USA Armed Forces

[Qwerty]

USMC considering new concussion grenades.

https://funkergaming.com/marine-corps-hand-grenade/

[xav]

USS Gabrielle Giffords is the 1st LCS to Get its Full Load of Next Gen NSM Missiles

Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) is the first U.S. Navy vessel to fully integrate the Naval Strike Missile next generation anti-ship and land attack cruise missile.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -missiles/

[Little J]

Don't those extra launchers mess with the "stealth" of the ship design?

[Blackstone]

Don't those extra launchers mess with the "stealth" of the ship design?

The "stealth" of either LCS is more theoretical than actual. The angled bow and superstructure reduces the signature a bit, but it's not going for anything like the DDG-1000-level RCS reduction.

[xav]

Video: USS Gabrielle Giffords LCS 10 Launches 1st Integrated Naval Strike Missile

The Independence-variant littoral combat ship USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) successfully demonstrated the capabilities of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) Oct. 1 (local date) during Pacific Griffin.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-missile/

[Lord Jim]

Good to see the LCS finally get some teeth, mind you the ship could do with a paint job or is that some sort of new littoral camouflage.

[SKB]

That's exhaust smoke from the missile launch. Not rust.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Video: USS Gabrielle Giffords LCS 10 Launches 1st Integrated Naval Strike Missile

Surprisingly "clean" smoke. We can even see the canister right at the launch. Interesting. What is the concept behind this smoke? To keep the launcher location "stealthy"?

[Blackstone]

Video: USS Gabrielle Giffords LCS 10 Launches 1st Integrated Naval Strike Missile

Surprisingly "clean" smoke. We can even see the canister right at the launch. Interesting. What is the concept behind this smoke? To keep the launcher location "stealthy"?

I don't know why Kongsberg chose the propellant mix they did, it could have been to reduce visual signature or just based on performance. Given the effort they put in to reduce detectability of the NSM, visual signature reduction would not surprise me.

[Blackstone]

Bell just turned a lot of head when they unveiled their FARA (Scout helicopter) contender, the "360 Invictus."


It's also interesting to compare to AVX's entry revealed earlier this year:


Seems like chin turrets are back in, and we've yet to see Sikorsky or Karem show off their FARA contenders in similar kit yet.

[Timmymagic]

Good to see the LCS finally get some teeth

Given the failure of the NLOS missile for the LCS and the subsequent adoption of the Hellfire in a M299 Vertical Launch system, which is surely not that great a capability, particularly after the Hellfires lose range due to their vertical hot launch it does strike me that if the USN had any sense they'd look very closely at Sea Ceptor and the proposed CAMM/Brimstone hybrid with either DMB or E/O seeker heads. One VLS could fit in the current space occupied by the M299 and massively increase the capability of the LCS ships, in the surface role to what was originally intended whilst also giving anti-air and anti missile capabilities far beyond the original spec. The integration to the combat system is going to be done by the Canadians for their T26's...

[cky7]

Re Blackstone’s post on the bell FARA entry....

RA-66 Comanche with a dash of airwolf! Funny enough though I like it, at least from a looks POV. I always wondered about the Comanche, my understanding was that it’s ‘quarter Back’ to apache’s and others role was taken by UAVs so when its costs continued to grow it was chopped. I still thought there could have been some merit to the idea though and at one point the US army seemed to think it was a big part of their future so I’m wondering if this them trying to bring the concept back again?

The one engine is interesting too.

[Blackstone]

Good to see the LCS finally get some teeth

Given the failure of the NLOS missile for the LCS and the subsequent adoption of the Hellfire in a M299 Vertical Launch system, which is surely not that great a capability, particularly after the Hellfires lose range due to their vertical hot launch it does strike me that if the USN had any sense they'd look very closely at Sea Ceptor and the proposed CAMM/Brimstone hybrid with either DMB or E/O seeker heads. One VLS could fit in the current space occupied by the M299 and massively increase the capability of the LCS ships, in the surface role to what was originally intended whilst also giving anti-air and anti missile capabilities far beyond the original spec. The integration to the combat system is going to be done by the Canadians for their T26's...

It may get looked at, after Canada's done the integration work. But I disagree a bit on the "if they had any sense" comment. There's plenty of things that fail to make sense with LCS, but I wouldn't put a decision to pass on CAMM in that category. There's a lot of cost and availability reasoning in the Hellfire choice, and I'll point out that fitting some flavor of VLS capable of taking a 3.2m Sea Ceptor into the same space as one designed around a 1.6m Hellfire may not be as simple or cost-effect as you think.

[Tinman]

Ron5 there is only one Navy who have successfully deployed and destroyed incoming enemy SSM, there is only one Navy who have deployed a Amphibious task force and complete a contested landing.

The T31 will be a lot better than the LCS.

It is what it is for the Royal Navy, atleast we are upgrading and understanding Naval Architecture.

How goes the Zum?

[RetroSicotte]

Ron5 there is only one Navy who have successfully deployed and destroyed incoming enemy SSM

The US Navy did that just 3 years ago off Yemen.

there is only one Navy who have deployed a Amphibious task force and complete a contested landing.

This is so inaccurate. You're seriously claiming the US Navy has never done an amphibious landing? And we got in a tizzy because a French shopping bag excluded the Brits from D-Day...

The T31 will be a lot better than the LCS.

1) The LCS isn't pretending to be a leading frigate.
2) The LCS can actually hurt other ships.
3) The US Navy is not hurting for worthwhile escorts in the way the RN is.
4) The LCS actually has an intended role and money being awarded to improve it.

Looking at the render as is, if 12x CAMM running on non-conformative systems and a bunch of popguns is all it has, then this is exactly what I said it was at the very start. A "cheap as you can, please" OPV they can call a frigate in PMQs to pretend they aren't cutting, and no other genuine purpose.

[Tinman]

Ron5 there is only one Navy who have successfully deployed and destroyed incoming enemy SSM

The US Navy did that just 3 years ago off Yemen.

there is only one Navy who have deployed a Amphibious task force and complete a contested landing.

This is so inaccurate. You're seriously claiming the US Navy has never done an amphibious landing? And we got in a tizzy because a French shopping bag excluded the Brits from D-Day...

The T31 will be a lot better than the LCS.

1) The LCS isn't pretending to be a leading frigate.
2) The LCS can actually hurt other ships.
3) The US Navy is not hurting for worthwhile escorts in the way the RN is.
4) The LCS actually has an intended role and money being awarded to improve it.

Looking at the render as is, if 12x CAMM running on non-conformative systems and a bunch of popguns is all it has, then this is exactly what I said it was at the very start. A "cheap as you can, please" OPV they can call a frigate in PMQs to pretend they aren't cutting, and no other genuine purpose.

The Royal Navy engaged and splashed a silkworm missile in 91, secondly I should have pointed out the co tested landings were about post WW2.

There is nothing remarkable about the LCS, the USN seem to have an issue about size, they don’t future proof the hull.

Just look at the Burke’s.

[RetroSicotte]

The Royal Navy engaged and splashed a silkworm missile in 91

And as said, the USN did that off Yemen more recently.

secondly I should have pointed out the co tested landings were about post WW2.

So the Battle of Inchon doesn't exist? Operation Camargue? There's been plenty. Adding more caveats doesn't imply the Royal Navy is some secret expert on landings, and it's irrelevant to the design of the T31 being underequipped.

There is nothing remarkable about the LCS, the USN seem to have an issue about size, they don’t future proof the hull.

Its issue as cost. For its role it's fine, and is even expanding that. See its ability to actually attack another ship at practical range. Something that the current expectation of the T31 is completely incapable of. And given that was added on top of previous ability, they proofed it enoughfor what is expected of it.

Again, The LCS isn't replacing a capable escort fleet, so it doesn't have to be one. The T31 is replacing 25% of the UK's primary fighting big escort fleet, and is incapable of doing that role.

[Clive F]

Again, The LCS isn't replacing a capable escort fleet, so it doesn't have to be one. The T31 is replacing 25% of the UK's primary fighting big escort fleet, and is incapable of doing that role.

Isn't the LCS replacing the Oliver Perry frigates (ASW) and MCM fleets? Both of which it has spectacularly failed to do. I'm not saying t31 is a good T23 replacement but the LCS is a very poor replacement for the roles it was supposed to do.

[RetroSicotte]

Again, The LCS isn't replacing a capable escort fleet, so it doesn't have to be one. The T31 is replacing 25% of the UK's primary fighting big escort fleet, and is incapable of doing that role.

Isn't the LCS replacing the Oliver Perry frigates (ASW) and MCM fleets? Both of which it has spectacularly failed to do. I'm not saying t31 is a good T23 replacement but the LCS is a very poor replacement for the roles it was supposed to do.

As I said, the USN has no shortage of proper escorts. The RN does. Thus it's not a comparison.

[Enigmatically]

I appreciate that this is not T31 news, but it is an important correction, as the subject is poorly understood.

The USN did not splash a missile off Yemen. Or at least probably did not
Several threat missiles were fire. Most missed of their own accord and the defensive action did nothing. In one case there was doubt but the USN report (which was publicly released though I cannot find it) was that there was no evidence that the hard kill weapons had cause the threat missile to hit the sea.

This is important because it means that whilst several navies have successfully defended using soft kill (indeed no warship has been hit after deploying soft-kill in time), the RN hit on the silkworm is still the only successful 'real' hard-kill. Rather important aspect of modern naval warfare that is frequently overlooked and often misunderstood

[Ron5]

RN hit on the silkworm is still the only successful 'real' hard-kill

Not that successful, the missile had barrelled past its target and was well past when it was shot down. A complete success would be intercepting the silkworm on its way in.

[inch]

Could I ask without getting shot down myself but ron5 maybe the rn missile was fired only after it had already passed its target then fired and shot it down if you see what I mean ,it's all split second things after all and the rn ship only saw missile at that point and acted ?and yes it's t31 news so I apologize

[Blackstone]

The USN did not splash a missile off Yemen. Or at least probably did not
Several threat missiles were fire. Most missed of their own accord and the defensive action did nothing. In one case there was doubt but the USN report (which was publicly released though I cannot find it) was that there was no evidence that the hard kill weapons had cause the threat missile to hit the sea.

The Mason defended against ASMs on 3 separate days in October 2016.

On October 9th, a single missile was detected, Mason fired missiles and Nulka in response.The missile went down 12 miles from the ship, beyond the range at which the crew could determine if they had a hard kill or it splashed without an intercept at that time. It would take recovering the missile's debris to determine what killed it. The DDG and the AFSB-I USS Ponce, which she was escorting, then turned away from the coast to open the range. A second missile was fired about an hour later and went down 9 miles from the ship, it was clearly not a hard kill and may not have been all that on-target.

On October 12th, a single ASM was detected and Mason, this time escorting LPD-17 San Antonio and a merchantman, engaged again. This time everyone's pretty sure they destroyed the missile. The crew reported seeing the "fireball" and there's occasional RUMINT of some kinda video... but oh boy would that ever be classified.

After the destroyerNitze attacked the Houthi shore radar sites on the 13th, a third attack happened on October 15th. This time 5 missiles were fired in something of a spread, possibly because their ability to target had been degraded/destroyed. Mason engaged and achieved hard or soft kills on 4 of the 5, Nitze decoyed the 5th for a soft kill. There was initial uncertainty about the attack and the Navy hasn't given a detailed breakdown on how many of the 4 missiles Mason engaged were hard or soft kills.

[Ron5]

Could I ask without getting shot down myself but ron5 maybe the rn missile was fired only after it had already passed its target then fired and shot it down if you see what I mean ,it's all split second things after all and the rn ship only saw missile at that point and acted ?and yes it's t31 news so I apologize

I believe that's what happened, the RN fired after the missile had missed its target.

[jimthelad]

Gloucester engaged the silkworm before it was in terminal acquisition of the BB. AFAIK this was the reason it had to accelerate and turn to clear the launcher arcs because it was in front of the task group on the open water side and so had to shoot over her shoulder back to the shoreline (the remainder of the group was blocking her safe arcs of fire). USS Garrett had her Phalanx in auto-engagement mode which resulted in her engaging the chaff cloud forming over the BB which resulted in 20mm fire impacting the BB upper decks (injuring some USN sailors i believe). A VL system has no such constraints so no need to alter course.