Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2511
    Points : 2503
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:02 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:Sort of the reason I take issue with the re-posting of these articles. "Good points?" Or lying, it's hard to tell, better just to avoid. Op-eds on mil equipment are generally just trash, (calm down Kilo, I  meant that across the board).

    We have a discussion which is the whole point. We are no authors and all sources suffer as such.

    PS. you should address the ''calm down'' to those that react negatively to this information
    OminousSpudd
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 896
    Points : 903
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 23
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:07 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:Sort of the reason I take issue with the re-posting of these articles. "Good points?" Or lying, it's hard to tell, better just to avoid. Op-eds on mil equipment are generally just trash, (calm down Kilo, I  meant that across the board).

    We have a discussion which is the whole point. We are no authors and all sources suffer as such.

    PS. you should address the ''calm down'' to those that react negatively to this information
    A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive? scratch
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2511
    Points : 2503
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:10 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive? scratch

    On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
    If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.
    OminousSpudd
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 896
    Points : 903
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 23
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:38 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive? scratch

    On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
    If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.
    Well, limited time means I don't enjoy trawling through inane discussions about articles that are bunk. But if that's your thing, don't let me stop you.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2511
    Points : 2503
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:16 pm

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive? scratch

    On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
    If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.
    Well, limited time means I don't enjoy trawling through inane discussions about articles that are bunk. But if that's your thing, don't let me stop you.

    Same, so it's time for you and others to end the useless comments.
    OminousSpudd
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 896
    Points : 903
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 23
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:42 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive? scratch

    On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
    If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.
    Well, limited time means I don't enjoy trawling through inane discussions about articles that are bunk. But if that's your thing, don't let me stop you.

    Same, so it's time for you and others to end the useless comments.
    In academia, if there is a clear fallacy in an article, the entire thing is thrown into doubt.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:21 am

    Even if the plane lands safely there can still be problems...

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Gmitfr10
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Guest on Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:Even if the plane lands safely there can still be problems...

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Gmitfr10

    Americans often for that reason drop unused "heavy" warload. Adriatic sea swalloved dozens of GBUs in 1999.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:39 am

    Yeah, but they drop it before they try to land.

    this is not so much a case of trying to meet max landing weights as... this is not properly secured on the aircraft... didn't matter on take off accelerating forward, or flying around, but suddenly stopping and there is a problem...
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2511
    Points : 2503
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:49 pm

    This American Warship Shot Down MiGs and Pranked the Soviets
    USS ‘Biddle’ fought the Cold War with ferocity

    by STEVE WEINTZ
    This article was originally published on April 13, 2015.

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 1*7c8b4wGHQx8hippOObElFQ

    During the Cold War, many lesser-known confrontations occurred at sea away from the headlines and major crises. This was certainly true for the crew of the U.S. Navy’s Belknap-class guided-missile cruiser USS Biddle.

    The warship sailed into the thick of the Vietnam War and came face-to-face with the Soviet Navy. During the 1970s, Biddle shot down North Vietnamese MiGs and even sneaked up on a Soviet refueling ship. Provocative, fierce and gutsy, the ship’s crew kept alive the fighting spirit of their ship’s namesake — a hard-charging captain from the American Revolutionary War.

    Biddle launched on July 2, 1965 at Bath Iron Works, Maine. She was the fourth ship to bear the name of Capt. Nicholas Biddle of the Continental Navy. The colonial-era captain and Philadalelphian went to sea at age 13 in 1763. By the time he joined the independence movement at age 25, Biddle had already served in the Royal Navy, survived a shipwreck and joined young Horatio Nelson on an Arctic expedition.

    Biddle later became dedicated to the Patriot cause. In 1775, the Continental Congress issued him a captain’s commission, and he proved himself up to it. The next year, his brig Andrea Doria seized two British transports off Newfoundland. In the winter of 1777, while in command of the 32-gun frigate Randolph, Biddle seized four ships full of war supplies off South Carolina.

    He put down a rebellion of deserting sailors by aiming a loaded pistol at the ringleader. In 1778, he ran the British blockade. And later that year, Randolph engaged HMS Yarmouth — a warship with twice her firepower — east of Charleston. The ships exchanged several broadsides before Randolph’s powder magazines exploded. Seriously wounded, Biddle went down with his ship.

