Military Tech / Science

[Arcanis]

The US Navy's Littoral Combat Ships are going into action with known, serious flaws:

In less than two months... USS Freedom ...

.... the Freedom and its sister ship, the differently-designed USS Independence.....

I suppose I'm okay with the name Independence (actually it's pretty cool), but the Freedom?

Reminds me of Freedom Fries after 9/11

Whatever happened to the Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise, Lexington? I know they were carriers, and I'm not even sure there aren't ships currently with some of those names, but Freedom just sounds wimpy for a combat ship.

Armagedon (I know it is misspelled but my phone doesn't like typing from the middle of nowhere) reference? The 2 ships in the movie had the same names.

[Daehawk]

Whats with the crappy little Bushmaster guns on these ships these days? Used to be they all had some type of large caliber weapons on them. Now they have a single small cannon. they wouldn't appear to be able to defend themselves never mind mount and attack.

[LawBeefaroni]

Whats with the crappy little Bushmaster guns on these ships these days? Used to be they all had some type of large caliber weapons on them. Now they have a single small cannon. they wouldn't appear to be able to defend themselves never mind mount and attack.

They're built to be stealthy and modular. They are designed to fight asymetrical threats relatively close to land, not Kilo subs or Chinese battle groups in the open oceans.


They start with a turret mounted, computer targeted 57mm cannon


a handful of .50 cal machine guns


the aforementioned "crappy little Bushmaster guns"


20 SAMS


A Seahawk


A Firescout


And then whatever else the mission calls for. Maybe cruise missiles, Marines, a fleet of UAVs, etc.


I think they can hold their own as far as armament goes. That's not their problem.

[Bakhtosh]

Remember, big guns are only good if you can hit the target, and have enough ammo to finish the job. Both requirements get less certain as the bore size goes up.

[Kasey Chang]

Whats with the crappy little Bushmaster guns on these ships these days? Used to be they all had some type of large caliber weapons on them. Now they have a single small cannon. they wouldn't appear to be able to defend themselves never mind mount and attack.

You can't engage a tiny little Boghammer boat with a Harpoon ASM.

And you'd be surprised how many rounds the Bushmaster kicks out, esp. the big version. That thing fires almost as fast as a 50 cal. Add laser fuses , timed fuses, explosve rounds, shrapnel rounds, and gas rounds, and it's effective against all sorts of threats. AND it can be fed with an autoloader.

[Grifman]

Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the US Navy's newest stealth destroyer. Pretty cool, looks like something out of science fiction, and pretty expensive too.

And it's a bit of a misnomer calling it a "destroyer", IMO. It's longer than the battleship USS Arizona and at 14,000 tons, it's much larger than any previous destroyer, in fact it's larger than a World War 2 heavy cruiser! Cool looking ship though!

More info here:

http://www.jeffhead.com/usn21/ddg1000.htm" target="_blank

[LawBeefaroni]

Speaking of carrier escort (to be filed under Britannia Rules Ruled the Waves)...

A NEW Royal Navy ­frigate that is already more than a decade late will be out of date when it ­finally enters service.

Codenamed Global Combat Ships, the frigates will cost £300million each and act as the main escort for the Navy’s new aircraft super carriers.

Fitted with ­vertical-launch missiles, they will be able to sail 7,000 miles without stopping.

But despite the MoD awarding a £127million design contract to BAE Systems, defence secretary Philip Hammond has said he will not announce any Type 26 ­orders before December 2014 – ­after the ­Scottish devolution vote.

...

The hold-up means that even if a new ship is built every year from 2015 the fleet may not be ­operational before the mid 2030s. And the new Sea Ceptor missile system, designed for the Type 26, will have to be fitted to the old Type 23s instead, some of which will be kept on for 40 years.

Senior naval officers say the project risks being out of date before the ­ships are launched, as weapons systems and command and control units are updated every few years.

Also, "Codenamed Global Combat Ships..." What's the freaking point of a codename if the codename is actual name of what you're building?

[Kraken]

Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the US Navy's newest stealth destroyer. Pretty cool, looks like something out of science fiction, and pretty expensive too.

It looks like a Civil War-era vision of the future of ironclads.

[Daehawk]

Kinda looks like a sub that doesn't dive...or a backwards designed ship. Like those fighter jets with the backward wings.

[Kasey Chang]

Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the US Navy's newest stealth destroyer. Pretty cool, looks like something out of science fiction, and pretty expensive too.

It looks like a Civil War-era vision of the future of ironclads.

