US Navy ships and weapon systems

US Navy Spending Soars with $81 Billion Shipbuilding Spree

Is the US gearing up for WWIII, or are the lobbyists signing the checks for US military spending?

The US Navy announced plans on Wednesday to build 38 ships in the next five years, including nine Virginia-class submarines and 10 Arleigh-Burke-class guided missile destroyers. The plans were detailed during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The program will bring the US Navy fleet to a total of 308 ships by FY 2021 — up from the current 272 — and will lead to a 10% increase in the number of US amphibious assault ships, a development that received praise from Naval combatant commanders and also the Marines tasked with deploying them.

The centerpiece expenditure is a new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, in which the Navy plans to invest some $13.5 billion over the next five years. The hefty price tag makes the warship the single most expensive boat in the US Naval fleet.

The spending may be driven less by America’s military strategic imperative and more by corporate interest and congressional aspiration. Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., General Dynamics Corp, Lockheed Martin Corp., Austal Ltd. and Raytheon Co. have all released statements to investors celebrating the planned expenditures as signaling the growing value of their companies to shareholders.

The plan has also received praise from the congressional delegation of top shipbuilding states, including Virginia, Maine, Alabama, Mississippi and Connecticut, states that benefit significantly from US military contracts, maintaining high-paying jobs within their districts. To that effect, shipbuilding and steelworker unions have also praised the new ship building plan as critical to maintaining its workforce.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160407/1037664759/navy-billions-spending-nuclear-warship.html#ixzz45Dlhs9Hz

US Navy plans for $81.4 billion to buy 38 warships over the next 5 years


The U.S. Navy will seek $81.4 billion to buy 38 warships, submarines and support vessels in the next five years, according to new budget figures from the service.

The plan calls for spending about $14.7 billion on seven vessels next year, $16.8 billion on eight in fiscal 2018, $16.2 billion on seven in 2019, $16.9 billion on eight in 2020 and $16.8 billion on eight vessels in 2021.




The first new Gerald Ford aircraft carrier will be commissioned this year and the second should be commissioned in 2020. The third new carrier is scheduled for a 2025 commissioning.

The new Navy plan proposes bankrolling one new frigate each in fiscal 2019 and 2020 and two in 2021, for a total of $3 billion. These are the first of as many as eight better-armored and more survivable versions of the Littoral Combat Ship that Defense Secretary Ash Carter and his predecessor Chuck Hagel directed to be built.

The Navy plans to hold a competition for the frigate program, selecting between Lockheed and Austal, which both currently build versions of the Littoral Combat Ship.

The five-year plan also updates funds earmarked to start work on replacing the Ohio-class nuclear missile submarine. The service plans to spend $9.25 billion through fiscal 2021, up from the $5.7 billion it planned to spend through 2020 in last year's plan. The boost comes from $3.6 billion earmarked in 2021 to begin construction. The Navy last week announced that General Dynamics will be the prime contractor, with Huntington Ingalls the subcontractor.




The Littoral Combat Ship will be optimized for lethality and survivability. The program is transition to a multimission frigate. The 40-knot sprint speed requirement will go away to allow for more armor, more weapons, an over-the-horizon missile and full-time anti-torpedo protection

How stealthy is Navy’s new destroyer? It needs reflectors

The future USS Zumwalt is so stealthy that it’ll go to sea with reflective material that can be hoisted to make it more visible to other ships.

The Navy destroyer is designed to look like a much smaller vessel on radar, and it lived up to its billing during recent builder trials.

Lawrence Pye, a lobsterman, told The Associated Press that on his radar screen the 610-foot ship looked like a 40- to 50-foot fishing boat. He watched as the behemoth came within a half-mile while returning to shipbuilder Bath Iron Works.

“It’s pretty mammoth when it’s that close to you,” Pye said.

Despite its size, the warship is 50 times harder to detect than current destroyers thanks to its angular shape and other design features, and its stealth could improve even more once testing equipment is removed, said Capt. James Downey, program manager.

During sea trials last month, the Navy tested Zumwalt’s radar signature with and without reflective material hoisted on its halyard, he said. The goal was to get a better idea of exactly how stealthy the ship really is, Downey said from Washington, D.C.

The reflectors, which look like metal cylinders, have been used on other warships and will be standard issue on the Zumwalt and two sister ships for times when stealth becomes a liability and they want to be visible on radar, like times of fog or heavy ship traffic, he said.

The possibility of a collision is remote. The Zumwalt has sophisticated radar to detect vessels from miles away, allowing plenty of time for evasive action.But there is a concern that civilian mariners might not see it during bad weather or at night, and the reflective material could save them from being startled.

The destroyer is unlike anything ever built for the Navy.Besides a shape designed to deflect enemy radar, it features a wave-piercing “tumblehome” hull, composite deckhouse, electric propulsion and new guns.

More tests will be conducted when the ship returns to sea later this month for final trials before being delivered to the Navy. The warship is due to be commissioned in October in Baltimore, and will undergo more testing before becoming fully operational in 2018.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Littoral Combat Ship Likely to Continue Past 40 Hulls

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is like the cat with nine lives. It has survived more near-death experiences than just about any other Navy program in modern times. First there was the problem with trying to build a military vessel based on commercial standards. When Navy shipbuilding rules were applied, big surprise, the cost per hull went way up and LCS no longer looked like a bargain. Then there were seemingly endless problems with the mission modules intended to allow the ships to perform multiple missions serially by simply swapping out payloads. The acquisition strategy was certainly unusual.

