US Navy News and updates

[colay]

One possible future capability to look forward to is operating MALE UAVs off Independence-class LCS, extending ISR coverage and light strike up to 600-900 miles distant. Normally something that would require a flattop. The much-maligned little ship could contribute significantly to the vital battlespace SA picture spanning land and sea.

Perhaps this could influence the debate on UCLASS capabilities, satisfying those who are focused on the anti-terror role. If TERN proves successful, UCLASS may be developed and enhanced for a more aggressive role within the CAW.

http//www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/03/01.aspx

 

[StobieWan]

There's ways and means of doing it - the USN could have gone down the lines of the Absalon, using a relatively slow mother ship with bags of room inside to do the job of remotely clearing mines etc - but they'd have been much harder to take inshore and survive.

I keep coming back to this, but here it is again - they're taking on the roles and duties of the Cyclone, Avenger and OHP's - so whatever solution is provided will have to be capable of inserting SF troops, running in close ashore, that sort of thing.

Yes, you could design something that does air defence and the like on a modular basis - the USN already has some of the best AWD's in the world so why add in the overhead when they'll never need to work alone in a high threat environment?

LCS carries RAM/SeaRam, that's good for 10Km of local area coverage and can tackle most sea skimming threats, I also suspect the USN was deliberately trying to engineer something that didn't look like a mini-Burke...

 

[harryriedl]

There's ways and means of doing it - the USN could have gone down the lines of the Absalon, using a relatively slow mother ship with bags of room inside to do the job of remotely clearing mines etc - but they'd have been much harder to take inshore and survive.

I keep coming back to this, but here it is again - they're taking on the roles and duties of the Cyclone, Avenger and OHP's - so whatever solution is provided will have to be capable of inserting SF troops, running in close ashore, that sort of thing.

Yes, you could design something that does air defence and the like on a modular basis - the USN already has some of the best AWD's in the world so why add in the overhead when they'll never need to work alone in a high threat environment?

LCS carries RAM/SeaRam, that's good for 10Km of local area coverage and can tackle most sea skimming threats, I also suspect the USN was deliberately trying to engineer something that didn't look like a mini-Burke...

I always rather liked the mother ship concept. An Absolon with 2 CB90's for the inshore SF and anti piracy work while the mothership is a few clicks out with gunfire and and air support. Nothing greater than ESSM should be needed what you really looking at is something like the old light cruiser role. The F125 is another quite useful idea of the concept.

 

[StobieWan]

It's interesting - I started off as a bit of an opponent for the speed requirement for LCS but ended up chatting with a USN sailor who'd spent time on an OHP for a bit and still had colleagues who were now working up the LCS program.

Basically, the speed is tactically useful and relevant to the operators and while it produces a fairly demanding set of design requirements, it's worth having.

Originally the idea was to have LCS deployed by transport, in the same way that the MCM vessels get moved long distances, and the displacement was set to be around 2500 tons - but when they moved away to self deploying, the speed requirement hung around.

It's been one of the biggest drivers in terms of hull form and installed plan.

 

[colay]

Obviously survivability is a more complex equation than just the ability to take a hit. Just curious how feasible it would be to upgrade the existing LCS fromsurvivability level 1+ to level 2...,would this be feasible or would you have to start from,scratch?

Navy Responds to Pentagon LCS Survivability Claims | USNI News

 

[Volkodav]

Electric may still give you a weight penalty compared to the water jets as you have to factor in the drive motor. These ships are built around speed and have very small margins. don't forget even the helicopter(s) and all their gear, crew, weapons, deployed systems and support come off your margin,

Interestingly the FFX Batch II Incheon frigates being built in South Korea at the moment are using the permanent magnet motor design intended for DDG 1000 but not ready in time.
"Batch II ships will be powered by a single 36-40MW MT30 turbine, and propulsion will be all-electric. Finmeccanica’s newly-developed Permanent Magnetic Motor hybrid-electric drive will offer the ships weight, space and power advantages over standard AIM drive technologies, and all of those advantages are especially valued in a small ship"

The Incheons are probably worth watching closely with their role, weight and capability and especially the technologies being used.

