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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2019 03:14

NRao wrote:What does the SecDef have to do with this? None of what is happening is directly a result of his decision or even influenced by him. These are all efforts started years earlier and yet others that aren't going to go anywhere fast..

Around the world Babus are ubiquitous. He actually helped jump-start efforts that had merit but were buried (ACE).


Honestly, there is no evidence of that (if you have it, then do provide). These programs take months if not years to put together and anything included in DARPA's FY19 budget would have had to be built into it months prior to submissions if not years ago. Programs like ACE and numerous other efforts all share their origin back to the Third Offset programs started by the previous administration and championed by the last acting Dep. SecDef and currently by Dr. Griffin. More specifically, Arati Prabhakhar, while at DARPA, initiated the Aerospace Innovation Initiative years ago to specifically to look at these efforts. There is absolutely no indication of the current SecDef, either in his current capacity, or his previous capacity, taking any interest in in R&E an area that he obviously has no experience in. Dr. Griffin is the SME in this administration when it comes to R&E. He's literally spent his entire life at it and one would be hard pressed to find another person of his stature and reputation when it comes to government and defense R&E in the entire country.. Why would someone with absolutely no dommain knowledge of working on these step in and guide this effort especially since these things were set up by Mattis after careful consideration under his NDS?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2019 08:11

1) Dr. Griffin worked/works for Shanahan. I suspect there was a need for change in direction.

2) The first two minutes.



3) My experience is based on a formal talk and conversations following the talk

4) I understand, although I do not track at the level you do, the start dates about Third Offset. However, there is a change in the air - "pivot". I will leave it at that.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2019 08:15

1) Dr. Griffin worked/works for Shanahan. I suspect there was a need for change in direction.


Formal change in direction? From where to where? Put some substance behind what you are talking about. Shanahan has been acting secDef with exactly ZERO budgets. The current programs that you have cited (ACE and Darpa's other efforts) are all related to budgets developed pre Pat Shanahan and even the yet to be approved budget was not developed under his leadership. The last strategic shift in the Pentagon (aka the re-branding of the 3rd offset with higher levels of spending) was under Mattis's National Defense Strategy, large portions of which, were handled by Bob Work whom Mattis asked to stay on for quite a while as the acting Dep Sec Def. Shanahan arrived in August/September of 2017, when the document was likely already complete (it was formally released in early January 2018). There has been ZERO R&E or strategy related 'change in direction' since Mattis left, in fact PS has on a number of occasions referred to the department executing the laid out NDS a document single handily prepared by Mattis and whose offshoots (programs of record) were prepared by group of people he hired (like Griffin, Work, Colby etc), some of whom were brought in specifically for that exercise and left soon after it was complete (like Colby). The current programs are executing budgets developed by his predecessors and in fact some of those programs are from budgets developed by his predecessors predecessor.. To somehow suggest that Pat Shanahan is micromanaging R&E and the inner workings of DARPA is, unless backed by cold hard facts, a gross misrepresentation of how the OSD actually works or is supposed to work.

The program you highlighted in the video goes back to Ash Carter and Bob Work i.e late 2016 - early 2017 and effort, its genesis and main objectives have nothing to do with the current SecDef who as I said earlier has no domain knowledge on this. The only thing Pat Shanahan has led to is the resignation of the USAF Secretary who just refused to work with him. Other than that he has yet to leave a mark and may not until at least FY21 which would be the first full budget developed under his leadership. It is quite well known that under Mattis his focus was mainly on readiness while Mattis and his team focused on developing and putting into motion the NDS. It takes a long time to implement change within the DOD. To Trump's credit, he and Mattis did a whole lot to improve both readiness and defense spending on technology. However, a lot of what they did as part of the FY18 and FY19 budgets were simply to plus up some of the programs and efforts the prior administration had going. It won't be till the FY20 budget is approved later this year that the Trump administration will likely get its first "clean sheet" bottoms up budget that really sets the mark and prioritizes things that they have been focused on over the last couple of years. This is just how things work. You, as an administration, come in at January with just a couple of months to influence the tabling budget and not enough time to completely re-do the very next budget. Most new administrations only tinker around with their first two defense budgets, and only get to leave their mark in their third budget. The FY20 budget was developed under Mattis and largely left unchanged as it was during the 11th hour that he was sacked. So to suggest that Pat Shanahan has someone ushered in a change in direction in R&E is an utter disregard for reality in case you are re-hashing DARPA led programs as evidence that were put into place long before Pat Shanahan even came into the Pentagon. I suspect if he tinkers around with the R&E set up (which Mattis did very well to build up and staff with a quite number of highly talented and accomplished folks) a whole lot he may just lose people who were hired, and are largely wedded to great power competition and the NDS developed under Mattis and Pence (who took a very close interest in it).

2) The first two minutes.


