US Navy News and updates

[alexsa]

You can't really up armor the LCS. To do so would basically make it a new ship. As it is I don't think it can take anything over a 76mm without some serious redesign. Hull just couldn't take say a 5 in gun mount like on the burkes and such.

If they want to up armor and up gun the LCS they would have a frigate. So better to just use the LCS knowledge and lessons to build a frigate from near scratch then.

Quite agree. The whole concept revolves around a fast reaction adaptable platform. Increasing the standard weapons simply detracts from the weight available for the modules.


Different gun mounts will have a significant impact on structure not just from stiffening for recoil forces but also the deck penetrations and underdeck structure is quite different. A 76mm may have less impact compared to a larger mount but the structures is going to change. I suspect it would be quite a challenge to alter an existing LCS2 hull to take the mount. For future hulls ......... maybe, but there will be a weight penalty.


As I have noted before the adaptable platform works for the USN but I am not sure if the fan mail really understand the limitations if you try to use it/adapt it as a GP frigate.


I can see how the concept would evolve for specific operating requirements (i.e the Israeli defence force....... who have a long history of capable lightweight vessels focused on their needs ........., or the gulf) but where range, persistence and a true multi-purpose role is desired then it really os not an option.

 

[db2646]

Quite agree. The whole concept revolves around a fast reaction adaptable platform. Increasing the standard weapons simply detracts from the weight available for the modules.


Different gun mounts will have a significant impact on structure not just from stiffening for recoil forces but also the deck penetrations and underdeck structure is quite different. A 76mm may have less impact compared to a larger mount but the structures is going to change. I suspect it would be quite a challenge to alter an existing LCS2 hull to take the mount. For future hulls ......... maybe, but there will be a weight penalty.


As I have noted before the adaptable platform works for the USN but I am not sure if the fan mail really understand the limitations if you try to use it/adapt it as a GP frigate.


I can see how the concept would evolve for specific operating requirements (i.e the Israeli defence force....... who have a long history of capable lightweight vessels focused on their needs ........., or the gulf) but where range, persistence and a true multi-purpose role is desired then it really os not an option.

I would guess that we have to wait and see if the Secretary of the Navy's statements hold water or not. He stated that changes to the LCS ships are currently being implemented Rear Admiral Perez's findings although Secretary's words were laid out in just one paragraph in the Bloomberg news report. I would think the contractors for the two LCS configured ships will make changes to improve the ships in order for the program to survive the axe?

 

[aussienscale]

Latest on the LCS below. I wonder if the USN will finally uparmor the LCS with bigger guns, VLS, etc. to correct the deficiencies identified by Rear Admiral Perez's report on the ships?

Hmmm, A very long quoted post on an article with very little input on your assumptions ? We can all read links to news articles, what makes us different from other forum is that we not only discuss differing view points, but we add concise input and reasoned argument to back up our point of view, with relevant links to reliable and reputable sources.

This site also vets via the Webmaster and the Mods all members (IE: Blue tags, which you should know by now) as having verified credentials to be classed as a Defence Professional/Analysist, this means they have to provide real proof of previous service, or industry related work.

Nothing wrong with robust discussion and debate, but when verified people who KNOW what they are talking about and work on and in the very systems/platforms that you are discussing try very patiently and kindly to lead you in the right direction, take a breath and read what they are trying to point out to you

So rather than quoting an article with a general comment, how about you break up what you are quoting and comment with links and supporting view points on what you are trying to get across in your opinion ?

So you say the LCS should be up armoured ? Why ? What is the reason for this ? Operational, intended use of the platform, how does this fit into the current and future force construct of the USN ? How does the change affect the current and future maritime doctrine of the USN, if you do change the design how does that then change future force construct/doctrine and acquisitions currently in progress or planned ?

Mate, there are a lot of things to take into account, and a lot more to be learnt

Cheers, Take it or leave it, up too you

 

[db2646]

Hmmm, A very long quoted post on an article with very little input on your assumptions ? We can all read links to news articles, what makes us different from other forum is that we not only discuss differing view points, but we add concise input and reasoned argument to back up our point of view, with relevant links to reliable and reputable sources.

