US Navy News and updates

[StingrayOZ]

Now, to me, the JHSV would still seem to be a awfully damn big target that close to an even marginally contested shore.

The advantage of the JHSV is you have speed and you have range. Given superior situation awareness you can outflank or outmaneuver everything except fast fixed wing air (and even then you can move out of harms way and be well armed enough to make it back to the protection of a destroyer or similar. You can also provide organic air support to the JHSV using its landing pad to launch and retrieve at speed ~ 45 kt which gives you a significant edge on all other rotary adversaries as you can hightail it out in a direction where fuel will be a significant issue, you win with out having to even fight. You can even realistically out run coastal/land based MBT and vehicles. You can always find a spot where they are not.

You can then deploy this incredibly fast force in superior numbers. You can put 600ts , ~30 vehicles into the water a few km (or perhaps a few metres) off shore. And provide close air support for deploying amphibious vehicles right up onto the beach. Per JHSV. The only other thing that will be able to shift as fast is the LCS.

Its not a bad compromise. You are the fastest guy on the field, you deploy substantial, self sufficient mix of forces from each run with organic air support. You can outrun everything except fixed wing air (which should be clear anyway).

I do think a fast landing craft is a worthy option and opens more doors. As does the UHAC (door buster). They have to exist for non-amphibious vehicle deployments. But they are slower and don't carry as much and can't provide organic air. They are set pieces, not wildcards.

With the JHSV you can realistically be 500-1000km off shore and deploy (with a suitable number of JHSV) from that distance. You can deploy and out move all land and sea units. You can sprinkle amphibious vehicles over a huge area which the enemy won't be able to close in on.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With the JHSV you can realistically be 500-1000km off shore and deploy (with a suitable number of JHSV) from that distance. You can deploy and out move all land and sea units. You can sprinkle amphibious vehicles over a huge area which the enemy won't be able to close in on.

it's also been used as an ASW platform off the west coast of africa in a real scenario (tracking an unfriendly sub shadowing a US TF)

 

[Blackshoe]

I honestly don't know why the US continues to waste money supporting inefficient shipbuilders when they could quite clearly get much better value for money building their ships in South Korea. Just think of the savings to be made and the beneficial effect this would have on the budget bottom line.

The same reason other advanced countries with the capability to do so build their own: it's nice to have the capability and we want to keep the jobs at home.

 

[Volkodav]

The same reason other advanced countries with the capability to do so build their own: it's nice to have the capability and we want to keep the jobs at home.

I agree one hundred percent, my comment was aimed at Toby and his constant (broken record) promoting of South Korean yards over Australia building their own ships. Unfortunately too many Australian politicians agree with him resulting in an immense waste of money as we have to rebuild the local industry again and again after failing to order a sufficient number of ships locally or worse buying a generation or two overseas.

 

[Blackshoe]

I agree one hundred percent, my comment was aimed at Toby and his constant (broken record) promoting of South Korean yards over Australia building their own ships. Unfortunately too many Australian politicians agree with him resulting in an immense waste of money as we have to rebuild the local industry again and again after failing to order a sufficient number of ships locally or worse buying a generation or two overseas.

Gotcha, sorry, didn't catch the sarcasm. Mea Culpa.

 

[StobieWan]

you're not the first, it was very very darkly veiled

 

[StingrayOZ]

it's also been used as an ASW platform off the west coast of africa in a real scenario (tracking an unfriendly sub shadowing a US TF)

I do wonder if the JHSV can do this, does that add additional pressure to the LCS program to cut numbers?

I do wonder if the USN would have had a safer bet going with more JHSV that are the high speed delivery, long range, super flexible ships. Thus the LCS could be a more regular low risk design without the high speed requirement, less super flexible etc. Could have been more of a modern OP class frigate.

JHSV seems to be generally viewed as a pretty successful little program, and the LCS as a troubled one. Ships actually share many similar flaws. But JHSV as always being just a fast ferry that can do stuff, everything is seen as a bonus.

 

[ASSAIL]

I do wonder if the JHSV can do this, does that add additional pressure to the LCS program to cut numbers?

I do wonder if the USN would have had a safer bet going with more JHSV that are the high speed delivery, long range, super flexible ships. Thus the LCS could be a more regular low risk design without the high speed requirement, less super flexible etc. Could have been more of a modern OP class frigate.

JHSV seems to be generally viewed as a pretty successful little program, and the LCS as a troubled one. Ships actually share many similar flaws. But JHSV as always being just a fast ferry that can do stuff, everything is seen as a bonus.

LCS is only troubled by the strident opposition to it by ignorant politicians and ageing vets plus the delay in getting modules into service.
Agreed there were some early platform issues but no more so than with others and exacerbated by deploying prototypes into service before time.

Any conceptual change creates controversy and maybe LCS was a step too far but considering the USN ORBAT, I believe it has a prominent part to play and could not be replicated by JHSV, supplemented maybe.

 

[colay]

IIRC the Small Surface Combatant study that SECDEF commissioned winds up this month. Fortuitous timing that LCS-2 got to participate at the recent RIMPAC to showcase it's versatility. The NSM launch planned off the West Coast should further highlight the potential of the LCS design to respond to be up-gunned as needed.

RIMPAC 2014: USS Independence proving LCS modularity concept, says CO - IHS Jane's 360

RIMPAC 2014: USS Independence proving LCS modularity concept, says CO

The US Navy's (USN's) decision to include its first Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in the Rim of the Pacific ('RIMPAC') exercise in Hawaii has helped prove the programme's modularity concept, the ship's commanding officer told IHS Jane's on 18 July.

Commander Joseph A Gagliano, who is leading the USS Independence (LCS 2) Blue Crew, explained that the conversion process that the vessel went through in order to join the 48 other ships participating in the biennial exercise is testimony to the LCS concept.

LCS represents the USN's newest class of small surface ship, designed with the ability to swap out containerised mission packages that enable the vessels to conduct one of three missions: surface warfare (SuW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and mine countermeasures (MCM).

"Just six weeks ago, we were a mine countermeasure ship operating off the coast of California," Cdr Gagliano said. "We got the call that we needed to be here in a surface warfare role, so within a matter of a week, we had switched out our mission package from mine countermeasures to surface warfare, checked out the gear, and came over. We've become a surface warfare-configured ship operating in the middle of the Pacific and really could do the same thing again. Just imagine that four weeks from now, we could be an ASW-configured ship operating in the Western Pacific."

DVIDS - News - Special operations forces, USS Independence train during RIMPAC 2014

Special operations forces, USS Independence train during RIMPAC 2014

USS INDEPENDENCE, At Sea - Special operations forces from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and Peru conducted a covert training mission aboard the littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2) as part of Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise 2014.

The two-day scenario provided realistic and relevant training for both the special forces teams and the ship’s crew.

LCS to Conduct Test of Norwegian Missile | Defense News | defensenews.com

LCS to Conduct Test of Norwegian Missile

WASHINGTON — The littoral combat ship USS Coronado will get a chance at an historic LCS first this fall when it launches a surface-to-surface missile in tests off Southern California.

The US Navy confirmed this week that the Coronado is scheduled to test-launch the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) off Point Mugu, California, where the Naval Air Warfare Center maintains an extensively-instrumented missile range.

The test will follow a successful NSM launch July 10 from the Norwegian frigate Fridtjof Nansen during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises near Hawaii. The frigate fired a single NSM at the decommissioned amphibious ship Ogden and scored a direct hit.

 

[StobieWan]

Blimey, didn't realise the LCS was getting NSM - that'll help quite a bit with reach and punch.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Blimey, didn't realise the LCS was getting NSM - that'll help quite a bit with reach and punch.

I would offer that "testing" is a significant distance from "getting".
The article is pretty clear on this being a one-off test, nothing further planned, and no existing requirement for the NSM or weapon of similar capabilities aboard the LCS.

I am curious as to where they will bolt on the damn things.

 

[Blackshoe]

"Just six weeks ago, we were a mine countermeasure ship operating off the coast of California," Cdr Gagliano said. "We got the call that we needed to be here in a surface warfare role, so within a matter of a week, we had switched out our mission package from mine countermeasures to surface warfare, checked out the gear, and came over. We've become a surface warfare-configured ship operating in the middle of the Pacific and really could do the same thing again. Just imagine that four weeks from now, we could be an ASW-configured ship operating in the Western Pacific."

I'm glad the MCM module (the single-most important mission area the Navy needs LCS to fill) testing was so unimportant that they could just CANEX it at the last minute to go send an LCS to RIMPAC.

 

[Volkodav]

Unfortunately having the LCS doing something more warrie during RIMPAC may be more important in terms of political messages to those who hold the purse strings. As an aside it does demonstrate the prompt change out of mission modules.

 

[colay]

Far from the Hawaiian action but still part of RIMPAC 2014, LCS-2's sister ship the USS Coronado conducted MCM exercises off the US West Coast. With LCS-2 now complemented by LCS-4, hopefully the 2015 IOC target date for the MCM Mission Package is attainable.


RIMPAC 2014: RAN, RNZN conduct minesweeping AUV trials from USS Coronado - IHS Jane's 360


RIMPAC 2014: RAN, RNZN conduct minesweeping AUV trials from USS Coronado
Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) mine countermeasures (MCM) detachments have conducted trials of the Remus 100 MCM autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) from the US Navy's (USN's) Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) USS Coronado .

According to a statement released by the RAN on 23 July, the trials were conducted off the shores of Coronado Island, California, during the early sea phases of the USN-hosted Rim of the Pacific ('RIMPAC') 2014 international naval exercise.

The Remus 100 vehicle is a man-portable AUV, 1.6 m long and 19 cm in diameter. It is in use with several navies worldwide to support tasks including hydrographic surveys, MCM operations, harbour security, environmental monitoring, search and salvage operations.

 

[AegisFC]

I'm glad the MCM module (the single-most important mission area the Navy needs LCS to fill) testing was so unimportant that they could just CANEX it at the last minute to go send an LCS to RIMPAC.

Minewarfare has always politically been a weak area for the USN. Congress could care less about the capability compared to those sexy, expensive carriers and surface combatants.

 

[Bonza]

I would offer that "testing" is a significant distance from "getting".
The article is pretty clear on this being a one-off test, nothing further planned, and no existing requirement for the NSM or weapon of similar capabilities aboard the LCS.

I am curious as to where they will bolt on the damn things.

That having been said it's also clear they're doing the testing for a reason, and it's not a stretch to think that the powers that be have come around to the idea of the LCS requiring a larger anti-surface weapon than what is currently planned. Remember in the recent exercises the LCS was apparently quite successful in the anti-surface role where some kind of anti-ship missile was simulated, using off-board data to cue the "launches". And I would think that while there might not be any stated requirement for the NSM or similar, one could make a fair argument that the requirement for expanded anti-surface capabilities is there, regardless of what's been said publicly. If you want to go speedboat-plinking then the smaller and cheaper the missile, the better - but if (and admittedly it could be a big if) the intent is to also prosecute larger targets you're not going to get nearly as much out of Griffin, Sea Spear, Hellfire etc...

 

[StobieWan]

Minewarfare has always politically been a weak area for the USN. Congress could care less about the capability compared to those sexy, expensive carriers and surface combatants.

Well, the other thing is of course, MCM devolved in cold war times to the forward Nato countries to tackle, along with a larger chunk of the ASW effort - or that's what I'd understood to be the reasons for the RN paying so much attention to both elements. Historically, if the USN wanted mine counter measures, the RN seemed to be the preferred supplier (even up to 2003, when the RN MCM ships led the task force back into harbour after the TF commander rather touchingly said something on the line of "you've led us safely through war, now lead us back into harbour in peace"

I suppose since we couldn't afford the heffing great CVN's etc, we had to pull our weight someplace...

