US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

That's true.. FSST is not always done on the first ship of the class. But it's like six of one half a dozen the other.. eventually all the ships needs to go through that testing proceure so might as well just go ahead and get it over with before commisionning. From an operational standpoint it's better to get the major testing done otherwise logistically and operationally it's a pain to do it at a much later date.

Jura said:

sales pitch?
quote from
Lockheed to Design Missile That Hits Multiple Warheads
source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Excellent, since neither Iran or NK have missile that can even deliver even a single warhead to the US, this contract removes any pretense of American missile defense is directed at them rather than Russian and China.

What about FSST for LCS? Will it ever be carried out?

shen said:

Excellent, since neither Iran or NK have missile that can even deliver even a single warhead to the US, this contract removes any pretense of American missile defense is directed at them rather than Russian and China.

Click to expand...

Please.

The US Missile defense is not suited for taking on and defending against any kind of large ICBM attack, and I believe everyone knows it.

North Korea does have the weapon and they have developed missiles that can deliver it. They are actively working on long range missiles...and I believe everyone knows that.

So, it is possible that they could at some point in the foreseeable future launch an attack against US territory or installations numbering more than a single missile.

We believe Iran has desires to do the same thing at some point in the future.

The US System will be able to defend against those types of attack. Where anything from one to several warheads are incoming. But not against something like a launch of eight or more missiles at a single time.

A wise crack or joke from time to time is one thing, but let's please not make these military news threads political....because that is what you comments veers into.

If you want to talk about the technology the US is developing in these news reports, then by all means. Otherwise, leave the desire to make political/ideological/nationalistic points aside. Tale that to another forum.

Thanks.

kwaigonegin said:

That's true.. FSST is not always done on the first ship of the class. But it's like six of one half a dozen the other...From an operational standpoint it's better to get the major testing done otherwise logistically and operationally it's a pain to do it at a much later date.

Click to expand...

I agree from a planning standpoint. But the point here is, that they changed the plan it mid-stream. The decision to make that change is having negative consequences.

If that had been the plan from the get-go, I would have no issue with it. But the decision this late in the game after it had been planned the other way does nothing but make the schedule chaotic, and causes it to slip in other areas.

IMHO, they should have just stuck with the plan as made and as approved earlier.

But, they have the authority to do so...and they have exercised it. Decision's been made. I just think it was a mistake that will be costly.

shen said:

What about FSST for LCS? Will it ever be carried out?

Click to expand...

I believe that the LCS is scheduled to undergo Shock trials at mid-production of the first 10 vessel buy. That would mean that LCS hulls LCS-5 and LCS-6 will be the ones (as I understand it) to get tested.

Both of those were launched in December of 2013 and LCS-5 Milwaukee is scheduled to be commissioned this fall, and LCS-6 Jackson was just commissioned. So either they have already been tested, or will be tested during their work up period after commissioning.

They are not designed to as high a combat standard as the Perry class, or the Burkes or Ticos. So I expect the explosions may be smaller. But I am not sure of that.

The Oliver Hazard Perry FFG did go through the testing, and it was the first ship that got it.



To the point made earlier about each ship eventually getting the test...I do not believe that every ship in each class goes through the shock testing. In fact, I am pretty sure they do not.

The test is designed to exercise the design of the vessel, not necessarily every vessel.

USN surface combatants are built to OPNAVINST 9070.1 Level II standards.
LCS are not. They barely made the minimum of lvl 1 for shock protection and hardening. Many of her subsystems are hardened but not all. Like what Jeff said, FSST has not been conducted on a single ship and I imagined when they do it will be of much lesser yield.

The survivability of LCS for right or wrong reasons has been survivability of the crew only. Not necessarily the ship itself. It's not anticipated for the ship to fight on after a hard strike. The small amount of complement would not be enough to fight a serious fire anyway especially if a good percentage of them are either injured or kia from an attack.

The monohull has almost all aluminum superstructure while the tri is almost the whole ship and as we are all aware aluminum melts and burns faster than steel. A single signifcant strike by an asm would destroy the vessel. It is not anticipated that the shallows and near shore littorals where it will be operating in will face threats like that.

Personally I would not want to be in one but that's just me.

Rest in peace 1st Sargent Corey Hood.
Hooah!

Jeff Head said:

Please.

The US Missile defense is not suited for taking on and defending against any kind of large ICBM attack, and I believe everyone knows it.

North Korea does have the weapon and they have developed missiles that can deliver it. They are actively working on long range missiles...and I believe everyone knows that.

So, it is possible that they could at some point in the foreseeable future launch an attack against US territory or installations numbering more than a single missile.

We believe Iran has desires to do the same thing at some point in the future.

The US System will be able to defend against those types of attack. Where anything from one to several warheads are incoming. But not against something like a launch of eight or more missiles at a single time.

A wise crack or joke from time to time is one thing, but let's please not make these military news threads political....because that is what you comments veers into.

If you want to talk about the technology the US is developing in these news reports, then by all means. Otherwise, leave the desire to make political/ideological/nationalistic points aside. Tale that to another forum.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

It is a question of strategy. Given limited resources, which is always the case, how should a military expend the resources for the greatest return for the national interests. And what would be the likely response by the adversary and how would it change the strategic calculation.

We are not talking about defending against attack with multiple missiles here, we are talking about defense against MIRV. NK is nowhere close to the stage where they have the miniaturized warhead and missile technology necessary for MIRV. Iran is of course much further behind, especially in light of the recent deal.

Both Russia and China obviously saw the US missile defense as a threat to their deterrent capability to protest. That is especially true in case of China, which only deploy a minimal deterrent force with clear no first strike policy. China apparently felt threatened enough by the US missile defense development to began MIRV deployment on a few of its DF-5 missiles recently. Now this news about contract to develop defense against MIRV. One can only draw one logical conclusion.

Now we have to remember most analysts in the field assume that China had the technology for MIRV for many years but never deployed until now. Clearly China doesn't want to enter into an arms race and has deferred deployment until development in the US threatened its minimal deterrence force. Should the US continue it MIRV defense research, we can only assume that China will deploy larger number of MIRV to overwhelm the defense, something well within its capability.

So we are left asking what is the point of US MIRV defense research? It can't possible defend against Russian missile force nor can't it realistically defend against China which already have the technology and resources waiting for deployment. It doesn't make the US more secure against NK or Iran which doesn't MIRV technology can are not likely to have that technology in the near future. The only result would be a renewed arms race that will make all nations in the world less secure, and the only ones that profit are the arms makers who get the contract.

shen said:

It is a question of strategy. Given limited resources, which is always the case, how should a military expend the resources for the greatest return for the national interests. And what would be the likely response by the adversary and how would it change the strategic calculation.

Click to expand...

But that was not the thrust of your initial post. You initial post was a "Ah ha" flavor, as if though you or someone had finally caught the US in a lie.

That is purely political and we will simply not go there on SD. No need to try and defend that because the position is clear.

shen said:

We are not talking about defending against attack with multiple missiles here, we are talking about defense against MIRV. NK is nowhere close to the stage where they have the miniaturized warhead and missile technology necessary for MIRV. Iran is of course much further behind, especially in light of the recent deal.

Click to expand...

The tactics of intercepting two close trajectory missiles from North Korea versus intercepting one after MIRV are something to talk about.

My contention is that depending on the trajectory and the intercept point, the multiple intercept weapon could do either.

Clearly, for divergent missile tracks, or divergent MIRV tracks well after separation, that is not the case.

Then again, too long after MIRV the intercept gets handed off to more of a theater type intercept either from a THAAD (if available) or, more likely AEGIS. Both of which are not part of the mid-course intercept in any case.

But the talk about the ABM being about really being for an attack from either Russia or China is ludicrous, off limits, and both not what the weapon is intended for (because the overall system is not meant to be, or anywhere near funded to be widespread enough for that), and leans to a political discussion that we are not going to have on SD.

I hope I have made that clear.[/color=bue]