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: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Mar 2019 06:50

gpurewal wrote:

How are they addressing the manpower issue that was brought up in the articles (enjoyable reading btw) posted by Ravi Karumanchiri earlier in the thread?
-Fight the Ship
-Years of Warnings, Then Death and Disaster

I know that automation is being implemented, but it still seems like the USN is lacking the desired staffing for the number of ships they have in force. In addition, some of the key staff in the CiC or other departments lack the training to operate the equipment.


That was not necessarily a manpower issue (as in a lack of manpower), it was an issue with training and relaxing time tested standards of what constitutes a properly trained crew that is fit for deployment. That year, was a symptom of a very low ship count (fell to as low as 270-280) at a time when presence needs were on the rise, particularly in the Pacific. This led to a perfect storm of higher demand with fewer ships. The former is ticking up with the current ship count at 302-304 and with a dozen of ships coming in each year in the post 2020 time-frame. The relaxation of standards was essentially a result of the breakdown of the established communication between the Combatant commanders (who control the ships and how they are used) and the US Navy leadership (that provide the ships). Essentially, the prior CNO's in the USN and their leadership team did not have the backbone to pushback against COCOM demand and willingly played along and allowed ships to deploy that would not have deployed in prior years.

The USN has now set gone back to its previous standards of not deploying a ship (during peacetime) unless it 100% meets all its readiness and training standards which is a reversal from the Obama years when readiness was gutted leading to relaxing of standards and eating training funds and moving those to deployments and modernization. There was an article that I posted and a video describing the return to standards and the green light for the commanders to say NO to COCOM demand if that would eat into training.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&start=3280#p2318583

Here's the video I was referring to. Some of the measures are referenced in it.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/654636/s ... face-force

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 23 Mar 2019 17:05

Nagapasa - modification of Naga Pasha - the weapon used by Indrajit to tie down Lord Ram and Laxman. Ramayan continues to have strong influence on Indonesia psyche even in today's times of Islamic Fundamentalism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indonesia to receive ZOKA torpedo countermeasures for Nagapasa submarines
https://www.janes.com/article/87238/ind ... submarines

Ridzwan Rahmat, Singapore - Jane's Navy International
14 March 2019

Indonesia's Nagapasa-class submarines will be equipped with jammers and decoys from Turkish company Aselsan
The equipment will provide the vessels with protection and deception capabilities against hostile torpedoes
Turkish defence electronics company Aselsan is supplying its ZOKA range of acoustic torpedo countermeasure jammers and decoys for the Indonesian Navy's (Tentara Nasional Indonesia - Angkatan Laut, or TNI-AL's) submarines, a spokesperson from the company has confirmed with Jane's .

Aselsan declined to reveal the submarine type that the jammers and decoys would be deployed from, but subsequent verifications by Jane's with TNI-AL sources have established that the equipment will go on board the service's Nagapasa (Type 209/1400)-class diesel-electric boats (SSKs)

The ZOKA line of effectors consists of jammers and acoustic decoys that can operate in active, passive, and combined modes. The jammers emit noises that have been designed to saturate the acoustic operating frequencies of known torpedoes, thus masking its host submarine's movements from hostile munitions.

Meanwhile, its decoys can be programmed to simulate the acoustic and hydrographic characteristics of its host submarine, with the aim of deceiving and leading away torpedoes that may have locked on to the boat. These acoustic and hydrographic characteristics can be customised specifically to match those of the host submarine.

Indonesia acquired three Type 209/1400 boats from South Korean company Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) in 2011. The country has received two boats in the class, Nagapasa (403) and Ardadedali (404), and is awaiting launch of the final submarine, Alugoro (405).

The platform has an overall length of 61.2 m, an overall beam of 6.25 m, and a hull draught of 5.5 m. Each boat will be equipped with the ELAC KaleidoScope integrated submarine sonar suite from Wärtsilä ELAC Nautik.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Apr 2019 04:24

U.S. sails massive, F-35-laden warship in disputed South China Sea


Image

STAFF WRITER

APR 9, 2019
ARTICLE HISTORY PRINT SHARE
In the latest show of military muscle in the South China Sea, the U.S. has apparently sailed its USS Wasp amphibious assault ship near a strategic reef claimed by Beijing and Manila that lies just 230 km (140 miles) from the Philippine coast.

Filipino fishermen near the site known as the Scarborough Shoal initially spotted what appeared to be the massive U.S. vessel on Tuesday, according to ABS-CBN News. It said planes were seen landing and taking off from the ship, some 5 km (3 miles) away from the fishermen’s boat. A video clip shown by the news network appeared to corroborate their account.

Contacted by The Japan Times, a U.S. military spokeswoman would not confirm or deny the Wasp’s presence near the collection of outcroppings that barely jut out above water at high tide, citing “force protection and security.” However, the spokeswoman did confirm that the Wasp “has been training with Philippine Navy ships in Subic Bay and in international waters of the South China Sea … for several days.”

Scarborough Shoal, which is also claimed by Taiwan, is regarded as a potential powder keg in the strategic waterway. It was seized by Beijing in 2012 after an extended standoff with Manila. China later effectively blockaded the lagoon, which is rich in fish stocks, and routinely dispatches scores of fishing vessels and government-backed “maritime militia” ships to the area to continue its de facto blockade.

The Wasp was taking part in the annual Balikatan U.S.-Philippine military training exercise “that focuses on maritime security and amphibious capabilities, as well as multinational interoperability through military exchanges,” said U.S. Marine Corps Second Lt. Tori Sharpe, a spokeswoman for the exercises, adding that the exercises were “unrelated to current events.”

Still, beyond the location of the exercises, the Wasp’s presence alone in the South China Sea was likely to draw Beijing’s attention since this year’s Balikatan exercise was the first to incorporate the Wasp paired with the U.S. Marines Corps’ cutting-edge F-35B Lightning II stealth aircraft. The F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the aircraft.

“Together they represent an increase in military capability committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Sharpe said.

China covets Scarborough Shoal for its strategic significance, experts say, as it would be the crowning jewel in a bid to solidify Beijing’s iron grip over the South China Sea. They say building at Scarborough would create a large “strategic triangle” comprising Woody Island in the Paracel Islands to the northwest and its Spratly islet outposts to the south, giving Beijing the ability to police an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Apr 2019 18:50



AmphibForce7thFleet


@Amphib7FLT
Apr 10
More
An E-2D Hawkeye, assigned to VAW 125 Tigertails, and F-35s, assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, fly in formation over #USSWasp during Exercise Balikatan 2019! https://twitter.com/Amphib7FLT/status/1 ... 5545388032


Image

Image

At the moment the L-class ships are not part of the CEC network with their legacy surveillance radars. This is about to change with the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar GaN AESA (SPY-6 based) coming onboard with LHA-8 - future USS Bougainville. With F-35 likely moving from 6-10 aircraft per deployment to 12-20 aircraft per deployment for modified LHA missions it seems that CEC along with shore based E-2D support is what will be a part of the CONOPS of future USMC amphibious operations. Of course during conflict or heightened threat these vessels will have CEC cover via their escort group..

