FIL INFO US NAVY

Budget FY 2010

commande de
16 F-35 B (USMC)
4 F-35 C (Us Navy)
9 F/A-18 E/F
22 EA-18G
6 P-8A
22 MV 22 B
+ des UH-1Y et AH-1Z

1 DDG type Burke
3 LCS
2 JHSV
2 T-AKE
1 SSN type 774

Prévision des navires à désarmer =

- SSN Los angeles le 02 novembre 2009
- SSN Philadelphia le 10 juin 2010
- Frégate McInerney le 31 aout 2010 (normalement transféré au Pakistan)
- Navire de soutien San Jose le 27 janvier 2010
- Transport de munition Mount Baker le 02 aout 2010

La défense anti misiles US basée en mer se met en place =

Citation :

He notes that North Korea has developed missile technology and is using it as a negotiating tool “despite our efforts against the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.” Kadish argued for continuing the plan to deploy radars in the Czech Republic and Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) missiles in Poland. “People don’t realize that it’s not there to protect Poland and the Czechs. They’re going out on a limb, as friends, to allow us to protect ourselves.” He also advocated continuing work on the high-performance Kinetic Energy Interceptor missile.

None of these initiatives is being pursued by the Obama administration. That’s not to say that missile defense is dead or permanently on the back burner. Rather, shifts in doctrine and technology may be driving BMD toward a maritime-centric model.

For example, it seems likely that whatever new surface combatant follows the Navy’s trio of Zumwalt-class destroyers will have a BMD-capable radar suite, inherently better adapted to the role than today’s Aegis. Programs to upgrade the Aegis system and the associated Standard Missile to improve their BMD capability have not been terminated. Links are being reinforced between one of the MDA’s successes, the transportable TPY-2 X-band radar and the SM-3 missile, including development of a land-based version.

This development is in line with a strategic shift in U.S. BMD to ascent-phase intercept (API). Aimed mainly at medium- and intermediate-range missiles, API fits between the boost and mid-course phases in the high-endo- and low-exoatmospheric realm. The engagement takes place before the target missile can deploy decoys, and does not need such a high-performance interceptor as a mid-course shot. Warning and response times, however, are less stressing than a boost-phase engagement. What it does require is a forward-located interceptor.

The program to improve the Standard Missile’s suitability for BMD continues. Raytheon’s SM-3 Block 1B cleared its critical design review in July, paving the way for a first test flight in 2010. It features a two-color seeker and new thruster system for its kill vehicle, and is expected to be better able to distinguish between decoys and real targets than the in-service Block 1A.

The U.S. and Japan are funding the SM-3 Block IIA, which has a larger motor: The entire missile is expanded to fill the 21-in. diameter of the launch tube. Burnout velocity is up to 60% higher than that of the Block 1B. The missile is expected to fly in 2012 and enter service in 2015.

Another missile development for the Navy is the sea-based terminal capability, aimed to a great extent at the threat of antiship ballistic missiles under development by China. The first phase in the program was deployment of new software and SM-2 Block IV missiles on board Aegis ships. The third and latest test of the Block IV took place in March off Point Mugu, Calif. The next phase is the integration of a new interceptor missile.

Ship modernization is proceeding apace. The Navy announced in July that the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Lake Erie completed the first installation of the BMD 4.0.1 configuration of Aegis, including the new BMD Signal Processor. This is an upgrade beyond Block 3.6.1, which supports the terminal-intercept SM-2 Block IV missile, and will allow ships to take advantage of the SM-3 Block 1B high-altitude interceptor. Japan is modifying four Aegis destroyers with the BMD midcourse system and will equip them with the Block IIA missile.

The merging of land- and sea-based BMD is following two tracks. One of these is the use of forward-based TPY-2 radars to cue and even target sea-launched missiles. An MDA brief last year presented an analysis that showed with X-band radar cueing, sea-based SM-3 Block IIA missiles could cover Europe against an attack from Iran, and substitute for land-based missiles in central Europe.

The other track is development of a land-based SM-3 missile, with the TPY-2 for targeting, which has initial funding from the MDA in the Fiscal 2010 budget and could be operational in 2014 following a 2012 flight test. Israel is the initial deployment target for the system, which is designed as a straightforward adaptation of the basic sea-based weapon, with vertical launch system tubes in a structure installed on a fixed base. According to Mike Booen, Raytheon’s vice president of advanced security and directed energy systems, the combination of TPY-2 and the land-based SM-3 in the Negev Desert would provide a “shoot-look-shoot” engagement capability over every potential launch path from Iran to Israel. The land-based launcher could also be installed as an extension of the Lockheed Martin Thaad (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system, and is compatible with the Block IIA missile.

Citation :

There is also a strong Navy angle to another Raytheon system funded in the FY10 budget: the Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) based on the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (Amraam) airframe, with an upper-stage kill vehicle using elements of the SM-3. A key feature of NCADE is that it can be carried and launched by any Amraam shooter, but what may be significant in terms of Navy missile defense is the associated cueing system.