The Navy made the bold decision, widely criticized at the time and even today, to acquire two variants. Then there was Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to truncate the program at 40 ships vice the planned 52. Most recently, the Chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, blasted the Navy and the Program Office for continuing problems with the reliability of an unmanned undersea vehicle that was part of the mine countermeasures mission package.

Perhaps the proper analogy is to the mythical phoenix, because the program has risen from the ashes at least three times. In each instance the concept of operations changed and with it the requirements. The LCS went from a lightly armed, essentially unarmored, high speed close-in patrol boat to a more heavily armed, slower, littoral and brown/blue water combatant and finally, to a new class, a frigate variant, with capabilities that will exceed that of the Perry-class frigates.

The current plan for the LCS, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, is to cut the total procurement to 40 (six ships, three of each type have already been commissioned and approximately 20 more are being built or under contract). One of the two variants and the shipyard that builds it will be terminated by 2019. The final eight ships will be converted to a frigate based on an as yet unapproved design variant of one of the two LCS classes.

In addition, the Navy is already deep into a program to improve both the survivability and lethality of at least some and possibly all the baseline littoral warships. Additional armor will be added to protect critical compartments and functions. New weapons are being deployed, particularly existing tactical missiles capable of sinking corvettes and small combatants. The Program Office recently conducted a successful series of tests with a variant of the Hellfire missile. Work is underway to provide the 57mm gun with precision rounds that will substantially increase its lethality. There will also be improvements to the LCS’s sensor suite, defensive systems, electronic warfare capabilities and sonar systems.

The initial concept behind the LCS was for a modular ship, with a basic sea frame and common operating systems, an open architecture and standard interfaces that would allow the Navy to plug and play a wide variety of sensors, weapons and C3 capabilities, as well as specialized mission modules for surface warfare, anti-submarine and mine countermeasure missions. Ironically, after a number of false starts and program redirections, a modular ship seems to be exactly what the Navy is going to get.

The “reborn” LCS, both the up-gunned versions of the baseline designs as well as the new frigate variant are but a couple of the possible options. The current program is being restructured to allow for continual upgrades. Future possibilities, particularly for the new frigate variant, include adding air and missile defenses based on the Standard Missile 2 and 3 series and a phased array radar, creating a mini-arsenal ship loaded with Harpoons or other over-the-horizon missiles and even deploying directed-energy weapons. The LCS is well-suited to take advantage of advances in both manned rotorcraft and unmanned aerial vehicles to further extend its reach and effectiveness.

Despite the desire of the current Secretary of Defense to truncate the LCS program and spend the savings on higher priority procurements such as more F/A-18 and F-35 fighters, it is not only likely that the original goal of 52 hulls will survive but it could even be increased. Given all the options available in both the baseline upgunned LCS and the new frigate, as well as expected advances in technologies associated with power, sensing, lethality and command and control, why shouldn’t the Navy continue to produce ever more capable small ships?



The LCS is not a combat ship. It is not expected to be survivable in high-intensity combat. LCS is similar to F-35 with its "concurrency," i.e. producing end items wile testing is still ongoing which results in poor-performing weapons systems provided to operational units who are then stuck with poor unreliable performance and high maintenance.

Autonomous ASW: The Predator Becoming a Prey

The number of diesel-electric submarines that could challenge US naval forces is growing throughout the world. The need to offset the risk posed by such small and quiet subs, particularly at the littorals and narrow strait is becoming critical.

“Our goal is to transition an operational game-changer to the Navy’” said Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA’s) Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vehicle (ACTUV) Program Manager Scott Littlefield, “This should create an asymmetry to our advantage, negating a challenging submarine threat at one-tenth their cost of building subs.”

US defense contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is developing a new concept for unmanned surface vessel that will be able to locate and track submarines deep under the water, at levels of precision, persistence and flexibility far beyond those available by manned surface ships operating anti-submarine warfare. Such capabilities could become particularly important as the US Naval missions are focused toward littorals in the Hormuz Straits, the Persian Gulf, South China Sea, East Africa, the Mediterranean and the Caribbean Sea.

In August 2012 DARPA awarded SAIC $58 million for the development of a prototype Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vehicle (ACTUV) to be ready for at-sea operational testing by mid 2015. SAIC was one of several companies developing conceptual designs for the new vessel. The agency selected the wave piercing Trimaran design for the prototype. According to SAIC, this design will be able to perform continuous missions lasting up to three months at sea, operating autonomously, or semi-autonomously.

The vessel is designed to operate fully autonomously, providing a forward deployed and rapid-responsive ‘node’ in the global maritime surveillance network. This network will be shared by manned and unmanned assets such as naval forces, P-8A Poseidon aircraft and RQ-4C Triton (BAMS) drones. The ACTUV will be capable of ‘sprinting’ rapidly to arrive as soon as possible in the area of operation, quickly establish track of quiet diesel-electric submarines and shadow such targets overtly for months, over thousands of kilometers, with minimal human input.


The Predator Becoming the Prey

To establish the initial detection ACTUVs could rely on its own sensors or more likely on sonobuoys dropped by maritime surveillance aircraft, drones or ships. Effectively covering a wide area, these sonobuoys will provide the initial indication on the presence of a suspected target. Forward deployed near designated areas of operation. With ACTUV arriving at area, the unmanned vessels will deploy the long-range acquisition mid-frequency active-passive sonar carried in the two side pods, to verify the presence of submarines, and assess the ‘area of uncertainty’ (AOU) affected by the threat, limiting surface ships movement in that area.

