International Naval News & Discussion

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 27 Jan 2015 10:42

US Invasion of Yemen is only Weeks Away

http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2015/0 ... eeks-away/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jan 2015 10:47

Pl. ck inot this informative doc. Severeal pages.

http://news.usni.org/2015/01/21/documen ... ernization
Document: Report to Congress on Chinese Naval Modernization

Some key stats:
By 2020 the PLAN will possess 60+ diesel subs,around 9 SSNs,5 SSBNs,2 carriers,30+ DDGs,50+ FFGs,30 Corvettes,50 amhib vessels,85 missile craft,etc.
% of modern design:
Diesel subs 75%,N-subs 100%,DDGs/FFGs 85%.

These are astonishing figures and will far outnumber the IN's fleet strength by 2020,especially in the underwater arena,where our sub fleet is in deep crisis. The IN will barely be able to match the PLAN fleet by 25%,and we also have to deal with Pak,which is steadily adding to numbers and capability.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 27 Jan 2015 11:25

What frightened the USS Donald Cook so much in the Black Sea?

As per this article, the Russians can just buzz and scare the US navy and render its aegis system useless. No need to fire any missile. So , what does a scared US Navy do ? Puts up a brave face and sail towards Yemen to show its military power

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Jan 2015 13:28

Chinmayanand wrote:What frightened the USS Donald Cook so much in the Black Sea?

As per this article, the Russians can just buzz and scare the US navy and render its aegis system useless. No need to fire any missile. So , what does a scared US Navy do ? Puts up a brave face and sail towards Yemen to show its military power

Given the way tthe article is written I would take this with a bucket of salt, like 27 US sailors wanted to leave the Navy simply because thier ship electronic systems were disabled???

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 27 Jan 2015 14:26

Philip wrote:
http://news.usni.org/2015/01/21/documen ... ernization
Document: Report to Congress on Chinese Naval Modernization

Good find Philip, thanks for sharing. Went through the whole report and although I know this before it is still startling to read about the sheer numbers of newer and improved ships and subs they have been commissioning since the 90s.

All this happening while our politicians and babus were sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jan 2015 17:41

U.S. Navy Railgun will Obsolete China's Warships
The deployment of the railgun on board the as yet unspecified naval vessel will commence sea trials stage for this weapon the Navy says will change the face of future sea warfare. This sea test will mark the first time an electromagnetic railgun has been demonstrated at sea, and is a significant advance in naval combat.

The U.S. Navy has confirmed previous plans to deploy its futuristic weapon--the electromagnetic railgun--on board one of it ships next year.

The deployment of the railgun on board the as yet unspecified naval vessel will commence sea trials stage for this weapon the Navy says will change the face of future sea warfare. This sea test will mark the first time an electromagnetic railgun has been demonstrated at sea, and is a significant advance in naval combat.

It follows successful land trials of the prototype that achieved breakthroughs in compact power and gun design. The Navy said it will test the next phase of prototype at both sea- and land-based sites in 2016 and 2017.

Once deployed in force by the next decade, the railgun will place at a serious disadvantage and may obsolete the surface naval forces of the U.S.' strategic competitors such as China.

The Navy will publicly display the futuristic weapon that uses electromagnetic energy to kill its targets for the first time from Feb. 4-5 at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology (S&T) EXPO in Washington, D.C.

The expo is a window into the future of the U.S. Navy, showcasing the latest advances in power projection and force protection.

"The electromagnetic railgun is among several disruptive capabilities that the Naval Research Enterprise is championing to ensure a dominant, capable and relevant naval force for the future," said Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Mat Winter.

He added this year's expo will showcase the naval portfolio of innovative breakthrough technologies that are shaping the U.S. Navy's warfighting tactics and changing the way it will fight in the future.

The Navy describes its electromagnetic railgun as a long-range weapon that fires projectiles using electricity instead of chemical propellants. Magnetic fields created by the railgun launch projectiles at 4,500 mph towards targets 110 miles away or beyond the horizon.

The Navy expects that with its increased velocity and extended range, the railgun will give its warships a multi-mission capability, allowing them to conduct precise naval surface fire support or land strikes; ship defense and surface warfare.

A launch velocity of Mach 6 allows the railgun's projectiles to rely on kinetic energy for maximum effect, and reduces the amount of high explosives needed to be carried on ships.

A guided projectile is launched from a railgun at such high velocities it can achieve greater ranges than conventional guns. It maintains enough kinetic energy that it doesn't require any kind of high explosive payload when it reaches its target. The target such a warship is destroyed by massive kinetic impact.

"The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy," said Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer. "This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide-range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons."

http://www.gcreport.com/space-30/u-s-na ... ps-83.html

This will see more navies acquiring more subs to counter such weapons. The Chinese will probably build dozens of more subs which will be immunbe to any rail gun aboard a USN surface combatant!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jan 2015 06:27

THE USS GERALD R. FORD AND THE LANDING AND TAKE-OFF LAUNCH SYSTEM

CVN 78 is being built to support a half century of air-breathing platform innovations.

The new carrier will see the UCAS, the new Hawkeye, the Osprey and the F-35C come onboard.

This is the beginning of the decade ahead of innovation.

But what comes next?

The new catapult and landing gear systems are designed to allow for innovation for lighter or heavier air-breathing systems, manned or remotely piloted, for the years ahead.

The shift from steam and hydraulics to electro-magnetic pulse and the implementation of an advanced arresting gear is designed to enable a long-term transformation of the embarked air wing.

During our visit to the Gerald R. Ford, we examined both the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) and discussed them with Captain Meier and with Mr. Hicks, Construction Superintendent.

EMALS

According to Hicks, there are three, highly publicized, new technologies aboard the ship: EMALS, AAG and the dual band radar. There are many other improvements but these are foundational systems for the new carrier along with the new weapons handling system.

