Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+61
lancelot
Podlodka77
GreyHog
Finty
slasher
lyle6
Backman
Hole
walle83
owais.usmani
Cyberspec
mnztr
marcellogo
The-thing-next-door
Rodion_Romanovic
Tsavo Lion
kvs
LMFS
Singular_Transform
hoom
SeigSoloyvov
Big_Gazza
d_taddei2
Odin of Ossetia
Teshub
Godric
ATLASCUB
nomadski
PapaDragon
OminousSpudd
KiloGolf
VladimirSahin
Isos
sepheronx
JohninMK
max steel
Werewolf
AlfaT8
Book.
Mike E
KoTeMoRe
AirCargo
F-15E
magnumcromagnon
Vann7
Hannibal Barca
Hachimoto
Flyingdutchman
andalusia
nemrod
GarryB
War&Peace
NickM
Mindstorm
TR1
Sujoy
Viktor
George1
Admin
oleg nik
Russian Patriot
65 posters

    US Navy ships and weapon systems

    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:12 pm

    I guess you're confusing it with  newly tested us navy RIM-116C Block 2 RAM .

    Nope i'm talking about Sea-Ram Block 0 and Block 1 .  RIM-116B Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) ( block 1 ) has Speed in excess of Mach 2.

    You said none of usa ship uses it . Well The RIM-116 is in service on several American  warships . The missile is currently active aboard Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, Tarawa-class amphibious assault ships, San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships, Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship, Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ships, and littoral combat ships (LCS) .

    RAM is better than Phalanx CIWS against anti-ship missiles .


    Last edited by max steel on Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39648
    Points : 40144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:34 am

    RAM is better than Phalanx CIWS against anti-ship missiles .

    Phalanx is ineffective against low flying targets... anything below about 20m and it suffers from multipath returns via its radar and can't hit anything... subsonic or supersonic.

    there is a reason Kashtan has thermal and digital optics as well as MMW and CMW radars on the mount... each technology has strengths and weaknesses and together they are the best solution...
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:42 pm

    But what about RIM-116B and newly tested RIM-116C SeaRams garry ?  I know about ciws thats not an issue .
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39648
    Points : 40144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:31 am

    Hard to say... there is a reason why after testing with MA-31s that the Americans want to test with better analogs of heavier Russian weapons.

    A 600kg missile moving at mach 2.5 or so is not the same as a Moskit 4.5 ton missile moving at a similar speed, or an Onyx 2.5 ton missile... It might be like a motor bike hitting a truck on the highway, or it might be like a fly hitting your windscreen on the highway.
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:47 pm

    We need more info on US Sea-ram 116-B vs Russian asms . Btw do Russians use sea-rams ?



    The US Navy just tested a giant electromagnetic catapult

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39648
    Points : 40144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  GarryB Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:45 am

    Btw do Russians use sea-rams ?

    Why would they use inferior US missiles?

    Russian and Soviet ships have used the naval equivalent of OSA and TOR and Pantsir in the past.

    For the future they have guided 57mm cannon shells in development for dealing with incoming threats, and they also have a unified service missile called 9M100 which will use IIR guidance in a short range missile for the airforce, army and navy.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18387
    Points : 18884
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  George1 Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:16 pm

    US Navy Launching New Littoral Combat Ship ‘Little Rock’

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150718/1024773833.html#ixzz3gGQqsZFb
    Book.
    Book.


    Posts : 692
    Points : 745
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Book. Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:45 am

    SM-2 missile explodes, damaging Navy destroyer
    By: David Larter, Staff writer 5:40 p.m. EDT July 22, 2015

    A missile exploded as it was being fired from the destroyer The Sullivans in a Saturday exercise, damaging the the side of the ship but not injuring any crewmembers, according to Naval Sea Systems Command.

    The Standard Missile-2, fired from the aft missile deck, caused some damage to the port side of the ship, according to a NAVSEA statement. The warhead fitted to the malfunctioning missile was not activated at the time of launch.

    "On July 18 at approximately 9 a.m. a Standard Missile-2 test missile exploded after suffering a malfunction as it was fired from the guided-missile destroyer USS The Sullivans during a planned missile exercise off the coast of Virginia," NAVSEA said. "There were no injuries and only minor damage to the port side of the ship resulting from missile debris."

    NAVSEA, which is responsible for building and maintaining ships and systems for the Navy, has launched an investigation into the incident. The misfire was first reported by USNI News, which obtained images of of the explosion.

    "An investigation into the malfunction has been ordered and is being conducted by the Navy's Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, which is part of Naval Sea Systems Command," NAVSEA said. "It is too early to determine what, if any, effect this will have on the ship's schedule."

    NAVSEA spokesman Chris Johnson said The Sullivans crew responded, and quickly extinguished, the fire on deck.

    http://www.navytimes.com/story/breaking-news/2015/07/22/sullivans-missile-explosion-sm2--sullivans-navy-destroyer/30530395/

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Dybsqx1

    SM 2 go boom!
    Mike E
    Mike E


    Posts : 2619
    Points : 2651
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Mike E Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:30 am

    Book. wrote:SM 2 go boom!
    lol! Superior American technology in action!
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:10 am

    "Military officials say a A CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter belonging to Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 464, Marine Aircraft Group 29, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing made a hard landing during Helicopter Ropes Suspension Techniques (HRST) training in a landing zone at Stone Bay, a Camp Lejeune satellite training area. HRST training provides Marines with the ability to conduct helicopter insertions and extractions where helicopter landings are impractical. About twenty Marines were participating in the training, which requires them to exit the back of the aircraft via a suspended rope while the helicopter hovers above a landing zone.

    It happened around 9 p.m.

    Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune (NHCL) says one Marine was transferred there via air MEDEVAC and was pronounced dead at the hospital. Of the injured Marines, two are in stable condition while the other nine have were discharged. Initially, seven Marines were treated at NHCL; six were evaluated and released while one remains at the hospital in stable condition. Additionally, one Marine is in stable condition after being transferred to Vidant Medical Center in Greenville, N.C. and is awaiting a minor procedure.

    “The loss of a Marine or Sailor affects us all. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families and friends of our deceased Marine,” said Maj. Gen. William Beydler, commanding general of II Marine Expeditionary Force. “While accidents like this are disturbing to the members of our Corps, we remain resilient and faithful to one another as we respond to this tragedy.”

    The name of the deceased Marine has not been released, pending notification of next of kin."
    Source: wnct.com
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18387
    Points : 18884
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  George1 Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:43 am

    US Navy Successfully Fires Tactical Missile From Littoral Combat Ship

    The SeaRAM anti-ship defense system defends navies against anti-ship cruise missiles.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — US littoral combat ship USS Coronado has successfully fired a tactical missile from an anti-ship defense system off the coast of California, US defense contractor Raytheon said in a press release on Thursday.

    “For the first time, the US Navy successfully fired a tactical missile from a SeaRAM launcher on an Independence variant littoral combat ship,” the press release read.

    SeaRAM anti-ship defense system, produced by Raytheon, defends navies against anti-ship cruise missiles, according to the release.

    "This test success marks a major milestone toward full operation and employment of the SeaRAM system on US Navy ships," Raytheon Missile Systems Naval Area and Mission Defense product line vice president, Rick Nelson, said.

    SeaRAM system uses advanced close-in weapon sensors for defense against anti-ship missiles and replaces a small infrared homing surface-to-air missile previously used by the US Navy, according to the release.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150917/1027142977.html#ixzz3m2RnQy5h
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Aegis Ashore: Navy Needs Relief From Land

    Post  max steel Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:54 pm

    Aegis Ashore: Navy Needs Relief From Land



    VIDEO: https://youtu.be/UCt6fq7cvSY

    CAPITOL HILL: Take my mission — please. The armed services are notorious for overselling their capabilities and grabbing turf to justify budgets. But when it comes to ballistic missile defense, the Navy feels so overburdened that it is talking up land-based alternatives as superior to its vaunted Aegis ships.

    [Click here for Part I of this story]
    http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/aegis-ambivalence-navy-hill-grapple-over-missile-defense-mission/

    “Anything that goes ashore…is the best way to defend ashore,” Rear Adm. Peter Fanta, director of surface warfare, told reporters after a June hearing on the Hill. “It allows more power, more aperture [for sensors], and a permanent presence there to cover that area.”

    An Aegis Ashore site, like those now being built in Romania and, soon, Poland, isn’t limited by the size of a ship’s hull. That means it can accommodate larger radar arrays to detect incoming missiles and larger numbers of interceptors to shoot them down. (Lockheed builds both the ship and shore versions of Aegis, which both fire the Raytheon Standard Missile). What’s more, a land base doesn’t have to sail home periodically for crew rest, training, and repairs.

    “I have to maintain my ships, [so they] may come off the station for a little while,” Fanta said. One Aegis Ashore site provides as many days of coverage as four Aegis ships — but costs less than a single ship.

    “There’s no question about that,” said Rep. Randy Forbes when I asked him to check Fanta’s math. As chairman of the House seapower subcommittee, Forbes is always quick to call for a larger fleet, but he’s a big advocate of land-based missiles as well.

    In fact, Forbes argues, the current strain on the fleet derives in large part from the Obama administration’s decision to delay and downsize land-based missile defenses in Europe while relying heavily on Aegis BMD ships instead. (This is the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach). “If you’re going to place that on the back of the Navy,” he said, “you need to at least give the Navy the resources, and that’s not what is happening.”

    Meanwhile in the Pacific, Japan’s interest in buying Aegis Ashore is mired in the export control bureaucracy. Provisions to accelerate the ponderous process are now in conference between the House and Senate as the two chambers work out the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016.

    “The advantage to Aegis Ashore is it reduces the stress on our over-worked Navy… allowing them to focus on other mission areas,” Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House strategic forces subcommittee and co-author of the legislative language, said in a statement to Breaking Defense. But, he added, “inexplicably, the bureaucracy is slow-rolling the process to sell Aegis Ashore to allies who already have bought Aegis ships from us.”

    “There’s no real objection, it’s just this damn process,” a House Armed Services Committee staffer told me. “You guys [at the Pentagon] have been studying this for over a year.”

    “For the love of God, people, you went through this process [already],” the staffer continued. “We decided it was okay to sell the Japanese Aegis ships.” Those warships can not only do missile defense, they can also hunt submarines, sink hostile vessels, and launch Tomahawk cruise missiles hundreds of miles inland. If we trust a country with the full range of technologies that come with an Aegis ship, the staffer argued, surely we can trust that same country with the limited, purely defensive subset of those technologies that makes up Aegis Ashore.




    Shore-Based vs. Sea-Based

    As much as the Navy likes Aegis Ashore, it still wants Aegis BMD ships at sea. It just wants them for different purposes. A permanent, fixed-site ashore is the most cost-efficient way to protect any given landmass 365 days a year. But only ship-based systems can move with the fleet.

    “We have to defend against ballistic missiles at sea, and we have to defend our expeditionary sites,” Fanta told reporters. “If I’m setting up a runway or a base or anything somewhere, I can now move a ballistic missile capability to defend that.” If the Navy lands Marines to capture a key island, for example, the fleet’s Aegis BMD ships could simultaneously protect both the ships at sea and the troops ashore.

    That’s somewhat of a novel concept. Traditionally, warships didn’t need protection against ballistic missiles, which were too inaccurate to hit a moving target, even one as gigantic as an aircraft carrier. Ballistic missiles like the notorious Scud were for bombarding static targets on land. Cruise missiles were the threat to ships at sea, because they could actually hit them.

    Today, however, you can add precision guidance to ballistic missiles, as with China’s DF-21 “carrier killer.” The actual capabilities of the DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) are much debated, but its significance is clear. “It’s serious enough that you’ve seen it impact behavior, thinking, and investments,” said Tom Karako, head of the missile defense program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Navy is already working on ballistic missile defenses for the fleet.

    But the anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) threat hasn’t gone away: In fact, it’s getting worse. That means an advanced adversary could threaten a Navy task force with a simultaneous salvo of cruise missiles — skimming in low over the water — and ballistic missiles — plummeting down from the upper atmosphere. Such a two-pronged attack is the 21st century equivalent of torpedo bombers (low) and dive bombers (high) converging on carriers at Midway.

    This one-two punch creates a major problem for the Navy: Most Aegis BMD systems in service can defend either against ballistic missiles or cruise missiles at any given time, but not both at once. So while there are 33 Aegis BMD ships now in service, just three have Aegis “Baseline 9,” the software capable of engaging both kinds of missiles simultaneously. For a major war, the Navy says it needs 40.

    “What you really heard [from the Navy] was, I need 40 apples and, by the way, I have 33 oranges,” Rep. Forbes told me scornfully. On the current modernization schedule, the number of ships with Aegis Baseline 9 won’t reach 40 until 2026.

    Now, the 30 ships that lack Baseline 9 are hardly worthless. They’re arguably inadequate for a high-tech, high-intensity war. But they’re adequate against lower-end threats, which might not be able to launch cruise missiles and ballistic missiles in quick succession against the same target. In particular, they can address the need of the theater combatant commanders (COCOMs) for ballistic missile defense of sites ashore.

    But the Navy’s ambivalent about this mission, because it’s insatiable. The COCOMs have identified enough sites needing protection that it would require 77 Aegis BMD ships to protect them. Remember there are only 33 Aegis BMD ships today. (Even if you upgraded every Aegis ship in the fleet to have BMD capability, that’s still only 84). And a ship devoted to ballistic missile defense of a given area of land must stay nearby on patrol, making it unable to maneuver with the fleet.

    “I often hear, although notably never from anyone currently in the Navy, that the Navy doesn’t want to perform ‘picket duty,'” said Hudson Institute scholar Rebeccah Heinrichs. “For dual-purpose ships like Aegis ships equipped with the BMD capability, it is hard to justify taking them away from their current missions in the Pacific and putting them in areas that might need an exclusive BMD mission.”

    The Limits Of Land

    The Navy is pushing Aegis Ashore because it frees up warships to do Navy missions. Each fixed-site, single-purpose BMD site on land can liberate multiple mobile, multi-purpose warships to whatever is required, wherever they’re needed on the water: to fight enemy ships, hunt submarines, strike land targets, or defend the fleet against aircraft and cruise missiles.

    But Aegis Ashore isn’t a universal substitute. Not every country we want to protect will let us build a missile defense site on their soil. There may be some countries we don’t realize we want to protect until the crisis erupts, at which point it’s too late to build anything. In both these cases, the only option may be to send a ship.

    Ships can also evade attack better than a land base. “As our Russian friends are fond of reminding us, any fixed site is also a target,” Karako said. In fact, Rep. Rogers’ subcommittee has called for the European Aegis Ashore sites to have anti-aircraft capabilities for self-defense against Russian airstrikes.

    If the enemy has to fire their missiles across a body of water — as China or North Korea would against Japan, for example — a ship could also provide a first line of defense that intercepts the missile earlier in its flight, potentially in its vulnerable ascent phase. In fact, one of the fathers of the Aegis BMD program, former Strategic Defense Initiative director Amb. Hank Cooper, argues Aegis ships — not a Ground-Based Interceptor site on land — might be the best missile defense for the East Coast.

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Aegis-10
    Aegis East Coast - Cooper & Williams July-29-2014-IGraphic courtesy of Amb. Hank Cooper & Vice Adm. Hank Williams

    That doesn’t mean tying Aegis BMD ships down on coastal patrols, Cooper emphasized. “I have never bought into the idea that Aegis should be assigned a ‘picket ship’ role, which the Navy would rightly oppose,” he told me, “but the ships normally near our coasts have the inherent capability to shoot down ICBMs from Iran” — or a sneak attack from a ship offshore.

    There are already several Aegis BMD ships off the East Coast at any given time, Cooper told me, either on training exercises or coming and going from overseas deployments. If their crews were trained to keep their BMD systems on alert even in home waters, and if those systems were tied into radars on land, he said, “they should be able to provide a meaningful defense of those of us who live along the East Coast almost immediately, for little additional operations expense.”

    That said, Cooper isn’t averse to building Aegis Ashore sites on the East Coast, either. They’d just cost more than multi-tasking ships we already have.

    In the Navy’s ideal world, Aegis Ashore might take over the entire burden of static missile defense, freeing up Aegis ships for mobile missions. But tactical, strategic, and political realities mean the ships will be doing some of both.
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:56 pm

    US Navy Orders $160Mln of Phalanx Anti-Missile Machine Guns for Ships

    Why are they even using useless Phalanx anyways ?
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2477
    Points : 2468
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  AlfaT8 Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:37 pm

    max steel wrote:US Navy Orders $160Mln of Phalanx Anti-Missile Machine Guns for Ships

    Why are they even using useless Phalanx anyways ?

    Better something then nothing, i guess. Rolling Eyes
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Sat Oct 24, 2015 11:33 pm

    STRATCOM CO: Next Air Force ICBM, Navy Sub Launched Ballistic Missile Could Have More in Common


    The U.S. Air Force and Navy are working to include more commonality in their next batch of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, the head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) told reporters on Thursday.
    “In terms of commonality, I have signed a letter along with [USN acquisition executive] Sean Stackley and [USAF acquisition executive] William LaPlante such that we do look at a common approach where we can associate with a future missile,” Adm Cecil Haney said, according to a report in Jane’s Defence Weekly.

    Currently the Air Force fields the 1970s era LGM-30 Minute Man III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and is working toward extending the life of the standing force of 400 missiles into the 2030s. The Navy’s UGM-133A Trident II D5 were first fielded in the 1990s and will carry over to the Ohio-class Replacement Program nuclear ballistic missile submarine that will start construction in the 2020s.

    “The Air Force is also modernizing the Minuteman missiles, replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance systems, and other components, so that they can remain in the force through 2030,” read a March Congressional Research Service report.
    “It is conducting studies and analysis on its plans to replace the missiles after 2030.”

    The Minuteman III replacement — the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program — is undergoing an analysis of alternatives (AoA) ahead of a request for proposal that could be released to industry as early as this year, Haney said.

    In tandem with the AoA, the Air Force and Navy are looking at commonality in the warhead as well as the unspecified components for the future strategic deterrent missiles.

    A refresh of the Cold War-era nuclear forces has been an ongoing and expensive line item in the U.S. defense spending planning. Esitmates say the effort to aqdquetly modernize the nuclear deterrent triad of bombers, nuclear submarines and ICBMs could cost up to $1 trillion into the 2040s, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.


    So US analyzing about new ICBM . unshaven
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Guest Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:58 pm

    "The U.S. Navy plans to send a ship to within 12 nautical miles of disputed islands in the South China Sea, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News -- in an apparent challenge to Beijing's territorial claims.

    Reuters first reported that the Navy planned within 24 hours to send a destroyer near the Spratly Islands, an archipelago that China aggressively has laid claim to by building airstrips and other features on top of reefs. Reuters reported that the ship probably would be joined by a surveillance plane. U.S. military officials were angry over the leak, but one official reluctantly confirmed the plans. Officials said the USS Lassen, a Navy destroyer, would be the closest ship in position to carry out the operation. Asked for comment at Monday's briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest would not confirm any operational decisions. But he stressed that ensuring freedom of navigation is critically important to a global economy -- and said that is the principle that's at stake.

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Southchinainternal644

    The dispute over the strategic waterways of the South China Sea has intensified over the last year, pitting a rising China against its smaller and militarily weaker neighbors who all lay claim to territory mostly in the Spratly and the Paracel islands. The area is one of the world's busiest shipping routes, rich in fish and potential gas and oil reserves. Satellite images taken in early September purportedly showed construction of a third Chinese airstrip in the South China Sea, which would be of particular concern to the Philippines. The matter of the artificial islands, along with cybersecurity concerns, was a top agenda item when Chinese President Xi Jinping met with President Obama last month on a state visit at the White House. "


    And Americans are obsessed with acroynme "OPSEC" so much, meanwhile they cant keep secret on first sight of journalists.

    Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/26/us-navy-to-send-warship-near-disputed-islands-claimed-by-china/
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:39 pm

    Like US isn't doing it  Rolling Eyes


    Russian Ships Near Data Cables Are Too Close for U.S. Comfort Suspect
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18387
    Points : 18884
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  George1 Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:04 pm

    The first flight of the helicopter CH-53K

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:40 pm

    George1 wrote:The first flight of the helicopter CH-53K


    The first flight of the gold-plated white elephant, aka the CH-53K, the most expensive helicopter ever created at a insane average cost of +$100 million!!! Shocked Some congressman on Capital Hill is getting kickbacks!
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty US Navy Plans To Deploy A Submarine Drone Squadron By 2020

    Post  max steel Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:49 pm

    US Navy Plans To Deploy A Submarine Drone Squadron By 2020

    Someone is playing catch up games Wink


    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Downlo10

    The highly autonomous underwater vehicles could be sent to scout ahead of attack submarines, or to guard valuable undersea targets.

    The U.S. Navy plans to deploy a squadron of underwater drones within the next four years, including the Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle, or LDUUV, a 10-foot, highly autonomous, and very, very yellow subdrone, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said today.

    It’s not yet clear just what missions will be performed by the LDUUV, which resembles a giant robot canary fish crossed with a sausage. Some Navy watchers expect it to boost attack submarines’ intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, but officials with the Office of Naval Research pushed back against such speculation. “Right now, it’s just an empty platform with some innovative power production things that will help increase its endurance,” one official said.

    Mabus made the announcement at Tuesday’s AUVSI Unmanned Systems Defense 2015 conference, the day after the New York Times reported on Pentagon concerns about Russian submarine movements near critical undersea data cables.

    Rear Adm. Mat Winter, the chief of U.S. Naval Research, unveiled the giant yellow submersible in April at the Navy League’s Sea, Air, Space expo. At the time, Winter underscored the Navy’s need for an unmanned, underwater vehicle will be able to deploy for weeks, months, and years.

    “I am continuously amazed with the underwater breakthrough technologies in power, power generation, and navigation and sense and avoid,” Winter said. “When people say, ‘I can’t see that happening. There’s no way that can be,’ I say, ‘Excellent! Put that on ONR’s list.’”

    Looks like the Navy has done just that. The ONR official said that Mabus’s announcement came as a “surprise,” but that it was something that they “had been working toward.”

    Mabus said the LDUUV would help the Navy develop “increased subsurface endurance and autonomy” — read that to mean subdrones that can operate with minimal human intervention close to vital areas and targets. The LDUUV currently has an undersea endurance of 30 days but the eventual goal is to stretch that to years. (Original builder specifications can be found here.)

    “These systems are affordable and rapidly deployable worldwide. They’ve already been operational and served as critical enablers and game-changers for mine-hunting missions, such as those that will be conducted aboard [littoral combat ship]. We plan to deploy LDUUV from an exclusively UUV squadron on an independent mission by 2020,” the secretary said.

    Next spring, the LDUUV is scheduled to demonstrate its open-ocean navigation abilities by sailing from San Francisco to San Diego.


    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:00 pm

    US Navy Buys 136,000 New Sonobuoys to Track Submarines around the world

    6,000AN/SSQ-36 sonobuoys; 95,000 AN/SSQ-53 sonobuoys; 15,500 AN/SSQ-62 sonobuoys; 10,000 AN/SSQ-101 sonobuoys; and 10,000 AN/SSQ-125 sonobuoys Mad
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Guest Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:07 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    George1 wrote:The first flight of the helicopter CH-53K


    The first flight of the gold-plated white elephant, aka the CH-53K, the most expensive helicopter ever created at a insane average cost of +$100 million!!! Shocked  Some congressman on Capital Hill is getting kickbacks!

    Worst part is that it was based on already existing CH53E, i cant imagine Research and develop cost if they were making it from 0. Actually, by last count it will be 130million per piece included RnD.
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  max steel Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:09 pm

    US Navy to Train Recruits in Celestial Navigation Amid Cyber War Threats

    An alternative to GPS has been always recommended by the government, and for the US Army, compasses — a ground analogue of the sextant, so to speak — have never left service. But the Navy somehow ignored these recommendations.

    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5921
    Points : 6110
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Werewolf Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:18 pm

    max steel wrote:US Navy to Train Recruits in Celestial Navigation Amid Cyber War Threats

    An alternative to GPS has been always recommended by the government, and for the US Army, compasses — a ground analogue of the sextant, so to speak — have never left service. But the Navy somehow ignored these recommendations.


    Sikorsky purchased by Lockheed Martin.

    New Helicopter CH-53K that costs 100 mln. USD.

    Coincidence? I think not!
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Guest Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:19 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    max steel wrote:US Navy to Train Recruits in Celestial Navigation Amid Cyber War Threats

    An alternative to GPS has been always recommended by the government, and for the US Army, compasses — a ground analogue of the sextant, so to speak — have never left service. But the Navy somehow ignored these recommendations.


    Sikorsky purchased by Lockheed Martin.

    New Helicopter CH-53K that costs 100 mln. USD.

    Coincidence? I think not!

    Worse, 130mil per piece included RnD.... it costs like two F16 Block 60 basically.

    Sponsored content


    US Navy ships and weapon systems - Page 5 Empty Re: US Navy ships and weapon systems

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jul 24, 2024 1:21 am