LPD'S OR LHD'S MULTI ROLE COMBAT SHIP WILL REPLACE DESTROYERS ?
Navy DDG-51 Flight III modifications. SOURCE: GAO
The Navy has crammed as much electronics as it can into its new DDG-51 Flight III destroyers now beginning construction, Rear Adm. William Galinis said this morning. That drives the service towards a new Large Surface Combatant that can comfortably accommodate the same high-powered radars, as well as future weapons such as lasers, on either a modified DDG-51 hull or an entirely new design.
“It’s going to be more of an evolutionary approach as we migrate from the DDG-51 Flight IIIs to the Large Surface Combatant,” said Galinis, the Navy’s Program Executive Officer for Ships. (LSC evolved from the Future Surface Combatant concept and will serve along a new frigate and unmanned surface vessels). “(We) start with a DDG-51 flight III combat system and we build off of that, probably bringing in a new HME (Hull, Mechanical, & Engineering) infrastructure, a new power architecture, to support that system as it then evolves going forward.
AMPHIBIOUS TRANSPORT DOCK - LPD
Description
Amphibious transport dock ships are warships that embark, transport and land elements of a landing force for a variety of expeditionary warfare missions.
Features
LPDs are used to transport and land Marines, their equipment, and supplies by embarked Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) or conventional landing craft and amphibious assault vehicles (AAV) augmented by helicopters or vertical take-off and landing aircraft (MV 22). These ships support amphibious assault, special operations, or expeditionary warfare missions and serve as secondary aviation platforms for amphibious operations.
Background
The LPD 17 San Antonio class is the functional replacement for over 41 ships including the LPD 4 Austin class, LSD 36 Anchorage class, LKA 113 Charleston class, and LST 1179 Newport class amphibious ships. The newly designated LPD Flight II ships (formerly LX(R)) will be the functional replacement for the LSD 41/49 Whidbey Island Class. The San Antonio class provides the Navy and Marine Corps with modern, sea-based platforms that are networked, survivable, and built to operate in the 21st century, with the MV-22 Osprey, the upgraded Amphibious Assault Vehicle, and future means by which Marines are delivered ashore.
Construction on USS San Antonio (LPD 17), the first ship of the class, commenced in June 2000 and was delivered to the Navy in July 2005. USS New York (LPD 21) was the first of three LPD 17class ships built in honor of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The ship's bow stem was cast using 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center. The Navy named the eighth and ninth ships of the class Arlington and Somerset, in honor of the victims of the attacks on the Pentagon and United Flight 93, respectively. Materials from those sites were also incorporated into the construction of each ship. USS Portland (LPD 27), the eleventh ship of the class, delivered in 2017. LPDs 28 and 29 are currently under construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) on the Gulf Coast. As the 12th and 13th San Antonio class ships, LPDs 28 and 29 will perform the same missions as the previous 11 ships of the class while incorporating technically feasible cost reduction initiatives and class lessons learned. In 2018 the Navy made the decision to transition to the LX(R) effort to a second flight of the LPD 17 design. LPD 30 will be the first of 13 planned LPD Flight II ships, for a total complement of 26 ships in the LPD 17 class.
General Characteristics, San Antonio Class LPD Flights I and II
Builder: Huntington Ingalls Industries
Propulsion: Four sequentially turbocharged marine Colt-Pielstick Diesels, two shafts, 41,600 shaft horsepower
Length: 684 feet
Beam: 105 feet
Displacement: Approximately 24,900 long tons (25,300 metric tons) full load
Draft: 23 feet
Speed: In excess of 22 knots (24.2 mph, 38.7 kph)
Crew: Ship's Company: 383 Sailors and 3 Marines. Embarked Landing Force: Flight I: 699 with surge capacity of 800; LPD 28/29:650; Flight II: 631.
Armament: Two Mk 46 30 mm Close in Guns, fore and aft; two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers, fore and aft: ten .50 caliber machine guns
Aircraft: Launch or land two CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters or two MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft or up to four AH-1Z or UH-1Y or MH-60 helicopters
Landing/Attack Craft: Two LCACs or one LCU; and 14 Amphibious Assault Vehicles
The DDG-51 is now the single most common type in the fleet, a vital part of the hoped-for 355-ship Navy, with some ships expected to serve into the 2070s:
- There are now 64 Arleigh Burkes of various sub-types in service;
- nine of the latest Flight IIA variant are in various stages of construction; and
- work is beginning on the new Flight IIIs in Mississippi (Huntington Ingalls Industries) and Maine (General Dynamics-owned Bath Iron Works).