The two big steam cylinders are replaced with banks of electromagnetic motors.

A great advantage of EMALS is the acceleration curve is very smooth.

It ramps up very smooth as opposed to a steam cat that spikes up on the front end.

The control that you have around that acceleration is virtually infinite.

And if you get half way down the cat and the system senses that you’re not getting there, it will increase power as necessary to reach end speed.

The system itself is intelligent enough to increase power as you go and increase the acceleration rate so that at the end you’re actually going 160 knots per hour or whatever you want to be at the end.

Question: Computer control must play a key role in the system?

Hicks: It does. With the steam catapult, the steam valve opens and you get what you get.

If it turns out the speed is not building up as expected, you have no other options. The system is not going to try to fix itself.

This system has tons of detectors in it that every little nuance and every step along the way is measured , it knows what the speed should be, what the speed is, what power is available and how to increase power or decrease power as necessary.

When you think about that there’s a whole array of failures that can happen within this system and still give the proper launch speed.

It’s impressive to watch the system operate at Lakehurst.

They deliver 150 knots every single time.

Question: This will allow for less loss of aircraft and provide less wear and tear on the airframes?

Hicks: It should reduce the wear and tear on the airframes.

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... nts_lg.jpg

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jan 2015 06:29

Philip wrote:

U.S. Navy Railgun will Obsolete China's Warships

This will see more navies acquiring more subs to counter such weapons. The Chinese will probably build dozens of more subs which will be immunbe to any rail gun aboard a USN surface combatant!

While there is tremendous scope of the railgun for that role, a far greater use of the system would eventually come from its capability to bend the curve in costs to defend assets be it ships, or land based assets. It is one of the key technologies that would enable carriers and large and expensive warships to operate with a high degree of survivability.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jan 2015 07:14

This will see more navies acquiring more subs to counter such weapons. The Chinese will probably build dozens of more subs which will be immunbe to any rail gun aboard a USN surface combatant!

At the expense of surface combatants of course. That should work fine - when the ratios are lost.

I thought the Chinese had a super duper long distant missile that took care of carriers. Could it also not take care of a rail gun platform too?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jan 2015 07:52

NRao wrote:
This will see more navies acquiring more subs to counter such weapons. The Chinese will probably build dozens of more subs which will be immunbe to any rail gun aboard a USN surface combatant!
At the expense of surface combatants of course. That should work fine - when the ratios are lost.

I thought the Chinese had a super duper long distant missile that took care of carriers. Could it also not take care of a rail gun platform too?

There are limits. The biggest mythical weapon on this planet is the DF21. For the hype most forget, that it has actually never demonstrated a kill on a mobile ship out at sea (in a test). The kill chain needed for this is extremely complex involving multiple land, air and space based assets and as such has plenty of links that can be broken. Regardless of all this, it is the media's poster child of why carriers are obsolete. There are certain standards that the western media employees for its own products, and different for mythical weapons such as the DF21

The EMRG is an answer to all of these, because it reverses or bends the cost curve. Current SM6's and SM3's run into the millions per round. Even the ESSM is not exactly cheap and you are limited in number to the Vertical cells you have on an AEGIS destroyer even though have a heck of a lot. High cost is justified now-days because A) There is no other cheaper alternative with a demonstrated capability at par or ahead and

The cost of the vessel they are protecting is many many times more than the cost of the missiles out to defend it. EMRG however promises a cost of around 20K per round and is many times cheaper then the weapon it is going to be killing. Add to that there is many times greater supply and you gain tremendous survivability especially when you combine the system with your existing Standard/ESSM families and the Solid state lasers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2015 09:09

will the EMALS rounds be inert and ballistic only or can it hurl up kinetic kill vehicles with IIR sensors and X-hot gas thrusters to deal with DF21mkk type threats on the edges of the atmosphere ? these missiles with a EM first stage wont be cheap, they will be as costly as the SM3-TBMD.

it will need guided missiles to deal with clever powered targets that will change course and do decoy legs enroute to target area.

this isnt as simple as pounding some hut on the shore in somalia from 100 miles away.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jan 2015 09:29

Singha, The EMRG (EMALS is the launch system) rounds being sought at the moment are going to provide relief from the ESSM and SM6 type mission sets (Mostly the former). There are no plans to develop full fledged electro magnetic launched missiles, where they switch over inorder to achieve the altitudes of the SM3. They will be your conventional shape and size (standard EMRG round) but with enhancements for the integrated missile defense role. The aim would be to be able to carry out a larger SM3 load while offloading some of the cruise missile (and indeed the offensive) defense to this system in the mid term. Of course your idea of having first stage electro magnetic launch system isn't very far but I suspect it would come from the land based application where power supply is going to be less of an issue. As per how the system (it is essentially going to be a targeting, launch thing not purely a round thing) deals with smarter weapons remains to be seen. I guess you are going to add a very high launch speed, along with the ability to launch 4-5 rounds under a minute.

http://www.boeing.com/advertising/bma/m ... ailGun.pdf

An idea of what is being thought of as far as applications for these is concerned, can be had from the Request for sensors issued by the USN just a few weeks ago. They intend on having the gen 1 EMRG installed on the JHSV by early next year.

Posted on the government's FedBizOpps website on 22 December 2014 and cancelled less than four hours later, the notice invited industry and academic institutions to submit ideas for the development of a railgun fire-control sensor (FCS) to support the detection, tracking, and engagement of surface, air, and ballistic missile threats.

