International Naval News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Feb 2018 17:02

French Navy to Procure E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes for 2026-2028



This is pretty much the most they could delay their acquisition and still have a chance to buy the E-2D. The USN plans to place the order for the last 2 of its 70 planned E-Ds in 2024 so France will likely tag its order along with that for 2026 deliveries. Beyond this the program may end production or take a long break.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Feb 2018 19:15

From the Association of Old Crows/Journal of Electronic Defense, January 2018 :

Image
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Feb 2018 18:27

MSDF helicopter flattop Izumo designed as aircraft carrier


Despite the Defense Ministry's denial that the helicopter carrier Izumo, launched in 2015, was planned to be refitted into an aircraft carrier, former Maritime Self-Defense Force executives confirmed that that is how the blueprints were drawn up.

“It is only reasonable to design (the Izumo) with the prospect of possible changes of the circumstances in the decades ahead,” a then MSDF executive told The Asahi Shimbun. “We viewed that whether the Izumo should be actually refitted could be decided by the government.”

The former executive said a consensus was reached privately among the MSDF that the Izumo should be considered for conversion into an aircraft carrier. But the MSDF couldn't explain the need publicly due to the government's view that aircraft carriers capable of launching large-scale attacks are equivalent to the military capability prohibited by the war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution.

Ever since the Izumo's construction, experts both in and outside Japan have pointed out the possibility of turning it into a full-fledged aircraft carrier.

However, the Defense Ministry publicly denied any plan to deploy fighter jets with strike capabilities on the Izumo and contended that it was not an aircraft carrier.

The ministry has since done an abrupt about-face and now is mulling the possibility of refitting the vessel into an aircraft carrier.

Such a reversal has inevitably raised suspicions that the ministry had this plan in mind from the beginning.

Refitting the Izumo, the Maritime Self-Defense Force's largest vessel, into an aircraft carrier had been considered since late 2000 to bolster the nation's defenses against China’s increasing maritime advances around Japan’s southwestern islands, according to the MSDF executives.

Equipped with a flat deck from bow to stern, helicopters can land on and take off off from the five spots of the flight deck at a time. The Izumo's basic design was formulated from 2006 through 2008.

In 2008, Chinese naval vessels and other warships passing through the waters between the main Okinawa island and Miyakojima island, which lies to the southwest, were spotted for the first time. At that time Chinese government vessels intruding on Japan’s territorial waters became common.

According to MSDF executives at that time, the MSDF saw the need to secure Japan’s competitive edge in the airspace to counter possible China’s maritime expansion in the East China Sea.

However, the runway at the Air Self-Defense Force Naha Base is the only one that allows ASDF aircraft to take off and land in and around Okinawa.

Therefore “the plan to construct the Izumo was settled with its future conversion in mind to prepare for any possible contingency of the unavailability of the ASDF Naha Base,” according to one of the executives.

In those days, the U.S. F-35B stealth fighters, which could take off and land vertically, were in development, leading to a design conception of the Izumo on the premise that it could be converted to handle landings and takeoffs of the F-35B and other aircraft, such as the Osprey transport aircraft.

The approximately 250-meter long Izumo’s elevator connecting the deck with the hangar was designed to accommodate the F-35B fighter, which measures about 15 meters in length and about 11 meters in width.

Paint that can withstand the exhaust heat generated from F-35 fighter jets during landings and takeoffs was selected for the deck of the Izumo. It has also been expected to retrofit the Izumo with a sloping deck for takeoffs, the former MSDF executives said.

If the Izumo is converted to enable landings and takeoffs of the F-35B, the vessel can be utilized to refuel U.S. stealth fighter jets anywhere in the world at any time, including during military emergencies under the new national security legislation.

Even if it is designated a “defensive” aircraft carrier or with some other terminology, the refitted Izumo would be a vessel capable of attacking enemy targets.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Feb 2018 18:44

Carrier John F. Kennedy's structure passes 70 percent completion


The structural work for the Navy’s next Ford-class aircraft carrier, the John F. Kennedy, is now 70 percent complete, according to a Feb. 22 Huntington Ingalls press release.

Kennedy, like the most recently manufactured aircraft carriers, is being built in stages of large, completely outfitted sections at the Newport News Shipyard.The sections are being built outside of Dry Dock 12, where the ship is being assembled, and are lifted into place by a “superlift,” the yard’s 1,050-metric-ton gantry crane. From there, the sections are welded into place.The most recent lift, which put the Kennedy’s structure at over 70 percent complete, came in at 806 metric tons, 171 feet long and about 92 feet wide.The structure is made up of berthing areas, electrical equipment rooms and workshops, and it took 18 months to build.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3891
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 28 Feb 2018 04:53

Russia to retire Project 941 Typhoon class SSBNs

Last week, Russian media reported that the Arkhangelsk and the Severstal, two of Russia's remaining Project 941 Akula ('Shark') nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, NATO reporting name Typhoon, are set for decommissioning after 2020, with the vessels already withdrawn from operations with the Navy.

