RE: Naval and Defense News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/1/2016 12:43:31 PM)

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/01/491583/US-nuclear-missile-submarine-visits-Guam

quote:

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/2/2016 11:41:30 PM)


quote:

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 12:12:55 AM)

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.

[image]http://i66.tinypic.com/157yat1.jpg[/image]




kevinkins -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 1:36:50 AM)


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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 1:52:21 AM)

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 2:04:56 AM)

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:

quote:

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.

[image]http://i66.tinypic.com/wbv2b9.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i64.tinypic.com/2s7j2ba.jpg[/image]

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




kevinkins -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 5:18:57 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 6:58:07 PM)

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

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




mikeCK -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 7:15:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

quote:


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.



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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 10:04:10 PM)

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 10:55:39 PM)

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/3/2016 11:48:29 PM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/4/2016 10:50:01 AM)

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

No real shocks but gives details of who/where/when
[image]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwaGByrXgAAm8z3.jpg[/image]







AlGrant -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/4/2016 3:26:06 PM)


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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/4/2016 6:31:04 PM)


quote:

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/4/2016 9:48:12 PM)

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

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/5/2016 5:59:25 AM)

http://newatlas.com/northrop-grumman-laser-weapon/46297/

quote:

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 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/5/2016 11:47:38 AM)

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/document-report-congress-virginia-class-submarine-program-5-2




Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/5/2016 2:05:14 PM)

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.

[image]http://i65.tinypic.com/2hs3yfa.jpg[/image]

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.

[image]http://i63.tinypic.com/168ya14.jpg[/image]

The deck is also being cleared. Just still lack the CIWS on the sponsons. Launch should be soon.
[image]http://i63.tinypic.com/6hudkg.jpg[/image]




Tailhook -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/5/2016 4:02:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

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-atacms-missile-will-kill-ships-secdef-carter/

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/anti-naval-atacms-big-swarming-breakthroughs-from-strategic-capabilities-office

http://www.waaytv.com/redstone_alabama/multi-domain-battle-army-to-develop-anti-ship-version-of/article_fff5132c-9f98-11e6-a47b-c38d225cc36c.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.




Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/5/2016 5:54:39 PM)

According to my information, the HQ-9 series has limited TBM defense capability in the terminal stage. One of the selling points of the HQ-9/FD-2000, actually. But of course, it is far from ideal.

(Actually, the FD-2000 and naval HHQ-9s have active radar because of that, as the billboards of the Weapon Sales Shows point out)

The HQ-26 (China's SM-3 equivalent) is reportedly under testing, so at the moment PLAN ships would be quite vulnerable against ASBMs themselves.





Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/6/2016 8:03:28 AM)

All pictures of weapon showcases at Zhuhai Airshow 2016:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2230165.html (Russian)




Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/6/2016 4:40:49 PM)

Good photos.

Especially great that we now officially see that the HQ-9B SAM is the real-deal - and that a land-based variant exists (in the DB3K, there's only a naval variant). This confirms years long speculation and internet rumors about the existence of this system.

[image]http://i63.tinypic.com/2j5f3t5.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i66.tinypic.com/4vk1fp.jpg[/image]

I wish they would show the range and seeker type, since, according to rumors, Jane's earlier estimate that the HQ-9B was semi-active radar homing with secondary ImIR seeker was wrong, and the HQ-9B indeed is equipped with an active radar seeker, just like the new HQ-16B, as well as a range increase to up to 230km.




Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/6/2016 4:56:41 PM)

Finally got a designation for this Sino-StormShadow missile: GB-6A Powered Extended Range Standoff Dispenser Weapon

Warhead is 500kg

Too bad the range and exact dimensions are still unknown; but eyeballing and pixelcounting with help of the second picture that lets us compare with the known length of the PL-8 SRAAM, gives me about 4.8m. This is well within the typical length of comparable western munitions that are around 5 meters.

