Not so long ago you railed against the baseline 9 suggesting that the Baseline 7.1 refresh 2 was superior.
It seems from this report that initial deficiencies have been fixed?
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
It seems from this report that initial deficiencies have been fixed?
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.
6 targets successfully engaged by 5 missiles?
6 targets successfully engaged by 5 missiles?
Mebbe one was "engaged" but not engaged.
As in, target was tracked and relevant tracking data handed over to another ship in a better position to engage?
As in the first could've been a "dry fire" run to check out systems/practice prior to the live engagements.
Admittedly just a guess though.
I see...to me it just felt that passing up this opportunity to conduct "networked" exercises would be a bit of a waste
Btw something else I found:http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/08/14/sharing-airspace-with-x-47b/
One more step forward in integrating the X-47B into carrier operations.
One more step forward in integrating the X-47B into carrier operations.
They usually run a drone past or towards the exercise platform to ensure everyone's awake, on their toes, all the kit works etc. And sometimes they squirt off time-expired missiles rather than pull them, so you can get all sorts of interestingly depressing ideas about reliability (one test had 4 from 5 missiles failing to launch or guide due to their age and condition, and the opinion was "great, it'll give everyone experience in dealing with duds".
I *believe* CEC engagements are relatively transparent at the console - all the presentation is managed in the background so there's not much difference from an operator point of view - anyone know different?
Another feather in Navy's cap with the successful shootdown of a cruise missile over land. SM-6 is demonstrating impressive performance at this early stage and an only get better. Not bad for a missile built from repackaged existing components.
Non-Standard: Navy SM-6 Kills Cruise Missiles Deep Inland « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Non-Standard: Navy SM-6 Kills Cruise Missiles Deep Inland « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
I think the best way to sweep and control inshore waters, and to deal with swarm attacks is a combined squadron consisting of an LCS as flotilla leader and several updated Pegasus class PHMs.
The LCS has to space for a command staff and can carry a limited amount of spares and resupply. Its helo would greatly extend the search area.If fitted with primarily AA weapons it would complement the surface warfare abilities of the Pegasus.
At this point I'm really not sure on the best way to control the littoral. I do think that if you have signature-managed combatants lurking in the littoral then the capacity to initiate AShM attacks on blue water targets based on off-board targeting data would be a good capability, but then that's somewhat secondary to actual littoral warfare itself and a lot of it depends on how the USN intends to operate the vessels - I have minimal understanding of this.
I think airborne drones and helos are probably best for anti-swarm attacks, although a small ship-launched missile with sufficient range (and again probably one that can get fed data from other sources, for example embarked helos) might also be useful. With the weapons fitting this description my concerns would be range (don't know if that can be helped though) and numbers, as you're going to want more than 6-8 if you're engaging speedboat swarms I would imagine. I don't know, it would be nice if there was a small surface-to-surface missile that could be quad-packed into a VLS, but at this stage we don't even know if the littoral ships (and I'm including LCS and any possible follow on "frigate" design) will have a VLS at all. If they did then you could shoehorn ESSM into the anti-surface role but that's far too expensive for plinking speedboats. The advantage would be your local air defence and anti-cruise missile capabilities take a big step up with the same loadout.
bear in mind that there is also a rise and a push to have a mini LCS and USV's as a future green and brown water option
they're also seen as a narrow straits, harbour management option
they're also seen as a narrow straits, harbour management option
The LCS is meant to tackle such threats on their own, or perhaps with another LCS. Being forward-ported, the LCS will be in-theatre faster than these upgraded Pegasi can (especially if they are home-ported in the US), unless they too are forward-ported.
But there is an interesting idea here - if the LCS is able to deploy USVs capable of plinking small ships, then that might give the commander an advantage in surface warfare. I'm curious to know if there have been any trials conducted to integrate USVs aboard the LCS.
USV's have been tested from larger skimmers, shore based and air managed
Air managed? That's interesting. The Protected USVs employed by the RSN at ABOT during OIF were limited in range (controlled by line-of-sight IIRC from the LPD acting as mothership) so I'm quite curious to know more about those trials - controlled from a chopper, or fixed wing?
Also, the next evolution of USVs is to become autonomous. I'm quite excited to see what the future holds.
both rotor and fixed
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,417
To give an idea how long this has been going on back in 2003 the Gettysburg test deployed the Spartan RHIB in place of one of the normal ships RHIB's. The Spartan was semi-autonimous and by all accounts the test deployment was a sucess.
-------
Some good news, the first Block 3 Virginia, the North Dakota looks like it will be delivered on time after all. From the article it appears it came down to vendor problems.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/...e-Delays-New-US-Navy-Sub-Headed-Time-Delivery
I think any country would love to have a program this consistantly on time and cost.
I knew the Block 3 was a major change but I didn't realize it was that big from a desing standpoint.
That is a major change as well, and more welcome good news.
Last edited:
HASC Cancels LCS Replacement Briefing Over Lack of Information - USNI News
SSC briefing delayed again. As welcome a frank discussion on the LCS program's future would be, regardless of the outcome of the SSC proposals I don't see much coming out of it considering the budget climate.
Still, can't wait to finally see the results of the study
SSC briefing delayed again. As welcome a frank discussion on the LCS program's future would be, regardless of the outcome of the SSC proposals I don't see much coming out of it considering the budget climate.
Still, can't wait to finally see the results of the study
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,419
Some potential LCS weapons news.
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
Raytheon Tests New Extended Range Griffin Missile | DoD Buzz
NeoIsolationist
New Member
Griffin and NSM
Two 30mm gun systems, a weapon module dedicated to sea griffin or a similar weapon, and bolt-on launchers for 8 or 12 naval strike missiles. I'd say that's a complete and capable armament for the basic LCS--to say nothing of the mission module carried of course. All of this is do-able on the current hulls.
Now if they can upgrade the 57 mm to 76mm strales/volcano that'd be best.....
Two 30mm gun systems, a weapon module dedicated to sea griffin or a similar weapon, and bolt-on launchers for 8 or 12 naval strike missiles. I'd say that's a complete and capable armament for the basic LCS--to say nothing of the mission module carried of course. All of this is do-able on the current hulls.
Now if they can upgrade the 57 mm to 76mm strales/volcano that'd be best.....