The Mess - Military Forum Off Topic Thread!

BoJack Horseman · 09-11-2016 2:35pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The electro magnetic catapults have too high of a failure rate, and replacing them with steam ones is apparently not practical. In addition, the radar system on the Ford is not going to be pursued for the later models.

Are you talking about this or this?

sparky42 · 09-11-2016 3:10pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its a shame alright.

I presume they will instead work on accommodating some army artillery for the role instead.... it won't have the same range.... but better than the literal nothing that the alternative is.

The zumwalt baffles me.
It is so big, yet packs so little.
Then on the other side, the built-instead flight III Burke's are the opposite, trying to cram way too much into a vessel that is too small.

What is wrong with the America class?
There are only two of them & they seem a very good complement to the rest of the Wasp class.
Coupled with the San Antonio's, it makes the nowadays more aviation-centric marines rather formidable IMO

There's some issues about adapting the standard 155mm rounds to the system fitted (and the automated mags as well), and it would be "bespoke" rounds with additional costs, I wonder will they hold off and use the Zumwalts as the test beds for Rail Guns now instead.

The issue with the America class as I understand it is that the design had no well deck for amphib operations, something that's been changed in the later builds compared to the "mini carriers" of the first couple of hulls.

sparky42 · 09-11-2016 3:13pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The electro magnetic catapults have too high of a failure rate, and replacing them with steam ones is apparently not practical. In addition, the radar system on the Ford is not going to be pursued for the later models.

That's for the Ford's, the America's are the US Marines new hulls. Different issues.

Yeah the E-Cat's have issues, and of course it's not feasible to replace them, unless they designed in the steam pipes to the Cat's as a fall back (with all the costs involved) they'd have to do something like the Victorious Rebuild and open her up all the way to the machine level to rerun new piping and such.

The Radar system is based off the Zumwalt's isn't it? Are they going to use something derived from the Burke's for the follow on's so?

AbusesToilets · 09-11-2016 4:02pm

sparky42 wrote: »

That's for the Ford's, the America's are the US Marines new hulls. Different issues.

Yeah the E-Cat's have issues, and of course it's not feasible to replace them, unless they designed in the steam pipes to the Cat's as a fall back (with all the costs involved) they'd have to do something like the Victorious Rebuild and open her up all the way to the machine level to rerun new piping and such.

The Radar system is based off the Zumwalt's isn't it? Are they going to use something derived from the Burke's for the follow on's so?

Cheers, was mixing the two up. The Ford class is what I meant to refer to. Late night lol

BoJack Horseman · 09-11-2016 4:06pm

sparky42 wrote: »

The issue with the America class as I understand it is that the design had no well deck for amphib operations, something that's been changed in the later builds compared to the "mini carriers" of the first couple of hulls.

It isn't a problem though.... it is intentional.

It seems that the class will be 11 vessels (9 tailoured for amphib + 2 tailoured for aviation) that will replace the 9 Wasp class vessels.

So, the 2 x aviation-centric vessels will complement the Wasp class while they remain in commission.

I think it is a great idea and will reduce stress on the big CVNs.
Though they were pretty pricey..... not a million miles away from the cost of a Queen Liz!

sparky42 · 09-11-2016 4:24pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It isn't a problem though.... it is intentional.

It seems that the class will be 11 vessels (9 tailoured for amphib + 2 tailoured for aviation) that will replace the 9 Wasp class vessels.

So, the 2 x aviation-centric vessels will complement the Wasp class while they remain in commission.

I think it is a great idea and will reduce stress on the big CVNs.
Though they were pretty pricey..... not a million miles away from the cost of a Queen Liz!

Yeah it was intentional, but ALL of the 11 were going to be Aviation centric, leaving only the San Antonio as Amphibs, which was seen as too much of a loss of capability compared to the Wasps (and remember how many hulls were amalgamated into the San Antonio's themselves).

Also remember what you think is a good idea is one of the GREAT fears of the Carrier Admirals and their backers in Congress, that "mini's" will do some of the CVN jobs, leading then to the question of "do we need X CVN hulls", hence one of the reasons why the Marine hulls don't have Ski jumps.

BoJack Horseman · 09-11-2016 6:15pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah it was intentional, but ALL of the 11 were going to be Aviation centric, leaving only the San Antonio as Amphibs, which was seen as too much of a loss of capability compared to the Wasps (and remember how many hulls were amalgamated into the San Antonio's themselves).

Aah... ok... I wasn't aware that the entire class was originally intended to be sans-well-deck

Also remember what you think is a good idea is one of the GREAT fears of the Carrier Admirals and their backers in Congress, that "mini's" will do some of the CVN jobs, leading then to the question of "do we need X CVN hulls", hence one of the reasons why the Marine hulls don't have Ski jumps.

Speaking of.... shots fired!

Thus, an option to be considered is to skip the next carrier — the CVN-80 — and in its place build one LHA/LHD per year — for the same cost and for the same crew requirements. Building them at Newport News would keep the yard’s employment at current levels, while the yard’s nuclear capabilities could be retained through its submarine construction and CVN overhaul/refuelings.

Indeed, some analysts believe that if LHA/LHDs were built at the rate of one per year in place of a CVN, the multi-ship component orders could reduce costs so that six LHA/LHDs could be constructed for the cost of one CVN. Each of these ships could accommodate about 20 F-35B Lightnings plus a dozen or more helicopters — for anti-submarine warfare and other roles.

sparky42 · 09-11-2016 6:51pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Aah... ok... I wasn't aware that the entire class was originally intended to be sans-well-deck

Yeah it was considered buy some to be too much of a change for "Marine Operations"

Speaking of.... shots fired!

Yep, and there's also some that are suggesting that the CVN's get canned and the SSN's and new SSGN's get built instead.

The idea that the yard could maintain capabilities to build CVN's if it was shifted to LHA/LHD's is a massive jump for me, just look at all the issues the UK has had (both in their SSN/BN designs and the QE hulls as well) due to skill gaps. Moreover the Nimitz are going to start hitting their Reactor end life within the next decade I think.

BoJack Horseman · 10-11-2016 5:34pm

Aviation Week podcast on what the new el-presidente means for US defence (and aviation).

Interesting discussion from a pretty good podcast....

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-what-does-trump-presidency-mean-aerospace-and-defense

BoJack Horseman · 15-11-2016 11:17pm

In the ongoing series of 'Why the Royal Navy is a hot mess'....

the RN wont have offensive missiles from 2018

sparky42 · 16-11-2016 12:16am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In the ongoing series of 'Why the Royal Navy is a hot mess'....

the RN wont have offensive missiles from 2018

Yeah that's not news, it's been fairly well known for some time now, hence why the 45's are only getting the spares off the 22's rather than new buys. And honestly I think it maybe the least worst option. The Harpoon is an old system and the RN's stocks are reaching end of life, now they could have spent the money resetting them (costly and still and old dated system), start up their own replacement program (costly and risks the RN's usual problem of a bespoke system where they carry all the costs), or wait until the USN's replacement goes into general production and buy into that.

With the budgets as they are the last one makes the most sense to me...

BoJack Horseman · 16-11-2016 1:11am

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah that's not news, it's been fairly well known for some time now, hence why the 45's are only getting the spares off the 22's rather than new buys. And honestly I think it maybe the least worst option. The Harpoon is an old system and the RN's stocks are reaching end of life, now they could have spent the money resetting them (costly and still and old dated system), start up their own replacement program (costly and risks the RN's usual problem of a bespoke system where they carry all the costs), or wait until the USN's replacement goes into general production and buy into that.

There won't be a US replacement programme for years though..... apparently 2024!

And there is no certainty that the solution, when arrived at will even be canister launched..... it seems that a VLS solution is preferred as the USN don't want to have to devote valuable deck space on the already crammed Burkes for the canisters.

Holding out for the hope that America will do the RN's job for them is foolhardy, especially when it seems quite possible that won't happen.

The Harpoon is still in production & the Block-II+ER looks pretty good.
Personally I see no benefit in gelding themselves in this fashion.
Moscow must be chortling at the idea of a navy that can't sink ships.

sparky42 · 16-11-2016 1:34am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There won't be a US replacement programme for years though..... apparently 2024!

And there is no certainty that the solution, when arrived at will even be canister launched..... it seems that a VLS solution is preferred as the USN don't want to have to devote valuable deck space on the already crammed Burkes for the canisters.

Holding out for the hope that America will do the RN's job for them is foolhardy, especially when it seems quite possible that won't happen.

The Harpoon is still in production & the Block-II+ER looks pretty good.
Personally I see no benefit in gelding themselves in this fashion.
Moscow must be chortling at the idea of a navy that can't sink ships.

The RN's view is that the SSN's will be the ones doing the sinking of surface ships (and Moscow isn't exactly in a state to start a Naval surface war and Vlad knows it).

In terms of decisions, I know there was a suggestion of a joint UK/French ASM (Persus I think) but again that's money for limited number of systems (right now the RN will have what max of 14 full up warships) so high costs to develop and introduce (again just look at the cost of moving to the 5" on the 26 for the first 3 and a test rig and that's not even "new" tech) even if the MOD had started such a program when they started the joint light ASM project you'd still most likely being looking at post 2024 and not much change out of a billion before the first units were in service (my opinion anyway).

As to the new Harpoon, has it actually got a contract for development and deployment? As far as I know the only ASM on a LCS is just a bolt on kit with no development costs. So what have the RN fund that development while the USN introduces a next gen replacement? The LRSAM will be significantly more capable than the Harpoon (3 times the warhead, nearly 4 times the range) and since it's spec'd for the 35, could fit in with giving the RN even more Anti Ship missiles without having to deal with the fact that the 35 isn't designed for the Harpoon. Also the 26 was floated with the idea of mk41 tubes so might solve that issue as well (as the Australian design entry will need to be fitted with them)

It's a gap, no question and most likely brought on by budgets, but it's a bit of a joke to be worried about ASM's when have the debacle of the 26 program causing far more damage to the RN.

Jawgap · 24-11-2016 7:43pm

Sub portrayed in 'Hunt for Red October' ends last deployment

Big D will fly no more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MehBu5crI2s

BoJack Horseman · 26-11-2016 9:06pm

So, apparently Russia's SU-33s are actually not bothering to operate from 'The Kutz'.... preferring dry land instead.

sparky42 · 26-11-2016 11:12pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, apparently Russia's SU-33s are actually not bothering to operate from 'The Kutz'.... preferring dry land instead.

Given the reduction in payload that operating off the Carrier it's not really surprising.

AbusesToilets · 27-11-2016 1:34am

Maybe all that smoke is bad for their intakes.

BoJack Horseman · 04-12-2016 11:10am

An interesting concept being experimented with.
Equipping every weapon in an entire Marine battalion with suppressors/silencers.

In a series of experiments this year, units from 2nd Marine Division will be silencing every element of an infantry battalion -- from M4 rifles to .50 caliber machine guns.

The commanding general of 2nd Marine Division, Maj. Gen. John Love, described these plans during a speech to Marines at the Marine Corps Association Ground Dinner this month near Washington, D.C.

The proof-of-concept tests, he said, included Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, which began an Integrated Training Exercise pre-deployment last month at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms.

"What we've found so far is it revolutionizes the way we fight," Love told Military.com. "It used to be a squad would be dispersed out over maybe 100 yards, so the squad leader couldn't really communicate with the members at the far end because of all the noise of the weapons. Now they can actually just communicate, and be able to command and control and effectively direct those fires."

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade, the division's gunner, or infantry weapons officer, said the Lima companies in two other battalions -- 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, and 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines -- now had silencers, or suppressors, on all their rifles, including the M27 infantry automatic rifles. All units are set to deploy in coming months. The combat engineer platoons that are attached to these units and will deploy with them will also carry suppressed weapons, he said.

Suppressors work by slowing the escape of propellant gases when a gun is fired, which drastically reduces the sound signature. Used by scout snipers and special operations troops to preserve their stealth, the devices are also valuable for their ability to minimize the chaos of battle, enabling not only better communication but also improved situational awareness and accuracy.

"It increases their ability to command and control, to coordinate with each other," Wade told Military.com. "They shoot better, because they can focus more, and they get more discipline with their fire."

The noise of gunfire can create an artificial stimulus that gives the illusion of effectiveness, he said. When it's taken away, he explained, Marines pay more attention to their shooting and its effect on target.

"They've got to get up and look, see what effect they're having on the enemy because you can't hear it," he said.

He added that suppressors were already in common use by near-peer militaries, including those of Russia and China.

Wade said he is working on putting suppressors on the Marines' M249 light machine gun and M240G medium machine gun, using equipment from Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command. The third and final objective will be the suppression of the .50 caliber heavy machine gun, he said.

As the units conduct training and exercises with suppressors, 2nd Marine Division is collaborating with the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab to collect and aggregate data. Weapons with suppressors require additional maintenance and cleaning to prevent fouling, and the cost, nearly $700,000 to outfit an infantry battalion, might give planners pause.

But Wade said he will continue to gather data for the next year-and-a-half, following the units as they deploy. And he expects the idea to have gained significant traction among Marine Corps leadership by then, he said.

"When I show how much overmatch we gain … it will have sold itself," he said.

Interesting stuff, am I right in saying though that the suppressors will impede weapon range and accuracy because it slows down the velocity of the bullet?

tac foley · 04-12-2016 7:21pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I right in saying though that the suppressors will impede weapon range and accuracy because it slows down the velocity of the bullet?

Nossir, you are not right. Old-style moderators actually 'wiped' the bullet as it passed through the baffles, rather like a person walking through the cold-store rubber doors in a supermarket. Modern moderators do not use the same principle, and often INCREASE the velocity of the bullet rather than impede it.

Please read this - http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/05/foghorn/ask-foghorn-does-a-silencer-effect-the-velocity-of-the-bullet/

tac

AbusesToilets · 04-12-2016 9:03pm

Of course that goes against one of the prime principles of combat, that loud noises win gunfights.

tac foley · 04-12-2016 9:16pm

Works for the gunners......

tac

BoJack Horseman · 05-12-2016 11:09pm

Looks like another one of the "Kutz's" jets has crashed into the sea..... this time one of the SU-33's

arrester cable snapping seems the cause again.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6340/another-russian-jet-crashed-into-the-med-while-landing-on-carrier

sparky42 · 05-12-2016 11:26pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Looks like another one of the "Kutz's" jets has crashed into the sea..... this time one of the SU-33's

arrester cable snapping seems the cause again.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6340/another-russian-jet-crashed-into-the-med-while-landing-on-carrier

Not really surprising tbh.

tac foley · 06-12-2016 6:56pm

whoops.

Hope the driver is OK.

tac

gallag · 07-12-2016 10:35pm

It's always going to happen, modern gen fast jets are so on the edge of what is possible, be that Russian su's off old smokey or when the F-35 does the inevitable no rope bungee of the ski ramp off HMS Queen Elizabeth etc It doesn't mean the respective military is poor, it's just they are dancing on the edge every time they fly.

BoJack Horseman · 17-01-2017 11:21am

If I knew maths I might understand better..... but very interesting nonetheless.

One can see why so many nations are busting nuts to move to low-observability.

Stovepipe · 26-01-2017 2:14pm

looking at that picture, they are in a warzone and the jets are parked wingtip to wingtip...

BoJack Horseman · 30-01-2017 10:05pm

Iranians/Houthis nail another vessel off the Yemen coast.

This time a Saudi Al Madina frigate.... occurred yesterday.

(no matter what they hit these lads always follow up with a 'death to America... death to Israel'

This Saudi frigate is for ASuW & ASW and has no missile defence capability.

sparky42 · 30-01-2017 10:25pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Iranians/Houthis nail another vessel off the Yemen coast.

This time a Saudi Al Madina frigate.... occurred yesterday.

(no matter what they hit these lads always follow up with a 'death to America... death to Israel'

This Saudi frigate is for ASuW & ASW and has no missile defence capability.

Wonder what they hit her with this time? Don't think it was enough to sink her...

BoJack Horseman · 30-01-2017 10:35pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Wonder what they hit her with this time? Don't think it was enough to sink her...

The guess online is another of those Iranian silkworm knockoffs..... which I suppose is as good a guess as any.

The Mess - Military Forum Off Topic Thread!

Comments