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Apr 2019 21:27

^ The LHA-8 bound Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar just moved to live testing a few weeks ago -

US Navy’s Raytheon-built EASR radar to begin live testing in Virginia


The US Navy’s next-generation radar for aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships, Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), is set to commence live testing at Wallops Island Test Facility in Virginia.

Developed by Raytheon, EASR is the newest sensor in the navy’s SPY-6 family of radars.

The radar was recently put through subsystem testing at Raytheon’s Near Field Range in Sudbury, Massachusetts.

In preparation for the live testing, the 6ft × 6ft rotating array was wrapped and loaded onto a flatbed truck before being crane-lifted onto a 100ft test tower at the Surface Combat Systems Center at Wallops Island.

According to Raytheon, the radar will undergo system-level testing, where it will track a variety of aircraft. The testing is expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of this year.

EASR is designed to provide simultaneous anti-air and anti-surface warfare, electronic protection and air traffic control capabilities.

US Navy Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems Above Water Sensors programme manager captain Jason Hall said: “Going from ‘cold steel’ to a fully calibrated radar in less than one year is no small feat, but that’s exactly what we accomplished with EASR.

“The scalable building block architecture developed for AN/SPY-6(V)1 enabled EASR to rapidly complete subsystem testing. We are making great strides toward delivering SPY-6 capability across the fleet.”

EASR will be made available in two variants. The first one, which is designated AN/SPY-6(V)2, is a single-face rotating array for amphibious assault ships and Nimitz class carriers.

Designated AN/SPY-6(V)3, the second radar is a three fixed-face array designed for Ford-class aircraft carriers and the future FFG(X) guided missile frigates.

Raytheon is building both AN/SPY-6(V)2 and AN/SPY-6(V)3 on scalable Radar Modular Assembly technology and a software baseline.

EASR will augment the mature SPY-6 software baseline with the addition of air traffic control and weather capabilities.

Once system-level testing is complete, the radar will transition to the production phase.

The company expects to deliver the AN/SPY-6(V)2 for installation on the Navy’s America-class Amphibious Assault Ship LHA-8 in 2021.

EASR is anticipated to offer benefits such as increased performance, higher reliability and sustainability, and lower total ownership cost.



Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19128
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 13 Apr 2019 16:25

We should be careful not to end up on a list of international rogue nations aiding and abetting all sorts of tinpot regimes to acquire weapons capabilities.

It would be very foolish to export the Brahmos in particular.

potential clients have direct links with the hans as well as the pakis.

the RM is being bamboozled by a bunch of paid off baboo(n)s eager to line their own nests.


Many Nations Want To Buy Made-In-India Missile Systems, Learn India’s Ship Building Technology


Many Nations Want To Buy Made-In-India Missile Systems, Learn India’s Ship Building Technology

by Swarajya Staff - Apr 13 2019,

Many Nations Want To Buy Made-In-India Missile Systems, Learn India’s Ship Building Technology

The BrahMos missile

Underscoring that a host of foreign nations want to add Indian missile systems to their inventory, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Friday (12 April) said that there was an enormous export potential for sale of homegrown defence products.

In the recent past, nations like UAE, Vietnam, Indonesia and several others have expressed interest in purchasing the coveted Akash and Brahmos missile systems.

"You did talk about integrated missiles programme, which has yielded a lot of results. Today, missiles are so sought after by many countries... I want to highlight that there exists a market outside other than the Indian armed forces," the Defence Minister said while addressing an event organised by the Vivekananda International Foundation.

This assumes significance for two reasons. Firstly, India has traditionally been a major arms importer. Secondly, India has never engaged in sale of its advanced military hardware to foreign nations. So far, Indian defence exports have been restricted to armaments mostly.

Thus, the statement from Defence Minister herself is bound to gain traction.

Sitharaman added, “I can say, even our shipbuilding warship building capacity is very well recognised outside. There are several countries which are saying, help us to give that capacity to us."

Sitharaman also said that she has now asked the Defence Attaches posted outside the country to brief the Defence Ministry once a year about the developments in their countries of posting and regularly update it about their work.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Apr 2019 18:01

It seems that the FXR - Future X-Band Radar (AN/SPQ-9B replacement) is now going to be a Joint US-Japan co-development project.

Japan and U.S. to develop new radar system for Aegis warships: sources

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Apr 2019 17:57

USN expands MQ-8C Fire Scout capability


The US Navy (USN) is continuing to evolve the MQ-8C variant of the Fire Scout vertical take-off and landing unmanned aerial vehicle (VTOL UAV), service officials told Jane’s .

Capability is currently spread across the two variants of the Fire Scout – the Schweizer 333-derived MQ-8B and the Bell 407-based MQ-8C – but eventually modifications will be made to ensure that the C-model can solely support the navy’s mission.

Modifications include the introduction of a Link 16 datalink to enhance the UAV’s ability to network the Lockheed Martin MH-60 naval helicopter. This will enable the helicopter crew to receive data being collected by the Fire Scout directly instead of relaying it via the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

“The direct link between the two is the LCS at the moment,” Captain Eric Soderberg, programme manager at the USN’s Multi-Mission Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems office (PMA-266), told Jane’s .

“Future variants are going to have a Link 16, so that any Link 16-enabled platform will be able to share the sensor data from the Fire Scout, as well as the Link 16-enabled H-60s,” he added.

This will provide more scope for the UAV to further engage with other USN assets that are Link 16-enabled – which constitutes the majority of the service’s platforms – so the entire air wing’s worth of data would then potentially be available for the Fire Scout to receive, or for it to feed back into.

The MQ-8C’s 12 hour endurance enables it to carry out more on-station surveillance than the 3.5 hour endurance of the MH-60S, while the forthcoming introduction of the new Leonardo distributed aperture active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar on this variant will also provide a capability not found on the helicopter.

“The addition of a radar that currently isn’t resident on the H-60S greatly expands the amount of surface search that they can accomplish,” Capt Soderberg noted.

The MQ-8B variant carries the AN/DVS-1 Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) mine detection payload, which the navy is replacing with an upgraded version for integration to the MQ-8C.

Capt Soderberg noted that there is currently no plan to integrate COBRA onto the MQ-8C variant, although the service will consider integrating this system if development of the improved version is delayed.