 

[colay]

After word that a laser will be fielded for operational use later this year, the USN is aiming to conduct tests of an electromagnetic railgun in 2016 aboard a JHSV. IIRC one of the key challenges was mitigating the deterioration of the rails due to repeated firings so perhaps they are confident they have a solution at hand. No idea how bulky the whole system is and how much electricity it will consume but a CVN and DDG-1000 would have space and power to spare.

US Navy unveils rail gun that fires at seven times speed of sound


THE US Navy has unveiled a rail gun that fires at seven times the speed of sound — noting that “there’s not a thing in the sky that’s going to survive.” The rail gun is designed to take out incoming missiles — or possibly aircraft. It uses an electromagnetic pulse to propel a projectile down the barrel, creating a fireball of molten steel.... The US Navy has missiles that perform the same feats, but at the cost of millions of dollars each, whereas the electromagnetic rail gun costs about $25,000. “I think that’s a pretty good deterrent message to our adversaries out there that want to threaten our nation,” Klunder said. “I think they’re going to think long and hard about do I even want to engage the United States of America with the threat knowing that we’ve got a rail gun system now that will take anything out of the sky that they’re going to send at us.” The rounds weigh only 10.4kg, which means they can be stored aboard ships by the hundreds. “Someone may be sending a multimillion-dollar missile at us, and I’m going to take it out with a $25,000 projectile round,” Klunder said. “I’ll take that trade every single day.” The rail gun is due to go on board a navy vessel for testing in 2016. The cost of its development is $240 million in the past 10 years.

More at the link.

U.S. Navy to Test Electromagnetic Rail Gun at

 

[justsomeaussie]

Interesting:

Kongsberg introduces some "armed to the teeth" LCS concepts at Sea-Air-Space 2014

 

[colay]

Interesting:

Kongsberg introduces some "armed to the teeth" LCS concepts at Sea-Air-Space 2014

Nice... but the USN is going to conduct a bidding for a new ship/air-launched AShM and I don't think NSM in it's present form has the range and bang the Navy requires to outgun potential foes. The missile may be an attractive option on LCS export orders though.

 

[Volkodav]

I made the suggestion a few years ago on another site that with the advent of directed energy weapons, guided projectiles from guns and even rail guns we could see a return of all gun surface combatants. Developments such as those linked appear to indicate this could be the way of the future for escorts at least

 

[colay]

I made the suggestion a few years ago on another site that with the advent of directed energy weapons, guided projectiles from guns and even rail guns we could see a return of all gun surface combatants. Developments such as those linked appear to indicate this could be the way of the future for escorts at least

I'm curious about the suitability of rail guns for targets that are below the horizon but too close that the projectile velocity would cause it to overshoot the target. Is this a valid concern or would you simply reduce the velocity but lose kinetic energy in the process?

 

[Volkodav]

I'm curious about the suitability of rail guns for targets that are below the horizon but too close that the projectile velocity would cause it to overshoot the target. Is this a valid concern or would you simply reduce the velocity but lose kinetic energy in the process?

Use an alternate system such as guided projectiles or even an active SAM.

 

[alexsa]

I made the suggestion a few years ago on another site that with the advent of directed energy weapons, guided projectiles from guns and even rail guns we could see a return of all gun surface combatants. Developments such as those linked appear to indicate this could be the way of the future for escorts at least

Given the massive energy requirements (i.e 72 MW for 64Mj single gun system) I would see this as one system in a combination of weapons systems rahter than an all gun vessel. Simulanteous firings of multiple systesm would require a substancial generation capacity and the loss (even as a maintenance failure) of part of the generation capacity could have a critical impact on warfighting ability.

 

[Ranger25]

US LCS discussion

Undrstanding the multi mission intent of the LCS I still have grave concerns, not simply over survivability but combat ability. Yes I'll agree that its a better armed platform than the Avenger Class but I see no bang for the buck. Unless this ship is always partnered with a DDG for cover I see no way in a modern environment it can survive by itself. Most smaller navies even outfit the smallest patrol craft with some type is SSM. The LCS seems like a jack of no trades and master of none.

“…3000 ton speedboat chasers with the endurance of a Swedish corvette, the weapon payload of a German logistics ship, and the cargo hold of a small North Korean arms smuggler.”

I'm glad we're discussing a halt at 32 hulls and beginning a discussion to Upbuild the class. Konigsberg has a plan to install their new NSM on the LCs hulls already available.

Thoughts?