I guess the other thing is, the US has never faced a "survival of the nation" threat from mines.

 

[colay]

Isn't it somewhat strange that the Navy will not divulge the results of the Taskforce studying the direction for their Small Surface Combatant?
Perhaps they are trying to avoid the glare of publicity but LCS is already a controversial subject so all the blackout will do is fan speculation.,In,any case, legislators are sure to demand explanation and leak it to the public.



Navy Won

Navy Won’t Discuss LCS Follow-on Taskforce Results Until Next Budget

The results of the Navy taskforce for a follow-up hull to the Littoral Combat Ship are in, but the service will remain mum on the findings until they’re integrated into next year’s budget, the service said on Thursday.

Instead of speaking to what the Small Surface Combatant Task Force found in their four month study, the service will use the findings to inform the multitude of Department of Navy offices in selecting a ship that will supersede the two variants LCS as the service’s next small service combatant.

More at the link.

 

[colay]

The Navy is doing some interesting work to hide it's ships from future missile threats. Perhaps simple really is better and Pandarra Fog will render missiles' radar seekers blind, and at a bargain price to boot. The fog seems thick enough to possibly interfere with optical sensors, and throwing some IR pixie dust into the mix may provide even more protection.

Navy looks to advancements in 'fog of war' for missile defense - News - Stripes

Navy looks to advancements in 'fog of war' for missile defense

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — The U.S. Navy is sea testing a carbon-fiber “fog” that officials hope will defeat the guidance systems of missiles aimed at its ships. The Pandarra Fog that shrouded three ships south of Guam recently is one part future tech, one part throwback... Pandarra Fog “is a potential game-changer in terms of effectiveness of a layered approach to [missile defense],” said Capt. Dave Adams, head of the 7th Fleet Warfighting Initiatives Group. In late June, the USS Mustin, USS Meyer and USS Cable tested the obscurant over four days in a variety of sea conditions south of Guam, 7th Fleet officials said... A 30-pound box of obscurant, which would last about four minutes, costs about $1,000, according to Thomas Culora, a Naval War college professor who called for an obscurants program in a 2010 paper. Meanwhile, a single Chinese DF-21D missile costs $5 million or more, Culora noted. “Employment of a relatively low-cost obscurant system would prompt potential opponents to re-examine and adapt their current missile systems,” Culora said. “This too begins to tip the cost differential back in favor of the defense.”

 

[AegisFC]

Even though this article is a month old it went unposted here, and I think it highlights very nicely some of the new capabilities that are on the verge of entering the fleet.

Live fire tests demonstrate Aegis Baseline 9, NIFC-CA capability - IHS Jane's 360

Aegis Baseline 9 also supports NIFC-CA, a 'system of systems' designed to extend the shipborne theatre air and missile defence battlespace - over both sea and land - well beyond the existing stand-alone capability of surface ship-controlled air-defence weapons. Leveraging the SM-6 missile, the Aegis Weapon System, the Co-operative Engagement Capability, and co-operating airborne sensors (the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye's AN/APY-9 radar and the US Army's Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor), it pushes out the engagement envelope by using integrated fire control for over-the-horizon and engage-on-remote capability.

During testing off California between 18-20 June, John Paul Jones successfully conducted five live-fire tests for the Baseline 9C Aegis system, to meet the combined needs of Combat Systems Ship's Qualification Trials and NIFC-CA testing. The ship successfully engaged six targets, firing four SM-6 missiles and one SM-2.

The first of three NIFC-CA exercises involved a long-range mission, known as AS-2A, which used data from a non-Aegis system to identify targets in a complex scenario. According to the USN, this resulted in the longest surface-to-air engagement in naval history, although the service did not release the range at which engagement was achieved.

The second and third tests, AS-2B and AS-2C, were conducted in increasingly difficult conditions that involved targets at varying altitudes and cross-sections. NIFC-CA will be deployed with the Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group (CSG) in 2015 following additional testing this year.