According to the document, a future railgun FCS should have an electronically scanned field of view greater than 90 degrees (in azimuth and elevation), and be able to track targets with low radar cross-sections at extended ranges; track and engage ballistic targets within the atmosphere; reject environmental clutter (weather, surface, and biological); support raid handling for ballistic missile, air defence, and surface engagements; simultaneously track incoming targets and outgoing supersonic projectiles; and conduct enhanced battle-damage assessment.
In addition, the FCS should demonstrate rapid fire-control loop-closure times; improved resistance to technical and tactical countermeasures; high-data-rate tracking and data collection; and technological maturity sufficient to deliver an operational prototype (at technology readiness level [TRL] 6) by the third quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2018, and an operational capability in the 2020-25 time frame.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=1775267&hili ... s#p1775267

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2015 10:43

pretty persuasive stuff. I liked that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jan 2015 11:40

6 Kilos for just $2B. Compare this with the est. for the P-75I or Scorpene deal which was signed much earlier in 2005,and the speed with which the 6 subs will be delivered,all by 2016,whereas we've yet to get a single Scorpene as of now,supposed to have had deliveries starting in 2012.

http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/v ... 38088.html

Vietnam’s 5th Russian-built submarine to begin trial run this May
Thanh Nien News

Tuesday, January 27, 2015 17:01
Vietnam’s 5th Russian-built submarine launched
Vietnamese ambassador says Russia to remain top arms seller
Third Russian submarine to depart for Vietnam this week

The submarine codenamed HQ-186 Khanh Hoa before being launched at the Admiralty Shipyards on December 28, 2014. Photo credit: Admiralty Shipyards

The fifth of the six Kilo-class submarines that Vietnam has agreed to buy from Russia is scheduled for a trial run this May, according to the manufacturer, the Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg.

The submarine codenamed HQ-186 Khanh Hoa is a Project 636.1 diesel-electric submarines.
It was launched at the Admiralty Shipyards on December 28, 2014.

The first two subs, HQ-182 Hanoi and HQ-183 Ho Chi Minh City, arrived in Vietnam in January and March of 2014.

The third one, HQ-184 Hai Phong, was loaded into the Dutch-registered cargo ship Rolldock Star on December 16. It is scheduled to be delivered to Cam Ranh Port this week.

The fourth one, HQ-185 Da Nang, was launched on March 28, 2014 and is undergoing testing on the Baltic Sea. It is expected to be handed over to Vietnam in mid-2015.

The delivery of the sixth and last one, HQ-187 Ba Ria-Vung Tau, is scheduled for next year.

The six submarines are built under a US$2-billion deal signed during a visit by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung to Russia in 2009.

Russia will deliver all by 2016, train Vietnamese crews, and supply necessary spare parts

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jan 2015 11:43

the service pkg, weapons, training, diesel, bedding etc will surely be outside and billed separately. nothing is this cheap anymore...unless its a bare bones boat with all electronics to be fitted later on a paki style plug n play basis.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jan 2015 06:28

NRao wrote:The P-1 and P-8 should be "integrated"?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... n_2014.JPG
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=1787886#p178 They both operate in Japan.

They both would have high degree of interoperability. Thats not the same as being integrated. Integration means common sensors, that not only communicate to each other but are fully integrated in a common battlefield picture rather than just contributing their bit to some degree. You also have the ability to switch crews during high intensity operations which aren't very uncommon if you have a submarine threat. Furthermore, the P-8's Companion Drone contract just got issued this year, and this would allow the UK to use say USN drones for its own purposes during common missions. None of these advantages come with the P-1, and it is a platform that none outside Japan are familiar with. The UK in my opinion should get a combination of the P-8 for high end and MSA for low end since i doubt they would be able to meet 100% of their requirements with the larger, more capable and more expensive P-8.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jan 2015 08:51

Singha wrote:pretty persuasive stuff. I liked that.

Now you have to guess what this is

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jan 2015 19:10

deleted

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jan 2015 19:10

Philip wrote:The tragedy for the UK armed forces is that the splendid Nimrod ASW aircraft which operated very successfully during the Cold War,and had many more years of life in them were for budgetary reasons "literally "chopped up",not even mothballed ,as the canny Russians have done with much of their Soviet era weapon systems which are now being taken out ,upgraded and are being put to good use. 70+ Harriers were retired in their prime,snapped up lock,stock and barrel by the USMC too! Now the asinine British govt. has to buy new ASW aircraft which in all probability be the P-8. American manufacturers,who also supply the Trident ICBM system for RN SSBNs,are laughing all the way to the bank.Trident is fast becoming an election issue,elections later in the year,as billions are being 'wasted" say many on Britain's large strat. deterrent,while its conventional forces.needed far more urgently is being butchered not by the Russians or Chinese or ISIS,but by their own accountants! Truly "the pen is mightier than the sword"!

Other than cats/EMALS,US carrier tech holds nothing special unless one adds electric drive and its cutting edge defensive weaponry like lasers,rail guns,etc.,which will not be on the menu. The US is highly unlikely as well to offer us a naval N-plant.BAARC is quite capable of developing the same with whatever assistance is required from Russia. Just one N-plant for a single AC may also raise the cost of the carrier beyond its budget.

The problem with Britain and to some extent even the french is that they spend a large amount of money for a few projects. Lets look at the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Collectively the two nations have spent upwards of 80 Billion (65 Billion program cost for the Rafale, and around 20-25 Billion UK's share to develop and procure the typhoon) dollars to develop, acquire the typhoons and rafales from day 1 till now. Thats 80 odd billion for 200-300 4.5 generation odd fighters that may someday eventually get to around 350 with a little more cost to acquire them. Comparatively the USAF with many times the budget of these 2 air forces spent 70-80 Billion on the F-22 program which is the most capable fighter in operation and has been in service with stealth, integrated avionics, mach 1.7 super cruise (including the ability to go supersonic on dry thrust at sea level ) since 10 years now. Similarly the US DOD plans to spend around 350 Billion ( Just 4.5 times what the brits and french spend for around 200-300 fighters) to acquire 2500 Fifth generation F-35's (lower if one were to adjust it down to Rafale or Typhoon year dollars). With all these costs for these weapons, to project their aerospace industry they have effectively killed a lot of areas, particularly in the UK. There are choices you have to make when you compete from an aerospace industrial perspective, and if you decide you are going to go all alone with those budgets you are going to be forced to make concessions in readiness or totally sacrifice all areas.