Follow-through with two higher frequency sonars located in the main hull, are used to improve tracking precision and mission reliability. Once in close proximity to the target, total field magnetometer arrays are used to provide additional information about target activity. Once continuous track is established, very high frequency sonar is used to paint an ‘acoustic image’ of the target, thus identify and classify it as a specific submarine. Once the AOU has been determined and the threat positively identified, thus verifying the AOU boundaries, the rest of the area would be safe passage, the ACTUV will shadow the suspected submarine, keeping it at risk, vulnerable to attack if it moves offensively against friendly forces.

CTUV is designed to outperform and out-endure conventionally powered diesel-electric submarines, (including those using Air Independent Propulsion – AIP), even when they are remaining quiet or try to evade the shadowing vessel, thus keeping them at risk until they return to their home bases.

In fact, ACTUV performs the role of a number of manned ASW surface vessels currently used to defend carrier battle groups or other flotillas from submarine threats. Their autonomous operation will enables the Navy to commit manned platforms to offensive operations and other support roles, requiring human support, leaving the ASW mission for the unmanned platform.

The award will see SAIC provide a final design and production plan for the ACTUV prototype in phase two, construction of the prototype is scheduled to be completed in phase three, and government testing in phase four demonstrate an experimental vessel capable of independently deploying under sparse remote supervisory control, to achieve ‘a game-changing ASW operational capability, with the ultimate objective to facilitate rapid transition of that capability to the navy in response to critical operational demand’.

Ultimate Autonomy


“This surface platform is conceived from concept to field demonstration under the premise that a human is never intended to step aboard at any point in its operating cycle. “ Program Manager Scott Littlefield said. “As a result, a new design paradigm emerges with reduced constraints on conventional naval architecture elements such as layout, accessibility, crew support systems, reserve buoyancy and dynamic stability.”

The objective is to generate a vessel design that exceeds state-of-the art platform performance to provide complete propulsive overmatch against diesel electric submarines at a fraction of their size and cost.” The advanced level of autonomy will enable independently deploying systems to operate on missions spanning thousands of miles in range and months of endurance, under a sparse remote supervisory control model. “Such missions require autonomous compliance with maritime laws and conventions for safe navigation, autonomous system management for operational reliability, and autonomous interactions with an intelligent adversary.”

Littlefield added. In fact, the only time a sailor will be required to be present on board will be to start the vessel and help guiding it out of port. On-board computers will control the rest of the mission. To assess the strategy and tactics necessary for controlling the vessel at sea, while avoiding other vehicles and obstacles, DARPA developed a strategy game called ‘Dangerous Waters’. The agency has integrated the ACTUVs tactics simulator into the game, as part of the toolkit available for gamers. The agency planned to select the best tactics developed by the gamers and build them into the ACTUV prototype.

DARPA scientists believe the core platform and autonomy technologies developed under the ACTUV program will be extendable to underpin a wide range of missions and configurations for future unmanned naval vessels.

Pete Mikhalevsky, SAIC senior vice president and operations manager, said: ‘Drawing on SAIC’s technical depth in marine hydrodynamics, ship design, sensors, and advanced autonomy, we’re confident that the SAIC team will meet or exceed DARPA’s requirements for ACTUV, a revolutionary autonomous maritime vessel.

A look at the Navy's slick new Norwegian antiship missile

As part of the Navy's push towards "distributed lethatlity," littoral combat ships will soon be equipped with the Norwegian built Naval Strike Missile (NSM), an "over-the-horizon" antiship cruise missile with a range of about 115 miles.

The US Navy has long sought to increase the firepower of its more numerous smaller ships, and the NSM, developed by Norway's Kongsberg fits the bill.

The missile is designed to challenge all types of enemy defenses, with a stealthy design that is hard for radars to detect and the ability to skim just feet above the ocean's surface.

"It can determine ships in a group of ships by ship class, locating the ship which is its designated target. It will attack only that target," Gary Holst, senior director for Naval Surface Warfare at Kongsberg, told Scout Warrior.

Not only does the NSM confuse and evade enemy defenses, it has an infrared imaging seeker to stay on target.

The Navy's Ship Defense Missile

In response to a range of new threats to its ships, whether it be air- and surface-launched missiles or drone aircraft, the U.S. Navy is improving and expanding its ship-defense capabilities. In early March, a test on the USS Porter—a guided-missile destroyer stationed in Rota, Spain—paired Raytheon's new Block 2 Rolling Airframe Missile with a launch and tracking system called SeaRAM to demonstrate a new way to protect ships.

Raytheon's Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is a lightweight supersonic weapon designed to destroy anti-ship missiles and other airborne threats to a ship at close range, typically less than 10 miles. Much like a bullet fired from a rifled-barrel, RAM Block 2 rolls around its longitudinal axis as it flies. The missile uses the rolling motion generated by its tail fins to change direction on a dime. It's guided by a radio frequency (RF)/infrared seeker to intercept threats.

Lasers have gotten all the hype recently thanks to their potential to create effective, cheap defensive systems for ships. But RAMs have been doing the job since the early 1990s and are currently deployed on 165 different vessels across eight different navies. They form part of a three-layered ring of close-in defense for certain U.S. Navy ships. The outer defensive ring is handled by the Sea Sparrow, a ship-defense missile with a range of approximately 27 nautical miles. Inside 10 miles, RAMs take over. The last line of defense is the venerable Phalanx 20 mm radar-guided Gatling gun (or CIWS, Close-In Weapons System), which takes on threats inside two miles.


"As advanced targets are coming in closer and maneuvering much faster, we need the performance in the RAM Block 2 to be able to be able to engage them," says Alan Davis, Raytheon's director of short-range defense systems.

