Register here

Author Topic: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower  (Read 69084 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8393
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-navys-new-destroyer-could-be-total-game-changer-25905

Quote
DDG 51 Flight III destroyers are expected to expand upon a promising new ship-based weapons system technology fire-control system, called Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air, or NIFC-CA.

The Navy has now started construction on a first-of-its-kind new surface warfare destroyer armed with improved weapons, advanced sensors and new radar 35-times more sensitive than most current systems, service officials announced.

Construction of the first DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Flight III Destroyer is part of a sweeping Navy and Pentagon effort to speed up delivery of new warships and expand the surface fleet to 355 ships on an accelerated timeframe.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8393
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/29/why-the-us-should-stock-up-on-tomahawks/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com

Quote

The Tomahawk cruise missile is one of the most effective and highly utilized weapons in the U.S. arsenal ― and we have decided to stop producing them.

Last month, the U.S. Navy placed its final order for 100 replacement Tomahawks, citing a new cruise missile under development as the reason for closing the production line. Well and good, but the new missiles are not expected to be available until 2030. In the meantime, the U.S. should maintain — and even grow — its inventory of the cruise missile, which has been aptly described as the military’s “weapon of choice.”

Look at the numbers. Although exact figures are not publicly available, it is estimated that the Navy fires about 100 Tomahawks per year. In its first 15 months, the Trump administration has used Tomahawks at least twice, first launching roughly 60 against the Shayrat air base in Syria in response to that regime’s use of chemical weapons. Then again last month, in a coordinated strike with France and the U.K. against the Assad regime, the U.S. launched approximately 100 Tomahawks, according to U.S. Department of Defense officials.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8393
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/destroyers-maxed-out-navy-looks-to-new-hulls-power-for-radars-lasers/?_ga=2.179083430.32131720.1531308516-233619353.1531219104

Quote
ARLINGTON: The Navy has crammed as much electronics as it can into its new DDG-51 Flight III destroyers now beginning construction, Rear Adm. William Galinis said this morning. That drives the service towards a new Large Surface Combatant that can comfortably accommodate the same high-powered radars, as well as future weapons such as lasers, on either a modified DDG-51 hull or an entirely new design.

“It’s going to be more of an evolutionary approach as we migrate from the DDG-51 Flight IIIs to the Large Surface Combatant,” said Galinis, the Navy’s Program Executive Officer for Ships. (LSC evolved from the Future Surface Combatant concept and will serve along a new frigate and unmanned surface vessels). “(We) start with a DDG-51 flight III combat system and we build off of that, probably bringing in a new HME (Hull, Mechanical, & Engineering) infrastructure, a new power architecture, to support that system as it then evolves going forward.”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2716
Psst, Admiral Galinis.  I've got your large surface combatant right here.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10724
Yep.  It boggles my mind the lengths they go to shoot themselves in the head.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 810
There are people in the Navy who would buy more DDG-1000s tomorrow, leave off the AGS and add rails or more VLS, and there are those who want to hide them away where nobody will ever talk about them again. Which type of person is in charge of making what decisions will be interesting to see. Along the same lines, what is meant when he says "DDG Flight III Combat System" might mean "the same hardware again" or the next baseline in its continued evolution of Aegis in the OA/VM direction. It's hard to tell without really in-depth interviews, which the Navy sadly doesn't seem too interested in.

On the positive side, it's nice to see they've evolved to calling it "Large Surface Combatant" and are definitively moving past the idea of re-using the existing hull again. Ironically, they would more or less instantly have more Congressional support if they started calling it a "Cruiser," but that's its own tangent.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1186
In Japan, an 820 foot/27,000 ton carrier is a destroyer while the UK and Australia have a 500 foot/7,500 ton frigate.  The political way to get the DDG-1000 back into production is to reclassify it as a RHIB.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • I really should change my personal text
Yep.  It boggles my mind the lengths they go to shoot themselves in the head.

Here is how I see it:
- If the DDG-1000 hull is flawed, in that it can't be repurposed to other missions, then the whole Naval design staff should be fired.
- If the DDG-1000 hull works, but the Navy wants to spend $billions and years designing a new Large Surface Combatant hull, then the whole Naval design staff should be fired.
- If the DDG-1000 hull works and is selected in 2 - 4 years, instead of right now, then the whole naval design staff should be fired for wasting time.

Basically: they should all be fired and replaced with someone (anyone?) better.

Also: Moose, your analysis sounds completley true.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text
Finally, someone appears to see these designs for what they are too small and under-powered.

Bureaucrats w/o the fear of being fired will always muck up and waste time and money.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Along the same lines, what is meant when he says "DDG Flight III Combat System" might mean "the same hardware again" or the next baseline in its
continued evolution of Aegis in the OA/VM direction.

For the radar/hull study they did investigate a DDG-1000 variant that incorporated AMDR-S and replaced the DDG 1000's
TSCE combat system with the core of the Aegis combat system. My hope is that, at the very least, the SPY-4 apertures
get filled with something useful.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 810
Along the same lines, what is meant when he says "DDG Flight III Combat System" might mean "the same hardware again" or the next baseline in its
continued evolution of Aegis in the OA/VM direction.

For the radar/hull study they did investigate a DDG-1000 variant that incorporated AMDR-S and replaced the DDG 1000's
TSCE combat system with the core of the Aegis combat system. My hope is that, at the very least, the SPY-4 apertures
get filled with something useful.
Yeah I imagine larger SPY-6 panel is among the higher priorities as requirements are being hammered out. And I agree it should be in the Navy's planning to mount SPY-6 on the 3 Zs, but right now they're not talking much about their roadmap for upgrading the class beyond the immediate future.

The relationship between TSCE, Aegis, and the future of combatant software architecture is something interesting that there's not enough current, good reporting on. The Navy loves Aegis, for obvious reasons, but some of the decisions which led to TSCE probably still hold up on a new, integrated combatant. So are we likely to see fully a virtual baseline of Aegis that can run in a TSCE-style network? And if so, can we use the 3 Z's to develop that architecture?

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text
When does the baseline size of ship (Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser ie obsolete designations) housing a right sized AESA radar (have never heard a real argument that the SPY-6 is the for sure the correct size BMD radar, radar needs to be so large as no longer considered a SPY series radar) (is there going to national or just fleet BMD/ hypersonic defense assigned to these ships). 

Size of gun(s) to do real 'on shore forces support" at distance not the B'S that has been sold for decades
 This would include genuine analysis of multipurpose Vertical guns which should have been integrated decades ago whose deep magazine is better solution than VLS for guided genuine bombardment, air defense, and anti-ship potentially even antisubmarine . 

What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense, hybrid chem/solid state Lasers, PBWpns (w/ KE like effects against shielded msles and Hypersonics), potential Vertical and or turreted EMTCs or EMRG defense weapons.

What is the real size and numbers requirement for an "on board" multi-traditional role but also including emerging ship to shore logistics and NAVSPECWAR support UAS.  There isn't even a decent VTOL UAS even being purposed yet.

Oh and if the USN wants V-22s on ships. It would seem the smallest vessel needs to house at least one V-22. Most likely two. Do not see any of this. Again what are these people being paid for?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 08:47:26 am by jsport »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense

An interesting point. Do you mean torpedo detection + hard target kill?
I couldn't find good power figures for the active acoustic portion for the SSTD systems they have on the carriers.

Then are a few efforts employing lidar for torpedo detection and tracking.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text
What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense

An interesting point. Do you mean torpedo detection + hard target kill?
I couldn't find good power figures for the active acoustic portion for the SSTD systems they have on the carriers.

Then are a few efforts employing lidar for torpedo detection and tracking.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.military.naval/t6viOfhw_oo

Electromagnetic Armor
by James Dunnigan
August 28, 2007


For several years, up until 2003, the U.S. Navy mentioned
electromagnetic armor, or DAPS (Dynamic Armor Protection
System) being developed for the planned CVN-21 class of
carriers. The basic technology behind DAPS was not complex.
Areas above the waterline would have two layers of thin
armor, separated by a small air space. The two layers of
armor would be electrified, and when the armor was hit by
a shaped charge (favored for cruise missile warheads) the
jet of superhot plasma, formed by the shaped charge
warhead going off, would be broken up by the electromagnetic
field formed when the two layers of armor were forced together.
The big problem with DAPS was the huge amount of electricity
required when the system was turned on. However, in the next
decade or so, warship power plants are expected catch up
with the needs of DAPS systems.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2007/200782802148.asp


Raise the Shields! CVN-21

The USN has seldom been very forthcoming about the protection
of its carriers but it is generally considered that - being
large, distinctive and valuable targets - they carry
substantially more protection than other ships. Protective
measures, including DAPS, are almost certainly concentrated
around the most critical and vulnerable areas of the ship -
magazines, reactors and the combat information centre (CIC) -
rather than being applied generally. The CVN-21 also features
an improved underwater protection system for torpedo defence.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/502993_CVN_21___Raise_the_shields___.html


Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text


Navy Deploying New Anti-Torpedo Technology
by KRIS OSBORN on OCTOBER 28, 2013
9044

Anti-Torpedo

The Navy is gearing up for deployment and a new round of
tests of its Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System — a high
tech system designed to protect aircraft carriers by
locating, tracking and intercepting incoming torpedoes,
Navy leaders said Oct. 24 at the Naval Submarine League,
Falls Church, Va.

The upcoming tests, slated to take place on the USS George
H.W. Bush, are designed as a follow on to initial end-to-end
testing of an early prototype model aboard the Bush this
past May. The Navy plans to equip all aircraft carriers
with SSTD by 2035.

The SSTD system, which consists of a sensor, processor and
small interceptor missile, is a first-of-its-kind
“hard kill” countermeasure for ships and carriers designed
to defeat torpedoes, said Rear Adm. Dave Johnson, Program
Executive Officer, Submarines.

The SSTD is slated for additional testing on board the USS
Bush next month in what’s called  a Quick Reaction Assessment,
Johnson said. The SSTD will be an Engineering Development
  Model of the technology, meaning it will be further tweaked
and refined before deploying aboard the USS Bush in the
near future.

Ships already have a layered system of defenses which
includes sensors, radar and several interceptor technologies
designed to intercept large, medium and small scale threats
from a variety of ranges. For example, most aircraft carriers
are currently configured with Sea Sparrow interceptor missiles
designed to destroy incoming air and surface threats and the
Phalanx Close-in-Weapons System, or CIWS. CIWS is a rapid-fire
gun designed as an area weapon intended to protect ships from
surface threats closer to the boat’s edge, such as fast-attack
boats.

Torpedo defense for surface ships, however, involves another
portion of the threat envelope and is a different question.
SSTD is being rapidly developed to address this, Navy
officials explained.

The system consists of a Torpedo Warning System Receive Array
launched from the winch at the end of the ship, essentially
  a towed sensor or receiver engineered to detect the presence
of incoming torpedo fire. The Receive Array sends information
to a processor which then computes key information and sends
  data to interceptor projectiles — or Countermeasures Anti-Torpedos,
or CAT — attached to the side of the ship.

The towed array picks up the acoustic noise.  The processors
filter it out and inform the crew. The crew then makes the
decision about whether to fire a CAT, a Navy official told
  Military​.com.

The CATs are mounted on the carriers’ sponson, projections
from the side of the ship designed for protection, stability
the mounting of armaments.

The individual technological pieces of the SSTD system are
  engineered to work together to locate and destroy incoming
torpedos in a matter of seconds or less.  Tactical display
screens on the bridge of the ship are designed to inform
commanders about the system’s operations.

After being tested on some smaller ships such as destroyers,
the SSTD was approved for use on aircraft carriers in 2011
by Chief Naval Officer Adm. Jonathan Greenert, according to
the Navy.

The SSTD effort is described by Navy officials as a rapid
prototyping endeavor designed to fast-track development
of the technology. In fact, the Torpedo Warning System
recently won a 2013 DoD “Myth-Busters” award for successful
acquisition practices such as delivering the TWS to the
USS Bush on an accelerated schedule. The TWS is made by
3 Phoenix.

The Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo is being developed
by the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research
Laboratory.



Read more:
http://defensetech.org/2013/10/28/navy-deploying-new-anti-torpedo-technology/#ixzz3YqNoCNV4

Defense.org

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/28/navy-deploying-new-anti-torpedo-technology/