None of what I heard there represents a "pivot". These programs and efforts have been ongoing for many years. The very specific one goes back to early 2017 which means it was funded in the FY17 budget and hence developed a year or two prior to that. As I said, all these are off shoots of the AII and the other efforts put in place by Bob Work who as I said, was also an integral part of the current administrations NDS - serving as the #2 at the Pentagon right up to 3-4 months prior to the formal unveiling of the strategy.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2019 13:45

japanese LPH ship Ise leading a formation of ships

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2019 13:51

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... alflow+DFN

The 13 deficiencies include:

The F-35’s logistics system currently has no way for foreign F-35 operators to keep their secret data from being sent to the United States.

The spare parts inventory shown by the F-35’s logistics system does not always reflect reality, causing occasional mission cancellations.

Cabin pressure spikes in the cockpit of the F-35 have been known to cause barotrauma, the word given to extreme ear and sinus pain.

In very cold conditions — defined as at or near minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit — the F-35 will erroneously report that one of its batteries have failed, sometimes prompting missions to be aborted.

Supersonic flight in excess of Mach 1.2 can cause structural damage and blistering to the stealth coating of the F-35B and F-35C.

After doing certain maneuvers, F-35B and F-35C pilots are not always able to completely control the aircraft’s pitch, roll and yaw.

If the F-35A and F-35B blows a tire upon landing, the impact could also take out both hydraulic lines and pose a loss-of-aircraft risk.

A “green glow” sometimes appears on the helmet-mounted display, washing out the imagery in the helmet and making it difficult to land the F-35C on an aircraft carrier.

On nights with little starlight, the night vision camera sometimes displays green striations that make it difficult for all variants to see the horizon or to land on ships.

The sea search mode of the F-35’s radar only illuminates a small slice of the sea’s surface.

When the F-35B vertically lands on very hot days, older engines may be unable to produce the required thrust to keep the jet airborne, resulting in a hard landing.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Jun 2019 20:44

These "deficiencies" to a lay person, are technically, and perhaps more appropriately, -"Incident Reports". Each F-35 test, and operational pilot, around the world, is able to open up a "ticket" if he/she spots a particular anomaly or deviation from the norm that he/she feels warrant a further investigation. This is not something unique to the F-35, but something all other types also support. Once an IR is reported, the program views the feedback and a board determines whether it is justified and if so it categorizes it as type determined by a host of factors but primarily by its severity, impact on the safety of the aircraft, and the mission effectiveness.

Once those IRs are open, the program (government PO, contractor teams, and the Integrated test teams) get to investigating it further by utilizing the resources they have at their disposal. Each incident comes to 2-3 conclusions. Either the board determines that they need to identify, isolate and fix the problem, if it is systemic, and then retire the issue, or if they determine that the problem is not as severe as initially categorized, they also have the power to downgrade the ticket and have it lower on the priorities. Additionally, they also have the power to just retire, without addressing, the low priority tickets if they feel that they do not require unique solutions and if future upgrades would naturally fix them without any additional intervention and that the issue has no adverse impact on the the aircraft meeting its combat effectiveness requirements or KPPs.

With that as a background, the JSF program had over 100 Category A IR's open by early 2018. The PEO last year promised that they would be going through each one of them at a faster rate so that they address, downgrade or retire them as fast as possible, as the number of aircraft in the fleet build up and as the full-rate production decision loom. Over the last 14 months or so they have closed, or adequately addressed more than 85 outstanding IR's. The ones that still remain open (the 13 cited in the articles) have been known for quite a while, are already addressed or have a solution in advance testing or actually being implemented into the fleet as we speak. None of those issues were considered severe enough for the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to not enter the program into its most pressing IOT&E phase, something it is expected to come out of in September/October of this year.

This AirforceMagazine article details each and provides what is currently known on them - http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2 ... olved.aspx

The F-35’s logistics system currently has no way for foreign F-35 operators to keep their secret data from being sent to the United States.


This is not true based on the current reality. Someone may have wanted this addressed for obvious reasons but the solution (a new Sovereign Data Management tool) to these needs has already been rolled out with more to come. The original logistical system met its spec when it came to data transfers. However, foreign customers wanted additional modes and options which are being delivered to them. There are requirements, and then there are needs that are identified along the way and added to the existing requirements that users feel do not represent the full extent of what they would like.

The spare parts inventory shown by the F-35’s logistics system does not always reflect reality, causing occasional mission cancellations.


This PHM issue is being mitigated, but my guess is that this will remain the case until at least block 4. Yet, even with it still an issue, the USAF and the USN will likely meet its 80% mission capability rate requirement by September 2019. The PHM is improving but very slowly but the workaround for it is effectively doing what these services do with legacy systems so in the short term, improvements will help, but a more permanent solution will likely only come with block 4 in the early 2020's.

Cabin pressure spikes in the cockpit of the F-35 have been known to cause barotrauma, the word given to extreme ear and sinus pain.


Barotrauma is not unique to the F-35. Other aircraft pilots suffer it as well. Incidents are recorded and measured and the operators measure statistical probabilities of something like this happening. No new incidents of it have been reported IIRC several years and there is no current requirement that the F-35 or any other aircraft for that matter that the F-35 program is benchmarked against.

In very cold conditions — defined as at or near minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit — the F-35 will erroneously report that one of its batteries have failed, sometimes prompting missions to be aborted.