That will leave the Dmitry Donskoy the only operational Project 941 sub in service, that vessel presently being used to test the Bulava, a new sub-launched missile set to be deployed aboard Russia's Borei class missile submarines.

Commenting on the news of the massive Cold War-era vessels' expected retirement, military experts speaking to Saranov outlined why the Akulas just aren't strategically relevant anymore.

Simply Too Big?

At 175 meters long, 23 meters wide and displacing 48,000 tons when submerged, the Akulas grace the Guinness Book of Records as the largest class of submarine ever built. Developed in the 1970s and introduced in the 1980s to serve as the backbone of the naval component of the Soviet Union's nuclear triad capabilities, the immense vessels could stay submerged for 120 days or longer, thereby ensuring an effective response capability in case of a nuclear attack on the USSR.

But while the vessels helped Moscow reach nuclear parity with Washington, leading to subsequent nuclear treaties in the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods in the form of the START agreements, some observers believe that the vessels were simply too big and expensive, even in their heyday.

"The Project 941 subs look monstrous…and the vessels themselves were wildly expensive," Konstantin Makienko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies & Technologies, a Moscow-based think tank, recalled.

"Therefore, even the mighty Soviet Union was able to build only six of them, even though initially they were intended as a response to the US's Ohio class subs, of which the Americans built nearly 20," Makienko added. "But here it's not worth blaming the shipbuilders; they just created a missile system carrier based on the missile that they were given."

That missile was the R-39, a sub-launched missile with a solid-fuel boost design which featured reduced prelaunch preparation time, good reliability, and featured good storage and maintenance characteristics. With a total weight of 95 tons, the system was the largest sea-based missiles ever created, and was three times heavier than the US Trident C-4, and one and a half times heavier than the Trident II D-5, even though the latter exceeded the R-39 in terms of payload and range.

As Saranov pointed out, the weight of the Akula's missiles, combined with the ballast tanks which held them, was in excess of 20,000 tons. "The full displacement of its main US challenger, the Ohio-class SSBN, incidentally, is only 18,500 tons, and it carries 24 Trident II D-5s, as opposed to the 20 R39s carried by the Akula," the observer wrote.

Water Carrier
The Akula's high buoyancy, which required ballast to be at half capacity while submerged, Akulas were soon nicknamed the 'vodovoz', or 'water carrier' by Navy observers. But according to Saranov, "military financiers were in no joking mood," with the cost of maintenance and repair of one Akula at least double the cost of operating a 667BDR Kalmar and 667BDRM Delphin, two other, smaller Soviet ballistic missile sub designs, with the latter carrying just four missiles fewer than the Akula.

Additional funding was also required to provide supply infrastructure for the massive subs, with a specially-made 40 km long railway track built in the Murmansk region to transport the R-39 missiles. Specially-developed heavily-lift cranes were designed to load the massive missiles, and a special ship, the 16,000 ton Alexander Brykin missile loader, was built. Another costly innovation, the PD-50 floating dock, was created for Akulas, and was so large that it can now be used to hold the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

Bigger Not Always Better
In the course of their lifespan, one of the main perceived advantages of the Akulas was their size, which theoretically allowed them to break through even the thickest ice in northern latitudes using their powerful hulls. However, as Saranov recalled, this was not always the case. In 1990, the TK-202 Akula failed to break through the northern ice after nearly a dozen attempts. After returning to base, the crew found damage to the hull, the fairing of the sonar station, and other components.

Passing Off the Baton
Amid the economic turmoil that followed the Soviet collapse, three Akulas were withdrawn from active service and scrapped with US financial support.

The Severstal and Archangelsk, decommissioned in 2004 and 2006, respectively, have been held in reserve ever since, with the Dmitriy Donskoy remaining the only Project 941 vessel in service ever since. The last of the specially created R-39 missiles were scrapped in the mid-2000s, forcing the Navy to begin a search for new uses for the gigantic vessels.

"The Americans have experience using their Ohio-class SSBNs as cruise missile carriers. I think that the same can be done with our Project 941 vessels," military expert and Captain 1st Rank (retired) Konstantin Sivkov said. "Where an Ohio-class sub can accommodate 150 Tomahawks, the Akula would be able to carry about 250 cruise missiles. Therefore, I consider the decision to write off the Project 941 subs to be a mistake," he added.

But other observers, including Makienko, question the cost/benefit of refitting the Akulas, given the immense price tag that would come with restoring the Severstal and Arkhangelsk. What's more, he recalled that the Navy already has several cruise-missile carrying platforms "that are much cheaper and more mobile."

Ultimately, with last week's announcement, it seems that the Akula strategic submarines' fate is almost certainly sealed. However, it is fitting that, before they go, the Akula is assisting in the creation of the Bulava, the new missile being created for Project 955 Borei, which will eventually replace all existing Project 667 and Project 941 nuclear missile subs serving in the Russian Navy.

