US Navy News and updates

[barney41]

In terms of affordability, Harpoon may have a significant advantage.The Navy has them in inventory and spending $600K to upgrade existing stock looks like a good deal.

OTOH, NSM is stealthy and has evasive maneuveeing to confound defenses.


Navy League 2015: Boeing developing kit to upgrade Harpoon missiles for extended range - IHS Jane's 360

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting, I wonder if the launch canisters will eventually be integrated with the mission module systems of the LCS.

 

[barney41]

Interesting, I wonder if the launch canisters will eventually be integrated with the mission module systems of the LCS.

Makes sense, maybe when they make up their mind on which missile to adopt. In the meantime, the Navy may reintroduce AShM capability aboard it's subs.


U.S. Navy Considering Adding Anti-Ship Missiles Back to Submarine Force - USNI News

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I came across some art from Kongsberg at USNI News depicting possible launcher positions on the seperate LCS models.
View attachment 6591

One thing I noted on the Independence-class mounting (left) is that their depiction seems to indicate the desire to leave the forward module bay free for the vertical launched Hellfire surface to surface missile module (SSMM)
(remember, this bay is originally designed to only accommodate the 6 1/2 ft (2m) tall NLOS missile canisters)

For the Freedom-class (right), the only other location that I can think of to mount the launchers & possible reduce the ships signature, would be to put them in the topside decoy/chaff launcher/liferaft bay (just forward of the Mk 44 module bays). There is already hull openings (for the liferaft canisters) that could likely used for missile exhaust ports.
I figure the decoy/chaff launcher could possibly be moved a little aft, adjacent to the SSMM bay (just aft of the Mk 44 bays).
But I assume you might also need to consider the additional weight being mounted that high up on the ship having some effect during high speed maneuvering, as additional Kongsberg literature I've seen states that an 8 missile mounting configuration weighs around 17,000 lbs (7700 kilo). And, this might be even worse with a Harpoon launcher as a Harpoon weighs about 70% more than the NSM.

I included a larger version of the above image

 

[Ranger25]

I came across some art from Kongsberg at USNI News depicting possible launcher positions on the seperate LCS models.
View attachment 6591

One thing I noted on the Independence-class mounting (left) is that their depiction seems to indicate the desire to leave the forward module bay free for the vertical launched Hellfire surface to surface missile module (SSMM)
(remember, this bay is originally designed to only accommodate the 6 1/2 ft (2m) tall NLOS missile canisters)

For the Freedom-class (right), the only other location that I can think of to mount the launchers & possible reduce the ships signature, would be to put them in the topside decoy/chaff launcher/liferaft bay (just forward of the Mk 44 module bays). There is already hull openings (for the liferaft canisters) that could likely used for missile exhaust ports.
I figure the decoy/chaff launcher could possibly be moved a little aft, adjacent to the SSMM bay (just aft of the Mk 44 bays).
But I assume you might also need to consider the additional weight being mounted that high up on the ship having some effect during high speed maneuvering, as additional Kongsberg literature I've seen states that an 8 missile mounting configuration weighs around 17,000 lbs (7700 kilo). And, this might be even worse with a Harpoon launcher as a Harpoon weighs about 70% more than the NSM.

I included a larger version of the above image

Yes, and the NSM was successfully tested this past summer. I think the. Over makes great sense and is in line with the CNO's intent of using off the shelf tech to increase and distribute lethality.

The NSM is ready now, the new block II Harpoon, to my knowledge, is still not in production

 

[alexsa]

I came across some art from Kongsberg at USNI News depicting possible launcher positions on the seperate LCS models.
View attachment 6591

One thing I noted on the Independence-class mounting (left) is that their depiction seems to indicate the desire to leave the forward module bay free for the vertical launched Hellfire surface to surface missile module (SSMM)
(remember, this bay is originally designed to only accommodate the 6 1/2 ft (2m) tall NLOS missile canisters)

For the Freedom-class (right), the only other location that I can think of to mount the launchers & possible reduce the ships signature, would be to put them in the topside decoy/chaff launcher/liferaft bay (just forward of the Mk 44 module bays). There is already hull openings (for the liferaft canisters) that could likely used for missile exhaust ports.
I figure the decoy/chaff launcher could possibly be moved a little aft, adjacent to the SSMM bay (just aft of the Mk 44 bays).
But I assume you might also need to consider the additional weight being mounted that high up on the ship having some effect during high speed maneuvering, as additional Kongsberg literature I've seen states that an 8 missile mounting configuration weighs around 17,000 lbs (7700 kilo). And, this might be even worse with a Harpoon launcher as a Harpoon weighs about 70% more than the NSM.