The USS McCain (DDG 56)
The Navy is doubling down on long-standing programs to keep its older warships up to date and on par with the newest versions. But the current destroyers just won’t be able to keep up with the Flight III, which will have a slightly modified hull and higher-voltage electricity to accommodate Raytheon’s massive new Air & Missile Defense Radar. A stripped down version of the AMDR, the Enterprise Air Search Radar (EASR, also by Raytheon) is already going on amphibious ships and might just fit on older Burkes as well, however.
But it’s tight. On the Flight III, even with the hull modifications, “you kind of get to the naval architectural limits of the DDG-51 hullform,” Galinis told a Navy League breakfast this morning. “That’s going to bring a lot of incredible capabilities to the fleet but there’s also a fair amount of technical risk.”
Navy is laboring mightily to reduce that risk on Flight III with simulations and land-based testing, including a full prototype of the new power plant being built in Philadelphia. But it’s clear the combat system is out of room to grow within the limits of the current hull.
The bridge/superstructure should be extended all the way to the stern, creating a flat top for emergency aircraft landings or home for 15 F-35B and helicopters. The additional 400 feet at the stern will be two times the width of the beam making the ship more stable due to increase armor and the heavy flat top. The shape of the bottom at the stern is like a trimaran with deeper V-plow aft more than the existing main hull, a possible protection from torpedos hitting the main body of the ship.
Wasp and her sister ships are the first specifically designed to accommodate new Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) for fast troop movement over the beach, and Harrier II (AV-8B) Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL) jets which provide close air support for the assault force. She can also accommodate the full range of Navy and Marine Corps helicopters, the tiltrotor MV-22 Osprey, the F-35B Lightning II multi-role fighter, conventional landing craft, and amphibious vehicles.
'The primary function of Navy amphibious ships is to lift (i.e., transport) U.S. Marines and their equipment and supplies to distant operating areas, and enable Marines to conduct expeditionary operations ashore in those areas,' reads a report from the Congressional Research Service.
'Although amphibious ships are designed to support Marine landings against opposing military forces, they are also used for operations in permissive or benign situations where there are no opposing forces.'
Lockheed sees this as a 'Navy in a box' or a self-contained fight unit that could reach even the most dangerous areas. Although this type of technology does substantially increase the ship's cost, it would open the door for more concepts, give the Navy and Marines other resources for deployment. Pictured is Nasa's Orion capsule in the well deck of LPD USS Anchorage
Large and small craft are also onboard - capable of ferrying people, emergency supplies and several vehicles across shallow waters (pictured: Landing Craft Utility Vehicles)
The Navy has also dispatched two amphibious assault ships, the USS Iwo Jima (pictured in a file photo) and the USS New York, to help with recovery efforts
The USS Iwo Jima and USS New York (pictured in a file photo) homeported in Mayport, Florida, as they gathered supplies before supporting relief operations
The go anywhere craft set to take US Marines into battle: BAE reveals $6.2 billion amphibious combat vehicle
- The new vehicles will replace the aging fleet of vehicles that have been in service since 1972
- The new vehicle can carry 13 embarked Marines plus a crew of three to operate it
- 16 wheel craft can 65mph on land and has a range of more than 325 miles
- In sea, the craft can reach 6 knots and travel 12 nautical miles
The U.S. Marine Corps has revealed a radical next generation armored amphibious vehicle designed to protect Marines in transit from sea to shore.
It awarded BAE Systems a lucrative contract to build the amphibious combat vehicle.
The new vehicles will replace the aging fleet of expensive-to-maintain flat-bottomed amphibious assault vehicles in service since 1972.
PLC a contract for wheeled amphibious combat vehicles (ACV) that transport Marines from ship to shore under hostile conditions, the defense contractor said on Tuesday.
The new vehicles will replace the aging fleet of expensive-to-maintain flat-bottomed amphibious assault vehicles in service since 1972. It is designed to protect Marines in transit from sea to shore.
A U.S. official and a person familiar with the decision earlier told Reuters that BAE had been awarded the deal.
The award is a blow to defense services company Science Applications International Corp (SAIC), which was competing to be lead contractor on the vehicle.
The Department of Defense estimated that procurement and maintenance of all 208 vehicles in the program will be about $6.2 billion over their lifetime.
SAIC said it was 'disappointed' that its vehicle was not selected.
The award for an initial batch of 30 vehicles shifts the program from the prototype and testing phase into low-rate production, which is scheduled to begin this year.
A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office cautioned the Marine Corps from entering a second year of low-rate production until the contractor demonstrates the vehicles produced have consistently high quality manufacturing standards.
THE US MARINE'S NEW AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE
Designed as an amphibious vehicle with open-ocean ship launch and recovery capability, the ACV can carry 13 embarked Marines plus a crew of three.
The 8x8 amphibious platform has a special 'H-Drive' System to provide full time all-wheel traction both on land and in the surf zone.
The craft is equipped with a robust 690HP engine, providing a significant power increase over the Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) – has a range of more than 325 miles on land before refueling and can travel at speeds in excess of 65 miles per hour.
A blast resistant hull and energy absorbing seats are key elements of the ACV 1.1, and protect it from mine, improvised explosive device (IED), kinetic energy (KE), and overhead protection.
The 8x8 amphibious platform has a special 'H-Drive' System to provide full time all-wheel traction both on land and in the surf zone.
A blast resistant hull and energy absorbing seats are key elements of the ACV 1.1, and protect it from mine, improvised explosive device (IED), kinetic energy (KE), and overhead protection.
An Automatic Fire Suppression System is also included.In 2015, it awarded SAIC and BAE development and testing contracts for the wheeled amphibious combat project.
The program will be a replacement for the tracked Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EVF) that was being developed for the Marines by General Dynamics Corp before its cancellation in 2011 following large cost increases and technical issues.
The Congressional Research Service said the Navy wants to spend no more than $950 million per ship, while Clarke put the target at $800 million per ship after the first ship.
Working in the ship's favor in terms of affordability: The proposal calls for no new technologies.
That's a far cry from littoral combat ships and larger, stealthy Zumwalt-class destroyers that incorporated new designs and technologies that contributed to significant cost overruns.
So how different does the next ship need to be? “How much more combat capability can we squeeze into the current hullform?” Galinis said. “Do we use the DDG-51 hullform and maybe expand that? Do we build a new hullform?”
Lockheed Martin concept for their new HELIOS laser for the Navy.
“We’re looking at all the options, Sydney,” he said when reporters clustered around him after his talk. “(It’s in) very, very early stages… to say it’ll be one system over another or one power architecture over another, it’s way too early.”
“We’re still working through what that power architecture looks like,” Galinis told the breakfast. “Do we stay with a more traditional (gas-driven) system… or do we really make that transition to an integrated electric plant — and at some point, probably, bring in energy storage magazines…to support directed energy weapons and things like that?”
The admiral’s referring here to anti-missile lasers, railguns, and other high-tech but electricity-hungry systems. Having field-tested a rather jury-rigged 30 kilowatt laseron the converted amphibious ship Ponce, the Navy’s next step is a more permanent, properly integrated installation next year on an amphibious ship, LPD-27 Portland. (Subsequent LPDs won’t have the laser under current plans). But Portland is part of the relatively roomy LPD-17 San Antonio class, which has plenty of space, weight capacity, power, and cooling capacity (SWAP-C) available, in large part because the Navy never installed a planned 16 Vertical Launch System (VLS) tubes in the bow. By contrast, while the Navy’s studying how to fit a laser on the Arleigh Burkes, the space and electricity available are much tighter.
USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)
The DDG-1000 Digression
The larger DDG-1000 Zumwalt class does have integrated electric drive that’s performing well in sea trials, Galinis said. (That said, the brand-new DDG-1001, Michael Monsoor, has had glitches with the harmonic filter that manages the power and, more recently, with its turbine engine blades). “We’ve learned a lot from DDG-1000” that the Navy’s now applying both to its highest priority program, the Columbia-class nuclear missile submarine, and potentially to the future Large Surface Combatant as well.
In other ways, DDG-1000 is a dead end, too large and expensive for the Navy to afford in quantity. The Navy truncated the class to just three ships and restarted Arleigh Burke production, which it had halted on the assumption the Zumwalts would be built in bulk.
Today, the Zumwalt‘s very mission is in doubt. The ship was designed around a 155 mm gun with revolutionary rocket-boosted shells, but ammunition technology hasn’t reached the ranges the Navy wanted for the original mission of bombarding targets ashore. With the resurgence of the Russian fleet and the rise of China’s, the Navy now wants to turn the DDG-1000s into ship-killers, which requires even longer ranges because modern naval battle is a duel of missiles.
The USS John Paul Jones test-fires an SM-6 missile from a Vertical Launch System (VLS)
The gun’s place in ship-to-ship combat is “probably not a significant role, at least not at the ranges we’re interested in,” Galinis told reporters. While the Navy could invest in long-range cannon ammunition, he said, it’s paused work on several potential shells it test-fired last summer, awaiting the final mission review. If the Zumwalts do move to the anti-ship mission, which Galinis said they would be well suited for with minor modifications, their guns will be less relevant than their 80 Advanced VLS missile tubes or future weapons such as railguns drawing on their prodigious electric power.
That power plant might evolve into the electric heart of the future Large Surface Combatant — or it might not.
“We’re going to have the requirements discussion with Navy leadership and then we’re going to want to engage industry as we start thinking about what options might be available,” Galinis said. “Frankly industry’s probably best suited to try to help us with the technology piece, especially if we start thinking (that) we want an innovative electric plant…..We’d go to probably the big power electronics/power system vendors, who really work in that field and have the best information on where technology’s going.”
No comments:
Post a Comment