US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Today at 1:20 PM
Feb 15, 2017
now
SECNAV Nominee Richard V. Spencer Pledges Transparency, Acquisition Reform in SASC Hearing

source is USNI News
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and it'd be funny if it wasn't serious:

Q:
“Do you believe we currently have sufficient capacity to meet the strategic requirements placed on the Navy?” Cruz asked.

A:
“Ah, there might be two answers to that, senator,” Spencer relied. “Let me say that with the assets that we have right now, we are managing the best, in my overview, that we can. It comes down to risk management. Are we addressing every single risk? No, we’re prioritizing them. With more assets, more capability and more capacity, we could do a better job.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Amidst a bipartisan lovefest of a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Navy Secretary nominee
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
quietly and consistently downplayed the idea of a 355-ship fleet. The Navy now has 276 ships from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has officially assessed that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. But Trump’s pick to be the CNO’s boss didn’t seem committed to that number.

While “it is a great goal to have” and “a good number for people to focus on,” Spencer told the Senate Armed Services Committee, he also described the number in conditional terms such as “if in fact we grow to a 355-ship Navy…” and “whether it’s a 355-ship (fleet) or not….”

Instead, Spencer consistently emphasized what military analysts call capability — the power and sophistication of weapons systems — over capacity — how many weapons you have. (Basically, it’s quality vs. quantity). “Capabilities… that’s where the punch is,” he told the senators, enthusing particularly over
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. He even said, albeit in tortured language, that the US might achieve the power envisioned for a 355-ship fleet with fewer but more advanced vessels: “Whether it’s a 355-ship (fleet) or not, what we also ought to get our head around is, can we have a capacity number but have a capability that’s even greater than that?” Spencer said. “(I.e.) have the capability of a 355 (ship fleet) that might be a 300-ship Navy.”

“People have asked, ‘what do you think of the 355-ship Navy?’ and I said, it is a great goal to have,” Spencer said. “But I can’t tell you what the construct of that (future fleet) would be sitting here today, because I think
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(systems) — below the water, on the water, and in the air — is an area we’re just beginning to chip away at, and that’s going to provide some great yield for us.”

In other words, Spencer is saying the future fleet may look very different from today’s, so the mix of ship types remains unclear — despite the fact that Adm. John Richardson, the CNO, having issued a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Emerging technology may create opportunities for entirely new types of vessels, Spencer said, especially unmanned ones. Consciously or otherwise, he was echoing two
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
commissioned by Congress as alternatives to the CNO’s 355-ship plan, which proposed large squadrons of robotic ships.

“355 is a good number for people to focus on. Do we know exactly what the mix is? I think, since we’re talking out a decade (from now), we might not know, and we shouldn’t know right now, since we have evolving technologies,” Spencer told the SASC. “If in fact technologies allow us to have different platforms, some that we might not even know of right now but that develop in five years, we should keep our eyes and ears open.”

Spencer is clearly thinking in the long term, beyond this administration. When Sen. Tom Cotton asked, “is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
est sufficient to build that 355-ship Navy?” Spencer replied that, “It would depend upon the timeline you would be giving the future Secretary of the Navy as a goal.”

In other words: Building up to 355 will take so long that whether we get there or not isn’t actually up to Spencer or to Trump. That’s probably true, given that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
put the timeline to reach 355 at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, but it’s not the answer you’d expect from someone enthusiastically committed to getting there.

Cotton wasn’t the only senator whose shipbuilding question Spencer answered with “it depends.” When Sen. Ted Cruz pointedly asked if the Navy needed more ships, Spencer carefully avoided saying “yes.”

“Do you believe we currently have sufficient capacity to meet the strategic requirements placed on the Navy?” Cruz asked.

“Ah, there might be two answers to that, senator,” Spencer relied. “Let me say that with the assets that we have right now, we are managing the best, in my overview, that we can. It comes down to risk management. Are we addressing every single risk? No, we’re prioritizing them. With more assets, more capability and more capacity, we could do a better job.”

How could the Navy get more assets, both Cruz and Sen. Dan Inhofe asked?

“If we take the full gamut of what’s available to us to tackle the 355-ship goal, we should be thinking outside the box,” Spencer said. “We should be thinking about possibly bringing things out of the Ready Reserve (of mothballed ships). We should be looking at ways to construct better, faster, cheaper; we’ll be looking at the frigate down the road” — the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
being a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that could be built in large numbers.

