US Navy News and updates

C

colay1

Member
The Navy's projections for a Distributed Fleet is notable for the major reliance on unmanned platforms which will form a major part of the infrastructure needed to provide the networked coverage of the battle space. I had been wondering about the notional increase in the numbers in the Navys Fleet Architecture Study projecting out to 2030 over the current plan.


https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/document-u-s-navy-fleet-architecture-study

Medium UUV : 16 to 183
Large UUV : 10 to 48
Large USV : 10 to 88

In contrast, the number of Large Surface Combatants is basically unchanged and there is a net increase of 10 FFs.

The following article was useful in fleshing out some of the rationale for the numbers and the roles they might fill in the Distributed Fleet concept.


https://news.usni.org/2017/03/09/pa...r-unmanned-boats-railgun-prepare-future-fight
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
colay1 said:
The Navy's projections for a Distributed Fleet is notable for the major reliance on unmanned platforms which will form a major part of the infrastructure needed to provide the networked coverage of the battle space. I had been wondering about the notional increase in the numbers in the Navys Fleet Architecture Study projecting out to 2030 over the current plan.


https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/document-u-s-navy-fleet-architecture-study

Medium UUV : 16 to 183
Large UUV : 10 to 48
Large USV : 10 to 88

In contrast, the number of Large Surface Combatants is basically unchanged and there is a net increase of 10 FFs.

The following article was useful in fleshing out some of the rationale for the numbers and the roles they might fill in the Distributed Fleet concept.


https://news.usni.org/2017/03/09/pa...r-unmanned-boats-railgun-prepare-future-fight
Click to expand...
Agreed and for the large anti LCS crowd the USN has shown that the LCS with an OTH AShM is very capable in war games. Even the LCS is small SAGs has proven to be a lethal combination and forces the opponent to more broadly defend. IMO the addition of that capability cannot come soon enough.

I agree with Volk and other about the utility and necessity of the platform

LCS Can Too Fight Russia, China: Navy Leaders « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary


‘If It Floats, It Fights’: Navy Seeks ‘Distributed Lethality’ « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
 
T

the concerned

Active Member
I'm part of a closed group on Facebook and there's a discussion on there about whether the US navy should consider conventional subs to compliment the nuclear ones to help combat the growing Chinese threat what do people on here think
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
the concerned said:
I'm part of a closed group on Facebook and there's a discussion on there about whether the US navy should consider conventional subs to compliment the nuclear ones to help combat the growing Chinese threat what do people on here think
Click to expand...
thats been discussed for the last 12 years (that was the first time it came up in discussions on a group I'm in)

there was a point in time where US boat builders were looking at different revenue streams and around 2004-2007 were actively looking at getting into the market. I know 2 of them withdrew due to primary customer angst

its come up when the USN leased mini-me (gotland was the mini-me version of collins) as was seen as a test concept to evaluate conventionals with AIP as well as conducting specific threat assessments

its not going to be up to the builders - all 3 US companies I dealt with were prepared to build conventionals - all of them haven't despite some of them almost being given a captive market if they entered the space
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
the concerned said:
I'm part of a closed group on Facebook and there's a discussion on there about whether the US navy should consider conventional subs to compliment the nuclear ones to help combat the growing Chinese threat what do people on here think
Click to expand...
The conventional SSK vs SSN debate was resolved a bit back - here's a thing, you need almost two different training paths, two different career paths for this all - some of the parts can be common but a lot of the "how it works" stuff is different.

So, two spares chains, two training paths, two different designs and worse...an SSK can't go places as fast as an SSN so the argument that an SSN can't be in two places at the same time is weakened by the reality that it can get to two places much much more quickly than an SSK.

Conqueror (for an example) stored for a war patrol and then steamed south for 8K miles *before* starting patrol and she went South at 20kts - which is wayyyy faster than an SSK could have done.

Add to the fact that a lot of the better SSK's approach the price of an SSN in serial production (a short run of an SSK looks very close to an "end of order" Virginia..) and you're into quite a quandary.

What's the reasoning behind wanting SSK's, put it that way? If there's a specific mission, let's have at it - if it's "more numbers for less money" I say not so..
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
StobieWan said:
What's the reasoning behind wanting SSK's, put it that way? If there's a specific mission, let's have at it - if it's "more numbers for less money" I say not so..
Click to expand...
its also not a capability issue - some of the prev debate was that conventionals were better in the green - and thats just not the case for USN nukes. their sensor arrays to go into shallow waters are far better than the majority if not all of the conventionals - and they can do it because decent sensors and fitouts are energy hungry - and the only conventionals that can start competing on having decent onboard energy to power better systems are the large fleet conventionals such as owned by Australia and Japan

the nuke/conevntional debates from 5-10 years ago just don't fly anymore
 
C

colay1

Member
Re the SSK vs SSN debate, the MITRE argues it's case and the Navy prompltly shoots it down.


https://news.usni.org/2017/03/13/sets-up-debate-on-current-navy-platform

One debate came over whether a mainstay of the fleet – the nuclear-powered attack submarine – should continue to be the sole manned undersea platform for fighting a high-end conventional war. MITRE argued in its report that the Navy should invest in diesel submarines to supplement the Virginia-class boats, creating a more affordable high-low mix.


“Our concern was on the capacity side and actually bringing up the number of attack submarines,” Sunoy Banerjee, manager for MITRE’s Naval Research Development Test & Evaluation portfolio, said at the hearing.
“The diesels are going to have issues with speed of advance and magazine depth, they don’t have the magazine depth as they have in the Virginia [class]. But our thought was, base them forward – base them in Guam and Japan or in the Baltics – so they are close to the fight. And when the balloon goes up, flush them out early because it’s going to take them a while to get there. And the Virginias and the nuclear subs that are deploying from [the continental United States] or from other locations can speed into the [area of responsibility] and get on station very quickly. Once they’re on station, [diesel submarines are] something the adversary is going to have to worry about, so the thought there was this is a way of actually increasing the size of the submarine force relatively cheaply – because our back-of-the-envelope math suggests you can get three diesels for the cost of one Virginia – so as a way of increasing quickly to try to overcome the loss of the Los Angeles class as they retire out of the force.”





A Navy representative – speaking on behalf of the Navy FFA study group, and not the Navy requirements community – however, firmly denounced that idea.

“We don’t have the luxury of fighting close to our shore. We play an away game,” Charles Werchado, the deputy director of the Navy’s assessments division (OPNAV N81) said.
“If I was a country like China, I would buy a lot of diesels because I know you’re going to come and fight me here at home. We have to deploy, and the only way to deploy is to bring your own fuel with you. When we buy a Virginia, it comes with a lifetime of fuel. So I have nothing against diesel submarines, but you have to say, am I’m going to be fighting within 200 miles of where I’m based at? Or else now I have to buy extra oilers. I’m going to make them vulnerable when I refuel them; they’re going to have to snorkel and they’ll become vulnerable. It’s just not an option for us as long as we have to be a global navy.”
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Following the logic in the USN response Australia should have gone for SSNs years ago. The three SSKs for one Virginia is probably a furphy as well unless they are talking a very very basic boats with extremely limited capabilities. Big boats with high end combat systems cost a lot no matter how they are powered.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
a cogent lesson on the issue of logistics....

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/17/u-...230426561&mc_cid=1ddd77b29e&mc_eid=d7b25005c6
Click to expand...
Agreed and not to forget the total interoperability experienced by the RAN and USN during the CFA deployments to 7th Fleet during VN
In Subic we were given carte Blanche and this was returned in kind by RAN technical sailors often called to repair USN defects. These were the days when technical training was superb and many USN units were manned in large part by conscripts.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
USN SSK v SSN

gf0012-aust said:
a cogent lesson on the issue of logistics....

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/17/u-...230426561&mc_cid=1ddd77b29e&mc_eid=d7b25005c6
Click to expand...
If you take a good look at the Force structure survey from 10/16 it looks like the USN plans to augment the SSN fleet with classes of UUVs. Large and medium UUVs will be able to preform offensive and defensive operations autonomously or in concert with an SSN. (Think manned unmanned pairing like the US Army is. Is doing with the AH64 and Grey Eagle.).

Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This large (~90 ton submerged displacement) pier- launched autonomous vehicle will be capable of transiting to preprogrammed points with a large payload volume (~1,300 ft3). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
• Medium Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This is an autonomous vehicle capable of conducting pre-programmed independent operations once launched from a surface or subsurface host platform or shore facility.
• Unmanned Surface Vehicle: Similar to the UUV, this large (~80 ft length) pier-launched or well deck-launched autonomous vehicle can transit (200-300 NM) following pre- programmed points with a large payload capacity (~6,500 lbs). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point (pier or well deck) for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ranger25 said:
If you take a good look at the Force structure survey from 10/16 it looks like the USN plans to augment the SSN fleet with classes of UUVs. Large and medium UUVs will be able to preform offensive and defensive operations autonomously or in concert with an SSN. (Think manned unmanned pairing like the US Army is. Is doing with the AH64 and Grey Eagle.).

Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This large (~90 ton submerged displacement) pier- launched autonomous vehicle will be capable of transiting to preprogrammed points with a large payload volume (~1,300 ft3). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
• Medium Unmanned Underwater Vehicle: This is an autonomous vehicle capable of conducting pre-programmed independent operations once launched from a surface or subsurface host platform or shore facility.
• Unmanned Surface Vehicle: Similar to the UUV, this large (~80 ft length) pier-launched or well deck-launched autonomous vehicle can transit (200-300 NM) following pre- programmed points with a large payload capacity (~6,500 lbs). After mission completion or payload delivery it returns to the original launch point (pier or well deck) for recovery and preparation for its next mission.
Click to expand...
I was lucky enough to see some of the early USV/UUV developments in Hawai'i about 10 years ago

at that stage they were trialling an unmanned asset the size of a large family car (in volume and dimensions)
 
C

colay1

Member
Much speculation that the DDG 1000 is the preferred platform to field test a EMRG. The Navy is looking at the DDG 51 Flt IIA to host a laser weapon. If successful one could envision a subsequent roll out to the DDG fleet.

USN plans accelerated laser weapon fit on DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer | IHS Jane's 360

USN plans accelerated laser weapon fit on DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer


Key Points:
Seasaber Increment 1 will consist of a minimum 60 kW-class High Energy Laser along with counter-ISR dazzling capability

The USN plans to fit Seasaber Increment 1 on board a DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer in the fiscal year 2020 timeframe


A fast-track plan is being developed by the US Navy (USN) with the aim of deploying a laser weapon system on a DDG-51 Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer in the 2020 timeframe.

An initial request for information (RFI) for what the navy refers to as Seasaber Increment 1 was released by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on 22 February.
 
M

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Australian submariners host US counterparts for Submarine Command Course

NAVALTODAY.COM
29 MARCH


The recent visit of the U.S. Navy’s Los Angeles class attack submarine, USS Oklahoma, to the Australian Fleet Base West coincided with the Australian Navy’s biennial Submarine Command Course.

Seven prospective undersea commanding officers from the United States Navy joined their Australian colleagues in training for their future roles.

Shortly after arriving in Australia, the officers toured their Australian host boat for the conduct of the exercise, HMAS Farncomb, which was also berthed alongside.

The sea phase of the course involved embarking in both Farncomb and Oklahoma City for the conduct of a wide range of warfare exercises off the Western Australian coast serving to test their warfare knowledge, leadership skills and suitability for command.

Commander Rick Salazar is a United States Navy submarine officer on exchange and currently posted to the Operations Support Cell at Australian Submarine Group Headquarters, HMAS Stirling.

He pointed out that the course was structured to assess the officers’ abilities to deal with the stresses and challenges of commanding a submarine.

“Initially it is a steep learning curve,” he said.

“The routines at sea on submarines are somewhat different between our two navies, so the candidates have to learn how to deal with these differences fairly quickly before they head to sea.”

Once the officers successfully complete their course, they will go on to command United States Navy submarines based throughout the world.
Click to expand...
Didn't realise this exchange went on.
Presumably like US Submariners being attached to UK Perisher Courses.
Wonder if Australian Submariners do the USN Attack Submarine command course?
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
MARKMILES77 said:
Didn't realise this exchange went on.
Presumably like US Submariners being attached to UK Perisher Courses.
Wonder if Australian Submariners do the USN Attack Submarine command course?
Click to expand...
yep, for a few years. its a 3 year posting - and there's a bun fight to get on it

its actually a dutch perisher course. they run the conventional perisher courses - but usually out of RANs sub training area

RAN do the Dutch run Perisher course
 
C

colay1

Member
This is a remarkable piece of kit that has been in development for some years now. Its finally achieved IOC and should greatly facilitate MCM operations in the littorals.


https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/28/helolaser.aspx

Navy laser mine detection now operational

The Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) developed by Northrop Grumman for the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter has reached initial operational capability, according to Navy spokesman Alan Baribeau.

The ALMDS makes use of the motion of the aircraft and advanced bathymetric laser pulse technology to identify and localize mines in shallow areas, such as littoral zones and geographic choke points.

The blue-green laser characteristic of the bathymetric version of Light Detecting and Ranging technology gives the ALMDS maximum depth penetration capabilities, said Baribeau.

According to a Defense Science Journal publication, the wavelength of the blue green laser has the unique ability to maintain about 50 percent of its radiation intensity when penetrating ocean water.

Blue-green lasers emit wavelengths of about 450 to 550nm, according to a report by the Australian Defense Force, with wavelengths closer to 550 nm used for more opaque water, and shorter wavelengths used to penetrate clearer water.

The ALMDS pulsed blue-green laser emits a wavelength of about 510nm, which allows it to operate in a depth of up to 200 meters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top