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 1*UkZBt9av-dyEA-63Akm7hw

    The night of the MiGs

    One hundred ninety-four years later, the cruiser USS Biddle — call-sign “Hard Charger” — kept station in the Gulf of Tonkin east of Vietnam. From a buoy 200 miles north of Yankee Station, the cruiser guided air strikes, watched for hostiles headed out to sea and conducted search-and-rescue operations.
    On the night of July 19, 1972, Biddle’s duty watch officers monitored an American combat air patrol escorting two damaged A-6 Intruders on their way back from a mission. Suddenly, five incoming MiGs popped up on the ship’s radar.

    The crew wasn’t immediately alarmed. North Vietnamese fighters had taken runs at American warships before, and they almost always turned back before heading out to sea. This time was different.

    With the MiGs just minutes away and inbound at 500 knots, Biddle’screw scrambled to their battle stations. Fire-control systems locked onto the approaching aircraft while the ship readied her Terrier missiles. Biddle increased speed to 25 knots and began evasive maneuvers. The warship fired her missiles, which lit up the deck with a blazing glow as they streaked toward their targets. The radar confirmed one MiG destroyed. Two others turned tail and ran.

    But the two remaining MiGs — aligned one behind the other — kept coming. The warship pounded away at the incoming jets with her three- and five-inch guns while the missile systems locked on and fired. One MiG crashed, and the other bolted for home. The ship was safe, but it wasn’t clear if her guns or missiles shot down the enemy plane. If the guns did it, then the Biddle scored the last manually-operated gun kill by a ship on an aircraft in the U.S. Navy’s history.

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 1*IeTSlytTy34QGZZ0DHdz_A

    Prank the Soviets

    But war is more than terror and shock — it’s also stupid, boring and funny. The Biddle’s crew found room in the strange goings-on of the Cold War to play a practical joke. During a Mediterranean cruise vaguely dated to the 1970s, Biddle received orders for a “special assignment” — to shadow a Soviet naval task force — in the Black Sea.

    The Biddle quietly steamed into the Black Sea where she stalked and found the Soviet ships strung out in a long line, according to an account from the USS Biddle Association. A support ship refueled the Soviet vessels from a long stern-mounted hose. Biddle’s skipper guessed that the Soviet crews were too preoccupied with navigation and refueling to notice one more vessel in their midst.

    He ordered his ship to steer into the refueling line. When his ship’s turn came, the American captain had a Russian-speaking crewman talk to the refueling ship. “How much do you need?” came the query. “Just a token amount,” replied the sailor. “What ship are you?” the Soviet crewman asked on final approach. The American sailor replied in perfect Russian, “United States battle cruiser Biddle.”

    “The radio went silent — then all Hell broke loose,” wrote Richard Outland, a hull technician on board Biddle. “Gongs, whistles, lights all seemed to go off at once on board the Russkie ships, as they scattered in every direction away from us.” The captains of the American cruiser and the Soviet oiler exchanged pleasantries — and the ships separated in the night — with the Americans feeling a rush.

    Biddle served until the end of the Cold War and took part in operations off Libya and in the Persian Gulf. But her time — and reason for being — ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    The Navy decommissioned Biddle in 1993 and scrapped her in 2001. But the ship’s crew kept something in common with Biddle the captain. He had “the primary qualification of a good naval officer — an indomitable will,” Willis John Abbot wrote in The Naval History of the United States.

    https://warisboring.com/this-american-warship-shot-down-migs-and-pranked-the-soviets-45a9eb5f5b95#.6q4dvyu03
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:54 am

    Yeah... the US Navy has been trying to be funny for years... like this:

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6547
    Points : 6614
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:26 am

    The US Navy is altering course to expand the capability set of the "Sea Hunter," a submarine-specialist vessel, to include broader lethal weapon attachments and a set of tools to initiate electronic attacks.

    "Right now, the sky’s the limit," Sea Hunter project manager Capt. Jon Rucker said at the Surface Naval Association in Arlington, Virginia on Tuesday. But the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) wants to give the submarine-hunting drone ship a "mission portfolio" makeover.

    The Sea Hunter checks in at 132-feet long, 135 tons, has a range of 10,000 miles and was designed to weather waves of up to 13 feet. What DARPA thinks make the Sea Hunter unique, however, are sophisticated sensors which can locate virtually silent enemy submarines. Retrieving the underwater GPS coordinates of stealthy diesel-electric submarines in busy waterways is akin to "trying to identify the sound of a single car engine in the din of a major city," Rear Adm. Frank Drennan, a senior anti-submarine warfare official said Tuesday.

    The Sea Hunter belongs to the Pentagon’s "anti-submarine warfare continuous trail unmanned vessel" (ACTUV), where the agency intended to design a partially-autonomous ship to navigate naval theaters globally. DARPA hopes to have the Sea Hunter traveling autonomously for 90 days.

    In April 2016 the Navy celebrated the Sea Hunter’s first test firing of a payload. By monitoring the position and movement of foreign-deployed submarines over long time frames, the goal, Rucker said, is to stop enemy submarines from lurking in strategically vital areas, perhaps the Strait of Hormuz or South China Sea.

    One existing Pentagon doctrine requires a human-centric command and control center to authorize lethal force, which could potentially complicate DARPA’s quest to achieve increased self-governing transport and autonomous deadly-fire capability.


    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201701121049501488-navy-submarine-hunter-surface-warfare/
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13423
    Points : 13910
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:48 pm

    US Navy Missile Submarine Gets Go-Ahead

    WASHINGTON -- The program to build a new class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines for the US Navy passed a major procedural hurdle Jan. 4, the US Navy announced Monday, allowing engineers and designers to move to the detail design portion of the effort.

    The Milestone B approval was granted by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall for the Columbia-class program, previously known as the Ohio Class Replacement (ORP) and as SSBN(X).

    The US plans to design and build 12 Columbia-class submarines for a total acquisition cost of $100 billion – as measured in 2017 dollars – or $128 billion, as measured in total year dollars through the program, which stretches into the mid-2030s.

    In a statement, Columbia program director Capt. David Goggins declared “the Navy is committed to delivering Columbia on time and within budget while taking advantage of every opportunity to achieve further cost savings.”

    The official tally for the acquisition cost has been baselined at $100 billion, pegged to the year of the Milestone B review.

    With that approval, the Columbia class moves to the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program. The first ship is scheduled to be ordered in 2021.

    “Milestone B enables the program to move into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase where we will focus our attention on achieving an 83 percent design maturity prior to construction start in 2021,” Goggins said in the statement, adding that the next phase will be a production readiness review.

    General Dynamics Electric Boat is the Columbia program’s prime contractor. The shipbuilder, with shipyards at Quonset Point, Rhode Island and Groton, Connecticut, is expected to grow its workforce from 14,000 to 18,000 employees to build the Columbias while continuing to build Virginia-class attack submarines.

    Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding, GD’s 50-50 partner in building the Virginia class, will built roughly a third of each Columbia.

    The Columbia’s name was officially announced Dec. 14 and will carry hull designation SSBN 826. Follow-on ships of the class will be designated SSBN 827 through 837.

    US ballistic missile submarines carry the Trident D5 weapon with nuclear warheads. The Lockheed Martin-built missile will also arm Britain’s new Successor-class submarines, now known as the Dreadnought-class after the name of the first ship.

    The Navy expects the Columbia to carry out its first deterrent patrol during fiscal 2031.

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-missile-submarine-gets-go-ahead
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13423
    Points : 13910
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:21 am

    Grounded: Nearly two-thirds of US Navy’s strike fighters can’t fly

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet strike fighters are the tip of the spear, embodying most of the fierce striking power of the aircraft carrier strike group. But nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s strike fighters can’t fly — grounded because they’re either undergoing maintenance or simply waiting for parts or their turn in line on the aviation depot backlog.

    Overall, more than half the Navy’s aircraft are grounded, most because there isn’t enough money to fix them.

    Additionally, there isn’t enough money to fix the fleet’s ships, and the backlog of ships needing work continues to grow. Overhauls — “availabilities” in Navy parlance — are being canceled or deferred, and when ships do come in they need longer to refit. Every carrier overall for at least three years has run long, and some submarines are out of service for prolonged periods, as much as four years or more. One submarine, the Boise, has lost its diving certification and can’t operate pending shipyard work.

    Leaders claim that if more money doesn’t become available, five more submarines will be in the same state by the end of this year.

    The Navy can’t get money to move around service members and their families to change assignments, and about $440 million is needed to pay sailors. And the service claims 15 percent of its shore facilities are in failed condition — awaiting repair, replacement or demolition.

    The bleak picture presented by service leaders is in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s widely talked about plan to grow the Navy from today’s goal of 308 ships to 350 — now topped by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson’s new Force Structure Assessment that aims at a 355-ship fleet. Richardson’s staff is crafting further details on how the growth will be carried out — plans congressional leaders are eager to hear. It seems to many as though the Navy will be showered with money to attain such lofty goals.

    Yet, for now, money is tight, due to several years of declining budgets mandated first by the Obama administration, then Congress, and to the chronic inability of lawmakers to provide uninterrupted funds to the military services and the government at large. Budgets have been cut despite no slackening in the demand for the fleet’s services; and the Navy, to preserve shipbuilding funds, made a conscious choice to slash maintenance and training budgets rather than eliminate ships, which take many years to build and can’t be produced promptly even when funding becomes available.

    Congress has failed for the ninth straight year to produce a budget before the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2017, reverting to continuing resolutions that keep money flowing at prior year levels. CRs have numerous caveats, however, and many new projects or plans can’t be funded since they didn’t exist in the prior year. There is widespread agreement that CR funding creates havoc throughout the Pentagon and the industrial base that supports it — often substantially driving costs higher to recover from lengthy delays. Yet, like the proverbial weather that everyone talks about but no one can change, there seems to be little urgency in Congress to return to a more businesslike budget profile.

    The current continuing resolution through April 28 marks the longest stop-gap measure since fiscal 1977 — outstripping 2011 by only a couple weeks, noted Todd Harrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a post on Twitter. This also marks the first CR situation during a presidential transition year.

    And while the talk about building dozens of more ships grabs headlines, it is not at all clear when or even whether Congress will repeal the Budget Control Act — sequestration — which, if unabated, will continue its restrictions to 2021.

    Meanwhile, some details are emerging of the new administration’s efforts to move along the budget process. In a Jan. 31 memorandum, Defense Secretary James Mattis described a three-phase plan that included submission by the Pentagon of a 2017 budget amendment request. The request would be sent to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget by March 1.

    Under the plan, the full 2018 budget request is due to OMB no later than May 1.

    The third phase of the plan involves a new National Defense Strategy and FY2019-2023 defense program, which “will include a new force sizing construct” to “inform our targets for force structure growth,” Mattis said in the memo.

    The services will make their case to Congress this week when the vice chiefs of the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps testify in readiness hearings before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday and the Senate Armed Services Committee the following day.

    The vice chiefs are expected to make their pitches for money that can be spent right away, rather than funds for long-term projects that, with only five months left in the fiscal year even if Congress passes a 2017 budget, can’t be quickly put to use.

    “If we get any money at all, the first thing we’re going to do is throw it into the places we can execute it,” a senior Navy source said Feb. 2. “All of those places are in ship maintenance, aviation depot throughput — parts and spares — and permanent changes of station so we can move our families around and fill the holes that are being generated by the lack of PCS money.”

    The backlog is high. “There’s about $6-8 billion of stuff we can execute in April if we got the money,” the senior Navy source said. “We can put it on contract, we can deliver on it right away.”

    Even if the budget top line is increased, Navy leaders say, the immediate need is for maintenance money, not new ship construction. A supplemental Navy list of unfunded requirements for 2017 that was sent to Congress in early January and is still being revised made it clear that maintenance needs are paramount.

    “Our priorities are unambiguously focused on readiness — those things required to get planes in the air, ships and subs at sea, sailors trained and ready,” a Navy official declared. “No new starts.”

    The dire situation of naval aviation is sobering. According to the Navy, 53 percent of all Navy aircraft can’t fly — about 1,700 combat aircraft, patrol, and transport planes and helicopters. Not all are due to budget problems — at any given time, about one-fourth to one-third of aircraft are out of service for regular maintenance. But the 53 percent figure represents about twice the historic norm.

    The strike fighter situation is even more acute and more remarkable since the aircraft are vitally important to projecting the fleet’s combat power. Sixty-two percent of F/A-18s are out of service; 27 percent in major depot work; and 35 percent simply awaiting maintenance or parts, the Navy said.

    With training and flying hour funds cut, the Navy’s aircrews are struggling to maintain even minimum flying requirements, the senior Navy source said. Retention is becoming a problem, too. In 2013, 17 percent of flying officers declined department head tours after being selected. The percentage grew to 29 percent in 2016.

    Funding shortfalls mean many service members are unable to relocate to take on new assignments. So far in 2017, the Navy said, there have been 15,250 fewer moves compared with 2016.

    Under the continuing resolution, the senior Navy official said, another 14 ship availabilities will be deferred in 2018 — one submarine, one cruiser, six destroyers, two landing ship docks, one amphibious transport dock and three minesweepers. Programs seeking to buy items that were not included in the 2016 budget can’t move forward, including CH-53K helicopters, Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles, Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles and littoral combat ship module weapons. Many more programs that were to increase 2017 buys over 2016 levels can’t do so.

    And with only five months left in fiscal 2017, even if a budget is passed in late April, there is some talk about a yearlong continuing resolution — a prospect at which the senior Navy official shook his head.

    “The full CR is not a good situation at all,” he said.

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/grounded-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters-cant-fly
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:58 pm

    The Deadly Danger of Trump’s Naval Buildup


    The Navy could soon see a shipbuilding boom. But workers are dying and the contracts keep coming.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6547
    Points : 6614
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:59 pm

    29 March, 2017 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com BY: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

    A new torpedo upgrade that will fundamentally change the way US Navy airmen hunt submarines is on track to seek approval to begin low-rate initial production later this year, Boeing and Navy officials say on 28 March.

    The Lockheed Martin High Altitude Anti-submarine warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC) is in the midst of safe separation tests from the Boeing P-8A Poseidon. A guided flight test is planned in late Fiscal 2017, allowing the programme potentially to order 140 high-altitude torpedoes total over the first two lots.

    Following operational testing scheduled for completion by FY 2020, HAAWC also will be available to the P-8 fleet’s foreign customers, which currently include Australia, India and the UK, says Capt Tony Rossi, programme manager for Maritime Patrol and Reconnsassance Aircraft.

    The HAAWC integrates an air-launched accessory (ALA) kit with a GPS guidance system and folding wings onto a standard Mk54 torpedo. Boeing describes the HAAWC release ceiling as “up to 30,000ft”, but the precise maximum altitude is under discussion and could be higher.

    The capability potentially transforms a typically low-altitude anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, as practiced for decades by Lockheed P-3C Orion crews, who are required to skim the wave tops at 100ft to release torpedoes.


    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-on-track-for-high-altitude-p-8a-weapon-435653/
    OminousSpudd
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 896
    Points : 903
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 23
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:56 pm

    max steel wrote:The Deadly Danger of Trump’s Naval Buildup


    The Navy could soon see a shipbuilding boom. But workers are dying and the contracts keep coming.

    Really? Shipbuilding is dangerous work. Rapid ship-building I imagine is even more dangerous work. "But workers keep dying?" Come on, that's just disparaging.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6547
    Points : 6614
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:16 pm

    Its articles like this that bring home just how large the US military is, 58 P-8A in service and 11 on order.

    04 April, 2017 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com BY: Greg Waldron Singapore

    Boeing has secured a $2.2 billion contract covering 17 P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft destined for the US Navy, plus export customers Australia and the UK. Announcing the deal on 3 April, Boeing said the agreement also includes options for 32 additional aircraft, and "money for long-lead parts for future orders". The entire contract could be worth $6.8 billion if all options are exercised, it adds. Of the 17 aircraft, 11 will go to the US Navy, four to the Royal Australian Air Force, and two to the UK Royal Air Force. This pair will be the first examples from a nine-jet order, and will be delivered in 2019.

    Based on a 737-800 airliner with wings from the -900ER, the P-8A is designed for a range of maritime missions, including anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

    Flight Fleets Analyzer shows there are 68 of the type in current service. The USN is lead operator, with 58 examples operational, while Australia has received its first two P-8As and the Indian navy eight P-8Is.

    Separately, Norway's defence ministry in late March announced that it has signed a contract with the USA for five P-8As to replace its air force fleets of Lockheed Martin P-3C/N Orion maritime patrol aircraft and Dassault Falcon 20 business jets adapted for electronic warfare duties. Deliveries will be made between 2022 and 2023, it adds, with the acquisition worth around NKr10 billion ($1.16 billion).
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8164
    Points : 8250
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:38 pm


    Fact that 2/3 of US military budget goes to navy tells you how insanely expensive it is to be naval power.
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:26 am

    When your job is to meddle everywhere then one need large number of maritime patrol aircraft's.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13423
    Points : 13910
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Thu May 25, 2017 2:32 am

    US Navy Orders High-Tech Upgrades for Hawkeye Maritime Surveillance Aircraft
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6547
    Points : 6614
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:09 am

    Taking water and listing. Courts marshals in 1 2 3

    The USS Fitzgerald, a guided missile destroyer, collided with a merchant vessel southwest of Yokosuka, Japan, the U.S. Navy said in a statement on Friday afternoon. The crash happened at approximately 2:30 a.m. local time on June 17, and the Navy requested Japan's Coast Guard's assistance.

    The Navy said the Fitzgerald collided with a merchant vessel 56 nautical miles southwest of Yokosuka and the extent of injuries to U.S. personnel "is being determined." It added that the Navy had requested the assistance of the Japanese Coast Guard.

    According to Reuters, Japan's NHK public television website reported that the commercial vessel is a Philippines container ship and that the destroyer had suffered some flooding and was "unable to operate".



    Before

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 USS%20fitzgerald_0

    After

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 DCeU594UMAAYu3Z
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6547
    Points : 6614
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:53 am

    This collision is starting to look really strange. This is the link to the container vessel's track from the main link.



    http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html

    EDIT

    video footage, what a mess

    https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20170617_11/

    She is now safe in port and they are out looking for seven missing crew members

    EDIT

    It looks as the container ship may have circled after the collision rather than before so I have changed my original comment. The rules of the sea say that the US ship should have yielded to the container ship as it was on its starboard. The destroyer seems to have only completed a $21M refurb in Feb and the Captain only took over last month. He may be in hospital atm but this must be it for him, nothing bigger than a rowing boat in the future.

    Another link http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11628/destroyer-uss-fitzgerald-badly-damaged-after-collision-with-merchant-vessel

    This is from that link, note the sailors with heads in hands. In a photo of the container ship lower down it looks as if the impact might have bent the shaft of its anchor.

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 ?q=70&w=1440&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F06%2Fjada26


    Last edited by JohninMK on Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:50 pm; edited 3 times in total
    Hannibal Barca
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1325
    Points : 1337
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:48 pm

    This failed pariah state can't stop causing problems around the globe.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6547
    Points : 6614
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:33 pm

    From an updated previous link.

    This seems plausible, my highlight


    From a discussion with JJ I think the UTC/JST conversion may have been messed up, or the reported time by the US Navy and Japanese Coast Guard was not representative of the time of the collision, only when the collision was reported. I doubt anyone in the US military would mix up time zones, since they're very accurate regarding time. The US Navy press release reports the incident happened at 2:30am "LOCAL TIME", which is Japan Standard Time or JST, and which is UTC+9. The AIS data I scraped from MarineTraffic.com shows accurate to-the-second (or less) data, so that is what I can rely on for accuracy. Could the ACX Crystal have hit the USS Fitzgerald at full speed just before 16:30Z, rather than ~17:30Z as the US Navy said in their press release? I think so. With that in mind, watch the video again. Did the ACX Crystal strike the USS Fitzgerald while on a 70 degree course before 16:30Z, then while on autopilot, correct itself after the USS Fitzgerald was knocked free? If so, it took another hour for the crew to figure out what happened, turn the ACX Crystal around, and return to the USS Fitzgerald - it's unclear if they even knew what they struck. JJ suggested maybe the time the accident was called in was ~2:30am JST, but the strike had happened earlier. This makes significant sense to me, and explains the "U turn" they performed, especially if you realize the impact was one hour earlier.

    http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html?m=1

    Sponsored content

    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News - Page 9 Empty Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:50 pm