US Navy News and updates

[colay]

Remember the Maine! No, not the battleship whose mysterious sinking that helped spark the Spanish-American War... I'd thought the decision had been made to scrap the boat but it looks like she now has a second,lease on life. Can't believe the idiot who caused all that damage due to girlfriend problems got only 17 years imprisonment.

Navy Times Mobile - Lawmaker: Navy will repair fire-damaged sub

ged sub Lawmaker: Navy will repair fire-damaged sub

The Associated Press The Associated Press Posted: Monday Mar 25, 2013 18:51:24 EDT Posted: Monday Mar 25, 2013 18:51:24 EDT

KITTERY, Maine — U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter says the Navy has decided it will repair the submarine Miami, which sustained $450 million in damage last KITTERY, Maine —

U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter says the Navy has decided it will repair the submarine Miami, which sustained $450 million in damage last year in a fire started by a worker at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. year in a fire started by a worker at the 9 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard...

Earlier this month, officials said the Navy’s commitment to repairing the nuclear submarine was wavering under the realities of mandatory budget cuts, but Shea-Porter said $150 million in funding was approved last week for the repairs. Shea-Porter said $150 million in funding was approved last week for the repairs.

James Fury, who set the fire last May, has been sentenced to 17 years in prison

 

[colay]

Adm. Copeman's memo outlining his vision for the future Navy is no doubt meant to stir the pot and lead to a lively debate within Navy circles on the best way forward.

I always had some misgivings about the plan to build Flt III Burkes, wondering if it may not be the better to possibly adapt the larger DDG 1000 seaframe to accommodate the new AMDR System.


Report: Surface Forces CO Wants One LCS Design, Scrap DDG-51 Flight III | USNI News

Report: Surface Forces CO Wants One LCS Design, Scrap DDG-51 Flight III


The commander of U.S. Surface Forces wants to look at a move to one design of the controversial Littoral Combat Ship and recommends a new large surface combatant to succeed the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, according to a Sunday report from Defense News.

Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander of U.S. Surface Forces, submitted a classified memo late last year to Navy leadership recommending a second look at the Navy’s LCS strategy. “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” calls for an “up-gunned, multimission variant” or the current Freedom or Independence class LCS or a new type of ship, according to the report. The variants could resemble the Aegis-equipped variants of the LCS designs that were in consideration for a massive foreign military sales effort to Saudi Arabia...


Copeman’s memo also called for a reevaluation of the planned Flight III Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis-equipped destroyers.

Instead of Flight IIIs, “Copeman recommends creating a new, large surface combatant fitted with AMDR and designed with the power, weight and space to field ‘top-end energy weapons’ like the electromagnetic rail gun under development by the Navy,” according to Defense News.

 

[Belesari]

? Wait a minute. None of the Modules are ready yet. The soonest is 2017 I believe so how can they know how much the cost is?

There is an excellent paper by Bob Work U/Sec Navy which explains all the cost developments
Littoral Combat Ship - How we Got Here and Why

He summarises the costs on page 74
"The average cost of a missionised LCS over the 10 ship run is $500.8m, 2% over the $490m threshold target set by the OSD a decade ago ($400m in FY 2005 adjusted for inflation)
Moreover, the lower price for the 10th ship in each run means the baseline for future missionised LCS will be $469.3m 3.4% under the threshold.
In other words, Navy underestimated the costs of the seaframs but overestimated the costs of the mission modules and associated programme costs"

The $1.2b cost quoted for AB's is in FY2005 dollars.

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

? Wait a minute. None of the Modules are ready yet. The soonest is 2017 I believe so how can they know how much the cost is?

According to the USN http://http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

As of March 2012, the first 2 MCM, the first 2 SUW and the first ASW modules have been delivered and are currently testing.

Navy states in its FY 2013 Budget Submission that the SUW module will obtain IOC in late 2013, the MCM module will obtain IOC in late 2014 and the ASW module in late 2016.

Cheers

 

[StobieWan]

Interesting that the report recommends going to a multi mission variant of the LCS, which effectively is turning it into a GP frigate with some modular systems.
Either way, *one* LCS makes sense. Two is just bonkers in terms of support and training costs.

I suspect that the recommendation for a new surface combatant instead of Flight III is the more useful thing to do, but only if a new design discipline can be brought to USN designs.

Otherwise, it'll just balloon out into new and more ambitious specifications.

 

[Belesari]

Yep, Hopefully after so much we have invested into the DDG-1k project we can leverage the tech from that into a new vessel. Leave room to grow etc.

Interesting that the report recommends going to a multi mission variant of the LCS, which effectively is turning it into a GP frigate with some modular systems.
Either way, *one* LCS makes sense. Two is just bonkers in terms of support and training costs.

I suspect that the recommendation for a new surface combatant instead of Flight III is the more useful thing to do, but only if a new design discipline can be brought to USN designs.

Otherwise, it'll just balloon out into new and more ambitious specifications.

 

[Belesari]

Isn't the MCM module deemed to heavy for the MH-60 to tow? And the CH-53's are to heavy to land aren't they.

According to the USN http://http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

As of March 2012, the first 2 MCM, the first 2 SUW and the first ASW modules have been delivered and are currently testing.

Navy states in its FY 2013 Budget Submission that the SUW module will obtain IOC in late 2013, the MCM module will obtain IOC in late 2014 and the ASW module in late 2016.

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Isn't the MCM module deemed to heavy for the MH-60 to tow? And the CH-53's are to heavy to land aren't they.

