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: 19306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Dec 2017 14:59

Ho ironic.In the '80s,we were perhaps the only Asian nation other than China and Japan building subs with our U-209s.Thanks to the myopia and dereliction of duty by the MOD and our ignoramus politicos in particular,today Pak is way ahead of us with building conventional subs,and SoKo has build over a dozen German modern U-boats.The sub inventories of ASian nations has tripled,with many new entrants.had we persisted with our domestic conv. sub-building,instead of junking the German line set up at MDL at huge cost,we could've been the ones supplying subs to Vietnam,Bangladesh,Indonesia and other friendly nations around the world. It is thanks to the generous assistance form Russia (l see latest Bus. Line post in the N-sub td.) that our ATV /SSBN project has not only gone on stream,but through Akula leases,has given us a modern SSGN both to train our N-sub crews as well as defend our maritime interests. However,time is not too late for us to leap forward given dedicated support from the GOI,MOD and IN,to recover not only lost ground but also build a variety of subs for our own uses and for export .

https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/chinas- ... rt-market/
China's Bid to Dominate the Global Submarine Export Market
Chinese shipbuilders will increasingly assume an export profile commensurate with their domestic capabilities.

By Robert Farley
December 19, 2017

China is beginning to aggressively court the submarine export market. In the wake of successful deals with Thailand and Pakistan, China’s submarine-building industry is developing new types with an eye towards breaking into the global market.

Given how many submarines China has built over the past decade, interest in the export market is hardly surprising. Historically, Chinese submarines have been uncompetitive with either Soviet or Western models, but the increasing efficiency of Chinese shipbuilding, combined with improvements in Chinese technology, have narrowed the gap.

Export success thus far has involved variants of the Yuan class, China’s most advanced conventional submarine design. The Yuan class subs are similar in size and appearance to the Russian Kilo, although the extent of a direct connection between the types in unclear. The Yuan-class boats displace about 3600 tons, and can be equipped with a variety of characteristics, including air-independent propulsion (AIP).

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
Thailand and Pakistan have already ordered boats derived from the Yuan type; the three Thai boats are designated S26T, with a displacement of around 2,600 tons. Pakistan has ordered eight boats of the same type, four to be built in China and four to be built domestically. The S20T is somewhat smaller, displacing around 2300 tons.

The Chinese are also investigating smaller boats, including 200, 600, and 1100 ton subs. These could appeal to a wide variety of customers; according to Jane’s, China’s submarine building firm has claimed that Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Myanmar, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela have expressed interest in its boats. It is not difficult to imagine other customers, such as Iran, having an interest in small boats that can protect their littorals.

China might also have some success cutting into European dominance of the submarine market in South America. Many South American navies operate German boats, often of the Type 209. Chile has two 33-year-old Type 209s; Colombia and Ecuador each have a pair of 40-year-old boats; Peru and Venzeula have similarly aged boats. The future of the Argentine submarine force is uncertain in the wake of the loss of ARA San Juan, but at the moment it can boast of only two older boats; a Type 209 and a larger, specialized sub. The relatively long-ranges required for South American navies might incline them to lean towards the large boats on offer from China.

Chinese shipbuilders will increasingly assume an export profile commensurate with their domestic capabilities. Submarines are a natural area for improvement, given domestic successes and the age of the international submarine fleet. Given this new challenge, European and Russian submarine builders will need to work very hard to maintain their positions.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Vips » 21 Dec 2017 20:01

Th increasing chinese ability to win export orders in the price sensitive/and low to medium sophisticated military wares is going to hit the Russians hard and they will be left with very few big clients like India to sell its stuff.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15292
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 21 Dec 2017 20:35

Good for us, no. The Russians, as you repeatedly point out, often take us for granted. Perhaps competing with their new all-weathel fliend and ally will make them think twice before selling their latest and bestest to PRC.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1113
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 22 Dec 2017 11:39

Philip wrote:Queen Elizabeth (the CV) is teaking water at 200 litres per hour!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... -has-leak/
Britain's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is leaking as a result of a faulty seal, it has emerged.

The Royal Navy's £3.1 billion warship, which was accepted into the Royal Navy fleet by The Queen less than a month ago, has a "significant" defect.

they were sending this to North korea, may be this leak is to avoid carrying drinking water after using desalinating plant enroute to NoKO. Long back I had a heated debate in office about Russian products not being useless that they are touted to be and the guy was quoting the boiler plate explosion in VikD

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Dec 2017 21:13

DDG-51 Flight III Design Efforts Nearly Complete; Radar, Power Systems Testing in 2018


AMDR testing has been going well, Moton said, with all the cooling and power requirements holding steady and no signs that the radar would require any further changes to the ship design. The radar will move to Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System testing facility in Moorestown, N.J., later this fiscal year to be married up with the combat system hardware for integration. Testing will take place in Moorestown, beginning with site activation in Fiscal Year 2019 and spanning several years, Moton said, but is expected to be completed before the radar and combat system have to be installed on the first Flight III ship and prepared for combat system light-off.

As a risk-reduction measure, while the radar itself was testing the transmitting radius in Hawaii, engineers in Moorestown were already working on integrating the back end of the radar system – the electronic cabinets and other components – with Aegis hardware. Some integration issues were identified and are being fixed now, Moton said, noting that identifying those issues as early as possible was the point of this Combat Systems Interface Support Equipment Testing.

The AMDR will also require a new electrical plant for the ship, which Moton said is also performing well in testing. A power conditioning module, which converts the new generators’ 4,160-volt AC power into 1,000-volt DC power, is “nearing completion of testing” with builder Leonardo DRS and should ship to the Land-Based Engineering Site in Philadelphia next month for further testing. The 4,160-volt generators, which were developed for the DDG-1000 program, should also ship to the Philly test site next month. As the remaining power system equipment arrives there early in 2018, the power system will be able to light off in FY 2019.

“The Flight III technical piece is proceeding on schedule, and we haven’t had any major issues,” Moton said.
“Doesn’t mean we haven’t had any issues, but we haven’t had any major issues. Obviously the big piece, a huge step in risk reduction will be when we first light everything off in Moorestown and when we first light everything off in Philadelphia.”

Moton acknowledged the importance of those two light-off dates, but he said he is already comfortable with the maturity of the Flight III design and the progress in developing and testing the radar and electrical plant. Much has been made of the maturity of the design – both because risk was a major factor in contract negotiations with both yards as the Navy looked to insert the Flight III design into an existing multiyear procurement contract, and because lawmakers on the Hill worried that the mid-contract upgrade wouldn’t allow them sufficient oversight opportunities – but Moton said previous milestones have assured him that the program office is on a path to success with this capability upgrade.

