Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

International Naval News and 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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Mar 2017 11:22

Adm.Greenert is a most pragmatic man. It would be great for the IN to pick his brains.The ABM vessel ,hopefully when it arrives,will be a great asset to the USN.One Q though.Apart from being based at strat. locations around the US coastline and isalnd territories,what capability would it have to knock out enemy ABMs in their boost-phase mode when stationed for example in SoKo ,Japan o even Taiwan,or operating in the contested waters of the Asia-Pacific?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Mar 2017 15:02

Philip wrote:Adm.Greenert is a most pragmatic man. It would be great for the IN to pick his brains.The ABM vessel ,hopefully when it arrives,will be a great asset to the USN.One Q though.Apart from being based at strat. locations around the US coastline and isalnd territories,what capability would it have to knock out enemy ABMs in their boost-phase mode when stationed for example in SoKo ,Japan o even Taiwan,or operating in the contested waters of the Asia-Pacific?


BPI is not a US Navy mission. There may be certain possible scenarios where you could in theory position a ship in a zone where it could launch in some very narrow parameters a large mid course missile (like an SM3 Block II A or B ) and do a BPI or ascent / early phase intercept of certain trajectories but it is really not something that you can plan to do as a mission using a navy vessel without really designing a very high end intercept for this role. BPI in this case (Noko or Iran) would probably be best done from land or from air (ALHTK).

There is some vague information out there in official US documents about the SM 3 Block IIB's (now deferred indefinitely) ability to go after certain ICBM trajectories but it has never been clarified and even if so (which is likely) it would not easily be accepted by the USN on account of its use of liquid propellant which the Navy does not allow on its ships. In theory if in the future the KKV's were to ever shrink in size and weight the missile intercept performance would improve but that is again you would have to launch very very early to get an ascent phase intercept.

The KEI (Kinetic Energy Interceptor) was the primary, dedicated BPI for the US forces. It was cancelled long ago but that would be the best land based BPI option. The cheapest would be an ALHTK solutions through fighter CAPs using the PAC-3 something that they have also war-gamed but it requires large numbers of fighters be exclusively committed to the mission. It is much better to work on added left-of-launch capability then to have long range BPI capability put on AEGIS vessels.


Image

Compare o the SM3, KEI was extremely large (KEI as proposed was nearly 12 meters in height) and expensive. BPI at a decent range from land requires a lot of energy and will be an extremely expensive mission beyond just a few missiles and launchers. I don't think they want to revisit such a concept even as it applies to a Navy vessel. Between the modern sensor net they have around North Korea and Iran, the three layer defense provided by SM3, THAAD/SM6 and PAC-3/MSE they are fairly comfortable given the capability and its ability to grow to match the threat growth until non kinetic, directed energy options are mature and available to add additional layers.

Given the newer SM3 variants (SM3 Ib and IIA) the mission has really shifted from fleet defense to defense of ground assets (what the navy calls "protecting dirt") so it makes a lot of sense, as the mission gets more and more complex to shift the mission to a new platform and thereby reducing the design burden on the future replacement for the ticonderoga and Burke class vessels. In a way, with the entry of the SM3 Block IB and the upcoming entry of the IIA to the fleet, AEGIS is essentially your BMD on the go that can provide mid-course defense to an extremely large area using just one vessel...

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Mar 2017 17:53, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Mar 2017 15:35

Lockheed Martin: F-35/NIFC-CA Live Fire Test In 2018; LRASM Flight Tests This Year

ARLINGTON, Va. — Lockheed Martin plans to conduct a live-fire test of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter directing an Aegis Combat System engagement next year, as well as the first flight of the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare missile at the end of this year, both to bolster the Navy’s distributed lethality concept.

The Joint Strike Fighter already paired with the Aegis Combat System – and the weapons and data links that collectively make up the Naval Integrated Fire Control- Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capability – in September 2016. A Marine Corps F-35B observed and tracked a target and sent the track information to the Navy’s USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) test platform running the Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System. Desert Ship then launched a Standard Missile-6 to kill the threat, while relying solely on the targeting data from the F-35.

At Lockheed Martin’s annual media day event today, director of Aegis programs Jim Sheridan said the company was working with the F-35 Joint Program Office and the Navy’s Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) to bring that Joint Strike Fighter/NIFC-CA pairing to sea.

“We’re looking at doing a TRACKEX (tracking exercise) with that capability in 2017, this year, probably in the summer/fall timeframe, with the goal of having a life-fire event at sea in the summer of 2018,” he said.

To get from where the F-35/NIFC-CA integration is today to the maturity needed for a successful at-sea demonstration, Sheridan said the company needed to work on “modeling and simulation and making sure that we close the fire control loop,” as well as understanding how to physically integrate the two. For example, NIFC-CA generally relies on the Link-16 data link to connect the ships, planes and weapons involved in the detect-to-kill process. F-35, however, uses a Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) instead, which would require a new antenna on the destroyers that will launch a missile based on what the F-35B senses. Sheridan said Lockheed Martin has conceptual designs for where to put the MADL antenna on the ship but needs to refine and test those ideas.“There is work to be done in order to get there, it is an aggressive schedule,” Sheridan said of next year’s live-fire test.
“Frankly, my biggest challenge right now is getting the work on contract to get moving out. But with our recent successes out at [White Sands Missile Range] and some of the other work we’ve done on test ship (guided-missile destroyer USS) John Paul Jones (DDG-53), I’m optimistic that once we get this under contract things will move pretty quickly.”

Despite the work that still remains, Sheridan said pairing the F-35 with NIFC-CA – compared to using the Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye or other aircraft – “is just heads and shoulders above anything else we’ve been seeing.”

On the missile side, Lockheed Martin plans to host two tests of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) – the company’s name for its submission in the Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare program of record – one of them being airplane-launched and the other from an angled launcher on a ship deck.

LRASM began as a fixed-wing-based anti-surface warfare weapon that Lockheed Martin and the Navy poured $1.1 billion into developing, Chris Mang, vice president for strategy and business development at the company’s Tactical Missiles and Combat Maneuver Systems business, explained at the company media day. The Navy and Pentagon wanted additional surface-to-surface weapons, though, and in 2014 the missile was launched from a Mk 41 Vertical Launching System tube at White Sands Missile Range after an additional $100-million investment in the new launching mode. As the distributed lethality concept spread through the Navy fleet – encouraging every ship at sea to be a lethal shooter – an additional $20-million investment was made to put LRASM into an angled Harpoon-like launcher, or a “topside canister,” that could be placed on the deck of a Littoral Combat Ship, amphibious ship or anything else without VLS cells.Mang said the investments to date have led to the full maturation of the VLS-launched capability, with no additional technology development needed if the Navy decided to buy and certify the system today.

“That capability enables us really to get to the surface fleet in about three years, so if somebody made the decision to go, we are completely prepared to be on surface ships by 2020 or 2021, depending on when the program gets started,” Mang said, noting that the Navy would have to be the ones to conduct certifications and all remaining steps ahead of fielding the weapon. Fielding the topside canister-based missile might take an extra year, he said.

Lockheed Martin will fire its first topside canister-launched LRASM in the third quarter of this year as a risk-reduction measure as it continues development of that launching capability.On the original air-launched side, Lockheed Martin will conduct its first full flight test in the Navy’s formal Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare program of record, launching a LRASM from a B-1 bomber in the fourth quarter of this calendar year.

Mang said that, despite the proven capability of LRASM, the Navy hasn’t decided if it will stick with the weapon for more than the original missiles the service will buy, or if it will re-compete the program in its Increment 2, and it hasn’t decided on a path forward for the surface-to-surface mode from VLS cells and topside launchers.

“I personally believe right now they’re waiting to see the missile fly this year in 2017, if we get a couple successful flights under our belt and then I think there’s a good opportunity for more of these (decisions) to show up,” Mang said.
“Especially on the aviation side: aviation has a documented gap, a [capability development document] they’re executing, Increment 2 in how they decide to acquire (more missiles). … So I think naval aviation is going to move out (with procurement and fielding).

Mang said he was less certain what the surface navy would do when it comes to buying and fielding this system.

“Surface navy I think has a lot of bills to pay, and they’re trying to figure out how to get $50 worth of stuff for $40. And it’s a hard question, I wish I knew the answer,” he said.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19465
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2017 16:34

The first Gowind®2500 by DCNS succeeds in the beginning of its sea trials

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/ne ... rials.html
On March 17th, 2017, DCNS is proud to announce the success of the first sea trials of the first-of-class Gowind® 2500 corvette under construction in Lorient, France by DCNS. Ten Gowind® 2500 corvette, aimed at supplementing DCNS surface vessel product range, has been ordered so far by international navies.

Image

The first sea trials of the first Gowind® 2500 corvette designed and built in Lorient by DCNS underline the quality of the conception and production of this new range of vessels. “It is a very important moment for DCNS: the Gowind® corvette designed especially for the international market is now sea proven,” explains Eric Chaplet, DCNS Marketing Vice-President. “We are very proud to announce that, with the Gowind® 2500 corvette, DCNS now has the last generation vessel to strengthen its product line geared to the international naval defence market.”

“The sea trials of the Gowind® 2500 corvette once again illustrate DCNS’ industrial capacity to manage and realize major programs with products meeting the needs of our customers”, adds Pierre Legros, DCNS Senior Vice-President Programs. The first Gowind® 2500 corvette is being built on the DCNS site in Lorient, France, one of the most modern naval shipyards in Europe. Nine other corvettes are to be built in Egypt and Malaysia, on the basis of technology transfer realized by DCNS. An international success for DCNS.

“The Gowind® 2500 responds to navies’ needs to have access to a complete and multi-mission combat vessel for sovereignty and maritime protection operations,” details Eric Chaplet.

The Gowind® 2500 is bristling with the very latest technological advances, developed and implemented by DCNS for naval defence. It incorporates the SETIS® combat system, developed by DCNS for FREMM frigates and Gowind® corvettes, the “Panoramic Sensors and Intelligence Module (PSIM)” – an assembly bringing together the integrated mast with its various sensors as well as the Operational Centre and its associated technical rooms – and the high degree of integration, automation and conviviality of the DCNS systems.

Gowind®2500 technical characteristics
• Total length: 102 meters
• Width: 16 meters
• Displacement: 2,600 tons
• Max. speed: 25 knots
• Crew: 80 persons (helicopter detachment included)
• Range: 3,700 nautical miles at 15 knots

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Mar 2017 18:25

Japanese navy commissions second Izumo-class helicopter carrier

The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) commissioned its second Izumo-class helicopter carrier, JS Kaga (DDH 184), on 22 March in a ceremony held at the Japan Marine United (JMU) shipyard in Yokohama, near Tokyo. The first of class, JS Izumo (DDH 183), was berthed adjacent to Kaga during the event.Built by JMU and launched in August 2015, Kaga is 248 m long, has a beam of 38 m, and will displace 24,000 tonnes at full load. Powered by four GE LM2500 gas turbines in a COGAG arrangement, it is estimated to have a top speed of 30 kt, according to Jane's Fighting Ships . It will have a complement of 520 officers and enlisted men.

The two Izumo-class vessels are the largest warships to enter Japanese service since the Second World War.

Although classified helicopter-destroyers by the JMSDF, these vessels have the appearance of a carrier rather than a destroyer. The flat-top is designed to operate helicopters in various roles.

Kaga is expected to embark a mix of Mitsubishi-Sikorsky SH-60K Seahawk anti-submarine warfare helicopters and AgustaWestland/Kawasaki MCH-101 for mine-countermeasure operations.

The JMSDF also anticipate using the ship for disaster relief, not only to deploy helicopters and personnel but also to exploit its capabilities as a command platform.

The armament of Kaga is limited to short-range self-defence systems, with two Raytheon Sea RAM missile systems and two Vulcan Phalanx multibarrelled 20 mm guns.

Kaga is the first Japanese naval ship to take that name since the Second World War aircraft carrier that took part in the Pearl Harbor attacks and was lost at the Battle of Midway.

In addition to the Izumo class, the JMSDF have two smaller 18,000-tonne helicopter-destroyers of the Hyuga class, which are capable of carrying up to 10 helicopters. Three 14,000-tonne Osumi-class tank landing ships (LST) are also flat-tops that can operate helicopters, but have no hangar facilities.Since the Izumo class appeared there has been much comment that the design provides the JMSDF with a potential entry into fixed-wing carrier aviation, although this has been denied by Japanese officials.

There has been speculation that the Izumo class will operate the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter but as the ships have neither catapults nor ski-jumps, and the aircraft on order are not the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant, this seems misplaced.

Reflecting the territorial disputes with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Japan increasingly sees the need to develop its amphibious capabilities, so the ships are likely to operate Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Japan currently has 17 of these on order, with first deliveries expected by mid-2018. The aircraft would also be used in disaster relief operations.

First-of-class Izumo is due to deploy in May to participate in the joint 'Malabar' exercise with the Indian and US navies in the Indian Ocean. It is also expected to make port visits in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka in an effort to counter the growing Chinese presence in the region. An anticipated exercise with US ships in the South China Sea has already drawn sharp criticism from China, which has accused Japan of "stirring up trouble".

There is an increasing number of carriers being operated in the Asia-Pacific region.

China's second short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) aircraft carrier is under construction in Dalian and is expected to be launched soon.

There has been much speculation that China also plans to build a helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ship, although there is no indication that construction is under way yet.

The Republic of Korea commissioned its first helicopter carrier, Dokdo , in 2007 and a second ship is planned.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 794
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Guddu » 24 Mar 2017 06:52

5 Maps That Show China's Biggest Limitations

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-2 ... imitations

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Mar 2017 08:27

yeah but hasnt china already exerted squatters rights over the reefs and shoals and nobody could do anything about it except wailing?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19465
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 24 Mar 2017 22:58

Hans Kristensen‏ @nukestrat 48m48 minutes ago

Interesting Russian MOD video on SSBN fleet, unique photos from subs, base, construction



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Mar 2017 05:08


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2017 02:07

Lockheed: F-35, Aegis combat system link will be tested at sea in 2018


The Navy will continue experimenting with its nascent distributed battle network by pairing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with the Aegis combat system at sea in the summer of 2018, according to a Lockheed Martin official.

Jim Sheridan, director of Aegis U.S. Navy programs at Lockheed, said his company, the F-35 Joint Program Office and the Navy's program executive office for integrated warfare office are collaborating on pairing the F-35 and Aegis combat system at sea after demonstrating the capability for the first time at White Sands Missile Range, NM, last September.


"We're looking at doing a [tracking exercise] with that capability in 2017, this year, probably in the summer-fall time frame, with the goal of having a live-fire event at sea in the summer of 2018," Sheridan said during Lockheed's annual media day March 21 in Arlington, VA.

Last September's test at White Sands was the first example of the F-35 linking with the Aegis combat system used by Navy cruisers and destroyers. During the test, an F-35B detected an inbound target and passed data through its Multi-Function Advanced Data Link to a ground station connected with the Aegis system on the land-based test vessel Desert Ship (LLS-1). A Standard Missile-6 was then launched, destroying the target.

The event was also an example of how the F-35 could link into the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) network, according to Lockheed. The network is being developed to connect different systems to extend the range at which the Navy can detect and engage targets as part of the service's "distributed lethality" initiative.

But the NIFC-CA program of record doesn't include linking in the F-35 yet. According to budget books, the program includes the Aegis combat system, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye early-warning aircraft, the SM-6 missile and the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) link.

The initial development of the F-35's integration into Aegis was funded by Lockheed through about $15 million of internal research and development dollars, Lockheed officials said after the previous test. And the Navy has yet to put Lockheed under contract for the upcoming tracking exercise and following at-sea test, according to Sheridan.

"It's an aggressive schedule," he said. "Frankly, I think my biggest challenge right now is getting the work on contract to get moving out. But with our recent successes at WSMR and some of the work we've done on-board our test ship, the John Paul Jones [DDG-53], I'm optimistic that once we get this under contract, things will move pretty quickly."

The work the company needs to do includes modeling and simulation, software code development and designing the system links for a shipboard environment, according to Sheridan. A Navy spokeswoman confirmed the upcoming tests, and said "follow-on efforts will commence as soon as funding is available to update current contracts."

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 28 Mar 2017 13:38

2nd izumo class ship the kaga joined the jmsdf today
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan ... 6T0FJ?il=0

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2017 19:52

I guess having ex Marines at the DOD and Cabinet does help with this. I had referred to this last year but now they have it as part of their official modernization policy.

The USMC just unveiled their 2017 Aviation plan update which includes a Lightning Carrier (CV-L) :

Background- In the 2017-2027 time frame the Marine Corps will possess the
majority of naval 5th generation aircraft. By 2025, the Marine Corps will operate
185 F-35Bs—enough to equip all seven L-Class ships. While the amphibious
assault ship will never replace the aircraft carrier
, it can be complementary, if
employed in imaginative ways. The CVN-L concept has previous been employed
(five times) utilizing AV-8B Harriers in a “Harrier Carrier” concept.10 The
ARG/MEU’s mission, and 13 mission essential tasks (METs), will not change;
however, a Lightning Carrier, taking full advantage of the amphibious assault ship
as a sea base, can provide the naval and joint force with significant access,
collection and strike capabilities.

Concept

An amphibious assault ship (L-Class ship) equipped with 16-20 F-35Bs
with an embarked, organic aerial refueling capability will create opportunities for
the naval and joint force commander.11 A Lightning Carrier can be employed
independently, as part of an ARG or Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), or in
conjunction with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG).We might never need to employ this way - and may not want to, based upon the
need to employ our amphibious ships in a more traditional role - but to not lean
forward to develop this capability, to train and exercise with it, is to deny
ourselves a force multiplier that highlights the agility and opportunity only the
Navy-Marine Corps team can provide.

1) F-35 employment- 16-20 x F-35B
2) Sortie Rate
• +40 sortie sustained rate (anticipated)
• Leverages organic MV-22 VARS air-to-air refueling and DAO FOBs to maximize sortie
generation and operational reach




Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2017 15:42

Philip wrote:It will be interesting to see if the Adm.Nakhu. will carry the new missile next yr. The US ABM vessel that was posted by Brar earlier needs to be compared with our own missile tracking ship ,pics in the IN td. If I recollect,there were some drawings of the vesssl posted some months ago. I wonder whether there is space amidships for our very own ABM SAMs and whether B-8 has the potential of an SM series.

PS:The RAF/RN has been very hard put to counter incoming Bears,making teasing runs towards the British coastline/airspace,let alone countering incoming Yakhont/BMos missiles. It is a great pity how the RN has been allowed to downsize,both in numbers and capability,but the 2 QE CVs should give it a shot in the arm from 2020 onwards,but these will still have to face incoming sub and air-launched Ru supersonic missiles,possibly hypersonic too if these reports are accurate.




The Barak-8 is not analogous to the modern SM series which with the odd series is a mid course (exoatmospheric) defense system designed around the longer ranged SRBMs, MRBMs and IRBMS, while the SM6 is an OTH enabled very long range SAM (200 miles has been posted in the open source) that has so far covered the SRBM (<1000 km ranged weapons) through MRBM (b/w 1000-3000km ranged weapons) Ballistic Missile threat envelope in at sea testing.

Although direct comparisons are very tough since we are talking about interceptors here (there is no need to directly compete since they are designed with a threat in mind and not a rival interceptor) but If I were to compare (for the heck of it) the barak-8 to a US system I would do so with the upcoming ESSM-Block II (designed for the anti - cruise missile, aircraft and short range ballistic missiles mission) which although differs is the closest you are likely to get out of the USN layered system.

PS:The RAF/RN has been very hard put to counter incoming Bears,making teasing runs towards the British coastline/airspace,let alone countering incoming Yakhont/BMos missiles.


Its just a matter of having an early warning network, interceptors armed with long range missiles which they have. They have bits and pieces but perhaps they need quantity. They are currently upgrading their EW networks and the Typhoon armed with Meteor is an excellent intercept platform when it comes to this mission. Once it gets an AESA bump, it will be much more capable in the cruise missile defense mission as well.
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Mar 2017 18:02, edited 2 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Mar 2017 16:03

I thought the rn plans to mothball the #2 carrier after completion for cost savings

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2017 16:08

The decided against that in 2014 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rrier.html
One of the reasons rumored to have led to the canceling of the EMALS+F-35C proposal was that it would have forced the RN to be a one carrier fleet on account of higher training, readiness and operational costs.

Given the cooperation they have with the USMC, and the agreements they have signed for the long term my guess would be that there would be quite a few joint deployments on the QE class carriers to lower the RN's O&S costs.

DSEI: U.S. Marine F-35Bs Will Operate From British Queen Elizabeth Carriers

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 29 Mar 2017 16:25

brar_w wrote:The decided against that in 2014 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rrier.html
One of the reasons rumored to have led to the canceling of the EMALS+F-35C proposal was that it would have forced the RN to be a one carrier fleet on account of higher training, readiness and operational costs.

Given the cooperation they have with the USMC, and the agreements they have signed for the long term my guess would be that there would be quite a few joint deployments on the QE class carriers to lower the RN's O&S costs.

DSEI: U.S. Marine F-35Bs Will Operate From British Queen Elizabeth Carriers


absolutely pathetic, :roll:

will there be an on board swimming pool for tourists?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Mar 2017 17:02

The USMC CV-L is what our planned amphibs could emulate.A small air wing for close support plus multi-role duties when required.A ski-jump added.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2017 18:21

CV-L works great under the umbrella of a larger carrier strike force. Take away that and it begins to show its limitations when it comes to ordinance carriage (you still need the well deck), sortie generation, advanced early warning/self defense and how it supports a larger fleet. While the USMC could technically deploy a CV-L along with a traditional USN Carrier support group (minus the CVN) it wouldn't be close when it comes to the full spectrum mission against a very high end threat.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2017 18:31

Full article at source.

P-8A Request Restored To 117 Operational Aircraft


The U.S. Navy has bumped its P-8A Poseidon procurement objective back up from 109 operational aircraft to the original “warfighting requirement” of 117.
The force structure change is behind the Trump administration’s request for six additional aircraft in fiscal 2017 for $920 million, as sought in the Pentagon’s supplemental request in March...

In another update, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, has completed its transition from the P-3 to the P-8, bringing the total number of operational squadrons to six. NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, is next in line to convert, a process that began in October.

Initial delivery to Australia took place in November followed by the second aircraft on Feb. 23. Those aircraft are now undergoing acceptance testing and integration.

The P-8 program office says the first British aircraft is on track for delivery in April 2019.

In terms of new capabilities, the Navy provided no status update on the Raytheon-built APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor, a once-classified maritime surveillance sensor that first flew in 2015, which replaces the APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System on specially modified P-3C Orions. The sensor is the basis for Raytheon’s proposed “Skynet” airborne surveillance radar for the Air Force’s future Joint Stars platform. The APS-154 should be ready for operational use, but officials shy away from the subject.

The service is moving forward with testing of Boeing’s High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC), which will allow the P-8 to attack submarines from an altitude of 30,000 ft. Cindy Gruensfelder, head of Boeing’s direct attack weapons portfolio, says contracts for the first two low-rate initial production lots totaling 140 guided torpedo wing kits is expected later this year. Initial flight testing will get underway soon, with initial operational capability expected by 2020, at which point the weapon will be available in limited quantities for combat use.


TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 29 Mar 2017 20:13

its hard to match the radar picket abilities of a cvn with out giving your location away.

the e-2 is what makes the magic happen for the cvn.

backed up by the air battle sequester of the Growler, of course.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2017 23:50

Here is reporting on the CVN-L concept I shared yesterday -

Marines highlight Lightning Carrier concept in aviation plan update

By 2025, the Marine Corps could equip all seven amphibious assault ships with Joint Strike Fighters as another option for combatant commanders, according to the latest iteration of the service's aviation plan.

The plan follows a proof of concept, known as the Carrier Lightning demonstration, aboard the America (LHA-6) in the fall. The demonstration integrated a larger than usual number of F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing jets aboard an amphibious assault ship, Col. George “Sack” Rowell, Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron-1 commanding officer, told reporters Nov. 19.

The Marines used 12 F-35Bs, two V-22s and one AH-1Z in the demonstration, a configuration that would not replace the typical aircraft carrier structure, but would give a combatant commander another option, he said.

Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, in November compared the approach to that of the Marine Corps during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the service loaded AV-8B Harriers on the deck of amphibious ships. In the future, Davis envisions the F-35 escorting the V-22 in a contested environment.

The just-releasted aviation plan too supports the concept of promoting new options. “An amphibious assault ship (L-class ship) equipped with 16-20 F-35Bs with an embarked, organic aerial refueling capability will create opportunities for the naval and joint commander,” the plan says.

It notes that the Marine Corps has employed the “Harrier Carrier” concept five times in combat.

“We might never need to employ this way -- and may not want to, based upon the need to employ our amphibious ships in a more traditional role -- but to not lean forward to develop this capability, to train and exercise with it, is to deny ourselves a force multiplier that highlights the agility and opportunity only the Navy-Marine Corps team can provide,” the document reads.

Further, the latest installment of the aviation plan gives more details on the large, sea-based unmanned aerial system the service wants to operate from an amphibious assault ship.

The Marines are coordinating with the Navy's requirements office to jointly conduct pre-milestone A activities that include teaming with vendors to develop specifications, a formal technology readiness assessment and developing life cycle cost estimates. The services will also identify technology maturation efforts needed to augment the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research's Tern program.

Davis told reporters in February that the Marine Air-Ground Task Force Unmanned Aircraft Expeditionary UAS (MUX) will replace the AH-1Z Zulu attack helicopter, giving the service longer range and strike capacity. The milestone A decision slated for 2020, and the Marine Corps will field the MUX in 2026, Davis said.


There will be an MUX technology demonstration flight in 2018 and the program will reach early operational capability in 2024, according to the aviation plan.

There are at least three companies interested in developing the MUX demonstrator, Davis said.

“I'm looking for an airplane that can help me escort V-22s [and] can manned-unmanned team with F-35s,” Davis said. “I'm looking for an airplane that can go out there deep and provide a picket, be a part of [Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air], to help me be sure my ship is safe at night and help the naval force project and see the battlespace.”

Inside the Navy reported in January that the surface Navy is interested in technology from the DARPA and ONR Tern program. The UAS can fly vertically and horizontally from a small ship.

“Let's put it up there, let's see if it works,” Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, surface warfare director in the office of the chief of naval operations (N96), told ITN Jan. 10. “If we take this over to the Navy side, we'll go to the next iteration and see what it needs to do, clearly I think you can see just like we have helicopters now, having something persistent to complement that, or ultimately way down the road, to replace it.”

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Mar 2017 20:45

A "doubting Thomas".Nevertheless,the vulnerability of carriers against subs is well documented,with the USN embarassed by an old Swedish sub they used for exercises.It "sank" US CVs many a time. By argument,the larger a weapon system gets,the more likely (Murphy's Law tweaked) it is for things to go haywire. How CVs will fare against massed supersonic missile attacks and coordinated sub attacks is another Q and I'm not bringing in BMs to the battlefield.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201703 ... s-trouble/

Some Xcpts:
.'It's a Big Mess': Newest US Aircraft Carrier 'is in Serious Trouble'
10:30 13.03.2017
United States President Donald Trump praised the soon-to-be-commissioned USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, the newest and most expansive weapons system in the Pentagon's arsenal, as "a great symbol of American strength." But defense analyst Roger Thompson told Radio Sputnik that the ship is in fact a mess.

"The Gerald R. Ford class is in serious trouble," he noted. These supercarriers "are overbudget and behind schedule. I am not exaggerating when I say that half the systems on them don't work. Their pilots have a long tradition of not being well-qualified in air combat maneuvering. My book documents extensive losses in simulated air combat exercises against Israeli, British, Canadian and Australian pilots for example. It's a big mess."

Thompson, a professor at Kyung Hee University in South Korea, further said that Donald Trump "is out of touch with reality" since he believes that the Ford class ships are masterpieces of engineering.

The defense analyst detailed his intimate knowledge of the US Navy in a book titled "Lessons Not Learned: The US Navy's Status Quo Culture." He argued among other things that the aircraft carrier is "a thing of the past" and "a relic of World War II," urging the Pentagon to focus on those vessels that are better suited for modern warfare.

Thompson mentioned three reasons behind America's reliance on aircraft carriers.

"They are trying to relieve their glory days in WWII when it was the US against Japan, carrier versus carrier, the Battle of Midway," he said, adding that Washington appears to believe that "the last great war that they fought" will be repeated again. "No great power in the world operates this many aircraft carriers anymore. <…> Several countries that did operate aircraft carriers, like Canada and Australia, eventually gave them up because they are not cost-effective."

In addition, there is mounting evidence that the US Navy aircraft carriers are increasingly vulnerable to submarines and newest anti-ship weapons.

"Against the submarine threat very little has been done, but I have been reading that carriers may be receiving laser guns … to knock down enemy missiles. The problem with that is that the US has a long tradition of not properly testing its weapons. So it may sound like a wonder weapon, but unless it's properly tested, it might not work effectively against a swarm of missiles. The defense against submarines remains weak," Thompson explained.

"They suppress evidence that aircraft carriers are vulnerable in exercises. That's well-documented in my book. Officers, who tried to report in publications that carriers were destroyed in exercises are harassed and kicked out of the Navy," he suggested.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2017 22:09

A carrier does not venture out by itself, a carrier group does since there is never a single carrier floating around by itself in a high threat zone. It is how you deploy it, how you support it and what capability you get off of it that makes the difference. The tactical flexibility to size it and how you deploy it that counts (stand off capability is important initially and as threats are neutralized you move closer and bring the volume that only a carrier can provide) Hence even those that are developing A2AD capability (such as China) at an enormous rate are concurrently also significantly ramping up their investments in carrier technology including fielding multiple carriers. Fast anti ship cruise missiles are not exactly new. Interceptors, sensors, and over the horizon targeting have been designed and have been studied to counter that threat for years (Look into how far the USN's CEC research goes).