I included a larger version of the above image

Just postulating .....with the Independence mountings the location decision could also be based on deck strength and sea state considerations
.
If the launchers were mounted over the module bay additional reinforcing may be required given it is essentially a hole. The structure aft of it is continuous.

The other sea state factor is the long fore body will be more prone to white and green water over the very exposed deck mounted canisters. This is because the bow will dive in a steep swell. This would be less of an issue further aft.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Just postulating .....with the Independence mountings the location decision could also be based on deck strength and sea state considerations
.
If the launchers were mounted over the module bay additional reinforcing may be required given it is essentially a hole. The structure aft of it is continuous.

The other sea state factor is the long fore body will be more prone to white and green water over the very exposed deck mounted canisters. This is because the bow will dive in a steep swell. This would be less of an issue further aft.

I was pointing out the they had left the SSMM bay clear mostly because around a year ago (I think) Navy Recognition posted an article showing LCS models featuring NSMs mounted in various module bays
View attachment 6593

In relocating that article just now, I came across a different on showing LCS models depicting NSMs mounted in the same manner as the Kongsberg concept art I posyed the other day

 

[ASSAIL]

The other sea state factor is the long fore body will be more prone to white and green water over the very exposed deck mounted canisters. This is because the bow will dive in a steep swell. This would be less of an issue further aft.

I understood that the bow mounted winglets/canards mitigated against this even at quite moderate speeds?

 

[alexsa]

I understood that the bow mounted winglets/canards mitigated against this even at quite moderate speeds?

Depends on the sea state. The parent seaframe commercial design was not intended to operate in adverse conditions. Certainly in moderate conditions the t foil is impressive.

 

[barney41]

True to it's word, the US Navy asserted it's claim to free passage in international waters by sending a warship into waters near one of China's reclaimed islands in the SCS. There had been speculation that the LCS the USS Fort Worth currently operating out of Singapore would be tasked for the mission but the Navy opted for a more potent DDG the USS Lassen to make it's point.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Navy decided it was a good time to release video footage of the Libyan MiG-23 shootdowns in 1981 when the USN was engaged in a similar freedom of passage exercise.

So the message was sent and all eyes are on the Chinese response. One report out of China raised the possibility of the Chinese employing ramming as a countermeasure. The USN has indicated it will continue to sail where it pleases in compliance with international law and likely increase the frequency of such "sail-bys" so things could come to a head before long.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The USN has indicated it will continue to sail where it pleases in compliance with international law and likely increase the frequency of such "sail-bys" so things could come to a head before long.

it has resulted in a dialogue trigger......

 

[CB90]

Might add, the Chinese sent ships through US territorial waters a few months back. In accordance with international law, but it's pretty silly to do something like that then get bent out of shape about FONOPS coming the other way.

 

[swerve]

... especially when the thing they're sailing past doesn't even qualify for territorial waters under UNCLOS, which China signed up to ...

 

[Ranger25]

Amazing lack of SSMs in US fleet

I continue to be amazed at the nearly complete lack of offensive anti ship power of US Surface combatants. Other that the CGs, no US surface combatant carries Harpoons in its standard load out AFAIK. The ten plus years of decline in offensive surface to surface capabilities has to be addresses with more stop gap measures.

I find this utterly amazing/concerning especially given how Redfor navies load even the smallest ships with AShM capabilities.

The USN faces not just this but also a significant standoff gap until if/when the LRASM(2018/2019 for air launched initial increment buy of 90) finally gets the ability to be MK41 VLS packed. Until then continued reliance on the CSGs/SSNs will be its only means

.

 

[CB90]

I continue to be amazed at the nearly complete lack of offensive anti ship power of US Surface combatants. Other that the CGs, no US surface combatant carries Harpoons in its standard load out AFAIK. The ten plus years of decline in offensive surface to surface capabilities has to be addresses with more stop gap measures.

I find this utterly amazing/concerning especially given how Redfor navies load even the smallest ships with AShM capabilities.

The USN faces not just this but also a significant standoff gap until if/when the LRASM(2018/2019 for air launched initial increment buy of 90) finally gets the ability to be MK41 VLS packed. Until then continued reliance on the CSGs/SSNs will be its only means

.

It's not ideal, but it's not exactly critical.

For starters, about half the DDGs carry Harpoons. It's the "newer" ones that don't (flight decks). And Harpoons are pretty much perfect for schwacking the small ships with AShM capabilities, because they're not very good defensively.

Also, the RedFor arms everything with AShMs because they don't have parity in air or subs.

Surface ships aren't ideal for long range missile exchanges anyway. Nothing to ignore (as it can still be deadly if the circumstances are right), but using CSGs and SSNs is a far more flexible combination.

So again, not ideal, but not critical...yet. Which is why the trend will be reversed with a VLS AShM.

 

[barney41]

The Top Brass of the Navy's Surface Warfare community discuss the shift to a Distributed Lethality model. All good as it provides a more potent threat that any potential foe has to deal with. As if dealing with CSG and SSN threats isn't bad enough. IIRC they actually wargamed scenarios with LCS armed with a notional AShM with a 100nm range and there were some interesting CONOPs employed to leverage the capability.

'Distributed Lethality' | U.S. Naval Institute

 

[Ranger25]

The Top Brass of the Navy's Surface Warfare community discuss the shift to a Distributed Lethality model. All good as it provides a more potent threat that any potential foe has to deal with. As if dealing with CSG and SSN threats isn't bad enough. IIRC they actually wargamed scenarios with LCS armed with a notional AShM with a 100nm range and there were some interesting CONOPs employed to leverage the capability.

'Distributed Lethality' | U.S. Naval Institute

I'm a fan of the new Distributed Leathality concept indeed. I did read about small SAGs of LCSs causing trouble. Great concept IMO

 

[Ranger25]

The Top Brass of the Navy's Surface Warfare community discuss the shift to a Distributed Lethality model. All good as it provides a more potent threat that any potential foe has to deal with. As if dealing with CSG and SSN threats isn't bad enough. IIRC they actually wargamed scenarios with LCS armed with a notional AShM with a 100nm range and there were some interesting CONOPs employed to leverage the capability.

'Distributed Lethality' | U.S. Naval Institute

More info pertaining to the Distribet Leathality. Software uogrades on the SM6 may point at further surface to surface capabilities. Would be a nice enhancement IMO


The Navy’s surface ship weapons office is developing software to bring additional mission sets to the Standard Missile-6 surface-to-air missile, which may be ready for fielding in the next year or two.

Capt. Michael Ladner, program manager of the surface ship weapons office in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS 3.0), told USNI News that there are several new missions that could be added to SM-6 – beyond its advertised capability of air defense against manned and unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles – through software-only upgrades.

“Our focus in IWS 3.0, in surface ship weapons, has been, how do we go find opportunities to take advantage of existing capability in the missiles above and beyond what they were initially required to go do, to see if we could provide an affordable capability faster to the fleet by taking advantage again of the capabilities already in the missiles [and adding] those new mission sets,” he said in an Oct. 26 interview.
“Of course the new missions are classified, but we are taking advantage above what was originally intended for these missiles to go do.”


Navy Developing Software To Give Standard Missile-6 Additional Mission Capabilities - USNI News

 

[ADMk2]

I continue to be amazed at the nearly complete lack of offensive anti ship power of US Surface combatants. Other that the CGs, no US surface combatant carries Harpoons in its standard load out AFAIK. The ten plus years of decline in offensive surface to surface capabilities has to be addresses with more stop gap measures.

I find this utterly amazing/concerning especially given how Redfor navies load even the smallest ships with AShM capabilities.

The USN faces not just this but also a significant standoff gap until if/when the LRASM(2018/2019 for air launched initial increment buy of 90) finally gets the ability to be MK41 VLS packed. Until then continued reliance on the CSGs/SSNs will be its only means

.

Tomahawk and SM-2 and in future SM-6 have ASM capabilities, neither of which have issues with range, the 'standoff gap' you refer to.

Footage of Tomahawk missile punching a hole through a ship | Daily Mail Online

 

[swerve]

The USN has a considerable anti-ship capability in its SSNs.