Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In the US Navy having a 1930s Moment?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Monash View Post
    'It's another arrow in tbe quiver'. Assuming the USN pursues a policy going forward of equipping it's DDs and FGs with both systems and I was under the impression the Harpoon was going to be phased out/replaced.

    Regardless perhaps the USN should start mounting 3 inch ordinance rifles on it's warfighters.
    Henry Hunt would love you!!!

    Henry Jackson Hunt - Wikipedia

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    'It's another arrow in tbe quiver'. Assuming the USN pursues a policy going forward of equipping it's DDs and FGs with both systems and I was under the impression the Harpoon was going to be phased out/replaced.

    Regardless perhaps the USN should start mounting 3 inch ordinance rifles on it's warfighters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Monash View Post
    The published stats for the NSM certainly makes it look like an impressive system, stealthier than the harpoon with better targeting systems and a longer range. My only concern? It appears to have a much smaller explosive payload than the harpoon. So the test sort of becomes how much damage would one AB (or equivalently sized warship) suffer if it was hit by an NSM fired at it by another AB vs the damage caused by a single Harpoon hit.

    If on average it takes two NSMs hits to inflict as much damage as a single Harpoon hit would do?
    I see it as for extended range you have to have tradeoffs. If I can do a mission kill at 150-200 NMs vice hard kill at 80 NMs is that a win? And will it start degrading you before you are in your weapons range?

    I look at it this was using Gettysburg & Civil War artillery. During Pickett's Charge, the 3 divisions had to cover 1.25 miles at open ground. As the Confederates emerged from the woods and commenced their fateful attack they came under fire by US 3-inch ordnance rifles. They were not as effective antipersonnel weapons as the smoothbore M1857 12 pound Napoleons. At 1.25 against massed Infantry the 3 inch shells produced 3-6 casualties...at a range the 12 pounder couldn't reach accurately. 12 pounder stated hitting 65% at a mile. So for a 1/4 mile the Confederates started taking casualties before they came within a 65% of the 12 pounders.

    It causes casualties at ranges well beyond the Harpoon. And what will it do against a frigate?

    It's another arrow in the quiver.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    The published stats for the NSM certainly makes it look like an impressive system, stealthier than the harpoon with better targeting systems and a longer range. My only concern? It appears to have a much smaller explosive payload than the harpoon. So the test sort of becomes how much damage would one AB (or equivalently sized warship) suffer if it was hit by an NSM fired at it by another AB vs the damage caused by a single Harpoon hit.

    If on average it takes two NSMs hits to inflict as much damage as a single Harpoon hit would do?
    Last edited by Monash; 30 Jun 24,, 02:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    I am placing this story here as I see it as similar to what the US Navy went through in the 1930s. In the 1930s we saw the new South Dakotas go to 16 inch guns and move away from 5"/51 & 5"/25 caliber secondaries and settle on the 5"/38 as the standard secondary BB/CA/CL and DD main armament. It also saw an expansion in the types of weapons used from carriers.

    The NSM greatly enhances the long range SS strike capabilities of surface combatants. It is also good to see our Allies being equipped with the NSM as well!

    US and Australian Navy Destroyers Spotted with Naval Strike Missiles – Defense Archives


    US and Australian Navy Destroyers Spotted with Naval Strike Missiles



    The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) seen here equipped with Naval Strike Missile canisters (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jordan Jennings)

    USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), one of the 40 surface ships participating in the 29th Iteration of Exercise Rim of the Pacific, was spotted equipped with Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace’s Naval Strike Missile.

    The Royal Australian Navy’s Hobart-class destroyer, HMAS Sydney, was also spotted with a full load of four NSMs aboard. Marking the first instance where vessels of both classes were seen equipped with Naval Strike Missiles.



    HMAS Sydney seen here coming into Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam equipped with Naval Strike Missiles (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Gavin Arnoldhendershot)

    The NSM, which is designated as the RGM-184A by the US Navy, is currently scheduled to be fielded aboard the Navy’s Freedom and Independence classes of Littoral Combat Ships as well as the Constellation class guided missile frigates.

