The USN has completed its final deployment of the P-3 Orion on 9th October 2019 after 60 years of P-3 service. An era has ended.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Report to US Congress on the USN FFX program. Full document is linked in article.
Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Frigate FFG(X) Program - USNI News
Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Frigate FFG(X) Program - USNI News
In a budget constrained environment, the 6 year delay to the Ford class carrier program and cost over runs will have knock on effects to American fleet availability. Jane’s 360 reports that the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) completed a five-day pierside fast-cruise evolution on 23 October at the Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding yard to help the ship prepare for sea trials scheduled for later this month. See: Ford set for sea trials | Jane's 360
In addition, USS Harry S. Truman missed a planned deployment in Sep 2019 after suffering major electrical problems. The Truman’s challenges are one symptom of a larger problem — the US Navy is finding it increasingly difficult to deploy carriers and keep them on station as the Pentagon says it is working to meet the challenges of two peer competitors, China and Russia. See: All 6 East Coast Carriers In Dock, Not Deployed: Hill Asks Why
Thanks for the link on the FFG(X), which is part of America’s current 355-ship goal, based around 11 or 12 carrier strike groups.
Thomas Modly, the number-two civilian leader of the US Navy (USN) and Marine Corps and a former US Navy officer who served in the 1980s, said a lot has changed between the fleet he knew during the last major naval buildup and the one he sees now during an ongoing effort to reach the 355 ships called for in legislation. USN’s fleet now is about half the size it was then, but the average cost per ship is double.
The 355 ship goal would be hard to meet or sustain due to the budget environment. See: Modly: Navy Current Warship Mix Is Not Optimal for Future Fight - USNI News
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Found this video of ABC team visit USS Florida, one of Ohio Class Boomers/ SSBN Converted from Poisedon to Tomahawk. In sense USN answer for Oscar class SSGN.
Besides ability to carry more than 100 tomahawks, and become platform from Navy Seals, seems they also have abilities for Intelligence gathering, in which I know this is not clear on ABC video.
This one quite interesting, since I thought the 3 very secretive Sea Wolf's that are being prepared for that kind of duties.
Are USN aside converting them to SSGN and Navy Seals platform, also add additional capabilities on ELINT and other specialise Intelligent capabilities ?
This 1 Flaw in the Navy's New Frigates Could Cause Huge Problems
32 Mk41 VLS cells not regarded as sufficient to future proof FFG(X) from growing PRC and Russian capabilities according to a Congressional Research Service report. Recommends the installation of 48 Mk41 VLS cells at a "marginally increase" of procurement cost.
My view is that an additional 24 ExLS is an alternative worth investigating if the USN takes note of the Congressional Research Service report.
32 Mk41 VLS cells not regarded as sufficient to future proof FFG(X) from growing PRC and Russian capabilities according to a Congressional Research Service report. Recommends the installation of 48 Mk41 VLS cells at a "marginally increase" of procurement cost.
My view is that an additional 24 ExLS is an alternative worth investigating if the USN takes note of the Congressional Research Service report.
The 3 cell ExLS can take the quad pack ESSM, can't it? So if that's correct, that would be 96 ESSM and still leave 32 Mk-41 cells for anything else they want. However, I note that it's specifically designed for the CAMM - Sea Ceptor so from the image below left, it doesn't appear to have the hot gas efflux system that the ESSM would require. They do have a Mk-41 single cell VLS that they still appear to be marketing. I didn't realise that there was a 3 cell variant of the Mk-41 until I read the brochure linked to above and as shown in the image below right. So that may create possibilities, if the ExLS isn't viable, for these 3 cell launchers to be situated around the hull where 8 cell units wouldn't fit.
Click on images to enlarge them
That would make BIW’s Navantia derivative of the F100/105 a front runner if 48 cells was the major consideration.
It will be an interesting development seeing all the bidders react.
t68
Well-Known Member
I wonder if they should dust of the designs for the Gibbs and Cox, baby Burke
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Isn’t what HI offering still a bit of a mystery? The thought was a revised CG vessel but haven’t heard much about that lately.
The actual report, issued in October, is here:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44972.pdf
As is usual in these reports, O'Rourke puts both sides of arguments where there may have been some controversy, using word like "proponents for X might argue..." and he's done that here. In one para on page 12 he summarises arguments for 48 cells and in the next he summarises arguments for no more than 32 cells, without seeking to imply one has more merit than the other. He is providing information to Congress, not debating the issues or seeking to make judgements on them.
The three cell ExLS has no exhaust ducting like the Mk 41 has. They'd have to develop a cold launch system or a missile module with built in ducting and I doubt the 4m long ExLS could take the 3.66m long ESSM and a cold launch/ducting system. The 3.2m long CAMM only just fits.
Take a look at the below link. The only missiles displayed for ExLS are Nulka, Longbow/JAGM, RAM blk2 and CAMM. If ESSM was an option I'm sure it'd be on there. Document date April 2019.
If you look closely at the missile modules you can see the Longbow/JAGM module uses one of it's quad cells for exhaust (so three missiles only) and the RAM module has the exhaust ducting on the side (the small diameter of the missile allowing four missiles plus the ducting in one cell).
