Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Triton said:
There is also a new seeker in the works for a Maritime Strike Tomahawk that will be used to upgrade part of the 4,000 plus Block IV Tomahawk missiles in inventory. While LRASM-B has the advantage of stealth, the Tomahawk has a range of 1,000 miles compared to LRASM-B's 200 mile range.

Source:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/
Click to expand...

You mean LRASM-A. LRASM-B was the ASALM based design.
 
I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it supposed to be a DARPA funded program? IMO the Navy needs to develop a High and Low end NGLAW strategy with the higher end focusing on Hypersonic demonstrations that are expected over the next few years while the lower end focuses on more of the TLAM role of relatively cheap, mass produced cruise missile..
 
bring_it_on said:
Wasn't it supposed to be a DARPA funded program? IMO the Navy needs to develop a High and Low end NGLAW strategy with the higher end focusing on Hypersonic demonstrations that are expected over the next few years while the lower end focuses on more of the TLAM role of relatively cheap, mass produced cruise missile..
Click to expand...
I think you are right about it being a DARPA funded program. I'd also like to eventually see a mix of hypersonic missiles and a cheaper TLAM successor incorporating LO features similar to what you see on JASSM. Yet until the hypersonic designs are ready I think a supersonic design like LRASM-B would be a very good capability to have.
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/for-the-navy-strike-capability-should-be-top-priority/#slide-1

The United States Navy needs to make some hard choices if it wishes to remain relevant in the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) security environment that lies ahead of it. It must begin to adjust its strategy as well as its accompanying shipbuilding and aircraft-procurement plans to enable it to fight and win within the emerging great-power competition. This new environment, at last recognized in President Trump’s National Security Strategy and the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, requires the Navy to strike enemy capitals and other vital centers of gravity from range, but the Navy’s decision to bypass a carrier-based strike asset, and now even to push off its acquisition of an unmanned mission tanker, suggest that it is not taking A2AD great-power competition seriously. Its decisions place the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk.
Click to expand...

https://news.usni.org/2018/03/07/navy-working-new-fleet-size-study-following-latest-strategic-reviews

CAPITOL HILL — Following the release of new national security and defense strategies, the Navy is undertaking a new Fleet Structure Assessment that could alter its stated goal of a 355-ship fleet, senior service officials told Congress this week.

A new FSA would take a look at the mix of surface ships and submarine in the service and could change assumptions on the look and size of the future fleet, Vice Adm. Bill Merz, deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems (OPNAV N9), told the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee on Tuesday.

“We intend to do another FSA with the new National Defense Strategy.
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/for-the-navy-strike-capability-should-be-top-priority/#slide-1

The United States Navy needs to make some hard choices if it wishes to remain relevant in the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) security environment that lies ahead of it. It must begin to adjust its strategy as well as its accompanying shipbuilding and aircraft-procurement plans to enable it to fight and win within the emerging great-power competition. This new environment, at last recognized in President Trump’s National Security Strategy and the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, requires the Navy to strike enemy capitals and other vital centers of gravity from range, but the Navy’s decision to bypass a carrier-based strike asset, and now even to push off its acquisition of an unmanned mission tanker, suggest that it is not taking A2AD great-power competition seriously. Its decisions place the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk.
Click to expand...

EMRGS are not a means to threaten enemy capitals and and other vital COGs at range as an alternative to missiles and aircraft. EMRGS do not deliver sufficiently large explosive KE at extreme range. One needs sufficient payload to range. EMRGS currently are small caliber, not large payload. Still wondering why EMRG for anything but defense. A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate.
Click to expand...
 
jsport said:
A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate.
Click to expand...

What "single-purpose" weapon? All those Mk45s in the fleet? A railgun is no more "single-purpose" than a conventional gun.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate.
Click to expand...

What "single-purpose" weapon? All those Mk45s in the fleet? A railgun is no more "single-purpose" than a conventional gun.
Click to expand...

Conventional guns can deliver explosive payloads as state. Not so much for EMRGs currently or anytime soon.
 
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate.
Click to expand...

What "single-purpose" weapon? All those Mk45s in the fleet? A railgun is no more "single-purpose" than a conventional gun.
Click to expand...

Conventional guns can deliver explosive payloads as state. Not so much for EMRGs currently or anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't preclude them from being used against surface targets, at much further distances than all those Mk45s I might add.
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/for-the-navy-strike-capability-should-be-top-priority/#slide-1

The United States Navy needs to make some hard choices if it wishes to remain relevant in the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) security environment that lies ahead of it. It must begin to adjust its strategy as well as its accompanying shipbuilding and aircraft-procurement plans to enable it to fight and win within the emerging great-power competition. This new environment, at last recognized in President Trump’s National Security Strategy and the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, requires the Navy to strike enemy capitals and other vital centers of gravity from range, but the Navy’s decision to bypass a carrier-based strike asset, and now even to push off its acquisition of an unmanned mission tanker, suggest that it is not taking A2AD great-power competition seriously. Its decisions place the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk.
Click to expand...

Even the BAE 155mm EMRG (w/a larger payload than that of short range conventional 127mm) is not enough to threaten capitals and COGs if the Navy's decision is to forgo a carrier-based strike asset.

.."the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk."

Either alot more missiles or larger caliber long range gun. Best accomplished as a ETC gun.
Click to expand...
 
An alternative to both EMRG and ETC* would be extended range rounds via
a propulsion (or aero) stack on the round itself.

Assuming you could meet the Navy's IM reqs on the propellant front,
this approach would probably require far fewer shipboard/gun modifications.

* DSSP's preso had an ETC gun lobbing BTERM/MS-SGP.

(image from this year's SNA symposium with my highlight)
 

Attachments

  • energetic-rounds.png
    energetic-rounds.png
    955.6 KB · Views: 496
Energetics Energetics. propellants and explosives as stated.
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/package-deal-navy-could-save-5-10-buying-two-carriers/

WASHINGTON: After months of prep work with the shipyard, the Navy is formally asking Newport News Shipbuilding to propose a plan to build two 1,000-foot-long supercarriers on a single contract. The chairmen of the House and Senate seapower subcommittees were quick to applaud the idea, saying it could “save billions.” If approved, the so-called “block buy” could accelerate aircraft carrier production and help the Navy build up to the 12-carrier fleet required by law.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pu_PKpEhqU

JSOW, MALD and HARM vs. The Advanced Threat
 
Missiles always provide more options than guns, but until additive manufacturing companies like "Desktop Metal" and "Relativity" bring 'real' affordability and genuine modularity to every type of missile/rocket from bullet size to the heavy lift to the moon then guns will still be cheaper. Sensors are getting cheaper/smaller more accurate, stealth is getting cheaper. control systems getting cheaper. Missiles in the west are just way too expensive and until there is very disruptive rethink, will remain so. Other factors are holding up genuine jumps in affordable volumes and capability.
 
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)
Click to expand...

I can't find anything on how ALAMO actually works -- either steering or seeker. Any hints?
Click to expand...


The HE-4G cartridge is an electrically-primed cartridge designed to function
in the 57mm MK 110 Gun Mount (GM), and is intended for combating surface
and air targets. The fixed cartridge consists of a Radio Frequency Guided Projectile (RFGP),
brass cartridge case, and energetics qualified for Navy use. The RFGP is comprised of a
Guidance Section, an Advanced Divert Module (ADM) with a Fuze Safe & Arm (FSA), and a
warhead. The RFGP detects a target and its guidance electronics provide course correction
to the ADM that fires four energetic bolts, at appropriate times, to adjust the projectile's course.
The fuze has two programmable modes of operation: Proximity Mode and Point Detonate Delay.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=27d0b088cadd17770ca9a70b008b7267&tab=core&_cview=1
 
N9BSMRS.jpg


http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2018/sna-2018/5847-l3-to-provide-alamo-57-mm-guided-smart-ammunition-for-us-navy-lcs-ffg.html
 
Put that thing on Stryker/Piranha. Could operate in more terrain and under more threat than a truck mounted MML.

AHEAD ammo eat your heart out.
 
50mm x 228 for BM III vs 57mm x 330 (?) for HE-4G?

Given that the Navy is only paying $13,000/round for 1500 LRIP rounds it's certainly
worth looking at further miniaturization.
 
marauder2048 said:
50mm x 228 for BM III vs 57mm x 330 (?) for HE-4G?

Given that the Navy is only paying $13,000/round for 1500 LRIP rounds it's certainly
worth looking at further miniaturization.
Click to expand...

Defeating KE rds ie the CRAM mission would seen to make in worth a joint USN/USMC as well as the USA economies of scale effort. Shoot maybe on AC-130Us against AAMs and SAMs even.
 
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/03/27/countertargeting-offense-enabler-and-defense-enhancer

The U.S. Navy may one day face a numerically superior opponent that uses a unique blend of technology, synchronization, and the benefit of numbers to overcome a comparative western advantage in technology. In addition to maintaining a technical edge, the Navy must revitalize its own asynchronous capabilities to develop effective countertargeting measures to counter an opponent’s numbers and achieve maritime superiority.

Thousands of drums greeted the global television audience watching the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic in August 2008. With a blend of technology and synchronized choreography, the ceremonies captured China’s long history, rich culture, and tradition of innovation and invention.
Click to expand...
 
https://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Figure-1.jpg

The USNI blog piece appears to rest its case on simplistic math (not even something like the Lanchester equations) at least for explaining.
One should always remember that missiles can re-target after a horizontal target approach onto some small decoy. Only the diving missiles are gone for good if they fell for a decoy. This doesn't appear to have been included in the underlying math.


I'll add two blog posts relevant to this topic:

about blue water anti-surface warfare
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2018/02/modern-warships-iv-asuw.html

this builds upon an earlier part of the series about anti air warfare, where categories of threats were identified and described with examples:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2018/02/modern-warships-iii-aaw.html
 
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-seeks-new-advanced-sensors-weapons-for-new-frigate-2023-2kpcmXL-5kyz2pfbaGoE3A/

The Navy envisions a new multi-mission Guided Missile Frigate able to sense enemy targets from great distances, fire next-generation precision weaponry, utilize new networking and ISR technologies, operate unmanned systems and succeed against technically advanced enemies in open or “blue” water combat, according to service statements.

The service is now refining and analyzing design, sensor and weapons concepts for the new ship, called the FFG(X), as it moves into a formal Conceptual Design phase after awarding a major contract.

Naval Sea Systems Command recently chose five shipbuilders to advance designs and technologies for the ship, awarding development deals to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Austal USA, Huntington Ingalls, Marinette Marine Corporation and Lockheed Martin.
Click to expand...
 
The Frigate competition would be interesting to follow. They have included foreign designs but it remains to be seen whether they actually stand any chance whatsoever when pitted against the 2 LCS incumbents.
 
bring_it_on said:
The Frigate competition would be interesting to follow. They have included foreign designs but it remains to be seen whether they actually stand any chance whatsoever when pitted against the 2 LCS incumbents.
Click to expand...
My reading of the program has them with a very good chance, in fact, as the program has been slowly scaling up their target capabilities/requirements. A not-insignificant number of Navy leaders really are seeking to squeeze as much as Combatant as they can under that $950m-ish pricetag, and that is an indication in favor of the Europeans, especially since the F100 (which forms a basis for Bath's proposal) is often considered a "baby Burke." At this point, I think the best argument the LCS-based teams have is the preservation of industrial base, which is complicated by other factors like Fincantieri's pledge to build their FREMM-based design at MM.

Still wish we knew something more about HII's actual bid with their NSC derivative, and something about the couple bidders we never saw public information on.
 
bring_it_on said:
The Frigate competition would be interesting to follow. They have included foreign designs but it remains to be seen whether they actually stand any chance whatsoever when pitted against the 2 LCS incumbents.
Click to expand...

Which I find funny given that the two LCS incumbents are foreign designs.

The Program office overseeing the FFG(X) competition is in an awkward position
since its also managing the MMSC FMS case.
 
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.
 
sferrin said:
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.
Click to expand...

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run. Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.
 
Which I find funny given that the two LCS incumbents are foreign designs.
Click to expand...

My reference was in the context of the current competition. The two LCS based designs represent the status-quo programs scaling to meet the demands of the new requirements whereas some of the others will be seen as foreign designs, operational elsewhere, which will be brought in and built in the US.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.
Click to expand...

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run. Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.
Click to expand...
If the crew is smaller and the plant more efficient, it will definitely cost less to run.
 
Moose said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.
Click to expand...

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run. Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.
Click to expand...
If the crew is smaller and the plant more efficient, it will definitely cost less to run.
Click to expand...

Which makes the Navy's abandonment of hybrid-electric drive backfits and
forward-fits on the DDG-51s all the more baffling.
 
marauder2048 said:
Moose said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.
Click to expand...

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run. Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.
Click to expand...
If the crew is smaller and the plant more efficient, it will definitely cost less to run.
Click to expand...

Which makes the Navy's abandonment of hybrid-electric drive backfits and
forward-fits on the DDG-51s all the more baffling.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the secondary benefit that the experience would provide to a surface fleet that needs to be getting familiar with electric drive components. But, hey, someone int he new leadership thought it was a "waste." So there's that.
 
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
50mm x 228 for BM III vs 57mm x 330 (?) for HE-4G?

Given that the Navy is only paying $13,000/round for 1500 LRIP rounds it's certainly
worth looking at further miniaturization.
Click to expand...

Defeating KE rds ie the CRAM mission would seen to make in worth a joint USN/USMC as well as the USA economies of scale effort. Shoot maybe on AC-130Us against AAMs and SAMs even.
Click to expand...

(courtesy of freddymac in the LCS thread)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY9rJBL1S2Y
 
BAE Systems ORKA 57mm guided projectile. This one looks a bit expensive (almost like a small Excalibur) and I wonder if they have stopped development after L3 was selected for production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKVIXXabkl0
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/hull-watch-355-ship-navy-might-take-until-2052-navy-official-concedes/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=62045159&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8jSJiudN3T1QnKjibSLtzHWVXLewItQaZSB50x1O7x5d19S8gZTZ5DbtfVZCXaU4NMZmHn8Sk5j1UGKAToMJHXN49vSQ&_hsmi=62045159

SEA AIR SPACE: After months of quietly backing away from its goal of a 355-ship fleet, the Navy finally ran into some congressional opposition today. Then, just hours after the House seapower chairman told the Navy to stop making his job harder, the undersecretary of the Navy said the 355 goal probably couldn’t be reached until 2052.
Click to expand...

So the one study where the Navy said they needed about 450 ships is around 2152?
 
Navy’s top officer lays out aggressive new cruiser replacement strategy


“We’re going to start putting the pedal to the metal on the next major surface combatant,” Richardson said Wednesday afternoon. “I think we learned a lot in the frigate discussion and turned around the major surface combatant discussion in record time.

“I’d like to do the whole thing, well, as fast as possible but do it in the frigate timeframes: in terms of defining what we want, the requirements, getting industry involved, making it a very open competition."

The Navy will be zeroing in on what they want out of their new ship very quickly, Richardson said, which means shipbuilders and industry could be getting bids together on the Navy’s new major surface combatant in a matter of months instead of years.

“I’d like to get this pretty well defined in the 2018, 2019 timeframe,” he said.

Richardson pointed to three main focus areas for a new major surface combatant: An existing hull form to speed up acquisition; excess power capacity; and the ability to rapidly switch out systems.

“Some parts of that ship are going to be very similar to ships that are around right now (hull forms) and that’s going to last the life of the ship,” Richardson said. “So, let’s get a hull form — and there are probably ones out there that are just fine."

The second area Richardson pointed to is the electrical plant, a must if the Navy is going to integrate lasers and electromagnetic weapons in the future.

“Power plant and power generation — you need to really pay attention to that because its very hard to change after you buy it," he said. "And if you think about the kinds of combat systems and weapons systems we’re going to have on future ships, they have got to be able to generate pulsed power and those sorts of things.

“So, lots of power. Buy as much power as you can afford because it’s like RAM on your computer, you’re going to need more as soon as you buy it.”

The third area, Richardson said, is that new technology must be easily switched during short stints in the yards, not requiring major ship alterations to accommodate new systems.

“Everything else, though, is swappable,” Richardson continued. “And that has to be designed in to the DNA of the ship so you can come in on a short upkeep and swap out your radar system, or your combat system, or put this weapons system in.

“It has a lot to do with designing standards so that everybody can build to those standards so it’s a much more dynamic, swappable type of a thing.”
Click to expand...
 
There's basically two options for the hull. Burke or Zumwalt. Zumwalt seems less likely until one considers it already has the excess power capacity, new gen propulsion already integrated with the hull. IF the cost issues with zumwalt stemmed from the radars, combat systems, stealth and so on - and not from the hull and propulsion itself, then it seems plausible zumwalt could be the best starting point.

Now, if 15 thousand tons is too much for USN future cruiser, then it's got to be Burke's hull. That'd basically mean flight IV, a ship with major changes, and sort-of an all-out burke fleet for the next 50 years for USN.
 
totoro said:
There's basically two options for the hull. Burke or Zumwalt. Zumwalt seems less likely until one considers it already has the excess power capacity, new gen propulsion already integrated with the hull. IF the cost issues with zumwalt stemmed from the radars, combat systems, stealth and so on - and not from the hull and propulsion itself, then it seems plausible zumwalt could be the best starting point.

Now, if 15 thousand tons is too much for USN future cruiser, then it's got to be Burke's hull. That'd basically mean flight IV, a ship with major changes, and sort-of an all-out burke fleet for the next 50 years for USN.
Click to expand...

The Burke is too tight to provide excess power generation or rapid system swap capability. The Zumwalt is the obvious choice, possibly stretched back out to the original design length.

The other candidate is probably an LPD-17 hull. Question is whether that hullform be made significantly faster with more propulsion power.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom