Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.

Recommended Posts

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-warships-big-guns-have-no-bullets

 

The USN might not buy any more LRLAP rounds for the 3 Zumwalts, and go for something cheaper.

 

My problem with this article is the anonymous source and a provably false claim that LRLAP cost $800,000+ per round.

 

H9oWr8I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe they are the "pallets" that store the 320 rounds in the auxiliary magazine. IIRC each holds 16 and 20 of them would be one ships worth.

Just as a thought, the price appears to be based on a run of 150 rounds. How much would it drop in a run of 2500+ to fill the three ships magazines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big G and I talked about this on Teamspeak.  So far as we could tell, the munitions are that expensive because a) they are guided and B) they are unique to the Zumwalt class.

 

About what do other GPS guided munitions cost? 

M982 Excalibur costs $94703 per shell in 2015 (472 shells for 44.7 mil), $305000 per shell in 2011 (100 shells for 30.5 mil) and $276378 in 2005 (127 shells for 35.1 mil).

 

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a614738.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few quick questions for the folks here:

 

Considering how modern naval combat works, with close to no armor, and heavily relying on stealth, APS and missiles. 
Could a entire navy composed of submarines be possible?  Wouldn't the water help protect the ships against radar, as well as hiding them from visual spotting?

 

I know that you can't just have a submarine carrier and helicarrier as well as landing crafts, but what about the other ships, what stops them from becoming submerged?

 

Is it because of cost? or any other reason?

 

Just some food for thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few quick questions for the folks here:

 

Considering how modern naval combat works, with close to no armor, and heavily relying on stealth, APS and missiles. 

Could a entire navy composed of submarines be possible?  Wouldn't the water help protect the ships against radar, as well as hiding them from visual spotting?

 

I know that you can't just have a submarine carrier and helicarrier as well as landing crafts, but what about the other ships, what stops them from becoming submerged?

 

Is it because of cost? or any other reason?

 

Just some food for thought. 

Radar/Sensor use.  Kinda hard to use radar and other EM sensors when you are under water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provisions for sensor masts that poke through the pressure hull are a gigantic pain in the ass, engineering-wise.

 

Anything that makes the hull less than a perfect cylinder greatly compromises it.  The figure I had seen is that if the cross section of an attack submarine's pressure hull were out out of round by a single inch, it would increase stress on the structure by 30%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of stuff breaking.

 

Something in the USS Zumwalt's engine while crossing the Panama canal and a busted arrestor cable on the Kuznetsov which caused a MiG-29K to run out of fuel.

 

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/22/uss-zumwalt-sidelined-panama

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/21/russians-blame-mig-29k-crash-broken-arrestor-cable-engine-shutdown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of stuff breaking.

 

Something in the USS Zumwalt's engine while crossing the Panama canal and a busted arrestor cable on the Kuznetsov which caused a MiG-29K to run out of fuel.

 

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/22/uss-zumwalt-sidelined-panama

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/21/russians-blame-mig-29k-crash-broken-arrestor-cable-engine-shutdown

USN hasn't been having good luck with new propulsion systems lately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.mda.mil/news/16news0012.html

 

The Missile Defense Agency and sailors aboard USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), an Aegis baseline 9.C1 equipped destroyer, today successfully fired a salvo of two SM-6 Dual I missiles against a complex medium-range ballistic missile target, demonstrating the Sea Based Terminal endo-atmospheric defensive capability and meeting the test's primary objective.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found what I think is an accurate summary of the max takeoff weight issues with the ski-jump carriers Admiral Kuznetsov and Liaoning.  It is possible to get SU-33s/J-15s off of the carrier at full load.  However, it is only possible to do so from one of the take-off positions, and it eats up a lot of deck space.  So it sounds like there's a trade-off between sortie rate and aircraft MTOW for the Kuznetsov-class.  She can either get more planes in the air quickly with moderate to light loads, or fewer birds in the air slowly with full loads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98719

Quote

At approximately 10:30 p.m., Hawaii Standard Time, Feb. 3 (3:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Feb. 4) a medium-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. John Paul Jones detected and tracked the target missile with its onboard AN/SPY-1D(V) radar using the Aegis Baseline 9.C2 weapon system. Upon acquiring and tracking the target, the ship launched an SM-3 Block IIA guided missile which intercepted the target.

 

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×