Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Update on Status of US Navy
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline

Posts: 38,051
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2074
I Root For: Houston
Post: #161
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
Its interesting that there is a MASSIVE difference between the level of concern involving China in the US media vs the Australian media. The Australians seem to think war with China is could happen at any time---but is most likely to occur within 3 to 10 years. The Aussies are becoming increasingly concerned that they are nowhere near ready....and their biggest fear is we arent either.
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2021 12:45 PM by Attackcoog.)
11-19-2021 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach

Posts: 72,214
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2278
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #162
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(11-19-2021 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its interesting that there is a MASSIVE difference between the level of concern involving China in the US media vs the Australian media. The Australians seem to think war with China is could happen at any time---but is most likely to occur within 3 to 10 years. The Aussies are becoming increasingly concerned that they are nowhere near ready....and their biggest fear is we arent either.

Australia is much closer and has fewer people to deal with the problem. Plus there’s been a fear of Asia among Australians since at least the early days of WWII. To give you an idea of how close, remember the Battle of the Coral Sea? The coral in the Coral Sea is the Great Barrier Reef. And the Japanese launched air raids on Darwin from New Guinea.

It is interesting how they dealt with it. They decided that they needed way more European immigration, so as soon as WWII ended they chartered as many ships as they could, parked them in ports all around Europe, and for the equivalent of ten pounds sterling, you could book passage to Australia for you and your family, and a grant of land when you got there—I think it was 2 hectares (4 acres). The so-called “ten pound poms” (Pommie is Aussie slang for European—originally English—immigrants) were the major factor in growth of the Australian population in the late 40s and early 50s.. The ships quickly filled up with Eastern Europeans who had spent ten years running from Hitler and now were running from Stalin. Most of them sailed to Melbourne, where the passengers tended to settle in ethnic neighborhoods. Greeks here, Czechs there, Poles over yonder, and so forth. Because of the size of the land grants, the Melbourne suburbs are way spread out. What we call Aussie rules football is basically a Melbourne-area phenomenon, and the various teams represent the various neighborhoods, so the games tend to be like a mini-World-Cup game atmosphere in the stands.

As far as their fear that we aren’t ready, that is legitimate because we aren’t
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2021 02:12 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-19-2021 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlueDragon Offline
1st String

Posts: 1,306
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 194
I Root For: TSU
Post: #163
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(11-19-2021 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its interesting that there is a MASSIVE difference between the level of concern involving China in the US media vs the Australian media. The Australians seem to think war with China is could happen at any time---but is most likely to occur within 3 to 10 years. The Aussies are becoming increasingly concerned that they are nowhere near ready....and their biggest fear is we arent either.

Like the man stated IF Afghanistan was any indicator with Dumb & Dumber leading our troops and taking orders from the dumbest President in US history then Taiwan & Australia need not count on this clown show for anything other than throwing up a white flag.
11-19-2021 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
Warden Of The WAC

Posts: 25,046
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1804
I Root For: NM State
Post: #164
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
Hypersonic Weapons on Track to Deploy on Attack Submarines in 2028

Quote:ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy is still on track to deploy hypersonic weapons on its attack submarines in 2028, a service official said Thursday.

While the first Zumwalt-class destroyer will get a hypersonic weapon in 2025, the first Virginia-class submarine will deploy with hypersonics in 2028, Strategic Systems Programs director Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe said today at the annual Naval Submarine League symposium.

“We are on a path and we’ve been hitting our milestones. We’ve been doing everything that we told Congress we were going to do. We’re going to deploy Conventional Prompt Strike – well for the Army it’s called Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon – or the all-up round. It is going to be exactly the same for the Army and the Navy and the Navy – whether it goes on Zumwalt or whether it goes on Virginia – it is the exact same round,” Wolfe said.

