Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Share

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:28 pm

    USS New Hampshire Returns from Maiden Deployment
    Navy NewsStand

    Story Number: NNS090722-41
    Release Date: 7/22/2009 10:58:00 PM

    By Lt. Patrick Evans, Commander Submarine Group 2 Public Affairs

    GROTON, Conn. (NNS) -- The Virginia-class fast-attack submarine USS New Hampshire (SSN 778) returned July 22 to Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Conn., after her first deployment.

    New Hampshire was the first Virginia-class submarine to deploy in support of operations in the U.S. European Command Area of Responsibility.

    "It was a marvelous performance by the entire crew. It was really rewarding. It's rewarding to be back and see our families though. We're happy to be here," said Cmdr. Michael Stevens, New Hampshire's commanding officer.

    During her maiden deployment, New Hampshire, the fifth submarine of the Virginia-class, made port calls in France, Spain and Norway. While in Norway, New Hampshire's crew participated in the weeklong Norwegian Submarine Centennial celebration with submariners from that Norway, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. During the celebration, the crew marched through downtown Bergen, Norway, to help the country celebrate its 100th submarine birthday.

    "We have 134 crew members," said Stevens. "For about 80 percent, it was their first deployment, and probably for more than that, it was their first time in a foreign country. So it was a lot of fun for them. They had a good time."

    Though the crew may have had a good time, they said it is better to be home.

    "I'm looking forward to relaxing and sleeping in, but I know that ain't gonna happen," said Machinist's Mate 1st Class Adam LaMar, as he held his 10-month-old daughter, Indy, who was chosen to receive the traditional "first hug" upon arrival.

    For many family members, the crew's homecoming was an emotional occasion.

    "It is a whirlwind of emotions. Words can't really describe the feeling," said Candice Revitzer, wife of Ensign Jason Revitzer, New Hampshire's supply officer. "It's very hard to be apart from each other, but if anything, it really teaches you how strong your love is."

    The Revitzer couple was chosen to execute the traditional "first kiss" upon the ship's return home.

    New Hampshire was launched Feb. 21, 2008 and christened four months later June 21, 2008 in Groton, eight months ahead of schedule and $54 million under budget. She finished initial sea trials, was delivered to the Navy Aug. 28, 2008 and was then commissioned at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, Oct. 25, 2008.

    The name New Hampshire was awarded to the submarine after a letter writing campaign by third graders from Garrison Elementary School in Dover, New Hampshire, to members of Congress, the state governor and the secretary of the Navy.

    For more news from Commander Submarine Group 2, visit www.navy.mil/local/Subgru2/.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/07/mil-090722-nns01.htm

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:03 am

    The Navy will christen and launch the dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Matthew Perry, Sunday, Aug. 16, 2009, during a 5 p.m. PDT ceremony at the General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego, Calif.

    Continuing the Lewis and Clark-class (T-AKE) tradition of honoring legendary pioneers and explorers, the Navy’s newest underway replenishment ship recognizes Navy Commodore Matthew C. Perry (1794-1858) who led a squadron of ships to Japan in 1853 with the aim of opening that nation to trade. He served during the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War, and was sent to suppress piracy and the slave trade in the West Indies.

    Vice Adm. Richard Hunt, commander, 3rd Fleet, will deliver the ceremony’s principal address. Hester Evans, descendant of the ship’s namesake, will serve as ship’s sponsor. The ceremony will include the time-honored Navy tradition of the sponsor breaking a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship.

    Designated T-AKE 9, Matthew Perry is the ninth ship of the class, a program of up to 14 ships, the first 11 of which will serve as combat logistics force ships and the last three of which are expected to be part of the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future). As a combat logistics force ship, Matthew Perry will help the Navy maintain a worldwide forward presence by delivering ammunition, food, fuel, and other dry cargo to U.S. and allied ships at sea.

    As part of Military Sealift Command’s Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force, Matthew Perry is designated as a United States Naval Ship (USNS) and will be crewed by 124 civil service mariners and 11 Navy sailors. The ship is designed to operate independently for extended periods at sea and can carry two helicopters. The ship is 689 feet in length, has an overall beam of 106 feet, has a navigational draft of 30 feet, displaces approximately 42,000 tons, and is capable of reaching a speed of 20 knots using a single-shaft, diesel-electric propulsion system.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/08/mil-090812-dod03.htm

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Navy to Commission Energy-Efficient Amphibious Assault Ship Makin Island !

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:57 am

    Navy to Commission Energy-Efficient Amphibious Assault Ship Makin Island

    The Navy will commission the amphibious assault ship Makin Island, Saturday, Oct. 24, during a 10 a.m. PDT ceremony at North Island Naval Air Station, Coronado, Calif.

    Makin Island is named for the daring raid carried out by Marine Corps Companies Alpha and Bravo, Second Raider Battalion, on the Japanese-held Makin Island, in the Gilbert Islands, on Aug. 17-18, 1942. The raid was launched from the submarines USS Nautilus and USS Argonaut and succeeded in routing the enemy forces based there, gaining valuable intelligence. Twenty-three Navy Crosses were awarded for actions during the raid, including to the raid’s leader, Marine Corps Lt. Col. Evans Carlson, and executive officer, Marine Corps Maj. James Roosevelt (son of President Franklin Roosevelt). Marine Corps Sgt. Clyde Thomason was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for heroism during the raid and was the first enlisted Marine to be so honored during World War II. One previous ship, a Casablanca-class escort aircraft carrier (1944-1946), has borne the name Makin Island, and received five battle stars for World War II service.

    Adm. Patrick Walsh, commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, will deliver the ceremony's principal address. Silke Hagee, wife of former commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Michael Hagee, will serve as ship's sponsor. In the time honored Navy tradition, she will give the first order to "man our ship and bring her to life!"

    Makin Island is the eighth Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. Second only to an aircraft carrier in size, LHDs embark, transport, deploy, command and fully support an expeditionary unit of 2,000 Marines. Makin Island can accommodate three landing craft air cushion, a squadron of AV-8B Harrier II aircraft, and a full range of Navy/Marine Corps helicopters and amphibious vehicles to perform sea control and limited power projection missions.

    Makin Island is the first Navy amphibious assault ship to replace steam boilers with gas turbines, and the first Navy surface ship to be equipped with both gas turbines and an auxiliary propulsion system. By using this unique propulsion system, the Navy expects over the course of the ship’s lifecycle to see fuel savings of more than $250 million, further demonstrating the Navy’s commitment to energy awareness and conservation.

    Makin Island is fully equipped with command, control, communication, computers and intelligence systems for flagship command duty. The afloat capability of Makin Island’s medical facility is second only to the Navy's hospital ships. The ship is armed with two NATO Sea Sparrow surface missile systems for anti-air warfare protection, two rolling airframe missile systems and two Phalanx close-in-weapons systems mounts to counter threats from low flying aircraft. Six missile decoy launchers augment the anti-ship missile defenses.

    Capt. Robert Kopas, born in Cleveland and raised in Phoenix, is the ship’s commanding officer. Built by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Ingalls Operations in Pascagoula, Miss., the ship is 844 feet in length with a 106-foot beam, and has living areas for nearly 3,200 crewmembers and embarked forces.

    Upon commissioning, the ship becomes a member of U.S. Pacific Fleet as part of Amphibious Group Five and will be home ported in San Diego.

    Media may direct queries to the Navy Office of Information at 703-697-5342. For more information visit the ship's Web site at http://www.makin-island.navy.mil/default.htm.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13066

    oleg nik
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2010-03-11
    Location : USA

    Aircraft Investment Plan Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2040

    Post  oleg nik on Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:26 am

    Navy short and medium term with the large surface warships important changes:
    Abandon the use of future air defense and missile defense cruisers CG (X).
    Burke-class destroyers to extend the production line. 2016 financial year to purchase an upgrade Burke, using the next generation of air defense and missile defense radar (AMDR), AMDR is the successor to the Aegis-type bar. As a result, after 2016, made of Burke, is no longer a multi-purpose destroyers in nature, but rather anti-aircraft and anti-missile destroyers. In addition to ship outside the AMDR will configure the next-generation air defense and anti-missile missile systems (Standard -6, standard-3II).
    Fiscal year 2011 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have added a new item: arc (ArcLight), this is a new agility in the global fight against the conventional (PGS-C) demonstration projects. It uses the standard-3II missile body and high-speed gliders loading, only 90 kg warhead with a range of up to 3600 kilometers, the direct use of the Navy VLS Vertical Launching System.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Cracks Continue To Plague U.S. Cruisers

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:03 pm

    Cracks Continue To Plague U.S. Cruisers
    By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
    Published: 9 Dec 2010 21:36


