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 »

Reading the Twitter replies - this force structure is for 2040.

12 CVN? Currently they have 10 Nimitz Class and Gerald R Ford. Nimitz is due to be replaced by John F Kennedy in 2024/25 - JFK currently being fitting out. Enterprise and Doris Miller under constuction and a 5th ship ordered. It looks like the only way that USN can get to 12 CVN is for the Nimitz Class to be kept in service beyond 50 years.

9 big deck LHA / LHD. Currently have two America Class and 7 Wasp Class (after Bonhomme Richard was damaged in fire). Bougainville under construction so guess it and future ships will be ordered as oe for one replacement of Wasp Class. Not sure if the 30 smaller amphibs includes future LAW or just the LPD / LSD.

USN currently has in service 90 CG/DDG (21 remaining Ticonderoga + 69 Arleigh Burke) and 0 FFG. Looks like another 20 Arleigh Burke are planned, of which 10 are under construction / ordered, with DDG(X) also supposedly due in service in late 2020's. To hit the above targets the USN is going to have to scrap 30 of the older Arleigh Burke as well as the remaining Ticonderogas. And then build, launch and commission FIFTY Frigates!!

Some big changes for USN to hit that force structure by 2040.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 17:10 Reading the Twitter replies - this force structure is for 2040.

12 CVN? Currently they have 10 Nimitz Class and Gerald R Ford. Nimitz is due to be replaced by John F Kennedy in 2024/25 - JFK currently being fitting out. Enterprise and Doris Miller under constuction and a 5th ship ordered. It looks like the only way that USN can get to 12 CVN is for the Nimitz Class to be kept in service beyond 50 years.

9 big deck LHA / LHD. Currently have two America Class and 7 Wasp Class (after Bonhomme Richard was damaged in fire). Bougainville under construction so guess it and future ships will be ordered as oe for one replacement of Wasp Class. Not sure if the 30 smaller amphibs includes future LAW or just the LPD / LSD.

USN currently has in service 90 CG/DDG (21 remaining Ticonderoga + 69 Arleigh Burke) and 0 FFG. Looks like another 20 Arleigh Burke are planned, of which 10 are under construction / ordered, with DDG(X) also supposedly due in service in late 2020's. To hit the above targets the USN is going to have to scrap 30 of the older Arleigh Burke as well as the remaining Ticonderogas. And then build, launch and commission FIFTY Frigates!!

Some big changes for USN to hit that force structure by 2040.
Not sure but I think the 12 cvn is something the congress has set for years, I think they classing the LCS as a frigate in these numbers so they have 38 of them.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Counting LCS as Frigates would make sense as otherwise that would be a huge shipbuilding project. But I know the USN wants to retire more of the older LCS so unsure how many will be left by 2040.

It is a big switch though from Arleigh Burke's with two+ being ordered each year recently. However the FFG(X) will have far fewer VLS than Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke's currently and the expected DDG(X). Focussing on smaller frigates, whilst understandable as the only realistic way that USN can grow in size from current size, does leave them short of anti-missile defence for 12*CSG and 9*ARG.

I would have expected USN to want to keep closer to 90 CG / DDG given that China and Pacific is the US main focus.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 18:31 Counting LCS as Frigates would make sense as otherwise that would be a huge shipbuilding project. But I know the USN wants to retire more of the older LCS so unsure how many will be left by 2040.

It is a big switch though from Arleigh Burke's with two+ being ordered each year recently. However the FFG(X) will have far fewer VLS than Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke's currently and the expected DDG(X). Focussing on smaller frigates, whilst understandable as the only realistic way that USN can grow in size from current size, does leave them short of anti-missile defence for 12*CSG and 9*ARG.

I would have expected USN to want to keep closer to 90 CG / DDG given that China and Pacific is the US main focus.

Yes but if it is the constellation class that ultimately is the frigate class they will be very capable, and we’ve seen there container vls concepts on unmanned vessels but I think it has to be seen against a very large increase in the ssn fleet with there vls payloads arguably the main peer weapon.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 18:44
wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 18:31 Counting LCS as Frigates would make sense as otherwise that would be a huge shipbuilding project. But I know the USN wants to retire more of the older LCS so unsure how many will be left by 2040.

It is a big switch though from Arleigh Burke's with two+ being ordered each year recently. However the FFG(X) will have far fewer VLS than Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke's currently and the expected DDG(X). Focussing on smaller frigates, whilst understandable as the only realistic way that USN can grow in size from current size, does leave them short of anti-missile defence for 12*CSG and 9*ARG.

