U. S. Navy

  • 853 Respostas
  • 283852 Visualizações
*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18283
  • Recebeu: 5530 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5942 vez(es)
  • +7158/-9536
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #390 em: Setembro 10, 2016, 10:40:02 pm »
US Navy Drops LCS Plans, Concept After Latest Failures

(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Sept 9, 2016)
By Giovanni de Briganti


The US Navy has finally decided to abandon the unworkable Littoral Combat Ship modular concept, and to turn the ships it has on order into dedicated, single-mission vessels. Both LCS variants are shown here. (USN photo)
PARIS --- After spending billions of dollars, the US Navy has finally abandoned the Littoral Combat Ship concept, saying it will turn the first four LCSs into training ships and that all future vessels will be equipped for a single combat mission.

Although deliberately worded to minimize its import, the US Navy statement below is a clear acknowledgement that the LCS concept has been an abysmal failure.

But, even as it looks to mitigate the disastrous effects of having ordered a dozen LCS at once, before checking whether they performed as claimed (they have not), the Navy makes no mention of having found the technical faults which have struck four LCS ships this year.

In the statement below, the Navy announces it is abandoning the LCS’ most prized objectives (interchangeable mission modules; innovative but complex crewing arrangements) which were supposed to turn inexpensive small ships with small crews into potent combatants in coastal regions.

Ironically, this is an admission that the Government Accountability Office was right in recommending, in its latest report on the LCS program issued in June, that “Congress should consider not funding any requested LCS in fiscal year 2017 and should consider requiring the Navy to revise its acquisition strategy for the frigate.”

In fact, the ships are very expensive ($562.8 million for each ship, according to the Congressional Research Service. This is about as much as a DDG 51 destroyer, whose last batch cost about $700m each), their small crews are unable to switch mission modules even when these are available, and their crewing arrangements have proved inoperative.

By turning the four Littoral Combat Ships it has commissioned to date into training ships, the Navy is also admitting they are operationally worthless.

So the LCS concept is a total failure, and the billions of dollars spent so far have been wasted, despite each one having cost about half a billion dollars.

All of this should be of major concern as the US Navy has ordered 22 ships under two block buy contracts awarded to the two LCS builders in December 2010, and the 8th was delivered in mid-August. These contracts run until FY2022.

This means the Navy is still buying fault-plagued ships designed to a failed operational concept at over a half-billion dollars a pop, which is neither a good idea nor a prudent use of taxpayers’ billions of dollars.

Whether, or how, the US Navy reacts to the LCS ballooning problems in the acquisition field will determine how seriously its military and civilian chiefs take their responsibilities.


Story history
-- on Sept 9, edited for clarity the paragraph on DDG-51 costs.


(ends)



Navy Adjusts LCS Class Crewing, Readiness, and Employment

(Source: U.S Navy; issued Sept 8, 2016)

SAN DIEGO --- The Navy announced today it will implement several key changes to the projected 28-ship Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Flight 0/0+ class over the next five years that will simplify crewing, stabilize testing, and increase overseas deployment presence availability.

The projected 12 Frigates will be the next increment of LCS and will use the same manning, training, maintenance and operating concepts as those that have been approved as part of the LCS review.

The decision to make these changes resulted from a comprehensive review of LCS crewing, training, maintenance, and operations commissioned in March.

While a total of 40 ships have been approved for the program, the Navy Force Structure Assessment still projects the need for 52 small surface combatants that LCS and Frigate address.

Beginning this fall, the Navy will start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews will also merge, train, and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area - either surface warfare (SUW), mine warfare (MCM), or anti-submarine warfare (ASW).

Though organized this way, the LCS class will retain the technological benefits of modularity and the ability to swap mission packages quickly if needed. Aviation detachments will also deploy with the same LCS crew, but will remain assigned to their respective squadrons when in home port.

To facilitate these changes across the class, the Navy will eventually homeport Independence-variant ships in San Diego and Freedom-variant ships in Mayport, Fla. 24 of the 28 LCS ships will form into six divisions with three divisions on each coast. Each division will have a single warfare focus and the crews and mission module detachments will be fused.

Each division will consist of three Blue/Gold-crewed ships that deploy overseas and one single-crewed training ship. Under this construct, each division's training ship will remain available locally to certify crews preparing to deploy. Few homeport shifts will be needed since only six LCS are currently commissioned while the rest are under contract, in construction, or in a pre-commissioned unit status.

The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships.

Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis; however, their primary purpose will be to satisfy near and long term testing requirements for the entire LCS class without affecting ongoing deployment rotations. This approach accommodates spiral development and rapid deployment of emerging weapons and delivery systems to the fleet without disrupting operational schedules.

Implementing these changes now and as more LCS ships are commissioned over the coming years will ultimately allow the Navy to deploy more ships, increasing overall forward presence. With the Blue/Gold model in place, three out of four ships will be available for deployment compared with one out of two under 3:2:1. The Blue/Gold model will also simplify ownership of maintenance responsibilities and enhance continuity as the same two crews rotate on a single ship. Single-crewed training ships will complement shore-based training facilities and ensure crews have enough time at sea before deployment. The findings and recommendations of the LCS review will allow the LCS program to become more survivable, lethal, and adaptable as the LCS become regular workhorses in the fleet.

"As we implement these changes, we will continue to make iterative adjustments and improvements based on evolving fleet requirements and technological developments," said Vice Adm. Tom Rowden, commander, Naval Surface Forces. "Implementing the approved recommendations from this review and continuing to examine other areas for improvement will better position the LCS program for success - both now and in the future."

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/176873/us-navy-drops-lcs-plans%2C-concept-after-latest-failures.html
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4966
  • Recebeu: 111 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +28/-32
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #391 em: Setembro 20, 2016, 09:40:59 pm »

USS Rentz (FFG 46) a Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate, commissioned in 1984, sank in an exercise off Guam after sustaining 22 "Hellfire" missile hits fired from helicopters of the US Navy Sea Combat Squadron 12
 

*

nelson38899

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 5353
  • Recebeu: 729 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 732 vez(es)
  • +509/-2608
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #392 em: Setembro 25, 2016, 11:05:12 pm »
"Que todo o mundo seja «Portugal», isto é, que no mundo toda a gente se comporte como têm comportado os portugueses na história"
Agostinho da Silva
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18283
  • Recebeu: 5530 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5942 vez(es)
  • +7158/-9536
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #393 em: Outubro 09, 2016, 04:00:13 pm »
Newest US aircraft carrier to miss another delivery deadline



The most expensive ship the U.S. Navy has ever built is once again bound to miss a delivery deadline.

USS Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship of a next generation of U.S. aircraft carriers, was scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in 2014, but the deadline kept being pushed back.

The latest delivery was scheduled for November this year, but according to a report by the Virginian Pilot, the delivery was delayed again and the Navy did not set a new one.

Defense News reported in September this year that voltage regulator problems on the carrier’s four main turbine generators (MTGs) resulted in an electrical explosion in one of the turbines in June with another, smaller, explosion taking place in July.

“We continue to look for opportunities to get Gerald R. Ford to sea as soon as possible. The Navy is evaluating the most cost-effective and efficient schedule to complete sea trials and ship delivery,” Navy spokesman Capt. Thurraya Kent was quoted as saying by the Virginian Pilot.

Earlier delays were caused by the carrier’s advanced arresting gear system which was, according to Senator John McCain $600 million over budget. Back in 2015, Ford faced a potential two-year delay which could have been caused by shock trial tests which were requested by Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation.

With a price tag of $12.9 billion, USS Gerald R. Ford is the most expensive ship in the Navy’s fleet. The $10.5 billion estimate from 2007 rose by 23 percent.

Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) was ordered from Newport News Shipbuilding, a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries, on Sept. 10, 2008. With this new class of ships the U.S. Navy hoped to save $4 billion in total ownership costs during each ship’s 50-year service life, compared to the Nimitz-class.

The 1,100 foot (335 meter) ship displaces 100,000 tonnes and is designed to operate effectively with nearly 700 fewer crew members than a CVN 68-class ship. Improvements in the ship design will, according to the Navy, allow the embarked air wing to operate with approximately 400 fewer personnel.

https://navaltoday.com/2016/10/07/newest-us-aircraft-carrier-to-miss-another-delivery-deadline/
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

NVF

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 5381
  • Recebeu: 4020 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 10019 vez(es)
  • +8453/-245
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #394 em: Outubro 11, 2016, 09:48:50 pm »
USS Mason Fired 3 Missiles to Defend From Yemen Cruise Missiles Attack

https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack

Citar
The crew of a guided-missile destroyer fired three missiles to defend themselves and another ship after being attacked on Sunday in the Red Sea by two presumed cruise missiles fired by Iran-backed Houthi-forces, USNI News has learned.

During the attack against USS Mason (DDG-87), the ship’s crew fired the missiles to defend the guided-missile destroyer and nearby USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15) from two suspected cruise missiles fired from the Yemini shore, two defense officials told USNI News.

Mason launched two Standard Missile-2s (SM-2s) and a single Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) to intercept the two missiles that were launched about 7 P.M. local time. In addition to the missiles, the ship used its Nulka anti-ship missile decoy, the sources confirmed. Mason was operating in international waters north of the strait of Bab el-Mandeb at the time of the attack.

According to a defense official on Monday, Mason “employed onboard defensive measures” against the first suspected cruise missile, “although it is unclear whether this led to the missile striking the water or whether it would have struck the water anyway.” The official did not specify that the defensive measure was a missile fired from the ship.

USNI News understands, as of Monday, the crew of the ship was uncertain if the suspected cruise missile was taken out by an SM-2 or went into the water on its own. In the Monday statement, the Pentagon said an investigation was ongoing.

The second missile launched from Yemen hit the water without being struck by a U.S. interceptor.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis would not confirm Mason launched missiles to USNI News on Monday. On Tuesday, Davis told reporters the missiles coming from Yemen might have been intended to strike Ponce and that the U.S. “will take action accordingly,” in response to the findings of the ongoing investigation.

While the Pentagon will not confirm details of Mason’s engagement, the use of both missiles by the U.S. is, “very significant,” Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and former aide to retired former-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, told USNI News on Monday.

“It might be the first time the SM-2 used against an actual threat for which it was designed,” Clark said.
“It’s definitely the first time ESSM has been used… This is obviously a huge deal.”

The SM-2s – more than two decades old – were specifically designed to tackle Cold War cruise missile threats to a guided-missile destroyer, much like the ones Iran has presumably given to the Houthis in Yemen.

Last week a Houthi-launched cruise missile caused significant damage to the UAE-leased HSV Swift – an unarmed aluminum high-speed transport vessel used to move supplies and wounded in the region, UAE officials said. UAE is part of a Saudi Arabia led coalition that has fought against the Iran backed Shi’a Houthis in Yemen since last year.

While U.S. sources haven’t confirmed the type of missiles, open source naval analyst and retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson told USNI News on Monday the damage on Swift appears to be from the warhead used in a Chinese-built C-802 anti-ship missile (NATO reporting name CSS-N-8 Saccade). The C-802 is based on Cold War-era French technology.

Specifically, the damage on Swift indicates the missile had an explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warhead – a well-known feature of the C-802. An EFP expands on impact launching additional pieces of shrapnel once the missile has penetrated the outer skin of a target around its circumference.

While the guidance system is largely 1990s vintage, the C-802 carries a, “very damaging warhead,” Carlson said.

The attacks on Mason and Ponce follow an airstrike that killed more than 140 people and injured more than 500 during a funeral in Yemen. The Saudi-led bombing has prompted a review of U.S. support of the conflict fought between the collation and the Houthis since last year, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Prior to the Saudi strike, Houthi rebels have told Saudi Arabia and its allies — via Iranian state media — to stay out of Yemen, “territorial waters.”

Davis told reporters on Tuesday, there’s no short-term anticipated change in U.S. posture in the region.


USS Mason (DDG-87) fires an SM-2 during a March 2016 exercise. US Navy Image


Afloat Forward Staging Base (Interim) USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15) on April 11, 2016. US Navy Photo


Analysis of damage on HSV Swift by retired US Navy Capt. Chris Carlson. Used with permission


EFP warhead blast pattern via Chris Carlson
Talent de ne rien faire
 

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4966
  • Recebeu: 111 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +28/-32
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #395 em: Outubro 17, 2016, 11:55:50 am »

USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) commissionIng in Baltimore
 

*

Viajante

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4295
  • Recebeu: 2427 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1400 vez(es)
  • +7377/-4453
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #396 em: Outubro 17, 2016, 12:40:46 pm »

USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) commissionIng in Baltimore

Resolveram o problema da falta de energia suficiente para operar as railgun? No segundo 1:09"
 

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4966
  • Recebeu: 111 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +28/-32
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #397 em: Outubro 17, 2016, 03:41:09 pm »

USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) commissionIng in Baltimore

Resolveram o problema da falta de energia suficiente para operar as railgun? No segundo 1:09"

O que diz aquí é um bocado ambiguo:

http://futurism.com/uss-zumwalt-the-largest-ever-destroyer-has-joined-the-u-s-navy/

The largest ever destroyer just joined US Navy and it COULD fire railguns

Citar
(...) We could one day see Zumwalt class warships equipped with kinetically-charged railguns capable of launching projectiles as far as 201 km (125 miles) at Mach-6 speeds (...)

 

*

Viajante

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4295
  • Recebeu: 2427 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1400 vez(es)
  • +7377/-4453
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #398 em: Outubro 17, 2016, 04:24:23 pm »
"That’s enough energy to run the battleship and power a small town at the same time, according to the U.S. Navy. This massive font of electricity could fire the Navy’s next-gen beam weapons and railguns. We could one day see Zumwalt-class warships equipped with kinetically-charged railguns capable of launching projectiles as far as 201 km (125 miles) at Mach 6 speeds."

Quer isto dizer que ainda não tem as railgun instaladas! Presumo pelo que está escrito.
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 20262
  • Recebeu: 2991 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 2243 vez(es)
  • +1343/-3464
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #399 em: Outubro 29, 2016, 02:36:16 pm »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

perdadetempo

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 611
  • Recebeu: 234 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 457 vez(es)
  • +59/-6
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #400 em: Outubro 29, 2016, 03:44:56 pm »
Citar
Quer isto dizer que ainda não tem as railgun instaladas! Presumo pelo que está escrito.

O destroyer está equipado com dois canhões de 155mm fabricados pela BAE

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/advanced-gun-system-ags

Também aparece aqui uma imagem e a comparação com os modelos de artilharia naval actuais

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.pt/2013/07/a-new-golden-era-for-naval-guns.html

Cumprimentos
 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: NVF

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4966
  • Recebeu: 111 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +28/-32
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #401 em: Outubro 30, 2016, 09:43:21 pm »

USS "Illinois" (SSN 786) joins the US Navy
 

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 21045
  • Recebeu: 2511 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 257 vez(es)
  • +1163/-1487
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #402 em: Novembro 01, 2016, 12:17:18 pm »
US Navy Using Best Weapons: Missiles, Bombs, Naval Guns, Explosives vs Ships


 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: HSMW

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4966
  • Recebeu: 111 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +28/-32
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #403 em: Novembro 02, 2016, 10:10:39 pm »
 

*

perdadetempo

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 611
  • Recebeu: 234 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 457 vez(es)
  • +59/-6
Re: U. S. Navy
« Responder #404 em: Novembro 07, 2016, 10:23:03 pm »
USS Zumwalt

Parece que a US Navy chegou à conclusão que os projecteis para os canhões do navio são muito caros e vai cancelar o seu fabrico  :o

Citar
Washington – Barely two weeks after the US Navy commissioned its newest and most futuristic warship, armed with two huge guns that can hit targets 80 miles away, the service is moving to cancel the projectiles for the guns, citing excessive costs that run up to $800,000 per round or more.

The Long Range Land-Attack Projectile (LRLAP) is a guided precision munition that is key to the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class’s mission as a land-attack destroyer, able to hit targets with such accuracy that, in the words of manufacturer Lockheed Martin, can “defeat targets in the urban canyons of coastal cities with minimal collateral damage.”

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

Cumprimentos,