I haven't seen that but would be interested if you have references. There is a 21st century warship video which shows the MH60 towing?

 

[ASSAIL]

This link is very recent. There are some blogs stating that the MH 60 is underpowered but these seem to be opinion blogs. Its certainly possible but so far nothing official that I can find.

Cheers


US fiscal challenges delaying LCS mission modules, official says

 

[colay]

It appears the Navy will have to look for a beefier helo. Either that or redesign the payload being dragged thru the water. Hopefully if they do get a bigger helo, LCS can accommodate them without requiring any major redesign to the ship's aviation facility.

MH-60S underpowered for MCM towing operations, report finds

MH-60S underpowered for MCM towing operations, report finds

By Sam LaGrone 1/21/2013 The US Navy's (USN's) future airborne mine countermeasure (AMCM) MH-60S helicopter is unable to tow the minehunting sonar or minesweeping system forming part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures module (MCM) mission module, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) revealed in his annual report, released 15 January. "The navy determined the MH-60S helicopter cannot safely tow the AN/AQS-20A Sonar Mine Detecting Set (AQS-20A) or the Organic Airborne Sweep and Influence System (OASIS) because the helicopter is underpowered for these operations," read the Office of the Secretary of Defense's Fiscal Year 2012 report from DOT&E, Dr J Michael Gilmore. "The MH-60S helicopter will no longer be assigned these missions operating from any ship, including LCS," it added. Speaking to IHS Jane's on 15 January, a USN official said the navy found that the MH-60S had insufficient power to operate the AQS-20A sonar safely: in the event of an engine failure, the helicopter would not be able to recover the sled and risk the crew in the process.

 

[kev 99]

I'm sure Agusta Westland would be quite happy sell some AW101s.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm sure Agusta Westland would be quite happy sell some AW101s.

Just what I was thinking and Japan is already using them in the role. The next step would be for Australia to FMS some, discover it is a better utility type than the MRH 90 and proceed to buy more of them eventually permitting the army to follow suit and ditch their 90s in favor of a mix of Merlins and Blackhawks.:hul

 

[Belesari]

I'm sure Agusta Westland would be quite happy sell some AW101s.

Hmm, from what I can see the Independence class can operate CH-53's (1 per ship vs 2 MH-60's). I'm guessing the Freedom class is the one which can hold the weight so I'd say if the DO go to one design that might be the winner. Then they will just maybe buy more CH-53's and operate them as ASW ships with the fleet.

I wonder what the speed she would need to cruise at to maintain contact with a CSG (I figure not that bad sense all fleets are limited to the slowest member). And if it would be better to ditch the LM 2500's for 2 more Diesels.

Really not a fan of the LCS but i figure if they are stuck into the slot and nothing is gonna change that the Independence class seems to have the better abilities.

 

[alexsa]

Just what I was thinking and Japan is already using them in the role. The next step would be for Australia to FMS some, discover it is a better utility type than the MRH 90 and proceed to buy more of them eventually permitting the army to follow suit and ditch their 90s in favor of a mix of Merlins and Blackhawks.:hul

Nice idea ...... Always lied the EH101 ......... but I suspect we may have missed the boat.

 

[Volkodav]

Nice idea ...... Always lied the EH101 ......... but I suspect we may have missed the boat.

My childhood (adolescent) dream was to fly RAN FAA EH-101's, the carrier was gone but a LPH was on the cards as were 8 new build FFG/DDG's, leaving the EH101 as the no brainer replacement for the Sea King and Wessex.

Back onto the LCS and USN I can't help but wonder if the EH-101 would have made a more suitable replacement for the USN's Sea Kings and Sea Knights than the Romeos and Sierras.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Hmm, from what I can see the Independence class can operate CH-53's (1 per ship vs 2 MH-60's). I'm guessing the Freedom class is the one which can hold the weight so I'd say if the DO go to one design that might be the winner. Then they will just maybe buy more CH-53's and operate them as ASW ships with the fleet.

.

Can you elaborate on why the Freedom could hold the weight of the CH-53 and the Independance couldn't?

 

[ASSAIL]

Can you elaborate on why the Freedom could hold the weight of the CH-53 and the Independance couldn't?

I read somewhere? that there is no thought of introducing any other helo than the SH60. The problem (dangerous to tow the MW unit on 1 x engine) is to be remedied by redesigning the towed unit.
Cheers

 

[justsomeaussie]

I read somewhere? that there is no thought of introducing any other helo than the SH60. The problem (dangerous to tow the MW unit on 1 x engine) is to be remedied by redesigning the towed unit.
Cheers

I can't find the Freedom class claiming that it can take a CH-53 but there are multiple articles saying the Independence can including a "navy spokesman".

Can anyone find a link?

 

[fretburner]

Would the CH-148 be too late and too much trouble?

I've read that the USN really wants to consolidate all helos to the Romeo and Sierra, but maybe they would have to have a new helo for the 55-ship LCS program. It's only the USMC who operates the CH-53 right? Not the USN?

 

[ASSAIL]

Would the CH-148 be too late and too much trouble?

I've read that the USN really wants to consolidate all helos to the Romeo and Sierra, but maybe they would have to have a new helo for the 55-ship LCS program. It's only the USMC who operates the CH-53 right? Not the USN?

The T-AKE's use the Puma for Vertrep (non connected mumbo jumbo whatever its called these days) but I don't know about other USNS's