International Naval News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

[youtube]AaG2EDPVBqc#t=273[/youtube]
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

SEIZING THE ASUW INITIATIVE WITH LAND BASED PATROL AIRCRAFT

^^ The LRASM is/would be a UAI weapon, so what the author seems to be advocating is the integration of the LRASM on the P-8A, before formally making the P-8 compatible for UAI weapons, pods etc which is most likely rather low on the priority list.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Neat Taiwanese 500t missile stealth corvette,"carrier killers",which will be equipped with Taiwan's own supersonic anti-ship missile.The design is v.noteworthy for featuring a heli-deck + hangar too and a 40kts speed. The design and size is something that the IN could take a good look at when conceptuaising its shallow water ASW corvettes. From the pic (link) there appear to be two small outrigger hulls ,more like fins,which give the vessel its high speed.

http://news.usni.org/2014/12/24/taiwan- ... 234c8f82d4
Taiwan Navy Takes Delivery of First Stealth ‘Carrier Killer’ Corvette

By: Sam LaGrone
Published: December 24, 2014 11:19 AM • Updated: December 24, 2014
Taiwanese Navy corvette Tuo Jiang

The Republic of China Navy has taken delivery of what could be the first of a new class of stealth corvettes, according to local press reports.

The locally built 500-ton Tuo Jiang was delivered to the Taiwanese Navy from shipbuilder Lung Teh Shipbuilding at the harbor of Su-ao in a Tuesday ceremony.

“With the completion of this new-generation warship, Taiwan’s naval combat capabilities have reached a milestone,” Taiwan’s Minister of Defense Yen Ming said during the ceremony.
“The Tuo Jiang is the fastest and most powerful vessel of its kind in Asia, and underscores the Navy’s success in implementing the national policy of creating a self-sustaining defense.”

Taiwan has said it wants to purchase up to a dozen of the corvettes that can travel at speeds in excess of 40 knots and will likely be armed with a domestic supersonic anti-ship missile.

“Armaments reportedly include the Hsiung Feng III (HF-3) ramjet-powered supersonic anti-ship missile,” reported Jane’s Defence Weekly in March.
“The HF-3, manufactured by the defence ministry’s Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST), is touted as Taiwan’s most potent weapon against the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN’s) aircraft carrier.”

Taiwan is also slated to acquire up to four U.S. Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates in the next few years following the approval of an arms sale act last week.
vonkabra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by vonkabra »

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Suraj »

Got to see the Soryu and Oyashio class subs at Yokosuka base recently , along with the JMSDF Hyuga class copter carrier . The Soryus are very nice looking boats, about the same dimensions as the older Oyashios but sleeker looking .
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Navy Advances Design for New Destroyer Radar

The Navy is making progress developing a more sensitive, next-generation radar system engineered to integrate onto new Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers by 2023, service officials said.

The Air and Missile Defense Radar, or AMDR, is said to be at least 30-times more sensitive than radars configured on existing DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

Among other things, the additional power and sensitivity will allow the ship to detect a much wider range of threats at much greater distances, said Capt. Mark Vandroff, program manager DDG 51 Shipbuilding.


“I can see a target that is half the size, twice as far away. What this means is an individual destroyer will be able to engage more ballistic missiles at the same time versus what you have today — and it will be able to engage more advanced threats because it can see them farther away,” Vandroff said. “It can see smaller objects farther away so it will be better at picking out what is a threat versus what is not a threat.”

The AMDR platform, being developed by Raytheon Co. under an Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract awarded in October 2013, will enable next-generation Flight III DDG 51s to defend much larger areas compared with the AN/SPY-1D radar on existing destroyers, Vandroff said.

Earlier this month, the Navy and the company successfully completed an AMDR hardware critical design review, a process that helped establish a baseline design for the platform.

“We now have a lockdown hardware design for all the components that are going to support the radar. We have a design and a plan for the radar itself, for the computers that are going to control it, for the power units that will provide power to it and for the cooling system that will cool it,” Vandroff said.

The AMDR is being engineered to be easily repairable with replaceable parts, fewer circuit boards and cheaper components than previous radars. The AMDR is designed to rely heavily on software innovations, reducing the need for different spare parts. The Navy has finished one of four planned software builds for the system.

However, special technological adaptations will be necessary to ensure the new, larger radar system can be sufficiently cooled and powered up with enough electricity, Vandroff added.

Regarding electricity, the Navy recently awarded a competitive contract to DRS Technologies Inc. to build power conditioning modules, designed to turn the ship’s on-board electrical power into 1000-volt DC power for the AMDR, Vandroff said.

The first power conditioning modules are slated for land-based testing at a Navy facility in Philadelphia in 2017.

“This is risk reduction so that before I take the system to sea, I have had it thoroughly wrung it out on land,” Vandroff said.

The DDG Flight III’s will also be built with the same Rolls Royce power turbine engineered for the DDG 1000, yet designed with some special fuel-efficiency enhancements.

The AMDR will also need to be equipped with specially configured cooling technology. As a result, the Navy is developing a new 300-ton AC cooling plant slated to replace the existing 200-ton AC plant, Vandroff said.

“The prototype refrigeration unit tested last week in York, Pennsylvania, was able to produce 350-tons of refrigeration, so it is actually more efficient than we had been banking on,” he added.

The Navy anticipates having a cooling unit prototype within one year. The new cooling plant will need to undergo environmental testing which will assess how the unit is able to tolerate vibration, noise and shocks such as those generated by an underwater explosion.

Construction and integration of the first AMDR systems on Flight III DDG 51s is slated to begin by 2016. Vandroff said he expects the new radar to be operational and ready for combat missions on destroyers by 2023.

In total, the Navy plans as many as 22 Flight III DDG 51 destroyers, according to a Navy capabilities development document, Vandroff said. However, the actual number may vary depending upon the development of new technologies and prospects for a new surface combatant in 10 years.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

NR tx for the pics.The wave piercing twin hull details are clearly seen.Innovative design and an excellent cost-effective vessel for the Taiwanese,who can build these corvettes in large number.

Potential Vietnamese sub operations.The Viet navy will take some time in mastering sub warfare.We are training them for the same. Since the Chinese also operate Kilos and have been doing so for a long time now,they would have an advantage .However,what the rules of engagement for the PLAN subs is open to Q as their warships and subs do not have complete freedom to act independently. The 6 VN subs would still pose a threat to Chinese subs and surface ships complicating their attempted domination of the Indo-China Sea. With other ASEAN nations as well as Japanese subs operating in the Asia-Pacific waters,the PLAN will have to deal with 3 different types of enemy subs.Kilos,U-boats,Soryus and if the wizards of Oz can get their sole operational Collins fit enough to travel that far,a lone Collins class too! We aren't mentioning the USN's sub assets here as it is a non-regional player.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 1227000003
Vietnam's Kilo-submarines to potentially blockade Spratly islands

Staff Reporter 2014-12-27 09:18 (GMT+8)
A Type 093 nuclear-powered attack submarine of PLA Navy. (Internet photo)

Vietnam's six Kilo-class submarines purchased from Russia are very likely to be used to cut off the supply line of the People's Liberation Army's garrison at the disputed Spratly islands according to the Duowei News on Dec. 24.

China's nationalist tabloid the Global Times said that the People's Navy of Vietnam had already received three Kilo-class submarines from Russia. Vietnam's Kilo-class submarines are all equipped with 3M-14E Klub-S ballistic missiles. With an attacking range of 280 kilometers, the missile can reach Guangdong province's Zhanjiang, where China's South Sea Fleet headquarters is located. China's major naval facilities on Hainan island are also within reach. In addition, the Kilo-submarines can attack PLA supply ships with its GE2-01 radar-guided torpedoes.

The Global Times did say however that the PLA Navy has something up its sleeve to counter the new Vietnamese subs. Three Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines have already been sent to Hainan island just in case of a potential conflict over the Spratlys. China would also deploy its Type 093 Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines to the region if needed.

Despite the advantage the Vietnamese Kilos have in land attack and anti-ship capabilities, Taipei-based Asia Pacific Defense magazine said that they are not designed to fight enemy submarines.

Also, as China has already been using Russian subs for quite some time and has a strong knowledge concerning the Kilos weaknesses, the PLA Navy has a better chance of inflicting serious damage on the Vietnamese purchases should a battle take place, according to the Global Times.
member_28840
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by member_28840 »

The Tuo Jiang Class seems to be a scaled up Fast attack missile boat. The SWATH type cat hull would give it a lot of stability and speed. The downside of this design is the rather limited range and single phalanx CIWS and no PD SAM. But overall a decent design for the ROC who don't have to operate far from home and have to only worry about fighting in the strait.

