• 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
12,205
Reaction score
393
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
1,333
Reaction score
30
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
2,330
Reaction score
77
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
1,333
Reaction score
30
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
12,205
Reaction score
393
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
1,333
Reaction score
30
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
2,330
Reaction score
77
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: Confidential
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
121
Reaction score
141
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:
Top