If you look at the 36 second mark you will see a series of splashes in the water. I don't know if those are tied to the "blobs" that come off the round but then it leaves open to question what else could have caused the splashes.
sferrin said:That video a couple years back, with three Hellfires on three boats, was more impressive. I'm wondering why they're still (pardon the expression) dicking around with this instead of having them already out there in the fleet.
Slightly of topic but why wouldn't the Army convert some of the thousands of M113s to Hellfire or Javelin vertical launch anti-tank platforms?
Appropriators cut all funding in 2019 for the anti-submarine warfare package, a variable-depth sonar and multi-function towed array system that the Navy was aiming to have declared operational next year, citing only that the funding was “ahead of need." The National Defense Authorization Act had authorized about $7.4 million, still well below the $57.3 million requested by the Navy, citing delays in testing various components.
Appropriators are also poised to half the requested funding for the surface warfare package and cut nearly $25.25 million from the minesweeping package, which equates to about a 21 percent cut from the requested and authorized $124.1 million
The annual cutting spree has created a baffling cycle of inanity wherein Congress, unhappy with the development of the modules falling behind schedule, will cut funding and cause development to fall further behind schedule, according to a source familiar with the details of the impact of the cuts who spoke on background. All this while Congress continues to pump money into building ships without any of the mission packages having achieved what’s known as initial operating capability, meaning the equipment is ready to deploy in some capacity.
That means that with 15 of the currently funded 32 ships already delivered to the fleet, not one of them can deploy with the package of sensors for which the ship was built in the first place, a situation that doesn’t have a clear end state while the the programs are caught in a sucking vortex of cuts and delays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlAVXMaRl7wNammo’s 30 mm Swimmer (APFSDS-T MK 258 Mod 1) swims straight through water, thanks to a groundbreaking design on the supercavitating projectile developed in cooperation with the US Navy. This video is the first time we are able to show the performance of the ammunition in public. (Note: video has no audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9LmJctW-wI“In that initial over-the-horizon award for LCS, the installation timeline was on a two-year delivery cycle,” Octavio Babuca of Raytheon company told Defense News. “But we are now working with the Navy to support an accelerated timeline to the deploying to littoral combat ships. That is mid-to-late 2019 time window.”
Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for small combatants and ship systems, said his company was working toward integrating the Naval Strike Missile into LCS-7, the Detroit.
"We are working right now to put the Naval Strike Missile on LCS-7, he said, “in support of an upcoming deployment. That’s going to be a fleet decision but we are doing all the design work now to put the missile on the ship.”
I was wrong on that commissioning for LCS-17. It will occur next year not this year. LCS-17 is the first ship of the Freedom class that is moving from the TRS-3D radar, which is standard on all Freedom class ships, to TRS-4D which is a C band GaN AESA radar and is a single face rotating version of the fixed panel TRS-4D that Hensoldt has on offer for frigates and other ships. The Saudi MMSC variant of the Freedom LCS will also feature the -4D. The USN and Lockheed were on site in Germany to witness its Factory Acceptance Testing back in late 2015.GARGEAN said:
Based on solid-state Gallium Nitride technology, TRS-4D is a software-driven radar employing full digital beamforming, and with pulse-Doppler processing in all beams. The rotator variant features a single-face AESA antenna rotating at either 15 rpm or 30 rpm (depending on the update rate required) at 2-70° in elevation. The use of an AESA array, with instantaneous dual-axis beamsteering in both azimuth and elevation, allows for 'backward scanning' to ensure fast-track initiation.
According to Airbus, the radar's AESA technology "delivers increased sensitivity to detect smaller targets with greater accuracy, as well as faster track generation to give LCS more time to react to advanced threats". Alternatively, the antenna can be kept stationary if fixed on a defined segment of space (scanning a sector of up to 50° in azimuth).
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sna-2019/2019/01/austal-further-improves-its-frigate-design-to-better-match-latest-ffgx-requirements/The two major modifications consist in a longer hull (456 feet / 139 meters compared to 418 feet / 127 meters for the earlier design) and a CODAD propulsion system with controlable picth propellers (CPP). Earlier Austal Frigate designs featured a similar hull form to the Independence-class LCS as well as its waterjet/gaz turbine propulsion arrangement.
Talking to Naval News at SNA 2019, Tim P. McCue explained that the Austal Frigate in this configuration “probably meets 90% of the U.S. Navy requirements”. He further explained that the reason for the stretched hull was to accommodate the new 32x VLS requirement (previous designs featured 16 silos) while the change in the propulsion system was to better match the speed requirement of “only” 26 knots. For the same reason, the Austal Frigate doesn’t feature a bulbous bow anymore (compared to the LCS hull form).
While this isn't a bad theory, I think people need to keep in mind the SSC requirement has been trending upward and recent talk has indicated a desire for even more hulls. It's increasingly likely multiple yards will have to be involved with construction in order to keep delivery pace and industrial capacity at the desired levels as is done with DDG and LCS, though unlike the latter it will hopefully only involve a single hull design.bring_it_on said:If I were to bet I would place very high odds on FMM winning the FFG(X) either with the Freedom class design or the FREMM. Fincantieri and Lockheed Martin win in either of those scenarios and the yard already has a plan to transition to the Saudi Frigate which IIRC has options baked in. Keeps a yard going so is good for the industrial base and the Navy gets what it needs no matter which design it picks.
Fair enough. I find it hard to handicap at this point since the requirements seem to have bent toward a more capable ship since the program launched and, other than Austal's most recent model showing up at SNA, most of our bid information is by now out of date. FMM's a flexible yard with good owners, issues like Great Lakes icing aside it's definitely made a strong case to get work going forward.bring_it_on said:I understand that and I believe the Navy desires that each bid includes the transfer of all data required to source construction to a second yard but even then just going by the capability of the two ships on offer that will be produced at FMM and the opportunity to transition to the FFGX affordably does still put it in top spot imho.
Combining gear equipment in another Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) propulsion plant needs to be repaired, according to US Navy (USN) and LCS programme officials familiar with the damage.
“USS Detroit [LCS 7] experienced a bearing failure on its starboard combining gear,” USN spokesperson Alan Baribeau told Jane’s . “The bearing will be repaired during a maintenance availability in [ Detroit homeport] Mayport, Florida.”
The combining gear bearing repairs could last until the third quarter of this year, one official said.
During the regularly scheduled availability, the cybersecurity system aboard Detroit was being modified and “hardened” for added protection, work that had already extended the maintenance period, officials said.
With some problems, you have to rely on experience to make snap decisions. With other problems, you may have the luxury of time to consider your options. Unfortunately, reality is unpredictable in which type of problem it will present to you next.Even as I reported this story, I found myself the target of career suggestions. “You need to be a video guy, an audio guy!” the Silicon Valley talent adviser John Sullivan told me, alluding to the demise of print media. I found it fascinating and slightly odd that Sullivan would so readily imagine that I would abandon writing—my life’s pursuit since high school—for a new line of work. More than that, though, I found the prospect of starting over just plain exhausting. Building a professional identity takes a lot of resources—money, time, energy. After it’s built, we expect to reap gains from our investment, and—let’s be honest—even do a bit of coasting. Are we equipped to continually return to apprentice mode? Will this burn us out? And will the collective work that results be as good as what came before?
Those are questions for the long haul. In 20 years, we’ll know a lot more about the costs and benefits of minimal manning and lifelong learning.