US Navy News and updates

[ADMk2]

RAM has an anti surface capability while Giffin, although less capable, is cheaper and is being developed to be compatable with the RAM launcher. The embarked Romeos, I assume will have Hellfire leaving the Griffin as a defence against swarms of light craft closer in.

That's the point. Hellfire is already catered for as explosive ordnance on the ship, it has an already developed launcher and is already in-service with the USN...

All that has yet to be done for Griffin to obtain a less capable weapon, but then the USN says Griffin will only serve until 2016?

The whole thing is REALLY weird. If it's only till 2016 anyway, what's the point of adding ANY new weapon? RAM as you say has anti-surface capability as does the 57mm, the twin 30mm's, the 12.7mm and small arms that will be carried, as well as the Romeo or Fire Scout that will be carried...

If they only want a temporary solution and absolutely HAVE to have a missile capability then just have a contingent of USMC personnel with Javelin on-board and save some cash!

How much close-in anti-surface will they need over the next 3 years?

 

[colay]

RAM has an anti surface capability while Giffin, although less capable, is cheaper and is being developed to be compatable with the RAM launcher. The embarked Romeos, I assume will have Hellfire leaving the Griffin as a defence against swarms of light craft closer in.

The flexibility to launch Griffin from the RAM launcher will have to be weighed against the reduction in CIWS capability though. Anyway, can't they just leverage the existing integration work and dual quad launcher shown on the video?

 

[Volkodav]

With that 11-round castrated launcher the USN rolls around on those LCS that wouldn't exactly be much useful against swarms... apart from the fact that this further diminishes the LCS' self-defense capability.

LCS-1 has the 21 round Mk-144 launcher in the Mk49 system while LCS-2 has the 11 round SeaRAM system. For the life of me I can't see why, with the deletion of the NLOS, both LCS designs couldn't be fitted with a pair of Mk-144s and or Phalanx Block 1B PSuM. In fact, how much do those 30mm Bushmaters weigh, could they be replaced by a Phalanx 1B and would there be enough weight available for a second Mk144 to fit one each side of the hanger top?

 

[Volkodav]

That's the point. Hellfire is already catered for as explosive ordnance on the ship, it has an already developed launcher and is already in-service with the USN...

All that has yet to be done for Griffin to obtain a less capable weapon, but then the USN says Griffin will only serve until 2016?

The whole thing is REALLY weird. If it's only till 2016 anyway, what's the point of adding ANY new weapon? RAM as you say has anti-surface capability as does the 57mm, the twin 30mm's, the 12.7mm and small arms that will be carried, as well as the Romeo or Fire Scout that will be carried...

If they only want a temporary solution and absolutely HAVE to have a missile capability then just have a contingent of USMC personnel with Javelin on-board and save some cash!

How much close-in anti-surface will they need over the next 3 years?

To be perfectly honest I don't have a clue why they are doing it and am just guessing at there reasons. Maybe they are using the LCS requirement to push Griffin development through for other uses, maybe its planned for smaller craft, landing and patrol craft.

 

[kato]

In fact, how much do those 30mm Bushmaters weigh, could they be replaced by a Phalanx 1B and would there be enough weight available for a second Mk144 to fit one each side of the hanger top?

The Mk46 30mm NWS weighs 3,120 lbs per installation. A Phalanx 1B weighs 13,600 lbs. A second Mk144 (loaded) would add a whopping 12,840 lbs, which you aren't putting anywhere where you didn't structurally prepare the position. In both cases you'd need to seriously reinforce the position considering the moving weight of the systems too.

(p.s.: Both Phalanx and RAM are structurally designed to be equivalent in dimensions to a 76mm gun, hence their similar weight)

am just guessing at there reasons

The problem with Hellfire is that there is no stabilized naval mount available. Except for the Longbow variant all Hellfire models use SALH, which requires at least a stabilized laser mounted on the ship (and: one laser per target attacked in parallel of course).
Griffin, as opposed to that, can rely on GPS guidance.