“I don’t want to somehow take away from the fact that when we light everything off at Moorestown and Philadelphia, that’s going to be a big deal for us to get through that,” Moton told USNI News.
“But from an individual component level, when the Navy submitted its [President’s Budget 2018] request, or shortly after that, we submitted a multiyear request for Fiscal 18 to 22, and part of the multiyear request was the Navy certifying a stable design. That had oversight at the [assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition] level and at the [under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics] level. We’ve got to sometimes keep in perspective that on a new ship class … typically detail design doesn’t start until after you’ve awarded a contract to a shipbuilder. So we were already sort of well ahead of that game on Flight III.”

Asked when he could confidently say the risk in the upgrade has been managed, Moton replied, “we think that we’re already there.”

As the detail design and the component testing progressed throughout 2017, so did contract negotiations with Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding for the mid-contract Flight III upgrade. The Navy issued its request for proposals in May 2016, and negotiations lasted more than a year – Ingalls signed a contract in June 2017 and Bath in October 2017.

“If you look at those timelines, you probably know it was a robust discussion. But we were able to get the Flight IIIs awarded within our budget,” Moton said.
“We had a lot of discussions with both shipbuilders about risk-sharing on the contract. The Navy wanted to do a fixed-price contract – now, fixed-price doesn’t mean firm fixed-price; fixed-price incentive, on a shareline, government shares the risk and the contractor shares the risk. It’s probably not much of a secret that there were pretty healthy discussions with both shipbuilders about what that risk-sharing should be, so it took a while.”

Moton noted that Ingalls’ start of fabrication date of May 2018 hasn’t changed despite the lengthy contract negotiations, in part because the Navy provided the shipyard long lead time material and long lead time engineering funding to keep DDG-125 on track.

Talks with Bath Iron Works had the added complication of a second ship – whereas the Navy only wanted Ingalls to change its one FY 2017 ship to the Flight III design, Bath had both a 2017 ship and an additional hull Congress incrementally funded in 2016 and 2017. Ultimately BIW and the Navy agreed to keep that incrementally funded ship in the older Flight IIA configuration.

So, DDGs 125 and 126 will be Flight III, 127 will be a Flight IIA ship, and then 128 and beyond will fall in the next multiyear contract that will be all Flight III ships.

“In the end, we reached a pretty good deal with Bath in the sense that the extra Flight IIA ship gives them one more ship to make sure their workload is stabilized as they start to tail off DDG-1000 construction,” Moton said.
“And it also frankly worked to give them some additional time before they start cutting steel on Flight III, so in the end it worked out, it worked out well.”

Overall, Moton said he’s pleased to have both yards on contract for Flight III construction ahead of negotiations for the next multiyear procurement contract.

“I’d like to think we did a good job working together with both yards to get both sides comfortable with the risk, and the bottom line is we were able to reach an agreement with both shipbuilders for Flight III and contractually on how to handle that risk,” Moton said.
“It’s a big change, but the desire to do that was driven by the operational need. … World events were driving the desire to get this radar out there as quickly as possible. I don’t need to name what those world events are.”


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62445
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 03 Jan 2018 22:31

video - houthi frogmen seize REMUS spy UUV
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/ho ... ast-video/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2018 19:27

So in about 4-4.5 years they will manage to put out a demonstration with a system that is 5 times more powerful than the AN/SEQ-3 that went out on the USS Ponce. At this point, imagining a 300+kW SSL on a future (2030) cruiser class vessel wouldn't be too far fetched.

US Navy eyeing laser weapon tech demo for next San Antonio-class ship

The Navy is laying out plans to outfit an amphibious warship with a high-energy laser, expanding a technology demonstration with speed-of-light weapons in a follow-on to a 2014 the proof-of-concept deployment of a laser weapon on the Afloat Forward Staging Base Ponce.

Capt. Brian Metcalf, LPD-17 and LX(R) Shipbuilding program manager, said his office and shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries are drawing up detailed plans to support integration of a directed energy capability on the San Antonio-class Portland (LPD-27) as soon as this fall, before the ship is slated to be delivered to the fleet in December.

"There is a move afoot to put a laser on LPD-27," Metcalf said during a public briefing today at the Surface Navy Association conference. "The next-generation capability is under development. We could be installing that capability on this ship as early as this fall, the fall of 2018."

The laser, developed by the Office of Naval Research, would be incorporated on the Portland as a technology demonstrator, he said, and is not being added to the baseline design of the ship; there are no plans at this point to include lasers on the two remaining ships in the program of record.

The laser is being designed to fit in a space originally slated to house vertical launch systems, and to house power modules needed to fuel the high-energy weapon.

"It is a bolt-on [capability]," he said. "It is not going to be integrated into the warfare system. It won't be providing tracking data or classification data."

The Laser Weapon System (LaWs), a 30-kilowatt laser deployed on the Ponce, is the first-ever Defense Department laser weapon deployed and approved for operational use, according to the Navy.

The Pentagon's fiscal year 2018 budget request established a new Surface Navy Laser Weapon System budget line to develop a new directed energy weapon system for Aegis destroyers by 2020.

The Office of Naval Research's Solid State Laser Technology Maturation program is a 150kW high-energy laser demonstrator, scheduled for testing in 2018 against a variety of threats, according to the service. This demonstrator is intended to mature technology to inform future Surface Navy Laser Weapon System increments


More : US Navy Selects Northrop Grumman to Design and Produce Shipboard Laser Weapon System Demonstrator

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Jan 2018 18:43

Deleted

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Jan 2018 16:50

SNA 2018: Contenders for the U.S. Navy FFG(X) Frigate Program


SNA 2018: Lockheed Martin Unveils its FFG(X) Frigate Design


Image

Changes from baseline LCS:

- Addition of 16 Vertical Launch Cells (MK41) for a maximum possible 64 ESSM Blk. II load out or a mix of ESSM and SM2
- Raytheon's S-Band GaN Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar, 3 Face configuration (Same as next Ford Class carrier) with Cooperative Engagement Capability for WS
- Provisions for the NG Surface Search Radar/FXR - X band GaN AESA Radar
- 8 x Anti Ship Weapon (LRASM, NSM or Harpoon)
- Surface to Surface Missile Module (for Longbow Hellfire)
- SEWIP
- Decoy Launchers
- SeaRAM Mk15 Mod 31
- A Directed Energy Laser weapon system
- 10 meters hull extension


A really good collection of offerings but It current LCS incumbents have an advantage given shipyards already available, and the learning curve. Cost threshold is roughly 2X that of the baseline LCS and since the first ship is to be procured/ordered in late 2019 they are only accepting proposals based on existing designs either in the US or abroad.