“Eventually we are going to want to have the MQ-8C executing the mine interdiction warfare mission set, and we would like to skip to the latest and greatest version if possible,” he said.

There are also plans to transition Fire Scout to other vessel types, namely the FFG(X) and the Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB).
On the LCS the mission control station (MCS) is integrated directly into the vessel, and this will also be the case for future frigates for which there is a firm requirement.
A mobile version of the MCS will be employed on the ESB and engineering work for this is under way.

“We expect to do the dynamic envelope testing for that [in] January of next year, and for all other ship classes we’ve essentially done some early engineering analyses to determine how long [it would take] and how expensive it would be,” Capt Soderberg said.

The weaponisation of the Fire Scout has become a contentious issue for the programme. A debate over whether the air vehicle should carry armaments or leave this role to the manned helicopter to focus on ISR and target acquisition missions has emerged.

Capt Soderberg told Jane’s that there is no requirement for integrating weapons on the platform, although at the end of March it was revealed that a series of studies had been funded by NAVAIR to explore arming the air vehicle.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Apr 2019 18:32



An interested article from the US Naval Institute describing what changes the F-35B brings to the MAGTF and the Amphibious Ready Group and how that impacts what roles these ships are increasingly used for in addition to their traditional missions.

Having double digit F-35B's on an L-class vessel per deploymentm instead of the 6 AV8's or even 6 F-35B's that the Essex utilized in her first F-35 deployment, may soon become the norm.

F-35B Allowed Essex ARG to Flex New Blue-Water Capabilities in Absence of Carrier Nearby


The Essex ARG and 13th MEU were the first to deploy from the United States with the F-35B, and they operated in the Pacific and Middle East from mid-July until their March 1 return home to San Diego. The deployment not only generated lessons learned on how to operate and sustain the F-35B jets as part of the Marine unit and in support of its objectives ashore, but also how to use the new jet to support blue-water Navy missions at sea, 13th MEU Commanding Officer Col. Chandler Nelms and Amphibious Squadron 1 Operations Officer Lt. Cmdr. David Mahoney told the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies on April 12.

“We’re definitely changing the way amphibs are employed, especially on the blue side – we’re no longer just the trucks that carry Marines that we used to be,” Mahoney said. “There was no carrier in 5th Fleet, for example, so a lot of the CSG-like duties we started taking over just because we had to.”

Though Mahoney made clear the ARG/MEU team could never replace a carrier air wing, he said “the ARG is now becoming almost like a mini CSG, where as part of the warfare concept we were executing many of those duties that would normally reserve to a CVN. There was no CVN except for the last couple of weeks while we were in theater (in 5th Fleet), so we were doing that traditional role on USS Essex (LHD-2) and working with other ships too. The ARG/MEU team is definitely in high demand to fill those roles as the Navy is spreading out further and further around the globe,” he said, noting that the deployed aircraft carrier, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) was at the time focused on operations in Europe and north of the Arctic Circle rather than deploying to the Middle East as many had expected it would.


“We are being treated as a CSG in a lot of respects: you can see that layered defense, so we were always bringing in destroyers to help work with us – East and West Coast, wherever they came from, they were integrating with the team,” the operations officer continued.
“It’s not just the two or three amphibs that we had; we were bringing in destroyers, we worked with Europeans and their ships – this is what has to happen as the carriers are being sometimes sent elsewhere because the needs are rising elsewhere.”

“The aircraft we had before was predominantly a close-air support weapon, so for any type of air threat we were relying either on the naval surface force ship or we were relying on purple (joint) air to provide that top cover for anti-air warfare,” Nelms said.

“We now have an all-mission-capable aircraft that’s also capable of stealth operations and has fantastic sensors at the disposal of the MEU commander when I’m doing ship-to-shore operations or ashore operations, but also at the disposal of the commodore as he seeks to maintain maritime and air superiority. So the difference is vast, we’re still working through how we tie all that in and affecting our [tactics, techniques and procedures]. What we do have to remember is we only have a small number (of jets), right, so … we have limitations on an amphibious ship that’s unlike a carrier. So we don’t have the number of aircraft and we don’t have the flight window of a carrier – we can’t do 24-hour operations, we don’t have 60 aircraft on the flight deck, we have a much smaller number. But when applied, when you want that capability, it’s there. And we can do very high-end things for limited durations in our tasking, whether it’s in the maritime environment or the littoral environment ship-to-shore.”

Mahoney said the Navy side is still figuring out what the presence of the F-35B means for blue-water missions, but the Essex ARG had a chance to start working on that ahead of the deployment during a Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training event. SWATTs for amphibious ships focus on all mission areas – including anti-surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare – and the Essex ARG was able to embark VMFA-211 for the training event to practice using those airplanes as part of “strictly blue training” in those mission sets, Mahoney said.

“This really gave us an opportunity to start flexing that option that the 35 brings in the maritime domain,” he said, calling the F-35B a “much more advanced fighter than we ever had with the Harrier. As we’re learning through what we can do, the sky’s really the limit as we learn the potential. We’ve just got to keep coming up with new ideas on how to employ this aircraft because it’s a significant improvement on what we used to have.”

Nelms and Mahoney said the deployment was notable for many other reasons. The deployment was extended by a month, keeping the sailors and Marines out for 234 days. They had a packed schedule on the transit through the Pacific, working with many partners big and small. The ARG/MEU parked in the Arabian Sea for two weeks to conduct strikes in Afghanistan – the first-ever combat strikes by the F-35 – and then spent more than 50 days flying more than 100 combat sorties over Syria, for a total of more than 1,200 combat hours in support of Operation Inherent Resolve alone. Anchorage sailed as far as Rota, Spain – an unusual location for a West Coast ship to end up, Nelms and Mahoney said. Both the Navy and Marines brought 3D printers to begin learning lessons about printing small plastic parts at sea, as a first step forwards eventually being able to print more complex metal parts. And the aircraft maintained an average readiness rate of 70 percent, with the F-35Bs maintaining a 75-percent readiness rate.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Apr 2019 19:10

Singha wrote:as data points, russia has 28 a50 awacs in its kitty, NATO (europe) has around 16 E3, france has 4, UK has 5 and USA has 32.

so India probably could top it off @ 5-6 phalcons and 10 Netra types. will guarantee backups when we need it. they need not fly always, because ground simulators can also be used. but entire IAF can be trained up with these awacs large packages.


Not obviously counting about 70 E-2's, roughly about 40% of which are usually earmarked for operations from land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPyNqU3jpnc

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Apr 2019 16:40

USS Fitzgerald Leaves Mississippi Drydock After More Than a Year of Repairs


After more than a year of repairs, the guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) left a dry dock at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss., Naval Sea Systems Command announced late Tuesday.