@NR thanks for the pics, looks like a pretty little ship. Any clue as to where the AShMs launchers are carried? The rear seems to be taken by the Hanger and the front has the Oto... my best guess is VLS cells in the small space between the Hanger and the central superstructure / bridge.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Courtesy F-16.net

Angle Of Attack - "How Naval Aviation Changed The Face Of War"

[youtube]AXToDZnS4rQ#t=12[/youtube]
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by SaiK »

member_28840
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by member_28840 »

^^ Looking at the massive thickness of the Internal Hull, one can really appreciate the enormous pressures at the depths these subs routinely operate in.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Amid Criticism, US Navy Confident in New Arresting Gear System for Next Carrier
WASHINGTON — A host of new technologies and systems will begin to enter service when the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is delivered in the first half of 2016, and for over a decade it's been a good question whether all the new whiz-bang technology will be ready in time.

While the US Navy and its suppliers remain under scrutiny to make it all happen, they're also increasingly confident the key new technologies — including the dual-band radar (DBR), electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) and advanced arresting gear (AAG) — will be delivered.

The latter two technologies represent a major shift for carrier operations, allowing aircraft to be launched and recovered without bulky and manpower-intensive steam catapults and hydraulic wires.

But, program officials have acknowledged, testing and development of the systems will continue past the ship's planned March 2016 delivery date. Initial operational test and evaluation work isn't to start until the second half of 2017, with integration testing continuing to the end of that year. The ship's initial deployment is scheduled to take place in 2019.Worries over concurrent design, testing, development and construction have been a feature of the CVN 78 program since its inception in the 2000s, when the George W. Bush administration's emphasis on transformation forced the Navy to bring forward several technologies still in development. Years after the first contracts were issued for the ship, those worries persist, despite reassurances

"Concerns over system integration within platform space, weight and power reservations have been resolved," program officials told the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a report released in March. "Land-based testing for EMALS and DBR has progressed enough that program officials do not anticipate significant redesign. Further, the AAG test schedule remains on track to support ship delivery and sea trials."

But in a November report on the carrier program, GAO continued to sound a worried tone.

"The shipboard test program is further at risk because additional design changes and modifications to the shipboard AAG units remain likely," GAO wrote. "This is because the Navy will now be conducting land-based testing of AAG even as shipboard testing is under way."

GAO also cited delays in AAG development, which have added four and a half years to the arresting gear program, with testing continuing to the end of 2016.

Yet Navy officials are more confident than ever that the new radar and launch systems will be ready. Less has been said about the AAG, which uses a new electric motor-based system and energy-absorbing water twisters to bring supersonic jet aircraft to a halt within a distance of about 340 feet. As of now, the arresting gear seems to have more outstanding issues than the DBR or EMALS.

"AAG has had, over the past four years, several developmental tests … that have delayed our test program," Capt. Stephen Tedford, program manager for the Navy's Aircraft Launch, Recovery and Equipment Office, said in a December interview.

But, he said, the GAO's claim of four and a half years of AAG delays is not accurate.

"We have had delays on the advanced arresting gear, that is a true statement," Tedford said. "We are continuing to work through those delays, and I believe we are still in support of ship delivery in 2016."

A serious problem with the water twisters, discovered early in 2012, was a key factor in the delays, he explained. Internal plates that take the force of the water weren't strong enough, and finding a solution took time.

"In the arresting gear case, we have had certain specific issues with respect to the water twisters that put us out of test for quite a while," Tedford said. "I can't run the system until that specific issue is solved, until we had replacement water twisters, and we could actually get back into full envelope testing, and not just the low end. Until I actually start testing at the upper end where the energy is highest, when I am stressing the system the most, and when I am likely to find my next issue. But I can't get back in to test, I can't find the next issue."

Water twister technology isn't new, Tedford explained, and manufacturer General Atomics describes the system as simple and proven. But existing systems are fixed in their capacity to absorb energy.

"Ours are variable," Tedford said. "You have an actual moving plate inside the water twister that adjusts how much resistance to the water is generated. Generally, there was an underestimation of the forces involved inside the water twister. You are talking about a three-dimensional flow field, it is very difficult to predict, and it was underestimated."

The solution, he said, was to use thicker plates. "We beefed up the entire design of the water twister. The footprint, the outer diameter and the size and the shape are all still the same. It is the internal components that we have made stronger."

AAG tests have yet to involve real aircraft. Rather, dead loads simulating the weight of planes have been used to test the system at a jet car track installed at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. "To date, that site has executed 537 dead loads, so the system does work," Tedford said.

A full-scale AAG is being built into a runway at Lakehurst — the same runway where an EMALS has been installed and running tests since 2011. Aircraft recoveries will begin in late 2015, Tedford said.

GAO also repeated longstanding criticisms that the Navy is performing tests while delivering components to the ship, meaning expensive changes are made when problems are found. The situation was envisioned and accepted long ago, but there is little question changes are easier to make before parts are installed — and for both the EMALS and AAG, 94 percent of the hardware has been delivered to the Ford.

"Yes, we have been concurrent, with respect to design and production, for several years now, and that has continued," Tedford acknowledged. "Where we have been able to get designs changed into the production hardware prior to delivery to the ship, we have done so. For those that are outstanding, we have a field change work package program that brings those changes to the ship."

Where to make changes is decided on a case-by-case basis.

"As we have discovery of design changes in a development test program, we make a determination on each and every one if that redesign is required on the ship, and when it is required on the ship," Tedford said. "Every one is categorized as it relates to the ship construction and test schedule, as well as her post-delivery, post shakedown availability schedule. It really depends on the critical nature of the design change."

GAO also raised concerns about reliability of both the EMALS and AAG systems. But certifying system reliability, Tedford pointed out, can be difficult to prove before a system is installed.

"Reliability comes from a significant number of cycles on any system, it is statistics-based," Tedford said. "So you have to have hundreds of thousands of cycles in order to achieve system reliability. And the way that reliability growth is established is, it's not just from the system installed at Lakehurst, it's in combination with the ship and the second ship of class, and the third ship of class over time. So it was never in our program, as a requirement or anything else, in order to meet threshold reliability for either system when the ship delivered, simply because it is not possible to get there statistically."

The single EMALS catapult at Lakehurst, he pointed out, "is as close as we can get to the ship-based system on land, but it is not a four-catapult, identical system to what they have on CVN 78. Plus, realize that the testing that we do has been just that — it has been developmental testing. We are trying to find faults in the system. We are trying to find where it fails. That is the point. We are not intentionally doing reliability testing, which would be part of the envelope — repetitive, the same test point over and over and over again — to build reliability. That actually is in the next phase of the test program that kicks off later this year."

Tedford admits challenges remain, but he declared confidence.

"Both of these systems work," he said. "EMALS is on a great trajectory right now, and advanced arresting gear is on a similar vector.

"We are very excited," he added.
Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

More joining the party.

Taiwan set to design, build new, indigenous submarines
Taiwan's Defense ministry has approved the guidelines for the design and construction of an indigenous submarine. Design and development is slated to begin in 2016 and span over four years at a total cost of about US$95 million.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

The USN's latest game-changer.
The Navy's Got a New Laser Gun -- and It's a Blast!

By Rich Smith | More Articles
January 4, 2015 | Comments (9)


What looks like a video game, works like a flashlight, and explodes targets with a "bang"?


Video still: U.S. Navy.

Answer: the U.S. Navy's new Laser Weapon System, or "LaWS," a $40 million prototype laser gun that recently deployed for at-sea trials off the coast of Iran.

In multiple demonstrations, filmed by the Navy and posted on YouTube, this laser gun is first shown exploding ordnance aboard a towed barge and a fast-moving speedboat.


Video still: U.S. Navy.

For an encore, the Navy launched -- then blasted -- one of its own ScanEagle drones, showing LaWS can serve as an anti-aircraft laser gun as well.


Video still: U.S. Navy.

All this was accomplished from the control center of Afloat Forward Staging Base USS Ponce (a refurbished amphibious transport dock), by an officer using what appears to be a video game controller operating a laser gun not much bigger than your average CIWS Phalanx Gatling gun.


Video still: U.S. Navy.

A quick review
Together, these elements form LaWS, which the Pentagon said cost only $40 million to develop -- and which could reinvent the way the Navy fights battles in the future. With silent, invisible, unjammable laser beams, LaWS destroys targets in a (literal) flash, killing targets with pure energy and light. At a cost of just $0.59 per shot, LaWS is 2 million times cheaper than a $1.5 million Tomahawk missile.

It is also, as shown in the video, surprisingly effective for a technology still in its infancy. According to website BreakingDefense, the actual shooting end of LaWS is just six industrial welding lasers "strapped together" and focusing 33 kilowatts of energy at the target. It gets the job done already. Future iterations would aim to ramp up rapidly to 60 kilowatts, then 100, and then perhaps even a full megawatt of power -- enough to destroy a fast-moving ballistic missile from miles away.

What it means to investors
Encouraged by early success, the Navy is planning to equip warships with "cost-effective, combat-ready laser prototypes," says the Office of Naval Research as early as the 2020s -- which should sound a wake-up call for investors in the defense industry. Things are changing fast.

Here at The Motley Fool, we love reading about cutting-edge military tech -- but what we really enjoy is translating defense news into cold, hard profits in our portfolios. With that end in mind, let's take a quick look at what this news could mean for defense investors.

