US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
if you were just trolling me, it would be fine (you really can't see the difference between the time in

and in

?) anyway I'm really curious about the Zumwalts, as I hope they won't have
  • ridiculously high requirements for maintenance, and/or
  • ridiculously low endurance
(one hundred years ago, a flush-decker would sail from San Diego to Hawaii without refueling, something which "soooo sophisticated" LCS can't do, my gosh ... hope Zumwalts won't be that super-smart)
Look here Dude...
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-navy-ddg-1000-zumwalt-class.t5546/page-55
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Come on Jura...you are over doing it somewhat here.

There have been two engine issues with two different LCS. But they each had sailed for further than that before it happened, and the other four commissioned vessels have sailed much further without incident...and the following six vessels which are in the water and going through trials in their build up to commission have also not exhibited the issue.

My guess it will be shown to be mostly maintenance and human error issues associated with coupling the small crew size with a fairly complex CODAG propulsion system. Those issues will be corrected and the vessels will continue on.

...and IMHO, the changes announced for the four ship flotillas focused on principle missions, and with Blue and Gold crewing are going to go a long way toward addressing a lot of the other issues.

Great post Jeff. I to am concerned about the USN LCS ships but some how or another everything aboard will work out.

Personally I feel the crew size is too small for engineering and damage control.
 
Come on Jura...
OK Jeff I'll leave it right after this:

"During operational testing,
LCS 3 did not demonstrate that it could achieve the
Navy requirement for fuel endurance (operating range)
at the prescribed transit speed or at sprint speed. Based
on fuel consumption data collected during the test, the
ship’s operating range at 14.4 knots (the ship’s average
speed during the trial) is estimated to be approximately
1,960 nautical miles ..."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and at p. 124 of Conway's 1906-1921 I see
Range 2500 nm at 20 knots for Wickes-class

(San Diego - Hawai is about 2300 nm)

so much for
(one hundred years ago, a flush-decker would sail from San Diego to Hawaii without refueling, something which "soooo sophisticated" LCS can't do, my gosh ...
... and time will tell the rest
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Personally I feel the crew size is too small for engineering and damage control.
Exactly...I agree with that.

...and feel the same about the Zumwalt.

The Zumwalt is an AMAZING vessel. Very modern, very exciting and cutting edge technology and capabilities.

...but with 130 enlisted and something like 17 officers for a 15,000 ton destroyer which is highly automated...well, that's great in fair seas and peace time. But if called to war, they have to expect battle damage, and when that happens you need enough well trained and hard thinking personnel/sailors who can innovate and take material at hand and keep the ship afloat.

IMHO, 147 is not enough for that sized and complexity of a vessel.

Saving costs with a small crew is great until you lose one in war because you do not have enough crew to do proper battle damage control.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
For range i have 4500 mn to cruise speed for Zumwalt in comparison Ticonderoga 6000 mn, AB 4400.

Good for Zumwalt ?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
OK Jeff I'll leave it right after this:

"During operational testing,
LCS 3 did not demonstrate that it could achieve the
Navy requirement for fuel endurance (operating range)
at the prescribed transit speed or at sprint speed. Based
on fuel consumption data collected during the test, the
ship’s operating range at 14.4 knots (the ship’s average
speed during the trial) is estimated to be approximately
1,960 nautical miles ..."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and at p. 124 of Conway's 1906-1921 I see
Range 2500 nm at 20 knots for Wickes-class

(San Diego - Hawai is about 2300 nm)

so much for
... and time will tell the rest
Well, this particular issue with the USS Ft. Worth, LCS-3, is different than the breakdowns of the Freedom and Coronado, and the earlier breakdown of the Ft. Worth. .

The Freedom broke down after seawater decontamination and then returned to her exercises under power of its gas turbine engines, rather than the main diesel propulsion systems, with the net result being that the vessel got rust inside the diesel engine, which apparently occurred due to human error and wasn't discovered until a later inspection.

The Ft. Woth's break down when she tried to operate her propulsion system without enough oil its combining gears, the hardware that transfers power from the ship's diesel and gas turbine engines to its water-jet propulsion system. Again, that casualty occurred due to an apparent failure to follow procedures during an operational test of the port and starboard main propulsion diesel engines.

The Coronado (LCS-4) broke down four days after leaving Hawaii (after it had already traveled from San Diego to Hawaii), and then had to make it back to Hawaii under its own power, which it did.

So, there are problems...a lot of them seem to be crew issues, which (As I said) may be linked to too small a crew having to handle too complex and engineering system and making prodedural mistakes.

The Oliver Hazard Perry, the Spruance, and the Ticonderoga class vessels all, early in their careers were subject to issues and a lot of people saying they would not amount to a good vessel. All of them went on to prove that wrong.

As you said...time will tell. But I am confidant that the issues with the Freedom and Independence will be addressed and that the NAvy and the manufacturers will come up with solutions.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


LXR-001.jpg

Pacific Sentinel said:
Huntington Ingalls Industries announced today that its Ingalls Shipbuilding division has been awarded a $13.7 million contract (with incremental funding) to perform contract design effort for the U.S. Navy’s amphibious warfare ship replacement, known as LX(R).

“Ingalls has the finest shipbuilders and engineers in the world who make it their mission to meet the needs of the men and women of the United States Navy and Marine Corps,” said Ingalls Shipbuilding President Brian Cuccias. “Pairing that with a hot production line and deep experience building San Antonio-class LPD amphibious warships, Ingalls stands ready to smoothly transition the Navy from LPD into the new technologically advanced LX(R) program.”

On June 30, Ingalls was selected to perform the majority of the contract design work for LX(R). The Department of Defense made the announcement at the same time Ingalls was awarded a contract to build the next large-deck amphibious assault warship, LHA 8.

LX(R) will replace the Navy’s Harpers Ferry- and Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships and will use the same hull as the San Antonio (LPD 17) class. Ingalls has delivered 10 of the LPD 17 ships to the Navy, is currently building the 11th, Portland (LPD 27), and has received more than $258 million in advance procurement funding for the 12th, Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28).

This will be an excellent design. it will keep Huntington Ingalls building large Amphibs, and it will help reduce costs because of economies of scale using the same hull.

There are 8 Whidbey Island and 4 Harper's Ferry LSDs to replace, so Huntington will build another 12 of these vessels.

Good looking ship. Will not be quite as air centric as the San Antonio, and probably will allow for at least two LCACs, although all the Whidbey Islands allow for four, which in turn reduces the vehicle space internal.

I expect they will stick with the Harper's Ferry capability where they reduced it to two.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I did not see it discussed here, but Donald Trump gave National Security Speech on building the US Military, and, among other things, for the US Navy he called for a 350 ship force as opposed to the current plan to get to 308.

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


USN-CSG-001.jpg

World Politicus said:
One of the more disconcerting aspects of President Barack Obama’s tenure in office has been his scaling down of the U.S. military, reducing manpower and equipment numbers to dangerously low levels that place our national security and war-fighting ability at risk.

That trend would likely be reversed under the potential future administration of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, whose campaign released several specific measures he would pursue while in office to rebuild and strengthen the U.S. military.

According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, one component of Trump’s plan to rebuild the military had shipbuilders in Alabama cheering, as their livelihoods have literally been at stake during the Obama administration.

Alabama is home to the Austal USA shipbuilding facility in Mobile, where construction of the new Littoral Combat Ship occurs. These fast vessels were designed to engage enemy ships in coastal waters and can also be used to seek out and destroy enemy submarines and explosive mines.

Despite repeated insistence from Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus that the ships are necessary, the acquisition program for the LCS has been significantly scaled back by Obama and Congress, placing not just the U.S. Navy at risk, but the jobs of nearly 4,000 Alabamians as well.

But based on a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
by the Trump campaign regarding his plans for rebuilding the military, it would appear that the LCS program will be placed back on its original path, with Mabus ultimately getting the ships he has stated he needs to effectively conduct naval operations.

“Mr. Trump will build a Navy approaching 350 surface ships and submarines, as recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Panel,” the campaign’s statement read.

Trump’s “military readiness plan” also included such items as having the military’s generals quickly devise a plan to defeat the Islamic State group.

Trump would also work to eliminate the budget sequester that has constrained the military over recent years and would restore equipment and troop levels of the various branches to previous standards before Obama’s cuts took place.

He would also look to strengthen our nation’s missile defense program, which has stagnated under Obama, and would have the military conduct a thorough review of our vulnerabilities to cyber-attack in a variety of different infrastructures, such as the power grid and communications systems.

Likely as a shot at his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton, Trump also proposed strict enforcement of the rules regarding the handling of classified materials by government officials.

This was good news for those who want a strong U.S. military to project strength and power around the globe to command respect from allies and rivals alike, a respect that has decidedly diminished over the past eight years.
This is why I say we might see more Zumwalts and other vessels and aircraft if Trump wins in November.
 
Aug 12, 2016
Wednesday at 1:53 PM

interestingly UPDATED: Leader of U.S. Sailors Captured by Iran Appeals Punishment

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
but Officer in Charge of Sailors Captured By Iran Loses Appeal, Could Face Discharge
The officer in charge of a detachment of ten sailors who were captured by Iranians in January has been issued a punitive letter of reprimand for his role in the capture of the crews of the two boats, two defense officials confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

Lt. David Nartker was accused of violating Article 92 – failure to obey an order or regulation — of the Uniformed Code Military Justice and was issued punishment by then Naval Expeditionary Combat Command commander Rear Adm. Frank Morneau last month but had appealed the decision to U.S. Pacific Fleet, one defense official told USNI News.

“A Navy officer received Admiral’s Mast and was awarded a punitive letter of reprimand for violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” Lt. Clint Ramsden with PACFLT told USNI News on Thursday.
“The NJP was appealed to U.S. Pacific Fleet. The appeal was denied based on a finding that the punishment was neither unjust nor disproportionate.”

Now the service could use the punitive letter of reprimand as a foundation to start a process that would separate him from the Navy, Rob “Butch” Bracknell, a former Marine and military lawyer told USNI News on Thursday.

“A letter of reprimand awarded at mast is a punishment under military law, which triggers a report of misconduct to be forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel. NAVPERS is the ‘show cause’ authority – that is, he can direct a local commander convene a board of inquiry to determine whether an officer should be separated from the Navy, and the officer’s characterization of service, which can be characterized as Other Than Honorable. An OTH discharge can jeopardize valuable VA benefits, including certain disability compensation, education benefits and VA home loans,” Bracknell said.
“I’d be shocked if a BOI doesn’t occur where this officer has to fight to stay in the Navy. And even if he’s allowed to stay, it will only be to the end of his obligated service. He won’t get promoted again with a report of NJP in his record. His career is over. The only questions are how soon, and what are the third order effects of his discharge characterization.”

Nartker’s letter of reprimand is the last of the accountability actions Navy leaders outlined in June following the release of a report on the failures in leadership up the chain that resulted in the capture of the two Riverine Command Boats (RCBs) by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps after the boats strayed into Iranian waters.

Prior to Nartker’s punishment, “four Navy officers went to admiral’s mast, two have been awarded a punitive letter of reprimand for violating Articles 90 (disobedience of a superior commissioned officer) and 92 (dereliction in the performance of duties) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice; one Navy officer was found not guilty of violating Article 92 (dereliction in the performance of duties) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice; and accountability actions for the fourth Navy officer have not yet been completed,” Lt. Cmdr Jennifer Cragg told USNI News last month.
“Two enlisted have been awarded a punitive letter of reprimand for violating Article 92 (dereliction in the performance of duties) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.”

In May the service relieved the riverine squadron commander, Cmdr. Eric Rasch.
Capt. Kyle Moses, commander of Task Force 56,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. An enlisted member of one of the two RCBs faced an administrative hearing but was not punished.

The Jan. 12 incident occurred during a transit of the two RCBs from Kuwait to Bahrain. The distance was much further than the boats typically operated. Shortly after starting the trip, the ships traveled off course and were lost when one of the ships broke down.

The boats were in sight of the Iran’s Farsi Island when they were surrounded by IRGC forces and the crews were captured.

Nartker said he was trying to prevent an international incident when he and his sailors were captured.

“We might have all been dead at that point in time. I didn’t want to start a war with Iran either. That was also on my mind. I didn’t want to start a war that would get people killed. My thought at the end of the day was that no one had to die for a misunderstanding,” Nartker told investigators
“I made the gamble that they were not going to kill us. I made the gamble that they’re not going to Tehran and parade us around like prisoners of war — because they want this nuke deal to go through… What’s the commander’s intent here, the highest commander’s intent? The Commander-in-Chief would not want me to start a war over a mistake, over a misunderstanding.”

In addition to the larger investigation, NECC is holding a separate review to see if the command is adequately manned and equipped to carry out its missions.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The US Army will create a competitor to the Russian Iskander missiles

The US military plans to develop a new missile system ground-ground that will rival the Russian Iskander-M system. The new system is a modified version of the MGM-140 missiles designed for years 1980.Les US military will be equipped by 2027 of a new system of tactical surface to surface missiles with a range of 500 km, announced the review American National Interest.

The military group Raytheon was awarded the realization of this project at a cost of $ 5.7 million (approximately EUR 5 million).

The Long Range Precision Fires Missiles System (LRPF) is intended to replace the MGM-140 obsolete missiles (ATACMS) whose range does not exceed 160 km. The LRPF be a new warhead and target systems to destroy targets in any weather, day or night. The US military has two types of launch pads for missiles MGM-140: Hammar (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), which can store and launch a single missile and M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System), designed to the basis of a multiple rocket launcher capable of carrying and launching two MGM-140 missiles.

Judging from the characteristics of LRPF system, its designers want to compete with the tactical Iskander-M missiles in service with the Russian Army since 2006. Built in the 1990s, the Iskander-M system has a range between 50 and 500 km. The vehicle can carry two missiles at once. The Iskander-M is designed to hit targets and tactics of enemy surface targets and may simultaneously serve as a vector of tactical nuclear weapons.

Its missiles can be diverted in flight and used both against fixed and mobile targets, and against tactical rocket launchers, armored columns and motorized infantry units.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top