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
Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Multatuli »

V-22 Tiltrotor Could Revolutionize Naval Logistics In The Pacific

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... r=yahootix

McCain blasts Navy's LCS ship plan; urges cut to 24 vessels

http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-blasts-nav ... ector.html
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 »

Image

note the size of the gun vs the 5" gun and the huge volume of the superstructure. its a solid block with no gaps between the funnels or at the sides.
the peripheral vls arrays are along the sides of foredeck and flight deck/
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 things that have come!

http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Na ... -Time.html
Navy Says 'Star Wars' Railgun is Almost Ready for Prime Time
Unlike the guns currently mounted on Navy surface vessels, the railgun uses batteries and a pulse forming network to launch its projectiles.
by Jon Harper, McClatchy News Service / April 10, 2014 0
USNS Millinocket
In Mobile, Ala., in 2013, the joint high-speed vessel USNS Millinocket awaits delivery at the Austal USA vessel completion yard. Choctaw County. U.S. Navy photo

The Navy is building a new gun that can strike enemy targets over 100 miles away with the force of a high-speed freight train slamming through a wall, according to service officials who are working on this ‘Star Wars’ weapon.

“Over the last two years, truly the Navy and Marine Corps have been developing some hugely impressive, I call them Star Wars-like weapon systems,” Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, the chief of naval research, told reporters during a news briefing about the Navy’s Electromagnetic Railgun, which is currently under development.

RELATED

What sort of weapon will protect the USS Ponce come summer?
Advances in Electronic Warfare Fly Under the Public’s Radar
U.S. Navy to Test Laser Weapon Aboard Ship in Persian Gulf

Unlike the guns currently mounted on Navy surface vessels, which use gun powder and magazines in their launch systems, the railgun uses batteries and a pulse forming network to launch its projectiles, according to Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the chief engineer at Naval Sea Systems Command. The railgun system uses an electromagnetic force — known as the Lorentz Force — to rapidly accelerate and launch a projectile between two conductive rails, according to Naval Sea Systems Command. The weapon is more capable than similar-purpose systems in service because conventional powder projectiles can’t produce as much energy, Fuller said.

The railgun’s projectiles have a range of 110 nautical miles — 20 nautical miles greater than the maximum range of the Navy’s primary air defense missiles — and travel at seven times the speed of sound, according to the Navy.

The system can sometimes offer more bang for the buck as well. Operating the railgun against certain types of threats costs only a fraction of the cost of using existing systems, according to Klunder and Naval Sea Systems command. Klunder said each railgun shot costs about $25,000. In contrast, firing a Tomahawk cruise missile costs $1.4 million (although Tomahawks have a much longer range).

The railgun’s projectiles weigh only 23 pounds, but derive much of their lethality from their speed.

“It’s not a large projective, but when it’s going Mach 7, it doesn’t have to be,” Klunder said. “It’s pretty much like a freight train going through a wall … at over 100 mph. [It has] that kind of energy.”

Officials expect the railgun to fire 10 rounds per minute once the technology is fully mature.

“I can put hundreds of these on a ship [and your arsenal] never runs out. You just keep shooting,” Klunder said.

The officials identified improving the power supply and preventing the gun from overheating after firing multiple rounds in succession as key challenges that must be overcome before the weapon can be integrated into the fleet. They said they’ve made “huge advances” when it comes to high-energy density batteries and capacitors, and parts of the railgun are made of special materials that prevent them from wearing out as quickly when exposed to high levels of energy. They’re also working on enhancing the cooling systems. They wouldn’t go into more detail about how any of those sensitive technologies work.

“There’s a lot of secret sauce,” Klunder said.

However, despite its high tech nature, the railgun is easy to operate, according to Fuller. The handling systems will be very similar to the handling systems the Navy uses now, and the gun mount will perform the same function.

“There’s nothing new that the sailors will have to learn as far as that goes,” Fuller said.

The main purpose of the system would be to protect surface ships from enemy aircraft, low-flying cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

“It gives us the ability to basically knock anything out of the air,” according to Klunder.

These railgun development efforts come at a time when the Pentagon has been warning about China’s aggressive pursuit of anti-ship weapons, including a variety of missiles, which could inhibit the Navy’s ability to operate in contested areas in the Asia-Pacific.

The railgun also has long-range strike capabilities, according to Klunder.

“We did lethality models on every single mission that we have in the Marine Corps and the Navy. And I will tell you that this could damage, and be lethal, in every occasion,” Klunder said.

Klunder believes the system’s advanced capabilities will deter potential adversaries from taking on the U.S. Navy.

“I really think it will give our adversaries a huge moment of pause to go, do I even want to go engage our naval ship or our country, because you’re going to lose,” he said. “You could throw anything at us, frankly. And the fact that we now can shoot a number of these rounds at a very affordable cost, it’s my opinion that [our enemies] don’t win [the battle].”

The railgun might eventually be used by the other services as well. After seeing the early performance results, the Pentagon has expressed interest in potentially acquiring the system for the Army for missile defense or other missions at some point in the future, according to Klunder.

The railgun will be tested at sea for the first time in 2016, and the Navy hopes to begin integrating the weapons into the fleet after a second, more complex round of at-sea trials are conducted in 2018, Fuller said.

A final decision has not been made on which ship classes will receive a fully operational railgun because further testing needs to be conducted to understand the ship modifications that would be needed to incorporate the new systems, according to the Navy.