The destroyer was heavily damaged after a June 17, 2017 collision with a merchant ship off the coast of Japan that killed seven sailors.

Merchant ship ACX Crystal punched a hole in the amidships of the starboard side of the destroyer below the water line. The flared bow of the merchant ship crushed the superstructure of the ship. The subsequent flooding below decks caused extensive damage to the electrical systems.

“These repairs range from partial to complete refurbishment of impacted spaces to replacement of equipment such as the radar and electronic warfare suite, read a statement from Naval Sea Systems Command. “Due to the extent and complexity of the restoration, both repair and new construction procedures are being used to accomplish the restoration and modernization efforts.”

After the ship limped back under its own power to Japan, the Navy made the decision to barge the ship over to Pascagoula for an intensive repair period to rebuild the damaged portions of the destroyer and replace damaged components. The ship arrived in January 2018.


Image

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2980
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby kit » 18 Apr 2019 22:18

Image

HMS Artemis, Sweden's new reconnaissance vessel

can anyone comment on the possible sensors?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Apr 2019 20:23

Posted earlier in the year but wasn't aware that this wrapped up developmental testing for the new radar. The radar program is about a year ahead of the initially anticipated schedule. The first complete ship set (4 faces) will be delivered the shipyard next year for installation on the first Flight III DDG-51. Meanwhile, its smaller variant (EASR) just started developmental testing which it plans to finish by the year end before also heading to the yard for install on the future LHA-8.

US completes final developmental ballistic missile flight test for AN/SPY-6(V) radar; Jane's Navy International ; Michael Fabey, Washington, DC


The US Navy (USN) AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) successfully tracked a ballistic missile target on 31 January during the final developmental test in a series of ballistic missile defence flight tests.

During this 15th live missile flight test, designated ‘Vigilant Nemesis’ and set as the final development hurdle for the AMDR ballistic missile defence testing regime, the SPY-6 radar successfully detected and maintained the track of a short-range ballistic missile target launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Navy officials said that the track was maintained as predicted and that data analysed to date showed the test met all of its primary objectives, although full data and telemetry analysis will continue.

Integrated air and missile defence testing began in 2017 and Raytheon stated that since then, the radar has demonstrated its performance against multiple targets of opportunity, missiles, and satellites.

Raytheon said that AMDR had met all of the 20 milestones scheduled since the programme began in January 2014, and that the radar was on track for delivery to the first Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the future USS Jack H Lucas (DDG 125), in 2020.

The Aegis version designated for the Flight III ships, Block 10, is about two years away from testing, but Lockheed Martin is ensuring the combat system will be ready for the initial operational capability of those ships in 2023, said James Sheridan, company vice-president and general manager, Naval Combat and Missile Defense Systems.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 22 Apr 2019 21:41


Have no clue what they are speaking(Eng subs are inaccurate, IMO)
But bloody good visuals of my INS Vikrant benchmark

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 May 2019 00:12

South Korea to build 3 more Aegis destroyers able to thwart ballistic missiles

In a critical step toward developing its naval capabilities, South Korea plans to construct three more 7,600-ton destroyers equipped with American-made Aegis combat systems and sophisticated ballistic missile interceptors.

Presided over by Defense Minister Jeong Kyung-doo, a top executive committee of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) endorsed April 30 the $3.3 billion effort to acquire the additional destroyers by 2028.

The batch 2 ships of the KDX-III Sejong the Great-class are expected to be fitted with the Raytheon-built RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, or SM-3, according to DAPA officials.

“The construction [of more Aegis destroyers] will help the South Korean Navy respond to potential maritime disputes more effectively as well as carry out peacekeeping mission more successfully, as the ships are supposed to have upgraded ship-to-air and underwater operational capability,” DAPA spokesman Park Jung-eun told reporters.

The new batch of Aegis destroyers, in particular, would have an up-to-date software suite for destroying incoming ballistic missiles, the spokesman added. The three batch 1 ships are equipped with the SM-2 interceptor designed to engage anti-ship cruise missiles during the terminal intercept phase....

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 May 2019 00:21

LRASM Version 1.1 is likely borrowing some of the design features of the JASSM-XR which should result in a tactically relevant range and loiter increase...

Pentagon sets IOC date of FY-22 for incremental upgrade for LRASM


“The Navy intends to implement the upgrade for LRASM 1.1 starting in the fourth production lot. Production Lot 4 will deliver new missiles with the upgrade installed,” Navy spokeswoman Jamie Cosgrove told Inside Defense in an April 8 statement.

LRASM, also called Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 1, is based on a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency effort and was declared an urgent operational need in 2008. DOD achieved early operational capability for the weapon on the Air Force's B-1 fleet last year, and plans to do the same for the Navy's F/A-18s this September.

The Navy's FY-20 budget justification documents indicate the service plans to procure the weapon steadily at 48 missiles per year for approximately $143 million per year throughout the future years defense program. The budget documents also show the missiles bought in the third quarter of FY-20 will be the Lot 4 buy that begins implementing the capability upgrade.


Lockheed Martin Developing "Extreme-Range" JASSM Variant


Lockheed Martin will upgrade its stealthy JASSM conventional cruise missile, under a $51.08 million contract awarded by the Air Force's Life Cycle Management Center at Eglin AFB, Fla. The upgraded missile will be known as the JASSM-XR, for "Extreme Range," a development of the JASSM-ER, or "Extended Range."

A Lockheed Missiles and Fire Control spokesman said the new version is "part of a planned upgrade" of the JASSM "family of missiles" which includes the baseline AGM-158A JASSM, the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, and the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile AGM-158C. The Air Force could not immediately say if the most recent variant will carry the designation AGM-158D.

The upgrade includes a new missile control unit computer, "which will support the other planned capabilities," the spokesman said. These include "new wing designs to increase standoff range through aerodynamic efficiency, and a new GPS unit to further advance our level of protection." The Air Force will acknowledge only that the JASSM-ER has a range in excess of 500 nautical miles, so the XR's range will presumably be greater.

The contract noted the other work to be done as "all-up round system engineering and programmatic activities to align and phase the work necessary to design, develop, integrate, test, and verify component and subsystem design changes to the JASSM-XR baseline electronics, hardware, firmware, and operational fight software."