Size doesn't matter...
Cost and space savings on laser gun-equipped ships will be enormous -- but the boats won't have to be. This is because laser guns eliminate the need for hulking missile cruisers and destroyers stacked to the rafters with artillery shells.

In today's Navy, once a warship runs out of "bullets," it is combat-ineffective. But in a laser gun-armed vessel, the ship's engine is the "magazine," creating near-free "bullets" for the laser gun to fire.

In future years, investors might want to supplement investments in traditional munitions makers such as General Dynamics with those in engine makers including Rolls-Royce (which powers the Zumwalt-class missile destroyer) or United Technologies (which packs an amazing amount of power into a small engine aboard the F-35 fighter jet).

...efficiency and scale do
IPG Photonics and Rofin-Sinar Technologies are also worth keeping your eyes on. Among the world's leading specialists in laser tech, they are logical places for the Navy to look as it upgrades its laser guns.

And don't forget the large, integrated defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, which recently won a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contract to improve laser guns' accuracy. Whether by work in-house or through acquisitions of smaller players winning Pentagon contracts, they're certain to claim their pieces of the laser gun pie.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

^^ Even more impressive would be the activities in the EMRG arena. DEW's are getting their share of the media coverage and since HELLADS has now transferred into a multi-service program, the target of fitting a 150KW Laser on a vessel out at sea is perhaps 4-5 years away at the maximum.

EMRG is racing ahead, the prototype gun is going to be fitted and sent out at sea later this year or early next year on the Joint High Speed Vessel and tested. Both BaE and GA are doing independent works on independent requirements.

Image


[youtube]6qTSzh-H3Q4#t=17[/youtube]

Rescinded RFI gives insight to USN's railgun plans (Janes Defense weekly, 2015-01-02 - Subscription
Clues to the direction of travel for the US Navy's (USN's) electromagnetic railgun programme have emerged via a request for information (RFI) issued in error by Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).
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.
The RFI was published on behalf of NAVSEA's Directed Energy and Electric Weapons Program Office (PMS 405), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. A NAVSEA spokesperson told IHS Jane's on 27 December that it was "posted prematurely by accident. We plan to reissue in February [2015]
".
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.

As well as asking companies and research bodies to describe the key attributes and TRLs of their FCS concepts, the RFI also sought information on their suitability for multimission applications, possible integration problems with existing naval combat systems, and impacts on the logistics chain. NAVSEA's Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Virginia would host industry days on 21-22 January 2015, and final responses were requested by 6 February. The scheduling of these events will now move to the right.
The ONR initiated its Electromagnetic Railgun Innovative Naval Prototype programme in 2005, with Phase 1 setting out to develop a launcher with "adequate" service life together with reliable pulsed-power technology. In December 2010, a demonstrator system at Dahlgren achieved a world record for railgun muzzle energy with a 33-megajoule (MJ) shot, sufficient to propel a projectile from a distance of 110 n miles.
The first industry-owned launcher, a 32 MJ demonstrator built by BAE Systems, arrived at Dahlgren in January 2012 and was followed a few months later by a rival prototype from General Atomics.
In mid-2013, the ONR invited BAE Systems to execute Phase 2 of the programme, moving from a single-shot capability to a multi-shot (10 rounds per minute) firing rate and maturing the technology for transition to an acquisition programme. BAE Systems also secured a contract to develop a guided Hypervelocity Projectile, with a fully capable exo-atmospheric munition expected to exit the muzzle at Mach 7.5 and impact the target at Mach 5.
The joint high-speed vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV-3) will host the first at-sea trials of a prototype railgun - either the BAE Systems or General Atomics version, firing single shots - in FY 2016. Repetitive-rate firings at sea, possibly using a fully integrated shipboard railgun system, are planned for 2018.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Navy Wants Rail Guns to Fight Ballistic and Supersonic Missiles Says RFI
Fighting ballistic missiles, stealthy targets, swarmed surface and supersonic threats are high on the Pentagon’s wish list for its future electromagnetic rail gun, according to a request for information (RFI) for a rail gun fire control systems from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) that posted in Dec. 22 but was quickly taken down.

The RFI for rail gun fire control systems was pulled because it posted earlier than intended due to a clerical error, NAVSEA officials told USNI News on Monday. The final announcement will repost on FedBizOpps later this month.

Regardless, the rescinded RFI — issued by NAVSEA on behalf of Directed Energy and Electric Weapons Program Office (PMS 405), the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) — gives major hints in how the U.S. wants to employ future rail guns.

The RFI sought a prototype system for a, “multi-mission railgun weapon system to support detect, track and engagement of ballistic missiles and air and watercraft threats,” by 2018 and an operational weapon by 2025.

NASEA asked industry to address at least one of the following areas:

Ability to track low [radar cross section] (stealth) targets at extended ranges
Electronically scanned coverage (FOV) of greater than 90 degrees in azimuth and elevation
Endo atmospheric tracking and engagement of ballistic missile targets
Environmental clutter rejection (weather, surface, biological)
Support raid handling for ballistic missile, Anti-Air Warfare and Surface engagements
Simultaneous tracking of inbound targets and outbound supersonic projectiles
The document did not outline speeds or ranges NAVSEA is seeking for the effort. In addition to air threats, the RFI also stressed the ability for the system to track and attack surface targets.


The timing of the operational capability — in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe — suggests the Navy may look to include an EM rail gun on its next generation large surface combatant. The follow-on to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the Ticonderoga-class cruisers is in its earliest phases of development and planned to start construction in 2028, the service told USNI News last year.

EM rail guns have been advertised by the service for years as a solution to the ongoing problem of more stealthy and faster guided weapons that threaten naval vessels and aircraft.“It would be able to shoot down cruise missiles coming in that are relatively close,” retired Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Gary Roughead told USNI News in 2013. “The electromagnetic rail gun is really horizon to horizon; if it flies, it dies.”

The Navy’s current systems — creates mostly in the late 1970s — are designed to tackle air threats with expensive missiles as best expressed in the Aegis combat system found on the Navy’s guided missile destroyers and cruisers. The template of the Standard Missile (SM) and the radar system has been adapted to handle ballistic missile but at the cost of more than $11 million per missile.

Rail guns promise to handle air threats with ammunition that is cheaper to produce, with a larger magazine and a higher rate of fire.

The weapons project a round by creating an electromagnetic field that pushes the round at tremendous force along two charged rails without the use of any type of combustion. The round gets its destructive power from its speed — which can be five times faster than the speed of sound — when it hits the target.

Though the fundamentals are sound, building reliable rail guns is challenging.

Not only do the weapons require a tremendous amount of power — sometimes in short supply on naval vessels — the rails want to pull themselves apart every time the weapon is fired. In addition to the power requirements and the engineering task of keeping the weapon whole, the Navy also has had to develop a system to quickly pulse the energy through the rails to gain the velocity needed to reach supersonic speeds.

So far, ONR has demonstrated it can fire a 32-megajoule weapon — capable of launching a projectile more than 100 miles — and now is working on creating a reliable weapon that can sustain repeated use.

Next year, the Navy will test a prototype rail gun on the joint high-speed vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV-3) — from rail gun manufactures BAE Systems or General Atomics — for the first round of at sea testing.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

The shape of the future.
http://news.usni.org/2015/01/05/navy-wa ... 234c8f82d4

Navy Wants Rail Guns to Fight Ballistic and Supersonic Missiles Says RFI

By: Sam LaGrone
Published: January 5, 2015
[quote
n artist rendering shows the Office of Naval Research-funded electromagnetic railgun installed aboard the joint high-speed vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV- 3). US Navy Image

Fighting ballistic missiles, stealthy targets, swarmed surface and supersonic threats are high on the Pentagon’s wish list for its future electromagnetic rail gun, according to a request for information (RFI) for a rail gun fire control systems from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) that posted in Dec. 22 but was quickly taken down.

The RFI for rail gun fire control systems was pulled because it posted earlier than intended due to a clerical error, NAVSEA officials told USNI News on Monday. The final announcement will repost on FedBizOpps later this month.

Regardless, the rescinded RFI — issued by NAVSEA on behalf of Directed Energy and Electric Weapons Program Office (PMS 405), the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) — gives major hints in how the U.S. wants to employ future rail guns.

The RFI sought a prototype system for a, “multi-mission railgun weapon system to support detect, track and engagement of ballistic missiles and air and watercraft threats,” by 2018 and an operational weapon by 2025.

NASEA asked industry to address at least one of the following areas:
•Ability to track low [radar cross section] (stealth) targets at extended ranges
•Electronically scanned coverage (FOV) of greater than 90 degrees in azimuth and elevation
•Endo atmospheric tracking and engagement of ballistic missile targets
•Environmental clutter rejection (weather, surface, biological)
•Support raid handling for ballistic missile, Anti-Air Warfare and Surface engagements
•Simultaneous tracking of inbound targets and outbound supersonic projectiles

The document did not outline speeds or ranges NAVSEA is seeking for the effort. In addition to air threats, the RFI also stressed the ability for the system to track and attack surface targets.

