Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:04 am

    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.

    An excellent example for this thread... Britannia did rule the waves... they needed to because they had a global empire to maintain. The point was that in 1939 despite all her territories she could not wage a war in Europe and protect all of her colonies, so no even impressive Navies cannot rule all the worlds seas and oceans at one time.

    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.


    You could come to that conclusion, but you could also say that the influence of a country can be gauged by its navy... the British, the Spanish, the French had powerful navies and now the US has a powerful navy and while they had powerful navies they had global influence and power. As their power waned for whatever reason their navy waned but you could say it was the waning of the navies that led to the waning of their influence.

    I don't think Russia wants to become a big superpower like the Soviet Union was and so an enormous fleet able to cover the globe at a few days notice is not really what they need, but a small powerful navy is always useful and air power is integral to that.

    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 :/.

    No... a carrier is a large expensive item and has three phases of operation... the most useful is operational where it is on call ready to deploy at a moments notice to do the job it was designed for. The second phase is training... the people on board need to practise what to do in different situations and things need to be tested and checked that they work properly. The third phase is maintainence and overhaul and upgrade and is spend in dry dock in port.

    Very simply having two boats means you can ensure that one vessel is always either in training or operational and they both are not being repaired or upgraded or refitted at one time.

    Ideally you have 3 boats so you can always have two vessels available at a push if you need them.

    The agreement between Britain and France is basically if their carrier is being serviced or in refit that they can borrow a carrier from the other.

    It is a cheap way of ensuring that after spending all that money on a carrier that one will actually be available when needed.

    the cost of course is that you might end up risking your carrier in some stupid action the other country has gotten embroilled in... ie sent to the Black Sea or Pacific Island to fight a conflict that is important to the other country but might seem like a waste to you.


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:08 pm

    US Navy's Cruiser Problem

    The cruiser Mobile Bay handles air defense for the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis. The Navy has no clear answer on what type of ship will escort deployed carriers when the current cruisers leave the fleet.
    The cruiser Mobile Bay handles air defense for the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis. The Navy has no clear answer on what type of ship will escort deployed carriers when the current cruisers leave the fleet.

    WASHINGTON — The US Navy and Congress are in a sort of faceoff over the fleet’s cruiser force. To extend their service lives, the Navy is asking to take half its cruisers — CGs in Navy-speak — out of service now and gradually bring them back starting in 2019. Congress, fearful that Pentagon budget-cutters will instead decide to cut costs and reduce the force, is insisting the ships be modernized now and kept running.

    A level of discomfort — if not outright distrust — has been created as the service changed its original 2012 request to decommission seven cruisers under a spending reduction strategy to one where the Navy wants to keep them, but temporarily inactivate 11 its 22 Ticonderoga-class CGs under a modernization plan. Many on the Hill suspect that behind the rhetoric, there lurks a desire to save money by killing the ships.

    Meanwhile, production of new DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers continues. To some, the DDGs, equipped with more up-to-date versions of the same Aegis combat system that equips the cruisers, seem up to the task of replacing the older CGs. But the Navy insists it needs its cruiser force, and the issue brings up some fundamental questions: What is a cruiser, what’s the difference between a cruiser and a destroyer, and what ship will protect the fleet’s aircraft carriers in the 2030s?
    Riding Shotgun

    A US aircraft carrier on deployment is never alone. Like a protective bodyguard, there’s always a dedicated warship hovering nearby, rarely beyond the horizon, watching out for any threat and ready to strike if necessary.

    The destroyers in the carrier’s strike group often will disperse — sometimes on tasks that take them hundreds of miles away. But a missile cruiser is always riding shotgun, commanded by a senior officer acting as the strike group’s air warfare commander — a critical role in the defense of the carrier.

    But the Navy’s force of 22 cruisers is aging, and with lifespans of about 35 years, the last of the ships will wear out and leave service by the end of the 2020s — long before replacement ships are in service to guard the fleet’s flattops.

    No cruiser replacement is in the works. The Navy had begun development of the CG(X) next-generation cruiser that would have taken over the air defense role, but the program was canceled in 2010 after the projected ships grew too big and too expensive.