Klunder said they could eventually go on “a number of our classes of ships.”

The gun has already been fired hundreds of times on land at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., and has gotten “tremendous results,” according to Klunder.

“It’s something that is viable. The technology is there,” Klunder said.

The railgun will go on static display aboard the USNS Millinocket in San Diego this summer, and the public will be able to view it.

“We think it might be the right time for [the American people] to know what we’ve been doing behind closed doors in a ‘Star Wars’ fashion. It’s now a reality and it’s not science fiction. It’s actually real. You can look at it,” Klunder said.

“If you think about what the future is and what it is for this country [and] our national security, we think this is part of it,” he said.
tushar_m

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by tushar_m »

Navy’s X-47B Completes First Night Flight
X-47B is one of several unmanned aircraft programs under development with the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-launched Surveillance and Strike program (UCLASS).
The Navy plans on fielding its first UCLASS aircraft on a carrier deck by 2020.
tushar_m

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by tushar_m »

First Borey-Class Strategic Sub Ready for Combat Patrols – Russian Navy
The new Borey-class boats, with a length of nearly two football fields, can carry sixteen Bulava missiles, each fitted with up to 10 independently-targetable nuclear warheads.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

US Navy's new boomers are being designed:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/62ce8526eab5
The Ohio Replacement is getting a new kind of nuclear reactor that never needs expensive refueling during its 40 or 50 years of use.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video ... t.cnn.html

All that is remaining is walking on water?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

...and operating from underwater!

In fact it already does from the latest pics of DG in the aftermath of the MH missing flight,believed to have landed at DG.The sat pics show clear underwater structures in the lagoon ,which would enhance the capabilities of the US at the base,which is severely hampered by the lack of enough landmass to provide the USN with heavy repair infrastructure for its warships and subs and enough warehousing for its massive logistic requirements for rapid induction of US forces into the Gulf ,using DG as a spring board. UW structures also provide the USN with the ability to operate unseen.A whole series of unmanned subs/UUVs plus even N-subs ops,can be conducted using underwater bases. This also provides the US with the means to station secret UW bases anywhere in the oceans unknown to its enemies,which will provide the logistic requirements needed for long endurance stealthy missions.UCAVs could also be launched and recovered from these bases as has already been demonstrated with such a launch from a US N-sub.Thes ebase facilities could also be mobile,moved when required if detected or as a requirement.

http://boeing.rollcall.com/topic-a/news ... ean-floor/
Pentagon Seeks to Hide Military Gear on Ocean Floor
By Chris Riback | March 27, 2014

Time reports that “the Navy’s endless push to build cheaper ships alarmed Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., at a House hearing Tuesday. ‘You mention that we’re hitting a cost target,’ he told the Navy brass about one class of vessels. ‘But if the ship’s not survivable, I don’t care if I meet my cost target if it’s in the bottom of the ocean.’”

“That’s exactly where the Pentagon is looking to build underwater mini-depots for the U.S. Navy. In fact, only hours after Visclosky grumbled about sunken ships sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the Pentagon said it’s moving closer to making that cold and forbidding place a base for U.S. military hardware. It’s planning to test the concept in the Western Pacific, conveniently close to China, starting next year.”
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

The US has nailed its priorities to the mast.More N-attack subs.A very sensible decision.The number and speed of N-boat construction will allow the USN to retain its lead in UW warfare.The successful use of SSGNs loaded with LR land attack cruise missiles in recent conflicts ,plus Russian efforts at increasing its own N-sub inventory and capabilities,should be emulated by the IN by acquiring extra Akulas and with a parallel programme of desi SSGNs built alongside the SSBN/ATV programme.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 3&cid=1101
US spurring new submarine arms race: Russian expert
Staff Reporter 2014-05-01
The United States has launched a new arms race by announcing the order of 10 brand new SSN 774 Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines on Apr. 28, according to Andrei Frolov, chief editor of the Russian magazine Arms Export.

The US Navy currently operates 10 Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines. Under the new contract worth US$17.6 billion, the construction of the 10 new submarines will be completed in five years, assuring submarine orders for prime contractor General Dynamics Electric Boat and chief subcontractor Huntington Ingalls Newport News Shipbuilding through to 2018, the Washington-based Defense News reported.

With two vessels completed each year, Frolov said that the United States will have far more nuclear-powered attack submarines than Russia by 2020. At that time, Russia will have around 20 nuclear-powered attack submarines, but only three to five of them will have the capability to compete against the Virginia-class, according to Frolov. In addition to its 20 Virginia-class subs, the US Navy also operates three Seawolf-class and 41 Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Frolov said that the US Navy would never deploy its entire submarine fleet against Russia because China is also its potential challenger in the Western Pacific. China currently has five Type 091 Han-class submarines and is planning to build between five and six more nuclear-powered attack submarines to catch up with the United States and Russia, Frolov said.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

How does the US build so fast at such cheap prices, 10 Virginia class subs for USD 17.6 billion, our conventional much smaller scorpene and Project 75 seem to match the prices
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by krishnan »

they have got the exp and infrastructure
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by abhik »