In this sense, the Akulas are helping to ensure that the task it was given – an effective sea-based submarine-based nuclear deterrent, will be preserved, even after they're gone.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35824
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 28 Feb 2018 17:43

Do we have a nuke safety dhaaga?
In 1985, a Russian Submarine Created an Atomic Disaster. The Radiation Lingers to This Day.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... tion-24669


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Feb 2018 18:38

From the MRCA thread>

GeorgeWelch wrote:
As far as a program that is going to be maintained and upgraded and supported for years to come, the SH is very much alive and in fact is likely the most alive of any program besides the F-35.


I am not even sure what "alive" means. Speaking specifically from the US perspective, modernization accounts (RDT&E and S&T) place known Super Hornet upgrade investment behind that of the F-35 FOM (Continuous Development and Block-4) and the F-22 program (Increment 3.2B and beyond). It is however competitive with the F-15 E modernization program in terms of what the US Navy plans to invest in its RDT&E accounts. I am afraid besides the AEA mission where the Navy is a partner in the Joint Mission and owns the Stand Off AEA mission to a large extent (which is the Growler's business and not that of the SH) there really isn't much the Navy is going to be putting in besides common sense upgrades that will help with readiness down the road. NAVAIR has practically ceded all cutting edge and innovative R&D to the USAF labs, at least when it comes to fighters. Nearly all the cutting edge stuff such as podded directed energy systems, new missiles, and loyal wingman drones have higher if not exclusive funding from the USAF.

This is deliberate so that the Navy can direct resources on other exclusive domains but a consequence of this is that long term R&D for the SH will be suffer. If you don't have stuff in your pipeline than you won't have options later when it comes to buying it or if you do it will be expensive and will take longer. The roadmap for the Rhino very much seems to be to prepare the fleet to sustain increased ops tempo better so that they don't face the same readiness challenges that arose from an overworked F-18 fleet that has seen high ops tempo on and off since the early 2000s.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20851
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 02 Mar 2018 06:28

Image

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 02 Mar 2018 20:07

brar_w wrote:NAVAIR has practically ceded all cutting edge and innovative R&D to the USAF labs, at least when it comes to fighters. Nearly all the cutting edge stuff such as podded directed energy systems, new missiles, and loyal wingman drones have higher if not exclusive funding from the USAF.


Do you think any of those would be difficult to migrate to the SH? The USN is allowing the USAF to do the hard stuff, then once it's ready, they'll migrate it over. I mean seriously, if the USAF develops some amazing new missile, is there any way the USN won't get it too?

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-03-01- ... rnet-Fleet

In the early 2020s, Boeing will begin installing initial updates to the aircraft that will convert existing Block II Super Hornets to a new Block III configuration.

The Block III conversion will include enhanced network capability, longer range with conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, signature improvements and an enhanced communication system. The updates are expected to keep the F/A-18 in active service for decades to come.

“The initial focus of this program will extend the life of the fleet from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours,” said Mark Sears, SLM program director. “But SLM will expand to include Block II to Block III conversion, systems grooming and reset and O-level maintenance tasks designed to deliver a more maintainable aircraft with an extended life and more capability. Each of these jets will fly another 10 to 15 years, so making them next-generation aircraft is critical.”



As technology matures, upgrades will implemented in a way that makes operational and financial sense. In other words the SH is well positioned to be an affordable workhorse well into the future.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Mar 2018 20:34

GeorgeWelch wrote:
brar_w wrote:NAVAIR has practically ceded all cutting edge and innovative R&D to the USAF labs, at least when it comes to fighters. Nearly all the cutting edge stuff such as podded directed energy systems, new missiles, and loyal wingman drones have higher if not exclusive funding from the USAF.


Do you think any of those would be difficult to migrate to the SH? The USN is allowing the USAF to do the hard stuff, then once it's ready, they'll migrate it over. I mean seriously, if the USAF develops some amazing new missile, is there any way the USN won't get it too?



This is why I said they have ceded innovation and the “hard work” required to develop anything and will pay a good and heavy price down the road. It is clear that the USAF and the USMC is leading the pack when it comes to the hard spending on capability and tactics required to support this area. Some of us however are not ignorant to history and realize how culture of risk aversion and setting aside of one enterprise has a cost.

So please tell, how many JASSM’s and Extended Range JASSMs does the US Navy operate? What happened when the requirements did not align with the USAF on the JDRADM? Where is the block III Sidewinder? The USAF is doing the hard work on Airborne lasers and will carry forward into the early 2020s through demonstrations on an F-15 but that does not automatically mean the Navy will have something for the Super Hornet ready. NAVAIR at some point will have to step in and provide cash and I’m not holding my breath.