 

[ADMk2]

The problem with Hellfire is that there is no stabilized naval mount available. Except for the Longbow variant all Hellfire models use SALH, which requires at least a stabilized laser mounted on the ship (and: one laser per target attacked in parallel of course).
Griffin, as opposed to that, can rely on GPS guidance.

The Mk 46's are already stabilised, plus they've got FLIR sensors with the ability to add laser targetting... If LCS is going to operate Griffin in a moving maritime target attack profile, they are going to require laser guidance anyway. GPS/INS won't provide adequate targetting against moving fast attack craft.

I imagine it would be a fairly straight forward engineering task to add a pair of 2 round box Hellfire launchers per Mk 46 turret and if it's not, well Sweden and Norway know a thing or two about stabilised naval Hellfire launching...

CB 90 H with Hellfire - YouTube

 

[kato]

GPS/INS won't provide adequate targetting against moving fast attack craft.

The target in the above video didn't move :

Sweden and Norway know a thing or two about stabilised naval Hellfire launching...

That it's not worth pursuing, considering both cancelled such plans?

 

[Volkodav]

The Mk46 30mm NWS weighs 3,120 lbs per installation. A Phalanx 1B weighs 13,600 lbs. A second Mk144 (loaded) would add a whopping 12,840 lbs, which you aren't putting anywhere where you didn't structurally prepare the position. In both cases you'd need to seriously reinforce the position considering the moving weight of the systems too.

(p.s.: Both Phalanx and RAM are structurally designed to be equivalent in dimensions to a 76mm gun, hence their similar weight).

I am not familiar with the top side realestate for either LCS just that the surface warfare module was to have included the Bushmasters and NLOS in addition to the standard outfit of a 57mm and an M-144 or SeaRAM. I also do not know where they have structural provision for various systems to be fitted, where they could conceivably reinforce structure or what their margins of stability are to fit alternative systems.

Both LCS are apparently capable of being fitted with Mk41 VLS (I assume the shorter variants rather than strike length), LCS-2 between the Bridge and the 57mm but I am not sure where on the LCS-1. On LCS-2 this would suggest there is sufficient space and weight to fit a platform for a Phalanx / SeaRAM or RAM between the bridge and 57mm.

One thing they could probably do medium term is replace the 57mm with 76mm (DART and Vulcano), RAM/SeaRAM with Phalanx 1B or a second 76mm and fit ExLS for RAM, Nulka and possibly Griffin.

Then again I am not privy to what has and has not been provided for in the design so am just guessing based on what appear to be options.

 

[colay]

If they already integrated and tested the Griffin launcher on a patrol,craft then should be a no-brainer porting it over to LCS. Even if the sequester and CR issues are resolved, money will remain a major concern going forward so my assumption the bottom line showed Griffin was the most cost-effective option with least impact on budgets and timelines.

 

[ADMk2]

The target in the above video didn't move :

How can such logic be argued?

I concede, if the target set is limited to a solitary inflatable dinghy, moored less than 2k's away from the LCS with nobody on-board and no apparent means to carry out an attack upon the LCS, then the Griffin does indeed appear to be the right choice...

Should they need to attack anything more challenging, I maintain Hellfire (followed by JAGM) would be the superior choice.

 

[kato]

Also, the requirement shouldn't be that the target needs to be sunk

 

[NeoIsolationist]

I am not familiar with the top side realestate for either LCS just that the surface warfare module was to have included the Bushmasters and NLOS in addition to the standard outfit of a 57mm and an M-144 or SeaRAM. I also do not know where they have structural provision for various systems to be fitted, where they could conceivably reinforce structure or what their margins of stability are to fit alternative systems.

Both LCS are apparently capable of being fitted with Mk41 VLS (I assume the shorter variants rather than strike length), LCS-2 between the Bridge and the 57mm but I am not sure where on the LCS-1. On LCS-2 this would suggest there is sufficient space and weight to fit a platform for a Phalanx / SeaRAM or RAM between the bridge and 57mm.