This site also vets via the Webmaster and the Mods all members (IE: Blue tags, which you should know by now) as having verified credentials to be classed as a Defence Professional/Analysist, this means they have to provide real proof of previous service, or industry related work.

Nothing wrong with robust discussion and debate, but when verified people who KNOW what they are talking about and work on and in the very systems/platforms that you are discussing try very patiently and kindly to lead you in the right direction, take a breath and read what they are trying to point out to you

So rather than quoting an article with a general comment, how about you break up what you are quoting and comment with links and supporting view points on what you are trying to get across in your opinion ?

So you say the LCS should be up armoured ? Why ? What is the reason for this ? Operational, intended use of the platform, how does this fit into the current and future force construct of the USN ? How does the change affect the current and future maritime doctrine of the USN, if you do change the design how does that then change future force construct/doctrine and acquisitions currently in progress or planned ?

Mate, there are a lot of things to take into account, and a lot more to be learnt

Cheers, Take it or leave it, up too you

Thank you Mate! I guess I need to be educated much more than I actually currently have in order to discuss these things in this forum. I will surmise that if I quoted a paragraph in an article reported by a news organization...that it has to be laid out completely and clearly for everyone to understand and defense professional's words in this forum are gospel? How about reading between the lines and really understand the article and the words of the Secretary of the Navy?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Thank you Mate! I guess I need to be educated much more than I actually currently have in order to discuss these things in this forum. I will surmise that if I quoted a paragraph in an article reported by a news organization...that it has to laid out for everyone to understand and defense professional's words in this forum are gospel? How about reading between the lines and really understand the article and the words of the Secretary of the Navy?

By posting the entire article you are technically in violation of the forum rules. Specifically, and I quote:
"1. Your Conduct
B. No material protected by copyright, trademark or other proprietary right shall be uploaded, posted or otherwise made available on the bulletin boards without the express permission of the owner of the copyright, trademark or other proprietary right. You shall be solely liable for any damages resulting from any infringement of copyrights, proprietary rights, or any other harm resulting from any uploading, posting or submission."
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

I am of course assuming you were not granted permission by Bloomberg.com to publish their article.
Nothing prevents you from summarizing the content of the article, and including a specific quote from within the article if you feel it directly assist in comprehending the subject, and providing a link.

 

[aussienscale]

Thank you Mate! I guess I need to be educated much more than I actually currently have in order to discuss these things in this forum. I will surmise that if I quoted a paragraph in an article reported by a news organization...that it has to laid out for everyone to understand and defense professional's words in this forum are gospel? How about reading between the lines and really understand the article and the words of the Secretary of the Navy?

Wonderful reply, really set straight your argument and opinion of the subject.

Anyone can make a post as you have done above, there are tens of thousands of forum out there you can join and do this, go and join them, you just don't get it, your lack of understanding and even more so your lack of comprehension of what other people are saying to you and inability to absorb what people say and form an intelligent and reasoned response show that you are either a pubescent teenager on the net thinking they are so smart, or you are so old and ill informed that no matter what you read you know better, despite fact and logic ?

Are our words gospel ? definitely not, I and all of us have had many robust disagreements on many many subjects on this forum, it is about how we engage in that debate that makes a difference

The fact that you have an obvious open faith in anything you read in print as being subjective and reputable shows how much you do have to learn

Cheers

 

[db2646]

Wonderful reply, really set straight your argument and opinion of the subject.

Anyone can make a post as you have done above, there are tens of thousands of forum out there you can join and do this, go and join them, you just don't get it, your lack of understanding and even more so your lack of comprehension of what other people are saying to you and inability to absorb what people say and form an intelligent and reasoned response show that you are either a pubescent teenager on the net thinking they are so smart, or you are so old and ill informed that no matter what you read you know better, despite fact and logic ?

Are our words gospel ? definitely not, I and all of us have had many robust disagreements on many many subjects on this forum, it is about how we engage in that debate that makes a difference

The fact that you have an obvious open faith in anything you read in print as being subjective and reputable shows how much you do have to learn

Cheers

Thank you for your kind words. Keep on guessing if I am an pubescent teenager or very old and ill informed? I thought "name calling" is against the rules of this forum. But anyway, I suppose that some members are allowed to do so?

