US Navy News and updates

ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
jasonfreeland said:
They are developing a deck launcher for them as a Harpoon replacement and it looks like I found an answer to my question. They will be of comparable size and weight to the Mk 141.

navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/march-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3761-exclusive-first-image-of-the-lockheed-martin-lrasm-top-side-launcher.html

I know they frown on low post count link posting, but hopefully I can get a pass on this one. Lurking for six years should count for something. ;)

Edit: Looks like the LRASM is about 500# heavier per round than Harpoon per spec sheet.
Click to expand...
Welcome aboard cobber. Jason, don't stress about the post count and posting links. All it means is that the html coding doesn't activate. Personally I prefer people post the ink and if others want to chase it up they can copy and paste. Here is the link: Exclusive: First Image of the Lockheed Martin LRASM Top Side Launcher
 
C

colay1

Member
humphuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand the new Frigate will feature an upgraded radar. I am puzzled though that there isn't a provision for a more robust AAW capability. The forthcoming ESSM with an active seeker would seem to be ideal, specially if the Frigate is tasked with escort duty sans AEGIS ship.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/04/essm-seasparrow-emd.html

Raytheon moves to full-scale development of RIM-162 ESSM Block 2 ship-defense missile

WASHINGTON, 17 April 2015. Missile experts at the Raytheon Co. are moving forward with a project to design a next-generation shipboard missile able to defeat a wide variety of aircraft and missile threats with an active radar seeker than can operate independently of the launch ship.
Officials of the U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington announced a $517.3 million contract to the Raytheon Missile Systems segment in Tucson, Ariz., earlier this month for full-scale development of the RIM-162 Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2. RIM stands for radar intercept missile.
The ESSM Block 2, scheduled for deployment with the Navy and allied navies in 2020, is a ship self-defense missile with a dual-mode X-band radar seeker than can engage enemy planes and missiles at ranges beyond 25 miles.
 
J

jasonfreeland

New Member
colay1 said:
I understand the new Frigate will feature an upgraded radar. I am puzzled though that there isn't a provision for a more robust AAW capability. The forthcoming ESSM with an active seeker would seem to be ideal, specially if the Frigate is tasked with escort duty sans AEGIS ship.


Raytheon moves to full-scale development of RIM-162 ESSM Block 2 ship-defense missile

WASHINGTON, 17 April 2015. Missile experts at the Raytheon Co. are moving forward with a project to design a next-generation shipboard missile able to defeat a wide variety of aircraft and missile threats with an active radar seeker than can operate independently of the launch ship.
Officials of the U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington announced a $517.3 million contract to the Raytheon Missile Systems segment in Tucson, Ariz., earlier this month for full-scale development of the RIM-162 Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2. RIM stands for radar intercept missile.
The ESSM Block 2, scheduled for deployment with the Navy and allied navies in 2020, is a ship self-defense missile with a dual-mode X-band radar seeker than can engage enemy planes and missiles at ranges beyond 25 miles.
Click to expand...
The McCain white paper calls for replacing the frigate design with one that does the following ": (1) attack enemy surface ships at over-the-horizon ranges with multiple salvos; (2) defend nearby noncombatant ships from air and missile threats; (3) conduct long duration escort or patrol missions, including anti submarine warfare, without frequent refueling; and (4) survive in contested environments." To do number 2, it would have to have some form of medium to long range missile like the ESSM. Hopefully that part will get implemented if nothing else does.

It's a good read and is available below, add the www

mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/25bff0ec-481e-466a-843f-68ba5619e6d8/restoring-american-power-7.pdf
 
H

humphuy

New Member
They are developing a deck launcher for them as a Harpoon replacement and it looks like I found an answer to my question. They will be of comparable size and weight to the Mk 141.

navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/march-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3761-exclusive-first-image-of-the-lockheed-martin-lrasm-top-side-launcher.html

I know they frown on low post count link posting, but hopefully I can get a pass on this one. Lurking for six years should count for something.

Edit: Looks like the LRASM is about 500# heavier per round than Harpoon per spec sheet.
jasonfreeland said:
The McCain white paper calls for replacing the frigate design with one that does the following ": (1) attack enemy surface ships at over-the-horizon ranges with multiple salvos; (2) defend nearby noncombatant ships from air and missile threats; (3) conduct long duration escort or patrol missions, including anti submarine warfare, without frequent refueling; and (4) survive in contested environments." To do number 2, it would have to have some form of medium to long range missile like the ESSM. Hopefully that part will get implemented if nothing else does.

It's a good read and is available below, add the www

mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/25bff0ec-481e-466a-843f-68ba5619e6d8/restoring-american-power-7.pdf
Click to expand...
 
C

colay1

Member
Some positive news re the innovative Advanced Arresting Gear which has had a troubled development. The Navy seems satisfied it has the kinks worked out clearing the way for adoption on succeeding Ford-class CVNs. Together with EMALS, AAG should offer less stressful cats & traps for fixed wing a/c and future UAVs.


https://news.usni.org/2017/01/23/navy-sticking-advanced-arresting-gear-next-carrier

The Navy is electing to use the controversial Advanced Arresting Gear on its next Gerald R. Ford-class carrier, John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), USNI News has learned.