Do tell me, how much have they invested to support new cooling techniques and EA modes on the APG-79, even a decade after USAF funded demonstrations on their Raytheon AESAs? Remember when the Admirals decided that they don’t need a proper fighter to replace the F-14 and walked out of the Naval-ATF (not before they influenced decisions on the DS) only to say that technologies will be used on their future tactical aircraft. Yet, 28 years after the ATF demonstrator first flew, and nearly 13 years after the USAF put out the capability into service, they have absolutely zilch to show for in terms of a comparable system and the NGAG/FA-XX/NGF which showed promise has effectively been set aside and moved to the right about half a decade if not more. They then had further opportunity to piggy back on the MASSIVE USAF investment into Low-Observables, and penetrating strike concepts and Bob Work took that and put it into a Carrier Borne, VLO unmanned strike aircraft requirements. What did the Admirals do? Flipped it to a tanker. But not straight away..they first rolled in a complicated mix of ISR and Refueling requirements..Bob Works constantly sent them back to the analysis asking them to develop something that is more survivable and can assist the joint forces in penetrating attack..but they kept on resisting..Eventually not even assured funding from the OSD convinced them...and they revealed what they actually wanted and this was a tanker ..The PEO frustrated as I am sure he was, was shifted to the F-35 program where he at least has two organizations (USAF and USMC) and a whole host of international partners that are looking forward to develop a capable and upgradable 5th generation aircraft.

So after winning the Collier Trophy and demonstrating a historical event in Naval Aviation, and getting a flying-wing/cranked Kite design to actually take off and land on a carrier, the design team that put in that hard work finally had enough and is sitting out the $hit show the Admirals have planned for the MQ-25. Kinda feel sorry for the team that lost out on the trophy back then (the team that put together the X-51 and broke mach 5 with a scramjet)..but at least they are working on multiple hypersonic cruise missile programs all incidentally funded by the Air Force or DARPA.

I get the fact that ship building is most important and under-sea and anti-submarine warfare is critical.. but I'm not delusional to not see that NAVAIR and particularly fast jets are not a Navy priority right now to such an extent that the CNO has wished that not speaking about the threats would make them go away. This is a priority and an organizational culture issue. It is not going away anytime soon. And no, traditionally the USN has not walked away from its share of development and it has been the collective NAVAIR and CAF assets that have developed capability and funded it...the CNO thni

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 02 Mar 2018 22:51

brar_w wrote:So please tell, how many JASSM’s and Extended Range JASSMs does the US Navy operate?


The USN is funding the development of a more advanced version of the JASSM called the AGM-158C LRASM that is nearly operational.


brar_w wrote:What happened when the requirements did not align with the USAF on the JDRADM?


The USAF cancelled it so I'm not sure what your point is.

brar_w wrote:Where is the block III Sidewinder?


Not with the USAF that's for sure.

The point stands, if the USAF develops something worth getting, the USN can adapt it easily enough.

brar_w wrote:The USAF is doing the hard work on Airborne lasers and will carry forward into the early 2020s through demonstrations on an F-15 but that does not automatically mean the Navy will have something for the Super Hornet ready.


Of course it's not 'automatic', but if they manage to create a combat effective system, I'm sure the USN will be interested in adapting it.


brar_w wrote:Remember when the Admirals decided that they don’t need a proper fighter to replace the F-14 and walked out of the Naval-ATF (not before they influenced decisions on the DS) only to say that technologies will be used on their future tactical aircraft.


From the SH's perspective, the Navy's reluctance to commit to new aircraft is a GOOD thing. It means they will continue to modernize what they have instead of ditching it for a new system.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 Mar 2018 00:05

GeorgeWelch wrote:
The USN is funding the development of a more advanced version of the JASSM called the AGM-158C LRASM that is nearly operational.


The USN latched on to a DARPA program which the USAF is also buying into. Why don't you go and have a peek at the POR for that program's USN tally. There is a follow on program for an air launched anti ship missile and if you have time see how that account has shifted over time and what the plans have evolved to. The LRASM is no substitute for a JASSM. It is a Maritime strike weapon, while JASSM is meant for a completely different target set.

GeorgeWelch wrote:The USAF cancelled it so I'm not sure what your point is.


Time to read up to see how the Navy influenced the design and requirements.

Not with the USAF that's for sure.


The Sidewinder was supposed to be in the Navy portfolio (PMA-259). Good thing that the SACM and LREW have nothing to do with the Navy for now..because unless it comes out of a VLS, they are not really interested to put any serious dollars on development.

GeorgeWelch wrote:From the SH's perspective, the Navy's reluctance to commit to new aircraft is a GOOD thing. It means they will continue to modernize what they have instead of ditching it for a new system.


Unfortunately that is not bearing out in reality. Almost all of the cutting edge work to keep legacy aircraft relevant is happening outside the service..so don't keep your hopes up of some grand Super Hornet strategy besides common sense, low risk upgrades like existing avionics and engine..The Rafale is equally getting attention, be it those will be expensive. A2A there is the Meteor which the SH lacks..Spectra is getting a GaN AESA bump much like the EPAWSS which the USAF has fully funded for its Strike Eagle fleet and new A2G munitions are in the works as well.

but if they manage to create a combat effective system, I'm sure the USN will be interested in adapting it.


There lies the biggest problem with your argument. The USAF will re-purpose its money if it has to choose down the road whether to spend on legacy vs buying new and also developing future capability. It is always a balance, hence historically the Navy has shared these responsibilities with them across the relevant portfolios. At this time, most of the cutting edge propulsion, weapons (besides those applicable to AEA), NG Systems, sub-systems and directed energy (relevant application) is being pulled via the USAF funding and is therefore directly competing with their various priorities.

