US Navy News and updates

[Volkodav]

Havent we equiped the Romeo with the Mk54?

Yes but we selected the MU90, originally to reequip the ADFs major surface combatants, Seahawks, Super Sea Sprites and Orions but in the end only the FFGs and ANZACs ended up getting them due to procurement issues (a common theme with many procurements from the late 90s onwards, we bought highly developmental systems under the mistaken belief they were MOTS).

Once the issues were realised the new government cut their loses and cancelled integration on Seahawks and Orion (as well as cancelling the Sprogs) as it was seen as a waste of money updating platforms due to be replaced within a decade to carry a weapon that was so far behind schedule.

 

[RobWilliams]

The debate between who should command the UCLASS fleet on board USN carriers has been solved, they're being embedded in E-2C/D air wings rather than F-35C units.

E-2D units will command future UCLASS fleet - 1/7/2015 - Flight Global

Makes more sense, the computing power (and manpower) available on the E-2D especially makes it the more ideal platform to command UCLASS systems in action.

Considering the role change of UCLASS from strike to more ISR/potential tanker focus, it probably suits the support/management role of the E-2's rather than the combat role of F-35 wings.

US NAVAIR orders three Blackjack UAV systems - 1/8/2015 - Flight Global

3 more Blackjack UAV systems have been ordered, each including 5 air vehicles, 2 ground control stations, one launch and recovery system and associated payloads.

 

[Volkodav]

The debate between who should command the UCLASS fleet on board USN carriers has been solved, they're being embedded in E-2C/D air wings rather than F-35C units.

E-2D units will command future UCLASS fleet - 1/7/2015 - Flight Global

Makes more sense, the computing power (and manpower) available on the E-2D especially makes it the more ideal platform to command UCLASS systems in action.

Considering the role change of UCLASS from strike to more ISR/potential tanker focus, it probably suits the support/management role of the E-2's rather than the combat role of F-35 wings.

US NAVAIR orders three Blackjack UAV systems - 1/8/2015 - Flight Global

3 more Blackjack UAV systems have been ordered, each including 5 air vehicles, 2 ground control stations, one launch and recovery system and associated payloads.

Just a thought, why doesn't the USN develop a mission module incorporating the Mk56 VLS for the LCS program, or better yet develop an interface that lets them use the Danish Flex system which would give them access to Harpoon as well as ESSM.

 

[Ranger25]

Just a thought, why doesn't the USN develop a mission module incorporating the Mk56 VLS for the LCS program, or better yet develop an interface that lets them use the Danish Flex system which would give them access to Harpoon as well as ESSM.

I like your thoughts Sir. My biggest surprise, as many others, with the LCS/SSC upgrade was the lack of VLS, even an 8 unit.

 

[Volkodav]

I like your thoughts Sir. My biggest surprise, as many others, with the LCS/SSC upgrade was the lack of VLS, even an 8 unit.

The Danes have fitted Mk56 modules to Flex type FACs so there should be no issue fitting the system to an LCS. Each Module is self contained and has 12 ESSM.

This needn't be a permanent fit, just another option should the threat level require it, which is the whole idea of the LCS anyway. An open deck as seen on the Absalons that can take a variety of different modules, rather than the current system of fixed slots that limits the type of modules that can be fitted, would be good.

A mix of ESSM, Harpoon, maybe even a module designed to take a number of ExLS canisters which would then give them Nulka, CAMM, RAM Block 2 etc. What would be really interesting is if VLS ASROC could be adapted for container launch and fired from a modified Mk-141 Harpoon launcher, failing that how about MILAS which is a superior system anyway.

 

[Ranger25]

The Danes have fitted Mk56 modules to Flex type FACs so there should be no issue fitting the system to an LCS. Each Module is self contained and has 12 ESSM.

This needn't be a permanent fit, just another option should the threat level require it, which is the whole idea of the LCS anyway. An open deck as seen on the Absalons that can take a variety of different modules, rather than the current system of fixed slots that limits the type of modules that can be fitted, would be good.

A mix of ESSM, Harpoon, maybe even a module designed to take a number of ExLS canisters which would then give them Nulka, CAMM, RAM Block 2 etc. What would be really interesting is if VLS ASROC could be adapted for container launch and fired from a modified Mk-141 Harpoon launcher, failing that how about MILAS which is a superior system anyway.

