Register here

Author Topic: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook  (Read 43514 times)

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 796
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #330 on: June 22, 2018, 02:24:54 pm »
If you mean from "Pacific Ocean" to "South China Sea", sure.
For boost-phase or Terminal? Going to be a lot smaller than that. And even for Midcourse with a high-performance interceptor, having a 20,000t sub patrolling at periscope depth and/or towing a float for weeks or months at a time is giving the other side a heck of a lot of help finding the boat. People worry enough about Trident patrols getting mapped.
A towed float will still be a hell of a lot stealthier than a 10,000+ ton BMD ship.
A 10,000t+ BMD surface combatant would, one presumes, have a robust air and missile defense suite as well as accompanying platforms like perhaps a friendly SSN to keep the rabble at bay both in deterrence and in an actual conflict. A large sub, on the other hand, is going to rely on stealth first and foremost so once detected it's in a much less ideal position than the skimmer. Furthermore, a 10,000t+ surface combatant can defend itself and stay on station unless things go particularly bad. The first thing a sub will do if someone spots the bobber is reel it in/cut it and go deep to defend itself. Your BMD platform might now be a lot harder to kill, but it's also now off station.
None that are insurmountable.
Can be said about many things. But we're talking about the relative value of a subsurface BMD platform. The additional technical challenge of keep 2-way communications secure and reliable enough to make the concept work is an important part of the equation.
If they can launch TLAM from VLS underwater why would SM-3/6 be any different?
With a TLAM launch, or Trident for that matter, they are given a target package well ahead of time and the boat can stay deep until the last minute, which is easier on the crew and hardware. The boat can time launches so they're not launching into a swell, and hunt around for flat(er) water beforehand. The TLAM's performance compared to its mission means it can spend some time and fuel correcting problems like being knocked around in surface conditions without too much trouble, an ABM interceptor isn't going to have a lot of time or performance to spare if it's going to make intercept.

And again, none of this is impossible, it's just adding troubles on top an already difficult mission.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1162
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #331 on: June 22, 2018, 03:50:45 pm »
Under distributed lethality, weapons are placed on any convenient ship.  No onboard sensors or cueing is assumed.  All targeting data is provided from remote.  Right now that is linked in through ship communications as a recent F-35/SM-6 intercept test demonstrated. 

However, packing the communications directly into the missile (similar to how TLAM can be re-targeted mid flight) does not sound like a significant technical hurdle.  Indeed, I think the latest SM3 missiles have improved ship to missile communications for better cueing updates and that should be transferable to a 3rd party.

I have no idea what the weather limits are for vertical launch missiles.  I assume SSBN's are advised to shift patrol areas out of extreme seas when necessary.  That would degrade an ABM intercept geometry but it would still provide earlier/better intercept opportunities than land based systems.

The technical problems deal with missile communications to a remote command/sensor network.  Given all the developments we are seeing with integrated sensor and fire control systems both in the Army and Navy, I would not be surprised to see direct linkage between an interceptor to a remote network develop on its own impetus.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2012
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #332 on: June 22, 2018, 08:35:23 pm »
KEI had no organic sensor but a fairly substantial fire control unit that transmitted
the in-flight target updates that were provided by a forward based radar or
PTSS or whatever and had datalink that was largely directional.

Assuming you could have all of the off-board support in place, you could
consider placing an encanistered KEI on the hull of a XL-UUV in a manner
similar to the small submarine hosts envisioned for one of the MX basing concepts.

With a suitably signature reduced mast (some of the XL-UUVs need to snorkel anyway)
you could proliferate enough of them to either force a concerted ASW effort (probably a
red-flag indicating an imminent launch) or tolerate attrition. And then if they are plugged into
the comms network you could have them bottom to prevent capture etc.
 
For Iran, it goes a long way to solving the problem of needing to base a boost-phase interceptor
in the southern Caspian.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 08:41:54 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 966
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #333 on: June 23, 2018, 07:18:59 am »
KEI had no organic sensor but a fairly substantial fire control unit that transmitted
the in-flight target updates that were provided by a forward based radar or
PTSS or whatever and had datalink that was largely directional.

Assuming you could have all of the off-board support in place, you could
consider placing an encanistered KEI on the hull of a XL-UUV in a manner
similar to the small submarine hosts envisioned for one of the MX basing concepts.

With a suitably signature reduced mast (some of the XL-UUVs need to snorkel anyway)
you could proliferate enough of them to either force a concerted ASW effort (probably a
red-flag indicating an imminent launch) or tolerate attrition. And then if they are plugged into
the comms network you could have them bottom to prevent capture etc.
 
For Iran, it goes a long way to solving the problem of needing to base a boost-phase interceptor
in the southern Caspian.
BPI is essential. Any hopes of BPI requires a seaborne approach and a bottom sitting submarine is the least vulnerable seaborne option.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #334 on: June 27, 2018, 10:18:40 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/24/future-navy-weapons-will-need-lots-power-thats-a-huge-engineering-challenge/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Quote

WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is convinced that the next generation of ships will need to integrate lasers, electromagnetic rail guns and other power-hungry weapons and sensors to take on peer competitors in the coming decades.

However, integrating futuristic technologies onto existing platforms, even on some of the newer ships with plenty of excess power capacity, will still be an incredibly difficult engineering challenge, experts say.

Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager who worked on the DDG Flight III, told the audience at last week’s American Society of Naval Engineers symposium that adding extra electric-power capacity in ships currently in design was a good idea, but that the weapons and systems of tomorrow will pose a significant challenge to naval engineers when it comes time to back-fit them to existing platforms.

“Electrical architecture on ships is hard,” Vandroff said.
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 Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 796
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #335 on: June 27, 2018, 11:27:48 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/24/future-navy-weapons-will-need-lots-power-thats-a-huge-engineering-challenge/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Quote

WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is convinced that the next generation of ships will need to integrate lasers, electromagnetic rail guns and other power-hungry weapons and sensors to take on peer competitors in the coming decades.

However, integrating futuristic technologies onto existing platforms, even on some of the newer ships with plenty of excess power capacity, will still be an incredibly difficult engineering challenge, experts say.

Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager who worked on the DDG Flight III, told the audience at last week’s American Society of Naval Engineers symposium that adding extra electric-power capacity in ships currently in design was a good idea, but that the weapons and systems of tomorrow will pose a significant challenge to naval engineers when it comes time to back-fit them to existing platforms.

“Electrical architecture on ships is hard,” Vandroff said.
If they're saying that power-hungry weapons are definitely the future, they need to square that with their recently stated intention to extend the life of Combatants which don't have much spare power. Going to be stacking generators on the aviation decks at this rate.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 966
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #336 on: June 29, 2018, 04:43:06 am »
Portable reactors may become a thing.

Especially when PBWs are reconsidered. (immediate Kinetic Energy (KE)-like effects against shielded msle targets)

Mistake writing DE  :)
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 09:01:45 am by jsport »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2012
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #337 on: July 02, 2018, 07:55:01 pm »
Japan's planned AEGIS Ashore procurement of two systems is projected to come in at ~$1.8 billion, about the same as one cruiser.  It will provide coverage that would require at least a half-dozen ships to match.  That's <20% of the total cost of doing the mission with cruisers and a third the cost of doing with dedicated BMD ships.


https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/03/national/japan-picks-lockheed-martin-radar-missile-defense-system-ministry-official


Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2012
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #338 on: July 05, 2018, 05:53:15 pm »
NATO Seasparrow conducts successful flight test of ESSM Block 2
By PEO IWS Public Affairs | July 5, 2018

POINT MUGU, Calif. - The NATO Seasparrow Project Office recently conducted a successful flight test of the
Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2, intercepting a BQM-74E aerial target, the U.S. Navy announced, July 5.


The test is the first ESSM flight test to utilize the new Block 2 active guidance seeker-head. ESSM Block 2
will employ both semi-active and active guidance to meet current and anticipated future threats.

This test follows the successful completion of two Controlled Test Vehicle flight tests in June  2017 and
is the first in a series of live fire tests that will lead to the ESSM Block 2 missile entering production.

 

"This flight test is critical to demonstrating the technology for the ESSM Block 2," said Capt. Bruce Schuette,
project manager for the NATO Seasparrow Project. "I am very proud of the entire NATO Seasparrow Project Team,
from our industry partners to our field activities and test facilities, for all the extensive work that went into
making this event a success."

...

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/1567858/nato-seasparrow-conducts-successful-flight-test-of-essm-block-2/

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #339 on: August 02, 2018, 04:36:01 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/02/35505

Quote
Congress and the Pentagon are in the midst of a two-year spending spree, and Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) leadership is positioning the shipbuilder to capture as many contract awards as possible before the funding window closes, perhaps as early as the Fiscal Year 2020.

The FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act gained Senate approval this week, just ahead of a quarterly earnings call Thursday morning by HII President and CEO Mike Petters in which he detailed the company’s near-term strategy with Wall Street analysts. Congress opened the checkbook in 2018 and 2019, but Petters said its unclear whether the increased spending will carry on through the next budget cycle.

For the quarter, HII reported revenues of $2 billion, compared to revenues of $1.6 billion a year ago. The revenues increase was due to increased work at the company’s Newport News Shipbuilding facility that builds carriers and parts of the Virginia-class submarines and refurbishes existing U.S. aircraft carriers. Earnings for the quarter were $257 million, an increase from the $241 million reported a year ago, according to the HII second quarter financial report.
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 marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2012
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #340 on: Yesterday at 12:00:56 am »
ESSM Block II GTV 1 Firing