The Air Force switched from baseline JASSMs to JASSM-ERs several years ago, and has produced more than 2,000 of the longer-ranged weapon so far. The Air Force was unable to comment on how many ER models might be uprated to the XR configuration or when the change would be cut in at the production line in Troy, Ala., but the contract said that all XR-related development and test is to be completed by Aug. 31, 2023.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 May 2019 08:01

U.S. Marine Corps Conducts First “Elephant Walk” With 20 F-35B Jets At Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort


Image

Interestingly, 20 x F-35B's is how much the USMC will likely field on the USS Americas LHA during her demo deployment for the "Lightning Carrier" concept sometime late next year..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 May 2019 11:45


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 May 2019 19:03

2:24 onwards - MH-60R wit Naval Strike Missile



Interestingly, in their most recent earning's call, Raytheon all but confirmed that it will be them leading the NSM integration for the MH-60.

And our franchise win at the naval strike missile for the U.S. Navy last year continues to show opportunities for growth. The missile is offered by Raytheon in partnership with Kongsberg. And recently, we entered into an agreement that expands the franchise further by integrating NSM into U.S. Marines' existing force structure to support the national defense strategy and modernization efforts. And in April, we saw further extension of the NSM franchise with an approved international sale to integrate NSM onto rotary wing aircraft

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 May 2019 17:53

Navy League 2019: Raytheon tests rocket motor for MAD-FIRES interceptor


Raytheon Missile Systems announced the successful completion of a hot fire rocket motor for US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES) on 6 May.

The MAD-FIRES programme is designed to improve ship survivability in high-threat environments, and aims to mature technologies associated with a 30–57 mm guided projectile combining the precision and accuracy of guided missiles with the speed, rapid fire, and depth of a gun weapon system.
The interceptor is being developed to rapidly and accurately engage multiple waves of anti-ship missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other threats.


Speaking to Jane’s at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exposition, John Beaver, Advanced Naval Programmes, Raytheon, said the projectile “performed exactly as we hoped it would” during the recent rocket motor test. "When you combine the advanced electronics and the integration of a successful airframe – just making it fly is pretty amazing. And we’ve successfully done that. We demonstrated that our electronics package is viable,” he said. “What the round does is combine advanced electronics and high speed to be able to achieve a performance against today’s and tomorrow’s air threats.”

One of the tenets of the programme has been cost effectiveness and Beaver said this has driven much of Raytheon’s decision making in developing the projectile.

“We’ve had to think about how we can make this as affordable as we can, and we think we’re in a very good spot in terms of capability and bearing in mind that cost is an issue. We’re laser focused on delivering the best value that we can.” Raytheon has been able to achieve cost savings by leveraging some of its existing technologies, Beaver said. “We were able to use parts from a number of other programmes that we’ve had success in. So that’s one of the things that has helped us to keep the focus on affordability.”

Raytheon is now working with DARPA to determine next steps in the programme.

At the same time, the company will continue testing the round. “There are some additional steps we need to do. We’ve had a successful rocket test and we’re going to iterate on that; we’re going to continue to shoot the round and watch its performance and we’re also going to continue to look for cost-effective improvements we can make,” Beaver said. “In parallel, there are advances that are occurring in the gun weapon system and the engagement management system, so one could argue that the success of this will be when you get all of those elements working together.”


Image


https://www.darpa.mil/program/multi-azi ... ent-system

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 May 2019 17:59

Navy League 2019: Lockheed Martin anticipates HELIOS CDR in early 2020


The critical design review (CDR) for the Lockheed Martin High-Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS) system is planned for the first quarter of 2020, the company confirmed on 1 May during a press briefing in advance of the Navy League Sea-Air-Space conference between 6 and 8 May.

HELIOS is to provide US Navy (USN) surface warships and other platforms laser weapon and other directed energy capability.
The USN in March awarded the company a USD150 million contract – with options worth up to USD942.8 million – for the development, manufacture, and delivery of two high-power laser weapon systems, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and counter-UAS capabilities, by fiscal year 2020.

Unlike other lasers being tested on USN ships now, which are being bolted on the vessels as separate add-on systems, the HELIOS will be part of the ship’s combat system. The Aegis weapon system would provide the fire control solution as it always has for standard missiles, along with the scheduling and appropriate weapon/target pairing.

HELIOS is now being fitted for a USN guided-missile destroyer.

Not only would HELIOS offer ships laser capability, with cueing linked through the Lockheed Martin combat system, but the system would also enhance overall surveillance, said Brendan Scanlon, HELIOS company programme director.
“It has its own optical sensors,” he said.


Image

^ The first operational HELIOS equipped DDG-51 Flight II is expected to begin testing in late 2020 or early 2021 and deploy by the end of 2021.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21033
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Prem » 11 May 2019 03:22

Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Jun 2019 22:21

A 60kW upgradable to 100kW HEL will go on the DDG-51 family. Installation to begin in 2020 and be ready by 2021. Fully integrated into the AEGIS battle management suit. Earlier, the upper power limit described for the Flight III was 150 kW (without massive addition of power and cooling resources available on the ship) so likely more room to grow as they go through installing this on the Flight IIIs and later Flight IIs as well. The Large Surface Combatant requirements appear to be looking for a 300kW to a 500kW SS HEL system which should not only be enough to cover the UAS and boat swarms but also subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles.

U.S. Navy to Equip Destroyer USS Preble with HELIOS Laser Weapon System


The U.S. Navy is planning to equip its destroyer USS Preble (DDG-88) with HELIOS laser weapon system by 2021, Defense News reported citing Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, the outgoing head of the Chief of Naval Operations’ Surface Warfare Directorate.

“We are making the decision to put the laser on our DDGs. It’s going to start with Preble in 2021, and when we do that, that will now be her close-in weapon that we now continue to upgrade”, Rear Adm. Boxall said.

USS Preble is an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer (DDG) currently homeported at Joint Base Pearl Harbor–Hickam (JBPHH) in Hawaii. If everything goes as planned, she will be the first Navy destroyer to be equipped with a high-energy laser system.

The HELIOS (High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance) system is a 60-kilowatt laser system with Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and counter-Unmanned Aerial System (counter-UAS) capabilities being developed by Lockheed Martin. The system has a “growth potential” to 150 kilowatts.

A $150 million contract, with options worth up to $942.8 million, for the development, manufacture and delivery of two high power laser weapon systems was awarded to Lockheed Martin in 2018. In this first increment of the U.S. Navy’s Surface Navy Laser Weapon System program, Lockheed Martin will deliver two units for test by fiscal year 2020. One unit will be delivered for shipboard integration, and one unit will be used for land testing at White Sands Missile Range.

“The system went through a design review with the Navy in March and that by the end of the year Lockheed will start systems integration at their Moorestown, New Jersey facility”, according to Brandon Shelton, Lockheed Martin’s HELIOS program director. Lockheed expects to complete integration by mid-2020, he added.

According to Lockheed Martin, HELIOS combines three key capabilities, brought together for the first time in one weapon system:

+ A high-energy laser system: The high-energy fiber laser will be designed to counter unmanned aerial systems and small boats. The energy and thermal management system will leverage Lockheed Martin experience on Department of Defense programs, and the cooling system will be designed for maximum adaptability onboard ships. In addition, Lockheed Martin will bring decades of shipboard integration experience, reducing risk and increasing reliability.

+ A long-range ISR capability: HELIOS sensors will be part of an integrated weapon system, designed to provide decision-makers with maximum access to information. HELIOS data will be available on the Lockheed Martin-developed Aegis Combat System currently installed on destroyers.

+ A counter-UAS dazzler capability: The HELIOS dazzler will be designed to obscure adversarial UAS-based ISR capabilities.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2019 20:23

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

1:30 onward-

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


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

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Jun 2019 07:14

Singha wrote:Is there is a relation between the aim7 sparrow and the evolved sea sparrow essm sam ?
Which came first? I think Aim7 came much earlier

Other examples of air to land transitions are humraam, spyder, mica

Barak8 a2a while not so simple is certainly much simpler than a entirely new missile and with oem help can be done. The shock of ground movement by truck may handle the shock of landings


I think the point was transitioning land based systems into AL applications. It is much harder compared to transitioning the other way around for obvious reasons. It is obviously not impossible but does require a fairly significant set of modifications or other compromises.

ESSM shares very little with the Aim-7. The guidance, aerodynamics (and TVC) and even the rocket motor (25% increase in SRM diameter) are different between the baseline ESSM and the Aim-7, to say nothing of the ESSM-blk II. The block II with the new seeker and the ability to intercept short ranged ballistic missiles is practically a new weapon compared to the legacy round.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Jun 2019 08:13

Long-range Naval Mines Demonstrated On B-52

The U.S. Air Force on May 31 completed the last and largest demonstration of a two-year program to integrate a long-range naval mine on a Boeing B-52H.

A B-52 assigned to the 49th Test and Evaluation Squadron at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, deployed to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii from May 22 to May 31 for the demonstration, the Air Force announced on May 30. The squadron loaded Quickstrike 64-Extended Range (QS64-ER) naval mines onto the B-52’s wings for the live-fire demonstration. The QS64-ER is a 2,000-lb. Mark 64 naval mine equipped with the KMU-55 guidance kit and a prototype wing kit derived from a Boeing Joint Direct Attack Munition.

The demonstration is aimed at overcoming the risks of dropping mines from an aircraft. In the past, the technology limited air drops to a very low altitude, where the aircraft is vulnerable to enemy fire. The QS64-ER is designed to be dropped from high altitude.
The B-52 mine integration project, launched in fiscal 2017, fits into a larger strategy of using long-range bombers in the maritime strike role, especially in the vast expanses of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The Air Force has also integrated the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on B-1 bombers assigned to the 28th Bomb Wing. The unit’s aircraft can now launch as many as 24 stealthy missiles at naval targets on a single sortie.
The integration of the QS64-ER will add a maritime strike capability to the B-52.

“The B-52 is an ideal airframe for testing the QS64-ER, as it has the ability to carry multiple [munitions], as well as the speed and range needed to support this joint project,” said Lt. Col. Joseph Little, 49th TES commander.
Air Force budget documents show the schedule for the project called for producing a final report on the demonstration in 2019 and transitioning the new capability to a new program of record funded by the U.S. Navy.


Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jun 2019 08:55

B52 dropping naval mines have been tried out in baltic sea exercises.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Jun 2019 09:12

Yes, as the article mentions, this current round of demonstrations caps off the integration effort.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2019 21:37

Philip wrote:Please read the latest USNI piece.


I don't need to as I stay up to date on what is happening. Please point me to the article which talks about the USN launching a new Corvette program and what that Corvette program is actually called. Next, point me to where in the USN's budget a corvette program is funded and how much they are spending on it.

I know you love Russian stuff and nothing compares based on your assessment but trying to paint launching of cruise missiles from ships in these modern times as some sort of achievement is a stretch even for a fanboy. I mean what did you feel like when you saw TLAM's flying off of USN ships and striking targets in 1992? Placing a VL cell on a corvette is not rocket science. There has to be a need for it though. The USN has the largest magazine count of any Navy in the world. They are expected to deploy and be prepared to fight globally and as such their loaded VLS capacity matters. A lightly protected Corvette that can not venture out and launch a viable payload and yet be survivable enough to matter is of no use to the USN for the offensive strike mission. Great that it works for Russia. It simply does not for the USN and its needs.

The USN Ship building and new start program is funding the FFG(X) which transitions from the LCS program (line item) and is looking at a 6000+ ton class vessel, and a Large Surface Combatant (15,000 + ton vessel). Essentially the program has transitioned into a DDG-51 Flight II level of capability (sensor, GFE fitments and protection) but with a smaller magazine.

Meanwhile, the Flight III program is going full steam with the USN buying 3 destroyers in its latest budget. LCS's are being built but the last one has been ordered so that program is closing from a funding perspective. On top of these manned vessels there are unmanned vessels at all three size levels. Again, what there isn't is a new Corvette program.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2019 21:47

Philip wrote:I said looking at not building.The LCS vessels cost a lot and have been found wanting in the littoral context. Read the article again.It appears you haven't.


How does one "look into building"? Writing a article on a blog does not constitute "looking into". I guess it does only to some who want to twist and turn opinion pieces and transform them to suit their agenda. The USN published a 30 year ship building plan which I posted on this forum. Look it up. No where in that plan is there a new Corvette. Similarly, the highest ranking surface warfare officers in the USN have gone on record over the last year and have detailed plans going forward. Not one (not a single one) has ever talked about building a new Corvette.

The LCS is corvette sized but not a traditional corvette. Its role in the Littorals is defensive and elsewhere to support other missions. It does not need to be like the Russian corvettes because that does not work for the USN. The USN has plenty of highly capable destroyers, cruisers, and now are getting frigates. The LCS mission sets will be different and not just miniature DDG's or FFGs.

Again, if you have read an article as you claim to have that shows USN is interested in a new Corvette - PUT IT HERE but to claim and to connect imaginary dots is disingenuous. The LCS will never launch TLAM's because even if you put VLS on them they will probably for defensive missions. It makes no sense to create an LCS with the ability to launch just a handful of TLAMs. Beyond exciting fanboys, it does not impart capability of any size or quality to the USN.