The timing of the operational capability — in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe — suggests the Navy may look to include an EM rail gun on its next generation large surface combatant. The follow-on to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the Ticonderoga-class cruisers is in its earliest phases of development and planned to start construction in 2028, the service told USNI News last year.

EM rail guns have been advertised by the service for years as a solution to the ongoing problem of more stealthy and faster guided weapons that threaten naval vessels and aircraft.

A high-speed camera captures the first full-energy shots from the Office of Naval Research-funded electromagnetic railgun prototype launcher in 2012. US Navy Photo

“It would be able to shoot down cruise missiles coming in that are relatively close,” retired Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Gary Roughead told USNI News in 2013. “The electromagnetic rail gun is really horizon to horizon; if it flies, it dies.”

The Navy’s current systems — creates mostly in the late 1970s — are designed to tackle air threats with expensive missiles as best expressed in the Aegis combat system found on the Navy’s guided missile destroyers and cruisers. The template of the Standard Missile (SM) and the radar system has been adapted to handle ballistic missile but at the cost of more than $11 million per missile.

Rail guns promise to handle air threats with ammunition that is cheaper to produce, with a larger magazine and a higher rate of fire.

The weapons project a round by creating an electromagnetic field that pushes the round at tremendous force along two charged rails without the use of any type of combustion. The round gets its destructive power from its speed — which can be five times faster than the speed of sound — when it hits the target.

Though the fundamentals are sound, building reliable rail guns is challenging.

One of the two electromagnetic railgun prototypes on display aboard the joint high speed vessel USS Millinocket (JHSV 3) in port at Naval Station San Diego, Calif. US Navy Photo

Not only do the weapons require a tremendous amount of power — sometimes in short supply on naval vessels — the rails want to pull themselves apart every time the weapon is fired. In addition to the power requirements and the engineering task of keeping the weapon whole, the Navy also has had to develop a system to quickly pulse the energy through the rails to gain the velocity needed to reach supersonic speeds.


So far, ONR has demonstrated it can fire a 32-megajoule weapon — capable of launching a projectile more than 100 miles — and now is working on creating a reliable weapon that can sustain repeated use.

Next year, the Navy will test a prototype rail gun on the joint high-speed vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV-3) — from rail gun manufactures BAE Systems or General Atomics — for the first round of at sea testing.
][/quote]
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Some articles from Newsweek.Interesting reading.Russia as the articles say,is the undisputed leader of the pack in the Arctic,where now 3 new Borei SSBNs each armed with 20 Bulava missiles (10 warheads each) have been commissioned and have test fired their Bulava ICBMs.Using the Arctic as a maritime route to Asia cuts 30% off the time taken as of now. A string of mil. bases all along the 4,000km+ Artcic coastline of Russia is also being established.No western nation is anywhere close top Russia in terms of mil capability in the region,which holds more than 22% of the world's untapped energy supplies according to western agencies.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/16/puti ... 96594.html
Putin Makes His First Move in Race to Control the Arctic
By Elisabeth Braw / January 6, 2015

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-navy-wi ... sea-290496
Russian Navy to Focus Strategy on Arctic Zone and Black Sea
By Damien Sharkov 12/9/14Russia to Open Arctic Military Drone Base 420 Miles off the Alaskan Coast

Russia to Open Arctic Military Drone Base 420 Miles off the Alaskan Coast
By Damien Sharkov 11/13/14
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Prem »

Japan seeks to sell sub-hunting jet to UK as Abe pushes arms exports
TOKYO: Japan is asking Britain to buy its P-1 submarine-hunting jet in a deal that could top $1 billion (660 million pounds), a major step in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s push to arms exports after decades of self-imposed restrictions, people with knowledge of the proposal said.Britain has not formally decided it will buy new maritime patrol planes, having cancelled an order for nine built by BAE Systems <BAES.L> in 2010 due to delays and cost over-runs, and the P-1, made by Kawasaki Heavy Industries <7012.T>, would face stiff competition from Boeing’s <BA.N> P-8 Poseidon, the three sources told Reuters.Japanese officials raised the issue of London buying the P-1 to replace the British-made Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, which was retired in 2011, when they met their UK counterparts to discuss defence-equipment cooperation at the Farnborough Air Show near London in July, the sources said.After Abe eased curbs on military exports in April, his Defence Ministry has been looking to tap foreign markets for its cocooned weapons makers, including potential deals to sell subs to Australia and seaplanes to India. A P-1 sale to Britain would be Japan’s first major military deal outside the Asia-Pacific region.Abe wants Japan’s defence suppliers to move into the global arms market through tie-ups that will help bring down procurement costs and strengthen the nation’s military to counter China’s growing military might.“It has potential customers beyond the UK, like New Zealand, Norway and Canada, with large maritime areas,” said UK consultant Simon Chelton, a former BAE Systems Plc <BAES.L> executive and defence attache at the British Embassy in Tokyo.“We are considering a number of options in regard to defence equipment sales, but we don’t comment on specific deals,” said Japanese Defence Ministry’s spokesman Hirofumi Takeda.Britain’s Ministry of Defence was not immediately able to comment.
The P-1, designed to patrol Japan’s territorial waters from the Pacific to the East China Sea, where Beijing claims small islands held by Tokyo, will be the country’s principal sub hunter for decades to come.Japan’s navy plans to buy around 20, costing about 20 billion yen ($170 million) each, over the next five years, though cracks in the fuselage and wing and engine problems have delayed its entry into service.No announcement from Britain of any replacement for the Nimrod, which tracked Soviet undersea activity during the Cold War, is expected before May’s general election.Its least risky option could be the Boeing P-8, already built and operated by the United States, the closest ally to both Britain and Japan, the sources said. Deployed by the U.S. Navy last year, the first squadron armed with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles operates from Okinawa in southwestern Japan near China.Boeing officials in Tokyo were unavailable for comment.In its most recent order in February, the U.S. Navy said it would buy 16 additional P-8s at a cost of $150 million each.If Japan can offer a P-1 variant tailored for the British military that is competitive on price and capability, it could represent a viable alternative.Jointly building a P-1 that taps into Britain’s experience building the Nimrod would allow London to retain rights over radar and sensing technology it would lose by buying a U.S. aircraft regulated by the Pentagon, one source said.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by vishvak »

Pentagon seems to be the top dog as far as regulating/invasive-inspections/PMS is concerned. I don't understand why we would not have an alternate option ready when we need it. P-1 is a good option as it is, so also Russian ones like IL-38 to counter ALL submarine types in the Indian ocean.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Excellent pic/v-clip of the tail/screw showing unique details .

http://rt.com/news/220983-russia-submarine-tests-nato/

Russia’s stealth ‘black hole’ submarine prepares for 4,000km trip, deep water trials

Published time: January 08, 2015 18:33

Workers attend a ceremony of launching the Rostov-on-Don Russian diesel-electric torpedo submarine at the Admiralteiskiye verfy shipyard in St. Petersburg (AFP Photo / Olga Maltseva)

A new Russian advanced stealth submarine, dubbed a “black hole” by NATO for its ability to be undetectable, has begun preparations for deep water tests. However, it must first make a 4,630km journey to the Barents Sea in Russia's north.

"The crew of the electric diesel submarine Rostov on Don which was handed to the Russian Navy by Admiralty Shipyards has started the preparation for the passing from the Baltic Sea zone to the Barents Sea,” Captain Igor Dygalo from the Ministry of Defense said.

Before the submarine begins its test operations, it must travel about 2,500 nautical miles (4,630 km) from St. Petersburg to the Barents Sea in Russia's north. After finishing all scheduled tests, the submarine will travel to its future permanent place of service in the Novorossiysk port in the Black Sea. It is the second submarine out of six planned for the Black Sea Fleet by the end of 2016.

READ MORE: Another super quiet sub for Russia’s Black Sea fleet

Known as 'Improved Kilo' under NATO code name, Rostov on Don is the first trade-off model of the third generation submarines of the Varshavyanka class (Project 636) underwater ship. The diesel-electric stealth sub is believed to be the quietest in the world. It also possesses an extended combat range, and its relatively small size helps it maneuver in shallow waters.

The sub carries 533 mm torpedoes and eight surface-to-air missiles, in addition to a new Caliber land attack cruise missile complex. Its tonnage is 4,000 tons; its underwater speed reaches 40 knots (37 km per hour), and its maximal submission is 300 meters. Its crew consists of 52 persons and it can fulfill its duty autonomously for 45 days.

NATO has called this type of submarine a “black hole” for its ability to remain undetected.

The new submarine, along with other vessels from the Project 636 class, is mainly intended for anti-shipping and anti-submarine missions in relatively shallow waters. It can strike surface, underwater, and land targets. The Varshavyanka class subs will be tasked with patrolling Russia’s maritime borders and protecting Black Sea coastal territories.

