USA Armed Forces

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

R4eally positive news and I cannot wait to see the French Navy cross decking with the USN at some point in the future. Their Rafales did make the F-18s look a little mundane in my opinion when they operated off a US Carrier a while back.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

This would hopefully be good for UK as well, if we can move past disputes with France over number of migrants crossing channel and/or number of fishing permits in each others waters etc. RN seems torn between US and European systems and weapons e.g whether to go for Mk41 VLS or Sylver VLS.

If USN and French Navy can work more closely togther with interopability, I presume that should help the RN work well with either as we share some common systems with both. RN and French Navy are of comparable size, and with similar interests in Cariibean and Indo-Pacific, it would be good if we could work well together. e.g. combined forces for future CSG deployments etc.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

IF everyone starts to get along and co operation flourishes, maybe the way will be open for countries to fund weapon integration with both Mk41 and Sylver, with the paying for integration of the FC/ASW with the Mk41 and France for its integration with Sylver. That wouldn't hurt the export potential of the missile at all.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

I assume this is what is behind our SF brigade rangers idea?

https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... e-in-2022/

Special operations planners in the Pacific are also looking at whether they can implement portions of the Resistance Operating Concept in 2022 and beyond. The ROC is a framework for building up the capacity of friendly countries to mount an effective civil and military resistance if they were to face invasion and occupation from a hostile great power. It incorporates Special Forces, psychological operations and civil affairs.

The ROC is already driving a lot of Army SOF’s training and planning in Europe, though, where 2021 saw numerous exercises aimed at building the resistance capabilities of countries like Georgia — which, though located in the Caucasus region of Asia, falls under U.S. European Command’s responsibility. EUCOM also has a forward-deployed Special Forces unit — 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group — in Germany.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Halidon »


Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

Initially, the ship would feature a 32-cell Mk-41 Vertical Launch System forward of the superstructure that could be swapped for 12 larger missile cells capable of fielding the Pentagon’s emerging hypersonic weapons being developed for the Navy, Army and the Air Force.

The current DDG-51s field 96 MK-41 VLS cells and USNI News understands that Navy requirements keep the VLS cells for DDG(X) about the same.
I take it to mean that 96 cells will be roughly the same for DDG(X) when entering service, with scope in future for that to become 64 Mk41 + 12 big boys?

If so it highlights the size-issue around hypersonic weapons. They aren't going to be bunged into Mk41 or Mk57.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SKB »

Hypersonic = over Mach 5 (3,806 mph or 6,126 km/h)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Tempest414 »

Defiance wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 08:01
Initially, the ship would feature a 32-cell Mk-41 Vertical Launch System forward of the superstructure that could be swapped for 12 larger missile cells capable of fielding the Pentagon’s emerging hypersonic weapons being developed for the Navy, Army and the Air Force.

The current DDG-51s field 96 MK-41 VLS cells and USNI News understands that Navy requirements keep the VLS cells for DDG(X) about the same.
I take it to mean that 96 cells will be roughly the same for DDG(X) when entering service, with scope in future for that to become 64 Mk41 + 12 big boys?

If so it highlights the size-issue around hypersonic weapons. They aren't going to be bunged into Mk41 or Mk57.
Makes one think what we should have had from the type 45 program i.e 8 ships armed with 1 x 114mm , 2 x 30mm 2 x Phalanx , 64 VLS and 8 x Harpoon / NSM and we could have 6 of these ship now

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Well they have chosen the calibre and now the optics. The new Rifle and Automatic Rifle should be with the troops sometime this year, and joining the British Army by 2030 we can hope. The optic is like a mini Tank FCS, automatically providing an adjusted aim point taking into account all sorts of factors. Put the crosshair on the target out there around 600m, push a button then put the indicator onto the target and pull the trigger and you have shot the balls of a fly.
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... ad-weapon/

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »


Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 11:19 Makes one think what we should have had from the type 45 program i.e 8 ships armed with 1 x 114mm , 2 x 30mm 2 x Phalanx , 64 VLS and 8 x Harpoon / NSM and we could have 6 of these ship now
It does, DDG(X) is going to be a pretty potent surface combatant as it tries to straddle the line between the more numerous DDG fleet but also stepping up to take the CG role

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by abc123 »

Halidon wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 05:32
IMHO they will need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

abc123 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 08:38 ill need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Depends how well they got on with MT30 in the DDG1000s, they've had enough time to run them around and work out their power requirements. Moreover they can't really go too overboard with DDG(X) considering the volume they'll need to purchase them in to replace the Arleigh Burkes.

I think they're pitching this at the right level. It's supposed to be DDG(X), not CG(X)

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by inch »

All down to money ,like everyone else ,a rehashed Burke class if good enough will do ,get more ships of the class for said amount instead of building 3 costing loads , trying too keep China at bay is going to be a uphill struggle with the the amount of capacity and cheapness they can turn around ships ,I don't think USN can do it alone ,we need to get are arse into gear also ,ie not just 3 t82 destroyers costing zillions , saying they are twice as capable as t45 so we only need 3-4 ,but as sure as eggs are eggs that is what will happen , while China laughing

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

inch wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 10:56 All down to money ,like everyone else ,a rehashed Burke class if good enough will do ,get more ships of the class for said amount instead of building 3 costing loads , trying too keep China at bay is going to be a uphill struggle with the the amount of capacity and cheapness they can turn around ships ,I don't think USN can do it alone ,we need to get are arse into gear also ,ie not just 3 t82 destroyers costing zillions , saying they are twice as capable as t45 so we only need 3-4 ,but as sure as eggs are eggs that is what will happen , while China laughing
Indeed, this is why the FFG-62 is so critical - the USN needs more combat mass and FFG-62 class are the way they want to get it*. It doesn't have the firepower of an Arleigh Burke hull for hull, but the intention is to put them in roles where an AB is overkill and more desperately needed.

Conveniently timed though, it was released yesterday that the construction of the first of class (USS Constellation) will begin this year

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... this-year/

*or are forced to get it

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by inch »

Still should have been a t26 derivative in my book ,a 5 eyes ship ,but no USN went and picked a French / Italian ship ,, nothing wrong with the quality mind you but AHH well old news

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Defiance wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 10:47
abc123 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 08:38 ill need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Depends how well they got on with MT30 in the DDG1000s, they've had enough time to run them around and work out their power requirements. Moreover they can't really go too overboard with DDG(X) considering the volume they'll need to purchase them in to replace the Arleigh Burkes.

I think they're pitching this at the right level. It's supposed to be DDG(X), not CG(X)
Am I right in thinking that Flight III AB's will be currently replacing the Ticonderoga CG? If so presumably these DDG(X) will be eventually replacing the Flight I AB's?

From reading yesterday's article in USNI News, it does look as if the USN learned with disastrous introductions of both DDG-1000 class and LCS. Initially fitting weapons that they known will work in pratice and on;y upgrading them over time to thse new fangled energy wapons and Railguns. I hope the RN learn from this with the T83's.

And the USN will have a fair number of both LCS and FFG(X) Frigates to do the basic patrolling tasks that RN would be using River B2's and T31's.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by abc123 »

Defiance wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 10:47
abc123 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 08:38 ill need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Depends how well they got on with MT30 in the DDG1000s, they've had enough time to run them around and work out their power requirements. Moreover they can't really go too overboard with DDG(X) considering the volume they'll need to purchase them in to replace the Arleigh Burkes.

I think they're pitching this at the right level. It's supposed to be DDG(X), not CG(X)

But didn't they say that DDX will replace at least part of Ticos?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Downsizing. :D

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

abc123 wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 14:24 But didn't they say that DDX will replace at least part of Ticos?
CG's are having their role absorbed by Flt III DDGs but that doesn't mean they need to design it as a Tico replacement. This is due to the increased numbers being purchased and operated together.

e.g. You only see 1 CG per carrier group and 4-5 DDGs. Looking at a higher level, that CG capability gap can be spread across a number of future DDG(X)s rather than building every DDG(X) to be the equal or better to a CG.

Reportedly the USN are happy with the performance of Flt III in the air defence role, ideally they'd beef up the VLS capacity a bit and build them a bit bigger to take on an Air Warfare Commander plus staff.

DDG1000 became a gold plated monster and LCS became a damp squib, the USN know they can't afford to cock this up
These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Tempest414 »

the way I see it the USN will end up with 60 FFG and 70 DDG plus take the lessons from LCS and build 20 or so heavy corvettes

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Rather than Corvettes I can see the USCG being beefed up, more akin to their Cold War role, where they would be fitted with additional ASW systems in wartime. In this case I can see the USCG having Cutters that could be up armed to suit where they are to operate, rather like how we have discussed up gunning the B2 Rivers.

The ABs will remain the core of the USN for decades to come with around forty Constitution class and twenty new Cruisers that will be larger then the existing ones by quite a margin. Remember costs were cut by using an existing hull for these whereas they can have the right sized hull for their replacements.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

https://www.plasan-na.com/atemm/

The All-Terrain Electric Mission Module (ATeMM) is a connected and synchronized auto-controlled electric powered platform.

The ATeMM can be easily connected to any leading vehicle by a patented “3 point fast connection” that enables the combined platform to perform as a 6×6 or 8×8 synchronized, flexible, and agile platform, allowing the operator a simple and easy driving experience.

A Robust Battery Management System Enables:
Customizable OBVP based on mission requirements
OBVP can be provided both in a stationary setting or on-the-move scenarios
Regenerative braking and coast regeneration allow the ATeMM to arrive at its destination fully charged despite powering devices while in transport

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Caribbean »

But what does it actually do?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Click on the link to find out. It is quite an interesting development.

Post Reply