Now, if the USN was churning out no new destroyers at 2-3 a year, or SSN's at 2 a year, or weren't fully committed to a NG destroyer, Cruiser and large Frigate this would be different. But that's obviously not the case. They have been buying 2 DDG-51 Flight II's a year, and 2 Virgiinal class SSN's a year for a number of years now. 2 Flight III DDG-51's a year are also coming in a few years (construction on the first few has already started) and that program transitioned to 3 a year with this budget. Even 3 SSN's a year looks possible and of course, 2-3 FFG(X) a year on the cards as well. In summary, the USN is pumping out way too much VLC capacity for any effort to somehow transform the LCS into a TLAM launcher viable or even helpful. It would be a very very poor allocation of resources. The LCS is a smaller half of the Small Surface Combatant fleet in the USN and its primary roles would be the supporting missions, and littoral defensive operations and flag waiving missions during peacetime. It is not an offensive combat platform of which plenty of others exist in the USN. Even the FFG(X) frigate is unlikely to get TLAM's even though it will have 32-48 VLS capacity. They will be the traditional Air Defense ships. This doesn't mean that Russia seems to have some crazy tech of launching a cruise missile off of a corvette and that the USN can't even do that from a Frigate. All that means is that the USN uses its SSC fleet in a different way given the size, capability and needs from its LSC fleet.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jun 2019 22:11, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2019 21:58

USN is not even thinking of a carrier like that.

They cannot.

That article in the USNI is just a suggestion from a US MARINE guy on deputation (as far as I can tell) to the Center for a New American Security.

Furthermore, he is NOT USN. Although the Marines do fall under the Navy.

Extrapolation needs solid data. Solid. No way USN would even think of a carrier like that.

I doubt even the USMC would entertain such an idea. Things have moved. This thinking is too antiquated.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2019 22:04

That's why I said that If someone goes on and writes an opinion piece it does not constitute the USN "Looking into" something. What next, claim that the US is thinking about abolishing the US Air Force because some academic or ex-uniform wrote an OPED in favor of it (is actually quite a regular occurrence)?

The US Navy publishes and updates its 30 year ship building plans and its senior leaders routinely talk about it at events 2-3 times a year. But I guess the excitement at seeing a Russian Navy vessel launch a cruise missile in 2015 was too much to not go on a fishing expedition and trying to connect the dots to show that everyone including the USN (which has had this capability since the mid - 80's?) is trying to emulate that :).

Jan. 17, 1991: At 1:30 a.m., nine ships in the Mediterranean, Arabian Gulf, and Red Sea fire the first of 122 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraqi targets during Operation Desert Storm. This marks the first combat launch of the Tomahawk. The guided-missile cruiser San Jacinto (CG 56) fires the first Tomahawk from the Red Sea, while the guided-missile cruiser Bunker Hill (CG 52) fires the first Tomahawk from the Arabian Gulf. By the end of the second day of the operation, ships and submarines had launched 216 Tomahawks against 17 Iraqi military leadership, electric, and oil targets. On day three of the operation, the fast attack submarines USS Louisville (SSN 724) and USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720) while submerged, fire the first submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles in combat history.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2019 23:17

When I posted my previous post I was on my cell phone and did not get to research the matter as much as I would have liked.

Now that I have, a few observations on that USNI article:

1) Given that it is a June 2019 article, the author is way out of touch with the USN and perhaps even the USMC. Not even close.
2) In the US tech thread, I had posted a vid, where they proposed (before it is taken as written in stone) obtaining air assets that can fight at distances of 1000 miles (cannot recall if it was nautical) or more. Clearly mentions the F-18 cannot do that and neither can the F-35C (naval asset), forget the F-35B (USMC asset) at that distance. And, this author is recommending using naval surface assets in littoral areas within a highly contested domain?
3) USN is taking the DF-26 (among others) very, very seriously. As Vago likes to put it "Raining 26s"
4) Finally, just quickly scanned the web site of Center for a New American Security. They link VOA, NBC News, Atlantic, etc - on their front page!!! No idea how USNI was convinced to publish this article

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2019 23:31

Proceedings and USNI lets current and ex officers write about ideas or what they think sounds interesting. Of course any reasonably level headed person would know not to constitute that as some sort of official USN thinking or policy/direction etc. They sure as heck wouldn't use a blog or magazine article to introduce or even propose major fleet architectural changes like that especially when they've just rolled out a very comprehensive 30 year shipbuilding plan and strategy.

The USN 1000 nm strike capability is interesting though I'm not entirely convinced that fielding a strike analogous to fighters from yesteryear (like F-14 or A8) is the right response to the DF-26 threat or anything requiring more range. The US Navy now works under the Integrated Fire Control (not just CES) concept of operation and is fully netted for integrated fire control level interoperability. I would argue what they need for these highly contested environments is not another F-14 but something that can play in the AEA and strike/ISR role alongside USAF B-21's. The USN does not own the air-superiority or the long-range tactical strike mission. I don't think they should either. They own the medium tactical strike, and AEA mission and they should add unmanned ISR and support and MR-LR AEA on top of that. Essentially, a supporting (strike) and escort (A2A) role to the B-21. The other missions are best owned by the USAF. That and the ability to transform the VLC into a more diverse strike tool which is already happening with CPGS and the umpteen Hypersonic missile programs that will be entering service starting a couple of years from now. Donald Rumsfeld and co. killed the risk_apetite of the US Navy so culturally, it will be years before they get out of their shell and begin to introduce risk back into the programs. Without risk you cannot make giant leaps so I'd leave some of the critical Air missions out of their plate for now.

A 1000 mile radius all encompassing fighter capability off of a carrier will kill the US Navy financially. It's not just getting there and back, it is extending all of what the CAW can do to those ranges and that involves a complete overhaul designed to meet the most expensive requirement. There are better ways to deal with the threats that far than to involve the carrier. Surface, Sub Surface and your tactical and strategic assets can do that much more affordably. If the USAF wasn't planning on buying 80-100 B-21's things would be different. It would be much cheaper to add a few dozen or even a 100 additional B-21's than it is to morph the CAW to meet that requirement. It is not just about having a strike fighter with those legs (which is relatively easy) as so many thinktankers forget, it is about extending each and every supporting mission of the CAW out to those ranges and then having the scale to actually make a difference. That gets very very expensive and your SGR also goes out of the window unless you can match 30-50% greater range with 30-50% greater cruise speed which gets you deeper into a cost spiral. Sustained strike is what a carrier does well...Sustaining the same intensity, tempo, and targets/day/campaign at those ranges is not feasible which means it becomes just another niche capability. For niche capability at a given extended range your cheapest asset is actually the MK41, not a 1000 nm capable strike fighter.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2019 00:03

The 1000 mile has been dictated, so far, by the 26. IF the 26s can be degraded ( :wink: ), then that radius will reduce.

For dealing with the 1000 miles, they are thinking along the lines of AI-based assets, not manned. The 1v1 is a done deal. The ACE effort (which itself is 4 part research project) will address the next need, although it is service agnostic at the moment. 2023ish.