This is problematic and will result in an overall lack of capability down the road because the sister service is just not interested to balance its spending between aircraft accounts and invest adequately in the future. After walking out of the N-ATF, and not getting anywhere with the Dorito, they have basically shied away from anything that has any degree of risk (and therefore leap ahead capability) and the only real new aircraft portfolio is one where the sister service is carrying a bulk of the cost and which they don't directly manage. Meanwhile they continue to find innovative ways of turning stealthy flying wing designs into non-stealthy tankers.I understand other priorities but then there is no need to sugar coat the whole thing and that they will continue to outpace other competitors when it comes to keeping systems modernized. There is really no basis to say that based on anything they have demonstrated over the last decade. Sure the SH will be a capable aircraft within its largely known limitations but no i refuse to believe that the French for whom the Rafale is as important as the F-22 is to the USAF will fall behind in any way. It is an overall more capable aircraft, be it more expensive, for anyone not bound into the legacy hornet training/logistical train.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 Mar 2018 18:49

Lockheed Martin to Develop Laser Weapons for U.S. Navy Destroyers

By 2020, Lockheed Martin will deliver a high-energy laser that will be installed on a U.S. Navy destroyer

The U.S. Navy's next laser weapon will break new ground for high-energy lasers. The Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a US $150 million contract to develop, build, and deliver two copies of a new laser weapon for use on destroyers.

The new laser weapon system is called the High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS) system for the way it integrates three distinct capabilities.

One is a high-energy laser that the Navy has specified should generate 60 to 150 kilowatts of steady power, enough to disable or destroy small boats or hostile drones (called "unmanned aerial systems" by the military).

Another is using the associated optical system to gather intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information about an extended area around the ship, which it will share with the powerful radar-based Aegis Combat System that is standard on the class of Navy destroyers to carry the laser.

A third capability is to dazzle or confuse sensors and cameras on drones—but not to destroy them—with light from a lower-power laser, like a "stun" setting for robots on a Star Trek phaser.

“It's a watershed moment for us, to move out of the domain of [scientific and technical work] and into delivering real laser weapon system capability to deploy on Navy vessels," says Rob Afzal, senior fellow of laser weapon systems at Lockheed.

It's also the first stage of the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System program, which itself is the first project in a new effort by the U.S. Navy to speed development and deployment of such technologies.

The technology agencies of three branches of the military have spent the past several years testing demonstration models of electrically powered solid-state laser weapons, such as the 30-kilowatt Navy LaWS (LAser Weapon System) tested in the Persian Gulf.

One of the two new laser systems that Lockheed develops will go on an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, the backbone of the Navy’s destroyer fleet. Lockheed will deliver that laser by fiscal year 2020.

Then, Navy technicians will integrate the laser and its control systems with the ship's power, cooling, and battle management systems. That’s an important step—an earlier Navy LaWS system was never integrated with shipboard systems on the USS Ponce for testing.

The other new laser built by Lockheed will be shipped to the White Sands Missile Range for extensive testing. The Lockheed contract includes options worth up to $942.8 million for training, maintenance, support, and additional lasers.

Electrically powered laser weapons have come a long way from the first bulk solid-state system that generated 100 kilowatts for five solid minutes in a Northrop Grumman laboratory nine years ago. To make the Navy LaWS, the Office of Naval Research bolted together six 5.5-kW industrial lasers.

To produce the higher power and more tightly focused beam needed to zap targets a kilometer or more away, Lockheed uses a technique called spectral beam combination. It blends the outputs of many fiber lasers emitting light at slightly different wavelengths.

The company first combined the 300-watt beams from 96 separate lasers to generate a single 30-kilowatt beam. Then, they built a 60-kilowatt version that they delivered last year to the Army Space and Missile Defense Systems Command in Huntsville, Ala. to install on a military truck.

Last year, Lockheed also landed a contract to build a pod-based laser weapon to test on a plane. Now, they will build two more brand new systems for the Navy.

Details differ between systems because each is customized to fit different spaces and meet other requirements. But Afzal says, "The system is scalable. We can't give you numbers, but the capabilities will continue to grow."


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Mar 2018 07:25


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Mar 2018 22:55

First at sea deployment of an operational F-35B unit off of Japan. The next one will be this summer in the Middle East with a different operational squadron.

F-35Bs join Wasp for historic Indo-Pacific deployment


EAST CHINA SEA - A detachment of F-35B Lightning II's with Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) arrived aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) March 5, marking the first time the aircraft has deployed aboard a U.S. Navy ship and with a Marine Expeditionary Unit in the Indo-Pacific.

The F-35B, assigned under the Okinawa-based 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, will provide a robust set of sea-based capabilities that will enhance Navy-Marine Corps expeditionary operations. The aircraft is equally capable of conducting precision strikes inland, supporting Marines inserted ashore or providing air defense for the Expeditionary Strike Group.