[image]http://i65.tinypic.com/5eg8rt.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i64.tinypic.com/21llnpe.jpg[/image]




redcoat -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/9/2016 11:50:21 AM)


The Times has revealed that Britain has deployed HMS Daring off the coast of Yemen to provide reassurance to commercial shipping passing through the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

Link




AlGrant -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/11/2016 1:42:24 PM)

There is very little I can say about this that wouldn't sound like a rant! [:@]

http://www.janes.com/article/65445/uk-to-retire-gws60-harpoon-at-end-of-2018

"The retirement of Harpoon will leave RN warships without a heavyweight surface-to-surface guided weapon (SSGW), opening up a gap in over-the-horizon anti-surface warfare capability.
Furthermore, with the helicopter-launched Sea Skua missile going out of service (OSD) at the end of March 2017, the RN will be devoid of any anti-surface guided weapon for about two years pending the introduction of the Sea Venom/ANL lightweight anti-ship missile on the Wildcat HMA.2 helicopter in late 2020.
"





Zaslon -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/11/2016 6:17:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

There is very little I can say about this that wouldn't sound like a rant! [:@]

http://www.janes.com/article/65445/uk-to-retire-gws60-harpoon-at-end-of-2018

"The retirement of Harpoon will leave RN warships without a heavyweight surface-to-surface guided weapon (SSGW), opening up a gap in over-the-horizon anti-surface warfare capability.
Furthermore, with the helicopter-launched Sea Skua missile going out of service (OSD) at the end of March 2017, the RN will be devoid of any anti-surface guided weapon for about two years pending the introduction of the Sea Venom/ANL lightweight anti-ship missile on the Wildcat HMA.2 helicopter in late 2020.
"



Oh my God! [X(]




Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/13/2016 5:06:14 AM)

During the Zhuhai Airshow 2016, there's a tech-demo animation of Chinese export versions of SAM, SSuM, ASuM, UAV and Radar, with a virtual map to simulate the combat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ldl3lmgllQ

The video is involved with:

- Air Defense, with an entire weapon systems from CIC:
:Sensor: Coastal Search Radar (Unknown, Generic)
:Sensor: LD-JP (Air Search Radar, FCR. More info click here)
:LR SAM: FD-2000 (HQ-9)
:LR SAM: FK-3 (HQ-22), KS-1C (HQ-12)
:MR SAM: FM-3000 (not in service by PLA)
EDIT: Mistaken as HQ-17/Tor because of the similarities. Differences can be found from this website (Simplified Chinese)
:SR SAM: FM-90 (HQ-7)
:SR&PD SAM: FL-2000C, FK-1000 (both not in service by PLA)

(LY-80/HQ-16 does not present or use during the demonstration)

- Sea Defense, with airbase, port and coastal radar commanded by CIC, 2 jets and a fleet:
:Sensor: Coastal Search Radar (Unknown, Generic)
:UAV: WJ-600 (recon and DR)
:SLCM: CM-708UNB (290km land & surface attack variant of YJ-82/CM-708UNA, service by PLAN is unknown)
:AL ASuM: C-802A (YJ-82A)
:ASuM: CM-302 (YJ-12), C-602 (YJ-62)
:PD SAM: FL-3000N (HQ-10)

(Does not simulate PoH, or chance of interception by Blue side).




Broncepulido -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/13/2016 9:50:09 AM)

Clear and short article on MiG-31 and his possible future:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-mig-31-fighter-mach-3-monster-even-35-years-old-18376




mikmykWS -> RE: Naval and Defense News (11/13/2016 12:17:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

During the Zhuhai Airshow 2016, there's a tech-demo animation of Chinese export versions of SAM, SSuM, ASuM, UAV and Radar, with a virtual map to simulate the combat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ldl3lmgllQ

The video is involved with:

- Air Defense, with an entire weapon systems from CIC:
:Sensor: Coastal Search Radar (Unknown, Generic)
:Sensor: LD-JP (Air Search Radar, FCR. More info click here)
:LR SAM: FD-2000 (HQ-9)
:LR SAM: FK-3 (HQ-22), KS-1C (HQ-12)
:MR SAM: FM-3000 (HQ-17, PLA use tracked version vehicle like Tor)
:SR SAM: FM-90 (HQ-7)
:SR&PD SAM: FL-2000C, FK-1000 (both not in service by PLA)

(LY-80/HQ-16 does not present or use during the demonstration)

- Sea Defense, with airbase, port and coastal radar commanded by CIC, 2 jets and a fleet:
:Sensor: Coastal Search Radar (Unknown, Generic)
:UAV: WJ-600 (recon and DR)
:SLCM: CM-708UNB (290km land & surface attack variant of YJ-82/CM-708UNA, service by PLAN is unknown)
:AL ASuM: C-802A (YJ-82A)
:ASuM: CM-302 (YJ-12), C-602 (YJ-62)
:PD SAM: FL-3000N (HQ-10)

(Does not simulate PoH, or chance of interception by Blue side)


LOL. Yes internally we've added a ton of db requests. Need to see what actually pans out but will be doing lots of additions.

Thanks!

Mike




Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875