    The Navy picked the NSM as the winner of its Over The Horizon Weapon System (OTH WS) competition which sought a new missile to equip the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships and future guided-missile frigate which became the Constellation class.

    USS Gabrielle Gifford was the first US Navy vessel to get the missile back in 2019, which also carried out the first test firing of the missile that same year.

    Ever since then the Navy has been equipping more Independence class ships with the missile. The first Freedom class ship to be equipped with the missile will be the USS Nantucket (LCS-27).

    Alongside the Navy, the Marine Corps also operates the NSM, which makes up the missile component of the Navy/Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS). This system combines the NSM with Oshkosh Defense’s Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary (ROGUE) Fires vehicle.

    The Naval Strike Missile:


    The NSM is a modern multi-mission cruise missile that is meant to strike defended maritime and land targets. It has a range of 100-nmi (185 km) when flying in a Lo-Lo flight path aided by its onboard inertial and terrain-following guidance setup, which is complemented by GPS.

    The missile incorporates an S-ducted serrated inlet, with flush mounted panels and mid-body chines; these design characteristics reduce the missile’s signature aiding its survivability.

    The missile also incorporates a passive dual-band infrared seeker for terminal homing instead of an active radar seeker that would set off any electronic support systems (ESM) aboard enemy ships.

    The Naval Strike Missile is produced by Raytheon Missile & Defense in the United States in partnership with Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. Raytheon also produces the Joint Strike Missile, which is an air-launched variant of the missile.

    Author Comments:


    For the US Navy, it currently remains unclear whether this is a one-off test for RIMPAC or else the beginning of something much wider. Although the NSM is currently scheduled to go on the LCS-1, 2, and FFG-62 classes, the Navy has also touted putting the missile on the San Antonio class amphibious landing dock ships in the past. However, any mention of this in the budget documents have since disappeared.

    Furthermore, the Navy’s yearly buys for the NSM continue to be minuscule with the service only requesting 12 missiles this fiscal year and 13 last year. The Navy’s budget documents also state that Raytheon’s current NSM production line can produce a maximum of 125 missiles a year.

    If the Navy plans to equip its Arleigh-Burke class destroyers with NSM, a substantial increase in production is needed unless production is outsourced to Kongsberg. The company currently has two production lines that can produce a maximum of about 350 missiles each, with the company recently standing up a third line in Australia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tmasi View Post
    Fair -- I have a tendency to be too negative, perhaps. I'm not a military member or a defense contractor, so what I know is only what I read in the papers and my criticism falls more on frustrations I have with the President and Congress for the lack of proper requests & adequate funding for items we know will be needed to create a credible deterrent against so-called "pacing" threats. The lack of timely and full replacements for the cruisers and the SSGNs which were obviously aging out, for example. A lot of wasted years -- BUT I'll concede to NOT knowing the intricacies and totality of these projects & their problems.
    I was an Army officer but have been a civil government member of the Army Acquisition Corps since 1993...before it was named that! I have seen a lot of stops & starts over the years. Started in the Bradley Program Office as a captain and retire shortly as the PM for the Army's Ammunition Program. The downsize Post Cold War threw Army futures in the trash. Same with the Navy...no need seen to replace the Ticos and SSBN replacement pushed down the road. Aviation programs issues really were hard lessons learned by the community which have been plowed back in across the board. This has dramatically improved acquisition. For the requirements the Army was right into going to Futures Command...the Navy needs to catch up.

    Leave a comment:


  • tmasi
    replied
    Fair -- I have a tendency to be too negative, perhaps. I'm not a military member or a defense contractor, so what I know is only what I read in the papers and my criticism falls more on frustrations I have with the President and Congress for the lack of proper requests & adequate funding for items we know will be needed to create a credible deterrent against so-called "pacing" threats. The lack of timely and full replacements for the cruisers and the SSGNs which were obviously aging out, for example. A lot of wasted years -- BUT I'll concede to NOT knowing the intricacies and totality of these projects & their problems.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tmasi View Post
    Well put. It’s not a problem of the last 5-7 years. It’s more an issue of stunted thinking, irresolution, short-term ”solutioning” and issue avoiding happening over the last 25 — all exacerbated by a poor foreign policy that ultimately created more problems & dangers that now need to be addressed without the needed resources.
    Don't wholly agree with this. There has been significant changes to structure within the Navy in recent years...just not enough hulls to execute all tasks and crews rested and trai to meet them. LCS was a terrible own goal by the Navy. But I believe the new frigate program is going well. A lot of the lessons learned from the early failures of the F-35 program office have really gotten the applicable acquisitions lessons learned applied. Same for the new SSBN program. As usual, it is a resource issue...which all 5 services are suffering through.

    Leave a comment:


  • tmasi
    replied
    Well put. It’s not a problem of the last 5-7 years. It’s more an issue of stunted thinking, irresolution, short-term ”solutioning” and issue avoiding happening over the last 25 — all exacerbated by a poor foreign policy that ultimately created more problems & dangers that now need to be addressed without the needed resources.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tmasi View Post
    It sort of feels like its 1938 only we lack the political leaders with the foresight and leadership to fund and pass the much needed "Two Ocean Navy Act" to build up the fleet, the support infrastructure and the productive capacity required to deter/confront looming adversaries.
    Well I think it is also a resources issue. The Infrastructure Acts were intended to rebuild are massively underfunded and crumbling roads, bridges, etc. Also some for ports and navigable bridges. But the refusal to a GOP Congress under Obama to address the needs and instead imposed sequestration. All this did was kick cans down many roads. Trump did nothing. Additionally, with the War On Terror we refused to pay to upgrade our nuclear arsenals. There are just too many pots that are empty which will not allow us to redo a 2 Ocean Navy Act. But I also see a failure in vision and requirements generation by the Navy. What have they laid out in requirements which made it into annual defense budgets to meet these shortfalls? It took the GAO to report to Congress that the Navy was broke dick on ports and shipyards capabilities and not the Navy.

    Leave a comment:


  • tmasi
    replied
    It sort of feels like its 1938 only we lack the political leaders with the foresight and leadership to fund and pass the much needed "Two Ocean Navy Act" to build up the fleet, the support infrastructure and the productive capacity required to deter/confront looming adversaries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

    I'm sure that if Rusty were still around he would have a thing or two to say about closed bases and what the impact would be of losing the knowledge base going forward.
    You took the words out of my mouth!

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    Exactly. We ate our seed corn. We need to bite the bullet and reestablish the capabilities.
    I'm sure that if Rusty were still around he would have a thing or two to say about closed bases and what the impact would be of losing the knowledge base going forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Well, first off, ship building was always going to move overseas for the lower wages once those countries could evolve enough to acquire the tools. Less private building here, equals less private yards, means indirectly affecting Navy ship building. Two, somewhere, somehow, the checks and balances for designing a ship and it's systems so that they work together and perform the task we want went off the rails. I'm going to say at about the same time we transitioned to private yards. Bringing me to three, and that is I always thought the day would come when closing down yards like Mare Island and LBNSY would bite us in the ass. Those yards did tons of work on existing ships by men highly experienced in warships. LBNSY is completely gone while Mare is still there.

    As far as tenders we have two Sub (AS) Tenders at Guam and we have zero Destroyer (AD) Tenders. In fact we have zero ship repair assets outside of those two sub tenders based on what I see at NavSource.
    Exactly. We ate our seed corn. We need to bite the bullet and reestablish the capabilities.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Well, first off, ship building was always going to move overseas for the lower wages once those countries could evolve enough to acquire the tools. Less private building here, equals less private yards, means indirectly affecting Navy ship building. Two, somewhere, somehow, the checks and balances for designing a ship and it's systems so that they work together and perform the task we want went off the rails. I'm going to say at about the same time we transitioned to private yards. Bringing me to three, and that is I always thought the day would come when closing down yards like Mare Island and LBNSY would bite us in the ass. Those yards did tons of work on existing ships by men highly experienced in warships. LBNSY is completely gone while Mare is still there.

    As far as tenders we have two Sub (AS) Tenders at Guam and we have zero Destroyer (AD) Tenders. In fact we have zero ship repair assets outside of those two sub tenders based on what I see at NavSource.
    Last edited by tbm3fan; 13 Feb 24,, 02:49.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X