As a next step, over the next few months a down-select will be made and a few design proposals will be funded for a 16 month effort that would allow them to further refine their concepts and proposals before a final winner is chosen. This is a 20 ship program.
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Jan 2018 22:05, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Jan 2018 19:09


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Jan 2018 17:34

Japan completes development of ASM-3 supersonic air-to-ship missile, says report



Japan has completed development of its first domestically designed supersonic air-to-ship missile, according to a 7 January report by The Mainichi
newspaper.

Known as the ASM-3, the radar-guided missile is set to enter series production in Fiscal Year 2019, said the report, adding that development of the weapon was completed at the end of last year.

The ASM-3 was jointly developed by the Ministry of Defense in Tokyo and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as a successor to Japan's Type 93 series of missiles, according to Jane's Weapons: Air-Launched
.

The missile, which has an estimated top speed of Mach 3 and a maximum range of 200 km, is expected to be primarily carried by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force's (JASDF's) F-2 multirole fighter aircraft.

The ASM-3 missile has a tapered, ogival nose and a cylindrical main body to which two varying cross-section air inlets for its ducted solid-fuel ramjet motor are attached. The missile’s configuration is very similar to that of MBDA's Meteor air-to-air missile.

The missile is reported to incorporate several 'stealthy' features, including a low radar cross-section design and the use of low-reflectivity and/or radar-absorbing composite materials.

The weapon reportedly features an active radar terminal seeker for the terminal phase and an inertial navigation system aided by a global navigation system for mid-course.

The missile is powered by a solid propellant ramjet engine that is boosted to its operating speed by a solid propellant booster motor.

The ASM-3 is thought to be fitted with a high-explosive (HE) semi-armour piercing warhead, which is detonated by an impact sensor, and/or a laser proximity system. The former would be used for direct impact and with a slight delay to insure that the warhead is inside the target. The latter is used if the missile overflies the target.

Equipping the F-2 with the ASM-3 is set to significantly enhance the attack capabilities of the fighter, which was jointly developed by Japan and the United States.

According to
Jane’s World Air Forces , the JASDF currently operates 64 F-2A and 28 F-2B aircraft, the first of which entered service in 1996.

The F-2 fighters are undergoing substantial upgrades to improve their air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, with funds for nine appropriated in Fiscal Year 2015 and another nine in Fiscal Year 2016.

The latest announcement comes as Japan seeks to jointly develop a new air-to-air missile (AAM) with the UK. As Jane’s
reported in November 2017, Tokyo and London have progressed their joint programme to undertake research and development (R&D) of the new AAM.

In comments reported by the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) on 24 November, Japan’s Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera said that the programme, which has been continuing for several years, will transition to a prototype stage in 2018 following which the two countries will step up the pace of development to include trials and evaluations of the new missile.

A decision on whether to build and deploy the missile could be made in the early 2020s, he said. To further advance the R&D programme, Onodera said Japan would allocate JPY7.3 billion (USD65.5 million).

A spokesperson for the Japanese Ministry of Defense’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) told
Jane’s on 28 November that the additional funding had been requested as part of the 2018 defence budget, which starts in April 2018.

Jane’s understands that the UK missile technologies being included in the programme – which is officially designated as the Joint New Air-to-Air Missile (JNAAM) – relate to MBDA’s Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM).

On Japan’s side, the MoD is looking to integrate radio-wave seeker technologies developed by Mitsubishi Electric with the aim of enhancing the accuracy and performance of the BVRAAM and supporting the development of the JNAAM.

Both countries are looking to integrate the JNAAM onto the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft, which Japan and the United Kingdom have ordered.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3861
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 24 Jan 2018 13:04

Incredible that this can happen! Germany Navy rejects its newest frigate, the Baden-Wurttemberg class Type 125 due to software and hardware issues that include the frigate being overweight and listing to one side. And read this- the Germany Navy apparently has NO operational submarines!

German Navy returns their new frigate to the shipyard after refusing to commission the vessel

Just weeks ago we told the story of Germany's puzzling Baden-Wurttemberg class Type 125 (F125) frigate program. Not only did we discuss the ship's odd mission and design features, but we also highlighted some of the troubling post-delivery issues with the lead ship in the class. These problems include a persistent list to starboard and the fact that the ship is dramatically overweight, which would limit its performance, increase its cost of operation, and most importantly, negatively impact the Deutsche Marine's ability to add future upgrades to the somewhat sparsely outfitted vessel.

Now the German Navy has officially declined to commission the vessel and will be returning it to Blohm+Voss shipyard in Hamberg. The decision to do so was based on a number of "software and hardware defects" according to German media reports. The noted software deficiencies are of particular importance because these destroyer-sized vessels will supposedly be operated by a crew of just 120-130 sailors—just half that of the much smaller Bremen class frigates they replace—continuously for months at a time. On top of that, the design's reliability is paramount as the four ships in the class are supposed to deploy far from German shores for up to two years at a time.

According to Navaltoday.com, this is the first time the German Navy has returned a ship to a shipbuilder after delivery. Baden-Wurttenberg had already missed its planned commissioning date last summer.

Complicating things further is the fact that the fourth and final F125 frigate, the Rheinland-Pfalz, was already christened last Spring. Because of the concurrent construction and testing procurement strategy, these vessels are likely to suffer from at least some of the same issues as the lead ship in the class.

Aside from this troubling situation, Germany is going through some major tribulations with its naval arm, including the embarrassing reality that the country currently has no operational submarines.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3861
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 24 Jan 2018 13:14

Very poor preparedness of UK's Royal Navy and German Navy

Almost all of the UK's surface combatants are in port while Germany has no working subs

British and German naval forces are both suffering from historically low readiness, with almost all of the Royal Navy’s destroyers and frigates in port and none of Germany’s submarines in working order. This only underscores existing concerns about both organizations spending priorities match their needs and their abilities to respond to crises close to home and outside of Europe.

On Dec. 20, 2017, the Royal Navy acknowledged that only one of its 13 Type 23 frigates, HMS St. Albans, was on duty protecting the United Kingdom’s national waters and that all six of its Type 45 destroyers were also pierside. Two months earlier, after an accident crippled the submarine U-35, the German Navy, or Deutsche Marine, was similarly forced to concede that this meant that all six of its Type 212A boats were sidelined for repairs.

For its part, the Royal Navy remains “deployed globally on operations and will be protecting our national interests throughout Christmas and New Year,” a spokesperson insisted to The Telegraph newspaper. “There will be 13 ships and submarines deployed away and in home waters, as well as the at sea nuclear deterrent.”

That only one of these 13 deployed vessels is a major surface combatant is a serious issue, though, and speaks to broader readiness and morale issues across the board. What the U.K. Ministry of Defense had said would be “The Year of the Royal Navy” has turned out to be full of significant disappointments for the service.

In June 2017, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy’s first super carrier and its largest ship ever, did first put to sea for the first time. Earlier in December 2017, Queen Elizabeth II herself commissioned the ship, which is named after 16th century monarch Queen Elizabeth I, who famously directed the country’s naval forces to destroy the Spanish Armada.

“Today marks the start of a hugely significant chapter for the Royal Navy, and indeed the nation, as the future flagship is commissioned into Her Majesty's fleet,” U.K. Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson said at the commissioning ceremony on Dec. 7, 2017. “It is an honor to witness the crowning moment of an extraordinarily busy year for the Royal Navy that has seen us name the second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, cut steel on the first Type 26 frigates and launch the National Shipbuilding Strategy.”

What Williamson didn’t mention was that the Royal Navy has yet to receive any operational F-35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to begin forming the core of Queen Elizabeth’s air wing, that the Fleet Air Arm might not ever have enough of those aircraft to operate that ship and Prince of Wales simultaneously in the strike role, and that the Ministry of Defense was considering scrapping its last two amphibious warfare ships, along with other cuts, to both help pay for the carriers and find sailors to serve on them. That's to say nothing of technical issues with the United Kingdom's Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines and apparently terrifyingly poor discipline and low morale among the sailors on board those boats.

Then in December 2017, one of Queen Elizabeth’s propeller shafts sprung a leak during as the ship progressed through additional sea trials, leading to reports of significant, but brief flooding in one of the engine compartments.
This is actually not uncommon and is exactly why navies put ships through these types of tests before committing them to actual operations, something Defense Secretary Williamson was quick to point out to the BBC. “It does not prevent her from sailing again and her sea trials program will not be affected,” a Royal Navy spokesperson also said in a stament to the national broadcaster.

But critics were quick to seize on as more evidence the ship, which cost more than $4 billion to build, isn’t ready for real missions, with or without aircraft. It didn't help U.K. officials had tried to hide the issue, according to the BBC, before downplaying its significance.

The latest news that a confluence of maintenance issues and crew turnovers had forced the bulk of the Royal Navy’s most capable surface warships into port at the same time only raises new questions about the service’s ability to conduct major operations or make real use of its new carrier in the near term. As we at The War Zone have noted repeatedly, the United Kingdom might not have enough destroyers and frigates at present to provide a full complement of escorts and conduct separate naval activities even when all of its Type 23s and Type 45s are combat ready.

As Defense Secretary Williamson noted, construction on the first Type 26 frigates, which will replace the older Type 23s, started in July 2017. The Ministry of Defense doesn’t expect the first three of those ships, also known as the City-class, to be ready for service until the mid-2020s and there’s no fixed timeline for when the eighth and last ship will arrive.

The present plans do not provide for a one-for-one replacement of the Type 23s, either. The United Kingdom has yet to settle on a final design for the five less capable Type 31e General Purpose Frigates that it plans to buy to make up the difference.

Pre-existing budget cuts and economic uncertainty surrounding the United Kingdom’s planned departure from the European Union, commonly known as the British Exit or Brexit, surely haven’t helped matters any. In October 2017, BAE Systems, which is part of the consortium responsible for the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers and owns the shipyard building the Type 26s, announced it would cut 2,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, including hundreds supporting the Royal Navy activities.

As such, there are already indications that the U.K. Ministry of Defense may be looking to its NATO and other European allies to help with the shortfall, operating the ship in concert with other navies to reduce the strain on its own forces. The United Kingdom and the United States have gone so far as to sign a deal that will put U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs on board Queen Elizabeth for her as yet unscheduled first operational cruise in order to make up for the lack of Fleet Air Arm aircraft.

The state of Germany’s navy suggests that there could be serious problems with this course of action, too. For the Deutsche Marine, the fate of the Type 212A submarines is similarly indicative of more widespread issues across the service.

The boats are an advanced and extremely quiet diesel-electric design that uses an air-independent propulsion system centered on hydrogen fuel cells that allows them to stay under water for weeks at a time. The submarines form a key component of NATO’s plans to seal off the heavily contested Baltic Sea in the event of a major crisis, especially any potential military confrontation with Russia in that region.

Unfortunately, the class has been a maintenance nightmare since the German Navy commissioned the first two boats in 2005. The issue is really two separate problems creating what has become a perpetual cycle of breakdowns and delays in getting boats back into service.

After the end of the Cold War, the German government, focused heavily on rehabilitating what had been an independent East Germany, and in the face of what appeared to be dramatically reduced security concerns in Europe, slashed defense budgets and the size of its military as a whole. The German Navy ordered only limited stocks of critical spare parts up front for its new Type 212As.

Now, the Deutsche Marine effectively has to special order new parts for every major repair, which has proven to be an expensive and time consuming process. At the same time, the consortium of German ship builders responsible for the submarines have had only a limited chance to develop their own experience with the type and shore up adequate supply chains and skilled labor forces, leading to further delays and persistent problems.

When U-35, Germany’s fifth Type 212A, joined the country’s navy in 2015, a problem with its main screw created so much noise that it was impossible for the submarine to operate effectively, according to report by Der Spiegel. Radar and communication equipment failures and accidents further crippled the ship.

Unnamed Deutsche Marine personnel at the time complained to Der Spiegel that they had identified these same issues with U-31 years earlier and that the main contractor, ThyssenKrupp, had done nothing to fix them. When it commissioned U-36 the next year, the service initially cannibalized many of her parts to keep its sister ship operational.

Budgetary and logistical constraints mean that it’s not clear when Germany will have all six boats operational again. German shipyards are simply unable to perform the necessary work on all of the Type 212As at once, further slowing down the repair cycle.

The German Navy expects that U-36 will be back in service by May 2018. U-31, which has been sidelined since 2014, just finished its overhaul, but still needs to complete a normal series of sea trials before returning to active duty, slated for some time in 2018, as well.

