Naval and Defense News

[Dysta]

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/01 ... isits-Guam

US nuclear missile submarine visits Guam for 1st time since 1980s


For the first time since the late 1980s, the US Navy has dispatched a submarine equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles to the Pacific island of Guam.

The USS Pennsylvania (SSBN 735) got engaged in a "scheduled port visit" to the US territory, according to a Navy press release on Monday.

The move was considered as a gesture of support for US allies in the region, including Japan and South Korea, whose delegations had been stationed Guam, awaiting a rare tour of the submarine.

"This specific visit to Guam reflects the United States' commitment to its allies in the Indo-Asia-Pacific, and complements the many exercises, training, operations, and other military cooperation activities conducted between the U.S. and its partner nations," the Navy said. "Ballistic missile submarines such as USS Pennsylvania are on patrol continuously, providing a critical, stabilizing and highly effective element of the U.S. nuclear deterrence force."

The US Navy possesses 14 Ohio-class ballistic missiles submarines like the USS Pennsylvania, which carries 24 Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles, each one carrying multiple warheads programmable to be launched at various targets.

Chinese Defense Minister ​Chang Wanguan said in early October that "some countries seek absolute military superiority, ceaselessly strengthen their military alliances, and seek their own absolute security at the costs of other countries' security."

Tensions between the US and China have escalated in the wake of Washington's increased military involvement in Asia as part of President Barack Obama's "pivot" to the region.

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Oh man.

Pretty ironical. Werent they suppossed to be a bad idea just yesterday?

The U.S. Is desperate for Anti-ship missile capability which - for god knows why- was allowed to decay. Grabbing some LRASMs but not until 2018. Also trying to retool tomahawks or whatever. Nice and comforting to know that if an Arleigh Burke class US destroyer was to be engaged by an enemy surface ship, it's ONLY means to sink that enemy ship would be peppering it with SM-6 missiles in SS mode assuming it has them. How the Navy figured they wouldn't have to actually engage enemy navies is beyond me.

So maybe this is another desperation move to quickly find something (or everything) that can attack ships

[Hongjian]

CM-302/YJ-12A export variant's description.

290km max range is for the missile technology export restriction treaty (must be under 300km), so the 400km max range cited for China's own YJ-12 makes sense.

Terminal evasive maneuvering is now also confirmed from the official side.

[kevinkins]

[/quote]

How the Navy figured they wouldn't have to actually engage enemy navies is beyond me.

If I recall the idea is to use carrier aircraft to engage enemy surface ships. Now as the range and self defense capabilities of anti ship missiles improve, the Navy needs to take that into account. But the tactical paradigm will continue to be protection of carriers and any surface threat to any ship would be squashed before it knew what happened. There are only a handful of ships in the world that can threaten a fully informed and trained Navy destroyer. The Navy knows who has them and where they are. But to your point the Navy's edge is not infinite and needs to be maintained.

[Hongjian]

Yeah, definitely it fits into the new USN strategy shift, along with the introduction of the LRASM. Surface vs Surface combat is again on the table. On the other hand, the ATACMS ASBM fits into the much suggested strategy of ringing China with a A2AD chain themselves by arming friendly states with cheap but effective A2AD systems - including these ASBMs.

[Hongjian]

Oh man, China is being a troll again:

They promised to unveil an AESA radar for the first time during this year's Airshow, and they actually did.

It is the KLJ-7A, the "AESA update" (if you want to call it that) of the planar-array KLJ-7 pulse doppler radar, equipped on the JF-17 export lightweight fighter serving in Pakistan.


It says KLJ-7A is a AESA specially designed for JF-17 with performance equals to radar of F-35.
Operational mode including:

Tracking and searching
Single/multiple targets tracking
Dogfight
Real beam mapping
Doppler beam sharpening
Synthetic aperture imaging
Identify and track moving ground targets
Sea targets searching and tracking
Meteorological mode
Missile guidance and multi targets attack mode

Merits
long detection range
High accuracy
Multi operational modes
Multi target processing ability
Excellent ECCM capability

EDIT:

Specs flying around the net:

170km range for 'fighter sized targets' (Chinese radar measurement usually uses 2-3 square meter as benchmark IIRC)
track 15 targets, engage 4.




How NRIET/14th institute knows about the performance of the F-35's radar, the APG-81, is anyone's guess...[:)]

[kevinkins]

much suggested strategy of ringing China with a A2AD chain themselves by arming friendly states with cheap but effective A2AD systems - including these ASBMs.

That comment could not be more timely seeing as I am about to order this book on A2AD:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1612511864/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Anyone read this?

Scenarios: knocking out the transport of these systems mid ocean before they are installed in the host country. Combat occurs just outside and then just inside an established A2AD zone allied to the host.

Kevin

[FoxZz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEHIaerJbEk

An interesting interview on the future capabilities of the UK Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

How the Navy figured they wouldn't have to actually engage enemy navies is beyond me.

If I recall the idea is to use carrier aircraft to engage enemy surface ships. Now as the range and self defense capabilities of anti ship missiles improve, the Navy needs to take that into account. But the tactical paradigm will continue to be protection of carriers and any surface threat to any ship would be squashed before it knew what happened. There are only a handful of ships in the world that can threaten a fully informed and trained Navy destroyer. The Navy knows who has them and where they are. But to your point the Navy's edge is not infinite and needs to be maintained.

Maybe...but carrier aircraft to engage with what? A handful of harpoons? Slow, non stealthy and relatively short ranged. No dice. I can't believe - assuming that was their plan- that they felt single destroyers or squadrons without carriers would be fine not having any means of sinking enemy surface ships. A navy without the capability of destroying enemy navies....WTH?

I think they got cocky and figured no one would bother challenging. Now they are scrambling. They want the LRASM but are restricted to limited numbers without a competitive bid. That is the second phase. So they should get LRASM In limited numbers in 2017-2018 but have to wait until 2020 or so to get it in mass numbers.

So for now, they are limited to using the SM-6. Interesting though that the Army is even interested at all in a ASW capability. I wonder if this reflects the Army's concern over the Navy's capacity to protect Army forces from naval attack. A kind of "well if you want it done right you have to do it yourself" kind of thing

[jtoatoktoe]

Well the only LRASM's promised are Air Launched for B-1B and Super Hornets. Maybe they can swing a few into VLS but officially VLS ASM is set for 2024

[kevinkins]

Hi mikeCK. I want to set up a sandbox to test USN surface ship vs surface ships from potential adversaries. Although they do not operated alone in a high threat environment, I first want to try it one-on-one. Which Russian and Chinese vessel would you recommend? Trying to learn and this is an interesting question. I have done the same with trying to take out S400s ie figuring out the firepower required. I may have to layer in carrier aircraft but the one-on-one would serve as a baseline.

[ExNusquam]

So for now, they are limited to using the SM-6. Interesting though that the Army is even interested at all in a ASW capability. I wonder if this reflects the Army's concern over the Navy's capacity to protect Army forces from naval attack. A kind of "well if you want it done right you have to do it yourself" kind of thing

As shocking as this is, I think the US government is actually doing something efficiently for the right reasons. I suspect that the ATACMS-as-ASuW is growth from the Strategic Capabilities Office - the same office that created the ASuW mode for the SM-6. It's a DoD-wide office stood up in 2012 to provide immediate/near-term upgrades to existing systems. It would also not surprise me if there were additional seeker options under development to allow long-range, land-based precision fires- something that would be extremely useful for ground forces operating underneath an A2/AD umbrella.

[AlGrant]

Seen on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ThielsChristian/status/794469782305251328

No real shocks but gives details of who/where/when

[AlGrant]

BAE Systems awarded contract for Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System to provide USAF F-15 fleet with advanced electronic warfare tech.

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/eagle-passive-active-warning-survivability-system-epawss

"Providing both offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, EPAWSS offers fully integrated radar warning, geo-location, situational awareness, and self-protection solutions to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats in signal-dense contested and highly contested environments."

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Hi mikeCK. I want to set up a sandbox to test USN surface ship vs surface ships from potential adversaries. Although they do not operated alone in a high threat environment, I first want to try it one-on-one. Which Russian and Chinese vessel would you recommend? Trying to learn and this is an interesting question. I have done the same with trying to take out S400s ie figuring out the firepower required. I may have to layer in carrier aircraft but the one-on-one would serve as a baseline.

Honestly, I don't know much about Chinese or Russian surface ships...but any modern destroyer or cruiser would do fine. Ideally US ships don't operate in a high threat environment without a carrier but carrier aircraft only have Harpoons. In reality though, combat may occur in a non-high threat environment. I would suggest a newer block IIa Arleigh Burke destroyer vs 2 Chinese destroyers and see what happens. I would use the flight/block IIa or III Arleigh Burke destroyers (or Zumwalt) since those are the newest and CANNOT carry Harpoons. Make sure they are carrying RIM-174a missiles (SM-6)

[Randomizer]

If correct, this might keep the CMANO Live team busy...

Moscow insiders say it doesn’t matter who wins on November 8. Putin has America right where he wants it.

Putin doesn't care who wins November 8th

-C

[Dysta]

http://newatlas.com/northrop-grumman-la ... pon/46297/

Northrop Grumman to build laser beam control system for future aircraft

Northrop Grumman has announced it will help the US Air Force to develop a new defensive weapon to be installed in existing and future aircraft. The contract with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) will see the company develop and build a beam control system for a laser weapon demonstration system that AFRL is developing under its Advanced Technology Demonstration program.

The system will be housed in a pod similar to one being developed by Lockheed Martin and be small enough to be install on a fighter aircraft. As a defensive weapon, its likely targets will be hostile incoming missiles, drones, and warplanes.

The company's part of the project will be to develop the beam control system, which is an active focusing device that not only acquires and tracks targets, but monitors the air conditions along the path of the laser beam and alters the focus to counteract any disturbances, so it strikes the target for maximum effect.

When developed, the system will be integrated with the laser, power source, and cooling systems of the weapon and the completed weapon will be tested in 2019 using a supersonic tactical weapon as an aerial test platform.

[Broncepulido]

An image of the enlarged Virginia-class Block V SSN on page 32 of the report, with a characteristic "hump" in the elongated section abaft the sail, probably with the new 4xVPM (Virginia Payload Module, each capable of 7 cruise missile-size weapons, for a grand total of forty (12 previously fore the sail+28 in the 4xVPM) weapons in VLS): https://news.usni.org/2016/11/03/docume ... rogram-5-2

[Hongjian]

Sovremenny Pr.956A 136 "Hangzhou" refitted with a HHQ-10 PDMS just infront of its bow VLS complex. I hope we will get the confirmation about the type of VLS soon.



China's second Aircraft Carrier Type 001A progress update: Island nearly finished - features a different AESA-layout than the Liaoning. Will most probably use the Type 346A. Mast also now installed and would probably mount the Type 382 S/C-band "Top-Plate lookalike" radar.



The deck is also being cleared. Just still lack the CIWS on the sponsons. Launch should be soon.

[Tailhook]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

So for now, they are limited to using the SM-6. Interesting though that the Army is even interested at all in a ASW capability. I wonder if this reflects the Army's concern over the Navy's capacity to protect Army forces from naval attack. A kind of "well if you want it done right you have to do it yourself" kind of thing

As shocking as this is, I think the US government is actually doing something efficiently for the right reasons. I suspect that the ATACMS-as-ASuW is growth from the Strategic Capabilities Office - the same office that created the ASuW mode for the SM-6. It's a DoD-wide office stood up in 2012 to provide immediate/near-term upgrades to existing systems. It would also not surprise me if there were additional seeker options under development to allow long-range, land-based precision fires- something that would be extremely useful for ground forces operating underneath an A2/AD umbrella.

I didn't realize I forgot to include links until now, I apologize.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/army ... ef-carter/

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ant ... ies-office

http://www.waaytv.com/redstone_alabama/ ... cc36c.html

It is indeed a product of the SCO. There's definitely a bit of stop-gap-ism to this program, but also strategic and tactical merit. I am curious as to the ABM capabilities of Chinese vessels. At the very least it's now something for them to think about. I'd love to see this as a hypothetical unit for later scenarios.