"Pairing F-35B Lightning II's with the Wasp represents one of the most significant leaps in warfighting capability for the Navy-Marine Corps team in our lifetime," said Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, Expeditionary Strike Group 7. "This 5th generation stealth jet is extremely versatile, and will greatly enhance and expand our operational capabilities.”

VMFA-121 pilots are scheduled to conduct a series of qualification flights on Wasp over a multi-day period. Following qualifications, the F-35B’s and 2,300 Marines that make up the 31st MEU will deploy aboard ships of the Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group for follow-on operations in the Indo-Pacific region as part of a routine patrol to strengthen regional alliances, provide rapid-response capability, and advance the Up-Gunned ESG concept.

The Up-Gunned ESG is a U.S. Pacific Fleet-initiated concept that aims to provide lethality and survivability to a traditional three-ship amphibious ready group by integrating multi-mission surface combatants and F-35B into amphibious operations. By adding these enabling capabilities, the amphibious force can more effectively defend against adversarial threats in the undersea, surface, and air domains, as well provide offensive firepower to strike from the sea.

The 31st MEU is the only forward-deployed MEU in the region. The F-35B serves as one airframe within a multitude of air capabilities of the MEU's Air Combat Element. Air, ground, and logistics forces make up the MEU's Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), a composite of capabilities that allow the MEU, in partnership with Navy amphibious ships, to conduct a wide-range of missions from crisis response to disaster relief.

“This is a historic deployment,” said Col. Tye R. Wallace, 31st MEU Commanding Officer. “The F-35B is the most capable aircraft ever to support a Marine rifleman on the ground. It brings a range of new capabilities to the MEU that make us a more lethal and effective Marine Air-Ground Task Force.”

Multi-mission guided-missile destroyers USS Dewey (DDG 105), with embarked Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 35 “Magicians,” and USS Sterett (DDG 104), with embarked Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 49 “Scorpions,” are scheduled to support a range of operations and training with the Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group for varying stretches during the patrol.

The arrival of the F-35B culminates testing and shipboard structural modifications on Wasp that began in 2013. Wasp completed an overhaul in 2017 and subsequently departed Norfolk to forward-deploy to Sasebo, Japan as part of a Department of Defense effort to place the most advanced capabilities in the Indo-Pacific.

“Deployment of the versatile F-35B enhances the full range of Expeditionary Strike Group capabilities with one of the world’s most technologically-advanced air warfare platforms,” said Capt. Colby Howard, Wasp commanding officer. “With the specific upgrades Wasp has received, the Navy Marine Corps team in the Pacific is better positioned than ever before to support our commitment to the security of Japan and the region.”

The Wasp ESG is on a routine patrol in the Indo-Pacific, providing U.S. Seventh Fleet a rapid-response capability in the event of a contingency and working with partners and allies to increase combined capacity for regional security.

Seventh Fleet, which celebrates its 75th year in 2018, spans more than 124 million square kilometers, stretching from the International Date Line to the India/Pakistan border; and from the Kuril Islands in the North to the Antarctic in the South. Seventh Fleet's area of operation encompasses 36 maritime countries and 50 percent of the world’s population with between 50-70 U.S. ships and submarines, 140 aircraft, and approximately 20,000 Sailors in the 7th Fleet.


Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Mar 2018 22:10


rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 10 Mar 2018 22:37

German supercaviating torpedo test

https://i.imgur.com/aBTDEcF.gifv


Prithwiraj
BRFite
Posts: 112
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prithwiraj » 10 Mar 2018 22:46

rajsunder wrote:German supercaviating torpedo test

https://i.imgur.com/aBTDEcF.gifv

Few months back it was supposed to be South Korean

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 11 Mar 2018 00:21

Prithwiraj wrote:
rajsunder wrote:German supercaviating torpedo test

https://i.imgur.com/aBTDEcF.gifv

Few months back it was supposed to be South Korean

I got this from reddit.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Mar 2018 15:00

Cost of new nuclear subs is 'eye watering,' Navy secretary says

A new Columbia-class nuclear submarine currently under development will likely end up costing taxpayers an “eye-watering” $100 billion over the program’s lifetime, Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer said on Monday.

Spencer and the secretaries of the Air Force and Army discussed the challenge and high costs of modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad during a rare public gathering together at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

The Trump administration has recently completed a review of its nuclear forces and the Congressional Budget Office found last year that it will cost $1.2 trillion over 30 years to modernize the Cold War-era triad.

“All of sudden you’re talking about the submarines and there is a number that will make your eyes water. Columbia will be a $100 billion program for its lifetime. We have to do it. I think we have to have big discussions about it.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Mar 2018 16:25

That would be program lifetime cost. Life Cycle cost of the sea based deterrent is around $350 Billion. Love these lifetime cost comparisons though when the "lifetime" itself is a moving target as they always end up serving for longer than planned. I wonder if they ever supplied "Lifetime" data on the Ohio class when it was put out, which would have served around 50-60 years b/w the first delivery and the last retirement. The Columbia will be in service till well beyond 2070 so the Lifetime cost has to be taken in that context.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35824
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 15 Mar 2018 07:43


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35824
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 16 Mar 2018 20:46

Russian nuclear subs quietly reached US coast & left undetected – Navy officer

https://www.rt.com/news/421471-russian- ... us-drills/

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4555
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 01 Apr 2018 04:00

maybe we will get to see how good Gripns are in war vs marketing claims..

------

Russia Declares 'Unusual' Missile Drill, Just Miles From Sweden

Image

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03- ... les-sweden

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2018 00:57

STRAIT OF MALACCA (April 1, 2018) Chief Petty Officers from Commander, Carrier Strike Group 9; Carrier Air Wing 17; Commander, Destroyer Squadron 23; an USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) stand in formation on the flight deck for a photo honoring the 125th birthday of the Navy Chief Petty Officer rate. On April 1, 1893, General Order 409 established the rank of Chief Petty Officer. Theodore Roosevelt is currently underway for a regularly scheduled deployment in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations in support of maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts.


Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2018 14:58

The second USN/MC LHD, USS Essex, prepares for her maiden deployment with F-35B's from VMFA 211 onboard. The USS Wasp is currently deployed with 6 F-35Bs, and is the only F-35 Unit deployment at sea for now.

Image

Image

Via Seawaves Magazine - https://www.flickr.com/photos/seawaves/ ... 71/in/feed


Meanwhile, VMFA-122 - Flying Leathernecks, has become the first F/A-18 C/D squadron in the USMC to fully transition to the F-35B last week.

VMFA-122 conducts first flight with F-35 Lightning II


Image

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35824
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 02 Apr 2018 21:38


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2018 22:10



?? The CQs were for the CV variant and all those squadrons would obviously convert from the Classic Hornet as is the plan for the USN units (The F-35C is not a replacement for F-18E/F units). My reference was to Marine Classic Hornet units converting to the F-35B, which has now started with VMFA-122 now converted. Prior to this all operational F-35B units transitioned from Harrier squadrons. This is important because now you have CTOL pilots (who flew F/A-18s from land) transitioning into the STOVL role.

There will be some Marine squadrons transitioning from the F/A-18 C/Ds to the F-35C (around 80 aircraft) and I believe the first may have already been stood up. But for the purpose of distinguishing the LHD based Marine Fighter squadrons (VMFA) and the Navy Strike Fighter squadrons (VFA) this marks the first event of non STOVL background pilots moving to STOVL operations on a permanent basis.

In a couple of years, the capstone demonstration of the Lighning-Carrier will take place with an LHA deployment of 16-20 F-35Bs, along with V-22s and a larger escort footprint. This, once demonstrated, will allow them to rotate an air-wing centric LHA through primarily the Pacific when a Carrier is not available, although even an LHD loaded with 20 F-35Bs is not a carrier analogous (but still they are preparing for a 40 sortie/day sustained capability).

Image

They did this with the Harrier using USS Bataan back in the early 2000s in OIF -

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2018 14:17



Interesting tidbit on at sea testing of EMALS - 747 successful launches at sea..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2018 18:21


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2018 16:33


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2018 18:12

100th P-8 Enters Production Line Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Apr 12, 2018 , p. 6


LONDON—The 100th Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft has entered final assembly.
The aircraft, which is receiving its wings and tail at Boeing’s plant in Renton, will be delivered to the U.S. Navy this autumn.

The milestone comes as Boeing works with the U.S. government to further expand the customer base for the maritime patroller, which is slowly edging the long-serving Lockheed P-3 Orion out of front-line use. Boeing currently is producing aircraft for Australia and the U.S. Navy and is preparing to build four aircraft for India as part of a follow-up order for that navy’s bespoke fleet. Meanwhile, long-lead components for the five P-8s destined for Norway also have been contracted.

The fuselage for the first of nine British aircraft will be built later this year and will enter final assembly in early 2019.

Boeing now is gearing up to answer a potential South Korean requirement, says Matt Carreon, Boeing’s global sales and marketing lead for the P-8. Seoul wants to bolster its existing maritime patrol fleet of P-3 Orions with additional capacity of up to six aircraft. Korea is expected to decide the acquisition process in the coming months, Carreon told Aerospace DAILY.

Boeing is facing competition from companies like Saab offering converted business jets like its Global Express-based Swordfish. Japan also is heavily marketing its Kawasaki P-1 platform to potential customers.

Carreon says the aircraft has benefited significantly from the production of the Boeing 737 narrowbody airliner, on which the P-8 is based. Boeing claims these benefits have helped reduce the price of the P-8 by 30% and cut production time in half.

Boeing currently is building 18 P-8s a year.

“We are not done with developing the P-8,” Carreon says. “The aircraft’s size, weight and power make it possible to add or change capabilities.”

One new addition will be a wideband satellite communications system that will boost the aircraft’s communications ability. This will be cut into production and retrofitted to earlier-model aircraft later as part of the increment 3 update. Boeing also has introduced a sixth workstation into the aircraft; earlier aircraft had five.

“The Navy is certifying air-to-air refueling and has begun training crews to perform it,” Carreon adds.