There is a reason everything from the large and expensive SM6 down to the RAM are tested against a high speed (Mach 3/4) anti ship cruise missile surrogate target. Same thing with Ballistic Missiles. The SM3 and SM6 collectively cover the Short Ranged (Terminal and Mid Course (some envelope) ), Medium Range (Mid Course and Terminal) and Intermediate Range (Mid Course) ballistic missile threat with added backup coming against the SRBM threat with the ESSM Block II that will IOC by 2020. They are also holding off on the PAC-3 VLS integration (already demonstrated to the Navy) that is an additional layer if they want to diversify. While Sputnik can keep on talking about the threat, they don't go into how many non AEGIS ships currently have a layered BMD defense and if so, to what extent (magazine depth)? What about you, care to list those non AEGIS vessels that can begin protecting themselves and their area of responsibility starting from hundreds of kms altitude (exoatmospheric) down to defending against 2000-3000km ranged ballistic missiles terminally? If the AEGIS is at 'significant risk' what do you make of others vessels around the world that cost hundreds of millions to a Billion plus?

Carriers are not invincible and neither are A2AD bubbles impenetrable. Folks tend to take for granted that a kill chain for a 2000 km ranged anti-ship ballistic missile will survive disruption attempts by the enemy. Since Sputnik goes on and on about testing, has anyone actually tested a ballistic missile against a highly defended target out at sea, at those ranges? Did that target represent the defensive countermeasures a US carrier or US Navy's fleet is likely to employ? There is no silver bullet that will make submarines or carriers obsolete but as a rule of thumb you defend against submarines by fielding a credible and effective anti submarine capability and training with it extensively.

As mentioned earlier the biggest investors in anti-access capability is China and it itself is looking to build a 5-6 carrier Navy by the 2035 time frame. It even has a green catapult test site. As with the USN or any other navy, how effective the PLAN's 5 carriers will be determined by how they are supported and how they are effectively employed. The PLAN is smart to realize this. It's not a binary choice as their own analysis has likely shown (hence their transformation of their carrier capability and the way investments are being put in place to grow it) A floating air base will any day be harder to neutralize than a fixed one..provided it is adequately supported in a way that allows it to execute its mission.

While I agree with his view that USN's risk averse culture is not helping move things along one cannot discount the great work being done at ONR and the Navy labs at preparing technology. One exception here is how fast the autonomous ACTUVis moving through the cycle as ONR takes control from DARPA. Same with AEGIS, the system and the test program is the largest of its kind in the world. No where else do they fire so many diverse set of targets at their systems as they do with AEGIS including subsonic cruise missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, and short to medium ranged ballistic missiles. And do so several times a year, year over year. The total ballistic missiles launched against AEGIS is 42. When you count the subsonic and supersonic targets over the years the number could approach closer to 100. Plus they even had a chance to actually do an operational intercept less than a year ago. As an aside, they've also managed to shoot down a satellite. Same will happen with Directed Energy Options when they come in but DE options against these targets is a long ways off. Perhaps a decade.

Three things are going to change US carrier aviation, surface warfare and how they gel together in an offensive and defensive scenario over the next 10-15 years. 1 ) will be Unmanned Autonomous systems starting with the MQ-25, UUV's and ACTUV (but later expanding to a Naval long range strike aircraft) 2) Cheaper anti-saturation defense weapons such as EMRG and Directed Energy and 3) Long range networking allowing cooperative offensive and defensive engagements, and manned-unmanned teaming.

Philip wrote:A "doubting Thomas".Nevertheless,the vulnerability of carriers against subs is well documented,with the USN embarassed by an old Swedish sub they used for exercises.It "sank" US CVs many a time. By argument,the larger a weapon system gets,the more likely (Murphy's Law tweaked) it is for things to go haywire. How CVs will fare against massed supersonic missile attacks and coordinated sub attacks is another Q and I'm not bringing in BMs to the battlefield


Contrary to what you may believe, exercises arent a jousting contest but a venue to test your TTPs, refine them and try out new ones against an asymmetric and unfamiliar threat. You don't come out of these things with an attitude that we won and they lost...the reason you spend millions every year to invite your friends and allies to jointly train is to develop skills and improve yourself for the actual fight. If you came out unscathed it would suggest that you weren't challenged enough or that your fear of performing badly limited the number of new things you tried out. You also never bring your full capability into these exercises (applies to both side). Even at Red Flag, they reserve one exercise every year for just the US or US,UK and Australia where they open up capabilities that they are not allowed to use at the other three large force exercises.

Cold warriors love to bash the US Navy as it downsized to an extent that was commensurate with the threat reduction. That was called being realistic, pragmatic and designing a capability to better match the threat. Don't expect this to continue. They are likely over the next 15 or so years recover some of the capability they willingly let go post cold war. Think long range offensive weapons (surface and subsurface), organic carrier based ASW, organic carrier based refueling (happening by 2020s through the MQ-25). You'll also by the 2030s have a more diverse air wing consisting of EA-18Gs, F-35Cs and FA-XXs and a host of other unmanned aircraft that collectively will look to allow the carrier to be equally as effective from longer stand off ranges.
Last edited by brar_w on 31 Mar 2017 01:31, edited 3 times in total.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 814
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 30 Mar 2017 23:40

brar_w wrote:A carrier does not venture out by itself, a carrier group does since there is never a single carrier floating around by itself in a high threat zone. It is how you deploy it, how you support it and what capability you get off of it that makes the difference.
.....
Since Sputnik goes on and on about testing, has anyone actually tested a ballistic missile against a highly defended target out at sea, at those ranges? Did that target represent the defensive countermeasures a US carrier or US Navy's fleet is likely to employ? There is no silver bullet that will make submarines or carriers obsolete but as a rule of thumb you defend against submarines by fielding a credible and effective anti submarine capability and training with it extensively.

As mentioned earlier the biggest investors in anti-access capability is China and it itself is looking to build a 5-6 carrier Navy by the 2035 time frame. It even has a green catapult test site.
Philip wrote:A "doubting Thomas".Nevertheless,the vulnerability of carriers against subs is well documented,with the USN embarassed by an old Swedish sub they used for exercises.It "sank" US CVs many a time. By argument,the larger a weapon system gets,the more likely (Murphy's Law tweaked) it is for things to go haywire. How CVs will fare against massed supersonic missile attacks and coordinated sub attacks is another Q and I'm not bringing in BMs to the battlefield

All of this after the carrier has been detected in the open ocean in the first place. But Phillip will keep droning the same phrases he believes in, carriers too costly, diesel sub sank US carrier, supersonic missiles, bears, unsinkable aircraft carriers, ....

From Survivability of a CBG in combat
What about the survivability of the CBG against sub-surface threats? This is a more complex matter than the CBG’s ability to deal with aircraft threats. The ubiquitous ‘negative-gradient’ acoustic profile of the Arabian Sea makes early detection of submarines difficult, particularly with hull-mounted sonars. If towed-array sonars are used, there is a significant penalty to be paid in terms of manoeuvrability and speed-of-advance. On the other hand, traditional deployments of conventional submarine concentrate upon ‘choke-points’ — whether created ‘geographically’ or ‘operationally’. To be even marginally effective, mid-ocean deployments by conventionally-propelled submarines need very accurate and timely tactical-intelligence with regard to the ‘Mean Line of Advance’ (MLA) of the CBG. Thus, a conventionally-propelled submarine can be effectively redeployed for a mid-ocean interception of the CBG only through some form of MR-Sub Cooperation. If the LRMP aircraft suffer significant attrition from carrier-based fighter-interceptors, MR-Sub cooperation is a non-starter. In any case, quite apart from its ‘blue-water’ positioning, the high speed-of-advance of the CBG is, in itself, an effective submarine-evasion measure, especially when it is overlaid by tactical manoeuvring involving course-variations.


It'd require a lot of luck or the help of MR for a diesel electric sub to find a CBG in the first place. If BMs can target a mobile carrier, it can target a static airfield on your static but unsinkable aircraft carriers far easier. Since a BMs is good reason not to build aircraft carriers, why build airfields at all ? Maybe someday Phillip will read what admirals have to say instead of reading Sputnik.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2017 23:44

If Medium ranged Ballistic Missiles (1000-3000 km ranged) in the anti-shipping role were so deadly, easy to employ (kill chain), and had such high PK's, why in the world are the navies of the world still buying $1+ Billion destroyers that have no or inadequate defense against those threats (leave aside a layered defense)? As I asked Phillip, how many non AEGIS vessels can defend themselves against this threat through a layered defenses or otherwise? I Mean if an AEGIS and AEGIS+ equipped VLS equipped fleet of the USN cannot impose a high cost to target when it comes to targeting a CBG how are the others going to do it? Forget a CBG, how about a lone $1+ Billion destroyer sailing within 2-3K km's of off a DF26 launcher?

Let's not get carried away and attribute mythical capabilities to these systems which although impose a great cost and come with a high risk can and will be dealt with by the same risk_mitigation processes that have kept naval vessels relatively safe (relative to a conflict) over the generations of offensive capability enhancement.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2017 01:17

US Navy on track for high-altitude P-8A weapon

A new torpedo upgrade that will fundamentally change the way US Navy airmen hunt submarines is on track to seek approval to begin low-rate initial production later this year, Boeing and Navy officials say on 28 March.

The Lockheed Martin High Altitude Anti-submarine warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC) is in the midst of safe separation tests from the Boeing P-8A Poseidon. A guided flight test is planned in late Fiscal 2017, allowing the programme potentially to order 140 high-altitude torpedoes total over the first two lots.

Following operational testing scheduled for completion by FY 2020, HAAWC also will be available to the P-8 fleet’s foreign customers, which currently include Australia, India and the UK, says Capt Tony Rossi, programme manager for Maritime Patrol and Reconnsassance Aircraft.

The HAAWC integrates an air-launched accessory (ALA) kit with a GPS guidance system and folding wings onto a standard Mk54 torpedo. Boeing describes the HAAWC release ceiling as “up to 30,000ft”, but the precise maximum altitude is under discussion and could be higher.


The capability potentially transforms a typically low-altitude anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, as practiced for decades by Lockheed P-3C Orion crews, who are required to skim the wave tops at 100ft to release torpedoes.

In the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) competition that led to the P-8A’s selection in 2004, Boeing officials were careful to emphasize that the 737-800ERX-derived aircraft could perform the same low-altitude ASW mission. The company even organised flights for sceptical P-3C crews and journalists, swooping down from 41,000ft on an ocean vessel, leveling off at 200ft and performing tight turns to make multiple surveillance passes of a simulated target.

Despite the company’s marketing, the navy’s ASW community were already eager to dispense with such laborious low-altitude operations, Rossi says. Indeed, the navy deleted the magnetic anomaly detector from the P-8A configuration, the only sensor that demands the aircraft fly at low altitudes.

“If it’s not something that drives you to low altitude, I’m not sure why you would go there,” Rossi says.

The P-8A has “no problem with low-altitude,” Rossi says. But the navy prefers to operate the aircraft at higher altitudes, where crews are less fatigues and can take full advantage of the Poseidon’s sensor suite, including a multi-mode radar, electro-optical/infrared camera and a multi-static active coherent acoustic system.

The HAAWC is expected to be fielded in 2020 with an initial capability that could be upgraded later. The initial configuration lacks a data link to allow the weapon to receive target updates from the P-8A launch platform en route to the moving target. Studies are underway to determine the requirements for the data link, Boeing says. But the HAAWC meets the navy’s standards for targeting accuracy without an in-flight navigation update.


Image

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 31 Mar 2017 04:25

I hope and pray that Sputnik represents how the russian government really thinks about US war fighting systems.

I suspect they actually believe their own propaganda. :)

it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :D

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2017 15:08

AMDR completes first ballistic missile flight test


The new radar being developed for the Navy's guided-missile destroyers has completed its first ballistic missile tracking test, the service announced today.

During the March 15 test off the coast of Hawaii, dubbed "Vigilant Hunter," the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) "searched for, detected and maintained track on a short-range ballistic missile target," according to a March 30 Navy statement. The event was the first "in a series" of planned BMD flight tests for the new radar. The test met its primary objectives "based on preliminary data," according to the statement.

"This marked a historic moment for the Navy. It's the first time a ballistic missile target was tracked by a wideband digital beamforming radar," Capt. Seiko Okano, major program manager for above-water sensors, said in a statement. "This radar will revolutionize the future of the U.S. Navy and is bringing a capability our nation needs today."

The AMDR is the center of the Navy's upgraded Flight III Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers. The developmental radar has been out at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, HI, for testing since June. 179107

In December, the Navy cleared the radar's prime contractor, Raytheon, to begin buying low-rate initial production long-lead materials. The program is scheduled to reach a low-rate initial production decision in September.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2017 04:43

Navy P-8A Aerial Refueling Capability Tested; Deployment Possible Late This Year


An air-to-air refueling capability for the Navy’s P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft has one phase of testing to go before it can be deployed in the operational fleet.

The P-8A was designed from the outset with an aerial refueling receptacle for a refueling boom, but implementation of the capability has been scheduled later in the aircraft’s deployment.

“We’ve completed developmental test on it [the aerial refueling capability],” Capt. Tony Rossi, the Navy’s maritime patrol reconnaissance aircraft program manager, told reporters March 28. “It’s going into operational test this spring and it will also go out for fleet training. Maybe as early as late ’17, early fiscal year ’18 it will deploy operationally. That’s really up to the fleet operator when they are ready to go.”

“Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) also remains on track for a summer FIT [fleet introduction] with VP-5 [Patrol Squadron Five],” said Capt. David Whitehead, commanding officer of VP-30, the Navy’s P-8A and P-3 replacement training squadron, writing in the Maritime Patrol Association’s first-quarter 2017 newsletter. “Our VX-20 [Air Test & Evaluation Squadron 20] and VX-1 testers recently travelled to [Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla.] to evaluate and train in the AAR-modified operational flight trainer (OFT). The OFT models exceed expectations and VP-30 plans to begin flights in the spring. AAR is a new capability for our community, and is essential in extending the operation reach of the Poseidon.”

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19465
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Apr 2017 13:44


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2017 00:27

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19465
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Apr 2017 10:56

Reported growth of Russian submarine activity

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2528670.html
Increased activity of Russian submarine forces stated in France. Defense Minister Jean-Iv Le Drian several times over the past few weeks talking about this issue several times, and became even mention the existence of "call" the French ability to conduct combat patrols of strategic nuclear forces.

This was confirmed by the Russian side. At the ceremony of launching the nuclear submarine project 885M " Kazan " March 31, Admiral Vladimir Korolev said that in 2016, Russian submarines conducted in 3000 sea days. He added that this is an excellent result.

For comparison, the French multi-purpose submarines type Rubis (in the ranks of four units, the fifth boat - Améthyste 2015 passed average repair) carried out in the sea 1,000 days, which is 10% more than in the previous year. This was achieved for the first time since the start of operation of this type of submarine.
According to the explanations of the French Navy, the figure was the result of operational requirements, in accordance with which, the Premier League is required on all operating theaters.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Apr 2017 11:25

4 more yasenM are in construction.
A yet unnamed class of ssn will start building in 2018 to 2020 but no details known. Allegedly smaller and stealthier than yasen to hunt enemy ssbn far from home

The yasen it seems has 8 big tubes for 32 oniks/zircon/kalibr....true power

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2017 15:24

Lockheed LRASM Anti-Ship Missile Conducts Successful Test from US Navy F/A-18E/F

Lockheed Martin's Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) was successfully released from a U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The jettison release of the first LRASM from the Super Hornet is used to validate the aerodynamic separation models of the missile.

This successful test event paves the way for flight clearance to conduct captive carry integration testing scheduled for mid-year at the Navy Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California.

"The first time event of releasing LRASM from the F/A-18E/F is a major milestone towards meeting early operational capability in 2019," said Mike Fleming, Lockheed Martin LRASM program director. "The program is executing the integration and test contract, maturing subsystems and proving flight worthiness."

LRASM is designed to detect and destroy specific targets within groups of ships by employing advanced technologies that reduce dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, network links and GPS navigation. Once operational, LRASM will play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters, owing to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from extended ranges.

LRASM is a precision-guided, anti-ship standoff missile based on the successful Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile - Extended Range (JASSM-ER). It is designed to meet the needs of U.S. Navy and Air Force warfighters in anti-access/area-denial threat environments. The air-launched variant provides an early operational capability for the Navy's offensive anti-surface warfare Increment I requirement to be integrated onboard the U.S. Air Force's B-1B in 2018 and on the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 2019.


Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2017 16:10

Some interesting designs and configurations for upcomming programs and competitions -


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19465
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Apr 2017 20:57

brar_w wrote:Image


The Colombia class looks like stretched Virginia class with silos added for ssbn role.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2017 20:59

That is a notional drawing but indeed it would be borrowing a lot from the Virginia program particularly what has been invested in its modernization over the 2010-2020 time-frame. Technically a stretched Virginia is the Block 5 with the VPM and the 28 additional TLAM's that it allows. The Columbia is aproximately 50% longer and has nearly 2.5x the displacement.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2017 21:40

Image

Image


Sea Trials are expected to begin this week on the first in class Ford.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1430
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 04 Apr 2017 23:05

DARPA's autonomous ships to track DE subs, lets call it the persistent tracker, one can see a P-8A doing a surveillance and say picked up a track in a remote ocean region, how do they expect to link up this persistent tracker in that region, it can only sail and maybe takes few days to reach the track.

if it is a choke point like Malacca straits, then its probably easier to position the persistent trackers in a staging area.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2017 23:34

vasu raya wrote:DARPA's autonomous ships to track DE subs, lets call it the persistent tracker, one can see a P-8A doing a surveillance and say picked up a track in a remote ocean region, how do they expect to link up this persistent tracker in that region, it can only sail and maybe takes few days to reach the track.

if it is a choke point like Malacca straits, then its probably easier to position the persistent trackers in a staging area.


It is clearly not a "one solution fits all problem" system and hasn't been designed as such. It will likely be permanently forward deployed and perhaps provide capability to a CBG and of course it will be great at setting up defensive pickets where it will act as a force multiplier. It is also right now designed around a continuous trailing mission. Since the operator has now taken control of the program (DARPA will pass it on to ONR this summer) expect more robust CONOPS to emerge as they fit it into their existing and planned operational constructs.

http://www.darpa.mil/program/anti-subma ... ned-vessel


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests