US Navy News and updates

[barney41]

SM-6 has successfully demonstrated it's Terminal BMD capability. It's not clear though if missile can defeat a MaRV from a DF-21 which is not limited to a ballistic trajectory. Anyone care to speculate?

Raytheon: A Milestone for a Missile - Multi-mission SM-6 destroys ballistic target for the first time
A Standard Missile-6 has destroyed a short-range ballistic missile target in a first-of-its-kind test at sea, solidifying its place in an elite group of weapons that can defend against this class of threat.

“SM-6 is an advanced multi-mission missile built upon decades of technological innovation and best practices,” said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems. “Its success showcases the value in using mature components in innovative ways.”

Deployed on cruisers and destroyers, SM-6 currently provides the U.S. Navy fleet with air defense against fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and land-attack anti-ship cruise missiles in flight, over both sea and land.

"Our objective was to demonstrate the SM-6's ability to intercept ballistic missiles in their terminal or final seconds of flight," said Lawrence.

 

[Ranger25]

LRASM question

"The Navy was authorized by the Pentagon to put the LRASM into limited production as an operational weapon in February 2014 as an urgent capability stop-gap solution to address range and survivability problems with the Harpoon anti-ship missile and to prioritize defeating enemy warships, which has been neglected since the end of the Cold War but taken on importance with the modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy. The Navy will hold a competition for the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 anti-ship missile as a follow-on to LRASM to enter service in 2024."

When I research the status of the LRASM I find it was authorized for limited production in 2014 as a stopgap measure to fill the perceived gap in anti ship surface to surface missiles for the USN.

Does anyone know where this stop gap purchase stands and any fielded?

Ty

 

[FormerDirtDart]

"The Navy was authorized by the Pentagon to put the LRASM into limited production as an operational weapon in February 2014 as an urgent capability stop-gap solution to address range and survivability problems with the Harpoon anti-ship missile and to prioritize defeating enemy warships, which has been neglected since the end of the Cold War but taken on importance with the modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy. The Navy will hold a competition for the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 anti-ship missile as a follow-on to LRASM to enter service in 2024."

When I research the status of the LRASM I find it was authorized for limited production in 2014 as a stopgap measure to fill the perceived gap in anti ship surface to surface missiles for the USN.

Does anyone know where this stop gap purchase stands and is it filed End?

Ty

I suggest you go back, and start your research again. The LRASM directed into limited production as OASuW/Increment 1, based on the JASSM-ER, is an air-to-surface weapon

 

[Ranger25]

I suggest you go back, and start your research again. The LRASM directed into limited production as OASuW/Increment 1, based on the JASSM-ER, is an air-to-surface weapon

Understand that,

Lockheed Martin reported In January 2014, They demonstrated that the LRASM could be launched from a Mk 41 VLS with only modified software to existing shipboard equipment.

I take that as an indication it can be used in the MK 41VLS in addition to air launch.


So my question Remains Sir, is it confirmed as fielded either for Air launch or perhaps both?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Understand that,

Lockheed Martin reported In January 2014, They demonstrated that the LRASM could be launched from a Mk 41 VLS with only modified software to existing shipboard equipment.

I take that as an indication it can be used in the MK 41VLS in addition to air launch.


So my question Remains Sir, is it confirmed as fielded either for Air launch or perhaps both?

I would say neither has been fielded.
The air launch only Offensive Anti-Surface Weapon (OASuW) Increment 1 Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) as part of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Accelerated Acquisition program contract negotiations didn't even commence until late July 2014.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7a08b8e953cba30b60f947de70474932&tab=core&_cview=0
The contract awarded under that notification was modified in June 2015:
Defense.gov Contracts for Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, has been awarded a $104,251,040 modification P00014 to previously awarded contract HR0011-14-C-0079 for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Accelerated Acquisition program. This modification raises the total cumulative face value of the contract from $202,618,254 to $306,869,294. Work will be performed at Lockheed Martin Corp. (Orlando, Florida; Troy, Alabama, 57.40%); BAE Systems (Nashua, New Hampshire, 35.70%), Harris Corp. (Melbourne, Florida, 3.11%), Northrop Grumman (Linthicum, Maryland, 1.43%), Ball Aerospace (Westminster, Colorado, 1.25%) and Williams Corp. (Walled Lake, Michigan, 1.11%), with an expected completion date of July 6, 2016. Research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $228,432 are being obligated at the time of award. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity.