As far as the US OEM's laughing to the bank, Boeing had decided to be the global leader in the Maritime surveillance domain so it is hardly surprising if multiple nations procure the P-8 which has huge economies of scale. For the lower end of the market they have the MSA which can be built to be a mini P-8 of sorts.

http://www.janes.com/article/40785/farn ... onal-debut

Also Boeing is making a strong pitch for the USAF JSTARS replacement program.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Feb 2015 03:17

Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Engineering studies to include an electromagnetic railgun on a Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) have started at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA’s head said Thursday.

The work will do the math to determine if the Zumwalt-class will have the space, power and cooling to field a railgun – likely replacing one of the two 155mm BAE Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) ahead of the ship’s deck house, Vice Adm. William Hilarides told USNI News following remarks at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo.

“We have begun real studies – as opposed to just a bunch of guys sitting around – real engineering studies are being done to make sure it’s possible,” Vice Adm. William Hilarides said following remarks at

The likely candidate for the weapon would be the third planned Zumwalt, Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) currently under construction at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) with an expected delivery date of 2018.

He said the first two ships – Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) – would be less likely to field the capability initially due to the schedule of testing with the new class.

“The team is working diligently now but it would not happen until after delivery of the ships – probably the third ship is where we’d have it,” Hilarides said.
“That would certainly be my recommendation.”

The Navy is in early stages of testing and fielding a railgun – which forgoes the gunpowder in the shells of conventional naval guns and instead uses high powered electromagnetic pulses along a set of rails to shoot a projectile at super sonic speeds.

The Navy plans to test a BAE Systems prototype railgun onboard the Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV- 3) next year.

Last year, then Navy director of surface warfare now commander of U.S. Surface Forces Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden told USNI News the Zumwalts would be likely used as test beds for emerging technologies like railguns and directed energy weapons the Navy wants for its next large surface combatant due to the ship’s size an ability to generate power.

The integrated power system (IPS) on the 16,000-ton ships– powered by two massive Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines and two smaller Rolls-Royce RR450– allow the ships to route and generate 80 mega-watt power – much more electrical power than the current crop of U.S. destroyers and cruisers.

On Wednesday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said a Zumwalt would likely be the first ship to get the capability.

The inclusion of the railgun does mean a capabilities trade for the ship.“We’ll go do the studies and I suspect they’ll say ‘yes,’ but it’s going to come at a cost of some of the capabilities on this ship – of course,” Hilarides said.
“It’s physics. Without taking something off, you’re not putting on a many ton system, so a gun would be a logical thing to take off and put the railgun in its place.”

The three ship Zumwalt-class were – in part – originally designed to address a gap in naval surface fire support with the AGS firing the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) at a range of up to 75 nautical miles.

Each ship is designed to field two AGS.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2015 04:10

do they need to have bulbous bows?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Feb 2015 19:15

US Navy test shows Tomahawk cruise missile with synthetic guidance can hit moving targets at sea

A synthetically guided Tomahawk cruise missile successfully hit its first moving maritime target Jan. 27 after being launched from the USS Kidd (DDG-100) near San Nicolas Island in California. The Tomahawk Block IV flight test demonstrated guidance capability when the missile in flight altered its course toward the moving target after receiving position updates from surveillance aircraft. This is a significant accomplishment,” said Capt. Joe Mauser, Tomahawk Weapons System (PMA-280) program manager. "It demonstrates the viability of long-range communications for position updates of moving targets. This success further demonstrates the existing capability of Tomahawk as a netted weapon, and in doing so, extends its reach beyond fixed and re-locatable points to moving targets.”

The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) team leveraged existing Tomahawk strike communications frameworks to develop this cost-saving solution. This joint venture between NAWCWD at China Lake, PMA-280 and Raytheon Missile Systems received major contributions from the Office of Naval Research Advanced Sensors Technology Program and the surface warfare centers at Dahlgren, Virginia and Port Hueneme, California.“We have worked with teams across the country to be successful today,” said Scott O' Neil, NAWCWD executive director. “This is a project that increases warfighting capability, reduces cost and can be added to other existing technologies out in the field.”

The Tomahawk weapons system is the U.S. Navy’s precision strike standoff weapon for long and medium range attack of tactical targets. The Navy is currently fielding Tomahawk Block IV weapons on surface and subsurface platforms across the globe.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 07 Feb 2015 00:28

^^^^^^^^^^

"Hello, Enemy Navy?"

"Meet Mr. Crunch from the firm of Crush, Crumble and Chomp". Representing the US Navy Sub mafia.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Feb 2015 15:22

A couple of questions regarding the Railgun:

1. For a target at, say 60 clicks out, the projectile is on a ballistic path. How it is able to deliver higher kinetic energy compared to a conventional round? Assuming the weight is same.

2. Does the rail gun have any application towards maneuvering aerial targets? SAMs are guided missiles.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2015 16:40

I thought the Thawk ASM was retired in mid 80s as too slow to reach the target area...it seems to have been redirected to target by offboard sensors and does not mount a internal radar....so is this some niche extra role for the existing inventory of regular Thawks fleetwide?
the very same photos are there from that era.

the rail gun will no doubt in future launch small powered agile ABM kill vehicles at mach speed into the lower atmosphere to perform a AAD type role but perhaps cheaper and with more ability to put interceptors in the air from its fast fire barrel. the regular explosive charge of the "shell" itself will act like a beefy first stage of the missile albeit it will fly straight up and not manouver until 2nd stage separates. upper atmosphere intercepts would be take by SM2 tmbd type weapons. the low level PAD type thing could be done lasers.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Feb 2015 19:50

I thought the Thawk ASM was retired in mid 80s as too slow to reach the target area...it seems to have been redirected to target by offboard sensors and does not mount a internal radar....so is this some niche extra role for the existing inventory of regular Thawks fleetwide?
the very same photos are there from that era.

It was retired. The USN is inducting an anti ship capability (i won't say the missile because they truly have to get the capability since many platforms stopped carrying even the Harpoon). Phase one of that is for Air Launched, and DARPA had that 5-6 years ago when they spent their resources developing the unique seeker and threat libraries that we find on the LRASM. That phase is near completion with acquisition of missiles beginning towards the end of 2016 and finishing in 2017 or 2018.Phase two of the program is getting started and involves a VLS launched system for the ships. Here many players are coming to the picture. Raytheon has suggested the THawk, both the subsonic version and a new supersonic version that it had been offering for a couple of years now. More importantly, Raytheon, realizing that the THawk won't alone be competitive, have teamed up with Kongsberg and are offering a VLS launched version of the JSM. Lockheed spent its own money in 2013 to test the LRASM VLS and are paying for certification as well. Boeing also has something in mind that I cannot recall at the moment.

Raytheon has also presented a couple of seeker options to the USN for the THawk. So the USN is trying to try out different scenarios to assess what weapon or mix of weapons it can get.

he rail gun will no doubt in future launch small powered agile ABM kill vehicles at mach speed into the lower atmosphere to perform a AAD type role but perhaps cheaper and with more ability to put interceptors in the air from its fast fire barrel. the regular explosive charge of the "shell" itself will act like a beefy first stage of the missile albeit it will fly straight up and not manouver until 2nd stage separates. upper atmosphere intercepts would be take by SM2 tmbd type weapons. the low level PAD type thing could be done lasers.

Yup, the mid term goal for the EMRG is to use the round for ESSM and SM6 type missions thereby increasing the magazine depth for the SM3 which would be crucial against Ballistic Missile targets although the railgun would have terminal capability as well. Boeing is working on a round specific for that mission. The advantages are the rate of fire that can increase over time.

Also the picture I posted earlier is from a Lockheed Martin demonstration of an Electro-Magnetic missile launch (EMML) for a cold launch VLS system. It is the future of their VLS product line and would most likely find its way into the Burke replacement.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2015 22:00

is that the pvls on zumwalt?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Feb 2015 22:09

Singha wrote:is that the pvls on zumwalt?

No, not on the Zumwalt although the notional diagram uses that as a basis. It something they validated more then a decade ago but would probably not be required to offer until the next clean sheet program goes under-way for the Burke replacement. That program of record is most likely going to kickstart towards the middle of next decade. The Zumwalt has been singled out as the tech-demonstrator for technologies for the eventual Burke replacement, so I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual ship has very high (50+%) commonality with the Zumwalt. Keep in mind, that with all the radars, systems and subsystems onboard the Zumwalt it still only utilizes 50% of its power-generation capacity (not accounting for any advances that may have happened since its design was frozen). This obviously opens up the door for the platform to act as the Phase II trial vessel (Phase I is on the Joint High Speed Vessel) for the EMRG which has been just hinted a few days ago (that the third Zumwalt may be retrofitted with an EMRG). Zumwalt's power architecture would also be a great way to test and develop the EMML capability further, but like I said they won't start the program until the 2020's although Lockheed has demonstrated the capability to do this at a purely technical level.

It had been decided that stealthy ships of the future would require considerable amount of IR suppression while deploying their weapons, therefore EMML was an area of interest because it allowed them to launch the missile out of the VLS by leveraging the electric power available for such a purpose. In addition to reducing the IR signature both at launch and subsequent to it (The launch gasses raise the IR signature for a considerable time period post launch as well) it would allow you to do away with the Gas Management System which is especially important since the missiles are likely to get heavier (Future SM3 replacement for example) thereby putting a considerable design burden on the GMS. There is little doubt among the community at large (that follows USN developments) that the EMML would form the basis of a future ship that would eventually begin to replace the Burke. In fact, given the advances in EM work, the challenge was always towards power management given how many systems are likely to compete for it ( EMRG, Lasers, Larger AMDR Radars, Electronic warfare etc etc) rather than the EM Coilgun based system and the challenges associated with developing it and getting it to replace the current Lockheed VLS.

This picture I posted earlier, is from the tests they conducted simulating an intermediate weight class missile currently in inventory. Here is a very simple diagram of the innards -

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Feb 2015 22:23

The rail gun is being proposed for the 3rd. Zum class DDG.
http://www.worldtribune.com/2015/02/06/ ... -missiles/
DIA sees ‘major threat to U.S. naval operations’ from Syria’s Russian cruise missiles

WASHINGTON — The United States has expressed concern over the threat of new Russian missiles to Syria.
DIA: ‘Yakhont poses a major threat to U.S. naval operations particularly in the eastern Mediterranean.’

The U.S. intelligence community has identified a threat to the military from a range of Russian missile systems to Damascus. They included the P-800 Yakhont cruise missile, with a range of 300 kilometers.

“The 300-kilometer-range Yakhont poses a major threat to U.S. naval operations particularly in the eastern Mediterranean,” the Defense Intelligence Agency said.

In an assessment submitted to Congress in February 2015, DIA said Russia was exporting lethal systems to Syria and other adversaries of the United States, Middle East Newsline reported. They included the SA-17, SA-22, SA-20 surface-to-air missiles.