One thing they could probably do medium term is replace the 57mm with 76mm (DART and Vulcano), RAM/SeaRAM with Phalanx 1B or a second 76mm and fit ExLS for RAM, Nulka and possibly Griffin.

Then again I am not privy to what has and has not been provided for in the design so am just guessing based on what appear to be options.

I understand the LCS-1 has space reserved for the 8 cell vls.I understand that LCS-1 would move the 57mm a bit forward, and place the 8 cell vls down in the space presently occupied by the 57mm.

Take a look at the photos of the LM multi-mission warship. The middle ship in their photo advert is roughly the size of LCS-1.

I am unable to attach links due to my limit number of posts. I would google multi-mission combatant. Should be easy to find.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Neither class of LCS accepts Mk 41 VLS, both are only built to fit the NLOS-LS canistered missiles, which are only six and a half feet long.

High resolution photos appear to show the Freedom Classes (LCS-1) two VLS spaces are on the upper deck (same level as the Mk 46 gun mounts) port and starboard just in front of the antenna mast.

As the AGM-176 Griffin is already a certified weapon system for the MQ-8B Fire Scout, they are already going to be a munition stored aboard the LCS's.

 

[fretburner]

^ Is there a plan to have an extended range Griffin? Or an entirely new missile which brings the range back to the NLOS-LS?

 

[Blackshoe]

To shift fire a little bit, big article today from Defense News today:

A recommended re-evaluation of the next flights of LCSs — beyond the 24 ships now delivered, under construction, on order or with contract options — is only part of a classified memo, “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” submitted late last year by the head of Naval Surface Forces, Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert. The Navy’s current plans call for building 52 littoral combat ships, so if the service opted to go in a different direction it would essentially cut the LCS program of record in half.

While the article mostly focuses on LCS, there's some pretty major developments in there for other parts of the Navy, specifically the Gator Navy.

 

[NeoIsolationist]

^ Is there a plan to have an extended range Griffin? Or an entirely new missile which brings the range back to the NLOS-LS?

Undersecretary Bob Work posted several responses to a few articles on informationdissemanation.com. He made it pretty clear that the griffin phase 2 would have a range that would allow it to hit targets out to the horizon.

He said there'd be another competition for a longer range missile for LCS after that, around 2017 IIRC.

 

[colay]

If DARPA proves the ACTUV concept works, they could build enough of these robot sub stalkers to keep tabs on hostile SSKs whenever they venture out of their territorial waters. Sub crews are under enough stress without having an ACTUV ship keeping track of their every move 7X24 for weeks at a time.

Raytheon’s Fifth generation hull mounted sonar to enable anti-submarine, undersea warfare | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmEjI7Eo3E&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[fretburner]

Undersecretary Bob Work posted several responses to a few articles on informationdissemanation.com. He made it pretty clear that the griffin phase 2 would have a range that would allow it to hit targets out to the horizon.

Over the horizon is ~7miles right? I guess that's a good enough range for swarming attacks. Still not good enough to support troops on the beach though.

If DARPA proves the ACTUV concept works, they could build enough of these robot sub stalkers to keep tabs on hostile SSKs whenever they venture out of their territorial waters. Sub crews are under enough stress without having an ACTUV ship keeping track of their every move 7X24 for weeks at a time.

Raytheon’s Fifth generation hull mounted sonar to enable anti-submarine, undersea warfare | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) - YouTube

I wonder what they're going to do when, say, the ACTUV's engines broke down? Send in a chopper with maintenance sailors? Tow it to dock?

 

[NeoIsolationist]

Over the horizon is ~7miles right? I guess that's a good enough range for swarming attacks. Still not good enough to support troops on the beach though.

Pretty sure it's more than 7 miles. ANybody know?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Over the horizon is ~7miles right? I guess that's a good enough range for swarming attacks. Still not good enough to support troops on the beach though.

Pretty sure it's more than 7 miles. ANybody know?

One foot above sea level the horizon is 1.169 NM
36 feet above sea level the horizon is 7.014 NM