The new RAM Block 2 has a more powerful rocket motor and improved control surfaces, which make it faster and more maneuverable than its predecessor. Davis says the added power not only makes the RAM Block 2 faster, but also allows the missile to maintain its speed during energy-sapping high-G turns needed to intercept targets. The Block 2 has two and a half times the range of the Block 1 RAM, which has a reported effective intercept range of about 5.6 miles. The latest RAM also has an improved seeker package with greater sensitivity, allowing it to detect anti-ship missiles that employ low probability-of-intercept receivers.


The ranges of the RAM Block 2 missile and 20 mm rounds of the Phalanx Gatling gun overlap. While the Phalanx is a crucial last line of defense, the RAM Block 2/SeaRAM combo gives ships (particularly U.S. Navy destroyers which haven't previously had RAM capability) a better chance of defeating threats before they get so close that a gun becomes the only choice.

"It gives you breathing room," says Ed Lester, SeaRAM program manager and former commander of the guided missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf. "When you're on the bridge of a ship or in the Combat Information Center, and bad things are happening, all you want is more time. That's what the missile gives you over the gun."


It's a RAM/CIWS combo, not a RAM/Gatling gun combo. There's no gun on the SeaRam. The old air-launched Sparrow had a 27-mile range; sea-launched range is liable to be drastically shorter.

4-year-old Navy ship needs $23M in repairs

A repair bill of an estimated $23 million and months out of action. That's the cost to U.S. taxpayers and the Navy after the four-year-old littoral combat ship USS Forth Worth tried to operate its propulsion system without enough oil in January.

The Navy announced Wednesday that the $360 million vessel would make a six-week-long journey this summer from Singapore, where it has been tied up since the incident, to San Diego for repairs to its combining gears, the hardware that transfers power from the ship's diesel and gas turbine engines to its water-jet propulsion system.

"The casualty occurred due to an apparent failure to follow procedures during an operational test of the port and starboard main propulsion diesel engines," said the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in a statement issued earlier this year.

U.S. Navy to Receive Largest Shipbuilding Budget Since President Reagan?

If the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower & Projection Forces subcommittee gets its way, the Navy will ramp up its shipbuilding in the fiscal year 2017 budget. It will also get a new carrier sooner than planned. The subcommittee is boosting funding to the Navy because of a resurgent Russia and increasingly aggressive China.

“The last eight years have shown that bowing down to bullies or ignoring them does not make them go away,” Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) said. “We need to make sure that when we have men and women from this country who are willing to stand up to them, that they have the resources they need to win that fight. Among those resources are the ships and planes necessary to win and come home safely.”

The subcommittee—which is chaired by Forbes—authorized a total shipbuilding budget of $20.6 billion. Of that total, $19.9 billion would go into shipbuilding and conversion (SCN) funding while an additional $773 million would go to the National Sea Based Deterrent Fund, which would be used to buy the new Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine. According to Forbes’ office, the subcommittee authorized $2.3 billion more than the President’s budget request—and even accounting for inflation—which would be the most amount of money allocated to shipbuilding since President Ronald Reagan was in office.

In its markup, the subcommittee expressed that it wants the Navy to accelerate construction of aircraft carriers from one every five years to one every four years. To that end, the subcommittee wants to start construction of the as-of-yet unmanned CVN-81 in 2022—one year earlier than planed. “This twenty percent acceleration would increase carrier force structure and prevent a return to a 10-carrier force in the 2040s,” reads a statement issued by Forbes’ office.

To that end, the subcommittee is authorizing $263 million in advance procurement of parts for CVN-81. It is also authorizing the Navy to purchase parts for multiple aircraft carriers in an “economic order quantity.” That would mean that the service would be able to “block buy” components of CVN-80—Enterprise—and CVN-81. Meanwhile, the subcommittee has voted to deny the Obama Administration’s request to deactivate Carrier Air Wing 14 and a number of its constituent squadrons.

Under the subcommittee’s plan, naval aviation would receive a significant boost. The committee is authorizing the procurement of additional Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II strike fighters, which are on the Navy and Marine Corps’ unfunded requirement lists. The subcommittee is also fully funding the purchase of eleven Boeing P-8A Poseidon sub-hunters and six Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. It’s also funding the development of the Navy’s new unmanned carrier-based aircraft refueling system.

The Navy’s surface fleet gets a boost too. Under the subcommittee’s plans, the service would procures ten major ships, which is three more than the Pentagon’s request. The Navy would buy two attack subs, two destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships and one LHA. But the subcommittee also added $856 million to the budget to either accelerate procurement of the next-generation LX(R) amphibious ship or procure a thirteenth San Antonio-class amphibious ship (LPD-29). It also added money for an addition destroy and another LCS.

A Navy carrier just broke the record for dropping bombs on ISIS

The USS Harry S. Truman is celebrating the work of its crew after setting the record for ordnance dropped on ISIS. The Truman launched over 1,118 ordinance pieces against terrorist targets over the past five months, surpassing the 1,085 dropped by the USS Theodore Roosevelt's pilots in 2015.

The Truman’s Carrier Air Wing 7 flew 1,407 combat sorties and dropped over 580 tons of ordnance on the Islamic State.

“Since our arrival in the Arabian Gulf, the Truman Strike Group has been conducting operations around the clock,” Capt. Ryan B. Scholl, Truman’s commanding officer, told a Navy journalist. “This deployment is busier than any other I’ve seen. Every Sailor is doing great work individually and executing as a combat team to reach this milestone. It is due to this dedication as a combined force that Truman is making a significant difference fighting for our country.”

The bombing missions by the Navy and Air Force, in addition to raids by the Army’s Delta Force and artillery strikes by the U.S. Marine Corps, have weakened ISIS and helped allied ground forces push them back. The strikes have been moving so quickly that the Pentagon has warned of shortages of bombs.

Meanwhile, the Navy has also hit ISIS targets with cruise missiles when necessary.


All these blows have left ISIS weak, but it has failed to dislodge them entirely. While the predictions continue that ISIS will soon collapse, the fact that the organization is largely self-funded by taxing economic activity and collecting money from black market trade has made it hard to starve the group out. Recent airstrikes targeting ISIS cash and financial leaders — as well as the capturing and killing of ISIS accountants — have hurt the group’s ability to pay its fighters.

And strikes alone can not wipe out the terrorist organization. A January piece from the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out that ISIS had about 30,000 fighters when airstrikes began and had lost 20,000 fighters to strikes by Jan. 2016. Still, their total number of fighters hovered somewhere around 30,000 due to the presence of new recruits.

The recent financial troubles of the so-called caliphate have finally triggered a downtick in fighter numbers, but it’s likely that Navy air wings will be busy dropping bombs on the terrorists for a long time to come.

New U.S. Navy ship gets thumbs up after successful sea trials



A future amphibious transport dock for the U.S. Navy has successfully competed acceptance trials conducted by the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey.

The six days of at-sea and in-port testing of the John P. Murtha (LPD 26) validated the functionality of ship's system, The Navy reported.

"The INSURV team provided a detailed assessment of the ship's readiness through a rigorous schedule of test events," said Capt. Darren Plath, LPD 17-Class program manager, Program Executive Office, Ships. "This included several systems new to the LPD 17-Class to include the SPS-48G air search radar and the Navy Multi-band Terminal satellite communications system.

"Overall, LPD 26 performed very well and will soon be another highly capable, combat ready ship delivered to the U.S. Fleet."

The Navy said the tests included a full-power run, self-defense detect-to-engage exercises, steering checks, boat handling, anchoring and rapid ballast and de-ballast demonstrations.

"It's been two and half years since Ingalls (Shipbuilding) last conducted LPD acceptance trials," said Supervisor of Shipbuilding Capt. Joe Tuite. "The team did an excellent job preparing the ship for a successful trials period. The ship was cleared for sea on the morning of the second day, the earliest of any of the previous nine LPDs."

The John P. Murtha is the 10th LPD 17 San Antonio-class vessel. It is scheduled to be commissioned in Philadelphia this fall. Its home port will be San Diego.

San Antonio-class ships are for the deployment of combat and support elements of U.S. Marine expeditionary units and brigades. They can transport and debark air-cushioned or conventional landing craft, and can handle helicopters or MV-22 vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

The ships are about 684 feet long, displace 25,000 tons and have a speed of 22 knots.

Navy Green-Lights Development of New Helicopter-Airplane Hybrid

Jointly built by helicoptering powerhouses Boeing (NYSE:BA) and Textron (NYSE:TXT), the V-22 Osprey is a marvel of engineering. Launching and landing vertically, flying at speeds in excess of 300 mph and as high as five miles in the sky, the Osprey can carry up to 32 troops (or 15 tons of cargo) into combat, to battlefields as far as 1,000 miles distant.

The Osprey is so popular that, according to the plane-counters at Flightglobal World Air Forces 2016, the U.S. Air Force has acquired 42 of these helicopter/airplane hybrids already, with eight more on order. The Marines like the Osprey even more, having put 222 Marine variant MV-22s into service -- with a further 107 on the way.

And now, the Navy wants some Ospreys of its own.

Long a fan of Sikorsky's Seahawk family of aircraft (of which it owns nearly 500), the U.S. Navy recently awarded Textron's Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office $151.3 million in funds to develop a "Navy variant" of the V-22, to be designated CMV-22B. The Navy has asked Textron and Boeing to add "extended range" and "high frequency beyond line-of-sight radio" to the base model MV-22, resulting in an aero-helo hybrid that can perform cargo-carrying functions over long distances at sea and support special forces operations as well.

Follow the money

The money train won't stop there. Assuming Textron and Boeing are up to the task, the Navy says it's ready to buy as many as 44 CMV-22Bs for its fleet. How much money will this generate for the contractors involved?

According to data from the mil-tech analysts at BGA-Aeroweb, your average MV-22 Osprey costs about $71.9 million "flyaway" (i.e., inclusive of all equipment, and in particular including the cost of two Rolls-Royce (NASDAQOTH:RYCEY) AE1107C engines, which make up 6% of the aircraft's total cost). Times 44 units, that works out to nearly $3.2 billion worth of new revenue for Textron and Boeing. (Minus a few dollars subcontracted out to Rolls-Royce, of course.)

What does it mean to investors?

For providing the engines to power the Navy's new Ospreys, Rolls-Royce can expect to earn just over $203 million -- a not-inconsequential sum, to be sure, but probably not enough money to get the stock out of its current difficulties. Boeing and Textron's share of the loot, on the other hand, promises to be much more substantial.

Subtract Rolls' $203 million, but add back in the value of the development contract awarded to Boeing and Textron, and we're still looking at about $3.2 billion in revenue going to Boeing and Textron. Assuming a roughly equal split between the two joint venture partners, $1.6 billion in rev works out to 1.7% of the business Boeing does in a year. And reportedly, the Navy is looking to take possession of these aircraft ASAP, so the money should be forthcoming pretty quickly.

What should really get investors' attention, though, is what this contract could do for Textron.

According to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence, all four of Textron's major business divisions combined did only $13.4 billion in business last year. Textron's share of the Navy Osprey contract, therefore, could cover nearly 12% of the money Textron makes in a year. What's more, the impact would be especially keenly felt in the company's Bell helicopter division -- only Textron's third-largest division at present, but easily its most profitable, with an 11.6% operating profit margin.

Long story short, this single contract win could produce $185 million in profits for Textron, or nearly $0.68 per share. Viewed in that light, while this contract is clearly a win for Textron's joint venture with Boeing, it's an even clearer win for Textron, period.

U.S. Navy Dings Lockheed on Littoral Ship Quality Controls

Lockheed Martin Corp. is under orders from the U.S. Navy to correct quality control failures in building its version of the Littoral Combat Ship, an issue that has delayed deliveries and resulted in three citations from the service’s shipbuilding inspectors.

New 30-year shipbuilding plan falls short of Navy goal

The Navy’s new 30-year shipbuilding plan projects a fleet of 292 ships in 2046 — a fleet that is short of the service’s 308-ship goal, is down from the 305 ships projected last year and raises questions about the Obama administration’s vision of a larger Navy.

The projected 292 ships would be a 20-ship increase from today’s battle-force fleet of 272. But the shipbuilding plan — obtained by POLITICO ahead of its planned delivery to Congress in the next few days — acknowledges that getting to that number would require “funding that exceeds levels the Navy has historically committed to new ship construction.”


The size of the Navy has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail, both in 2012 — when President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney famously tangled over the issue during a debate — and in the current cycle, with several of the now-vanquished Republican contenders calling for big shipbuilding boosts.

This latest annual shipbuilding plan shows the impact of Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s decision in December to order the Navy to cut its total planned purchases of Littoral Combat Ships from 52 to 40, saying the Navy was too focused on ship quantity and should instead invest more in ship lethality.
Carter has butted heads over the issue with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has defended the service’s emphasis on quantity as key to providing “presence.”

“That unrivaled advantage, that presence — on, above and beneath the seas — reassures our allies and deters our adversaries,” Mabus said in a speech earlier this year, blasting politicians who’ve described the Navy as shrinking. “In the seven years following 2009, we will have contracted 84 ships, more than the last three Navy secretaries combined.”

Under the new shipbuilding plan, the Navy would not shrink — as a number of prominent Republicans have charged — but it also wouldn’t grow as much as projected just a year ago.

The plan projects the Navy getting to 300 battle-force ships in fiscal 2019 and peaking at 313 ships in fiscal 2025, achieving a milestone of reaching a 300-ship force. But the size of the fleet would then begin dropping, reaching 292 ships by 2046, the result of aging ships being decommissioned and fewer LCSs than previously envisioned to replace them.

Under last year's plan, the Navy would have peaked at 321 ships in fiscal 2028 and then declined to 305 ships in 2045.

The report, however, notes the Navy faces a number of challenges getting to even the reduced total, including how to pay for a new fleet of Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarines. The service’s answer: more money.

The Navy “contends that the only way to effectively overcome these challenges while supporting the defense strategy is with increases in [Navy] topline funding,” the report says.

Navy advocates in Congress have been pressing for a military-wide fund, separate from the Navy’s normal shipbuilding account, to pay for the new ballistic-missiles submarines — a plan opposed by some senior appropriators because it would effectively force the Army and the Air Force to subsidize a shipbuilding program.

Ultimately, according to the report, the Navy will be able to carry out all its highest-priority missions even with the reduced number of ships. The Navy, the report says, “can and will achieve the requisite mix of ships providing this shipbuilding plan continues to receive stable and sufficient funding over the long haul.”

A Navy official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said long-term shipbuilding projections should be taken with a grain of salt given all the things that could change between now and 2046.

"Most 30-year shipbuilding plans are not worth much beyond three to five years," the official said, explaining that the Navy was doing a new force structure assessment this year to update the previous one from 2014. And that could have a big impact on its long-term shipbuilding goals.
Also, the official noted, a new presidential administration next year could decide it wants to change the current shipbuilding trajectory.

The Lessons of the Littoral Combat Ship: Analyzing the events of the past 15 years reveals at least four reasons for the current mess

From its inception, the Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS, has been one of the Navy’s most controversial procurement programs. Questions have been continuously raised about its costs, survivability, lethality, and range limitations.

In 2014, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel changed the final 20 of the proposed 55-LCS purchase to fast frigates. The following year, Secretary Ash Carter cancelled 12 of these 20 LCS/FF variants. In February, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Jack Reid, D-R.I., the chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized the program and concluded that the Navy’s recent history of turning LCS plans into reality is not encouraging.

However, the Navy still wants to buy 40 of the various versions of these small combatants. In fact, in its 2017 budget the service proposes to build two additional ships at a total cost of $1.5 billion, and ultimately plans to spend about $30 billion on the program.

Even if Congress approves funding for the 27th and 28th LCSs in this year’s budget and allows the Navy to buy the entire 40 vessels, we should strive to understand how and why we got into this predicament and what we can learn from it. Analyzing the events of the past 15 years makes it clear that there are at least four reasons for the current mess.

First, the Navy was too focused on the number of ships rather than their capabilities. Ever since the drawdown of defense spending after Vietnam, the Navy and many of its political supporters became fixated on this metric. Between 1968 and 1977, when the total number of ships dropped from 976 to 464, the Navy adopted a goal of 600 ships, a number that was embraced in the 1980 Republican platform. Although the size of the Navy rose dramatically under President Ronald Reagan, budget constraints forced him to abandon the 600-ship goal (a policy that then-Navy Secretary Jim Webb publicly criticized and as a result was forced to resign), topping off at 566. After the end of the Cold War, the fleet dropped to 279, and the new goal became a 300-ship Navy.

But even under the generous defense budgets that followed 9/11, the Navy could not reach that number by purchasing the normal mix of ships, so it settled on the LCS. For example, the Navy originally planned to purchase 32 Zumwalt-class Destroyers. But because of cost growth, it could afford only three, at a cost of $23 billion. On the other hand, the initial projections for the LCS envisioned buying 52 for less.

Any serious analyst will note that it is not the number of ships that is an appropriate proxy for capability—rather, it is the type. But politically, the number plays well. For example, in an effort to try to get Congress to repeal the Budget Control Act in 2011, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta publicly proclaimed that if the law was not changed, the Navy would be smaller than at any time since before World War I. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made the same point in the 2012 presidential debate.

U.S. Navy tests Raytheon's SeaRAM system

In the testing, the system took out several targets in a variety of scenarios, including one in which two supersonic missiles were inbound simultaneously, flying in complex, evasive maneuvers. The targets were intercepted with Rolling Airframe Block 2 missiles.

"SeaRAM achieved a new level of success, intercepting targets under high-stress conditions," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon's Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "The system demonstrated once again that it can provide the sophisticated protection warfighters need."

The tests were conducted on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship off the coast of Southern California.

SeaRAM is the development of key attributes of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Weapon System, replacing the 20mm Phalanx gun system with an 11-missile RAM launcher assembly. It combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high-resolution search-and-track sensor systems and quick-response capability against close-in and extended range threats.


US is too confident in one system and being cheap is going to cost them later not using the Phalanx also for redundancy,back up, layered affects, as well as other reasons. CIWS can only protect for approximately 1 nautical mile (2000 yards). SeaRAM provides a close in protection at 5 - 11 NM (10,000) yards. Not as proficient as the old Sea Sparrow, with a slightly better range, but the war head is different.

max steel wrote:U.S. Navy tests Raytheon's SeaRAM system

In the testing, the system took out several targets in a variety of scenarios, including one in which two supersonic missiles were inbound simultaneously, flying in complex, evasive maneuvers. The targets were intercepted with Rolling Airframe Block 2 missiles.

"SeaRAM achieved a new level of success, intercepting targets under high-stress conditions," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon's Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "The system demonstrated once again that it can provide the sophisticated protection warfighters need."

The tests were conducted on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship off the coast of Southern California.

SeaRAM is the development of key attributes of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Weapon System, replacing the 20mm Phalanx gun system with an 11-missile RAM launcher assembly. It combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high-resolution search-and-track sensor systems and quick-response capability against close-in and extended range threats.


US is too confident in one system and being cheap is going to cost them later not using the Phalanx also for redundancy,back up, layered affects, as well as other reasons. CIWS can only protect for approximately 1 nautical mile (2000 yards). SeaRAM provides a close in protection at 5 - 11 NM (10,000) yards. Not as proficient as the old Sea Sparrow, with a slightly better range, but the war head is different.

When did they develop supersonic AnSh missiles??

AlfaT8 wrote:

max steel wrote:U.S. Navy tests Raytheon's SeaRAM system

In the testing, the system took out several targets in a variety of scenarios, including one in which two supersonic missiles were inbound simultaneously, flying in complex, evasive maneuvers. The targets were intercepted with Rolling Airframe Block 2 missiles.

"SeaRAM achieved a new level of success, intercepting targets under high-stress conditions," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon's Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "The system demonstrated once again that it can provide the sophisticated protection warfighters need."

The tests were conducted on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship off the coast of Southern California.

SeaRAM is the development of key attributes of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Weapon System, replacing the 20mm Phalanx gun system with an 11-missile RAM launcher assembly. It combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high-resolution search-and-track sensor systems and quick-response capability against close-in and extended range threats.


US is too confident in one system and being cheap is going to cost them later not using the Phalanx also for redundancy,back up, layered affects, as well as other reasons. CIWS can only protect for approximately 1 nautical mile (2000 yards). SeaRAM provides a close in protection at 5 - 11 NM (10,000) yards. Not as proficient as the old Sea Sparrow, with a slightly better range, but the war head is different.

When did they develop supersonic AnSh missiles??

Its not anti-ship missile, at least not in its primary role, it can be used aganist surface targets but its extremly limited in that role. Its RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2, used for ships SHORAD.

They have dummies based on Russian Supersonic Ashm's like Sunburn for example. Even French Navy intercepted supersonic Ashms.


USN to deploy new tube-launched UAV

The US Navy is to deploy a newly developed tube-launched unmanned air vehicle, able to launch from below or above the surface of the ocean from either a manned or unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV).

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

max steel wrote:U.S. Navy tests Raytheon's SeaRAM system

In the testing, the system took out several targets in a variety of scenarios, including one in which two supersonic missiles were inbound simultaneously, flying in complex, evasive maneuvers. The targets were intercepted with Rolling Airframe Block 2 missiles.

"SeaRAM achieved a new level of success, intercepting targets under high-stress conditions," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon's Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "The system demonstrated once again that it can provide the sophisticated protection warfighters need."

The tests were conducted on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship off the coast of Southern California.

SeaRAM is the development of key attributes of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Weapon System, replacing the 20mm Phalanx gun system with an 11-missile RAM launcher assembly. It combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high-resolution search-and-track sensor systems and quick-response capability against close-in and extended range threats.


US is too confident in one system and being cheap is going to cost them later not using the Phalanx also for redundancy,back up, layered affects, as well as other reasons. CIWS can only protect for approximately 1 nautical mile (2000 yards). SeaRAM provides a close in protection at 5 - 11 NM (10,000) yards. Not as proficient as the old Sea Sparrow, with a slightly better range, but the war head is different.

When did they develop supersonic AnSh missiles??

Its not anti-ship missile, at least not in its primary role, it can be used aganist surface targets but its extremly limited in that role. Its RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2, used for ships SHORAD.

No, what i meant was the "two supersonic missiles" that it shot down.

HAAWC enables the P-8 to track and kill enemy submarines from high altitudes

The HAAWC, which stands for High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability, is an add-on kit for the Navy’s Mark 54 lightweight torpedo that gives the weapon the ability to glide through the air high above the clouds. Boeing is aiming to have the technology on the Navy’s submarine-hunting P-8 in 2017.




US ASW Skil : https://www.russiadefence.net/t4301p100-india-and-russia-joint-military-projects-news#134896

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

max steel wrote:U.S. Navy tests Raytheon's SeaRAM system

In the testing, the system took out several targets in a variety of scenarios, including one in which two supersonic missiles were inbound simultaneously, flying in complex, evasive maneuvers. The targets were intercepted with Rolling Airframe Block 2 missiles.

"SeaRAM achieved a new level of success, intercepting targets under high-stress conditions," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon's Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "The system demonstrated once again that it can provide the sophisticated protection warfighters need."

The tests were conducted on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship off the coast of Southern California.

SeaRAM is the development of key attributes of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Weapon System, replacing the 20mm Phalanx gun system with an 11-missile RAM launcher assembly. It combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high-resolution search-and-track sensor systems and quick-response capability against close-in and extended range threats.


US is too confident in one system and being cheap is going to cost them later not using the Phalanx also for redundancy,back up, layered affects, as well as other reasons. CIWS can only protect for approximately 1 nautical mile (2000 yards). SeaRAM provides a close in protection at 5 - 11 NM (10,000) yards. Not as proficient as the old Sea Sparrow, with a slightly better range, but the war head is different.

When did they develop supersonic AnSh missiles??

Its not anti-ship missile, at least not in its primary role, it can be used aganist surface targets but its extremly limited in that role. Its RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2, used for ships SHORAD.

No, what i meant was the "two supersonic missiles" that it shot down.

Ah, my bad then, well i anyways have answer for you.

GQM-163 Coyote is training platform for US Navy.

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/missile-defense-systems/ascm-targets/docs/BR06007_3862%20Coyote_R3.pdf

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

max steel wrote:U.S. Navy tests Raytheon's SeaRAM system

In the testing, the system took out several targets in a variety of scenarios, including one in which two supersonic missiles were inbound simultaneously, flying in complex, evasive maneuvers. The targets were intercepted with Rolling Airframe Block 2 missiles.

"SeaRAM achieved a new level of success, intercepting targets under high-stress conditions," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon's Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "The system demonstrated once again that it can provide the sophisticated protection warfighters need."

The tests were conducted on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship off the coast of Southern California.

SeaRAM is the development of key attributes of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Weapon System, replacing the 20mm Phalanx gun system with an 11-missile RAM launcher assembly. It combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high-resolution search-and-track sensor systems and quick-response capability against close-in and extended range threats.


US is too confident in one system and being cheap is going to cost them later not using the Phalanx also for redundancy,back up, layered affects, as well as other reasons. CIWS can only protect for approximately 1 nautical mile (2000 yards). SeaRAM provides a close in protection at 5 - 11 NM (10,000) yards. Not as proficient as the old Sea Sparrow, with a slightly better range, but the war head is different.

When did they develop supersonic AnSh missiles??

Its not anti-ship missile, at least not in its primary role, it can be used aganist surface targets but its extremly limited in that role. Its RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2, used for ships SHORAD.

No, what i meant was the "two supersonic missiles" that it shot down.

Ah, my bad then, well i anyways have answer for you.

GQM-163 Coyote is training platform for US Navy.

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/missile-defense-systems/ascm-targets/docs/BR06007_3862%20Coyote_R3.pdf

thanks man.

Lockheed Martin claims that its guidance and control systems will greatly improve the MK 48 torpedoes' effectiveness and provide the weapon with advanced counter-measure capabilities.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The US Navy is expected to order up to 250 of the heaviest, self-guided torpedoes in the next five years, which will be steered toward enemy targets by an advanced sonar system, defense contractor Lockheed Martin announced in a press release on Monday.

Lockheed noted it will provide the sonar-based guidance systems for the torpedoes under a $475 million contract with the Navy.

"The Lockheed Martin guidance and control systems will equip the heavyweight torpedoes with increased bandwidth and streamlined targeting and tracking capabilities," the release explained. "These systems will increase the MK 48's effectiveness and provide advanced counter-measure capabilities."

The MK 48 is described as a heavyweight torpedo that can be launched from virtually all military submarines. It has the ability to track and destroy surface ships, and other submarines in shallow water and at depths of more than 1,000 feet.

The Navy could potentially order up to 250 MK 48s in the next five years for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, the release noted.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160525/1040245347/navy-torpedo-guidance-systems-purchase.html#ixzz49gl1bdVB