US Navy News and updates

CB90

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
colay1 said:
This is a bit puzzling. Earlier this year the Navy sank a FFG the USS Reuben James using a SM-6.

Now it is reported that a recent SINKEX starring the FFG USS Thach was conducted and tne ship absorbed a barrage of missiles including aparently 4x Harpoons, Mavericks, Hellfires, a 2000-lb bomb, a 500-lb bomb topped off by a Mk-48 Torpedo. The ship sank eventually after 12 hours.

Makes me wonder if the Reuben James was hit by more than SM-6.

Watch the Navy Send a Retired Frigate Out With a Bang
Click to expand...
For a SINKEX, you try to schedule the "batting lineup" to try to maximize training value.

In other words, your leadoff hitters are the guys who aren't going to finish the ship off, so the Mav's, Hellfires, smaller bombs, etc.
Harpoon is also relatively unlikely to get a quick kill, but has a large enough warhead and entry profile to be a possible problem.

And if anything's left when the others are done, the heavies are called in (2000lb bombs, then the MK48).

Goal is to maximize training value...then you also want to absolutely sink the thing, because then otherwise it becomes a real pain in the ass to deal with the floating hulk.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A discussion several years back, possibly on here, suggesting a future frigate with medium calibre guns and directed energy weapons (plus of course ASW torpedoes and helicopter facilities) could possibly do without an air defence missile system at all. It rapidly degenerated into an argument about highly polished, laser resistant anti ship missiles, completely missing the point of high performance gun fired guided projectiles complemented by directed energy weapons.

The original discussion was brought about by the Italian Volcano and Dart guided projectiles as well as proposals to use 155mm fused munitions in a CRAM role. These new rounds obviously take it to the next level of capability and viability meaning we could see useful combatants that are either somewhat smaller than now or small combatants that are somewhat more capable and survivable.
 
CB90

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
A discussion several years back, possibly on here, suggesting a future frigate with medium calibre guns and directed energy weapons (plus of course ASW torpedoes and helicopter facilities) could possibly do without an air defence missile system at all. It rapidly degenerated into an argument about highly polished, laser resistant anti ship missiles, completely missing the point of high performance gun fired guided projectiles complemented by directed energy weapons.

The original discussion was brought about by the Italian Volcano and Dart guided projectiles as well as proposals to use 155mm fused munitions in a CRAM role. These new rounds obviously take it to the next level of capability and viability meaning we could see useful combatants that are either somewhat smaller than now or small combatants that are somewhat more capable and survivable.
Click to expand...
My concern with that is the need for the "frigate" to then have enough spare power to run an anti ship laser, as well as run a radar powerful enough to pick up a threat far out enough for the laser to do something about it. On top of your sonar systems, normal ship services, etc.

Ways around it (flywheels or other power storage), but none of them are exactly compact solutions.

Power demands tend to favor larger ships in Directed Energy Weapon applications.

Gun projectile research has been interesting though. Hypervelocity projectiles fired out of existing gun designs are apparently the next great thing to happen in guns.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
CB90 said:
My concern with that is the need for the "frigate" to then have enough spare power to run an anti ship laser, as well as run a radar powerful enough to pick up a threat far out enough for the laser to do something about it. On top of your sonar systems, normal ship services, etc.

Ways around it (flywheels or other power storage), but none of them are exactly compact solutions.

Power demands tend to favor larger ships in Directed Energy Weapon applications.

Gun projectile research has been interesting though. Hypervelocity projectiles fired out of existing gun designs are apparently the next great thing to happen in guns.
Click to expand...
Agreed, quantity (size) has a quality all of its own and there will always be a place for cruisers and destroyers. What I was thinking of was something the size of an LCS or ANZAC with a 5" gun or two and lasers instead of missiles and especially VLS. A containerised GT generator on a multi mission deck, or even super capacitors and a hybrid electric propulsion system comes to mind.

Looking more at an affordable upgrade for smaller combatants than a replacement for larger ones (i.e. the multiple VLS types). Think ASW frigates and corvettes rather than the 7000t plus majors.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Volkodav said:
a 5" gun or two and lasers instead of missiles and especially VLS. A containerised GT generator on a multi mission deck, or even super capacitors and a hybrid electric propulsion system comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff and maybe add a railgun into the mix. Too bad some of the fusion reactor concepts on the "Space and Technology" thread aren't moving ahead very fast. Imagine a Zumwalt with such a power source.
 
CB90

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
Agreed, quantity (size) has a quality all of its own and there will always be a place for cruisers and destroyers. What I was thinking of was something the size of an LCS or ANZAC with a 5" gun or two and lasers instead of missiles and especially VLS. A containerised GT generator on a multi mission deck, or even super capacitors and a hybrid electric propulsion system comes to mind.

Looking more at an affordable upgrade for smaller combatants than a replacement for larger ones (i.e. the multiple VLS types). Think ASW frigates and corvettes rather than the 7000t plus majors.
Click to expand...
Maybe. It's certainly an interesting idea, simply because the alternative to that is ESSM/RAM.

However, lasers/guns vs missiles is likely going to force a "power vs energy" kind of tradeoff. In other words, lasers/guns can go all day, but are more easily overwhelmed by a single large salvo, while missiles are tougher to overwhelm, but run the magazine dry more quickly.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
CB90 said:
Maybe. It's certainly an interesting idea, simply because the alternative to that is ESSM/RAM.

However, lasers/guns vs missiles is likely going to force a "power vs energy" kind of tradeoff. In other words, lasers/guns can go all day, but are more easily overwhelmed by a single large salvo, while missiles are tougher to overwhelm, but run the magazine dry more quickly.
Click to expand...
I think the future surface combatant will have a combination of both. VLS mag and deck gun(s) ideally with HV shells, railgins, and lasers all capable of offensive and defensive operations
 
C

colay1

Member
Some good news for the Navy. There are reports that the new FFG will be a slower ship. Could they be rethinking the propulsion system configuration? Or will the FFG simply be a heavier platform featuring more armor, weapons, etc.?

LCS Fort Worth’s Return Journey Brightens


WASHINGTON – The outlook earlier this year for the homeward journey of the littoral combat ship Fort Worth was grim. The damage from a January 12 pierside incident in Singapore seemed to be severe, bad enough that it was a question whether any the ship’s four main propulsion engines could be brought online.

Soon it turned out that the ship’s powerful gas turbines, normally used only to run at high speed, could be engaged. But the combining gear – a complex piece of machinery that allows the two turbines and two main propulsion diesel engines to be engaged in various combinations with the ship’s four water jets – had been wrecked in a procedural mishap. As a result, the diesels – essential for economical cruising at any speed – couldn’t be used.

But when technicians eventually took apart the combining gear for a closer examination, the damage turned out not to be as severe as expected. The Navy said today repairs are complete, and the Fort Worth will be able to use its full, four-engine power plant when it leaves Singapore.
 
Last edited:
R

r3mu511

New Member
colay1 said:
There are reports that the new FFG will be a slower ship. Could they be rethinking the propulsion system configuration? Or will the FFG simply be a heavier platform featuring more armor, weapons, etc.?
Click to expand...
this GAO report goes into detail on the SSC task force study which was conducted resulting in the selection of the minor modified LCS as the new USN frigate: U.S. GAO - Littoral Combat Ship: Need to Address Fundamental Weaknesses in LCS and Frigate Acquisition Strategies

in the SSC study, modified LCS variants consisted (at most) of variations in hull dimensions (ie. for the major modified variant; the minor modified variant did not make any changes to hull dimension), no mention of changes to propulsion was mentioned... decrease in speed and range/endurance was apparently due to the added systems installed for the frigate version (which eventually was decided to be the minor modified variant with combat capability configuration #7 as per the report)...
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The U.S. Navy General Guidance for the Classification of Naval Vessels and Battle Force Ship Counting Procedures, issued June 14, 2016 has been released. It can be downloaded here.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The USN has concluded a two week period of testing the CMV22 Osprey COD aboard the CVN USS Carl Vinson. The testing was done by USMC Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1. The CAG aboard the Carl Vinson was impressed with the Osprey and could see some distinct advantages over traditional fixed wing COD aircraft.
 
R

r3mu511

New Member
^just a couple of technical points to note about that old LA Times article:

Yet because of Earth’s curvature, SBX would not be able to see a baseball at such a distance — about 2,500 miles — unless the ball was 870 or more miles above San Francisco.

That is about 200 miles higher than the expected maximum altitude of a long-range missile headed for the U.S
Click to expand...
the "870 miles" value they give appears to have used an approximation for the optical horizon rather than the rf horizon... at microwave frequencies the refractive index of the atmosphere bends the rf waves downwards more than at optical frequencies resulting in rf radiation which curves more with the earth's curvature thus giving a greater horizon... thus a 2500 miles (4000 km) horizon requires an altitude of ~589 miles (~943 km), not 870 miles... this altitude of 589 miles is within the 670 miles or so altitude they give for ICBMs... hence the 2500 miles range of the SBX is applicable to ICBMs at the 670 mile altitude they give...

SBX’s powers of magnification belied a fundamental shortcoming. The radar’s field of vision is extremely narrow: 25 degrees, compared with 90 to 120 degrees for conventional radars.

Experts liken SBX to a soda straw and say that finding a sequence of approaching missiles with it would be impractical.
Click to expand...
at the 2500 miles (4000 km) range of SBX, a 25 deg FOV corresponds to a ~1745 km long arc of space through which the SBX can scan to perform it's discrimination function... not quite as much a "soda straw" as it first appears to be...

but all moot anyway as the follow on to SBX, the LRDR (long range discrimination radar) will allow for a dual array configuration (2nd face to be populated when budget permits I suppose) even if it's arrays are LFOV arrays (though I suppose if budget permits to allow the necessary tx/rx element density they would go for FFOV arrays), see here for an interesting tech discussion on the tradeoffs (PAG product, FOV, etc.) for the LRDR: https://mostlymissiledefense.com/20...discrimination-radar-at-s-band-april-20-2015/
 
R

r3mu511

New Member
flight 3 will actually start with ddg-127, build progression from flight 2A to 3 would be:

planned order fy16: flight 2A: ddg-123, -124
planned order fy16: flight 3: ddg-127
planned order fy17: flight 2A: ddg-125, -126
planned order fy18: flight 3: ddg-128 up

you can watch here the explanation by Capt. Vandroff (PM ddg51 program PEO ships) as to why the odd numbering order resulted due to the 10-ship batch procurements the USN had done for the ddg in conjunction with the funding congress had provided for a 3rd ship for fy16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ3iZHLFtWU
 
R

Redrighthand

New Member
On an unrelated note, I noticed on War is Boring, an article about US Army Apaches training for ship based missions - apparently to counter small Iranian boats with cannon and hellfires. I couldn't help but wonder, what about Seahawks? Anyone cast some light on this further?
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Well, an Apache can carry double the number of hellfires and the seahawks may be busy hunting subs.
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
One angle I heard a while ago when Apache first started ship trials was that the Army didn't want to be forgotten in the Pacific pivot and be side-lined compared to the Marines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top