Maintenance on U-34 will start in January 2018 and repairs on U-33 will begin the next month. It’s not clear how long it will take to get those two boats back in service. There is no firm start date for when there will be shipyard space for U-32, which suffered a battery failure on its way to Norway for an exercise in July 2017. And then there’s the matter of U-35, which likely hit a rock during a dive off Norway, severely damaging one of its four stern planes, which is now waiting in line for repairs.

Even if the boats were all in working order, it wouldn’t matter, though. The Deutsche Marine only has three fully trained crews and continues to struggle to meet its recruiting goals. Keeping those sailors proficient while the submarines are sidelined can only be a challenge and could further reduce their readiness.



This has to be kept in mind when looking at TKMS as one of the potential bidders for the P-75I submarine program

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4362
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 27 Jan 2018 08:43

China planning a naval base in Guyana eventually ?

--------------
China donates military equipment to Guyana

http://www.janes.com/article/69403/chin ... -to-guyana

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Jan 2018 03:18

Lockheed Martin has been contracted to deliver a working Directed Energy Laser Weapon for the DDG-51 destroyer. They will deliver this on the ship by either late next year or early 2020.

Lockheed Martin Aculight Corp., Bothell, Washington, is being awarded a $150,022,901 cost-plus-incentive-fee
contract for Surface Navy Laser Weapon System Increment 1, High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with
surveillance system. Under this contract Lockheed Martin Aculight Corp. will develop, manufacture, and deliver two
test units in fiscal 2020 (one unit for DDG 51 FLT IIA, and one for land-based testing). This contract includes options
which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $942,818,114.
Work will be performed in
Bothell, Washington (52 percent); Moorestown, New Jersey (31 percent); Owego, New York (9 percent); Marion,
Massachusetts (3 percent); Clearwater, Florida (3 percent); Manassas, Virginia (0.9 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (0.6
percent); and Akron, Ohio (0.5 percent), and is expected to be completed by April 2020. Fiscal 2018 research,
development, testing, and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $3,500,000 will be obligated at time of award and
will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business
Opportunities website, with four proposals received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard,
District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-18-C-5392).


Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Jan 2018 16:17

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) completed 401 fixed-wing launches & recoveries


While underway for Independent Steaming Exercise Five, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) completed 401 catapults and arrestments, bringing the total to date to 747. On the final day, Jan. 19, the Ford and Carrier Air Wing 8 team completed 135 traps.Several commands came together to complete this phase of testing, to include VFA-31 “Tomcatters”, VFA-213 “Black Lions”, VFA-87 “Golden Warriors”, and HSC-9 “Tridents”.

The next opportunity for fixed-wing flight operations will be after Ford completes its planned maintenance availability.

Ford successfully tested its first-in-class technology, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) on July 29. Since then Ford’s air department has worked countless hours to get to this point.

“It’s a great sense of accomplishment, not only for me but for my crew as well,” said Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Equipment) 1st Class Reginald Leonard, V-2 division arresting gear leading petty officer, from Marshall, Texas. “We came through all the adversity, received good test data.”

The main challenge, said Leonard, came from testing a brand new system that no other Navy Sailor had even seen before, let alone worked on.

“It had to have been the toughest part,” said Leonard. “During all those times, I sat my Sailors down, explained to them what we were doing, what the mission was and told them to push through.”

Ford is the lead ship of its class and the first new-design aircraft carrier delivered to the Navy since USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in 1975. It is also the first aircraft carrier to join the fleet since USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) delivered in 2009. The future USS Gerald R. Ford honors the 38th president of the United States and pays tribute to his lifetime of service to the nation in the Navy and in the U.S. government.

The next generation of aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford class delivers unprecedented flexibility to the fleet. Due to a larger flight deck, the ability to host more aircraft, additional weapons and aviation fuel storage, and the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Arresting Gear, Ford will be able to increase sortie rates by one-third when compared to the Nimitz class. Further, the Navy's newest aircraft carrier generates three times the amount of electricity as previous classes and is designed to rapidly add capabilities as new systems become available over the course of its projected 50-year service life.

President Donald J. Trump commissioned the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) at a commissioning ceremony July 22 2017. Ford is expected to be operational in 2020 following achievement of initial operational capability.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2018 05:56

https://twitter.com/indiandefencera/sta ... 3735510016 --> This is how Brazil transports Scorpene submarine by 5 km from construction to assembly facilitiy at Itaguaí.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Jan 2018 16:07

More on the Burkes getting a Laser weapon -

Lockheed Martin to develop HELIOS laser weapon for DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer; Jane's Navy International; 30 Jan. 2018

The US Navy (USN) has selected Lockheed Martin’s Aculight business for the fast-track development of a high-energy laser weapon system for testing on a DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer.

The new system, known as the High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS), is intended to provide an initial laser weapon capability to the US fleet.


Previously known by the names Seasaber Increment 1 and Surface Navy Laser Weapon System, HELIOS is an accelerated acquisition intended to field a modular laser weapon system that can accept phased capability uplifts as technology matures. According to NAVSEA, the system “will leverage proven mature technology to field a 60-150 kW class high-energy laser (HEL), along with an integrated counter intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C-ISR) laser for non-destructive dazzling capability against UAV-mounted sensors”.

Under a USD150 million cost-plus-incentive fee contract, Lockheed Martin Aculight will develop, manufacture and deliver two test units in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. One unit will be fitted to a DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer, the other installed at a land-based test site.

The contract also provides for up to 14 production units in three follow-on lots. Total value could increase to USD943 million if all options are exercised.

According to NAVSEA, the overall HELIOS architecture will marry the contractor-supplied laser weapon system (including the laser source(s), beam transport, beam conditioning, beam director, imaging sensors, tracking algorithms, power conversion module [to convert ship’s power to a 650 V DC output], and any ancillaries) with a package of government-furnished equipment. The latter includes the Laser Weapon Control System and the Laser Fire Control System (which contains a deconfliction safety system).

NAVSEA’s aggressive schedule calls for a preliminary design review six months after contract, to be followed by a critical design review 12 months after contract. Delivery of the two test units – one to the land-based test site, the other to the dockside for ship installation – is due 21 months after contract award.

Lockheed Martin has already developed prototype high-energy laser weapons for the US Army. In March 2017 the company successfully demonstrated a 60 kW-class combined fibre laser system that was subsequently delivered to the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command in Huntsville, Alabama; the laser itself leveraged a design developed under the Department of Defense’s Robust Electric Laser Initiative Program.

In a separate test, performed in August 2017, Lockheed Martin demonstrated a prototype 30 kW-class Advanced Test High Energy Asset (ATHENA) laser weapon system in tests conducted at the White Sands Missile Range with the US Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command. ATHENA, which uses the proprietary Accelerated Laser Demonstration Initiative (ALADIN) modular fibre laser, successfully brought down five Outlaw unmanned aerial systems in testing.



As a reference, the prototype LaWS (AN/SEQ-3), currently deployed on the USS Ponce, is 30kW so HELIOS will be anywhere from 2 to 5 times its power.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1730
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby John » 08 Feb 2018 09:19

Germany’s new Frigate Baden-Wurttemberg fails sea trials.

https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... ea-trials/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 16:23


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2363
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2018 16:45

John wrote:Germany’s new Frigate Baden-Wurttemberg fails sea trials.

https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... ea-trials/


LoL, a 7.9K-ton “frigate.” This thing is larger than a Kolkata. Then again, our frigates are not small either. Classifications these days are meaningless

After the Britshit Type 45 and the Amreeki Zumwalt, der F125 is the latest over-engineered, over-expensive Western ship to hit trouble. Too many new technologies in one go.

This will put our own issues in perspective. New warships are hard — and expensive — to get right.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 17:17

New capability is hard to put out on ships, especially first in class vessels. This is not a new problem but something that happens every cycle when new capability is developed. It is easy to forget this when you have had decades of sustained production of known and proven capabilities as with legacy frigates, cruisers, destroyers and carriers but if you do not take risk you don't move the needle at all.

The Zumwalt, once curtailed as a program (it was conceived pre Iraq and at a time when the Pentagon's acquisition strategy had not yet realized that the cold war had ended) always became the canvas for the next Cruiser if the USN chose to invest in a higher end capability. This was not seen as a path worth taking when all the threat that was driving spending decisions was counter-insurgency in the ME. However, when the threats and the future leads to a change in strategy it is good to have developed and de-risked technology, much of which will eventually go into future ships. DDG-51 Flight III is a very capable destroyer upgrade but the vessel still comes with limited growth and has very small margins when it comes to absorbing future growth in terms of directed energy, railguns or even larger aperture sensors. As things stand it can only accommodate the 14 ft. AMDR array, not the largest aperture variant of the sensor which is likely to end up on a future cruiser. The 14 foot AMDR is giant leap in capability over the SPY-1 but based on the USN's own analysis is not optimal for the growth in the Air and Missile defense missions of the future. A future vessel would need to be able to carry a larger sensor.

At proper rate production (say a 10-12 ship run) you could probably buy a DDG-1000 based cruiser for the price of 1.5-2 DDG-51 FIIIs which will have a much higher production run. If you pick and choose some of the capabilities you may be able to get it even cheaper. In some instances buying fewer such ships may make more sense while in others it may not. The Seawolf-->Virginia SSN transition is a great example of massive investment in technology, a heck of a lot of issues that required problem solving requiring time and money but eventually leading to a very capable system that is now very affordable (relatively speaking), capable, and being acquired in large numbers (The USN buys Virginia SSN at 2 subs a year and is thinking about moving to 3 subs a year in the mid 2020s).

John
BRFite
Posts: 1730
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby John » 09 Feb 2018 17:55

chola wrote:
John wrote:Germany’s new Frigate Baden-Wurttemberg fails sea trials.

https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... ea-trials/


LoL, a 7.9K-ton “frigate.” This thing is larger than a Kolkata. Then again, our frigates are not small either. Classifications these days are meaningless

After the Britshit Type 45 and the Amreeki Zumwalt, der F125 is the latest over-engineered, over-expensive Western ship to hit trouble. Too many new technologies in one go.

This will put our own issues in perspective. New warships are hard — and expensive — to get right.


This also highlights the perils of building vessels concurrently even the last ship in the class suffers from same problems. For close to billion each they are nothing more than oversized patrol boats because of their meager AAW and Asuw capability.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21536
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Feb 2018 20:09

Israel Navy Saar 6 Frigate

Image


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Feb 2018 23:20

tsarkar, Philip, and Chetak,

Please look at Kings College review of Battle of Jutland and comment:

https://defenceindepth.co/tag/battle-of-jutland/

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Feb 2018 02:22

Will do.Tx.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21536
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 16 Feb 2018 08:35

Saar 6

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2018 16:44

This gives you an idea that the job of a sub commander is perhaps the toughest of all as he has to deal with "sea blindness" relying only upon his sensors while underway at sea and the consequences of just one small mistake.It also gives an idea of the costs of repairing an n-sub,here a simple light collision.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -collision
Nuclear submarine commander 'took eye off ball' before collision
Justin Codd pleads guilty to negligently hazarding HMS Ambush during training course

Press Association

Thu 15 Feb 2018

HMS Ambush
The conning tower of HMS Ambush was damaged when it collided with a vessel off Gibraltar. Photograph: DM Parody/AFP/Getty Images
A senior naval officer in charge of teaching future submarine captains “took his eye off the ball”, leading his nuclear submarine to collide with a tanker, a court martial has heard.

Cdr Justin Codd, 45, was sentenced to forfeiting a year of seniority after pleading guilty at Portsmouth naval base to negligently hazarding the £1.1bn submarine HMS Ambush.

The Astute-class submarine was taken out of service for three months to undergo repairs costing £2.1m.

Sentencing Codd, Judge Advocate Robert Hill said: “You have, save for this incident, an exemplary record. It was more in the nature of a momentary aberration than a careless attitude.”

Capt John Atwill, prosecuting, said Codd was leading a group of students on the final day of the Perisher training course when the accident happened off Gibraltar on 20 July 2016.

He explained that the students were practising controlling the submarine at periscope depth and observing shipping movements.

Atwill said the failure happened because, despite the submarine having two periscopes, Codd failed to carry out his own observations and relied on the images provided by his students.

He said the students had focused on a yacht called Katharsis and had not identified the risk posed by the tanker MV Andreas, which was “loitering” in the nearby area.

Atwill said: “Cdr Codd’s decision to focus on teaching, not safety, compounded the error carried out by the students.”

Capt Sean Moore, defending, said the incident was the worst day in the defendant’s 22 years of “exemplary service”.

He said: “This is a failure that will live with him for the rest of his life.

“No officer becomes teacher of the submarine command course because they are good enough; they must be the best the submarine service has to offer.

“Perisher is widely acknowledged as the toughest command course in the world.”

He added: “This was a case where at the end of a long and demanding period of training with the finish line in sight, Cdr Codd took his eye off the ball.”

He continued: “This is not a case of a teacher deliberately ignoring an obvious threat or taking a calculated risk.”

Moore said Codd was highly respected by senior commanders and had been involved in learning lessons from the accident.

He added that the senior students involved in the training had gone on to pass the Perisher course.

Moore said: “Not only did he remain as teacher, but he revised the training procedures.

“Having written the book on optronic periscopes, having learned from this incident, he’s taken the lead in rewriting the book.”

The court heard that the punishment would impact on Codd’s career progression and his salary of £78,000 a year.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20784
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 17 Feb 2018 00:47

https://worldview.stratfor.com/situatio ... ing-indian
China: Increased Naval Presence In Indian Ocean Could Be Aimed At Deterring Indian Military Action
( Maldive related )
A Chinese surface action group composed of a Type 071 amphibious transport dock, a Type 052D destroyer and a Type 054A frigate, supported by a comprehensive supply ship, has recently entered the eastern Indian Ocean, Chinese state media reported Feb. 12. The naval force is separate from China's 28th anti-piracy task force already operating in the western Indian Ocean. As the political crisis in the Maldives continues, an increased Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean provides China additional military options in the region and works as a strategic deterrent against possible Indian military action.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2018 19:06



Navy Picks Five Contenders for Next Generation Frigate FFG(X) Program

Five ship designs will compete in the Navy’s bid for 20 next-generation guided-missile frigates (FFG(X)) that will follow the Littoral Combat Ship, the service announced on Friday.

Five shipbuilders were awarded contracts for conceptual design of the frigates, which the Navy will evaluate over the next 16 months ahead of a final request for proposal in 2019 and a contract award in 2020.

Austal USA, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Fincantieri Marine and Huntington Ingalls Industries were each awarded $15 million contracts for the work.

“These conceptual designs will reduce FFG(X) risk by enabling industry to mature designs to meet the approved FFG(X) capability requirements,” read a late Friday statement from Naval Sea Systems Command.
“The contracts based on these requirements will facilitate maturing multiple designs during the 16 months of the conceptual design phase, and will allow the Navy to better understand the cost and capability drivers across the various design options. Furthermore, this will inform the final specifications for a full and open competition with a single source award in FY20 for Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) of the FFG(X).”

Each design the Navy selected was based on a “mature” parent design that is already in production for the U.S. or foreign navies and that could incorporate a laundry list of systems the Navy will require for the FFG(X). Foreign designs required a partnership with a U.S. shipyard for construction. The Navy expects to pay anywhere from $800 to $950 million per hull for the next-generation frigate.

The Navy would not confirm how many groups bid for the work. At least one U.S.-German team that was not selected for a design contract, Atlas USA and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, told USNI News they had submitted for the competition.

In July the Navy released many details of the government-furnished equipment side of the frigate design, when it released a request for information that would inform the conceptual design phase request for proposal. Whereas the LCS has been criticized for not having enough offensive firepower to contribute to a naval battle in a meaningful way, the FFG(X) will be outfitted with equipment to succeed in “complex electronic warfare and anti-ship missile threat environments” as both an independent-deployer and as part of a larger battle group.

Though the Navy had not settled on a final solution regarding how many Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells the ship would have and what balance of VLS-compatible missiles it might use, the RFI made clear VLS would be an important part of the frigate’s punching power.

Aside from the VLS, though, the RFI in many ways resembled the Navy’s previous frigate requirements — the Navy has evolved from an upgunned LCS to a frigate to a guided-missile frigate over the past few years in an attempt to figure out how to address criticisms of the Flight I LCSs being built, fielded and deployed today.

“Many of the required weapons systems are pulled from the previous FF requirements: the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which pulls software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants; the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system; a canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system; the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6; and a slew of undersea warfare tools such as the AN/SLQ-61 light weight tow, AN/SQS-62 variable depth sonar and AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system. It also requires use of the MK 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile being developed for the LCS and frigate,” USNI News reported last summer.

During last month’s Surface Navy Association, several shipbuilders outlined their designs for the FFG(X) competition.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 17 Feb 2018 19:08

Brar, are these LCS vessels based on the USS Freedom design?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2018 19:13

Rakesh wrote:Brar, are these LCS vessels based on the USS Freedom design?


2 of the 4/5 proposals are heavily modified LCS designs which are larger (dimensions and displacement), have a minimum of 16 x MK41 VLS load out and an AEGIS_Lite compatible AESA radar (GaN EASR - the same that is going into future carriers and LHAs), EW suite and ASW etc. Some like the FREMM and F100 started out as full up frigates while others are modifications of other designs. The link describes some of the vessels and proposals along with the shipyards where each selected OEM is willing to build. The bidders were required to propose only designs that are currently in production so no completely new clean sheet proposals were allowed. One could argue that the LCS designs really do not have the type of ship they are proposing in production but they likely do not need any yard modifications or significantly risky Engineering to compete.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Feb 2018 18:37

Radar on the high seas



Modern maritime radar systems for missile defense and navigation have become more precise by leveraging commercial signal processing and radio frequency (RF) components in modular designs that enable commonality with clear technology refresh paths.

Superior radar capability is key to enabling an effective missile defense, as adversarial threats continue to grow in complexity and capability. In the maritime domain this dominance is even more crucial as the U.S. and its allies look to upgrade their maritime missile-defense and radar capability to counter the aggressiveness of North Korea and China.

Demands are also being placed on designers of maritime navigation radar to improve the accuracy and performance of their systems, especially in high-clutter environments.

In both cases, radar system designs are leveraging commercial components and building modular systems.

Maritime missile defense



Modularity and open architectures are important to the design of the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) from Raytheon, which is being outfitted on all Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers and amphibious warships by the U.S. Navy. EASR enables simultaneous anti-air and anti-surface warfare, electronic protection, and air-traffic-control capabilities, Raytheon says.

The system takes advantage of the highly scalable design and mature technologies of Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). Taking advantage of modularity, both EASR and AMDR have been built with the same individual building blocks, which Raytheon dubs Radar Modular Assemblies (RMAs).

“Each RMS is roughly 2 feet by 2 feet by 2 feet in size, and is a standalone radar that can be grouped to build any size radar aperture – from a single RMA to configurations larger than currently fielded radars,” says Scott Spence, director of Naval Radar Systems for Raytheon.

The AMDR consists of 37 RMAs, equivalent to SPY-1D(V) +15 dB in terms of sensitivity, according to Raytheon, which essentially means that the SPY-6 can see a target of half the size at twice the distance of today’s radars [SPY-1D]. Meanwhile, the EASR is a 9-RMA configuration – which is equivalent to the sensitivity of the current SPY-1D(V) radar on today’s destroyers, and at only 20 percent of the size of the older SPS-48.