^^^
Apart from that they order in bulk, keep the same class in production for 20-30 years with only incremental changes. Keeping a production line continuously chugging is the key to building a large fleet. Our current standard seems to deliver one batch of 3-4 ships every decade or more.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Aditya_V wrote:How does the US build so fast at such cheap prices, 10 Virginia class subs for USD 17.6 billion, our conventional much smaller scorpene and Project 75 seem to match the prices
It takes time, money, experience and dedication towards a goal. The Virginia class was a much-criticized program and many in the US media wanted it cancelled because it was not required for a post cold war world. Plenty of so-called Media EXPERTS kept reporting in its rising cost etc etc etc. The US Navy began a program to get grips on it, and what was found was that the best way would be to negotiate bulk contracts with suppliers. That the Russians (media report) are alarmed at the US build or the so called build up is extremely amusing. The US navy always planned to acquire these subs, and do so at a rate of 2 Virginia class subs per annum. They have been doing this for some time, not to mention that this contract is simply a BULK fixed price contract rather than a contract every year. Price is 1.7 billion apiece because the US navy has shown faith in the program and in its long-term commitment to it. The suppliers know of a certain sustained purchase and as such can not only invest in cost-lowering measures, but can also buy bulk material. The price of the ship has fallen sharply over the years from somewhere north of 3 billion, to over 2 billion for the current subs and to fewer than 2 billion for the 10 ordered now.

What Russian and other media has not reported is the fact the US congress has agreed in principle to eliminate the Ohio class sub replacement program from the US Navy budget. This means that the Navy would not have to cut other programs to fund the development of the new sub, a special fund will be created outside of the navy’s budget. No railgun development, or laser development will compete with the Ohio sub replacement program. The development of the next sub for the UW aspect of the nuclear triad would not face the financial crunch that it expected to face because it has been delinked from the main budget.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

The USN has its priorities right.The nuclear sub is the most survivable asset in any major navy's inventory.One's strategic deterrent depends upon the SSBN and if you take the now old example of the Falklands War,just one SSN sent the entire Argie fleet packing-at some disadvantage it must be said, (and if not for poor torpedo fusing,its German U-boats could've sunk the RN carriers),proving the enormous capability of a nuclear sub.US SSGNs have been used extensively in LR Tomahawk attacks in the Gulf wars,Libya,etc.One must salute the dedication and vision of Adm.Rickover,who though being an absolute dictator,paved the way for the USN's nuclear navy.

Secondly,its sub building yards have always been kept busy with steady orders,replacements coming on time in general and new designs being fielded at regular intervals.The huge Soviet N-sub building capability during the CWar,with some fascinating designs like the titanium hulled Alfa,Oscars and Typhoons,almost collapsed and it is only in the last decade that there has been a surge in Russian N-sub building with the Borei and Severodvinsk classes,though conventional sub building capability has been very steady throughout with Kilos,built at speed and at very low cost (see how fast the 6 subs for Vietnam have been built), and now the Amurs which are on the cusp of some orders. The Russian "alarm" at the new order for US SSNs ,as the Ohios are being retired having already served as SSBNs ,then converted into SSGNs,could be a red flag for further funding for their own N-sub ambitions.

Analysts have been making the case for the IN to concentrate upon building more N-subs,SSN/SSGNs instead of pursuing the path of large AIP conventional subs which are also hideously expensive -if one looks at the Scorpene saga,and comes with much reduced capability.The N-subs will also give us a true blue-water capability,allowing our subs to transit faster to the operating zones and carrying a far greater arsenal of weaponry.For the littorals,and to have sufficient numbers to deal with Pak,which wants equality in numbers of subs with the IN and is acquiring 6 Chinese AIP subs,acquisition off the shelf-local assembly/manufacture by pvt. yards of an affordable foreign design like the Amur,which is supposed to come in much cheaper than even a Kilo with better quieting etc.,would be pragmatic,while our PSU yards concentrate upon building our SSBNs and in parallel SSGNs.

Vietnam is expecting India to play a more aggressive role in the Indo-China Sea to counter China,according to some reports.The concern that the Vietnamese take of the massive Chinese naval expansion and provocations in the region,have been responsible for their order of the 6 Kilo 636s,for which India is to assist in training Viet submariners.Here is one report:

Demonstrators hold rallies in Ho Chi Mihn City and other cities including Prague

Prague, May 11 (ČTK) — Hundreds of Vietnamese protested against the Chinese policy in the South China Sea, arguing that China's ships deliberately hit Vietnamese boats, before the Chinese embassy in Prague today.

The demonstrators almost filled the Prague street in which the embassy compound is situated.

They were chanting and carrying the Vietnamese flags and banners, mainly with the Vietnamese text. Some of it was also in Czech and English, saying “Stop China,” “Get out of Vietnam” and “Stop Illegal Infiltration of Vietnamese Waters.”

The Chinese-Vietnamese conflict has come to a head after Beijing installed an oil platform in the South China Sea in early May and Hanoi sent its ships to defend Vietnamese interests there.

China argues that since the drilling platform was built in Chinese territorial waters, the oil drilling is legal.

“For all the objections raised by the Vietnamese government, by means of large ships they hit our, Vietnamese boats in a deliberate and provocative manner,” the Vietnamese Association of War Veterans Living in the Czech Republic said in the invitation for the rally.

“By means of several large-capacity water cannons, they attacked the Vietnamese border guards and employees of the Vietnamese fishing authority,” it added.

The association said in this way, China destroyed eight Vietnamese boats, while six people suffered serious injuries.

“As the Vietnamese have survived a long, cruel war, they love peace and try to maintain it, even with China,” Le Duy Ky told ČTK on behalf of organizers.

