sort of 'standard' numbers for a potential future UCAV component on a GRF would be?
 
C

colay

New Member
Anyone see "21st Century Warship" on the National Geographic channel just a while ago? Nice documentary on LCS with Independence and Freedom putting the prototype MCM and ASuW mission modules,through their paces. Highlights were Freedom sinking 5 robot boats using it's automatic cannon and Independence's helo successfully deploying an Archerfish to impact a target mine. I was impressed with how spacious both ships are.
 
C

colay

New Member
Too bad it's in an ecological reserve. Would have made for good target practice.



Salvage crews break up US Navy ship in Philippines | Bangkok Post: news

Salvage crews break up US Navy ship in Philippines

Salvage teams have begun cutting up a US Navy ship stranded on a UN World Heritage-listed coral reef in the Philippines in a process that could take almost month, the coastguard said on Wednesday.

The smokestack, or funnel, of the minesweeper USS Guardian was lifted off on Tuesday while the mast was removed on Wednesday, marking a major step in the operation, said coastguard spokeswoman Lieutenant Greanata Jude...
 
A

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #597
Some news on the AMDR and Burke Flight II front.

Radar Blip

One LCS ship, for example, could be equipped with an Aegis-like detection and targeting system module, while another could be outfitted with a “shooter” module, says Jim Sheridan, Lockheed's director of Aegis programs. “There would be some limits by the physical boundaries of the ship,” he acknowledges. But the system could be scaled to an LCS fit. An LCS BMD platform, he says, could be an affordable force multiplier.
Click to expand...
That makes a fair amount of sense though I am not sure about using LCS. Right now the current limitation isn't the sensor suite, it is the interceptor. Mission planning for BMD is pretty intricate. Having multiple launchers linked via CEC to a radar picket would cover more area, increase redundancy and allow for more flexibility during BMD mission planning.
A pitty the Sprucans were never SLEP'ed, that would be a nice cheap(ish) upgrade.
 
M

Milne Bay

Active Member
AegisFC said:
Some news on the AMDR and Burke Flight II front.

Radar Blip



That makes a fair amount of sense though I am not sure about using LCS. Right now the current limitation isn't the sensor suite, it is the interceptor. Mission planning for BMD is pretty intricate. Having multiple launchers linked via CEC to a radar picket would cover more area, increase redundancy and allow for more flexibility during BMD mission planning.
A pitty the Sprucans were never SLEP'ed, that would be a nice cheap(ish) upgrade.
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure that if LM is involved there will be no such thing as a cheap(ish) upgrade.
This kind of suggestion - from LM - is just the kind of thing that the big boys love ......... think money-pit.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Milne Bay said:
I'm quite sure that if LM is involved there will be no such thing as a cheap(ish) upgrade.
This kind of suggestion - from LM - is just the kind of thing that the big boys love ......... think money-pit.
Click to expand...

There might be a loss in translation, but on my current perception, your tone is a tad unnecessary.... Unable to be specific, but LM, like Boeing, like Thales, like NGC, like BAE or any number of primes often do stuff over and above whats contracted.....

I'd be cautious about broad brushing any company because I know for a fact (as a contractor and on the guvvie side) that companies do extra stuff or provide a value add that never gets visibility because for various reasons it can't be made public

the contract is king, but ..........
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
AegisFC said:
Some news on the AMDR and Burke Flight II front.

Radar Blip



That makes a fair amount of sense though I am not sure about using LCS. Right now the current limitation isn't the sensor suite, it is the interceptor. Mission planning for BMD is pretty intricate. Having multiple launchers linked via CEC to a radar picket would cover more area, increase redundancy and allow for more flexibility during BMD mission planning.
A pitty the Sprucans were never SLEP'ed, that would be a nice cheap(ish) upgrade.
Click to expand...
Scalable CEAFAR (maybe AUSPAR later) would be a good start, quad packed ESSM and VL ASROC for self defence with CEC and SM3 / SM6 for AEGIS equipped pickets the sort of thing you were thinking?

With ESSM in the forward VLS the helo deck and hanger could be extended aft with the Mk29 and 5"gun suppressed to provide space for more helos and rotary wing UCAVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top