And, it is basically impossible for the multiple launch platform capable OASuW Increment 2 to have been fielded, since program isn't slated until FY2017
(from first link)

The Navy is developing an OASuW Increment 2 acquisition strategy with program initiation planned for Fiscal Year 2017. Increment 2 will pursue a full-and-open competition strategy for multiple launch platform capability (air, surface, and subsurface). Navy OASuW Increment 2 requirements, currently in development, will address the advanced maritime threat with a planned Initial Operational Capability of 2024.

Again, I suggest you go back, and do some actual research, beyond briefly scanning a Wikipedia page.

It took me about ten times as much time to format this post than it did to find the information.

 

[barney41]

The Navy has consolidated it's next generation maritime and land attack missiles into the Next Generation Strike Capability initiative. Hopefully this does not delay tne needed capability upgrade due to likely differences in mission requirements. Perhaps we shall see variants of a common design ie.
Land attack vs. Maritime attack2, ship-launched vs. Air-launched.




Navy Moving Closer to Acquiring Devastating Ship-Killing Stealth Missiles - Blog


4/29/2015
Navy Moving Closer to Acquiring Devastating Ship-Killing Stealth Missiles

...
In Next-generation strike, the Navy merged what used to be two separate projects: One called “offensive anti-surface weapon increment 2” and another dubbed “next-generation land attack weapon.” The new missile, or family of weapons, would have greater range, destruction power and survivability than the current Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile and the Tomahawk ship-launched land attack cruise missile...

 

[John Fedup]

Here's a link about a ONR meeting about amphibious assault vehicle development. The internal links on propulsion and design are interesting and sort of explain the difficulties with a future EFV concept.

Focus Area Forum: Amphibious High-Water Speed - Office of Naval Research

 

[Ranger25]

Here's a link about a ONR meeting about amphibious assault vehicle development. The internal links on propulsion and design are interesting and sort of explain the difficulties with a future EFV concept.

Focus Area Forum: Amphibious High-Water Speed - Office of Naval Research

I'm surprised that the USMC new ACV 1.1 only set armament requirements for .50 cal and optional 40mm grenade launcher. Most peer and lower marine assault vehicles include anywhere from 20-57mm cannons giving the infantry inshore immediate direct fire support I find it incredible this isn't this a consideration for the USMC ACV 1.1 even given financial constraints.

 

[Ranger25]

PLA "sinks" US carrier in DF21 exercise

the PLA has announced the successful "sinking" of a mock US carrier with a DF 21

Interesting as it was a mock, fixed target, they had it's exact location programmed into the DF21 no doubt, and it was stationary. Also had zero interference with the Kill chain by the suspected target.


PLA 'sinks' US carrier in DF-21D missile test in Gobi｜WCT


And counterpoint


DF-21D isn't a big threat to US carrier fleet: Russian media｜WCT

If it makes it thru all the Kill chain countermeasures and Kinetic ABM capabilities there's always this, it will need solid terminal guidance to hit a moving target


Video: Carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Conducting High Speed Turns - USNI News

Cheers

 

[StobieWan]

I thought DF2 used a ripped off version of Pershing's final guidance radar? Obviously, still a narrow basket to be dropped into mind.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I remember this getting discussed in the final days I was on StratPage - we argued long and loud that a BM sinking a static target at sea was not a valid test.

if you want to test it then it needs to be an "aware" vessel moving at speed and under guidance to avoid (ie jinking)

that can be tested if you're committed enough

a static kill is not a real world test

re the pershing guidance, that was certainly the case with respect to the development of the indian SRBM, IRBM, TBM's and the core development eas actually a pershing missile - nit just its guidance system

 

[barney41]

How to account for the different crater sizes?

 

[gf0012-aust]

How to account for the different crater sizes?

crater sizes are due to issues of topography and yield

a variation on either will make a difference.

+ its a test area - so it will be cratered from other weapons anyway - I'd bet that higher resolution sat imagery would shows that the site has been cratered before and that it has fill ins from prev tests

 

[Ranger25]

US, Japan set up SOSUS line

The USN and Japanese Self Defense forces are working to establish a SOSUS line to detect PLAN naval movements




Japan, U.S. running undersea listening post to detect Chinese subs | The Japan Times

 

[AegisFC]

The four Rota based Burkes are getting SeaRAM upgrades to provide self defense capability while they are in BMD mode.

Navy Integrating SeaRAM on Rota-Based DDGs; First Installation Complete In November - USNI News

 

[barney41]

SeaRAM also recently launched successfully from LCS for the first time.

For the long term, the Navy and Raytheon have achieved a major milestone in the AMDR Program. The new radar will be installed on new Flight III Burkes. Curious if it will be possible to retrofit it into earlier builds? In any case, in a networked CEC environment a single AMDR's view of the battlespace would be fused and shared with other friendlies.


US Navy completes CDR of Raytheon’s air and missile defence radar - Naval Technology
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150610-raytheon.html

 

[Blackshoe]

The four Rota based Burkes are getting SeaRAM upgrades to provide self defense capability while they are in BMD mode.

Navy Integrating SeaRAM on Rota-Based DDGs; First Installation Complete In November - USNI News

I've been waiting for them to do that for a long time. Fantastic move, and makes perfect sense.

Logical answer to me is they replace MT21 and leave 22, but that's just a guess.

As the story notes, software integration will be interesting to work out, but that's what Dahlgren's for, right?

 

[AegisFC]

I've been waiting for them to do that for a long time. Fantastic move, and makes perfect sense.

Logical answer to me is they replace MT21 and leave 22, but that's just a guess.

As the story notes, software integration will be interesting to work out, but that's what Dahlgren's for, right?

I'm not sure there will be much software integration, SEA RAM is being installed as a completely stand alone system while the ships are running BMD software.

My least favorite phrase "Well, it worked in Dahlgren!".

 

[Ranger25]

USN accepts sixth LCS

The Navy has accepted the third Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship Milwaukee (LCS-5) in a Friday ceremony, the service announced.

The 3,400-ton ship is the sixth LCS overall to enter Navy service and will commission in Milwaukee before transiting to its homeport at Naval Station San Diego, Calif.

The ship will join USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) and Austal USA built ships USS Independence (LCS-2), USS Coronado (LCS-4) and the soon-to-be-commissioned Jackson (LCS-6) in San Diego following its Nov. 21 commissioning.

Milwaukee completed and passed its acceptance trials in mid-September during a five-day trial period in the Great Lakes near the Marinette Marine Shipyard in Wisconsin.

When the ship commissions in November it will be the first ship to enter the service from a 2010 $8.9 billion block-buy deal between Austal USA and Lockheed Martin for 20 LCS — 10 of each variant.
“With each LCS delivered, we have succeeded in driving down costs by incorporating lessons learned to provide the Navy with a highly capable and flexible ship,” said LCS program manager Capt. Tom Anderson in a Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) statement.
“We are honored to place the Milwaukee in the able hands of her crew as they set sail for the ship’s commissioning.”

Freedom-Class Littoral Combat Ship Milwaukee Delivers to Navy - USNI News

 

[FormerDirtDart]

LCS To Get Missiles for Next Deployment

A directive has been issued for the installation of an unspecified over the horizon missile aboard the Freedom and the Coronado, the next two LCSs scheduled for deployment to the Western Pacific during 2016.

“The objective is to install the OTH missile system aboard all in-service LCS deploying to forward operating stations starting in fiscal year 2016,” Rear Adm. Pete Fanta (director of surface warfare at the Pentagon) wrote in the directive, “as well as on all under-construction LCS prior to their commissioning ceremonies.”

A specific missile was not identified, initial installations are understood to be the Harpoon and Kongsberg NSM. According to sources, each ship will have a different system installed, though there is no requirement to fully integrate the missiles with the LCS' fire control system

The OTH system will be considered part of the surface warfare package, and might also be carried when the anti-submarine warfare package is embarked. However, weight constraints will preclude carrying the missiles, when the mine countermeasure module is embarked.