• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
moonbeamsts said:
The problem of the TWS system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long ,
Don't worry. I'm sure it will get done sooner if they do nothing long enough.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
150
sferrin said:
moonbeamsts said:
The problem of the TWS system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long ,
Don't worry. I'm sure it will get done sooner if they do nothing long enough.
Always the same... when is anyone held accountable ..contractor-civilian- service.
When do we hear "your fired" early in a program.
RWRs used have excessive falses, for instance.
Commenters like to say in the modern world things are so complicated it is hard to discern who is culpable. It is funny after somebody gets fired the problem usually finds a way to get fixed.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
128
moonbeamsts said:
The problem of the TWS system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long , The navy did the same thing with new sonar fire control AnBSY-1 back in the 80"s 90"s.
Not so unreasonable given that in the more chaotic acoustic environments a human operator will tend towards
false negatives due to task saturation.

Unless at-sea reload is impossible (or a CAT has the range to hit one of the escorts) a
highish false positive rate might be tolerable.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
150
If not a multi-spectral synthetic aperture sonar, magnetic anomaly and LIDAR then it will have high falses.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
jsport said:
If not a multi-spectral synthetic aperture sonar, magnetic anomaly and LIDAR then it will have high falses.
Would any of those work in a wake-homer situation. Where you have a lot of bubbles mixed in with the water, for a significant distance, it would seem to be a perfect place for such a torpedo to hide as it's sneaking up. The MAD might work (if the torp wasn't degaussed) but I don't see how either of the other two could penetrate the wake.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
150
sferrin said:
jsport said:
If not a multi-spectral synthetic aperture sonar, magnetic anomaly and LIDAR then it will have high falses.
Would any of those work in a wake-homer situation. Where you have a lot of bubbles mixed in with the water, for a significant distance, it would seem to be a perfect place for such a torpedo to hide as it's sneaking up. The MAD might work (if the torp wasn't degaussed) but I don't see how either of the other two could penetrate the wake.

Are not all these Sensors change detection sensors and wakes sure cause sized quantifiable change.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
128
sferrin said:
Would any of those work in a wake-homer situation. Where you have a lot of bubbles mixed in with the water, for a significant distance, it would seem to be a perfect place for such a torpedo to hide as it's sneaking up. The MAD might work (if the torp wasn't degaussed) but I don't see how either of the other two could penetrate the wake.
Aren't the towed arrays typically towed at depths below (and maybe beyond) the wake?
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
285
Reaction score
467
The committee is encouraged by the Navy’s rapid demonstration of Laser Weapon Systems (LaWSs) on surface ships. In a short period of time, the Navy has deployed the 30 kilowatts (kW) LaWS on the USS Ponce (Afloat Forward Staging Base (Interim)-15) followed by the 150 kW Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) on the USS Portland (Landing Platform/Dock-27) in 2019. The improvements in power and beam quality make this a near 100 fold improvement in lethality. The committee is also encouraged by the 60 kW HELIOS program for integration on Destroyer Designated Guided ships by 2020.

However, there appears to be more opportunity to integrate High Energy Laser (HEL) systems on large capital ships including aircraft carrier, fixed wing, nuclear powered (CVNs) and large amphibious ships to increase defensive capability and lethality of our expeditionary forces as evidenced by the deployment of LWSD on the USS Portland. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than April 1, 2020, describing a path forward for integration of HEL Systems 150–300 kW on large capital warships, including CVNs and large amphibious ships. (Page 47)



Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress [Updated September 19, 2019]
 
Last edited:

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
285
Reaction score
467


The Navy and Marine Corps intend to purchase an additional 203 Tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missiles for roughly $402 million in 2021, according to the Navy's budget request for that fiscal year, with 155 of the long-range munitions going to the Navy and 48 going to the Marine Corps.

"The Marine Corps is procuring the Tomahawk missile as part of an overall strategy to build a more lethal Fleet Marine Force," said Capt Christopher Harrison, a Marine Corps spokesman, who also confirmed to Task & Purpose that the Marine Corps' intent to procure Tomahawks is "a new development."

"This capability is in support of the Marine Corps Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) and the National Defense Strategy (NDS) approach to build a more lethal Joint Force," Harrison said. "Further details on the capability and or employment are classified."

 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
972

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
If only we had a class of ships designed with large quantities of electrical power in mind. . .
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,395
Reaction score
1,612
Problem is, could they even build more? A fair bit of the infrastructure that was put together for the program was dismantled and/or sold off when the program was more or less given the chop.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
Problem is, could they even build more? A fair bit of the infrastructure that was put together for the program was dismantled and/or sold off when the program was more or less given the chop.
They could probably reconstitute the program easier than starting with a clean sheet.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
148
Potentially the hull, but certainly some of its other sub-systems will be considered for the LSC. But the Navy is itself probably not certain what else it needs on that vessel and how much it can afford given future shipbuilding budgets. The next 3-5 years will be critical in figuring this out.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
205
Problem is, could they even build more? A fair bit of the infrastructure that was put together for the program was dismantled and/or sold off when the program was more or less given the chop.
I think the Burke Flight IIA restart proved that it's doable in a reasonable time, cost effectiveness is a less certain question. For instance huge composites center that was down at HII is gone, but 1002 has a steel deck house made by Bath and who knows what would have to change with the superstructure of a new variant just to meet the new missions.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
148
If the Flight III and LSC are not produced concurrently then we would need to think about two yards again for the LSC. Unless one yard will get bulk of the large unmanned vessels. By the time the Navy finally decided what the LSC looks like as part of a future manned-unmanned fleet of the 30's and 40's I am sure there would be competing options including one to heavily leverage the design and/or sub-systems of the Zumwalt class. I think it is too early to determine that.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
532
Too bad we don't have a Spacex for ship building. Someone willing to throw out the practices that drive up cost. I don't see enough political freedom for the Navy to allow an equivalent process where they specify end requirements and give design/build freedom to competing companies. Of course, this also requires the Navy to stop its practice of design changes during development. They could even go for an all government approach so they can compare results between two totally opposite approaches. My guess is another rendition of SLS vs something substantially cheaper.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
285
Reaction score
467
The committee is encouraged by the Navy’s rapid demonstration of Laser Weapon Systems (LaWSs) on surface ships. In a short period of time, the Navy has deployed the 30 kilowatts (kW) LaWS on the USS Ponce (Afloat Forward Staging Base (Interim)-15) followed by the 150 kW Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) on the USS Portland (Landing Platform/Dock-27) in 2019. The improvements in power and beam quality make this a near 100 fold improvement in lethality. The committee is also encouraged by the 60 kW HELIOS program for integration on Destroyer Designated Guided ships by 2020.
HELIOS is not so expensive! only $ 88.3M for more power version



 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
205
Too bad we don't have a Spacex for ship building. Someone willing to throw out the practices that drive up cost. I don't see enough political freedom for the Navy to allow an equivalent process where they specify end requirements and give design/build freedom to competing companies. Of course, this also requires the Navy to stop its practice of design changes during development. They could even go for an all government approach so they can compare results between two totally opposite approaches. My guess is another rendition of SLS vs something substantially cheaper.
There have been innovative boatbuiders and shipbuilders established in this country, mostly the former because the economics favor it, but the challenges are so different in shipbuilding as to make the comparison almost impossible. If MARAD could invest in innovative new builders, or in innovative new concepts from established builders, the way NASA was able to invest in SpaceX, we might see some interesting things. As it is, many people in this country who want to do something new/interesting in that field end up working in Europe or Asia before long.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
532
There have been innovative boatbuiders and shipbuilders established in this country, mostly the former because the economics favor it, but the challenges are so different in shipbuilding as to make the comparison almost impossible. If MARAD could invest in innovative new builders, or in innovative new concepts from established builders, the way NASA was able to invest in SpaceX, we might see some interesting things. As it is, many people in this country who want to do something new/interesting in that field end up working in Europe or Asia before long.

Someone named Henry Kaiser had an idea once. A war swept away the usual resistance and he was able to give it a try. Right now, there is the same confluence of rigid work rules, sclerotic bureaucracy, and corporate/government symbiosis that makes innovation a threat to be stamped out rather than tested.

I think it will take a new start company with no preset practices to bring about real change. Unfortunately, I don't think the Navy would give it a chance. That leaves the commercial market and that is a game of subsidies so any success would require a massive step change in build cost. Something like 3D printing applied over structures hundreds of feet long.

It is interesting to watch the Navy shift to unmanned platforms not just technically, but as a financial end run against traditional ship costs. A way of conceding defeat while trying to preserve functional capability.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
150
Floating Arsenal to be 21st Century Battleship Jul 1996 pg44-47

.....The Navy and Marine Corp in Regional conflict in the 21st century , the (Naval Studies) Board noted that current weapons for long range fire support are inadequate. The reality is that Bottom Up Review constrained surface warship forces cannot meet the joint warfighting requirements identified in last years Surface Combatant Force Land Study by the USN's Director, Surface warfare, Naval Surface Fiere Support (NSFS) capabilities have long been a shortcoming in the USN's ability to support USMC operation. ...Meanwhile , the proliferation of cruise missiles --40k are expected to be in the worlds armories in 2000. and TBMs....
Using a 1993 Rand study Project Air Force study, The New Calculus , as baseline, the USN argued that any combination of existing in theatre and continental US based rapid reaction forces, with the capability to destroy 2k tanks and armored vehicles on the first day of an assault, would be prohibitively expensive. Given a notional MRC can include 15k mobile targets the Project Air Force study concluded that 5.5k armor kills would be necessary for assured defense. According to the study the 20 B-2s force, along w/ in theatre USAF tacair , and a on station carrier battle group , could destroy only 730 tanks and armored vehicles in the opening 24 hrs another six days of combat would be needed to reach 5.5k kills.
USN analysts assert that 500 cell LCMs w/ BAT munitions could attain 2k armor kills in the first day of a war and another 2k by Day 4. "Assured defense" ...The navy concluded that an in theatre LCM is the obvious choice to provide early firepower to halt an invasion. It exploits freedom of the sea, can hit an enemy hard on Day 1, frees airlift for other needs, and allows USAF and USN manned airpower to focus on traditional roles : CAP, CAS, SEAD. BAI, and strategic strike.

(RAND Pacific Study would add all the hardened TBM , SAM sites and aircraft shelters of the late 2030s)
.....
There are submarines variants being discussed for future Arsenal Ships. By 1997 , the USN will have 18 Ohio class BMSs in operation. The first eight of the class (SSBN 726) carry the C-4 Trident I missiels and the USN plans to retire from strtegic service, or convert the first four Ohio class SSBNs Ohio Michigan Florida and Georgia rather than upgrade them to launch the D-5 trident II missiles. Due to the 1995 BUR decision to reduce the nuclear attack submarines force to 45-55 units and, beginning in 1998, the construction of the new Attack Submarine Class, the USN is continuing to decommission the early units of the Los Angles-nuclear attack submarines many with half their service lives remaining.
There is a possibility of converting the first four Ohio Class C-4 equipped SSBNs into special purpose submarines including a "Large Stealth Combatant". The USN has determined that there are no engineering issues that would preclude extending the service lives of the Ohio Class vessels from 30 to 40 yrs. A program to modify an SSBN-726 submarine for conventional strike/fire support would require about $500m per ship but would provide a platform w approx 25 yrs of operational life, and which would retain all other submarine warfare capabilities (less strategic strike) inherent in the ship. .....
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
117
Reaction score
40
Too bad we don't have a Spacex for ship building. Someone willing to throw out the practices that drive up cost. I don't see enough political freedom for the Navy to allow an equivalent process where they specify end requirements and give design/build freedom to competing companies. Of course, this also requires the Navy to stop its practice of design changes during development. They could even go for an all government approach so they can compare results between two totally opposite approaches. My guess is another rendition of SLS vs something substantially cheaper.
It's for Jones Act.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
532
Tug boats, river ferries, and Great Lakes ore carriers along with the occasional paddle wheel steamboat. I'm not sure how big the market is but it doesn't attract much interest. There was once an effort to build a cruise ship but that fell through. Even the offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are usually made in Korea now.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
972
 
Top