Carreon envisions that 200 aircraft could be delivered to the U.S. Navy and foreign military sales customers.

The current program of record for the U.S. Navy is 117 aircraft.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Apr 2018 21:08

The US government approved the provision of assistance to Taiwan in the construction of submarines

Image

The model of the advance project of a promising large non-nuclear submarine for the Taiwan Navy, demonstrated by the Taiwanese shipbuilding corporation CSBC Corporation in 2016 (c) Jane's


https://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/u ... e-program/

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20851
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 24 Apr 2018 09:29

France Had Some Big Problems Firing Missiles at Syria
https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-had-b ... 00499.html

While U.S. and UK forces pummeled three suspected chemical weapons sites across Syria, the French military reportedly had some issues pulling its weight.The three naval cruise missiles fired from the French frigate Languedoc were initially intended to come from a different French frigate whose first salvo simply “did not fire,” French Joint Chief of Staff spokesman Col. Patrick Steiger told Defense News.Steiger stated the cause of the misfire was currently unknown; Navy Recognition notes that the launch constituted the first time that the French military had ever actually fired its new MdCN (or “Missile de Croisiere Naval”) naval cruise missiles.The French military currently has three advanced European multi-purpose frigates (FREMM) in its fleet, according to Le Mamouth: the Aquitaine, the Provence, and the Languedoc. It’s unclear whether it was the Aquitaine or Provence that experienced the misfire.Not that it mattered: France’s remaining contribution of Scalp EG missiles were all deployed from military aircraft. “All the targets were hit,” Steiger told Defense News. “The military effect was obtained.”Operational screw-ups happen, especially with new and relatively untested equipment. But with all this talk of the U.S. plunging into a global conflict in Syria, we can’t help but think of how the French will respond to the end of the world: by taking a nap and then (maybe) firing ze missiles.It’s either that or some missile tech aboard a French FREMM hit the mistook the “Surrender” button for “Launch” …

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20851
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 04 May 2018 10:37

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ines-25671
Forget North Korea: South Korea Could Someday Have Submarines Armed with Nuclear Weapons

South Korea’s first attack submarine was SS-61, also known as Jang Bogo. Built in Germany, she was a Type 209 diesel electric boat that displaced 1,285 tons submerged and had a crew of thirty-five. She had eight bow-mounted 533mm torpedo tubes and was typically armed with fourteen STN Atlas Electronik SUT Mod. 2 heavyweight torpedoes. Alternately she could carry twenty-eight mines, and some ships in the class that followed were modified to launch the submarine version of the American-made Harpoon missile.Eight more Type 209s followed, boats two and three constructed from subassemblies shipped from Germany. The submarines were gradually “Koreanized,” steadily introducing Korean-made parts with each new boat as they became available. According to the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World, South Korea’s Type 209s are reportedly the quietest of the type ever made due to sound-damping rafting of machinery.The last of the 209s, Lee Eokgi, was commissioned in 2001, making the class between sixteen and twenty-four years old. The Diplomat reports that ROKN plans to upgrade the nine subs with an air independent propulsion system (AIP) to allow the boats to remain submerged longer and flank sonar arrays.South Korea’s second generation diesel electric submarines are another fleet of nine procured under a program known as KSS-II. Again South Korea turned to Germany for a proven design, and Hyundai Heavy Industries, with production equipment provided by the German firm Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, built nine submarines of the newer Type 214 class. The last, Sin Dol-Seok, commissioned into the ROKN in September of this year and the ROKN should have a fleet of eighteen submarines fully operational by 2019.KSS-II, also known as the Son Won Il–class submarines are 50 percent larger than the Type 209s by displacement, similarly armed and have a crew of forty. The submarines are the first South Korean subs specifically built with air independent propulsion, allowing them to remain submerged for up to two weeks at a time. Built from austenitic steel, the hulls are rated for normal operation at depths of up to 820 feet and up to 1,300 feet in emergencies.Meanwhile, South Korea is forging ahead with third generation submarines, known for now as KSS-III. KSS-III will be Seoul’s first domestically made submarines, though with obvious German influences in the hull design. At 3,750 tons submerged, these ships are three times larger than South Korea’s first generation submarines.One crucial new feature for this new submarine class is the addition of a six cell vertical missile launch system behind the sail. The six cells will be large enough to accommodate a seagoing version of the Hyunmoo-2B ballistic missile. Together with an air independent propulsion system designed into the hull, these submarines can remain quietly underwater for extended periods, providing an invulnerable second strike capability against a North Korea with negligible antisubmarine warfare capabilities.All of this begs the question: will KSS-III someday carry nuclear weapons? Nearly 60 percent of South Koreans believe the country should build its own nuclear arsenal, a clear majority although admittedly a lower percentage than in previous decades. South Korea’s small size—the entire country is just slightly larger than the state of Maine—makes land-based weapons out of the question

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 May 2018 12:12

How a Single Swedish Submarine Defeated the US Navy


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21825
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 May 2018 20:52

Russia Celebrates Black Sea Fleet Day!



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rakesh, Supratik and 42 guests