    It was then hoped that a new Flight III version of the Arleigh Burke destroyers might fill the role. Equipped with a new air missile defense radar, the Flight III would have significantly greater electrical power needs than existing DDGs, and the Navy debated building a larger version of the ships. But in October, the service announced its decision to put the air missile defense radar on standard DDG hulls, and the ships will be poorly suited to embark the extra staff and provide proper command and control facilities for the air warfare commander.

    “So the question is, who is going to fill the air defense commander void?” asked Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, the Navy’s director of surface warfare.

    Under the proposed modernization plan, Rowden said, the reduction to 11 active cruisers means a destroyer would fill the secondary role. But the DDGs are somewhat limited in taking on that mission.

    “We have done air defense with missile destroyers before,” Rowden said. “And clearly, we could take our destroyers and to a certain extent increase the level of expertise on those ships by putting a captain in charge. But the density of the ship, the ability to add staff to the ship, the reduced command, control and communications equipment on our destroyers really makes them not as optimal an air defense commander ship as our cruisers.”

    Rowden ticked off other factors. Destroyers, he pointed out, have only one radar transmitter, and all four radar arrays are on a single deckhouse. The cruisers split the radar arrangement, with two arrays and a transmitter in each of two deckhouses, providing redundancy in case of battle damage. And cruisers have more missile cells than destroyers, with four target illuminators rather than three.

    Cruiser communication suites — “radio circuits, satellite communications circuits” — are greater than a destroyer’s, Rowden noted. Extra space for the air defense commander’s staff also is available on a cruiser — space in the combat information center, with 20 consoles compared with a destroyer’s 16, and space in accommodations areas.

    Operationally, destroyers are called upon to defend other fleet units, including amphibious and logistics ships — not a role for cruisers, Rowden said.

    “It does not make sense to me to take a cruiser and all of the capability, capacity and expertise on that ship and use it to defend logistics, the sea lanes, the communications to bring support materials as they operate forward. But I see that as a significant role for the destroyers,” Rowden said.

    Capt. David McFarland, Rowden’s deputy in the Surface Warfare Division, is an experienced cruiser and destroyer commander.

    “You can use a DDG as a shotgun, but only in a tactical sense, not a command-and-control sense,” he said. “As a destroyer captain, I’ve been shotgun for a carrier, and I did it well, it’s just maneuvering. But I was also the area air defense commander when a cruiser wasn’t around and that is extremely difficult.”
    The future

    Work on a CGR replacement cruiser isn’t expected to start for at least a decade, Navy leaders point out, with funds increasingly committed to design and build nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio class. That means a CGR isn’t likely to be fielded until the mid-2030s, at the earliest.

    The phased modernization plan, Rowden said, would essentially stop the lifecycle clock of inactivated ships. Refurbished and modernized cruisers would be returned to active duty in time to replace older ships as they reach the end of their service lives.

    If nothing is done, the Navy had planned for the final CGs to leave the fleet by 2028. Under the phased plan, the 11 ships returned to service would leave active duty between 2035 and 2045, providing a significant window to develop and deploy a new design.

    But buying in to the plan remains difficult on Capitol Hill, where opposition is widespread. The change in the rationale to inactivate the ships, along with the Navy’s tardiness this spring in presenting its phased modernization plan to Congress, has made it tough for some to swallow.

    “They wanted to get rid of them, then overnight they came up with this plan,” said one staffer, who noted that the Navy briefed the Hill on details of the plan only just before the 2015 defense bill markups began, making it difficult or impossible to incorporate its implications. And the latest version of the 30-year shipbuilding plan, sent to Congress July 1, provides few details of the proposed plan.

    “The track record on a variety of issues is not great,” complained the staffer of the Navy.

    Compounding the communication problem, the Navy is striving to indicate the cruisers would not be officially decommissioned , only put into some sort of caretaker status pending their modernization and reactivation. The search for a proper term has been difficult — there is little precedent for inactivating ships yet continuing to count them on the active roster.

