US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
First, the USN has moved to upgun the LCS classes farther it seems to have elected to stop new orders on the Freedom class. This may also be caused by that yard being the primary source for the new Constellation class boats on order. Up gunning them helps but it’s still a make mend solution. Primarily to gap fill in the interim.
The issue is it takes time. To tool, qualify and manufacture a new class of frigate to move from cheaper aluminum hull to steel hull qualifying it takes time. The first of the new FFG(x) starts construction this year and delivers FY26. That’s fast for the first ship of a new class. Austral’s yard is working to get steel hull qualified as well in hopes of being able to build FFG(x) as well but as is the USN has 14 more LCS orders 21 active with 4 slated to deactivate and 20 FFG(x) orders. Scrapping and build in this case won’t work because it would mean not having the same number of hulls until mid 2030s. Besides that for the China threat is mostly isolated by factors of geography. The PLAN is a one Ocean navy. With only a singular military port outside its boarders its ability to support operations beyond western pacific region is limited. This means that LCS classes still have operational capabilities for the USN who’s global tempo requirement means that these ships can serve in other AOR well allowing the FFG(x) to build up numbers and focus on the two potential peer threats.
You try to see plans and patterns where only random decisions disregards reality exist.

The USA military senior commanders haven't got long term strategy, beyond that to feed the suppliers to have carrier as wealthy business manager after the military,
 

voyager1

Senior Member
Registered Member
You try to see plans and patterns where only random decisions disregards reality exist.

The USA military senior commanders haven't got long term strategy, beyond that to feed the suppliers to have carrier as wealthy business manager after the military,
Why do you say so? The US military has plans and strategies. While they sometimes miss the mark, the plans exist 100%.

The US Navy for example has realised their mistakes with LCS and Zumwalt class ships (or thats what the USN watching community hope for..)

They are already working on the Future Large Surface Combatant (LSC) program to replace their aging Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers. It is estimated that the first future LSC around 2028.

Their new Frigate program FFG(X), the Constellation class, is also proceeding at very fast pace. The first hull will start construction later this year and the ship is expected to be completed in 2026.

Also keep in mind that the US military is now laser focused on implementing the Joint All-Domain Operations and Joint All-Domain Command & Control doctrines.

I dont know about you, but to me this shows an unprecendent focus on "near-peer competition" vs China. They clearly have new strategy, plan(s), doctrines, and new procurements to support their claim..
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Why do you say so? The US military has plans and strategies. While they sometimes miss the mark, the plans exist 100%.

The US Navy for example has realised their mistakes with LCS and Zumwalt class ships (or thats what the USN watching community hope for..)

They are already working on the Future Large Surface Combatant (LSC) program to replace their aging Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers. It is estimated that the first future LSC around 2028.

Their new Frigate program FFG(X), the Constellation class, is also proceeding at very fast pace. The first hull will start construction later this year and the ship is expected to be completed in 2026.

Also keep in mind that the US military is now laser focused on implementing the Joint All-Domain Operations and Joint All-Domain Command & Control doctrines.

I dont know about you, but to me this shows an unprecendent focus on "near-peer competition" vs China. They clearly have new strategy, plan(s), doctrines, and new procurements to support their claim..
The USA military has fundamental issues, all inefficiency built into the structure.

For the last 80 years the same type of equipment existed, only change is the incorporation of new technologies into the old, outdated force structure.

Like using laser targeting on a spear .
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
SM-6 struck a surface target from over 250 miles away. To get this much range out of the missile, I assume it had to fly a ballistic profile and impacted the target at Mach 5 or greater velocity. This would then count as a BM for the USN?

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Mk 57 can accommodate 9000 lbs cannister , the Mk41 has only 4000 lbs capacity, if I interpret the numbers correctly.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The booster for Mk57 could be 50% bigger, the with 12% bigger as well, 28" instead of 25".

Means the frontal area of the missile could be 25% bigger, critical for a ramjet.
 

Top