US Navy News and updates

[barney41]

The Navy had a high-profile demo of a USV swarm not too long ago. Not meriting the same fanfare is the ACTUV program which is aimed at mitigating the proliferating threat posed by conventional subs.

DARPA's robotic SSK stalker has successfully demonstrated it can navigate and operate mission systems using a surrogate platform. More rigorous testing lies ahead leading to the launch of the first operational prototype mid-2015 or so.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online
Leidos Completes At-Sea testing of Prototype Maritime Autonomy System

RESTON, Va. — Leidos, a national security, health, and engineering solutions company, completed a total of 42 days of at-sea demonstrations of the prototype maritime autonomy system designed to control all of the maneuvering and mission functions of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV), the company announced in a Nov. 18 release.*

Using a 32-foot work boat as a surrogate vessel, Leidos installed autonomy software and sensors to mimic the configuration intended for an eventual full-size ACTUV prototype...

During 42 days of at-sea testing that included 101 individual scenarios, the autonomy system directed course and speed changes of the surrogate vessel to stay safely outside a 1-kilometer standoff distance from the interfering vessel. The test program demonstrated the ability of the ACTUV autonomy system to successfully maneuver and avoid collision with another vessel and paves the way for follow-on testing involving multiple interfering contacts and adversarial behaviors of interfering vessels.

While continuing to use the surrogate vessel to test ACTUV software and sensors, construction of Sea Hunter, the first ACTUV vessel, continues at Christensen Shipyard in Clackamas, Ore. Sea Hunter is scheduled to launch in late summer and begin testing in the Columbia River shortly thereafter.

 

[obsessed]

Harpers Ferry LSD-49 video

youtube.com/watch?v=8puRXvS1OJA

 

[Ranger25]

Any new updates on the LCS or the new SSC?

 

[bdique]

Looks like the LaWS is functioning well.

USN's prototype laser weapon in operational use in Gulf - IHS Jane's 360

I guess this means the beginning of the end of the Mk 38s?

 

[RobWilliams]

Not neccessarily, I'd imagine DEWs effectiveness deteriorates in poor weather so its still really part of complementary systems rather than a replacement.

Holy crap, it blew up an RPG on a manoeuvring FAC! As well as being exceptional at WVR ISR. Not bad at all.

But with respect to the SSC, as expected, it's to be based on current LCS designs rather than brand new designs which is the best option.

Always been a fan of the export versions of the Freedom class.

U.S. Defense Secretary: Future US Navy Small Surface Combatant SSC to be based on LCS

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Article from USNI News on SSC decision:
Up Gunned LCS Hulls Picked for Navy

And, a fact sheet from the article on the modified LCS:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/249909889/Modified-LCS-Fact-Sheet-2

Clear as mud.

 

[RobWilliams]

Disagree, there's still the element of module flexibility in the new SSC but there's just additional baseline capabilities being added.

• Mk38s added
• Upgraded countermeasure systems
• Improved radar
• Upgraded EW suite
• Improved signals management
• Uparmoured
• OTH SSM
• Freedom class getting SeaRAM to match Independence
• Towed array

OTH SSM probably LRASM, but i've seen mock ups of NSM with box launchers in LCS models.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Disagree, there's still the element of module flexibility in the new SSC but there's just additional baseline capabilities being added.

• Mk38s added
• Upgraded countermeasure systems
• Improved radar
• Upgraded EW suite
• Improved signals management
• Uparmoured
• OTH SSM
• Freedom class getting SeaRAM to match Independence
• Towed array

OTH SSM probably LRASM, but i've seen mock ups of NSM with box launchers in LCS models.

Won't be LRASM, SSC not getting VLS.
I want to know how they're adding OTH SSM's, up armoring critical areas, adding Mk38s and all the other mods, yet somehow reducing weight

 

[Ranger25]

Won't be LRASM, SSC not getting VLS.
I want to know how they're adding OTH SSM's, up armoring critical areas, adding Mk38s and all the other mods, yet somehow reducing weight

I'm pleased to see the upgrades overall. A bit surprised it looks like canister options for the OTH SSM and not a VLS.

 

[Ranger25]

Won't be LRASM, SSC not getting VLS.
I want to know how they're adding OTH SSM's, up armoring critical areas, adding Mk38s and all the other mods, yet somehow reducing weight

Thank you BTW. Sounds like the hulls starting 2019 will be this SSc configured. I believe I read somewhere then the older LCS will be retrofitted to this new standard. Yes?

 

[RobWilliams]

Won't be LRASM, SSC not getting VLS.
I want to know how they're adding OTH SSM's, up armoring critical areas, adding Mk38s and all the other mods, yet somehow reducing weight

Ah right, points to NSM then if that's the case?

It's an overall ship redesign, they're not just adding things, the internals are - presumably - being redesigned to offset this weight addition.

True, that's probably a significant weight addition, but that's engineering. There's always a way to do something with a lighter part, there is optimisation software in existence which do just that.

 

[Ranger25]

Ah right, points to NSM then if that's the case?

It's an overall ship redesign, they're not just adding things, the internals are - presumably - being redesigned to offset this weight addition.

True, that's probably a significant weight addition, but that's engineering. There's always a way to do something with a lighter part, there is optimisation software in existence which do just that.

Seems like a step in a good direction for the platform.

 

[RobWilliams]

Whatever they could do, it would be *better*, they've built 4 with another 3 fitting out (2-1 for Freedom, 2-2 Independence) so they've got a good idea about issues during build so it'd be a better design for SSC just being an evolution of a current design than being radical bringing a new one into it.

 

[Delta204]

I'm disappointed the SSC doesn't have any VLS cells. Despite the fact that I believe both manufacturers have designs incorporation MK41 into modified versions of their respective LCS, the Adm. doing the briefing on the SSC dismissed VLS as "kind of heavy, kind of big, a major change [adding] cost, time..."

....kind of sounds like a lot of lame excuses to me!

At the least I was hoping for an 8 cell self defense length MK41 for quad packed ESSM. Without this, the SSC is limited to just one SeaRam, a 57mm and ECW for air-defense but hey, the Admiral said this new vessels won't need protection from an Aegis ship! Good luck with that!

With even a 16 cell MK41 this new SSC could have been outfitted with 32 ESSM, 8 ASROC, and likely space for a canister launched NSM. This would come at the sacrifice of some mission space no doubt, but then the LCS and new SSC would complement each other nicely. The SSC having the heavy weaponry and sensors while the LCS would retain the extra space to carry mission specific equipment like MCM, extra helo's, UAV's, RHIBS ect.

 

[Blackshoe]

My initial thoughts are that I'm not surprised that SSC will be, for all intents and purposes, a follow-on design to LCS; I'd been hearing that would be the case. I actually think some good will come from that, as it will simplify the design process.

Many of the upgrades seem to be backfittable to LCS, which makes me wonder if some/many/all of the LCS will be "upgraded to the SSC standard" as part of an overhaul plan.

Glad they seem to have abandoned the speed requirements for the SSC.

I hope they decided to come up with an actual designator for them, and not just call them "SSC 1-20". And I hope they come up with better naming conventions than the poor LCS have been stuck with (coughcough, LCS-10). Cities work, especially with some of the great traditions established by cruisers named after cities in World War II; just stick with that.

 

[Volkodav]

I imagine some of the weight saving will come from the switch to fixed as opposed to modular systems for much of what has been added. Going for SeaRam does seem to be a retrograde step as I would have thought RAM plus an active volume search radar, such as CEAFAR would have been the way to go.

Other possibilities that may be worth a thought for export would be CAMM and a 76mm Super Rapido with DART and Vulcano.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm baffled by the SeaRam move- like yourself I'd have thought a RAM launcher tied to the existing search radar would have been best. Hey ho

 

[barney41]

I'm baffled by the SeaRam move- like yourself I'd have thought a RAM launcher tied to the existing search radar would have been best. Hey ho

Yes, strange that SeaRAM with 11 missiles is considered an upgrade to the 21 tubes on the Mk49 launcher on LM's Freedom-class LCS.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, strange that SeaRAM with 11 missiles is considered an upgrade to the 21 tubes on the Mk49 launcher on GM's Freedom-class LCS.

Must be something to do with reaction time or accuracy of target designation I imagine. It wouldn't be so bad if there was a second system worked in somewhere, just hope they have sufficient, conveniently located reloads onboard.

 

[StobieWan]

Must be something to do with reaction time or accuracy of target designation I imagine. It wouldn't be so bad if there was a second system worked in somewhere, just hope they have sufficient, conveniently located reloads onboard.

Thing is, if they'd installed Mk41, they could have quad packed RAM block 2, and that'd be your anti surface and air sorted out to about 10km. Ditch the 1b entirely given it's a kind of "cross your fingers " approach vs sea skimming missiles, and you've got 30 and 25mm cannon vs BogHammers etc..ESSM block 2 is active so that'd slip in nicely for the future.

Just thinking out loud here.