Cold weather operational testing which only concluded recently (2018 out in Alaska) identified this issue. The fix was rather simple - software patch that corrects the battery heater issue that results in this erroneous fault. Aircraft that will be deploying to Eielson Air Force Base will have this software fix and it will also be rolled in as a permanent solution along with the next C2D2 update that adds a ton of other capabilities and introduces other software fixes. Existing users can either request this software patch as a stand alone or just have it included in the next software build.

Supersonic flight in excess of Mach 1.2 can cause structural damage and blistering to the stealth coating of the F-35B and F-35C.


This was also something identified during supersonic testing many years ago. The fix was to have more robust stealth coatings on the parts where they were delaminating after prolonged supersonic operations. The solution was tested, approved, and cut into production in production LOT-8. For reference, they are currently producing LOT 11 so the fix has been in production fore more than 2 years.

After doing certain maneuvers, F-35B and F-35C pilots are not always able to completely control the aircraft’s pitch, roll and yaw.


This was an FCS issue identified by NAVAIR during its testing. It wasn't severe enough for them to feel that the F-35B or C could not meet its operational requirements or else they would not have entered the aircraft into a full blooded 10 month IOT&E last year. Regardless, the FCS fix has been developed and this incident should be retired by the end of the year just like most, if not all, of the remaining open IRs. As a reference, the F-35B routinely performs high AOA passes at air-shows, and one aircraft did the very same above the White House a couple of days ago.

If the F-35A and F-35B blows a tire upon landing, the impact could also take out both hydraulic lines and pose a loss-of-aircraft risk.


With 200,000 fleet hours flown, and more than 400 aircraft currently flying, there have ZERO incidences of both the hydraulic lines being damaged as a result of a tire blowout or other issue. The program judged the risk of this happening on the F-35C as the highest, and as such the hydraulic lines on that type were moved some time back to further reduce the odds of this ever happening.

A “green glow” sometimes appears on the helmet-mounted display, washing out the imagery in the helmet and making it difficult to land the F-35C on an aircraft carrier.


The Green-Glow issue is a well known issue on the program which has been discussed here earlier as well. The Current Generation-II helmet mitigates this issue to a significant extent an in fact does so to such a level where the US Navy feels it is OK to put the aircraft into service with it. The service had previously made it clear that they would not declare IOC with the generation 1 helmet.

Yes, on certain conditions the Gen II helmet operates at a degraded performance though that performance has been deemed to be acceptable though not highly desirable. The USN has now taken the aircraft out to sea multiple times at night to verify this. The USMC operates the aircraft at night with the same Generation-II helmet routinely and does so halfway across the world during actual operational deployments.

That said, the Generation III helmet eliminates all of those issues and restores the expected performance of the system during all potential operational conditions. It is not something that is on the drawing board - it is a fully developed product that has even been tested and is currently being qualified for operational use. Expect units to begin transitioning into Generation-III helmets starting later this summer.

The sea search mode of the F-35’s radar only illuminates a small slice of the sea’s surface.


Enhanced maritime radar modes were eliminated from the baseline 3F SDD build many years ago as no maritime anti-ship capability was expected to be available until early block 4 (no Harpoon integration required) beyond JSOW. New Maritime modes to the radar and the combat system are currently being developed and will be fielded with the early versions of the block 4 along with new maritime weapons such as the JSM, AARGM, SDB II and JAGM-F. Non 3F capabilities and weapons have been moved up as far as schedule is concerned so if any operator, particularly the USN or USMC wanted these additional modes to be pushed to the left, they could have asked for them. I think they are satisfied with where they are at baseline, and where they are headed with C2D2 which adds both software and hardware changes and more importantly more maritime strike weapons.

When the F-35B vertically lands on very hot days, older engines may be unable to produce the required thrust to keep the jet airborne, resulting in a hard landing.


This is an engine issue and from my understanding this has to do with tweaking the software so that adequate power is extracted from the engines on landings in certain conditions. There is a program office issues clarification on this matter that I can't seem to locate (will put it here once I dig it up) but the program does not forsee any hardware changes required to fix this issue.

-----

All but a handful of these IR's are likely to be downgraded or completely eliminated by the end of this year if not much sooner. Open IR's, or even open category A IR's is not uncommon as I expect most current operational aircraft in the USAF, or USN fleet to have them. Every time a major upgrade is done you will see a spike in things spotted as the programs begin working on retiring or addressing these things one by one.

As the Norweigan pilot wrote in his excellent blog post some time ago, it isn't uncommon to have some IR's open in perpetuity as review boards don't ever deem issues to be severe enough to require funded solutions be developed, or because the ITF can't isolate faults or replicate very rare incidents in a test environment to further analyze it.

This is why the process of developmental testing and Operational Test and Evaluation is expected to be a nuanced one that has both objective and subjective elements as well as relative comparisons (how is X done vs legacy employment of a WS). In the US, the test community, the operator community and ultimately the DOT&E led test effort primarily answers two questions

- Is the evaluated weapon system operationally effective (can it win against its bench marked threat in a realistic operational scenario)

- Is the evaluated weapon system operationally suitable (can it deploy, and fight based on the existing level of performance and support)


KPP's and other performance parameters are dealt with during developmental testing.

Open IR's (the so called "deficiencies") are a dynamic reporting metric where older ones are downgraded or eliminated while new ones are added as new capability is added. This is an ongoing process. Unless there are actual IR's which the review board feels impact the safety of the aircraft and the lives of pilots they are dealt with in batches and an appropriate course of action charted for each one. No safety related IR is open on any JSF variant. The review board and the supporting elements can go full Andon when it comes to operations or even production if they feel a safety IR demands it (hence the groundings).

As the article states, the CAT 1 (exclusively Cat 1B) deficiency count was 111 in January of 2018. The number came down to 64 CAT 1 by last summer and was further cut by 80% over the last 12 months to the current state of 13 remaining open CAT 1B IR’s. It wasn’t that they managed to scramble together and solve 50 deficiencies in a matter of just 4-6 months last year (as reading the article would lead one to believe) and then managed to do the same for 50 more since then. The appropriate way to read this is that efforts identified, tested, designed and implemented finally began providing data and evidence that was sufficient to convince the review board that the open issues had been adequately resolved to either completely retire those issues or downgrade them in severity. Some of these things just take time to go through and address, compile data and present to the authorities so that they can addressed in the reporting. The number is constantly changing as you have new IR’s entered into the system by operational or test pilots as new things are discovered, or as new capability is added.And then there are issues that you deliberately, and consciously, keep open for an extended period of time because you expect the natural evolution of the software to fix them without requiring any dedicated intervention or program commitment.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 10:52

U.S. Navy official sees more orders for Boeing P-8A in coming months


PARIS (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy expects additional U.S. and international orders for the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft in coming months, which should extend production by two years to late 2025, a senior U.S. Navy official told Reuters.

Navy Captain Tony Rossi, program manager for the P-8 and its predecessor, the P-3, said the Navy was hoping to finalize the order book for the program soon to be able to “effectively and efficiently close out the production.”

He said the program could see about 21 additional orders from the U.S. Navy on top of 117 aircraft already funded, plus roughly the same number from other countries, although he declined to name potential new buyers.

The P-8, based on Boeing’s 737-800 airframe, conducts anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare and shipping interdiction, and also carries electronic support measures, torpedoes, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and other weapons.

It is already operated by the U.S. Navy, Australia and India, and has been ordered by Britain, Norway, New Zealand and South Korea.

Rossi said he was urging potential buyers to place their orders soon.

“The message is clear. The time is now to make sure that production continues to get those orders filled,” he said. “I’m upbeat. I think there’ll likely be additional U.S. orders and additional FMS (foreign military sales) quantities in the next six to nine months.”

Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Virginia-based Teal Group, said other potential buyers included Singapore and Canada. The transatlantic NATO alliance was also considering ordering the aircraft, according to sources familiar with the program.

“The market is somewhat thinner than expected, but they’ll get more orders. The production line will probably wind up running into the late 2020s,” Aboulafia said.

Boeing builds about 1.5 P-8 aircraft a month, but could slow production to extend the line, which is now slated to end in mid- to late-2023, and allow additional international customers to join the program, Rossi said.

He said demand for broad-area maritime patrol was rising given sharp increases in Russian submarine activity, and the capabilities of those vessels.




Prithwiraj
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Prithwiraj » 02 Jul 2019 22:50

Fire on Russian submersible leaves 14 crew members dead


A fire aboard a Russian deepwater submersible killed 14 Russian crew members, state news agencies reported Tuesday, citing the Ministry of Defense.

The blaze broke out Monday while the craft was carrying out research in Russian territorial waters, and 14 submariners died from smoke inhalation, the ministry said, according to the state-run news agency Tass.
The vessel is now at the naval base in Severomorsk on the Barents Sea, and an investigation into the incident is being carried out by the Russian navy's commander-in-chief, state news agency RIA-Novosti reported.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/europe/r ... index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... 5d06433680

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jul 2019 09:13

a highly secretive 1000t n-powered boat with 1000m diving depth. use for underwater recon and tapping cables.

its the smallest n-powered sub in the world.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21064
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Prem » 05 Jul 2019 00:56

Singha wrote:a highly secretive 1000t n-powered boat with 1000m diving depth. use for underwater recon and tapping cables.

its the smallest n-powered sub in the world.


Instead of AIP, The small reactor in this boat should be very suitable for our new generation sub we are trying to make unless there is noise issue .

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2019 00:46

brar_w wrote:This has been believed to be the case generally, but a confirmation none the less that at least the Italian FREMM frigate would need to be strengthened to meet US Navy's survivability requirements in addition to be able to clear the standard USN shock trials. The only other "frigate" in the competition, F-100, would probably also require additional strengthening and changes to meet those standards which the USN have largely kept at par with their destroyers..

1:30 onward-

Fincantieri's Hunt on Details of Frigate Offering for US Navy's FFG(X) Contest


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbocW7lO85g



More clarity and specifics. Though the exact nature of changes remains largely classified, it does involve adding roughly 300 tons of additional steel to the basic FREMM design, with greater emphasis paid on compartmentalization and meeting NAVSEA standards for survivability. Even though the FFG-X program is taking a "parent design" approach (all proposals have to have parent designs in operational service), this does not do away with the need for shock trials...

Fincantieri’s FREMM frigate design bulks up for the US FFG(X) competition


WASHINGTON — To meet the U.S. Navy’s famously high survivability standards, the FREMM frigate design has had to hit the gym and pack on hundreds of thousands of pounds of muscle in pursuit of wining the Navy’s FFG(X) competition.

U.S. Navy ships are built like linebackers: able to take hit upon hit and stay in the game. But that comes at the cost of extra steel. And in the case of Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri’s FREMM, it meant adding hundreds of tons of steel, said retired Adm. Rick Hunt, a former head of Naval Surface Force Pacific who now works for the Italian company.

“We did, like all the competitors, monthly technical exchange meetings with the government to make sure we were as compliant as possible going into detailed design and construction,” he said. “One of the things that the Navy wasn’t going to budge on, and we agreed, was the toughness of the ship. So we added about 300 tons of steel on the design for the FREMM.”

Bringing the ship up to Naval Sea Systems Command’s high standards for toughness was always a foregone conclusion for this competition, but packing on all that steel drives choices into the design, especially when the Navy is trying its best to get a highly capable frigate for less than $1 billion.

Fincantieri’s FREMM is competing alongside three other offerings: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Navantia’s F-100 variant, which is roughly equivalent to a small Arleigh Burke-class destroyer; a modified, up-gunned version of the National Security Cutter from Huntington Ingalls Industries; and Austal USA’s frigate version of its aluminum-hulled Independence-class littoral combat ship.

Lockheed Martin’s version of the FFG(X), an up-gunned, twin-screw variant of its Freedom-class LCS, was pulled from the competition in May.

As for the FREMM, the extra weight eats into some of the extra space on the ship — its spaciousness is one of the defining characteristics of the platform.

“[The extra steel is] going into scantling, ballistic and frag protection, the way the spaces are laid out: We’re as compliant as a DDG. That’s a lot of steel. The compartmentation, the toughness of the ship, the U.S. requirements that are different from the European ships — we moved around some of that extra space; it gets classified very quickly.”

What hasn’t been compromised has been the modularity of the ship that creates routes for major equipment to be brought in and out of the hull so that replacing, for example, major engine or computer components doesn’t require cutting a hole in the ship, Hunt said.

The berthing compartments are also the same: four- to six-person staterooms with private showers for each room.

“The most you’ll see in normal steaming is four, it’s officer quality," Hunt said. "And that was a fight: That was a back-and-forth with big Navy and again an area that we came to an agreement on, and we’re holding do that.”

Overall, the design they are working on is perhaps less roomy than its European counterpart, but it does maintain a lot of extra space and capacity for upgrades to the power and propulsion system in future FFG(X) blocks or with retrofit upgrades, Hunt said.

For example, FREMM has the additional capacity to support an air warfare commander role, Hunt said, and could, with extra electrical power, support a larger 37-radar module assembly phased array instead of the nine-RMA array that’s in the FFG(X) requirements.

“Be flexible in what you do right now, surge to more capacity as soon as we get that [requirement] and be able to grow the ship in lot changes should you need something even greater in the future,” Hunt said.





Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21064
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Prem » 24 Jul 2019 17:15

http://www.hisutton.com/ROMEO-Mod_Submarine.html
New North Korean submarine: ROMEO-Mod
( check the images)
N
orth Korea revealed its latest indigenous submarine on 23rd July 2019. Footage was shown of Kim Jong Un inspecting the submarine, probably in Sinpo on the east coast. North Korean state media (KCNA) reported that it was “newly built” and will operate in the East Sea of Korea (aka Sea of Japan). This is consistent with North Korea’s existing Gorae Class ballistic missile submarine. Footage shown on KCNA only appears to show the lower hull of the submarine, near the stern and near the bow. This is enough to say with confidence that this is a modified ROMEO Class submarine. North Korea imported 7 boats from China in 1973 and then construction of the first 11 local versions took place with Chinese assistance at Sinpo shipyard on the East Coast from 1974 to 1979. Production resumed, probably without Chinese help, from 1985 to 1996. As many as 20 are reported in service although numbers are likely declining over time. The footage clearly shows the twin-screws (propellers) with shrouds per the ROMEO, and also the bulbous sonar dome at the base of the bow. It also shows that a new deck casing has been fitted alongside and behind the sail confirming that this is a modified boat. A corner of the sail’s trailing edge is just visible in one of the first images released.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7767
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 27 Aug 2019 00:48

French Navy continues to improve its nuclear powered submarine fleet
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -variants/

More Details On Suffren – The French Navy Next Gen SSN – & On Its Export SSK Variants.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19968
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 28 Aug 2019 21:07

twitter
you don't see this every day

Image

Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19968
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 28 Aug 2019 22:25

twitter
The sheep watch nervously as the wolf passes by......

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7767
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Aug 2019 22:43

Chetak Saar, kindly provide link of the tweets. Thank You.

Very nice shots by the way.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 30 Aug 2019 23:38

http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/AAGzbno?ocid=se
So much for the British Engineering :shock:
Was there ever a plan to buy the sister ship

Avtar Singh
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 22 Jan 2017 02:07

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Avtar Singh » 02 Sep 2019 15:30

In their heyday; Ark Royal 1974

short version with often heard refrain;
“keep it coming down”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv8prm4mGEQ

longer version
@10.00 ……….. tell him well done
pilot; “I am glad I am on”
to the pilot; “we were all a bit worried about you, must admit”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJAVlobjKKY


full video, Buccaneer doing “wheelies”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cALccuPShQc
a comment on above video;

HAZMAT FireGuy 3 years ago
I love watching these videos of the RN carriers in action. I was in the US Navy and served aboard carriers for 4 years but seeing the RN carrier operations up close always impresses me. You Brits had your act together, what happened as the result of poor decision making from the UK government was a real shame .

=========================================================

QE class, show piece only;
Carriers are probably dead ducks but if you are going to have them no point in jumps with aircraft that have a punkah louvre pointing out the back…
Twin engine with catapults only.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3756
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 11 Sep 2019 07:03

Thailand just bought a 25K ton LHD from Cheen.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1171440363120123907

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
Seems as if the Thai Navy signed for one Type 071E LPD

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20056
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 Sep 2019 14:06

An Indian co., C2C DB, has made a breakthrough in winning an order for a sophisticated CMS ( combat management system) for two British built frigates of the Malaysian Navy, the Leiku ans Jebat , against stiff competetion from Thales, etc. The Bangalore - based co. has also been involved in systems for the carrier Vikrant and SSBN the Arihant along with the WESEE.
Great work!

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 22 Sep 2019 06:22

from Twitter:
Some Naval Gun systems compared.

Image

VikramA
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 29 Aug 2018 15:41

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby VikramA » 22 Sep 2019 08:42

^^ the ERGM ammo for mk 45 is no longer in development

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Sep 2019 09:11

Yes, though the Mk45 Mod 4 has the HVP option with a range of >90 km. The USN test fired nearly two dozen rounds from the weapon earlier this year . Also, the 57 mm guns have the ALAMO round as an option for extended range and moving target capability.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2019 21:36

MV-22 conducts night landings on Queen Elizabeth;Jane's Navy International; Richard Scott, London


The first night deck landings of a US Marine Corps (USMC) Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor have been conducted from the UK Royal Navy (RN) aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth .

Undertaken on 19 September by an MV-22 aircraft from HX-21 Squadron, based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, the trial was designed to expand on the extant day clearance by undertaking a night evaluation of Queen Elizabeth’s lighting, deck configuration, deck motion, and handling qualities. A total of 22 deck landings were conducted, using 2 spot, 3 spot, and 4 spot.

“Initial feedback suggested it was a positive trial and further demonstrates the interoperability between the UK and US operating to the Queen Elizabeth class [QEC] aircraft carriers,” an RN spokesperson told Jane’s . “This trial will effectively allow the MV-22 to be able to deliver cargo to QEC ships 24 hours a day, and specifically it will allow F-35 engines to be delivered to the ship any time to meet operational tasking.”



Image

Image

The V-22 is probably a strong possibility for the RN down the road given that it is the only fixed or rotary winged aircraft in the world that can carry the F-135 engine and land on their carrier.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 25 Sep 2019 11:36

Carrying the F-135 engine seems like a fairly specific mission, apart from COD? The RN wont need a large fleet of V-22s to conduct these specific ops, given that there will only be 2 carriers. Also asa side note, doesnt the carrier itself carry spare engines while deploying, as part of spares?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Sep 2019 17:18

Chinmay wrote:Carrying the F-135 engine seems like a fairly specific mission, apart from COD? The RN wont need a large fleet of V-22s to conduct these specific ops, given that there will only be 2 carriers. Also asa side note, doesnt the carrier itself carry spare engines while deploying, as part of spares?


Carrying the engine is obviously one of the missions, COD and even tanking being others...QE would carry spare engines on board for sure, but the ability to transport one to and from the AC is a capability most AC operators have usually demanded or had historically as it gives options when the thing is deployed at full ops tempo during war especially if you ever need to operate with the flexibility to deploying on sea and on land (one of the things the F-35B can do given its STOVL performance)..What happens when the F-35B unit onboard the QE deploys to a FOB and then needs an engine repaired in quick time? One option is to duplicate capability at the FOB but that takes time and resources and may or may not be an option. Another quick way is to just move the engine back to the ship, have it serviced and fly in a new one so that the aircraft can get back into the fight..I believe moving ashore and supporting ground forces through CAS is one of the missions the joint RAF/RN F-35B crews train for, much like the USMC.

Also, the palletized VARS has the ability to offload 4500+ kg of fuel when configured as a tanker which is amazing for an aircraft capable of STOVL/VTOL performance and one that can also perform COD, move the F-135 around, and transport more than a dozen troops to over 400 km. A couple of different variants sharing a common aircraft would serve them well for the various missions..For comparison, a buddy tanking configured Super Hornet, equipped with tanks and set up for buddy refueling, offloads less than half the amount of fuel at 200 km as the V-22 set up as a tanker. This opens up tanking options well beyond just recovery and allows you to launch aircraft with heavier loads (trade fuel for payload on a hot day for example). Further, it saves a major future expense of converting the F-35B for recovery/buddy tanking something that no other operator wants or needs (and the fact that using a LO fighter as a buddy tanking is a rather poor utilization of the capability at the cost)..

It appears that the USMC will not just be operating on the QE AC's first operational deployment but that joint manning may be more common that that. If so, it makes sense to share equipment and capability and with the V-22 order window drawing to a close fairly soon they may well decide to order a few aircraft for these two carriers. I think the COD performance (2000-2500 km organic/unrefuelled range - HV22) and the commonality with the USN COD platform is enough reason alone given that once the production ceases no one else will really have a need to design and begin producing anything like it for quite a while..

Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3756
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 27 Sep 2019 13:14

Chilean cadets board and take new chini LHD as a prize!

The Esmeralda in Shanghai with the lead Type 075.

Image

Image

Image

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2101
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby John » 01 Oct 2019 19:46

Moved to intl discussion
brar_w wrote:
John wrote:^ Was comparing it to only operational vessels even Type 26 being proposed for Canada and Australia Surface combatant programs packs a bit more heftier armament lets see when they get built.


The US FFG(X), the Australian and Canadian Type-26's (or the British one for that matter) are all expected to be delivered around the 2024-2026 time-frame and all pretty much have very firm, and clearly articulated performance and outfit requirements (though Lockheed Martin began working on the radar for the Canadian ship very recently they are expected to have it ready by the time it is needed since it is based on the US LRDR and Japan's SSR/AA). I think the point is that SAM load outs are trending upwards even when SAMs and sensors (GaN AESA based radars and Electronic Warfare/Attack soft kill systems) are getting better and Directed energy weapon are beginning to show up. I'd put the US FFG(X) at the lower end of the SAM loud out spectrum going forward, for they have a very large Destroyer and Cruiser fleet to provide area-defense. I can see the Europeans, Canadians and Australians growing their SAM capability considerably over time since these are pretty close to the upper limit of their warships in many cases.


I am skeptical of that I remember back in early 00s when Type 45 vs Horizon was the all rage I remember some of ludicrous load outs proposed for those vessels but reality settled in missiles counts were much lower. Heck Royal Navy struggled tot even fit missiles in all the existing launchers due to budget constraints.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 01 Oct 2019 20:20

John wrote:Moved to intl discussion

I am skeptical of that I remember back in early 00s when Type 45 vs Horizon was the all rage I remember some of ludicrous load outs proposed for those vessels but reality settled in missiles counts were much lower. Heck Royal Navy struggled tot even fit missiles in all the existing launchers due to budget constraints.


Yes of course. Those missiles could never be built. The ship builders could get a phone call/email right before construction starts asking them to halve the number of VL cells specified in the original specifications or the missile manufacturers could go out of business or if nothing else those ships could be built but no missiles procured for them and those cells just sit empty throughout the life of the ship. In the extreme case the ships couldn't be built at all and all those programs in Britain, Australia, Canada, and the US could simply just collapse.

More realistically however, the ESSM has a hot production line, and the production transfer to the block II was awarded very recently. The block II is in combined Dev/Ops testing and will be deployed in the near-term. EMD contract for the SM-2 Block III C was awarded recently and it is a fairly low risk effort given it borrows much of its active seeker from the SM-6. Raytheon knows if it screws up with the SM-2 IIIC and the production re-start, Lockheed is waiting in the wings with the Navalized MSE proposal that leverages a known and in production missile and a known and in production booster. CAMM is in ops testing and is about to enter rate production. So not only are most of those missiles in fairly advanced stage of development/testing..they are right at the cusp of being in production and will be in inventory well ahead of ship deliveries. Of course there is the possibility that Naval requirement framers will frame requirements for a Naval vessel to be equipped in a certain way but never follow through and actually equip them for what they sought. But that applies universally to everyone and not selectively just to the navies that may be demonstrating a trend you may take objection too.

As I stated in my earlier post, quoted above, the last 4 western frigate competitions have shown an upward trend in SAM load-outs, despite having a generational leap in sensor and passive defense capability (GaN based AESA radars, Modern EO/IR systems, and GaN based EW/EA soft-kill systems and CEC++) and more capable active missiles. That is just a fact and is easily verifiable by looking at requirements and specified GFE and contractual obligations. This, as I mentioned, establishes somewhat of a trend of Navies wanting small surface-combatants to armed with more defensive options than the vessels they replace or even similarly sized vessels built in the prior decades. Many western navies will likely also adjust their SSC:LSC in favor of the former and some may even ditch the LSC alltogether due to CAPEX and OPEX costs. This will mean that more and more Area-Defense mission would be off-loaded to the SSC fleet probably requiring them to be armed even more heavily.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 Oct 2019 22:58


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Oct 2019 17:28

This is an important capability as letting deploying carrier crews train on a mix of subsonic and supersonic target missiles in live intercept or tracking scenarios, prior to deploying on their cruise, was considered a major value add by the previous USN CNO but SSST facility was only available to carriers deploying off of the West Coast in the past..

USN completes first GQM-163A Coyote east coast target launch


Image

The US Navy (USN) has undertaken first launches of the GQM-163A Coyote Supersonic Sea Skimming Target (SSST) from an east coast range facility.

Performed on 12 September from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) in Virginia, the launch of two GQM-163A targets supported a fleet missile exercise (MSLEX) activity.

Originally developed by Orbital Sciences – now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems – to meet the USN’s requirement for a high-fidelity SSST to replicate a family of supersonic sea skimming anti-ship cruise missile threats for fleet training and test and evaluation, the GQM-163A uses a first-stage Mk 70 solid-rocket booster to accelerate off a rail launcher and achieve supersonic speed. Following booster separation, the air vehicle is sustained in flight by an Aerojet Rocketdyne MARC-R-282 four-inlet, solid-fuel ducted rocket/ramjet.

GQM-163A is able to fly either ‘sea skimmer’ or ‘high-diver’ flight trajectories. In the former case, the air vehicle can achieve a speed of Mach 2.6 during the cruise phase (nominally 35 n miles), and then descend to a minimum altitude of 15 ft and speed of Mach 2.6 for a 10 n mile terminal phase. Manoeuvres of up to 12 g in azimuth and 5 g in elevation can be executed in the terminal approach.

As a ‘high diver’, the GQM-163A can attain a maximum altitude of 52,000 ft cruising at up to Mach 3.8. It then performs a powered terminal dive at angles between 15° and 55°, achieving an impact speed of Mach 0.7-3.0.


The USN target inventory is procured and managed by the Aerial Targets Program Office (PMA-208) in Naval Air Systems Command. “This [WFF] site activation established a MSLEX capability in support of operational readiness and certification of deploying carrier strike groups,” said NAVAIR in a statement.

Northrop Grumman was awarded a USD2.3 million contract in November 2018 to provide hardware and engineering technical support of GQM-163A site activation at WFF. Establishment of a supersonic target capability on the Atlantic coast is intended to meet the Chief of Naval Operation’s directive for all carrier strike groups to complete MSLEX training prior to deployment.

Hitherto the USN has executed GQM-163A firings from San Nicolas Island, California, White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. In April PMA-208 advised its intention to award Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems a contract to stand up the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Hebrides range as a GQM-163A launch site. The certification of the MoD Hebrides range for GQM-163 flight operations will allow for the routine presentation of supersonic anti-ship missile targets in the European region.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7750
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Oct 2019 07:51

Officially, the Lightning Carrier concept maiden deployment with 20 x F-35 Bs on an LHA is not due till 2022 but they may be interested pushing it up a bit especially now that they are deploying nearly as many US aircraft on HMS QE AC for its maiden deployment in 2021. F-35Bs are now nearly constantly deployed since the type declared IOC with this cruise on the LHA-6 being the third 6- 8 month deployment.


Behold USS America Sailing With A Whopping 13 F-35Bs Embarked Aboard


USS America (LHA-6) is executing "routine operations" in the eastern Pacific, but her complement of aircraft is anything but. Deployed aboard are no less than 13 F-35Bs, and possibly even more stowed away in her hangar deck. This is the closest we've seen the USMC and the "Gator Navy" come to executing the notional "Lightning Carrier" concept, which would see the amphibious assault ships packed with nearly two dozen F-35Bs in the full-on fixed-wing aircraft carrier role. You can read all about this idea in this past feature of ours. It even eclipses the USS Wasp's (LHD-1) cruise to the South China Sea last Spring when it was spotted with ten F-35Bs aboard.....


Image

Image

Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3756
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chola » 15 Oct 2019 09:49

Korean CATOBARs? The SoKos are ambitious.

The KFX looks like it will beat the AMCA in the race to the air. Hopefully we'll get the Vishal before they get their CATOBAR.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30347/south-korea-considers-building-large-aircraft-carriers-as-country-prepares-to-buy-more-f-35s


Choi Jae Sung, a member of South Korea's leading Democratic Party, who reportedly has a close relationship with President Moon Jae In, made his pitch for buying more traditional aircraft carriers in a white paper that the National Assembly's National Defense Commission on the Navy and Air Force distributed earlier this year

...

Choi's report included details on the two CATOBAR aircraft carrier concepts that the South Koreans have previously considered. One of these would be almost 978 feet long and displace approximately 71,400 tons, around the same general size as China's Type 001A carrier ... The other proposal was around 41,500 tons displacement and just under 788 feet long, making it just slightly smaller than France's Charles de Gaulle



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, chaitanya, chiru, Kakarat, sgopal and 56 guests