USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

[skyblue]

No wonder USNI shut down the comments section on this farce.

Hmm, I wonder if I inadvertently had something to do with it.

I was overly excited and linked the article on 4chan (regrettably). Comments section was shut down a few minutes later.

 

[bring_it_on]

The navy this week reached out to industry for a series of follow on hypersonic testing. The LRHW will be operational next year with the Army and the Navy is using the exact same AUR. The ship mods etc will be known soon and likely through the FY-23 budget. As recently as this week, the CNO highlighted again the Navy's plan to introduce IR-CPS to the Zumwalt in 2025 and to the SSNs in 2028. That plan is on track, and is funded.

 

[starviking]

As for the DPM sounds like they didn't learn their lesson with LCS.

The problem with LCS isn't really modularity, it's being able to train crews to rapidly swap between widely disparate missions and equipment.

IIRC the main problem was a crew too small for the maintenance load. At least the LCS will have the spaciousness to make maintenance tasks easier.

Did the LCS ever receive enough modules for the crew to run into familiarity problems from diverse missions?

 

[starviking]

I'm not sure if "Destroyer Payload Module" implies something like the Northrop Grumman Modular Launch System, where they can add larger cells in lieu of the smaller ones, or if they mean hull-plugs containing more VLS modules like the Virginia Block Vs.

Certainly the LSC graphic would indicate it takes up the same area behind the forward superstructure. From a design and program perspective it would be faster, and more likely to receive funding if the DPM was accommodated in the original design through reserved space, as opposed to needing a new flight LSC to carry it.

 

[Moose]

I'm not sure if "Destroyer Payload Module" implies something like the Northrop Grumman Modular Launch System, where they can add larger cells in lieu of the smaller ones, or if they mean hull-plugs containing more VLS modules like the Virginia Block Vs.

Certainly the LSC graphic would indicate it takes up the same area behind the forward superstructure. From a design and program perspective it would be faster, and more likely to receive funding if the DPM was accommodated in the original design through reserved space, as opposed to needing a new flight LSC to carry it.

That's certainly the conventional wisdom. However, the words "Payload Module" immediately bring to mind the Virginia Payload Module, which is a hull insert/extension containing additional tubes. It's possible that's deliberate, and the program is considering a similar arrangement for the new combatant. If designed to accommodate such an insert from the beginning, costs and complexity can be managed. The 774 Block Vs, for instance, can and will be built with or without VPM.

The amidships location is also a reasonable place for such an extension to be added. You get the most added volume for the least additional length, you're not messing with the bow or stern hydrodynamics, and you improve survivability.

 

[bring_it_on]

Considering how both the SM-3 Block IIA and SM-6 Block 1B both required designing a new lightweight canister just to make it work in the Mk 41, and have wanted even larger Standard variants since the 90s, I don't see how asking for a larger cell is unreasonable. You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it

You cannot design larger missiles if you don't have something to launch it from.

The Navy designed a larger missile than what the Mk41 could accomodate (IR-CPS) and plans to launch it from both the Zumwalt class and DDG(X) it seems.

I'll believe it when I see it. Right now have they even cut parts on either the missile or the launcher?

The integration, industrial capacity expansion etc contract for CPS and Zumwalt was awarded to LM back in November. There are still 3 years to go before this thing hits the water with the capability, so more contracts in the FY-22 and FY-23 budgets can be expected to support that IOC date for the capability.

Navy Conventional Prompt Strike Weapon System Platform-Specific Development and Production​

https://sam.gov/opp/133438ca373642c3af7dccd7ec6dd92c/view

 

[aonestudio]

U.S. Navy Reveals Plans and Ideas for the DDG(X) Next-Gen Destroyer - Naval News

The U.S. Navy’s Program Executive Office Ships briefed reporters on the preliminary details for the next-generation destroyer, the DDG(X)

www.navalnews.com

“That is what DDG(X) plans to do—we are going to execute an evolutionary [versus] revolutionary technology incorporation process. So the DDG(X), the first ship, will focus on a new hull form and a new Integrated Power System. We will use the proven combat system from the [DDG 51] Flight Three ship so we are designing the [DDG(X)] ship with the flexibility and the margins to accommodate the future of the Navy, and the needs, and where we’re going.”

Kate Connelly, the Deputy Program Manager for the DDG(X)

During the DDG(X) session’s Question and Answer with the Media, the DDG(X) Program Office admitted that the new hull form has not been finalized and is just a concept, meaning no decision has been made on if it will be a tumblehome hull (just like the Zumwalt-class destroyers) or a flared monohull. The graphical image is just a notional conceptual design.

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVnqcNoUTs8

 

[Moose]

A pretty decent rundown, Binkov's stepped up his game

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via Cajer over at TankNet:

Navy Wants to Buy Two Arleigh Burkes a Year While Developing DDG(X) Concept - USNI News

The Navy is committed to buying two Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers per year in tandem with developing its new DDG(X) program, the top surface warfare requirements officer said Wednesday. While the first priority for the Navy’s surface warfare division director on the chief of naval...

news.usni.org

 

[aonestudio]

Gibbs and Cox to support U.S. Navy's future DDG(X) design - Naval News

Gibbs & Cox Inc. is awarded a $29,5 million contract for supporting ship design and engineering efforts for the U.S. Navy's future DDG(X).

www.navalnews.com

 

[TomS]

Gibbs and Cox to support U.S. Navy's future DDG(X) design - Naval News

Gibbs & Cox Inc. is awarded a $29,5 million contract for supporting ship design and engineering efforts for the U.S. Navy's future DDG(X).

www.navalnews.com

Sounds like this might reflect a reversion to an older style of ship procurement, where the Navy contracts with a naval architecture group (like G&C) to do preliminary and contract design and then negotiates or competes a contract to a shipyard to do detailed design and serve as lead ship builder. That's how DDG-51 and FFG-7 were done; there was no design competition like there was for the Spruance or the DD-21/DD(X)/DDG-1000.

I think this may give the Navy better insight into what they are actually asking for in terms of capability and how it will manifest in terms of ship size and cost. But it's still going to matter quite a lot who the Navy puts in charge of that Preliminary design process -- OPNAV or NAVSEA.

Two interesting links to read on this issue:

Preliminary and Contract Design Dr. Norbert Doerry January 26-27, 2016

http://doerry.org/norbert/papers/20160112PreliminaryandContractDesign.pdf

PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATIONIN SURFACE WARSHIP DESIGN by JAMES RUSSELL FITZSIMONDS, May 1980

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/42089/07044533-MIT.pdf?sequence=2

 

[jsport]

Navy offers a new argument for decommissioning cruisers: They’re not safe.

Congress hasn't been swayed to let the Navy decommission its cruisers early after money- and readiness-focused arguments. Now, the Navy is saying those old ships aren't safe.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Firefinder]

Navy offers a new argument for decommissioning cruisers: They’re not safe.

Congress hasn't been swayed to let the Navy decommission its cruisers early after money- and readiness-focused arguments. Now, the Navy is saying those old ships aren't safe.

www.defensenews.com

Well they are right.

The Ticos are pushing 40 years old.

That is ancient for a salt water steel ship and even older for a warship.