    Barely a year after the U.S. Navy spent $40 million to fix the cruiser Port Royal after an embarrassing grounding, the ship is again out of action, back in a shipyard at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. But this time it's not a damaged hull that's the problem. Rather, it's an issue that is plaguing all 22 cruisers in service: cracks in the aluminum superstructure.
    The U.S. Navy cruiser Port Royal being refloated at Pearl Harbor in September 2009 after repairs from a grounding. The ship is back in the shipyard because of a new series of cracks in its superstructure. (Marshall Fukuki / U.S. Navy)

    The Port Royal was operating in the Pacific Northwest in September when sailors discovered new cracks in the superstructure, including an eight-crack on the 06 level, one of the highest decks in the ship. Most of the cracks that appear on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers are being repaired during regular overhauls, but in this case the damage was enough to send the ship home to Pearl Harbor for yet another extended repair period.

    So far, the Navy has awarded $14 million to BAE Systems in Pearl to fix the Port Royal. The work package will include repairs to the bulkheads and deck around two gas turbine intakes; fuel oil storage tank top repairs; superstructure crack repairs; and removal and replacement of aluminum decking and plating. The work is expected to be finished in February.

    "We are dealing with a class-wide issue of superstructure structural issues," said Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for Naval Surface Forces in San Diego. "These are things we're seeing on other ships of this class."

    The Port Royal situation might be the worst case to date.

    "Most of the issues are being dealt with when the ships come in for a regular availability," or overhaul, said one source familiar with the situation. "This is the first one I know of where we specifically went in for repairs." The work is necessary, the source added, "to restore structural integrity of the ship."

    The problem, according to the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), is the aluminum alloy used in the superstructure of the cruisers, which have steel hulls.

    "There have been various degrees of crack repair on every CG [guided-missile cruiser] in the past year," said Chris Johnson, a NAVSEA spokesman in Washington. "The decking is the most prevalent cracking area due to exposure to elevated temperatures caused by solar absorption and exhaust temperatures."

    More than 3,000 cracks have been found so far across the entire Ticonderoga class, which originally numbered 27 ships. Twenty-two of the ships remain in service, and Port Royal, commissioned in 1994, is the newest.

    Their superstructures are made of aluminum alloy 5456, a material used on numerous U.S. warships since 1958. The alloy, according to NAVSEA, relies on approximately 5 percent magnesium as an alloying element to develop strength. Over time, the magnesium leaches out of the material and forms a film, susceptible to stress-corrosion cracking in a marine environment.

    NAVSEA has developed more than 17 alterations to deal with the cracks. In late 2008, the service began evaluating a different welding technique called Ultrasonic Impact Treatment (UIT). The Port Royal was one of the test ships for the new technique, Johnson said, and the UIT procedure was applied to specific areas of the ship in 2009.

    "With the current state of the technology, it is only practical to use UIT in small areas," Johnson said in a written statement. "We believe it has potential, and are evaluating it as part of CG Aluminum Superstructure Task Force for future use."

    The task force was set up this year by NAVSEA - at the fleet's request - to develop and assess technically viable options, Johnson said. Results from the group's work are expected to appear next spring.

    Many sailors who have served on a Ticonderoga-class cruiser have stories to tell about the cracks, ranging from descriptions of cracked masts to leaking fuel tanks next to high-wattage electrical equipment. Solving the issue is a key element in making sure the ships remain effective and safe to operate to the end of their planned 35- to 40-year service lives.

    NAVSEA noted that the aluminum alloys used on the cruisers are not on the new littoral combat ships, which are built with commercial alloys 5083 and 6082.

    "While the Navy has no current experience with this alloy, it is in wide use on commercial craft," Johnson said.

    The Port Royal has seen little service since returning from its last deployment in June 2008. On Feb. 5, 2009, just after completing a three-month overhaul, the ship ran up on a reef just off the Honolulu airport, in clear sight of every aircraft taking off and landing at the airport, and visible from the beaches at Waikiki. The cruiser was refloated after three-and-a-half days on the reef and towed back to Pearl Harbor, where the commanding officer was relieved of his duties.

    The Port Royal's hull, propellers and sonar dome received severe damage, and shipyard repairs continued into this year. After visiting Seattle in early August for Seafair, the cruiser caused a public relations stir when its wake washed up oysters on shore while operating near the Hood Canal.

    Despite these problems, the ship apparently has not missed a deployment.

    "Port Royal has not missed a scheduled deployment as a result of these repairs," Salata said. "She will continue her training and deploy in 2011."

    http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5202926&c=AME&s=SEA

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Pentagon to Send Floating Base to Mideast - Paper

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:59 pm

    Pentagon to Send Floating Base to Mideast - Paper

    The Pentagon is going to send a large floating base to the Middle East, The Washington Post said.

    The plan comes amid rising tensions with Iran, al Qaeda in Yemen and Somali pirates.

    The USS Ponce, an amphibious transport docking ship that was scheduled to be decommissioned, will be retrofitted as a makeshift staging base for Navy SEALs, the paper said.

    Navy officials told the Post the service is rushing to complete the retrofit and wants the Ponce in place by summer.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120128/170999566.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:05 am

    I wonder how Yakhont would do against a larger barge target...

    Hachimoto
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 153
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2013-02-08
    Age : 31

    USS Zumwalt

    Post  Hachimoto on Mon Aug 05, 2013 1:49 pm



    The Electric Warship

    After years of research, development, and debate, the USS Zumwalt, the first of a new class of high-tech destroyers, nears completion




    Two decades ago, the U.S. Navy began designing what it then called its “21st-century destroyers.” These were to be a fleet of 32 guided-missile destroyers that would be able to cruise near coastlines and attack forces on land with mind-boggling might. In 2001, though, the Navy canceled that program and replaced it with a less costly alternative.

    It took another dozen years, but the first destroyer of that new generation is now nearing completion. Although less ambitious than the original concept, the first ship of this new class, the USS Zumwalt, is pioneering so many advanced technologies that some decision makers have criticized the program for trying to do too much, too soon.

    Some of the pushback came simply from the enormous costs involved in developing so many cutting-edge technologies. Indeed, faced with mushrooming costs, the U.S. government reacted by repeatedly reducing the number of these destroyers to be built—eventually settling on just three ships. The total cost of the program, including R&D, that will result in those three ships is estimated to be US $22 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service [PDF]. Another point of intense debate was whether the main task envisioned for this ship—cruising in coastal waters while supporting military operations on nearby lands—was really so important to U.S. geopolitical interests.

    And there has been no shortage of purely technical questions. Chief among them: Are the many advanced technologies slated for the Zumwalt really battle ready? It will probably be years before we’ll know for sure. But it’s not too soon to consider how these technologies will affect future naval warfare.

    The U.S. Navy has not released details about the ship’s interior. But after gathering what information we could, including construction photos, we assembled the accompanying illustration. Together these visual elements offer what may be a preview of how warships will look for decades to come.

    One of the most obvious differences between the Zumwalt and almost all other ships is its basic shape. The Zumwalt has what’s known as a tumblehome hull, which narrows rather than widens with height above the waterline. The rake of the bow is also inverted, making the ship look like an oddly angular submarine.

    Tumblehome hulls haven’t been seen on naval ships in over a century. The U.S. Navy used it here because the inward-angled hull won’t reflect radar energy straight back to an adversary’s antennas. Its main disadvantage is instability: A tumblehome hull provides no additional righting force when the ship heels over, causing some naval architects to speculate that it could make the Zumwalt prone to capsizing in rough seas.

    Another distinguishing feature of the Zumwalt is its deckhouse, which rises above the main deck and houses the bridge, the exhaust stacks, and various radar antennas. Like the hull, it was designed to reduce the ship’s radar profile and has sides that cant inward. Unlike the steel hull, the upper part of the deckhouse is made of balsawood-cored carbon-composite panels.

    This material, highly unusual for a warship, was used to reduce weight up top (which aids stability), enhance corrosion resistance, and make the ship more stealthy. But it’s very expensive, and in January of this year the Navy began investigating using only steel for the deckhouse of the third and final ship of the Zumwalt class, the USS Lyndon B. Johnson.



    electricship diagram
    Illustration: John MacNeillDownload PDF of the illustration.

    Yet another departure from tradition is how the Zumwalt arranges its many missiles. Guided-missile destroyers of earlier design position their vertical missile-launcher tubes amidships, where they are best protected from enemy fire. The Zumwalt’s designers arrayed its missiles along the ship’s flanks, positioning them between inner and outer hulls. Putting them on the periphery does make the missiles more vulnerable to enemy fire, but it lessens the consequences should they be struck. Were that to happen, the resulting blast would explode outward, leaving intact the inner, watertight hull.

    In another break from the U.S. Navy’s usual designs, the Zumwalt’s propellers and drive shafts are turned by electric motors, rather than being directly attached to combustion engines. Such electric-drive systems, while a rarity for the U.S. Navy, have long been standard on big ships. What’s new and different about the one on the Zumwalt is that it’s flexible enough to propel the ship, fire railguns or directed-energy weapons (should these eventually be deployed), or both at the same time. That’s because the 78 megawatts from its four gas-turbine generators can be directed through the ship’s power-distribution network wherever it’s needed. The presence of such a tightly integrated power-generation and distribution system has led some to call the Zumwalt the U.S. Navy’s first “all-electric ship.”

    While the general idea of using electric motors to propel the ship wasn’t particularly controversial, the choice of what kind of motors to use did not come easily. The leading idea at first was to use permanent-magnet motors, but these proved challenging to develop, and the Navy ultimately opted for two 34-MW induction motors instead.

    It’s perhaps a bit ironic that, despite the many cutting-edge technologies it contains, the Zumwalt class was passed over for one of the Navy’s most technologically challenging missions of all: sea-based ballistic-missile defense [PDF], which has grown more important to the United States and its allies lately as more nations of concern attain nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities. Instead, the Navy will build more destroyers of a more conventional type and outfit them with the radars and antiballistic missiles needed.

    In a 2009 speech, Adm. Gary Roughhead, then Chief of Naval Operations, made his reasoning for this change clear. While he applauded the Zumwalt’s advanced technology and how the program was being run, he also repeated a truism that only the most naive engineers in attendance didn’t already know: “Technology does not always equate to relevant capability.”


    http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/military/the-electric-warship

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  NationalRus on Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:16 pm

    very interisting ship, would love to see it later on in the sea

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Are US navy vulnerable to the new stealth hardware ?

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 13, 2014 5:35 pm


    Is it information, or as usual hype ?
    I prefer to tell the second.


    http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-could-sink-america-navy-094500872--politics.html?cache_clear


    Flyingdutchman
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 557
    Points : 577
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Tue May 13, 2014 7:48 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Is it information, or as usual hype ?
    I prefer to tell the second.


    http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-could-sink-america-navy-094500872--politics.html?cache_clear


    It would be very dangerous for the US navy in a conflict.



    As it looks here you wont need much.
    The dutch submarines did it!!

    While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

    During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

    Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.

    As you can see they are vunerable.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 14, 2014 8:49 am

    The main problem with most diesel electric subs is that they tend to be much smaller and cheaper than nukes and have rather less endurance and speed.

    AIPs is changing the situation with endurance but lack of speed is still an issue.

    The new Lada class subs had such a long development period because their sonars and sensors and systems are nuke attack sub class systems which makes them more expensive, but also rather more capable and with UKSK launchers they will also have a range of capabilities most conventional subs don't have.

    With the Lada-M with new propulsion, Lithium-ion batteries, and AIP the will be VERY capable vessels.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  nemrod on Thu May 15, 2014 2:04 pm

    Flyingdutchman wrote:
    As you can see they are vunerable.

    I never meant they are unvulnerables. They are far to be unvulnerables, if someone studies lessons during the previous wars, anyone could easily realize that war ships are very, very vulnerable. Why did America gave up an attack against Syria ? Because of -one among several reasons- SSNX 26-27-28-29.
    - After the six days war, Egypt easily sank israeli destroyer Eilat, with an SSN-3 Shadock. During the war of the Vietnam, US Navy managed to set their aircraft carriers out of reach of North Vietnamese anti naval batteries. They knew very well what would be the desastrous consequences.
    - During the Falklands war, old argentinian Mirages with Exocet missiles sank 2 british destroyers, and Argentina lost one cruiser.
    - During Lebanon war in 1983, US managed to stay out of range of syrian batteries because of SSNX-22.
    - During the Lebanon war 2006, Hizbollah sank -?- or badly damaged the Hanith destroyer.

    The warships are well known to be very vulnerables.


    Garry wrote:
    With the Lada-M with new propulsion, Lithium-ion batteries, and AIP the will be VERY capable vessels.
    I don't know very much about submarines technology, I know only that titanium structure help more in order to be stealthy. Moreover recently, an algerian -russian origin-submarin kilo class successfully managed to be undetectable in mediteranean sea, and successfully approched  US navy task force, this submarine could easily sunk any US warship including aircraft carriers. This incident triggered a great shock and huge concern in Washington, and in US Navy staff.

    My remarqs during my first message concerning the fact that US military often cry in order to obtain more credits from the tax payers. This hype was successfully experimented during the cold war. Each time, the congress assessed to increase credits. US navy does not need any credits, as most of the third world -non developped countries- could not afford to confront US Navy. However, US navy is useless against great powers like China, Russia, India, Japan.

    This hype is intended to increase the number of warships and their modernization. US could not rivalize Brics, but they prefered instead to extend their empire by destroying every countries that won't obei to them.[/quote]

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 17, 2014 12:14 pm

    Titanium only reduces magnetic signature, so MAD boom on aircraft and helos have more problems detecting the Sub.

    However MAD detection is final detection and is very inefficient for searching for a sub... it is more normal to use some other method like Sonar (active or passive) to find the general location of the sub and then use MAD to detect the precise location due to the effect of all that metal on the Earths magnetic field. Titanium has a much weaker effect on the earths magnetic field so is much harder to detect using MAD.

    Titanium is mainly used because it is light and strong and allows deeper depths to be achieved than with steels or other metals.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    andalusia
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Does US Navy control the world's oceans?

    Post  andalusia on Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:16 am

    I want to know does the US Navy control the world's oceans? Moreover, is the US Navy invincible? During the Cold War did the US Navy and Soviet Navy share power?

    Flyingdutchman
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 557
    Points : 577
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:06 am

    The U.S Navy doesn't control the world oceans, there are too much other powerfull navies for that.

    With an aircraft carrier stationed there they are maybe in control of the persian gulf.


    And the Pacific is controlled by the U.S for the most part, but in future the chinese will be in control of a large part, as that is their goal.

    Take the atlantic, US is in control for most part but as soon as Russia starts building nuclear carriers and stations them at the northern fleet they will probably sail far in to the atlantic as well.
    And remember the U.K. Has a navy aswell Wink 

    And the Med. Is divided between european and african countries, i would say the most powerfull navy in the med. Is France.

    And the indian ocean is controlled by India and chinese subs...
    Aswell as the arabian gulf.

    Hachimoto
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 153
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2013-02-08
    Age : 31

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Hachimoto on Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:48 am

    andalusia wrote:
    I want to know does the US Navy control the world's oceans?

    No one can say Yes, no one can say No.

    But if you count US allies it's an absolute Yes.

    It is sure the most powerful navy in the world by far, it has a monstrous attack power but they for sure not invulnerable and that also by far.

    The most spectacular part is their Naviation.

    andalusia wrote:is the US Navy invincible

    Nothing made by humans is invincible, past present and future.

    andalusia wrote:During the Cold War did the US Navy and Soviet Navy share power?

    To be brief they had different views on how to build powerful navy based on what are their needs of the navy forces, you just not build something for the sake of building it.

    So comparing their power will result in comparing on how both were doing their jobs, and i think they both did great.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:50 am

    International waters are controlled by international law, but at the end of the day it comes down to who has what and where they have it.

    In the Black Sea for instance the Soviets and Russians can generally get away with more than a foreign to the region navy could get away with.

    there are a few very obscure rules of the sea including one that states something like if you are sailing from point A to point B and that line of travel is inside the territorial waters of another country you have the right to sail that line or some such rubbish.

    The US Navy tried to test this idea in the Black Sea and tried to sail through Crimean waters when they were Soviet.

    This was the result:



    Funny really... we were talking about the big US cruisers like the Ticonderoga class (USS Yorktown) and the Arleigh Burke vs new Russian Frigates... this was a little Krivak class Frigate vs a 9K ton US cruiser...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Hannibal Barca
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1219
    Points : 1241
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:40 pm

    Goes without saying that United States control the world oceans. Their surface navy is unparalleled and will remain unparalleled the next 10-20 years although the size of China's navy when finalized should be even bigger than what american navy is now and given the extremely hard economic times US is going to suffer it is highly unlikely that US navy will remain anything more than a small fraction of what it's current size.

    Furthermore the combat effectiveness of surface ships nowadays is highly disputed. They are large, non maneuverable, slowing moving targets, relatively small in total numbers, really expensive and difficult to replaced when lost. This is precisely the kind of target which missile and torpedo technologies specialize not to mention the ever better aviation capabilities and range. So we can only speculate how effective can be traditional navies in modern times, my personal opinion is totally miniscule.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:16 am

    Goes without saying that United States control the world oceans.

    So any piracy that occurs off Africa or the Pacific is with the say so of the US Navy?

    Saying the United States Navy controls the sea because it is big and powerful and has x number of carrier groups is like saying the New York Police department controls New York and there is therefore no crime in New York.

    The US has a big powerful navy but only controls some parts all the time and some parts some of the time and other some parts never.

    So we can only speculate how effective can be traditional navies in modern times, my personal opinion is totally miniscule.

    Naval forces are the ground forces of the sea. They tend to be more expensive and when used badly can cost more lives, but at the end of the day are far more capable and useful than air power alone.

    Needless to say it wasn't aircraft that was going to defeat the UK in WWII, it was a powerful sub fleet, which in the end was undermined by better use of surface vessels and air power.

    Having said that a single modern sub with vertical launch tubes for a few dozen anti ship missiles could strangle most island nations fairly quickly... not needing to zip around the place launching torpedoes from close range.

    Relatively small Kh-35 sized missiles could be carried in their hundreds on even a modest size vessel and the latest model with a range of 250km would allow even spread out transport ships to be decimated.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3223
    Points : 3347
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:50 am

    Hannibal Barca wrote:Goes without saying that United States control the world oceans. Their surface navy is unparalleled and will remain unparalleled the next 10-20 years although the size of China's navy when finalized should be even bigger than what american navy is now and given the extremely hard economic times US is going to suffer it is highly unlikely that US navy will remain anything more than a small fraction of what it's current size.

    Furthermore the combat effectiveness of surface ships nowadays is highly disputed. They are large, non maneuverable, slowing moving targets, relatively small in total numbers, really expensive and difficult to replaced when lost. This is precisely the kind of target which missile and torpedo technologies specialize not to mention the ever better aviation capabilities and range. So we can only speculate how effective can be traditional navies in modern times, my personal opinion is totally miniscule.

    You cannot who controls what unless there is a war and Russia NAvy is blocked from traveling any place.
    A fishing boat with Kalibrs missiles can sink a Ticoderoga Cruiser , or a container with same missiles in a transport ship can do the same or sink and aircraft carrier.  So you can't say who controls what unless Russia cannot travel
    to any place. . For me the biggest danger for Russia is not the US navy , i really think Russia can kick the ass of United States in a naval combat.. that is 700km Kalibers vs 120km tomahawks missiles. Warships in reality are just mobile launchers.. the way they need to be seen. What kills are the weapons.  US with subsonic tomahawks made in the 80s  have no chance to penetrate Russian defenses with Kashtan gatlin gun that fire 10k projectiles per minute.



    Because US have naval numbers superiority like 10 to 1.  Russia needs to go on the offense and kill fast. US aircraft carriers and destroyers.  But all this battles are unrealistic. because Russia will never go far away of its territory against the US navy.  US navy fighting in the black sea for example no matter how big it is.. will be at disadvantage.. because Russia territory can become a Giant Aircraft CArrier. but that do not sink. And airplanes of Russia air force can wipe the US and NATO navies launching waves of antiship missiles ,while S-400s missiles shield
    Russia from attacks.  Far from Russia coast.. however they will be at disadvantage ,because Russia airforce cannot help. In Syrian war for example Russia was in a huge disadvantage to defend Syria with its navy.. because will had to fight Turkey airforce + Israel Airforce + Jordan + US navy. The only way Russia could stand a chance away of its land is having a big army in the land they want to defend.. and moving their S-400s and a BIG airforce to the land they defending.

    Russia major treat from US is not is navy  that Russia can keep away with superior cruise missiles.. but its naval airforce. This is why Russia needs a new stealth cruiser armed with S-400s /S-500s long range and 400km missiles and this one escorted by 6-8 Gorshov Frigates and a couple of submarines.  That will be good enough to open a naval blockade by sea anywhere in case of war.  Smile

    Naval blockades using territory is however more harder.. like the Turkey strait. Russia will need to declare war on them attacking their land and use force against them to unblockade it.

    When it comes to China. they already have 70% the size of US NAVY. not fishing boats but modern Warships.
    In 5 years is expected China navy will surpass US navy size. And their warships Use state of the art Russian weapons .

    about the question who control world oceans? No one..
    Atlantic is too big to be controlled , Same with Pacific. you can only control straits and small parts of water.
    Russia pretty much can control the entire black sea in a war..but Turkey controls the strait. And Russia have no competition is the caspian sea .is isolated sea ,that NATO cannot enter. The baltic sea in the other hand is more harder to defend if NATO deploys a powerful navy in Kaliningrad coast that is Far from Russia and more harder to defend by Russia airforce because the land is separated from Russia.

    andalusia
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Does US Navy control the world's oceans?

    Post  andalusia on Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:37 am

    I like all of your responses especially Vann 7. Is the US navy overrated? Read these two articles:

    http://www.transasianaxis.com/showthread.php?304-Is-the-US-Navy-Overrated

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:59 pm

    Yes, the US Navy is overrated... but don't think that means you can ignore them... don't under rate them... they are the most powerful navy on the planet by a significant margin... now and for the foreseeable future.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yes, the US Navy is overrated... but don't think that means you can ignore them... don't under rate them... they are the most powerful navy on the planet by a significant margin... now and for the foreseeable future.

    The problem is to finance the military budget much of the money has to be borrowed, but what if the people lending money to the U.S. stops all the lending? This is actually quite a feasible scenario, the default risks caused by Republican political leadership in Congress trying to prevent a budget coming in to place could possibly wreck the Dollar as a world reserve currency, combined with the fact that within 2 years the U.S. would of accumulated a foreign held debt of over $20 trillion USD...lenders will start wondering if they'll ever get their money back. Journalist Pepe Escobar has documented that the U.S. Dollar was involved in 55% of the worlds trades circa the year 2000, but has greatly receded down to being involved in 33% of world trades by 2010, and if the current trend continues than by the 2020's the U.S. Dollar trades will in all likeliness dip below 20% which may warrant losing it's World Reserve Currency status. If such a feasible scenario happens, and as sensationalist as this may sound the massive U.S. military and budget will in all likelihood greatly recede and be a fraction of what it is today!

    Garry you live in New Zealand right? That means you live in the British Commonwealth, so you know how massive British Naval fleets used to be. Compare how massive the Royal Navy was in the early 1900's to how minuscule they are now, the Royal Navy is forced to share an aircraft carrier with France...now compare Russian military (which was always mainly a land power) circa the Napoleonic wars to Russian military of contemporary times, the  Russian military has maintained it's massive land power status even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the navy greatly receded. The pattern shows that massive navy's are more susceptible of having their bubbles burst, and greatly receding in size while military ground forces are more likely to maintain their size. Ironically the U.S. ruling class is leading America on the very same path ideologically, economically, politically, military as the British Empire, and the massive U.S. military/budget (just like the British Empire's military/budget) maybe be greatly receding (a feasible scenario no matter how sensationalist it may sound) within a couple of decades (especially if the U.S. defaults on it's debt).

    Flyingdutchman
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 557
    Points : 577
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:14 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Yes, the US Navy is overrated... but don't think that means you can ignore them... don't under rate them... they are the most powerful navy on the planet by a significant margin... now and for the foreseeable future.

    The problem is to finance the military budget much of the money has to be borrowed, but what if the people lending money to the U.S. stops all the lending? This is actually quite a feasible scenario, the default risks caused by Republican political leadership in Congress trying to prevent a budget coming in to place could possibly wreck the Dollar as a world reserve currency, combined with the fact that within 2 years the U.S. would of accumulated a foreign held debt of over $20 trillion USD...lenders will start wondering if they'll ever get their money back. Journalist Pepe Escobar has documented that the U.S. Dollar was involved in 55% of the worlds trades circa the year 2000, but has greatly receded down to being involved in 33% of world trades by 2010, and if the current trend continues than by the 2020's the U.S. Dollar trades will in all likeliness dip below 20% which may warrant losing it's World Reserve Currency status. If such a feasible scenario happens, and as sensationalist as this may sound the massive U.S. military and budget will in all likelihood greatly recede and be a fraction of what it is today!

    Garry you live in New Zealand right? That means you live in the British Commonwealth, so you know how massive British Naval fleets used to be. Compare how massive the Royal Navy was in the early 1900's to how minuscule they are now, the Royal Navy is forced to share an aircraft carrier with France...now compare Russian military (which was always mainly a land power) circa the Napoleonic wars to Russian military of contemporary times, the  Russian military has maintained it's massive land power status even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the navy greatly receded. The pattern shows that massive navy's are more susceptible of having their bubbles burst, and greatly receding in size while military ground forces are more likely to maintain their size. Ironically the U.S. ruling class is leading America on the very same path ideologically, economically, politically, military as the British Empire, and the massive U.S. military/budget (just like the British Empire's military/budget) maybe be greatly receding (a feasible scenario no matter how sensationalist it may sound) within a couple of decades (especially if the U.S. defaults on it's debt).

    UK doesn't need to share a carrier with france, you mean tht france joined the UK with designing the QE class but France won't build the carrier :/.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:36 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:36 pm