[Special Report: King Salman thrust into hub of rapidly changing regional dynamics]

“Russia has exported several of these systems to countries of concern, including the SA-17 to Venezuela, and the SA-17, SA-22 and Yakhont to Syria,” DIA said.

DIA said Russia could also sell the SA-20, also known as the S-300 air defense system, to Iran. In 2010, the Kremlin canceled a nearly $1 billion S-300 deal with Teheran, but officials said negotiations were renewed in 2015.

“There are no signs these [Russian missile] sales will abate in 2015,” DIA said. “If Russia was to sell the SA-20 to Iran, it would significantly increase Iranian military capabilities.”

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Feb 2015 23:05

DIA said Russia could also sell the SA-20, also known as the S-300 air defense system, to Iran. In 2010, the Kremlin canceled a nearly $1 billion S-300 deal with Teheran, but officials said negotiations were renewed in 2015.

There are public admissions then there are other threat areas that are less known mainstream. The DIA, NSA et al have known of the 1L119 Nebo SVU's (VHF AESA) presence in Iran for a while. In fact there are pictures of the system in the open media as well. The IDF knows about this aswell, so the usual geopolitical rumblings it really aren't a very "Big Deal". Just as the J-20 was made such a big deal when revealed even though the USN's Office of Naval Intelligence first reported of a "Chinese stealth fighter program" in 1997, with subsequent public reporting of their efforts to build stealth fighters following that.

As I have also shown earlier, there are S-300 Elements at the US classified radar ranges and the last I checked the highly succesfull Palladium/Musketeer are still ongoing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Feb 2015 21:51

Russia's fifth Yasen-class nuclear sub to be laid down on March 19
Sat 07 February 2015

http://www.news.az/articles/russia/95538

The new Yasen-class nuclear sub will be named Arkhangelsk.

The fifth Yasen-class multipurpose nuclear-powered submarine will be laid down at the Sevmash shipyard in Northwest Russia on March 19. It will be named Arkhangelsk, a Russian defense industry source told TASS on Friday.

"The Yasen-class submarine that will be dubbed Arkhangelsk will be laid down at Sevmash on March 19," the source said.

The head of the Sevmash shipyard in December told TASS that three Project 885M Yasen-class attack submarines and two Borei-class submarines will be laid down in 2015.

The head Yasen-class (Project 885) submarine named Severodvinsk was commissioned with the Russian Navy in 2013. In 2009, 2013 and 2014 three more vessels-the Kazan, Novosibirsk and Krasnoyarsk modernised submarines were laid down under Project 885M.

Yasen is the fourth generation of multipurpose nuclear-powered submarines. They are equipped with the Oniks and Kalibr type missiles. Unlike most Soviet submarine designs, the Yasen-class boats do not make use of a double-hull-instead it has hybrid design with a lighter structure over the vessel’s pressure hull.

Another unique feature for a Russian vessel is that it incorporates a spherical bow sonar called the Irtysh-Amfora for the first time. As a result, Severodvinsk has its torpedo tubes located at about mid-ship like U.S. submarines. The vessel has eight torpedo tubes, four of which are 650mm tubes while the rest are 533mm tubes. The Yasen-class submarines may carry as many as 30 torpedoes.

Russia’s Navy also uses the Arkhangelsk boat of Project 941 "Akula" - the world’s largest submarine. A total of six submarines of this type have been built and three of them have already been scrapped. The Arkhangelsk sun and Severstal submarine of the same type are currently on standby at the Belomorskaya (White Sea) naval base in Severodvinsk. Another submarine - the Dmitry Donskoi - has been modernised for testing the Bulava ballistic missile.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Feb 2015 22:41

Aditya G wrote:A couple of questions regarding the Railgun:

1. For a target at, say 60 clicks out, the projectile is on a ballistic path. How it is able to deliver higher kinetic energy compared to a conventional round? Assuming the weight is same.

2. Does the rail gun have any application towards maneuvering aerial targets? SAMs are guided missiles.

1. Depends how you launch. So yes, for horizon shots the speeds would be very significant. The terminal velocity of an EMRG round at the horizon is greater than that of a conventional round's muzzle velocity. It started off as a thing to extend gun range closer to and beyond 200 nm (eventual goal of the EMRG though initial versions would do well to be in the 100-120 nm range) but now the biggest emphasis is for the missile defense, and surface warfare roles. The ONR already has a program of record (iirc) for guided rounds for the EMRG.

One important distinction between railguns and propellant-based guns is the difference in muzzle velocity. The 5-inch/54and 5-inch/62guns of today achieve muzzle velocities of approximately 800 m/s. In contrast, a railgun can accelerate a projectile to hypersonic velocities of 2500 m/s or Mach 7 and greater, enabling more that 200 nautical mile ranges within a six-minute time of flight. Such high muzzle velocities preclude the need for post-launch rocket-assist to achieve extended ranges. In an indirect fire mode, the projectile flight profile is predominantly exo-atmospheric, reducing the deconfliction problem and potential for Global Positioning System jamming.

However, railguns could also be used in a direct fire mode against surface targets, with only seconds from time of launch to impact. A notional 15 kg railgun flight body arrives on target with a 1500 m/s or Mach 5 terminal velocity, which equates to 17 MJ of available kinetic energy. This is about twice the kinetic energy available from a conventional 5-inch KE warhead from a projectile at half the weight. The amount of power required for a railgun depends on the rate of fire. With an expected 80 megawatts of installed electrical power, electric warships such as the DDG-1000 will have ample power to supply a railgun with the 15-30 MW necessary for sustained fires at 6-12 rounds per minute.

Source: GlobalSecurity

2. Not sure whether that would be an application looked at since there are many other ways to kill a maneuvering target. However, with the EMRG research now nicely split between the USN and the Missile Defense Agency, the Missile defense mission is expected to be the driver of future R&D Dollars into the project. Expect some very rapid developments following the trials at sea next year.

http://defensetech.org/2013/01/18/navy- ... e-defense/

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Feb 2015 22:18

Glimpses of the new Russian destroyer design. As expected, uncompromising and brutishly good looking.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KOJ1BjDhd7c/V ... es%2B5.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IHvL_sVcbyc/V ... es%2B4.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LbO1zQzGKbg/V ... es%2B3.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kA_5zHf4qcw/V ... es%2B2.jpg

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 09 Feb 2015 22:38

Lots of massive VLS. About 12X4 for S-400 probably and 6X8 for Medium SAM's? What about the Yakhont or P-1000?

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 09 Feb 2015 23:32

It's an overkill - Too many eggs in one basket

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Feb 2015 07:18

DoD tests next -generation anti-ship missile

The Navy, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) completed a successful test of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Feb. 4, marking a significant step in maturing key technologies for the future operational weapon system.

The joint-service team, known as the LRASM Deployment Office (LDO), conducted the test to evaluate LRASM’s low-altitude performance and obstacle avoidance as part of the program’s accelerated development effort.

“We are very pleased with how LRASM performed today and we are looking forward to continuing integration efforts on the Air Force B-1, followed by our Navy F/A-18, over the next few years,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the LDO’s Navy program manager. “We have a clear mission, to deliver game-changing capability to our warfighters in theater as quickly as possible.”

During the flight from the Sea Test Range in Point Mugu, California, the B-1 Bomber released the LRASM, which navigated a series of pre-planned waypoints to verify aerodynamic performance. In the final portion of the flight the missile detected, tracked and avoided an object that was deliberately placed in the flight pattern to demonstrate its obstacle avoidance algorithms.

Since completing two successful test flights in 2013, LRASM has rapidly transitioned from a DARPA demonstration to a formal, U.S. Navy program of record, with fielding set for 2018. The program reflects initiatives from DoD’s Better Buying Power 3.0, which encourages rapid prototyping and other forms of innovative acquisition to keep a technological edge and achieve greater efficiency and productivity in defense spending.

“We’ve shown that by taking advantage of the Defense Department’s evolving acquisition policy, it is possible to significantly accelerate the fielding of a high-payoff technical system for the warfighter,” said Artie Mabbett, LDO director.

The LDO and industry partner Lockheed Martin are developing LRASM as an air-launched offensive anti-surface warfare weapon to counter the growing maritime threats in an Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment. When operational, LRASM will play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters and the littorals due to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from extended ranges.

wig · Post by **wig** » 10 Feb 2015 10:45

Thin 'Bubble' Coatings Could Hide Submarines from Sonar

http://www.livescience.com/49689-stealt ... rines.html

Bubble-filled rubbery coatings may one day help make submarines virtually undetectable to sonar, researchers say.

To avoid detection by sonar, military submarines are often covered with sound-absorbing tiles called anechoic coatings. These perforated rubber tiles are typically about 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) thick.

In the past decade, research has suggested that the same degree of stealth could be provided by much thinner coatings filled with vacant cavities. When hit by sound waves, empty spaces in an elastic material can oscillate in size, "so it will dissipate a lot of energy," said lead study author Valentin Leroy, a physicist at the Université Paris Diderot in France. [7 Technologies That Transformed Warfare]
However, figuring out how to optimize such materials for stealth applications previously involved time-consuming simulations. To simplify the problem, Leroy and his colleagues modeled the empty spaces in the elastic material as spherical bubbles, with each giving off a springy response to a sound wave that depended on its size and the elasticity of the surrounding material. This simplification helped them derive an equation that could optimize the material's sound absorption to a given sound frequency.

The researchers designed a "bubble meta-screen," a soft layer of silicone rubber that is only 230 microns thick, which is a little more than twice the average width of a human hair. The bubbles inside were cylinders measuring 13 microns high and 24 microns wide, and separated from each other by 50 microns.

In underwater experiments, the scientists bombarded a meta-screen placed on a slab of steel with ultrasonic frequencies of sound. They found that the meta-screen dissipated more than 91 percent of the incoming sound energy and reflected less than 3 percent of the sound energy. For comparison, the bare steel block reflected 88 percent of the sound energy.

"We have a simple analytical expression whose predictions are in a very good agreement with numerical simulations and real experiments," Leroy told Live Science. "I find it exciting and beautiful."

To make submarines invisible to the sound frequencies used in sonar, larger bubbles are needed. Still, the researchers predicted that a 0.16-inch-thick (4 millimeters) film with 0.08-inch (2 millimeters) bubbles could absorb more than 99 percent of the energy from sonar, cutting down reflected sound waves by more than 10,000-fold, or about 100 times better than was previously assumed possible.

However, despite the possibilities, "making these samples will probably be tough," Leroy cautioned.

The scientists detailed their findings online Jan. 6 in the journal Physical Review B.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Feb 2015 18:41

In the RuN,there is no such phrase as "overkill". Russian warships and subs are in general equipped with a variety of weaponry to be able to fire salvoes of missiles,etc.,getting the first shot in to overwhelm enemy defences. During Soviet times,the emphasis was on launching massive salvoes of missiles at US/NATO carriers ensuring sufficient hits to sink or disable the carrier,the US's ,most potent strike capability. Much of the same philosophy exists today,as well as large numbers of anti-air missiles for defence. The IN has also adopted much of the same in its designs if you examine the Delhi class DDGs,Kora corvettes,etc. It is only a shortage of funding that sees some of our warships with spaces where it is hoped extra weaponry will be added in the future.