Earlier this month, the Navy’s chief weapons buyer notified Congress it was set to install the General Atomics-built AAG on JFK following an evaluation between the AAG and the legacy Mk-7 MOD3 hydraulic arresting system found on the Nimitz-class carriers...

"AAG works,” said Capt. Steve Tedford, Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (PMA 251) program manager, whose team manages the recovery system program said in a statement.
“The progress of AAG testing this past year has been significant and has demonstrated the system’s ability to meet Navy requirements. The team overcame many challenges to get the system to this point and ensure its readiness to support CVN 78 and future Ford-class ships.”
 
C

colay1

Member
The Navy is upping the stakes with plans to test a 150Kw-class laser aboard ship within the year. The concept of an "energy magazine" that could be retrofitted to ships that would otherwise not have the electrical oomph to power the laser is intriguing. I'd say this is a weapon system that Congress and Trump would love, who wouldn't want a death ray after all?:D

The US Navy plans to fire laser weapons off of ships within a year - Business Insider


The Navy plans to fire a 150-kw weapon off a test ship within a year, he said. “Then a year later, we’ll have that on a carrier or a destroyer or both.”

That’s quite a jump from the kw AN/SEQ-3(XN-1) Laser Weapon System (LaWS), which deployed in 2014 on the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce...

The paper said, “The new DDG-1000 may have enough electrical energy, but other platforms … may require some type of ‘energy magazine.’ This magazine stores energy for on-demand usage by the laser. It can be made up of batteries, capacitors, or flywheels, and would recharge between laser pulses. The energy magazine should allow for sustained usage against a swarm of targets in an engagement lasting up to twenty minutes.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yep, rip money out now then be amazed when everything falls over in a decade because it wasn't done properly and sustainably in the first place. Hardly surprising as it is the usual result when people ignore lessons learned and make the same mistakes over and over again.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AegisFC said:
Never-mind the Virginia's are the poster child for a program done right. Months ahead of schedule and under budget...
Click to expand...
yep, universally held up as the best managed sub construction programme in the world, and used as a reference whenever large ship building progs come up in discussions

hell, they were a golden mile ahead of every other international programme from a capability, competency and efficiency perspective in 2006 - and they're well beyond that point now
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
He is being an idiot.. suprise suprise... That said there are only two way's he can lower the cost any more if he is lucky.

1. Larger batch order then the previous 10

2. Increase annual production.

Option 1 might achieve some saving's while option 2 would require significant upfront investment in production capacity with long term production garauntee's to make it a viable choice.

He should focus less on the USN which excluding the issues (mostly sorted I believe) with the CVN's has there sh** sorted out and look at the land based forces with there several stop start programs and the billions wasted (At times when there already existed product's that could mostly meet the requirements but lacked being 'American').

Better yet.. ignore the US armed forces and get the US tax code sorted... 60,000+ pages of tax codes..... Fixing that would make more of a difference to the US economy then anything done with the armed forces.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
vonnoobie said:
He should focus less on the USN which excluding the issues (mostly sorted I believe) with the CVN's has there sh** sorted out.
Click to expand...
The USN is more or less sorted except for the LCS program. It should be a Trump target above and beyond either Air Frorce One or the JSF.
 
J

jasonfreeland

New Member
gf0012-aust said:
yep, universally held up as the best managed sub construction programme in the world, and used as a reference whenever large ship building progs come up in discussions

hell, they were a golden mile ahead of every other international programme from a capability, competency and efficiency perspective in 2006 - and they're well beyond that point now
Click to expand...
All this talk about the Virginia class, led me to refresh my memory on Block V. I stumbled across a pretty good article describing the Virginia Payload Module and thought I would share. Add the www

public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/issues/archives/issue_47/virginia.html
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
As per other posts, the Virginia program is a shining example (not to mention critical) program that has been so good. Somebody should put together a how to manual.
Click to expand...
no shortage of invites to go and discuss with them about how they did it. I've been to a few - and was left gobsmacked a little bit more everytime I'd been

I'm less critical of LCS despite the downsides along the way - there's a good speech by outgoing SecNav Mabus on the benefits of it.

he addresses some of the things like the "green navy" which tends to get an immediate adverse reaction from those opposite on the political divide, and some old guard sailors. however, when you hear the logic and what differences its made at the conops level then it might trigger some suspension in animosity :)
 
J

jasonfreeland

New Member
ngatimozart said:
The USN has ship and aircraft maintenance issues that need funding before increasing the fleet is funded. Fix what you have first then build more.
Click to expand...
Many articles lately agreeing with this. The one that comes to mind called for 2 billion for maintenance, another San Antonio and some Super Hornets. Add the https://

news.usni.org/2017/01/24/update-to-navys-unfunded-priorities-list-now-emphasizes-readiness-would-add-more-super-hornets-additional-amphib-ship
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top