Couldn't agree more. For that matter I'd like to see them on the San Antonio class LDP so they have more self protection beyond CIWS

I like the idea of fitting them out as a basic launch vehicle in general similar to the old discussion of the arsenal ship

 

[Ranger25]

LDP II for BMD

Couldn't agree more. For that matter I'd like to see them on the San Antonio class LDP so they have more self protection beyond CIWS

I like the idea of fitting them out as a basic launch vehicle in general similar to the old discussion of the arsenal ship

Huntington Ingalls Industries showcases its Ballistic Missile Defense ship based on LPD 17 class


Seems like a manageable program built around a proven hull. Up to 288 launch depending on Mk41 or MK 57 VLS systems. Could mount land attack, SSM, and BMD.


Any of you gentleman with maritime experience think this concept makes any sense?

 

[Blackshoe]

Huntington Ingalls Industries showcases its Ballistic Missile Defense ship based on LPD 17 class


Seems like a manageable program built around a proven hull. Up to 288 launch depending on Mk41 or MK 57 VLS systems. Could mount land attack, SSM, and BMD.


Any of you gentleman with maritime experience think this concept makes any sense?

Was about to say, didn't we already talk about this? Then I saw the dateline.

Short version is "Great idea, too bad we can't afford it, and no one's going to want to buy single-mission ships in today's day and age."

Also, we might as well just call it CG-74 class (or CG-1000-blech).

 

[Ranger25]

Was about to say, didn't we already talk about this? Then I saw the dateline.

Short version is "Great idea, too bad we can't afford it, and no one's going to want to buy single-mission ships in today's day and age."

Also, we might as well just call it CG-74 class (or CG-1000-blech).

Agreed, ideally there's some economy due to the use of existing hull designs etc. looks like HI has done a lot of the leg work. We could place one per Carrier Group for AAW purposes and free up the DDG51s Oregon the CGs for other tasks.

 

[Volkodav]

Couldn't agree more. For that matter I'd like to see them on the San Antonio class LDP so they have more self protection beyond CIWS

I like the idea of fitting them out as a basic launch vehicle in general similar to the old discussion of the arsenal ship

The San Antonio class were designed with Mk-41VLS and ESSM in mind but it was deleted for cost reasons. It would probably be comparatively easy, funds permitting, to retrofit the systems in the future. Its probably not so important for the USN with their huge numbers of escorts, but medium sized navies, with considerable manpower limitations, probably could look at arming amphibious and support ships for self defence or even a local defence role where they look after the bit of water they are in.

Then again the USN does have a requirement to defend amphibious units and operations from air and ballistic missile attack so why not multi role one of the Amphibs to cover the role, a hybrid LSD/CG. The aft section would be vehicle decks and dock while the forward section would have a large VLS, a medium calibre gun and a full AEGIS system.

 

[Blackshoe]

Agreed, ideally there's some economy due to the use of existing hull designs etc. looks like HI has done a lot of the leg work. We could place one per Carrier Group for AAW purposes and free up the DDG51s Oregon the CGs for other tasks.

If the CGs get freed up for anything, it's to get turned into razor blades.

And no matter the cost savings on having an existing hull, working in the weaponry will put some costs in to the process-costs that, between:

-ORP (the big pole in the SCN tent)
-LCS/SSC
-DDG FLT III

There is no more money to buy ships. Heck, there isn't money to do it with those designs already; adding more designs just increases the impossibility.

And again...no one is going to be excited about buying about a(nother) platform that's single-mission.

 

[barney41]

There had been previous discussion on the thread re the Navy's future COD aircraft and it seems they will break with tradition and go STOVL.

Navy Decides to Buy V-22 Ospreys for Carrier Delivery « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

 

[RobWilliams]

Interesting choice, especially considering how the article cites that Lehman was pushing for ~360 V-22s for the Navy and when he left, that number was cut significantly and there isn't the interest for the remaining.

I'd have thought the C-2 with E-2D wings would have been the best choice, but the V-22 increases the uses of the role.

So what's the solution about bringing F135 engines on board? During a resupply, VERTREP, simply carrying more?

In other news, Raytheon is working on an multi-mode IR seeker (active and passive) for Tomahawk to allow it to hit moving targets.

Raytheon Working on Tomahawk With Active Seeker

Makes the missile 25% more expensive however, is it likely to be an option exercised by the US/UK considering the role of TLAM?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting about the COD, I would have thought the evolved C2 would have been preferred.

V-22 is a pretty capable aircraft. The F-135 issue was going to affect what ever was chosen. I would imagine it may make it easier/more efficient to move things between amphibs (and other V-22 capable ships) and carriers.

 

[kev 99]

In other news, Raytheon is working on an multi-mode IR seeker (active and passive) for Tomahawk to allow it to hit moving targets.

Raytheon Working on Tomahawk With Active Seeker

Makes the missile 25% more expensive however, is it likely to be an option exercised by the US/UK considering the role of TLAM?

Don't know, on the one hand it means it has some utility as an anti ship weapon, but I can't see that much of a point for us on land targets; I can't imagine there are too many capable of moving that would require a weapon with a 1,000lb warhead to destroy?

 

[Ranger25]

Don't know, on the one hand it means it has some utility as an anti ship weapon, but I can't see that much of a point for us on land targets; I can't imagine there are too many capable of moving that would require a weapon with a 1,000lb warhead to destroy?

Agreed, I see it as mainly Longer range ASM now unless were seeking out mobile IRBM launchers.

 

[HurricaneDitka]

So what's the solution about bringing F135 engines on board? During a resupply, VERTREP, simply carrying more?

One of the comments on that article said:

Other publications have already said "This is the result several of us were expecting, especially after the V-22 had successful trials aboard CVN-75 and a redesigned F135 housing which allows the engine to be carried internally on the V-22"

 

[RobWilliams]

Brain fart!

Still, good news that it can be carried internally. Judging by that comment then, it's the container the engine is crated into has been redesigned rather than a cabin redesign/breaking down the engine?

 

[HurricaneDitka]

Brain fart!

Still, good news that it can be carried internally. Judging by that comment then, it's the container the engine is crated into has been redesigned rather than a cabin redesign/breaking down the engine?

More like they remove the engine from the crate and put it into a "frame" in the back of the Osprey. Here are two more articles on it from last February that shed a bit of light:

HELI-EXPO: Israel could double V-22 order size, Bell says - 2/24/2014 - Flight Global

Last week, Bell demonstrated a key capability that could improve the V-22’s appeal to naval and amphibious customers. One of the deficiencies of the Osprey has been an inability to carry the container that transports the Pratt & Whitney F135-600 engine for Lockheed Martin's short take-off and vertical landing F-35B.

Bell and P&W developed a new “frame” that replaces the container, allowing the V-22 to carry the power section of the F135 engine to an amphibious carrier, Garrison says. The new equipment was demonstrated last week in Fort Worth, Texas, he adds.

Bell Tests V-22 JSF Engine Carrying Capability | Defense content from Aviation Week

Bell Helicopter has been evaluating the ability of its MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor to carry the engine of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The trials, part of the company’s ongoing work to prove the Osprey as a potential successor to the Grumman C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft, saw the company load a frame designed by Pratt & Whitney to carry the power section of the F135 engine loaded into the rear cabin of the Osprey.

“The container for the engine is too large to be carried in the aircraft,” said Bell CEO John Garrison on the eve of Heli-Expo 2014. He said the engine would instead be mounted in the frame, allowing the cabin of the aircraft to act as the engine’s container. It would not include the lift fan of the F-35B.

They say they can carry "the power section" of the engine. I'm not sure how much breakdown / rebuild that requires. I'm envisioning some sort of a rail system in the Osprey with an engine-moving forklift-like vehicle to load/unload the engine.



One last article, this one from 2010: http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20101129/NEWS/11290320/JSF-engine-too-big-for-regular-transport-at-sea

However, the F-35C's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, contained in its Engine Shipping System, is too large for the cargo door on a standard carrier onboard delivery plane and for the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the program office acknowledged in a response to a follow-on query from Navy Times. The engine can be broken down into five component parts, but just its power module and packaging alone won't fit into the COD or the V-22.

The JSF Program Office says the V-22 Osprey, like the MH-53E helicopter, can externally carry the F135 engine module, the heaviest of the five components, at least 288 miles "in good weather."

...

The 9,400-pound engine module and transport container also cannot not be transferred from a supply ship to a carrier during underway replenishments — when two ships are sailing side-by-side and connected by supply lines — because, Kennedy said, "It's too heavy for the unrep station."

 

[RobWilliams]

Don't know, on the one hand it means it has some utility as an anti ship weapon, but I can't see that much of a point for us on land targets; I can't imagine there are too many capable of moving that would require a weapon with a 1,000lb warhead to destroy?

Exactly.

TLAM is great at hitting fixed structures as part of the opening salvos of an assault. After that the role hands over by and large to fighters, they're the ones bombed up for dealing with pretty much any sort of contingency.

Can't imagine you'd be launching them to hit mobile launchers, not just for the overkill factor but mobile launchers appear to be more 'target of opportunity' rather than a planned strike. After all, that's the point of them being mobile. You won't just be firing a $1.4 million missile knowing that one 'could' be in the area.

One area i've read is that it's being offered as a competitor to LRASM in the surface launched role for AShM work for the OASuW requirement in 2017.

Arming New Platforms Will Push Up Value Of Missiles Market | Defense content from Aviation Week