Array size, or the number of RMAs needed, can be customized to the mission needs of a ship to provide it with the capability “to spot and defeat potential threats such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, airborne adversaries, surface threats, electronic threats, or any com­bina­tion of them,” Spence notes. “Its cooling, power, command logic, and software are all scalable, which allows for new instantiations without significant radar development costs.”

Using a wideband digital beamforming radar “supports better target detection and discrimination,” he adds. “Adaptive, wideband digital beamforming and radar-signal/data-processing functionality provides exceptional capability in adverse conditions, such as high clutter and jamming environments. It’s also reprogrammable to adapt to new missions or emerging threats.”

Two variants of EASR are being designed with each facing an identical 9-RMA array: Variant 1 will be a single-face, rotating radar replacing AN/SPS-48 and -49 air search radars. It will be the primary sensor for ship self-defense and situational awareness and the designated radar for the LHA-8 and LX(R) platforms. Variant 2 will be three-face, fixed-array radar replacing AN/SPY-4 Volume Search Radar. It will be the primary sensor for ship self-defense, situational awareness, and air-traffic control. It will also be the designated radar for Gerald R. Ford-class supercarriers, starting with CVN 79 [CVN-78 currently undergoing trials has the Dual-Band Radar that was originally designed for the DDG-1000].

Commonality between the radar systems and open architectures plays an important role in the design of the EASR.

The SPY-6(V) features a fully programmable, back-end radar controller unit built out of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) x86 processors. “This programmability allows the system to adapt to emerging threats,” Spence says. “And the commercial nature of the x86 processors simplifies obsolescence replacement – as opposed to costly technical refreshes/upgrades and associated downtime – which are savings that lower radar sustainment costs during each ship’s service life. The radar’s open architecture also facilitates integration with existing and future combat-management systems.” Designed for maintainability, standard line-replaceable unit (LRU) replacement in the RMA can be accomplished in under six minutes – requiring only two tools.

Leveraging commercial semiconductor technology such as gallium nitride (GaN) has also enabled the advanced performance capabilities of the EASR, as well the AMDR.

Beyond GaN, Raytheon engineers also leveraged distributed receiver exciters and adaptive digital beamforming in the EASR design. GaN components cost 34 percent less than gallium arsenide (GaAs) alternatives, deliver higher power density and efficiency, and have shown mean time between failures at 100 million hours, according to Raytheon says.




Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 18 Feb 2018 23:58

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/indiandefencera/status/955747333735510016 --> This is how Brazil transports Scorpene submarine by 5 km from construction to assembly facilitiy at Itaguaí.

Image


https://twitter.com/guiwiltgen/status/9 ... 3044697089 --> Important milestone the Brazilian Scorpene submarine Program. Passage through the tunnel to southern sector to the Itaguaí Naval Base.

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Feb 2018 05:29


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62445
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 20 Feb 2018 08:23

Isnt the lcs thing a total flop or do they intend to use as bait and cannon fodder for sinic asm salvos?
As a export product i can understand but its a crowded market and lcs is not cheap

Or is the idea to build the asw capability lost by the spruance and perry class ships going away? Note the spruance class was 9000t though with high speed perhaps a uniquely oversized asw ship

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Feb 2018 15:38

LCS was formulated at a time when the US defense spending was very high and people like Rumsfeld (who over his tenure did more damage to US Defense acquisition than any in the recent past) wanted a cheapish vessel that could be produced in quantity so that they had a big pot of naval shipbuilding budget set aside for things like the DDG-1000, CGX, CVN-21 etc. which he thought should be pursued at any cost. It was precisely to fund that that the LCS requirements were kept at a minimum. It is a Perry class replacement but was never intended to be a Frigate. So while the Europeans pursued Frigate designs that looked like scaled down destroyers, with high costs, the LCS program even though it went over budget was still delivering vessels at roughly half their cost, though with considerable disparity in capability. An up-gunned LCS with some offensive capability is adequate for many roles and missions to support a lot aside from top end fight, but again, it is NOT a FRIGATE.

FFG(X) is intended to be a Frigate which is why the LCS class offerings have to be so significantly modified to meet the requirements. But that comes at a cost. FFG(X), a proper frigate that can fight has a cost estimate that is double that of the LCS.

FFG(X) is a large program in its own right. It is at a minimum a 20 ship program but in reality if they can achieve a sub $1 Billion cost they will likely buy a lot more (could be up to 30 based on need) especially now that the sensors, even on a small frigate can be made quite capable using high power Gallium Nitride based AESA radars and with Active Long Range multi purpose missiles like the SM6 . This is why imho vessels like the F100 or FREMM have equal if not better chance of being selected than a highly modified LCS design. They are also buying it relatively quickly and at 2 ships a year so a design with the least amount of modification and risk would appeal.Which yard is selected will also be important here. One of the points with the LCS was to get non traditional ship builders into the business to break HII and GD duopoly. While this has worked in certain aspects, it has come with its own set of pains.

It is basically looking to mate relatively low risk proven vessel (either based on an existing frigate or by scaling an LCS design) with a relatively low risk Government Furnished equipment suite as AEGIS-Lite as in the software and hardware is now pretty mature, EASR as a 3-sided radar is going to be developed for other programs (LHA, LHD, Carriers etc) and the EW and ASW suites are simply taking the state of the art equipment already fielded or planned on other vessels.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2363
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby chola » 20 Feb 2018 22:39

Iran lost a frigate, the Damavand, when her captain decided to enter a sheltered cove during a storm in the Caspian and promptly ran her aground.

Wouldn’t a large ship be safer in deeper water during a storm?

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62445
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Feb 2018 07:48

^ depends on how large and stable the ship is. small ships are better off in sheltered water provided they can anchor safely away from rocks and surf.
it seems like his anchor broke or dragged along the seabed leading to ship drifting onto that barrier.

#intimidation
Image

submerged missile cruisers like the Oscar armed with a mix of subsonic and supersonic+ missiles could be the best assets for land attack vs planes or surface ships

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 21 Feb 2018 07:59

ArjunPandit wrote:they were sending this to North korea, may be this leak is to avoid carrying drinking water after using desalinating plant enroute to NoKO. Long back I had a heated debate in office about Russian products not being useless that they are touted to be and the guy was quoting the boiler plate explosion in VikD


Naval design office?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Manish Jain, vinod and 28 guests