“We’re going to deploy it to the Army in FY-23 – they’ll deploy their first battery. We’re on a path to get to the first Zumwalt in ’25,” he added. “And then we’re on a path to get to the first Virginia class in ‘28, once that submarine comes out with Virginia Payload Module. And we’re looking at ways – can we accelerate that even sooner and to the block buys with the Virginia.”

Wolfe said that while the Navy originally intended to field hypersonics on the four guided-missile variants of the Ohio-class submarines in 2025, it had to alter plans due to budget cuts that prevented the service from building an underwater test facility. Because of the delay and the impending retirement of the Ohio-class boats, the Navy opted to put the weapons on the Virginia-class submarines instead.

“We’ve got to restart this year our in-air-launch testing. We got put on pause because of budget, because of some budget cuts. But we’re going to restart that this year. And that in-air-launch testing really is to make sure that we understand ultimately how we’re going to get to Virginia. We’re going to resume building and we are going to build an underwater launch test facility that is going to be absolutely critical to proving this before we get to the first Virginia class,” Wolfe said.
“And that’s going to give us, again, a full-up test facility so that we understand how that system’s going to work as it comes out.”

Asked how the Navy could speed up the timeline to place hypersonics on the Virginia-class boats, Wolfe said it depends on completion of the underwater facility.

“We’re trying to leverage Zumwalt even though it’s different – it’s a surface platform – but a lot of the things that we’re going to test on Zumwalt are still going to be applicable to Virginia. And we’re looking at how we can get that learning to get to a platform sooner,” Wolfe said. “But a lot of it’s going to be driven by how much budget do we have to get the underwater launch test facility done, to get the rounds into production, so that if we’ve got a platform that’s available earlier, the weapons system will be ready to go on that.”

The Zumwalt-class destroyer will be the first at-sea platform to field hypersonic weapons in 2025, USNI News previously reported. Wolfe said the Navy and the shipbuilders are still figuring out the maximum number of hypersonic weapons the Zumwalt destroyers can carry.

As the service gears up for this timeline, the Navy will perform two all-up round flight tests in Fiscal Year 2022.

“We’re going to do all of the other testing around it to make sure it is safe, and make sure that we understand all of these sensitive munitions, and all of the things,” Wolfe said. “And we’re going to start ramping up to where we get to five advanced payload modules, which will go into the DDG-1000 and go into the Virginia.”

The Navy recently performed several tests for Conventional Prompt Strike, the name for the service’s hypersonic weapons program. Late last month, the Navy announced it performed the second of two first stage tests of the solid rocket motor in Utah.

“If you just look at where we’ve been at here in the last year, we’ve actually had three successful solid rocket motor static tests here recently. We did three of them. We did two first stage and we did one second stage. We’ve completed our first slug test that proves that we understand the capability to actually eject this weapon – because it’s got to be cold launch, right,” Wolfe said.
“So we just came through understanding all of that technology on how we’re going to do cold launch and that was extremely successful. We’ve completed our first vibration test vehicle, which is really the first full-up vehicle that we’ve built in the new facility that was stood up to produce this weapon. We’ve done that. And we’ve actually had it out, we’ve actually shipped it out to prove all the logistics as well.”

Wolfe also pointed to a recent test at Wallops Island last month, when the service launched three rockets in one day, as an example of how the Navy can now experiment with multiple technologies at once that may be at different phases of development. The three-rocket test featured 21 experiments, he said.

To ensure sailors continue to field the most updated technology, the Navy adds in time for the program to receive new technology into its schedule ahead of time.

“We’ve got technology insertion points on two-year centers. So every two years, when we have a technology that’s ready – that’s either been proved in labs and we’ve got confidence in it, or that we’ve done sounding rocket tests – whatever it is, when it’s to the right technology readiness level, we’ve already had pre-designated insertion points planned in the program that we’re going to cut it in,” Wolfe said.
“When a technology’s ready, we’re going to figure out how to get it into the system because that’s how we’re going to stay ahead of what everybody else is doing. That’s how we’re going to continue to put capability in our warfighter’s hand.”

Pentagon officials have recently voiced concern over a hypersonic test China performed over the summer. Outgoing Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten told reporters last month that the U.S. has conducted nine hypersonic tests in the last five years, while China has performed hundreds during the same timeframe.

“Single digits versus hundreds is not a good place. Now it doesn’t mean we’re not moving fast for the development process of hypersonics. But what it does tell you is that our approach to development is fundamentally different than it used to be,” Hyten said at the time.

Wolfe argued that the U.S. understands the hypersonic technology, but has only recently had an urgent need for it due to a strategy focused on countering China and Russia.

“We’ve been looking at hypersonics for 20 plus years okay, alright. It’s just up until we’ve gotten to this point of great power competition and we’ve watched what China’s doing from the [anti-access and area denial], right, and [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] and we watch what Russia’s now doing in the Atlantic – I will tell you it’s not a fact of do we understand the technology. We understand the technology. We just never had a need prior to this to really take that technology and turn it into a system that we can” use, Wolfe said.

The admiral said the industrial base buildup has already started so it can keep up with demand once the military starts fielding hypersonics on the designated platforms.

“We’ve got to do everything that we can do in parallel, not serial, with a sense of urgency so that when we have successful flight tests coming up here and we get ready to deploy this system to the Army, to DDG-1000, and ultimately Virginia, we have already got the capacity to be able to meet the demand of what the [combatant commanders] are going to want. So we’ve really started that.”

While Wolfe is focused on offensive hypersonics, he said he often confers with Missile Defense Agency director Vice Adm. Jon Hill to share information that could help MDA determine the best ways to defense against the hypersonic capabilities of Russia and China.

“Every time we test some of our systems, right, you can count on the fact that I’m talking to Adm. Hill at the Missile Defense Agency so that the learning we get for our offensive systems, he gets that learning to understand what does that mean to him in the missile defense world so that he can start to look at how he would counter what China and Russia are doing in hypersonics,” Wolfe said.

Guam Needs SM-6 Missile for Hypersonic Defense, Navy Admiral Says

Quote:Guam “would absolutely need” the Navy’s SM-6 missile for its defense against a hypersonic missile attack, the program executive for Aegis ballistic missile defense said Thursday.

Rear Adm. Tom Druggan called the SM-6 “our leading defense capability for hypersonic missile defense.” It is “a fantastic missile, just absolutely great missile” because of its versatility.

Speaking at the United States Naval Institute’s maritime security series at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he added that “we really need HMD [hypersonic missile defense]” for Guam.

Druggan was speaking days after Russia successfully destroyed one of its older satellites in a missile test, scattering more than 1,500 articles of debris in space. Meanwhile, China over the summer performed a hypersonic missile test that U.S. defense officials have recently described as concerning.

Although he would not detail his recommendations to Congress on Guam, Druggan said one question that needs to be answered is whether it is worthwhile to have a “multi-mission ship [like an Aegis destroyer] tethered” to the island. This would be similar to what the Navy does from Rota, Spain, in providing European defense.

Druggan, whose current post is at the Missile Defense Agency, explained that having one ship assigned to the missile defense mission actually meant having at least two others on schedule to replace it when it comes off station for necessary maintenance. This has an impact on overall Navy operations because the Aegis destroyers can be assigned to a host of missions other than missile defense.

In terms of manpower, Druggan said that if three destroyers were involved in meeting the ballistic missile requirement, then that would involve about 900 sailors. If it were Aegis Ashore on a rotational basis, he said that would require about 100 sailors to meet the mission.

Former U.S. Indo-Pacific Command chief Adm. Phil Davidson earlier this year said building Aegis Ashore on Guam would “free up” three Navy destroyers for other tasking.

“The Guam defense system brings the same ability to protect Guam and the system itself as the three DDGs it would otherwise take to carry out the mission,” Davidson said at the time. “We need to free up those guided-missile destroyers, who have multi-mission capability to detect threats and finish threats under the sea, on the sea and above the sea, so that they can move with a mobile and maneuverable naval forces that they were designed to protect and provide their ballistic missile defense.”

Other questions remain over what kind of missile defense is needed for Guam, with its large air base and naval facilities, in terms of denying North Korea, deterring China and denying China.

“With each one of those [threats], you come up with a different set of options,” Druggan said.

Among the options under consideration, Druggan said “Aegis is an acceptable alternative” because it addresses ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missile threats. It’s also integrated with other air defense systems and networked with sensors globally and in space.

“We’re doing it 360 degrees; we do it reliably with the right level of firepower; we’re doing it at the network level” at sea and on land, he said.

He called it a “robust capability.”

Another “rich and valid discussion to have” is “where would we put launchers” for cruise missile defense, for instance. He asked rhetorically whether a naval missile designed for cruise defense over water is optimal for defense over an island like Guam, or should it be an Army system that can operate over land and some water.

Other considerations specifically for Guam include should Aegis Ashore get installed, whether its configuration with a single deck house containing all capabilities – like what is now operating in Romania and under construction in Poland – would be survivable in an all-out attack.

The threats in Europe that Aegis Ashore is defending against are coming from Iran, particularly. Druggan noted the systems there are not designed to counter Russia’s missile arsenal.

Posing the follow-up question to himself, Druggan asked “do you want to disperse it or do you [want] it mobile?”

When asked about progress on Aegis Ashore in Poland, he said the project is “behind schedule,” but has “good momentum now.”

“We’re not going to wait” until construction is complete before setting up and testing systems as was done in Poland, Druggan said. “We’re working parallel” to the continued building.

In the recent past, the Army Corps of Engineers overseeing the project said it withheld payment to the Polish contractors unless they brought the work back on schedule and to budget.

With a history dating back into the 1970s of “build little, test little, learn more,” Druggan sees Aegis as “a perfect place” to introduce machine learning and artificial intelligence into Navy practice. He added that with this experience, sailors to captains on Aegis vessels are culturally comfortable with systems that can operate from manual control to auto special.

But in all cases, accountability rests with the commander and would, in Druggan’s opinion, remain so when operating with artificial intelligence and machine learning. “Warfighters want a vote [on what to do in combat as part of their ethos]. …That’s ground to be plowed,” he said.

He added, “it is the CO who is accountable for any weapon that leaves; and so when we get to AI, we can’t blame the algorithm for the mishap. It’s not in our military ethos, not in our warrior ethos” to believe otherwise.
11-24-2021 03:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline

Posts: 38,051
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2074
I Root For: Houston
Post: #165
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
One thing Im really interested in is the guided "smart" round for the 5-inch, 76mm, and 56mm Naval guns that are standard on most every US warship. These guided projectiles have the potential to be able to shoot down hyper-sonic missiles and conventional cruise missiles for $50-25K a round (perhaps less) as opposed to over 4 million dollars per SM-6 fired. Better yet---they are smaller than missiles---meaning the typical naval warship could carry 500 or more of these guided shells to augment their anti-aircraft/missile defenses. A vessel with 30 to 90+ VLS tubes and another 500 "smart" shells would be very difficult to overwhelm with a missile attack.

The typical navy 5 inch gun can fire 20 rounds a minute. A modern 76mm naval gun can fire around 80 rounds per minute. A modern 56mm naval gun can fire over 200 rounds a minute. Even at hyper sonic speeds, a naval guns with a 6-15 mile effective range could get off numerous defensive rounds against an incoming wave of missiles. Its the kind of cheap innovation that potentially can render billions in enemy weapons largely worthless against defended targets.
(This post was last modified: 11-24-2021 08:36 PM by Attackcoog.)
11-24-2021 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.