As part of ACE (one of four) the entire MDC2 is being re-thought (which is why I asked you if you had any info to share :) )

And, finally, which is why I was harping on "network"s.

At the granular level life will continue. It is up there that will/should see a huge diff. Also, the meaning of "theater" should/could see a change (I expect it to). This SecDef is not a carrier service guy, coming from the commercial side and thinks very differently and is not scared to delegate. :wink:

Going to be a very fun ride, the next 5 years.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2019 00:13

I understand where that 1000 nm comes from. What happens when they add a booster to the DF-26 given that they'll have a decade or two to plan for it ? What if they put the darn thing on a ship or, even on a submarine? DF-26 is a weapon that China worked on in the early 2000's and likely an extension of its Pershing II clone. Not a good idea to react to prior developments but to go by current developments. I don't think it is that simple honestly. I also understand how you can get to a 1000 nm fighter/aircraft, and as I said, technically, it is not an issue or very expensive. But that does not magically transform the CAW out to 1000 nm radius missions. A CAW is a complex system, not just one element. Giving the carrier the ability to go and do its mission at that distance involves huge costs right across the entire set of capabilities. Otherwise all you get is a niche capability and the AC is a poor way to deliver niche capability (Doolittle).

My point was around what they'll do with a 1000 nm aircraft. All it can do is just get to 1000 nm and back. It won't magically transform the CAW to something that can operate that far. And an aircraft without the CAW is just a niche capability and something that can be gotten at a fraction of the cost and in fraction of the time. A carrier strike group is there to serve a purpose, and that is to bring massive offensive and defensive capability which is usually measured in sorties/day, total sorties/campaign and influenced by the SGR. Unless you are willing to bear extreme cost doing that at those ranges is not possible. If you go twice as far with your current fighters you will only be able to launch half of your sorties. So to get to a point where you can sustain sorties at distance to support a XXXXX targets per campaign requirement usually allotted to an AC, you will either need to increase the cruise speed, and turn around time or simply build bigger carriers or buy more of them. Neither of these options are affordable or feasible.

Which then comes to the crux of the problem - how to get the carrier closer. The solution to that, in my opinion, isn't an 1000 nm AI drone, or a extreme ranged strike fighter but the capability to take out the dynamic targeting capability that enables DF-21 and DF-26's to do what they do. The solution to that, IMHO, involves the USAF and USN surface and sub-surface fleet and not the strike fighter fleet or the CAW..The ability to do LR/XR AAW, and even ASAT missions is widely available to the support group - destroyers and cruisers and will even come down to the frigates eventually. Same with BMD. The US CVN is the only aircraft carrier in the world that is currently protected by a multi-layered BMD shield. Until the dynamic targeting capability is degraded, a CVN has no purpose in the campaign. It really only needs to come into the picture and deliver the "mass" once about a third of your offensive VLS capacity has been exhausted going after some of those enablers I mentioned earlier. If you can't get it there then you need to up your VLS (more surface/sub-surface vessels) or build more capable offensive weapons/strike complexes. Either way, the solution doesn't involve having 5-8 aircraft on a deck that can go to 1000 miles, deliver a small payload and return.

Also, once you go unmanned and take out a major chunk of the LCC from the equation (you're not really flying 300 hours a year for a couple of decades) the difference between a 1000 nautical mile system and 2000 nautical mile system begins to shrink. You aren't really paying the cost of sustaining the larger craft. So why would I integrate that system on a carrier? Why not just build something that can operate from land and have the ability to sustain greater TOS not capped by the requirement to trap on a carrier and all the reserve fuel and weight requirements that that entails? Or in other words, an RQ-180 or even an optionally manned B-21 - something that is already on the cards since optionally manned was an LRS-B requirement from the very start.

In my opinion, what the USN needs is a support fighter/unmanned aircraft to the B-21 - something that can, using the IFCA- escort B-21's or provide top cover for them, and an AEA asset that doesn't consume so much of the USAF tanker support to meet the TOS requirements. Here a well balanced high subsonic cruise fighter with the ability to dash or even supercruise (adaptive engines) can possibly meet both requirements.

The ability to strike at range is constantly evolving because it isn't about how far you can go but how far you can shoot (range of platform + range of weapons) so plenty of niche capability already exists and is in the pipeline to continue to grow that.

https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 3135432705

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2019 00:53

Brar Saheb,

Too much to unpack.

Rest assured all these concerns, and many more, are being discussed and actually modeled in great details. Nothing changes, except (because of this SecDef) the emphasis on certain strengths that the commercial side brings to the table. Thus 23.

It is difficult. Which is why it is fun.

Ever been a member of the Audobon Society? It is free.

Saw that tweet after I posted. FYI: There is something called the SBIR. The likes of LM are not welcome there.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7426
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2019 01:05

Rest assured all these concerns, and many more, are being discussed and actually modeled in great details. Nothing changes, except (because of this SecDef) the emphasis on certain strengths that the commercial side brings to the table. Thus 23.


What does the SecDef have to do with this? None of what is happening is directly a result of his decision or even influenced by him. These are all efforts started years earlier and yet others that aren't going to go anywhere fast. Most of what the current administration has implemented or fast tracked (very notable systems) were influenced by decisions taken by the prior SecDef and most notably Dr. Griffin. The current SecDef's work/priorities/efforts may show up in the FY-21 budget but that is probably unlikely as this is probably not his expertise.

FYI: There is something called the SBIR. The likes of LM are not welcome there.


Thanks captain obvious :)

I try to avoid think tank armchair folks who advocate for a particular direction especially when all they have for their analysis is open source information and some fairly wild assumptions. Folks like Bryan Clark literally invent new missions for the USN to do at a time when the USN or its leadership is not interested in them and the US DOD and its leadership is not interested in mucking around with the balance of those missions between the USAF and the USN. Getting the USN into long range AC strike and Air Dominance is going to be very expensive (and I would argue that in the age of NIFC-CA a poor allocation of resources) and I doubt that the current, or the incoming US Navy CNO is much interested in taking this role back. All the rest of it is just natural progression of technology and rest assured the US Navy will be the last to adopt it..Everything takes a back seat to getting the deterrent right and getting to the 355 ship Navy that the USN wants and having the right ships with the right capability.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2019 02:04

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


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

Pipelines? True. So, they had to revisit some of the old threats (not a large list, but it is like a headache that does not leave) and on re-evaluation determined they need better solutions.

Thanks captain obvious :)


Thus SBIR. You know - out-of-the-box, etc.

But they all are backed by funds (if accepted).

I would like to drop out of the 1000 mile discussion. To early in the game to discuss.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, darshand and 15 guests