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont..._ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
Last edited:
The ExLS is Extensible meaning it was designed to be adapted, extended or stretched.
And then there is the BAE Adaptable Deck Launcher
Adaptable Deck Launcher (ADL) | BAE Systems | International
Basically its a non penetrating Mk-41 missile canister compatible deck mounted slant launcher. Anything that can be fired from a Mk41 can now be deck mounted on any platform with the space available, through in CEC and other data link capabilities and it doesn't even need to be a surface combatant.
Adaptable Deck Launcher (ADL) | BAE Systems | International
Basically its a non penetrating Mk-41 missile canister compatible deck mounted slant launcher. Anything that can be fired from a Mk41 can now be deck mounted on any platform with the space available, through in CEC and other data link capabilities and it doesn't even need to be a surface combatant.
May be an option for the Overlord Program LUSV and MUSV. Both are projected to have offensive capabilities.
the first two LUSVs will be purchased in FY 2020 with USN requests for a robust “Ghost fleet” of Medium and Large USVs
goals are 90 day endurance and 4500 Nm range unscrewed but with a man in the loop.
Unmanned Vehicle Operations, Global LCS Support Informed by Ongoing Wargaming, Prototyping - USNI News
A classified Pentagon maritime drone program is about to get its moment in the sun
the first two LUSVs will be purchased in FY 2020 with USN requests for a robust “Ghost fleet” of Medium and Large USVs
goals are 90 day endurance and 4500 Nm range unscrewed but with a man in the loop.
Unmanned Vehicle Operations, Global LCS Support Informed by Ongoing Wargaming, Prototyping - USNI News
A classified Pentagon maritime drone program is about to get its moment in the sun
I believe ExLS is a way of adapting existing launchers (Mk 41 and Mk57) to handle multiples of a type of missile, or different missiles altogether. (An adapter module, in other words.) There is also a cheaper, smaller, standalone system, presumably based on one of the the two launchers mentioned above, but restricted to supporting the missiles mentioned in @Rangitoto's post 2771. I did not find any information that would indicate that this standalone ExLS launcher could be stretched or adapted, however, so I also wonder how something longer like ESSM would be handled. I would presume that opting for ESSM would require Mk41, and that the standalone ExLS would not be an option for that missile.
Last edited:
The USN plans to stop the acquisition of the P-8A at 117 aircraft instead of the originally planned 138 aircraft. This is due to funding restrictions across the navy, so they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's 21 aircraft short and not ideal considering the increasing threats.
U.S. Navy Plans To Stop Buying P-8 Poseidon Sub Hunters Despite Growing Undersea Threat
U.S. Navy Plans To Stop Buying P-8 Poseidon Sub Hunters Despite Growing Undersea Threat
Maybe NATO will step up to the plate and order more P8's?
Pretty disappointing cut.
Pretty disappointing cut.
It is disappointing to read of the shortfall in U.S. requirements for Poseidons. In terms of the Pacific, l wonder what the shortfall would be? It is becoming apparent that U.S allies may need to look much more realistically at what future defence requirements actually means for them. I am sure there are those in the military and intelligence communities doing the sums and raising the red flags. Are the decision makers listening? Can Australia play a greater role in the Pacific, militarily, than it already does? I am sure Australia's current fleet of Poseidons may already be stretched and may not be able to help plug the gaps left by the U.S. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me would be able to enlighten about Australia's tasking of it's Poseidon's? Is there a possibility of having 3-4 Australian Poseidon's semi - permanently assigned to and operating out of a U.S. Pacific base where there is a shortfall? Or does Australia have the capacity to purchase, crew and support extra Poseidons if the need is indeed there?
From memory, besides the USN, the Canadians, Norwegians, Germans, Greeks, Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch operate(d) themP-3 Orions. So far the only NATO members to acquire the P-8 have been the USN, Norway and the UK. Norway is acquiring 5 and the UK 9. Airbus apparently has reactivated its A319 / 320 MPA design proposal, so if that gets off the ground you would expect France and Germany and probably Spain to go with that or the C295 MPA. Italy has the ATR72 MPA.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Germany and Portugal operate ex-RNLN P3C CUP (or CUP+ in the case of Germany) Orions, these was acquired in 2006 so it could easily be another decade or more before they are due for replacement.
I personally doubt that any Airbus A319/320 MPA variant will really enter the market place any time soon, since almost all the nations that would be seeking a 1st tier replacement MPA aircraft have already ordered the P-8 Poseidon. In the case of other potential customers that already operate MPA aircraft, many of them either have an on going or recently completed upgrade programme for their existing MPA fleets. That or they are suffering from defence budgeting issues which precludes direct replacement and in some cases has forced upgrade programmes to be reduced in size and/or scope.
France IIRC has a series of upgrades either completed or underway for their Atlantic 2 fleet which should see the fleet through until ~2032.
Something that I would not really rule out, given how Boeing has been running the 737 and P-8 Poseidon production line, is the possibility for Poseidon production to be stopped, then restarted again at a later date should be interest in or a demand for more Poseidons.