Who'd knew that "stealth" would come to this?

Personally that' thing's a little too big. IMHO. I'm more in favor of something a wee bit smaller, like Littoral combat ships. Give them a couple AI controlled boats must like drones, but for water, but also airborne drones, and that things can dominate an area that used to take a whole carrier group.

I think the Israelis already have those waterborne drones. It was on Future Weapons.

But I'll take what I have.

[Kasey Chang]

Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the US Navy's newest stealth destroyer. Pretty cool, looks like something out of science fiction, and pretty expensive too.

What nobody has mentioned thus far... Who's the captain of this beautiful ship?

Captain James Kirk!

(No, I was NOT kidding)

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg10 ... nKaXPmsjpk" target="_blank

[Daehawk]

Ahead knot factor 20

[LawBeefaroni]

Personally that' thing's a little too big. IMHO. I'm more in favor of something a wee bit smaller, like Littoral combat ships. Give them a couple AI controlled boats must like drones, but for water, but also airborne drones, and that things can dominate an area that used to take a whole carrier group.

I think the Israelis already have those waterborne drones. It was on Future Weapons.

But I'll take what I have.

Littoral combat ships, as their name implies, aren't suited for deep open waters like the Zumwalt. You can't have small ships like LCSs operating in open seas.

[Kasey Chang]

The littorals are designed for shallow water ops for shallow draft and close-ashore ops, but there's nothing preventing them from operating in deeper waters other than suitable roles based on equipment.

[LawBeefaroni]

The littorals are designed for shallow water ops for shallow draft and close-ashore ops, but there's nothing preventing them from operating in deeper waters other than suitable roles based on equipment.

Actually there's a lot preventing them from operating in the open ocean, where they're more likely to be facing robust naval opponents.

Besides their shorter range, they just aren't big enough to replace all the roles of larger ships. LCSs have displacements around 3,000t. The Zumwalt has displacement around 14,000t. LCSs weren't designed to replace destoyers or entire carrier groups as you propose. Modular deployment design means they can do everything, but not all at once. Not yet.

They can dominate shores against pirates and small navies. They can't slug it out against carriers and destoyers. Even the Pentagon agrees.

[Rip]

Agree, it really takes a balance. You want some specialized role players, they give you the most effectiveness in that role for the dollar, you also want some multi role assets that can be adapted to different roles over a short mobilization/redeployment period (few weeks, couple months at most), and then you want some universal assets. Things that can be useful irregardless of the mission. These are usually your capital assets. Carriers, battle wagons, heavy cruisers, and big ass destroyers like this one which is really a cruiser in everything but name.

[Grifman]

Personally that' thing's a little too big. IMHO. I'm more in favor of something a wee bit smaller, like Littoral combat ships. Give them a couple AI controlled boats must like drones, but for water, but also airborne drones, and that things can dominate an area that used to take a whole carrier group.

Haha, no way a 3000 ton ship (or a group of them) is going to displace a carrier group. That makes no sense whatsoever. This is a lot more than "wee bit" smaller, you're talking about a 3000 ton ship vs. the stealth destroyer's 14,000 tons. LCS are modular and can be tasked for specialized missions but no way can they displace the all around capability of a regular warship, much less the Zumwalt or a carrier group.

[Kraken]

battle wagons, heavy cruisers, and big ass destroyers like this one which is really a cruiser in everything but name.

Are those categories still meaningful? I thought the distinctions had petered out after WW2.

[Rip]

battle wagons, heavy cruisers, and big ass destroyers like this one which is really a cruiser in everything but name.

Are those categories still meaningful? I thought the distinctions had petered out after WW2.

Kind of which is why I threw modern large DDs in the and we don't do BBs any more. It is much more complicated now, but at the same time more versatile.

[Kasey Chang]

Personally that' thing's a little too big. IMHO. I'm more in favor of something a wee bit smaller, like Littoral combat ships. Give them a couple AI controlled boats must like drones, but for water, but also airborne drones, and that things can dominate an area that used to take a whole carrier group.

Haha, no way a 3000 ton ship (or a group of them) is going to displace a carrier group. That makes no sense whatsoever. This is a lot more than "wee bit" smaller, you're talking about a 3000 ton ship vs. the stealth destroyer's 14,000 tons. LCS are modular and can be tasked for specialized missions but no way can they displace the all around capability of a regular warship, much less the Zumwalt or a carrier group.

With enough drones (both maritime and airborne) it can do a lot of things a carrier group does... project power at a MUCH lower cost and potential casualties.

Not fully replace a CVBG, of course. But it used to be a CVBG, or a couple destroyers/frigates (with Tomahawks), or nothing. A Zumwalt or a Zumwalt / LCS task force with enough drones or VTOL F-35 can do some serious recon and/or strike missions without a full CVBG on the scene. US only has how many CVBG now?

[LawBeefaroni]

Personally that' thing's a little too big. IMHO. I'm more in favor of something a wee bit smaller, like Littoral combat ships. Give them a couple AI controlled boats must like drones, but for water, but also airborne drones, and that things can dominate an area that used to take a whole carrier group.

Haha, no way a 3000 ton ship (or a group of them) is going to displace a carrier group. That makes no sense whatsoever. This is a lot more than "wee bit" smaller, you're talking about a 3000 ton ship vs. the stealth destroyer's 14,000 tons. LCS are modular and can be tasked for specialized missions but no way can they displace the all around capability of a regular warship, much less the Zumwalt or a carrier group.

With enough drones (both maritime and airborne) it can do a lot of things a carrier group does... project power at a MUCH lower cost and potential casualties.

Not fully replace a CVBG, of course. But it used to be a CVBG, or a couple destroyers/frigates (with Tomahawks), or nothing. A Zumwalt or a Zumwalt / LCS task force with enough drones or VTOL F-35 can do some serious recon and/or strike missions without a full CVBG on the scene. US only has how many CVBG now?

Until we have fully autonomous drones, an LCS just can't carry enough equipment to support a drone fleet (let alone carry the drones themselves) large enough to replace a carrier battle group. What you're talking about is a decade off at least.

Current LCSs are simply not designed for that role, even in support of a Zumwalt class.

From a logistical standpoint, to even cruise with a Zumwalt they'd probably need a tanker to extend their range. The tanker would probably require additional support, which would require additional logistical support. And suddenly you're right back to a full battle group.

[Holman]

Are carrier-launched drones worth the expense of the carrier? Drones are all about range and endurance (they can stay up for days), and one effect of having U.S. bases all over the world is that nowhere is beyond our radius.

[LawBeefaroni]

Are carrier-launched drones worth the expense of the carrier? Drones are all about range and endurance (they can stay up for days), and one effect of having U.S. bases all over the world is that nowhere is beyond our radius.

It depends on the role. So some have to be "mothership" based. They can't be sent up and fly for days. A hypothetical anti-ship or anti-sub drone is different than a Global Hawk. The Fire Scout carried on the USS Freedom has a range of 125 miles. Proposed anti-ship swarms are made up of cheaper short-range drones that by necessity need to be launched relatively close to their targets.

[Isgrimnur]

I will bring up yet again that there is no current, nor near-term capability of deploying air superiority drones on a permanent basis.

[Kasey Chang]

There are no air superiority drones, period, unless you believe Dale Brown technothriller's "Flighthawks".

My point is just the IDEA of Zumwalt or LCS with a couple drones, even as simple as Firehawks, is going to give people pause about what's the "real" range of American naval power. Don't see a ship on the horizon? Doesn't mean anything any more. Woe be the pirate who try some **** within 100 miles (beyond curvature of the earth) of a LCS or Zumwalt.

Of course they won't replace a full CVBG... But CV is one of the most expensive things to run per mile on earth (I'm sure it's beaten out only by Top Fuel dragster) it's also a huge f***ing target.

--

Didn't they turn the Kiowa Warrior into an unmanned drone? That should fit on a Zumwalt just fine. Thought I saw that on Future Weapons.

[Isgrimnur]

Bring on the SR-72.

The new SR-72 will use a turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) that will employ the turbine engine at lower speeds, and use a scramjet at higher speeds. A scramjet engine is designed to operate at hypersonic velocities by compressing the air through a carefully designed inlet, but needs to be traveling supersonic before it is practical to begin with. So far research projects from NASA, the Air Force and other Pentagon entities have not been able to solve the problem of transitioning from the subsonic flight regime, through hypersonic flight with a single aircraft.
...
The aerospace company says it may have a scaled demonstrator of the SR-72 technology flying by 2023. That airplane would be smaller, about the size of the current F-22 fighter and would be optionally piloted. The SR-72 could enter service by 2030.

[Matrix]

Side note, It seems everyone is big fan of war tools, to those who like this stuff, i highly suggest Destroyer man series. Written by weapon historian and balistic pro, its one of the best war/historic fictions i have read in long time. It also has alternative universe spin to it, that's really cool. Found it by accidentally seeing review of it in War history magazine in early october. On 4th book now.

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Storm-Destro ... men+series" target="_blank


Back to the topic.

[Bakhtosh]

I know it's not new technology, but it's effin cool.

[LawBeefaroni]

There are no air superiority drones, period, unless you believe Dale Brown technothriller's "Flighthawks".

My point is just the IDEA of Zumwalt or LCS with a couple drones, even as simple as Firehawks, is going to give people pause about what's the "real" range of American naval power. Don't see a ship on the horizon? Doesn't mean anything any more. Woe be the pirate who try some **** within 100 miles (beyond curvature of the earth) of a LCS or Zumwalt.

Of course they won't replace a full CVBG... But CV is one of the most expensive things to run per mile on earth (I'm sure it's beaten out only by Top Fuel dragster) it's also a huge f***ing target.

--

But you don't need a CVBG to combat pirates in the first place. LCSs can handle that role just fine without a Zumwalt. In fact, that's one of the roles they're designed for. The surface warfare mission package doesn't need help strike fear in the hearts of pirates.



Carrier battle groups -> China, Russia, etc.
LCS -> Smaller sovereign navies, Somali pirates, etc.

[Holman]

The USN has just christened the U.S.S. Gerald R Ford, first of a new class of nuclear aircraft carriers intended to replace the old Nimitz class. This is the first new CVN design in four decades. Construction of the next (also Ford-class) USS John F Kennedy is also underway.

The carrier will be capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, MH-60R / S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles and unmanned combat air vehicles.

The requirement for a higher sortie rate at 160 sorties a day with surges to a maximum of 220 sorties a day in times of crisis and intense air warfare activity, has led to design changes in the flight deck.

[Daehawk]

Love the name of the next one!...Need to look them up and see if they are bigger or just more advanced. Im thinking they are bigger.

[Daehawk]

Side note, It seems everyone is big fan of war tools, to those who like this stuff, i highly suggest Destroyer man series. Written by weapon historian and balistic pro, its one of the best war/historic fictions i have read in long time. It also has alternative universe spin to it, that's really cool. Found it by accidentally seeing review of it in War history magazine in early october. On 4th book now.

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Storm-Destro ... men+series" target="_blank


Back to the topic.

Holy crap....that makes me wish I still read. Looking at the synopsis of a few of those they sound like amazing stories. I loved the movie The Final Countdown so these are perfect to me. Damnit .

[Holman]

Love the name of the next one!...Need to look them up and see if they are bigger or just more advanced. Im thinking they are bigger.

The Ford is about the same size as the Nimitz and carries the same number of aircraft, but it is more efficient and thoroughly modernized. It actually requires a significantly smaller crew.

Apparently many of the improvements are in design and survivability. (It's weird to think that the Nimitz is so old that it was designed on paper--no CAD of any kind in the early 1970s.)

[Arcanis]

Love the name of the next one!...Need to look them up and see if they are bigger or just more advanced. Im thinking they are bigger.

Article linked says same displacement, but 5-900 less crew. So a whole lot more advanced, not that difficult considering it is replacing the Enterprise which was commissioned over 50 years ago.

[Holman]

This is a generated image since the ship hasn't hit the water yet. What stands out is how far back the "island" superstructure is located. It's a very Star Trek looking design.

[Kasey Chang]

This is a generated image since the ship hasn't hit the water yet. What stands out is how far back the "island" superstructure is located. It's a very Star Trek looking design.

Star Trek don't have carriers. Until DS9. (Clearly, those fighters in the big battles must come from somewhere) NEVER shown on screen.

[em2nought]

Seeing as it takes about 100 US sailors to get 10 decent working guys, I pity the working guys on that crew.

[Holman]

Star Trek don't have carriers. Until DS9. (Clearly, those fighters in the big battles must come from somewhere) NEVER shown on screen.

It sounds like *somebody* never played Star Fleet Battles.

[Daehawk]

Cool video of the Truman during sea trials doing high speed turns and heeling over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KnCqcT ... A&index=54" target="_blank

[Kasey Chang]

Star Trek don't have carriers. Until DS9. (Clearly, those fighters in the big battles must come from somewhere) NEVER shown on screen.

It sounds like *somebody* never played Star Fleet Battles.

SFB ain't Star Trek. SFB is "Starfleet Universe" (based on Franz Joseph Designs blueprints, not Star Trek itself)