Cheers Mate!

Let me give you some very clear direction as you appear to struggle with all the attempts to date by various people in trying to steer you down the approp engagement path.

Change your approach or change forums. This is your last warning. Since you've been on here you've been either combative or disruptive and/or a combination of both

There are people on here who play in the space, have played in the space and some who have clearances way above your pay grade. I'm suggesting that because you get some basic constructs wrong and then seek to cement your credibility by inferring a professional association - you either show the Mod team the required material to endorse that claim (and you are more than aware of this) - or you will cease to infer the professional claim. Before coming back and pleading that you have a special case because of your job, I'd point out to you that there are a whole pile of people in here who are have sizeable security credentials and manage to traverse this requirement without difficulty. One of those individuals is equiv to a 2 Star. - and I know that you are not even close to what they do and see as far privileged information exposure is concerned

You're on very very very short finals. Lift your game real soon because you are not going to get much more grace from any on the Mod Team

As a small aside some of us have worked with and/or work with Filipinos - who use Filipino as well as Philipino in their corro - so don't get on your high horse and seek to lecture others about terminology.

I am not expecting and don't want a reply to this - this is pure information that you need to read and absorb. If you seek to backchat anymore you will be gone.

This is a private forum with established rules where all are expected to comply and behave approp. It's not up for negotiation, it's not up for debate.

Again, to reinforce, shape up or ship out. You've got less than 24hrs to get this right

 

[Systems Adict]

EASY LADIES !!!!!

Why are we so hett up about he said / she said ??

Let's get back to the subject matter.....

LCS has been criticized since it's inception in the early 2000's & 13 years on, with 4 ships in the water, it's understandable.

The US CAN NOT afford to continue funding a project that really isn't giving ANYONE but the company shareholders, Value-For-Money.

Mission modules that are still being developed that haven't yet been tested, never mind deployed. Hull forms that are not sufficiently robust enough to operate at the high speeds stated in the sales pitch & in sea states that were part of the contract, manning levels that mean the crew are run into the ground at the end of a deployment, morale that has hit rock bottom.

The list goes on & on (And that's before we start talking about the equipment that it was supposed to integrate with the ships that has been pulled because it's too expensive & doesn't work !).

The US Navy, the Joint Chiefs & the Obama administration need to seriously pull the plug on this program (Just like a previous administration did on the A-12), draw a line under it & design a FRIGATE.

...& If they can't do that, they should look at other designs that are on the market & negotiate to build them under license in the US, so that they jeep the workers & the skills base going, otherwise they'll end up like the Russian's or the Brits....

Rant over...

Unless you think my comments are incorrect, off base, racist, or downright infantile...... ?? :hitwall

SA
:grab

 

[Blackshoe]

In actual real US Navy news, the 30-year Shipbuilding plan is out. Some highlights:

• The current Battle Force is 283, with a requirement for 306 BF ships. The belief is that we can cover shortfalls now with rotational crew and forward-deploying ships (to Rota, Singapore, Japan, and Guam). AegisFC can probably comment better than I can on how well the former usually works on surface ships, and the latter requires lots of infrastructure to really support.
• 1/6th of that BF is going to be LCS. When I mentioned earlier that getting LCS now was more about getting hulls than anything else, that's what I was talking about. If LCS gets truncated, there is nothing else that has any hope of getting us back up to BF requirements.
• The plan requires $16.8 billion per year for shipbuilding. Historical average is $12-14 bil a year. And sequestration was not factored into this plan. These two points should indicate this plan is highly "aspirational" to use a polite term.
• The 9 ships (7 CG, 2 LSD) sked for decomm in 2013 and saved by Congress are now sked to decomm in 2015 (which is going to be a very busy year for decomms, with 20 ships going away).
• The OR SSBN is obviously the closest alligator to the canoe, and is probably going to eat away a lot of the rest of the funds (to the tune of $19 bil a year). The 2020s could be a bad time for the Navy if the money for other construction doesn't appear.
• Plans calls for 33 ARLEIGH BURKE FLTIIIs. There's also going to be another new class of large surface combatants that's going to be designed and fielded starting FY30.