READ MORE: Russia’s Arctic troops to be beefed up with Northern Fleet in 2015

The submarine construction started in November 2011 in Admiralty Shipyards in Saint Petersburg, and finished at the end of 2014. It is named after the city of Rostov-on-Don in Russia’s south.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

In a little under 10 hours the US Naval Academy is hosting an interesting discussion and debate on the future of aircraft carriers. The two speakers are Brian McGrath, AD, Hudson center for seapower and Henry Hendrix, a renowned strategist. They would be streaming the event live on youtube so if we have any naval strategy buffs - this is a link to tune in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8sdNU0 ... e=youtu.be

Edit: A very interesting and infighting debate indeed. One fact that stood out really was that the CVN carries 23 times more ordinance for the carrier air wing then an LHA. Kind of puts things in proper perspective and further drives homes the point that the LHA though important for flexibility is in no way a mini-aircraft carrier.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

New Reactor Cores Key To Ohio Replacement Subs
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD: One of the most secretive agencies in the Navy didn’t just invite reporters to its headquarters today: It offered them cookies and cake.The agency? The Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program. The occasion? The 60th anniversary of the first submarine ever to sail under nuclear power. But there’s a lot more going on at “Naval Reactors” than nostalgia, an edible USS Nautilus, and affectionate jokes about the late Admiral Hyman Rickover, the notoriously tough founder of NR in whose honor the Navy is naming its next sub. As soon as the celebration’s done, Rickover’s heirs have to get right back to work on the design that will carry the force through the next 60 years: the Ohio Replacement.

At an estimated $95 billion for 10 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), the program faces daunting technological, schedule, and fiscal challenges. So what’s foremost on the mind of NR’s director, Adm. John Richardson?

“You’ve heard a couple of people mention today the ’40-year core,'” Richardson told reporters as the festivities wound down. The current Ohio subs and the nuclear Nimitz aircraft carriers require an expensive, lengthy mid-life overhaul to replace their reactor cores after 15 to 25 years of service. The new Virginia attack subs have cores designed to last the life of the sub, 33 years, although none of them is that old yet. The Ohio Replacement reactor core is supposed to last an unprecedented four decades.

“That has tremendous implications,” said Adm. Richardson, “about a $40 billion saving over the life of the program…but that’s by no means a done deal.”Bypassing the multi-year mid-life overhaul means each submarine can spend more of its service life at sea, instead of in the shipyard. The Navy calculates the 40-year-core will allow 12 Ohio Replacement submarines to do the work of the current 14 Ohios. It will also save on maintenance funds, spare parts, and more. But it’s also making a huge bet on the core’s reliability.

“You’re talking about putting something into a reactor plant and leaving it there for 40 years at high pressure, high temperature, [and] radiation flux — all the things that come with nuclear power,” Richardson said. “Doing that safely and reliably [is] not a trivial matter. So each step, each move along that path, takes a tremendous amount of attention to detail.”

Richardson is also responsible for the parts of the propulsion system that aren’t radioactive. In the Ohio Replacement’s case, that includes an electric drive almost as unprecedented as the 40-year-core. Almost all naval vessels have an engine that connects directly to the propellers via a mechanical driveshaft: The sole exception so far is the destroyer USS Zumwalt, whose generator sends power to electric motors behind each propeller instead. That’s called electric drive, and the Ohio Replacement will be the first submarine to use it.

“This submarine’s going to have electric drive; there’s some engineering that we have to step through to de-risk that,” Richardson said.

This year will see “really important work in those two areas” (drive and core), Richardson summed up. There’s not much time. To get a sub this complicated on patrol in 2031, when the Ohios start wearing out, construction must begin in 2021. “Very soon,” said Richardson, “we’re going to be buying components and cutting contracts, before you know it.”

That brings us to the question that’s bedeviled the Ohio Replacement Program: how to pay for it? The Navy itself has officially acknowledged its current shipbuilding plans are “unsustainable” unless it gets dedicated funding for ORP.

“We’re going to fund the Ohio Replacement; that is not in the balance,” Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition, said earlier this week at the Atlantic Council. Nuclear missile submarines are essential to the nation’s nuclear deterrent, and even disarmament-minded Obama will not give that up. So the real question, Stackley said, is what else suffers to pay for the Ohio Replacement Program?This is obviously one of our nation’s — not just Navy’s, but nation’s – – highest priorities,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told reporters after today’s 60th anniversary celebration. “It’s the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad.”

“Our argument has been this is a national program; it should be funded in some different way so we don’t gut the Navy to fund this program,” Mabus continued. The last time the Navy built nuclear missile subs, the current Ohio class, its shipbuilding budget was much higher; this time, Congress has created a special fund outside the regular Navy budget — although there’s no money actually in that fund just yet.

“I don’t think you pay for one type of ship with another type of ship,” Mabus said. “You’ve got to look other places. I’m going to protect ship building and aircraft production because we’ve got to have that for our presence [around the world]. But if bad things happen, if sequester hits again or things like that, it’s going to have a major, major devastating impact somewhere. It may not be in shipbuilding. But you can’t take that big a bit without something happening.”
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/578756/2 ... LS1ustxnIX
New Generation Submarines Of US To Flaunt Drones And Robots: Russia’s Yasenclass Nuclear Submarines To Carry Hi Tech Decoy
By Kalyan Kumar | January 12, 2015 3:24 PM EST

The new generation submarines of the U.S. Navy will have sophisticated technological features such as advanced, long duration autonomous underwater and surface drones and robots. They are being built under the programme "Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle" with the prototype machines boasting critical technologies to enable UUVs to operate and survive in the littorals for more than 70 days.

Reuters
The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Tennessee transits the St. Marys Channel as it departs Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia in this February 6, 2013 handout photo. The Tennessee and 13 other Ohio-class submarines are critical elements of the U.S. nuclear deterrent but the oldest has been in service for 33 years and the end of the fleet's useful life of 42 years is in sight. Every nuclear weapons delivery system in the U.S. arsenal ? the so-called triad of bombers, ballistic missiles and submarines ? will have to be replaced in the coming 30 years.

According to the Sea Power magazine, the UUV Stalker could be launched and retrieved by the dry-deck shelter of an Ohio-class guided-missile submarine. Being powered by lithium battery they will have an endurance of seven to 10 days to loiter offshore for collecting intelligence with antenna masts that can transmit and receive information through an Iridium satellite

Since 2006, the Navy has been working on a submarine-deployable UUV having payload capability, greater than a submarine's 21-inch-diameter torpedo tube. The Sea Stalker UUV has been developed out of the Sea Horse UUV built by the Pennsylvania State University's Applied Research Laboratory.


The US Navy's LDUUV is pier- launched and is a recoverable UUV with the capability to transmit in the open ocean and conduct over-the-horizon missions in littoral waters. This will work as an extension for Navy's platform sensing capability over the horizon with expanded influence. The U.S. Navy considers UUV as a significant force multiplier that can close war fighter gaps. The goal of U.S. Navy has been to "acquire, deliver and maintain operationally effective Unmanned Maritime Systems as integrated systems for the war fighter and direct UMS experimentation and technology maturation to develop future UMS capability", adds the Seapower magazine report.

Russia's Yasen Submarines

Meanwhile, Russia is also working hard on its fifth generation nuclear submarines, which will be armed with robots and underwater drones besides conventional weaponry. "The fifth generation submarines will be equipped with both contemporary weapons and new weapons," explained Nikolay Novoselov, deputy CEO of the Malakhit design engineering bureau. The RIA-Novosti quoted Novoselov saying that battle robots will be released by the submarine alongside underwater drones, reported Next Big Future news. At present, Russia is building Fourth generation Yasen-class submarines. Within it, Severodvinsk is the flagship of the Yasen-class submarines and is being reckoned as the backbone of the Russian Navy's conventional submarine force.

Cruise Missiles

According to the Russian official, besides 533mm torpedoes, Yasen-class submarines will carry the capability to fire cruise missiles from eight of its vertical launching systems. Supersonic anti-ship missiles such as Onyx and Kalibr will also be enabled.

The Russian design expert noted that the robots would be disposable or returnable and will be tasked with military and surveillance purposes. "They will be released by the submarine and stay offline before being remotely activated on command. It will give the submarine the time to leave the area, with the drone remaining in place as a decoy to maintain a semblance that the submarine is still there," Novoselov said. Clearly, a great leap in hi-tech submarine technologies is on display
PS:CK the link for pic of secret Russian sub AC-12 project 10831, known as "Losharik".
http://www.businessinsider.in/Top-Gear- ... 859346.cms
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Heavy touting of the Soryu for the Oz mega sub deal. The Germans aren't quitting that easily though.Oz wants to make the deal a political one cementing defence ties with Japan.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/0 ... 9nIU[quote]
Stealth tech no given in Japanese sub deal
by Reiji Yoshida

Jan 18, 2015
Retired Vice Admiral Masao Kobayashi commanded Japan’s submarine fleet from 2007 to 2009. In a recent interview in Tokyo with The Japan Times, when asked to explain one of the country’s most tightly guarded military secrets, he seemed reflective.

Kobayashi pointed to the ceiling lights in the quiet interview room and said: “Take those fluorescent lights, for example. Any fluorescent light generates sound.”

Other than our voices, there were no other sounds in the room.

“Fluorescent lights generate extremely small vibrations. We take anti-vibration measures for every single light in a submarine,” he said.

Japan’s engineers have painstakingly worked to minimize the vibrations given off by the multitude of components in submarines to prevent even those undetectable by the human ear from being picked up by the super-sensitive sonars of enemy subs and sonobuoys from anti-submarine aircraft, Kobayashi said.

Noisy components include fans, pumps, motors and fluorescent lights. Some are carefully muted with vibration-damping rubber, he said.

“The quiet submarines we have today are the result of numerous long, patient efforts,” Kobayashi said.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force’s submarines are not nuclear-powered but have a reputation for being ultra-quiet.

Now Australia, seeking to build a new fleet of large, long-range submarines, seems keen on acquiring Japan’s latest Soryu-class subs, or at least their technology.

If the deal goes through, the top-secret submarines will become the first major pieces of military hardware Japan has authorized for export since the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe lifted the decades-long blanket ban on arms sales last year.

Vice Adm. Robert Thomas, commander of the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet, reportedly said Oct. 24 in Tokyo that then-Australian Defense Minister David Johnston was very interested in Japan’s Soryu-class subs.

“I talked to him about it four years ago and I said: ‘You want to find the finest diesel-electric submarine made on the planet — it’s made at Kobe works in Japan,’ Thomas was quoted as saying by Bloomberg News.

The U.S., which has close but separate security pacts with Japan and Australia, probably wants Australia to buy Japanese submarines because it would greatly strengthen their strategic military ties, Kobayashi said.

Deeper Japan-Australia military cooperation would help ease the heavy burden on the U.S. fleet, which is busy decommissioning many of the nuclear-powered attack submarines it built during the Cold War, he said.

“The U.S. rapidly built many Los Angeles-class nuclear submarines during the Cold War. Many of them are being decommissioned now,” Kobayashi said.

“I think the U.S. wants to create a strategic triangle of Japan, Australia and the United States. That’s probably a factor behind” the apparent U.S. nod to Australia’s proposal to Japan, he added.

Japanese defense officials are thought to be pleased for the same reason Washington is. They want to deepen strategic military ties with Australia.

“Australia would make a good partner for cooperation. There are no major diplomatic problems between the two countries other than whaling,” a senior Defense Ministry official said on condition anonymity. Australia opposes Japan’s annual whaling expeditions.

Japan has just started receiving the submarine specifications sought by Australia but has yet to decide which secrets to share, two senior defense officials said.

Japan soon plans to use lithium-ion batteries to drive the motors in its latest Soryu sub, making them even quieter. Australia is believed to be interested in this advance, the officials said.

But advanced lithium-ion batteries are one of Japan’s top military secrets, one warned.

“(Exporting) them would be a rather sensitive issue. We’d need to study if it’s really appropriate for an outside party (to have that technology),” the Defense Ministry official said.

In Australia meanwhile, opposition lawmakers and trade unions are strongly opposed to procuring Japanese submarines because it could considerably undermine the domestic defense industry and reduce jobs in South Australia.

Joint development might be an option, the two Japanese officials said, noting that nothing concrete has been officially proposed.

Teruhiko Fukushima, a professor at the National Defense Academy in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, who is an expert on Australia, said Prime Minister Tony Abbott seems eager to procure the subs to bolster Canberra’s military ties with Japan and the United States.

“Abbott should be considering a Japan-U.S.-Australian alliance as a kind of insurance” against the recent rise of China’s powerful military, Fukushima said.

“The introduction of Soryu-class submarines would be a plus to strengthen that alliance,” he added.

“If the Abbott administration survives the next election and wins a second term, there will be a greater chance that Soryu-class submarines will be introduced in Australia,” he said.

Last June, Australia and Japan conducted “two-plus-two” talks between their foreign and defense ministers.

In the joint statement that followed, Australia expressed “strong opposition to the use of force or coercion to unilaterally alter the status quo in the East China Sea and the South China Sea,” an apparent warning to China to not aggressively press its territorial claims in those areas, which include the Japan-controlled Senkaku Islands, which China and Taiwan also claim. China calls the uninhabited islets Diaoyu and Taiwan calls them Tiaoyutai.

Fukushima also said that on Nov. 26, 2013, only three days after Beijing declared the establishment of an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea that included the Senkakus, the Abbott administration summoned the Chinese ambassador in Canberra to express its concerns after the ADIZ drew strong protests from Tokyo and Washington.

“There is no doubt Abbott puts great emphasis on the relationship shared by Japan, the U.S. and Australia,” Fukushima said.

But he also noted that China is Australia’s No. 1 trade partner and that the public would never approve of political actions that could seriously damage those economic ties.

“The best way for Abbott is to strengthen the Japan-U.S.-Australian relationship while maintaining good economic ties with China at the same time. Australia would never turn its back on the Chinese market,” he said.
[/quote]

Meanwhile reports say that Russia is offering 636 Kilos to Indonesia yet again.The Indonesians are reportedly buying Korean built German U-boats,but these are expensive and an attractive offer from Russia might also go through.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

^^ It seems that Australia is again destined to pay a lot of money for these submarines (some estimates point to a cost greater than that of the Virginia latest block buy) but at least they may end up with some capability this time around.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Navy to Build Aegis Trainers for Surface Warfare Officers at ‘TOPGUN’
U.S. Navy’s surface warfare officers will learn to track and target air threats in a planned Aegis combat system simulator that will be built Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev., the head of the Navy’s new surface warfare training outfit told USNI News last week.

“TOPGUN has a facility and we’re going to add a piece to it and surface officers are going to Fallon to train,” said Rear Adm. James Kilby, the new commander of the Naval Surface Warfighting Development Center.
“It’ll be within the next two years, we’re looking to do that.”

In addition to the fighter weapons school — TOPGUN — Fallon is also home to the E-2 Hawkeye and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye training school — TOPDOME.

“We’re going to take warfare commander to Fallon to integrate and train with the E-2D [Advanced Hawkeye] squadrons and fighters,” he said.
“That’s going to be their capstone graduation exercise before they move on to sea and they’re going to do it again and again and again until they’re really good at it.”

The Navy is in the process of creating tighter combat information networks that will allow aircraft and ships to share targeting information for threats in a plan known as Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA).

NIFC-CA will maker its operational debut this year as a capability with the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group (CSG) later this year and the training will match.

“The anti-air warfare ballet will change because it has to,” Kilby said.
“It has to become more collaborative.”


The planned facility at Fallon will start out with synthetic training but move into more collabaerative training with the air elements.

“We’re talking about how to do that live/virtual constructive training there on the range but initially – I believe — it’s going to be synthetic and contained,” Kilby said.

The new facility will be part of the Naval Surface Warfighting Development Center, announced last year by then commander of U.S. Navy Surface Forces — retired Vice Adm. Tom Copeman.
A logical choice given how some captains last year were talking about how difficult it is getting to do large scale activities at ranges without having the adversary monitor the activity from international waters.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Australia’s Submarine Dilemma
By Aiswarya Lakshmi
Thursday, January 22, 2015

The government of Australia came under fresh pressure to reject Japanese submarines as the spearhead for a new undersea fleet, with one of the country’s top security think-tanks urging consideration of a homegrown naval deterrent, reports WSJ

Australia needs new submarines. That much is clear. Where these subs are to come from and where exactly they will be built remains far less clear.

New Defense Minister Kevin Andrews will today inspect the Adelaide shipyards of the submarine builders, ASC, as he prepares to make a decision on whether to hold a tender competition for a A$25 billion fleet of new conventional submarines

Federal Liberals in the state are already furiously lobbying him to build the next fleet locally, rather than opt for an overseas design.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute also said the possible acquisition of Japanese submarines by Australia raised significant challenges.

The case for building the next generation of Royal Australian Navy (RAN) submarines in Australia begins with the stand-out attributes that make submarines so important for Australia as a whole: they must be able to operate in areas a long way from home, without air or sea control, to watch, listen, evaluate and act when necessary.

Australia’s government is urgently looking to replace its aging fleet of six Collins-class submarines, which has been plagued by reliability and noise problems since its 1996 introduction.

Japan’s 4,000-ton Soryu-class submarine “appears to have less payload, endurance and mobility” than Australia’s current Collins-class submarines, said the government-backed institute, which provides independent defense advice and to cabinet ministers and the military.

Quite apart from the suitability of the design, a Japanese purchase would entail particular risks. The prospects for difficulties arising from cultural differences with Japan are significant. Accessing all the relevant technologies during the course of an overseas build of a complex vessel and understanding the design intent (critical to supporting the submarine) would be extraordinarily ambitious and inherently risky. And Japan has no experience with foreign customers for military exports.

Submarines are at the heart of Australia’s plans to beef up its military capabilities, driven by worries over Chinese muscle-flexing in territorial disputes with its neighbors.
PS:The note that Oz's Collins class subs have greater endurance,mobility and payload than the Soryu is most interesting. The other factors are also relevant as japan has little experience of mil exports and the complexities of such agreements.This is not just a Buy of a "Toyota" class sub.It is an entire transfer of etch and we know how well from the Maruti experience where the Japanese did not transfer everything.

Oz would be best served by developing a sub to suit its needs drawing from its experience with the Collins class.Surely after spending billions on that sub and infrastructure to build subs at home,something can be salvaged from that venture. A European boat would perhaps suit it better and in any case since it has such a large coastal seaboard,with a string of bases and refuelling points on all points of the compass,IOR,Pacific,ASEAN waters,etc.What it really needs are greater numbers of subs easy to operate and maintain.The current 60+ day patrols by current conventional AIP subs should be sufficient. Had Oz not been so deep in the US alliance,Russian kilos or Amurs would've been ideal.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The most cost-effective option for them would be to lease or purchase the Virginia Class and help that production line shift to 3 a year because of their purchase. Given how much they spent on the Collins, and what the USN is spending on the latest block buy, it would be the most cost-effective solution. They would however require changes in their law as per some reports but a leasing arrangement could get them out of that in my opinion.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

even leasing a few late model 688I would be more than enough, provided they are ok with one refueling MLU after a few yrs.
US will likely decline to reveal the virginia to anyone even in the anglosphere.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Singha wrote:even leasing a few late model 688I would be more than enough, provided they are ok with one refueling MLU after a few yrs.
US will likely decline to reveal the virginia to anyone even in the anglosphere.
Singha Ji, There have been talks of Virgina potentially being opened up for the Aussies.

A low-risk proposal is for Australia to purchase or lease Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines (SSNs) from the United States. Statements made by former U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Bleich make it very clear that the U.S. was very receptive to the idea.

The main idea for the Virgina and keeping it in house is to have the bleeding edge. In 2026, the current block virgina would be over a decade old and new blocks would be in development if not in production. Furthermore, the reactor technology would have been overtaken by the Ohio class replacement reactor (A 40+ year planned life without refuel) and as such an export could be accommodated.

The main advantage would be that an export client could add the funds required to move the Virginia class build from 2 a year to 3 a year in the 2020's. Despite of aggressive sub building and a massive effort to make the sub affordable to procure, the USN can only meet 60-70% of its attack Sub needs globally and it would be financially beneficial to have a subsidized upscaling of the production for this submarine.

Having said that I really do not see this happening and I see the US actually backing a better relationship between Japan and Australia that extends to attack submarines. I was simply referring to what the best cost option would be given that the latest Virgina Block Buys have come to about the same price as that Japanese Subs.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Cybaru wrote:brar_w,

RN will probably continue with heli borne assets for now to give it an AEW edge. Those have limitations, but they are not as severe as we think. The largest two are that it cannot carry a very large sensor and the uptime is limited. These can be quite easily fixed by moving all the human assets back on the ship and doing all post processing there and by increasing the number of AEW assets on the ship. 3 more helicopters cost way less than redoing a conventional boat with EMALS. The issue comes when you are in emcon and cannot use large datalink back to mother ship and you still need your AEW assets up there emitting or collecting. As we move to laser based communications in the future, this will become less of an issue.

Continued from the IN thread as it was more appropriate here:

The Helo based options are good, and will naturally get better but so would the non helo based options. The size of the aperture, power and sheer space for sensors allow much greater flexibility that is very important if you are going to confront threats that rapidly advancing and would in the future involve small stealthy targets, stealthy fast jets, as well as cruise missiles that are hard to detect. Furthermore, an E-2D can rapidly switch to a competent offensive platform be it over water or over land. The AN/APY-9 is a different sort of beast compared to the S2000 and the platform itself flies higher and is faster in addition to having a greater reach for its sensor on account of a larger physical footprint and more access to power. Add to that the real advantage that the new E-2D brings thanks to its sensors, computing and data links - in really extracting the full potential of the SM6 and future such OTH enabled systems. Future carrier, or ship defense would involve targeting at long ranges (best way to overcome saturation) and this requires seamless, persistence, high quality ISR. The bottom line need for ISR is only going to get higher if one wishes to maintain a credible carrier threat to a near peer or even to a lesser power armed with a few challenging weapons (Say hypersonic Anti-ship missiles in the 2040's).

The RN would be working in close proximity to the USN on most missions, therefore for them much of the risk of not having this can be gained from interoperability as the E-2D and F-35Bs would be fully linked up through both standard, and eventually (ADL) LPI waveforms in the future. I am pretty sure that they would consider the P-8 and even the Triton, so for them getting interoperable into the NIFC-CA net isn't a stretch but the overall capability of their carrier would still be less going forward as new technologies emerge that would require a launch system to fully utilize. The amount of money they have spent on these carriers, the quality, the air-wing and the support ships all points to high quality stuff, but by saving money (acknowledged that it was sizable) upfront by going for the simpler ski-jump option they are considerably limiting the growth potential of the ship to absorb a ton of technologies into its air-wing over the next 50 years or so.

My point was that these ships are going to be around till perhaps the year 2070 (based on a 50 year operational life beginning around 2018-2020) and you save money in the short run by not incorporating design changes to accommodate a cutting edge electro magnetic system, but the investment is a wise one given that we aren't talking about 8000 airframe hour fighters but 50 year life - aircraft carriers. Unmanned Aviation in the maritime domain would revolutionize the reach of the carrier given the endurance limit would no longer exist. The QEs would have to severely compromise, and given the future defense spending outlook for Britain, they would have to calling with a joint effort with the USMC's LHA's if they want a joint development of vehicles (Like the VARIOUS etc) thereby missing out on full fledged UCLASS like systems which are logically going to be expanded upon just like their land based cousins (Global Hawk, Predator, reaper etc).



In contrast, the British Tax Payer has spent an estimated $34 Billion developing and procuring its quote of Typhoons and it could be successfully argued that a few Billion dollars could have been shaved off here to accommodate a more capable aircraft-carrier which not only has growth potential to accommodate future capabilities, but because of the EMALS could accommodate not only the typhoon or a variant of it, but also the much longer legged F-35C, in addition to the future UK/French Unmanned system that is likely to be a follow up on the Taranis/Neuron demonstrators. In fact Both the UK and the French have collectively spent an outrageous amount of money for a few hundred combined fighters (i think broadly their investment into the typhoon (just the UK's investment) and the Rafale are largely comparable tot he USAF's investment in the F-22A) and in the case of the UK, that money could have been much better spent (imho) in producing the most technically capable carrier that it could deliver in the time frame.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The E-2D comes with many new features installed, including the Lockheed Martin AN/APY-9 Airborne Early Warning Radar, which provides both mechanical and electronic scanning capabilities. The AN/APY-9 can detect smaller targets (and more of them) at a greater range. The E-2D's radar and identification friend or foe (IFF) system can detect targets at ranges in excess of 345 miles (556 km). The aircraft's electronic support measure system can detect and classify targets at distances beyond radar limits. The onboard communications and data processing subsystems are capable of collecting and distributing tactical pictures and data to command centers and other assets for network-centric operations. The 24-foot rotodome contains a new electronically scanned array, which provides critically important continuous 360-degree scanning (the UHF electronically scanned array antenna was developed by L-3 Communications). Other new features are a fully integrated tactical glass cockpit (Northrop Grumman), an advanced identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system (BAE Systems), a new mission computer (Raytheon), electronic support measures enhancements, and a state-of-the-art communications and data link suite.


http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ooklet.pdf

In the end it isn't as much (imho) about the upfront cost of the EMALS (In the UK context) but about the procurement and life-cycle cost over 50 years of the F-35 air-wing that would be upgraded as the F35 advances over the years. Once you use that as context, even with the cost of the E-2D, it becomes a no brainer to me if you access to the technology and have the capability to incorporate it into the ship.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

We .have to come back to the basic role envisaged for the IN in the next few decades. The large carriers ,super-carriers are the instrument of US/NATO force projection and exped. warfare around the globe.Are we,India,therefore going to join a US-led globo-cop military alliance with expeditionary warfare ambitions or are we going to retain our independence and sovereignty ,choosing our friends based upon their track record and keeping all our options open? Let's assume hypothetically that tomorrow a new leadership in China reduces its mil. ambitions,buries the hatchet with India over border issues,will we thus require such carriers and embarked air wings for such a role? What are the contours and limits of our out-of-IOR operations,say in the Indo-China Sea that justify building more than 3 carriers ? The multi-role 4 amphibs would complement our 3 existing/planned carriers v. well if they also had a degree of integral air support. Moreover,the high cost of acquisition and operating such a large carrier-based navy must be contiguous with the state of the indaineconomy,where there are huge social inequalities to overcome which will take us decades,if not a century.

The geographic advantage that India has in the IOR is that the sub-continent thrusts itself like a sharp dagger deep into the ocean right in the middle, offering us the 4th "unsinkable" carrier,"INS India". Along with our island territories off both seaboards,long-legged land based aircraft can sanitise the approaches to the IOR very effectively if we also increase and upgrade our sub fleet which is in crisis. Acquiring a large fleet of subs,both conventional AIP and N-subs would give the IN a far better capability against extra-regional forces like China than a large carrier fleet. The US plans just 8 SSBNs with 1000 N-warheads in the future for its third leg of the triad. carriers are also more vulnerable to attack than subs,with the advent of anti-carrier BMs requiring surface warships to be heavily armed with anti BM SAMs like SM-6.
image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/upl ... 65x385.jpg
Cold War 2: Russian Submarine Fleet To Add Five Nuclear Subs In 2015, U.S. Navy Only Adds Two

The size of the Russian submarine force will begin going up by five starting in 2015, with the pace of construction resembling the Cold War days more than the lethargic shipbuilding rate that has prevailed ever since the Berlin Wall fell. But although the number of U.S. nuclear submarines will only increase by two this year, experts are already questioning the effectiveness of the Russia’s submarine fleet.

In a related report by the Inquisitr, there have been allegations of a purported Russian submarine spying near Sweden and Scotland, but all efforts to find the elusive submarine have thus so far failed. One of Russia’s submarines being tested out, the top secret AC-12 Losharik, may have been outed in a recent photo.

The Russian Navy is currently working on building Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, Yasen-class nuclear attack submarines, and Kilo- and Lada-class diesel electric attack submarines. As a comparison, the United States submarine fleet construction rate only increased to two subs per year recently. A new class of ballistic U.S. submarines will begin construction in 2021, and it’s expected the construction rate will pick up to three subs per year.

The increase in the pace of construction has experts making comparisons to a new Cold War. But some of these Russian subs are being built to be sold to other countries like China. There’s also the issue of modernization, since many systems have been retired or are reaching the limits of their effectiveness in the modern age.

Although the increase in the Russian construction rate sounds impressive, experts question whether Vladimir Putin will be able to keep up this pace with the fall of oil prices. So while these five Russian submarines may be laid out in 2015, it’s possible there may be delays that will stretch into years before they are finished. Some of the recently finished subs even used significant hull components from previous decommissioned Russian submarine designs.

Regardless, Russia’s submarine fleet is known for being tough and innovative, and an increase in numbers alone could pose a problem for the U.S. Navy.


“The Russians have put their money where their mouth is with regard to submarine construction and development,” said Bryan Clark, a former U.S. Navy submariner and strategist, now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “They see that as a way to generate an asymmetric advantage over U.S. forces. If they can develop a really high-end submarine force like they did in the Cold War, it would create a problem for U.S. naval planners and strategists thinking through how to deal with a potential Russian threat — one that could emerge without a lot of warning.”
According to Defense News, Clark still questions the combat effectiveness of these Russian submarine designs, claiming that Russia’s best submarines are the equivalent of the oldest U.S. submarines still in service with the U.S. Navy. But it’s believed they could still pose a concern since even a small number of subs can pose a threat when it comes to intelligence-gathering and a surprise nuclear first strike.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1785367/cold-w ... keJESRK.99
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Curiouser and curiouser ! It appears that there was quite a cat and mouse game being played underwater off/ in Swedish waters ,when reports about a suspected Russian sub was splashed in the western press. The Russians always said that there was a Dutch sub in the area and very poss. NATO subs from the UK and Germany a strong possibility. It is unlikely that the USN would've sent in one of its N-subs into Swedish littoral waters .

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/4 ... -1.2091105
4 foreign submarines spotted in waters off Sweden: report

A new report released Saturday said the sea craft were spotted in the waters off Stockholm in 2014, a time when tensions are high in Eastern Europe due to the turmoil in Ukraine. At least one of the subs was Russian, according to the report.

BY David Harding /
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /
Sunday, January 25, 2015, 11:09 AM

photo shows an object believed to be a sub in Swedish waters in October.
Sweden has claimed there were up to four foreign submarines operating in its waters at the end of last year.

A report in the Dagens Industri newspaper estimated there were several craft in the waters off Stockholm, reported The Local.

Previously, it was thought there was just one — a Russian submarine — which had difficulties in the waters and had subsequently been spotted.

Regardless of the numbers, Sweden had confirmed that there was a foreign vessel in its territorial waters at the time.

The sighting came at the same time as heightened tensions in Europe, after the conflict in eastern Ukraine, which many blame on Russia.

According to Dagens Industri, analysis of the submarine searches carried out by the Swedish armed forces mean there was a third, possibly even a fourth vessel in its waters, according to The Local.

"Three to four sounds like a comprehensive foreign underwater operation, if the information is correct," said Allan Widman, chairman of Sweden's parliamentary defense committee.

"It seems the business is more extensive than what I thought ."
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

brar_w

I hear what you are saying, but I don't think it was a simple decision.

EMALS and AAG will need more refining to be put in a smaller sized ship. They also have different power requirements and the british chose not to go with nuclear power for their ships. Until one us navy ship starts using it extensively and the kinks are worked out, signing up for an experimental system in a fleet that has one or two carriers means is inherently risky.

The biggest and most expensive component of any AEW is to collect/refine/process and make sense of the sensory data being collected. With better and thicker pipes, this can be done offline and in realtime. The hawkeye is a compromise anyways, it doesn't have the legs needed to remain in air for a long time nor all the sensors that are needed to be super effective.

An AEW UAV with sensors as they are today, that can take off and land on carrier, will be far more cost effective and also have a shorter footprint on the carrier. This will shave weight and years of investment needed to keep an one off prototype EMALS prototype for QE type going.

I think that is where the future is headed. I expect a twin engined uav type with fuel efficient engines and slightly shorter wingspan designed for AEW operations. It will have the legs (8-12 hrs), payload ( 2tons at tops) and the power to run a radar unit. Till then, the heli based units will serve well. They also have the same 3-4 hour airtime capacity as hawkeye, although it doesn't have the operational flexibility and is limited by its top ceiling and loses strategic range, it gains by being able to jump of different ships in the battle group and a lot of them can carry/host the same type of asset.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Karan M »

brar_w wrote:The E-2D comes with many new features installed, including the Lockheed Martin AN/APY-9 Airborne Early Warning Radar, which provides both mechanical and electronic scanning capabilities. The AN/APY-9 can detect smaller targets (and more of them) at a greater range. The E-2D's radar and identification friend or foe (IFF) system can detect targets at ranges in excess of 345 miles (556 km). The aircraft's electronic support measure system can detect and classify targets at distances beyond radar limits. The onboard communications and data processing subsystems are capable of collecting and distributing tactical pictures and data to command centers and other assets for network-centric operations. The 24-foot rotodome contains a new electronically scanned array, which provides critically important continuous 360-degree scanning (the UHF electronically scanned array antenna was developed by L-3 Communications). Other new features are a fully integrated tactical glass cockpit (Northrop Grumman), an advanced identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system (BAE Systems), a new mission computer (Raytheon), electronic support measures enhancements, and a state-of-the-art communications and data link suite.


http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ooklet.pdf

In the end it isn't as much (imho) about the upfront cost of the EMALS (In the UK context) but about the procurement and life-cycle cost over 50 years of the F-35 air-wing that would be upgraded as the F35 advances over the years. Once you use that as context, even with the cost of the E-2D, it becomes a no brainer to me if you access to the technology and have the capability to incorporate it into the ship.
The rest of the wworld is jiiber jabber on stealth and here you have the USN with sensors that can detect stealth aircraft at distance and then fighters with AESA that can engage them at least BVR missile range (F/A18E/F) and the AWACS are probably going to have a missile guidance function as well if USN plays to form. Well played gents, well played.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

@KaranM^^^ "Well played gents, well played."

Many of those gents are from India. Too bad the ecosystem does not exist in India. It's still Gurudom Sirjee stuff and endless extensions.

If we are not to be at the mercy of the Hans (the Chinese not Trapp), we cannot remain splendidly isolated and picked off. NaMo has figured it out and we will have a unique relationship with the US different from the ABCA one.

I think it will be something along the lines of "Join us, Japan and Oz in a quadrilateral, engage with Vietnam on our behalf, work with Singapore, share intelligence on ISIS and in return we will build you up as a military power (Zelikow) and help you replace PRC bit by bit to be a huge part of our trading network ($100bn to $500bn in trade flows)."

Namo and Parrikar are already kicking babus in the butt to move.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Neshant »

um.. who's about to be invaded next?

_____

Aircraft Carrier Stennis Has Biggest Ordnance Onload Since 2010

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-2 ... nload-2010

Nearly two weeks ago, we were surprised to read on the Navy's website that one of America's prize aircraft carriers, CVN-74, John C. Stennis (whose crew is perhaps best known for the following awkward incident), as part of an operational training period in preparation for future deployments, just underwent not only its first ordnance onload since 2010, but, according to Senior Chief Aviation Ordnanceman Jason Engleman, G-5 division's leading chief petty officer, "the biggest ordnance onload we've seen."
Post Reply