“Though we are far from Vietnam, we love our homeland. Perhaps there are lots of people with Czech citizenship here, but we have the duty to fight for our country,” Le Duy Ky said.

The organizers also brought a protest statement they want to pass to the Chinese embassy.

About 20 coaches drove the protesters to Prague from various regions, while others came by their own cars and public transport.

On Thursday, Chinese authorities accused Vietnam of having deployed armed boats in the disputed zone, while China only has civilian vessels there.

China also said the Vietnamese ships deliberately hit the Chinese vessels.

Much of the South China Sea area is disputed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. China claims almost all of the area.

Protests also took place in Hanoi, Danang City and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. The protests were not stopped by authorities there, which is unusual. The protests were described by locals as the largest in memory, according to news agency reports.

Read more: http://www.praguepost.com/world-news/38 ... z31VSCSG9u
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Karachi seems to be a tough camp for Paki naval officers.

Mon May 12, 2014
Gunmen Kill Pakistan Navy Official in Karachi
"Security and rescue teams reached the attack site situated on the port city's main artery," Dawn News reported.

"The targeted Navy official was rushed to a hospital for treatment where he succumbed to his wounds during treatment," it added.

Police sources said that the incident appeared to be sectarian motivated, although reports in the media indicated the killing could have been the result of a failed robbery.

Earlier this month, a security guard of the Pakistan Navy was shot dead by robbers in an attack on the car of a senior navy officer in Defense Phase II.

Another Pakistan navy officer was shot dead and his Swedish wife wounded in a similar attack in September last year.

Earlier on Feb 27, a lieutenant commander of the Pakistan Navy was wounded in an attack in Karachi's Keamari area who later succumbed to his injuries.

In another incident on Feb 7 2013, a naval officer and his wife were injured in a mysterious explosion in their car near the city's Karsaz area.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.as ... 0222000900
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Interesting picture of P-8:

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

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Future of the AEGIS sensor suite, The largest gallium nitride (military application) undertaking in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWUTbaIRLWA
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 »

can the P8 weapons bay carry 4 harpoons?
in the boeing publicity video for india there were two inline pylons external under belly for heavy weapons. these are missing here.
note the ram air turbine ahead of weapons bay for additional electric power generation.
tushar_m

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by tushar_m »

From the picture it seems the space for sonobuoys (maybe) & PGMs(on the boeing video)

the harpoons are seen fitted on the external pylons that are clearly visible.

My problem is that if the holes in the back of internal pylons are for sonobuoys(IF) then why are there 5 internal PGM pylons.
I hope P8i's will not act as long range bombers for IN & if they need to integrate PGM's they can be fitted onto the external pylons.

Guys can anyone through some light at the use of internal pylons (if its not for sonobuoys as is suspected)
darshand
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 17 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by darshand »

tushar_m wrote:My problem is that if the holes in the back of internal pylons are for sonobuoys(IF) then why are there 5 internal PGM pylons.
That's where the torpedoes go. The external pylons are for the harpoon.
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 »

sonoboys are usually launched from a diwali mlrs rocket type box with individual tubes.
tushar_m

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by tushar_m »

Ok my bad i forgot abt the Mark 54 torpedo's

PGM's support required by Indian Navy is still a mystery to me.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Don't know whether this has been posted before.

Boeing P-8A Begins Advanced Airborne Sensor Testing
Boeing and the US Navy began testing an Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) radar system for the P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft. A series of photos, taken by Russell Hill revealed earlier this week.

The radar, developed by the Raytheon company, is a follow-on to the Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LRRS, APS-149 also built by Raytheon) currently operated with the P-3C Orion. The new radar is expected to be ready for deployment in 2016, as part of the P-8A Increment 2 upgrade. The P-3Cs currently flying the LRSR are operated by VP-46 out of NAS Whidbey Island in the Washington state. “We will be ready with intelligent technology when the Poseidon takes its place as the Navy’s ISR capability in the fleet,” Capt. Scott Anderson, LSRS and AAS program manager said in 2009.

The new radar fulfils several key missions for the maritime and littoral battlespace, providing wide area surveillance of land and sea areas, automatically detecting moving targets, spotting and alerting about human activities in designated areas. It can also deliver high resolution imagery of surface areas from long range, in day, night and under adverse weather conditions that would often prohibit the use of electro-optical imaging assets. The new radar can also provide high resolution “weapon grade” target location, enabling the rapid sensor-to-shooter engagement loops supporting guided, ‘networked’ weapons such as the Tomahawk, SLAM-ER, JASSM, SDB-2 and the future LRASM.

The AAS uses a double-sided Active, Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology to deliver both Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), an Inverse SAR mode, capable of automatically ‘profiling’ vessels from long distance. It also provides Moving Target Indication (MTI) functions, automatically detecting, classifying and tracking moving objects over a wide area. Unlike the APY-7 side-looking radar carried by the Air Forces’ E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS), the LRSR and AAS are looking to port and starboard, covering almost a full hemisphere. Furthermore, SAR and GMTI modes are interleaved, offering better flexibility and utilisation of airborne sensors.
Image

The sensor and platform are particularly interesting since it could very much be a sollution for a future JSTARS replacement. Seems as if this sensor is the much more capable (as capable on land as on water or the littorals) and larger brother to the AN/ZPY-3 which is going to find its way on the Global Hawk triton .

Image
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 »

yes it looks like the aeging E8 is on way out. the replacement pgm funded by USAF called M2CA paul revere iirc was given up as a complex failure a few years ago.
looks like whatever failed then has matured now and found a new platform.
but it looks like the old vision of a single unified uber radar performing the E3+E8 function is not going to happen. maybe MESA++ on top and this canoe thing on the bottom is how they see it?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

M2CA was a legacy planned as a supplement to the Multi platform radar tech insertion program. It was a novel concept at a time when the USAF had "cold-war-ambitions" in a post cold war environment ;). Fast forward now, the technology for the sensor is quite easy to implement thanks to years of AESA related industrial activity. The main challenges are life cycle cost budgeting (here the platform will play a big role, a Small business jet or a 737 (boeing can call it a BBJ) ) and system integration.

If i recall correctly, when the E-10 cancellation was being talked about the Army was re-assured (remember reading it some years back) that the capability will be made up both in the interim and the long term. It seems the Navy pitched in with the AAS on the P-3's and the 737 based P-8 with the AAS will do well as a support aircraft to the JSTARS. The sensor is fully developed so the USAF can get a cheap JSARS replacement in the future.
looks like whatever failed then has matured now and found a new platform
Well, the current sensor is an offshoot of the APS-149 sensor development and seems to suggest a continuity in that program. Its a Raytheon product while the M2CA sensors were Northrop grumman products if i recall correctly. Just digging up some info on it from the net
This large flying radar was originally born as the AN/APS-149 in the highly classified "black" world. The basic goal of this advanced radar system program was to provide multi-function moving target detection and tracking, as well as high resolution ground mapping, all at standoff ranges. Additionally, the LSRS needed to work in over-water and over-land scenarios, including the area where those two mediums meet, known as the "littoral zone." This geographically complex coastal region has proven to be a challenging environment for traditional radar systems, and the Littoral Surveillance Radar System, which began development in the middle of the last decade, was designed with it primarily in mind.The LSRS has been quietly flying on a small number of Navy P-3C Orion's for some years, and the results have been described as "game changing." It is said the sensor is so sensitive that it can even pick up a formation of people moving over open terrain. Also, the speed of the system's double sided AESA array allows for multi-mode operations at one time with near 360 degree coverage, meaning that scanning, mapping, tracking and classifying targets can all happen near simultaneously, resulting in massive amounts of data for multiple platforms and decision makers around the theater and beyond to exploit. It is also said that the system works incredibly well for tracking high value targets, and is able to consistently follow their vehicles, map the locations they frequent for movement, and basically make it very hard for them to hide.The more advanced Airborne Aerial Sensor seen in the recent pictures from Boeing field has to be sensitive and smart enough to detect and track moving targets, otherwise known as moving target indicator (MTI) mode, on the shore and at sea at the same time, while also providing extremely high resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) and inverse synthetic aperture (ISAR) radar capabilities. In synthetic aperture modes, the AAS provides picture-like synthetic radar imagery of both inland and ocean areas at the same time, and would offer fine enough resolution that targets could be further investigated and classified without relying on optical sensors. In fact, the system should be able to accomplish this automatically much like MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aircraft system.The AAS's ultra fast scanning active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna system, tied to advanced computer processors, would theoretically allow the P-8 to detect a moving target in a cluttered bay or inlet, and then shoot a powerful and tight beam of radar energy at that target to take a "SAR picture" of it and thus judge its identity. If the contact is deemed hostile, the radar can continue to track the target as it moves while still scanning for and tracking others as well. This data, which can be collected by a P-8 well over a hundred miles away, can then be transmitted via data link off the aircraft for exploitation by other weapons platforms.

For instance, once a P-8, orbiting over a hundred miles off an enemy's coast, has identified a hostile patrol boat guarding its homeport, it can send that "target track" to a Super Hornet, flying about fifty miles closer to the enemy's shore, and request an attack. The P-8 has done this via using its Advanced Airborne Sensor to detect that ship's motion amongst the port's clutter, and then by instantly employing a beam of radar energy to survey and classify the target. The Super Hornet crew can then fire a standoff missile at the target, such as a SLAM-ER.

The Super Hornet would be receiving the P-8's radar data on the target in question continuously via data link, and would be forwarding this information in real time to the missile as it makes its way toward the hapless patrol boat. Once the missile reaches the point at which its own terminal guidance sensors can lock onto the patrol ship, the data link is no longer needed and the targeted ship will either be destroyed by the missile or would have to be re-attacked.

The Poseidon can also deliver a damage assessment analysis via generating a SAR picture of the target and watching its telemetry after the missile's supposed time of impact. Tests like the scenario explained above, using "third party" targeting data to hit moving targets with networked weaponry, have occurred in building succession over the last decade and now include the use of standoff gravity weapons against moving targets.


Interesting stuff with more pictures

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclus ... 1562912667
but it looks like the old vision of a single unified uber radar performing the E3+E8 function is not going to happen. maybe MESA++ on top and this canoe thing on the bottom is how they see it?
Sounds like a rather expensive and complicated solution. The E-8 mission is not as extensive as an E-3 mission for example especially with the latter required to contribute to the NATO warfighting capability. The MESA on the wedgetail was a "customer" driven solution. From what i remember the Australians wanted a L band AESA with quite an extensive list of system integration requirement. The E-3 replacement for the USAF would be a much simpler AESA (given how the industrial base has matured since the wedgetail development began) and a system that greatly reduces the workload and that acts as a collector of real-time data from the various manned and unmanned platforms. It will most likely be a 737 based platform with platforms like the GH to augment it. The Triton and Poseidon combo sounds good and there is no reason why the same cannot make a capable JSTARS replacement that provides significantly enhanced capability at the most reasonable cost.

The E-3 replacement is probably farther out, but i guess those platforms won't last very long either. I am fairly confident that the E-3 replacement would be a multi-nation program.

If we get into the realm of classified research and capability, a novel propulsion and power solution coupled with some of the capability Northrop Grumman has demonstrated through the conformal active aperture technology could result in some interesting solutions for air spaces where your traditional AEW cannot survive.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... antech.pdf
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

NRao wrote:Interesting picture of P-8:
Superb. Are those air intakes in the leading edge root?
tushar_m

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by tushar_m »

Russia to Refit 2 Sierra-Class Nuclear Subs

The Russian Defense Ministry has signed a contract to refit two Soviet-era Sierra-class multipurpose nuclear submarines, the Zvezdochka shipyard said ."A contract was signed with the Defense Ministry to extensively refit two Project 945 [NATO reporting name Sierra]. One of the submarines has remained at the shipyard for over 10 years, the other will arrive this year," spokesman Yevgeny Gladyshev said.The refit will extend the submarines' service for about 10 years.

The shipyard's workers are currently removing nuclear fuel from the reactor of the first submarine, the Karp, laid down in 1987. The submarine's refit is expected to be completed in 2017.
The Russian navy announced in early April that it expected to receive over ten modernized nuclear submarines by 2020.

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

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

France Might Withhold 2nd Mistral Ship From Russia
PARIS — French defense officials are exploring ideas to avoid delivering a second helicopter carrier to Russia, including looking for an alternative client for the Sevastopol, analysts and an industry executive said.

A highly discreet review is being held as armed strife rises in eastern Ukraine and top US officials call for NATO allies to boost defense spending and act as a counterweight to Russia.

“The deal raises a fundamental policy issue not just for France but for the alliance,” said Robbin Laird of consultancy ICSA, based in Washington and here.

Paris is in a political crossfire between the US and Russia. Washington has publicly called for breaking the contract, while Moscow has threatened a hefty financial punishment while praising France’s “reliability as a partner.”

In 2011, Russia signed a deal for the two Mistral-class carriers, listed as amphibious assault ships or landing helicopter dock, worth €1.2 billion (US $1.6 billion) with a first delivery in four years. Moscow also holds an option for two more vessels.

France is effectively “trapped” on the Vladivostok, the first of the two ships, with a delivery in October, Laird said.

But French officials are reviewing the second vessel, along with considering offering the ship to another nation.

“The ministry is clearly looking for an alternative,” Laird said. Russia has yet to pay fully for the Sevastopol, allowing France some time to explore options, he said. That second ship is due for delivery late next year.

Loic Tribot La Spiere, chief executive of think tank Centre d’Etude et Prospective Stratégique, said he has heard of the search for alternatives and a possible re-sale to an ally.

An industry executive said President François Hollande and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius have made public statements about honoring the Russian contract, seen effectively as Plan A, but “it’s logical” officials are also searching for a Plan B, which could lead to withholding the second warship.

France may have to take a financial hit, but a political statement could be made.

“The situation is not easy, but France can show leadership,” Laird said.

A senior defense analyst said, “It’s highly likely Defense Ministry analysts are looking at all the possibilities. This is primarily a political problem.

“The industrial aspect is not the key factor as the contract is not vital for the French defense sector,” the analyst said. “What is at stake is the bilateral relations between France and Russia. And there is also the fact there are other European states exporting arms.”

Part of the French problem is a prospective defense spending cut of €6 billion, Tribot La Spiere said. Financial difficulty has pushed Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to play the role of “super salesman” for French arms, he said. The feared budget cut adds pressure to find another buyer for the Sevastopol.

If Paris were to answer positively to Washington’s call, France could also offer the second ship to the US, Laird said.

A French diplomat said France has not approached the US on a purchase. When asked whether the US has discussed purchasing the ships from the French, or if the US has any interest, a US State Department spokesman referred to recent comments by deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf at a press briefing.

Harf said US Secretary of State John Kerry and Fabius had discussed on May 13 the delivery of the ships.

“We’ve expressed our concerns to the French government several times over this sale, and don’t think it’s an appropriate time to move forward on such military sales given Russia’s actions that we’ve seen recently to destabilize its neighbors,” she said.

An analyst said France has an image to maintain as a reliable arms vendor.

“The French have the reputation that if they sign a contract they’ll deliver,” said Joel Johnson, analyst with the Teal group. “The French will hold their nose longer than the US will.”

Johnson said, however, that France’s reputation could quickly be altered if it decides against delivering the ship. “They’ll end up with a reputation like the US,” Johnson said. “If you look at Latin America, they don’t see the US as a reliable supplier. In cases like that, the French have moved in.”

Fabius has warned that if Russia interferes with Ukraine’s presidential elections in May-June, the third batch of European sanctions would be applied.

A first round of votes is due May 25, with a second and final round in June if needed.

An adviser to Hollande said the ship is not on the list for a third round of sanctions against Russia, daily Le Monde reported May 11.

The ship sale meets with international law and France will decide in October on whether to proceed, Fabius has said.

“We are not there,” the diplomat said.

A Defense Ministry spokesman referred to Hollande’s remarks that a decision would be taken in October and declined comment. A US defense official said there has been no discussion of the Mistrals in the regular meetings with French officials.

A French naval expert said a hold on the second ship would show President Vladimir Putin that Europe could harden its position and perhaps re-arm its forces. This message would be strengthened if a solution could be found, be it through NATO or the EU, to have this ship reinforcing European navies, the expert said.

Also, Brazil is seen as a possible client for the Sevastapol, as the regional power bought the French Navy’s retired Foch carrier and renamed it the Sao Paulo.

Russian interest in the Mistral-class ship reflects the vessel’s remarkable design concept, Laird said.

It serves as an amphibious assault ship, housing about 450 troops, armored vehicles including tanks, helicopters, landing craft, and carrying a field hospital and headquarters command center.

“It’s about influence,” Laird said. “This is an ideal ship for the 21st century.”

Such a ship can sail close to shore and deliver support, he said. That capability delivers a powerful political signal, not just a military strike.

The interest in the Mistral shows Russia’s interest goes beyond eastern Europe, as basing its second ship at Sevastopol gives Moscow more capability in the Mediterranean, Laird said. The Vladivostok, with its anti-ice features, would extend Russian strength in the Arctic.

Researchers at the SWP Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, or German Institute for International and Security Affairs, have floated the idea of the European Union acquiring the Mistrals.

“Europe also offers the opportunity to solve the French dilemma by buying up the Mistral ships and using them for itself,” researchers Claudia Major and Christian Molling wrote in a think piece.

The German Navy has called for such a capability, but such an acquisition is beyond the financial reach of a single nation, the paper said.

Training of some 400 Russian sailors is due to start in the first two weeks of June on the Vladivostok, an industry executive said.

DCI will deliver a first phase technical instruction on board the ship, said Jean-Michel Palagos, chief executive of the training company. An operational training of sailing the ship “is not on the short-term horizon,” he said.

DCI is a subcontractor to prime contractor DCNS, which designed the Mistral for the French Navy.

The rear part of the Sevastopol hull, representing 60 percent of the deal, is being built by Russian local partner OSK at Saint-Petersburg. That portion is due to be sent in late June to Saint-Nazaire, northern France, for fitting on to the hull built by shipbuilder STX.

Some 25 Russian engineers and officers are at the French dockyard.

A French Navy officer has said it took the French planners and officers two to three years to learn how to operate the Mistral and its sister ship to their full capabilities.

A Russian Navy tour of the Mistral a few years ago stirred envy and worry, as senior officers admired the capabilities but were also concerned France designed such a capable vessel while Russian companies had been unable to match that, the officer said
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

It would be a big blow to French credibility if it bows to US pressure and cancels the deal considering countries buys from France because of its independence in arms sales with no string attached. France would also have to pay penalty if it cancels the Mistral deal as agreed
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Given its current state of affairs and the defense cuts planned I am fairly sure France would not cancel the deal unless it has someone (either NATO collectively or the US) pick up the cost of the ship or any loss associated with the deal. France is an integral part of NATO therefore it has obligations to the alliance over and above whatever the US expects from it or other european players in the alliance. France will only cancel the deal if they assert themselves as a strong player within NATO, i doubt they'll do it just because the US or others are putting pressure on them.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

If the French cancel the deal, with Russia. Can they still be relied upon by the Indian government, for the supply of sanction proof weapons.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

If they do (A big IF), even then YES they can be relied upon. The situation is very different. France is a key member of NATO and NATO is collectively worried of russian expansionism in Russia to a point where they are advocating measures to check the same, sanctions and increase in defense spending. As such the russian actions can be claimed to threaten France and its alliance (NATO). No such obligations exist with the French-Indian deal as no matter which scenario plays out, the French or Europe will never be threatened by a rising indian military stature. We are also not Russia or China, with those sort of aspiration. We have a track record of a responsible democracy that has excellent relations with nations across the globe irrespective of their political ideology. We have also advocated a fiercely independent foreign policy. India is rising and either the french can be equal partners (and the US as well) or miss out on a strategic opportunity. Given what sort of situation their economy and defense industry finds itself in, they cannot afford to miss the boat. France backing out of support is as risky a possibility as russia backing out from supporting our kit if asked to choose sides between us and chin incase of hostility expands.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by GeorgeWelch »

brar_w wrote:No such obligations exist with the French-Indian deal as no matter which scenario plays out, the French or Europe will never be threatened by a rising indian military stature.
Did Argentina ever threaten France?

Did Israel ever threaten France?

The pattern is clear, France will do whatever is best for France. Your order is secure until they sell you out to a higher bidder.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

In this case however, the India deal will save the rafale production line. Without the IAF deal the program comes to a crippling halt and also loses much edge it is expected in other competitions.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

Thats kind of bull crap , Russia never invaded France or any NATO country , its simply bowing to US pressure for their geopolitical end.

In any ways it shows bad on france as a reliable partner in defence If the deal gets cancelled , not to mention it will loose money on 2 further deal of total 4.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by member_26622 »

Not to mention France is trying hard to end military export ban to China after Tianneman square. if not India then China will be the destination for French hardware, or likely soon anyways.

We pay money to Russia to continue development and China benefits. Same will be the case with France.

Wonder when will we will stop this stupidity - spending to indirectly make your enemy stronger ?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Who is saying that they have invaded NATO or france? There is an overwhelming response in europe towards a re-look at the defense spending. This is true from the Nordic countries, eastern european nations and indeed the bigger western nations which may have a "re look" but are unlikely to self-fund the increase unless the Ukraine crisis expands further. Strategic changes do not only occur when one nation invades another. They can occur when one power in the continent begins to assert itself militarily to a degree which was not calculated by other nations etc. Strategically france and others know that the US support to NATO may not be as extensive as it was during the cold war, for the US is likely to boost its presence in the Pacific and reduce its defense expenditure. Many are calling for a more independent europe that increases its contribution towards NATO. Even fiercely independent European nations are boosting defense in light of the Ukraine crisis. No where did I claim that Russia has invaded NATO or France, however strategic choices and chess moves are not made based on such notional events. A nation has estimates of another nations military ambitions, if those ambitions end up being underestimated or overestimated strategic shifts occur to balance the same.

Sweden To Boost Military Spending Over Ukraine Crisis

Romania To Boost Military Spending Over Ukraine Crisis

Wary of Russia, Norway urges NATO vigilance in Arctic

Ukraine crisis may speed defence buys, but budgets stay stuck
Airbus Helicopters said the Ukraine crisis had led to increased enquiries for its products and could lead to new purchase tenders. Military helicopters are of interest because they are used to transport troops quickly from place to place.

"Everybody in Europe and outside Europe is evaluating the consequences of this crisis on defence equipment, on military scenarios and I believe this will have an impact on acquisition programmes, both in quantity and in nature," Guillaume Faury, CEO of Airbus Helicopters told reporters.

"Russia was more and more considered as a non-issue and now it's back," he added.

ALL QUIET IN THE WEST?

While eastern European countries may be reviewing plans and pushing through decisions, it seems unlikely that western governments will be increasing defence spending any time soon.

Defence budgets in the five largest Western European markets - Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain - decreased by 1.3 percent in 2013 according to IHS Jane's.

In Europe overall, budget defences are expected to fall to $237 billion by 2018, compared with $242.8 billion in 2013, Jane's also said in the report published earlier this year.

Glynn Bellamy, UK head of Aerospace and Defence at KPMG, said while he thinks the crisis will accelerate decision making, it won't necessarily lead to an increase in overall spending.

"A threat such as that will inevitably cause people to reprioritise," he said. "But countries have realised they have to balance their books. If, for example, they have to increase spending on missile defence, does that mean they will have fewer military personnel?"

Germany's new coalition government is carrying out a review of its defence portfolio and the outcome is not expected until the second half of this year, frustrating many at the airshow.

Proposals announced on Monday by Airbus, France's Dassault Aviation and Italy's Finmeccanica for the development of a new European drone met with a cool reception from German defence minister Ursula von der Leyen, who said there was no rush to make a decision.

Germany did however announce a stopgap measure to provide more Israeli drones while Europe produces its own technology.
Not to mention France is trying hard to end military export ban to China after Tianneman square. if not India then China will be the destination for French hardware, or likely soon anyways.

We pay money to Russia to continue development and China benefits. Same will be the case with France.

Wonder when will we will stop this stupidity - spending to indirectly make your enemy stronger ?
Thats a problem we will always when buying defense equipment from foreign developers. Just as we fiercely advocate an INDIA CENTRIC foreign policy for our government, so does the electorate of those nations. Both Russia and France see superpower in the making in china and they will do the most they can to take as large a pie in that market as possible. Russia has a larger strategic interest to align itself with China and a significant military integration looks to be in the works. This is of course well know, so the faster we become self-reliant the better.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

Who is saying that they have invaded NATO or france? There is an overwhelming response in europe towards a re-look at the defense spending.
WoW overwhelming response by Overthrowing a Legitimate Government thrown over by Violent Coup , Amazing Western Democracy spread via Violence.

Who cares about Defence Spending Western economies are already broke with their banks insolvent it is just a question of when the cookies crumble with Debt outmatching growth.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Austin wrote:
Who is saying that they have invaded NATO or france? There is an overwhelming response in europe towards a re-look at the defense spending.
WoW overwhelming response by Overthrowing a Legitimate Government thrown over by Violent Coup , Amazing Western Democracy spread via Violence.
You can be in as much amazement as you like, that does not change the fact that europeans have a right to look and assess a situation as per their own free will that may differ from your view on the entire events in that region. Quite contrary to your claim that everything is happening to please the american masters, there is a clear talk from within europe to have a look at the entire security situation vis-a-vis a more assertive russia. Leading this are eastern european nations and the nordic countries, while the western european nations do not have the economic will to increase funding in defense at the moment but that does not change the fact that NATO in principle agrees to a greater strategic change vis-a-vis russia and to the notion that France can on its own free will reach a compromise with russia or with other Nato allies (or the US) and agree not to sell the ship to russia and find another customer. That such an activity could only occur because of the US stick that it holds on france shows little merit. France has in the past shown the finger to the US and can do so again if it so likes. It may however assert itself through this symbolic action as a major NATO partner from within europe in line with its position that europe should up its contribution to NATO and be more incharge of its security just as the Europeans have announced their own sanctions and plans to enforce further sanctions if the situation changes in Ukraine.
Who cares about Defence Spending Western economies are already broke with their banks insolvent it is just a question of when the cookies crumble with Debt outmatching growth.
We need not care about the western european defense spending, it was brought in to substantiate the claim that many european nations are having a long hard look at their defense posture, spending, and forces in light of the Ukraine crisis and that this is not because the US is applying pressure on them.
Post Reply