 

[RobWilliams]

I was feeling good when I saw 11 CVN's from 2016 onwards for 2 decades, with a bump in the early 2020's to 12, but then I read your comment about sequestian not factored in, which was disappointing. Thought for a sec the whole idea of dropping below 10 had been dumped.

But anyway, it's happened gents, X-47B launched at sea from a carrier

X-47B Completes First Carrier-based Launch (Short) 1 - YouTube

 

[AegisFC]

• The current Battle Force is 283, with a requirement for 306 BF ships. The belief is that we can cover shortfalls now with rotational crew and forward-deploying ships (to Rota, Singapore, Japan, and Guam). AegisFC can probably comment better than I can on how well the former usually works on surface ships, and the latter requires lots of infrastructure to really support.

I think moving 4 Flight 1 Burkes with BMD to Rota Spain is a brilliant idea. All the infrastructure and support facilities are pretty much already in place.

Rotating crews has worked well for the mine-sweeper and the Cyclones. I have a long post on my experience with the crew swap when they tried it on my first destroyer in this thread. Short version is it was not sucessful.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I was feeling good when I saw 11 CVN's from 2016 onwards for 2 decades, with a bump in the early 2020's to 12, but then I read your comment about sequestian not factored in, which was disappointing. Thought for a sec the whole idea of dropping below 10 had been dumped.

But anyway, it's happened gents, X-47B launched at sea from a carrier

X-47B Completes First Carrier-based Launch (Short) 1 - YouTube

If anyone is interested, video of the launch:

X-47 First Cat Launch - USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)
X-47 First Cat Launch - USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) - YouTube

X-47B First Catapult Launch - Bow View USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)
X-47B First Catapult Launch - Bow View USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) - YouTube

And another one form the US Navy YouTube feed
http://youtu.be/_FMvNrkwmi0

 

[Belesari]

I think moving 4 Flight 1 Burkes with BMD to Rota Spain is a brilliant idea. All the infrastructure and support facilities are pretty much already in place.

Rotating crews has worked well for the mine-sweeper and the Cyclones. I have a long post on my experience with the crew swap when they tried it on my first destroyer in this thread. Short version is it was not sucessful.

Ok, I understand we and Europe are Allies in many things BUT.

Why are we basing BMD ships in the EU at all? Don't get me wrong I have friends all over Europe. But, with a large Economy multiple Military's and what over 1 billion people why can't they do these things themselves? Do they not have any BMD weapons? When they had the whole USSR to deal with it was one thing but other than Poland and other eastern European nations that can't be a big worry anymore with Russia. So......

Maybe its time to rethink the bases all over Europe idea? Maybe the EU can start building BMD sites, buy/build more bombs, buy more EW aircraft, helicopters, etc..?

 

[harryriedl]

In actual real US Navy news, the 30-year Shipbuilding plan is out. Some highlights:

• The current Battle Force is 283, with a requirement for 306 BF ships. The belief is that we can cover shortfalls now with rotational crew and forward-deploying ships (to Rota, Singapore, Japan, and Guam). AegisFC can probably comment better than I can on how well the former usually works on surface ships, and the latter requires lots of infrastructure to really support.
• 1/6th of that BF is going to be LCS. When I mentioned earlier that getting LCS now was more about getting hulls than anything else, that's what I was talking about. If LCS gets truncated, there is nothing else that has any hope of getting us back up to BF requirements.
• The plan requires $16.8 billion per year for shipbuilding. Historical average is $12-14 bil a year. And sequestration was not factored into this plan. These two points should indicate this plan is highly "aspirational" to use a polite term.
• The 9 ships (7 CG, 2 LSD) sked for decomm in 2013 and saved by Congress are now sked to decomm in 2015 (which is going to be a very busy year for decomms, with 20 ships going away).
• The OR SSBN is obviously the closest alligator to the canoe, and is probably going to eat away a lot of the rest of the funds (to the tune of $19 bil a year). The 2020s could be a bad time for the Navy if the money for other construction doesn't appear.
• Plans calls for 33 ARLEIGH BURKE FLTIIIs. There's also going to be another new class of large surface combatants that's going to be designed and fielded starting FY30.

