USA Armed Forces

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Caribbean wrote: 22 Mar 2022, 17:42 So these Ajax platforms haven't experienced the same noise and vibration issues as the UK version? Why?
Maybe the US did nt have pop-up manufacturing?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe because GD was able to modify the ASCOD chassis more effectively because they had learnt their lesson from the Ajax programme so know what to do and what not to do. Mind you it appears the turret is what really sold it to the US Army, if we get Ajax to work I wonder if said turret might also fit it, bring the Direct Fire Support variant back from the dead for the British Army.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Caribbean


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

This seems ot be the next go at something like this. Not long ago they were thinking of turning the Sam Antonio LPDs into Arsenal Ships. I do think the FSS should have the capability to have Sea Ceptor installed if not permanently so. They are going to be high value assets and losing one basically neutralises the CSG.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Scimitar54wargame_insomniac

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Scimitar54 »

Of at least equal importance would be a requirement to carry USV, for a (hopefully substantial) degree of ASW protection.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »


Online
Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Jdam »

older A-10 Warthogs, F-22A Raptors, T-1 Jayhawks, and KC-135 Stratotankers.
Interesting :shock:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe the USAF could speed things up and give those A-10s to the Ukrainian Air Force to test the argument it is not capable of operating in an environment os was actually designed for. Yes they will be losses but Western Air Forces need to relearn the fact that in Peer level air combat they will lose aircraft.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by NickC »

US Navy planning to reduce its ship fleet numbers from current 297 to 280 in FY2027, Congress passed act in 2017/8 to say Navy should increase fleet to 355 ships, did not specify a timeline.

https://news.usni.org/2022/03/28/fy-23- ... more-93151

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

NickC wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 13:21 US Navy planning to reduce its ship fleet numbers from current 297 to 280 in FY2027, Congress passed act in 2017/8 to say Navy should increase fleet to 355 ships, did not specify a timeline.

https://news.usni.org/2022/03/28/fy-23- ... more-93151
From memory that target of 355 ships included adding 30 FFG(X) (i.e. Constellation Class = USN stretched version of FREMM) and 30 LAW (Light Amphibious Warship). It's going to take them a long while to get to those numbers.

In the actual 2023 Budget the USN is asking for just nine ships, including just one Constellation-class frigate and zero LAW:
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-m ... s-warship/

And the latest plan is to ask for one final San Antonio Flight II LPD's, with two in production will give USN just 3, 10 less than the initail planned 13 San Antonio Flight II's:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/ ... ous-hulls/

The San Antonio Flight I was one of my favourite USN designs.
:(

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Aren't the Flight IIs the USNs version of the Bays, mainly for logistics to support amphibious operations?

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 05:11 Aren't the Flight IIs the USNs version of the Bays, mainly for logistics to support amphibious operations?
They were intended to replace the Whidbey Island Class LSD, in the standard one apiece of LHA / LPD / LSD in the standard US Marine ARG.

But with USMC aiming for distributed lethality and dispersing across more smaller platforms, it appears from that article that betting on LAW, despite the LAW not yet being finalised.

The Flight Ii are based on Flight I but with cheaper steel mast and sensors instead of the enclosead mast, and removal of helicopter hangar.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

So yes, a bigger, better Bay then.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by seaspear »

The U.S.N has announced they will now use the Captas 4 system that is used successfully by other navies
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/ ... -raytheon/

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Halidon »

seaspear wrote: 03 Apr 2022, 03:03 The U.S.N has announced they will now use the Captas 4 system that is used successfully by other navies
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/ ... -raytheon/
Can't be, I'm told the US are big meanies who never buy anything European :D

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by NickC »

10th February Naval News " US Navy Looks Again at VDS Options for New [Constellation] Frigate" Why the DART AN/SQS-62 VDS eventually cancelled, presuming one reason the inability to meet the hydrodynamic stability spec to be towed at 40+ knots in sprint mode by the Freedom class LCS was more challenging than envisaged?

"NAVSEA – The Navy has released a sources sought solicitation to identify viable alternate Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) candidate systems for the CONSTELLATION-class Frigate program. The Frigate program design currently utilizes the government-directed, contractor furnished, Raytheon Dual-mode Array Transmitter (DART) VDS which is under development for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. Ongoing testing of DART has identified challenges in hydrodynamic stability and transducer reliability and performance, which in turn have delayed testing and production of the system. While efforts remain underway by Raytheon to resolve the issues with DART, the system’s developmental delay has increased risk for the CONSTELLATION-class Frigate, which is of concern to both the Navy and the Frigate’s shipbuilder Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM). Consequently the Navy will evaluate the schedule and technical risk associated with other mature VDS alternatives identified by vendor responses to this solicitation. This assessment will inform a subsequent decision on the Frigate VDS configuration."

Would note the CAPTAS-4 VDS will built in US by a Thales subsidiary and DRS (the handling kit), re RN CAPTAS-4 VDS, thought the active sonar imported directly from France, only passive sonar UK, Constellation will fit the Lockheed TB-37x 3″ diameter Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA) towed behind ship for use in the passive role.

Video of the CAPTAS-4 Compact, driven by LCS requirement for smaller size and weight due their limited payload, max 105t.


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Tempest414 »

Where are they going with this I can see this working along side a CVN to allow extra strike but if it is to allow the USMC to have a strike carrier with in its group then they will need to convert some of there MV-22's for AEW

I mean the ability to put 2 MEU's together with a light carrier is quite a punch

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SKB »

Copycats.... but looks weird without a ramp. Or a second island. :mrgreen:

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by inch »

Wondering if usmc going to order American version queen Elizabeth type ships in future ?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Apr 2022, 11:11 Where are they going with this I can see this working along side a CVN to allow extra strike but if it is to allow the USMC to have a strike carrier with in its group then they will need to convert some of there MV-22's for AEW

I mean the ability to put 2 MEU's together with a light carrier is quite a punch
I think they are reconstituting a capable they had with harrier by demonstrating should it be required they can do it with f35 on there lhds

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Apr 2022, 11:11 Where are they going with this I can see this working along side a CVN to allow extra strike but if it is to allow the USMC to have a strike carrier with in its group then they will need to convert some of there MV-22's for AEW

I mean the ability to put 2 MEU's together with a light carrier is quite a punch
Simply to get as many F35's to be able to face China as possible for first strike missions. The USN should be able to have two CSG available in or near the South China Sea, one of which is the one advance deployed to Japan, and the other based in Hawaii.

The USN has two America class aviation centric LHA's with no well deck and extra storage of aviation fuel: America and Tripoli.

That still leaves the 7 remaining Wasp class LHD's to lead USMC MEU.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

USMC squadrons are not traditionally tasked with air defence but to provide ground support to the Marines engaged on the ground. Air defence comes for the USN's Carriers further off shore. What maximising the number of F-5s on one or more of their LHDs will do is increase the amount of support available. Concentrating the F-35s on a single ship also makes there operation far more efficient. However after the first two ot three of teh America class were built, which were designed for maximum F-35 carriage, it was decided to reinstall the well deck to make the later ship more versatile.

Whether the USN will allow the USMC to have larger ships with greater aviation capacity is a complicated question, as these larger ships may be seen as viable and cheaper alternative to the USN's "Super" Carriers, even though they will only be able to operate Helicopters and STOVL aircraft. Any idea of these ships being able to operate the USMC's F-35C will definitely be resisted by the USN.

As for an AERW capability, again this is provided by the USN's Carriers, though a VTOL or STOVL drone maybe an op0tion. looking where the Royal Navy go when they replace their CROWSNEST AEW&C platform might be one option.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 14 Apr 2022, 04:39 USMC squadrons are not traditionally tasked with air defence but to provide ground support to the Marines engaged on the ground. Air defence comes for the USN's Carriers further off shore. What maximising the number of F-5s on one or more of their LHDs will do is increase the amount of support available. Concentrating the F-35s on a single ship also makes there operation far more efficient. However after the first two ot three of teh America class were built, which were designed for maximum F-35 carriage, it was decided to reinstall the well deck to make the later ship more versatile.

Whether the USN will allow the USMC to have larger ships with greater aviation capacity is a complicated question, as these larger ships may be seen as viable and cheaper alternative to the USN's "Super" Carriers, even though they will only be able to operate Helicopters and STOVL aircraft. Any idea of these ships being able to operate the USMC's F-35C will definitely be resisted by the USN.

As for an AERW capability, again this is provided by the USN's Carriers, though a VTOL or STOVL drone maybe an op0tion. looking where the Royal Navy go when they replace their CROWSNEST AEW&C platform might be one option.
As I mentioned, the USMC would be mainly using the F35 for their first strike potential. With their stealth they can get closer to China's defences and target their radar systems and SAM / Anti Ship Missile batteries.

It is just the first two America class LHA's that are aviation centric. The third, Bougainville has a well deck added back in.

That leaves another 7 LHD'S to continue to lead USMC MEU, with standard 1 LHD +1 LPD +1 LSD, with DDG escort. I believe that USN currently has 11 LPD and 11 LSD, so that gives them an extra 4 of each that could be used to either supplement MEU or deploy a smaller force of MEU as they try to move towards distributed lethality.

It does appear from the latest USN annual budget submission that USN want to reduce the construction of America class LHA and San Antonio Flight Ii LPD. However they have not yet finalised their intended partial replacement by 30 smaller LAW, of which the first was due to be ordered this year.

So I can see the USMC fielding operationally America and Tripoli as Lightning Carriers. When you look beyond the first island chain, the distances between the likes of Palau, Guam and Hawaii are huge. And USN can normally deploy just two CVN to cover that area - I guess they may be able to surge a third CVN to the area if pulled away from other deployments. But having effectively two CVL's also helps.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote: 14 Apr 2022, 04:39 USMC squadrons are not traditionally tasked with air defence but to provide ground support to the Marines engaged on the ground. Air defence comes for the USN's Carriers further off shore. What maximising the number of F-5s on one or more of their LHDs will do is increase the amount of support available. Concentrating the F-35s on a single ship also makes there operation far more efficient. However after the first two ot three of teh America class were built, which were designed for maximum F-35 carriage, it was decided to reinstall the well deck to make the later ship more versatile.

Whether the USN will allow the USMC to have larger ships with greater aviation capacity is a complicated question, as these larger ships may be seen as viable and cheaper alternative to the USN's "Super" Carriers, even though they will only be able to operate Helicopters and STOVL aircraft. Any idea of these ships being able to operate the USMC's F-35C will definitely be resisted by the USN.

As for an AERW capability, again this is provided by the USN's Carriers, though a VTOL or STOVL drone maybe an op0tion. looking where the Royal Navy go when they replace their CROWSNEST AEW&C platform might be one option.

I believe the idea is to operate them as a “light” carrier as and when needed to free up the “super” carriers to operate in the SCS and wider pacific areas.

Would a true CSG be needed if a USMC group was accompanied by one of these with 20 odd F35Bs and AEW drones ?

As for the AEW set up as Iv often mention on here as something we should join or just purchase is V-247, the USMC we’re developing these is multiple different vairients including standard cargo, Reaper style attack, electronic warfare and an AEW vairients.
They have a service ceiling of 24,000+ ft, an on station time of up to 11 hours and range of between 600 and 1200nm depending on load out.
The project was shelved due to budget but Iv read bits recently that it’s being picked up again, this would give these “lighting” carries a true all round capability and something we should be tagging on to our QEs.
Just think a QE with 20 F35Bs, 8 ASW merlin, 4 AEW V-247 ( better than current crowsnest ) 6 Attack V-247, 6 EW V-247 and 4 CV-22s for cargo and ARR would make then truely something to looked out for.

Post Reply