I would have expected USN to want to keep closer to 90 CG / DDG given that China and Pacific is the US main focus.

Yes but if it is the constellation class that ultimately is the frigate class they will be very capable, and we’ve seen there container vls concepts on unmanned vessels but I think it has to be seen against a very large increase in the ssn fleet with there vls payloads arguably the main peer weapon.
I don't doubt the efficacy of USN's large fleet of SSN in an attacking sense. But it is more the use of VLS in a defensive size sense against the sheer number of Anti-Ship Missiles that PLAN can throw at US CSG's. And the new FFG have been already stretched from initial FREMM design to fit in all the US requirements - they currently have 32*Mark 41 VLS cells. That is less than one third of Arleigh Burke / Ticonderoga classes.

I know that shorter range ESSM can be quad packed and I guess that will be useful against the older Chinese missiles. And they do have 21 cells RAM as point defence system. But unless new tech such as directed energy weapons can be relied upon in the heat of battle, I think that is a big risk given the supposed quantity and quality of Chinese ASM.

I really worry about the RN lack of sufficient VLS launchers - I hope the USN does nt throw away their current strength in quality in both Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke in the pursuit of quantity of ships.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Jake1992 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 23:37
SW1 wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 18:44
wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 18:31 Counting LCS as Frigates would make sense as otherwise that would be a huge shipbuilding project. But I know the USN wants to retire more of the older LCS so unsure how many will be left by 2040.

It is a big switch though from Arleigh Burke's with two+ being ordered each year recently. However the FFG(X) will have far fewer VLS than Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke's currently and the expected DDG(X). Focussing on smaller frigates, whilst understandable as the only realistic way that USN can grow in size from current size, does leave them short of anti-missile defence for 12*CSG and 9*ARG.

I would have expected USN to want to keep closer to 90 CG / DDG given that China and Pacific is the US main focus.

Yes but if it is the constellation class that ultimately is the frigate class they will be very capable, and we’ve seen there container vls concepts on unmanned vessels but I think it has to be seen against a very large increase in the ssn fleet with there vls payloads arguably the main peer weapon.
I don't doubt the efficacy of USN's large fleet of SSN in an attacking sense. But it is more the use of VLS in a defensive size sense against the sheer number of Anti-Ship Missiles that PLAN can throw at US CSG's. And the new FFG have been already stretched from initial FREMM design to fit in all the US requirements - they currently have 32*Mark 41 VLS cells. That is less than one third of Arleigh Burke / Ticonderoga classes.

I know that shorter range ESSM can be quad packed and I guess that will be useful against the older Chinese missiles. And they do have 21 cells RAM as point defence system. But unless new tech such as directed energy weapons can be relied upon in the heat of battle, I think that is a big risk given the supposed quantity and quality of Chinese ASM.

I really worry about the RN lack of sufficient VLS launchers - I hope the USN does nt throw away their current strength in quality in both Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke in the pursuit of quantity of ships.
I think I depends how the USN are going to deploy, looking at the expected numbers they’ll have 20 battle groups with 60 DDGs/DDGX and 50 “frigates” to act as escorts.
This should allow each battle group to have 3 DDGs and 2 “frigates” as escorts pretty similar to today, the only short fall would then be in “solo” tasks with only 10 frigates spare of the battle groups.
IMO they should aim for 10 more DDGs/DDGX and 10 more frigates to allow ample solo / allied operations as well as BMD for coastal US but that all comes at extra cost.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Tempest414 »

If you take this forward the 20 battle groups would have 3 DDG's , 2 FFG & 2 SSN

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Jake1992 wrote: 20 Feb 2022, 09:37
wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 23:37
I don't doubt the efficacy of USN's large fleet of SSN in an attacking sense. But it is more the use of VLS in a defensive size sense against the sheer number of Anti-Ship Missiles that PLAN can throw at US CSG's. And the new FFG have been already stretched from initial FREMM design to fit in all the US requirements - they currently have 32*Mark 41 VLS cells. That is less than one third of Arleigh Burke / Ticonderoga classes.

I know that shorter range ESSM can be quad packed and I guess that will be useful against the older Chinese missiles. And they do have 21 cells RAM as point defence system. But unless new tech such as directed energy weapons can be relied upon in the heat of battle, I think that is a big risk given the supposed quantity and quality of Chinese ASM.

I really worry about the RN lack of sufficient VLS launchers - I hope the USN does nt throw away their current strength in quality in both Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke in the pursuit of quantity of ships.
I think I depends how the USN are going to deploy, looking at the expected numbers they’ll have 20 battle groups with 60 DDGs/DDGX and 50 “frigates” to act as escorts.
This should allow each battle group to have 3 DDGs and 2 “frigates” as escorts pretty similar to today, the only short fall would then be in “solo” tasks with only 10 frigates spare of the battle groups.
IMO they should aim for 10 more DDGs/DDGX and 10 more frigates to allow ample solo / allied operations as well as BMD for coastal US but that all comes at extra cost.
[/quote]
You are not getting my point on number of VLS launchers for anti air / anti misile defence.

USN currently has in service 90 CG/DDG (21 remaining Ticonderoga + 69 Arleigh Burke). Each US CSG typically has 1 Ticonderoga and 4 Arleigh Burke, each ship with between 90 - 122 Mark 41 VLS cells, (+ often an allied escort). (From what I can tell each US ARG seems to have a variable number of escorts). So for each US CSG that is around 500 VLS launchers approximately (exact number would depend on which Flight Arleigh Burke's).

FFG currently expected to have 32*Mark 41 VLS cells (+RAM for point defence). That is less than one third of of the number of Mark 41 VLS cells for Arleigh Burke / Ticonderoga classes. Neither Class of LCS have any Mark 41 VLS cells fitted as standard.

So your suggestion that (from 2040) each US CSG have 3 DDGs and 2 “frigates”. Let's assume that each "frigate" is new FFG(X) and these are instead of 1*Ticonderoga and 1*Flight I Arleigh Burke - what you are proposing would leave them at least 148 Mark 41 VLS cells lower from currently (-122 -90 +32 +32). (If you were proposing using LCS instead of FFG(X) then that would bump that shortfall to at least 212).

Now as I said before, if new directed energy weapons are going to be efficient and reliable enough to depend on in the heat of battle by 2040, then will ertainly compensate for any loss in VLS cells, and once these can be relied upon, then future ships will probbly strip out VLS to save space/weight/power supply for lasers. But I would n want to bet the fate of the CSG on that hope!!

Until then I hope that USN at the very least maintains its numbers of DDG at 90 odd, with enough Flight III and DDG(X) built each year to replace Ticonderoga and Flight I on at least one-for-one basis. Then numbers of FFG(X) can be built up and used to replace LCS and cover the lower intensity missions.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

I wouldn’t be worrying about that for either the us or rn tbh

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Remember the USN is looking to have unmanned "Arsenal" vessels working with its manned Escorts. These will each carry a number of VLS whose payload can be controlled by any of the manned escorts. These should more than make up for the loss of VLS mentioned above. These unmanned vessels will also work with Amphibious Groups providing ship to shore precision bombardment with various weapon systems. I think this is why the USN is devoting a lot of resources to large unmanned vessels whereas European navies are looking at smaller craft to handle Mine Warfare etc.

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by RunningStrong »

BAE Systems disqualified from the US Army Mobile Protected Fires programme, with the General Dynamics Griffin being the remaining option.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land ... ompetition

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

https://www.ga.com/ga-asi-introduces-gambit

The jet-powered platform is being built for air dominance and will heavily leverage advances in artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Working alongside human-piloted aircraft, Gambit will enable pilots to see deeper into hostile airspace, detect threats first, and provide time and space for critical decisions and actions.

“GA-ASI has led the way in integrating UAS into every aspect of military operations,” said GA-ASI President David R. Alexander. “Now we’re once again pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with unmanned aircraft, software, mission systems integration and more. Gambit will usher in a new era, where UAS work collaboratively with manned aircraft to detect, identify and target adversaries at range and scale across the battlespace.”

Designed as an advanced concept aircraft, Gambit will use AI and autonomy to complete a variety of tasks without being prompted by an operator. GA-ASI’s software and integration systems will support detection and analysis, and provide users with the highest quality intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ever possible from an unmanned aircraft. On point out ahead of U.S. Air Force tactical aircraft, Gambit will also be able to sense and track targets of interest, and distribute that information across the battlespace.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: 03 Mar 2022, 16:23 will enable pilots to see deeper into hostile airspace, detect threats first, and provide time and space for critical decisions and actions.
Great capability to go with Meteor
... when are they getting their own 'model' of that?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 03 Mar 2022, 18:18
SW1 wrote: 03 Mar 2022, 16:23 will enable pilots to see deeper into hostile airspace, detect threats first, and provide time and space for critical decisions and actions.
Great capability to go with Meteor
... when are they getting their own 'model' of that?
We can stick it on mosquito and sell it to them for once!!!

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

The USAF and USN have a number of programmes ongoing to both compliment and eventually replace AMRAAM and provide a similar capability to Meteor thou using a different propulsion system I believe. Like Brimstone they know Meteor is a very good weapon system but they want a home grwn solution to the same requirements.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, the AMRAAM forever thinkig has meant that AS OF TODAY China and several AFs in Europe already field the 'nxt gen'.
- luckily on this one Russia is not quite on par (their AWACS-killers are modified naval missiles)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by bobp »

The USN has recovered its F35C from the sea bed.....

https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-n ... china-sea/

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Quite an impressive operations. Reminds me of teh urgency to recover a Phoenix Missile that went overboard in the early 1980s I believe.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

Commandant of the US Marines on there future force and some chat about Ukraine




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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I know its been decommisioned for the last 18 or so years but still a shame to me see the Ticonderoga being finally scrapped:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... g-scrapped

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

They were the iconic USN escort during the Cold War in my view. The USN needs to get its act together regarding its successor as the ABs are maxed out in their Flight III configuration. They also need to crack on building the Constellation class.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Rheinmetall entry into the US Army's next generation vehicle programmes. Now imagine that turret on Boxer as a Fire Support Vehicle for Boxer equipped Infantry Units.

Sorry for the poor quality of the video as it progresses. The idea behind the platform is interesting though, and as it fits on the Lynx chassis, I wonder if it would also fit onto Ajax? IF that platform enters service it would reincarnate the original Direct Fire Support requirement.

Both Boxer and Ajax equipped units need a step change in firepower. At present we are relying far too much on dismounted weapons crewed by Infantry. This may work for defence, but in a high intensity conflict units will need to manoeuvre at a fast pace, and being able to direct fire under armour in needed for this. We need both medium and long range ATGWs that are able to be fired under armour as well as a Mortar system, in my view being 120mm that again can be fired under armour.

Sorry for any typos, I am starting to go blind and find both reading and typing more and more difficult.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by NickC »

Details of powerful US Space Force GPS hardware jamming capability revealed due to Ukraine - Breaking Defense March 21st "Satellite jamming ‘normal’ by militaries during conflict, not peacetime: State Dept. official", a few quotes

"In the current conflict, Russian forces actively have been jamming GPS signals in Ukraine as they attempt to advance. In addition, a senior Ukrainian cybersecurity official this week suggested that a Feb. 24 cyber attack on commercial communications provider Viasat, which provides Internet connectivity in Ukraine and Europe, was part of an organized Russian cyber campaign against his country’s forces.!

"And as far as electronic warfare in conflict zones, Russian forces practice it routinely. The Russian military has frequently jammed GPS in Eastern Ukraine since the Crimean conflict in 2014, according to experts inside and outside the US government, as well as in Sryia."

"During a March 17 virtual conversation at the National Security Space Association, Eric Desautels, acting deputy assistant secretary for emerging security challenges and defense policy in State’s Arms Control, Verification and Compliance bureau, explained that the US military has its own jamming capabilities for use in conflict zones."

"CCS is the Space Force’s Counter Communications System, a mobile communications satellite jammer built by L3Harris and first fielded in 2004. The system has been upgraded routinely over the last 20 years, with the latest upgrade, called Block 10.2, declared operational in March 2020."

First pic I've seen of the US GPS jammer
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by NickC »

Janes saying GD won the competition against BAE Inc for new US Army ~30 ton light tank, MPF, Mobile Protected Firepower, both produced 12 prototypes for trials, projected order total 500

GD offered the Ajax lightweight chassis with a high-performance power pack and its advanced suspension, combined with a turret featuring the latest version of the fire control system/120m gun found in the Abrams main battle tank. GD said they gained positive feedback from the soldiers during the trials on the new suspension and the ease of training because of the vehicle’s similarities to the Abrams tank.

BAE Inc design was an updated 1996 M8 Buford armoured gun system with new capabilities and components with 105mm gun.

From <https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ompetition>
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Caribbean »

So these Ajax platforms haven't experienced the same noise and vibration issues as the UK version? Why?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply