Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower

[jsport]

When does the baseline size of ship (Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser ie obsolete designations) housing a right sized AESA radar (have never heard a real argument that the SPY-6 is the for sure the correct size BMD radar, radar needs to be so large as no longer considered a SPY series radar) (is there going to national or just fleet BMD/ hypersonic defense assigned to these ships).

Size of gun(s) to do real 'on shore forces support" at distance not the B'S that has been sold for decades
This would include genuine analysis of multipurpose Vertical guns which should have been integrated decades ago whose deep magazine is better solution than VLS for guided genuine bombardment, air defense, and anti-ship potentially even antisubmarine .

What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense, hybrid chem/solid state Lasers, PBWpns (w/ KE like effects against shielded msles and Hypersonics), potential Vertical and or turreted EMTCs or EMRG defense weapons.

What is the real size and numbers requirement for an "on board" multi-traditional role but also including emerging ship to shore logistics and NAVSPECWAR support UAS. There isn't even a decent VTOL UAS even being purposed yet.

Oh and if the USN wants V-22s on ships. It would seem the smallest vessel needs to house at least one V-22. Most likely two. Do not see any of this. Again what are these people being paid for?

 

[marauder2048]

What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense

An interesting point. Do you mean torpedo detection + hard target kill?
I couldn't find good power figures for the active acoustic portion for the SSTD systems they have on the carriers.

Then are a few efforts employing lidar for torpedo detection and tracking.

 

[jsport]

What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense

An interesting point. Do you mean torpedo detection + hard target kill?
I couldn't find good power figures for the active acoustic portion for the SSTD systems they have on the carriers.

Then are a few efforts employing lidar for torpedo detection and tracking.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.military.naval/t6viOfhw_oo

Electromagnetic Armor
by James Dunnigan
August 28, 2007


For several years, up until 2003, the U.S. Navy mentioned
electromagnetic armor, or DAPS (Dynamic Armor Protection
System) being developed for the planned CVN-21 class of
carriers. The basic technology behind DAPS was not complex.
Areas above the waterline would have two layers of thin
armor, separated by a small air space. The two layers of
armor would be electrified, and when the armor was hit by
a shaped charge (favored for cruise missile warheads) the
jet of superhot plasma, formed by the shaped charge
warhead going off, would be broken up by the electromagnetic
field formed when the two layers of armor were forced together.
The big problem with DAPS was the huge amount of electricity
required when the system was turned on. However, in the next
decade or so, warship power plants are expected catch up
with the needs of DAPS systems.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2007/200782802148.asp


Raise the Shields! CVN-21

The USN has seldom been very forthcoming about the protection
of its carriers but it is generally considered that - being
large, distinctive and valuable targets - they carry
substantially more protection than other ships. Protective
measures, including DAPS, are almost certainly concentrated
around the most critical and vulnerable areas of the ship -
magazines, reactors and the combat information centre (CIC) -
rather than being applied generally. The CVN-21 also features
an improved underwater protection system for torpedo defence.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/502993_CVN_21___Raise_the_shields___.html

 

[jsport]

Navy Deploying New Anti-Torpedo Technology
by KRIS OSBORN on OCTOBER 28, 2013
9044

Anti-Torpedo

The Navy is gearing up for deployment and a new round of
tests of its Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System — a high
tech system designed to protect aircraft carriers by
locating, tracking and intercepting incoming torpedoes,
Navy leaders said Oct. 24 at the Naval Submarine League,
Falls Church, Va.

The upcoming tests, slated to take place on the USS George
H.W. Bush, are designed as a follow on to initial end-to-end
testing of an early prototype model aboard the Bush this
past May. The Navy plans to equip all aircraft carriers
with SSTD by 2035.

The SSTD system, which consists of a sensor, processor and
small interceptor missile, is a first-of-its-kind
“hard kill” countermeasure for ships and carriers designed
to defeat torpedoes, said Rear Adm. Dave Johnson, Program
Executive Officer, Submarines.

The SSTD is slated for additional testing on board the USS
Bush next month in what’s called a Quick Reaction Assessment,
Johnson said. The SSTD will be an Engineering Development
Model of the technology, meaning it will be further tweaked
and refined before deploying aboard the USS Bush in the
near future.

Ships already have a layered system of defenses which
includes sensors, radar and several interceptor technologies
designed to intercept large, medium and small scale threats
from a variety of ranges. For example, most aircraft carriers
are currently configured with Sea Sparrow interceptor missiles
designed to destroy incoming air and surface threats and the
Phalanx Close-in-Weapons System, or CIWS. CIWS is a rapid-fire
gun designed as an area weapon intended to protect ships from
surface threats closer to the boat’s edge, such as fast-attack
boats.

Torpedo defense for surface ships, however, involves another
portion of the threat envelope and is a different question.
SSTD is being rapidly developed to address this, Navy
officials explained.

The system consists of a Torpedo Warning System Receive Array
launched from the winch at the end of the ship, essentially
a towed sensor or receiver engineered to detect the presence
of incoming torpedo fire. The Receive Array sends information
to a processor which then computes key information and sends
data to interceptor projectiles — or Countermeasures Anti-Torpedos,
or CAT — attached to the side of the ship.

The towed array picks up the acoustic noise. The processors
filter it out and inform the crew. The crew then makes the
decision about whether to fire a CAT, a Navy official told
Military​.com.

The CATs are mounted on the carriers’ sponson, projections
from the side of the ship designed for protection, stability
the mounting of armaments.

The individual technological pieces of the SSTD system are
engineered to work together to locate and destroy incoming
torpedos in a matter of seconds or less. Tactical display
screens on the bridge of the ship are designed to inform
commanders about the system’s operations.

After being tested on some smaller ships such as destroyers,
the SSTD was approved for use on aircraft carriers in 2011
by Chief Naval Officer Adm. Jonathan Greenert, according to
the Navy.

The SSTD effort is described by Navy officials as a rapid
prototyping endeavor designed to fast-track development
of the technology. In fact, the Torpedo Warning System
recently won a 2013 DoD “Myth-Busters” award for successful
acquisition practices such as delivering the TWS to the
USS Bush on an accelerated schedule. The TWS is made by
3 Phoenix.

The Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo is being developed
by the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research
Laboratory.



Read more:
http://defensetech.org/2013/10/28/navy-deploying-new-anti-torpedo-technology/#ixzz3YqNoCNV4

Defense.org

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/28/navy-deploying-new-anti-torpedo-technology/

 

[Moose]

The Drive had a piece on SSTDs that was pretty good, and gave an idea as to the extent it has reached the fleet.

 

[jsport]

believe there is another EM TD but has since been taken off the internet.

 

[jsport]

https://www.popsci.com/futuristic-chinese-warship-concept-is-making-waves

Ok, pretty sci fi, but the future is now. These are really not that new of ideas. The idea of a Semi submersible large combatant has been around for long time and people are tired of talking about arsenal ships but they are still talked about because they are still relevant. not considering such now maybe an unaffordable oversight. (just replace the VLS w/ Vertical guns

 

[litzj]

Idea or attempt is good, however balance between cost and effectiveness should be carefully considered.

Sealing for submersible vehicle is not cheap task for big ship (radar, external guns, antenna, hanger for helo)

 

[jsport]

Idea or attempt is good, however balance between cost and effectiveness should be carefully considered.

Sealing for submersible vehicle is not cheap task for big ship (radar, external guns, antenna, hanger for helo)

yes, huge issues and most likely only semi-submers even makes sense and they would big big cost for sure. The alternative though is maintain a staid maritime manufacturing culture which loses.

 

[marauder2048]

EMRG mount funding.

 

[Moose]

EMRG mount funding.

