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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2017 23:38


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Feb 2017 20:02

V.good report on the travails of the USN's new Zumwalt stealth DDG class. Compromises on main gun ammo,reduces its range to just 28km instead of the planned 100km. However,the DDG has sev. new innovations and huge elec. power which could be used for a variety of uses/systems.read on.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/stea ... lie-ahead/

Xcpt:
That’s a tactical tradeoff that undermines the whole raison d’etre of the Zumwalt class, shore bombardment, argued naval historian and analyst Norman Polmar. “Less range? It doesn’t have enough range now (with LRLAP)!” Polmar told me. With everyone from China and Russia to Lebanese Hezbollah and Yemeni Houthis boasting anti-ship cruise missiles nowadays, “amphibious forces have to stay at least 25 and preferably 50 miles off shore,” Polmar said. With modern aircraft like the V-22 Osprey and the CH-53K helicopter, he went on, “we’re not going to land troops on the beaches…. We’ve got a capability of going more than a 100 miles inland easily.” So adding the distance ships must stand out to sea and the distance ground forces will go inland, you get ranges that even the LRLAP couldn’t cross, let alone Excalibur.

USS Zumwalt So what does DDG-1000 do? “It was designed for a mission that’s no longer relevant,” Polmar said, but bombardment of land targets with big guns isn’t the only mission the Zumwalt can do. Take away the guns and, “what do you have? A large ship with a lot of electricity,” he said. “The ship has phenomenal capabilities in terms of its power plant, so let’s get rid of the guns and let’s start putting lasers and other high-tech weapons on the ship.”

“The best things about DDG-1000 have to do with its electrical power (76MW) and internal volume,” agreed Clark. “It will be a great testbed and developmental platform for electric weapons like lasers, high-power radio frequency weapons, and railguns.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Feb 2017 20:20

The design is a test case for the Ticonderoga class replacement. This has been rumored in USN circles for years now.

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

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 09 Feb 2017 18:16

^^^^stuff and nonsense ......a ship has to have at least one gun for fire support in case the high tech stuff is knocked out.

there are always shorter range targets that crop up. Always.

and the Corps will always ask for some ad hoc heavy metal on target, anti personnel, etc. Always.

it's the law.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 56413
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Feb 2017 18:29

all that the marines want can easily be delivered from their LPD ships and the ample number of DDG51 hulls. well mount a 8" gun on some if you must, delete the helicopter and mount another 8" in back if you must must. want a couple of rapid fire 76mm on each beam, a few remote control 0.50cal turrets - sure.... its all paid for and cheap. add a few boxes of Griffin or sea-hellfire missiles too to beat back the Eyerenian FAC swarms.

you dont need a $5 b VLO cruiser to sail off xyz pumping rounds out at some anti-western militia armed with RPGs.

low end problems can be tackled with medium end solutions....one doesnt need the star destroyer for that.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2017 18:59

Over the next 12-18 months there will be firm plans to sea-test the EMRG (they can do it right now on the Joint High-Speed Vessels but need to work out a long term test plan). Both BAE and GAA are working hard at this problem and you could with concentrated investment and some luck be in a position to field a powerful weapon on a platform by the mid to late 2020s. Furthermore, the rounds themselves are much further along and both Boeing and Lockheed are working hard on making guided rounds for multiple missions including AMD.

In fact there is a program underway right now that is taking an Air Force/Navy fighter Radar, an Army Gun and the EMRG projectile and prototyping a Missile Defense system out of it. It was revealed last year and is an RCO (iirc an Army RCO) initiative.

Lockheed is even physically testing gun launched missile prototypes:

"A gun-fired missile has to be able to survive some significant g s, so right now we're going through all the tests to demonstrate that our concept survives, that it can be launched and lofted, and that the solid rocket motor will fire and the seeker will survive, and these tests so far are coming up very positive. So this is not a paper design; it is in the prototype stage - building prototype seekers, building prototype airframes, and testing them. We're not quite ready yet to go after a target, but we are rapidly getting there." ~ Jane's Defence Weekly Feb. 2017


All in the Zumwalt family is probably the best suited for integrating most of these technologies including EMRG given its large electrical capacity and open systems architecture. So much so that there is faction within the USN that wants to ditch the USS Trenton EMRG integration plan and intergrate the first at sea prototype straight into the final Zumwalt to push the technology out faster and reduce the concept demonstration --> Operationally available cycle.

There are nearly 2 dozen Ticonderoga class ships that will require a new design. Also, while the DDG-51 Flight III is a substantial leap in capability compared to the previous Burke iterations thanks to the AMDR, architecture, EW and other enhancements it is still short of what is possible with even today's technology and the bets the USN has made for the future. The USN is currently studying requirements for its future surface combatant and will ideally like high commonality in mission systems and architectures if not the designs themselves. The basic DDG-1000 design, technology and architectures that it will validate through its development--integration--operatiaonlization will play a huge role in informing trades for these future vessels and these ships may in fact be nothing more than a version of a modified 1000. The array space and the VLS needs to grow to fill the other missions but those are expected design changes that will be made to support the other two roles in the future.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2017 20:05

Just to correct myself, the Army/Navy program mentioned earlier is a SCO and not an RCO project. Here is background information on it. Demonstrations are planned for next year.

SCO aims to flip the script on missile defense for bases, ports, ships with hypervelocity gun


The Pentagon wants to take a weapon originally designed for offense, flip its punch for defense and demonstrate by 2018 the potential for the Army and Navy to conduct missile defense of bases, ports and ships using traditional field guns to fire a new hypervelocity round guided by a mobile, ground variant of an Air Force fighter aircraft radar.

The Strategic Capabilities Office is working with the Army, Navy and Air Force to craft a Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System that aims, in part, to provide China and Russia an example of a secret collection of new U.S. military capabilities the Defense Department is bringing online in an effort to strengthen conventional deterrence.

"It is a fantastic program," Will Roper, Strategic Capabilities Office director, said in a March 28 interview with reporters, who said the project aims "to completely lower the cost of doing missile defense" by defeating missile raids at a lower cost per round and, as a consequence, imposing higher costs on attackers.

Current U.S. missile defense capabilities are centered around very sophisticated guided-missile interceptors, which cost -- in most cases -- millions of dollars per shot, an approach the Army and Navy service chiefs, in a Nov. 5, 2014 joint memo, warned the defense secretary is "unsustainable."

"Projectiles that we fire and test today are on the order of $50,000 currently and we hope to push down to $35,000 -- a two order-of-magnitude swing in some cases," Roper said.

The Pentagon is seeking $246 million for the HGWS in fiscal year 2017, building on $364 million appropriated for the project in FY-15 and FY-16.

The HGWS takes smart projectiles developed for the Navy's electromagnetic railgun and fires them with artillery already in the inventory.

"Cost-effective, large magazine, base defense will be demonstrated by closing the fire-control loop between existing sensors and prototype projectiles launched from existing powder guns including the Navy's Mk-45 5-inch Naval gun and the Army's Paladin 155 mm self-propelled howitzer; advanced powder gun prototypes; and the electromagnetic railgun," the Pentagon's FY-17 budget request states.


The Army and Navy have a combined inventory of approximately 1,000 guns capable of firing rounds of this size, including about 900 Army Paladins. The Navy has about 100 cruisers and destroyers, each with one 5-inch MK-45 gun on the bow.

"The intended end-state is a prototype system that retires risks to allow transition of gun-based defense to partners: the Missile Defense Agency, the Navy, and/or the Army," the budget request adds.

Roper, during the March 28 interview, disclosed a new dimension of the HGWS project.

"We haven't talked publicly about the sensor that we're doing with that," he said. "So, if you're going to do missile defense, you're going to need something to do the tracking. And we are working very extensively with taking fighter radars, in which we have a huge investment, and building ground-based variants of these."

The SCO is working to fashion a ground variant of the most advanced fighter radars, based on active electronically scanned array (AESA) technology: "Putting them on the ground to support intercepts of systems that can truly move," Roper said, referring to the radar's role in plans to take out ballistic and cruise missile threats.

He said the hypervelocity project has evolved to be a joint effort with three services: "We have a Navy round, an Army gun, and an Air Force sensor -- all combined into one Frankenstein architecture."


Roper, who was the Missile Defense Agency's director for engineering before being tapped to head the SCO at its formation in August 2012, declined to quantify the estimated range for the hypervelocity gun system.

"It goes without saying that because it is a gun, it is not a huge area defense," Roper said. "We're wanting to be able to defend high-value, small-area assets -- forward operating bases, ships, ports with a high, high density of fire -- with assets that are completely mobile."

He noted that much of the existing missile-defense capability is hindered by being fixed infrastructure. "Things that don't move give an opponent a decided advantage," Roper said. "We want to deny those, complicate their counter-targeting" with the HGWS, he said.

"We'd like opponents of the U.S. to think: 'I can't saturate their defense by having enough systems on my side.' We'd like them to think these critical forward operating bases and stations will continue to operate no matter how many missiles they continue to throw at them," the SCO director said. "We want that deterrent aspect in play."

Roper said the SCO is testing the new round out of the guns every three months. "We hope to prove the end-to-end architecture by the end of 2018," he said.


My Guess is that they would be using the AN/APG-82 as the sensor of choice. Let's see if we hear more about it this year.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Feb 2017 18:40

The RN's DDGs are so noisy that they can be tracked by a Ru sub 100km away.Now the entire fleet of SSNs are unavailable becos they're in refit,repair,whatever! Poor RN.Their sub fleet is far worse off than that of the IN.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2829355/u ... esnt-know/
SUBS: ZERO The Royal Navy’s ENTIRE fleet of attack submarines is out of action — and Theresa May doesn’t know because ‘chiefs fear reaction’
All seven nuclear subs are currently listed as non-operational

EXCLUSIVE
BY DAVID WILLETTS, DEFENCE EDITOR 10th February 2017, 1:01 am

THE Royal Navy’s entire fleet of attack submarines is currently out of action.
Repairs and maintenance to all seven have left none to defend our waters — or monitor Russia’s relentless probes.
All seven of the subs are out of action
But it has been kept from PM Theresa May because defence chiefs fear her reaction.
Sources say the Navy’s three new Astute class subs, costing £1.2billion each, are beset by problems.
And the four remaining Trafalgars are said to be “on their last legs”.


Theresa May hasn’t been told about the Navy situation

RELATED STORIES
NAVY HOLD-UP Sea trials for Royal Navy’s £3.1bn super-carrier delayed due to ‘technical issues’
GIVE US A SUB MoD to pay new Navy submarine boss £500k despite facing £500million shortfall this year

Five of the fleet, including one of the new type, are having refits or maintenance after breaking down.
Another new one, HMS Ambush, is being repaired after crashing into a tanker near Gibraltar last year.
Only one, HMS Astute, is at sea but she is having trials following maintenance and is weeks from missions.
HMS Astute is the only sub that’s at sea GETTY IMAGES

Vanguard nuclear deterrent subs remain operational but it is believed to be the first time in decades the UK has had no attack subs ready.
It means there are none to patrol vital trade routes under constant threat from closure by Iran.
HMS Ambush is out of action after a crash PA:PRESS ASSOCIATION
And there are none to check probes by Russian subs in the North Atlantic.

Ex-PM David Cameron apparently flew into a rage when told there were no subs for Med patrol in 2014.
And a Whitehall source, said: “No one is being honest about the scandal.”
Navy faces questions over submarine accident
The problem-hit Astute class slowly replacing the Trafalgars is built by BAE Systems, along with Type 45 Destroyers which break down in hot weather.
The news comes a day after RAF fighters had to monitor Russian bombers menacing UK airspace.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 56413
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Feb 2017 20:49

I was about to post it but i knew adm Philip would be there ahead of me unleashing a broadside on the RN :mrgreen:

kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3765
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby kmkraoind » 13 Feb 2017 15:01

Reliance Defence to undertake repair and maintenance for US Navy - Moneycontrol

Reliance Defence (formerly known as Pipavav Shipyard Limited & Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Company Limited) has signed a landmark deal with the US Navy for undertaking service, repair and the maintenance work of the Seventh Fleet of US Navy.

Sources suggest that the fleet boasts of close to 100 ships and the contract is worth around Rs 15,000 crore which will be spread across next 3-5 years.

This deal is a significant achievement for India - as a country - and Reliance Defence, as it becomes the only Indian company which will service US Navy ships in an Indian port. Prior to this these ships were serviced at either Singapore or other Asian countries.

The ships which patrol waters of Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean regularly will arrive at Pipavav Port in Gujarat for maintenance work.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 02:12

US Navy revives interest in Super Hornet engine upgrades

In early February, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) notified industry that it would ask GE Aviation to submit a proposal for a contract for the company’s engineers to perform a study on an “F414-GE-400 core enhancement evaluation”.

Such notifications are required when the government plans to award a contract without inviting competing bids. No other details about the contents or objectives of the study were provided in NAVAIR study, which is described only as an assessment of “how upgrades ... could improve engine performance, as well as F/A-18E/F and EA-18G performance”.

Asked to comment on the contract notification, GE released a statement to FlightGlobal that was approved by NAVAIR.

“NAVAIR has expressed interest in GE evaluating how our latest engine technologies could be applied to the F414 Enhanced Engine,” GE says.

GE’s proposed Enhanced Engine design surfaced as a proposal several years ago as part of Boeing’s Super Hornet bid for India’s fighter competition. GE has tested the durability or thrust upgrades in laboratory rigs. NAVAIR also paid GE in late 2013 to evaluate the F414 Enhanced Engine, with the possibility of funding a development programme two years later, although that follow-on contract never materialised.

“We believe this study would be an update of the previous work to include new technologies,” says GE, without elaborating.

A term in the title of the latest NAVAIR study — “core enhancement” — suggests the navy is focusing now on the three modules in the core of the engine, which include the high-pressure compressor, combustor and high-pressure turbine.

Any new technologies would come on top of GE’s proposals for the F414 Enhanced Engine. In the core section, these included 3D aerodynamic shaping of the compressor blades and an improved cooling system for the turbine blades. GE had previously considered inserting ceramic matrix composites in the turbine of the F414 Enhanced Engine, but as of early 2014 had resolved to continue using metallic alloy blades.

NAVAIR’s interest in upgrading the F/A-18E/F’s propulsion system comes after a remarkable turn-around for the Boeing production line in St. Louis. A year ago, the programme appeared to be close to winding down after completing remaining deliveries to the USN. Then, Boeing won long-sought deals to deliver at least 28 Super Hornets to Kuwait, 36 fighters to Qatar and a commitment from Canada to buy at least 18 F/A-18E/Fs. Moreover, US Defense secretary Jim Mattis said in late January that the F/A-18E/F could continue to be used as an internal competitor against the F-35.

“The Super Hornet now appears to be one of the more solid aircraft programmes rather than on the brink of death,” says Richard Aboulafia, Teal Group vice president of strategy, speaking at the Pacific Northwest Aviation Alliance conference on 15 February.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 02:23

Full Solicitation

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) intends to solicit a proposal from General Electric Company (CAGE 99207) of 1000 Western Avenue, Lynn, MA 01905-2655 for an F414-GE-400 Engine Core Enhancement Evaluation. The intended contract action will be for a non-recurring engineering study to assess how upgrades to the F414-GE-400 engine could improve engine performance, as well as F/A-18E/F & EA-18G aircraft performance.
The effort will be procured on a sole source basis under NAICS 336412 (Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing) and PSC AC11 (Defense Aircraft; Basic Research), pursuant to the authority of FAR 6.302-1 "Only One Responsible Source and No Other Type of Supplies or Services will Satisfy Agency Requirements." As the sole designer, developer, and manufacturer of the F414 Engine, General Electric Company is the only known responsible source with the necessary technical data, knowledge, experience, and expertise to successfully perform the required effort.


Subcontracting inquiries shall be directed directly to General Electric Company. This synopsis is for informational purposes only and is not a request for competitive proposals. However, for market research purposes, interested and potentially capable parties may identify their interest and capability by responding in writing to this announcement via email, U.S. Mail, or facsimile to the Contract Specialist listed no later than 15 days following the posted date of this synopsis. The Government will utilize the capability statements received as market research data to confirm the sole source acquisition intent or to reconsider a competitive procurement. A determination by the Government not to compete the intended requirement, based upon responses to this notice, is solely within the discretion of the Government.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1740
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 16 Feb 2017 02:53

If they sign the contract then perhaps this engine will become absolute front runner for many reasons. Less maintenance, more fuel efficient, higher thrust and small form factor.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 02:57

This sort of solicitation in Feb. of 2017 suggests an FY18 contract. We will know details on the FY18 budget by April or early May.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 05:29

John wrote:Unless you maintain complete air superiority those SATCOM links will get jammed and rendered useless. Also the datalink with airborne platform requires line of sight which would require the missile to fly at high altitude. So hence you need a onboard seeker to fall back on.


Hence the TLAM version of the current anti ship proposal from Raytheon is expected to have an active MMW band AESA seeker in addition to the standard TLAM 2 (IV) networking (graphic below), additional L band data link and some form of passive ESM.. And over an open sea/ocean it isn't easy to jam UHF communication with a Satellite short of taking the fight to space which would have reciprocal repercussions.

Additional features such as autonomy aid in navigation and make such a weapon smart enough to recognize an active RF threat and take evasive actions or change profiles factoring in its RCS. This is the approach DARPA's LRASM is taking where if it senses an active threat (it has a passive seeker for this purpose) it will either re-route or switch profile. Then there are additional ways to establish or enhance LOS networks such as using a high flying intermediary such as an MQ4C which is essentially built for such a role (one of its functions anyways).

It is understood that once you approach XXXX km in terms of targeting your kill chain is going to be significant and require protection hence you only pursue such a CONOPS once you have those chips in place. The US Surface Navy has been for well over a decade (maybe two) been only interested in putting an anti-ship missile in the VLS if it is Dual use (land and sea) and if it has tactically useful range in the land attack scenario (minimum 1000-1200 km would be my guess).This was seen on the earlier TLAM proposal, on the RATTLRS, and will most likely be seen in future scenarios as well. This is the reason why I don't think the LRASM will ever find its way on a ship unless Lockheed switches platform to the JASSM-XR which is a 800-1000nm ranged weapon (planned).

Raytheon has known this since 2012 when they bid to compete for LRASM (and lost out to a more mature Lockheed offering based on the JASSM-ER) and have therefore been refining their TLAM IV+ proposal since then knowing full well that that any program to put a new anti surface anti ship missile on a VLS would be competed and wouldn't be a sole source award to Lockheed based on their air-launched LRASM. They have been testing bits and pieces of their proposed upgrades for close to 5 years now including testing the seeker on their internal test bed.

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 13:57


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Feb 2017 18:18

https://www.rt.com/news/377777-japan-na ... ast-china/
Tokyo bets on lighter frigates, plans to double E. China Sea naval build-up – reports

Plan to build upto 8 3000t FFGs instead of larger 5000t DDGs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Mar 2017 17:28

A very very long and in depth article from Jane's IDR on the SM6, NIFC-CA and SM2 active upgrades. Posting only the SM6 portion first, with SM2 in my next post. Complete article covers NIFC-CA as well and is available at Jane's IDR .


Three missions, one missile: SM-6 changes the arithmetic; Jane's International Defence Review; March-2017

In January 2017 Raytheon Missile Systems announced the receipt of a USD235 million contract modification from the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) funding existing options for fiscal year 2015/16 (FY 2015/16) production of RIM-174 Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) Block I/IA All-Up Rounds (AURs) and spares. This award constitutes an option as part of the fourth year of full-rate production (FRP-4) for the SM-6 missile, which has already entered service in the extended-range anti-air warfare (AAW) and lower tier ballistic missile defence (BMD) roles. In addition, missiles produced under this FRP-4 buy will embody an anti-surface capability that was first demonstrated in early 2016, making them 'tri-capable'.

Having been conceived to push the boundaries of shipborne air defence as part of the Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air (NIFC-CA) construct - SM-6 is claimed by the US Navy (USN) to have broken the record for the longest surface-to-air missile engagement twice during testing in 2016 - this latest incarnation of the Standard Missile line is now being lauded by the service's leadership as a multimission effector in tune with the surface navy's new operating concept of 'Distributed Lethality'. "We've done the longest surface-to-air intercept ever [employing NIFC-CA]," Rear Admiral Ron Boxall, director, Surface Warfare (N86), told the Surface Navy Association (SNA) annual symposium in Crystal City, Virginia, on 10 January. "That same SM-6 we used in the NIFC-CA mode also has the capability to do Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) defence. We just tested it out at PMRF [Pacific Missile Range Facility] at Kauai [in December 2016] in the first engagement against a very complex medium-range ballistic missile target.

"We now have one missile that can do more than one thing. And by the way, when we go to the surface domain, SM-6 in the surface mode is a pretty good thing too. So I have one missile that I can use in many different ways. I can save on missile space in all those [vertical launcher cells] I have on cruisers and destroyers out there. That's a good thing for me."

"SM-6 goes long range, very quickly," Captain Mike Ladner, programme manager Surface Ship Weapons, Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) in NAVSEA, told Jane's at SNA in January 2017. "What we are now doing is developing software modifications to go multimission. Adding that software-based functionality into existing assets provides us a better use of limited resources."

Extended envelope


Also known as the Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), SM-6 was designed and developed to meet the navy's requirement for an over-the-horizon AAW missile able to engage fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and land-attack/anti-ship cruise missiles in flight, both over sea and land. It would do so as part of an integrated fire-control network - what is today NIFC-CA - to extend the AAW battlespace, and take full advantage of proven Standard Missile kinematics.

The SM-6 design philosophy was to marry the airframe and propulsion stack from the existing SM-2 Block IV missile (of which limited production was undertaken for the USN in the 1990s) with guidance and signal processing technology drawn from across the company's product lines. This approach means the SM-6 AUR incorporates much proven Standard Missile hardware, with major non-developmental items (NDIs) including the airframe itself, the Mk 72 Mod 1 rocket booster, the steering control system, the Mk 104 Mod 3 dual-thrust rocket motor, the Mk 125 warhead and the nose radome.

These NDI subsystems are integrated with a new mission computer and a dual-mode (active/semi-active) X-band seeker package that repackages the Phase III seeker associated with the AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). This new front-end electronics section interfaces to legacy Standard Missile functions - such as the datalink, inertial measurement unit, target-detection device and steering-control system - and re-hosts missile-guidance and control functions.

A larger seeker antenna, using all available volume, offers increased sensitivity for longer detection range, improved resolution for superior electronic protection performance, and lower angle noise for improved terminal guidance. Operation in the active mode eliminates the need for a shipborne illuminator, so providing for a high stream raid capability; the additional semi-active mode leverages the AMRAAM high-pulse repetition frequency waveform and rear datalink channel, delivering an increased acquisition range to improve performance against high-speed threats.

Raytheon also predicts significant life-cycle cost benefits accruing from large-scale design reuse (both Standard Missile and AMRAAM), common manufacturing facilities, and in-the-field software reprogramming. The SM-6 also adopts AMRAAM built-in test (BIT) features and in-the-container BIT field recertification is expected to generate substantial through-life cost savings.

As well as introducing an active radar seeker, which offers greater firepower as a result of decreased dependence on illuminators, enhanced fuzing via guidance integrated fuzing, improved sub-clutter visibility and enhanced countermeasures resistance - the SM-6 also delivers the kinematic performance required to defeat current and projected threats that possess low-altitude, high-altitude, high-velocity and manoeuvre characteristics at the maximum range of the missile. These remain classified by the USN, but open sources suggest between 130 and 250 n miles. Moreover, it is not just providing protection for the fleet, but will also extend its coverage over land to contribute to the protection of forward-deployed ground forces.

However, the SM-6 cannot be viewed in isolation. Operating in conjunction with the Aegis weapon system it can be fired on target data organic to the launch ship (using initial and midcourse guidance commands transmitted by SPY-1 radar uplink dwells). As a component of NIFC-CA - and operating with Aegis Baseline 9 - it can also use the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and remote sensor data of appropriate quality to function as a 'net-enabled' interceptor able to 'engage on remote'.

In NIFC-CA engagements at long range or over-the-horizon, the SM-6 active seeker performs independent endgame intercepts. Alternatively, within the shipboard radar envelope, SM-6 can be supported by the Aegis fire-control system (using shipboard illuminators) to consummate an engagement in semi-active mode.

The active mode eliminates the need for a shipborne illuminator, so providing for enhanced high-stream raid capability against numerous threats by means of improved target resolution in range and Doppler, and missile/target pairing logic. However, retention of the legacy semi-active radar homing mode delivers benefits in some specific engagement scenarios.

The SM-6 missile is also to be employed by Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ships in an SBT role, replacing the limited inventory of SM-2 Block IV missiles used in this role. Aegis BMD, which is co-operatively managed by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the USN, is the maritime component of the Ballistic Missile Defense System.

In this capacity, the SM-6 missile uses its warhead to defeat ballistic missile threats inside the atmosphere. Missiles enabled for both AAW and SBT missions are now designated SM-6 Dual I.

Acquisition and development


The SM-6 acquisition strategy was approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in March 2004. Raytheon Missile Systems was awarded a USD440 million System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract for the SM-6 Block I missile in September 2004 covering design, development, fabrication, assembly, integration, test, and delivery of flight and non-flight assets. This included the build-up of 25 SDD rounds to be expended prior to Initial Operating Capability (IOC).

SM-6 had originally been scheduled to achieve IOC in 2012. However, Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) was not without its challenges, with only seven of the 12 intercept attempts achieving success. Flight testing revealed anomalies associated with the uplink/downlink antenna shrouds, the MK 54 safe/arm device, and one still classified deficiency. IOT&E failures experienced during flight testing in July 2011 delayed IOC, and pushed back the start of full production by a year.

The metric set for IOC was defined by the USN as one SM-6 loaded out onto an Aegis Baseline 5.3.8 (or newer) surface combatant. IOC was formally declared in November 2013 with the outload of an undisclosed number of SM-6 AURs on board the DDG-51 Flight IIA guided-missile destroyer USS Kidd (DDG-100) in San Diego, California.

In January 2015 it was disclosed that the USN had approved the deployment of SM-6 on additional Aegis ships following certification of the Aegis Combat System Baselines 5.3 and 3.A.0 series to operate with the missile. SM-6 has subsequently been integrated and authorised for use with Aegis Baseline 9A (February 2015) and Baseline 9C.1 (November 2015).

Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) events were conducted from FY 2014 to FY 2016. Seven SM-6 Block 1 test missions were flown in FY 2014 - four supporting Aegis Baseline 9, three supporting NIFC-CA From-the-Sea (FTS) Increment I - all of which were successful. Six of these were conducted at the Point Mugu Sea Range, California; one was flown overland (against a low flying subsonic target) at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico. One of the three NIFC-CA flight tests, performed in January 2014, was the longest-range engagement by SM-6 to date.

A further seven SM-6 Block I tests were flown during FY 2015. Of the planned launches, two of three successfully supported FOT&E with Aegis Baseline 9 (both engaging targets employing jamming); one test resulted in a missile failure-to-launch owing to a misfire; and one, performed at WSMR in support of NIFC-CA FTS Increment 1, successfully engaged a full-scale fighter target.

The other three FY 2015 tests saw SM-6 Dual I missiles successfully support the MDA's SBT testing and air warfare retention capability. Conducted from the destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), these were part of a series of four flight test events, designated Multi-Mission Warfare (MMW) Events 1-4, conducted at the PMRF to demonstrate the Aegis Baseline 9.C1 (BMD 5.0 Capability Upgrade) using SM-6 Dual I and SM-2 Block IV missiles.

During MMW Event 1, flown on 28 July 2015, an SM-6 Dual I missile intercepted a short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) target launched from PMRF in a northwesterly trajectory. This was the first SM-6 Dual I live fire event.

MMW Event 3 (flown on 31 July) and MMW Event 4 (performed on 1 August) were both conducted to demonstrate air warfare capability retention. In the former, the SM-6 Dual I missile successfully engaged a supersonic AQM-37C high-diver target, while an SM-6 Dual I missile successfully engaged a BQM-74E subsonic low-altitude target as part of MMW Event 4.

MMW Event 2, flown on 29 July, was a repeat of Event 1 but used a legacy SM-2 Block IV missile. MMW Events 1 and 2 were the 30th and 31st successful BMD intercepts in 37 flight test attempts for the Aegis BMD programme since flight testing began in 2002.

A further six SM-6 Block I tests were flown in FY 2016. Of these, four successfully supported FOT&E with Aegis Baseline 9 and one successfully supported the NIFC-CA Tactical Demonstration.

According to the office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2016 annual report, the four FOT&E tests, flown from John Paul Jones at PMRF, pushed the envelope against a series of very different, and very complex, threat presentations. Flight Test D1A successfully engaged a maximum down-range target, Flight Test D1B successfully engaged a maximum cross-range target, Flight Test D1D successfully pitted two SM-6s against two subsonic targets (an Aegis Weapon Control System integration problem appeared that did not affect the mission), and Flight Test D1Ga successfully engaged a target that was using electronic attack against the SM-6. The last mission was a repeat of the March 2015 SM-6 Block I missile that failed owing to a misfire.

The tests, supported by CEC, demonstrated both maximum down-range and a maximum cross-range intercepts in over-the-horizon, engage-on-remote missions. USS Gridley (DDG 101) was on station to perform as the Aegis assist ship for the engage-on-remote endgame; Flight Test D1A broke the record for the longest engagement range.

However, the record did not last long. In September 2016, at the Pacific Missile Test Center, California, the USN conducted an at-sea flight demonstration of the NIFC-CA FTS Increment I. The SM-6 missile, fired from the cruiser USS Princeton (CG 59), destroyed an over-the-horizon target; this is recorded as being the longest range surface-to-air intercept of its kind in naval history, although as with previous record claims, neither the USN nor Raytheon will divulge details of the exact range.

One other SM-6 flight test, supporting the Aegis 'Agile Prism' demonstration, was flown in 2016 ('Agile Prism' refers to a complex but publicly undisclosed threat type). This was the only black mark for the year: conducted at PMRF in March, the SM-6 Block I missile failed to successfully engage either of the two low-altitude threat targets.

According to the DOT&E, the USN successfully demonstrated the SM-6 maximum range key performance parameter, and the maximum cross-range and launch availability key system attributes during FY 2016 FOT&E events. In the latter case, the navy stored seven missiles aboard an operational ship for at least eight months (prior to firing during FOT&E) with no launch availability problems noted.

"We completed the SM-6 Block 1 FOT&E flight tests back in January of last year [2016]," said Capt Ladner. "We finished the last four flight tests, all successful.

"That anchors our modelling and simulation for the Baseline 9 Aegis combat system with SM-6, and now we're going to [do] a lot of runs for the record to fill out the rest of the battlespace performance predictions, and understand what that capability is."

In addition, FOT&E flight test events will be completed to validate the software fix for the classified deficiency uncovered during IOT&E flight tests OT-5 and OT-15. "We're testing that this year," confirmed Capt Ladner. "So we feel pretty good about what the fix is, we've modelled it, predicted it, and now we're going to flight test it. That should retire the issue [and that] software fix will populate through the inventory that's been delivered."

Achievement of FOC had been planned for March 2016, but this milestone was re-baselined to December 2017 due to the navy's inability to complete outstanding Operational Test and Evaluation events due to target moratoriums and FY 2015 and FY 2016 funding shortfalls. However, this revision in FOC does not affect the capability level, or the number of missiles being delivered into the fleet inventory.

"The programme is on track to achieve [FOC] by December 2017," Capt Lander confirmed. "We're very happy with the progress of the programme,"

Terminal defence


For the navy, the ability to expand missile functionality without the need to re-design and recertify hardware is a game changer. "If I can make software-only modifications to those missiles I now have the ability to pace the threat without having to go back in and change hardware and complete a development effort," said Capt Ladner. "It's like a Windows 10 upgrade … the software is updated and now I get a new capability rolled out. What I [need to] do is to be nimble in how I make those software upgrades."

SBT Increment 1 is the first example of a software upgrade that is endowing additional capability, introducing functionality to enable the SM-6 Dual I missile to defeat short-range ballistic missile threats inside the atmosphere in their terminal phase. The SM-6 Dual I was entered in the MDA's Operational Capability Baseline in December 2015 and delivered to the fleet.

Having completed a first SM-6 Dual 1 flight test in July 2015 - intercepting and destroying a short-range ballistic missile target in its final seconds of flight - the MDA and the USN conducted a second test, designated Flight Test Standard Missile-27 (FTM-27), off the coast of Hawaii in December 2016. On this occasion the destroyer John Paul Jones , configured to Aegis Baseline 9.C1, fired a salvo of two SM-6 Dual I missiles against a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) target fired from PMRF.

Lockheed Martin's Targets and Countermeasures team designed, built and launched the MRBM target vehicle. Although it has been widely reported that the target was flying a trajectory typical of a Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile, the MDA has made no comment as to the specific threat type being replicated by the MRBM target.


Surface mode

In February 2015 then Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirmed that the USN was developing a modification to SM-6 enabling an over-the-horizon anti-shipping strike role. A demonstration at PMRF on 18 January 2016 proved this capability when an SM-6 missile successfully engaged and hit the hull of the frigate ex-USS Reuben James (FFG 57).

The primary purpose of the anti-surface warfare (ASuW) flight test, conducted from John Paul Jones , was to validate that the legacy anti-surface capability of the Aegis Weapon System Mk 7 and the SM-2 missile had been successfully carried forward into the latest Aegis Baseline 9 with the SM-6 missile. Few details of the SM-6 surface mode test were disclosed, beyond the fact that the missile modifications were limited to software changes only, and that another DDG-51 destroyer was on station as the 'assist ship' for the engagement. No details of the engagement range or flight profile were revealed.

However, what is known is that this new over-the-horizon offensive anti-surface capability for Aegis Baseline 9 ships is network-enabled by a remote sensor in much the same way as NIFC-CA. Moreover, the potential employment of SM-6 in an anti-shipping role is very much aligned to the US surface force's new operational concept of 'Distributed Lethality'.

Incremental growth


The SM-6 programme was conceived as an evolutionary, low-risk capabilities-based acquisition programme that could use spiral development to incrementally add capability to the baseline Block I missile to pace emerging threats. Block 1A constitutes that first spiral and introduces a series of hardware and software improvements.

A first land-based launch (Guidance Test Vehicle-1 [GTV-1]) of a pre-production SM-6 Block IA missile was performed in August 2014 at WSMR, with the missile successfully engaging a high-altitude subsonic target over land. A second successful mission (GTV-2) was flown in FY 2015.

"Block IA is a pre-planned improvement to Block 1 to continue to pace advanced threats," said Capt Ladner. "So we're implementing an ECP [Engineering Change Proposal] to the guidance section that introduces hardware changes, including a GPS receiver and modified software."

He continued, "The introduction of GPS helps us with co-ordinate frame alignment because of the speeds and the distances we're going, and the threats were going up against.

"GPS could enable some other missions in due course. We'll go look at these."

According to Capt Ladner, one more land-based SM-6 Block IA test is planned before at-sea testing commences. "We've flown two land-based test flights, and we'll fly a third land-based test later this year. We have confidence that the design is right, and the third will prove that we have the manufacture process right. Then we're ready to go to sea."

Raytheon is now transitioning the SM-6 line to Block IA standard, according to Thad Smith, Raytheon Missile Systems' SM-6 business lead. "Our first LRIP [for Block IA] was in our FY 2015 contract," he told Jane's . "We've procured many of those parts [and] we expect that the first all-up-round is going to be delivered this year. Our planned full-rate production starts in 2018."

The SM-6 Block IA missile embodying SBT capability will be known as Dual II.

Production line

The USN initially set an SM-6 inventory goal of 1,200 missiles. In March 2013, a resources and review board gave approval to increase the procurement offtake to 1,800 AURs, with Raytheon holding out the prospect that this could increase still further.

Final assembly of the SM-6 AUR takes place at Raytheon's production facility at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, alongside assembly of the SM-3 exo-atmospheric interceptor. Opened in November 2012, the 70,000 sq ft (6,503 sq m) facility has subsequently been expanded to incorporate a new test cell.

Following four annual low-rate initial production buys, the SM-6 programme transitioned to full series production in FY 2013: first FRP deliveries commenced in April 2015.

Raytheon has to date delivered more than 330 SM-6 AURs from the Huntsville line. The company is currently producing FY 2014 missiles, with FY 2015 production cutting in later this year.

"The intention is that …once we get the Engineering Change Proposal approved the SM-6 missiles that we produce will have all three mission capabilities," Smith explained. "We can inject the software into whatever version of the AUR. It doesn't have to be boutique.

"You have a code plug that attaches [to] the missile in the cell that is able to identify which missile, and which software load. The Aegis baseline 9 weapon system can then select which mission it will perform [according to] the target type."

"While SM-6 is not a cheap missile, you get a lot of capability for the price," said Capt Ladner. "Raytheon has an affordability programme in train, and we're exploring with them and the MDA as to how we continue to drive costs down. Can we contract better? Can we do a multi-year procurement?"

Work is also continuing to examine how and when SM-6 could be further adapted for other missions. "We're looking at where SM-6 can perform in an adjacent mission space to either add new capability to the missile, or drive into another different domain," Smith said. "Can you use SM-6 for a mission for land, to go against something else? Would that work, how would you communicate with the missile, what kind of weapon system would you need ashore to do that?"

He added, "We have a joint roadmap that we work together with the US Navy and the Applied Physics Laboratory [APL] at Johns Hopkins University on what is the threat of tomorrow, and beyond. We're also looking on addressing obsolescence, and what new technologies have we developed APL, NRL [Naval Research Laboratory] or any other agency developed that might be able to go into SM-6."

Export release


After several years of policy in the making, the US Department of Defense in late 2016 approved the release of SM-6 to a number of international customers. "We've been pursuing international release policy on SM-6 for quite some time, and we've been briefing countries," Capt Ladner told Jane's . "I'm fully expecting letters to start coming in [requesting price and availability] from several countries who are very interested in either the long range-AAW capability or the sea-based terminal/dual-mission capability for SM-6."

While the full approved list has not been disclosed, Smith has pinpointed Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea as the three most immediate prospects based on their existing investments in the Aegis combat system. "These three navies all have Aegis [surface combatant] programmes, which could align to the baseline appropriate to SM-6," he said. "The Australians have already called out SM-6 as a capability they desire for the future."

Australia's 2009 defence white paper, 'Defending Australia in the Asia-Pacific Century', explicitly identified SM-6 as the means to deliver an enhanced AAW capability for the Royal Australian Navy's three new Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers. This aspiration has been formalised under Project SEA 1360 Phase 1 Maritime Extended Range Air Defence, and features as part of the 2012 Defence Capability Guide.

Smith commented, "The current Defence White Paper [2016] identified an extended-range active missile [and] previous iterations of the white paper had actually called out SM-6.

"In that current white paper, it also calls out a combat systems upgrade to align those Air Warfare Destroyers with a current Aegis baseline that's in the US Navy. To employ SM-6 on those Aegis ships they need to get a baseline upgrade. They are currently Baseline 8, they would need to go to Baseline 9, and that would bring the capability of SM-6."

Japan and the Republic of Korea are also investing in the latest Aegis baseline. "Japan's [two] new construction [27DD] destroyers are at Aegis Baseline 9," said Smith. "A Letter of Offer and Acceptance [LOA] has already been signed for those ships.

"Their two existing [Atago-class] ships could also be upgraded to Aegis Baseline 9. So there could be the option to deliver four ships that would be SM-6 capable.

"As for the Republic of Korea, its three new-construction [KDX-III Batch 2] ships will be Aegis Baseline 9 also. That LOA has already been executed by the US government. With that Baseline 9 you also bring in the option to fire SM-6."

Smith does not foreclose SM-6 sales outside of the Aegis community, but points out that this would require some modification to the missile communications. "For SM-6 to go into a non-Aegis weapon system, using a different uplink [frequency] requires some sort of development to add a new [communications] band.

"Now the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile [ESSM] Block 2 will have dual-band transceiver capability with an S- and X- band plate. That is funded through the consortium.

"ESSM Block 2 is a 10-inch plate. SM-6 is a 13-inch missile, so we've funded our own internal efforts to look at that capability of having a dual-band capability, not only in SM-6 but also in the SM-3 and SM-2 missiles."


Image

This graphic depicts the USN's first live fire demonstration to test the integration of the F-35 with existing NIFC-CA architecture. During the September 2016 test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, an F-35B acted as an elevated sensor to detect an over-the-horizon threat. (US Navy)


Last edited by brar_w on 05 Mar 2017 19:07, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Mar 2017 19:01

Contd..


SM-2: active development

One common misconception is that the USN's decision to end Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) production after its FY 2011 buy closed the book on further SM-2 development. In fact, the navy is keen to emphasise that the extended-range SM-6 missile is a complement to SM-2 rather than a replacement, pointing out that the SM-6 is purposely designed to perform a different role. "SM-2 will remain a primary [AAW] effector for USN Aegis destroyers and cruisers into the 2030s," Capt Ladner told Jane's . "So that's a lot of missiles that I need to keep viable in the fleet."

Accordingly, work has begun on a SM-2 improvement programme intended, amongst other things, to introduce an active seeker into the missile. This move comes in parallel to activity to re-start SM-2 AUR production in FY 2017 to meet international customer demand through Foreign Military Sales (FMS).

Variants of the SM-2 Block III family of weapons have been in service with the USN since 1990. The original Block III offered improved performance against low-altitude threats and optimised trajectory shaping within the Aegis command guidance system by implementing shaping and fuse altimeter improvements. Block IIIA, which achieved IOC in 1994, incorporated the Mk 125 directional warhead and the Mk 45 Mod 9 Target Detection Device (TDD) to improve performance and lethality against sea-skimming threats. All Block IIA rounds delivered from 2000 onwards are enabled for Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) guidance, allowing sampled data homing and uplinking.

The further improved Block IIIB variant introduced an infrared (IR) guidance mode developed under the Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) to improve performance in a stressing electronic countermeasures environment. Achieving IOC in 1998, the Block IIIB uses a side-mounted adjunct IR sensor to complement the semi-active radar homing channel and improve endgame performance against stressing targets. Missile guidance logic is expanded to synthesise information from the ship and from both missile seekers: once the missile has evaluated the information from each seeker it decides which one to use for guidance to the target.

A manoeuvrability upgrade (SM-2 Block IIIB/MU2) has subsequently been developed and implemented to enhance IIIB performance against low-altitude, supersonic manoeuvring threats.

A quantity of SM-2 Block IIIA rounds are being modified for use on the three DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyers. These missiles, designated Block IIIAZ, are receiving the Joint Universal Waveform Link (JUWL) to enable communications with the AN/SPY-3 radar fitted to the DDG-1000 ships, and receiving a software update to enable ICWI guidance.

Initial funding has been programmed in FY 2017 for requirements definition and risk reduction work in support of the planned SM-2 Improvement programme. "We want to modify existing SM-2 inventory to bring in active seeker technology and to give ourselves an affordable medium-range active missile to address some inherent limitations in semi-active guidance," Capt Ladner said. "SM-2 is still very capable, but an active technology offers some key capability advantages over semi-active.

"That ECP programme to bring active seeker technology, leveraging from SM-6 and ESSM Block 2, starts in 2017."


A first System Requirements Review was completed in December 2016. Full development is planned to start in 2018 following finalisation of the missile performance specification: developmental testing is scheduled for FY 2020 to facilitate a follow-on ship integration and design update effort in FY 2021. Production is expected to follow from the mid-2020s.

While the USN is leading on the SM-2 improvement programme, PEO IWS has already engaged in dialogue with the international SM-2 Block IIIA/IIIB user community regarding possible co-operation. "The plan has been raised at the Standard Missile Cooperative Council [a US-chaired panel that includes the participation of Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands] and that discussion is ongoing," said Capt Ladner.

"We are from the beginning working with our allied partners who have SM-2 in their fleet, and they're going to face the same challenges that the US Navy does.

"Not only do I want to bring active seeker technology to the SM-2, but I also want to maintain that inventory out into the 2030s. How do I do that on a production line that's been closed down since 2012?

"So the SM-2 active programme is a way to address obsolescence, both from a parts obsolescence standpoint, and from a performance growth perspective so that we can continue to pace the threat.

"We've met with [allied users], and we are including what they are anticipating as their requirements. We already know that we will be compatible for the Aegis shooters - for the non-Aegis shooters there are changes that we would want to look at [for example, a multiband datalink].

"We're trying to collect those requirements and include those in our requirements. We want to provide capability to both US and allied nations from day one.

"The most important thing is that this will be an affordable medium-range active missile. That means not a lot of new development, and leveraging components from SM-2, from the in-production SM-6 and maybe from the in-development ESSM Block 2."

He continued, "We are looking at whether I stay dual mode. If I can avoid semi-active, and I can do all my missions with an active missile, then I've freed up illuminators on the ship. But there are still some threats and threat envelopes that lend themselves to semi-active."

While the USN is focused on the active seeker upgrade as a backfit to existing SM-2 inventory, Capt Ladner indicated that the possibility of building new AURs with the active seeker was something being examined for the FMS community. "If we can keep the [SM-2] line warm through to 2021 or 2023 then there is the opportunity to cut in production with the active seeker," he said.

The SM-2 line - both Block IIIA and Block IIIB - is being re-started this year for a number of countries. "We're negotiating a contract [with Raytheon] right now for FY 2017 and we're likely to do another in FY 2019 depending on the interest of our allies," Capt Ladner said. "That's well ahead of SM-2 active [but] there are definitely countries who are interested in both. Those who want near-term capability, those who may take those and in time modify them to SM-2 active, and others who wait till SM-2 active shows up because they have sufficient inventory to meet their national needs now."


As discussed in the article SM6 is a specific AEGIS Baseline capability (Baseline 9) and since the SM2 has a lot of life left in it, and that the USN has a roadmap for introducing AEGIS Baseline 9 it leaves a lot of ships throughout the 2020's and early 2030's that would not yet be compatible with SM6. Additionally you have non AEGIS ships that use the SM2 for AAW mission. Those ships will be getting the SM2 Active, and ESSM-block2-Active/SemiActive as discussed here. Add to that the 1800 AUR Program of Record is not sufficient to fulfill the BMD (SBT for Endo in US Navy Terminology) and AAW for the entire surface Navy. You would probably need to double the POR to get to that capability which is likely not going to happen. So in the future they will be leveraging SM6, SM2 (Both legacy and upgraded), ESSM (both legacy block 1 and block 2), and SeaRAM.

With the AN/SPY-6 based EASR (9 RMAs (Radar Module Assemblies) compared to the AMDR's 37) replacing the AN/SPS-48 and AN/SPS-49 radars you could introduce SM6's on a whole lot of non AEGIS platforms going into the future as well. Same for a future AEGIS-Ashore. Raytheon is currently pushing a whopping 69 RMA based version of the AMDR (Nearly double the size of the SPY-6 slated for the Flight III DDG51s) for both AEGIS ashore and a future cruiser.

Image


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Mar 2017 22:10

Japan May Have Tested its New XASM-3 Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile for the First Time

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/ne ... -time.html

Image

Image
XASM-3 is capable of reaching Mach 3 speeds thanks to its ramjet engine fed by two air intakes (in a similar fashion to MBDA's Meteor air to air missile of to the French ASMP-A air-launched tactical nuclear missile). XASM-3 is flying close to sea level in the final stage of attack to reduce probability of detection and intercept.

XASM-3 basic specifications:
Overall length: 5.25m
Maximum speed: Mach 3 or more
Firing range: 80nm (about 150km) or more
Weight: 900kg
Power: Integral Rocket Ramjet
Navigation and seeker: inertial / GPS (intermediate stage) + active / passive seeker (terminal phase)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2017 15:58

Iran reportedly carried out successful anti-ship ballistic missile test ; Jane's Defence Weekly

Iran carried out two tests of its anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) on 4-5 March, with the second successfully hitting a floating platform 155 miles (250 km) away, according to two US officials cited by Fox News.The report was not confirmed by Iran or other media organisations.

Iran's Khalij Fars ASBM is a version of the Fateh-110 solid-fuel tactical ballistic missile fitted with an infrared seeker to enable it to home in on a ship's heat signature. Successful tests were announced in February 2011 and July 2013, and a US Department of Defense (DoD) report to Congress in 2014 said the system was being delivered to operational units.

Although Fox News did not refer to the Khalij Fars by name, it cited a US official as saying the tests involved a "Fateh-110 Mod 3" with a "new active seeker".

One was launched from the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps base in Bandar-e-Jask on the Gulf of Oman and landed "in the vicinity" of the floating platform it was aimed at on 4 March, and a second launched on the following day hit the target, the official said.

"It's a concern based on the range and that one of the missiles worked," one official was quoted as saying.In what may have been a related development, the US DoD complained that the USNS Invincible was harassed by Iranian navy vessels on 2 and 4 March.

Invincible was built as a survey vessel and converted into a 'missile range instrumentation vessel' that could be used to track Iranian ballistic missile launches.

DoD spokesperson Captain Jeff Davis told reporters on 6 March that an Iranian frigate came within 150 yards (137 m) of Invincible on 2 March and a number of smaller Iranian vessels approached within 600 yards on 4 March.

Reuters cited an unidentified US official as saying Invincible and three accompanying UK Royal Navy vessels were forced to alter course when multiple fast-attack vessels approached within 600 yards.

Cpt Davis said the incidents did not necessarily fit a pattern of increasingly aggressive Iranian naval activity. "Well I don't know how much of a pattern it is, we actually had seen quite an improvement in Iran's behaviour until recently," he said.

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

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 13 Mar 2017 02:11

you guys have got to see the trailer for this new naval action game game. absolutely gorgeous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KVh6TKIwyU

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Mar 2017 11:03

Bangladesh commissions two Type 035 submarines from China

http://www.janes.com/article/68658/bang ... ines-from-

Image

Image

Bangladesh has commissioned its first ever submarines, two refurbished Type 035 (Ming)-class diesel-electric boats (SSKs) from China.

The submarines, which have been named BNS Nabajatra, and BNS Joyjatra, respectively, were commissioned on 12 March in a ceremony presided over by the country's prime minister Sheikh Hasina, at the BNS Issa Khan naval base in Chittagong.

"Through induction of these two submarines, the capability of Bangladesh Navy to safeguard the security and sovereignty of the newly established sea area of the country will increase significantly," the Bangladesh defence ministry said in a statement on the commissioning.

The SSKs were previously in service with the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) with pennant numbers 356 and 357.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Mar 2017 11:04

Bangladesh Navy added two submarines


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Mar 2017 00:54

The EMRG is heading out of the lab and Inching closer to at sea testing. This from Nov. last year -



Image

Image

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19913
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 17 Mar 2017 01:11

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -2018.html


"The testing of the advanced Futlyar - an improved Fizik - has been successful to date," the source said. He noted that the Futlyar had an improved homing system, remote controls and an extended range. According to open sources, the Futlyar will have a speed of more than 60 km, a range of 60-plus km and a maximum depth of 500 m. At present, the Russian Navy’s surface combatants and submarines carry Fizik-1 torpedoes.
The new torpedo is being tested at Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan. The Futlyar torpedo will be of heat-seeking design like the baseline model, but it will retain the ability to be controlled from the submarine. The Futlyar also will be given an improved homing system with an extended underwater target lock-on range.The new torpedo will equip the Project 955A Borei-A (NATO reporting name: Dolgorukiy-class), Project 885 Yasen-class (Severodvinsk-class) and Project 885M Yasen-M in the first place. With the beginning of the Futlyar’s full-rate production, the production of the Fizik torpedo will be discontinued. The Futlyar has been developed by the St. Petersburg Research Institute of Marine Hardware and the Dagdizel plant will handle its production.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Mar 2017 17:20

March 18 , Submariner Day Russian Navy , MOD Video


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Mar 2017 17:24

Prem wrote:http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/march-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4995-improved-ugst-fizik-torpedo-futlyar-to-enter-russian-navy-service-in-2018.html


"The testing of the advanced Futlyar - an improved Fizik - has been successful to date," the source said. He noted that the Futlyar had an improved homing system, remote controls and an extended range. According to open sources, the Futlyar will have a speed of more than 60 km, a range of 60-plus km and a maximum depth of 500 m. At present, the Russian Navy’s surface combatants and submarines carry Fizik-1 torpedoes.
The new torpedo is being tested at Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan. The Futlyar torpedo will be of heat-seeking design like the baseline model, but it will retain the ability to be controlled from the submarine. The Futlyar also will be given an improved homing system with an extended underwater target lock-on range.The new torpedo will equip the Project 955A Borei-A (NATO reporting name: Dolgorukiy-class), Project 885 Yasen-class (Severodvinsk-class) and Project 885M Yasen-M in the first place. With the beginning of the Futlyar’s full-rate production, the production of the Fizik torpedo will be discontinued. The Futlyar has been developed by the St. Petersburg Research Institute of Marine Hardware and the Dagdizel plant will handle its production.


Picture of Fizik-1 Torpedo loaded into newer Kilo 636.6 from BSF

http://files.balancer.ru/forums/attache ... .01.17.jpg

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3990
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 20 Mar 2017 00:59

China has built a naval base in the horn of Africa right where maritime trade between Europe and Asia moves.
Another big danger to India and Asia.

--------

China Expands Marine Force 400% - First Overseas Military Base Almost Complete

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-1 ... -base-almo

Among the details to emerge is a move to boost China’s marine corps — highly trained and well equipped troops intended for rapid deployment and offensive missions launched from the sea — from an existing 20,000 troops to more than 100,000.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Mar 2017 04:31

Huntington Ingalls proposal for Ballistic Missile sensor ship. A few years ago they were proposing this with Lockheed's LRDR radar (SPY+30dB) but I guess if this is pursued they would go for the 64 RMA AMDR (SPY1+25dB) for commonality with other AEGIS (with smaller SPY1+15dB sensor) ships.

Image

http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/ballis ... arrays-23/

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Mar 2017 12:42

Intriguing model.Is the large open space amidships meant for future ABM missiles? If the ship is to track the incoming ABMs, then it would the best/fastest platform to launch countermeasures/missiles against them.

What gives with this report?
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 9e96f2a23c

Head of French Future Submarines bid, Sean Costello, in shock resignation
Exclusive — Tory Shepherd, Political Editor, The Advertiser
March 20, 2017
Future Submarines may not use Australian steel
THE captain of the French bid for Australia’s $50 billion Future Submarines project has quit less than a year after winning the contract.

Adelaide-based Sean Costello resigned on Friday, a move that will likely shock the French and the Australian defence communities.

Mr Costello was the executive general manager at ASC before he became chief of staff for then-Defence Minister David Johnston, who famously declared that the SA shipyards couldn’t be trusted to build a canoe. :rotfl:

Sean Costello has quit as chief executive officer of DCNS Australia.
Mr Costello then took up the mantle at DCNS Australia, fighting for and ultimately winning the contract to build 12 submarines in South Australia.

While he is lauded for that win, there are also tales told in Parliament House of his temper while in Senator Johnston’s office.

He was involved in a kerfuffle after receipts for lunches involving him, Senator Johnston, and defence industry heads were leaked, and two other staffers were booted from the office.

Those leaks were interpreted as attempts to damage both Mr Costello and Senator Johnston.
Key government adviser and former general Jim Molan reportedly quit after clashing with Mr Costello.
While in the past people have criticised his style, on Monday people had only good wishes for Mr Costello.
Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne said he had enjoyed working with him and wished him “all the best”.

“Matters such as these have no impact on the submarine project or our arrangements with DCNS. I look forward to working with the new CEO when they are selected by DCNS,” he said.

Chief operating officer Brent Clark — who was also integral to DCNS’s win — will become the chief executive officer in the interim.

Mr Clark has a long history of delivering programs at defence giants including BAE and Thales. He was also a submariner in the Royal Australian Navy for more than a decade.

DCNS said in a statement that there was nothing unusual in leadership changes.

“Throughout the life of a program of this magnitude, there will be multiple changes of personalities and this is a normal process for any large program,” it said.

“DCNS is supremely confident that, working with its partners the Commonwealth of Australia and Lockheed Martin, it will deliver a regionally superior submarine that realises the government’s ambitions for a sovereign submarine capability.

“DCNS thanks the former CEO for his efforts and sends best wishes to his family and to him for whatever role he chooses to undertake next.”

There have been whispers Mr Costello is aiming for federal politics, including speculation he could put his hand up for Mayo, which the Liberals lost to the Nick Xenophon Team; however, he has not shown any inclination to become a politician. On networking site LinkedIn he has listed himself as an “independent consultant”.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 56413
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 14:32

^^ its going along my predicted line :mrgreen: a expensive fiasco. I guarantee it.

the AMDR ship space amidships seems to have 6 peripheral vls arrays borrowed from zumwalt it seems

the center might be living areas for the battle staff needed to run this offshore for months.

no tall mainmast to give 360 clear LOS for radar even at low elevations (to pickup bogies as they heave to over the earths curvature)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Mar 2017 14:50

Philip wrote:Intriguing model.Is the large open space amidships meant for future ABM missiles? If the ship is to track the incoming ABMs, then it would the best/fastest platform to launch countermeasures/missiles against them.



Yes. HII has two versions proposed, one with just self defense capability through around 64 ESSM's, and another with an actual SM3 load for fleet and dirt protection. The former configuration would support the ABM mission through a three sided very large radar and utilize the interceptors currently in the Navy's VLS (on DDG's and cruisers) while the latter would naturally be a self contained ABM vessel with a whopping 288 VLS MK 41 tube capacity.

Singha wrote:
the AMDR ship space amidships seems to have 6 peripheral vls arrays borrowed from zumwalt it seems

the center might be living areas for the battle staff needed to run this offshore for months.

no tall mainmast to give 360 clear LOS for radar even at low elevations (to pickup bogies as they heave to over the earths curvature)


It is actually a cost effective solution if you look at it from a fleet perspective. Take a developed platform (San Antonio-Class LPD) nearly a dozen of which are currently in services or contracted, and with minimal modifications add a 64 RMA version of a developed AMDR radar (AMDR is being funded separately and this would only be pursued once that radar is fully developed). As I had pointed earlier the AMDR can be scaled up for ship and ground based applications without breaking its architecture. The other back end systems are AEGIS (operational, and integrated on various ships in the US and its allies) and the VLS system is off the shelf and is available to the fleet so no development required.

Where this saves money is on your future DDG design since it removes the design limitation that a future sensor and associated VLS capacity puts on a potential design that they will eventually be working on in the mid 2020s for a mid 2030's in service date. The USN currently is asked to pay in terms of both design and procurement cost, to provide ABM coverage for land based assets (SM3 block II onwards) which eat into what it can put on a future DDG.

The current SPY1+15dB ( 37 RMA AMDR) is the largest the Burke can support given its space, weight, power and cooling..but it is not the largest that can be put on a vessel. Now if you were to be a little more creative and have this ship come under the MDA or some other pentagon authority you could even put a modified SM3 missile, perhaps the SM3 Block IIB (now deferred) which the navy wouldn't have agreed to put on its ship. Overall, I don't see how this design would be any more expensive than a current flight III burke.

Where it would help save money is in requirements for future flight III's and an eventual clean sheet destroyer and cruiser design which could then focus less on ABM and more on other tasks and sea control. There will emerge a strong conflict for space, weight, power and cooling between the very larger ABM sensors and the power hungry EMRG solutions for the future. Similarly, as drone swarms and offensive TLAM NG's come onboard there would be competition for VLS real estate as well. This is one way to reduce the cost on your future destroyers and cruisers by taking large aspects of the ABM mission away from them.

The biggest voice in favor for such a concept is the last USN CNO Admiral Greenert and it was during his term that they war-gamed using such an ABM vessel. They are taking an in service vessel, taking a mature (and by the time this is pursued - operational) sensor, a proven and mature command and control (AEGIS) and proven vertical launch system (MK41). The ship is large, and has room for loads of power. The little risk that exists would be in integrating systems onboard but that wouldn't be any more or any less than taking a new ship and putting proven systems on it.

Since they are deciding to put the MK41 system onboard existing LPD's anyways that portion would be taken care of outside of a potential new ship modification. The 16 cell MK41 is going to be going into LPD's to support TLAM and future offensive AshM weapon capability as part of the USN and USMC distributed lethality concept. So even that integration risk will be removed before a first ship meant for ABM is delivered.

no tall mainmast to give 360 clear LOS for radar even at low elevations (to pickup bogies as they heave to over the earths curvature)


Don't need that for the ABM mission since the SM3 is a mid-course exoatmospheric weapon system. The warheads it is designed to kill are at hundreds of km's of altitude. Early Warning (of launch) to AEGIS is fed by Satellite (PTSS) tasked with such a role and with the distributed forward based AN/TPY-2's operating in the appropriate early warning mode. Also it is unnecesary design complexity given the sheer size of the radar we are talking about here (larger than the AMDRs on the DDG Flight IIIs)...As a rule of thumb every 50 feet in additional height of the radar mount extends your horizon by approximately 15 km or so..so you would introduce a heck of a lot of complexity in design with marginal gains in horizon. Given the ability to put in unmanned systems on board it looks like a smart design trade to me.
Last edited by brar_w on 22 Mar 2017 22:36, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Mar 2017 15:55

More below -

Navy League 2016: Huntington Ingalls Industries notes increasing interest in BMD ship concept

Although the US Navy (USN) has yet to purchase the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) concept for a ballistic missile defence (BMD) mission-modified landing platform dock (LPD) ship, the company insists there is increasing Department of Defense (DoD) interest in the idea. This interest has already proved enough to see the concept incorporated into exercises in 2016 and 2017.At the Navy League's 2016 Sea-Air-Space symposium, Steve Sloan, programme director at HII's Ingalls Shipbuilding division, told IHS Jane's that the company is "working with the MDA [Missile Defense Agency] to get the [BMD ship] concept included in a wargame this year".

He explained that, for 2016, the BMD ship concept may be included in a tabletop exercise, while in 2017 it could be included in MDA's larger ballistic missile defence system (BMDS) exercise.

Sloan added that, despite funding challenges, the concept has been favourably received by officers at both US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and US Pacific Command (PACOM), as well as at MDA.

When the concept was first introduced in 2013, HII officials described it as having been quietly encouraged by USN leadership; then under former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the navy was at that time emphasising 'payloads over platforms'. This priority was reflected by the BMD ship's potential capacity for 288 Mk 41-sized missile launchers.

The BMD ship's long-range, solid-state, active electronically scanned antenna radar would have more than 1,000 times the sensitivity of the SPY-1D radar used by DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The increases in range and power would be instrumental in providing precision detection and tracking data in ballistic and hypersonic missile defence.

According to HII estimates, these capabilities allow the BMD ship to free up 8-12 DDG 51s from the missile defence task to carry out other missions. The large platform could also host command-and-control (C2) staffs, cyber warfare cells, and special mission teams.

The BMD ship is also armed with a notional 32 MJ railgun, and HII has consulted both US rail gun developers (BAE Systems and General Atomics). However, this ship has the margin to provide sufficient power generation to support a future large laser weapon; HII has modified its BMD ship model to show a mid-ship integration of this system.

The ship design's open architecture environment has scalable power and cooling utilising a 4160 VAC zonal distribution system, and is capable of carrying more than twice the power and cooling of the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 17:44

Inside newest Kilo sub of Black Sea Fleet , 636.6


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 22:09

photos of the Yuri Dolgoruki borei class ssbn

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18462
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 22:10

Gorshkov, as it sets upon its final final trials:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Mar 2017 00:18

Smart idea for the UCLASS follow on. Create the unmanned tanker and data link node rapidly while merging penetrating UCAV and ISR requirements with the FA-XX (Super Hornet follow on) as the analysis further develops a manned unmanned teaming strategy for that mission set. The Navy probably doesn't wan't to put a single dollar down when the USAF (through RQ-180 and LRS-B) can move the R&D needle along for the original UCLASS (J-UCAS based) and FA-xx tech development.

Skunk Works Head: Latest Navy MQ-25A Requirements Pushing Competitors to Redesign Offers

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy’s latest revised list of requirements for its carrier-based unmanned aerial tanker will likely push all four competitors to redesign their bids, the head of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Work division said on Tuesday.

The Navy’s latest direction for the MQ-25A Stingray would further minimize information, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) requirements for the airframe and further reduce strike as a mission, Rob Weiss, the head of the company’s internal aviation research and development arm, said at Lockheed Martin’s annual media day.

“The Navy came out with these requirements perhaps in the last six to eight months, and they still haven’t given us the final system requirements document – that should be coming any day – with specifically what they want this tanker to do,” Weiss said.
“From our viewpoint, the requirements, as they are currently unfolding, are going to require a new design from all of the competitors. It’s now very tanker-focused. We’re looking at what those requirements are, there will probably be a follow-up capability – some ISR it could do and potentially some strike – but it’s very much focused on tanking.”

Along with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Atomics and Boeing are competing for the first operational carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle.

As part of his presentation, Weiss teased an image of Lockheed Martin concept that showed a view of a wing with an aerial refueling tank hanging from a pylon and trailing a probe-and-drogue fuel line to an F/A-18E Super Hornet.

Currently, the Navy refuels its carrier aircraft with its Super Hornet fleet. The tanking mission accounts from anywhere from 25 to 30 percent of Super Hornet sorties, further exacerbating the ongoing tactical aviation shortfalls in the service.

That demand – in part – is pushing the Navy to get a tanking UAV into service as soon as possible rather than creating a more multi-mission platform, USNI News understands.


“If the requirements were about penetrating ISR in contested airspace – be it ISR or strike – you would need an airplane that looks different than the concept you’ve got up there with pylons and so forth doing tanking,” he said.

Last year, Weiss suggested the Navy pursue a more stealthy tailless flying wing design that could be adapted to higher-end missions later.

“If you start with a vehicle shape that will allow it to penetrate into a contested environment, you can get a low-cost tanking capability upfront without putting all the capability into that vehicle. … You can do it at low cost but stay on that same path to use that vehicle design to operate in a penetrating environment,” Weiss said in 2016.

Later last year, Commander of Naval Air Forces Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said industry was struggling with designs that could blend the requirements of an ISR platform and a tanker. The Air Boss said the two missions lent themselves to two different types of platforms.

A primarily-ISR UAV would be a high-endurance platform that would “probably not carry a lot of fuel, have a large wingspan,” to be an efficient platform, Shoemaker said in August.
“If you’re going to be a tanker at range, you’re obliviously going to have to be able to carry a fair amount of fuel internal to the platform. … That drives the different design for those two. So the industry is working on an analysis of where that sweet spot is to do both of those missions.”

However, based on Weiss’s comments, the Navy’s latest revision to the requirements seem to push all the competitors to a wing-body-tail design for Stingray rather than the flying wing concept both Lockheed and Northrop were thought to be developing for the MQ-25A program.

“The requirements have been defined to be a tanker, so you really don’t want to go with a tailless design if your primary requirement is associated tanking,” he said.


General Atomics and Boeing both have proposed wing-body-tail for their MQ-25A proposal in the past, USNI News understands.

Following a draft Request for Proposal issued last year directly to the four competitors, the Navy is expected to issue the final RFP this summer, with an expected contract award in 2018, Weiss said.

The MQ-25A is the Navy’s follow-up program to the service’s Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) UAV program that developed an aircraft primarily for ISR. However, the program was restructured following a 2015 Office of Secretary of Defense review led by Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work, and it became a tanking-first concept that became MQ-25A.

While the four competitors are developing the airframe, the Navy is developing the ground control station and the data link packages for the MQ-25A that remain largely unchanged from the UCLASS program.


Image

Chinmay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 23 Mar 2017 06:56

Why doesn't the USN use an unmanned version of the S-3? The airframes have a lot of hours left in them, plus it has the required loiter characters and can carry plenty of fuel. As it was designed for CATOBAR ops, so wont require an airframe redesign.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, Kakarat and 26 guests