 

[Volkodav]

Given the massive energy requirements (i.e 72 MW for 64Mj single gun system) I would see this as one system in a combination of weapons systems rahter than an all gun vessel. Simulanteous firings of multiple systesm would require a substancial generation capacity and the loss (even as a maintenance failure) of part of the generation capacity could have a critical impact on warfighting ability.

All electric would be a must with a couple of MT30s to start with. I imagine some sort of capacitors would be needed too. The system would definitely have to be mated with conventional guns firing guided projectiles as well. Imagine what the rail gun would do to a DF21 warhead, manoeuvring or not.

 

[t68]

An intersting proposal on USN COD transport requirements using a new wider fuselage Lockhead are using the range argument but Boeing will be using the weight and flexibility argument being able to directly fly to any of the ships within the CBG and deliver stores on that capabilty alone I think Boeing got this one in the bag.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/...d-Revives-an-Old-Idea-New-Carrier-Cargo-Plane

 

[colay]

All electric would be a must with a couple of MT30s to start with. I imagine some sort of capacitors would be needed too. The system would definitely have to be mated with conventional guns firing guided projectiles as well. Imagine what the rail gun would do to a DF21 warhead, manoeuvring or not.

Apparently the rail gun projectiles will come in different flavors. A kinetic energy slug and a shrapnel variant that will release 10,000 tungsten cubes as it approaches it's target in the air or on the ground. Like a giant hypersonic shotgun blast pulverizing all in it's path.

 

[colay]

Makes sense, the advantages of Hellfire over Griffin seem to make it a no-brainer. Makes one wonder though why Hellfire wasn't the first choice to replace NLOS but better late than never I suppose. Would the LCS helos have a compatible FCS comparable to Apache to support multi-target engavement?



Navy Axes Griffin Missile In Favor of Longbow Hellfire for LCS | USNI News

Navy Axes Griffin Missile In Favor of Longbow Hellfire for LCS

The Navy has traded Raytheon’s Griffin IIB missile for Lockheed Martin’s Longbow Hellfire AGM-114L for the surface-to-surface missile for early increments and testing for the surface warfare (SuW) mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the outgoing program manager for LCS Mission Modules (PMS 420), Rear Adm. John Ailes told reporters on Wednesday.

The choice between the missiles — roughly equivalent in size, range (about five miles) and warhead size — came in part from the ability of the Army’s Longbow to take targeting information from Saab’s Sea Giraffe radar and use its onboard millimeter wave seeker to find a target. The Griffin uses a semi-active laser seeker that requires the ship’s crew to ‘paint’ a target with a laser, limiting the number of missiles that can engage targets at once.

“We have these 10,000 [Longbow] missiles, there’s no cost risk at all, it’s vertically launchable and you can shoot lots of them at same time and you don’t have to do that thing where you keep the laser on it,” Ailes said. “That’s why we’re excited about Longbow Hellfire.”

 

[Volkodav]

An intersting proposal on USN COD transport requirements using a new wider fuselage Lockhead are using the range argument but Boeing will be using the weight and flexibility argument being able to directly fly to any of the ships within the CBG and deliver stores on that capabilty alone I think Boeing got this one in the bag.

Lockheed Revives an Old Idea for New Carrier Cargo Plane | Defense News | defensenews.com

The Lockheed proposal is very interesting, not just for what it's offering but what Lockheed have not mentioned but the rebuilt Viking would be obvious for; tanking, esm, an upgraded long-range asw asvw, command etc. Imagine 80 odd aircraft back in-service again.

 

[alexsa]

All electric would be a must with a couple of MT30s to start with. I imagine some sort of capacitors would be needed too. The system would definitely have to be mated with conventional guns firing guided projectiles as well. Imagine what the rail gun would do to a DF21 warhead, manoeuvring or not.

The MT30 has flat rated shaft output of about 35MW. On the basis this does note translate the to generator output; two would have to be dedicated to each mount and run close to the max rating (40MW at 15 degrees) supplemented by other power sources. Not sure where capacitor technology is at the moment but for 10 rounds per minute the generators would have to be on line for the entire engagement.

Using the DDG 1000 as a bench mark two MT30's and two Auxiliary TG's provide a reported total of 78MW. With the current power required for the projected 64Mj mount you are getting into the realm where four or five MT30's and two auxiliary TG's would be required for systems and this mount but with limited redundancy.