The starting point for NCADE was conceptually similar to the Raptor/Talon concept explored by the MDA in the 1990s, using an air-launched interceptor fired from a high-altitude, long-endurance drone. The concept has changed. Planners now envision that fighters on combat air patrol will carry NCADE missiles in place of one or more Amraams, while an MQ-9A Reaper UAV would provide surveillance and tracking data with its MTS-B sensor ball, or a more sensitive, classified seeker developed under an MDA program. In either case, the airborne warning and tracking capability appears to be in a position to be deployed within a couple of years.

Citation :

This implies that the airborne sensor would provide targeting-quality tracking data, which has an important effect on maritime missile defense. The airborne sensor would provide resolution and discrimination similar to an X-band radar, but at considerable standoff range and long before a missile rose above the horizon of a sea- or land-based radar.

Further in the future, the Navy could be looking at a different long-endurance platform for an airborne sensor and even an NCADE-type weapon: the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS). Aside from being organic to the carrier group, UCAS would be more survivable and able to stand closer to the threat. A Raytheon briefing shows NCADE being used twice in an engagement against a maneuvering antiship ballistic missile—once from a UCAS in the ascent phase and once from an F/A-18 fighter in the high-endoatmospheric regime, before the weapon reached its full maneuvering performance.

Navy officials have told Congress that “off-board” sensors—including a UAV system—could affect the design of the next-generation combatant. Early designs for the CG-X next-generation cruiser were based on the DDG-1000 hull form, but with a new superstructure carrying a more powerful dual-band radar, including an S-band volume sensor and X-band tracking radar to manage missile intercepts. The need for radar range and power, however, was driving up the size of the ship.

This makes it significant that study contracts for the successor to Aegis—the dual-band Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), which were let to Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin in July—focus on the control suite and the S-band active electronically scanned array rather than the X-band array. Aside from X-band technology being available as an offshoot of fighter-radar developments, the Navy may be looking at the results of off-board sensor technology before deciding how large and powerful the X-band element of AMDR needs to be. Those decisions will presumably be taken before the next phase of the AMDR program starts next year.

The Navy has left open one question: Whether AMDR will be retrofittable to DDG-51 Burke-class destroyers, which are still being ordered. “The customer has not given us a positive or negative indication,” says an industry source.

One way or another, however, missile defense is increasingly taking place on or above the oceans.

Ron kadish, ancien directeur du MDA (missile defence agancy)

Des news sur la propulsion nucléaire =

Citation :

In an Aug. 7 letter sent to Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla., GAO analyst Paul Francis said a yet-to-be-approved Navy draft cost analysis showed that nuclear cruisers would be cheaper if oil-price patterns of the past 35 years continue to hold.

But Francis wrote that the Navy didn't include several factors in its calculations - factors that would change the results to show that non-nuclear ships would be cheaper.

They include "present value analysis," a way to calculate the future value of money; alternative scenarios for the future price of oil; and an examination of how a less efficient conventional propulsion system would affect cost estimates.

By including those factors in its calculations and coming up with a different result, Francis wrote, his analysis "demonstrates the sensitivity of the cost estimates to different assumptions, underscoring the need for more rigorous analysis before reaching conclusions."

Francis wrote that although the Navy disagreed with several of GAO's underlying analyses, it agreed with the need to include the new factors in its calculations.

The Navy is considering nuclear power for the new CGX cruiser, which it could buy in 2017. Congress has directed that the ships be nuclear-propelled, but a 2007 Navy analysis reported a nuclear cruiser would cost $600 million to $800 million more than a non-nuke.

The Navy has not commissioned a nuclear-powered warship other than an aircraft carrier or submarine since 1980, and all its nuclear cruisers were taken out of service in the 1990s.

The GAO letter also provided rare confirmation of some of the broad details of the never-released Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) report for the CGX cruiser. The report, begun in 2005, was to have been completed in late 2007, but has been withheld for a variety of reasons as the Navy reviewed its plans for the ship.

Francis reports that the Navy identified six ship design concepts in the CGX AoA: two based on modified DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers; one on a modified DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer; one new conventionally powered cruiser; and one nuclear-powered cruiser. The sixth concept wasn't identified in the letter.

The designs vary in capability, Francis wrote, including the sensitivity of the primary radar, the number of missile cells, and the propulsion system.