In regards to CG they seem to be on their last legs anyway those old Tico hulls seem to have taken a bashing, they also seem to have some of the biggest problems with cracking in the fleet and its really six effective due to the Port Royal FUBAR (a pointless money hog in my opinion)

Their also seems to be a continued maint problem from what I read seeing the variety of vessels and class having major maintenance problems over the last few years not helped that sequester slashed funding on maintenance and training.

 

[kev 99]

Ok, I understand we and Europe are Allies in many things BUT.

Why are we basing BMD ships in the EU at all? Don't get me wrong I have friends all over Europe. But, with a large Economy multiple Military's and what over 1 billion people why can't they do these things themselves? Do they not have any BMD weapons? When they had the whole USSR to deal with it was one thing but other than Poland and other eastern European nations that can't be a big worry anymore with Russia. So......

Maybe its time to rethink the bases all over Europe idea? Maybe the EU can start building BMD sites, buy/build more bombs, buy more EW aircraft, helicopters, etc..?

Military spending is quite low down on the priorities of most European countries, only really UK and France have got any pretentions of being major military powers.

 

[justsomeaussie]

An expensive mistake:


The Most Intense Bridge Conversation EVER - USS Porter Collides With Supertanker

The Most Intense Bridge Conversation EVER – USS Porter Collides With Supertanker [AUDIO] | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

 

[FormerDirtDart]

In regards to CG they seem to be on their last legs anyway those old Tico hulls seem to have taken a bashing, they also seem to have some of the biggest problems with cracking in the fleet and its really six effective due to the Port Royal FUBAR (a pointless money hog in my opinion)

Their also seems to be a continued maint problem from what I read seeing the variety of vessels and class having major maintenance problems over the last few years not helped that sequester slashed funding on maintenance and training.

I'm sorry, but maybe you can explain how out of 22 active Tico CGs, only six are "effective".
I'll even go so far as not counting the Port Royal, Cowpens, Anzio and Vicksburg, the four Ticos stuck in legislative limbo. So, that leaves 18. Which 12 of the 18 are not "effective."
Also, by the "Port Royal FUBAR" I'm assuming you are referring to her grounding. She has completed a eight month deployment since receiving repairs after her grounding.

 

[Blackshoe]

I'm sorry, but maybe you can explain how out of 22 active Tico CGs, only six are "effective".
Also, by the "Port Royal FUBAR" I'm assuming you are referring to her grounding. She has completed a eight month deployment since receiving repairs after her grounding.

I believe the "six effective" refers to the fact that only six of the CGs mentioned for decomming are really worth anything at this point.

And don't let the fact that PRL was able to deploy fool you; it would have been financially (but not politically) cheaper to have scrapped her after her fight with the reef. Or made her the BMD test ship in place of LAKE ERIE. The effort put into bringing her back into something resembling "operational capability" was in no way shape or form worth the final results.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I believe the "six effective" refers to the fact that only six of the CGs mentioned for decomming are really worth anything at this point.

And don't let the fact that PRL was able to deploy fool you; it would have been financially (but not politically) cheaper to have scrapped her after her fight with the reef. Or made her the BMD test ship in place of LAKE ERIE. The effort put into bringing her back into something resembling "operational capability" was in no way shape or form worth the final results.

I would offer that hindsight is 20/20. And, that at the time of Port Royal's grounding in 2008, the Navy wasn't looking at early retirement of any of the Ticos. And, were in fact just some two years into a class wide upgrade/conversion to extend the 22 ships to a 35yr service life.
Not that the $40(+) million for repairing Port Royal might have been better spent elsewhere.

 

[Ranger25]

LCS surface to Surface

I'm glad to see the LCS discussion. Is anyone else concerned that this is an expensive patrol boat with close to zero capabilities? Much smaller ships carry SSMs like a harpoon or Exocet. I understand our desire to field hulls but my concern is its lack of capability to defend itself from both air and surface vs similiar or even much smaller foreign vessels. Perhaps someone saltier than I can help me understand the concept.