Still don't know why this wasn't in last year, but nice to see it now.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/10/31/report-navy-laser-railgun-gun-launched-guided-projectiles?fbclid=IwAR20lLiEZkuZLGzw5CaJ_VKVgFldHRAwnwFKHNS-QcUxxCyC8J8TllAsY5w

The Navy is developing three new ship-based weapons that could improve the ability of Navy surface ships to defend themselves against missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and surface craft: the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System (SNLWS), the electromagnetic railgun (EMRG), and the gun-launched guided projectile (GLGP), previously known as the hypervelocity projectile (HVP).

The Navy refers to the initial (i.e., Increment 1) version of SNLWS as HELIOS, an acronym meaning high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance. EMRG could additionally provide the Navy with a new naval surface fire support (NSFS) weapon for attacking land targets in support of Marines or other friendly ground forces ashore. The Department of Defense is exploring the potential for using GLGP across multiple U.S. military services.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/11/13/pentagon-to-boost-laser-investments-for-missile-defense/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+DFN&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0SU6grIgBr9EmC6qwCAFlItqtO05FI3Rslxjfd6jQMHQYL3kM08nHor4g

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department is planning to increase investments in directed-energy systems used for missile defense over the next several budget cycles, according to the department’s top technology adviser.

Michael Griffin, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said Tuesday he expects to have usable directed-energy weaponry in the hands of war fighters in “no more than a few years,” but acknowledged the size of a system usable for missile defense requires greater investment.

“You need another factor of three to four to have as space control weapon, a missile defense capability — space-based, boost-phase or midcourse capability — with a large directed-energy weapon. We need to be in the megawatt class to have that,” Griffin said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

 

[sferrin]

A couple details from the latest Report to Congress on the Aegis system.

SM-6

"A July 23, 2018, press report states:
The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically
increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket
motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and
defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.

On Jan. 17, the Navy approved plans to develop a Dual Thrust Rocket Motor with a 21-
inch diameter for the SM-6, which is currently fielded with a 13.5-inch propulsion package.
The new rocket motor would sit atop the current 21-inch booster, producing a new variant
of the missile: the SM-6 Block IB.9"

SM-3 Block IIA

"A March 26, 2018, press report states the following:
[MDA] Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said MDA “is evaluating the technical feasibility
of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an
ICBM-class target.”

“If proven to be effective against an ICBM, this missile could add a layer of protection,
augmenting the currently deployed GMD system,” Greaves said in written testimony
submitted March 22 to the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.
[Greaves] said MDA will conduct a demonstration of the SM-3 Block IIA against an
ICBM-like target by the end of 2020...."

 

[jsport]

A couple details from the latest Report to Congress on the Aegis system.

SM-6

"A July 23, 2018, press report states:
The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically
increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket
motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and
defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.

On Jan. 17, the Navy approved plans to develop a Dual Thrust Rocket Motor with a 21-
inch diameter for the SM-6, which is currently fielded with a 13.5-inch propulsion package.
The new rocket motor would sit atop the current 21-inch booster, producing a new variant
of the missile: the SM-6 Block IB.9"

SM-3 Block IIA

"A March 26, 2018, press report states the following:
[MDA] Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said MDA “is evaluating the technical feasibility
of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an
ICBM-class target.”

“If proven to be effective against an ICBM, this missile could add a layer of protection,
augmenting the currently deployed GMD system,” Greaves said in written testimony
submitted March 22 to the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.
[Greaves] said MDA will conduct a demonstration of the SM-3 Block IIA against an
ICBM-like target by the end of 2020...."

If your going to spend the money to chase "ICBM class target" better design it against hypersonics as well.

 

[sferrin]

A couple details from the latest Report to Congress on the Aegis system.

SM-6

"A July 23, 2018, press report states:
The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically
increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket
motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and
defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.

On Jan. 17, the Navy approved plans to develop a Dual Thrust Rocket Motor with a 21-
inch diameter for the SM-6, which is currently fielded with a 13.5-inch propulsion package.
The new rocket motor would sit atop the current 21-inch booster, producing a new variant
of the missile: the SM-6 Block IB.9"

SM-3 Block IIA

"A March 26, 2018, press report states the following:
[MDA] Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said MDA “is evaluating the technical feasibility
of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an
ICBM-class target.”

“If proven to be effective against an ICBM, this missile could add a layer of protection,
augmenting the currently deployed GMD system,” Greaves said in written testimony
submitted March 22 to the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.
[Greaves] said MDA will conduct a demonstration of the SM-3 Block IIA against an
ICBM-like target by the end of 2020...."

If your going to spend the money to chase "ICBM class target" better design it against hypersonics as well.

Why would you think it would cost additional money to hit ICBMs? They're testing to see if the Block IIA ALREADY has the capability. They're not making a Block IIB to "chase ICBMS". And an exoatomospheric ICBM RV compared to an endoatmospheric, winged, maneuvering vehicles is apples and oranges.

 

[bring_it_on]

Yeah and the SM3 already intercepts hypersonic missiles in the mid-course phase. As Mike Griffin described boost glide defense, it is really a capability aimed at intercepting very fast cruisers at altitudes ranging from 30-60km. SM3 isn't going to do that and I doubt SM6 will either. Perhaps a common Army-Navy interceptor to cover this capability gap is the way forward.

 

[sferrin]

Yeah and the SM3 already intercepts hypersonic missiles in the mid-course phase. As Mike Griffin described boost glide defense, it is really a capability aimed at intercepting very fast cruisers at altitudes ranging from 30-60km. SM3 isn't going to do that and I doubt SM6 will either. Perhaps a common Army-Navy interceptor to cover this capability gap is the way forward.

*cough* THAAD-ER.

 

[bring_it_on]

Yeah and the SM3 already intercepts hypersonic missiles in the mid-course phase. As Mike Griffin described boost glide defense, it is really a capability aimed at intercepting very fast cruisers at altitudes ranging from 30-60km. SM3 isn't going to do that and I doubt SM6 will either. Perhaps a common Army-Navy interceptor to cover this capability gap is the way forward.

*cough* THAAD-ER.

Can THAAD-ER cover the lower portion of that envelope though?

Lockheed Martin conducts initial flight test of new M-SHORAD Future Interceptor

In parallel, Lockheed Martin is now giving specific consideration to the next-generation, or follow-on, to its PAC-3 MSE interceptor, with what it calls the ‘Next-Gen Missile’.

“Next-Gen Missile is currently a Lockheed Martin internal programme, but we are in dialogue with the US Army about where they might want to go with this,” said Cahill. “What is driving the thinking is the need to address high speed, hypersonic, manoeuvring threats – this will be the capability requirement that informs the Next-Gen Missile development. This is still in technology evaluation and algorithm testing stage – so an all-up Next-Gen Missile is a few years out yet,” he added.

 

[sferrin]

I don't know what the lowest they've ever tested THAAD is (though it is inside the atmosphere). The current THAAD would probably not work because of limited divert capability. The KKV can't actually turn but just slides side-to-side to center itself on the target. THAAD-ER, via it's "kicker" motor, would be able to turn, but the KKV would still be limited in the final phase. You'd want something like a super PAC-3 MSE. Maybe something like this:

 

[bring_it_on]

That's what I had in mind as well. I have read 50+ km as the lower limit of THAAD's altitude but I don't think it has ever been confirmed either as a requirement or as a demonstrated capability on the definitive missile. Glide-Breaker would obviously be looking at all this but I just found it interesting that Lockheed seems to be looking for an interceptor to support the Lower Tier program for a more capable interceptor against the hypersonic glider threat.

There is obviously a gap between the upper altitude of the PAC-2, and the lower altitude of THAAD and that gap is even wider when we factor in the PAC-3. A more capable upper tier PAC-3 follow on would make sense not only for this mission but also for longer ranged counter air and counter cruise missile defense roles once the PAC-2 goes away.

 

[bring_it_on]

USN eyes ‘energy magazine’ for directed energy weapons

The US Navy (USN) has kicked off efforts to develop an electrical ‘energy magazine’ to serve high-power shipborne directed energy weapon (DEW) systems.

Releasing a request for information (RFI) for Multi-Application Shipboard Energy Magazine Requirements Development on 2 January, the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said it was seeing inputs from electrical equipment manufacturers, systems integrators, and academia for a “common, modular, scalable intermediate power system that could be used across multiple mission systems and ship installations”. A full request for proposals for development and production is planned to follow.

The USN is planning to introduce DEW systems into its surface fleet, notably a first generation of high-energy laser weapons.

NAVSEA’s notional timeline for energy magazine development and production includes a one year non-recurring engineering/design phase in the 2020 timeframe; a one year initial unit(s) build and factory test in the 2021 timeframe; and several years of options for production of shipboard qualified units. Once fully qualified, the delivery of the first production units may be required in the 2023 timeframe.

 

[sferrin]

USN eyes ‘energy magazine’ for directed energy weapons

The US Navy (USN) has kicked off efforts to develop an electrical ‘energy magazine’ to serve high-power shipborne directed energy weapon (DEW) systems.

Releasing a request for information (RFI) for Multi-Application Shipboard Energy Magazine Requirements Development on 2 January, the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said it was seeing inputs from electrical equipment manufacturers, systems integrators, and academia for a “common, modular, scalable intermediate power system that could be used across multiple mission systems and ship installations”. A full request for proposals for development and production is planned to follow.

The USN is planning to introduce DEW systems into its surface fleet, notably a first generation of high-energy laser weapons.

NAVSEA’s notional timeline for energy magazine development and production includes a one year non-recurring engineering/design phase in the 2020 timeframe; a one year initial unit(s) build and factory test in the 2021 timeframe; and several years of options for production of shipboard qualified units. Once fully qualified, the delivery of the first production units may be required in the 2023 timeframe.

From the SDI days. A compact, 20 MW generator. (Got from the AFRL site years ago.)

 

[bring_it_on]

I think the objective here is to develop a scalable capability to convert and store power while relying on ship power input instead of direct pulsed power loads from the ship's generators. I think what they are aiming at is a standard, scalable system that can be used across DEW applications (including multiple DEW applications on the same vessel) instead of fielding something unique with every system they introduce into the fleet and every different ship class they integrate a DEW system on.

 

[marauder2048]

https://web.nps.edu/Video/Portal/Video.aspx?enc=bYcC10jx8XEyOt%2bRwS3GFm7nkGrx8bf3

https://www.nps.edu/web/eag/november-2-2018

 

[bring_it_on]

Thanks marauder2048!

 

[starviking]

From the SDI days. A compact, 20 MW generator. (Got from the AFRL site years ago.)

MHD?

 

[ouroboros]

From the SDI days. A compact, 20 MW generator. (Got from the AFRL site years ago.)

MHD?

I believe that particular one was a superconducting generator, can't remember if low or high temp though. All the great research in motors for cars has really pushed the tech to new levels. Before DARPA lightning strike got cancelled, Honeywell had a 1MW generator about the size of a 5 gallon bucket (looked liquid cooled and definitely not superconducting) to be run off a helicopter turboshaft engine.

The elephant in the room is the high power densities of your selected storage along with expected charge/discharge cycles are really tough. You need to fast dump power to weapons, and the recharge rate is non-trivial either. Capacitors are great for discharge but still are non-ideal bulk storage. Lithium-ion has great bulk but it doesn't like stupid high charge/discharge. Flywheels are more tolerant of charge/discharge abuse but aren't great for bulk storage. As power density goes up, you start facing the equivalent of a powder magazine in terms of safety.

I've been giving some thought to the work done recently of liquid air/liquid nitrogen based storage when combined with an existing gas turbine. You operate an asu to charge your LN2 tank, then when you need boost power, dump LN2 through an intercooler behind the gas turbine compressor, then dump the vaporized N2 behind the combustor cans. This cools the air going through the gas turbine and vastly increases pressure through the turbine at colder temps. If your generator can keep up, this uses all existing components. The drawback is LN2 tanks, but that strikes me as at least marginally safer than other options, and could be used a part of the structure though conformal tankage.

 

[Moose]

This is somewhat concerning: US Navy has decided to suspend development of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system and even remove the hardware from the 5 carriers which had received developmental units. Reading the SSTD portion of the DOT&E report (PDF), there are no program-breaking issues listed and no specific reason given for the program's termination in September.

 

[jsport]

This is somewhat concerning: US Navy has decided to suspend development of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system and even remove the hardware from the 5 carriers which had received developmental units. Reading the SSTD portion of the DOT&E report (PDF), there are no program-breaking issues listed and no specific reason given for the program's termination in September.

Sounds very bad

 

[sferrin]

This is somewhat concerning: US Navy has decided to suspend development of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system and even remove the hardware from the 5 carriers which had received developmental units. Reading the SSTD portion of the DOT&E report (PDF), there are no program-breaking issues listed and no specific reason given for the program's termination in September.

Typical. Then 10 years from now they'll start all over.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I wish somebody in Congress would ask about that cancellation, seems like a terrible decision with what little information is available.

 

[marauder2048]

I wish somebody in Congress would ask about that cancellation

They did actually.

Additionally, the committee is concerned by the termination of the Torpedo Warning System (TWS),
which addressed a critical capability gap. Accordingly, not later than January 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Chief of Naval Operations to provide the congressional defense committees with a
report on the specific capability gap or gaps that the TWS was rapidly fielded to address, the
performance of the TWS in addressing such gap or gaps, the warfighting risk that will be accepted
without the TWS deployed, and the Navy’s plans to address the specific capability gap or gaps without
the TWS deployed.

https://budget.dtic.mil/pdfs/FY2019_pdfs/SASC/Procurement_CRPT-115srpt262.pdf

 

[sferrin]

I wish somebody in Congress would ask about that cancellation

They did actually.

Additionally, the committee is concerned by the termination of the Torpedo Warning System (TWS),
which addressed a critical capability gap. Accordingly, not later than January 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Chief of Naval Operations to provide the congressional defense committees with a
report on the specific capability gap or gaps that the TWS was rapidly fielded to address, the
performance of the TWS in addressing such gap or gaps, the warfighting risk that will be accepted
without the TWS deployed, and the Navy’s plans to address the specific capability gap or gaps without
the TWS deployed.

https://budget.dtic.mil/pdfs/FY2019_pdfs/SASC/Procurement_CRPT-115srpt262.pdf

I wonder if they'll make the answer public. Hopefully it's not, "it was too hard so we quit". Anything short of "we HAVE something better" is unacceptable.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l4fMMA4rSc

 

[marauder2048]

I wonder if they'll make the answer public. Hopefully it's not, "it was too hard so we quit". Anything short of "we HAVE something better" is unacceptable.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Speech/20180307__HACD_DoN_Posture_FY19.pdf


The claim in the testimony was that the false alarm rate was excessive. So it really sounds like they need
an adjust sensor like say towed LIDAR.

Though I'm wondering if they just had the sensitivity jacked up to 11 to detect the slow and quiet threat torpedo types.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder if they'll make the answer public. Hopefully it's not, "it was too hard so we quit". Anything short of "we HAVE something better" is unacceptable.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Speech/20180307__HACD_DoN_Posture_FY19.pdf


The claim in the testimony was that the false alarm rate was excessive. So it really sounds like they need
an adjust sensor like say towed LIDAR.

Though I'm wondering if they just had the sensitivity jacked up to 11 to detect the slow and quiet threat torpedo types.

It does make one wonder if they were able to detect wake-homers buried in all the turbulence.

 

[moonbeamsts]

The problem of the TWS system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long , The navy did the same thing with new sonar fire control AnBSY-1 back in the 80"s 90"s.

 

[sferrin]

The problem of the TWS system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long ,

Don't worry. I'm sure it will get done sooner if they do nothing long enough.