USA Armed Forces

[Defiance]

Wouldn't do much good, the elevators on Indian carriers wouldn't fit Rafale.

I'd figure if the Russians can handle a Su-33 then that class of carrier could handle a Rafale (or Vikramaditya (sp) at least) but then again I don't have any stats to hand.

Su-33 is longer, wider and fatter than Rafale, that's all I'm going on haha

[serge750]

Isn't the Russian carrier bigger 65k where as the ins VIK is converted kiev class 45k ?

[Timmymagic]

I'd figure if the Russians can handle a Su-33 then that class of carrier could handle a Rafale (or Vikramaditya (sp) at least) but then again I don't have any stats to hand.

Folding wings....Rafale doesn't have them.

[Defiance]

I'd figure if the Russians can handle a Su-33 then that class of carrier could handle a Rafale (or Vikramaditya (sp) at least) but then again I don't have any stats to hand.

Folding wings....Rafale doesn't have them.

Huh, TIL!

[ArmChairCivvy]

This

"
Sources are accusing President Donald Trump of mishandling the transition of the Pentagon to President-elect Joe Biden at a time of high tensions with both Russia and Iran.
"We need the incoming Biden administration to be fully briefed and ready to deal with these very dangerous issues facing NATO's security," a senior NATO official told Insider.
Security sources are also unimpressed by some of the officials Trump is leaving behind.
"The refusal to coordinate the handover of the most powerful military force in the world in a united, responsible manner would be almost unthinkable," the NATO source said. "Except of course it's 2020 and we are talking about the incredibly selfish, irresponsible asshole called Donald Trump.""
is not a report of a year, about to close.

It is not a report of the past four years.

It is a report of the next 20 days (several months) of heightened risk... because there are actors out there who know about this discontinuity and chaos.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-tr ... &r=US&IR=T

[seaspear]

There is a new development of the torpedo that is claimed to able to be mounted by ships against torpedos , not so long ago similar mounted anti-torpedo torpedos were removed from ships with doubts over their ability
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... n-decades/

[Timmymagic]

There is a new development of the torpedo that is claimed to able to be mounted by ships against torpedos , not so long ago similar mounted anti-torpedo torpedos were removed from ships with doubts over their ability

It's good to see NG carrying this on. The issues on the carrier were apparently around the integrated sonar being able to provide a good enough target track on an incoming torpedo in the carriers wake. The USN's removal of them was pretty abrupt and unusual in that they had actually been installed on a number of ships. It was very puzzling..

Not sure about the hunting subs bit as modern lightweight torpedo's are not regarded as a one shot kill on a lot of subs, and this is a lot smaller. But if they can get the anti-torpedo aspect working for sub launched versions or envisage it for use against UUV's thats good enough.

[ArmChairCivvy]

modern lightweight torpedo's are not regarded as a one shot kill on a lot of subs

Could well be, but compromising the pressure hull will make the sub captain consider his options.
- the Swedes have a special, peace-time version, with a small chemical (like anti-tank) warhead that will 'drill' a hole in the pressure hull and thus force the sub to surface

[ArmChairCivvy]

As I was saying at 11 am, yesterday, before I could hit enter and my HD crashed
M. Pottinger; China
J. Costello; Cyber
A. Ruggiero; Countering weapons of mass destruction
R. Tully; Russia and neighbouring countries in Europe
with all of these senior advisors to the NSC heading for the door

,,, what could possibly go wrong, in the remaining less than two weeks.

If the POTUS cannot bring himself to call the NG onto Washington
then I am sure that he will 'overcompensate' with nukes, somewhere else

[xav]

US Navy Looks To Arm LPD-17 Amphibious Vessels With Long-Range Missiles

At the Surface Navy Association (SNA 2021) Virtual Symposium on Tuesday, January 12, 2021, Naval News asked Major General Tracy W. King for clarification as to what kind of offensive missiles are envisioned for the LPD-17s, and how will they be implemented. Major General King replied that he wasn’t concerned so much about the “Material Solutions” (the type of missile(s)) used, and was more concerned about setting the Requirements to offer to the Defense Industry to determine the best Material Solution:
“Do we need Fixed-Box launchers [inside the LPD-17 hulls]? No. …the future is `missiles in a box.’“

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

[ArmChairCivvy]

In the graphic, above, the ASuW module from LCS designs seems to have replaced CIWS?

Missiles in a box? I can see lots of them being rolled out to the deck in back, normally a helo platform, and used-up 'boxes' unceremoniously being dumped overboard, to keep up the 'RoF'.

[ArmChairCivvy]

WE still don't know where we are with this:

"On Friday, [DefSec] Miller touted the ongoing contentious troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan to 2,500 personnel in each country, despite opposition from Capitol Hill and Esper.
Miller moved forward with the Afghanistan withdrawal, despite the National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting the use of Pentagon funds to remove troops without a congressional review. Trump waived the limitations on the troop reduction in the "national security interests of the United States," Major Rob Lodewick, a Pentagon spokesman said.
This story [by CNN] has been updated with additional comments from Miller and background."

[Blackstone]

In the graphic, above, the ASuW module from LCS designs seems to have replaced CIWS?

Missiles in a box? I can see lots of them being rolled out to the deck in back, normally a helo platform, and used-up 'boxes' unceremoniously being dumped overboard, to keep up the 'RoF'.

The LPD-17s have never had a Phalanx forward, it's always been the 30mm Mk44 in that spot. The RAM launcher is actually a newer addition to the class.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the 30mm Mk44 in that spot

Thx, I just haven't paid attention and thought it was the first instance for the LCS ASuW module (=turret) having been rolled out to other ships.
- in what form will the Zumwalts get theirs (as opposed to the originally intended 57 mm's)?

[xav]

Lockheed Martin Progressing Towards LRASM Integration On F-35

During the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2021 Virtual Symposium held last week, Lockheed Martin was showcasing a new artist impression showing two LRASM fitted on a F-35 Lightning II.

This image was new to us. Naval News contacted Lockheed Martin to ask about it, wondering if it meant that the company is looking to integrate the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) aboard the next generation fighter. Here is what a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told us:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... n-on-f-35/

[ArmChairCivvy]

New DefSec confirmed, Austin, 67, after a four-decade career in uniform, including time heading Central Command, which oversees U.S. troops across the Middle East.
- he retired from the army in 2016.

[xav]

Metal Shark Developing Long Range USV For The U.S. Marine Corps

Louisiana-based shipbuilder Metal Shark has been selected to develop and implement the Long Range Unmanned Surface Vessel (LRUSV)
System for the United States Marine Corps.

The LRUSV System will usher in a new era of naval technology while increasing the lethality of U.S. forces, with a network of unmanned vessels traveling autonomously for extended ranges and transporting loitering munitions to address targets at sea and on land.

This tiered, scalable weapons system will provide the ability to accurately track and destroy targets at range throughout the battle space. While fully autonomous, the vessels may be optionally manned and they will carry multiple payloads, which they will be capable of autonomously launching and retrieving.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ine-corps/

[Jdam]

Sometimes I forget just how big the US navy is



They plan to retire 48 ships in 4 years and afterwards I suspect they will still be kings of the ocean.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"11 Tico cruisers " I wonder which 11; they were going to rehaul 11 and put 11 into reserve to await their rehaul. And when Congress got upset, they ordered some long-lead items, to attest to the honest intent (of actually doing it)??

Next, Congress forced the Navy to adopt the ‘2/4/6’ plan which called for 2 cruisers per year to enter a ‘modernization’ program, 4 years to complete the modernization, and a maximum of 6 cruisers in modernization at one time.
- so halving the loss to the active fleet

And now, we are back to 11 again

[ArmChairCivvy]

Rolling off from inside of a Chinook, this https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/6ceYH ... WMHQIE.jpg can support a 9-man squad over 300 miles
- bergens (ALICE still in use?) strapped over the external frame/ roll bar. 72-hrs worth of supplies thus carried, but no space for water?? 400 ltrs, 400+ kg... install a hollow bonnet, and a tap for a 'straight run' into a tea mug?
- no vehicle mounted radio, drawing from the car battery, either. Yet

Chosen from 5 pitched in the competition.
- Supacat's HMT Extenda wasn't there... may 9 guys can't fit in

Any probs with the photo link; here's the whole article https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/0 ... rce=clavis

[Tempest414]

Sometimes I forget just how big the US navy is



They plan to retire 48 ships in 4 years and afterwards I suspect they will still be kings of the ocean.

Putting this in context the US will commission another 8 AB destroyers before the end of 2024 and maybe 12 to 14 by the end of 2026 and the first of 20 FFGX will also be coming on line by 2026 as for the loss of Nimitz CVN 79 JFK will commission in 2022 and CVN-80 Enterprise will commission in 2027 so yes the US Navy will be fine

Ps if the US needed an extra carrier to fill a gap they could always send 30+ F35b to a British carrier

[ArmChairCivvy]

Year 2026 is an interesting cut off as the 4 years of the previous Administration is what it took to come out with a (navy) force structure assessment. It is for the long term, but the supertanker turns slowly so anything that the Biden Adm. decides (short of cancelling already started builds) will only start to have an effect beyond that cut off.

The cruiser 'thing' was touched on above (already) where the goal is to make enough of them last into the 30s, to provide CTFs with air warfare commander's facilities, i.e to protect the TF. The ABs, despite having (some of them) been given ABM capabilities, do not have such facilities
- and what the LSC will look like (a 20,000 t powerhouse, with err a lot of power), or what... is still an unknown

So other than how fast unmanned will enter into the force structure - for real - the interesting point is how the borderline between types of ships is becoming a sliding scale. The case in point: carriers and amphibiosity as carrier procurement has come to the end of the road where one year of operational life can be gained from a mid-life extension in a much less costly way than one year from new construction.

“Light” carriers are new (in the plan), but the widely-held assumption is that they are repurposed helicopter carriers, not new builds - And they already have the "L" designation. Perhaps up to six such ships, based on the America-class out of the current 11 helicopter carriers intended for amphibious missions. The shortfall (duality of function could be retained?) is/ was (in the published plan) to be made up for by a double number of amph. shipping vessels... some smaller and stealthier.

All of the plan was premised on pushing the construction budget up to 13% of the total navy budget - something that Reagan did - but first we will need to hear from Biden & Co what the total is likely to be
- and then, for the Navy, to reassess?

[seaspear]

I have included this article here as the U.S.N has funded this controversial project , I'm not sure if some of those involved are genius or charlatan but its interesting reading and may even show some desperation to be involved in this because the "Chinese" are also looking at doing it lol
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -in-a-demo

[ArmChairCivvy]

It does not have to fly to utilise those technologies, like
"two highly peculiar Navy patents, the room temperature superconductor (RTSC) and the high-energy electromagnetic field generator (HEEMFG), may in fact already be in operation in some manner."
- from a parallel Wired article on the topic

In 2003 a prototype was delivered for the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR): a 5MW, 230‐RPM, 6‐pole high temperature superconductor (HTS) ship propulsion motor. And in 2008 in was reported in open domain that it had worked well and above expectation.

In further work companies like American Superconductor Corporation (ASC) and Intermagnetics General Corporation (IGC) have been key partners
- in the early days of this forum I posted (heaven only knows/ remembers on which thread) that the power density compared to what now is in use is three times higher. That's for space; I have no idea what these types of components weigh, but if the future requires high, but intermittent power output, then obviously that extra space vacated can be used for energy storage... the solution is likely to be still called batteries

As for the underlined, it seems that laser development is receiving much more development funding than rail guns in the current US defence funding proposals.

[xav]

U.S. Navy Will Not Replace The Patrol Coastals With A New Boat Of Similar Size And Type

At the Surface Navy Association 2021 (SNA 2021) Virtual Symposium, Naval News asked RADM Paul Schlise, USN, Director, Surface Warfare (N96), whether the U.S. Navy intends to replace the aging Patrol Coastal boats. The direct answer is, “No.”

The U.S. Navy does not intend to have a direct replacement for the Cyclone-class Patrol Coastals (PC) under the Trump Administration’s quest for a “500 ship Navy.” However, with the incoming Biden Administration and shifting priorities and strategies, this decision may change as the U.S. Navy reprioritizes and reassesses amid tightening budgets during a nationwide COVID pandemic, high Unemployment, Stimulus demands, and other federal financial issues.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -and-type/