Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2017 at 7:33 AM, LoooSeR said:

Rubin is nearly done with development of Klavesin-2R-PM underwater unmanned sub

04-3911156-anpa-tskb-mt-rubin.jpg

 

4265935.jpg

 

  Reveal hidden contents

20-4113926-klavesin-rubin.jpg

 

klavesin-2r-pm.jpg

 

 

As opposed to a surface only unmanned sub? =o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The bodies of a number of sailors who were missing after the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Fitzgerald collided with a container vessel were found in flooded compartments of the damaged ship, the U.S. Seventh Fleet said on Sunday.

 

Japanese media said all seven of the sailors who had been reported missing were found dead.

 

Fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news the PLAN held a ceremony earlier today after the official launch of their first Type 055 Class destroyer.

 

Weight is estimated to be in the 11,000-12,000t range. 

 

icoerVr.jpg

 

qoWBZ5r.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2017 at 8:26 AM, Ramlaen said:

There are 13 Freedom and 13 Independence LCS built, under construction or on order. After which the plan was to build an enlarged 'frigate' version.

 

It looks like the current options for the 'frigate' has been expanded.

 

 

I rate the Legend as the most likely choice, with the F-100 being favored if radar is a primary factor (especially if the SPY-1 can be replaced with a SPY-6).

 

The RFI for the FFG(X) was put out, the general consensus seems to be that the beefed up versions of the LCS are not an option.

 

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/navy-steers-well-away-from-an-lcs-frigate/

Quote

A few parameters in particular stand out:

 

Reliability: The future frigate should be fully functional (“operational availability”) at least 72 percent of the time. Both the single-hulled Freedom and trimaran Independence LCS have suffered embarrassing breakdowns, beyond the normal teething troubles of a new class.

Survivability: The frigate’s propulsion, weapons, and other “critical systems” should be sufficiently well-protected (“shock hardening”) for the ship to take a hit and keep fighting, at least with its defensive anti-aircraft systems. The original concept for LCS was to retreat for repairs once hit, so critical systems on LCS are not shock-hardened and were tested less rigorously than the Navy norm, according to the Pentagon’s independent Director of Operational Test & Evaluation.

 

Crew Size: The frigate may have up to 200 crew. By contrast, reducing crew size — and therefore personnel costs — was a major driver of the original LCS design. The small crew raised concerns about having insufficient manpower for routine maintenance, let alone damage control in battle. Even after increasing the crew, LCS still deploys with about 70 sailors.

 

Speed: The frigate must reach and sustain speeds of at least 28 knots (32 mph) . That’s fast enough to keep up with a carrier battle group, but it’s slow compared to the LCS, which can sprint at over 40 knots. That top speed required enormous, expensive, and complex engines relative to the size of the ship, as well as exotically streamlined hulls, driving the whole design, but the Navy never found a solid tactical reason for going that fast.

 

The new Request For Information asks for a minimum of eight OTH missiles, but then it raises an intriguing possibility of heavier armament that would require a VLS.

 

-First, the RFI says “the Navy is particularly interested” in defensive weapons, specifically naming the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and the SM-2 Standard Missile. While the ESSM can be launched from rails mounted on deck, the SM-2 is almost always fired from a Vertical Launch System. (The Navy briefly used rail launchers for SM-2s, but they were all retired in favor of VLS).

 

-Then, the Navy indicates further interest in “strike length variants to maximize weapons flexibility” — i.e. launch systems capable of handling offensive weapons as well as defensive ones — “if able to be cost effectively integrated.” While very cautious and cost-constrained, this language suggests a strong interest in the dual-purpose offensive/defensive Vertical Launch System.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what makes me very angry about all this is we could have done a 2 design approach from day one with a smaller SES modular vessel which was minesweeper jhsv and some other complementary roles / fitouts that was still cheap enough in base form to preposition a few of at various places around the globe. (Mostly by building the vast majority as fitted for but not with the expensive shit which would be flown in with the crews from stateside etc module farms similar to PODS storage facilities)

 

And another frigatey thingamafucker without the crazy speed requirements and much longer legs etc.

 

Sorta like the high low gator and blue water concepts LCS metastasized out of..

 

Except, actually working and good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, roguetechie said:

So what makes me very angry about all this is we could have done a 2 design approach from day one with a smaller SES modular vessel which was minesweeper jhsv and some other complementary roles / fitouts that was still cheap enough in base form to preposition a few of at various places around the globe. (Mostly by building the vast majority as fitted for but not with the expensive shit which would be flown in with the crews from stateside etc module farms similar to PODS storage facilities)

 

And another frigatey thingamafucker without the crazy speed requirements and much longer legs etc.

 

Sorta like the high low gator and blue water concepts LCS metastasized out of..

 

Except, actually working and good

I want whomever who came up with the stupid ass'd 40 knot requirement impaled turkish style on the steps of Congress. Blunt stake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

Wasn't that railgun (or at least its current incarnation, the Blitzer) a land-only platform, with BAE concentrating on shipborne? Or is GnAt now considering adapting it to ships?

 

General Atomics is advertising it as either land or ship based.

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

×