The power of the new radar, to be developed from a new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), is a key factor in the new ship's ability to meet its mission requirements. Final power needs for the new radar, which is in the earliest stages of development, are as yet unknown, but numerous Navy sources report that the power needs will best be met by providing the cruiser with a nuclear power plant.

la version française

http://www.corlobe.tk/article15481.html

USNS Matthew Perry (T-AKE 9) un ch'ti nouveau en plus dans la flotte

problèmes technique sur les Virginia

http://corlobe.tk/article15608.html

Ca va , ils sont pas encore en mer et en situation de combat.. tjrs en contruction ca devrait etre changer d'ici leurs sorties (oui bon y en a un des 4 )

C'est tout de même étonnant qu'il leur ait fallu autant de temps pour s'en rendre compte .

ca reste pareil partout ... tu veux un contrat , tu fais faire des pieces en sous-traitance ... reste que les gars qui les montaient et qui ont vus la choses seront surement bien recompensés (connaissant le systeme Grumman des cadeaux pour le bons deroulement des affaires ... arrivé chez moi au boulot par la decouverte d'une piece foireuse des F16 belges construite par grumman (system electronique))

USNS T-AKE-8 Wally Shirra ... le 01/09/2009

news sur le programme LCs

http://corlobe.tk/article15940.html

on va enfin savoir si on prend du "normal" ou de "l'innovant"

l'institution penchera pour le "normal"
quelques officiers hors norme prêcheront pour "l'innovant"

pascal a écrit:

l'institution penchera pour le "normal"
quelques officiers hors norme prêcheront pour "l'innovant"

perso j'opte pour l'innovant (design trimaran)...

Livraison du dernier E2C de série place maintenant à l'E2D

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=111174&u=152

Je me demande si le Hawkeye n'est pas le plus ancien appareil embarqué en service

P.S : Serait-il possible de mettre le sujet en post-it ? D'avance

Les rumeurs se font de plus en plus insistantes sur de futurs réductions de budgets militaire pour la période 2011-2015 chez nos amis américains.

La flotte US risque sérieusement de voir annuler plusieurs navires !

- 1 gros porte hélicoptère amphibie LHA R !
- Les 2 futurs navires de commandement devant remplacer les "blue ridge" !
- Toutes les plates formes mobiles de débarquement !
- 2 transports rapides JHSV
- 1 SSN type virginia
- Le retrait des FFG type O Perry sera avancer de 1 ans

faut payer les OPEX

financer les autres gros programmes

ET surtout

En ce moment ce sont l'Army et l'Air Force qui agitent le gros bâton la Navy est en second rideau même si le Nimitz vient de remplacer le Reagan en Mer d'Oman

Donc de manière très conjoncturelle on rogne un peu le budget des marins avant de se rendre compte dans 10 ans qu'il manque des trucs à l'inventaire ...

COMME D'HAB

Je ne crois pas que ce soit toujours le budget des marins qu'on rogne. C'est alternativement au marins, aux bidasses et aux aviateurs de tenir la vedette suivant les avancées technologiques, les besoins immédiats et les décideurs en place... La marine (surtout la Navy américaine) n'est pas toujours perdante!

C'est EXACTEMENT ce que je viens de dire en parlant de phénomène conjoncturel ...

Après, faut relativiser, le budget de la défense US est à lui tout seul environ la moitié du budget mondial du secteur, même en faisant de "grosses" coupes, les USA seront toujours très (trop ?) armées.

Si cela peut mettre un frein aux abus des industriels, ce sera toujours ça de gagné pour le contribuable US.

début de la RCOH pour le PA USS théodore roosevelt
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=111158

Le secrétaire américain à la Navy veut ouvrir les sous-marins aux femmes

http://www.corlobe.tk/article16054.html

colombamike a écrit:

début de la RCOH pour le PA USS théodore roosevelt
[url=http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=111158

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=111158[/quote[/url]]

2,4 Mds $ la refonte....

colombamike a écrit:

Les rumeurs se font de plus en plus insistantes sur de futurs réductions de budgets militaire pour la période 2011-2015 chez nos amis américains.

La flotte US risque sérieusement de voir annuler plusieurs navires !

- 1 gros porte hélicoptère amphibie LHA R !
- Les 2 futurs navires de commandement devant remplacer les "blue ridge" !

pour les bâtiments de commandement, rien ne les empêche d'embarquer les états majors sur leurs porte-hélicoptères. Deux navires pourraient être dédiés à cette fonction en diminuant la capacité d'emport de marines et de matériel, comme les Français le font sur les BPC.

pour ce qui est des LHA R, peut être ont ils conscience d'avoir atteint les limites du raisonnable? Un LHA R coûte nettement plus cher, necessite un équipage beaucoup plus important qu'un BPE ou qu'un BPC. Ces navires (BPE & BPC), qui sont beaucoup plus petits sous leur forme actuelle, à taille équivalente (ex BPC 260 de 260 mètres, 45000 tonnes, 40 hélicos, 2000 soldats) coûteraient moins cher, surtout en entretien et en équipage.

Citation :

- 1 SSN type virginia
- Le retrait des FFG type O Perry sera avancé de 1 ans

Ils ont encore pléthore de SSN, il suffit de les faire un peu durer
Pour les FFG, je reste perplexe sur leurs remplaçants, nombreux et bon marché (?), qui pose un problème financier alors qu'ils en sont à leur 70ème Burke....pourquoi faire simple et pas cher quand on peut faire compliqué à des prix démesurés...

X

je propose d'aller un soir frapper un immense drapeau Francais sur le Cul de l'Invincible, et qu'au matin, une foultitude de photographe soit sur le quai