Meanwhile,large-scale Russian exercises in the Artic waters shows no slowdown in Russian naval expansion/modernization despite fiscal problems.
http://www.businessinsider.in/Russia-co ... 178013.cms

Russia conducted nuclear submarine exercises beneath the North Pole
Jeremy Bender0Feb 9, 2015, 09.20 PM

Novorossiysk submarine
OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP/Getty Images

Russian nuclear units carried out Arctic exercises in international waters beneath the North Pole over the weekend, Damien Sharkov reports for Newsweek.

The exercise featured the presence of several Borei-class ballistic missile submarines. These subs are among the most technologically advanced and capable of Russia's current ballistic missile submarine fleet, and they function as a nuclear deterrent.

The timing of the exercise is thought to be a response to NATO's decisions on Feb. 5 to reinforce its eastern military position along the Russian border.

However, Russia has said that the exercise was instead simply part of the country's shift towards reinforcing its position within the Arctic.

"In particular we focused on hazard and threat detection, but also on missile launching and navigation manoeuvres, ice reconnaissance, submerging and emerging from ice, using torpedoes to undermine ice and many other issues," Vadim Serga, captain of Russia's North Fleet, said in a translation provided by Newsweek.

The increasing integration of nuclear forces into Russian military drills have led Britain's defense minister on Feb. 6 to voice concern over how Moscow how "lowered the threshold" for the use of nuclear weapons. Russia's military doctrine allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that threatens the state's existence.

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon told Reuters that "[t]here is three-fold concern, first that they (the Russians) may have lowered the threshold for use of nuclear. Secondly, they seem to be integrating nuclear with conventional forces in a rather threatening way and ... at a time of fiscal pressure they are keeping up their expenditure on modernizing their nuclear forces."
Borei-class submarine Yuri Dolgorukiy during sea trials.

On Dec. 26 of last year, Putin signed off on a new military doctrine for Russia that emphasized three strategic locations - the Crimean peninsula, Kaliningrad, and the Arctic. This doctrine, which sees NATO as Moscow's main existential threat, calls for further militarization and modernization of troops based in these three regions.

Russia's claims to the Arctic are increasingly contentious as countries within the Arctic Council all have rival claims to the Arctic sea bed. The US estimates that upwards of 15% of the earth's remaining oil, 30% of its natural gas, and 20% of its liquefied natural gas are stored in the sea floor beneath the Arctic.

Russia's submarine exercises beneath the Arctic come on the heels of a construction blitz across the region. Moscow is constructing ten Arctic search-and-rescue stations, 16 deepwater ports, 13 airfields, and ten air-defense radar stations across its Arctic coast.

In November 2014, Russia announced plans to construct a military reconnaissance drone base only 420 miles away from the Alaska mainland. Moscow has also begun the construction of an Arctic military base of operations 30 miles away from the Finnish border.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Feb 2015 18:46

The "wizards of Oz" behaving more like the "witches" of Macbeth!

Senator Sean Edwards gives bizarre interview about Tony Abbott's submarine promise
Date February 10, 2015
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 3b301.html

Senator's confusion over submarine 'tender'

South Australian senator Sean Edwards struggled to give a clear definition of changes to the submarine building contracts in an interview on Sky News.
Tony Wright: Post non-spill submarines? Read my bubbles

The South Australian senator who said he had secured a commitment for an "open tender" to allow Australian ship builders to bid for work building the next fleet of submarines has deepened the confusion over what he was promised by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

In an interview with Sky News on Tuesday, senator Sean Edwards was asked to clear up the confusion over whether Mr Abbott promised an "open tender" or a so-called "competitive evaluation process" in a bid to secure votes to defeat Monday's leadership spill. However, he was unable to clearly explain what he was promised, and ultimately observed that: "You know, you never get a second chance to ask your uncle to your wedding."

Mr Abbott has been accused by Labor of making up the term "competitive evaluation process" to secure the votes of South Australian MPs, who have been under enormous pressure in their home state over government plans to send shipbuilding contracts overseas.

On Tuesday, Senator Edwards gave a series of bizarre responses when interviewer David Speers asked him whether the Prime Minister had specifically promised an open tender in a conversation with him before Monday's vote.

"I had two conversations with the Prime Minister over the weekend," Senator Edwards said. "One when he rang me after I issued that statement and then he rang me on Sunday and gave me the assurances that I sought on Saturday were the assurances that I received from the Prime Minister."

"And what were they?" Speers asked.

"That the Australian companies and ship building companies and companies associated with all of that would be able to participate in the process," Senator Edwards said.

When pushed to clarify what the precise process was, Senator Edwards, who joined the Senate in 2011, insisted it was "all the same", that the use of the term "open tender" were his words and anyone wanting clarification on what Mr Abbott had offered should talk to the Prime Minister.

The main point, he argued, was that whatever the process, it was "the only gig in town" for Australian companies wanting to bid for submarine contracts.

"Don't get caught up in all of this," he said.

"This is they say something and I say another and the Defence Minister…it's all the same."

He later conceded he believed the Prime Minister had used the word tender.

"I believe he did because when I said can I confirm that the ASC can compete in this tender, he said yes, you can."

Senator Edwards then urged the ASC to prove it had the capability to participate: "We shouldn't be flying these balloons. You know, this I said, she said, you meant, it's the only process is the one they're now included [in]," he said.

"The assurance that I asked of the Prime Minister and that all of my South Australian colleagues to the best of my knowledge have asked for is for them to be included," he said.

"You know, you never get a second chance to ask your uncle to your wedding. You've got to go through life having not asked your uncle to come to the wedding. Now, this is something that they [Australian shipbuilders] want to be involved in."

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 11 Feb 2015 04:45

Russia claims it's in the early stages of developing an aircraft carrier that can hold 100 planes

:
:
:
The Russian carrier, if constructed, would be slightly larger than the US's current Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, which can carry around 90 aircraft.
:
:
: