Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    [ATTACH]30583[/ATTACH]Those are windows on the Intrepid- not from her Navy days, though. It is part of the modifications done by the Museum.
    The Intrepid is not so much a carrier anymore but more of a building on water. Heard that from several visitors over the years.

    Comment


    • Sigh....Hoped that it would not be one of there many non-authentic modifications but had a feeling it would be the case..

      Comment


      • That whole glassed in section above the fantail is ridiculous.

        Comment


        • What do the fine gentlemen think of the new Unammed Nautical Vehicle/Boat ? Will unmanned vehicles slowly start to make redundant smaller classes of ships? What is industry parlance for these craft?

          Now drones take to the seas as U.S. Navy launches unmanned combat boats firing missiles for first time | Mail Online

          Comment


          • "expensive targets" ?

            The proper parlance for this kind of vessel is малый боевой корабль.

            Comment


            • I'll lead with the question...
              Is the USNS Lewis and Clark (T-AKE-1) truly fast enough to operate within a CSG, as part of that CSG, as USS Sacramento (AOE-1) and USNS Supply (T-AOE-6) fast combat support ships were intended to operate?

              -----------------

              The reason I ask...

              I have seen mentioned that Arleigh Burke was a proponent of the AOE fast combat support ships as something that could run with the carriers, being readily available, providing flexibility in operations by avoiding the need to coordinate a rendezvous that may not go as planned when enemy and weather have influence.

              I have also seen mentioned that the USNS Lewis and Clark (T-AKE-1) class of dry cargo and ammunition ship, is supposedly intended to replace the non-oiler functionality of the AOE fast combat support ships.

              I understand that the T-AKE's selective offload capability is a significant enhancement, but the older AOEs are 25% faster than the ~20 knot T-AKEs and T-AOs. That speed difference is what prompts the question above.
              .
              .
              .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bridgeburner_ View Post
                What do the fine gentlemen think of the new Unammed Nautical Vehicle/Boat ? Will unmanned vehicles slowly start to make redundant smaller classes of ships? What is industry parlance for these craft?
                The US Navy calls that an Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV). As to where the navy thinks this is headed, take a look at the US Navy's USV Master Plan (here is the link), dated 23 July 2007.

                I'm boxing this in a quoted section to separate my opinions from the other info.

                Its my opinion that we are currently witnessing an early developmental transition. Various unmanned systems are currently transitioning from remote control drones with autopilot, tools and sensors that are little more than extending a human's reach, transitioning toward something that is better capable of processing decisions and operating with far more autonomy, capable of cooperative interoperability within networked groups, squadrons. That applies to all sorts of unmanned systems, not just the small boats that have been converted to USVs.

                Advances in this are closely tied to advances in the ability to process information, which is still witnessing a rising rate of change (exponential function). That will accelerate significantly with the advent of practical application of quantum computing and development of new quantum algorithms. Computer science in that area is still very much in its infancy.

                These developments are closely tied to math and physics. Societies that seek advantage in the competition will be those that place highest emphasis on maximally developing their best and brightest minds from young ages and from all economic backgrounds into polymathic Renaissance men and women capable of advanced thinking and also capable of critical thinking.

                The future is unwritten, but the trends are real. To better guess where its headed, look at the economics motivating change, and advances in real science that are enabling change, while ignoring any pseudoscientific fictional nonsense that violates fundamental laws of physical science. Autonomous unmanned systems provide advantage through increased productivity, and their development will therefore attract resources. And remember that this change is advancing at rising rate, exponential growth in capability.

                .
                http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11379&page=1

                http://www.naval-technology.com/news...technology-onr

                http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Cen...s-Systems.aspx

                http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/File...s-Systems.ashx

                http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Cen...s-Systems.aspx

                http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/File...20Systems.ashx


                Below is a circa 2008 video showing development of USV Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability, for use with Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). ...toward using unmanned systems for hunting SSKs in shallow water where sonar range is short.




                Below is a related still photo.



                100216-N-2606A-002
                Narragansett Bay, R.I. (Feb. 16, 2010) Sonar Technician (Surface) 2nd Class Brad Goss, at the helm, and Sonar Technician (Surface) 1st Class Anthony Craig, on the bow of the Littoral Combat Ship Anti-Submarine Warfare (LCS ASW) Mission Package detachment, operate an unmanned surface vehicle (USV) in the waters of the Narragansett Bay. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport is developing the USV for future LCS ASW operations. (U.S. Navy photo/Released)

                .

                Below are a couple of 2003 Navy press releases and a related 2005 story in AviationWeek. Click on the photo for a higher resolution version.





                031125-N-7408M-003
                At sea with USS Gettysburg (CG 64) Nov. 25, 2003 -- Personnelman 3rd Class Christopher L. Marino from Memphis, Tenn., uses a remote control to steer a modified Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB) called the Spartan Scout. The Spartan Scout was created by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, R.I., and will make future unmanned missions for a number of applications. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate Airman Justin McGarry. (RELEASED)



                Spartan Deployed on Gettysburg

                Story Number: NNS031223-02
                Release Date: 12/22/2003 11:00:00 PM
                From Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Public Affairs

                ABOARD USS GETTYSBURG (NNS) -- USS Gettysburg (CG 64), which is part of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) Carrier Strike Group (CSG) currently deployed to the Arabian Gulf, is outfitted with a special new piece of equipment that is gaining high praise from the fleet.

                The Spartan Scout, a Department of Defense (DoD) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD), is under the direction of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport.

                Deployed aboard Gettysburg, it is part of the Navy's only deployed strike group, which is conducting missions in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.

                Spartan is a modular, reconfigurable, multi-mission, high-speed, semi-autonomous unmanned surface vehicle (USV) capable of carrying payloads of 3,000 and 5,000 pounds for seven-and-11-meter craft, respectively. Integrated as an expeditionary sensor and weapons system designed to be a primary "force-leveler" against asymmetric threats, it enables a battle force commander to match inexpensive threats with an appropriate response.

                On its first major deployment with the fleet, the seven-meter rigid-hull inflatable Spartan USV is being carried and controlled by Gettysburg. The on board Spartan prototype is configured with an electro-optical/infrared surveillance turret, surface search radar, digital imagery transmission suite and an unmanned command and control suite.

                Rear Adm. James Stavridis, commander of the Enterprise Strike Group, likens the Spartan Scout as a harbinger of transformation, much like the Wright Flyer, the Wright brothers' first powered aircraft.

                As part of its mission with the carrier strike group, Spartan is demonstrating its abilities as a force protection asset by providing an effective response to asymmetric threats, such as small boats.

                �Spartan Scout meets a need for ship force protection,� noted Stavridis in a recent letter to the trade publication Defense News. �Spartan Scout can provide surveillance in a harbor, not only for Navy ships but also U.S. Coast Guard units responsible for port security. It can be modified for mine detection or anti-submarine warfare.

                "When equipped with Hellfire or Javelin missiles," Stavridis continued, "it could attack other surface vessels or conduct precision strikes ashore. And, unlike any other unmanned system, unmanned surface vessels can relay communications to aircraft, ships and submarines."

                The Spartan Scout was also a topic of discussion and one of the reasons for a recent visit by Secretary of the Navy Gordon England to Gettysburg while he was touring various assets in the North Arabian Gulf.

                As a low-cost force multiplier, USVs provide increased sensor coverage in a network-centric environment, thus enabling a rapid establishment of battle space dominance while eliminating unnecessary risk to personnel and naval vessels.

                The Spartan Scout ACTD is aimed at addressing joint warfighting needs in the increasingly complex and contested littoral areas of the world. In the ACTD, Spartan is specifically focused on demonstrating the military utility of modular, multimission USVs as extended sensor and weapons platforms conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR)/ target acquisition; precision strike; and shallow-water undersea warfare missions in support of joint task force, battle group, amphibious and sealift operations.

                The current version of the Spartan Scout used by Gettysburg is the ISR Spiral. The ISR version allows the ship�s crew to establish a Recognized Maritime Picture around the cruiser and carrier, provide force protection and possibly provide real-time surveillance around ships being boarded by Navy teams.

                According to the NUWC Spartan Program Manager, Dr. Vittorio Ricci, the reports being received from the fleet on the Spartan ISR Spiral have been very positive.

                �Future Spirals are planned to demonstrate warfighting capability in scenarios engaging hostile threats with gun and missile systems. Additional demonstrations will include mine warfare capabilities. Also, planning is ongoing to develop and demonstrate antisubmarine warfare capabilities,� said Ricci.

                Before its deployment with the Enterprise CSG, Spartan had limited participation in several fleet exercises, including a joint task force exercise off Morehead City, N.C., and the Fleet Battle Experiment-Juliet, both in 2002.

                For related news, visit the Naval Sea Systems Command Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/navsea.




                Enterprise Carrier Strike Group Deploys Unmanned Surface Vehicle

                Story Number: NNS031217-04
                Release Date: 12/17/2003 11:30:00 AM
                By Journalist 3rd Class (SW/AW) Rebekah Caruso, USS Enterprise Public Affairs

                ABOARD USS ENTERPRISE, At Sea (NNS) -- Dec. 1, USS Gettysburg (CG 64) and the entire USS Enterprise (CVN 65) Carrier Strike Group (CSG) wrote a new page in the history books with the successful launch of Spartan Scout. Spartan Scout, a rigid hull inflatable boat with an enhanced engine and hi-tech camera and sensor gear, completed an unmanned, three-hour mission driven remotely from three laptop computers in the Combat Direction Center (CDC) aboard Gettysburg.

                The need for unmanned vehicles came into focus several years ago when President George W. Bush remarked that �it is clear that the military does not have enough unmanned vehicles.�

                Two years ago, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) in Newport, R.I., started development on the first remote-controlled surface vehicle. The resulting creation, Spartan Scout, has since been developed ahead of schedule to deploy with the Enterprise CSG aboard Gettysburg, responsible for conducting operational testing and assessing its real-world uses.

                According to a Gettysburg spokesman, this was the first unmanned operation of the Spartan Scout from a U.S. warship at sea, and marks a significant milestone in the future development of the Spartan Scout Unmanned Surface Vessel.

                Spartan Scout has been found very versatile, requiring manpower only for launch and recovery, and is fully capable of being driven through its own remote-controlled navigation system.

                �A two-man boat crew launches Spartan, conducts system checks, and then it operates in an unmanned mode for the duration of the mission,� said Cmdr. Chuck Tamblyn, air operations officer for Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Group 12. �This variant of Spartan is designed primarily for surface surveillance and force protection, but future versions will be capable of conducting several, more complex missions.�

                �This unmanned surface vessel (USV) expands your sensor range and situational awareness without exposing boat crews to rough seas or weather,� said Tamblyn. �The crew operates the USV from the comfort and safety of the control module in CDC, its sensors feeding information directly the operators.�

                Rear Adm. James Stavridis, commander, Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, says Spartan Scout has many practical uses in today�s multifaceted and multitasked Navy.

                �Using a forward-looking infrared/CCD camera, Spartan Scout can provide surveillance in a harbor, not only for Navy ships but for U.S. Coast Guard units responsible for port security, as well,� said Stavridis. He added that it could provide reconnaissance for ships passing through maritime chokepoints, too.

                �The unmanned surface vehicle is a harbinger of transformation.�

                Stavridis foresees more than scouting in the prototype�s future. He predicts a wide range of missions and combat focuses that Spartan Scout would be ideal for.

                �Spartan Scout could be modified for mine detection or anti-submarine warfare,� said Stravridis. �When equipped with a Hellfire or Javelin missile, it could attack other surface vehicles or conduct precision strikes ashore.�

                Gettysburg completed its operational testing with Spartan Scout Dec. 12 and sent the results to NUWC for further evaluation.

                For related news, visit the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/Commander, 5th Fleet Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cusnc.

                .


                Spartan Scout Unmanned Surface Vehicle Live Fire Testing Successful, Navy Says

                May 6, 2005 - Aviationweek.com

                The U.S. Navy said that it successfully conducted live-fire testing for the Spartan Scout, a new remote-controlled unmanned surface vehicle (USV) under advanced development by the Pentagon.

                The Spartan Scout conducted the first live-fire test of a USV at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., in early April. During the tests, it fired a remotely controlled, high-fidelity, electro-optically sighted .50-caliber machine gun while moving across the open water.

                The Navy sees the Spartan as a low-cost means of extending maritime patrol areas and providing anti-terrorism force protection for ships and other fleet assets against small, swarming enemy boats and mines. The 7-meter USV is intended to go aboard the future Littoral Combat Ship.

                Other Spartan variants also are planned for the future mission modules deployed from the LCS. Officials want to integrate the U.S. Army's Non-Line of Sight Launching System (formerly Netfires) missile and a lightweight 30mm gun into an 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) as a module in the LCS's surface warfare mission package.

                The Spartan also provides the foundation for RHIB-based minesweeping and sonar systems in the planned mine warfare and antisubmarine warfare mission packages.

                A prototype Spartan Scout was successfully launched and remotely operated in the Persian Gulf from the USS Gettysburg in December 2003.

                .
                Last edited by JRT; 15 Nov 12,, 01:27.
                .
                .
                .

                Comment


                • This question is directed towards Rusty as I believe you were involved in the Spruance class design. Many of my fellow shipmates on the Stump always question what they see as a short lifespan for this class of ship. I think the subject might have been covered here before, but what are the chief reasons for the retirement of this class. My understanding was that it was part economic- the money saved was put towards the Burkes and changes made to the superstructure made it top heavy and the hulls were very worn. Were there other reasons? And (if I didn't ask before) there was an odd bump in the deck on the 02 level in the passageway going past radio- like you might find in a house or building where an addition was put on and the levels don't match, but its not enough to warrant a stair.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                    Sliding Padeyes for Replenishment-at-Sea. The padeye holding the retrieving block and span wire slides up and down to compensate for rolling of the ship if the seas between it and her supply ship are not very calm. This keeps the load the proper height above the deck before slacking off to land the supplies.

                    On the Spruance class Destroyers, they were actually built onto the sides of the superstructure bulkheads. Other classes of ships also had the types shown in your photo. The braces supporting the Sliding Padeye "king post" can lay the units down on deck or at least slant them inboard 15 degrees to equal the STEALTH angles of the ship's bulkheads.

                    I worked on part of the design of them (installation details on various classes of ships) as well as every "Rube Goldbert" rig Buships/Navsea came up with to try.
                    I've seen the term "sliding padeye" used, but to most of us in the fleet, those were "sliding kingposts."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
                      This question is directed towards Rusty as I believe you were involved in the Spruance class design. Many of my fellow shipmates on the Stump always question what they see as a short lifespan for this class of ship. I think the subject might have been covered here before, but what are the chief reasons for the retirement of this class. My understanding was that it was part economic- the money saved was put towards the Burkes and changes made to the superstructure made it top heavy and the hulls were very worn. Were there other reasons? And (if I didn't ask before) there was an odd bump in the deck on the 02 level in the passageway going past radio- like you might find in a house or building where an addition was put on and the levels don't match, but its not enough to warrant a stair.
                      I can't speak to the Arleigh Burke-class, but there were fairly significant problems with the reduction gear in both the Spruance and Ticonderoga-class hulls. So much so that some were limited with regard to top end, and also when in trail shaft. It seems there were recurring stress fractures in the gear teeth. That was a topic of conversation all over the waterfront in the late-70s and early-80s. Regardless, the older the hull, the more expensive the upkeep, and when you have sea water compensated fuel oil storage systems and the like, that rely on remote sensing for how much fuel is actually in the tank, keeping those sorts of gizmos operational becomes more and more difficult. There's a whole lot more, but taken together, expanded capability in the Burke's and high cost of maintenance in the Spruances, then something has to give. The Spruance-class lost.

                      Comment




                      • I read on "The Caine Mutiny" IMDB forum about how an officer aboard the USS Vance displayed some similar traits as Lt. Cmdr. Queeg so I finally managed to track down a copy of Neil Sheehan's book. Some pretty incredible instances of strange behavior to say the least. I started with the prologue and after 45 mins I began to think I missed the start of chapter one somehow. Nope, after checking out the contents page, I realized the prologue is 38 of 257 pages! Kind of odd but I guess the author used it for a bit of venting about Arnheiter's behavior that turned him from a proponent of the ex-captain to one who could easily see why the crew took the actions they did.

                        Just curious how many in the USA navy besides Marcus Arnheiter managed to obtain the command of a ship after being passed over for promotion while an ensign? According to the book, only 5% of ensigns are passed over.
                        Last edited by mako88sb; 18 Jul 13,, 18:30.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by mako88sb View Post
                          I finally managed to track down a copy of Neil Sheehan's book
                          I also found a used copy of Sheehan's book. I read about half of it, becoming progressively sicker to my stomach with each turn of the page.

                          I've worked for "hyper-zealous" people like Arnheiter before and I really couldn't stand reliving the experience through the eyes of his crew.

                          Some day I'll pick it back up again and finish it.
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • Quote Originally Posted by DonBelt View Post

                            This question is directed towards Rusty as I believe you were involved in the Spruance class design. Many of my fellow shipmates on the Stump always question what they see as a short lifespan for this class of ship. I think the subject might have been covered here before, but what are the chief reasons for the retirement of this class. My understanding was that it was part economic- the money saved was put towards the Burkes and changes made to the superstructure made it top heavy and the hulls were very worn. Were there other reasons? And (if I didn't ask before) there was an odd bump in the deck on the 02 level in the passageway going past radio- like you might find in a house or building where an addition was put on and the levels don't match, but its not enough to warrant a stair.


                            Poste by Desertswo:
                            I can't speak to the Arleigh Burke-class, but there were fairly significant problems with the reduction gear in both the Spruance and Ticonderoga-class hulls. So much so that some were limited with regard to top end, and also when in trail shaft. It seems there were recurring stress fractures in the gear teeth. That was a topic of conversation all over the waterfront in the late-70s and early-80s. Regardless, the older the hull, the more expensive the upkeep, and when you have sea water compensated fuel oil storage systems and the like, that rely on remote sensing for how much fuel is actually in the tank, keeping those sorts of gizmos operational becomes more and more difficult. There's a whole lot more, but taken together, expanded capability in the Burke's and high cost of maintenance in the Spruances, then something has to give. The Spruance-class lost.


                            Well, you have to blame electronics engineers and the companies that made the black boxes put aboard Navy ships. If your wave guides or coax cables or other critical wiring was too long, the company would void the warranty on their equipment. (See chapter 21 "How do I get out of this C*S* Outfit?") of my book

                            So, starting with the Perry class Frigates and continuing on to the Spruance class Destroyers and Ticonderoga class "Cruisers", expansion joints in the uperstructures were not installed so the Elex spaces had more room topside.

                            Well, it didn't take long to realize the true use of what expansion joints were fpr. A Perry class Frigate (FFG-10) on its maiden voyage from Bremerton to Long Beach developed a crack all the way across the 02 level and half way down the sides to 01 level. Rather than rearranging Elex spaces to put in an expansion joint, the areas prone to cracking were heavily reinforced FFG 06-95.

                            One of the ways we reduced the hog and sag of the Perry class hulls was to add reinforcing strips of steel along the upper edge of the shell plating where it met the Main Deck, about half way down the shell plating just above waterline and finally a strip along the turn of the bilge. All this was bringing the ship's displacement up to 3,100 tonnes. But those steel strips (each about a foot wide) came in real handy when the USS Roberts backed into a free floating mine that blew out the Ausiliary Machinery Space.

                            When our branch supervisor (Jim Bibeau) called everybody into his office, he asked for volunteers to go to the Mid-East to inspect the damage and work with the NAVSEA engineering staff. Brian Persons and I were the only two to volunteer. But Brian was picked because he was (and still is) a much better engineer than me. (He's one of the top people in NAVSEA now).

                            Though the crew still added turnbuckles, chains, wire ropes and anything they could find to keep the stern from breaking off it has been claimed by analysts in NAVSEA that the addition of those strips were a critical structure that kept the ship from breaking in two and gave the crew time enough to add more things to secure the aft end to the ship. Even though the fantail of the ship was about 3 feet lower than it should be, she was kept together long enough for the damaged space and mine hole to be filled with concrete for a tow (or on a heavy lift ship) to a shipyard to replace the stern of the hull.

                            We had very similar problems on the Spruance class Destroyers, and had to add in heavy brackets in the forward corners where the deckhous amidships widens out to the line of the shell plating. Then when it came to armor plating the ships, what a headache for Mike Said (who is one of NAVSEA's top engineers now) and I as we were tasked to write the SCOPE, then write the SHIPALT and then have the drawings developed and issued. (See chapter 30 "Armor, Stealth and Ship Stability" on my book.)

                            By the time we added all this armor on the Spruances, reinforcement of deckhouse corners, twp Harpoon launchers (4 Harpoons each), twp Vulcan/Phalanx "Gatling" guns, twp passive SLQ-32 ECM antennas, the 7.800 tonne Destroyers soon became 9,100 tonne Destroyers.

                            That's why when you tour an Iowa class Battleship, you will see large bolted access panels on every space that holds electronics gear. I knew that as time went on, some of the existing consoles, repeaters, computers, gizmos and whatcha-call-its would need replacement or to make room for something bigger. So rather than trying to squeeze the equipment through the armored doors or cut "temporary access holes" in the armor (that would have to be welded back in) I designed bolt-on access plates large enough to take a church organ through and all it would cost was about 2 hours of time for a couple of shipfitters and a couple of riggers to unbolt the plate, move it out of the way and then pass the equipment through.
                            Last edited by RustyBattleship; 19 Jul 13,, 00:05.
                            Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
                              This question is directed towards Rusty as I believe you were involved in the Spruance class design. And (if I didn't ask before) there was an odd bump in the deck on the 02 level in the passageway going past radio- like you might find in a house or building where an addition was put on and the levels don't match, but its not enough to warrant a stair.
                              I vaguely remember that "hump". Our biggest concern in those days for interior passageways was putting in steel "H" frames every 8 feet to hold up the wireways. This was a "lessons learned" from the Belknap tragedy where the thin aluminum straps that held the wireways up melted. The wireways dropped down and prevented fire-fighting and rescue crews from getting to where they were the most needed.

                              The hulls of the Spruances were pretty good being built of Carbon Manganese steel (roughly equivilant to our "old" High Tensile Steel"). The hard part was fitting new SONAR domes on the ships. Not every ship's bow was built exactly the same and the Domes were built in Canada to very exact specifications so the rubber "window" would fit perfectly. So it was quite an effort to get the domes lined up and several of the ships had to go into a Navy yard to have the forward edge of the bow built up, re-welded and ground flush to make it quieter running.
                              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                              Comment


                              • Kind of a general question...

                                To serve on a surface warfare combatant, are there restrictions with regard to color vision (or lack thereof) in the USN as an officer or enlisted person?

                                ZF-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X