Overall, I found Spencer’s answers consistently nuanced and thoughtful, befitting his
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on the Defense Business Board and as a former Marine Corps officer. So, apparently, did the committee, with several members, including Cotton, openly stating their support and McCain, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, pledging to see his nomination through before August. It’s easy to rally around a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It’s much harder to wrestle with the costs, complexities, and trade-offs as Spencer, clearly, has already begun to do.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
These "op ed" folks
previous.gif
that dissect every word politicians , statesmen or who ever speak...make me ..yeesh....
puke.gif


They are just like Satan who came to "kill, steal and destroy".
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
The Navy is ditching the LCS already?o_O:( Shall we blame on Obama or Trump on this matter?:rolleyes:

The Navy Is Looking for a New Frigate to Replace the Troubled Littoral Combat Ship

Navy releases requirements for new guided-missile frigate, effectively turning its back on the troubled, decade-long Littoral Combat Ship program.


1499801511-2831218.jpg
The U.S. Navy has solicited industry for a new frigate design, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction with the troubled, frigate-sized Littoral Combat Ships. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
fell victim to a combination of technological overreach and a changing geopolitical environment that made the ships minimally capable, unreliable, and obsolete in a world of variable global threats. In its place, the Navy wants a more traditional guided-missile frigate design capable of tackling larger, more complex roles.


The Navy released a Request for Information (RFI) on July 10. The RFI lets the shipbuilding industry know what the Navy is looking for in the new ship, tentatively called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, or Fast Frigate, Guided (Experimental). The FFG(X) would fill the Small Surface Combatant category in the Navy's force structure.

gallery-1499801588-3448436.jpg

Littoral Combat Ship USS Coronado.
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Deven Leigh Ellis.
The RFI makes it clear the FFG(X) should be very different from the Navy's current Littoral Combat Ship, a frigate-sized ship that was originally designed to fulfill multiple missions with a variety of swappable "mission modules." The aluminum-hulled Littoral Combat Ships are designed to have minimal crews, around 70 sailors, that can operate specialized mission modules to fulfill anti-ship, anti-submarine, anti-mine, and and special operations missions. The ships were designed to be especially relevant in littoral waterways, meaning near coastal areas. The first LCS, Freedom, was commissioned to the fleet in 2008. Nine Littoral Combat Ships have been constructed with a total of 40 planned. The LCS was originally set to total 52 ships but was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The Littoral Combat Ship program has been a disappointing failure. The ships have proven unreliable, with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at sea. The vaunted
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
often turned out to be vaporware, and even after more than ten years of development, few if any actually deployed to the fleet. Without modules, the ships were very lightly armed, with only a single 57-millimeter bow-mounted gun and a pair of 30-millimeter light cannons. For years the ships have been promised heavier firepower in the form of anti-ship missiles, but the Navy has failed to fulfill even this relatively simple task. In addition, demands to hold ship crew size down resulted in overworked LCS crews.

gallery-1499801703-3475144.jpg

Danish combat support ship Abasalon.
U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist America A. Henry.

The Littoral Combat Ship was also a victim of changing geopolitical times. The Navy wanted a ship that would operate on the periphery of the Global War on Terror, providing a relevant, effective ship where the land meets the sea. But as time went on, demands for such a ship proved more apparent than real. The ship and its mission modules have been under development for so long that the strategic environment changed and the LCS has become a white elephant.

What has been very real, however, is the growing size of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, or the Chinese Navy, and Russia's increasing aggressiveness and use of naval forces abroad. Against the Chinese and Russian navies the LCS is pathetically under-armed, lacking a single anti-ship missile to target enemies. Even worse, the anti-surface missiles the Navy initially proposed to arm the ships with,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, were much too small and too short of range to take on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, let alone destroyers. Littoral Combat Ships also prioritized speed—they could do 40 knots in sprints—over range, a reversal of priorities for operating in the vastness of the Pacific Ocean.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

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


Fre-FFG-01.jpg Ind-FFG-01.jpg

Naval Today said:
The U.S. Navy will be looking at multiple existing ship designs for its new frigate instead of focusing on simply up-gunning the troubled littoral combat ships, the service’s request for information has revealed.

Published on July 10, 2017, the RFI outlines what the U.S. Navy wants the future Guided Missile Frigate (FFG(X)), as the frigate is now officially called, to be capable of.

The FFG(X) design is expected to draw on existing parent designs adapted to navy capability requirements. Unlike the LCS, the frigates should be able to integrate into carrier strike groups and large surface combatant led surface action groups but also be able to defend itself during independent operations.

The navy is also expecting the frigate to assume some of the duties of large surface combatants like the over-tasked Arleigh Burke-class destroyers during “operations other than war”. These operations include presence missions, security cooperation activities and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) efforts among other.

The U.S. Navy wants the frigate to have a 25 year service life and a grade A shock hardening for propulsion, critical systems, and combat system elements to retain full air defense and propulsion capabilities.

Major warfare systems that the U.S. Navy would like to have on the frigate include an Aegis-derivative COMBATSS-21 combat management system, a C4I suite, an Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), Mk53 Decoy Launching System (Nulka), a SeaRAM Mk15 Mod 31 in addition to a UAV and an MH-60R helicopter.

What the navy is particularly interested in is the ship’s vertical launch cell potential to support Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block 2 and/or Standard Missile-2 Active missiles. The navy wants a description of launcher type and cell quantities the proposed design could accommodate.

A Detail Design and Construction contract is expected to be awarded in FY2020. The navy wants to buy one ship in 2020 and 2021 followed by two ships per year from 2022.

It is clear that the US Navy has new people at the whell. The existing LCS vessels will get uparmed and helped out.

but these new frigates are going to be frigates from the get go, and it is clear that both the Austal and Lockheed designs could have been designed that way from the beginning. The other potential is probably the Frigate version of the US Coast Guard Legend class cutters:

Leg-FFG-01.jpg
 
These "op ed" folks
previous.gif
that dissect every word politicians , statesmen or who ever speak...make me ..yeesh....
puke.gif


They are just like Satan who came to "kill, steal and destroy".
sorry if you're upset by the article I posted, but it's obviously important what the candidate has said: people now for example may bet their money on, or withdraw their bets from, shipyards (LOL not me though, I'm just an Internet kibitzer ... but yeah, I like to read about those hearings, dodging, spinning and so on)
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I posted this on the Carrier thread...but it needs to be heard here too.

@bd popeye @Obi Wan Russell @Air Force Brat @FORBIN @Jura @Miragedriver @kwaigonegin @dtulsa @vesicles @SouthernSky

The Ford is going to be readied and made operational...but it is not going to be cheap and it is going to take time.

I keep saying this...but it needs repeating.

The ship makes use of numerous NEW TECHNOLOGIES and innovations.

Those are expensive.

Those do not come easily.

The US Navy will take their time to make sure they get them all right, and that they do so as safely as possible.

I do not expect the Ford to become IOC as fast as a Nimitz class now does, not nearly so.

It can't.

New Cats, new Traps, new Reactors, all new main sensors, new spaces, and storage. etc.

They are going to have to rethink and then optimize their procedures for everything that deals with any of those new systems.

So, I expect it to be several months before they do any large air operations. I hope that within three months from now they will have done some...small steps testing to prepare for larger scale air ops. They will go about it very deliberately and very carefully.

So...I expect her to spend another year getting ready, and during that time we will see her at sea 2-3 times, and each time they will do a little more.

Then, they will spend another year getting everything they learn from those experiences together so they can embark and efficiently operate a full air wing.

They will go to sea to do that too....and maybe during that year, towards the end, they will actually make their first official deployment.

Then, the year after that...we are now talking 2019-2020, they may reach IOC. Two years after that, they may reach FOC.

But that is what it is going to take.

...and I am okay with that because we are talking about leap ahead technologies here.

And then, over the next 45 years, she will more than save for everything it took to get us that because she will require 1,000 less personnel on board over that 45 year period. In addition, she will be less maintenance intensive...though they will work out rigorous and acceptable maintenance schedules for her.

While all of this is happening, the second carrier will come online and have to spend less time getting to IOC. Then the 3rd, the USS Enterprise, CVN-80, will even spend less and begin to get to a point where we see these carriers getting launched, trialed, commissioned and reaching operational capabilities in similar time frames as the Nimitz has over the last 3-4 vessels.

But that is what it is going to take folks...and that's okay.

Apply the same rationale to the Zumwalts. There is another class of vessels where Leap Ahead technologies are being employed. Do not exp[ect her to be IOC or FOC like a Burke. It's going to take time, and it is going to cost.

But what we learn from these ships is going to lead to the Tico replacement...and I hope...and if we get a decent, hard driving but navy smart leadership in place for 8 years or more...I expect that the new Tico replacement will look and act a lot like the Zumwalt, but be optimized for Air Defense.

Right now the US Navy is the only nation that can bring together such leap ahead technologies for multiple classes and then build a lot of ships to take advantage of it for the long term

China is trying to get to that stage...but in order to get there, they have to catch up technology wise and operationally and experience wise. And that is going to take a lot of years.

The UK will do some of it...but they simply do not have the infrastructure and industry they at one time did. In some areas, they still do awful dang good stuff. Even with a less capable overall design for the QE, they are loading some very good technology into her...like they did the Darings and the Astutes...but they have had their troubles with it too.

Sadly, the problem is that we have raised generations of kids who are grown adults now and they want to see everything working perfectly right away.

Sorry guys...life is not like that.

That is all...carry on!
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
All fair points Jeff. Like most things in life, early adopters and new in class technologies nevermind a nuclear carrier is expected to take a very long time to get right at first.. no arguments there.

My contention however was and always have been these are very experienced shipbuilders AND they have already put in place additional resources and allocated and stretched the timeline based on known unknowns in the project frame. Again because of all these new technologies thrown in there.

Those time frames and the additional constraints put in place however have now been surpassed on multiple occasion.

Right now the biggest roadblock for Ford is her EMALS. Most recent issue being it can't launch fully loaded birds off. NavAir PMA-251 are the folks managing the EMALS for Ford and everything else launch and recovery related. What I don't understand is the shakeout should've been done on land at Joint Base McGuire-Lakehurst long time ago not now.

the United States Navy contract is for the construction and delivery of a COMPLETE naval vessel.

The aircraft launch system is considered a CRITICAL part of an aircraft carrier therefore when it was delivered it is not considered complete. PERIOD!

I wouldn't accept delivery of a car w/o a steering wheel or tranny which never goes past 2nd gear.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
All fair points Jeff. Like most things in life, early adopters and new in class technologies nevermind a nuclear carrier is expected to take a very long time to get right at first.. no arguments there.

My contention however was and always have been these are very experienced shipbuilders AND they have already put in place additional resources and allocated and stretched the timeline based on known unknowns in the project frame. Again because of all these new technologies thrown in there.

Those time frames and the additional constraints put in place however have now been surpassed on multiple occasion.

Right now the biggest roadblock for Ford is her EMALS. Most recent issue being it can't launch fully loaded birds off. NavAir PMA-251 are the folks managing the EMALS for Ford and everything else launch and recovery related. What I don't understand is the shakeout should've been done on land at Joint Base McGuire-Lakehurst long time ago not now.

the United States Navy contract is for the construction and delivery of a COMPLETE naval vessel.

The aircraft launch system is considered a CRITICAL part of an aircraft carrier therefore when it was delivered it is not considered complete. PERIOD!

I wouldn't accept delivery of a car w/o a steering wheel or tranny which never goes past 2nd gear.
I know people at the land facility and they have told me that the aircraft werre launched there under all sorts of conditions, with all sorts of load outs. I cannot image that they "forgot" full load outs with full fueling.

They launched the test articles off the ship into the river too...that can be modified to approximate the weighting of the aircraft.

Something else is afoot IMHO...whatever it is, they will figure it out and get it right. it is just going to take time.

Yes, the launch system is critical.

But it and the trapping system are also brand new too.

My guess is that they have run into something at sea, with the movement of the vesel and the associated workings that they are having to work on and that a part of it is the "prograamming" that they have built inot these systms. They will figure it out and get it right. I am okay with that.

We still have all ten Nimitz class vessels going through their cycles and we will be okay. I'd rather they get it right so they can take full advantage of the new techs and the advantages they bring, then to try and rusg it through.

Anyhow...I understand that people are frustrated and that particularly the John Q Public, who is not aware of such systems and how such programs and technology have to be brought forward are frustrated and getting impatient.

I still believe it is going to work out...particularly from friends I know who are telling me that despite the timing, there is nothing seriously wrong that cannot be overcome and made right.

Time will tell.
 
Top