    “You can’t guarantee that Navy leaders won’t look at that [inactivated] ship downstream and think ‘I don’t want to pay to bring that ship back in service,’ ” said another congressional staffer. “That ship will look old to them by then.”

    F-15E
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 103
    Points : 94
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Littoral Combat Ship:

    Post  F-15E on Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:38 pm

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/11/hagel-approves-navys-proposal-to-build-more-lethal-lcs-variant/

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 17, 2015 1:18 am

    Modified US Navy littoral combat ships to be renamed

    The US Navy has confirmed plans to rename 20 modified littoral combat ships (LCS) as frigates.

    US Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said: "It is going to be the same ship, same programme of record, just with an appropriate and traditional name.

    "One of the requirements of the small surface combatant task force was to have a ship with frigate-like capabilities.
    "It is going to be the same ship, same programme of record, just with an appropriate and traditional name."

    "Well, if it is like a frigate, why don't we call it a frigate?"

    The new designation of the FF label will apply to all LCS that are upgraded with additional weapons, sensors and combat systems such as retrofitted vessels.

    However, hull numbers could stay as they are.

    Future ships will also be eligible for the new designation, with 32 vessels set to be reclassified if and when they are equipped with additional weapons.

    The decision comes as the US Navy retires the last of its legacy frigate vessels, including USS Kauffman, which is on its last deployment.

    The navy is also reportedly considering changing the designation of the several other vessels such as joint high-speed vessels, mobile landing platforms and the afloat forward-staging base.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:18 pm

    US Navy Updates Strategy Amid Growing Cyberwar Threat

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:26 am

    LCS Now Officially Called A Frigate

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:56 pm

    Delivery of Troubled Zumwalt Stealth Destroyers Delayed for US Navy

    Problems resulting from the complex technology being installed in the United States Navy’s new Zumwalt class of destroyers will delay the delivery of the first two ships.

    The Navy and its shipbuilder, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, pushed back the delivery of the first warship, the Zumwalt, from this summer to November. The second ship, the Michael Monsoor, will be delivered in November 2016, a few months delayed.

    At 610 feet, it is larger than any Navy destroyer or cruiser since the nuclear-powered USS Long Beach bought in 1957, according to the Congressional Research Service.She added that while work on the Zumwalt is 94% complete, the complexity of the project requires more time for tests and activation aboard the warship.

    Costing more than $3 billion, the ship will sport advanced automation to reduce crew size and a stealthy shape designed to minimize its visibility on enemy radar. It also features a new gun with rocket-propelled projectiles, new radar and sonar systems, and a new hull shape.

    The electric-powered Zumwalt has two main generators which, along with two auxiliary units, can produce enough electricity to light up about 10,000 homes.

    Named after the late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, the ship will not be declared ready for initial combat until September 2018, about two years later than previously projected, according to Navy documents obtained by Bloomberg Business.

    Both the Zumwalt and the Monsoor – named after the late Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient Michael Monsoor – are expected to begin engineering sea trials later this year.

    The third and final ship in the class, the Lyndon B. Johnson, remains on schedule for delivery in December 2018, the Navy said.

    The $22 billion estimated cost of the program includes development of what originally was intended to be a 10-ship program. The total procurement cost of the three ships total is an estimated $12.9 billion, or about $4.3 billion per ship.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150311/1019322119.html#ixzz3U5pEGSwH

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:02 am

    One Brahmos could sink an AEGIS cruiser... if it hits it.

    How many would be needed to hit it reliably is unknown and would depend on the situation and tactics of both sides.

    British ships on paper able to defend themselves from Exocet were hit because they had their Sea Wolf systems turned off because they were communicating by satellite with London.

    The US AEGIS cruiser that shot down an Iranian Airbus in the late 1980s had a missile launcher malfunction which delayed the launch of the SAM by 90 seconds (one and a half minutes), which didn't make any difference at the time because they were not under attack, but if they had been fired upon it would have been lethal.

    Performance of Bastion should be similar to Brahmos, but with likely extended range of the domestic model over the export model.



    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:27 am

    US Navy Details New Strike Fighter Need

    WASHINGTON – It's been only two years since the US Navy quit buying F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters – part of a long-planned transition to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter -- but a confluence of events has led to the new possibility that more attack aircraft could be ordered from Boeing.

    When the US Navy submitted its fiscal 2015 request a year ago, it was the first budget since the 1970s that did not include some version of the F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. Procurement of F/A-18 E and F Super Hornets ended in 2013, and the last of 138 EA-18G Growler electronic warfare versions was included in the 2014 budget.

    Congress, however, added an unplanned-for 15 Growlers in the 2015 budget, responding to a Navy unfunded priority list request to meet a joint tactical need. The move keeps open Boeing's St. Louis production line an extra year, through 2017.

    Now, a strike fighter shortfall the Navy thought it could manage by a variety of methods is being further exacerbated, and it seems highly likely that when the new unfunded requirements list is submitted to Congress by mid-March, it will include a request for new Super Hornets.

    "We have a shortfall in Super Hornets, we do," Adm. Jon Greenert, chief of naval operations, told Congress on March 4. "And we're going to have to work our way through here in order to manage it."

    The shortfall is not a new situation – it's been developing for years, and was something the Navy's leadership thought it could manage its way through. But in recent weeks, sources said, the emphasis has shifted from using current resources to deal with the problem to including the purchase of new aircraft as part of an overall solution.

    Simply put, the situation breaks down like this:

    The fleet has about 600 F/A-18C Hornet "legacy" aircraft – pre-Super Hornet strike fighters – in its current inventory, with something over half scheduled to be replaced by 340 new F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. About 300 of the 18Cs are out of service, according to the Navy.
    Budget constraints and software development issues have pushed out F-35C procurement to the right – delayed by several years – and the first "35 Charlies" aren't scheduled to reach initial operating capability until 2018. Full rate production of 20 aircraft per year isn't planned until 2020, and it will be another two years before those aircraft enter service.
    Increased operating tempos due to combat operations against the Islamic State in northern Iraq and western Syria meant that the Navy did not realize reduced flying hours from the drawdown in Afghanistan.
    Thus the legacy Hornets need to keep flying longer. While they were rated up to a lifespan of 6,000 flying hours, the Navy figures it needs a service life extension program (SLEP) to get 150 of those planes out to 8,000 hours.
    With fewer F/A-18Cs flying, newer E and F Super Hornets are being used up at higher rates than planned.
    Budget reductions in recent years reduced money for depot maintenance, creating something of a backlog that, a year ago, reached 65 F/A-18Cs. Technicians, however, discovered much higher levels of corrosion when those aircraft were opened up, leading to growth in the number of aircraft that needed work, and a longer work period to deal with them. While the Navy has restored the depot funding, the backlog has expanded from 65 to 100 aircraft, and the service is struggling to hire more skilled labor to work on the planes.
    The growth in the backlog of 35 aircraft over the past year led Greenert to estimate the need was for "two or three squadrons" of new strike fighters to plug the gap. F/A-18 E and F Super Hornets are organized into 12-plane squadrons, while 18Cs fly in squadrons of 10 aircraft. Two squadrons of new planes works out to 24 aircraft, 36 for three squadrons.

    The Navy in 2012 surveyed its strike fighter inventory to assess the problem. "We looked at the inventory challenges," said Rear Adm. Mike Manazer, the Navy's director of air warfare. "SLEP 150 F/A-18Cs and buy 41 Es and Fs."

    "As we pushed JSF outside to the right -- this latest budget moved 16 outside the FYDP [six-year Future years Defense Plan] -- I'm not making up those aircraft." Over the past three years, Manazir said, a total of 159 F-35C carrier variant and F-35B Marine jump jets have been moved out of the FYDP.

    Assuming the air fleet keeps flying at about 330 hours a year per airplane, he said, "from 2020 to 2035, I need to be buying about 30 to 39 aircraft per year to replace" older, worn-out aircraft. "It's a product of supply and demand."

    Another key factor, Manazir noted, is the Super Hornet mid-life refit program expected a decade from now.

    "I have to get 563 Super Hornets out to 9,000 hours," he noted. "Ten years from now I'm going to be in the middle of SLEP'ping 563 airplanes. Do I have enough depot capacity? If I can do that successfully, I can manage that risk. Procurement [of new aircraft] reduces that risk."

    Some observers look at a Navy effort to keep buying Boeing F/A-18s as an indication the service is soft on support for the Lockheed Martin F-35. Manazir insists there is no truth to that.

    "There is no move here to not buy something," he declared. "In order for me to win in 2024 I have to have F-35Cs flying with F-18Es and Fs. I have to. And I have to be able to fill my air wings out.

    "I am trying to get rid of the myth that all the Navy wants to do is continue F-18 Es and Fs. If I only have F-18 Es and Fs in 2024 I can't win. [The JSF is] fourth generation – I have to have a number of F-35C squadrons."

    "What I try to do is avoid – because it's not true -- the F-18 Boeing versus the Lockheed Martin F-35" story line, he said. "Because for the United States Navy it's not all about getting the F-35, it's about getting the integrated capabilities of the high-end war fight -- which takes the F-18 E F and the F-35C. It takes them both."

    The number of aircraft Greenert is talking about, Manazir said, is the right number.

    "So two to three squadrons in 2016 -- 36 airplanes -- helps me reduce my risk of extension for that.

    "If I reduce my risk through that procurement that he testified to, and I can extend my 18Es and Fs to the plan that I'm going to now, and I'm going to procure F-35Cs to the tune of 20 per year starting in 2020. I've reduced my risk to a manageable level. And that's my entire cohesive plan going forward."

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:38 pm

    US Navy Seeks Drastic Increase in Tomahawk Missiles on Attack Subs

    As the US prepares to retire its Ohio-class submarines, the Navy is looking for ways to make up for that loss in firepower. One consideration is to outfit Virginia-class subs with even more missiles. 28 more, to be precise, a dramatic increase from the current 12.

    The United States currently operates 18 Ohio-class submarines. But in 2020, the Navy will begin decommissioning four of these vessels, each capable of firing up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. Which is a lot less firepower on the high seas.

    "When the [Ohio-class submarines] retire in the 2020s – if no action is taken the Navy will lose about 60% of its undersea strike launchers," Navy Captain David Goggins, Virginia-class submarine program manager, told Military.com.

    To mitigate this loss, the Navy is considering some pretty substantial upgrades to its Virginia-class subs. While this class can currently fire 12 Tomahawks, the military has plans to start adding new missile tube sections, which would allow an additional 28 Tomahawks.

    Construction on these new sections was originally slated to begin in 2019, but the Navy is evaluating whether that timeframe can be expedited.

    Most of the Virginia-class vessels have 12 individual 21-inch diameter vertical launch tubes. Models currently under construction are instead being built with two launch tubes that measure 87-inches in diameter, and will house 6 missiles each.

    The upgrades will add even more of these wider tubes.

    "With the Virginia Payload Modules, we’re adding a body section that will house four additional Virginia Payload Tubes," Goggins said. "That will allow you to go from 12 to 40 Tomahawks – that is the main driver or requirement for this new module."

    These larger launch tubes can also accommodate larger artillery, and will leave room for any future artillery which could be developed.

    "We will have flexibility to house a range of weapons that were too big to fit in our existing VLS tubes. We have inherent flexibility," Goggins said. "As new payloads become available and as the demand and threat environment change – we will have the flexibility to adapt future payloads."

    All in all, the Navy plans to expand its heavily armed, Virginia-class fleet to 51 ships by 2033, costing in excess of $14 billion.

    One explanation for this massive overhaul in naval capabilities, aside from the retiring of the Ohio-class, could be traced back to comments made by Rear Admiral Joseph Tofalo, director of undersea warfare, during the Sea, Air and Space Exposition last April.

    "There are two countries on the planet today with a new [fleet ballistic missile submarine] in the water and sea based missiles being flight tested," he said. "Neither of those countries are the United States – they are China and Russia."

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150317/1019622021.html#ixzz3UgAo5fMQ

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:21 pm

    New Nuclear Sub's Funding to Start on Time Despite Media Reports - US Navy

    Earlier in March, media reported that the US Navy and Congress had not managed to find the funds to pay for the procurement of the Ohio Replacement Program, in charge of replacing the aging Ohio-class submarines with 12 more advanced subs.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik), Alexander Mosesov — Procurement funding for the US next-generation strategic nuclear submarine will start in 2017 as expected, despite earlier media reports claiming the funds have not been found yet, a US Navy spokeswoman told Sputnik on Wednesday.

    Compared to its predecessor — the third-generation Ohio-class strategic nuclear submarine, which was built from 1976 till 1997 — the fourth-generation replacement submarine is expected to feature fewer launch tubes, state-of-the-art sonar, optical imaging and weapons control systems, a new electric drive and a nuclear fuel core able to power the ship for its entire service life.

    "[Advanced] procurement for the Navy's top programmatic priority, the Ohio replacement program, begins… in fiscal year 2017 and leading to the procurement of the first boat construction in fiscal year 2021," Nicole Schwegman told Sputnik.

    The first replacement submarine is expected to cost $12,4 billion, including $4,8 billion in design and engineering costs and $7,6 billion in construction costs. The first submarine is expected to enter service in 2031.

    As of 2015, Russia is the world's only country with fourth-generation strategic nuclear submarines in service — the Borey-class submarines, which are to become the mainstay of the naval component of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150325/1020001327.html#ixzz3VQWJkbF9

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:34 pm

    By 2031 hopefully Russia will deploy fifth-generation subs .

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:40 pm

    max steel wrote:By 2031 hopefully Russia will deploy fifth-generation subs .

    u mean attack submarines?

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:45 pm

    any type of subs man . Just want them to stay few steps ahead of yanks in naval warfare .

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:22 pm

    US Navy Awards $610 Million Contract for Advanced Destroyer Construction

    The US Navy awarded defense contractor General Dynamics a $610 million contract to fully fund the construction of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer as part of a $3.4 billion contract to build five destroyers, General Dynamics said in a statement on Wednesday.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer carries the AEGIS radar and communications missile tracking system, anti-aircraft missiles and Tomahawk anti-ship and land-attack missiles as well as two helicopters.

    “The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is a multi-mission combatant that offers defense against a wide range of threats, including ballistic missiles,” General Dynamics explained in the statement.

    “It operates in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups, providing a complete array of anti-submarine, anti-air and anti-surface capabilities,” it added.

    The work will be carried out at the Bath Iron Works in the US state of Maine, where three other Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are in various stages of construction.

    The Bath Iron Works is also building three Zumwalt-class destroyers.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150401/1020339417.html#ixzz3W5wQGIVy

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:18 pm

    US Navy Unveils Firefighting Robot

    Researchers at Virginia Tech in cooperation with the US Navy’s Office of Naval Research presented a firefighting robot, capable of mobility aboard a ship, manipulating doors and fire hoses, and equipped with sensors to see and navigate through smoke.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150205/1017794688.html#ixzz3WBIP75qh

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:52 am

    US to Base 60% of Military Fleet in Pacific-Indian Ocean Area

    Pentagon says that the United States plans to locate in the future 60 percent of its military fleet in the Pacific-Indian Ocean area.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The United States plans to locate in the future 60 percent of its military fleet in the Pacific-Indian Ocean area, the US Defense Department said in a press release.

    “The newest and most capable weapons systems will go first to the [Asia-Pacific] region. When movements are completed… 60 percent of the US fleet will be in the Pacific-Indian Ocean area,” the release, published on Monday, said.

    The US Marines already have a rotational presence in Australia, and Washington is currently negotiating strengthening its military cooperation with the Philippines, according to the release.

    The United States is also cooperating with Japan and South Korea on information-sharing agreements, and is working with Australia, Japan and India to strengthen maritime security, the release added.

    “America is a Pacific power and will remain one,” US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in the release, noting that the United States will continue to engage with nations in the Asia-Pacific region.

    On Monday, Carter begins his trip to Japan and South Korea to promote and strengthen defense relations with the countries. In May 2015, Carter will also visit Singapore and India to enhance their military partnership, according to the Defense Department.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150407/1020551099.html#ixzz3Wbjb2Vmm

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:09 am

    Lol US only have japan , australia and s.korea as its slaves . He is coming to India for providing aircraft carrier tech under DTTI . They are going to singapore probably to arm twist them so that usa can block malaca straits . Fcuk the uS hegemony .

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:12 pm

    I know its russian defense forum. But guys you seriously don't keep an eye on US latest happenings .


    DARPA's Unmanned Submarine Stalker Could Change Naval Warfare Forever


    ACTUV concept, a possible solution for persistently tracking enemy submarines, especially the diesel AIP kind, with maximum affordability in mind.

    Meet The Sea Hunter:




    Sea Hunter will be a trimaran design, with the vast majority of its hull and superstructure built of lightweight and radar-translucent carbon-composite materials. It will have a length of around 130 feet and its center hull will be long and streamlined. The trimaran design lends itself to endurance, sea keeping, and speed, which will be necessary for keeping up with sprinting diesel submarines as well as those that are running slow and quiet for long periods of time. The first ACTUV prototype, named Sea Hunter, is currently under construction at Oregon Iron Works and will be tested on the Columbia River later this year. Oregon Iron Works have become something of a Scaled Composites-like boutique manufacturing house for exotic, experimental and stealthy naval vessels.

    The unmanned, unarmed, and highly autonomous ship's design is largely based around a series of plug-and-play modular components, allowing the vessel to be reconfigured for different missions with relative ease. Periphery sensors will include multiple types of radar, electro-opitcal systems for viewing the ship's surroundings in day and night, and electronic support measures used to sniff out enemy radio and sensor transmissions. The Sea Hunter's most potent sensors will be its mid-frequency sonar, built into a bulbous enclosure that juts out below the ship's keel, used for locating undersea targets at longer ranges while its high-frequency active sonars, mounted in small protrusions below its main hull, will better refine tracking and make it extremely hard for the object being pursued to slip away. These high-frequency sonar systems will also be able take a synthetic 'picture' of the sub's target so that Sea Hunter's computers can help classify and identify it by comparing the target to images and sound signatures stored in its memory banks. From there, on-board automation helps predict what the target will do next and will send updates to controllers thousands of miles away when the target does something of significance or when it observes something in its area worth noting.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/darpas-unmanned-submarine-stalker-could-change-naval-wa-1695566032

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:58 am

    Yeah... think about it... why go for unmanned?

    Because current Russian diesel electrics are too quiet to be reliably detected at useful ranges with passive sonar so they have to use active sonar... which makes them look like the guy who wore a three piece suit to a Toga party thinking it was formal.

    these super remote sub killers will be picked off at long range... most SSKs are coastal and coastal batteries of Uran/Bal will paste these defenceless robots fairly easily. If not a single torpedo from the sub being chased would do.


    _________________
    “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

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:21 pm

    Thanks . russia

    What are your views on this :

    Beyond GPS: 5 Next-Generation Technologies for Positioning, Navigation & Timing http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/07/24.aspx


    Penny-sized inertial sensors, pulsed lasers and tracked lightning strikes are among novel approaches to provide precise location-based insights in GPS-denied areas


    “Position, navigation, and timing are as essential as oxygen for our military operators ,” said DARPA Director Arati Prabhakar. “Now we are putting new physics, new devices, and new algorithms on the job so our people and our systems can break free of their reliance on GPS.” unshaven

    DARPA’s current PNT portfolio includes five programs, focused wholly or in part on PNT-related technology:

    1) Adaptable Navigation Systems (ANS) is developing new algorithms and architectures for rapid plug-and-play integration of PNT sensors across multiple platforms, with the intent to reduce development costs and shrink deployment time from months to days. ANS aims to create better inertial measurement devices by using cold-atom interferometry, which measures the relative acceleration and rotation of a cloud of atoms stored within a sensor. The goal is to leverage quantum physical properties to create extremely accurate inertial measurement devices that can operate for long periods without needing external data to determine time and position. Additionally, ANS seeks to exploit non-navigational electromagnetic signals--including commercial satellite, radio and television signals and even lightning strikes--to provide additional points of reference for PNT. In combination, these various sources are much more abundant and have stronger signals than GPS, and so could provide position information in both GPS-denied and GPS-degraded environments.

    2) Microtechnology for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (Micro-PNT) leverages extreme miniaturization made possible by DARPA-developed micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) technology. Micro-PNT comprises a portfolio of diverse efforts collectively devoted to develop highly stable and precise chip-scale gyroscopes, clocks and complete integrated timing and inertial measurement devices. DARPA researchers have fabricated a prototype with three gyroscopes, three accelerometers and a highly accurate master clock on a chip that fits easily on the face of a penny. The self-calibrating, high-performance and cost-effective microscale sensors that DARPA is developing could offer tremendous size, weight and power (SWAP) improvements over existing sensors.

    3) Quantum-Assisted Sensing and Readout (QuASAR) intends to make the world’s most accurate atomic clocks—which currently reside in laboratories—both robust and portable. QuASAR researchers have developed optical atomic clocks in laboratories with a timing error of less than 1 second in 5 billion years. Making clocks this precise portable could improve upon existing military systems such as GPS, and potentially enable entirely new radar, LIDAR and metrology applications.

    4) The Program in Ultrafast Laser Science and Engineering (PULSE) applies the latest in pulsed laser technology to significantly improve the precision and size of atomic clocks and microwave sources, enabling more accurate time and frequency synchronization over large distances. These capabilities are essential to fully leverage super-accurate atomic clocks, as clocks such as those that QuASAR seeks to build are more precise than our current ability to synchronize between them. If successful, PULSE technology could enable global distribution of time precise enough to take advantage of the world’s most accurate optical atomic clocks.

    5) The Spatial, Temporal and Orientation Information in Contested Environments (STOIC) program seeks to develop PNT systems that provide GPS-independent PNT with GPS-level timing in a contested environment. STOIC comprises three primary elements that when integrated have the potential to provide global PNT independent of GPS: long-range robust reference signals, ultra-stable tactical clocks, and multifunctional systems that provide PNT information between multiples users.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:56 am

    Might sound funny but the most critical thing there is super accurate timing mechanisms that are tiny.

    Why you ask?

    So many tasks require accuracy and in navigation timing is critical.

    A timing device that is extremely accurate but also the size of a full stop could be used in a fusing mechanism for 30mm cannon shells so the target could be lased to get its precise range... a computer can calculate the exact distance to the target... the acceleration of the shell down the barrel and decelleration after it leaves the barrel on its way to the target is known and can be used with the range to determine very accurately the time the shell will take from muzzle to just above the target... which might be a man standing behind a fence.... rather than fire through the fence and punch a 30mm hole with a solid 30mm round, with a precise timed fuse you can fire it over the fence and set it to detonate directly above the target.

    If you look at the shape of a 30mm projectile it is shaped pretty much like a boat... the point at the front and the long sides and the small tucked in rear... most of the explosive is in the centre and the sides form the greatest area of effective fragments so detonating above the target has the side fragments showering down on the target which is the most efficient use of the sides... if the point had hit the fence all the fragments would have gone sideways down the line of the fence and the target would have been fine.

    Of the rest of the stuff... not really interested in US BS. Embarassed Sorry. (I just read this thread to moderate it.... Wink )


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:51 pm

    US Navy 30-year shipbuilding plan

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:57 pm

    New SSBN(X) project to replace Ohio class submarines. 12 submarines that will have 16 launchers. Construction will begin in 2021

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:54 pm

    End of Top Gun? Navy Sees Future Not in F-35s, But in Unmanned Aircraft

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150417/1020996417.html#ixzz3XZQpjy3v

    Sponsored content

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:01 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:01 pm